|
|
Post by doddgerhardt on Dec 10, 2019 0:10:46 GMT
I mean we gotta see where the industry stands. They might lean more on Pacino than Pesci.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 10, 2019 0:13:18 GMT
It's hard to say right now. Critics' awards have been split evenly so far, and it's not like they really matter to the industry. Right now, I'd say Pitt has the upper hand because Pesci is unlikely to be campaigning, but Pesci also would have that "last chance" comeback narrative and it's clear people are responding to his work despite his reticence on the campaign trail. If Pacino doesn't make up ground soon, Netflix might put all their chips on The Pesh.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Dec 10, 2019 0:14:34 GMT
It's either between Pitt and Pacino or between Pitt and Pitt.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 10, 2019 0:23:46 GMT
At this point, it's obviously Pitt vs Pesci.
Even the Globes, with their starfucking Supporting Actor line-up, couldn't ignore Pesci. If he'd missed there and only Pacino got in, you could make a case for Pacino, but it's tough to now.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on Dec 10, 2019 0:30:47 GMT
I know critics don’t vote, but the kind of industry turnaround that would be required for Pacino to win in an a film as acclaimed as the Irishman would be basically unprecedented. He hasn’t won a single award and has missed at least a handful of nomination lists. Pitt and Pesci haven’t missed anywhere as far as I know (although Pesci did miss AARP lol) and have split every award with the exception of LAFCA. I’m not sure there’s an argument for Pacino anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 10, 2019 0:33:51 GMT
I don't think it is between them tbh - this is Pitt's year - again, he's in a ~10 nomination film, he has no Oscar, he's coming off a huge year and he's at his peak his competition is all old with Oscars. It makes 0 sense that he'd lose - all those reasons AND he's well liked.
Pesci is winning awards but that ain't what Oscars are about and has no Oscar narrative (which makes me sad because I love him) and Pacino actually won an Oscar with nothing until he won the Globe in '92 but there is no reason to reward him at 80 anyway - if he even gets nodded (not a guarantee) he'd be a Paul Newman (9 nods 1 win) - it happens, you can argue those guys talent but they're comparable legends.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 10, 2019 0:42:00 GMT
Of course Pesci has a narrative. He's a legendary character actor that's come out of retirement/semi-retirement and blown people away with an against type turn, overshadowing two legends in the process. He's the kind of character actor the Academy would cream themselves to give a 2nd Oscar to (think making him a Noo-Yawk Peter Ustinov).
Especially if the "slap the stud" thing affects Pitt (it shouldn't as his age, but he's well preserved, and basically playing a "stud" in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood), they could just default to Pesci. Pitt's character may actually hurt him a bit.
I think Pitt wins, because he's probably past slap the stud stage, but I think people just severely understimate the affection and respect Pesci has in the industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on Dec 10, 2019 0:44:48 GMT
Of course Pesci has a narrative. He's a legendary character actor that's come out of retirement/semi-retirement and blown people away with an against type turn. He's the kind of character actor the Academy would cream themselves to give a 2nd Oscar to (think making him a Noo-Yawk Peter Ustinov).Especially if the "slap the stud" thing affects Pitt (it shouldn't as his age, but he's well preserved), they could just default to Pesci. I think Pitt wins, because he's probably past slap the stud stage, but I think people just severely understimate the affection and respect Pesci has in the industry. The thing is, Pesci is not beating Pitt at the Globes and if Pitt gets personal on stage (i.e. brings up family/substance troubles), it’s probably over. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 10, 2019 0:48:42 GMT
If Brad Pitt loses it will be the single most illogical acting loss I can think of - in modern times at least - and no one slaps the stud when the stud is fncking 56 years old.
Pesci doesn't have that narrative you're suggesting, he won't campaign, he's not in the industry, he hasn't earned anyone any money, he walked away from Hollywood and won't come back........really stretching it. His narrative is he's great and people like the work......could he win.......maybe in a Waltz way......but it's stretching it to call that a "narrative" or this a race and I think he's winning NSFC too .......still not a narrative.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 10, 2019 0:55:02 GMT
If Brad Pitt loses it will be the single most illogical acting loss I can think of - in modern times at least - and no one slaps the stud when the stud is fncking 56 years old. Pesci doesn't have that narrative you're suggesting, he won't campaign, he's not in the industry, he hasn't earned anyone any money, he walked away from Hollywood and won't come back........really stretching it. His narrative is he's great and people like the work......could he win.......maybe in a Waltz way......but it's stretching it to call that a "narrative" or this a race and I think he's winning NSFC too .......still not a narrative. I mean, there are situations where people who had a "narrative" (Close last year, Stallone in 2015) lost out to actors who eschewed the campaign trail for one reason or another (usually if the actors are busy working). It happens from time to time. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 10, 2019 1:00:22 GMT
If Brad Pitt loses it will be the single most illogical acting loss I can think of - in modern times at least - and no one slaps the stud when the stud is fncking 56 years old. Pesci doesn't have that narrative you're suggesting, he won't campaign, he's not in the industry, he hasn't earned anyone any money, he walked away from Hollywood and won't come back........really stretching it. His narrative is he's great and people like the work......could he win.......maybe in a Waltz way......but it's stretching it to call that a "narrative" or this a race and I think he's winning NSFC too .......still not a narrative. They weren't in ~10 nomination films.....and they didn't lose to someone who already had an Oscar did they?.....just sayin'............. |
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Dec 10, 2019 1:05:44 GMT
Of course Pesci has a narrative. He's a legendary character actor that's come out of retirement/semi-retirement and blown people away with an against type turn, overshadowing two legends in the process. He's the kind of character actor the Academy would cream themselves to give a 2nd Oscar to (think making him a Noo-Yawk Peter Ustinov).Especially if the "slap the stud" thing affects Pitt (it shouldn't as his age, but he's well preserved, and basically playing a "stud" in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood), they could just default to Pesci. Pitt's character may actually hurt him a bit. I think Pitt wins, because he's probably past slap the stud stage, but I think people just severely understimate the affection and respect Pesci has in the industry. Pesci has won before, but hasn't been active in the industry for years. Pitt has never won an acting Oscar and is more current in the industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 10, 2019 1:18:40 GMT
Of course Pesci has a narrative. He's a legendary character actor that's come out of retirement/semi-retirement and blown people away with an against type turn, overshadowing two legends in the process. He's the kind of character actor the Academy would cream themselves to give a 2nd Oscar to (think making him a Noo-Yawk Peter Ustinov).Especially if the "slap the stud" thing affects Pitt (it shouldn't as his age, but he's well preserved, and basically playing a "stud" in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood), they could just default to Pesci. Pitt's character may actually hurt him a bit. I think Pitt wins, because he's probably past slap the stud stage, but I think people just severely understimate the affection and respect Pesci has in the industry. Pesci has won before, but hasn't been active in the industry for years. Pitt has never won an acting Oscar and is more current in the industry.
I don't think that matters. If anything, not being active for years probably helps Pesci. It's given time for the industry to miss him and not take him for granted (I like to call it the Daniel Day-Lewis approach  ). I'd say the same if Gene Hackman suddenly decided to come out of retirement to take on a meaty Oscar calibre role. I think his being away so long would be an advantage, not a disadvantage. Of course Pitt never having won an acting Oscar is a bigger advantadge. Just not an insurmountable one (ask Glenn Close). |
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Dec 10, 2019 1:19:30 GMT
I know critics don’t vote, but the kind of industry turnaround that would be required for Pacino to win in an a film as acclaimed as the Irishman would be basically unprecedented. He hasn’t won a single award and has missed at least a handful of nomination lists. Pitt and Pesci haven’t missed anywhere as far as I know (although Pesci did miss AARP lol) and have split every award with the exception of LAFCA. I’m not sure there’s an argument for Pacino anymore. This is a nicely cherry-picked argument. You realized Jason Robards beat Maximilian Schell despite having less acclaim in Julia, so you added the "as acclaimed as the Irishman" qualifier, which ended up rendering your entire argument meaningless because the sample size for your very specific scenario is 2 or 3 at most (which is not statistically significant enough to mean anything). |
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Dec 10, 2019 1:21:46 GMT
If Brad Pitt loses it will be the single most illogical acting loss I can think of - in modern times at least - and no one slaps the stud when the stud is fncking 56 years old. Pesci doesn't have that narrative you're suggesting, he won't campaign, he's not in the industry, he hasn't earned anyone any money, he walked away from Hollywood and won't come back........really stretching it. His narrative is he's great and people like the work......could he win....... maybe in a Waltz way......but it's stretching it to call that a "narrative" or this a race and I think he's winning NSFC too .......still not a narrative. And Waltz won in a category where everybody had already won Oscars. A luxury Pesci doesn't have with Pitt on his 4th nomination. |
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on Dec 10, 2019 1:22:11 GMT
People, on average, like Pesci in the movie more than Pacino. It’s crystal clear at this point :shrug:
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Dec 10, 2019 1:25:40 GMT
People, on average, like Pesci in the movie more than Pacino. It’s crystal clear at this point :shrug: The same way "people", on average, like Driver more than Phoenix. Are you predicting Driver to win the Oscar? The industry (which is what matters) hasn't spoken yet. And we don't know whether the industry prefers Pacino or Pesci. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 10, 2019 1:28:04 GMT
People, on average, like Pesci in the movie more than Pacino. It’s crystal clear at this point :shrug: Not really people meaning critics group not members the Globes or the Academy and it's not like they dislike Pacino. Come on, you were doing so well at first matt.........Pacino has Pesci's narrative which is not much and it hardly matters that he missed a regional group..........it'll matter when he misses BAFTA (which he will) |
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Dec 10, 2019 1:30:27 GMT
If Pesci does better at the precursors than Pacino (which can easily happen, with Pacino missing SAG and/or BAFTA), that's when Pacino stops being a threat to Pitt. And Pitt's only threat will become Pitt himself, in case he kills a baby or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 10, 2019 1:34:31 GMT
Pesci has won before, but hasn't been active in the industry for years. Pitt has never won an acting Oscar and is more current in the industry.
I don't think that matters. If anything, not being active for years probably helps Pesci. Oh yeah that makes sense it didn't cost him relationships in the industry or with peers while Brad Pitt was earning millions consistently in the same industry for many people but Joe Pesci is DDL or Gene Hackman now> Right..........  It maybe helps with regional awards (maybe) not Oscars........whole different game |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 10, 2019 1:35:44 GMT
If Pesci does better at the precursors than Pacino (which can easily happen, with Pacino missing SAG and/or BAFTA), that's when Pacino stops being a threat to Pitt. And Pitt's only threat will become Pitt himself, in case he kills a baby or something. The saint of reason, exactly right |
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Dec 10, 2019 1:48:33 GMT
It's likely winners against winners, Dafoe and Song seem like happy to be nominated if nominated, so it is probably between three P's who are all winners. Yes, Pitt won for producing but an Oscar is an Oscar, and he is an Oscar winner so, he is not "overdue". So all have that same disfavor. Pitt has the least oscary role out of him, Pesci and Pacino, and does fall into the so called "Slap the stud" despite his age, but with that shirtless scene, I'd say the perceived voter jealousy would still apply. Both he and Pesci aren't campaigning so that technically helps Pacino. Pacino and Pesci though can cancel each other out, however if it is determined that Pesci is the horse early enough that shouldn't matter. So then if say Pacino falls out of favor, that would leave Pesci and Pitt the non-campaigners. Neither has won SAG, that would help Pitt gain momentum with that win. Pesci is the only one of the three who has no won a Globe, so if they get him the win there, that would get him some needed momentum as well. It is hardly a done deal at this point, acting as such is a little silly.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Dec 10, 2019 1:49:29 GMT
Of course Pesci has a narrative. He's a legendary character actor that's come out of retirement/semi-retirement and blown people away with an against type turn, overshadowing two legends in the process. He's the kind of character actor the Academy would cream themselves to give a 2nd Oscar to (think making him a Noo-Yawk Peter Ustinov).Especially if the "slap the stud" thing affects Pitt (it shouldn't as his age, but he's well preserved, and basically playing a "stud" in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood), they could just default to Pesci. Pitt's character may actually hurt him a bit. I think Pitt wins, because he's probably past slap the stud stage, but I think people just severely understimate the affection and respect Pesci has in the industry. LOL, WTF? Shut down your computer and take a nap. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 10, 2019 1:53:32 GMT
It's likely winners against winners, Dafoe and Song seem like happy to be nominated if nominated, so it is probably between three P's who are all winners. Yes, Pitt won for producing but an Oscar is an Oscar, and he is an Oscar winner so, he is not "overdue". So all have that same disfavor. Pitt has the least oscary role out of him, Pesci and Pacino, and does fall into the so called "Slap the stud" despite his age, but with that shirtless scene, I'd say the perceived voter jealousy would still apply. Both he and Pesci aren't campaigning so that technically helps Pacino. Pacino and Pesci though can cancel each other out, however if it is determined that Pesci is the horse early enough that shouldn't matter. So then if say Pacino falls out of favor, that would leave Pesci and Pitt the non-campaigners. Neither has won SAG, that would help Pitt gain momentum with that win. Pesci is the only one of the three who has no won a Globe, so if they get him the win there, that would get him some needed momentum as well. It is hardly a done deal at this point, acting as such is a little silly. I mostly agree with this, except Pitt's "non-campaign" is a campaign in itself. He's still going to be out there speaking on behalf of the movie, doing the requisite red carpets, etc. Pesci, meanwhile, seems to treat the whole thing as an inconvenience. |
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Dec 10, 2019 1:55:31 GMT
Pitt is campaigning. Not excessively, but he's done SAG Q&As and Actor on Actors. He's even denied saying that he won't campaign. So that's not an argument against him.
|
|
). I'd say the same if Gene Hackman suddenly decided to come out of retirement to take on a meaty Oscar calibre role. I think his being away so long would be an advantage, not a disadvantage.
