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).
That sounds more like something a fan would say. I don't think AMPAS (especially newer ones) thinks in terms of missing someone. Pitt is in a film that is an Oscar contender. Close had the lone nomination.
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
Yes, despite his age, with Pitt out there doing shirtless scenes with a perfectly sculpted physique and being able to pass for 39 or whatever in the movie, this is absolutely a "slap the stud" kind of role. It's not typically the kind of role they award. He can overcome that, but it can't be overlooked either.
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).
That sounds more like something a fan would say. I don't think AMPAS (especially newer ones) thinks in terms of missing someone. Pitt is in a film that is an Oscar contender. Close had the lone nomination.
No, it sounds like something someone who tries to logically analyse various potential scenarios might say. But let's agree to disagree.
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.
Well I think if Pesci wins it will be in a Brando#2/Scott way of voters going "We don't care if you hate us, we loved your work", not that Pesci seems as prickly as those two about winning so to speak.
In the past 30 years, only one actor over the age of 75 has won Best Supporting Actor. The Academy is more likely to kick the codger than to slap the "stud".
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.
Who remembers Pitt's win for producing apart from a bunch of people on an online film forum? It makes no difference to his growing narrative.
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.
Who remembers Pitt's win for producing apart from a bunch of people on an online film forum? It makes no difference to his growing narrative.
Yup. A lot of people out there still think he hasn’t won an oscar and that he’s overdue. I’d also argue against the point of ‘an oscar is an oscar’. There’s a difference for an actor winning one for acting vs winning one for producing.
Who remembers Pitt's win for producing apart from a bunch of people on an online film forum? It makes no difference to his growing narrative.
Yup. A lot of people out there still think he hasn’t won an oscar and that he’s overdue. I’d also argue against the point of ‘an oscar is an oscar’. There’s a difference for an actor winning one for acting vs winning one for producing.
To be fair, I'd say there are quite a few big movie stars the Academy awarded in other aspects (directing, producing) where they felt satisfied enough to never need to acknowledge them with an acting Oscar. Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, Warren Beatty etc.
"A lot of people" isn't Academy members. It's a relatively small club (unlike SAG). I'd wager most AMPAS voters know Pitt has an Oscar for producing.
Yup. A lot of people out there still think he hasn’t won an oscar and that he’s overdue. I’d also argue against the point of ‘an oscar is an oscar’. There’s a difference for an actor winning one for acting vs winning one for producing.
To be fair, I'd say there are quite a few big movie stars the Academy awarded in other aspects (directing, producing) where they felt satisfied enough to never need to acknowledge them with an acting Oscar. Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, Warren Beatty etc.
"A lot of people" isn't Academy members. It's a relatively small club (unlike SAG). I'd wager most AMPAS voters know Pitt has an Oscar for producing.
It's a poor comparison because an Oscar for producing is much, much less high profile than winning one for directing.
To be fair, I'd say there are quite a few big movie stars the Academy awarded in other aspects (directing, producing) where they felt satisfied enough to never need to acknowledge them with an acting Oscar. Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, Warren Beatty etc.
"A lot of people" isn't Academy members. It's a relatively small club (unlike SAG). I'd wager most AMPAS voters know Pitt has an Oscar for producing.
It's a poor comparison because an Oscar for producing is much, much less high profile than winning one for directing.
Not when a producing Oscar is won by an A-list movie star. Everyone in the industry knew Michael Douglas won a producing Oscar for One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. It's part of his legend.Everyone in the industry knows Ben Affleck has a producing Oscar for Argo (not to mention his writing Oscar for Good Will Hunting).
Everyone in the industry (or at least in AMPAS) knows Brad Pitt has a producing Oscar. Maybe they wouldn't if he wasn't a super A-lister, but he is and they do. It's not one of those things in his bio that gets overlooked. So respectfully, disagree.
It's a poor comparison because an Oscar for producing is much, much less high profile than winning one for directing.
Not when a producing Oscar is won by an A-list movie star. Everyone in the industry knew Michael Douglas won a producing Oscar for One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. It's part of his legend.Everyone in the industry knows Ben Affleck has a producing Oscar for Argo (not to mention his writing Oscar for Good Will Hunting).
Everyone in the industry (or at least in AMPAS) knows Brad Pitt has a producing Oscar. Maybe they wouldn't if he wasn't a super A-lister, but he is and they do. It's not one of those things in his bio that gets overlooked. So respectfully, disagree.
Following your logic, Douglas wouldn't have won for Wall Street.
Post by iheartamyadams on Dec 11, 2019 11:30:16 GMT
Pesci needs to make SAG today to have a chance. Even if he does, I think Pitt will still be in the drivers seat but we’d at least have something of a legitimate race here. I think with Pitt, it’s always been a thing of no one else making more sense than that role or performance feeling like a winning one. I was under the assumption that Pesci would stall once the televised awards hit and that they favor Pacino, but he’s hit everywhere so far. Getting SAG despite zero campaigning and the nature of the role would suggest a massive amount of passion and would convince me that he’s in with a chance.
It's a poor comparison because an Oscar for producing is much, much less high profile than winning one for directing.
Not when a producing Oscar is won by an A-list movie star. Everyone in the industry knew Michael Douglas won a producing Oscar for One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. It's part of his legend.Everyone in the industry knows Ben Affleck has a producing Oscar for Argo (not to mention his writing Oscar for Good Will Hunting).
Everyone in the industry (or at least in AMPAS) knows Brad Pitt has a producing Oscar. Maybe they wouldn't if he wasn't a super A-lister, but he is and they do. It's not one of those things in his bio that gets overlooked. So respectfully, disagree.
It doesn’t feel as celebrated or as prestigious. Brad Pitt is known as an actor first and foremost and that award is more associated with the film that wins. I can see a lot of people thinking that one of our biggest movie stars should win an acting Oscar.
Not when a producing Oscar is won by an A-list movie star. Everyone in the industry knew Michael Douglas won a producing Oscar for One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. It's part of his legend.Everyone in the industry knows Ben Affleck has a producing Oscar for Argo (not to mention his writing Oscar for Good Will Hunting).
Everyone in the industry (or at least in AMPAS) knows Brad Pitt has a producing Oscar. Maybe they wouldn't if he wasn't a super A-lister, but he is and they do. It's not one of those things in his bio that gets overlooked. So respectfully, disagree.
Following your logic, Douglas wouldn't have won for Wall Street.
It's a completely different situation. Douglas won his acting Oscar because he had a year for the history books. Between Wall Street and Fatal Attraction, Douglas hit the zeitgeist commercially, culturally and critically in a way few actors have before or since, and became arguably the emblematic leading man of the 1980's. He had two movies that not only made a shitload of money, but defined the decade culturally. There was no chit-chat about him being "overdue." He owned the year so thoroughly that he was hard to deny. It was the year he went from being a solid mid-tier leading man, to a decade defining superstar...think Russell Crowe's 2000 with Gladiator, but with two movies instead of one.
Pitt has had a very good year, but it is not Douglas 1987, and Cliff Booth will not define this decade like Gordon Gekko did his. Pitt is still sort of relying on the "it's about time we gave him an acting Oscar" narrative, wheras Douglas had a year so dominating that it wasn't neccesary.
Not when a producing Oscar is won by an A-list movie star. Everyone in the industry knew Michael Douglas won a producing Oscar for One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. It's part of his legend.Everyone in the industry knows Ben Affleck has a producing Oscar for Argo (not to mention his writing Oscar for Good Will Hunting).
Everyone in the industry (or at least in AMPAS) knows Brad Pitt has a producing Oscar. Maybe they wouldn't if he wasn't a super A-lister, but he is and they do. It's not one of those things in his bio that gets overlooked. So respectfully, disagree.
It doesn’t feel as celebrated or as prestigious. Brad Pitt is known as an actor first and foremost and that award is more associated with the film that wins. I can see a lot of people thinking that one of our biggest movie stars should win an acting Oscar.
Oh, I can see this being the case. I just don't believe most people inside the industry voting for the Oscars are unaware that Pitt has one, even if it's not for acting.
It's a completely different situation................. and yet in this thread you were wrongly comparing Hackman and DDL to Pesci ..........and Pitt in any way to Eastwood, Beatty, Redford, Affleck and any director/actor which was also completely different.........and you brought all those different and disparate situations (?)
That was sirjeremy (and others) exact and specific point - just sayin' ..........pick a lane maybe?
It's a completely different situation................. and yet in this thread you were wrongly comparing Hackman and DDL to Pesci ..........and Pitt in any way to Eastwood, Beatty, Redford, Affleck and any director/actor which was also completely different.........and you brought all those different and disparate situations (?)
That was sirjeremy (and others) exact and specific point - just sayin' ..........pick a lane maybe?
You are parsing every comparison I made and it's sort of pedantic. Not everything is exactly like for like, but some fall more into a ball park than others,which doesn't need saying. So I'm good. Thank you.