hds
New Member
Posts: 3
Likes: 5
|
Post by hds on Jan 15, 2020 20:28:14 GMT
I still don't quite buy the argument behind the reasoning that Brad Pitt's character's role in Once Upon a Time... justifies it's 'supporting performance' classification. I definitely don't want to bring that argument up again, but say he did get nominated as a lead performer and not in supporting, who do you think would've won Supporting Actor this year? Would Pesci's critical support help him to Oscar gold or would the dual Irishman nominations end up knocking them both out of the race, leaving Tom Hanks the victor? Who would've claimed the 5th spot in the category? Could a Pacino narrative of taken him over the finish line? For my money, The Irishman isn't even Pacino's best performance of 2019, that would go to his insane (and brilliant) Santa Barbara Film Award speech introducing Scorsese. Also, winning a second Oscar would spoil the best part of Jack & Jill  . What are you thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 15, 2020 20:30:39 GMT
Depends on who takes the fifth spot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 15, 2020 20:32:30 GMT
Pesci or Hanks.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jan 15, 2020 20:45:50 GMT
We can basically rule Hanks and Hopkins out. They're filler nominations. Between Pesci and Pacino, Pesci probably has the edge. While there was never a way he could potentially rise high enough to beat out Pitt, he seems to be higher than Pacino.
The 5th nominee would probably be Song or Foxx or maybe Dafoe, but none of them would win. Too weak.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 15, 2020 21:37:32 GMT
We can basically rule Hanks and Hopkins out. They're filler nominations. Between Pesci and Pacino, Pesci probably has the edge. While there was never a way he could potentially rise high enough to beat out Pitt, he seems to be higher than Pacino. The 5th nominee would probably be Song or Foxx or maybe Dafoe, but none of them would win. Too weak. How is Hanks a filler nomination and what’s the argument that Pacino is ahead of him? |
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jan 15, 2020 21:42:20 GMT
Depends on who takes the fifth spot. Yes, I think it depends on who would have emerged as the fifth contender. Pesci probably still would have won NYFCC to start the season, and Song still likely would have won LAFCA, so maybe critics awards wouldn't have been that big of a factor. However, NSFC would have been in play which might have helped Song gain more traction, or someone else like Snipes or Dafoe might have been able to surprise. With the televised awards though, with an open spot if say Dafoe had been able to get a third nomination in a row, I think that would have been a huge thing especially if the other nominees had won before. Or if Song had been nominated against four other winners plus with the potential narrative of the Oscars being pretty white again and how under awarded Asian actors are, I think that would have been a tough narrative to beat. Or maybe Pesci probably being the critics favorite if there was no Pitt would have been able to win his second, somewhat like Zellweger, in that both were absent for a long time, but able to come back and surprise everyone. I love Pesci's performance and wouldn't have been sad to see him win a second for The Irishman, but it would have been great to see Dafoe or Song win. If it's Foxx that emerges, I think that Pesci still wins because Just Mercy would have been too weak, and Foxx had already won. I guess LaBeouf was someone else whose name was bandied about as a possible Globe nominee. He would have had the redemption narrative, but I still think Pesci wins. Finally, I wonder if Bale would still have wanted to go leading if Pitt had gone leading. Maybe he decides to stay in supporting, and I actually think he could have won a second there if it was him versus previous winners. Aside from Hanks, he had the most sympathetic role, and Ford v Ferrari was a BP nominee unlike A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. |
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jan 15, 2020 21:55:50 GMT
How is Hanks a filler nomination Just going by the fact that he's the lone nomination for his movie and he hasn't been nominated in 19 years. Even during the nominations phase, a lot of people had him 4th or 5th (including me). I don't think there was ever any chance he was winning his 3rd Oscar for this, anyway. Stronger movie and he only has 1 win in 9 nominations, so he has a narrative to win. |
|
coop032
Full Member
Choose life.
Posts: 658 
Likes: 226
|
Post by coop032 on Jan 15, 2020 22:02:30 GMT
Joe Pesci or Al Pacino. Leaning toward Pesci. I do feel like if Dafoe got in he would have a chance though.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jan 15, 2020 22:29:21 GMT
What Stephen said, it depends on who takes the fifth spot. I'm not sure that any of the other four guys would've been winners, considering they're all previous acting winners, even though I don't think anyone would hesitate to give Hanks his third or any of the rest of them their second, that's still always a hurtle to clear. Logically you could assume Pesci would've been the frontrunner among those four, his is the most acclaimed performance and has won the most critics awards, but you don't for sure considering critical love doesn't translate to industry love always, and it's not like Pesci's out there campaigning for himself.
If in this hypothetical scenario A24 had actually amounted a campaign for Dafoe, it could've been him. That would've actually been a great line-up of five legends squaring-off against each other, and let the one non-winner walk away with it. Sadly I don't see any universe where that would've happened, and without Pitt the fifth nominee woulda been someone boring like Foxx for Just Mercy. (If Song had gotten a spot without Pitt in the mix, I sadly don't think he would've had any shot at the win.) And then you'd just have a slugfest of previous winners, only two of whom actually appeared in a BP nominee, and in the same one and would likely cancel out votes.
It's hard to say who would win. It just would've been a huge mess.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Jan 15, 2020 22:30:26 GMT
I still don't quite buy the argument behind the reasoning that Brad Pitt's character's role in Once Upon a Time... justifies it's 'supporting performance' classification. I definitely don't want to bring that argument up again, but say he did get nominated as a lead performer and not in supporting, who do you think would've won Supporting Actor this year? Would Pesci's critical support help him to Oscar gold or would the dual Irishman nominations end up knocking them both out of the race, leaving Tom Hanks the victor? Who would've claimed the 5th spot in the category? Could a Pacino narrative of taken him over the finish line? For my money, The Irishman isn't even Pacino's best performance of 2019, that would go to his insane (and brilliant) Santa Barbara Film Award speech introducing Scorsese. Also, winning a second Oscar would spoil the best part of Jack & Jill . What are you thoughts? Pitt is really co-lead, but he wouldn't have won in Lead. Pesci would have won supporting. He got the most buzz after Pitt. Song Kang-Ho would have gotten the 5th spot. Anthony Hopkins' also co-lead in The Pope. |
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 15, 2020 23:20:25 GMT
Pesci is absolutely in second place. It's a distant second for sure and no one's overtaking Pitt at this point, but sans Pitt he'd be the one to beat.
|
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jan 16, 2020 6:35:52 GMT
Pesci has more buzz than the other three. I guess it'd be him. Plus he has a better narrative than Pacino imo.
The fifth place would go to Song or academy's favorite Dafoe.
|
|
|
|
Post by ingmarhepburn on Jan 16, 2020 7:55:37 GMT
Probably Pacino. Pesci was very good, but when we're introduced to the character of Jimmy Hoffa, Pacino takes over and the film becomes his. He hasn't been this good in a long time. Plus, they wouldn't want to waste the opportunity to give him a second Oscar.
|
|
.
