|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 3, 2020 10:02:26 GMT
Do I nominated him in a year when genuinely great work from DeNiro, Sandler, and Bale missed......... I do fncking not and even if you put him in Supporting he gets obliterated.
|
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Feb 3, 2020 17:24:46 GMT
No. By no means.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 3, 2020 17:25:43 GMT
He's miles better than the nominated party (and most of the guys Pacinoyes listed).
|
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Feb 3, 2020 17:27:07 GMT
Liam Neeson in fucking Cold Pursuit is more deserving of a nomination.
|
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Feb 3, 2020 17:35:26 GMT
He's miles better than the nominated party (and most of the guys Pacinoyes listed). I would say he’s better than all the nominees except Driver and all he listed. |
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Feb 3, 2020 18:44:51 GMT
He's better than four of the nominees so to that extent, yes, he is Oscar worthy. Do I personally nominate him? Not sure yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Feb 3, 2020 18:45:40 GMT
He's fine but no.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155 
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Feb 3, 2020 23:15:34 GMT
He's miles better than the nominated party (and most of the guys Pacinoyes listed). You're delusional |
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Feb 3, 2020 23:16:33 GMT
Fuck no. People here thinking he's better than Pryce, Phoenix, Sandler, Dicaprio and DeNiro do not know a single goddamn thing about acting
|
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Feb 3, 2020 23:39:26 GMT
Genuinely confused about how people can think he's better than any of the actual nominees when he's barely given a character to work with. It could have been performed just as well by countless other guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 3, 2020 23:50:56 GMT
Genuinely confused about how people can think he's better than any of the actual nominees when he's barely given a character to work with. It could have been performed just as well by countless other guys. Do you think that if a role "can be played by anyone else," that it invalidates the quality of the work the original actor did? Uniqueness isn't necessarily a superlative. |
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Feb 4, 2020 0:24:05 GMT
Genuinely confused about how people can think he's better than any of the actual nominees when he's barely given a character to work with. It could have been performed just as well by countless other guys. Do you think that if a role "can be played by anyone else," that it invalidates the quality of the work the original actor did? Uniqueness isn't necessarily a superlative. I don't think it invalidates the work the actor did, but the work that 1917 asks MacKay to do isn't all that much to me in the first place, at least compared to more challenging roles that require the actor to "fill in" what's not already on the page. So yeah I do privilege uniqueness in the sense that I value performances where an actor goes beyond what everyone expects from the role. MacKay did exactly what's expected and that's fine, but it's not special to me. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonjoliepitt on Feb 4, 2020 3:41:45 GMT
Yes, personally he is my 3rd at the moment but I haven't seen everything yet. Likely he is still going to be in top 5 when all is said and done.
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
Post by spiralstatic on Feb 4, 2020 8:48:15 GMT
Genuinely confused about how people can think he's better than any of the actual nominees when he's barely given a character to work with. It could have been performed just as well by countless other guys. I don't think so. I think the film could have come across as quite shallow and would not have worked with some actors precisely because there is no backstory for the character for the actor to work with. To get across who that character is is therefore not at all dependent on backstory and very little to do with words he gets to speak - so it all has to be in what the actor does. Tom Holland In Talks To Star In Sam Mendes' WWI Drama 1917
Would the film have done just as well with Tom Holland in the lead role? I mean, we can't know, I guess. I haven't voted in the poll myself simply as I haven't seen enough of the 2019 nominations. |
|
|
|
Post by DanQuixote on Feb 4, 2020 13:13:53 GMT
He's my #9 but I think he's better than Phoenix and Pryce.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Feb 4, 2020 13:40:58 GMT
Yes I do...
01 Joaquin Phoenix, Joker
02 Adam Driver, Marriage Story
03 George MacKay, 1917
04 Robert De Niro, The Irish Man
05 Adam Sandler, Uncut Gems
I still have a couple of dozen thing to see, but I'll be surprised if he doesn't hold on in there.
|
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Feb 4, 2020 18:32:12 GMT
Genuinely confused about how people can think he's better than any of the actual nominees when he's barely given a character to work with. It could have been performed just as well by countless other guys. I don't think so. I think the film could have come across as quite shallow and would not have worked with some actors precisely because there is no backstory for the character for the actor to work with. To get across who that character is is therefore not at all dependent on backstory and very little to do with words he gets to speak - so it all has to be in what the actor does. Tom Holland In Talks To Star In Sam Mendes' WWI Drama 1917
Would the film have done just as well with Tom Holland in the lead role? I mean, we can't know, I guess. I haven't voted in the poll myself simply as I haven't seen enough of the 2019 nominations. I mean, I think the film is shallow anyway even with MacKay, who, again, I think is fine, but I just don't think the film actually allows him room to do anything particularly special. It's not so much the lack of backstory that's the problem (plenty of great performances involve actors filling in backstory where there is little to none), it's that the film is designed in such a way that doesn't really afford much creativity on the part of the actor. It's a technical showcase first and foremost. And because of that, it's a role I can imagine plenty of other actors doing just as well. |
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Feb 7, 2020 12:13:53 GMT
He was incredible but no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 7, 2020 12:28:48 GMT
He's Oscar worthy, but the best actor line-up was stacked and the Academy picked the veterans. That's why Egerton was left off the list. George Mackay and Roman Griffin Davis were really good. I probably would have thrown in Davis in there.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Feb 7, 2020 12:40:32 GMT
I think I only have him 6th right now and still a lot to see. But he was great and would be oscar worthy in that sense, that I certainly wouldn't mind it.
|
|
spiralstatic
New Member
Maybe you're like Dangermouse: small, but mighty... ? ??!?!?!
Posts: 171
Likes: 69
|
Post by spiralstatic on Feb 8, 2020 16:02:43 GMT
I mean, I think the film is shallow anyway even with MacKay, who, again, I think is fine, but I just don't think the film actually allows him room to do anything particularly special. It's not so much the lack of backstory that's the problem (plenty of great performances involve actors filling in backstory where there is little to none), it's that the film is designed in such a way that doesn't really afford much creativity on the part of the actor. It's a technical showcase first and foremost. And because of that, it's a role I can imagine plenty of other actors doing just as well. Fair enough. Thanks for responding. See, I loved the film because it really moved me, so I disagree, but hey - ultimately it is more interesting when two people see a film from opposing viewpoints than when we agree. |
|
