|
Post by stephen on Aug 13, 2023 20:40:37 GMT
Here's a speculation: if Daniel Day-Lewis wins in 2002 for Gangs of New York, what do we think happens after? He was unstoppable in both 2007 and 2012, and I don't think his Gangs loss figured at all for when he swept the board for There Will Be Blood. I think that Oscar is signed, sealed and delivered regardless of whether he wins or loses in '02. It's Lincoln that is the real question mark. That's when the narrative really started coalescing about DDL's mantle as perhaps the greatest living actor as a mainstream concept. But that whole season felt to me like such a foregone conclusion once Lincoln premiered, and the build-up was such that it felt like they really were anointing him with that title. But if he wins in 2002, he's already had his record-breaking third Best Actor win in 2007. Does that narrative build itself into the 2007 season, or do we see the 2012 season adjust a bit to put him on par with Katharine Hepburn?
Personally, I think in this situation, Day-Lewis winds up with four Oscars instead of his current three. He swept the board so thoroughly for both regardless of his prior win(s), and I feel like he's so revered that they wouldn't have had an issue giving him that elusive fourth Oscar, especially with it being his most mainstream success to date. But I am curious to hear from the rest of you on this one.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 13, 2023 20:47:51 GMT
Here's a speculation: if Daniel Day-Lewis wins in 2002 for Gangs of New York, what do we think happens after? Personally, I think in this situation, Day-Lewis winds up with four Oscars instead of his current three.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Aug 13, 2023 20:59:34 GMT
Here's a speculation: if Daniel Day-Lewis wins in 2002 for Gangs of New York, what do we think happens after? He was unstoppable in both 2007 and 2012, and I don't think his Gangs loss figured at all for when he swept the board for There Will Be Blood. I think that Oscar is signed, sealed and delivered regardless of whether he wins or loses in '02. It's Lincoln that is the real question mark. That's when the narrative really started coalescing about DDL's mantle as perhaps the greatest living actor as a mainstream concept. But that whole season felt to me like such a foregone conclusion once Lincoln premiered, and the build-up was such that it felt like they really were anointing him with that title. But if he wins in 2002, he's already had his record-breaking third Best Actor win in 2007. Does that narrative build itself into the 2007 season, or do we see the 2012 season adjust a bit to put him on par with Katharine Hepburn? Personally, I think in this situation, Day-Lewis winds up with four Oscars instead of his current three. He swept the board so thoroughly for both regardless of his prior win(s), and I feel like he's so revered that they wouldn't have had an issue giving him that elusive fourth Oscar, especially with it being his most mainstream success to date. But I am curious to hear from the rest of you on this one. He wins 4. Not that big of a difference at this point between 3 or 4.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Aug 13, 2023 22:32:42 GMT
Just to add a bit more support for Ledger the notion " they won because they died" is a false one. Just to clarify, this definitely isn't what I meant to suggest. I wasn't referring to your question, it is just something I've often seen stated when talking about posthumous wins, despite being statistically untrue.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Aug 13, 2023 22:36:56 GMT
Here's a speculation: if Daniel Day-Lewis wins in 2002 for Gangs of New York, what do we think happens after? He was unstoppable in both 2007 and 2012, and I don't think his Gangs loss figured at all for when he swept the board for There Will Be Blood. I think that Oscar is signed, sealed and delivered regardless of whether he wins or loses in '02. It's Lincoln that is the real question mark. That's when the narrative really started coalescing about DDL's mantle as perhaps the greatest living actor as a mainstream concept. But that whole season felt to me like such a foregone conclusion once Lincoln premiered, and the build-up was such that it felt like they really were anointing him with that title. But if he wins in 2002, he's already had his record-breaking third Best Actor win in 2007. Does that narrative build itself into the 2007 season, or do we see the 2012 season adjust a bit to put him on par with Katharine Hepburn? Personally, I think in this situation, Day-Lewis winds up with four Oscars instead of his current three. He swept the board so thoroughly for both regardless of his prior win(s), and I feel like he's so revered that they wouldn't have had an issue giving him that elusive fourth Oscar, especially with it being his most mainstream success to date. But I am curious to hear from the rest of you on this one. He simply has four then, but that's why he lost in 02 he actually had genuine competition from Brody and Nicholson. 07 Clooney was his only competition in terms of hitting the precursors and having a popular film, however the groundswell certainly was not there for him. 2012, Phoenix did his best to avoid winning (and The Master wasn't loved by the Academy), while the rest just were seen as also rans against DDL the whole season.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Aug 14, 2023 1:09:51 GMT
Here's a speculation: if Daniel Day-Lewis wins in 2002 for Gangs of New York, what do we think happens after? He was unstoppable in both 2007 and 2012, and I don't think his Gangs loss figured at all for when he swept the board for There Will Be Blood. I think that Oscar is signed, sealed and delivered regardless of whether he wins or loses in '02. It's Lincoln that is the real question mark. That's when the narrative really started coalescing about DDL's mantle as perhaps the greatest living actor as a mainstream concept. But that whole season felt to me like such a foregone conclusion once Lincoln premiered, and the build-up was such that it felt like they really were anointing him with that title. But if he wins in 2002, he's already had his record-breaking third Best Actor win in 2007. Does that narrative build itself into the 2007 season, or do we see the 2012 season adjust a bit to put him on par with Katharine Hepburn? Personally, I think in this situation, Day-Lewis winds up with four Oscars instead of his current three. He swept the board so thoroughly for both regardless of his prior win(s), and I feel like he's so revered that they wouldn't have had an issue giving him that elusive fourth Oscar, especially with it being his most mainstream success to date. But I am curious to hear from the rest of you on this one. Hard to say he doesn't win 4. 2007 I think is a foregone conclusion, he is that entire movie and there isn't a strong enough alternative - Clooney had just won, Depp's film stumbled through awards season post-Globes, TLJ's in a movie people didn't see, and Viggo's just happy to be there. 2012 I think maybe becomes interesting if Harvey had enough juice to get Cooper a win alongside Lawrence since Silver Linings Playbook overperformed but that is Cooper's first nomination and it would still feel so lightweight compared to Daniel Day-Lewis playing Abraham Lincoln in a Steven Spielberg biopic.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 15, 2023 0:54:27 GMT
Had Sandra Bullock not won in 2010, would she have pulled off a win for Gravity? And say that Cate lost, would that have been a boon to her chances for Tár?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 15, 2023 0:57:12 GMT
Had Sandra Bullock not won in 2010, would she have pulled off a win for Gravity? And say that Cate lost, would that have been a boon to her chances for Tár? I would say Blanchett was unstoppable in 2013, regardless of whether Bullock had won in 2009 or not. Hell, I'd argue that Bullock winning the Oscar in the first place is what got her the job in Gravity, as it made her a prestige actress at last.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Aug 25, 2023 22:51:35 GMT
Another question to ponder:
If Best Picture was done by popular vote rather than preferential ballot are there any different winners since the expansion of best picture?
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Aug 26, 2023 5:06:33 GMT
Another question to ponder: If Best Picture was done by popular vote rather than preferential ballot are there any different winners since the expansion of best picture? Some that come to mind as significant possibilities: GravityThe RevenantLa La LandRomaThe Power of the Dog
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Aug 27, 2023 14:16:40 GMT
When you're in the business of Oscar predictions and stuff like that, you live in the world of hypotheticals. But how about theorizing on the past Oscar ceremonies? I got a few questions for you (and obviously feel free to write speculations of your own): 1. Do you think The Return of the King would've won Cinematography and Sound Editing had it been nominated for them, thus becoming the most awarded film of all time with 13 wins? 2. Do you think Toy Story would've been nominated for Best Animated Film in 1995 had the category existed back then? Or do you think the hypothetical animation branch of the time would've stirred up some shit because of it being the first computer-animated movie? 3. Do you think Russell Crowe would've won for A Beautiful Mind if not for the BAFTA scandal? 1. Probably not. If it failed to make their top 5, why assume it would have won if it got more nomination votes?
2. Toy Story would have won. Can you think of any other animated features more worthy than Toy Story in 1995? I sure can't.
3. Hard to say. Daniel Day-Lewis in 2002-2003 won the CCA, SAG, and BAFTA, but still lost the Oscar to an actor who lost all four major precursor awards. I don't think DDL did anything wrong before the Oscars. Denzel Washington definitely deserved the Oscar - delivered a great performance and played a character the polar opposite of what he normally plays. I think that was the main reason. I think Crowe's chances were hindered by the bad behavior and the fact that he won the previous season.
Like with all of these questions, they fall under the "theory" category. I do not have the ability to play alternative timeline with this universe.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Aug 27, 2023 14:53:34 GMT
When you're in the business of Oscar predictions and stuff like that, you live in the world of hypotheticals. But how about theorizing on the past Oscar ceremonies? I got a few questions for you (and obviously feel free to write speculations of your own): 1. Do you think The Return of the King would've won Cinematography and Sound Editing had it been nominated for them, thus becoming the most awarded film of all time with 13 wins? 2. Do you think Toy Story would've been nominated for Best Animated Film in 1995 had the category existed back then? Or do you think the hypothetical animation branch of the time would've stirred up some shit because of it being the first computer-animated movie? 3. Do you think Russell Crowe would've won for A Beautiful Mind if not for the BAFTA scandal? 1. Probably not. If it failed to make their top 5, why assume it would have won if it got more nomination votes?
2. Toy Story would have won. Can you think of any other animated features more worthy than Toy Story in 1995? I sure can't. 1. Because the entire Academy votes for the winners and there's every indication that they just automatically voted for ROTK in every tech category (that's not to say it didn't deserve all of its tech accolades). 2. The question was not really about being worthy but about the animation branch's gatekeeping, like how they don't consider motion capture animated films to be real animation or how they didn't want to deem Apollo 10½ and Marcel the Shell eligible until some pushing from the filmmakers. That's why I imagined that there could have theoretically been some pushback against Toy Story in 1995. "Computer animation is not real animation!" Well, yeah... that's why the thread is called Oscar Speculation.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 27, 2023 15:19:30 GMT
3. Do you think Russell Crowe would've won for A Beautiful Mind if not for the BAFTA scandal?
3. Hard to say. Daniel Day-Lewis in 2002-2003 won the CCA, SAG, and BAFTA, but still lost the Oscar to an actor who lost all four major precursor awards. I don't think DDL did anything wrong before the Oscars.
Like with all of these questions, they fall under the "theory" category. I do not have the ability to play alternative timeline with this universe.
Day-Lewis also lost the Golden Globe though which is the key difference..............that mattered a lot, and can't be left out if you are going to list the others.......Crowe had them all AND had the BP frontrunner (eventual winner).........it's a more persuasive argument for Crowe ......
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Aug 27, 2023 16:51:05 GMT
3. Hard to say. Daniel Day-Lewis in 2002-2003 won the CCA, SAG, and BAFTA, but still lost the Oscar to an actor who lost all four major precursor awards. I don't think DDL did anything wrong before the Oscars.
Like with all of these questions, they fall under the "theory" category. I do not have the ability to play alternative timeline with this universe.
Day-Lewis also lost the Golden Globe though which is the key difference..............that mattered a lot, and can't be left out if you are going to list the others.......Crowe had them all AND had the BP frontrunner (eventual winner).........it's a more persuasive argument for Crowe ...... The Globes are not industry though. Adrian Brody wasn't even nominated for the Critics Choice.
If we look at the oldest critics circle societies:
2001 Washington - Boston, LA, Kansas City, NSFC (2nd place. Hackman won), NY (2nd place, Wilkinson won) Crowe - Dallas
2002 Brody - Boston, NSFC Day-Lewis - Chicago, LA, NY, Kansas City, Southeastern
Nicholson - Dallas, LA
Both were so-called upsets.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Aug 27, 2023 17:01:17 GMT
1. Probably not. If it failed to make their top 5, why assume it would have won if it got more nomination votes?
2. Toy Story would have won. Can you think of any other animated features more worthy than Toy Story in 1995? I sure can't. 1. Because the entire Academy votes for the winners and there's every indication that they just automatically voted for ROTK in every tech category (that's not to say it didn't deserve all of its tech accolades). 2. The question was not really about being worthy but about the animation branch's gatekeeping, like how they don't consider motion capture animated films to be real animation or how they didn't want to deem Apollo 10½ and Marcel the Shell eligible until some pushing from the filmmakers. That's why I imagined that there could have theoretically been some pushback against Toy Story in 1995. "Computer animation is not real animation!" I see that Master and Commander won for Cinematography and Sound Editing. I have officially changed my mind. If ROTK were up for those awards, they would have won.
Here's the list of Animated Features of 1995 (theatrical and over an hour long):
Balto, The Ghost in the Shell, A Goofy Movie, Gumby: The Movie, and Pocahontas
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 27, 2023 17:25:57 GMT
Day-Lewis also lost the Golden Globe though which is the key difference..............that mattered a lot, and can't be left out if you are going to list the others.......Crowe had them all AND had the BP frontrunner (eventual winner).........it's a more persuasive argument for Crowe ...... The Globes are not industry though. Adrian Brody wasn't even nominated for the Critics Choice. The Globe loss meant a lot more to DDL's Oscar loss at that time than any critics wins would have argued for his winning. Critics wins only have mattered in recent years as critics groups now try to "pick the winner" and even now, not that much - in the early 2000s the Globe meant way more........ridiculously more.........it was a clear sign before the Oscars that he may lose .................Crowe losing with all 4 wins and the BP frontrunner is just a different thing.......there was no indication prior to the Oscar telecast he'd lose other than his behavior.......
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 28, 2023 13:04:46 GMT
Piggybacking off the Russell Crowe scenario for a second: let's say he doesn't assault the BAFTA producer at the height of voting and he does indeed win his second consecutive Best Actor Oscar. At this point, Crowe isn't fighting that bad boy persona (as the phone incident is still a few years away). Does he get nominated for Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World in 2003? It's strange that that movie netted ten nominations and not a single acting nod, especially considering the caliber of its leading man. I have to think that the reason he didn't get nominated (and wouldn't ever again) was because people were put off by his antics, but if they don't happen, where do we see Crowe's awards trajectory go?
Also worth discussing: where does this leave Denzel if he doesn't win Best Actor in 2001? There's a decade-long drought for him of nominations, and I suspect that the sheer closeness of the race in 2001 would mean that he might have some heat on him for something in the interim. Man on Fire has gotten a reappreciation in recent years but it's still not an Oscar-type movie, and American Gangster could potentially get him more in the conversation but he's not beating Daniel Day-Lewis there, and probably not in 2012 either. I feel like Fences would make the most sense (BP nominee + a locked win for Davis), and there would be an outcry of an overdue narrative for a second Oscar as opposed to a third, and I feel like that's a lot more palatable for voters... but at the same time, Affleck really was sweeping the field so thoroughly aside from SAG. He probably doesn't beat Oldman in 2017, either, and as much as I wish he had won for The Tragedy of Macbeth, they just didn't love it to the degree they should have.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Aug 28, 2023 13:16:43 GMT
Piggybacking off the Russell Crowe scenario for a second: let's say he doesn't assault the BAFTA producer at the height of voting and he does indeed win his second consecutive Best Actor Oscar. At this point, Crowe isn't fighting that bad boy persona (as the phone incident is still a few years away). Does he get nominated for Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World in 2003? It's strange that that movie netted ten nominations and not a single acting nod, especially considering the caliber of its leading man. I have to think that the reason he didn't get nominated (and wouldn't ever again) was because people were put off by his antics, but if they don't happen, where do we see Crowe's awards trajectory go? I think Crowe probably gets a nomination for Master and Commander and perhaps Cinderella Man as well. If he gets both of those, the added boost to his career and the bigger spotlight that being an awards favorite brings could maybe have added more attention to a project like 3:10 to Yuma but I won't speculate too far. Also worth discussing: where does this leave Denzel if he doesn't win Best Actor in 2001? There's a decade-long drought for him of nominations, and I suspect that the sheer closeness of the race in 2001 would mean that he might have some heat on him for something in the interim. Man on Fire has gotten a reappreciation in recent years but it's still not an Oscar-type movie, and American Gangster could potentially get him more in the conversation but he's not beating Daniel Day-Lewis there, and probably not in 2012 either. I feel like Fences would make the most sense (BP nominee + a locked win for Davis), and there would be an outcry of an overdue narrative for a second Oscar as opposed to a third, and I feel like that's a lot more palatable for voters... but at the same time, Affleck really was sweeping the field so thoroughly aside from SAG. He probably doesn't beat Oldman in 2017, either, and as much as I wish he had won for The Tragedy of Macbeth, they just didn't love it to the degree they should have. Denzel probably wins for Fences and Affleck goes from sweeping the critics to losing every televised award.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 28, 2023 13:24:17 GMT
Piggybacking off the Russell Crowe scenario for a second: let's say he doesn't assault the BAFTA producer at the height of voting and he does indeed win his second consecutive Best Actor Oscar. At this point, Crowe isn't fighting that bad boy persona (as the phone incident is still a few years away). Does he get nominated for Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World in 2003? It's strange that that movie netted ten nominations and not a single acting nod, especially considering the caliber of its leading man. I have to think that the reason he didn't get nominated (and wouldn't ever again) was because people were put off by his antics, but if they don't happen, where do we see Crowe's awards trajectory go? I think Crowe probably gets a nomination for Master and Commander and perhaps Cinderella Man as well. If he gets both of those, the added boost to his career and the bigger spotlight that being an awards favorite brings could maybe have added more attention to a project like 3:10 to Yuma but I won't speculate too far. It really is something to think about. Tom Hanks hit a wall with nominations after 2000 where try as he might, he just couldn't get recognized for the life of him until he played the literal Nicest Guy of All Time, Fred Rogers. There's some merit into thinking that Hanks didn't take enough risks as an actor and that worked against him, but I also think people took him and his greatness for granted and also felt they'd rewarded him enough with two consecutive Oscars. No one will ever accuse Crowe of not taking risks, and if he does get those nominations (which I think are certainly doable, although he'd have had his work cut out for him in 2005 especially) and continues that streak, what happens then? I do agree that 2016 is the likeliest season for Washington to win, as it is clearly the closest he came post-2001, and if they start that narrative early enough, their appreciation for Affleck's performance (which, on retrospect, is perhaps the least traditional winning performance of the decade) may not be enough to overcome that. Still, Affleck had allegations against him during the season and still won so cleanly that it might still be a toss-up. They really came out hard for him.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Aug 28, 2023 14:03:02 GMT
Piggybacking off the Russell Crowe scenario for a second: let's say he doesn't assault the BAFTA producer at the height of voting and he does indeed win his second consecutive Best Actor Oscar. At this point, Crowe isn't fighting that bad boy persona (as the phone incident is still a few years away). Does he get nominated for Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World in 2003? It's strange that that movie netted ten nominations and not a single acting nod, especially considering the caliber of its leading man. I have to think that the reason he didn't get nominated (and wouldn't ever again) was because people were put off by his antics, but if they don't happen, where do we see Crowe's awards trajectory go? Also worth discussing: where does this leave Denzel if he doesn't win Best Actor in 2001? There's a decade-long drought for him of nominations, and I suspect that the sheer closeness of the race in 2001 would mean that he might have some heat on him for something in the interim. Man on Fire has gotten a reappreciation in recent years but it's still not an Oscar-type movie, and American Gangster could potentially get him more in the conversation but he's not beating Daniel Day-Lewis there, and probably not in 2012 either. I feel like Fences would make the most sense (BP nominee + a locked win for Davis), and there would be an outcry of an overdue narrative for a second Oscar as opposed to a third, and I feel like that's a lot more palatable for voters... but at the same time, Affleck really was sweeping the field so thoroughly aside from SAG. He probably doesn't beat Oldman in 2017, either, and as much as I wish he had won for The Tragedy of Macbeth, they just didn't love it to the degree they should have. I don't know if Crowe would've been nominated for Master and Commander (I get the impression that it somehow wasn't seen as an actors' movie - not even SAG ensemble, really?) but my gut is weirdly confident about him getting nominated for Cinderella Man. The nature of the project, the role itself, the returning Howard+Crowe combo (which would've already been a winning one for Crowe in our speculative scenario) - it was all there. I'm sure he was #6 in our real reality anyway. As for Denzel, I think he definitely wins 2016. Affleck swept in a 2-time-winning-Denzel context and I believe that without that the big leagues would have jumped at the opportunity to give Zel his second one, especially for such a baity role/project.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 28, 2023 15:36:10 GMT
Piggybacking off the Russell Crowe scenario for a second: let's say he doesn't assault the BAFTA producer at the height of voting and he does indeed win his second consecutive Best Actor Oscar. At this point, Crowe isn't fighting that bad boy persona (as the phone incident is still a few years away). Does he get nominated for Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World in 2003? It's strange that that movie netted ten nominations and not a single acting nod, especially considering the caliber of its leading man. I have to think that the reason he didn't get nominated (and wouldn't ever again) was because people were put off by his antics, but if they don't happen, where do we see Crowe's awards trajectory go? Also worth discussing: where does this leave Denzel if he doesn't win Best Actor in 2001? There's a decade-long drought for him of nominations, and I suspect that the sheer closeness of the race in 2001 would mean that he might have some heat on him for something in the interim. Man on Fire has gotten a reappreciation in recent years but it's still not an Oscar-type movie, and American Gangster could potentially get him more in the conversation but he's not beating Daniel Day-Lewis there, and probably not in 2012 either. I feel like Fences would make the most sense (BP nominee + a locked win for Davis), and there would be an outcry of an overdue narrative for a second Oscar as opposed to a third, and I feel like that's a lot more palatable for voters... but at the same time, Affleck really was sweeping the field so thoroughly aside from SAG. He probably doesn't beat Oldman in 2017, either, and as much as I wish he had won for The Tragedy of Macbeth, they just didn't love it to the degree they should have. Crowe probably/possibly picks up 2 more nominations if he doesn't seal his reputation as an unlikable thug within the industry with the BAFTA producer assault. But again, Crowe had more assault issues after that...remember he was arrested for throwing a phone at some concierge in a New York hotel in 2005. That actually may have been what put the nail in Crowe's coffin as far as being on Oscars radar, not the BAFTA thing, which could have been dismissed as a one-off. They might have eventually forgiven/forgotten the BAFTA incident. But the hotel phone thing just kind of certified that he was a habitual bully in the eyes of the industry, and nobody wanted to reward his behaviour. I'd say without the hotel arrest, he probably gets another nomination for Cinderella Man. The reviews were there for him, but he'd now become radioactive. Denzel's narrative arc completely changes if he doesn't win in 2001. He becomes the most overdue actor alive for a leading Oscar. Even back then, he'd long been considered Hollywood's greatest leading man of his era by many (hence Julia Roberts claiming she couldn't live in a world where Denzel didn't have a Best Actor Oscar, when he already had a supporting Oscar). So his lack of a leading Oscar would have become even more glaring and something the industry and critics may have gone over and beyond to correct till he got it. Those films of his that came after Training Day that critics dismissed, but gave him award/Oscar calibre performance reviews (ie John Q and Man On Fire) would likely have recieved slighty kinder notices, because they'd be seen as an opportunity by many to get him the lead trophy. Those films wouldn't have been in Best Picture contention or anything (Even though Man On Fire deserved to be, but that's another conversation) but Denzel probably becomes a serious threat for nominations for both those films, much like he got in for Roman J Israel Esq, despite the film (unfairly) receiving poor notices. Denzel would havd been pushed into the awards conversation for those films. And much like Glenn Close gets nominated for things like Albert Nobbs and Hillbilly Elegy, despite the films themselves getting horrible/mediocre reviews. Close is considered one of our greatest over due living actresses, so critics and industry push her even in vehicles where the reviews are not there. That becomes Denzel's narrative arc if he loses for Training Day and is percieved as a priority to be given a lead Oscar. I actually think in this alternate reality, Denzel becomes a real threat to win Best Actor for The Manchurian Candidate. It's a prestige project ( Demme/Streep etc), the reviews were strong ( 80% Rotten Tomatoes, 76 Metacritic). As usual, Denzel's reviews were award calibre (but he's got that LeBron James thing, where he's almost penalised for his baseline excellence, season after season. So Denzel being great in everything is expected and not particularly "sexy", and it can come twice a year, unlike every couple of years for a Daniel Day-Lewis, which feels more exotic. But now there is more urgency to give Denzel a lead Oscar. So The Manchurian Candidate probably goes from a well recieved awards season prestige afterthought and slight box office underperformer that was released too early to last the course (July 2004) in the awards conversation, to a strongly reviewed prestige project that gives critics and the industry the opportunity to push him Denzel to that lead Oscar. Maybe the release date moves up to push the "Denzel needs a leading Oscar narrative". I doubt he beats Jamie Foxx in Ray, but it wouldn't be impossible either. I think he could have easily dislodged Johnny Depp in Finding Neverland and Clint Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby in the nominations list. He becomes a serious threat to win for American Gangster. He was almost certainly in 6th place for the nomination (but again, it's the LeBron thing), but a Denzel that loses in 2001, with a vehicle strong enough to potentially get a Best Picture Oscar nod (as it got a Best Picture nod at the BAFTA's)....I think in this alternate universe, he becomes DDL's biggest threat for There Will Be Blood. DDL likely still takes the win, but Denzel having that powerful narrative might make that season more competitive.
I'd say the same for Flight. He becomes a real threat to win over DDL in Lincoln, because it's now an industry embarrassment ( to the Julia Roberts and Mel Gibson's of the world) that he doesn't have a leading Oscar. Denzel's reviews were on par with DDL and Phoenix for The Master (and Phoenix put himself out of the race with his comments about not wanting the Oscar carrot, general odd behavior and missing SAG).Obviously, Fences is his easiest and most likely chance of winning in this alternate reality, but I see a scenario where he's as threat to even win for Roman J Israel Esq and The Tragedy Of Macbeth ( Smith really got the win on an overdue narrative, and he wouldn't be more overdue than Denzel). So I think Denzel losing in 2001 not only increases his nomination count (as he'll get pushed for nominations in vehicles that he might not have been had he already won Best Actor) possibly to Nicholson's current tally of 12, but he might even be on 3 Oscars as well.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 28, 2023 16:12:32 GMT
Crowe probably/possibly picks up 2 more nominations if he doesn't seal his reputation as an unlikable thug within the industry with the BAFTA producer assault. But again, Crowe had more assault issues after that...remember he was arrested for throwing a phone at some concierge in a New York hotel in 2005. That actually may have been what put the nail in Crowe's coffin as far as being on Oscars radar, not the BAFTA thing, which could have been dismissed as a one-off. They might have eventually forgiven/forgotten the BAFTA incident. But the hotel phone thing just kind of certified that he was a habitual bully in the eyes of the industry, and nobody wanted to reward his behaviour. I'd say without the hotel arrest, he probably gets another nomination for Cinderella Man. The reviews were there for him, but he'd now become radioactive. Denzel's narrative arc completely changes if he doesn't win in 2001. He becomes the most overdue actor alive for a leading Oscar. Even back then, he'd long been considered Hollywood's greatest leading man of his era by many (hence Julia Roberts claiming she couldn't live in a world where Denzel didn't have a Best Actor Oscar, when he already had a supporting Oscar). So his lack of a leading Oscar would have become even more glaring and something the industry and critics may have gone over and beyond to correct till he got it. Those films of his that came after Training Day that critics dismissed, but gave him award/Oscar calibre performance reviews (ie John Q and Man On Fire) would likely have recieved slighty kinder notices, because they'd be seen as an opportunity by many to get him the lead trophy. Those films wouldn't have been in Best Picture contention or anything (Even though Man On Fire deserved to be, but that's another conversation) but Denzel probably becomes a serious threat for nominations for both those films, much like he got in for Roman J Israel Esq, despite the film (unfairly) receiving poor notices. Denzel would havd been pushed into the awards conversation for those films. And much like Glenn Close gets nominated for things like Albert Nobbs and Hillbilly Elegy, despite the films themselves getting horrible/mediocre reviews. Close is considered one of our greatest over due living actresses, so critics and industry push her even in vehicles where the reviews are not there. That becomes Denzel's narrative arc if he loses for Training Day and is percieved as a priority to be given a lead Oscar. I actually think in this alternate reality, Denzel becomes a real threat to win Best Actor for The Manchurian Candidate. It's a prestige project ( Demme/Streep etc), the reviews were strong ( 80% Rotten Tomatoes, 76 Metacritic). As usual, Denzel's reviews were award calibre (but he's got that LeBron James thing, where he's almost penalised for his baseline excellence, season after season. So Denzel being great in everything is expected, and it can come twice a year, unlike every couple of years for a Daniel Day-Lewis. But now there is more urgency to give him a lead Oscar. So The Manchurian Candidate probably goes from a well recieved awards season prestige afterthought and slight box office underperformer that was released too early to last the course (July 2004) in the awards conversation, to a strongly reviewed prestige project that gives critics and the industry the opportunity to push him Denzel to that lead Oscar. Maybe the release date moves up to push the "Denzel needs a leading Oscar narrative". I doubt he beats Jamie Foxx in Ray, but it wouldn't be impossible either. I think he could have easily dislodged Johnny Depp in Finding Neverland and Clint Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby in the nominations list. He becomes a serious threat to win for American Gangster. He was almost certainly in 6th place for the nomination (but again, it's the LeBron thing), but a Denzel that loses in 2001, with a vehicle strong enough to potentially get a Best Picture Oscar nod (as it got a Best Picture nod at the BAFTA's)....I think in this alternate universe, he becomes DDL's biggest threat for There Will Be Blood. DDL likely still takes the win, but Denzel having that powerful narrative might make that season more competitive.
I'd say the same for Flight. He becomes a real threat to win over DDL in Lincoln, because it's now an industry embarrassment ( to the Julia Roberts and Mel Gibson's of the world) that he doesn't have a leading Oscar. Obviously, Fences is his easiest and most likely chance of winning in this alternate reality, but I see a scenario where he's as threat to even win for Roman J Israel Esq and The Tragedy Of Macbeth ( Smith really got the win on an overdue narrative, and he wouldn't be more overdue than Denzel). So I think Denzel losing in 2001 not only increases his nomination count (as he'll get pushed for nominations in vehicles that he might not have been had he already won Best Actor) possibly to Nicholson's current tally of 12, but he might even be on 3 Oscars as well. I was expecting this. In terms of Crowe, obviously it was a case of many acts culminating in his reputation, but if we remove the BAFTA incident from the equation and he does secure the win that year, that certainly wouldn't impact him in 2003. The phone incident happened in '05 which might curb his Cinderella Man nomination, but 2003 is what I was more interested in exploring because I can't think of any reason he would miss out that year except for people being turned off by his attitude in the '01 race. Now. Denzel. I knew you'd be coming out with a huge rollout so let's see. I can't see them going for John Q in that year, with that field. Caine would be the only one I would say is potentially vulnerable but the other four were in high-profile movies with big nomination tallies. At least Training Day had Ethan Hawke along for the ride. Man on Fire I've talked about, where I feel like it just wasn't going to be taken as seriously even after its reappraisal, but even if he does get nominated, Jamie Foxx had that Oscar signed and sealed so I can't see him winning there. Same with Manchurian Candidate, which would be the more traditional Oscar-type vehicle but as it didn't get Meryl nominated (who gets lazy namecheck nominations all the time), I don't think Denzel gets in even on an overdue narrative. They just didn't give a shit about that movie. American Gangster is the prestige picture that makes the most sense as something the Academy would go for, but I don't think he can take Daniel Day-Lewis in that year. Everyone was an also-ran against him. But this is the thing: American Gangster was originally supposed to happen a few years earlier. If Denzel loses for Training Day, there may be more of an urgency to make American Gangster, and if it comes out in '03 or '04 when it was originally intended, then maybe Washington benefits there. But I find it hard to think he can beat Hoffman, Whitaker or Day-Lewis in that three-year stretch to follow. Even Foxx is a difficult order in '04. '03, though, I could see him taking advantage of that fractured field. This is the only way I can see a win for Denzel for American Gangster, and it's why I think this is an interesting thought experiment because I feel like if 2001 results in a near-miss, the drum is beating that loudly for Washington to get his that more studios take notice to get those projects to him. (Also, I can't agree that he was "almost certainly" in sixth place considering McAvoy, Gosling, Hirsch and Hoffman were in the mix as well.) I definitely don't think he had any real hopes of stopping Day-Lewis in 2012 considering Day-Lewis already had two Best Actor prizes to his name against winless veterans and nothing was stopping that train. Maybe the narrative is different if Washington only has the one Oscar to his name, but in a year where Spielberg is directing DDL as Abraham Lincoln in the year's nomination leader, that's a hard narrative to overcome, especially for the likes of Flight. Fences I agree was the likeliest and the more I talk it out, the more I agree with you and Mike that he probably at least wins the industry awards while Affleck is the critics' favourite (I thought on the day of the ceremony, he had pipped Affleck to the post). But even if he loses there, I can't see him beating Oldman playing Churchill in 2017, especially without at least some support for his movie outside of him. Even Training Day had Hawke get nominated. Macbeth is the only other time in the 2010s/20s where I feel like I can see a win for him, but it didn't perform with nominations the way I would expect, considering the caliber of people associated with it who are Oscar favourites. Even if Denzel doesn't have a lead actor win by then, I don't imagine that changes. I mean, he is after all still an Oscar winner regardless of whether it's lead or not. (Which is why I don't necessarily agree anyone can be overdue for a second or third win.) I just feel like 2001 was the perfect storm for him: he had A-list support in the industry for a lead win, he had heat from The Hurricane behind him, and Crowe decided to act like an ass at the worst possible time for voting. Plus there were the optics of the night aligning for him, with Halle Berry looking to break the Best Actress glass ceiling and with Poitier getting feted with an Honorary Oscar, it was just too good to pass up.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 28, 2023 18:00:33 GMT
Crowe probably/possibly picks up 2 more nominations if he doesn't seal his reputation as an unlikable thug within the industry with the BAFTA producer assault. But again, Crowe had more assault issues after that...remember he was arrested for throwing a phone at some concierge in a New York hotel in 2005. That actually may have been what put the nail in Crowe's coffin as far as being on Oscars radar, not the BAFTA thing, which could have been dismissed as a one-off. They might have eventually forgiven/forgotten the BAFTA incident. But the hotel phone thing just kind of certified that he was a habitual bully in the eyes of the industry, and nobody wanted to reward his behaviour. I'd say without the hotel arrest, he probably gets another nomination for Cinderella Man. The reviews were there for him, but he'd now become radioactive. Denzel's narrative arc completely changes if he doesn't win in 2001. He becomes the most overdue actor alive for a leading Oscar. Even back then, he'd long been considered Hollywood's greatest leading man of his era by many (hence Julia Roberts claiming she couldn't live in a world where Denzel didn't have a Best Actor Oscar, when he already had a supporting Oscar). So his lack of a leading Oscar would have become even more glaring and something the industry and critics may have gone over and beyond to correct till he got it. Those films of his that came after Training Day that critics dismissed, but gave him award/Oscar calibre performance reviews (ie John Q and Man On Fire) would likely have recieved slighty kinder notices, because they'd be seen as an opportunity by many to get him the lead trophy. Those films wouldn't have been in Best Picture contention or anything (Even though Man On Fire deserved to be, but that's another conversation) but Denzel probably becomes a serious threat for nominations for both those films, much like he got in for Roman J Israel Esq, despite the film (unfairly) receiving poor notices. Denzel would havd been pushed into the awards conversation for those films. And much like Glenn Close gets nominated for things like Albert Nobbs and Hillbilly Elegy, despite the films themselves getting horrible/mediocre reviews. Close is considered one of our greatest over due living actresses, so critics and industry push her even in vehicles where the reviews are not there. That becomes Denzel's narrative arc if he loses for Training Day and is percieved as a priority to be given a lead Oscar. I actually think in this alternate reality, Denzel becomes a real threat to win Best Actor for The Manchurian Candidate. It's a prestige project ( Demme/Streep etc), the reviews were strong ( 80% Rotten Tomatoes, 76 Metacritic). As usual, Denzel's reviews were award calibre (but he's got that LeBron James thing, where he's almost penalised for his baseline excellence, season after season. So Denzel being great in everything is expected, and it can come twice a year, unlike every couple of years for a Daniel Day-Lewis. But now there is more urgency to give him a lead Oscar. So The Manchurian Candidate probably goes from a well recieved awards season prestige afterthought and slight box office underperformer that was released too early to last the course (July 2004) in the awards conversation, to a strongly reviewed prestige project that gives critics and the industry the opportunity to push him Denzel to that lead Oscar. Maybe the release date moves up to push the "Denzel needs a leading Oscar narrative". I doubt he beats Jamie Foxx in Ray, but it wouldn't be impossible either. I think he could have easily dislodged Johnny Depp in Finding Neverland and Clint Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby in the nominations list. He becomes a serious threat to win for American Gangster. He was almost certainly in 6th place for the nomination (but again, it's the LeBron thing), but a Denzel that loses in 2001, with a vehicle strong enough to potentially get a Best Picture Oscar nod (as it got a Best Picture nod at the BAFTA's)....I think in this alternate universe, he becomes DDL's biggest threat for There Will Be Blood. DDL likely still takes the win, but Denzel having that powerful narrative might make that season more competitive.
I'd say the same for Flight. He becomes a real threat to win over DDL in Lincoln, because it's now an industry embarrassment ( to the Julia Roberts and Mel Gibson's of the world) that he doesn't have a leading Oscar. Obviously, Fences is his easiest and most likely chance of winning in this alternate reality, but I see a scenario where he's as threat to even win for Roman J Israel Esq and The Tragedy Of Macbeth ( Smith really got the win on an overdue narrative, and he wouldn't be more overdue than Denzel). So I think Denzel losing in 2001 not only increases his nomination count (as he'll get pushed for nominations in vehicles that he might not have been had he already won Best Actor) possibly to Nicholson's current tally of 12, but he might even be on 3 Oscars as well. I was expecting this. In terms of Crowe, obviously it was a case of many acts culminating in his reputation, but if we remove the BAFTA incident from the equation and he does secure the win that year, that certainly wouldn't impact him in 2003. The phone incident happened in '05 which might curb his Cinderella Man nomination, but 2003 is what I was more interested in exploring because I can't think of any reason he would miss out that year except for people being turned off by his attitude in the '01 race. Now. Denzel. I knew you'd be coming out with a huge rollout so let's see. I can't see them going for John Q in that year, with that field. Caine would be the only one I would say is potentially vulnerable but the other four were in high-profile movies with big nomination tallies. At least Training Day had Ethan Hawke along for the ride. Man on Fire I've talked about, where I feel like it just wasn't going to be taken as seriously even after its reappraisal, but even if he does get nominated, Jamie Foxx had that Oscar signed and sealed so I can't see him winning there. Same with Manchurian Candidate, which would be the more traditional Oscar-type vehicle but as it didn't get Meryl nominated (who gets lazy namecheck nominations all the time), I don't think Denzel gets in even on an overdue narrative. They just didn't give a shit about that movie. American Gangster is the prestige picture that makes the most sense as something the Academy would go for, but I don't think he can take Daniel Day-Lewis in that year. Everyone was an also-ran against him. But this is the thing: American Gangster was originally supposed to happen a few years earlier. If Denzel loses for Training Day, there may be more of an urgency to make American Gangster, and if it comes out in '03 or '04 when it was originally intended, then maybe Washington benefits there. But I find it hard to think he can beat Hoffman, Whitaker or Day-Lewis in that three-year stretch to follow. Even Foxx is a difficult order in '04. '03, though, I could see him taking advantage of that fractured field. This is the only way I can see a win for Denzel for American Gangster, and it's why I think this is an interesting thought experiment because I feel like if 2001 results in a near-miss, the drum is beating that loudly for Washington to get his that more studios take notice to get those projects to him. (Also, I can't agree that he was "almost certainly" in sixth place considering McAvoy, Gosling, Hirsch and Hoffman were in the mix as well.) I definitely don't think he had any real hopes of stopping Day-Lewis in 2012 considering Day-Lewis already had two Best Actor prizes to his name against winless veterans and nothing was stopping that train. Maybe the narrative is different if Washington only has the one Oscar to his name, but in a year where Spielberg is directing DDL as Abraham Lincoln in the year's nomination leader, that's a hard narrative to overcome, especially for the likes of Flight. Fences I agree was the likeliest and the more I talk it out, the more I agree with you and Mike that he probably at least wins the industry awards while Affleck is the critics' favourite (I thought on the day of the ceremony, he had pipped Affleck to the post). But even if he loses there, I can't see him beating Oldman playing Churchill in 2017, especially without at least some support for his movie outside of him. Even Training Day had Hawke get nominated. Macbeth is the only other time in the 2010s/20s where I feel like I can see a win for him, but it didn't perform with nominations the way I would expect, considering the caliber of people associated with it who are Oscar favourites. Even if Denzel doesn't have a lead actor win by then, I don't imagine that changes. I mean, he is after all still an Oscar winner regardless of whether it's lead or not. (Which is why I don't necessarily agree anyone can be overdue for a second or third win.) I just feel like 2001 was the perfect storm for him: he had A-list support in the industry for a lead win, he had heat from The Hurricane behind him, and Crowe decided to act like an ass at the worst possible time for voting. Plus there were the optics of the night aligning for him, with Halle Berry looking to break the Best Actress glass ceiling and with Poitier getting feted with an Honorary Oscar, it was just too good to pass up. Streep got nominated for a BAFTA for The Manchurian Candidate, mainly because it was released in the UK in November (ie a proper awards release date). The Manchurian Candidate was a summer release in America because the studio prioritised Denzel being a box office draw over it's awards prospects (and it did only average box office relative to budget and expectations). I can almost guarantee that if The Manchurian Candidate had been properly positioned as an awards season movie (ie a late autumn or winter US release, not summer) and maybe some festival berths, it becomes a major awards season contender. And both Denzel and Streep likely get Oscar nominations (heck, maybe even Liev Schreiber as well in supporting actor). It had the reviews and prestige to contend across the board. They just fucked up the release strategy. It happens. There's many movies you can say that about. The Northman for example. Bad release date (April 2022, and not enough box office to sustain it the rest of the year as a buzzy contender). But release the film in November or December and it has the performances ( Skarsgaard, Kidman) reviews and general air of prestige to be a serious contender across the board. But again, poor release strategy scuppered these films chances. So, yes AMPAS didn't give a shit about the movie in our reality. In a hypothetical alternate reality where Denzel loses in 2001, they have every reason to now give a shit about a nominatable movie in 2004 starring Denzel & Streep and directed by Jonathan Demme. Especially if the studio chose a more awards friendly release strategy.In these hypothetical scenarios where such & such actor doesn't win, the reactions to their subsequent movies and performances will likely also change as well. You can't change one important event and expect all the other events to remain exactly the same. As countless time travel movies have told us . I think Denzel in Flight has an excellent chance of beating Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln in 2012, if he doesn't yet have a lead Oscar. But we can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Aug 28, 2023 19:48:35 GMT
Imagine thinking Denzel had a chance of getting nominated, let alone winning, for all the forgettable dreck he did in the early 2000s lol.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 28, 2023 20:19:44 GMT
Imagine thinking Denzel had a chance of getting nominated, let alone winning, for all the forgettable dreck he did in the early 2000s lol. I can imagine just fine. That's why it's called a hypothetical scenario.Sandra Bullock won a Best Actress Oscar for a piece of shit, virtual Lifetime Movie called The Blind Side (which I thought was hot garbage even before the recent revelations that it was a con job by the movie's white savior protagonists over the football player) for a so-so performance . That same movie also got nominated for Best Picture somehow. It got better reviews and than say John Q, but quality wise, they're about the same movie, imho Henry Fonda won a Best Actor Oscar for another Lifetime movie ( On Golden Pond) because they were running out of time before he died. Elizabeth Taylor won Best Actress for a terrible soap opera movie called Butterfield 8 that nobody even watches anymore because she was gravely ill and got a sympathy vote. If the industry likes you enough and you are a big enough deal ( which the likes of Bullock, Fonda, Taylor and Denzel are), and you got some sort of narrative at play, they'll find a reason to give you an Oscar. If Denzel loses in 2001, I think the industry starts taking whatever opportunities he gives performance-wise for them to award him. But again, we'll never actually know, so ultimately who gives a shit
|
|