|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 12, 2023 19:14:15 GMT
How about throwback question. Does Talia Shire win for Rocky if she campaigns in supporting instead of lead (she won NBR and NY in supporting)? Aka is she the original Michelle Williams?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 12, 2023 19:18:51 GMT
How about throwback question. Does Talia Shire win for Rocky if she campaigns in supporting instead of lead (she won NBR and NY in supporting)? Aka is she the original Michelle Williams? It's very possible, especially as she had a recent Oscar nomination to her name to give her some momentum. I do think Straight winning for such a brief role against some reasonably showy competition shows a massive strength in Network, though.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Oct 12, 2023 19:28:57 GMT
I think Talia Shire wins if she goes supporting. Dunaway after a decade of work and a couple nominations was overdue and the Academy clearly loved Network so she was going to take home lead. While Straight would still have the Network crowd, Rocky was the big winner of the night and had 4 acting nods itself so it's not like it was lacking in any way and she seemed to have more critical favor her way to back her.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 12, 2023 19:33:39 GMT
How about throwback question. Does Talia Shire win for Rocky if she campaigns in supporting instead of lead (she won NBR and NY in supporting)? Aka is she the original Michelle Williams? It's very possible, especially as she had a recent Oscar nomination to her name to give her some momentum. I do think Straight winning for such a brief role against some reasonably showy competition shows a massive strength in Network, though. As much strength as best picture though? I think Straight won in part due to love for Network but also in part due to the competition. They probably weren't going to give the win, back then, to a camp horror performance (Laurie), a performance as a child prostitute (Foster), the previous year winner for a minor contender (Grant), and then there was Jane Alexander, who was similar to Straight in terms of brevity, however hers was a pretty quiet brief performance unlike Straight. I do think Shire probably would've had in the bag, given she had critical momentum, I think her choice to go lead, like Williams, probably derailed her chances.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 12, 2023 19:37:33 GMT
It's very possible, especially as she had a recent Oscar nomination to her name to give her some momentum. I do think Straight winning for such a brief role against some reasonably showy competition shows a massive strength in Network, though. As much strength as best picture though? I think Straight won in part due to love for Network but also in part due to the competition. They probably weren't going to give the win, back then, to a camp horror performance (Laurie), a performance as a child prostitute (Foster), the previous year winner for a minor contender (Grant), and then there was Jane Alexander, who was similar to Straight in terms of brevity, however hers was a pretty quiet brief performance unlike Straight. I do think Shire probably would've had in the bag, given she had critical momentum, I think her choice to go lead, like Williams, probably derailed her chances. I mean, that's all very true, but I don't think that really invalidates Straight either. I'd agree Shire has the edge, but I can see Straight's veteran status working to her benefit as well. And even though Rocky took Picture/Director, Network won three acting awards and screenplay, so it had to be a very tight #2.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Nov 24, 2023 16:06:58 GMT
I'll revive with another one. Does Paul Newman win for Nobody's Fool or Road to Perdition, if he lost for Color of Money to Bob Hoskins (like he did with every precursor other than NBR)?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 24, 2023 16:25:29 GMT
I'll revive with another one. Does Paul Newman win for Nobody's Fool or Road to Perdition, if he lost for Color of Money to Bob Hoskins (like he did with every precursor other than NBR)? I think Newman gains that overdue narrative hard in '94 and even though Hanks was in the Best Picture juggernaut, he might lose out on his second consecutive win . . . but then again, Hanks mania was in full swing and it certainly didn't stop him from cruising to a second win against winless competitors like Travolta, Hawthorne or Freeman as well. If Newman loses in '86 and '94, he almost certainly wins in 2002. Cooper had passion but it was a split field that year and I feel like an overdue narrative for Newman could've carried him there. Honestly, I wish I could live in a universe where Hoskins rightly wins in '86 and Newman gets his in '02.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Nov 25, 2023 2:20:23 GMT
I'm not gonna be as diplomatic as Stephen in terms of Newman's 1994 chances - I think Hanks easily takes the trophy for Forrest Gump even with Newman being Oscarless. The man's follow up to his first win was a BP-winning box office smash which swept everyone off their feet, in many ways because of Hanks's portrayal. I don't see Newman being a threat to that.
2002 though? Newman devours it.
Now, I wonder what the hell would've happened in 2002 had Walken lost for The Deer Hunter (which would've surely been to John Hurt for Midnight Express). Now that would've been a race!
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Mar 11, 2024 3:11:00 GMT
Well let's do it again, would Gladstone have won if she went supporting?
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Mar 11, 2024 3:19:29 GMT
Well let's do it again, would Gladstone have won if she went supporting? Yes. She sweeps.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 11, 2024 3:21:09 GMT
Well let's do it again, would Gladstone have won if she went supporting? Considering how absolutely thoroughly Da'Vine Joy Randolph swept the field, I can't say with any real certainly that Gladstone shifting to supporting is an automatic win for her. She would've put up a strong fight, but I think it's still Randolph's to lose.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Mar 11, 2024 3:25:43 GMT
Well let's do it again, would Gladstone have won if she went supporting? Considering how absolutely thoroughly Da'Vine Joy Randolph swept the field, I can't say with any real certainly that Gladstone shifting to supporting is an automatic win for her. She would've put up a strong fight, but I think it's still Randolph's to lose. I think Randolph's decisive sweep is in part because the field for Oscar consideration was so thoroughly weak. Who would we consider 2nd place, Emily Blunt for essentially one scene in a 3-hour movie? Danielle Brooks for a movie that came out late, bombed, and got no other nominations? Randolph isn't a weak winner, but she wouldn't have been a steamroller in a competitive year.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Mar 11, 2024 3:26:35 GMT
Well let's do it again, would Gladstone have won if she went supporting? Considering how absolutely thoroughly Da'Vine Joy Randolph swept the field, I can't say with any real certainly that Gladstone shifting to supporting is an automatic win for her. She would've put up a strong fight, but I think it's still Randolph's to lose. She swept because the category didn't have any other real contenders. It's the weakest the category has been in years. I like Randolph but Gladstone wins.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 11, 2024 3:28:16 GMT
Considering how absolutely thoroughly Da'Vine Joy Randolph swept the field, I can't say with any real certainly that Gladstone shifting to supporting is an automatic win for her. She would've put up a strong fight, but I think it's still Randolph's to lose. I think Randolph's decisive sweep is in part because the field for Oscar consideration was so thoroughly weak. Who would we consider 2nd place, Emily Blunt for essentially one scene in a 3-hour movie? Danielle Brooks for a movie that came out late, bombed, and got no other nominations? While that's true, it shouldn't be automatically assumed that Gladstone immediately becomes the frontrunner here. Ultimately, The Holdovers was a stronger film than Killers of the Flower Moon, which showed vulnerability by missing key categories like Actor and Adapted Screenplay. And Randolph is playing the sort of role that the Academy falls over itself to recognize: a grieving mother in a heartwarming crowdpleaser. Gladstone would've been a much stronger challenger than any of the actual competitors this year, but Killers straight-up gassed out as the year progressed. It was respected, not loved.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Mar 11, 2024 3:31:44 GMT
I think Randolph's decisive sweep is in part because the field for Oscar consideration was so thoroughly weak. Who would we consider 2nd place, Emily Blunt for essentially one scene in a 3-hour movie? Danielle Brooks for a movie that came out late, bombed, and got no other nominations? While that's true, it shouldn't be automatically assumed that Gladstone immediately becomes the frontrunner here. Ultimately, The Holdovers was a stronger film than Killers of the Flower Moon, which showed vulnerability by missing key categories like Actor and Adapted Screenplay. And Randolph is playing the sort of role that the Academy falls over itself to recognize: a grieving mother in a heartwarming crowdpleaser. Gladstone would've been a much stronger challenger than any of the actual competitors this year, but Killers straight-up gassed out as the year progressed. It was respected, not loved. I think the fact Gladstone was competitive against the lead role in the movie that probably finished 2nd this year shows she had enough strength to beat Randolph. Even if the film wasn't loved, Gladstone was.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 11, 2024 3:36:23 GMT
While that's true, it shouldn't be automatically assumed that Gladstone immediately becomes the frontrunner here. Ultimately, The Holdovers was a stronger film than Killers of the Flower Moon, which showed vulnerability by missing key categories like Actor and Adapted Screenplay. And Randolph is playing the sort of role that the Academy falls over itself to recognize: a grieving mother in a heartwarming crowdpleaser. Gladstone would've been a much stronger challenger than any of the actual competitors this year, but Killers straight-up gassed out as the year progressed. It was respected, not loved. I think the fact Gladstone was competitive against the lead role in the movie that probably finished 2nd this year shows she had enough strength to beat Randolph. Even if the film wasn't loved, Gladstone was. She was competitive, sure, but in the end she couldn't beat a previous Oscar winner starring in an extremely atypical and sexually explicit film that is far from the Academy's usual cup of tea. Gladstone may have been loved, but Randolph definitely was, and chalking up her juggernaut sweep to simply having no competition really undersells Randolph.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Mar 11, 2024 3:45:50 GMT
I think the fact Gladstone was competitive against the lead role in the movie that probably finished 2nd this year shows she had enough strength to beat Randolph. Even if the film wasn't loved, Gladstone was. She was competitive, sure, but in the end she couldn't beat a previous Oscar winner starring in an extremely atypical and sexually explicit film that is far from the Academy's usual cup of tea. Gladstone may have been loved, but Randolph definitely was, and chalking up her juggernaut sweep to simply having no competition really undersells Randolph. Given the Academy's recent history, I don't think being a previous winner or in an atypical film goes against you anymore, at least to the degree it would have even just 10 years ago. Poor Things for as atypical as it seemed on the surface has proven consistently to have been 2nd all along (and iirc, you thought towards the end of last year it could pull off BP) and its lead who is in every scene ended up winning. This is all not to discount or undermine Randolph's win as I don't think she's a weak one historically, but I do think her status as the biggest shoo-in of the night has a fair bit to do with how the field turned out.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 11, 2024 12:18:43 GMT
She was competitive, sure, but in the end she couldn't beat a previous Oscar winner starring in an extremely atypical and sexually explicit film that is far from the Academy's usual cup of tea. Gladstone may have been loved, but Randolph definitely was, and chalking up her juggernaut sweep to simply having no competition really undersells Randolph. Given the Academy's recent history, I don't think being a previous winner or in an atypical film goes against you anymore, at least to the degree it would have even just 10 years ago. Poor Things for as atypical as it seemed on the surface has proven consistently to have been 2nd all along (and iirc, you thought towards the end of last year it could pull off BP) and its lead who is in every scene ended up winning. This is all not to discount or undermine Randolph's win as I don't think she's a weak one historically, but I do think her status as the biggest shoo-in of the night has a fair bit to do with how the field turned out. My point is that if Lily Gladstone couldn't beat a previous winner giving that sort of performance in that type of movie, it's tough to see her beating out someone who was playing exactly in the Academy's wheelhouse with a film that was ultimately stronger than Gladstone's turned out to me (considering those snubs). Did Randolph's juggernaut sweep have a lot to do with a lackluster field? Sure, which I have never disputed. My argument is that Gladstone going supporting doesn't mean she becomes the automatic frontrunner over Randolph, and there's no real proof to the contrary.
|
|