|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 22, 2021 16:35:15 GMT
Sticking this here (and not in TV) because this is my way (again) of saying career/makeup Oscars are right.......Olivia Colman shouldn't have that Oscar .......and Glenn Close is marvelous in her work ethic across mediums but every time I see her take another role which CAN'T win her an Oscar I sort of wince.......her Sunset Blvd feels like it'll never happen tbh On the other hand people still write something for her specifically which is good and um.....@tyler will appreciate the role she's playing...... Coming off her Oscar-nominated role in Hillbilly Elegy, Glenn Close has joined Tehran as a lead in Season 2 of Apple TV+’s international espionage thriller series. Close will play the new series role of Marjan Montazeri, a British woman, living in Tehran.
I hear Close is a big fan of the series, from Moshe Zonder and Omri Shenhar, and expressed interest in reading the new role which was created for her.deadline.com/2021/06/glenn-close-star-tehran-season-2-apple-series-1234779083/
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 22, 2021 16:43:35 GMT
Olivia Colman shouldn't have that Oscar .......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2021 19:24:54 GMT
pacinoyes - Really glad that Close is continuing to nab quality projects, but I don't really feel like going down the Close/Colman rabbit hole again. I know you understand.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 22, 2021 19:39:48 GMT
pacinoyes - Really glad that Close is continuing to nab quality projects, but I don't really feel like going down the Close/Colman rabbit hole again. I know you understand. What's actually interesting about that story is that Glenn Close really has not changed the way she goes about picking roles for 40 years now she picks what she likes ......meanwhile I'm more worried about her Oscar chances than she is I hear you on that Close/Colman rabbit hole pal.......but you know me, I like to beat things into the ground .......um........ftw!
|
|
|
Post by akittystang on Jun 30, 2021 10:57:10 GMT
Olivia Colman shouldn't have that Oscar Oh come on now, I was as absolutely shocked as everyone when she won though I thought there was a possibility of that outcome and Close has been robbed once if not twice (Fatal Attraction and Dangerous Liaisons), but she didn't deserve an award for that awful movie.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 30, 2021 11:10:57 GMT
Olivia Colman shouldn't have that Oscar Oh come on now, I was as absolutely shocked as everyone when she won though I thought there was a possibility of that outcome and Close has been robbed once if not twice (Fatal Attraction and Dangerous Liaisons), but she didn't deserve an award for that awful movie.Depends how you see the Oscars really... I see it this way: People win Oscars all the time for awful movies and awful performances (Tim Robbins, looking at you pal).......Olivia Colman will have plenty of chances to win another......Glenn Close likely will not........I say this all the time but since it's not a merit based award - make up awards are not only ok........they are often "more ok" than "regular" Oscar wins. Tbh, I think people who celebrated Colman's win that night were kind of ghoulish - although that's not the exactly the right word since Close, is, you know, still alive .......but I'll never get this "Colman deserved it" thing........I'm saying "Maybe she did...........and I don't care at all if Colman "deserved it"
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 30, 2021 12:05:26 GMT
Depends how you see the Oscars really... I see it this way: People win Oscars all the time for awful movies and awful performances (Tim Robbins, looking at you pal).......Olivia Colman will have plenty of chances to win another......Glenn Close likely will not........I say this all the time but since it's not a merit based award - make up awards are not only ok........they are often "more ok" than "regular" Oscar wins. Tbh, I think people who celebrated Colman's win that night were kind of ghoulish - although that's not the exactly the right word since Close, is, you know, still alive .......but I'll never get this "Colman deserved it" thing........I'm saying "Maybe she did...........and I don't care at all if Colman "deserved it" What the hell are you on about? Glenn Close was nominated two years later. She has chances to win. She just hasn't been able to seal the deal because she's been up against stronger competition. If your idea of the Oscars is that they shouldn't be merit-based, then what good are they in the first place? Why do we use them as any sort of verifiable metric of an actor's standing or quality? Because if that's the case, then you should never ever bring them up as such. No more talk of Triple Crowns. I really do think the only reason you feel the way you do about "make-up awards" is because Pacino is the poster child for them. Glenn Close is a legendary actress, but if you want to give her an Oscar just because she's waited ages and ages to get one, that's what the fucking honorary Oscar is for. The award is for the "best performance by an actor/actress," to quote Glenda Jackson, not "the actor/actress who's waited the longest to get this otherwise useless hunk of metal." Your rationale makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 30, 2021 12:27:15 GMT
Depends how you see the Oscars really... I see it this way: People win Oscars all the time for awful movies and awful performances (Tim Robbins, looking at you pal).......Olivia Colman will have plenty of chances to win another......Glenn Close likely will not........I say this all the time but since it's not a merit based award - make up awards are not only ok........they are often "more ok" than "regular" Oscar wins. Tbh, I think people who celebrated Colman's win that night were kind of ghoulish - although that's not the exactly the right word since Close, is, you know, still alive .......but I'll never get this "Colman deserved it" thing........I'm saying "Maybe she did...........and I don't care at all if Colman "deserved it" What the hell are you on about? Glenn Close was nominated two years later. She has chances to win. She just hasn't been able to seal the deal because she's been up against stronger competition. If your idea of the Oscars is that they shouldn't be merit-based, then what good are they in the first place? Why do we use them as any sort of verifiable metric of an actor's standing or quality? Because if that's the case, then you should never ever bring them up as such. No more talk of Triple Crowns.I really do think the only reason you feel the way you do about "make-up awards" is because Pacino is the poster child for them. Glenn Close is a legendary actress, but if you want to give her an Oscar just because she's waited ages and ages to get one, that's what the fucking honorary Oscar is for. The award is for the "best performance by an actor/actress," to quote Glenda Jackson, not "the actor/actress who's waited the longest to get this otherwise useless hunk of metal." Your rationale makes absolutely no sense.Not really............in any way............at all ^ Pacino is the poster chlid for those and he deserved it for the same reason too - ie to give an Oscar to anyone else that year - would have been "more wrong" than to snub him. What's the problem - that actually proves the point, no? Glenn Close is a lot closer to Pacino in '92 too so, again that proves the point.......and I didn't say Glenn Close wouldn't be nominated again I said her future nominations are less likely to match Colman's - don't move the goal posts or change what I said.......... The "Triple Crown" talk is not because that is "merit based" - AT ALL - rather it implies a dedication to volume of actor's work - you can't win it by mere luck. It's entirely valid to bring up - in fact - in that way far more valid to bring up than one component of it is obviously This is particularly laughable, below: Do "we" do this stephen? Maybe you do............... Senor Proms don't "mean anything" either but I'm not saying people shouldn't have them.........the Oscars are the Academy's Senior Prom they are certainly not this gibberish below about verifiable metrics .................whose "rationale makes absolutely no sense" - because I'm thinking that's yours buddy......... then what good are they in the first place? Why do we use them as any sort of verifiable metric of an actor's standing or quality?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 30, 2021 12:42:37 GMT
Not really............in any way............at all ^ Pacino is the poster chlid for those and he deserved it for the same reason too - ie to give an Oscar to anyone else that year - would have been "more wrong" than to snub him. What's the problem - that actually proves the point, no? Glenn Close is a lot closer to Pacino in '92 too so, again that proves the point.......and I didn't say Glenn Close wouldn't be nominated a again I said her future nominations are less likely to match Colman's - don't move the goal posts or change what I said.......... The "Triple Crown" talk is not because that is "merit based" - AT ALL - rather it implies a dedication to volume of actor's work - you can't win it by mere luck. It's entirely valid to bring up - in fact - in that way far more valid to bring up than one component of it is obviously This is particularly laughable, below: Do "we" do this stephen? Maybe you do............... Senor Proms don't "mean anything" either but I'm not saying people shouldn't have them.........the Oscars are the Academy's Senior Prom they are certainly not this gibberish below about verifiable metrics .................whose "rationale makes absolutely no sense" - because I'm thinking that's yours buddy......... then what good are they in the first place? Why do we use them as any sort of verifiable metric of an actor's standing or quality?Yeah, but nobody talks about how Al Pacino deserved to win for Scent of a Woman, and his victory for that is seen and justified as a career reward, but when you hear people talk about it now, they only talk about how Washington was robbed that year, and that Pacino was fucked over in the past. If you want to talk about moving goalposts by saying Colman has a lot more chances in the future than Close, I can easily retort that Close had 30+ years on Colman to win an Oscar before their showdown and she couldn't, and hell, was off the Academy's radar entirely for two whole decades. Close had plenty of opportunities to win and I find it hilarious that everyone seems to zero in on Olivia Colman as being the one who wronged her. No one was accusing the same of Youn Yuh-jung for playing a very similar role that Close was (for all the talk about how Oscars are a competition and you can never really know what it's like unless the roles they are given are similar, this is the time to use that metric). The Oscars may be a "senior prom" for celebrities or whatever analogy you want to use, but you know what? You vote for who you want to win just as you do with Prom King/Queen, and the metric the Academy uses for voting is "the best performance." Not the actor they like or revere the most. Hell, I've often suspected the reason Glenn Close hasn't won is because they don't love her as much as people think they do. So either you abide by the concept that a person should win the Oscar for giving a performance the majority of the Academy deem to be preferable to their competition and not because of some cockamamie overdue narrative built off the conceit that people losing for worthy performances lost to lesser competition is somehow an honorable pathway, or you ignore it for the meaningless pomp and circumstance that it is. But you don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 30, 2021 13:10:05 GMT
Not really............in any way............at all ^ Pacino is the poster chlid for those and he deserved it for the same reason too - ie to give an Oscar to anyone else that year - would have been "more wrong" than to snub him. What's the problem - that actually proves the point, no? Glenn Close is a lot closer to Pacino in '92 too so, again that proves the point.......and I didn't say Glenn Close wouldn't be nominated a again I said her future nominations are less likely to match Colman's - don't move the goal posts or change what I said.......... The "Triple Crown" talk is not because that is "merit based" - AT ALL - rather it implies a dedication to volume of actor's work - you can't win it by mere luck. It's entirely valid to bring up - in fact - in that way far more valid to bring up than one component of it is obviously This is particularly laughable, below: Do "we" do this stephen? Maybe you do............... Senor Proms don't "mean anything" either but I'm not saying people shouldn't have them.........the Oscars are the Academy's Senior Prom they are certainly not this gibberish below about verifiable metrics .................whose "rationale makes absolutely no sense" - because I'm thinking that's yours buddy......... then what good are they in the first place? Why do we use them as any sort of verifiable metric of an actor's standing or quality?Yeah, but nobody talks about how Al Pacino deserved to win for Scent of a Woman, and his victory for that is seen and justified as a career reward, but when you hear people talk about it now, they only talk about how Washington was robbed that year, and that Pacino was fucked over in the past. If you want to talk about moving goalposts by saying Colman has a lot more chances in the future than Close, I can easily retort that Close had 30+ years on Colman to win an Oscar before their showdown and she couldn't, and hell, was off the Academy's radar entirely for two whole decades. Close had plenty of opportunities to win and I find it hilarious that everyone seems to zero in on Olivia Colman as being the one who wronged her. No one was accusing the same of Youn Yuh-jung for playing a very similar role that Close was (for all the talk about how Oscars are a competition and you can never really know what it's like unless the roles they are given are similar, this is the time to use that metric). We are at an impasse ......I don't agree with one iota of this at all - bringing up Youn Yuh-jung in comparison to Colman is in particular a very dishonest tract to take - you know the specific circumstances better than that to know the difference ...... wtf is that? Your assessments about Pacino are really odd too - you say "nobody talks about" and they say "Washington was robbed that year" - well, I dunno man if you sat "nobody" down and said well Pacino was also double nominated (a first), in a BP nominee (and multiple nominee), in a hit film that was still playing at the time (Washington's was not), he won the main precursor, maybe those people would say "oh - I get it more now" & two things or more can be true at one time..........but who has that kind of time, right? Who gives a fnck what people say anyway? The masses..............are asses........they got over it........Washington won another, he got over it, it's all good....... I mean, "nobody" from the Class of 1832 says that Debbie should have won when we all know it was for things she did 2 years earlier and she became Prom Queen because she did all sorts of favors for Suzie and everybody knows Mary was the real deserving Prom Queen in that category ever.............. Punching myself in the face It's exhausting ............it just comes down to one thing: You either like make-up wins.............. or you don't ........I get it, you don't........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2021 13:19:02 GMT
Olivia Colman shouldn't have that Oscar Oh come on now, I was as absolutely shocked as everyone when she won though I thought there was a possibility of that outcome and Close has been robbed once if not twice (Fatal Attraction and Dangerous Liaisons), but she didn't deserve an award for that awful movie. I totally understand and respect personally preferring Colman's or McCarthy's performances to Close's, but I will NEVER fathom the constant and hateful bashing of Close's film as "awful" or something that "nobody saw."
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Jun 30, 2021 14:24:53 GMT
Oh come on now, I was as absolutely shocked as everyone when she won though I thought there was a possibility of that outcome and Close has been robbed once if not twice (Fatal Attraction and Dangerous Liaisons), but she didn't deserve an award for that awful movie.Depends how you see the Oscars really... I see it this way: People win Oscars all the time for awful movies and awful performances (Tim Robbins, looking at you pal).......Olivia Colman will have plenty of chances to win another......Glenn Close likely will not........I say this all the time but since it's not a merit based award - make up awards are not only ok........they are often "more ok" than "regular" Oscar wins. Tbh, I think people who celebrated Colman's win that night were kind of ghoulish - although that's not the exactly the right word since Close, is, you know, still alive .......but I'll never get this "Colman deserved it" thing........I'm saying "Maybe she did...........and I don't care at all if Colman "deserved it"
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 30, 2021 14:41:48 GMT
Depends how you see the Oscars really... I see it this way: People win Oscars all the time for awful movies and awful performances (Tim Robbins, looking at you pal).......Olivia Colman will have plenty of chances to win another......Glenn Close likely will not........I say this all the time but since it's not a merit based award - make up awards are not only ok........they are often "more ok" than "regular" Oscar wins. Tbh, I think people who celebrated Colman's win that night were kind of ghoulish - although that's not the exactly the right word since Close, is, you know, still alive .......but I'll never get this "Colman deserved it" thing........I'm saying "Maybe she did...........and I don't care at all if Colman "deserved it" Ugh, apologies -- I'm sorry....... I typed that too fast, I actually meant to just type the word "foolish" there ......... ...........but the humor still works
|
|
|
Post by akittystang on Jul 25, 2021 8:52:01 GMT
Oh come on now, I was as absolutely shocked as everyone when she won though I thought there was a possibility of that outcome and Close has been robbed once if not twice (Fatal Attraction and Dangerous Liaisons), but she didn't deserve an award for that awful movie.Depends how you see the Oscars really... I see it this way: People win Oscars all the time for awful movies and awful performances (Tim Robbins, looking at you pal).......Olivia Colman will have plenty of chances to win another......Glenn Close likely will not........I say this all the time but since it's not a merit based award - make up awards are not only ok........they are often "more ok" than "regular" Oscar wins. Tbh, I think people who celebrated Colman's win that night were kind of ghoulish - although that's not the exactly the right word since Close, is, you know, still alive .......but I'll never get this "Colman deserved it" thing........I'm saying "Maybe she did...........and I don't care at all if Colman "deserved it" Sorry to bump an old thread, I just saw the replies. I wasn't one of those who exactly "cheered". The fact that Glenn Close is Oscar-less is embarrassing. How she didn't win one for Fatal Attraction or Dangerous Liasions is beyond me. I would've be fine had she won, and in fact, when Olivia Colman's name was uttered by Frances McDormand I gasped. I found Colman more deserving of the award than Close, but it was just cruel. She had come closer than she ever had even if the movie she was winning awards for was, in my opinion, awful. Usually, I despise the make-up/due Oscar, but the idea of Glenn Close ending up without one just seems very wrong. Hopefully Sunset Blvd. starts shooting soon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2021 20:26:54 GMT
|
|