Actors who should've been nominated for exactly same nods

That's an interesting choice.  Someone who has that many nods and you thought they got it exactly right on all 6 counts.

Well.... that's 6 nodworthy according to you.  I personally thought he should've won for The Crucible.   Not a clear winner that year among the nominees but he stood out to me.    I also thought he was as good as Pacino, Eastwood, Rea and those guys in 1992 and I'd take him over Denzel anyday.  Not sure what's really GOAT about Denzel in that movie.  I just kind of admire him in it, and don't actually *like* him like the others I named.

I take away that nod for In the Name of the Father though.  And There Will Be Blood, because fuck Daniel Plainview,   that's all I gotta say about that.

Woody Harrelson.

Indeed although that's a running pacinoyes CLASSIC gag on MAR that is often misunderstood by those who never understood the pacinoys absurdist posting style anyway............ it's like when I say Denzel Washington is "within the ~top 15 American film actors" or that pacinoyes never will say which male actor is the GOAT when actually I kind of do literally say it quite often don't I?..........or even when I refer to pacinoyes himself in the 3rd person........ .

The MAR GOAT poll has been a fountain of great humor (to me!), and also many good sub-polls and fun discussions too ......you just watch how fast I utterly forget about that stupid poll the next time it's run .............when Pacino/De Niro/Brando finish outside the top 20 and Nicole Kidman wins the female version in a landslide.

Al Pacino has an Oscar nomination for a comedy so he kind of wins but thanks for playing.......also you seem to have a doofus ass habit of now posting TWICE in reply to me IN A WEEK (?)  where you post one random video to my post like you "win" or something like that.........in the Tom Hanks thread you posted his sh itty debut like that somehow makes Viggo Mortensen a "better" actor than Hanks (it doesn't - and that was a poll between them)..........now you post THIS and think it makes DDL not having a successful comedy (still doesn't)  a triumph for him rather than you know, an obvious fncking weakness.

Who p*ssed in your corn flakes or broke your box of crayons? - I'm sorry you don't dig the whole pacinoyes thing I guess right (?)- but I can play this game with you as much as you want to stupidly play it I guess.......   

I think you can make the argument that Phantom Thread is a comedy. Also, if you wanna use Oscar nominations as a metric, I can easily say three wins > one win.

Let's see.........it's interesting that you have NEVER chosen to discuss my "broad declarations" because then you'd maybe have to say "oh sh it  DDL doesn't have a successful comedy to his credit pacinoyes is right"   .......my reasoning is more "specious" than you randomly posting cheap shot videos of Hanks like that right? 

........and who says things like "target on your back" anyway - I have a "target on my back" because DDL never pulled off a comedy? Right, gotcha, ok......makes sense.

I'm not "that upset" by it - it would be funny in the context of a discussion - you just refuse to have the discussion - not my fault, not my problem.........I'm just saying if you have a point to make, then make it with dialog like a normal person so I know you have a working pulse that's all.

No, dude, you're the one who brought up Day-Lewis's stature by referring to that poll and saying that because he never did any "real comedies" (which, again, he has done; Phantom Thread is a comedy and Day-Lewis has showcased comedic talent in most of his nominated work despite them being weightier films than that), that it hurts his stature. Which is fine if you believe that should be a verifiable metric of talent and skill (I don't think it is), but you can't then throw out "getting an Oscar nomination for comedy" as some sort of a bellwether when a.) DDL was nominated for a film that can easily be construed as a comedy, b.) if Oscars are supposed to be some sort of a worthy metric that dock points from one actor and prop up another for a particular skill, then wouldn't it be a reasonable counter-argument to state that the guy who has three Oscars is better than the guy who has one? You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.

And what, your argument is that Al Pacino destroys Daniel Day-Lewis in comedy? Does he, though? He did Jack and Jill. That is not a great accomplishment. If you're gonna ding DDL for Stars and Bars and Eversmile, New Jersey (the latter, rightly so; the former is actually a solidly watchable movie), then you're gonna have to ding Pacino for Jack and Jill, Gigli, 88 Minutes (wait, that wasn't supposed to be a comedy?) . . . basically anything that isn't Stand Up Guys, and that's Walken's movie more than anything.

pacinoyes is right on this count. DDL is NOT Pacino's equal in comedy, at all. I can't assign his minor or lowkey comedic notes (even if he does have it) as similar to Dick Tracy.... which was a big thing back in 1990 that he was actually nominated for that performance.

Pacino makes me laugh sometimes. DDL is mostly a passionate heroine to me with high dramatic notes, which Pacino obviously doesn't do but hey... different strengths as actors.... it's really non-comparable stuff to me.

I also find Robert DeNiro funny, though maybe unintentionally. But he's funny when he's tough-guying or intimidating you. Don't think I've ever laughed at a DDL performance. Not that I'm arguing that he's bad at comedy. I'm just interjecting my perspective.

Even if I buy this argument which I do not - stop them at close to the same age/same films........for Pacino that's 18 (Scent of A Woman is 18th film) .....he was 52........for Day-Lewis I'll give him his whole career which is like 20-21 iirc films and his mid-50s.

Pacino STILL gets Dick Tracy and Frankie and Johnny and all the dramas with comedy mixed in Scarface, And Justice For All, Sea of Love, Scarecrow, Dog Day Afternoon, Glengarry, Scent (I'm leaving off Serpico where he's at least as funny as DDL in Lincoln).

What you're doing is two-fold incorrect - first he doesn't beat Pacino within the same parameters you say you value even and I'm giving DDL MORE work to do it too - Pacino's doing more doesn't factor in at all actually - he did it better than DDL and didn't do more (?)...... and you overrate Day-Lewis' comedic work within those parameters (even I say it's underrated but THAT'S overrating it). 

Guess we just disagree - this particular point isn't really close to me and anyway........this belongs in another thread and indeed came up many times in GOAT level discussions......all I said was he shouldn't have been that high - 3rd in that poll.

That has absolutely nothing to do with Al Pacino at all.