|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Feb 7, 2017 23:45:24 GMT
Seems so unlikely at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 7, 2017 23:50:31 GMT
Seems so unlikely at this point. If she wins the BAFTA, her chances increase significantly. The Academy loves honoring famous people who play other famous people. It fits the recent close races between Zellwegger and Kidman, Christie and Cortillard, and Streep and Davis.
|
|
|
Post by cinemagirl16 on Feb 8, 2017 0:18:38 GMT
Yeah, at this point she'd need to win BAFTA to stand a real chance. If Stone gets it, I think the Portman ship will have sunk
|
|
|
Post by napierslogs on Feb 8, 2017 0:26:45 GMT
I'm considering it. I still think it's a close race and I haven't decided which way to go yet.
|
|
|
Post by pizzaroll on Feb 8, 2017 7:29:32 GMT
Only if she gets BAFTA
|
|
|
Post by dmitriyuriev on Feb 8, 2017 7:31:31 GMT
I suppose if she wins BAFTA she might still have a shot. But at this point I think the Oscar is now between Stone and Huppert.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 8:55:55 GMT
I AM IN DEXTER MOVIE AWARDS
|
|
jamesh5
Junior Member
IMDb profile: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur24556707/
Posts: 259
Likes: 55
|
Post by jamesh5 on Feb 8, 2017 14:23:41 GMT
I'm not, if she wins BAFTA still not. But the race becomes more interesting. Honestly could see Adams winning BAFTA though.
If neither Stone or Portman win BAFTA the only person it helps is Huppert.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Feb 8, 2017 14:25:18 GMT
Agreed, it just seems too unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Feb 8, 2017 14:38:20 GMT
Of course not.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Feb 8, 2017 14:46:32 GMT
I don't even think she's runner-up at this point.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 8, 2017 15:00:59 GMT
That ship sank a long time ago.
|
|
erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Feb 8, 2017 15:28:04 GMT
That ship sank a long time ago. You're implying that it ever left the port to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by harlequinade on Feb 8, 2017 15:28:09 GMT
No, it's between Stone who is in their beloved movie and Huppert who is campaigning like crazy now
|
|
jamesh5
Junior Member
IMDb profile: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur24556707/
Posts: 259
Likes: 55
|
Post by jamesh5 on Feb 8, 2017 15:32:01 GMT
That ship sank a long time ago. You're implying that it ever left the port to begin with. So you're saying it didn't leave the port, man?!
|
|
erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Feb 8, 2017 15:37:52 GMT
You're implying that it ever left the port to begin with. So you're saying it didn't leave the port, man?! She had a BFCA and that's pretty much it. She also badmouthed the Oscars in the past, calling them a "false idol." Huppert won the most important critics' awards, and then the Globe which by all accounts should have been Portman's. And then Emma Stone beat her at SAG, and that's that. She was never the frontrunner at any point in the season. That's just something her fans made up. (Not that they're saying it in this thread.)
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 8, 2017 15:40:17 GMT
You're implying that it ever left the port to begin with. So you're saying it didn't leave the port, man?! Quality pun, man.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Feb 8, 2017 15:43:15 GMT
You're implying that it ever left the port to begin with. So you're saying it didn't leave the port, man?! Son of a bitch. He stole my line.
|
|
|
Post by dmitriyuriev on Feb 8, 2017 15:44:00 GMT
So you're saying it didn't leave the port, man?! She had a BFCA and that's pretty much it. She also badmouthed the Oscars in the past, calling them a "false idol." Huppert won the most important critics' awards, and then the Globe which by all accounts should have been Portman's. And then Emma Stone beat her at SAG, and that's that. She was never the frontrunner at any point in the season. That's just something her fans made up. (Not that they're saying it in this thread.) Gurl, before the critic awards started Portman and Stone were seen as the front runners, why do you think Davis went supporting, because both their buzz was to the stratosphere. Both actresses seemed unstoppable, but Huppert came in a swooped all the major critics even getting a good chunk of the 2nd tier critics who are usually not that forthcoming with foreign performances. Portman still won a great deal of critic awards though some of the same she won for "Black Swan", so that BFCA win was seen as the start of her possible sweep. So don't come here saying she was never a front runner.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 8, 2017 15:54:42 GMT
She had a BFCA and that's pretty much it. She also badmouthed the Oscars in the past, calling them a "false idol." Huppert won the most important critics' awards, and then the Globe which by all accounts should have been Portman's. And then Emma Stone beat her at SAG, and that's that. She was never the frontrunner at any point in the season. That's just something her fans made up. (Not that they're saying it in this thread.) Gurl, before the critic awards started Portman and Stone were seen as the front runners, why do you think Davis went supporting, because both their buzz was to the stratosphere. Both actresses seemed unstoppable, but Huppert came in a swooped all the major critics even getting a good chunk of the 2nd tier critics who are usually not that forthcoming with foreign performances. Portman still won a great deal of critic awards though some of the same she won for "Black Swan", so that BFCA win was seen as the start of her possible sweep. So don't come here saying she was never a front runner. Well, ignoring the fact that Davis is legitimately supporting . . . Much of Portman's narrative to win a second Oscar was based on hype. Early reviews were great out of Venice, the role was baity, and people decided to take individual performance reviews in a vacuum and base their predictions solely on that, without taking into account other mitigating factors, of which there were many. The word "undeniable" was thrown about so often that now it's become a buzzword likely to endure far beyond this Oscar season as a cautionary tale. Those same people who hyped it were also ignoring the fact that the eventual "frontrunner" had a lot more pros in her column than Portman did. It didn't help that Huppert was sucking up a lot of the critical momentum that Portman desperately needed to maintain a profile against Stone. And it's not like Stone wasn't getting great reviews in her own right. Stone was always the frontrunner, especially as her film was always going to play better to the industry prizes than the critical bodies, and La La Land even overperformed in the latter arena. Portman was always going to have a tougher road to a second Oscar than Stone would to her first. Her film isn't as palatable as most biopics, and she's up against a juggernaut film (anchored by a popular young ingenue, no less!). So by that definition, she was never a frontrunner to win, although she was almost assured of a nomination.
|
|
erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Feb 8, 2017 16:02:53 GMT
She had a BFCA and that's pretty much it. She also badmouthed the Oscars in the past, calling them a "false idol." Huppert won the most important critics' awards, and then the Globe which by all accounts should have been Portman's. And then Emma Stone beat her at SAG, and that's that. She was never the frontrunner at any point in the season. That's just something her fans made up. (Not that they're saying it in this thread.) Gurl, before the critic awards started Portman and Stone were seen as the front runners, why do you think Davis went supporting, because both their buzz was to the stratosphere. Both actresses seemed unstoppable, but Huppert came in a swooped all the major critics even getting a good chunk of the 2nd tier critics who are usually not that forthcoming with foreign performances. Portman still won a great deal of critic awards though some of the same she won for "Black Swan", so that BFCA win was seen as the start of her possible sweep. So don't come here saying she was never a front runner. It's impossible for there to be two frontrunners, since by definition There Can Be Only One. Just ask Highlander. Paramount pushing Davis supporting made sense, since they already had Meryl Streep to place in lead and it's silly to campaign for two actresses in one category when you can put them into different ones. Just as it wouldn't have made sense to put both Hugh Grant and Denzel Washington in lead, even though Grant got snubbed. And based on what you said, if Huppert won the major critics' awards and even the second tier ones, then she was the frontrunner over Portman. The BFCA is the least relevant of the televised precursors, especially since it was early in December this year. So yes, I can confidently say that Portman was never the frontrunner.
|
|
|
Post by dmitriyuriev on Feb 8, 2017 16:05:40 GMT
Gurl, before the critic awards started Portman and Stone were seen as the front runners, why do you think Davis went supporting, because both their buzz was to the stratosphere. Both actresses seemed unstoppable, but Huppert came in a swooped all the major critics even getting a good chunk of the 2nd tier critics who are usually not that forthcoming with foreign performances. Portman still won a great deal of critic awards though some of the same she won for "Black Swan", so that BFCA win was seen as the start of her possible sweep. So don't come here saying she was never a front runner. Well, ignoring the fact that Davis is legitimately supporting . . . Much of Portman's narrative to win a second Oscar was based on hype. Early reviews were great out of Venice, the role was baity, and people decided to take individual performance reviews in a vacuum and base their predictions solely on that, without taking into account other mitigating factors, of which there were many. The word "undeniable" was thrown about so often that now it's become a buzzword likely to endure far beyond this Oscar season as a cautionary tale. Those same people who hyped it were also ignoring the fact that the eventual "frontrunner" had a lot more pros in her column than Portman did. It didn't help that Huppert was sucking up a lot of the critical momentum that Portman desperately needed to maintain a profile against Stone. And it's not like Stone wasn't getting great reviews in her own right. Stone was always the frontrunner, especially as her film was always going to play better to the industry prizes than the critical bodies, and La La Land even overperformed in the latter arena. Portman was always going to have a tougher road to a second Oscar than Stone would to her first. Her film isn't as palatable as most biopics, and she's up against a juggernaut film (anchored by a popular young ingenue, no less!). So by that definition, she was never a frontrunner to win, although she was almost assured of a nomination. How revisionist of people, either way Davis role was large enough to have frauded herself in lead. I mean if Streep can do it for her supporting roles, why couldn't Davis?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 8, 2017 16:07:59 GMT
Well, ignoring the fact that Davis is legitimately supporting . . . Much of Portman's narrative to win a second Oscar was based on hype. Early reviews were great out of Venice, the role was baity, and people decided to take individual performance reviews in a vacuum and base their predictions solely on that, without taking into account other mitigating factors, of which there were many. The word "undeniable" was thrown about so often that now it's become a buzzword likely to endure far beyond this Oscar season as a cautionary tale. Those same people who hyped it were also ignoring the fact that the eventual "frontrunner" had a lot more pros in her column than Portman did. It didn't help that Huppert was sucking up a lot of the critical momentum that Portman desperately needed to maintain a profile against Stone. And it's not like Stone wasn't getting great reviews in her own right. Stone was always the frontrunner, especially as her film was always going to play better to the industry prizes than the critical bodies, and La La Land even overperformed in the latter arena. Portman was always going to have a tougher road to a second Oscar than Stone would to her first. Her film isn't as palatable as most biopics, and she's up against a juggernaut film (anchored by a popular young ingenue, no less!). So by that definition, she was never a frontrunner to win, although she was almost assured of a nomination. How revisionist of people, either way Davis role was large enough to have frauded herself in lead. I mean if Streep can do it for her supporting roles, why couldn't Davis? She could run lead if she wanted to, but much of that discussion was before the film had even been screened. People were making assumptions that because she had won the Leading Tony (which has nothing to do with stage-time but rather billing), her role was automatically lead.
|
|
erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Feb 8, 2017 16:22:55 GMT
Well, ignoring the fact that Davis is legitimately supporting . . . Much of Portman's narrative to win a second Oscar was based on hype. Early reviews were great out of Venice, the role was baity, and people decided to take individual performance reviews in a vacuum and base their predictions solely on that, without taking into account other mitigating factors, of which there were many. The word "undeniable" was thrown about so often that now it's become a buzzword likely to endure far beyond this Oscar season as a cautionary tale. Those same people who hyped it were also ignoring the fact that the eventual "frontrunner" had a lot more pros in her column than Portman did. It didn't help that Huppert was sucking up a lot of the critical momentum that Portman desperately needed to maintain a profile against Stone. And it's not like Stone wasn't getting great reviews in her own right. Stone was always the frontrunner, especially as her film was always going to play better to the industry prizes than the critical bodies, and La La Land even overperformed in the latter arena. Portman was always going to have a tougher road to a second Oscar than Stone would to her first. Her film isn't as palatable as most biopics, and she's up against a juggernaut film (anchored by a popular young ingenue, no less!). So by that definition, she was never a frontrunner to win, although she was almost assured of a nomination. How revisionist of people, either way Davis role was large enough to have frauded herself in lead. I mean if Streep can do it for her supporting roles, why couldn't Davis? Not sure if you read my reply, but Paramount was handling both Streep and Davis. It makes sense to put two probable candidates in two different categories, rather than have them compete for a slot in lead actress.
|
|
Drish
Badass
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 1,752
|
Post by Drish on Feb 8, 2017 16:29:38 GMT
I'm a huge Stone supporter but part of me wants Natalie to win just to see the reactions.
|
|