|
Post by Kirk-Picard on Feb 8, 2017 16:32:15 GMT
The odds are against her
|
|
Nyx
New Member
"Destiny is most often met on the road taken to avoid it."
Posts: 63
Likes: 12
|
Post by Nyx on Feb 8, 2017 16:33:06 GMT
I certainly HOPE Natalie Portman will win Best Actress. My heart is saying Portman will win, while my brain is starting to say Emma Stone will win. Honestly, if Portman doesn't win, I'd much rather see Isabelle Huppert win instead.
|
|
|
Post by dmitriyuriev on Feb 8, 2017 16:33:40 GMT
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. The ultimate decision went with Davis, she was the one who chose to go supporting in the end, Denzel did not agree from that interview he gave a few weeks back. PS - Paramount also had Adams,
|
|
jamesh5
Junior Member
IMDb profile: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur24556707/
Posts: 259
Likes: 55
|
Post by jamesh5 on Feb 8, 2017 16:40:39 GMT
I'm a huge Stone supporter but part of me wants Natalie to win just to see the reactions.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 9, 2017 1:37:37 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. 11/16 last BAFTA Best Actress winners have gone on to win the Oscar. In 4/5 cases, the Oscar winner wasn't eligible for the BAFTA that season or the screeners came in too late. Riva winning over Lawrence is the only example of an Oscar winner after failing to win the BAFTA, and Riva wasn't even up for the SAG. If Portman wins the BAFTA, it will be a toss-up between the her and Stone. No idea why we're discounting Portman here. Last season, I got slammed for predicting Rylance for Best Supporting Actor. At the moment, I would say it's between Portman, Hubbert, and Stone. Stone winning the BAFTA would secure the win.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 9, 2017 2:00:23 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. 11/16 last BAFTA Best Actress winners have gone on to win the Oscar. In 4/5 cases, the Oscar winner wasn't eligible for the BAFTA that season or the screeners came in too late. Riva winning over Lawrence is the only example of an Oscar winner after failing to win the BAFTA, and Riva wasn't even up for the SAG. If Portman wins the BAFTA, it will be a toss-up between the her and Stone. No idea why we're discounting Portman here. Last season, I got slammed for predicting Rylance for Best Supporting Actor. At the moment, I would say it's between Portman, Hubbert, and Stone. Stone winning the BAFTA would secure the win. 12 of the last 16 SAG Best Actress winners have gone on to win the Oscar, so it's still a better precursor than BAFTA.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,830
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Feb 9, 2017 2:02:43 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.) Yeah, I never believed that Portman was going to win. There was just no narrative, and Huppert won most of the main critic awards anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 9, 2017 2:09:32 GMT
11/16 last BAFTA Best Actress winners have gone on to win the Oscar. In 4/5 cases, the Oscar winner wasn't eligible for the BAFTA that season or the screeners came in too late. Riva winning over Lawrence is the only example of an Oscar winner after failing to win the BAFTA, and Riva wasn't even up for the SAG. If Portman wins the BAFTA, it will be a toss-up between the her and Stone. No idea why we're discounting Portman here. Last season, I got slammed for predicting Rylance for Best Supporting Actor. At the moment, I would say it's between Portman, Hubbert, and Stone. Stone winning the BAFTA would secure the win. 12 of the last 16 SAG Best Actress winners have gone on to win the Oscar, so it's still a better precursor than BAFTA. Not really. The only real "miss" is Riva over Lawrence. The other failures to match occurred when the film wasn't eligible for the BAFTA that season. Stone is leading at the MOMENT, but a Portman win at the BAFTAs, would make it a race. I don't think any honest person can deny that fact.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 9, 2017 2:12:38 GMT
12 of the last 16 SAG Best Actress winners have gone on to win the Oscar, so it's still a better precursor than BAFTA. Not really. The only real "miss" is Riva over Lawrence. The other failures to match occurred when the film wasn't eligible for the BAFTA that season. Stone is leading at the MOMENT, but a Portman win at the BAFTAs, would make it a race. I don't think any honest person can deny that fact. I don't think anyone would deny that, but I don't think anyone can say that BAFTA+BFCA > SAG/Globe. Stone would still be ahead.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 9, 2017 2:24:35 GMT
Not really. The only real "miss" is Riva over Lawrence. The other failures to match occurred when the film wasn't eligible for the BAFTA that season. Stone is leading at the MOMENT, but a Portman win at the BAFTAs, would make it a race. I don't think any honest person can deny that fact. I don't think anyone would deny that, but I don't think anyone can say that BAFTA+BFCA > SAG/Globe. Stone would still be ahead. Why would Stone still be ahead? Stone has only 4 critics circle awards. Portman has 11 wins. Stone won for Comedy/Musical at the Globes. Her only competition was Streep. She never faced off against Portman. If Portman wins the BAFTA, she would have beaten Stone twice in the head-to-head match-ups. The Academy LOVES honoring performances where the actor plays a real-life figure. Jackie Kennedy was an American Icon. Stone is playing a struggle actress, which is not much of a stretch. She doesn't play a character with a disability or anything like that. It's purely, "Stone can sing and dance" type of thing. That didn't work for Zellwegger in 2002. Kidman beat her out, despite winning the SAG. It's perfectly within the Academy's wheelhouse to honor Portman here. A Portman BAFTA win, would make it a race.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 9, 2017 2:36:44 GMT
I don't think anyone would deny that, but I don't think anyone can say that BAFTA+BFCA > SAG/Globe. Stone would still be ahead. Why would Stone still be ahead? Stone has only 4 critics circle awards. Portman has 11 wins. Stone won for Comedy/Musical at the Globes. Her only competition was Streep. She never faced off against Portman. If Portman wins the BAFTA, she would have beaten Stone twice in the head-to-head match-ups. The Academy LOVES honoring performances where the actor plays a real-life figure. Jackie Kennedy was an American Icon. Stone is playing a struggle actress, which is not much of a stretch. She doesn't play a character with a disability or anything like that. It's purely, "Stone can sing and dance" type of thing. That didn't work for Zellwegger in 2002. Kidman beat her out, despite winning the SAG. It's perfectly within the Academy's wheelhouse to honor Portman here. A Portman BAFTA win, would make it a race. Critics' awards don't mean spit. The only ones that have any real bearing are the big three (NYFCC, LAFCA, BSFC), all of which Huppert took. BFCA is generally agreed upon to be the weakest "major" precursor. Stone beat Portman for the SAG, which is pound for pound the most important precursor there is for an actor. Yes, people have won the Academy Award without taking SAG, and some have won SAG and lost the Oscar, but it doesn't happen a whole lot, and there are generally circumstances in play in the race that would account for such things.
|
|
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 9, 2017 2:52:59 GMT
I don't think anyone would deny that, but I don't think anyone can say that BAFTA+BFCA > SAG/Globe. Stone would still be ahead. Why would Stone still be ahead? Stone has only 4 critics circle awards. Portman has 11 wins. Stone won for Comedy/Musical at the Globes. Her only competition was Streep. She never faced off against Portman. If Portman wins the BAFTA, she would have beaten Stone twice in the head-to-head match-ups. The Academy LOVES honoring performances where the actor plays a real-life figure. Jackie Kennedy was an American Icon. Stone is playing a struggle actress, which is not much of a stretch. She doesn't play a character with a disability or anything like that. It's purely, "Stone can sing and dance" type of thing. That didn't work for Zellwegger in 2002. Kidman beat her out, despite winning the SAG. It's perfectly within the Academy's wheelhouse to honor Portman here. A Portman BAFTA win, would make it a race. Critics circle awards aren't a factor at this point in the race. Stone didn't need them to win the two most important industry precursors so far and establish herself as the frontrunner (and it's not like Portman won any of the major ones). Stone won for Comedy/Musical because that's exactly what her film is. To discount that as a big win for her doesn't make sense, given that (1) Portman herself couldn't win Drama even without Stone to contend with, and (2) La La Land was such a gigantic, historical smash with the Globes that there's a good chance it would still have won Best Actress even if there was only one category. The BFCA is nowhere near as relevant as SAG. The fact that Portman would have beat Stone in more awards shows should she win BAFTA (which she hasn't yet, so we're talking only about hypotheticals here) doesn't mean much when one of them has zero Oscar overlap and she lost the one that matters most and has the most correlation with the Academy's choices. The argument that Portman's role caters more to the industry's sensibilities matters very little this far in the race because... well, the industry is showing no signs of responding very strongly to it at all. It'd be one thing if this was November, but it's mid-February. Jackie just never really caught on, while La La Land did. It's as simple as that. The whole "Stone's role isn't a stretch/Portman is better" argument strikes me as pure bias, and a complete misreading of the race and the outpouring of love that Stone is getting at the televised awards. The industry is embracing this performance, regardless of what we think of it. Consider the standing ovation she got at SAG. Stretch or not, the support is clearly there. As for the 2002 comparison: make Kidman a previous Oscar winner and remove 6 of her film's nominatins including Picture, Director and Screenplay. I don't think we'd get the same result. A BAFTA win for Portman would put her back in the race, but as runner-up at best (if that).
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 9, 2017 3:04:51 GMT
Critics' awards don't mean spit. The only ones that have any real bearing are the big three (NYFCC, LAFCA, BSFC), all of which Huppert took. BFCA is generally agreed upon to be the weakest "major" precursor. Stone beat Portman for the SAG, which is pound for pound the most important precursor there is for an actor. Yes, people have won the Academy Award without taking SAG, and some have won SAG and lost the Oscar, but it doesn't happen a whole lot, and there are generally circumstances in play in the race that would account for such things. The SAG and the BAFTA are the most important, because those actually HAVE Academy members. One cannot logically argue that we SHOULD discount the power of the BAFTA. They are pretty darn accurate, especially in seasons where all the Oscar contenders are eligible. If we're going to start picking and choosing which critics groups matter, why doesn't Chicago or Washington D.C matter? Kansas City film critics are one of the oldest film critics groups. Again, I am not seeing how the BAFTA Best Actress winner is irrelevant here. A Portman win would make it a toss-up. Just my view.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 9, 2017 3:13:08 GMT
Stone won for Comedy/Musical because that's exactly what her film is. To discount that as a big win for her doesn't make sense, given that (1) Portman herself couldn't win Drama even without Stone to contend with, and (2) La La Land was such a gigantic, historical smash with the Globes that there's a good chance it would still have won Best Actress even if there was only one category. The BFCA is nowhere near as relevant as SAG. The fact that Portman would have beat Stone in more awards shows should she win BAFTA (which she hasn't yet, so we're talking only about hypotheticals here) doesn't mean much when one of them has zero Oscar overlap and she lost the one that matters most and has the most correlation with the Academy's choices. The argument that Portman's role caters more to the industry's sensibilities matters very little this far in the race because... well, the industry is showing no signs of responding very strongly to it at all. It'd be one thing if this was November, but it's mid-February. Jackie just never really caught on, while La La Land did. It's as simple as that. The whole "Stone's role isn't a stretch/Portman is better" argument strikes me as pure bias, and a complete misreading of the race and the outpouring of love that Stone is getting at the televised awards. The industry is embracing this performance, regardless of what we think of it. Consider the standing ovation she got at SAG. Stretch or not, the support is clearly there. As for the 2002 comparison: make Kidman a previous Oscar winner and remove 6 of her film's nominatins including Picture, Director and Screenplay. I don't think we'd get the same result. A BAFTA win for Portman would put her back in the race, but as runner-up at best (if that). I am not discounting Stone's Globe win, but lets face it, if Portman wins here, Portman would have more head-to-head match-up wins than Stone. The ONLY industry award given out was the SAG awards. The other big industry award is the BAFTAs. All what I am saying here is we have an ACTUAL race, if Portman wins the BAFTA. The BAFTAs have been pretty accurate, when it comes to predicting the Oscar. Dismissing them is foolish. Did you predict Bening over Swank in 1999? Did you predict Zellwegger over Kidman in 2002? How about Davis over Streep?
|
|
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 9, 2017 3:42:02 GMT
Stone won for Comedy/Musical because that's exactly what her film is. To discount that as a big win for her doesn't make sense, given that (1) Portman herself couldn't win Drama even without Stone to contend with, and (2) La La Land was such a gigantic, historical smash with the Globes that there's a good chance it would still have won Best Actress even if there was only one category. The BFCA is nowhere near as relevant as SAG. The fact that Portman would have beat Stone in more awards shows should she win BAFTA (which she hasn't yet, so we're talking only about hypotheticals here) doesn't mean much when one of them has zero Oscar overlap and she lost the one that matters most and has the most correlation with the Academy's choices. The argument that Portman's role caters more to the industry's sensibilities matters very little this far in the race because... well, the industry is showing no signs of responding very strongly to it at all. It'd be one thing if this was November, but it's mid-February. Jackie just never really caught on, while La La Land did. It's as simple as that. The whole "Stone's role isn't a stretch/Portman is better" argument strikes me as pure bias, and a complete misreading of the race and the outpouring of love that Stone is getting at the televised awards. The industry is embracing this performance, regardless of what we think of it. Consider the standing ovation she got at SAG. Stretch or not, the support is clearly there. As for the 2002 comparison: make Kidman a previous Oscar winner and remove 6 of her film's nominatins including Picture, Director and Screenplay. I don't think we'd get the same result. A BAFTA win for Portman would put her back in the race, but as runner-up at best (if that). I am not discounting Stone's Globe win, but lets face it, if Portman wins here, Portman would have more head-to-head match-up wins than Stone. The ONLY industry award given out was the SAG awards. The other big industry award is the BAFTAs. All what I am saying here is we have an ACTUAL race, if Portman wins the BAFTA. The BAFTAs have been pretty accurate, when it comes to predicting the Oscar. Dismissing them is foolish. Did you predict Bening over Swank in 1999? Did you predict Zellwegger over Kidman in 2002? How about Davis over Streep? Yes, Portman would have more head-to-head wins, but out of the two industry awards, Stone would have the most important one. That's my point. I'm not dismissing BAFTA, just pointing out that Stone has so much momentum right now and has such a sweeper of a film that she'll stay out in front even if she loses there. It'd be a race, sure (and I'd expect to see loads of people switching back to Portman), but a three-woman one at that, given Huppert's completely unexpected success. I didn't predict Bening or Zellweger because I was 4 and 7, respectively. And I don't remember who I predicted back in 2011, to tell you the truth, but I did think Streep was in it to win it because she had a killer narrative. I reckon that having won so recently is what sets Portman apart from Streep/Kidman/Swank, and will ultimately prevent her from having the same success they did.
|
|
|
Post by dmitriyuriev on Feb 9, 2017 6:12:16 GMT
I don't think anyone would deny that, but I don't think anyone can say that BAFTA+BFCA > SAG/Globe. Stone would still be ahead. Why would Stone still be ahead? Stone has only 4 critics circle awards. Portman has 11 wins. Stone won for Comedy/Musical at the Globes. Her only competition was Streep. She never faced off against Portman. If Portman wins the BAFTA, she would have beaten Stone twice in the head-to-head match-ups. The Academy LOVES honoring performances where the actor plays a real-life figure. Jackie Kennedy was an American Icon. Stone is playing a struggle actress, which is not much of a stretch. She doesn't play a character with a disability or anything like that. It's purely, "Stone can sing and dance" type of thing. That didn't work for Zellwegger in 2002. Kidman beat her out, despite winning the SAG. It's perfectly within the Academy's wheelhouse to honor Portman here. A Portman BAFTA win, would make it a race. Sadly Portman's film is unconventional, its moody and atmospheric, while Stone is in a film they really really really love. Yes I know that Bette Davis and Kate Winslet didn't win when their films had 14 noms, but neither of them had won the Globe, it would have been Davis 3rd too. Another thing that hurt Portman is that she's a previous winner, had she not won for "Black Swan" she would have been a stronger contender right now.
|
|
sikri06
New Member
Posts: 22
Likes: 4
|
Post by sikri06 on Feb 9, 2017 10:56:27 GMT
She's probably 3rd at this point behind Stone and Huppert.
|
|
bh90210
New Member
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
|
Post by bh90210 on Feb 9, 2017 15:42:07 GMT
I am!
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Feb 9, 2017 15:44:04 GMT
I'm sure people are still predicting Portman. We have a ton of delusional fans and idiots here.
|
|
|
Post by Kirk-Picard on Feb 9, 2017 18:13:36 GMT
I'm sure people are still predicting Portman. We have a ton of delusional fans and idiots here. Lol,she gave an incredible performance.Even if her chances of winning are slim,people predicting her are not delusional.Bigger upsets have happened over the years
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Feb 9, 2017 19:59:22 GMT
No.
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Feb 9, 2017 20:57:31 GMT
Nope. That's so last December.
|
|
rhodoraonline
Badass
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 504
|
Post by rhodoraonline on Feb 9, 2017 22:40:00 GMT
I was hoping for her, but after seeing Jackie today, it seems less likely to me. Many will see it as too mannered. Huppert seems more likely than her at this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 17:49:20 GMT
It would be a most deserving upset if she won, but no one seems to care this year, it's Emma Stone and La La Land all the way, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by scorpio68 on Feb 14, 2017 8:07:41 GMT
Early on it seemed Portman was going to almost have a Blanchett-Blue Jasmine triumphant parade ride through awards season, but it was derailed by Huppert's surprise Globes win - as it turned out, Emma Stone's wins at the SAG and now BAFTA make her the favorite now, no question
|
|