sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,784
Likes: 4,917
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Feb 17, 2022 1:53:43 GMT
Guess Amazon Prime trying to make a play to get Denzel in one of their original movies
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 17, 2022 8:41:49 GMT
Guess Amazon Prime trying to make a play to get Denzel in one of their original movies It's fitting that Denzel followed Marlon Brando's footsteps to become only the 2nd American actor to be nominated for an Oscar for a Shakespearian performance. The guy was widely perceived by many as the 20th Century acting GOAT, and now it's arguably Denzel for the 21st century who is now in Brando's position. Good symmetry in their Oscar records also (9 acting nods, 2 wins each). Though Washington will obviously overtake Brando's Oscar numbers.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Feb 17, 2022 10:08:20 GMT
Brando has 8 acting nominations, he already surpassed him.
1. Jack Nicholson (12) 2. Laurence Olivier (10) 3. Denzel Washington (9) 4. Al Pacino (9) 5. Paul Newman (9) 6. Spencer Tracy (9) 7. Marlon Brando (8)
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 17, 2022 10:14:27 GMT
Brando has 8 acting nominations, he already surpassed him. 1. Jack Nicholson (12) 2. Laurence Olivier (10) 3. Denzel Washington (9) 4. Al Pacino (9) 5. Paul Newman (9) 6. Spencer Tracy (9) 7. Marlon Brando (8) Good catch. Not sure why I thought Brando was on 9 nominations. I guess Denzel's next target will be overtaking Olivier.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 17, 2022 11:11:03 GMT
Brando has 8 acting nominations, he already surpassed him. 1. Jack Nicholson (12) 2. Laurence Olivier (10) 3. Denzel Washington (9) 4. Al Pacino (9) 5. Paul Newman (9) 6. Spencer Tracy (9) 7. Marlon Brando (8) Denzel's "problem"- it's not an actual problem - his numbers speak for themselves and they're great numbers - and he had a triumphant year - but for lack of a better word "problem" will do - is that he has no "clear" unique qualifier to be lumped in with Brando or others to me. He didn't do it first , he isn't the most Oscar nominated actor, he isn't the most Oscar winning actor, He is isn't the most Triple Crown winning actor - something you can point to like that etc.
Brando of course got 8 in less films..... but Brando also won 3 BAFTA and was nodded 8 times for BAFTA and Brando is in 3 or 4 of the 100 greatest American movies ever made by consensus. Washington can't match that - not even close.....not even .............any of either of those. Oscar nominations are great but when you live by them "by themselves" you also die by them too - someone will always surpass you or be ahead of you - which is fine it's not a sporting event that you can just measure like that obviously. * Tbh I wouldn't be surprised if Washington tries for a 2nd Tony more than stuff in movies - only 1 guy has won 2 Tony's and 2 Oscars - Fredric March .......if he had that too - he could say well Nicholson doesn't have that (most Oscar nods). Pacino doesn't have it (most Triple Crown wins), Day Lewis doesn't have that (3 Best Actor Oscar wins), Brando and Olivier wouldn't have the advantage of "breaking the mold" etc. There's a "best living actor"........"best working actor"..........."best of your generation actor".........." best ever actor"........and while it's all matter of opinion anyway - the qualification criteria for "best ever" are a whole lot higher ......
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 17, 2022 11:45:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 18, 2022 14:08:18 GMT
Anyway, as much regard as I have for Brando's talent, Denzel is just as talented as him, but also far more disciplined and with a much stronger work ethic. For me, Denzel has long been a greater actor than Brando, but it's interesting to see the rest of the world catching up. As Christopher Reeve rightly pointed out, Brando was lazy and became a "sacred cow " that critics would praise whether he was good, bad or indifferent. Reeveswasn't remotely impressed by working with Brando, because he found him lazy and essentially overrated.
Brando had some extraordinary high points on film (and also a major stage triumph in A Streetcar Named Desire), but honestly, I think Denzel has outstripped him in almost every measure, and he's not done yet. A much more consistent body of film performances , with equally high points or peak level performances . And more accomplished on stage.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 18, 2022 14:22:11 GMT
Olivier is a strange one, because I'm not sure he's a great or natural enough film actor to merit being the 2nd most Oscar nominated male actor in history. His reputation as the most renowned stage actor of his time certainly helped bolster his standing with the film community and AMPAS in his lifetime.
Olivier did some excellent work on film, but his film work is often the least naturalistic and has dated more than many of his less celebrated contemporaries. But, thats how these things often go.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,784
Likes: 4,917
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Feb 18, 2022 15:42:53 GMT
PTA did a recent interview with Eric Kohn of Indiewire and again reiterated Denzel (along with Tiffany Haddish) is at the top of his list of actors he wants to work with: Will Denzel be in PTA's next project? Not sure, but if its ever announced its going to be an event for sure. Hopefully he gives him a role as rich as Daniel Planview in There Will Be Blood or Freddie Quell in The Master. Here's the full interview: www.indiewire.com/2022/02/paul-thomas-anderson-interview-licorice-pizza-theaters-1234700592/
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 20, 2022 4:24:16 GMT
It's quite amazing how iconic Man On Fire (and Denzel's performance in it) ended up becoming, considering the poor critical reception it received. Now you got actors quoting his lines from the film on the Academy Awards Twitter page. Wish the great Tony Scott were still around to see how beloved that film continued to be. I feel like that film has aged better and maintained more relevance than most of the Best Picture nominated films that year (ie Finding Neverland, Sideways, Million Dollar Baby etc).
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,784
Likes: 4,917
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Feb 20, 2022 6:31:20 GMT
It's quite amazing how iconic Man On Fire (and Denzel's performance in it) ended up becoming, considering the poor critical reception it received. Now you got actors quoting his lines from the film on the Academy Awards Twitter page. Wish the great Tony Scott were still around to see how beloved that film continued to be. I feel like that film has aged better and maintained more relevance than most of the Best Picture nominated films that year (ie Finding Neverland, Sideways, Million Dollar Baby etc). Here’s a hot take: I argue Tony was a more naturally gifted filmmaker than Ridley is, with how he totally revamped his filmmaking style starting with Man on Fire in 2004 in a very innovative way with his camera and editing tricks. Also underrated as a storyteller and working with actors.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Feb 20, 2022 13:22:09 GMT
I don't think Tony's highs were high enough to say he's more gifted than Ridley. Gladiator? Alien? Blade Runner? Thelma & Louise? Tony was better at a sort of more modest genre picture, really embuing it with energy and craft, but he never really made cinematic astonishments.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Feb 20, 2022 13:23:49 GMT
Top Gun Beverly Hills Cop 2 Days of Thunder True Romance Crimson Tide Man on Fire Domino Unstoppable
Tony Scott should be considered as one of the GOATs of action filmmaking, or even filmmaking in general.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 20, 2022 13:26:36 GMT
Man On Fire is not good - when I say Denzel is overrated at "the highest level" it's things like that specifically that I mean tbh - also Tony Scott God Bless him could never carry Ridley's coat ....... Ridley has multiple classics across several genres .......come on.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Feb 20, 2022 13:42:13 GMT
Tony was more consistent because he knew his lane, so to speak. He was good at what he did and he stuck with it. Whenever I pop in a Tony flick I basically know what I'm gonna get. And I enjoy that comfort. But even if Ridley is a bit all over the place (kinda like this thread is now ) as far as the quality of his stuff is concerned, the width of his interests is definitely more interesting to me. And his highs are just insanely higher.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 20, 2022 14:14:20 GMT
Tony was more consistent because he knew his lane, so to speak. He was good at what he did and he stuck with it. Whenever I pop in a Tony flick I basically know what I'm gonna get. And I enjoy that comfort. But even if Ridley is a bit all over the place (kinda like this thread is now ) as far as the quality of his stuff is concerned, the width of his interests is definitely more interesting to me. And his highs are just insanely higher. Ironically, your description of Tony makes him more of an auteur than Ridley. Tony had very specific tastes and interests and didn't really deviate from them. Ridley covered a wider range of stuff, but there's really no thematic consistency in his work. What is a "Ridley Scott" film? It's all over the map. You know there will be first rate cinematography and production design, but it doesn't often feel like he has a strong personal attachment to what he makes. Ridley is a "shooter". A great visualist and craftsman who is often as good as the script he is working with. Tony is the auteur in the family. There is a consistent throughline in everything he does, including his experimentation with editing and visual techniques.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,784
Likes: 4,917
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Feb 20, 2022 14:29:43 GMT
I don't think Tony's highs were high enough to say he's more gifted than Ridley. Gladiator? Alien? Blade Runner? Thelma & Louise? Tony was better at a sort of more modest genre picture, really embuing it with energy and craft, but he never really made cinematic astonishments. Oh of course Ridley had higher peaks specifically with those 4 masterpieces you named. But just in terms of craft of what they could do with a camera and editing tricks, I think Tony takes it imo. Maybe more naturally gifted craftsmen in those aspects would’ve been more accurate and specific than overall filmmaking, because obviously there’s other aspects (set design, sound, etc.). You would look at Tony’s films in the 80s-mid 90s and then his films in the late 90s-2010 and think they were done by two different filmmakers. Really reinvented his visual and editing style as he evolved in his career and tried new things behind the camera. Hugely influential as well, he helped invent the visual vocabulary of the modern American action film…fast paced, adrenaline driven he’s been missed in the action/thriller genre since his unfortunate passing. Ridley was more versatile in regards in working in different genres but Tony was such a master in the big budget action/thriller films and was superior in making great action set pieces. Really a one-in-one..and most definitely an auteur. Plus I just find his overall filmography more enjoyably rewatchable imo.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Feb 20, 2022 15:01:19 GMT
Tony was more consistent because he knew his lane, so to speak. He was good at what he did and he stuck with it. Whenever I pop in a Tony flick I basically know what I'm gonna get. And I enjoy that comfort. But even if Ridley is a bit all over the place (kinda like this thread is now ) as far as the quality of his stuff is concerned, the width of his interests is definitely more interesting to me. And his highs are just insanely higher. Ironically, your description of Tony makes him more of an auteur than Ridley. Tony had very specific tastes and interests and didn't really deviate from them. Ridley covered a wider range of stuff, but there's really no thematic consistency in his work. What is a "Ridley Scott" film? It's all over the map. You know there will be first rate cinematography and production design, but it doesn't often feel like he has a strong personal attachment to what he makes. Ridley is a "shooter". A great visualist and craftsman who is often as good as the script he is working with. Tony is the auteur in the family. There is a consistent throughline in everything he does, including his experimentation with editing and visual techniques. Can't say I disagree with that, yeah. Tony's certainly someone with a clearer vision. A thematic throughline between the movies isn't that important to me when it comes to deciding who's an auteur and who's not but the approach to direction, to the visuals and to the presentation of the material very much is, and Tony's definitely a director who showcased more of that between the two. You watch his movies and you just see him there. Obviously you don't have to love what you're seeing (I personally think he was a good director but not too much more than that) but you gotta admit that what you're seeing has a signature. Which isn't quite the case with Ridley who's indeed an excellent craftsman but not somebody with a ton of trademarks. One could describe him as a chameleon and that'd be valid but I wish there was a bit more of a consistent directorial hand there, especially now with him shooting digitally and not being as visually expressive as he used to be.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 21, 2022 0:53:40 GMT
Denzel has now been Oscar nominated in 5 different decades, joining Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep, Laurence Olivier, Michael Caine, Katherine Hepburn, Paul Newman and Frances McDormand as the only other performers to achieve that distinction. You might be right in him being the face (or one of the major faces) of Shakespeare on film for future generations. Can definitely see English teachers playing the movie for their students for years to come. Hmm....youngsters seem to really be responding to The Tragedy Of Macbeth in schools. Looks like it will become the new go-to traditional Shakespeare adaptation to teach with. According to this, a group of school kids in the UK broke out into applause after a screening.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 21, 2022 1:13:04 GMT
I don't think Tony's highs were high enough to say he's more gifted than Ridley. Gladiator? Alien? Blade Runner? Thelma & Louise? Tony was better at a sort of more modest genre picture, really embuing it with energy and craft, but he never really made cinematic astonishments. I dunno if I'd agree with this. Top Gun, even though it's got it's moments of 1980's Americana Cheese, has the most incredible real world ariel flight & dogfights scenes in any film ever. Seriously, nothing before or since matches what Tony Scott shot in that film. It's one of the reasons it remains a classic. It doesn't age from a technical standpoint. How Scott pulled that off, I'll never know. The only ariel dogfight type scenes that come close to Top Gun are in the original Star Wars trilogy , but that's science fiction/fantasy stuff. Top Gun wasn't a modest technical accomplishment. Honestly, Tony could have made Thelma And Louise just as well, if not better than Ridley. True Romance is even better than that film, but the script takes a lot of credit. A lot of top tier Ridley films rely heavily on the script and I think Tony could have shot most of them just as well. I don't think Tony's achievements as a genre filmmaker are "modest " at all. He basically pioneered modern action filmmaking.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,784
Likes: 4,917
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Feb 21, 2022 3:16:05 GMT
You might be right in him being the face (or one of the major faces) of Shakespeare on film for future generations. Can definitely see English teachers playing the movie for their students for years to come. Hmm....youngsters seem to really be responding to The Tragedy Of Macbeth in schools. Looks like it will become the new go-to traditional Shakespeare adaptation to teach with. According to this, a group of school kids in the UK broke out into applause after a screening. The Baz Luhrmann Romeo and Juliet version had a good run.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Feb 22, 2022 0:39:35 GMT
I don't think Tony's highs were high enough to say he's more gifted than Ridley. Gladiator? Alien? Blade Runner? Thelma & Louise? Tony was better at a sort of more modest genre picture, really embuing it with energy and craft, but he never really made cinematic astonishments. I dunno if I'd agree with this. Top Gun, even though it's got it's moments of 1980's Americana Cheese, has the most incredible real world ariel flight & dogfights scenes in any fil m ever. Seriously, nothing before or since matches what Tony Scott shot in that film. It's one of the reasons it remains a classic. It doesn't age from a technical standpoint. How Scott pulled that off, I'll never know. The only ariel dogfight type scenes that come close to Top Gun are in the original Star Wars trilogy , but that's science fiction/fantasy stuff. Top Gun wasn't a modest technical accomplishment. Honestly, Tony could have made Thelma And Louise just as well, if not better than Ridley. True Romance is even better than that film, but the script takes a lot of credit. A lot of top tier Ridley films rely heavily on the script and I think Tony could have shot most of them just as well. I don't think Tony's achievements as a genre filmmaker are "modest " at all. He basically pioneered modern action filmmaking. I mean in the sense of Tony's best films being inherently less ambitious IMO, not that he wasn't brilliant technically or one of the best action filmmakers of all time. I love Top Gun, Unstoppable, Enemy of the State, etc. but it's just not the same caliber movie as a Gladiator to me - the latter is far more conceptually dense - the narrative arc, the scope, the grandeur. I do think Tony was more consistently good than Ridley, though. Ridley has so many movies where he seems checked out. Ridley has more trouble making a "pretty good" movie like Matchstick Men than Tony did.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,784
Likes: 4,917
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Feb 28, 2022 22:41:42 GMT
No wonder Denzel is usually a lock for a nomination with a strong role, especially at this stage of his career.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 1, 2022 0:37:39 GMT
No wonder Denzel is usually a lock for a nomination with a strong role, especially at this stage of his career. That's nuts . The Oscar Social Media Page actually calling him the 🐐 . It's almost like a universally acknowledged thing these days. Yeah, acting nomination #10 is probably in the bag the minute he does something that isn't a complete commercial play like Equalizer 3. Hopefully Paul Thomas Anderson is currently writing Denzel his Daniel Plainview level role, as he claimed doing a project with Denzel is his current obsession. The AMPAS social media page is kinda being low-key disrespectful to some living actors who might have some claim to that title in that debate who are also Oscar titans ( DDL, Pacino etc) , but whatever.lol!
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 1, 2022 1:06:37 GMT
Hmm.... Mr Washington says Shakespeare is the only challenge left in his career. Also gives a shout-out to Mark Rylance as a Shakespearian great by saying seeing Rylance in Twelveth Night showed he didn't have to be overly reverent to traditional iambic pentameter readings when doing Shakespeare (he admits to imitating the verse styling of Laurence Olivier in his first stab at Othello).
www.indiewire.com/2022/02/oscar-contender-denzel-washington-macbeth-shakespeare-1234702913/
|
|