|
|
Post by michael128 on Sept 7, 2021 17:53:50 GMT
Would she still be a 3 time Oscar winner by now?
Obviously, it could have changed what roles she chose, but all else being equal, what do you think would have happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 7, 2021 18:06:25 GMT
Couldn't imagine her winning any of her other nominations post-Iron Lady, but then I can't imagine her winning for that performance either so I don't know. She definitely wouldn't have beaten Blanchett in 2013 in any universe, and none of the other noms have the baitiness/showiness of Thatcher except maaaaaybe Florence Foster Jenkins (?) I guess she possibly could've won for that. The Post was her best perf from this last decade but it's more reserved compared to her other nominated stuff so I couldn't imagine that beating out McDormand or presumably Ronan.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael128 on Sept 7, 2021 18:11:25 GMT
Couldn't imagine her winning any of her other nominations post- Iron Lady, but then I can't imagine her winning for that performance either so I don't know. She definitely wouldn't have beaten Blanchett in 2013 in any universe, and none of the other noms have the baitiness/showiness of Thatcher except maaaaaybe Florence Foster Jenkins (?) I guess she possibly could've won for that. The Post was her best perf from this last decade but it's more reserved compared to her other nominated stuff so I couldn't imagine that beating out McDormand or presumably Ronan. I don't even want to imagine living in a world where Meryl Streep only has 2 Oscars. Hell, I can barely function on a daily basis knowing she only has 3. Homegirl should have at least 20 by now. |
|
|
|
Post by michael128 on Sept 7, 2021 18:13:37 GMT
I think Florence Foster Jenkins would have been her best shot? I don't remember Emma Stone being toooo strong a winner. She was also fabulous in FFJ so it would have been deserved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2021 18:14:42 GMT
Maaaaaaaaaaaybe for The Post? Really not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Sept 7, 2021 18:23:41 GMT
I think Florence Foster Jenkins would have been her best shot? I don't remember Emma Stone being toooo strong a winner. She was also fabulous in FFJ so it would have been deserved. I think she was in 2nd place for both Florence and The Post. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 7, 2021 18:25:27 GMT
I really don't think so. No one was beating Blanchett in 2013 or Arquette in 2014, so those are discounted immediately. Similarly, I don't think she could've taken down Emma Stone either in a film that was extremely beloved, versus a performance that barely squeaked in off the back of a well-received Cecil B. DeMille speech. McDormand had extreme respect and The Post undershot expectations, so I can't imagine Streep would've had the muscle to take her down, either. So it's conceivable that if The Iron Lady had failed to secure her that third win, she would still only be a two-time winner.
The question is who she loses to in 2011 in this scenario. Does Viola Davis take her win here, and in doing so, does she wind up delaying any sort of overdue/makeup narrative that helped her take the win for Fences in 2016? Or, if Weinstein doesn't redirect his support to Streep that year, does he back Williams and have her pushed to be his pony, and she takes it in 2011?
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 7, 2021 18:29:08 GMT
I think Florence Foster Jenkins would have been her best shot? I don't remember Emma Stone being toooo strong a winner. She was also fabulous in FFJ so it would have been deserved. I think she was in 2nd place for both Florence and The Post. Really? I think it's hard to say anyone was a close second to either Stone or McDormand, but I think that Huppert/Portman and Ronan/Robbie/Hawkins were ahead of her both years. She got a nice bump the year of her Cecil B. speech, but really, that probably just pushed her into the final lineup rather than notched her up to second. |
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Sept 7, 2021 23:19:53 GMT
Yeah, there's no way Streep was 2nd for either of those films.
|
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Sept 7, 2021 23:20:23 GMT
I really don't think so. No one was beating Blanchett in 2013 or Arquette in 2014, so those are discounted immediately. Similarly, I don't think she could've taken down Emma Stone either in a film that was extremely beloved, versus a performance that barely squeaked in off the back of a well-received Cecil B. DeMille speech. McDormand had extreme respect and The Post undershot expectations, so I can't imagine Streep would've had the muscle to take her down, either. So it's conceivable that if The Iron Lady had failed to secure her that third win, she would still only be a two-time winner. The question is who she loses to in 2011 in this scenario. Does Viola Davis take her win here, and in doing so, does she wind up delaying any sort of overdue/makeup narrative that helped her take the win for Fences in 2016? Or, if Weinstein doesn't redirect his support to Streep that year, does he back Williams and have her pushed to be his pony, and she takes it in 2011? In that scenario, I think Davis becomes the first black actress to win twice. |
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Sept 7, 2021 23:51:36 GMT
I think she was in 2nd place for both Florence and The Post. Really? I think it's hard to say anyone was a close second to either Stone or McDormand, but I think that Huppert/Portman and Ronan/Robbie/Hawkins were ahead of her both years. She got a nice bump the year of her Cecil B. speech, but really, that probably just pushed her into the final lineup rather than notched her up to second. Well, nobody knows for sure but this is my guess. Both roles are bio pic roles. In 2016 - Did enough people see Huppert's movie. I'm going to say no. That leaves three of them and they are all bios. Jackie, probably same thing nobody watched it. That leaves me with Streep and Negga. Ruth barely got in and the movie wasn't nominated. So that's why I lean towards Streep. In 2017 - Not enough saw Margot's movie, so that leaves three with bp nods. Between Ronan and Hawkins, well both seem to get overshadow by something else. Metcalf got better notices than Ronan, so between those two (Ronan and Hawkins) I go with Ronan. So that leaves Ronan and Streep. I lean toward Streep because it's Streep and a bio pic role. Like I said, nobody knows but I could be wrong but I don't underestimate them when it comes to bio roles and Streep. I think she was closer than we give her credit. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 8, 2021 0:06:07 GMT
Really? I think it's hard to say anyone was a close second to either Stone or McDormand, but I think that Huppert/Portman and Ronan/Robbie/Hawkins were ahead of her both years. She got a nice bump the year of her Cecil B. speech, but really, that probably just pushed her into the final lineup rather than notched her up to second. Well, nobody knows for sure but this is my guess. Both roles are bio pic roles. In 2016 - Did enough people see Huppert's movie. I'm going to say no. That leaves three of them and they are all bios. Jackie, probably same thing nobody watched it. That leaves me with Streep and Negga. Ruth barely got in and the movie wasn't nominated. So that's why I lean towards Streep. They saw Elle enough for the notoriously populist HFPA to give her the Globe win over Portman. And she rode a strong wave of passion from cinephiles and people within the industry who were rallying to give her her due. It wasn't enough to take down Stone, who had everything lining up for her, but Huppert was certainly ahead of Streep. And Portman had the biopic angle (which, going from your logic below, would put her in line for it, and the passion was there even if everyone overestimated the fuck out of Jackie). Streep was probably ahead of Negga, but honestly, probably not by that much. Hot take: I think Negga was always in; I think Streep knocked out Adams with that Cecil B. speech and surged forward at the prime time, but I think Ruth supporters were always going to get her in off of passion. Plenty saw Margot's movie -- certainly enough to give Janney the win. I, Tonya was probably tenth of that field for Best Picture, too. Ronan was on her third nomination and had a film that was a top five contender. Hawkins was a prior nominee who anchored the eventual Best Picture winner. They would've had more than enough support. Streep was always in the race but to say she was second just because she was in a biopic (despite ignoring that Robbie was as well, and in a film that actually did win a major prize that year and did better in overall nominations than Streep's film despite the Spielberg factor) is a bit iffy to me. |
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,844 
Likes: 1,630
|
Post by flasuss on Sept 8, 2021 1:30:52 GMT
Difficult to say because while she wouldn't have won for any of the roles she was nominated for, it's likely she would have sought a Thatcher-like baity role. Also, Davis would probably win for Fences anyway. Only difference is she would be nominated for Ma Rainey as a clear filler and not seen as a real contender.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Sept 8, 2021 1:50:42 GMT
In 2016 - Did enough people see Huppert's movie. I'm going to say no. That leaves three of them and they are all bios. Jackie, probably same thing nobody watched it. That leaves me with Streep and Negga. Ruth barely got in and the movie wasn't nominated. So that's why I lean towards Streep. In 2017 - Not enough saw Margot's movie, so that leaves three with bp nods. Between Ronan and Hawkins, well both seem to get overshadow by something else. Metcalf got better notices than Ronan, so between those two (Ronan and Hawkins) I go with Ronan. So that leaves Ronan and Streep. I lean toward Streep because it's Streep and a bio pic role. Curious to suggest that films that had more nominations (and in the case of I, Tonya, an above-the-line win) than Streep's films weren't widely seen enough. |
|
