|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 11, 2022 6:40:38 GMT
Conveniently ignoring my mention of John Wayne.
Nobody today thinks he should have beaten Dustin Hoffman or Jon Voight in Midnight Cowboy. Wayne's Oscar is universally regarded as a "career win/make-up win".
Yet he won the biggest "precursor" at the time, the Golden Globe.
If you base it on that, then I suppose you can claim Wayne was always the "frontrunner". Doesn't change the fact that it was a make-up win. Same applies to Pacino.
That's my only point. Claiming Pacino was the "frontrunner" in 92 because he won the Golden Globe and got a few mentions does not stop it from being a make-up win. It doesn't work that way and isn't revisionist history either. The narrative that one of the greatest American actors of his generation had gone 0-7 in his bid for an Oscar win pushed him into a position where he was one of the frontrunners to win (against a far superior all time performance in X). But it's still a pretty clear make-up win to most, like with Wayne winning for his legendary career over better performances.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 11, 2022 7:11:11 GMT
"Claiming Pacino was the "frontrunner" in 92 does not stop it from being a make-up win."
What stops it is Pacino - if he had an Oscar for say The Godfather Part 2 STILL would have won a 2nd Oscar in 1992 imo - he would have just had a different narrative then - Washington was young and had an Oscar - he was never close to actually winning, Eastwood may have been close to winning - but was awarded elsewhere.
It's revisionist history with Pacino to call it a makeup by itself......if the guy with the hit film in '92, who won the Globe, was in a BP nominee, in a year he was double nominated ffs wasn't winning Best Actor .........then who was?
Washington was out (weak-ish box office relative to cost, no major film nod, AND lost the Globe)......Eastwood was probably out because of other ways to award him and had no Acting awards traction, no Globe nod but maybe him - and I'm stretching it.......Stephen Rea - maybe, he had a BP nod but no Globe nod - so highly doubt it...... Robert Downey.......maybe, also highly doubt it, too young, won BAFTA, but no BP, weak box-office, AND lost the Globe.......
..........
That's not Tom Cruise's situation....... this year - at all
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 11, 2022 8:01:42 GMT
"Claiming Pacino was the "frontrunner" in 92 does not stop it from being a make-up win."
What stops it is Pacino - if he had an Oscar for say The Godfather Part 2 STILL would have won a 2nd Oscar in 1992 imo - he would have just had a different narrative then - Washington was young and had an Oscar - he was never close to actually winning, Eastwood may have been close to winning - but was awarded elsewhere.
It's revisionist history with Pacino to call it a makeup by itself......if the guy with the hit film in '92, who won the Globe, was in a BP nominee, in a year he was double nominated ffs wasn't winning Best Actor .........then who was?
Washington was out (weak-ish box office relative to cost, no major film nod, AND lost the Globe)......Eastwood was probably out because of other ways to award him and had no Acting awards traction, no Globe nod but maybe him - and I'm stretching it.......Stephen Rea - maybe, he had a BP nod but no Globe nod - so highly doubt it...... Robert Downey.......maybe, also highly doubt it, too young, won BAFTA, but no BP, weak box-office, AND lost the Globe.......
..........
That's not Tom Cruise's situation....... this year - at allWashington was the frontrunner for the majority of the year/season. He dominated the critics awards in a time when there wasn't a proliferation of them like there is now and no other major industry awards before the Oscars other than the Globes, so each one truly mattered., and winning as many as he did truly made him the guy to beat ( New York Film Critics, Boston Society Of Film Critics, , Chicago Film Critics, Dallas Fort-Worth Film Critics, Kansas Film Critics, South-Eastern Film Critics). He also won the Berlin Silver Bear for Best Actor.
Washington was not "out". He had by far the dominant awards run of any lead actor for 1992. Saying he wasn't close to winning defies reality and logic. Literally the only award Pacino won before the Oscars was the Golden Globe. Washington won 8 major Best Actor Awards to Pacino's 1 before the Oscar ceremony. It's actually revisionism on your part to claim Pacino was "frontrunner" for the whole year. That's absolute nonsense. He won nothing till the Globe and only won the Globe, which is like a month before the Oscars. Washington was the frontrunner till the Globes, then Pacino became his main competition after it. But plenty of people still felt Washington was going to win the Oscar because he had mostly dominated the season till the Globes (again in a time when dominating a critics awards season meant much more because there weren't so many or even other industry awards to look at. No SAG etc ). So he was still arguably the frontrunner going into Oscar night, but his winning wasn't assured. Pacino's threat was late in the game, relatively speaking. And it was heavily based on "it's his time/make-up". The Globes played their part in that narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 11, 2022 8:18:37 GMT
"Claiming Pacino was the "frontrunner" in 92 does not stop it from being a make-up win."
What stops it is Pacino - if he had an Oscar for say The Godfather Part 2 STILL would have won a 2nd Oscar in 1992 imo - he would have just had a different narrative then - Washington was young and had an Oscar - he was never close to actually winning, Eastwood may have been close to winning - but was awarded elsewhere.
It's revisionist history with Pacino to call it a makeup by itself......if the guy with the hit film in '92, who won the Globe, was in a BP nominee, in a year he was double nominated ffs wasn't winning Best Actor .........then who was?
Washington was out (weak-ish box office relative to cost, no major film nod, AND lost the Globe)......Eastwood was probably out because of other ways to award him and had no Acting awards traction, no Globe nod but maybe him - and I'm stretching it.......Stephen Rea - maybe, he had a BP nod but no Globe nod - so highly doubt it...... Robert Downey.......maybe, also highly doubt it, too young, won BAFTA, but no BP, weak box-office, AND lost the Globe.......
..........
That's not Tom Cruise's situation....... this year - at allWashington was the frontrunner for the majority of the year/season. He dominated the critics awards in a time when there wasn't a proliferation of them like there is now and no other major industry awards before the Oscars other than the Globes, so each one truly mattered., and winning as many as he did truly made him the guy to beat ( New York Film Critics, Boston Society Of Film Critics, , Chicago Film Critics, Dallas Fort-Worth Film Critics, Kansas Film Critics, South-Eastern Film Critics). He also won the Berlin Silver Bear for Best Actor.
Washington was not "out". He had by far the dominant awards run of any lead actor for 1992. Not really - there was no awards season really IN 1992 except the Globes and BAFTA - and Washington lost both of those, so - any shot he had was lost .....that's it........and not getting any nods for his film sealed it - at Globes or Oscars......those awards are nice ^ but they weren't precursors the way we think of them now.......he was never at any point close to being the front runner........he won regional critics awards......that's not the same thing...... at all By the night of the 92 Oscars - he was ............out.......it was a different era than 2022 .......don't apply a logic that didn't exist then Anyway let's see how Cruise does ......... |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 11, 2022 8:35:45 GMT
Washington was the frontrunner for the majority of the year/season. He dominated the critics awards in a time when there wasn't a proliferation of them like there is now and no other major industry awards before the Oscars other than the Globes, so each one truly mattered., and winning as many as he did truly made him the guy to beat ( New York Film Critics, Boston Society Of Film Critics, , Chicago Film Critics, Dallas Fort-Worth Film Critics, Kansas Film Critics, South-Eastern Film Critics). He also won the Berlin Silver Bear for Best Actor.
Washington was not "out". He had by far the dominant awards run of any lead actor for 1992. Not really - there was no awards season really IN 1992 except the Globes and BAFTA - and Washington lost both of those, so - any shot he had was lost .....that's it........and not getting any nods for his film sealed it - at Globes or Oscars......those awards are nice ^ but they weren't precursors the way we think of them now.......he was never at any point close to being the front runner........he won regional critics awards......that's not the same thing...... at all By the night of the 92 Oscars - he was ............out.......it was a different era than 2022 .......don't apply a logic that didn't exist then Anyway let's see how Cruise does ......... What are you even talking about  . BAFTA was not an Oscar precursor in 1992. They came after the Oscars then and had zero effect on the race. Oscar Awards Precursor Season back then= Festival Awards + Critics Awards + Globes. It's surprising how much ignorance & misinformation you are displaying in regards to how the Oscar/Awards season has evolved over the years, considering how long you've been following this stuff. The notion that the only award that mattered back then was the Golden Globe is utterly silly. Daniel Day-Lewis won the Oscar for My Left Foot in part because he had a similarly domiman't critics run to Washington. Because DDL lost the Golden Globe to Tom Cruise. Without those Critics wins (NYFCC, NBR etc), DDL doesn't win his first Oscar Again winning all those critics awards (yes, including regionals) back then really mattered in acting races. Less so now (though obviously it still helps) because too many critics groups have diluted the market and there are competing industry precursors like BAFTA (now, not in 1992) and SAG. Less choice back then....Washington dominating the Critics Season in 1992 made him the clear frontrunner for the Best Actor Oscar at least a month before the Oscars, when the Globes took place. In your world, people back in 1992 only seemed to notice anyone was the frontrunner for anything when the Golden Globes took place (which is certainly convenient to frame Pacino as the year long frontrunner and Washington as this distant no-hoper whom nobody expected or thought could or would win  ) |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 11, 2022 8:46:23 GMT
Not really - there was no awards season really IN 1992 except the Globes and BAFTA - and Washington lost both of those, so - any shot he had was lost .....that's it........and not getting any nods for his film sealed it - at Globes or Oscars......those awards are nice ^ but they weren't precursors the way we think of them now.......he was never at any point close to being the front runner........he won regional critics awards......that's not the same thing...... at all By the night of the 92 Oscars - he was ............out.......it was a different era than 2022 .......don't apply a logic that didn't exist then Anyway let's see how Cruise does ......... was not an Oscar precursor in 1992. They came after the Oscars then and had zero effect on the race. Wrong Oscars March 29, BAFTA March 21 - in 1992 - but since Washington was not nodded neither was Pacino or Eastwood - Rea and Downey had some benefit Let's see how Cruise does - thanx |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 11, 2022 9:05:41 GMT
BAFTA was not an Oscar precursor in 1992. They came after the Oscars then and had zero effect on the race. Wrong Oscars March 29, BAFTA March 21 - in 1992 - but since Washington was not nodded neither was Pacino or Eastwood - Rea and Downey had some benefit Let's see how Cruise does - thanxfilm wasn't even eligible for BAFTA consideration ( Malcolm X release date March 05 1993) that season. It didn't affect him or Pacino chances whatsoever (who also wasn't eligible for BAFTA that year). Not that they would definitely have nominated Washington anyway if he was eligible, but they were not a serious precursor because the release schedule for films in the UK and US then were all over the place. More than half the films in any given Oscar season were not eligible for consideration at the BAFTAs till the following year (including Scent Of A Woman, UK release date March 13th). You are smart enough to know that is the point I'm making. You can't be a serious Oscar precursor if most of the films in competition for this year's Oscars, can only be eligible the next year after the Oscars are over for your awards. They only became a real Oscar precursor in 2001, when they allowed limited release eligibility (or eligibility through BAFTA screenings) for all films competing in the following Oscars, so their choices would start to align. That was a deliberate move to position it as an Oscar precursor. Back in 1992, BAFTA did their own thing and Oscar didn't pay it that much attention (especially because they also held their TV awards in the same cermony as the film awards). |
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 11, 2022 9:13:39 GMT
Enough.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,810
Likes: 2,952
|
Post by morton on Dec 18, 2022 6:06:23 GMT
I figured that Austin Butler will sweep the televised awards start, but I was trying to stay in denial a bit more. I give up though, he was a great host tonight on SNL, and I’m not sure how he loses after that episode.
|
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Dec 18, 2022 6:30:40 GMT
He may very well win, but I don't see a SNL monologue having any sort of influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Dec 18, 2022 18:47:13 GMT
He may very well win, but I don't see a SNL monologue having any sort of influence. Not individually, but a few full months of this constant type of campaigning surely will. |
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Dec 18, 2022 20:01:03 GMT
Farrell will win, better performance more range & more overdue. And anyone who says braindead laughably smug twat statements like "no one who works in acting would think Farrell gave a better performance" deserves to have their cock fall off.
Also, if you're gonna have a 2nd ghost username account that just so happens to pathetically & slavishly drool over the same 2 actors you pathetically & slavishly drool over, try not giving away the whole game by having them "like" ALL your idiotic posts.
Pathetic, yet still arrogant enough to still be despicable.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 753
Likes: 390
|
Post by filmnoir on Dec 18, 2022 20:48:46 GMT
I figured that Austin Butler will sweep the televised awards start, but I was trying to stay in denial a bit more. I give up though, he was a great host tonight on SNL, and I’m not sure how he loses after that episode. He can still lose, because of his age and not as well established. Collin Farrell is more poised to win BAFTA. Banshees is a British film and will be a bigger player with Oscar.
Just 2 years ago, Chadwick Boseman was the critics and sentimental favorite, swept the televised awards - until BAFTA. Anthony Hopkins, who did ZERO campaigning, won his 2nd Oscar.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 18, 2022 21:04:00 GMT
I still think it's Farrell's Oscar to lose at this stage. Butler benefits greatly from not having to square off against him at the Globes, so he has the opportunity to give a speech and get some profile, but I do think his age and newcomer status is still going to work against him. The nomination will be the reward, I think. But I think Farrell wins the Globe and the BAFTA (unless there's some fuckery there if nominations). SAG will be his toughest get. That could go to Butler, but I will always opt for Globe + BAFTA over Globe + SAG.
Farrell has the stronger film, a banner year, and a narrative all on his own. He's also cleaning up with the critics more than anyone else (even Quan). That sort of momentum could easily be an omen of things to come with the industry.
Butler wants it, and he's definitely leaning on the "in character as Elvis" bit as much as Gaga was with Patrizia last year, but he's probably a comfortable second place right now to Farrell.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 18, 2022 21:15:53 GMT
There is also another factor imo - other than the fact that Butler's not that good (um, he's not) - in general - people do not like to vote for roles that other actors have played equally or close to equally as well in the past: I know, The Joker is an exception - there are exceptions, yes - but at some point they resist this "repetition" thing and are drawn to a uniquely "stamped" film characterization - unless you have an overwhelming narrative ......or a special film....or both - which Butler doesn't have anyway.....he's 2nd and not only is Farrell smoking him so far so is Fraser a bit too in regional awards - who as much as I hated that movie will make you cry (possibly)......crying goes a long way.....  |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 18, 2022 21:57:46 GMT
I still think it's Farrell's Oscar to lose at this stage. Butler benefits greatly from not having to square off against him at the Globes, so he has the opportunity to give a speech and get some profile, but I do think his age and newcomer status is still going to work against him. The nomination will be the reward, I think. But I think Farrell wins the Globe and the BAFTA (unless there's some fuckery there if nominations). SAG will be his toughest get. That could go to Butler, but I will always opt for Globe + BAFTA over Globe + SAG. Farrell has the stronger film, a banner year, and a narrative all on his own. He's also cleaning up with the critics more than anyone else (even Quan). That sort of momentum could easily be an omen of things to come with the industry. Butler wants it, and he's definitely leaning on the "in character as Elvis" bit as much as Gaga was with Patrizia last year, but he's probably a comfortable second place right now to Farrell. We've seen this story before many times, and the result is usually the same. Farrell is a critics performance (with some industry traction because of his film), but Butler is absolutely the type of shit the industry goes crazy for. Farrell is more Michael Keaton in Birdman, while Butler is more Eddie Redmayne in The Theory Of Everything.
Transformational Performance As Globally recognised icon vs Non- transformational Comedy/drama performance= Butler probably wins. Being the critics favorite is nice for Farrell now, but we've seen this scenario play out too many times to think Farrell is ahead of Butler when it comes to Oscar. Butler's biggest threat came from Fraser ( another "transformational" turn) , who has been fatally wounded by a poorly recieved film. Elvis is likely to get a Best Picture nom. Yes, Baz Lurhmann is an Aussie, but the way Elvis swept the AACTA's should be a sign as to how much the industry will go for that film, and want to reward the standout element....Butler. I don't think Butler's age ( he is over 30, which isnt that young) or "newcomer status" (he's been a jobbing actor since he was a kid and everyone is aware of that) will be as significant a factor as you do. And all his industry co-signs ( Denzel, Brad, Leo, Oldman etc) will make people very comfortable voting for him. Butler is in front, and Farrell can be the spoiler, imho. |
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Dec 18, 2022 22:05:24 GMT
I like Colin but let's be serious here, he's not owed an Oscar.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 18, 2022 22:08:21 GMT
This idea that Butler is in front because he plays an icon is an exaggeration. Yes, biopic performances do well with the Oscars but they’re not default winners. Redmayne was on the Academy’s radar before he won, and it wasn’t just a biopic role, it was a biopic role with a crippling disability. He also was the face of the movie, while Elvis is a Baz Luhrmann film first (and a movie that undercuts Butler’s performance at every possible stage). Fraser may have a worse received film but he just won his fourth critic award, while Farrell is the most respected of the three, is sweeping trifecta and second-tier awards, is in a Top 3 film pushed by Searchlight and he’ll come into Oscar night with Comedy Globe (lock) + BAFTA (likely).
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 18, 2022 22:18:53 GMT
This idea that Butler is in front because he plays an icon is an exaggeration. Yes, biopic performances do well with the Oscars but they’re not default winners. Redmayne was on the Academy’s radar before he won, and it wasn’t just a biopic role, it was a biopic role with a crippling disability. He also was the face of the movie, while Elvis is a Baz Luhrmann film first (and a movie that undercuts Butler’s performance at every possible stage). Fraser may have a worse received film but he just won his fourth critic award, while Farrell is the most respected of the three, is sweeping trifecta and second-tier awards, is in a Top 3 film pushed by Searchlight and he’ll come into Oscar night with Comedy Globe (lock) + BAFTA (likely). has been universally acclaimed as the Best thing about Elvis. Lurhmann does not overshadow him and is at best an outside shot at a Best Director nod. You can actually argue that the main reason Elvis is in contention for a Best Picture nod (or a Best Director nod), is because Butler's performance was so beloved that it helped cover the other flaws of the film ( Hanks' performance etc). It's not just because he's playing an icon....he's carrying his film and director to likely Oscar nods Farrell isn't respected enough for anyone to think he's owed an Oscar. Voters will legitimately have to think he gives the strongest/best performance and that is often a hard ask going up against such a well recieved transformational turn as Butlet's Elvis. Sure Farrell can maybe win. But the history of this category and the kind of performances they go for obviously makes Butler more likely than him to win, imho. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 18, 2022 22:31:15 GMT
This idea that Butler is in front because he plays an icon is an exaggeration. Indeed .......There are several exaggerations in this race - one is that Farrell can't win because it's comedic role - or something - I liked Banhees a whole lot but there is nothing funny in at least the last half - at least ......he's crying over the "loss" of his friend, missing his sister, as sorrow envelops him in the Irish allegory of a Job like suffering tbh - he has a great clip scene that to me screams Oscar ("Maybe you were never nice") - among others too....... People dismiss him by saying he isnt due like Smith was last year but no one else in the category is either - except MAYBE Cruise (not to me - when did he come close to deserving BA? Nah......) and Cruise isn't 100% assured of a nod anyway....... Now do I think Farrell is a lock? I wouldn't go that far myself - Nighy might win the Bafta and fnck it up or make it interesting - but I doubt it - no picture nod for him and no relevance like the expressly Irish themed - and Ireland themed - (not just set) Banshees does........ |
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 18, 2022 22:34:03 GMT
History also says that Best Actor usually goes to more experienced actors, while Elvis is Butler’s big breakthrough, he hasn’t done anything of worth in the past. Not that I agree with the trend, but it is a fact, the Academy doesn’t love rewarding young actors in the lead category. All trends have to be broken sooner or later, I just don’t share the confidence that it will happen with Butler.
I don’t know who decides whether an actor is respected enough to get an Oscar. Farrell is not just doing well for Banshees, he’s doing exceptionally well, he’s in a strong movie and he’s also worked in Hollywood for two decades, he’s never been an object of controversy, he’s considered a reliable actor and he’s coming off a very strong personal year. That’s the perfect recipe for an Oscar in any year. Does he have a less baity role? Yes, but he also shows great range in that role, he perfectly channels the film’s emotion and is the spiritual catalyst.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 18, 2022 22:47:52 GMT
Adrien Brody 29Richard Dreyfuss 30
Marlon Brando 30
Maximillian Schell 31
Nicolas Cage 32
|
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Dec 18, 2022 22:53:26 GMT
I Adrien Brody 29Richard Dreyfuss 39
Marlon Brando 30
Maximillian Schell 31
Nicolas Cage 32Didn't realize Nic was only 32 at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 18, 2022 22:56:11 GMT
I Adrien Brody 29Richard Dreyfuss 39
Marlon Brando 30
Maximillian Schell 31
Nicolas Cage 32He said "usually", not "never." And while these are all good examples, Dreyfuss had a banner year, Brando was a multiple nominee by then (having been nominated four consecutive times), and Cage swept critics' precursors. Schell and Brody may not have been major Hollywood figures, but Brody was up against four prior winners and that definitely had something to do with him winning, especially as he hadn't won any of the major industry prizes up to Oscar night. Young men can win here, and Butler does benefit from a baity role, but it's not like Colin Farrell is a Michael Keaton-esque Hollywood outsider. That's more what Brendan Fraser is. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 18, 2022 23:23:21 GMT
Adrien Brody 29 - film won Director AND Screenplay
Marlon Brando 30 - won on his 4th nod in a row in his 4 consecutive years , Pic won BP and BD etc
Maximillian Schell 31 - film won Screenplay
|
|
. BAFTA was not an Oscar precursor in 1992. They came after the Oscars then and had zero effect on the race. 
)
