|
Post by iheartamyadams on Mar 16, 2019 22:52:46 GMT
I don't know why people still keep setting themselves up for Tom Hanks snubs....He's been in so many successful, Best Picture contending movies over the last 18 years, and still keeps missing. It's an utterly unique situation. Usually, a movie that the Academy likes is enough for an actor to coattail their way to a nomination, but it's the opposite with Hanks since his 90's heyday. There's a fundamental issue with the actors branch....I think they feel he doesn't challenge himself, and are basically over him. The law of averages suggests he'll be nominated again, because he still appears in Best Picture contenders and works with top flight directors, but his misses are incredibly telling. You cannot excuse them in a way you could for other actors. Hanks can't keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Playing the nicest children's TV presenter in American History won't significantly alter his fortunes, even if the film is affecting. Even if somehow, he overturns his usual result and gets nominated, he's not winning for this (or maybe ever again). Fans have always overestimated his regard among fellow actors because of his 90's run with the Academy. With Hanks, it's best not to even oversell the likelyhood of him even being nominated, till his name is read out on nomination day. Hanks has two legitimate recent snubs, Captain Phillips and The Post. The rest are not snubs. He didn’t have the reviews, nor the buzz for any of the other frequently referenced performances. Coattailing off the popularity of a movie is much more of a Supporting thing than lead. Hanks has been coasting and been phoned in a number of his recent performances and I think that’s a bigger reason why he hasn’t been embraced. His recent work may be familiar territory but it is also not great work. It’s not like he’s missing for anything critics are wild about sans Captain Phillips which just happened to be one of the most brutal years for that category in quite some time. I don’t think he needs to play villains or anything or that nature, he just needs to turn in more inspired work which he’s done in this film. I tend to think he’s better in roles with a comedic/feel good lean and this is that whilst also giving him poignant moments and dramatic material that he aces. Buzz is already growing among people who’ve seen it and whilst I can understand the reservations about it, I’m certain he’s getting nominated. I don’t know that a win will happen but he will probably be an early frontrunner after this explodes at TIFF. Not since angeolena joly as an evil sorceress has there been a better casting match up than this and Hanks benefits from not being directed by a hack!
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Mar 16, 2019 23:23:18 GMT
I don't know why people still keep setting themselves up for Tom Hanks snubs....He's been in so many successful, Best Picture contending movies over the last 18 years, and still keeps missing. It's an utterly unique situation. Usually, a movie that the Academy likes is enough for an actor to coattail their way to a nomination, but it's the opposite with Hanks since his 90's heyday. There's a fundamental issue with the actors branch....I think they feel he doesn't challenge himself, and are basically over him. The law of averages suggests he'll be nominated again, because he still appears in Best Picture contenders and works with top flight directors, but his misses are incredibly telling. You cannot excuse them in a way you could for other actors. Hanks can't keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Playing the nicest children's TV presenter in American History won't significantly alter his fortunes, even if the film is affecting. Even if somehow, he overturns his usual result and gets nominated, he's not winning for this (or maybe ever again). Fans have always overestimated his regard among fellow actors because of his 90's run with the Academy. With Hanks, it's best not to even oversell the likelyhood of him even being nominated, till his name is read out on nomination day. I really hope I'm wrong because I want this film to do well and for Hanks to finally be nominated again. I could also see myself falling into the trap again, but yes I've been burned several times the last few years ( Captain Phillips, Bridge of Spies, Sully, and The Post). I don't think I predicted Sully for that long, but Captain Phillips he and the film hit everywhere. And 2015 didn't seem that strong that it seemed like he should be able to get in after being snubbed for Captain Phillips. With The Post, I was in a weird spot because the film came on strong at NBR, but I had already been burned before with predicting Hanks. In 2013, it was very competitive for Best Actor. Robert Redford missed out, and American Hustle came in strong during Phase I. So okay that's explainable. Then in 2015 though, Best Actor was really weak, and with Bridge of Spies being nominated for Best Picture and winning Supporting Actor, it seems like if it were just about any other lead actor but Hanks, they would have been in. 2016 was a bit more competitive, and Sully didn't really gain traction despite good reviews and doing well at the box office. So this one is explainable; although, again I think if there's fatigue by voters for both Eastwood and Hanks that hurt the film. 2017 was on about the same level as 2016, imo, and while The Post ended up underperforming, I don't really have any confidence in Hanks unless he does something really different like playing a villain because even Denzel Washington in a film that critics trashed got nominated. I agree that playing Mr. Rogers is not going to cut it even if the reviews are there which I'm sure they will be to an extent. Although again I think even with reviewers, there could be a "Hanks is excellent, but nothing we haven't seen from him before" from some of them which I think will work against him.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 16, 2019 23:45:50 GMT
I don't know why people still keep setting themselves up for Tom Hanks snubs....He's been in so many successful, Best Picture contending movies over the last 18 years, and still keeps missing. It's an utterly unique situation. Usually, a movie that the Academy likes is enough for an actor to coattail their way to a nomination, but it's the opposite with Hanks since his 90's heyday. There's a fundamental issue with the actors branch....I think they feel he doesn't challenge himself, and are basically over him. The law of averages suggests he'll be nominated again, because he still appears in Best Picture contenders and works with top flight directors, but his misses are incredibly telling. You cannot excuse them in a way you could for other actors. Hanks can't keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Playing the nicest children's TV presenter in American History won't significantly alter his fortunes, even if the film is affecting. Even if somehow, he overturns his usual result and gets nominated, he's not winning for this (or maybe ever again). Fans have always overestimated his regard among fellow actors because of his 90's run with the Academy. With Hanks, it's best not to even oversell the likelyhood of him even being nominated, till his name is read out on nomination day. Hanks has two legitimate recent snubs, Captain Phillips and The Post. The rest are not snubs. He didn’t have the reviews, nor the buzz for any of the other frequently referenced performances. Coattailing off the popularity of a movie is much more of a Supporting thing than lead. Hanks has been coasting and been phoned in a number of his recent performances and I think that’s a bigger reason why he hasn’t been embraced. His recent work may be familiar territory but it is also not great work. It’s not like he’s missing for anything critics are wild about sans Captain Phillips which just happened to be one of the most brutal years for that category in quite some time. I don’t think he needs to play villains or anything or that nature, he just needs to turn in more inspired work which he’s done in this film. I tend to think he’s better in roles with a comedic/feel good lean and this is that whilst also giving him poignant moments and dramatic material that he aces. Buzz is already growing among people who’ve seen it and whilst I can understand the reservations about it, I’m certain he’s getting nominated. I don’t know that a win will happen but he will probably be an early frontrunner after this explodes at TIFF. Not since angeolena joly as an evil sorceress has there been a better casting match up than this and Hanks benefits from not being directed by a hack! It's the same story every time though. It's not just Captain Philips and The Post. Sully dropped and most of the pundits were like "Hanks is nailed on for a Best Actor nod". Picks up some critics nods and a Broadcast Critics Awards nod, but his buzz kept fading over the season, and it he started missing at places he was predicted to show up till the buzz just died. Same shit, different day. Hanks hasn't been coasting, imho. He does what he does very well, consistently in recent years. If I want someone to play the idealised embodiment of American ethics and values, he's maybe my first choice (and most filmmakers it seems). It's just that what he does well is insanely predictable at this point, and there's little getting around it. I'm sure he's perfectly terrific as Mr Rogers. It's a role he's made for. But everyone, including actors that vote in the Academy, know roughly what they are going to get from Hanks. And then they vote for someone else. My prediction (for now) is that critics will like it, they'll say Hanks is wonderful and makes you get all the heartwarming feels, and he'll be predicted for a nomination. Then fade by the end as usual, when actors in the Academy who want something new from Hanks, and Mr Rogers is just too much of what they expect from the man. We'll see, but I've been saying Hanks has been on the outs with the Academy because of his comfort zone choice of roles for many years now (before it was even an accepted theory), and this isn't the movie or role to change my mind, even if advance word of mouth is positive. Stranger things have happened though. If it's a weak year in supporting and critics push him hard, maybe he sneaks in
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Mar 17, 2019 0:27:04 GMT
Hanks has two legitimate recent snubs, Captain Phillips and The Post. The rest are not snubs. He didn’t have the reviews, nor the buzz for any of the other frequently referenced performances. Coattailing off the popularity of a movie is much more of a Supporting thing than lead. Hanks has been coasting and been phoned in a number of his recent performances and I think that’s a bigger reason why he hasn’t been embraced. His recent work may be familiar territory but it is also not great work. It’s not like he’s missing for anything critics are wild about sans Captain Phillips which just happened to be one of the most brutal years for that category in quite some time. I don’t think he needs to play villains or anything or that nature, he just needs to turn in more inspired work which he’s done in this film. I tend to think he’s better in roles with a comedic/feel good lean and this is that whilst also giving him poignant moments and dramatic material that he aces. Buzz is already growing among people who’ve seen it and whilst I can understand the reservations about it, I’m certain he’s getting nominated. I don’t know that a win will happen but he will probably be an early frontrunner after this explodes at TIFF. Not since angeolena joly as an evil sorceress has there been a better casting match up than this and Hanks benefits from not being directed by a hack! It's the same story every time though. It's not just Captain Philips and The Post. Sully dropped and most of the pundits were like "Hanks is nailed on for a Best Actor nod". Picks up some critics nods and a Broadcast Critics Awards nod, but his buzz kept fading over the season, and it he started missing at places he was predicted to show up till the buzz just died. Same shit, different day. Hanks hasn't been coasting, imho. He does what he does very well, consistently in recent years. If I want someone to play the idealised embodiment of American ethics and values, he's maybe my first choice (and most filmmakers it seems). It's just that what he does well is insanely predictable at this point, and there's little getting around it. I'm sure he's perfectly terrific as Mr Rogers. It's a role he's made for. But everyone, including actors that vote in the Academy, know roughly what they are going to get from Hanks. And then they vote for someone else. My prediction (for now) is that critics will like it, they'll say Hanks is wonderful and makes you get all the heartwarming feels, and he'll be predicted for a nomination. Then fade by the end as usual, when actors in the Academy who want something new from Hanks, and Mr Rogers is just too much of what they expect from the man. We'll see, but I've been saying Hanks has been on the outs with the Academy because of his comfort zone choice of roles for many years now (before it was even an accepted theory), and this isn't the movie or role to change my mind, even if advance word of mouth is positive. Stranger things have happened though. If it's a weak year in supporting and critics push him hard, maybe he sneaks in You’re referring to pundits on Sully, not critics. And they were mainly reacting to the impressive box office and weak year. His reviews were passable at best. It was a lifeless, completely phoned in effort from Hanks (and all involved really). Generally, there’s a significant difference in the quality of his work since Captain Phillips. If Hanks was missing for raved work, I’d be more on board with what you’re suggesting but that hasn’t been the case. His recent work has inspired no passion from critics or audiences. Your predictions about this film aren’t unreasonable, I’d probably feel the same about it on paper. I won’t argue anything you’ve written about your predictions, I’ll only say that many who feel similarly will definitely change their tune upon release.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 17, 2019 1:00:46 GMT
I think your take on Hanks reception for Sully veers on the revisionist side. Hanks had critics support, and actually overperformed strongly with critics groups. He got 7 Best Actor nominatons for Sully from critics groups (not counting BFCA). You don't get 7 critics nods if many critics aren't trying to make you happen.
That's a very impressive tally of critics groups nods. At that time, critics had his back for Sully and AMPAS still didn't bite.
If your personal opinion is that it was a lifeless perfromance or whatever, cool. But that doesn't change that he had the performance reviews and critics support.
It is what it is. There are just too many actual receipts that are able to counter this revisionist position.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Jul 20, 2019 22:10:09 GMT
Trailer releasing for this masterpiece on Monday. Ugh, I’m going to be a total mess.
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Jul 22, 2019 13:06:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 22, 2019 13:11:00 GMT
I don’t know if it’ll be an Oscar contender (especially after the snubs he's received this decade), but I can tell you one thing: Tom Hanks is gonna break my heart in this.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 22, 2019 13:32:16 GMT
Looks like he could be in the leading actors lot.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 22, 2019 13:32:59 GMT
I know some are all in on this, but after seeing that trailer, the idea of Ton Hanks winning another Oscar for this feels ludicrous in the extreme.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but this feels like the easiest possible performance for Hanks to pull off. His biggest problem with the Academy in the last 20 years has been the perception that he's not gone out of his comfort zone much. Not only is he clearly in his comfort zone here, he's rented a sun lounger and some extra fluffy towels for that extra layer of comfort.
I'll wait for the film's release to really assess his chances. Reviews could be great, and critics might push Hanks hard, but damn if this doesn't on first appearences seem to have all the hallmarks of another Hanks miss.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 22, 2019 13:40:03 GMT
I know some are all in on this, but after seeing that trailer, the idea of Ton Hanks winning another Oscar for this feels ludicrous in the extreme. Maybe I'm missing something here, but this feels like the easiest possible performance for Hanks to pull off. His biggest problem with the Academy in the last 20 years has been the perception that he's not gone out of his comfort zone much. Not only is he clearly in his comfort zone here, he's rented a sun lounger and some extra fluffy towels for that extra layer of comfort. I'll wait for the film's release to really assess his chances. Reviews could be great, and critics might push Hanks hard, but damn if this doesn't on first appearences seem to have all the hallmarks of another Hanks miss. You have a point here. Then again, almost everything I have seen him in since Cast Away looked like he was in his comfort zone.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Morales on Jul 22, 2019 13:42:40 GMT
Not gonna lie, I got a little misty eyed and I don't even know much about Mr. Rogers.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 22, 2019 13:44:08 GMT
Not gonna lie, I got a little misty eyed and I don't even know much about Mr. Rogers. I swear, if the film ends with Hanks reenacting that honorary tribute (at the Emmys?), there won't be a dry eye in the house.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Jul 22, 2019 13:55:30 GMT
This is going to be an event film for the senior demo and I can’t wait to be slain again tbh
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 22, 2019 13:59:36 GMT
Yeah, I think Hanks is likely to get a nod and if nodded could win - I see this as BSA not lead.
It's that weird thing of he may get passed over, but if he make the shortlist he could win. Hanks catches way too much grief for being passed over - people want it both ways - they want actors to be consistent and get awarded - doesn't much happen especially in your 50s onward.
Now some of that work I don't think was good - The Post specifically - but on the whole he's almost always good, always consistent (for people who give a sh it about that) and could have easily been nodded especially for Captain Phillips which is one of his greatest performances, period.
At a certain point actors get acknowledged for "the Rolling Stones (post '72)" principle - which is even if it isn't their best they're displaying a mastery of their craft unique to them......that "seems" what this could be.......and with that, you don't have to go outside you're comfort zone either.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Jul 22, 2019 14:00:37 GMT
Looks like he could be in the leading actors lot. He’s Supporting.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 22, 2019 14:02:00 GMT
Looks like he could be in the leading actors lot. He’s Supporting. I know but it looked like he could be leading in the academy categories.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 22, 2019 14:04:40 GMT
Yeah, I think Hanks is likely to get a nod and if nodded could win - I see this as BSA not lead. It's that weird thing of he may get passed over, but if he make the shortlist he could win. Hanks catches way too much grief for being passed over - people want it both ways - they want actors to be consistent and get awarded - doesn't much happen especially in your 50s onward. Now some of that work I don't think was good - The Post specifically - but on the whole he's almost always good, always consistent (for people who give a sh it about that) and could have easily been nodded especially for Captain Phillips which is one of his greatest performances, period. At a certain point actors get acknowledged for "the Rolling Stones (post '72)" principle - which is even if it isn't their best they're displaying a mastery of their craft unique to them......that "seems" what this could be.......and with that, you don't have to go outside you're comfort zone either. I still maintain that his snub for Captain Phillips was the result of bad timing: the earliest release of the major Best Actor contenders, coupled with having to deal with a latecomer in Bale when American Hustle landed at peak voting time (and it didn't help that the other four contenders that year were winless at the time). Not to mention Abdi was reaping most of the attention of the film. I think with a different voting schedule, Hanks still could've clung to the spot, but it just worked against him unfortunately. I don't believe there is an active movement to keep Hanks from getting nominated. Nor do I think voters are necessarily bored with him. I do agree that he's got a niche and fills it so well that people just wind up taking him for granted. I wish Hanks would break free of convention more often; he's certainly skilled enough to do so. But I think at this point, he needs more than just the role: he needs the timing, the campaign, and especially the right competition.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Jul 22, 2019 14:05:48 GMT
I know but it looked like he could be leading in the academy categories. That’s because Fred Rogers and Hanks are icons. No one knows who Matthew Rhys or the real life person are. It’s a sizable Supporting role that steals the show, but Supporting indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jul 22, 2019 14:09:06 GMT
Looks okay I guess. I don't know a thing about Mr. Rogers, so a snap judgement based on the trailer would make me think that this films mission will be to make people cry.
|
|
|
Post by getclutch on Jul 22, 2019 14:15:13 GMT
Happy for Matthew Rhys. I hope gets more prominent roles in movies. He's just a fantastic actor.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jul 22, 2019 16:29:12 GMT
I know some are all in on this, but after seeing that trailer, the idea of Ton Hanks winning another Oscar for this feels ludicrous in the extreme. Maybe I'm missing something here, but this feels like the easiest possible performance for Hanks to pull off. His biggest problem with the Academy in the last 20 years has been the perception that he's not gone out of his comfort zone much. Not only is he clearly in his comfort zone here, he's rented a sun lounger and some extra fluffy towels for that extra layer of comfort. I'll wait for the film's release to really assess his chances. Reviews could be great, and critics might push Hanks hard, but damn if this doesn't on first appearences seem to have all the hallmarks of another Hanks miss. Yeah, Can You Ever Forgive Me? was one of my favorite movies from last year, and I'm sure this will be great. I agree though that it looks like Hanks is too much in his comfort zone again for voters. Even last week, Heller was talking about how Hanks was so different from the real Mr. Rogers, but I don't think it matters because I think most people are going to be like, "oh look Tom Hanks is playing a nice guy again". We'll see though, but with competition potentially being competitive in supporting. Plus, I don't know how big Mr. Rogers is to non-Americans, I think it will be another miss right now, at least for Hanks.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 22, 2019 16:30:17 GMT
I know but it looked like he could be leading in the academy categories. That’s because Fred Rogers and Hanks are icons. No one knows who Matthew Rhys or the real life person are. It’s a sizable Supporting role that steals the show, but Supporting indeed. Exactly because it's Tom Hanks and exactly because he's playing Fred Rogers (and judging by the trailer and Hanks being top billed), I guess the Academy would have another category fraud (as usual). But then again, he might as well be supporting, as the script suggests.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jul 22, 2019 16:39:15 GMT
Such epic music, I almost half expected him to be riding a giant Pegasus into battle.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Jul 22, 2019 17:14:45 GMT
Let's hope that Hanks can work some of his co-star campaigning magic for Matthew Rhys.
|
|