|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 11, 2018 10:10:01 GMT
Not that awards mean everything, but he's the most Oscar nominated actor of his generation (over Day-Lewis, Hanks etc) and the most nominated lead actor in the SAG movie category of all time. I'd say his actual peers...."actors"....disagree with your sentiment. If its just based on awards,DDL Has 3 LEAD ACTOR WINS. Wins >>>>> nominations 3 wins is highly impressive, no doubt. But the amount of nominations show the sheer level of respect your peers have for you across your whole career, and Denzel is up there with the Brando's of the world in nomination terms. I'd rather have Jeff Bridges 7 nominations and 1 Oscar, than Christoph Waltz's 2 nominations and 2 wins (which can be dismissed by some as him getting lucky twice). Hilary Swank has 2 nominations and 2 wins as well, but because she's basically done nothing else much of note, nobody views her as one of the great actresses of her generations. You can fluke multiple wins. You can't fluke 8 nominations. So wins are important, but the number of nominations show more about how your peers view you, if you can understand what I'm getting at. DDL's 6 nominations and 3 wins is very impressive though, but I'd say Washington's 8 nominations (and counting) and 2 wins is just as impressive, maybe even more so. Because I don't think anybody in his generation will come close to matching his nomination total, especially if DDL sticks to his word and stays "retired".
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 11, 2018 10:15:21 GMT
"and the most nominated lead actor in the SAG movie category of all time."
But behind DiCaprio in total SAG acting nods and if someone said he is the greatest living actor of all time people would raise an eyebrow wouldn't they?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 11, 2018 10:23:56 GMT
"and the most nominated lead actor in the SAG movie category of all time."
But behind DiCaprio in total SAG nods and if someone said he is the greatest living actor of all time people would raise an eyebrow wouldn't they? Dicaprio is the most respected film actor of his own generation (you could make an argument for Bale or Phoenix, but on points, I think Leo takes it). There's not much question about that, and I'm someone who used to be a doubter. In 15-20 years time, he'll probably be at the forefront of the conversation, as the conversation moves on. But he's only just started matching his roles to his appearence. For all his talent, he spent so many years being miscast, because of something he couldn't help, which was a boyish-baby faced appearence. His ambition outstripped his physicality. Even you pointed out Dicaprio is Washington's only realistic challenger to Nicholson's nomination record, so you are aware that he'll figure prominently in the conversation at some point in his career. Especially if he takes on the challenge of live theatre. He's still got a lot to do, but the fact that he's got the same nomination total as Hanks and Penn, and is a generation behind them, is impressive in it's own right. But right now, the conversation is about his elders like Washington and Day-Lewis, who have done everything, including theatre.
|
|
|
Post by Kirk-Picard on Mar 11, 2018 10:27:51 GMT
If its just based on awards,DDL Has 3 LEAD ACTOR WINS. Wins >>>>> nominations 3 wins is highly impressive, no doubt. But the amount of nominations show the sheer level of respect your peers have for you across your whole career, and Denzel is up there with the Brando's of the world in nomination terms. I'd rather have Jeff Bridges 7 nominations and 1 Oscar, than Christoph Waltz's 2 nominations and 2 wins (which can be dismissed by some as him getting lucky twice). Hilary Swank has 2 nominations and 2 wins as well, but because she's basically done nothing else much of note, nobody views her as one of the great actresses of her generations. You can fluke multiple wins. You can't fluke 8 nominations. So wins are important, but the number of nominations show more about how your peers view you, if you can understand what I'm getting at. DDL's 6 nominations and 3 wins is very impressive though, but I'd say Washington's 8 nominations (and counting) and 2 wins is just as impressive, maybe even more so. Because I don't think anybody in his generation will come close to matching his nomination total, especially if DDL sticks to his word and stays "retired". I can understand the respect part correlating with the nominations but fluke victories happen once not 3 times. Also, DDL has worked infrequently which has more to do with the lack of nomination then lack of respect from his peers and I say this as someone who hates his brand of acting. Tom Hanks in the nineties was toe-to-toe with Denzel.He has been lackluster in the last decade or so except Captain Philips. Also,another thing discussed earlier that Denzel elevates bad scripts,well Gary Oldman has him beat there. As for your last nominations total,I am willing to bet Denzel will never match DDLs 3 Best Actor awards either so there This is just his own generation. Now when you factor in other "living" actors like Al Pacino,Robert De Niro,Gene Hackman,Jack Nicholson that's another can of worms. Also,the younger generation of actor who still have several years left ahead of them like Joaquin Phoenix,Michael Fassbender,Tom Hardy,Leonardo DiCaprio,Christian Bale and some others could arguably have this best living ACTOR mantle in a few years time and Dicaprio for instance is very close to the total nominations part I can understand someone calling him arguably the best or one of the best but he wipes the floor with everyone is a biased opinion. Now you can go ahead and disagree with all of this which I'm sure you will.
|
|
|
Post by Kirk-Picard on Mar 11, 2018 10:31:58 GMT
"and the most nominated lead actor in the SAG movie category of all time."
But behind DiCaprio in total SAG acting nods and if someone said he is the greatest living actor of all time people would raise an eyebrow wouldn't they? SAG is only 24 years old too which misses all of Pacino,De Niro,Nicholsons prime years so I don't think its a proper metric for this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 11, 2018 10:34:50 GMT
"and the most nominated lead actor in the SAG movie category of all time."
But behind DiCaprio in total SAG acting nods and if someone said he is the greatest living actor of all time people would raise an eyebrow wouldn't they? SAG is only 24 years old too which misses all of Pacino,De Niro,Nicholsons prime years so I don't think its a proper metric for this discussion. This is actually a good point. Dicaprio's SAG run is impressive, but the short lifespan of the awards means it plays directly into the sweetspot of his career, compared to several of his older peers. SAG wasn't even around for the first 3 Oscar nominations of Washington's career and his first win.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 11, 2018 10:39:42 GMT
"and the most nominated lead actor in the SAG movie category of all time."
But behind DiCaprio in total SAG acting nods and if someone said he is the greatest living actor of all time people would raise an eyebrow wouldn't they? SAG is only 24 years old too which misses all of Pacino,De Niro,Nicholsons prime years so I don't think its a proper metric for this discussion. Oh I agree I was just pointing to the hypocrisy of the argument - the term "greatest living actor" is ridiculous to me. Using any Award in your argument is ridiculous to me. Let's just say they are both good and Joe Carnahan is prone to making f'n ridiculous statements. I think on that we can all agree
|
|
|
Post by Kirk-Picard on Mar 11, 2018 10:41:02 GMT
SAG is only 24 years old too which misses all of Pacino,De Niro,Nicholsons prime years so I don't think its a proper metric for this discussion. This is actually a good point. Dicaprio's SAG run is impressive, but the short lifespan of the awards means it plays directly into the sweetspot of his career, compared to several of his older peers. SAG wasn't even around for the first 3 Oscar nominations of Washington's career and his first win. Also,SAGs issue with late screeners which was the reason DiCaprio missed the nomination for Wolf of Wall Street,or else he'd be tied with Denzel Leading Role category.Also missed lead nod The Departed(supporting nod) Only one Lead actor nomination though
|
|
|
Post by Kirk-Picard on Mar 11, 2018 10:42:00 GMT
SAG is only 24 years old too which misses all of Pacino,De Niro,Nicholsons prime years so I don't think its a proper metric for this discussion. Oh I agree I was just pointing to the hypocrisy of the argument - the term "greatest living actor" is ridiculous to me. Using any Award in your argument is ridiculous to me. Let's just say they are both good and Joe Carnahan is prone to making f'n ridiculous statements. I think on that we can all agree Completely agreed
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 11, 2018 10:52:10 GMT
SAG is only 24 years old too which misses all of Pacino,De Niro,Nicholsons prime years so I don't think its a proper metric for this discussion. Oh I agree I was just pointing to the hypocrisy of the argument - the term "greatest living actor" is ridiculous to me. Using any Award in your argument is ridiculous to me. Let's just say they are both good and Joe Carnahan is prone to making f'n ridiculous statements. I think on that we can all agree I bet if Carnahan has said Pacino was the greatest living actor and wiped the floor with everyone, you wouldn't find it ridiculous. I keed, I keed! I do have to be careful about posting overly complimentary statements about Washington from any peers or industry figures when you are around though, because you are a dab hand at working to discredit them (just thinking back to the whole Oldman saying Washington is the best actor (with Hopkins) he's worked with thing not counting, because actors lie or something)
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 11, 2018 11:03:16 GMT
Oh actors lie, all the time or say stupid stuff (Pacino called Colin Farrell the best actor of his generation and I don't think he meant it or knows what he's talking about, Nicholson considers his failed Hoffa his BEST performance - nah.....too many other examples to list) I love talking about Denzel and actors in general but it has to be couched in a believable discussion to me and this one just isn't but that's ok - it's just chatter and speaking of which ........... As I said before the Denzel in Iceman thread is still around and waiting for discussion once that hits so there I'll be a little less grumpy
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 11, 2018 11:07:36 GMT
You need to take this stuff a bit less to heart. Intelligent people legit thinking Denzel is the greatest actor alive or in history doesn't invalidate how you feel about Pacino, Auteuil, Brando or whomever else is YOUR greatest actor.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 11, 2018 11:16:58 GMT
Right, it doesn't so much affect how I feel about my favorites, but I don't think "greatest actor alive" or in history is a legit argument regardless of male actor. Never have I said or would I say that Brando is a greater film actor than say Olivier - I just would never do that. So it isn't the particulars of such a discussion it's that WHOLE discussion I find silly. If you think Denzel beats them both, ok, fair enough, I can sometimes compare two specific actors too but it's the extrapolation then to "ALL TIME" or "LIVING" where I start to laugh/lose interest/deflate the argument. On the other hand when I look at actresses I say Huppert is the greatest ever, without hesitation, so I guess when I see someone lap the field the way that she does, I'll be more open to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 11, 2018 15:55:23 GMT
Determining an actor's caliber based solely on awards is a bit of a folly, because they are almost entirely dictated by politics or accessibility. Some actors received far more nominations/awards than they deserved to (Streep, Nicholson) while others received far fewer than they deserved (Richard Attenborough, whom I consider the greatest actor of his generation bar none, received zero acting nods). However, what it can show is an actor's popularity as well as the respect within the industry. There is no debating Meryl Streep is beloved in and out of the industry as the greatest actress of all time (even if I personally think she isn't even in the running for best actress of her generation, much less of all time), and the fact that she gets nominated for films that would otherwise be completely ignored is proof of that.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 11, 2018 16:13:07 GMT
Determining an actor's caliber based solely on awards is a bit of a folly, because they are almost entirely dictated by politics or accessibility. Some actors received far more nominations/awards than they deserved to (Streep, Nicholson) while others received far fewer than they deserved (Richard Attenborough, whom I consider the greatest actor of his generation bar none, received zero acting nods). However, what it can show is an actor's popularity as well as the respect within the industry. There is no debating Meryl Streep is beloved in and out of the industry as the greatest actress of all time (even if I personally think she isn't even in the running for best actress of her generation, much less of all time), and the fact that she gets nominated for films that would otherwise be completely ignored is proof of that. This is true on some level, but as individuals who all spent years decamped on a forum called Oscar/Awards Buzz, we've all got to reconcile ourselves with our occasional hypocrisy and double standards on the matter. Awards matter, expect when they don't sort of thing . Day-Lewis should be defined by his talent, not by his 3 Oscars, but in reality, it's going to play a significant factor in his legacy. Would we even be talking about him now if not for his awards record? Possible but not so certain. Most of the actors who are seen to be in the elevated "pantheon" of greats do tend to end up with a pretty significant oscar nomination count though. You don't really see anyone with 7+ nominations whose not regarded as some sort of acting legend. But yes, it's not everything. But especially as the oscar nominations are peer based, it does mean something.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 11, 2018 16:32:26 GMT
This is true on some level, but as individuals who all spent years decamped on a forum called Oscar/Awards Buzz, we've all got to reconcile ourselves with our occasional hypocrisy and double standards on the matter. Awards matter, expect when they don't sort of thing . Day-Lewis should be defined by his talent, not by his 3 Oscars, but in reality, it's going to play a significant factor in his legacy. Would we even be talking about him now if not for his awards record? Possible but not so certain. Most of the actors who are seen to be in the elevated "pantheon" of greats do tend to end up with a pretty significant oscar nomination count though. You don't really see anyone with 7+ nominations whose not regarded as some sort of acting legend. But yes, it's not everything. But especially as the oscar nominations are peer based, it does mean something. Well, yes, awards can be used as a metric to judge how actors were received in their own time and how they stood alongside their peers. I'm simply saying they shouldn't be the sole, or even the most important, metric by which to judge. Daniel Day-Lewis's three Oscars were for performances that are iconic, and one of those films ( There Will Be Blood) has already attained classic status that I don't think a lot of his contemporaries quite have achieved (for instance, I don't think Gary Oldman has his own There Will Be Blood; the closest he might have is JFK, but he's not the driving force of that film). Gangs of New York is also iconic, and time will tell where Phantom Thread goes from here, but if it rides the trend of PTA films, it will age remarkably well and he with it. You once made the comparison that Daniel Day-Lewis is the modern Paul Muni and will be (unfairly!) forgotten in much the same way Muni is today, but I'd argue Day-Lewis consecrated himself years ago, and his last two performances more or less "sealed the deal" for him. Oldman is the one I'd be worried about in terms of a posthumous legacy, although I think he'll be fine in the end.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,726
Likes: 2,136
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 11, 2018 20:07:36 GMT
You all made interesting points and observations.
But my question is, who the hell is Joe Carnahan and why is his opinion relevant?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 11, 2018 20:24:31 GMT
You all made interesting points and observations. But my question is, who the hell is Joe Carnahan and why is his opinion relevant? Carnahan is a very talented screenwriter and director. He wrote and directed Narc, one of the best cop movies of the 2000's (and also features Ray Liotta's 2nd best performance after Goodfellas). He wrote and directed The Grey, a very good survival movie starring Liam Neeson, that was a thankful release from Neeson's string of Taken rehashes. He did a fun action crime flick called Smokin' Aces. He directed The A-Team remake, which I choose to pretend doesn't exist He also wrote the screenplay to Pride And Glory, a solid crime drama with Edward Norton and Colin Farrell. I'd say Carnahan is in the same ballpark as David Ayer as a fillmmaker, but more talented. Ayer just keeps remaking the same movie, wheras Carnahan is more experimental.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 11, 2018 20:32:32 GMT
This is true on some level, but as individuals who all spent years decamped on a forum called Oscar/Awards Buzz, we've all got to reconcile ourselves with our occasional hypocrisy and double standards on the matter. Awards matter, expect when they don't sort of thing . Day-Lewis should be defined by his talent, not by his 3 Oscars, but in reality, it's going to play a significant factor in his legacy. Would we even be talking about him now if not for his awards record? Possible but not so certain. Most of the actors who are seen to be in the elevated "pantheon" of greats do tend to end up with a pretty significant oscar nomination count though. You don't really see anyone with 7+ nominations whose not regarded as some sort of acting legend. But yes, it's not everything. But especially as the oscar nominations are peer based, it does mean something. Well, yes, awards can be used as a metric to judge how actors were received in their own time and how they stood alongside their peers. I'm simply saying they shouldn't be the sole, or even the most important, metric by which to judge. Daniel Day-Lewis's three Oscars were for performances that are iconic, and one of those films ( There Will Be Blood) has already attained classic status that I don't think a lot of his contemporaries quite have achieved (for instance, I don't think Gary Oldman has his own There Will Be Blood; the closest he might have is JFK, but he's not the driving force of that film). Gangs of New York is also iconic, and time will tell where Phantom Thread goes from here, but if it rides the trend of PTA films, it will age remarkably well and he with it. You once made the comparison that Daniel Day-Lewis is the modern Paul Muni and will be (unfairly!) forgotten in much the same way Muni is today, but I'd argue Day-Lewis consecrated himself years ago, and his last two performances more or less "sealed the deal" for him. Oldman is the one I'd be worried about in terms of a posthumous legacy, although I think he'll be fine in the end. I think Oldman will be fine. He's basically Alec Guinness to DDL's Laurence Olivier. I actually think Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy will keep Oldman relevant with fanboys for possiibly decades to come (like Star Wars did for Guinness, even though he hated it). Oldman isn't the driving force of those movies, but neither was Obi-Wan Kenobi. Jim Gordon is a hugely important character in the Batman mythos, and I feel like fanboys consider Oldman to be the definitive Gordon, and as long as they watch Nolan's trilogy, Oldman will be part of something very popular and enduring..
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,726
Likes: 2,136
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 11, 2018 20:53:55 GMT
pupdurcsI know pride and glory quite well, being Norton one of my favorite actors. I just say, I wouldn't use Joe Carnahan to enforce my opinions, especially when he says something out of place like wiping floors with the other living actors 😉 stephen For many people worldwide, Oldman will always be Sirius Black 😍
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Mar 12, 2018 0:36:39 GMT
LOL y'all are trippin'. Of course I'm the one and only SeanJoyce; I've been overloading on .GIFs because I'm currently enjoying the freedom of being able to actually embed them amongst my IMDb brethren.
I'm happy to see many of you again. In the case of pacinoyes, I feared the worst after your long hiatus prior to the boards shutting down. As for scrud, I figured I'd never encounter you again after you failed to reply to my PM over at Blu-ray.com.
But rest assured, it is I. Old dogged and determined viced has been after me for a year and I couldn't disappoint him, especially after seeing such a spirited chinwag the likes of which we had many of back in the day.
My Ace Ventura .GIF is a glib encapsulation of feelings which I don't really feel compelled to expand on. My position on Denzel hasn't wavered since IMDb's demise. But to be fair, I've done an absolutely wretched job of keeping up to date with contemporary movies the last few years, including Zel's.
Anyhow, while I know who you were rooting for, are you elated for Oldman's win scrud? Do you feel it helps "legitimize" his career after constantly being eluded by tangible recognition?
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 12, 2018 22:10:20 GMT
LOL y'all are trippin'. Of course I'm the one and only SeanJoyce; I've been overloading on .GIFs because I'm currently enjoying the freedom of being able to actually embed them amongst my IMDb brethren. I'm happy to see many of you again. In the case of pacinoyes, I feared the worst after your long hiatus prior to the boards shutting down. As for scrud, I figured I'd never encounter you again after you failed to reply to my PM over at Blu-ray.com. But rest assured, it is I. Old dogged and determined viced has been after me for a year and I couldn't disappoint him, especially after seeing such a spirited chinwag the likes of which we had many of back in the day. My Ace Ventura .GIF is a glib encapsulation of feelings which I don't really feel compelled to expand on. My position on Denzel hasn't wavered since IMDb's demise. But to be fair, I've done an absolutely wretched job of keeping up to date with contemporary movies the last few years, including Zel's. Anyhow, while I know who you were rooting for, are you elated for Oldman's win scrud? Do you feel it helps "legitimize" his career after constantly being eluded by tangible recognition? Cheers Hey Sean, glad to confirm you are the real deal. The extreme GIF usage had me worried there for a sec.LOL! I was rooting for Denzel, and I think he actually deserved to win (I thought it was hilarious how hard people were working to drum him out of the race altogether, some people without even watching his performance, but Actors who knew what they were watching just gave the middle finger and said, we don't care if critics don't like the movie, if it's a box office flop and if Denzel isn't lifting a finger to campaign. We are nominating him anyway. His Powah!). But after Washington got nominated (which considering the odds against it after how his film performed, was a win in itself), and it very was obvious he didn't have the broad support to come close to challenging for even a upset, I was more than happy to see Oldman bag the trophy. It's not his best performance. There are a couple of actors who I think played Churchill better (maybe because they were less encumbered by latex). But let's face it, it's the type of performance that's specifically made to win Oscars (see Streep, Iron Lady), and Oldman is such an incredible and underrewarded actor, that only the most steely heart could not be moved to see him get this recognition and really be touched by it. I honestly don't think this will change a thing for Oldman. He was one of the most respected character actors in the world before his Oscar, and he's respected exactly the same after it. For someone like him, it's a cherry on top, but it won't change the perception of him in the same way it might for say, Sam Rockwell (or our old friend Edward Norton, who while still respected, seems like more of a bit player these days). Oldman has always had such a ferverent cult following, and it's carried him through lean times. Will Hollywood suddenly start offering Oldman all the plum leading oscarbait roles for his age range (especially now that Day-Lewis is "retired" (yeah, right.lol!), and Denzel cant play white men )? That's the big question. Usually a win like Oldman's (matched with the very solid box office performance of Darkest Hour) would lead to those plum offers. But his talent and following has always been known, and studios have chosen not to cast him in these things. His Oscar nominated/winning roles all come from British productions. I think, even with the Oscar win, a lot of powerful forces in Hollywood don't want to work with him (like Spielberg and maybe many of his affiliates). One would hope he gets better cast and offers in Hollywood now, but I have my doubts.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,726
Likes: 2,136
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 12, 2018 22:42:22 GMT
For someone like Oldman, it's a cherry on top 😉🍒 I'd like to see him going back to directing too. He had issues with finding money for his project Flying horse, I wish he could finally film it.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 12, 2018 23:48:01 GMT
For someone like Oldman, it's a cherry on top 😉🍒 I'd like to see him going back to directing too. He had issues with finding money for his project Flying horse, I wish he could finally film it. I don't know if this will make you soften a bit towards Carnahan, but he did give a follow-up tweet to his one about Denzel wiping the floor with everyone (lol!) saying that he considers Oldman to be "nearly neck and neck" with Washington, and the three actors in the world he respects most are Washington, Oldman and Streep. Maybe Carnahan can direct Denzel and Gary in a Book Of Eli reunion, as they seem to be his two favorite (male) actors. Though to be fair, if Denzel and Gary work together again, I think they should do some harcodcore, oscarbaiting dramatics (which is not Carnahan's forte). They've already done pulp with Book Of Eli, and while it was tonnes of fun, when actors of this calibre go head to head, you want to see them challenged in the strongest dramatic parts possible. But they worked together beautifully in Eli.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Mar 13, 2018 1:40:30 GMT
😉🍒 I'd like to see him going back to directing too. He had issues with finding money for his project Flying horse, I wish he could finally film it. I don't know if this will make you soften a bit towards Carnahan, but he did give a follow-up tweet to his one about Denzel wiping the floor with everyone (lol!) saying that he considers Oldman to be "nearly neck and neck" with Washington, and the three actors in the world he respects most are Washington, Oldman and Streep. Maybe Carnahan can direct Denzel and Gary in a Book Of Eli reunion, as they seem to be his two favorite (male) actors. Though to be fair, if Denzel and Gary work together again, I think they should do some harcodcore, oscarbaiting dramatics (which is not Carnahan's forte). They've already done pulp with Book Of Eli, and while it was tonnes of fun, when actors of this calibre go head to head, you want to see them challenged in the strongest dramatic parts possible. But they worked together beautifully in Eli. Offfffffff course there's a Streep mention, because why wouldn't there be?
|
|