|
Post by evilbliss on Aug 8, 2018 1:12:20 GMT
True or False: Even though the Academy snubbed some pretty excellent work (To Die For, The Others, Dogville, Margot at the Wedding, Birth), her four nominations are pretty damn terrific, original and I dare say: inspiring.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Aug 8, 2018 14:39:20 GMT
a performer as consistently strong as Kidman will always have some performances that just get overlooked (unless their name is Streep), but I love all her nominated performances. In fact I prefer them, which isn't a very trendy opinion but there it is. Of those four snubbed Kidman performances you mentioned, I only nominate Margot at the Wedding (though I'll probably nominate her for Dogville when I see it because 2003 is such a weak year). Otherwise my choices line up with the Academy.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Aug 8, 2018 14:46:50 GMT
Kidman is one of my favourites and I do think the academy have been pretty fair with her. I still have to see a few of her most lauded and I haven't seen Lion, mostly cause I really am not interested, but of her other three nominations I would be:
Moulin Rouge: She misses my Top 5, but I nominate her for The Others. The Hours: I nominate her Rabbit Hole: I nominate her
Elsewhere, I give her:
Lead Actress win for Dogville Supporting Actress nomination for The Paperboy Supporting Actress nomination for The Killing of a Sacred Deer
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Aug 8, 2018 15:03:18 GMT
Oh yeah, I meant to say I almost give her double nominations in 2017 for Sacred Deer (supporting) and Beguiled (lead). I want soooo bad to nominate her for The Beguiled but I think she ends up being #7 or #8 because that year was just so stacked. Literally any other year in the 2010s (with maybe the exception of 2013), she'd easily make my top 5 for that performance.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 8, 2018 15:17:36 GMT
She is a major and quite good actress but I can't say that the opening statement is either true or false really.
First of all Academy award nominations, especially in the era that she's risen to prominence mean less than zero - they're bought and paid for now - so she's had a bunch that worked out and some that didn't. Oh well.....
In addition she doesn't seem to me the equal of actresses she routinely is lumped in with, I mean it's too high for consistently good, occasionally great work - not consistently great work to me - she's not the equal of Blanchett and those 2 engage in an ice goddess battle of the Death periodically on here - she's just not at that level much less Streep or bite your tongues you vulgarians Huppert. But she's a major actress anyway and has an impressive resume top to bottom, she's going to be remembered fondly, maybe too fondly a little?
While she's not nominated for some stuff like To Die For, which is a marvelously sly and witty performance, she's overrated in some overrated stuff too (Dogville) or never close to on target in some wtf stuff (the wretched Fur).
I'm a little confused with awe she seems to hold people in and why she's not assessed more.......even-handedly I guess.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 8, 2018 15:39:08 GMT
She is a major and quite good actress but I can't say that the opening statement is either true or false really. First of all Academy award nominations, especially in the era that she's risen to prominence mean less than zero - they're bought and paid for now - so she's had a bunch that worked out and some that didn't. Oh well..... In addition she doesn't seem to me the equal of actresses she routinely is lumped in with, I mean it's too high for consistently good, occasionally great work - not consistently great work to me - she's not the equal of Blanchett and those 2 engage in an ice goddess battle of the Death periodically on here - she's just not at that level much less Streep or bite your tongues you vulgarians Huppert. But she's a major actress anyway and has an impressive resume top to bottom, she's going to be remembered fondly, maybe too fondly a little? While she's not nominated for some stuff like To Die For, which is a marvelously sly and witty performance, she's overrated in some overrated stuff too (Dogville) or never close to on target in some wtf stuff (the wretched Fur). I'm a little confused with awe she seems to hold people in and why she's not assessed more.......even-handedly I guess. What's there to be confused about? Her body of work at this point is incrediblely varied and prolific. And her standard doesn't drop (unlike so many of her overpraised male equivalents, dining out on past achievements *coughcoughSeanPenncough*) even when her films don't work .She's easily equal to Blanchett (and for my money, better and more layered a performer). Huppert says she doesn't even watch TV, but basically watched Big Little Lie (and then proceeded to follow Kidman in Instagram) because she follows Kidman's work. Isabella Rosellini says Kidman is the only actor she watches in everything. Jane Fonda said she's in awe of Kidman's talent. She's insanely influential among her peer group. You often point out Pacino's TV success. Nothing Pacino has done on TV has been equivalent to Kidman completely destroying (in the 2017 TV awards season) Jessica Lange, Susan Sarandon, Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern and Felicity Huffmann....all on peak or career/near career best form. Not even close. That alone was an all-time great feat, and more impressive than most Best Actress Oscar races. She wiped out 3 of the actresses that featured in the top 50 poll, in some of the most impressive performances of their careers. And none of them even ran her a close second. Kidman has done a lot of special work, but her work in Big Little Lies is up there with the best of anybody ever in screen acting. In a "what have you done for me lately" industry that's super-quick to replace one star at the slightest hint of weakness or career vulnerabilty, Kidman has survived for 30 years as a major force by dint of an extraordinary talent and consistent excellence in performance (certainly not because of her box office track record, otherwise, she'd have been finished years ago). Her longevity would be considered amazing for a male actor. For a female, it's legendary. And she's done it without box office consisteency (ie Roberts, Bullock) or an OTT appreciation by the Academy (Streep). I understand not having as much of a preference for her as some others (hey, taste is a mysterious thing). But her standing and why people hold her in awe should not be any sort of mystery at this point. It's crushingly obvious why people regard her as highly as they do. I mean, you are quite the advocate of European arthouse cinema and acting....well they fucking adore Kidman in those circles. Probably more than they do in Hollywood. The Cannes Film Festival Jury basically invented an Anniversery Prize to give her last year....for being Nicole Kidman . I can't think of another primarily English speaking actress they might even think of doing that for. Except for maybe Streep or Blanchett....and they haven't actually done it for them.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 8, 2018 17:21:34 GMT
You often point out Pacino's TV success. Nothing Pacino has done on TV has been equivalent to Kidman completely destroying (in the 2017 TV awards season) Jessica Lange, Susan Sarandon, Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern and Felicity Huffmann....
So, winning a tough race is something I have to then overrate her on because she won an award? Ok, good to know........
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 8, 2018 17:27:27 GMT
Not saying that. I just find it interesting that you make a big deal about the Emmys when it comes to Pacino, yet Kidman gave what many regard as one of the all-time great TV performances, and beat a field of about 4 other performances that would have won in any other year.
It's not so much the award (s). That was only a consequence of her greatness in that role. But she swept like she did, because it was an all-time great performance (and greater than any of Pacino's TV efforts, imho. No disrespect to him either). The performance is why you should "overrate" her.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 8, 2018 17:33:28 GMT
I see.
Well I don't know how highly I'd rank it - I'm not going to cross-gender compare her TV performance (?!?) - but as I said I like her and think she's major.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 8, 2018 17:37:13 GMT
You often point out Pacino's TV success. Nothing Pacino has done on TV has been equivalent to Kidman completely destroying (in the 2017 TV awards season) Jessica Lange, Susan Sarandon, Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern and Felicity Huffmann....all on peak or career/near career best form. Not even close. That alone was an all-time great feat, and more impressive than most Best Actress Oscar races. She wiped out 3 of the actresses that featured in the top 50 poll, in some of the most impressive performances of their careers. And none of them even ran her a close second. Kidman has done a lot of special work, but her work in Big Little Lies is up there with the best of anybody ever in screen acting. I don't really think that's the right way to view it. Pacino couldn't help that the two times he won, he was the clear and distinct frontrunner (although for my money, Banderas/Rickman/Mos Def were all excellent competition for him the first time around, as was the unnominated Justin Kirk). If that were the case, people would be lauding Pacino for being so good he walloped an incredible lineup for the Oscar in 1992, but no one really judges the strength of a win against their competition (if anything, they usually do their best to tear it down by saying so-and-so was robbed). In Kidman's case, she was up against Lange, who they feted twice already in that category recently (and Feud wound up really under-performing in the end despite its nomination haul; could be the start of a downturn in Murphy's popularity?), Huffman was a previous winner already, Coon was something of the eclectic passion pick that probably benefited from her banner year with that and The Leftovers, and Witherspoon had the less flashy role in Big Little Lies which was always going to feel dwarfed alongside Kidman. This is not to take away from Kidman's win or her performance in general; she was the clear frontrunner that night, but I don't think that its success is necessarily bolstered by the perceived strength of her competition, particularly when compared to Pacino, whose Emmy-winning work redefined him and revitalized him. His Roy Cohn is already iconic and his Kevorkian probably close to it. (It should also be noted that Pacino won exactly the same amount of awards for his two Emmy-winning roles as Kidman did for hers.)
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 8, 2018 17:48:01 GMT
You often point out Pacino's TV success. Nothing Pacino has done on TV has been equivalent to Kidman completely destroying (in the 2017 TV awards season) Jessica Lange, Susan Sarandon, Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern and Felicity Huffmann....all on peak or career/near career best form. Not even close. That alone was an all-time great feat, and more impressive than most Best Actress Oscar races. She wiped out 3 of the actresses that featured in the top 50 poll, in some of the most impressive performances of their careers. And none of them even ran her a close second. Kidman has done a lot of special work, but her work in Big Little Lies is up there with the best of anybody ever in screen acting. I don't really think that's the right way to view it. Pacino couldn't help that the two times he won, he was the clear and distinct frontrunner (although for my money, Banderas/Rickman/Mos Def were all excellent competition for him the first time around, as was the unnominated Justin Kirk). If that were the case, people would be lauding Pacino for being so good he walloped an incredible lineup for the Oscar in 1992, but no one really judges the strength of a win against their competition (if anything, they usually do their best to tear it down by saying so-and-so was robbed). In Kidman's case, she was up against Lange, who they feted twice already in that category recently (and Feud wound up really under-performing in the end despite its nomination haul; could be the start of a downturn in Murphy's popularity?), Huffman was a previous winner already, Coon was something of the eclectic passion pick that probably benefited from her banner year with that and The Leftovers, and Witherspoon had the less flashy role in Big Little Lies which was always going to feel dwarfed alongside Kidman. This is not to take away from Kidman's win or her performance in general; she was the clear frontrunner that night, but I don't think that its success is necessarily bolstered by the perceived strength of her competition, particularly when compared to Pacino, whose Emmy-winning work redefined him and revitalized him. His Roy Cohn is already iconic and his Kevorkian probably close to it. (It should also be noted that Pacino won exactly the same amount of awards for his two Emmy-winning roles as Kidman did for hers.) I think you are reaching here. Kidman couldn't even fall victim to "vote splitting" when Laura Dern (who swept the supporting actress category in every other ceremony) was added to the lead actress category at SAG. She had to beat two of her castmates and the powerhouse Feud duo to win there. That was what truly showed how unbeatable she was. The SAG win, not the Emmy. (And sorry Stephen, but Witherspoon had the "flashy" and loud role in BLL (and in fact got the most praise because of it in the first 3 episodes, while Kidman was percolating). Kidman was the unraveling, slow burner. A subtely paced performance that never went into histronics. Maybe the emotional content of her role with the abuse storyline was more wrenching, but Witherspoon was the one giving a flashy performance) What Kidman did for that season was insane. There is no other comparison that I can actually think of. I think the fact that a few had won previously was irrelevant. Nobody was beating Kidman at all. The 1992 thing was very different. Everyone knew he was overdue, and the Academy plays catch-up .Kidman was simply unstoppable. I think most of her competition was in play for the win and the playing field was level. She just decimated an all-time great field on merit.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 8, 2018 17:58:20 GMT
I think you are reaching here. Kidman couldn't even fall victim to "vote splitting" when Laura Dern (who swept the supporting actress category in every other ceremony) was added to the lead actress category at SAG. She had to beat two of her castmates and the powerhouse Feud duo to win there. (And sorry Stephen, but Witherspoon had the "flashy" and loud role in BLL (and in fact got the most praise because of it in the first 3 episodes, while Kidman was percolating). Kidman was the unraveling, slow burner. A subtely paced performance that never went into histronics. Maybe the emotional content of her role with the abuse storyline was more wrenching, but Witherspoon was the one giving a slash performance) What Kidman did for that season was insane. There is no other comparison that I can actually think of. I think the fact that a few had won previously was irrelevant. Nobody was beating Kidman at all. The 1992 thing was very different. Everyone knew he was overdue., and the Academy plays catch-up Kidman was simply unstoppable If ever a supporting performance that is sweeping everywhere else winds up competing in lead against the leading frontrunner, always bet on the leading horse. Plus, at SAG, Kidman had gone winless for quite a while (eight or so nominations?), and SAG seems to be the one awards body who is cognizant of who hasn't won before and will largely rally behind someone they respect (i.e. Denzel in 2016). Witherspoon may have been "louder," but I think viewers were much more engaged with what was happening with Kidman, especially as Skarsgard was a juggernaut sweeper in his own right. (I also suspect Witherspoon's rep caught a bit of a hit a few years ago with her arrest, and she's been steadily rebuilding it.) I also don't think the Feud girls were as big a competition as you might think; Big Little Lies had HBO behind it, Lange had already won three times in the last decade (two of which were in this category for Ryan Murphy joints), Sarandon didn't get nearly the amount of press Lange did, and Feud had a bit of bad press at the time with the Olivia de Havilland controversy. As proven by its underwhelming awards tally despite its nominations, I think voters might be cooling on Murphy. Kidman may have been unstoppable, but in this day and age, with so many precursors, is that really that much of an accomplishment? Sometimes, it's just an actor's "time," and everyone kind of agrees on it and the stars align so that by the time the big awards are given out, it's pretty much set in stone. This doesn't take away from Kidman's accomplishment, but I don't see what she did as being any different than, say, DiCaprio in 2015, or DDL in 2012, or Moore in 2014, etc., etc.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 8, 2018 18:09:38 GMT
SAG don't do make-up or "veteran" wins. That's just a myth to me. As a general body, they are too big and unweildy be aware (or care much) if someone has or hasn't won before. I guarantee you most voters probably thought she had already won years ago, either indivudually or with a cast. Same for Denzel.
They keep choosing not to award Robert DeNiro (one of the GOATs according to many) every time he is up for a SAG. Because they don't love the performance enough. SAG is so much more about how actors percieve your performance, than making up for past losses. Denzel and Kidman won because voters thought they gave the best performance. DeNiro has lost a couple of times already, because they thought he didn''t. Harvey Weinstein tried to run a "DeNiro has never won a SAG before" campaign for Silver Linings Playbook, and voters still gave it to an actor who already had a SAG. That stuff matters much less than with the Academy.
Dicaprio's competition wasn't anywhere near the level of Kidman, and he had a clear overdue narrative. Kidman didn't have one of those pre-ordained biopic roles like DDL (or Oldman) and Moore's competition was incredibly weak, so she coasted to an overdue win. I find Kidman's sweep different and more impressive than all of those ones.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Aug 8, 2018 18:17:56 GMT
I fail to see how Nicole Kidman's sweeping was particularly substantial or epic. It honestly just sounds like fans stanning to me. The storyline of an A-list mostly movie actress getting a good role in tv then sweeping all the tv best actress awards (there are only like 3 or 4, btw) has been done a billion times before. Laura Linney for John Adams, Kate Winslet for Mildred Pierce, and Julianne Moore for Game Change are all fairly recent examples. Even Sarah Paulson did exactly the same a year before with O.J. Simpson.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 8, 2018 18:30:18 GMT
I fail to see how Nicole Kidman's sweeping was particularly substantial or epic. It honestly just sounds like fans stanning to me. The storyline of an A-list mostly movie actress getting a good role in tv then swpeeing all the tv best actress awards (there are only like 3 or 4, btw) has been done a billion times before. Laura Linney for John Adams, Kate Winslet for Mildred Pierce, and Julianne Moore for Game Change are all fairly recent examples. Even Sarah Paulson did exactly the same a year before with O.J. Simpson. I've pointed out repeatedly that the standard of the competition on an even playing field is what made Kidman's sweep special, not the sweep itself. I think Big Little Lies is actually the best performance Reese Witherspoon has ever given (and she played one of the great movie characters in Tracy Flick). I rate Feud as among Lange and Sarandon's best ever work. Same for Dern. And Coon was brilliant. Obviously there have been sweepers before, but I don't think the standard of performances in those fields you mention was anywhere near what Kidman was up against. Most of them were clear and obvious winners from the get go. It's not quite reckless stanning. Vanity Fair pointed out that Kidman won the most competitive Emmy category in history. This was Vanity Fair's write-up, not a Kidman fansite, and frankly, they are on the money. www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/09/nicole-kidman-emmys-speech-domestic-abuse-big-little-lies-children-daughters
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 8, 2018 18:51:21 GMT
I fail to see how Nicole Kidman's sweeping was particularly substantial or epic. It honestly just sounds like fans stanning to me. The storyline of an A-list mostly movie actress getting a good role in tv then swpeeing all the tv best actress awards (there are only like 3 or 4, btw) has been done a billion times before. Laura Linney for John Adams, Kate Winslet for Mildred Pierce, and Julianne Moore for Game Change are all fairly recent examples. Even Sarah Paulson did exactly the same a year before with O.J. Simpson. I've pointed out repeatedly that the standard of the competition is what made Kidman's sweep special, not the sweep itself. I think Big Little Lies is actually the best performance Reese Witherspoon has ever given (and she played one of the great movie characters in Tracy Flick). I rate Feud as among Lange and Sarandon's best ever work. Same for Dern. And Coon was brilliant. Obviously there have been sweepers before, but I don't think the standard of performances in those fields you mention was anywhere near what Kidman was up against. Most of them were clear and obvious winners from the get go. It's not quite reckless stanning. Vanity Fair pointed out that Kidman won the most competitive Emmy category in history. This was Vanity Fair's write-up, not a Kidman fansite, and frankly, they are on the money. www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/09/nicole-kidman-emmys-speech-domestic-abuse-big-little-lies-children-daughtersI don't know if I'd agree with Vanity Fair's assessment on that category's competitiveness. Firstly, as we've established, Kidman swept so thoroughly that it wasn't competitive at all. You could make an argument that it was the most star-studded, already-awarded assortment of actresses ever in one category, and that one might fly. Your assessment of the performances she was up against as being career-best for most of those in competition is entirely subjective, although I probably wouldn't disagree with you on most of them. Off the top of my head, Cranston's final Emmy win for Breaking Bad had a powerful lineup to contend with: McConaughey/Harrelson for True Detective (which would rate very highly as some of the best work either has done, as well as some of the best TV work period), Jon Hamm for Mad Men (the perennial bridesmaid who did some incredible, career-defining work there; he'll likely never be able to escape the Don Draper shadow), Jeff Daniels for The Newsroom (maybe not the best of the bunch, but Daniels is insanely respected in his own right and this was a role that had netted him the win the year before and has been considered by many the best work of his own career), and Kevin Spacey in House of Cards (at a time when that actually meant something). Cranston's win was probably a foregone conclusion, being as it was the series's final bow, but that competition was tough as hell and any of those guys would've been seen as just as worthy.
|
|
wattsnew
Full Member
Posts: 712
Likes: 347
|
Post by wattsnew on Aug 15, 2018 3:42:18 GMT
I fail to see how Nicole Kidman's sweeping was particularly substantial or epic. It honestly just sounds like fans stanning to me. The storyline of an A-list mostly movie actress getting a good role in tv then sweeping all the tv best actress awards (there are only like 3 or 4, btw) has been done a billion times before. Laura Linney for John Adams, Kate Winslet for Mildred Pierce, and Julianne Moore for Game Change are all fairly recent examples. Even Sarah Paulson did exactly the same a year before with O.J. Simpson. You're right. The fact that these rabid fans have to act like every breath she takes is revolutionary is just too much, lmao.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Aug 15, 2018 4:40:26 GMT
I fail to see how Nicole Kidman's sweeping was particularly substantial or epic. It honestly just sounds like fans stanning to me. The storyline of an A-list mostly movie actress getting a good role in tv then sweeping all the tv best actress awards (there are only like 3 or 4, btw) has been done a billion times before. Laura Linney for John Adams, Kate Winslet for Mildred Pierce, and Julianne Moore for Game Change are all fairly recent examples. Even Sarah Paulson did exactly the same a year before with O.J. Simpson. You're right. The fact that these rabid fans have to act like every breath she takes is revolutionary is just too much, lmao. Oh honey, I love you.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 15, 2018 18:22:48 GMT
I fail to see how Nicole Kidman's sweeping was particularly substantial or epic. It honestly just sounds like fans stanning to me. The storyline of an A-list mostly movie actress getting a good role in tv then sweeping all the tv best actress awards (there are only like 3 or 4, btw) has been done a billion times before. Laura Linney for John Adams, Kate Winslet for Mildred Pierce, and Julianne Moore for Game Change are all fairly recent examples. Even Sarah Paulson did exactly the same a year before with O.J. Simpson. You're right. The fact that these rabid fans have to act like every breath she takes is revolutionary is just too much, lmao. LOL! Get the hell outta here with this trash statement. For years, Kidman had to put up with non-stop ridicule ("botox", box office poison, flop, has-been, frozen face, overrated etc etc). And claims that "rabid fans" were "deluded" because Kidman was unpopular, and she'd never again be as super praised and respected as she was in 2001-2005 (wrong!). The praise she gets now is entirely warrented. Very few all-time great level actresses have had to go through the shit she has in order for their reputation to survive. People like you had already buried her and her career and were dancing on her figurative grave. It took guts for people to keep supporting her when she was unpopular with large sections of the media in the real world. The turnaround in the last 2 years has been stunning (and it's all down to the quality of her work). She's as popular and respected as she's ever been. She worked her way back to the top of the tree of prestige actresses, where she can be talked of in the same breath of the Streeps, Hupperts and Blanchetts again. And her haters look desperate and passe, clinging on to the good old days when disliking Kidman was actually fashionable. Move on. It's over. Her haters lost, but they had a good run and should cherish those memories. Kidman is the real deal, a GOAT level actress and is popular again, and it's only going to get worse for those who dislike her going forward. Because she's going to get a lot more praise, and win a lot more silly shiny trophies.
|
|
|
Post by evilbliss on Aug 15, 2018 18:59:10 GMT
You're right. The fact that these rabid fans have to act like every breath she takes is revolutionary is just too much, lmao. LOL! Get the hell outta here with this trash statement. For years, Kidman had to put up with non-stop ridicule ("botox", box office poison, flop, has-been, frozen face, overrated etc etc). And claims that "rabid fans" were "deluded" because Kidman was unpopular, and she'd never again be as super praised and respected as she was in 2001-2005 (wrong!). The praise she gets now is entirely warrented. Very few all-time great level actresses have had to go through the shit she has in order for their reputation to survive. People like you had already buried her and her career and were dancing on her figurative grave. It took guts for people to keep supporting her when she was unpopular with large sections of the media in the real world. The turnaround in the last 2 years has been stunning (and it's all down to the quality of her work). She's as popular and respected as she's ever been. She worked her way back to the top of the tree of prestige actresses, where she can be talked of in the same breath of the Streeps, Hupperts and Blanchetts again. And her haters look desperate and passe, clinging on to the good old days when disliking Kidman was actually fashionable. Move on. It's over. Her haters lost, but they had a good run and should cherish those memories. Kidman is the real deal, a GOAT level actress and is popular again, and it's only going to get worse for those who dislike her going forward. Because she's going to get a lot more praise, and win a lot more silly shiny trophies. Will you marry me?
|
|
wattsnew
Full Member
Posts: 712
Likes: 347
|
Post by wattsnew on Aug 16, 2018 8:32:10 GMT
You're right. The fact that these rabid fans have to act like every breath she takes is revolutionary is just too much, lmao. LOL! Get the hell outta here with this trash statement. For years, Kidman had to put up with non-stop ridicule ("botox", box office poison, flop, has-been, frozen face, overrated etc etc). And claims that "rabid fans" were "deluded" because Kidman was unpopular, and she'd never again be as super praised and respected as she was in 2001-2005 (wrong!). The praise she gets now is entirely warrented. Very few all-time great level actresses have had to go through the shit she has in order for their reputation to survive. People like you had already buried her and her career and were dancing on her figurative grave. It took guts for people to keep supporting her when she was unpopular with large sections of the media in the real world. The turnaround in the last 2 years has been stunning (and it's all down to the quality of her work). She's as popular and respected as she's ever been. She worked her way back to the top of the tree of prestige actresses, where she can be talked of in the same breath of the Streeps, Hupperts and Blanchetts again. And her haters look desperate and passe, clinging on to the good old days when disliking Kidman was actually fashionable. Move on. It's over. Her haters lost, but they had a good run and should cherish those memories. Kidman is the real deal, a GOAT level actress and is popular again, and it's only going to get worse for those who dislike her going forward. Because she's going to get a lot more praise, and win a lot more silly shiny trophies. Jesus, this hyperbolic nonsense is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't hate her at all, I actually like her a lot (why else would she be in my avi?). Yes, it's great she had a career turnaround. It's very impressive! Good for her. And as mentioned before, many other actresses had done it before and many will do it again. "t took guts for people to keep supporting her when she was unpopular with large sections of the media in the real world." This victim narrative you're pushing, as if it was Brave to be a Nicole Kidman fan. I'm sorry, I'm laughing....
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 16, 2018 9:04:00 GMT
LOL! Get the hell outta here with this trash statement. For years, Kidman had to put up with non-stop ridicule ("botox", box office poison, flop, has-been, frozen face, overrated etc etc). And claims that "rabid fans" were "deluded" because Kidman was unpopular, and she'd never again be as super praised and respected as she was in 2001-2005 (wrong!). The praise she gets now is entirely warrented. Very few all-time great level actresses have had to go through the shit she has in order for their reputation to survive. People like you had already buried her and her career and were dancing on her figurative grave. It took guts for people to keep supporting her when she was unpopular with large sections of the media in the real world. The turnaround in the last 2 years has been stunning (and it's all down to the quality of her work). She's as popular and respected as she's ever been. She worked her way back to the top of the tree of prestige actresses, where she can be talked of in the same breath of the Streeps, Hupperts and Blanchetts again. And her haters look desperate and passe, clinging on to the good old days when disliking Kidman was actually fashionable. Move on. It's over. Her haters lost, but they had a good run and should cherish those memories. Kidman is the real deal, a GOAT level actress and is popular again, and it's only going to get worse for those who dislike her going forward. Because she's going to get a lot more praise, and win a lot more silly shiny trophies. Jesus, this hyperbolic nonsense is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't hate her at all, I actually like her a lot (why else would she be in my avi?). Yes, it's great she had a career turnaround. It's very impressive! Good for her. And as mentioned before, many other actresses had done it before and many will do it again. "t took guts for people to keep supporting her when she was unpopular with large sections of the media in the real world." This victim narrative you're pushing, as if it was Brave to be a Nicole Kidman fan. I'm sorry, I'm laughing.... Please, you are clearly a superfan of Kidman's short, ' solid, but not quite as good' mini-me, Naomi Watts. Kidman is in your avi now because she's kissing her former Nanny (as Watts is known on another site). Sorry that Watts career in recent years has basically been a disaster, but no need to keep taking it out on Kidman. Maybe if Watts does something (get better taste, find a new agent) she might have a career turnaround like her vastly superior best friend. I've read enough of your bitching and passive agressive shots about positive comments towards Kidman (not just on this is thread either) on this board to count you as a someone who doesn't like her all that much (maybe the fact the Watts is nowhere near as revered as Kidman feuls that need to see Kidman not praised too highly). Which is totally fine...you don't need to be a big fan, or a fan at all. It's not some mandatory requirement. You've made your point. But people will no more stop singing Kidman's praises than they will for Meryl Streep's or Bette Davis or any other great/legendary actress with decades of work behind them. Grow up and deal with it. Kidman has earned her status the fucking hard way. If you don't like the supposed 'hyperbole', tough shit. Because no one is stopping for you. You sound like a whiny baby. "Wah-wah, stop acting like Kidman is so great, Other actrsses been great too, like Nanny, wah-wah! Won't the world think about the other actresses too.Wah-wah!" Your bitternes over Kidman's status relative to Watts' is laughably transparent.Concentrate on supporting Watts instead of moaning about the much deserved praise or reverence Kidman gets. Watts needs it.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Aug 16, 2018 10:40:47 GMT
oh lawd. I'm gonna pretend I read all that. Let me just chime in and address the original poster. Your mentioning of her nominations.... I'm not sure what the main thing you're asking is. When I look at Kidman's list of nominations, I feel bored. When I look at Blanchett, I feel far less bored. And.... point being? Blanchett is a total hit and miss with her nominations. Absolutely deserved to win for Blue Jasmine. Deserve to be nominated for Notes on a Scandal. Deserved mostly positive appraisal for Elizabeth, though Emily Watson should've swept away not only Paltrow but Blanchett equally too. Awful in The Aviator, Carol... and I'm Not There it's my Haynes hate speaking, but still...to me, awful. And if you don't get why her sweeping in 2017 was important. Well.... Linney won handily in 2008... strangely. I don't know why people think she was better than Giamatti, much less the even superior Stephen Dillane. And Winslet winning in 2011 isn't an achievement either, since we knew she was winning when she was cast. What's the competition again? She was decent, but I forgot all about her performance sitting here in 2018. Kidman winning is big because... Big Little Lies is a bigger deal than any of these, and many of the fans of the show are not even Kidmaniacs. She's picking up new fans as she builds her work. Not to mention, her sweeping is in a category featuring Witherspoon, Lange, and Sarandon. Lange is far better than any of the 5 I've seen from the category. And as for the rest....I'd take Witherspoon, Lange, Sarandon, and Kidman over all 4 of the Oscar Best Actress nominees of 2017 that I've seen. That's why it's a big deal, so I don't get what brain lapses ya'll are going through here. I'm not near pupdurcs level of fanboyism for Kidman, but her resume speaks for herself. It's varied. It's loaded. Case closed. We all have different favorites from Kidman, and while I think she was painfully blank in Eyes Wide Shut (stupid Kubrick fanboys), and while I don't know why I don't like her To Die For performance (even though it's technically and artistically a sound work), and Cold Mountain was just a flop and every performance in it was kinda phony and threadbare.... the rest of her work ranges from great to very good to pretty good at worst. She began showing signs of Hollywood power beginning as early as Days of Thunder and Far and Away. She was simply magnetic even in 1990-1992. And she has even greater stuff to show. I'd argue she has greater range than Blanchett, and can be cast in a greater array of roles. Look how ridiculous Blanchett looked in The Aviator. That casting was the female equivalent of DeNiro in The Untouchables. Just *beep* putting a big name in anything and thinking it's the right thing to do. Hilary Swank would've crushed her role. (And Hoskins DeNiro's but that's another story)
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Aug 16, 2018 16:10:29 GMT
oh lawd. I'm gonna pretend I read all that. Let me just chime in and address the original poster. Your mentioning of her nominations.... I'm not sure what the main thing you're asking is. When I look at Kidman's list of nominations, I feel bored. When I look at Blanchett, I feel far less bored. And.... point being? Blanchett is a total hit and miss with her nominations. Absolutely deserved to win for Blue Jasmine. Deserve to be nominated for Notes on a Scandal. Deserved mostly positive appraisal for Elizabeth, though Emily Watson should've swept away not only Paltrow but Blanchett equally too. Awful in The Aviator, Carol... and I'm Not There it's my Haynes hate speaking, but still...to me, awful. And if you don't get why her sweeping in 2017 was important. Well.... Linney won handily in 2008... strangely. I don't know why people think she was better than Giamatti, much less the even superior Stephen Dillane. And Winslet winning in 2011 isn't an achievement either, since we knew she was winning when she was cast. What's the competition again? She was decent, but I forgot all about her performance sitting here in 2018. Kidman winning is big because... Big Little Lies is a bigger deal than any of these, and many of the fans of the show are not even Kidmaniacs. She's picking up new fans as she builds her work. Not to mention, her sweeping is in a category featuring Witherspoon, Lange, and Sarandon. Lange is far better than any of the 5 I've seen from the category. And as for the rest....I'd take Witherspoon, Lange, Sarandon, and Kidman over all 4 of the Oscar Best Actress nominees of 2017 that I've seen. That's why it's a big deal, so I don't get what brain lapses ya'll are going through here. Pretty much every single word you wrote here is entirely subjective. I for one find Blanchett's nominated performances collectively far stronger than Kidman's. I would also take Linney's Abigail Adams over every single nominee in 2017, and it's not a close call. It's also pretty fucking hilarious how you're claiming that no one remembers Laura Linney and Kate Winslet's competition as if Big Little Lies and Feud didn't just happen last year. At least wait till 2025 before you say that. Finally, John Adams had far better ratings than Big Little Lies did, so I don't really know where your confidence is coming from in saying that the latter was a bigger deal.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Aug 16, 2018 16:10:50 GMT
oh lawd. I'm gonna pretend I read all that. Let me just chime in and address the original poster. Your mentioning of her nominations.... I'm not sure what the main thing you're asking is. When I look at Kidman's list of nominations, I feel bored. When I look at Blanchett, I feel far less bored. And.... point being? Blanchett is a total hit and miss with her nominations. Absolutely deserved to win for Blue Jasmine. Deserve to be nominated for Notes on a Scandal. Deserved mostly positive appraisal for Elizabeth, though Emily Watson should've swept away not only Paltrow but Blanchett equally too. Awful in The Aviator, Carol... and I'm Not There it's my Haynes hate speaking, but still...to me, awful. And if you don't get why her sweeping in 2017 was important. Well.... Linney won handily in 2008... strangely. I don't know why people think she was better than Giamatti, much less the even superior Stephen Dillane. And Winslet winning in 2011 isn't an achievement either, since we knew she was winning when she was cast. What's the competition again? She was decent, but I forgot all about her performance sitting here in 2018. Kidman winning is big because... Big Little Lies is a bigger deal than any of these, and many of the fans of the show are not even Kidmaniacs. She's picking up new fans as she builds her work. Not to mention, her sweeping is in a category featuring Witherspoon, Lange, and Sarandon. Lange is far better than any of the 5 I've seen from the category. And as for the rest....I'd take Witherspoon, Lange, Sarandon, and Kidman over all 4 of the Oscar Best Actress nominees of 2017 that I've seen. That's why it's a big deal, so I don't get what brain lapses ya'll are going through here. I'm not near pupdurcs level of fanboyism for Kidman, but her resume speaks for herself. It's varied. It's loaded. Case closed. We all have different favorites from Kidman, and while I think she was painfully blank in Eyes Wide Shut (stupid Kubrick fanboys), and while I don't know why I don't like her To Die For performance (even though it's technically and artistically a sound work), and Cold Mountain was just a flop and every performance in it was kinda phony and threadbare.... the rest of her work ranges from great to very good to pretty good at worst. She began showing signs of Hollywood power beginning as early as Days of Thunder and Far and Away. She was simply magnetic even in 1990-1992. And she has even greater stuff to show. I'd argue she has greater range than Blanchett, and can be cast in a greater array of roles. Look how ridiculous Blanchett looked in The Aviator. That casting was the female equivalent of DeNiro in The Untouchables. Just *beep* putting a big name in anything and thinking it's the right thing to do. Hilary Swank would've crushed her role. (And Hoskins DeNiro's but that's another story) Well said.
|
|