|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 18, 2018 0:37:58 GMT
Lady Gaga Melissa McCarthy Olivia Colman Saoirsa Ronan Viola Davis or Kidman I think Gaga is winning right now unless McCarthy dominates the critics prizes and takes over. But it helps Colman that she has the later release, and if the Academy goes big for The Favourite (likely) then she's a threat. Weisz/Stone should both make Supp or maybe split-votes casts them out? Having said that my predix right now are Clint, Gaga, Ali, and Emma Stone...... Interesting that you think it's McCarthy who is the potential spoiler. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 19, 2018 4:10:56 GMT
I didn't even know she was in Aquaman. #themoreyouknow I think if she's going to be on the circuit and if her campaigning works, it'll likely favor her more Oscar-friendly role in Boy Erased, in a category that is far easier to squeeze into. Kidman in Destroyer would be up against a much stronger cadre of performances: Colman, Close, Gaga, Aparicio, McCarthy, Davis, with potential critical passion-picks like Collette and Kiki Layne or late-season spoilers like Blunt and Ronan hovering in the background. Kidman would have to overcome her film's genre conventions with a flagging studio behind her and hope that some of those performances fail at the final stretch, and unfortunately, the top six I listed are looking pretty rock-steady at the moment. Obviously someone has to miss out, and my gut says McCarthy loses her spot to Aparicio due to Roma passion, but I could also conceive of Close missing out because her film has so little staying power that her perceived "overdue" narrative gets lost in the shuffle of louder, bolder performances. I'm not saying Kidman can't get in for this, but her work is definitely cut out for her to get in, and she would need the critics behind her, because of how unfriendly the role/film is, regardless of any sort of "actorly transformation." Charlize Theron (who everyone keeps drawing comparisons towards) damn near swept the critics' prizes in '03. Kidman would need to do the same. No, I'd be willing to bet that any love that Kidman gets on the campaign trail will go to her Boy Erased turn. People might retroactively look back on the year and think she should've gotten in for Destroyer, but evaluating the landscape of the Oscar race and knowing what appeals to voters generally is key. I feel this is the kind of convoluted logic that non-actors or pundits come up with to justify various predictions or potential outcomes. And it usually doesn't work like that in reality. Maybe you could apply that logic to a more general voting body, but not to Actors. Actors, who are up ultimately the ones who do the nominating are simply not that complicated. If they see an actor they revere (and I'd count 10 time SAG nominee Nicole Kidman an actor specifically revered by other actors) doing something so completey unlike anything they have ever done before, that is transformative, serious AND showy....that shit us catnip to actors. Often times, the movie is irrelevant. They don't think..he/she has a less showy and transformative performance out at the same time, I'll nominate that instead. Or the critics told me to nominate this person instead because they like their movie more. This is how Sean Penn happens in I Am Sam. How Denzel happend in Roman J Israel Esq. How Glenn Close happens in Albert Noobs. Revered actors in movies the critics actually panned, getting nominated for transformnative roles, in spite of the movie around them or it's reception. And Destroyer's reviews are actually on par with The Godfather or Citizen Kane compared to those films. It won't get as Best Picture nod, but it's not actually panned like a Roman J or Albert Noobs, so Kidman is already at a significant advantage. Predicting against Kidman in Destroyer to me is crazy after seeing that trailer. As I said, actors in recent years love/revere her enough to nominate her at SAG for complete critical failures like The Paperboy and Grace Of Monaco. Actors will go apeshit for what she's doing in Destroyer...they won't be double checking the metacritic score of the movie, or worrying about it being a crime thriller/drama, or voting for another performance in a different category as consolation (if she gets in for Boy Erased, it's because Actors liked her in that as well.) We'll see at the end if the day, but my understanding if how actors think and vote when it comes to actors that have a certain cache in the acting community, lead me to believe Kidman is one of the favourites for a nomination, not an outsider or underdog, despite what pundits would currently have you believe |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 19, 2018 4:37:25 GMT
I didn't even know she was in Aquaman. #themoreyouknow I think if she's going to be on the circuit and if her campaigning works, it'll likely favor her more Oscar-friendly role in Boy Erased, in a category that is far easier to squeeze into. Kidman in Destroyer would be up against a much stronger cadre of performances: Colman, Close, Gaga, Aparicio, McCarthy, Davis, with potential critical passion-picks like Collette and Kiki Layne or late-season spoilers like Blunt and Ronan hovering in the background. Kidman would have to overcome her film's genre conventions with a flagging studio behind her and hope that some of those performances fail at the final stretch, and unfortunately, the top six I listed are looking pretty rock-steady at the moment. Obviously someone has to miss out, and my gut says McCarthy loses her spot to Aparicio due to Roma passion, but I could also conceive of Close missing out because her film has so little staying power that her perceived "overdue" narrative gets lost in the shuffle of louder, bolder performances. I'm not saying Kidman can't get in for this, but her work is definitely cut out for her to get in, and she would need the critics behind her, because of how unfriendly the role/film is, regardless of any sort of "actorly transformation." Charlize Theron (who everyone keeps drawing comparisons towards) damn near swept the critics' prizes in '03. Kidman would need to do the same. No, I'd be willing to bet that any love that Kidman gets on the campaign trail will go to her Boy Erased turn. People might retroactively look back on the year and think she should've gotten in for Destroyer, but evaluating the landscape of the Oscar race and knowing what appeals to voters generally is key. I feel this is the kind of convoluted logic that non-actors or pundits come up with to justify various predictions or potential outcomes. And it usually doesn't work like that in reality. Maybe you could apply that logic to a more general voting body, but not to Actors. Actors, who are up ultimately the ones who do the nominating are simply not that complicated. If they see an actor they revere (and I'd count 10 time SAG nominee Nicole Kidman an actor specifically revered by other actors) doing something so completey unlike anything they have ever done before, that is transformative, serious AND showy....that shit us catnip to actors. Often times, the movie is irrelevant. They don't think..he/she has a less showy and transformative performance out at the same time, I'll nominate that instead. Or the critics told me to nominate this person instead because they like their movie more. This is how Sean Penn happens in I Am Sam. How Denzel happend in Roman J Israel Esq. How Glenn Close happens in Albert Noobs. Revered actors in movies the critics actually panned, getting nominated for transformnative roles, in spite of the movie around them or it's reception. And Destroyer's reviews are actually on par with The Godfather or Citizen Kane compared to those films. It won't get as Best Picture nod, but it's not actually panned like a Roman J or Albert Noobs, so Kidman is already at a significant advantage. Predicting against Kidman in Destroyer to me is crazy after seeing that trailer. As I said, actors in recent years love/revere her enough to nominate her at SAG for complete critical failures like The Paperboy and Grace Of Monaco. Actors will go apeshit for what she's doing in Destroyer...they won't be double checking the metacritic score of the movie, or worrying about it being a crime thriller/drama, or voting for another performance in a different category as consolation (if she gets in for Boy Erased, it's because Actors liked her in that as well.) We'll see at the end if the day, but my understanding if how actors think and vote when it comes to actors that have a certain cache in the acting community, lead me to believe Kidman is one of the favourites for a nomination, not an outsider or underdog, despite what pundits would currently have you believe We'll see. I'll be happy to eat my words if she gets in, but she's certainly not a sure thing. Regardless of Kidman's stature as an actress, she's never really been an Oscar favorite, and she's missed out for baitier works in the past. My only warning is don't get swept up in the hype. People bandy around the words "undeniable" and "career-best" so often they don't mean anything; they're just buzzwords to get people excited. Will she be able to muscle her way into what looks to be an extraordinarily dense Best Actress lineup, with other women who are getting raves on par or even surpassing hers? |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 19, 2018 5:04:54 GMT
I'm not going simply by her reviews. I know they can be sometimes sophomoric or mislead ing. I'm going by my own two eyes as well. I know the stuff Actors orgasm over. Kidman gives by far the most obviously 'holy shit, actors are gonna jizz over this" performance I've see in a trailer this year. Maybe Bale in Vice comes close.
Even though I'd personally nominate Kidman far more times than she has been, most of her misses with the Academy are understandable. To Die For was an egregious snub, but that was long before she'd built up such an incredible body of work and become "Nicole Kidman" as we know her today. She's done praised work in weird arthouse experiments like Dogville and Fur. It's easy to see voters not even watching some of her stranger choices, which also contain some of her strongest work.
Destroyer looks accessible (at least as marketed by the trailer). A crime thriller cum character study. I don't think Academy voters will see a screener and think, "this looks like a weird movie. I don't wanna watch it", like many of Kidman's best works. And while Kidman has had several "career best" performance reviews, I've rarely seen her do it to as showy an effect as she does in the Destroyer trailer.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 19, 2018 5:14:08 GMT
I'm not going simply by her reviews. I know they can be sometimes sophomoric or mislead ing. I'm going by my own two eyes as well. I know the stuff Actors orgasm over. Kidman gives by far the most obviously 'holy shit, actors are gonna jizz over this" performance I've see in a trailer this year. Maybe Bale in Vice comes close. Even though I'd personally nominate Kidman far more times than she has been, most of her misses with the Academy are understandable. To Die For was an egregious snub, but that was before she'd built up such as incredible body of work and become "Nicole Kidman" as we know her today. She's done praised work in weird arthouse experiments like Dogville and Fur. It's easy to see voters not even watching some of her stranger choices, which also contain some of her strongest work. Destroyer looks accessible (at least as marketed by the trailer). A crime thriller cum character study. I don't think Academy voters will see a screener and think, "this looks like a weird movie. I don't wanna watch it", like many of Kidman's best works. And while Kidman has had several "career best" performance reviews, I've rarely seen her do it to as showy an effect as she does in the Destroyer trailer. I've actually heard the opposite on Destroyer: that it is not at all an accessible thriller. I've heard it's so dark as to be alienating and unflinching to the point of being called "a tough watch." A few people here have seen it and it'd be neat if they could weigh in on it here, but Karyn Kusama has never been an awards-friendly filmmaker and this film might be too polarizing for industry voters. I think this is going to be seen alongside the likes of The Others, Dogville, Birth, Fur and Margot at the Wedding as another Kidman arthouse film that gets strong critical appreciation but doesn't translate to industry recognition, especially when there is another film in a less competitive category that is far friendlier to their sensibilities right there in Boy Erased. I guess in the end, I just feel there are more cons than there are pros when it comes to this film/performance, and none of them really have anything to do with the quality of the work itself, but the machinations of the studio and the year in general. But I guess we'll agree to disagree until the awards come in. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 19, 2018 5:49:36 GMT
Which is why I said the trailer did an amazing job 'marketing' Destroyer as an accessible movie. Whether it actually is or not isn't the point. You need to hook people into wanting to watch it (to actually see the performance), which I think the trailer does masterfully.
I've seen dudebros on Reddit hyped and losing their shit over the Destroyer trailer. The type of movie fans who wouldn't watch a typical Nicole Kidman arthouse movie if you paid them. They think it looks badass. The complete opposite of inaccessible. That's what a great trailer can do, and whoever cut that thing deserves a bonus.
I suspect the inaccessible thing has been exaggerated by certain pundits and critics as well (perhaps pushing their own horses in the actress race). The film I've seen Destroyer most commonly compared to in reviews is Heat, which isn't particularly inaccessible to me. I've also read it compared to other smart crime dramas/thrillers like To Live And Die In LA and Point Break....neither of which are inaccessible to me. Unless you are judging it on the scale of a Marvel movie or the 7th Fast And Furious movie with flying cars in Abu Dhabi.
Birth only got strong critical appreciation after the fact. It's one of those movies that many critics decided to reevaluate as a masterpiece (particularly as Jonathan Glaser made some critically beloved movies afterwards), but it only has like 39% on Rotten Tomatoes or something. A lot of Kidmman's films are the kind that grow in appreciation or stature over time. Margot At The Wedding got mixed reviews (52% RT). Fur got panned (32% RT), but a lot of people today think those movies got better reviews on release than they actually did, because they've aged well or been appreciated as time passed.
The Others was not a neglected arthouse film. It was a huge commercial hit (made something like 250 million dollars worldwide), and she recieved several major award nominations for it (including BAFTA and Golden Globe for Best Actress). Kidman was not snubbed by the Oscars for The Others. The only reason she was not nominated was because she was competing with herself the same year for Moulin Rouge, and equally praised film and performance. She got the Best Actress nod for Moulin Rouge, but probably would have gotten it for The Others if Moulin Rouge was not in the same year.
|
|
wattsnew
Full Member
Posts: 712
Likes: 347
|
Post by wattsnew on Oct 21, 2018 8:39:05 GMT
 Gaga Colman Close McCarthy Davis Alt: Aparicio I feel like it's going to be a tight race between those top 3 for a win! I'm leaning towards Close atm... |
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Oct 21, 2018 9:17:20 GMT
At this point I am predicting:
Glenn Close: The Wife
Olivia Colman: The Favourite
Lady Gaga: A Star is Born
Nicole Kidman: Destroyer
Melissa McCarthy: Can You Ever Forgive Me?
Tho I see Kidman being replaced by Roberts, Collette or somebody else at my November Predictions.
The rest is pretty save in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allenism on Oct 21, 2018 10:21:22 GMT
Same except swap McCarthy out for Aparicio. I don’t think anyone will walk away from Roma not thinking her performance is a lightning-in-a-bottle moment, and the Academy laps that kind of narrative up.
At this point I’d even predict Kidman ahead of McCarthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Oct 21, 2018 14:01:15 GMT
Way too much time is being spent on discussing Kidman in Best a Actress. She’s wonderful in both Destroyer and Boy Erased, but the latter is her better bet. Destroyer has mixed reviews, no other award prospects and is 3rd priority from a studio on its last leg in a very crowded Actress race. It’s just not going to happen. The role itself is catnip, but I imagine the film will be a tough sit for the Academy demo and I’m not even sure the film would be a viewing priority. She even has competition from Julia Roberts in the “career best reviews for a ho him film” sort of slot, and I’d argue that her role is probably more typical of what is nominated here than something like Destroyer.
Kidman is getting a bit of a raw deal in that both Actress categories are jam packed, and whilst raved, the films aren’t up to par. She’d likely be a lone nom for both, which is never a good position to be in, especially for films that aren’t raved.
I’d probably go
Glenn Close
Olivia Colman
Lady Gaga
Viola Davis
Melissa McCarthy
Yalitza Aparicio
Julia Roberts
Nicole Kidman
Emily Blunt
|
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Oct 21, 2018 14:07:12 GMT
I'm not going simply by her reviews. I know they can be sometimes sophomoric or mislead ing. I'm going by my own two eyes as well. I know the stuff Actors orgasm over. Kidman gives by far the most obviously 'holy shit, actors are gonna jizz over this" performance I've see in a trailer this year. Maybe Bale in Vice comes close. Even though I'd personally nominate Kidman far more times than she has been, most of her misses with the Academy are understandable. To Die For was an egregious snub, but that was long before she'd built up such an incredible body of work and become "Nicole Kidman" as we know her today. She's done praised work in weird arthouse experiments like Dogville and Fur. It's easy to see voters not even watching some of her stranger choices, which also contain some of her strongest work. Destroyer looks accessible (at least as marketed by the trailer). A crime thriller cum character study. I don't think Academy voters will see a screener and think, "this looks like a weird movie. I don't wanna watch it", like many of Kidman's best works. And while Kidman has had several "career best" performance reviews, I've rarely seen her do it to as showy an effect as she does in the Destroyer trailer. Their job is to sell the film to a wide audience. lol I’ve seen it, it’s not exactly inacessible, but it’s not an easy sit and I think anyone expressing concerns on how it will go over with voters is completely valid. I can see her maybe getting GG and/or SAG and missing the Oscar. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 21, 2018 15:00:17 GMT
I'm not going simply by her reviews. I know they can be sometimes sophomoric or mislead ing. I'm going by my own two eyes as well. I know the stuff Actors orgasm over. Kidman gives by far the most obviously 'holy shit, actors are gonna jizz over this" performance I've see in a trailer this year. Maybe Bale in Vice comes close. Even though I'd personally nominate Kidman far more times than she has been, most of her misses with the Academy are understandable. To Die For was an egregious snub, but that was long before she'd built up such an incredible body of work and become "Nicole Kidman" as we know her today. She's done praised work in weird arthouse experiments like Dogville and Fur. It's easy to see voters not even watching some of her stranger choices, which also contain some of her strongest work. Destroyer looks accessible (at least as marketed by the trailer). A crime thriller cum character study. I don't think Academy voters will see a screener and think, "this looks like a weird movie. I don't wanna watch it", like many of Kidman's best works. And while Kidman has had several "career best" performance reviews, I've rarely seen her do it to as showy an effect as she does in the Destroyer trailer. Their job is to sell the film to a wide audience. lol I’ve seen it, it’s not exactly inacessible, but it’s not an easy sit and I think anyone expressing concerns on how it will go over with voters is completely valid. I can see her maybe getting GG and/or SAG and missing the Oscar. Every single year, certain people tend to speak overconfidenly about what the Academy voters will or won't go for. For example, anyone still predicting Denzel Washington for a nod in Roman J Israel Esq after it's TIFF reception was apparently a deluded idiot ( I think you were one of those from recollection). Till it actually happened. And then hindsight kicks in and suddenly all those who mocked that likelyhood at every turn go, "gee, I guess maybe he is the male Streep, and we called it wrong. Oops". Yet people should have known that before he got the nod. The signs were always there how strong he could be, in any circumstance. But their thinking was too linear. I dunno. Not trying to toot my own horn. I feel like I sometimes read the industry and actors in particular a lot better than some think they do. My strike rate isn't perfect, but I think I'm right more often than I'm wrong. I kept calling it years before it became accepted as truth, that Tom Hanks had lost so much kudos and support within the Academy, because he plays it so safe as an actor, despite incessant oscarbaitng. I said he wasn't happening in 2013 for either Captain Phillips or Saving Mr Banks, and caught a lot of shit for it. But I stuck to what I believed in my analysis, and I was proven correct. Now Hanks struggles with the Academy are widely acknowledged. You have some decent insights, but they are too linear. Kidman right now, is where Cate Blanchett was in 2007, when she got double nominated for one Rotten movie (Elizabeth: The Golden Age. 35% RT) and one solidly reviewed movie (I'm Not There. 77% RT) . The industry just want want to throw her awards and nods because she's Nicole Kidman, who might be our premiere working actress. Welcomed with Lion. Destroying a field of legendary actesses to claim the Emmy for Big Little Lies. The signs are there. Kidman's run in the last two years has been nothing short of phenomenal in quality and quantity. She's reached a new tier of respect among her peers, and she was already up there anyway. These are intangibles I see clearly, and partly why I think a double nomination is a strong possibility, not a longshot. But certainly a nod for Destroyer is not a long shot either. Voters didn't give a shit in 2007 That The Golden Age was a 35% Rotten turkey that Blanchett got mixed reviews for. They didn't give a shit that I'm Not Here was an 'inaccessible' arthouse movie with ok reviews. She got double nominations because she was Cate Blanchett, on a streak of great/critically beloved performances, and maybe seen as the actress of her time. This is where Kidman is today. The movies probably don't even matter, though hers are far both far better reviewed than Blanchett's pair Hey anything can happen. Kidman could somehow end up with no nominations this season, and I'm the one who has to hold up my hands and admit I called it wrong. But I put real thought into these things and don't just pull it out my ass.Kidman has serious intangibles that you are missing or not acknowledging, like Washington last season. . |
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Oct 21, 2018 15:31:24 GMT
Their job is to sell the film to a wide audience. lol I’ve seen it, it’s not exactly inacessible, but it’s not an easy sit and I think anyone expressing concerns on how it will go over with voters is completely valid. I can see her maybe getting GG and/or SAG and missing the Oscar. Every single year, certain people tend to speak overconfidenly about what the Academy voters will or won't go for. For example, anyone still predicting Denzel Washington for a nod in Roman J Israel Esq after it's TIFF reception was apparently a deluded idiot ( I think you were one of those from recollection). Till it actually happened. And then hindsight kicks in and suddenly all those who mocked that likelyhood at every turn go, "gee, I guess maybe he is the male Streep, and we called it wrong. Oops". Yet people should have known that before he got the nod. The signs were always there how strong he could be, in any circumstance. But their thinking was too linear. I dunno. Not trying to toot my own horn. I feel like I sometimes read the industry and actors in particular a lot better than some think they do. My strike rate isn't perfect, but I think I'm right more often than I'm wrong. I kept calling it years before it became accepted as truth, that Tom Hanks had lost so much kudos and support within the Academy, because he plays it so safe as an actor, despite incessant oscarbaitng. I said he wasn't happening in 2013 for either Captain Phillips or Saving Mr Banks, and caught a lot of shit for it. But I stuck to what I believed in my analysis, and I was proven correct. Now Hanks struggles with the Academy are widely acknowledged. You have some decent insights, but they are too linear. Kidman right now, is where Cate Blanchett was in 2007, when she got double nominated for one Rotten movie (Elizabeth: The Golden Age. 35% RT) and one solidly reviewed movie (I'm Not There. 77% RT) . The industry just want want to throw her awards and nods because she's Nicole Kidman, who might be our premiere working actress. Welcomed with Lion. Destroying a field of legendary actesses to claim the Emmy for Big Little Lies. The signs are there. Kidman's run in the last two years has been nothing short of phenomenal in quality and quantity. She's reached a new tier of respect among her peers, and she was already up there anyway. These are intangibles I see clearly, and partly why I think a double nomination is a strong possibility, not a longshot. But certainly a nod for Destroyer is not a long shot either. Voters didn't give a shit in 2007 That The Golden Age was a 35% Rotten turkey that Blanchett got mixed reviews for. They didn't give a shit that I'm Not Here was an 'inaccessible' arthouse movie with ok reviews. She got double nominations because she was Cate Blanchett, on a streak of great/critically beloved performances, and maybe seen as the actress of her time. This is where Kidman is today. The movies probably don't even matter, though hers are far both far better reviewed than Blanchett's pair Hey anything can happen. Kidman could somehow end up with no nominations this season, and I'm the one who has to hold up my hands and admit I called it wrong. But I put real thought into these things and don't just pull it out my ass.Kidman has serious intangibles that you are missing or not acknowledging, like Washington last season. . Kidman is far less beloved by AMPAS than both Washington and Blanchett (each who have way more noms and have never been snubbed) and has always missed for anything even remotely inaccessible regardless of critic awards, precursors ect. She doesn’t have the sort of history with AMPAS that suggests to me that she’d get in for something like this. You also have to take the respective strengths of the years that those nods for poorly received films happened, as well as the strength of the studios pushing these films (I see you’ve not even acknowledged the reported financial issues Annapurna is having and that they’ll have two films to juggle ahead of Destroyer). FWIW, I loved Kidman in both films, and I do see that she’s in the midst of a career renaissance, I’m just not sure that it will be enough. I think the likely scenario here is that she sneaks in for Boy Erased instead or doesn’t make it at all. She’s in Lion mode in the film, and it’s similarly a safe, important tearjerker backed by a top tier studio that voters gravitate towards. I’d love to be proven wrong on this (and if I am, I’ll be the first to give you props for calling it correctly), I just think Best Actress is too crowded. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 21, 2018 16:02:33 GMT
Every single year, certain people tend to speak overconfidenly about what the Academy voters will or won't go for. For example, anyone still predicting Denzel Washington for a nod in Roman J Israel Esq after it's TIFF reception was apparently a deluded idiot ( I think you were one of those from recollection). Till it actually happened. And then hindsight kicks in and suddenly all those who mocked that likelyhood at every turn go, "gee, I guess maybe he is the male Streep, and we called it wrong. Oops". Yet people should have known that before he got the nod. The signs were always there how strong he could be, in any circumstance. But their thinking was too linear. I dunno. Not trying to toot my own horn. I feel like I sometimes read the industry and actors in particular a lot better than some think they do. My strike rate isn't perfect, but I think I'm right more often than I'm wrong. I kept calling it years before it became accepted as truth, that Tom Hanks had lost so much kudos and support within the Academy, because he plays it so safe as an actor, despite incessant oscarbaitng. I said he wasn't happening in 2013 for either Captain Phillips or Saving Mr Banks, and caught a lot of shit for it. But I stuck to what I believed in my analysis, and I was proven correct. Now Hanks struggles with the Academy are widely acknowledged. You have some decent insights, but they are too linear. Kidman right now, is where Cate Blanchett was in 2007, when she got double nominated for one Rotten movie (Elizabeth: The Golden Age. 35% RT) and one solidly reviewed movie (I'm Not There. 77% RT) . The industry just want want to throw her awards and nods because she's Nicole Kidman, who might be our premiere working actress. Welcomed with Lion. Destroying a field of legendary actesses to claim the Emmy for Big Little Lies. The signs are there. Kidman's run in the last two years has been nothing short of phenomenal in quality and quantity. She's reached a new tier of respect among her peers, and she was already up there anyway. These are intangibles I see clearly, and partly why I think a double nomination is a strong possibility, not a longshot. But certainly a nod for Destroyer is not a long shot either. Voters didn't give a shit in 2007 That The Golden Age was a 35% Rotten turkey that Blanchett got mixed reviews for. They didn't give a shit that I'm Not Here was an 'inaccessible' arthouse movie with ok reviews. She got double nominations because she was Cate Blanchett, on a streak of great/critically beloved performances, and maybe seen as the actress of her time. This is where Kidman is today. The movies probably don't even matter, though hers are far both far better reviewed than Blanchett's pair Hey anything can happen. Kidman could somehow end up with no nominations this season, and I'm the one who has to hold up my hands and admit I called it wrong. But I put real thought into these things and don't just pull it out my ass.Kidman has serious intangibles that you are missing or not acknowledging, like Washington last season. . Kidman is far less beloved by AMPAS than both Washington and Blanchett (each who have way more noms and have never been snubbed) and has always missed for anything even remotely inaccessible regardless of critic awards, precursors ect. She doesn’t have the sort of history with AMPAS that suggests to me that she’d get in for something like this. You also have to take the respective strengths of the years that those nods for poorly received films happened, as well as the strength of the studios pushing these films (I see you’ve not even acknowledged the reported financial issues Annapurna is having and that they’ll have two films to juggle ahead of Destroyer). FWIW, I loved Kidman in both films, and I do see that she’s in the midst of a career renaissance, I’m just not sure that it will be enough. I think the likely scenario here is that she sneaks in for Boy Erased instead or doesn’t make it at all. She’s in Lion mode in the film, and it’s similarly a safe, important tearjerker bait backed by a top tier studio that voters gravitate towards. Yet you didn't realise Washington was beloved enough by AMPAS to get in for Roman J, and consistently mocked the possibility across the season after TIFF, like many others who didn't 'get it' and were just convinced in the correctness of their own analysis. It's something to learn a lesson from, not repeat your mistakes.As I said, these hindsight observations are always easy to make. Making the call in real time is what's difficult. An actors status with the Academy is not static. Your stock can rise or fall. Again, it took most people far too long to cotton onto the fact that Tom Hanks was no longer an AMPAS golden boy.If there's any time in her career Kidman can possibly pull double nods for almost anything out of her ass with AMPAS, I'd it's probably right now. I think her stock is way up. And her so-called renaissance or streak is a huge factor. I'd say right now, Kidman is more respected than Blanchett in 2007, by virtue of her longevity and having achieved far more. Blanchett was on 3 nods and a supporting win when she got her double nods. Octavia Spencer's record.Respectable, but no indication that AMPAS would hand her double nods for mediocrely reviewed films in the same year. Blanchett had intangibles back then that raised her stock with AMPAS, just like Kidman has intangibles now that can easily do the same. Not to say that she will, but she can. I know you like to be right. Don't we all. Might as well wait and see before speaking in absolutes, because that doesn't always work out. |
|
wattsnew
Full Member
Posts: 712
Likes: 347
|
Post by wattsnew on Oct 30, 2018 17:45:43 GMT
Way too much time is being spent on discussing Kidman in Best a Actress. She’s wonderful in both Destroyer and Boy Erased, but the latter is her better bet. Destroyer has mixed reviews, no other award prospects and is 3rd priority from a studio on its last leg in a very crowded Actress race. It’s just not going to happen. The role itself is catnip, but I imagine the film will be a tough sit for the Academy demo and I’m not even sure the film would be a viewing priority. She even has competition from Julia Roberts in the “career best reviews for a ho him film” sort of slot, and I’d argue that her role is probably more typical of what is nominated here than something like Destroyer. Kidman is getting a bit of a raw deal in that both Actress categories are jam packed, and whilst raved, the films aren’t up to par. She’d likely be a lone nom for both, which is never a good position to be in, especially for films that aren’t raved. I’d probably go Glenn Close Olivia Colman Lady Gaga Viola Davis Melissa McCarthy Yalitza Aparicio Julia Roberts Nicole Kidman Emily Blunt I agree! |
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Nov 7, 2018 20:34:40 GMT
As of today:
Close
Colman
Davis
Gaga
McCarthy
Tho I am not too confident in Viola Davis as most people on here... I think that fifth spot will be a blood bath between Davis, Collette and Kidman with Felicity Jones as a possible spoiler... I am quite confident in the rest.. tho a snub for Close would not surprise me too much. She really depends on the critic awards.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 7, 2018 21:24:55 GMT
As of today: Close Colman Davis Gaga McCarthy Tho I am not too confident in Viola Davis as most people on here... I think that fifth spot will be a blood bath between Davis, Collette and Kidman with Felicity Jones as a possible spoiler... I am quite confident in the rest.. tho a snub for Close would not surprise me too much. She really depends on the critic awards. Yeah, I think Close is in far more danger of missing than people give her credit for. She has a strong studio but the film isn't much of a starter outside of her and maaaaaaaaaaybe Pryce, and she needs that critical momentum to keep her film in enough profile. And her competition is crazy strong, and looking at the industry precursors, she's got a major shot of missing at least two of them (I can see the Globes picking Gaga over her, and Colman likely wins BAFTA). I genuinely can feature a scenario where Close is the one who misses just by virtue of having an early release/tiny film, especially if a late-season barnburner swoops in with passion votes. In fact, I honestly think Close and McCarthy might be dueling for the same slot. They are films dealing with similar subject matter, have about the same sort of profile, but McCarthy is out in force right now campaigning and it's likely Grant has more of a chance to get in than Pryce does. McCarthy's film is generating more passion than Close's, at least from where I'm sitting. |
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Nov 7, 2018 21:38:27 GMT
As of today: Close Colman Davis Gaga McCarthy Tho I am not too confident in Viola Davis as most people on here... I think that fifth spot will be a blood bath between Davis, Collette and Kidman with Felicity Jones as a possible spoiler... I am quite confident in the rest.. tho a snub for Close would not surprise me too much. She really depends on the critic awards. Yeah, I think Close is in far more danger of missing than people give her credit for. She has a strong studio but the film isn't much of a starter outside of her and maaaaaaaaaaybe Pryce, and she needs that critical momentum to keep her film in enough profile. And her competition is crazy strong, and looking at the industry precursors, she's got a major shot of missing at least two of them (I can see the Globes picking Gaga over her, and Colman likely wins BAFTA). I genuinely can feature a scenario where Close is the one who misses just by virtue of having an early release/tiny film, especially if a late-season barnburner swoops in with passion votes. In fact, I honestly think Close and McCarthy might be dueling for the same slot. They are films dealing with similar subject matter, have about the same sort of profile, but McCarthy is out in force right now campaigning and it's likely Grant has more of a chance to get in than Pryce does. McCarthy's film is generating more passion than Close's, at least from where I'm sitting. Yeah and I also think if Close gets in, she will not win for it... I mean she was great but this just doesnt feel like a "winner" performance to me... to be honest... I even slightly preferred Pryce over her. He was an animal in that role. Still she has. reasonable shot for a nom.... so far. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 7, 2018 22:09:36 GMT
Yeah, I think Close is in far more danger of missing than people give her credit for. She has a strong studio but the film isn't much of a starter outside of her and maaaaaaaaaaybe Pryce, and she needs that critical momentum to keep her film in enough profile. And her competition is crazy strong, and looking at the industry precursors, she's got a major shot of missing at least two of them (I can see the Globes picking Gaga over her, and Colman likely wins BAFTA). I genuinely can feature a scenario where Close is the one who misses just by virtue of having an early release/tiny film, especially if a late-season barnburner swoops in with passion votes. In fact, I honestly think Close and McCarthy might be dueling for the same slot. They are films dealing with similar subject matter, have about the same sort of profile, but McCarthy is out in force right now campaigning and it's likely Grant has more of a chance to get in than Pryce does. McCarthy's film is generating more passion than Close's, at least from where I'm sitting. Yeah and I also think if Close gets in, she will not win for it... I mean she was great but this just doesnt feel like a "winner" performance to me... to be honest... I even slightly preferred Pryce over her. He was an animal in that role. Still she has. reasonable shot for a nom.... so far. I'm just racking my brain trying to think of a performance like it that has won, especially against louder, showier, equally acclaimed work. People have been citing Geraldine Page's win as a comparison, but I think that is more due to Page having been a seven-time loser than anything else, and not the performance (which is showier than Close's), plus her most recent nomination was the year before, which helped keep her in voters' minds. She was also up against three previous winners (Bancroft, Lange, Streep) and one newbie (Goldberg), so it is still somewhat different than this year, where most of the primary contenders have never won before, so there isn't that urge to just go "Well, they've won before, so give it to this person." Also, the landscape of a race is tougher to judge in 1985 than it is today, and if you have to go back thirty-three years, with an almost entirely different Academy than today, that shows that the precedent might not be as strong. I've also heard people talk about Julianne Moore's win in comparison to this, but she had a very showy role and was up against two prior winners, one newbie whose co-star was getting more ink and acclaim than her, and another whose film greatly underwhelmed with expectations. Close's performance just doesn't fit these molds. And having seen the film, I just don't get "winner's vibes" from it. It's not really anything she hasn't done before, and done in showier films. There's a lot of her Marquise de Merteuil in this performance, and that had a stronger film behind it and she still lost. I just don't see voters flocking to write her name down besides a passionate contingent, but I think there will just be more options this year and unless Close can get a critical sweep going, I think it's once more going to be a year she goes home empty-handed. |
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Nov 7, 2018 22:14:01 GMT
Glenn's fate rests in the critics' hands.I would rather she get snubbed then see her go home empty handed. Then again there's always Sunset Blvd.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Nov 7, 2018 23:55:30 GMT
Yeah and I also think if Close gets in, she will not win for it... I mean she was great but this just doesnt feel like a "winner" performance to me... to be honest... I even slightly preferred Pryce over her. He was an animal in that role. Still she has. reasonable shot for a nom.... so far. I'm just racking my brain trying to think of a performance like it that has won, especially against louder, showier, equally acclaimed work. People have been citing Geraldine Page's win as a comparison, but I think that is more due to Page having been a seven-time loser than anything else, and not the performance (which is showier than Close's), plus her most recent nomination was the year before, which helped keep her in voters' minds. She was also up against three previous winners (Bancroft, Lange, Streep) and one newbie (Goldberg), so it is still somewhat different than this year, where most of the primary contenders have never won before, so there isn't that urge to just go "Well, they've won before, so give it to this person." Also, the landscape of a race is tougher to judge in 1985 than it is today, and if you have to go back thirty-three years, with an almost entirely different Academy than today, that shows that the precedent might not be as strong. I've also heard people talk about Julianne Moore's win in comparison to this, but she had a very showy role and was up against two prior winners, one newbie whose co-star was getting more ink and acclaim than her, and another whose film greatly underwhelmed with expectations. Close's performance just doesn't fit these molds. And having seen the film, I just don't get "winner's vibes" from it. It's not really anything she hasn't done before, and done in showier films. There's a lot of her Marquise de Merteuil in this performance, and that had a stronger film behind it and she still lost. I just don't see voters flocking to write her name down besides a passionate contingent, but I think there will just be more options this year and unless Close can get a critical sweep going, I think it's once more going to be a year she goes home empty-handed. I have absolutely the same opinion. I think Moore is the closest one, performance wise, you can compare. But that was a showier role and performance because they love it when their characters suffer from a certain sickness. Yes, I believe she will go home empty handed... and if she does not, everybody will say its her condolence award. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 8, 2018 0:09:07 GMT
I'm just racking my brain trying to think of a performance like it that has won, especially against louder, showier, equally acclaimed work. People have been citing Geraldine Page's win as a comparison, but I think that is more due to Page having been a seven-time loser than anything else, and not the performance (which is showier than Close's), plus her most recent nomination was the year before, which helped keep her in voters' minds. She was also up against three previous winners (Bancroft, Lange, Streep) and one newbie (Goldberg), so it is still somewhat different than this year, where most of the primary contenders have never won before, so there isn't that urge to just go "Well, they've won before, so give it to this person." Also, the landscape of a race is tougher to judge in 1985 than it is today, and if you have to go back thirty-three years, with an almost entirely different Academy than today, that shows that the precedent might not be as strong. I've also heard people talk about Julianne Moore's win in comparison to this, but she had a very showy role and was up against two prior winners, one newbie whose co-star was getting more ink and acclaim than her, and another whose film greatly underwhelmed with expectations. Close's performance just doesn't fit these molds. And having seen the film, I just don't get "winner's vibes" from it. It's not really anything she hasn't done before, and done in showier films. There's a lot of her Marquise de Merteuil in this performance, and that had a stronger film behind it and she still lost. I just don't see voters flocking to write her name down besides a passionate contingent, but I think there will just be more options this year and unless Close can get a critical sweep going, I think it's once more going to be a year she goes home empty-handed. I have absolutely the same opinion. I think Moore is the closest one, performance wise, you can compare. But that was a showier role and performance because they love it when their characters suffer from a certain sickness. Yes, I believe she will go home empty handed... and if she does not, everybody will say its her condolence award. I'm just getting a lot of 2011 flashbacks. People said at the outset of the race that it was Close's year, that Albert Nobbs was her big passion project she'd been trying to get made for thirty years and of course they'd give it to her then. And then the rest of the year happened. |
|
|
|
Post by FrancescoAbides on Nov 8, 2018 0:25:08 GMT
Lady Gaga
Melissa McCarthy
Olivia Colman
Glenn Close
Viola Davis
|
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Nov 8, 2018 1:25:21 GMT
I have absolutely the same opinion. I think Moore is the closest one, performance wise, you can compare. But that was a showier role and performance because they love it when their characters suffer from a certain sickness. Yes, I believe she will go home empty handed... and if she does not, everybody will say its her condolence award. I'm just getting a lot of 2011 flashbacks. People said at the outset of the race that it was Close's year, that Albert Nobbs was her big passion project she'd been trying to get made for thirty years and of course they'd give it to her then. And then the rest of the year happened. Exactly. And that one was even battier. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 8, 2018 2:32:18 GMT
I'm just getting a lot of 2011 flashbacks. People said at the outset of the race that it was Close's year, that Albert Nobbs was her big passion project she'd been trying to get made for thirty years and of course they'd give it to her then. And then the rest of the year happened. Exactly. And that one was even battier. Indeed. Now, I don't wanna say that Close can't win. She could. But she needs more than simply the "I've been nominated six times and never won" narrative. Half of those were coattail supporting nominations in the early '80s, two of the others couldn't seal the deal at the height of her popularity, and the sixth was for a wheezy passion-project that got rather disappointing reviews/box office (and where she was overshadowed by her co-star). The Academy doesn't give a shit if you've gone winless. Roger Deakins had to wait till his fourteenth nomination. Kevin J. O'Connell his twenty-first. True, those guys don't have the profile of a Glenn Close, but Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton and Deborah Kerr all did. Sometimes the stars align nicely for someone to finally win after they've been overdue, but it rarely happens for a film that gets zero love outside of the actor and there is usually a critical sweep to that point. And with so many people rocking reviews on par with (if not surpassing) hers, I don't see Close being able to muster that level of enthusiasm. I may be underestimating her, but the likelihood is that people are (as they often do) overestimating her. |
|
