Emily Blunt is not Oscar worthy in MPR

Be quiet you Irish drunkard!

No , I'm not but Icy definitely is . 

ps : happy new year to you as well 

I love her but I have to agree. This will be a make up nod for her not getting nommed for other things.

Yup she's not getting in. Her movie underwhelmed and is getting overshadowed by the rampant success of Aquaman i do not think the Academy will fall for this patronizing smug Nanny bullshit and her ice queen acting

I hope you're right about that, for Collette's sake 

Thank you , luv. Yer' absolutely right.

I disagree. The magic of her performance is that she perfectly copied Julie Andrews but added her own charme to it.
She made it feel like Mary Poppins never left and if it was the same person as all those decades ago.

With the movie doing surprisingly well at the box office (100 million now finally, after that soft first week), I think we can scrub away that "it underwhelmed" talk. I've still seen some pundits say it's a "box office disappointment" which, frankly, is f_cking stupid. Was Greatest Showman a box office disappointment? In its first week, yeah. Then, it kept making money. Poppins will probably make about 150 million or more in the states when all is said and done, 300 million worldwide.

Underwhelmed critically? Perhaps. But so did Vice and Bohemian Rhapsody, and Green Book to an extent if we're just looking at RT scores, which definitely don't always determine what is/isn't an awards contender.

The only thing keeping Poppins and Blunt from being bonafide contenders is people talking about them not being contenders, which I'm sure a lot of the film fan community will gladly rally behind. But to say Blunt IS out, I think is rather foolish. Of any year she's ever had, this is HER year, and I think the general public is aware of that. The performance already has the pedigree behind it to keep her neck deep in the conversation (Globe/SAG/BFCA nominations) and her performance in AQP will only boost her chances because as we've seen in decades past (Winslet for example) having two huge performances in a year prompts the individual a nomination in whatever category seems easiest to sneak into. 

Now, that said, if there is a huge snub this year, it's definitely her. Not because she's most vulnerable, it's because sometimes performances seem so safe for a nomination, they end up being forgotten (Emma Thompson in SMB). And less for her performance and moreso that family films in general are a harder sell for the Academy in above the line categories (Disney hasn't gotten in outside of PIXAR since the original Mary Poppins) unless you're Meryl Streep (who obviously got in for ITW). But that's only if there's a big surprise snub, which Blunt would be (ala Franco, Hanks, & Gyllenhaal). At this point, she's still safe for a nomination, and her snub would/should be considered a shock, not something that should be expected, unless the lot of you love expecting the unexpected.

EDIT: Long story short, the performance would stand a chance at being dropped as a contender if it was any other actress but Blunt. Blunt, I think, has solidified herself as in and the general public is just ready to see her get nominated already.

I think you're right. It will either be Blunt or Michelle Yeoh. 

EDIT: You still can't count out Nicole, even though I think the above two are more likely due to the fact that people actually saw those movies.