Page 3 of 7

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 5:48 pm
by Franz Ferdinand
We briefly mentioned Kobe Bryant as nominee. This recent development to rescind his nomination has been below the radar (my first time hearing about it), but that's a sizeable petition.

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/awards/13000 ... 56230.html

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:16 pm
by Reza
flipp525 wrote:
Of course I'm aware of the supporting parts she has taken in certain films. They were obviously taken for very specific personal reasons. The Homesman was at the behest of Tommy Lee Jones. The cameo in Suffragette was undertaken to play an important historical female character. With her theater background Into the Woods was a chance to play an iconic part - the witch - with all that makeup.
Yes, I’m sure Meryl has a reason - personal or otherwise - for accepting every role she ends up playing. I’m not sure what your point is here.
Skip it flipp....or scroll down and figure it out for yourself.

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:25 am
by FilmFan720
I'm sorry, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous and pointless arguments we have ever had on this board...I can't even figure out what we are arguing about!

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:59 am
by flipp525
Of course I'm aware of the supporting parts she has taken in certain films. They were obviously taken for very specific personal reasons. The Homesman was at the behest of Tommy Lee Jones. The cameo in Suffragette was undertaken to play an important historical female character. With her theater background Into the Woods was a chance to play an iconic part - the witch - with all that makeup.
Yes, I’m sure Meryl has a reason - personal or otherwise - for accepting every role she ends up playing. I’m not sure what your point is here.

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:25 am
by Reza
MaxWilder wrote:
Reza wrote:Why would Streep be interested in the parts played by Melissa Leo, Jackie Weaver or Laurie Metcalf when she gets to play lead roles in a lot of mainstream films.
The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook aren't mainstream? They made lots of money, earned a total of 15 Oscar noms and won three (including one for Leo). Streep takes supporting parts as well, you know.
Depends on the "supporting" part. Don't think those roles you cite are up Streep's alley just yet. It's not that she wouldn't be able to play those parts. She could do them in her sleep.

Of course I'm aware of the supporting parts she has taken in certain films. They were obviously taken for very specific personal reasons. The Homesman was at the behest of Tommy Lee Jones. The cameo in Suffragette was undertaken to play an important historical female character. With her theater background Into the Woods was a chance to play an iconic part - the witch - with all that makeup.

Even at age 68 she still has a lot of mileage as a lead - most of her nominations attest to that.

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:34 pm
by Uri
Okri wrote:Uri's point is a good one, though.

Compare, say, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. Both are from about the Oscar same era. Both have multiple nominations and a win. DiCaprio has acted in 8 best picture nominees, Winslet in four.

Or the best leading winners from 1993. Hanks has 9 best picture nominees on his credit list (including Toy Story 3). Holly Hunter has only 2.
Exactly. My Point was that women-of-a-cetain-age centered films hardly ever get nominated for best picture (and of the 8 I mentioned, 3 also had male protagonists of about equel importance and one had two other, younger female costars). Streep, with her current popularity, is usually the star of her films, and these films just don't get nominated.

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:46 pm
by Okri
Uri's point is a good one, though.

Compare, say, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. Both are from about the same Oscar era. Both have multiple nominations and a win. DiCaprio has acted in 8 best picture nominees, Winslet in four.

Or the best leading winners from 1993. Hanks has 9 best picture nominees on his credit list (including Toy Story 3). Holly Hunter has only 2.

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:09 pm
by OscarGuy
She took a very brief role in Suffragette as well and I would not consider her lead in Into the Woods either.

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:06 pm
by flipp525
Yeah, Meryl does supporting roles and even cameos (her appearance in The Homesman a couple years ago was excellent and lasted less than ten minutes). I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that she only does top billing or nothing.

Also, “the kind of roles played by Melissa Leo, Jacki Weaver, and Laurie Metcalf” are, from what I’ve seen, Oscar nominated roles.

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:00 pm
by MaxWilder
Reza wrote:Why would Streep be interested in the parts played by Melissa Leo, Jackie Weaver or Laurie Metcalf when she gets to play lead roles in a lot of mainstream films.
The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook aren't mainstream? They made lots of money, earned a total of 15 Oscar noms and won three (including one for Leo). Streep takes supporting parts as well, you know.

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:37 pm
by Reza
MaxWilder wrote:
Uri wrote:She doesn’t appear in Oscar nominated films because there aren’t any she could be in.
That's a bold statement. Off the top of my head, she could have played the Melissa Leo or Jacki Weaver parts in The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook. How about Laurie Metcalf's part in Lady Bird? Metcalf is 62, so it's not out of the question that Streep (a youthful 68) could have been cast. Into the Woods, from the director of Best Picture winner Chicago, must have been in the running for a post-expansion 'bonus nomination.' I bet Doubt would have been nominated post-expansion. Tarantino and Scorsese aren't the only directors making BP nominees.
Why would Streep be interested in the parts played by Melissa Leo, Jackie Weaver or Laurie Metcalf when she gets to play lead roles in a lot of mainstream films.

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:34 pm
by Reza
Precious Doll wrote:
Uri wrote:
She doesn’t appear in Oscar nominated films because there aren’t any she could be in. Name one major film made by a major American director in the last 20 years she could have starred in. It’s not like Lange, Spacek, Weaver and Close are regularly working with Scorsese, Tarantino or even the disgraced Allen recently. So Streep usually is relegated to films made by the phyllida Lloyds of this world. The Oscars simply seldom make passes at films with older girls who wears reading glasses.
They are all way to old to star in a Woody Allen film.
Unless Woody has the sense to stop writing only young lead female characters and instead shifts gears by creating older lead female characters.

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:27 am
by MaxWilder
Uri wrote:She doesn’t appear in Oscar nominated films because there aren’t any she could be in.
That's a bold statement. Off the top of my head, she could have played the Melissa Leo or Jacki Weaver parts in The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook. How about Laurie Metcalf's part in Lady Bird? Metcalf is 62, so it's not out of the question that Streep (a youthful 68) could have been cast. Into the Woods, from the director of Best Picture winner Chicago, must have been in the running for a post-expansion 'bonus nomination.' I bet Doubt would have been nominated post-expansion. Tarantino and Scorsese aren't the only directors making BP nominees.

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:54 am
by Precious Doll
Uri wrote:
She doesn’t appear in Oscar nominated films because there aren’t any she could be in. Name one major film made by a major American director in the last 20 years she could have starred in. It’s not like Lange, Spacek, Weaver and Close are regularly working with Scorsese, Tarantino or even the disgraced Allen recently. So Streep usually is relegated to films made by the phyllida Lloyds of this world. The Oscars simply seldom make passes at films with older girls who wears reading glasses.
They are all way to old to star in a Woody Allen film.

Re: 2017 Oscar Nominations

Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:52 am
by Big Magilla
I'd add Gosford Park to the list.

She wouldn't have fit the Helen Mirren, Eileen Atkins or Maggie Smith roles, but they could have shoehorned her into Kristin Scott-Thomas's role even though Scott-Thomas was only in her early 40s at the time.