Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

HarryGoldfarb wrote:

Big Magilla wrote:There was something to like in every one of these years, but I have to go with the once in a lifetime tribute to four old-timers the likes of which we will never see again. Nor are we likely to ever see another year in which more than one or two of the winners is a living legend like Fonda, Hepburn, Gielgud or Stapleton.

I am not really thinking this through, and I am too tired right now to make some kind of research, but do this group hold the record for the highest age average among winners?

So, this is what I got in "bunches" by age average...

Oldest Bunch:
1. Fonda, Hepburn, Gielgud and Stapleton (Mean age: 70,75).
2. Dujardin, Streep, Plummer and Spencer (55,5).
3. (Tie)
a. Robertson, Hepburn, Streisand, Albertson and Gordon (53).
b. Finch, Dunaway, Robards and Straight (53).
4. Scott, Jacksom, Mills and Hayes (52,5).
5. Poitier, Neal, Douglas and Rutherford (52,25).

Youngest Bunch:
1. Schell, Loren, Chakiris and Moreno (28,75).
2. De Niro, Spacek, Hutton and Steenburgen (29)
3. Brando, Kelly, O'Brien and Marie Saint (31).
4. (Tie)
a. Holden, Hepburn, Sinatra and Reed (32,75).
b. Hanks, Hunter, Lee Jones and Paquin (32,75).
5. March, De Havilland, Russell and Baxter (33,75).

So, here in the 80's we have one of the youngest group of winners ever and the eldest of them all.

It's of course in terms of best performances, and when it comes to 1981, it's good for sure (if not brilliant), but I also understand it's one of the most distinguished groups ever (no matter On golden pond or Arthur), if not the most, as Magilla pointed out. Nevertheless, I like better some other years, and my third choice is 1983, with four terrific human, honest performances.

But my heart is divided between 1980 and 1984, and it was very tough making up my mind. I mean, Antonio Salieri, Dith Pran and Mrs. Moore are impossible to resist to me, but there's the respectable "I almost like her" Sally Field. On the other hand, there's Jake La Motta, Loretta Lynn and Conrad Jarrett, with Mary Steenburgen in a movie I don't like at all in a very good performance though. What should I do? I don't quite have the answer, but I ended up voting for 1980 because I truly love and admire Timothy Hutton's performance, De Niro is great and iconic, and Spacek IS and ELEVATES her tiresome movie from the darkness. And Steenburgen is better than Field, I presume.

Big Magilla wrote:There was something to like in every one of these years, but I have to go with the once in a lifetime tribute to four old-timers the likes of which we will never see again. Nor are we likely to ever see another year in which more than one or two of the winners is a living legend like Fonda, Hepburn, Gielgud or Stapleton.

I would say 3 living (at the time) legends without a doubt as well as the fourth being on of the greatest character actresses of the 20th century.

In terms of best performances, 1980. In terms of most impressive careers, 1981.

Big Magilla wrote:There was something to like in every one of these years, but I have to go with the once in a lifetime tribute to four old-timers the likes of which we will never see again. Nor are we likely to ever see another year in which more than one or two of the winners is a living legend like Fonda, Hepburn, Gielgud or Stapleton.

I am not really thinking this through, and I am too tired right now to make some kind of research, but do this group hold the record for the highest age average among winners?

1989...1981 second choice.

There was something to like in every one of these years, but I have to go with the once in a lifetime tribute to four old-timers the likes of which we will never see again. Nor are we likely to ever see another year in which more than one or two of the winners is a living legend like Fonda, Hepburn, Gielgud or Stapleton.

1980

80s may have been lackluster, but this is a tough one. What do yo think?