I'm leaning towards Viola. Winslet's absence really opened things up for Davis and Cruz, but the latter really needed either the Globe or Sag to snag the big one, especially with Woody missing screenplay. Plus, I think Penelope's interview about loathing LA hurt her chances as well.
Viola should be able to do what Ruby Dee couldn't do last year and win for a brief but very impressive performance.
Edited By mashari on 1233133974
Supporting Actress, The Push Is On
Didn't Penelope Cruz dominate the precursors (or do critics awards not count)?flipp525 wrote:Speaking of, has there ever been a situation like this year in which the one actress who's dominated the precursor awards in a single category (most importantly, the Globe and SAG), isn't even nominated for an Oscar in that category? The Best Supporting Actress race, as I think Mister Tee stated in another thread, seems ripe for a surprise on a level we possibly have never encountered.
There is a difference. Straight was full throttle hysteria while Davis is bottled up hysteria.Mike Kelly wrote:Of course, the surprise winner was Beatrice Straight for her single powerful scene in Network. Hmm.... Viola Davis anyone?
I think the Academy likes noise more than restraint.....which is why Cruz will win this year.
-
Mike Kelly
- Temp
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 9:59 pm
- Location: Melbourne, FL, USA
While not exactly dominating, in 1976, Talia Shire won both the New York Film Critics and the National Board of Review Awards for Best Supporting Actress for Rocky. The Academy nominated her in the Best Actress Category. I think Jodie Foster became the favorite, despite her age, based on several precursor wins of her own. Of course, the surprise winner was Beatrice Straight for her single powerful scene in Network. Hmm.... Viola Davis anyone?
Speaking of, has there ever been a situation like this year in which the one actress who's dominated the precursor awards in a single category (most importantly, the Globe and SAG), isn't even nominatedp for an Oscar in that category? The Best Supporting Actress race, as I think Mister Tee stated in another thread, seems ripe for a surprise on a level we possibly have never encountered.HarryGoldfarb wrote:Back on the ladies (a much important/relevant thing than this weird situation!). Of course the placement of Winslet let the supporting actress category alone and it became an open field, anybody's game with a slight edge favoring Cruz and Davis.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Ooooohhhh I'm so scared now of you....but frankly also VERY BORED.jsmalahy wrote:Reza wrote:I suppose plan B entails you self destructing? Well please do so but ensure your bloody entrails land in your Mom's lap and NOT amywhere near this board. I'm quite sure she is bound to be thrilled by that.
Have a great time doing so.
You really are an idiot. Why would I have to do anything so stupid when I can just "disappear" and you guys will have no idea if I'm here or not? Honestly, this whole thing is so laughable. If the board had chosen to deal with me one on one instead of cowering and saying things in private whenever I post, or whenever an article popped up in the news (funny, you say I'm the one who has no life, yet you're all pouring over the details of my life and reading my interviews, it's almost flattering really) -- had you all chosen to do that, to be direct, then you could all say what you want, I could say what I want, and this whole thing could actually be done with. There would be some kind of "release" and at that point I probably would just leave, as you all want me to do, because there would be nothing else to say or do. And even if there was never any absolution, at least there would be a resolution.
But this cowardly tactic to ignore me and whisper in private and hope everything just goes away can't possibly work. Don't you all see that? Do you really think when I did what I did on this board that I didn't also create an escape hatch? Even if you didn't allow new members, it wouldn't work because I can already be among you, and you have no idea how many identities I may have created over the years on this board. So this idea that you have to "protect" yourselves is absurd. I am not a threat to any of you (or to anyone) and even if I were, there really is no way to "protect" an online community like this. Also, did you really think when I created this account (jsmalahy) and posted things that ONLY an older member would know, and did so from the same IP address that you could easily identify -- did you really think I didn't want you to identify me? I would have posted directly as "Akash" but the posting privileges for that account have been removed, so this was my only option in terms of "directness."
I will say this: at least flipp and Reza have balls. At least they said what they wanted to say (insults and all) in open, instead of ONLY saying it in secret and thinking that ignoring something can solve this problem. And so to the rest of you: you can deal with me directly, or we can play your silly game where I cheat (and I will) and it won't be good for any of you, and certainly not as satisfying for me.
But if you continue to choose this toothless tactic, this unproductive response, then so be it. Just please remember (for future reference) that I gave you a choice, and that I told you UPFRONT this time what I was going to do. I was sloppy before -- true -- when I created "Steph." But trust me, I haven't always been sloppy. And I won't be ever again.
signed,
The Idiot.
Reza wrote:I suppose plan B entails you self destructing? Well please do so but ensure your bloody entrails land in your Mom's lap and NOT amywhere near this board. I'm quite sure she is bound to be thrilled by that.
Have a great time doing so.
You really are an idiot. Why would I have to do anything so stupid when I can just "disappear" and you guys will have no idea if I'm here or not? Honestly, this whole thing is so laughable. If the board had chosen to deal with me one on one instead of cowering and saying things in private whenever I post, or whenever an article popped up in the news (funny, you say I'm the one who has no life, yet you're all pouring over the details of my life and reading my interviews, it's almost flattering really) -- had you all chosen to do that, to be direct, then you could all say what you want, I could say what I want, and this whole thing could actually be done with. There would be some kind of "release" and at that point I probably would just leave, as you all want me to do, because there would be nothing else to say or do. And even if there was never any absolution, at least there would be a resolution.
But this cowardly tactic to ignore me and whisper in private and hope everything just goes away can't possibly work. Don't you all see that? Do you really think when I did what I did on this board that I didn't also create an escape hatch? Even if you didn't allow new members, it wouldn't work because I can already be among you, and you have no idea how many identities I may have created over the years on this board. So this idea that you have to "protect" yourselves is absurd. I am not a threat to any of you (or to anyone) and even if I were, there really is no way to "protect" an online community like this. Also, did you really think when I created this account (jsmalahy) and posted things that ONLY an older member would know, and did so from the same IP address that you could easily identify -- did you really think I didn't want you to identify me? I would have posted directly as "Akash" but the posting privileges for that account have been removed, so this was my only option in terms of "directness."
I will say this: at least flipp and Reza have balls. At least they said what they wanted to say (insults and all) in open, instead of ONLY saying it in secret and thinking that ignoring something can solve this problem. And so to the rest of you: you can deal with me directly, or we can play your silly game where I cheat (and I will) and it won't be good for any of you, and certainly not as satisfying for me.
But if you continue to choose this toothless tactic, this unproductive response, then so be it. Just please remember (for future reference) that I gave you a choice, and that I told you UPFRONT this time what I was going to do. I was sloppy before -- true -- when I created "Steph." But trust me, I haven't always been sloppy. And I won't be ever again.
I suppose plan B entails you self destructing? Well please do so but ensure your bloody entrails land in your Mom's lap and NOT amywhere near this board. I'm quite sure she is bound to be thrilled by that.jsmalahy wrote:Reza wrote:I was going to say that you need a fucking life.....but it's obvious that THIS (here on the board) is your life. Well stay, enjoy but shut up please!
Nah, this isn't working. Time for Plan B...
Have a great time doing so.
I was going to say that you need a fucking life.....but it's obvious that THIS (here on the board) is your life. Well stay, enjoy but shut up please!jsmalahy wrote:Reza wrote:Nobody here apparently wants you around....so why don't you just go away quietly.
Hmm, OK. But even if I do go away, how will you know I'm not still here? That I haven't been here all along? It's funny that you all just assumed that "Nik" was the first (and therefore oldest) identity I became on this board. In fact I might as well say this because there is no way for you to find out: how would you know whether or not I was someone you've been talking to this whole time? It's very easy to be in two places at once on the internet. All it would take is someone in a different state or country, who could receive an email from me, and then post that message on the board for example. Heck I could be any one of you! (OK, not flipp true, because I would never pretend to be that stupid)
But alright then. I'll give you the "comfort" of going away quietly.
Reza wrote:Nobody here apparently wants you around....so why don't you just go away quietly.
Hmm, OK. But even if I do go away, how will you know I'm not still here? That I haven't been here all along? It's funny that you all just assumed that "Nik" was the first (and therefore oldest) identity I became on this board. In fact I might as well say this because there is no way for you to find out: how would you know whether or not I was someone you've been talking to this whole time? It's very easy to be in two places at once on the internet. All it would take is someone in a different state or country, who could receive an email from me, and then post that message on the board for example. Heck I could be any one of you! (OK, not flipp true, because I would never pretend to be that stupid)
But alright then. I'll give you the "comfort" of going away quietly.
-
HarryGoldfarb
- Adjunct
- Posts: 1071
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
- Location: Colombia
- Contact:
Man, this is getting boring, really. Try to get back on topic, to stay focus. I don't care about anyone's personal life. Feel confortable to make judges on films, not on people.
Flipp... If you don't want to talk to somebody, is that hard to ignore him? Jsmalahy or whoever you are... I don't have anything to do with you but clearly, a lot of people in here felt fooled by you, deal with the consequences, a lot of people here doesn't like you and neither trust or can respect your judgment, is that important to come back here?
Back on the ladies (a much important/relevant thing than this weird situation!). Of course the placement of Winslet let the supporting actress category alone and it became an open field, anybody's game with a slight edge favoring Cruz and Davis. But her presence in the leading category, didn't create the opposite effect, I mean, she's hardly the fron-runner. The passion about her is not the same as last week, and I've read something about she being snubbed (which of course wasn't the case) and that even if she deserved two nominations the academy found a way to give her only one nod, a thing that can be interpretated as a lack of enthusiasm about her. In the presence of a long time waiting Streep, the indie girl Hathaway and the suprisingly accepted and pushed Leo, Winslet might feel in a shaky ground. Only Jolie seems now a sure non-winner...
And it might be true that Oprah waged on behalf of Dreamgirls, and even if the film didn't do that good, ended up with 7 or 8 nods and 2 awards. Her Beloved did quite worst back in 1998
Flipp... If you don't want to talk to somebody, is that hard to ignore him? Jsmalahy or whoever you are... I don't have anything to do with you but clearly, a lot of people in here felt fooled by you, deal with the consequences, a lot of people here doesn't like you and neither trust or can respect your judgment, is that important to come back here?
Back on the ladies (a much important/relevant thing than this weird situation!). Of course the placement of Winslet let the supporting actress category alone and it became an open field, anybody's game with a slight edge favoring Cruz and Davis. But her presence in the leading category, didn't create the opposite effect, I mean, she's hardly the fron-runner. The passion about her is not the same as last week, and I've read something about she being snubbed (which of course wasn't the case) and that even if she deserved two nominations the academy found a way to give her only one nod, a thing that can be interpretated as a lack of enthusiasm about her. In the presence of a long time waiting Streep, the indie girl Hathaway and the suprisingly accepted and pushed Leo, Winslet might feel in a shaky ground. Only Jolie seems now a sure non-winner...
And it might be true that Oprah waged on behalf of Dreamgirls, and even if the film didn't do that good, ended up with 7 or 8 nods and 2 awards. Her Beloved did quite worst back in 1998
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
What do you hope to gain by this ranting? Nobody here apparently wants you around....so why don't you just go away quietly.jsmalahy wrote:flipp525 wrote:Clearly, you do since you're so desperate to keep making yourself relevant:
Well you'll notice I listed exceptions in parentheses -- a few people whose posts were always worth reading, and even now, despite how they might feel about me -- and of course, you aren't among them.
flipp525 wrote:And I don't have to legitimize my intelligence to you. It's there in spades.
HA! When I was a million different people on this board -- and obviously privately corresponding with a few members -- trust me when I say that a few of them shared with me the fact that they found you unintelligent, insipid, and superficial (not to mention seeing through your constant name-dropping). You can call me crazy and every other insulting/racist thing that springs to your mind, you can hold your private Town Hall meetings about me, and you can laugh and scoff and cast aspersions and take pleasure in my misfortunes, but who I am and what I've done doesn't change this fact about YOU and how some of your own board members feel about YOU. They won't say it to your face of course, and I'm sure even now some will rush to comfort you in that cowardly, private thread about me, to assure you that no one thinks (or said) these things about you. But believe me, they did...and they still do.