Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Aw, thanks guys. I can't promise that I'll be anything but the cherry bomb-lobbing scamp I was the last time I was active here, but I just saw Johnny Guitar post and couldn't in good conscience remain a total lurker.

Bog wrote:By the way...has anyone even mentioned they are glad to have you back around...of sorts?

Let me second this. You've been missed, Eric, and it's great to have your voice around again.

By the way...has anyone even mentioned they are glad to have you back around...of sorts? I am glad for this and if it has been stated elsewhere, then let me echo the sentiments. I'm sure several of us have thought of you multiple times in the past many months with regard to certain things associated with Eric (Spielberg mad respect). For me it is your advocacy for standout(ness) and excessive presence in the script as NOT being the necessity it had become in recent years for a supporting nomination...of course presenting with exact opposite results...as Hathaway with her what 10-12 overrated minutes and a win compares to what I considered an Eric supporting nominee Jacki Weaver seen as not doing enough (cringe).

Anyway, yes I suppose I should have come more to my senses, like many here, still predicting Riva for the upset victory, knowing the history and likelihood that Chastain and not Riva was even "runner up".

Well, yeah, excepting for the fact that the Academy doesn't award actresses once they've reached their mid-30s.

flipp525 wrote: Waltz is an interesting performer. He seems like a slightly odd little man, but I thought his speech was quite gracious and his Django work was fantastic (albeit a co-leading performance, not supporting at all).

Other than the runaway train that was Hathaway, Waltz starting the night off with a win was the beginning of the voters seeming to vote for what actually felt was the best performance, precedent or herd mentality aside. Placing Day-Lewis ahead of every other great male actor in Oscar history and avoiding awarding an 86 year old (that night) performer possibly proves this to a certain extent. I guess what I mean is, so many of us, or me specifically, I always think before they vote they take inventory of everything their castes vote will mean in addition to just a statue to their vote. There was literally no need to award a single of the 4 actors were this the case. One female is 22 and will be here for decades, the other probably 30 and the same is true, and the men had both JUST won, at least Academy Awards-wise.

I think that Waltz has a bigger range than Tarantino is currently writing for him. For example, he was the only remotely interesting thing about Carnage.

Last week, I changed my prediction to Waltz from Jones because of the BAFTA win. The GG selection I could have easily tossed off as foreign-star whoring and they do seem to love Tarantino, but when BAFTA gave him a second award, I knew the Academy could also support it. And when you look at the roles, Waltz is a co-lead regardless of category gerrymandering, thus had more screen time to develop his character. He's the only really sympathetic character in the film (to me anyway) and considering all the negative reaction to Tommy Lee's sourpuss performance at the Globes, it started to sound like he was fading. I didn't buy the De Niro buzz as it seemed manufactured by Weinstein and De Niro's post Bull career hasn't been particularly exciting, so the chances of him winning a third was limited.

I agree that Goodman is the standout in Argo. I was not impressed by Arkin who has taken the curmudgeon to an unnecessarily overdone level. As for Redmayne, I thought he was pretty fantastic in Les Mis and his performance of "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" is superb.

anonymous1980 wrote:

flipp525 wrote:I'm surprised that absolutely no one predicted Waltz in the Predictions thread. With the Golden Globe and the BAFTA, was he really that much of a shock?

I think most people underestimated him because he's the most recent winner among the five and he plays a rather similar role.

I'd argue that Arkin was also playing a similar role to his recent Oscar-winning character. Frankly, I don't think anyone in Argo was doing anything revolutionary from an acting standpoint. People were citing Cranston as the true standout, but I didn't even see anything that great there (nothing he did would even touch his work in a randomly chosen episode of "Breaking Bad", for example). If pressed, I would've given the edge to John Goodman who was genuinely hilarious and had a great year.

Waltz is an interesting performer. He seems like a slightly odd little man, but I thought his speech was quite gracious and his Django work was fantastic (albeit a co-leading performance, not supporting at all).

I still haven't seen Les Miz, but I thought Eddie Redmayne's singing on stage was incredible. The buzz around him seems to have been well-deserved. Of what I've actually seen, I would've given Arkin's spot to Dwight Henry.

flipp525 wrote:I'm surprised that absolutely no one predicted Waltz in the Predictions thread. With the Golden Globe and the BAFTA, was he really that much of a shock?

I think most people underestimated him because he's the most recent winner among the five and he plays a rather similar role.

OscarGuy wrote:I predicted him.

Oh, okay. Sorry. I see that now. You were literally the only one. Most folks had Jones or DeNiro.

I predicted him.

I'm surprised that absolutely no one predicted Waltz in the Predictions thread. With the Golden Globe and the BAFTA, was he really that much of a shock?

Who got a whiff of nervousness that Daniel Day-Lewis wasn't going to win?

I had this feeling that Waltz might win. Because if they're going to give someone a second win, how much does it matter who? If his clip is only part of that excellent scene it certainly shows the character at his most charming, if not exactly differentiating him at all from his Nazi hunter in Inglourious Basterds.

Arkin's clip is his entire performance in the film all right. That's what he does in the movie. De Niro's clip felt longer than the rest of them to me. I thought for sure they would do his crying clip. Instead, this moment both emphasized his OCD and a desperate sense of humor. I wish they didn't feel the need to show him saying that Pat is here for a reason because out of context is it doesn't do justice to Russell's gambit on silly introduction of plot points. I thought for sure they would have done Philip Seymour Hoffman's "I am an author, a scientist, a doctor..." bit, but this one is pretty terrific. One of the better clips of the night and it worked towards making The Master genuinely seem like it's about something -- and something trippy at that. Tommy Lee Jones' clip is one of the worst scenes in Lincoln, largely due to John Williams' intrusive score which deflates the irony of what Jones does in that scene. So many moments to choose from where the character is being honest.

They truly love their Viennese teardrops, don’t they? (At least this time it’s not a fake one).

Here’s hoping this new one will fade away quickly too.

Bog wrote:Day-Lewis I'm certain is free of a Spielberg curse if for no other reason but lack of options...something the supporting race had an absolute plethora of to,choose.

If anything gets Day-Lewis, it is going to be his previous two Oscars. Day-Lewis will win if voters are basing their decision just on the performance, but other things come in to consideration as we have seen from the various anonymous interviews with Academy members. They do think about how many Oscars someone has won and also how much they like the person. Luckily Day-Lewis is very, very well loved. I still think Hugh Jackman could pull the biggest shocker of the night. We shall see.