Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Big Magilla wrote:More likely to hurt him is his rumored starring role in Expendables 4 with Hulk Hogan. Could be he won't be embraced like George Burns, Don Ameche and James Coburn, but instead be considered lucky to have been nominated like Mickey Rooney in The Black Stallion. Of course the Mick lost to Melvyn Douglas and there isn't exactly a Melvyn Douglas in the running this year although Mark Rylance does have the same level of respect from those who know his work. We'll see if there are enough of them to swing it in his direction.

Melvyn Douglas was a previous winner and nominee. Mark Rylance is an unkonwn for the majority of voters. I would compare Stallone to Burt Reynolds. The thing is that this year there is no Robin Williams type of actor/performance for the academy to honor.

More likely to hurt him is his rumored starring role in Expendables 4 with Hulk Hogan. Could be he won't be embraced like George Burns, Don Ameche and James Coburn, but instead be considered lucky to have been nominated like Mickey Rooney in The Black Stallion. Of course the Mick lost to Melvyn Douglas and there isn't exactly a Melvyn Douglas in the running this year although Mark Rylance does have the same level of respect from those who know his work. We'll see if there are enough of them to swing it in his direction.

Big Magilla wrote:The supporting award rarely goes to a longtime actress, but often goes to a longtime actor which puts Stallone out in front by itself. Add to that the fact he's playing a beloved (in some circles) character for the last time and his chances increase.

This is precisely why I thought it was a bone-headed move to announce a sequel recently. It takes away the sentiment that this was his character's last hurrah. I still think Stallone has a real shot, but that could hurt him and we might see an upset there.

As discussed pre-nominations, this category was always going to be a tough one to predict with a list of 10-11 strong candidates from which to fill up the roster. The fact that certain early favorites such as Mark Ruffalo and Tom Hardy made the final list was somewhat surprising but not entirely unexpected. Both of them are attached to strong Best Picture candidates and well, there's always the bird-in-the-hand rule. I'm willing to bet that Jacob Tremblay came pretty damn close to being nominated considering the strong Room showing overall. We've discussed the issue with Idris Elba and I think it had much more to do with Netflix (the new "talkies") than anything having to do with race.

Ruffalo is very shouty in Spotlight and gives, in my opinion, the weakest performance out of that ensemble (so, of course, he's the one they nominate). He was much, much better in Foxcatcher last year. He also already gave a version of his Spotlight performance in The Normal Heart on HBO. I can see BJ's point that given his recent spate of supporting nominations and his attachment to a BP contender it might mean that weneed to look at him a little closer for the win here. However, I'm just not seeing him being any voter's favorite performance out of this bunch. Doesn't mean that he can't win, but I think it would be pretty surprising.

I think Bale is wildly enjoyable in The Big Short and even affecting at points (with the glass eye angle). He's going to end up as an also-ran this year, but it's a strong performance and anchors the film very well. Too bad he couldn't have brought along Steve Carrell, but I was happy to see him recognized this year.

Mark Rylance would seem to be the classic supporting actor choice. He turns in a strong character performance in Bridge of Spies and is already a well-regarded British thespian (who has almost as many Tony awards as Audra MacDonald does at this point). As mentioned here, the early steam just ran out for him. BAFTAs is a strong venue for him to place and could resurrect his chances. Was it Reza who declared him the outright winner of this category some months ago? I think that was always a bit of a shaky bet.

Tom Hardy is the best part of The Revenant, completely overshadowing Leo's performance in the same film. Sabin, I don't think the villainous angle of his character is a handicap in the slightest bit (this category is rife with villain winners). He could be a very possible spoiler in the race, especially if the Academy really goes for The Revenant in a big way.

I see Sly Stallone as a very soft frontrunner at this point. He has a certain momentum that began, really, at NBR but was solidified at his very welcoming reception at the Globes. He has the "Cinderella invited back at the ball" narrative going for him as well. It's just, is the performance so good that they'll ignore a completely undistinguished career? This isn't Mo'Nique in Precious.

I think both supporting races this year are incredibly up-in-the-air which is pretty exciting. It seems they've been very much carved in stone at this point in recent years. The last legit surprise in this category was Christoph Waltz for Django Unchained. The Academy would do well to strategically place these two awards during the telecast for maximum dramatic mileage.

Senility must be setting in quicker than I thought!

Substitute Bale for Shannon.

FilmFan720 wrote:

Big Magilla wrote:Hardy and Shannon are hardly in the race at all.

Literally, in the case of the latter.

I literally had to look this up to realize that, yeah, Shannon really has no chance of winning this one.

Big Magilla wrote:Hardy and Shannon are hardly in the race at all.

Literally, in the case of the latter.

The supporting award rarely goes to a longtime actress, but often goes to a longtime actor which puts Stallone out in front by itself. Add to that the fact he's playing a beloved (in some circles) character for the last time and his chances increase.

Rylance may be a beloved stage actor, more-so in the U.K. than the U.S., but he is a relative unknown to most Academy members. To win he would have to give an extraordinary performance, not merely a good one that is more reminiscent of Albert Basserman in Foreign Correspondent than Joseph Schildkraut in The Life of Emile Zola or anyone else. That plus the fact that he hasn't won a major award since New York and Boston early on, doesn't help his chances.

The only wins for Ruffalo thus far have been with his ensemble.

Hardy and Shannon are hardly in the race at all.

I say Stallone with Rylance a possibility if he wins BAFTA but not if he loses to Elba again.

Tom Hardy could be a dark horse winner if he would bother to campaign, but he has stayed far away from the spotlight ("Lock me out of that for your own good").
What will the slobbering Internet masses say if Stallone wins the Oscar for what is ostensibly a black movie?

Oh my...I thought she'd gotten nominated before...I'm not tossing the argument entirely, but that portion is factually in error.

HarryGoldfarb wrote:

OscarGuy wrote:Lauren Bacall is probably the best analogy that I've heard so far. She was previously nominated and was a towering figure in film history.

Was she ever previously nominated?

Nope. The Mirror Has Two Faces brought Bacall her first (and last) nomination.

OscarGuy wrote:Lauren Bacall is probably the best analogy that I've heard so far. She was previously nominated and was a towering figure in film history.

Was she ever previously nominated?

BJ, I think the reason many of us have shifted to this being Stallone's to lose, in spite of his performance in the biggies like BAFTA and SAG, is that the reception he's gotten from the industry with his win at the Globes. It was loud, visceral and clearly enthusiastic.

The thing we have to realize from the SAG perspective is that they've gone to a situation where a small committee does the nominating rather than the entire organization. It's the reason an acclaimed indie like Room would be skipped over at the Spirit Awards. A small voting pool selecting a narrow set of nominees. Had SAG been selected by the body at large, I have no doubt that Stallone would have been nominated and would likely have also won.

He's also a very American institution, which is the reason I think BAFTA left him off. As BAFTA has proven over the years, they lean towards honoring hometown folk with nominations, and sometimes, wins. While the Academy may seem like a more global entity in terms of its membership, I think the nomination of Jennifer Lawrence, pretty much solidifies any perception that they are heavily Amero-centric.

Why does a win for Stallone seem like a more likely thing than one by Eddie Murphy or, more recently the comeback king Mickey Rourke (or even Michael Keaton for that matter) is that unlike those figures, Stallone has prior nominations. Two of them actually. I don't know whether Stallone survives Creed as I haven't seen it (nor do I really want to watch it, my affection for Rocky being quite weak), but he has the kind of emotional story backbone that, unlike Keaton and Murphy, tends to get people's attention.

Rourke was never an industry figure, just a popular actor who fell to drugs. Stallone, on the other hand, has apparently been well liked in the industry for awhile. Add in the nostalgia for his Best Picture winner (which still mystifies me, by the way...it isn't that great a movie), gives him a better shot than those three actors mentioned.

Lauren Bacall is probably the best analogy that I've heard so far. She was previously nominated and was a towering figure in film history. However, was she really that likable? That, I think, might be the key to this race. Was Bacall the easiest person to get along with. Her character in The Mirror Has Two Faces was also entirely unsympathetic. She wasn't a scenery-chewing villain like Christoph Waltz, but her character also wasn't the mentoring, sympathetic figure Stallone's is in Creed. Did Bacall even campaign much for her Supporting Actress category? I don't recall, but Stallone is schmoozing like there's no tomorrow.

I think all these factors combined lead towards a more likely victory for Stallone than anyone else.

Sabin wrote: he's my personal favorite of the bunch.

For never changing his expression? I still have to see Ruffalo, but I'd say that both Rylance and Bale have given a more deserving performance.

As for Stallone, in an ordinary year he wouldn't do better than - as pointed out - Eddie Murphy or, say, Burt Reynolds, former box-office champions for whom the Academy (which can be nostalgic, but also quite cynical) clearly thought that a nomination would be enough. This year only the lack of a strong alternative (and Rylance just doesn't seem as strong as he was perceived to be) could lead to an Oscar for Sylvester Stallone.

Leonardo Di Caprio in The Revenant, Sylvester Stallone in Creed, Alicia Vikander in The Danish Girl... Will this be the least convincing slate of acting winners in Oscar history? It honestly sounds a bit too bad to be true, even by the declining standards of the Academy. And we'll have to (partly) thank the internet for that...

Sabin wrote:I would say that Tom Hardy is probably the least likely to win. His character is wildly unsympathetic, cowardly, and at odds with the rest of the film. Which is probably why he's my personal favorite of the bunch.

Villains have done well in this category.

But, much the way some of us wondered if Eddie Murphy's lame filmography would hurt him when he was the favorite.

It didn't hurt Mo'Nique and Kim Basinger though.