Page 2 of 4
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:27 pm
by FilmFan720
Nevertheless, this is becoming the most exciting category of the year. What a great battle!
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:24 pm
by mashari
I think it's pretty safe to say Ronan's nomination is her reward. Ditto for Tilda. I reckon voters also would rather see Cate Blanchett win best lead actress in the next few years than for another gimmicky supp. performance. With the Ryan vs. Blanchett bout too strong I just don't see how veteran Ruby can lose, even with a 5-min performance. Not to mention we are approaching a likely long, drawn out 80th anniversary Oscars(should the strike cease).
Edited By mashari on 1202154660
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:30 pm
by Zahveed
Steph2 wrote:Umm ok, but that would make the average Oscar voter voting on the Oscars even dumber than the average American voter voting in the Presidential elections.
And I find that hard to believe.
Not necessarily the average voter, but there's a possibility that a couple of nutjobs have that lingering in the back of their head somewhere.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:57 pm
by barrybrooks8
They gave Gwenyth Paltrow and Helen Hunt Best both Best Actress. Doesn't make 'em dumb, but it doesn't make 'em smart.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:46 pm
by Steph2
Umm ok, but that would make the average Oscar voter voting on the Oscars even dumber than the average American voter voting in the Presidential elections.
And I find that hard to believe.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:44 pm
by Big Magilla
Steph2 wrote:barrybrooks8 wrote:and even some Heath Ledger connection, Cate's gonna pull out her 2nd Oscar.
I'm sorry, but of all the illogical reasons that have been thrown out on this board (and there have been many), that's gotta be at the top.
It's not illogical, though it is unlikely. I don't think enough people will want to vote for Cate just so she can thank her late co-star, but you never know what's in the minds of the voters. If we can dream up a reason to vote or not vote for someone, so can they.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:56 pm
by Steph2
barrybrooks8 wrote:and even some Heath Ledger connection, Cate's gonna pull out her 2nd Oscar.
I'm sorry, but of all the illogical reasons that have been thrown out on this board (and there have been many), that's gotta be at the top.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:01 am
by The Original BJ
I think something that's been alluded to that no one's outright stated is that, for most actors who win double Oscars in a relatively short time (at least in the modern era), the order of the films seems mighty important -- for Fonda, Streep, Hanks, Spacey, and Swank, I think at least a couple of them might not have won second trophies had their second honored performance been released first. (Imagine if Swank had already been Oscared for Million Dollar Baby. I bet it would have been a lot tougher for her Boys Don't Cry performance to take down Annette Bening in Beauty.)
Of course, the major exception is Sally Field, whose more popular/iconic performance won her her first trophy, but the popularity of Places in the Heart still places her in a different position from Blanchett. With Cate, The Aviator and I'm Not There were definitely released in the wrong order. I don't think she's out -- the Globe isn't meaningless -- but the low profile of I'm Not There doesn't help.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:50 am
by barrybrooks8
As much as I don't want it to happen, I think Blanchett has got the edge in the supporting race. I was all for picking Ryan for the longest time, but I think between vote splitting, the double nomination, the people who will think her Dylan was "uncanny", and even some Heath Ledger connection, Cate's gonna pull out her 2nd Oscar. Ruby Dee won the SAG, yes, but that's over 100,000 actors voting and fan-favorites sometimes win out (Johnny Depp?). The Academy will likely be more discerning in not giving away another 5-minute Oscar that they'll regret the next year.
My guess for chances:
1. Cate Blanchett
2. Amy Ryan
3. Ruby Dee
4. Tilda Swinton (she'll win a Best Actress Oscar for something in the next 10-15 years)
5. Saorise Ronan
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:28 pm
by Damien
I just can't see the Academy giving an Oscar to someone in a Todd Haynes "stunt" film. Nor to the little girl in Atonement. I can, however, imagine any of the remaining three winning. At this point, I don't have a clue which one is the most likely.
Edited By Damien on 1201854632
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:45 pm
by OscarGuy
I don't know where it is now, Akash, but I did put together a list of second-time Oscar winners and the average spans between wins.
And, I don't necessarily think Spacey or Hanks won because their films were nominated for Best Picture. Both of them had achieved a celebrity status that made them very attractive as second-time winners. Yes, their films being Best Picture winners helped, but I don't think it was the determining factor. Spacey maybe, but I contend that Hanks, who had been doing mediocre work up, was a much beloved star whom voters would have crowned based on performance the second time, not based on the film he was in. If Gump hadn't been nominated, I would have bet he would still be the winner.
Hanks may also have more in common with Blanchett because of that. For his second win, the performance was intensely gimmicky, which is similar to Blanchett. And the fact that Blanchett received two nominations this year suggests there is a great deal of admiration for her in the Academy. We may be seeing a return to the double nominee=single winner trend that was destroyed when Sigourney Weaver lost for Working Girl and Gorillas in the Mist.
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:15 pm
by Hustler
Akash, I respect your opinion. The point is that if we are talking about rules, and not about predictions, we´ll have to admit that they are constructions post facts that people establish with the purpose of trying to understand oscar voters´ mind. As you expressed in your post, rules were changing as long as time passed by. Will these rules be mantained? Who knows?
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:09 pm
by Akash
Thanks for the amendment Flipp. Yes, I should have said "Best Picture nominees."
Hustler, I wasn't claiming this as a hard and fast rule. Just a general trend that may be worth noting and I did specify "in recent years." Denzel won his first Oscar almost two decades ago and the others you mentioned were even before that. I was referring to more recent winners, and winners whose second Oscar win occurred not long after their first. Denzel's second Oscar happened twelve years later -- the "too soon" problem for Cate Blanchett was not a problem for him (and anyway there was a sense that he was due for a Lead Acting Oscar). And Dianne Wiest won her second Oscar eight years later for a film that received seven Oscar nominations -- including Director and Screenplay and THREE acting nominations. It might as well have been a Best Picture contender, and it certainly then carried a "weighter heft" with the Academy than a film like "I'm Not There."
Anyway, how many actors won their second Oscars soon after their first (say five years later, tops) with their second win being the ONLY nomination for their film? Blanchett has a lot going against her is all I'm saying.
Edited By Akash on 1201817535
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:03 pm
by Hustler
I have more. Dianne Wiest won her second Oscar in 1995 for Bullets over Broadway. The film was not nominated for best picture.
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:58 pm
by Hustler
My point is, as for Oscars, there are not general rules.