79th Academy Awards Winners

[OscarGuy]

And I disagree that Cohen was even a solid contender. I never saw him as the fifth-slot prediction.

First: Comedic performance (If Jim Carrey can't even get nominated for stellar performances in dramas for which he received plenty of attention in those years, Cohen wasn't going to get it)

Second: Cameron Diaz syndrome (Cohen received the high profile award but had as much chane at a nod as Diaz did when she won for There's Something About Mary)

Third: SAG (Gosling got a SAG nod, Cohen didn't. That should have been the Cohen supporters major smack on the side of the head)

All signs pointed towards Gosling getting a nomination (he was always in a solid fourth place position in most everyone's predictions I was seeing). There were a scant few that thought Cohen would get in and Gosling would not but I'll bet that 90% of this board's prognosticators and those in the world at large saw Gosling as more of a contender than Cohen.

[mashari]

Adrien Brody was a left-field nominee that managed a surprise victory.

And I would hardly consider Gosling as the weak link. The weak link for nomination that narrowly made it in, IMO, Leonardo DiCaprio. That he made it in for Blood Diamond instead of The Departed seems to me to indicate his votes were significantly split. But that's just my take on it.

Gosling was consistently included in precursor awards.

I recall Brody being a solid contender for the BA line-up and made it in as expected for his heartfelt turn in The Piano. Sure, his win was a surprise, but his nomination wasn't. It was Michael Caine that was the wildcard for The Quiet American, rising above Robin Williams by the skin of his teeth.

And though Gosling may have been consistently included in precursor awards, the fact that Borat was such a phenomenon and the LAFC Award(plus several other mentions) had to give Cohen a considerable amount of last minute steam--even though my gut always said Gosling would make it. I originally predicted DiCaprio as the snubee of the year, but even though he was included for the lesser performance this was a clear indication of his support of the Academy a la Nicole Kidman.

Gosling was the little engine that could, but he couldn't have possibly been even a solid third choice with voting actors(before Whitaker, O'Toole and Smith--all nonwinners, this alone making his nomination "weak" in relation to theirs) and so his nomination is his reward unless some serious vote splitting occurs. Nevertheless, I truly believe that whomever received the least amount of votes by the actors in the leading nomination fields won't inspire them to pick he or she for the win. Supporting is another story(i.e. Marisa Tomei).

[Big Magilla]

As for the possibility of older male Academy members voting for O'Toole because they can identify with and /or like to be in the position of having an intense relationship with a young woman -- nah, Jodie Whittaker is just too unappealing and her character is too crude, not a fantasy material angel.

Maybe that's why he keeps losing - the old reprobates don't want to draw attention to an unseemly relationship they themselves are carrying on. :O

[VanHelsing]

Forget Gosling. I'll be shocked to death if he wins. It's still Whitaker's to lose. As do the other acting categories (Mirren & Hudson will win). The only surprise may come from Supporting Actor but even I won't bet on it (Murphy will win).

[OscarGuy]

Adrien Brody was a left-field nominee that managed a surprise victory.

And I would hardly consider Gosling as the weak link. The weak link for nomination that narrowly made it in, IMO, Leonardo DiCaprio. That he made it in for Blood Diamond instead of The Departed seems to me to indicate his votes were significantly split. But that's just my take on it.

Gosling was consistently included in precursor awards.

[Damien]

Having now seen Venus, I have to agree with Mashari -- I would be shocked if Peter O'Toole won for this. He has some lovely moments, but Venus is such a wisp of a movie it scarcely seems to exist at all. And there is also something unseemly about it -- O'Toole's character, while clearly intended to be a charming and noble survivor of life's vicissitudes of life, comes off as a dirty old man (it's the behaviour he was given in the script, not his performance).

As for the possibility of older male Academy members voting for O'Toole because they can identify with and /or like to be in the position of having an intense relationship with a young woman -- nah, Jodie Whittaker is just too unappealing and her character is too crude, not a fantasy material angel.

Unless O'Tool has spent the last couple of weeks wining and dinig every Academy member a la Benigni, I'd say his chances are very, very slim, as Venus is simply a movie nobody cares about.

[mashari]

You guys I said surprise-slash-weak nominees. Gosling, of course was the latter on Oscar morning for his little film. Yes, I always predicted him for the 5th slot and he deserved his mention, but it's very logical to assume that he NARROWLY lost his nomination to Cohen. Even Will Smith has more of a chance than Gosling. From what I know, history has proven that all such lead nominees that barely make it in NEVER win. Please find me one example of one that did, because I know of none.

And Pacino trumping Washington did incite an uproar, at least in Black circles. The latter gave a performance so good it was inconceivable that the Academy wouldn't finally crown the second Black Best Actor winner. Sure, this sentiment obviously wasn't shared by a majority of voters, but after giving the bone to Pacino for such a mediocre film that had to motivate some of them to think twice about doing it again in this field when the smoke cleared--unless the "deserving" one chokes an award show producer for cutting his acceptance speech, of course.

[flipp525]

I agree with Big Magilla. Gosling was not a "surprise" nominee (I've personally had him down for Best Actor since last September and, mashari, I thought you had him pencilled in pretty early as well...) nor, in this race, do I consider him to be a weak one. Leo DiCaprio and Will Smith seem like much weaker candidates. A Gosling win would be wonderful and certainly unexpected but I really see this nomination this year as the first in a long career. He's the real deal, folks. Might even be the Kate Winslet of the young male actors today, racking up nod after nod, always good.
Next up for a nomination: Joseph Gordon-Levitt.



Edited By flipp525 on 1171987722

[Big Magilla]

Oh, Mashari, the cold cold Chicago air must be freezing your brain cells. Ryan Gosling is neither a surprise nominee, nor a weak one. His win, however, would be the most suprising in this category since Adrien Brody. Peter O'Toole, on the other hand, would be a confirmation that sentiment can still carry the day at the Oscars.

The Academy did not get any flack for rewarding Pacino over Washington in 1992. Any flack came much later. Golden Globe winner Pacino was considered overdue while New York Film Critics winner Washington, then a recent winner in the supporting category, would have been the surprise. He has since more than made up for any perceived injustice by winning two additional nominations and a second Oscar while Pacino has not had an Oscar worthy role since. The same fate could befall Whitaker and O'Toole. Gosling, who is always interesting to watch, could well be on the brink of a long and successful career, whether he wins an Oscar this year or not.

[mashari]

I'd laugh quite hard, and cry with joy, if Ryan Gosling came out of left field to win for the best performance of the five nominees.

I'd love it too, but it won't happen. Surprise/weak nominees never, never, never win.

And I think it's time for some of you to put the O'Toole-wishful thinking to rest. He hasn't won one major precursor for the little seen Venus to give a majority of voters the slightest push toward voting for him and to top it off, he lost at the BAFTA's of all places. He's a great actor, but it just isn't his time.

The last time this occured with BA, was with Pacino vs. Washington in 1992 and the Academy got so much flack then that I highly doubt they'd want history to repeat itself.

And Penelope, I love your avatar! :laugh:

[Franz Ferdinand]

I'd laugh quite hard, and cry with joy, if Ryan Gosling came out of left field to win for the best performance of the five nominees.

[Reza]

So, I am of the opinion that Peter O'Toole performance is good enough to merit an award coupled with the sentiment of not having won before. However, I would be torn about who I'd vote for myself if I had a ballot.

I agree.

However, I would have no qualms about voting for O'Toole on the ballot even though Whitaker is probably better. O'Toole is like ''family'' whom I have known longer and better through a great body of work which has never been honoured by the Academy. Whitaker has done a few good films. Here he is a standout but let him prove to the Academy that he can be consistent in delivering the goods again and again like O' Toole before winning.

[criddic3]

O'Toole is very good in Venus, although his chances get a huge boost from sentiment. Whitaker, on the other hand, was also very good. I think Whitaker's dominence over the whole field has been unfair, because whereas Helen Mirren was clearly better than her competition, Whitaker is not as much a far-away better performance. I would have liked to see some support for Will Smith, Leonardo DiCaprio (more for Departed than Blood Diamond) and O'Toole, even Gosling. They were all excellent in their films and in another year may have competed solidly for the big award. Of Mirren's competition, only Dench or Streep could claim the same thing. I much liked Cruz and Winslet, but even without the others neither would likely be a shoo-in to win.

So, I am of the opinion that Peter O'Toole performance is good enough to merit an award coupled with the sentiment of not having won before. However, I would be torn about who I'd vote for myself if I had a ballot.

[Okri]

Exactly, Reza. O'Toole deserved it then. But does anyone think he deserves it now? As for Whitaker, will he really get a lot of chances like this - this is a great role for him and I can imagine it as a career peak.

[Reza]

If people were "owed" Thelma Ritter would have got at least one award,and Randy Newman would have got more than one Oscar.

That was in the Hollywood of yore. The Academy knows better and will award O'Toole. Whitaker will get his chance in the future.

What a point here! I can´t accept the fact that you must award to a person only by the circumstance that perhaps this one is his last chance. Perhaps this is not the last one. Who knows?. The thing is that Whitaker deserves the award NOW, independently of the sentimentalism that predominates between some voters.

Well O' Toole deserved it THEN for Lawrence or for Lion when the Academy chose Peck (granted also a great performance...but it was the actor's fifth nod and Hollywood was not going to deny the old guard the award) and Robertson (for a totally asinine performance).