Valonqar Posted November 9, 2017 Share Posted November 9, 2017 (edited) Damn, I'd love for Kaluuya to sneak into the Oscar line-up instead of the Oscar Whorenhaal. Edited November 9, 2017 by Valonqar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 9 hours ago, Valonqar said: Damn, I'd love for Kaluuya to sneak into the Oscar line-up instead of the Oscar Whorenhaal. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webslinger Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 I still can't believe that Jake Gyllenhaal hasn't been nominated since Brokeback Mountain 12 years ago. He was on my personal ballot three years in a row for Prisoners (supporting), Nightcrawler, and Southpaw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrathOfHan Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 Something about Gyllenhaal getting nominated this year still isn't clicking with me. Stronger is a movie barely anybody saw, and Roadside hasn't made anything happen at the Oscars since Albert Nobbs (don't even think about saying they had Manchester because Amazon handled all the campaigning). It's not like Jake Gyllenhaal is NEVER going to get anymore roles. He'll get a second nomination in due time, but I'm really not feeling him this year even with the weak category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said: Something about Gyllenhaal getting nominated this year still isn't clicking with me. Stronger is a movie barely anybody saw, and Roadside hasn't made anything happen at the Oscars since Albert Nobbs (don't even think about saying they had Manchester because Amazon handled all the campaigning). It's not like Jake Gyllenhaal is NEVER going to get anymore roles. He'll get a second nomination in due time, but I'm really not feeling him this year even with the weak category. I think the category being so weak works in his favor. He's campaigning, it's a really thin field, it's been more than a decade since his first nomination (and almost made it three years ago), and...well, just watch Stronger. This is exactly the kind of performance where they're willing to overlook poor box office based on the strength of the work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webslinger Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 I know 2014 was a really competitive year in Best Actor, but I'm still kinda dumbfounded that Gyllenhaal didn't get nominated for Nightcrawler. I wouldn't say he's a surefire nominee this year, but I could see both the critic organizations and SAG going to bat for the performance despite the film's failure to catch on with audiences - which it could rectify to some extent with its home video release next month. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 2014 was as competitive as this year is not. Chalamet, Hanks (though I'm fully expecting him to get snubbed, again), and Oldman are the only contenders whose films are in serious contention for Best Picture nominations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrathOfHan Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 I'm basically sticking with Oldman/DDL/Chalamet/Franco/Hanks here unless someone surges at SAG, and even then that person would need strong momentum. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAM! Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 (edited) I really think Hanks will be snubbed on the basis that I don't think he cares enough to campaign. He could've easily gotten in Best Actor over Christian Bale when he was up for Captain Phillips if he ran an honest-to-goodness campaign for it. And I don't really need to talk about the snubs for Bridge of Spies and Sully. There's a reason why he's been snubbed since Castaway, and I think that's because he is at a place where he is content. Tom Hanks takes roles because of genuine interest in the subject matter. Not because he wants a third Oscar. So if he holds back to let other actors have their chance, then I think we should too. Edited November 12, 2017 by slambros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valonqar Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, WrathOfHan said: Something about Gyllenhaal getting nominated this year still isn't clicking with me. Stronger is a movie barely anybody saw, and Roadside hasn't made anything happen at the Oscars since Albert Nobbs (don't even think about saying they had Manchester because Amazon handled all the campaigning). It's not like Jake Gyllenhaal is NEVER going to get anymore roles. He'll get a second nomination in due time, but I'm really not feeling him this year even with the weak category. he's sending emails to everyone begging them to see the movie and soon freebies will follow and then he'll grease pockets, etc. he is THAT desperate. Even his fans on AW (I think his whole fandom is there) are poking fun at his efforts and are embarrassed for him. I really think he expected that unappealing movie to do better but he's a boxoffice poison so no cigar. He may get in cause pity votes for so much desperation. Plus disability. Actors think disability is the height of acting skill. So, yeah, SAG's probably going to save him. Edited November 10, 2017 by Valonqar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webslinger Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 If Tom Hanks is as good in The Post as he was in Captain Phillips, I think he'll be nominated. Hanks's 2013 snub remains one of the weirder snubs of recent memory considering how baity it was, how well the film did at the box office (it made over $100 million domestically and would have opened at #1 in most October weekends, but had the misfortune of opening in Gravity's massive shadow), and the fact that he's Oscar royalty who had another strong-on-paper bid in the supporting category - though in hindsight, it does seem that perhaps he might have split just enough voters with his performance in Saving Mr. Banks, which got shunted to supporting in the name of category fraud. It was a huge surprise when Christian Bale took Hanks's slot on nomination morning nearly four years ago. I'm also surprised that he couldn't translate strong reviews and great box office for Sully to a nomination in a fairly weak year last year either. But honestly, this whole category is a huge question mark. I would say that the Oscar is Oldman's to lose, but his anti-Semitic remarks may cost him in a year where I'm guessing the Academy will do its damndest to avoid any kind of controversy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 I don't think Saving Mr. Banks hurt Hanks chances for Captain Phillips. Thompson was the one with most of the buzz for that movie, which ended up getting completely shut out aside from a lone Score nomination. Even with his past remarks, I think this is Oldman's to lose unless the potential history-making moment of awarding Timothee Chalamet (who would be the youngest Best Actor winner ever at 22 when the ceremony happens, beating Adrien Brody at 29) becomes desirable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrathOfHan Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 6 hours ago, Webslinger said: If Tom Hanks is as good in The Post as he was in Captain Phillips, I think he'll be nominated. Hanks's 2013 snub remains one of the weirder snubs of recent memory considering how baity it was, how well the film did at the box office (it made over $100 million domestically and would have opened at #1 in most October weekends, but had the misfortune of opening in Gravity's massive shadow), and the fact that he's Oscar royalty who had another strong-on-paper bid in the supporting category - though in hindsight, it does seem that perhaps he might have split just enough voters with his performance in Saving Mr. Banks, which got shunted to supporting in the name of category fraud. It was a huge surprise when Christian Bale took Hanks's slot on nomination morning nearly four years ago. I'm also surprised that he couldn't translate strong reviews and great box office for Sully to a nomination in a fairly weak year last year either. But honestly, this whole category is a huge question mark. I would say that the Oscar is Oldman's to lose, but his anti-Semitic remarks may cost him in a year where I'm guessing the Academy will do its damndest to avoid any kind of controversy. I was predicting Bale for a long time, so that didn't surprise me in the slightest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 I'm still thinking Kaluuya can sneak in. Especially because the academy will be avoiding controversy, and not having any person of color nominees again would just heat up more flames. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAM! Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 I think Sony will be confident enough in the better-than-expected expansion results of Roman J. Isreal, Esq to increase their campaigning for Denzel Washington. Not saying it'll result in a nomination, but the success is a shake-up for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valonqar Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 (edited) On 11/12/2017 at 2:14 PM, The Panda said: I'm still thinking Kaluuya can sneak in. Especially because the academy will be avoiding controversy, and not having any person of color nominees again would just heat up more flames. I'm trying not to jinx him so I'm trying not to predict him but I gotta say he and Franco would be my dream line up. offbeat roles in movies that have been seen (GO made over 160M) and are likely going to be (TDA should do well for that kind of a movie) deserve to be nominated over rote baits. Edited November 26, 2017 by Valonqar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 I think Chalamet is starting to look like a winner over Oldman. Im curious if Oldman will even get nominated rn. Darkest Hour isnt getting much love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichWS Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 On 11/10/2017 at 12:34 AM, WrathOfHan said: I'm basically sticking with Oldman/DDL/Chalamet/Franco/Hanks here unless someone surges at SAG, and even then that person would need strong momentum. Same. That's looking like a tough five to crack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 2 hours ago, The Panda said: I think Chalamet is starting to look like a winner over Oldman. Im curious if Oldman will even get nominated rn. Darkest Hour isnt getting much love. It was always a given that Darkest Hour was never gonna make a strong showing with the critics awards. We'll have to wait and see how the guilds take to it before doubting Oldman's chances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 3 hours ago, The Panda said: I think Chalamet is starting to look like a winner over Oldman. Im curious if Oldman will even get nominated rn. Darkest Hour isnt getting much love. I still think he gets nominated, but I don't think he's a "safe winner" like so many people predicted before either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
