Best supporting actor-2017

[aabattery]

The only solution is Taika for BD.

[BirdMan]

On 10/1/2017 at 4:51 AM, The Pumpkin Spice Panda said:

If 3 Acting cats are all white and you have one minority nominated in supporting actress, there'll still be a diversity problem (there still is technically.  In every cat, the average should be 2 minorities, 3 whites.  Most cats are still white and white male dominated)

 

There are some strong minority options.  Especially if Mudbound gets traction.  The only acting cat that doesn't have at least one great minority option is actress.

what is this ? a quota system ? voting should be based on merit or skin color ? if  a person of a certain color or ethnicity is not nominated does that mean the academy went racist in the span of a year despite having the same members ? 

[Jake Gittes]

2 hours ago, BirdMan said:

what is this ? a quota system ? voting should be based on merit or skin color ? if  a person of a certain color or ethnicity is not nominated does that mean the academy went racist in the span of a year despite having the same members ? 

No, it means that actors of color on the whole still aren't getting nearly enough meaty showcase-type roles in films. The lack of Oscar recognition for them is more of a symptom than the disease, but it's an easy target for critics as a supposed celebration of the best the movie year had to offer.

[BirdMan]

3 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:

No, it means that actors of color on the whole still aren't getting nearly enough meaty showcase-type roles in films. The lack of Oscar recognition for them is more of a symptom than the disease, but it's an easy target for critics as a supposed celebration of the best the movie year had to offer.

Exactly , but idiots can't realize that so it's either nominate this person if deserved  , if not , nominate a mediocre role to be inclusive 

[The Panda]

On 10/10/2017 at 9:08 AM, BirdMan said:

Exactly , but idiots can't realize that so it's either nominate this person if deserved  , if not , nominate a mediocre role to be inclusive 

 

Given that the Academy is going to shut out Mudbound because of Netflix, part of its pretty deserved.  Furthermore, it's a fair controversy, it shows a hiring bias when choosing actors (or tech work hires).  It shows Hollywood is still a white male dominated industry, despite flagging themselves as progressive.

 

The fact that we cats in general don't average around 2 minorities and 3 whites each shows there's a possible case of discrimination in the industry when it comes to hiring minorities.  Furthermore, there's a gender issue in certain categories, like writing and director, where women are almost always completely ignored (plus in the industry there aren't a lot of women that are given director positions).  People just don't raise a fuss about that because it's not as visible (you don't see the director's face and such).

 

The Academy is an extension of Hollywood, so backlash against the Oscars due to a problem with how Hollywood execs hire employees is fair.  Maybe there weren't 2 minorities worthy that year by happenstance, but it happens year after year, some years when there were quality minority actors to choose from.  It's both a judgement on the academy and Hollywood as a whole.  It'll take longer than a year to fix.

 

You can't just give Moonlight a BP win and expect Hollywood to be free of discrimination issues in who they hire, and who they give good roles to (or title positions such as a head editor, cinematographer, director, etc).  Furthermore, you don't frequently have a more barren Best Actress field because the women are worse, you have it because Hollywood still has a white male preference.

[Jake Gittes]

To be fair, right now it's the best actor field that somehow can't manage five worthy nominees for the third year in a row. 

[filmlover]

A part of me is getting a sneaky suspicion that Rylance could very well sneak in despite there not being much to his role. Guess it helps that the last spot that's completely up for grabs between him and both Shape of Water guys (thinking Dafoe/Rockwell/Stuhlbarg are safe and Hammer is a very strong #4).

[BirdMan]

On 10/19/2017 at 1:50 AM, The Pumpkin Spice Panda said:

 

Given that the Academy is going to shut out Mudbound because of Netflix, part of its pretty deserved.  Furthermore, it's a fair controversy, it shows a hiring bias when choosing actors (or tech work hires).  It shows Hollywood is still a white male dominated industry, despite flagging themselves as progressive.

 

The fact that we cats in general don't average around 2 minorities and 3 whites each shows there's a possible case of discrimination in the industry when it comes to hiring minorities.  Furthermore, there's a gender issue in certain categories, like writing and director, where women are almost always completely ignored (plus in the industry there aren't a lot of women that are given director positions).  People just don't raise a fuss about that because it's not as visible (you don't see the director's face and such).

 

The Academy is an extension of Hollywood, so backlash against the Oscars due to a problem with how Hollywood execs hire employees is fair.  Maybe there weren't 2 minorities worthy that year by happenstance, but it happens year after year, some years when there were quality minority actors to choose from.  It's both a judgement on the academy and Hollywood as a whole.  It'll take longer than a year to fix.

 

You can't just give Moonlight a BP win and expect Hollywood to be free of discrimination issues in who they hire, and who they give good roles to (or title positions such as a head editor, cinematographer, director, etc).  Furthermore, you don't frequently have a more barren Best Actress field because the women are worse, you have it because Hollywood still has a white male preference.

is hollywood racist ? hell yeah , most people are 

but trying to correct a wrong with another wrong is utterly stupid , nominating people based on skin color or political agenda instead of merit could be acceptable if the number of nominees was not limited , but this is a zero sum game , someone getting in for such purposes means someone else arguably more deserving was left out 

this happened to amy adams last year when she lost her spot to negga and streep who were not half as good as her but it's ok because the category was not all white ( streep got in for bashing trump )

after all the award season is for diversity not awarding the most competent I guess 

[aabattery]

1 hour ago, BirdMan said:

is hollywood racist ? hell yeah , most people are 

but trying to correct a wrong with another wrong is utterly stupid , nominating people based on skin color or political agenda instead of merit could be acceptable if the number of nominees was not limited , but this is a zero sum game , someone getting in for such purposes means someone else arguably more deserving was left out 

this happened to amy adams last year when she lost her spot to negga and streep who were not half as good as her but it's ok because the category was not all white ( streep got in for bashing trump )

after all the award season is for diversity not awarding the most competent I guess 

 

Ruth Negga was great. She definitely deserved her spot.

 

[CoolioD1]

honestly ruth negga was better than emma stone and amy adams i don't get the griping about that nomination. well, i guess i do but let's not get into it.

[Jake Gittes]

Huppert was the only one better than Negga in last year's line-up. 

[The Panda]

Yeah, I'm not saying nominated a person of color solely because of that.  What I'm saying is that there are person of color performances every year that get snubbed that are better than a lot of the white noms.

 

 

[filmlover]

I saw The Florida Project over the weekend and Dafoe's performance is really quiet. He'll be nominated for sure but I don't think he has a shot at winning, especially when there's a chance he might end up being the movie's only nomination. FWIW I think this is gonna end up being Rockwell's to lose.

[Jake Gittes]

19 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I saw The Florida Project over the weekend and Dafoe's performance is really quiet. He'll be nominated for sure but I don't think he has a shot at winning, especially when there's a chance he might end up being the movie's only nomination. FWIW I think this is gonna end up being Rockwell's to lose.

 

Mark Rylance and Mahershala Ali both won for very subdued work.

[filmlover]

Just now, Jake Gittes said:

 

Mark Rylance and Mahershala Ali both won for very subdued work.

Yeah, but those films were standing on much higher ground than where The Florida Project will probably end up. I loved the movie but as of now I have it the lower half of the Best Picture rankings (and potentially leaving if Lady Bird ends up being A24's #1 - that almost certainly will make more, a lot more potentially, at the box office).

[filmlover]

I now want Christopher Plummer to steamroll through the season just for the sheer lolz.

[WrathOfHan]

7 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I now want Christopher Plummer to steamroll through the season just for the sheer lolz.

We can cross SAG off for obvious reasons  

[filmlover]

Thinking Bob Odenkirk is gonna be the "surprise" nominee this year, or the closest to it. Outside the other four in my predictions, no one else has heat of any kind in this category. Also, if the "two nominees from the same film" curse in this category isn't broken this year, it's probably never being broken again.

 

Willem Dafoe, The Florida Project

Armie Hammer, Call Me by Your Name

Bob Odenkirk, The Post

Sam Rockwell, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Michael Stuhlbarg, Call Me by Your Name

[RichWS]

Dafoe has decades of goodwill built up. A lot of voters are gonna want to reward him.

[filmlover]

I'm starting to think that double nominations aren't happening this year (Hammer is clearly the more likely of the two CMBYN guys to happen as Stuhlbarg just isn't catching on at all so far - heck, he's probably #3 behind Dafoe and Rockwell at this point) and we're gonna end up with something like Mark Rylance getting nominated even though it would be the laziest acting nomination in a long time (even the Jackie Weaver role in Silver Linings Playbook, the poster child for "what did they even do?" nominations, had more meat to it).

Edited December 4, 2017 by filmlover