Leo wasn't nominated last year. Waltz one and the below were the other nominees. He hasn't been nominated for Supporting Actor since Gilbert Grape.
Alan Arkin - Argo
Robert De Niro - Silver Linings Playbook
PSH - The Master
Tommy Lee Jones - Lincoln
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
86th Academy Awards |OT| of tripping
- Thread starter Charles Foster Kane
- Start date
- Status
Alan Arkin - Argo
Robert De Niro - Silver Linings Playbook
PSH - The Master
Tommy Lee Jones - Lincoln
Ken Masters
Banned
NYC has a shockingly large percentage of average to below average looking guys
And Chicago? Lol, You know it's a Midwest city right?
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
I think he meant that if anyone from Django won supporting it should've been Leo, not Waltz.
Disagree, but still.
And in hind sight i think Hoffman wins this one 100 times out of 100
Eh. Waltz, TLJ, and PSH were all deserving last year. Didn't get the Arkin nomination personally.
lol, ok.
holyshit at both PSH and Phoenix in the master,
I honestly though both would lock their categories but none of them won
ViewtifulJC
Banned
If anybody was gonna win supporting from Django, it was Samuel L. mothafuckin' Jackson
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
As long as Leo keeps doing cool projects, he'll get one when he lucks into a down year like 2011.
90TilInfinity
Member
And it should've been his second one.
Truth.
But yeah, Waltz getting a second award for playing the same damn role in another movie was pretty bullshit. Definitely should have been Leo or Samuel L Jackson if it was someone from Django Unchained, but in reality, it should have gone to Phillip Seymour Hoffman for The Master.
I didn't say that what the fuck :lol
Yeah this is what I meant, Leo over Waltz if he had been, but I would have had both nominated and PSH winning. Probably would have had SLJ as well, but then I loved Django!
Disagree, Waltz performance was outstanding. Were there good contenders? Yes, but you can't demerit his victory or even say that he didn't deserve it.
Now there's some perspective. The fact that a hack like Leo DiCaprio can get compared to greats like Peter O'Toole and Laurence Olivier is absolutely mind boggling.
That's pushing it. There's a difference between the character and the performance. Would you consider Morgan Freeman's role in Wanted to be radically different than a lot of his other roles, despite the performances being one in the same, just because the character he's playing is morally repugnant in comparison? I hope not. Yes, the underlying psychological state and morality of the two characters were different, but in the case of Col. Landa, the menace behind the facade was only explored in two scenes through out the movie. Otherwise, they're basically carbon copies of one another, right down to their vocal and physical mannerisms.
What does that have to do with anything? Yes, he acted what he was given but that doesn't change the fact that the end result was a copy and pasted performance from a movie that he already won an award for. Why not give the award to someone who actually carved out a unique performance?
Mostly technical stuff, thankfully.
--
Also i agree with harSon about Waltz second Oscar, though i haven't seen The Master so that part i can't say.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Again, Director, Editor, and Score isn't "technical stuff." Those are three of the bigger awards handed out.
Yeah, Gravity definitely didn't win just "technical" awards.
Let them believe what they want.
Fair enough, though all I hear when talking about, say, the direction of it, is in relation to how difficult it was to shoot, on a technical level.
The score is especially puzzling, since i thought was particularly intrusive.
Because that's not how awards should ever be handled. And Waltz performance was not unique? WTF? It may resemble his Landa's character but they are fundamentaly diferent and as I said he NAILED what he was supposed to do. Blame Tarantino if YOU think both characters are copy and paste, I can't think of a better way to perform that character.
Yes, that's exactly how awards should be handled. Actors shouldn't get repeat awards within a few years time for reprising the role they won for in a different movie. They just shouldn't.
You honestly need to learn the difference between the character itself, and the actor's performance. They're completely separate entities, and it's possible to have two similar performances across characters that couldn't be any more different. Look at someone like Jason Statham and compare his role in Homefront (A straight and narrow DEA agent and a family man) to his role in Crank (a scumbag contract killer). RADICALLY different characters, same exact performance, as is the case with any Jason Statham movie. Look at Nicolas Cage's career for plenty of other examples.
And I do blame Tarantino, but that doesn't change the fact that the performances are one in the same. Filmmakers and screenwriters fail actors and actresses on the regular, and it's ridiculous to suggest that such a phenomenon should be accounted for when judging the merits of a role. I agree 100% that Waltz brought the character to life perfectly. The performance and character from the script were in complete symbiosis. There's no arguing any of that. But none of that is at odds with the fact that the characters of Col. Landa and Dr. Schultz are similar to a fault in regards to judging its merits as an oscar deserving performance.
oh yeah....jeezus that is a weird miss
You should lecture the judges from the Oscar, Golden Globes, BAFTA about how to handle these awards, you clearly know better than them.
Imperial Hot
Banned
I just don't see how Her could not win best direction. It's such a coherent, well-thought out vision from end to end...which is what Best Direction should be awarding. The script, the world, the performances, the music, everything in it is so cohesive.
Lol, you just did your argument a disservice if you honestly believe in the infallibility and integrity of award ceremony judges. It's all a huge joke. As Weinstein shows, it's basically the industry equivalent of running for political office.
Well, for starters, Spike wasn't even nominated for best director.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
Yes, they've always been a joke (it's no secret). It's even easier to see by reading some of the comments from voters on their choices.
I don't, but if the he won back to back the biggest awards in the industry, it was because of merit. it's not like he didn't win shit and then comes the Oscar and he finaly wins or like he wins everything and then comes the Oscar and he loses. He won everything 2 times in a row, he is that good and A LOT of people recognize that, critics and average joes. Supposedly doing a similar performance on diferent movies shouldn't be a factor to discredit someone's victory. His work should be analised individualy, they are awarding his performance not his career.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Oscars are a joke.
- Status