86th Annual Academy Awards (2014)

[Sawyer]

LOL, I got Nebraska and it just makes me sound really depressed. I don't feel depressed!

It makes me seem depressed and old. I'm only 23, goddammit, I can't be a movie starring a 77 year old.

 

[redhawk23]

I got "Her." Great movie but damn what a downer description

You got: Her.
Warner Bros. Pictures
Put on a sad song and rock yourself to sleep because you’re Her. At your best, you’re quirky and charming. At your worst, you’re a real downer to be around. But despite that, you’re still well liked for your kind and romantic nature.

 

[Superman_200]

Sad, isn't it?

It is kind of silly. Again, I am not saying Jonah Hill was bad or anything like that in Moneyball or Wolf of Wall Street but to compare any of those 2 performances with the work of Redford and say Jonah Hill was better is just odd.

 

[Laderlappen]

You know, I couldn't believe he was nominated over Robert Redford for "All is Lost". Not that Jonah Hill was not good in it but Robert Redford was incredible in "All is Lost".

Explain how Robert Redford would get nominated in the Best Supporting Actor category, when Redford is the only actor appearing in his movie. Who's the lead? The boat?

 

[redhawk23]

It is kind of silly. Again, I am not saying Jonah Hill was bad or anything like that in Moneyball or Wolf of Wall Street but to compare any of those 2 performances with the work of Redford and say Jonah Hill was better is just odd.

Was Hill up directly up against either of those actors in that category? Its important to remember that nominations are in their respective years.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I got Wolf of Wall Street.

 

[kvz5]

This reminds me of when some people (mostly comic book fanboys who have no idea on how the Oscars work and cry whenever current comic book movie "it actor/actress/director/writer/etc." of the moment is snubbed of an Oscar nod) were blaming Jonah Hill when Tom Hardy didn't get a nomination for Warrior which is hilarious because Hill was up in Supporting and his nomination has no effect whatsoever with the Lead Actor nominees. It's easier to hate on him than the actual lead actor nominees at that time. And I say this as someone who also thinks it's absurd that Hill is a 2x nominee while someone like Oldman isn't but hey that's just how it works. It's always about being at the right role, category, movie, narrative, and backer/producer at the right time.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Which 2014 Best Picture Nominee Are You?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/louispeitzman/which-2014-best-picture-nominee-are-you-quiz

I got Wolf and it's accurate.

Captain Philips

 

[jmc]

Oh hell yeah, I got Gravity.

 

[Superman_200]

Explain how Robert Redford would get nominated in the Best Supporting Actor category, when Redford is the only actor appearing in his movie. Who's the lead? The boat?

I don't mean Robert Redford INSTEAD of Hill. Just that if the standard to get nominated is low enough to let Jonah Hill get nominated, how is it possible that Robert Redford has only been nominated 1 time. And this year, honestly, I thought the weakest of the nominees was Christian Bale. Yes, he was good, like Dern, etc. and I know everyone here loves Bale, but Redford gave a brilliant performance and could have easily been nominated over Bale and Dern.

Now if you are looking at a whole career, the fact that Robert Redford has been nominated 1 time, when he has been in so many films and Jonah Hill has been nominated 2 times aready is very odd. If the bar to get nominated is that low, how has he only been nominated 1 time? Gary Oldman as well. Gary Oldman and Robert Redford each have 1 nomination ever for best actor. Jonah Hill has 2 already.

 

[Laderlappen]

I don't mean Robert Redford INSTEAD of Hill. Just that if the standard to get nominated is low enough to let Jonah Hill get nominated, how is it possible that Robert Redford has only been nominated 1 time. And this year, honestly, I thought the weakest of the nominees was Christian Bale. Yes, he was good, like Dern, etc. and I know everyone here loves Bale, but Redford gave a brilliant performance and could have easily been nominated over Bale and Dern.

Now if you are looking at a whole career, the fact that Robert Redford has been nominated 1 time, when he has been in so many films and Jonah Hill has been nominated 2 times aready is very odd. If the bar to get nominated is that low, how has he only been nominated 1 time? Gary Oldman as well. Gary Oldman and Robert Redford each have 1 nomination ever for best actor. Jonah Hill has 2 already.

You really didnt make that clear. Read your own comment again. It really sounds like you are comparing them and that Redford should have been nominated instead of Hill. Its strange to compare them when they are not competing against eachother.

Also we shouldnt judge actor's careers. Actors should be nominated based on the quality of a performance alone, regardless of how good their careers have been.

 

[Superman_200]

You really didnt make that clear. Read your own comment again. It really sounds like you are comparing them and that Redford should have been nominated instead of Hill. Its strange to compare them when they are not competing against eachother.

Also we shouldnt judge actor's careers. Actors should be nominated based on the quality of a performance alone, regardless of how good their careers have been.

If you look at Redford's career though, he has been in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and The Sting, The Natural, The Great Gatsby, All the President's Men, The Way We Were, etc. I mean he has given some tremendous performances in all those movies. Unless he was going up against Marlon Brando or something, it is hard to believe that there were so many other performances more worthy of an Oscar than his that he only got nominated one time. Same as Gary Oldman, JFK, State of Grace, True Romance, Dracula, etc. They have all given amazing performances, you would expect that those guys would have had more nods than Jonah Hill. His role in Moneyball, forgettable, Wolf of Wall Street, he was good, but honestly it just felt like him playing himself.

Its just a litte hard to swallow that he has been nominated 2 times over those guys, even this year Steve Coogan did better with Philomena I thought than Jonah Hill, but I guess a performance can be judged in different ways.

 

[Bim]

LOL, I got Nebraska and it just makes me sound really depressed. I don't feel depressed!

I know right? Makes me sound like an alcoholic too

 

[Laderlappen]

If you look at Redford's career though, he has been in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and The Sting, The Natural, The Great Gatsby, All the President's Men, The Way We Were, etc. I mean he has given some tremendous performances in all those movies. Unless he was going up against Marlon Brando or something, it is hard to believe that there were so many other performances more worthy of an Oscar than his that he only got nominated one time. Same as Gary Oldman, JFK, State of Grace, True Romance, Dracula, etc. They have all given amazing performances, you would expect that those guys would have had more nods than Jonah Hill. His role in Moneyball, forgettable, Wolf of Wall Street, he was good, but honestly it just felt like him playing himself.

Its just a litte hard to swallow that he has been nominated 2 times over those guys, even this year Steve Coogan did better with Philomena I thought than Jonah Hill, but I guess a performance can be judged in different ways.

I think you're overrating Robert Redford. I always felt he was more of a movie star than a great actor. I mean I like him but I would say that there are many far better actors of that era. When I think of majorly snubbed actors, I dont think of Robert Redford.

Im against Hill's nomination for Moneyball, but I totally defend his nomination for 'Wolf'. Im glad he got nominated.

 

[kvz5]

This cover will be awkward if JLaw manages to nab the BSA award after all.

 

[Maximus One]

Yea, I don't get this comparison of Redford and Hill. Hill hasn't even ever been up for a leading actor nom. Just supporting. When he goes up for leading actor then I would feel inclined to agree.

 

[Dr. Evil]

I've been watching all of Cate's speeches from when she won all of those accolades for the Aviator compared to now. Back then she was a lot more serious in her speeches, now for whatever reason, she's a lot more relaxed. Nothing wrong with that though as she has the total package.

 

[Schlosser85]

Maybe she doesn't feel like she has to prove herself as much anymore and can relax and have fun since she's already established as a great actress.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Maybe she doesn't feel like she has to prove herself as much anymore and can relax and have fun since she's already established as a great actress.

Most likely this.

Does anyone think Cate's a beautiful woman? Because I do.

 

[Schlosser85]

I don't necessarily think Cate Blanchett is conventionally beautiful, but she has a really striking almost kind of ethereal look about her. She's good-looking, definitely.

 

[kvz5]

Personally, I find her stunning. Her bone structure is so beautiful. Those cheekbones!

 

[Evil Twin]

If you look at Redford's career though, he has been in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and The Sting, The Natural, The Great Gatsby, All the President's Men, The Way We Were, etc. I mean he has given some tremendous performances in all those movies. Unless he was going up against Marlon Brando or something, it is hard to believe that there were so many other performances more worthy of an Oscar than his that he only got nominated one time.

I think you can point directly to the trio of Peter O'Toole, Richard Burton, and Paul Newman as Redford's primary competition in the prime of his career, with Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino, Warren Beatty, and Jack Nicholson also being in the game in the latter portion of that prime.

Look at The Sting for instance, where Redford was up against Jack Lemmon (Save the Tiger), Marlon Brando (Last Tango in Paris), Jack Nicholson (The Last Detail), and Al Pacino (Serpico).

That's a loaded lineup in any year. The fact that Redford wasn't nominated more often speaks directly to how awesome the 70s were in American film.

 

[Maximus One]

That's exactly what I was thinking. Too many amazing actors and films came out around then and there's just never enough awards to go around. And personally, I don't see the big deal. Redford is good but not Pacino or Nicholson good. Oldman I can get behind but Redford IMO is lucky he still gets much work that actually sees awards and theaters. Not saying he isn't great just that he isn't as great as some are making him out to be.

 

[Evil Twin]

It took a long time for Newman and Pacino to take home an Oscar. Peter O'Toole never won one. Redford is good, but you would have a tough time pointing to his career and saying "This is the best performance of the year." Just looking at his prime, he was obviously a star but you'd probably make the cutoff of "Who are the elite actors of the era" above Redford.

Certainly, I'd take Nicholson, Newman, Pacino, O'Toole, Burton, Olivier, Brando, Duvall, De Niro, Hoffman, and Beatty above Redford.

I think he's a little bit like Tom Cruise as a class of actor. A big star and a good actor, but it's no tragedy he doesn't have an acting Oscar in his trophy case.

 

[weezerspider]

It took a long time for Newman and Pacino to take home an Oscar. Peter O'Toole never won one. Redford is good, but you would have a tough time pointing to his career and saying "This is the best performance of the year." Just looking at his prime, he was obviously a star but you'd probably make the cutoff of "Who are the elite actors of the era" above Redford.

Certainly, I'd take Nicholson, Newman, Pacino, O'Toole, Burton, Olivier, Brando, Duvall, De Niro, Hoffman, and Beatty above Redford.

I think he's a little bit like Tom Cruise as a class of actor. A big star and a good actor, but it's no tragedy he doesn't have an acting Oscar in his trophy case.

It's a tragedy he didn't win for Magnolia.

Redford's great, but this is the Academy Awards. It took until The Departed for Martin Scorsese to win one(and that's not even close to his best work), Spielberg didn't win anything his first decade and a half working, Kubrick NEVER won an Oscar for directing, Kevin Cosner and Dances With Wolves beat out Martin Scorsese and Goodfellas? The Oscars have always been sort of ******. Redford joins a long list of all-time greats, who for whatever reason, never got quite the respect they deserved from the Oscars.

Also, Jonah Hill was amazing in Wolf. People have an unfair bias because he started in stoner comedies and people don't want to take him seriously. The only reason James Franco never had that backlash is because he tried to distance himself from the Appatow stuff pretty quickly and then came back to it because its fun and he likes it. An actor acts. The greats can do it all and do do it all. The late Phillip Seymour Hoffman was in crap like Along Came Polly and was down right hilarious in it. That didn't cause people to go 'Why is this guy doing Capote/Doubt/you name it?' Why should Hill have to answer those questions?