The First Batch of Oscar Predictions

[The Senator]

I personally do not believe Heath Ledger's performance is worthy of an Academy Award. While his Joker is indeed iconic, his performance did not go above and beyond the expectations which had already been set for him. I feel that there are a great many actors out there who could easily emulate his performance if Nolan wanted to reprise the role. Roles which are worthy of such awards, in my opinion, include those which are both iconic AND definitive of the actor's best skills. Examples include DDL's Daniel Plainview, Nicholson's Frank Costello (which he was wrongfully not nominated for), and Bardem's Antoine Chigurh. Roles which could not be replicated by certain actors.

Ledger may have put a lot into it, it may have been his last role... but in all honesty, it was not his best performance, nor is it really worthy of the award itself. That being said, the Academy will reward him with the Oscar out of pity. I'm sure a performance will come along later this year which will blow Ledger's out of the water, but won't be rewarded because the Academy may have a chance to someday reward that actor again (i.e. Robert Downey, Jr., Josh Brolin, or Liev Schreiber).

 

[Sawyer]

The Dark Knight
The Road
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Changeling

Those are the only films that are having their names tossed around that I'm into. The rest seem like average Oscar nominated bore-fests.

 

[Crook]

I personally do not believe Heath Ledger's performance is worthy of an Academy Award. While his Joker is indeed iconic, his performance did not go above and beyond the expectations which had already been set for him. I feel that there are a great many actors out there who could easily emulate his performance if Nolan wanted to reprise the role. Roles which are worthy of such awards, in my opinion, include those which are both iconic AND definitive of the actor's best skills. Examples include DDL's Daniel Plainview, Nicholson's Frank Costello (which he was wrongfully not nominated for), and Bardem's Antoine Chigurh. Roles which could not be replicated by certain actors.

Ledger may have put a lot into it, it may have been his last role... but in all honesty, it was not his best performance, nor is it really worthy of the award itself. That being said, the Academy will reward him with the Oscar out of pity. I'm sure a performance will come along later this year which will blow Ledger's out of the water, but won't be rewarded because the Academy may have a chance to someday reward that actor again (i.e. Robert Downey, Jr., Josh Brolin, or Liev Schreiber).

If he is nominated for Best Actor, then I agree it's completely out of the question. Heath stole the limelight, but he did not carry that movie. Much of it was an ensemble piece. Very different from the likes of "Benjamin Button" and "Wrestler" where it all rides on the lead.

However if it's in the Best Supporting Actor category, then I am completely clueless as to how anyone could possibly match Heath's performance in that regard. Heath's Joker has arguably already cemented it's place as one of the most recognized cinematic villains of all time. For a supporting actor category, this is more than qualified. I'd like to see what performance could even live up to that type of acclaim.

 

[The Senator]

If he is nominated for Best Actor, then I agree it's completely out of the question. Heath stole the limelight, but he did not carry that movie. Much of it was an ensemble piece. Very different from the likes of "Benjamin Button" and "Wrestler" where it all rides on the lead.

However if it's in the Best Supporting Actor category, then I am completely clueless as to how anyone could possibly match Heath's performance in that regard. Heath's Joker has arguably already cemented it's place as one of the most recognized cinematic villains of all time. For a supporting actor category, this is more than qualified. I'd like to see what performance could even live up to that type of acclaim.

I have heard that Schreiber's performance in Defiance is captivating, and Philip Seymour Hoffman's character in Doubt is fairly dynamic... and both those roles seem like "safer" Academy choices.

 

[Crook]

I have no doubt those 2 deliver on their roles, but were they memorable and iconic in the way Ledger's is? Should that not be taken into consideration when judging which actor surpasses the competition?

 

[Hunter Rider]

Defiance looks very good, it could be a sleeper in the race.

 

[bapi]

The biggest favorites are Ben Button and Australia. TDK will have a nomination, too, I think. And another two movies... Probably Revolutionary Road and Frost/Nixon... or Milk. That's my prediction.

 

[Laderlappen]

Defiance looks meh and I expect the academy to ignore it. Schreiber has a chance to get nominated I guess, but Im not counting on it. He will definetly not win. Hoffman? There's the wuestion if he is going lead or supporting. Many think supporting, but I think lead. If he DO go supporting, they wont let him steal Heath's oscar for a second time.

Heath will go supporting. There's no need to speculate really.

 

[Laderlappen]

what about Quantum of solace! dammit! t:

and Australia looks terrible. and isn't that a Fox film?

What could Quantum of solace be nominated for?

 

[Sarge 2.0]

just curious, aside from Brokeback what else did you think Heath did that was good enough for an oscar?

Candy. And I'm Not There was probably worth a Golden Globe.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Also, Rourke seems like a shoe-in to at least get nominated for Best Actor, and I haven't even seen the film yet.

 

[Franklin Richards]

If he is nominated for Best Actor, then I agree it's completely out of the question. Heath stole the limelight, but he did not carry that movie. Much of it was an ensemble piece. Very different from the likes of "Benjamin Button" and "Wrestler" where it all rides on the lead.

However if it's in the Best Supporting Actor category, then I am completely clueless as to how anyone could possibly match Heath's performance in that regard. Heath's Joker has arguably already cemented it's place as one of the most recognized cinematic villains of all time. For a supporting actor category, this is more than qualified. I'd like to see what performance could even live up to that type of acclaim.

I remember another fellow who performed an iconic role. He was commercially successful and his performance overshadowed the guy who the movie was named after. Everyone was talking about his performance that summer too.

Jack Nicholson never received an Oscar nod for his role as Joker either.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

I remember another fellow who performed an iconic role. He was commercially successful and his performance overshadowed the guy who the movie was named after. Everyone was talking about his performance that summer too.

Jack Nicholson never received an Oscar nod for his role as Joker either.

Jack's performance didn't show the nuance that Heath's did, and it didn't showcase his range as an actor. That was simply Jack doing his Shining role but with makeup.

 

[Laderlappen]

Jack shouldn't have been nominated. Its a horrible example since Heath was much better.

 

[Franklin Richards]

There was quite a buzz for his performance. Batman owned that summer and everyone had a Batman symbol shaved into their heads or tattoos. Shirts were worn by everyone. Batman 89 was just as or even more iconic than The Dark Knight.


I just wanted to make that clear so everyone will stop saying "iconic".

 

[Crook]

There was quite a buzz for his performance. Batman owned that summer and everyone had a Batman symbol shaved into their heads or tattoos. Shirts were worn by everyone. Batman 89 was just as or even more iconic than The Dark Knight.


I just wanted to make that clear so everyone will stop saying "iconic".

What exactly are you trying to make clear? They were BOTH iconic. Are you trying to say they weren't?

On the topic of Oscars, 2 people have already told you how Ledger and Nicholson differentiate. It shouldn't be hard for people to see why one deserves an Oscar nod over the other. The performances are quite different and coming from polar opposite acting fields.

 

[Hunter Rider]

BO and mania wise they are pretty even, but TDK crossed over critically in a whole new way for the genre, and I think Jack was familiar as The Joker where as Heath was innovative and mesmeric.

 

[Franklin Richards]

That's what I'm trying to say, HR. Iconic isn't going to get him the nod. Otherwise Gene Wilder and Johnny Depp would have won for Willy Wonka. If you're going to push for Ledger then keep mentioning his acting.

Because the Academy does NOT care about icons.

 

[Laderlappen]

Johnny's Wonka wasn't very iconic, but I somewhat agrees with you. He wont get nominated because he was iconic, he will get nominated because he was absolutely brilliant. And because he totally disapeared into the role.

 

[Nirvana]

Am I the only one who thinks Aaron Eckhart deserves a nod at Best Supporting Actor over Heath Ledger?

 

[TLH]

Am I the only one who thinks Aaron Eckhart deserves a nod at Best Supporting Actor over Heath Ledger?

Nope.

 

[Crook]

That's what I'm trying to say, HR. Iconic isn't going to get him the nod. Otherwise Gene Wilder and Johnny Depp would have won for Willy Wonka. If you're going to push for Ledger then keep mentioning his acting.

Because the Academy does NOT care about icons.

Splendid. Good thing no one here indicated that would be the sole reason for winning.

Am I the only one who thinks Aaron Eckhart deserves a nod at Best Supporting Actor over Heath Ledger?

Aaron definitely deserves a nod, but over Heath? Nah, I don't think so.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

Am I the only one who thinks Aaron Eckhart deserves a nod at Best Supporting Actor over Heath Ledger?

I don't think it's really necessary.

 

[danoyse]

and Australia looks terrible. and isn't that a Fox film?

Australia looks amazing, and it's a Baz Lurhman film, which means Fox has really no control over it, at least not in the Rothman-sense.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

Australia looks amazing, and it's a Baz Lurhman film, which means Fox has really no control over it, at least not in the Rothman-sense.

That's always a plus.