And so, two have come forward...

[Back to being Cenanuff]

...to screw Heath Ledger out of a posthumous Oscar nod. I'm talking, of course, about the two movies that just came out, Milk and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Now, we're only in the Golden Globes stage, but the GGs are the the precursor to the Oscars, and there are very few changes that take place. I haven't seen either movie, and Button looks pretty interesting, even though it seems like Legends of the Fall in reverse. But I won't see Milk because I just can't stand Sean Penn. He purposely takes controversial roles to make a statement and bring notoriety to whatever cause he supports. Anyway, with Pitt and Penn getting GG nods for best actor for movies released at the end of the year, it just smacks of Hollywood looking down on popular movies, no matter how good they were, and especially if they're derived from comic books, because God knows how low brow those are. Sure, you can give them awards for make up, special effects, sound editing, or any number of throwaways. But oh, no, you can't recognize them for acting. Heath should be in there, and Aaron Eckhart should be in the Supporting Actor mix.

/rant off

[Joe Neglia]

Okay, wait, back up.

You're getting pissed at them for actually having more than one film in the running for best film/actor etc. and blaming them for this even though the awards haven't even been announced?

Every category gets 4-5 nominees. You honestly didn't expect it to be "and the nominees are...Heath Ledger. That's it." did you?

You know why guys like Pitt and Penn are almost always shoe-ins for these type of nominees? Because they're great actors. They're stuff is *usually* quality from the get-go and it should be no surprise they get nominated or even win.

This is going to be one of the most hard-fought "best actor" years in a while, even if the choices are slim. You have Heath's tour de force, you have Mickey Rourke's incredible comeback and you have Penn at the top of his game. There's no shame in any of them losing to one another.

[Deleted]

Being recognized for your work through nomination is far more important than actually winning it. Nepotism has always tainted the awards to some extent so an Oscar is not the be all, end all of success for a film and the people that worked on it. Posterity, the fans of today and the fans and directors of the future will determine the true winners.

[comahan]

Guys like Penn for Milk and Pitt for Button wont even be in the same category as Ledger for TDK.

[the threadkiller]

I'm sorry, but Ledger was good, but I didn't even think he was the best actor in the movie.

[EvilMasterBetty, Esq.]

Ledger's getting the Supporting actor nod, which, based on the Golden Globe nominees, should be a shoe in for him.

[macdaddysquid]

first of all the joker was a plot devise no matter how good Heath was the character doesnt deserve an oscar...

Second he would get best supporting actor, for christ sakes he has like 20 minutes of screen time...

I love the dark knight but some the fans really need to get over it. Arron Eckhart was much better and much more deserving

[Joe Neglia]

Dustin Hoffman had it right back in the 70s when he accepted one:

"I refuse to believe that I beat Jack Lemmon, that I beat Al Pacino, that I beat Peter Sellers. I refuse to believe that Robert Duvall lost. We are a part of an artistic family...And to that artistic family that strives for excellence, none of you have ever lost. And I am proud to share this with you, and I thank you."

['Foretold' Joker]

Sean Penn is a terrible actor no matter what he does in my opinion.

But it will be a tough selection of awards this year certainly, some very good films seem to have been made in 2008

[Back to being Cenanuff]

Dec 15, 2008 18:42:21 GMT -5 Joe Neglia said:

Okay, wait, back up.

You're getting pissed at them for actually having more than one film in the running for best film/actor etc. and blaming them for this even though the awards haven't even been announced?

Every category gets 4-5 nominees. You honestly didn't expect it to be "and the nominees are...Heath Ledger. That's it." did you?

You know why guys like Pitt and Penn are almost always shoe-ins for these type of nominees? Because they're great actors. They're stuff is *usually* quality from the get-go and it should be no surprise they get nominated or even win.

This is going to be one of the most hard-fought "best actor" years in a while, even if the choices are slim. You have Heath's tour de force, you have Mickey Rourke's incredible comeback and you have Penn at the top of his game. There's no shame in any of them losing to one another.

What?

Dude, I'd say you derailed, but I think your train was never actually on the tracks to begin with there. I'm pissed because the two performances they chose to fill out the last two spots in the GG categories came from movies that were released at the end of the year, when a performance like Ledger's would have had him in the running for a GG or an Oscar. And Pitt's a good actor, not a great actor. Penn's just an ass who lets the controversy of the movie he's in make his performance seem better. Heath got left out of the running because he was in an action/superhero/popcorn movie, and Hollywood looks down on that. He should at least have a nomination.

[Joe Neglia]

But he IS nominated, in supporting role, which is where he should be.

[Hanzo]

Dec 15, 2008 18:42:21 GMT -5 Joe Neglia said:

You know why guys like Pitt and Penn are almost always shoe-ins for these type of nominees? Because they're great actors.

No...they're always nominated because the Oscars is nothing more than a stupid Hollywood popularity contest.

[macdaddysquid]

Dec 15, 2008 19:02:08 GMT -5 Back to being Cenanuff said:

Dec 15, 2008 18:42:21 GMT -5 Joe Neglia said:

Okay, wait, back up.

You're getting pissed at them for actually having more than one film in the running for best film/actor etc. and blaming them for this even though the awards haven't even been announced?

Every category gets 4-5 nominees. You honestly didn't expect it to be "and the nominees are...Heath Ledger. That's it." did you?

You know why guys like Pitt and Penn are almost always shoe-ins for these type of nominees? Because they're great actors. They're stuff is *usually* quality from the get-go and it should be no surprise they get nominated or even win.

This is going to be one of the most hard-fought "best actor" years in a while, even if the choices are slim. You have Heath's tour de force, you have Mickey Rourke's incredible comeback and you have Penn at the top of his game. There's no shame in any of them losing to one another.

What?

Dude, I'd say you derailed, but I think your train was never actually on the tracks to begin with there. I'm pissed because the two performances they chose to fill out the last two spots in the GG categories came from movies that were released at the end of the year, when a performance like Ledger's would have had him in the running for a GG or an Oscar. And Pitt's a good actor, not a great actor. Penn's just an ass who lets the controversy of the movie he's in make his performance seem better. Heath got left out of the running because he was in an action/superhero/popcorn movie, and Hollywood looks down on that. He should at least have a nomination.

The joker is a plot devise not worthy on a nomination. Has nothing to do with it being superhero movie, it has to do with the fact he is only there to turn Harvey Dent into two face.

He has little screen time and anyone could be weird psycho joker, he doesn't deserve it.

[Rube]

Would there even be any Oscar buzz for Heath Ledger if he was alive?

[macdaddysquid]

Dec 15, 2008 20:00:43 GMT -5 Rube said:

Would there even be any Oscar buzz for Heath Ledger if he was alive?

Exactly the movie didnt have the hype until Ledger died, batman begins is a great example, it was a success but made only like 50 mil domestic? THe Dark KNight would have been the same if Ledger didnt die, I love the movie but I am not delusional

[EvilMasterBetty, Esq.]

Dec 15, 2008 20:00:43 GMT -5 Rube said:

Would there even be any Oscar buzz for Heath Ledger if he was alive?

I really think so, although not as strong.

I thought I heard that they were planning to push it even before his death. Plus, with Jack winning the Oscar for his Joker and for Ledger delivering a hell of a performance himself, I think there would have been buzz and a possible nod.

Now would he have been a frontrunner? I don't know, but he would have been there.

[macdaddysquid]

The difference is that jacks Joker was a main character and Burton had the scheme where he showed the villain more then he showed batman. Ledgers Joker was just there to be the guy to set the rest of the movie in motion.

[Hypnotix]

IMO, Ledger was getting the nod, mostly because he died. I think he played the role very well, but I don't think he deserves an uncontested win.

[MiLo Duck]

Penn is the only one I'd be really afraid of from what I've seen. The Milk trailer looks really good and Penn seems like he's doing a pretty damn good job in that role.


I still honestly think Ledger should get those trophies. He really set things off like I haven't seen in a long time. He took what, in most actors hands, would be a real ham role and not only overcame that obstacle, but really filled out the role with a lot of depth and nuance that drew the audience in. To me that's the definition of the award.

[Bob Schlapowitz]

Dec 15, 2008 20:03:12 GMT -5 macdaddysquid said:

Dec 15, 2008 20:00:43 GMT -5 Rube said:

Would there even be any Oscar buzz for Heath Ledger if he was alive?

Exactly the movie didnt have the hype until Ledger died, batman begins is a great example, it was a success but made only like 50 mil domestic? THe Dark KNight would have been the same if Ledger didnt die, I love the movie but I am not delusional

50 Mil domestic??? Batman Begins made over 200 million domestic. And yes, there was a TON of buzz over TDK before Heath Ledger died. Granted, his death did add to it.