#1
This boggles my mind..

It seems like the only people that win are people playing mentally handicapped people, people with speech impediments, disabilities, aids, gay cowboys.. drama drama drama.

Why don't people win best actor if they were in a comedy? Action adventure movie?

Here take this for example, Lord of the Rings/Return of the King won all kinds of awards.. Why didn't Andy Serkis win best actor for Smeagol? He played Smeagol perfectly. So he was a great actor for being able to play a role perfectly..

aww what's the matter, they don't like fantasy? Things that aren't based in reality? Even though he entertained us and brought us into the movie?

That was just an example. I mean other actors play parts in other genres perfectly but it seems like only the drama queens get it
#2
Quote by amazingdm

Here take this for example, Lord of the Rings/Return of the King won all kinds of awards.. Why didn't Andy Serkis win best actor for Smeagol? He played Smeagol perfectly. So he was a great actor for being able to play a role perfectly..


At the time there wasnt that kind of award was there?

It's since been introduced though.
Tears in waves, minds on fire
Nights alone by your side
#3
Andy Serkis wasn't even nominated that year, and seeing as he played a majorly computer generated character with fake expressions, he shouldn't have been.

Your argument is ridiculous. It's like saying 'Why didn't Ed Norton win best actor for Fight Club'? The answer is simple, because he wsan't fucking nominated.

Comedies do get nominated. In fact, As Good As It Get's won both best actor and best actress for Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt. Now of course, that is assuming that by 'comedies' you don't mean trash like The Wedding Crashers or Click because then the answer is even simpler - you like cruddy movies that would never get nominated because they are mass marketed unoriginal garbage.
<Dobzilla> because "when you were born, they thought yo' momma shit herself."
<Frehnchy> ...
<esther_mouse> ...
<Rankles> ...
<RaNdOm-FeLiX> ...
<Dobzilla>
#4
Quote by fronkpies
At the time there wasnt that kind of award was there?

It's since been introduced though.


What are you referring to?

Couldn't he have been best actor?

And lets take a more.. um... far fetched example. Spock. Who could play Spock better than Leonard Nimoy, so he plays it perfectly? But I know that example won't work at all I'm just trying to show my concept here.
#5
Your arguments are ridiculous. Just because you think Andy Serkis should have won best actor, doesn't mean the rest of the world did. If it was up to me LOTR would have won nothing except special effects and soundtrack awards.

Some more bullets coming your way...

1992's best supporting actress went to the film 'My Cousin Vinnie', a pretty piss poor by the books comedy.

1994's best Actor went to Mr Forrest Gump, another comedy.

Kevin Spacey won it in 1999 for American Beauty, a darker satiric comedy.

Halle Berry won one for christs sake for Monster's Ball.

Adrien Brody has one. Cuba Gooding Jnr has one.

Little Miss Sunshine, another comedy is up for a few this year.
<Dobzilla> because "when you were born, they thought yo' momma shit herself."
<Frehnchy> ...
<esther_mouse> ...
<Rankles> ...
<RaNdOm-FeLiX> ...
<Dobzilla>
#6
Andy Serkis wasn't even nominated that year, and seeing as he played a majorly computer generated character with fake expressions, he shouldn't have been.

Your argument is ridiculous. It's like saying 'Why didn't Ed Norton win best actor for Fight Club'? The answer is simple, because he wsan't fucking nominated.

Comedies do get nominated. In fact, As Good As It Get's won both best actor and best actress for Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt. Now of course, that is assuming that by 'comedies' you don't mean trash like The Wedding Crashers or Click because then the answer is even simpler - you like cruddy movies that would never get nominated because they are mass marketed unoriginal garbage.

My argument is ridiculous.........just because they weren't nominated?
WELL THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT, WHY _ARENT_ THEY NOMINATED

and the reason ed norton wasn't nominated was because he is a freaking bad OVER actor. I hate that sonuvab. Never even seen the wedding crashers or click, sorry.

If there is a GOOD role in a NON-drama movie, and the actor plays that role very WELL, I think he should be nominated over a lesser actor that played a generic drama part.

For example, sci-fi's..

let's not take the Smeagol example too literally ok?
#7
I'm not trying to win or argue any points here btw, I just want to know why it's only the dramatic "I'm truman capote and i talk like a reta.............." roles are the ones that win.
#8
Why? It's your opinion that these actors are good when it's the majority opinion that they aren't.

Ed Norton is probably the best actor of his age bar none, if anything he under acts.

Just because you love sci fi and probably absorb every piece of trash that Hollywood spews out doesn't mean the movies are good.

I've given plenty of examples of non-drama movies creating best actors.

You clearly don't have a good knowledge of the history of the oscars and oscar winners, nor that good a knowledge of film.
<Dobzilla> because "when you were born, they thought yo' momma shit herself."
<Frehnchy> ...
<esther_mouse> ...
<Rankles> ...
<RaNdOm-FeLiX> ...
<Dobzilla>
#9
Just because you paly a role perfectly doesnt mean they play it well. In this case the whole things about being believable and all that shit. Who cares.
If your parents never had children, chances are, you wont either.

Member #2 of Kerry/Edwards fanclub
#10
Quote by Rankles
Your arguments are ridiculous.


We've know this about him for a while, Rankles. Still, he's very persistent.
Proud owner of an Engl Thunder 50 Reverb and an Ibanez S470

"The end is extremely fucking nigh..."
#11
^ Ok so now you're coming up with hypothetical actors who aren't playing the thing belieavable and all that shit..

Well I'm talking about actors, in different genres, who play the roll dead on perfect. No way could he have played it better, more endearing, or more hated if he's a villain....... Nothing could have topped him.

As an actor, he outperformed everyone there was in dramatic movies that year (which oddly enough all come out at the same time right before oscars as if they were made only to WIN an oscar).

The movie was great, everyone loved it, oh here's a good one, Pirates of the Carribean! Jack Sparrow, there ya go..

Oh not a drama? Sorry you're not elligible.
#12
Quote by Smokey Amp
We've know this for a while, Rankles. Still, he's very persistent.


I wish people would get it through their heads I don't care about winning arguments
#13
Quote by amazingdm
I wish people would get it through their heads I don't care about winning arguments


Like I said before, there's no such thing as "winning" an argument. All I meant by that post it that you're very stubborn.

Calm down; You always seem to be arguing with somebody.
Proud owner of an Engl Thunder 50 Reverb and an Ibanez S470

"The end is extremely fucking nigh..."
#14
Maybe you just think its perfect, whats your frame of reference ?
If you've only seen one guy, or a few do something, there's no way of knowing if it could be better.
If your parents never had children, chances are, you wont either.

Member #2 of Kerry/Edwards fanclub
#15
Quote by Rankles
Why? It's your opinion that these actors are good when it's the majority opinion that they aren't.

Ed Norton is probably the best actor of his age bar none, if anything he under acts.

Just because you love sci fi and probably absorb every piece of trash that Hollywood spews out doesn't mean the movies are good.

I've given plenty of examples of non-drama movies creating best actors.

You clearly don't have a good knowledge of the history of the oscars and oscar winners, nor that good a knowledge of film.


Why do you keep clinging to the examples I come up with? I'm not a comedy or scifi freak or anything.

I'm just saying, why can't anyone ever win in a different genre?

It's almost as if though the judges/voters have no clue how to judge anything other than drama. Like an elitist club or something.

It's like on that show America's Got Talent, when a SINGER won it, it lost all credibility to me.
#16
Quote by Smokey Amp
Like I said before, there's no such thing as "winning" an argument. All I meant by that post it that you're very stubborn.

Calm down; You always seem to be arguing with somebody.


Well yeah.. that's the fun of it......

But anyway back to the topic

quit trying to disect MY examples or my ideas.

My point is. Other actors, other genres, other great movies.

No need to say things like "Well maybe YOU like it but not everyone else"...
#17
Quote by amazingdm

The movie was great, everyone loved it, oh here's a good one, Pirates of the Carribean! Jack Sparrow, there ya go..

Oh not a drama? Sorry you're not elligible.


You do realise that there are hundreds of films to be taken into consideration.
Friends, applaud the comedy is over.


I'd dance with you but...


#18
You realise you've double-posted three times in this thread?

I honestly can't see how constantly arguing is any fun. Lighten up.
Proud owner of an Engl Thunder 50 Reverb and an Ibanez S470

"The end is extremely fucking nigh..."
#19
I half-understand his point.. but I also don't care. They weren't nominated cos people didn't vote for them. Thus the majority doesn't agree with you. Thus, shut up.
My name is Marc! Silly username.
#20
Mate, who SAYS that Jack bleedin g sparrow outperformed everyone that year? Just because someone plays a character to the best they cna be played, doesn't mean that the character is particularly interesting.

You know WHY he didn't win best actor for it? He was nominated for either best supporting or bes actor I can't remember, but Tim Robbins and Sean Penn both outperformed him and outclassed him as actors and their characters were infinitely more complex and well constructed,

What's that? Haven't seen Mystic River? Funny, because you just made the rather sweeping judgment that Johnny Depp 'outperformed everyone' that year, when you haven't even seen all the films that year, let alone the ones that did win.
<Dobzilla> because "when you were born, they thought yo' momma shit herself."
<Frehnchy> ...
<esther_mouse> ...
<Rankles> ...
<RaNdOm-FeLiX> ...
<Dobzilla>
#21
Quote by Smokey Amp
You realise you've double-posted three times in this thread?

I honestly can't see how constantly arguing is any fun. Lighten up.



It's not a "double post" (other than by virtue of it just being two posts twice in a row" unless they're the same exact post.
#22
Quote by Rankles
Mate, who SAYS that Jack bleedin g sparrow outperformed everyone that year? Just because someone plays a character to the best they cna be played, doesn't mean that the character is particularly interesting.

You know WHY he didn't win best actor for it? He was nominated for either best supporting or bes actor I can't remember, but Tim Robbins and Sean Penn both outperformed him and outclassed him as actors and their characters were infinitely more complex and well constructed,

What's that? Haven't seen Mystic River? Funny, because you just made the rather sweeping judgment that Johnny Depp 'outperformed everyone' that year, when you haven't even seen all the films that year, let alone the ones that did win.


Yeah I'm just going to ignore you from now on until you quit clinging to my examples and trying to "tear apart my arguments"
#23
Quote by amazingdm
It's not a "double post" (other than by virtue of it just being two posts twice in a row" unless they're the same exact post.


See, there you go again, contesting my statement. In this forum a double post is when you post twice instead of editing.
Proud owner of an Engl Thunder 50 Reverb and an Ibanez S470

"The end is extremely fucking nigh..."
#24
Quote by Smokey Amp
See, there you go again, contesting my statement. In this forum a double post is when you post twice instead of editing.


I refuse to do that. I hate it when people edit their second reply into the first reply especially on threads I check religiously.. cuz then I'll likely have missed something (It's like missing a part of your TV show to me).

Who cares if there is a post in between that separates them or not?

That's just silliness. It's just another one of those weird nerdy internet things that have been set arbitrarily.. like that caps are yelling and thus someone in history decided it would be annoying. (Oh god don't try to start an argument about that).
#25
Quote by amazingdm
Yeah I'm just going to ignore you from now on until you quit clinging to my examples and trying to "tear apart my arguments"


So in other words you're going to ignore me because I have proven your thread to be stupid, wrong and ill researched?

Well if that's the case I'll just close it, seeing as you've made quite a controversial discussion for a thread and refused to discuss it.

EDIT - And Smokey is right about the double posting, if you keep doing it you'll get a warning from the pit mods. You're wasting space.
<Dobzilla> because "when you were born, they thought yo' momma shit herself."
<Frehnchy> ...
<esther_mouse> ...
<Rankles> ...
<RaNdOm-FeLiX> ...
<Dobzilla>
#26
Yes. It does matter. It's netiquette. Dude, you cannot win. You're facing too many people here. Go home.
My name is Marc! Silly username.
#27
Quote by NemesisX
Yes. It does matter. It's netiquette. Dude, you cannot win. You're facing too many people here. Go home.


Some arbitrary rule that makes no sense?

"You cannot post twice in a row... you have to wait until a post separates your two replies"

wth? what's the point of that.

EDIT, hopefully you don't miss it!:

If you give me a warning I'll be banned for good. So if you want to give me a warning, and ban me for good just because I think an arbitrary rule that says you have to wait until another post separates your replies is stupid, then go ahead.
#28
Quote by amazingdm
I refuse to do that. I hate it when people edit their second reply into the first reply especially on threads I check religiously.. cuz then I'll likely have missed something (It's like missing a part of your TV show to me).

Who cares if there is a post in between that separates them or not?

That's just silliness. It's just another one of those weird nerdy internet things that have been set arbitrarily.. like that caps are yelling and thus someone in history decided it would be annoying. (Oh god don't try to start an argument about that).


...Right-o. I'm going to leave it there. I was light-heartedly contesting you and you still managed to write two paragraphs as a response.

I shall vacate.
Proud owner of an Engl Thunder 50 Reverb and an Ibanez S470

"The end is extremely fucking nigh..."
#29
It's a website rule. It's classed as spam. If youdon't do it you will get pullled for it and warned.
<Dobzilla> because "when you were born, they thought yo' momma shit herself."
<Frehnchy> ...
<esther_mouse> ...
<Rankles> ...
<RaNdOm-FeLiX> ...
<Dobzilla>
#30
Quote by Rankles
It's a website rule. It's classed as spam. If youdon't do it you will get pullled for it and warned.


Sorry man, I'm going to continue to do it. It's not spam, they're separate replies. It shouldn't matter if someone else's replies separate them or not.

I think somewhere along the line someone mistook "two of the SAME posts twice in a row" and all posts by the same username that are consecutive as the same thing.

So, go ahead and ban me now, because if I happen to want to reply twice and no one has posted after my first time, Im gonna do it
#31
Closed and warned
<Dobzilla> because "when you were born, they thought yo' momma shit herself."
<Frehnchy> ...
<esther_mouse> ...
<Rankles> ...
<RaNdOm-FeLiX> ...
<Dobzilla>