Oscar Predictions
Sasha Stone
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, DevBost wrote:
> Oh, what the hell. Just for giggles, if "you people" want to make predictions
> on the Oscars, send them to me privately and I'll keep track of them and then
> publish the honor roll of who got the most guesses right. Like an Oscar pool,
> only with no money at stake. Make your guesses in the following categories:
>
Excellent. This is my prelim practice list. Before the show I will email
my final choices (cause it sometimes changes).
> Picture
Titanic
(should win: Titanic)
> Actor
Jack Nicholson
(should win: Jack Nicholson)
> Actress
Helen Hunt
(should win: Helen Hunt)
> Supporting Actor*
Robin Williams
(should win: Greg Kinnear)
> Supporting Actress*
Gloria Stewart
(should win: Kim Basinger)
> Director
Jim Cameron
(should win: Cameron)
> Original Screenplay
Good Will Hunting (blech)
(should win: As Good As It Gets)
> Adapted Screenplay
LA Confidential
(should win: The Sweet Hereafter)
> Cinematography
>
Titanic
(should win: Titanic)
*Toughest categories for me. The Lauren Bacall debacle proves that you
can't always go on these old timer deserved wins - Gloria Stewart, Burt
Reynolds, Peter Fonda.
LILLIBUNNY
In a message dated 98-03-19 10:38:07 EST, you write:
<<
*Toughest categories for me. The Lauren Bacall debacle proves that you
can't always go on these old timer deserved wins - Gloria Stewart, Burt
Reynolds, Peter Fonda.
>>
Yeah, but from what I've noticed, Lauren Bacall isn't that well liked, while
everyone loves Gloria Stewart.
chelsea corazon
it's true. Gloria Stewart is a longtime Hollywood resident, and a
founder of the Screen Actors Guild. I have no idea whether she
"deserves" the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, in some
intrinsic "pure acting" formula, but nevertheless, she will get it . . .
and all isn't lost for Bacall. She is still active (and much younger
than Stewart.) With a solid performance in a popular film, she could
still winnanoscar.
chelsea
Sasha Stone
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, ating wrote:
> What happened to Robert Duvall and Peter Fonda? PF seems like less of a
> mortal lock than one month ago, but I'll have to stick by my call. If I
> could change my mind, I'd go with RD. JN winning is about as likely as
> Melissa Rivers not making a fool of herself during the pre-game on E!.
>
Oy, Melissa Rivers! Like a thorn on the rose of the preshow. The tide
has turned away from PF. I think much of it has to do with his PR
machine, also he's not very engaging. Of course, he still has a shot.
I'm almost always wrong. But Jack seems to be the front runner when using
my intuitive sense and the SAG awards. Robert Duvall is a favorite to win
in Vegas. The race is tight. But Duvall and Fonda could cancel each
other out and the award would go to Nicholson.
> I used to love her (Waterdance, etc) but she now strikes me as the most
> smug, annoying actress around. I really just want to slap her. If she
> wins, I'll just have to stop watching Mad About You completely.
>
I can't stand Mad About You. And she bothers me too, for some reason.
But she gave a very good performance, no doubt about it. She's the front
runner.
> KB over Julianne Moore?! That wordless scene where she missed the phone
> call from her son (too busy snorting coke) and looked up at Walberg slo-mo
> diving was worth the Oscar by itself...
Yeah, I didn't see BOOGIE NIGHTS. She probably is great. But I didn't
see IN AND OUT either and I bet Joan Cusack was wonderful.
Sasha
Sasha Stone
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, me wrote:
>
> another reason why the oscars are crap: when was the last time you heard a
> sportswriter say "michael jordan has won the MVP tons of times before.
> let's give it to someone else!" or "the chicago cubs should be named
> best team - they haven't won a championship in forever!" have the oscars
> ever been awarded on the basis of merit?
>
It's hard to make a case that anyone other than Jordan ever deserves the
MVP. Have you ever watched him play? He's beyond even that award.
Acting is a bit more subjective. Who can really say who is the best?
It's all a matter of opinion (and opinions are like assholes, etc.). The
Oscars are all about figuring out what the popular opinion is. But it
ain't fact. Michael Jordan's talent is a fact.
Sasha
me
but aren't martin scorsese's films indisputably the MVP efforts of the
year (especially when you take into account who and what his competition
was)? i guess that when it comes to certain talents (cary grant, alfred
hitchcock never won acting or directing oscars), trophies are almost an
insult to their talent. i guess the only way to honor someone like that
is to give an award named after him. and the oscars haven't always been
this wrong - john ford and billy wilder and brando and meryl streep do
have their share of oscars.
-myron
who's been hypnotized into wanting to crawl into a hole and die his fair
share of times by michael jordan's play
JHNNYPANIC
In a message dated 98-03-20 10:41:46 EST, you write:
<< another reason why the oscars are crap: when was the last time you heard a
> sportswriter say "michael jordan has won the MVP tons of times before.
> let's give it to someone else!" or "the chicago cubs should be named
> best team - they haven't won a championship in forever!" have the oscars
> ever been awarded on the basis of merit?
>
and they're all playing the same game - basketball. The analogy would have to
have - imagine this - everyone acting the same role.