2016 Academy Awards/Oscars - Nominees Announced Today - February 28th

sea manup said:
A role that demands a high level acting performance to pull off.

and yes, they should win over Leo. And if Leo took any of their roles he would have been required to show more range as an actor
Click to expand...

Wait. Are you saying Leo doesn't have range as an actor? Or are you just talking about this particular role vs. the other nominees?
 
BOStoIAH said:
sea manup said:
A role that demands a high level acting performance to pull off.

and yes, they should win over Leo. And if Leo took any of their roles he would have been required to show more range as an actor
Click to expand...

Wait. Are you saying Leo doesn't have range as an actor? Or are you just talking about this particular role vs. the other nominees?
Click to expand...
Little bit of both.

And it's not that Leo doesn't have range as an actor it's that he doesn't have as much range as the other guys
 
Making a very difficult to film movie sounds like a terrible gimmick. I really don't get what that even means.

I liked The Revenant.
 
I can't believe seaman has been posting the same anti-Leo in Revenant posts for like 5 straight months.

Like scroll through the pages. It's the same, literall, points about why he shouldn't win almost everyday since this thread was made.

If that isn't a campaign Against one guy I don't know what is lol
 
BOStoIAH said:
 
sea manup said:
Little bit of both.

And it's not that Leo doesn't have range as an actor it's that he doesn't have as much range as the other guys
Click to expand...
I'll have to disagree.
Click to expand...
agreed. glad you enjoyed the movie 
smile.gif
 
do you guys think all the talk this year about Dicaprio never winning has contributed anything to him being the most likely winner this year?
 
If it was a no name actor giving the exact same performance he would not have been nominated
 
sea manup said:
If it was a no name actor giving the exact same performance he would not have been nominated
Click to expand...

No ****.

Since when are no name actors nominated for best actor at the academy awards?

We know Joe Shmoe from the streets of Vancouver ain't getting an Oscar nomination if he's the lead actor of the Revenant. It would be a straight to Dvd with no recognition.

That was by far the worst argument you've ever made on NT bro.

Try again :lol:
 
sea manup said:
Little bit of both.

And it's not that Leo doesn't have range as an actor it's that he doesn't have as much range as the other guys
Click to expand...
I  can actually get on board with this.

Still disagree about the Revenant though.
 
sea manup said:
If it was a no name actor giving the exact same performance he would not have been nominated
Click to expand...

He might not win but I think he would have a damn good chance at a nomination if we're assuming Alejando Inarritu was still the director and this random dude gave the exact same performance Leo did.
 
ServeChilled81 said:
do you guys think all the talk this year about Dicaprio never winning has contributed anything to him being the most likely winner this year?
Click to expand...

Eh. I think the weak competition has more to do with it. Leo had that narrative going for him back in 2013 with Wolf too. And I'd have to admit his performance in WOWS was better than Revenant, but the clearly better performance got rewarded that year.
 
ServeChilled81 said:
do you guys think all the talk this year about Dicaprio never winning has contributed anything to him being the most likely winner this year?
Click to expand...
If there were really other great performances I could easily see this being another year where he got shafted.

If Samuel L. Jackson was nominated I could see him beating out Leo

But that didn't happen this year; Damon shouldn't have been nominated, Redmayne was consistently very good but wasn't a stand out, Cranston was damn near great the way he immersed himself in the role but the script did not convey greatness for him to work off, Fassbender was really good but far from the best. With this competition it's clear why Leo is going to win. IMO you'd have to make an unbelievable case for Fass or Cranston to take it.

BOStoIAH said:
sea manup said:
If it was a no name actor giving the exact same performance he would not have been nominated
Click to expand...

He might not win but I think he would have a damn good chance at a nomination if we're assuming Alejando Inarritu was still the director and this random dude gave the exact same performance Leo did.
Click to expand...
If it was some random dude, there's no way he gives the same exact performance as Leo unless this dude is some newly found amazing actor.

I mean c'mon now, that's like saying what if some nobody gave the same performance as DDL in There Will Be Blood or some random giving the same exact performance as Denzel in Training Day.
 
Last edited:
seaman won't even give you a "okay, I can see your point, but I still believe _____" we're not getting a reasonable conclusion to this debate. Just let it die 
laugh.gif
 
Redmaynes acting performance ***** all over Leos performance. The emotional range he displayed was greater. The level of difficulty it took to portray certain emotions took a lot more skill to be convincing than dicaprios. Danish girl just wasn't that great of a movie. Revenant wasn't that great either aside from the masterful cinematography. Again, Leo has many oscar worthy perfromances, but this was NOT one of them.

Whats Eating Gilbert Grape: Yes. convincing performance. I don't think another kid that age on the planet could have pulled that off and made me believe. Oscar worthy.

Django: Yes. He OWNED that character. I believed he was a psychotic southern plantation slave owner. Oscar worthy.

The Departed: Absolutely. He made me FEEL how scared he was the deeper he got into things.

The Revanent.: No. I think a lot of actors could have done better with this role and most of the praise he's getting is from the physical demand of the movie. Did Hanks win an Oscar for losing 55 lbs and not talking through most of a movie? No. Because who cares how hard it was to lose that weight. Hardy did a better job of conveying his emotions without speaking in the movie Mad Max. Which is why he was chosen for the part of Mad Max. I'm convinced the role of HUGE GLASS was originally written with Hardy in mind, then given to Leo for the obvious bigger name power.
 
emotional range is a great characteristic to portray but imo not THE most important. billy bob was good in sling blade and was monotone the whole damn movie. denzel won for training day and he didn't flex emotions much. hopkins for silence of the lambs - range of emotions? nope.
 
Stuntman Mike said:
emotional range is a great characteristic to portray but imo not THE most important. billy bob was good in sling blade and was monotone the whole damn movie. denzel won for training day and he didn't flex emotions much. hopkins for silence of the lambs - range of emotions? nope.
Click to expand...

WHAT?! Hopkins was the definition of range in Lambs. Bad example. But yes range is not THE most important characteristic. What do you think the strongest part of Leo's performance was, and why?
 
calibeebee said:
WHAT?! Hopkins was the definition of range in Lambs. Bad example. But yes range is not THE most important characteristic. What do you think the strongest part of Leo's performance was, and why?
Click to expand...
hopkins was a sociopath in silence. genuine emotional range is not possessed by those antisocials. he went from malevolent to smirky to taunting. i loved the movie though and he did his job perfectly.

i liked leo in the revenant because his whole portrayal was emotionally and physically believeable. i believed he really loved that indian boy, truly despaired when he was killed and became single-mindedly determined to get revenge.
 
Stuntman Mike said:
calibeebee said:
WHAT?! Hopkins was the definition of range in Lambs. Bad example. But yes range is not THE most important characteristic. What do you think the strongest part of Leo's performance was, and why?
Click to expand...
hopkins was a sociopath in silence. genuine emotional range is not possessed by those antisocials. he went from malevolent to smirky to taunting. i loved the movie though and he did his job perfectly.

i liked leo in the revenant because his whole portrayal was emotionally and physically believeable. i believed he really loved that indian boy, truly despaired when he was killed and became single-mindedly determined to get revenge.
Click to expand...
Exactly

Those grunts of desperate pain as his son got killed near him and he couldn't even move :smh:

From that point all of the dreams/hallucinations of his wife, his past, and then his son hit that harder. They were great emotional beats for the plot.
 
i will say hardy telling him "blink if you want me to kill you" was probably the funniest part of the movie 
 
i'll tell you who displayed amazing range both emotionally and physically was daniel day lewis in there will be blood. i was just blown away the whole movie thinking to myself....this mfker is acting the sht outta this movie :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom