This message has been deleted.
-
mojo2004 — 12 years ago(December 16, 2013 02:10 PM)
I was surprised to learn that he had never won an Oscar. But then my girl Stanwyck never won either. The Academy is a joke.
Neither did Angela Landsbury, who will receive an Honorary Oscar at next year's ceremony.
State of the Union (1948) !!??
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)!!??
Absolutely criminal!
Sheldon:"Was the starfish wearing boxer shorts? Because you might have been watching Nickelodeon." -
scitchymoto — 13 years ago(July 10, 2012 04:19 PM)
He really ought to have won it for Lawrence. Did people realize that O'Toole's performance in that film would become so iconic? Peck gave an equally great performance in To Kill a Mockingbird though, and I suppose the Academy would have preferred to honor a star of American cinema rather than an Irishman-cum-English stage actor.
-
michael1951 — 12 years ago(December 15, 2013 11:21 AM)
Peck won solely because Atticus Finch was the feel-good character for white liberals. O'Toole definitely deserved it over Peck, but I'd personally say that Jack Lemmon deserved it most of all for
Days of Wine and Roses
. (But it's a close call between O'Toole and Lemmon.)librarything.com/profile/CurrerBell -
ShellOilJunior — 12 years ago(December 15, 2013 01:11 PM)
He should've won several Oscars but the fact he didn't serve as a reminder one shouldn't put much stock in award shows.
O'Toole's performances will be remembered for many many years. That's better than any Oscar. -
goleafsgo27 — 12 years ago(December 15, 2013 02:08 PM)
People, please! He wasn't robbed, nor snubbed. He simply never received quite enough votes to win. No way of knowing just how close some of those votes were. Years or decades later, some of those votes may seem puzzling when seen through our modern filters. He gave man5b4y splendid performances which will live on as long as our culture does. He received a lifetime Oscar. Very, very few do.
I have seen enough to know I have seen too much.
ALOTO -
SimplemindedSociety — 12 years ago(December 15, 2013 08:19 PM)
'No way of knowing just how close some of those votes were'
And this is what fascinates me when awards are judged as being deserved it not. If the votes are that close, I think it should be declared a tie, since it virtually is
-
SimplemindedSociety — 12 years ago(December 15, 2013 10:41 PM)
'Simple, IMHO it should only be a tie when they have the same number of votes, as Kate Hepburn and Barbra Streisand did in 1969.'
that is exacty what I am against because the odds of that are very rare.
In general,if the votes are 2-3 apart,it makes the "winner" seem less meaningful since we think of the winner as being such much more of a victory.
It would be like student who gets a 99.9% grade but loses to another who received a 100% . This is why I wish the Acedemy would disclose the votes like they do in sports,etc. It would give us a better perspective -
rascal67 — 12 years ago(December 15, 2013 11:07 PM)
This is why I wish the Acedemy would disclose the votes like they do in sports,etc. It would give us a better perspective
I would like to see that too. However, I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory; but I often wonder the reason why they don't, is because it may be a tad rigged and the votes are not going to be an honest reflection.