SO sad about her Oscar snub!!
-
aprilwearsprada — 12 years ago(January 19, 2014 01:35 PM)
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. As good as an actress Amy is, she'll never out act Meryl Streep. Not even on her best day. I was watching some of the Oscar coverage and the pundits where saying that Amy took Emma slot. It is what it is and to my dismay, Cate is going to win the Oscar and I'm okay with it. I just wanted Meryl to at least get the nomination and she did.
-
claudja777 — 12 years ago(January 20, 2014 02:38 AM)
I don't think,to this day,that noone stole anyone's spot, cause this year has been pretty "tight" about nominations every "major" movie got more than one nominationseven blue jasmine got 3 nominationsit's huge considering it's not one of allen's best..is like if cate nomination ,which was more than due, bring on also the other ones
the only "single nomination" movie (talking about major nominations of course..)was "before midnight"
can you believe 2 movies had 10 nomination and one 9? other 6,5? it's a lot! so having "saving mr banks" no nominations as best movie or as anything else,had also no nomination for anything else -
-
claudja777 — 12 years ago(January 20, 2014 02:53 AM)
I think that nominations are chosen by men and women..not computers,so an emotional component is always present
Therefore sometime "big names" even if they totally deserve their nod and everyone think they're a lock, are put apart to make room for some newbyers you know?? emma won 2 oscar.tom too, not saying they don't still deserve but..they had their sharespots are like 5, and they wouldn't have win anyway,so -
dRK09 — 12 years ago(January 27, 2014 03:59 AM)
I was shocked Emma was not nominated. But face the fact. It was not Meryl who took her place. Meryl's performance in AOC was so good that she was bou2000nd to be nominated. Even many are predicting she could win this year if she had not won two years ago for Iron Lady. I honestly was shocked Amy Adams was nominated over Emma Thompson. Amy was good, good only, not brilliant like other nominees.
And the fact that Meryl sabotaged Emma's nomination is so ridiculous. Academy do not work this way. Someone's comment can't turn a deserved nominee down. -
EJverh — 12 years ago(January 17, 2014 08:32 PM)
Sad, personally speaking, yes because she really needed a comeback (but then again, does she really? From her humiliating drunken episode some could deduce that it isnt all that good for her afterall). But, objectivelly speaking, if anyone needed to get off that list to accomodate the Amrica's sweetheart in the Academy's favorite movie right now, Amy Adams, she did. Everyone else, Bullock, Blanchett, Dench and Streep were better than her so it doesnt surprise nor sadden me. I would have been upset had she gotten the nomination instead of any of the ladies on the list, especially Streep like it seem to be the case just before it was announced.
-
larpine — 12 years ago(January 26, 2014 10:40 AM)
Hmm, you sound like Kenneth Branagh. Personally or objectively or whatever, Oscar nominated or not, Thompson has consistently maintained the reputation as one of the best actresses alive and hardly needed a comeback, for she's never gone away.
That said, I do think she was robbed of the nomination, but by Bullock, not Adams, for I think it was a given that Amy had one coming.
I mean, wasn't Sigourney Weaver's performance in Aliens the last best actress nod given to a woman for a performance in the action/adventure genre? -
-
markedjuan — 12 years ago(April 05, 2014 12:27 PM)
These are just my conjectures and you don't have to agree with them:
It must be noted that the Academy members who nominate the actors for the awards are also actors. Maybe it was politics that caused Thompson the nomination. A lot of the Academy members also probably shared Meryl Streep's opinion of the film and it was only Streep who dared to voice it. Perhaps for many in the industry, Saving Mr. Banks ran false and it was just a studio's own Valentine to itself. (P.L. Traverse is probably rolling in her grave; first, Disney demolishes her book and then 50 years later it goes on to demolish her own life story.)Hence its omission in the major categories. Thus, despite her marvelous performance, Emma Thompson unwittingly became one of the spoils of this backlash.
Or:
Emma Thompson hasn't been popular with the liberal Hollywood brass, especially since the time she played a foul-mouth Hilary Clinton in Primary Colors.
Or:
Julie Andrews won an Oscar for Mary Poppins, and there are those who insist she won the sympathy vote. Emma Thompson had to pay big time for this. Yes, this is absurd but it's just that I ran out of other reasons. -
murph24 — 12 years ago(April 05, 2014 02:06 PM)
Or maybe Emma Thompson's performance simply wasn't that great.
If her performance was good enough to win the National Board of Review's award for Best Actress of the Year (which it did), and good enough to snag her a Screen Actors Guild nomination for Best Actress (which it did, in addition to a number of other nominations from various organizations for Best Actress), I'd say it was good enough to warrant an Oscar nomination.
But it's the Oscars after all, and nothing that anyone should get their panties in a wad over. Besides, Thompson already has two Oscars at home.