Eddie Murphy's Oscar Loss: A Concensus
-
osu_1996 — 18 years ago(January 05, 2008 02:51 PM)
The proof of a good actor is when you no longer see the actor, but only see the character. Case in point, Will Smith in Pursuit of Happyness. He was fabulous. Even though I knew I was watching Will, all that I saw was Chris.
Eddie, as good as he was, wasn't that good in this film. There were some good scenes, but overall, he was not good. You can't even compare him in the same breath as Jamie Foxx who won my heart in Any Given Sunday. He has the power to convince you that he is someone else; Eddie just doesn't show that, all of the time, in EVERY scene.
Alan Arkin was fabulous in his role. I had to keep reminding myself that this was the same actor usually known for doing madcap comedic roles. He deserved the award.
Finally, please realize that the voters do not usually have the time to watch every single performance. What they vote on is the one scene that is presented to them. I don't know who picks that scene, but if you recall from the Oscars, the scene picked from DG for Eddie was not a significan role for him. At the same time, there is no doubt that the voters are biased by other events at the time. Thus, Eddie's poor decision to play and film a stereotypical, obscene movie such as Norbit, most likely hurt his chance, little as it was.
How people can find it acceptable that Eddie Murphy play such a stereotypical, and cruel intended movie about obese people, and then have people say he is robbed for an Oscar because he is black, please. It had nothing to do with his color of skin, but of his choice in roles. Had he wanted to win an oscar, he should be a bit more choosy in his role choices. Or, be happy being a comedic actor. -
rpniew — 18 years ago(January 05, 2008 08:43 PM)
It is certainly true that the voters do not watch every performance. I am convinced that if everyone had seen "Junebug", Amy Adams would have a best supporting actress oscar. There is no doubt in my mind about it.
-
abens_98 — 18 years ago(January 23, 2008 10:31 AM)
They may not see every film before the nominations. It is a big part of the studios to promote and push the films and stars they think have a shot of getting a nomination. That is where the term "for your consideration" comes from.
However, voters are required to watch every nominated film in a category they are voting for, otherwise they are not supposed to submit a vote for that category. They do not just watch a few clips. -
tomcat69w — 18 years ago(January 07, 2008 10:31 PM)
Nothing Personal,..but to d1esel6, it was Alan Arkin and NOT Alan Alda (T.V. MAS*H) Fame who was in LMSS. Eddie more than deserved this one, and I think the Academy outta be ashamed!
The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get! -
vickyvalle — 18 years ago(January 21, 2008 08:11 PM)
I am also apparently in the minority, but I was not impressed with Eddie Murphy's performance. Oscar worthy? Not in my opinion.
I think he was talented enough to deserve the role, and I think he performed decently. He got some valuable experience here, and he can take it and put it to use in another role, and maybe that role will be Oscar worthy. -
Anderz90 — 17 years ago(April 07, 2008 10:22 AM)
Eddie deserved it, but they probably gave it to Arkin because he is very old and this might be his last chance at an award. Eddie has years to take home the award if he can just lay off the crappy comedies where he plays all of the characters. That's another reason also. Norbit sucked big time. If he'd postponed the release date another month or so, his chance of winning would have been much bigger.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled off, was convincing the world he doesn't exist -
gloriamichaelc-1 — 18 years ago(January 08, 2008 05:28 AM)
Hey. I always liked eddie, his films gross well over 100 million Domestic. Eddie murphy stoled the show. Also he was robbed! Wait! I hope he didn't go up against forest whitaker? That's a hard one. Mikey!
-
rpniew — 18 years ago(January 10, 2008 02:39 PM)
"Well maybe Eddie shouldn't have been a little movie called, "Norbit" "
I stated that earlier. It isn't really fair; the award should, of course, be based upon the performance in that film alone, but if you look at "Dreamgirls" as Eddie's attempt to be taken seriously, and he follows it up with the less-than-usual Eddie Murphy fare, it does, in fact, reflect badly on him. I'm not saying he should have followed it up with "Macbeth", but a well-chosen follow-up would have given him the award. (or a delay in the release of "Norbit", which should have been a no-brainer to all involved.) -
lf1234 — 18 years ago(January 10, 2008 08:39 PM)
Maybe Eddie and those close to him didn't see him as the lock that the rest of us did and didn't think of his chances being helped or hurt by any other projects that he was in. Tough to believe but maybe they were just oblivious to all of this. I mean, Eddie himself thought that the Academy would never give him the award, nominated or not.
-
the_darkness_of_poetic_humor — 18 years ago(January 13, 2008 09:01 PM)
I don't think it matters if Eddie Murphy was in Norbit or not..seriously.the award is based on performance, not some other trashy movie you have out..I'm sure over the years we could find several actors or actresses that won a award for one movie and had some piece of beep yarn film they starred inwhew boy!!!
-
lf1234 — 18 years ago(January 14, 2008 09:19 AM)
It's funny. I was watching Norbit the other day and realized this: This is what Eddie Murphy does!
What he did in Dreamgirls was wonderful and definitly deserving of recognition, but I think expecting him to turn into some serious actor just because of the political aspects of the Oscars and not giving him the award for doing what he's always done was stupid on the public and the Academy's part.