Heath Ledger -Already a shoe-in for the Oscar?

[Beta Man]

I don't know if he'll win or not..... but I was certainly expecting some amazing performance from all the hype, and I really didn't see this "Greatest Performance Ever" that everyone had hyped up.


I just watched NCFOM again the other night, and it reminded me of all of the "Greatest Villain of all time" threads that popped up, and Anton Chigurth was the clear cut favorite.......

"All Time" means just that..... so Ledger's performance will fade in peoples' memories over time...... he had a good performance, but in my opinion, it wasn't Oscar worthy, but then again, I don't care much about what the Oscars say anyways.

I just can't wait for the "He won that's great" threads..... or the "He got robbed" threads..... either way, in the end it doesn't really matter.


And to whoever said "Have a Heart" give me a break... it's not like the guy was hit by a car while helping a little old lady across the street...... he partied like a rock star, and died..... it happens, and it looks like it was his fault.... why would I feel sorry for some guy who can't have fun in moderation?

[nick1091]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Clearly people are out of the loop regarding Heath Ledger. Many critics have come forward to state that they didn't vote for him just because he was dead. That's been said now, that's been said during the release.

C'mon man. Realistically, do you expect anyone to actually say "you know what? I'm casting my vote for him entirely out of seniment." No one in their right mind would say that, because it would invalidate every vote they had afterwards. Even though it's been the contrary for a while, the idea is that the Academy Awards at least have the appearance of being an equitable contest based solely on merit.

To take another example, Jim Rice was only elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame on this, his 15th and final opportunity to be enshrined. People who did not vote for him FOURTEEN TIMES in a row suddenly decided to this year. Anyone who doesn't think that has nothing to do with it being his final year of eligibility is deluding themselves.

It's a damn shame that some people are too arrogant to think that his role might have been that - amazing. I also like how everyone views Academy Voters as "LOL HEATH's DEAD. WHAT AN AMAZING PERFORMANCE!!!11 LULZ!" It's as if everyone besides themselves are idiots, which strikingly is an illogical way to think. Not only that, it's a blanket statement. I'm sure I can say that the only reason Barack Obama won is because he is an African American. But that's not fair isn't it?

IMO, people who believe that Ledger's death had absolutely nothing to do with being nominated are being just as naive as those who think him dying had everything to do with it. But really, it's all entirely subjective, and we can't reverse what happened and the view we took of the performance and whether it was effected by being his last completed acting gig.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by GORT

The really strange thing is he owns both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and yet trashes both movies evey chance he gets in the forums

Klaatu barada nikto

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by nick1091

IMO, people who believe that Ledger's death had absolutely nothing to do with being nominated are being just as naive as those who think him dying had everything to do with it. .

VERY WELL PUT .... I agree 100%

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by nick1091

C'mon man. Realistically, do you expect anyone to actually say "you know what? I'm casting my vote for him entirely out of seniment." No one in their right mind would say that, because it would invalidate every vote they had afterwards. Even though it's been the contrary for a while, the idea is that the Academy Awards at least have the appearance of being an equitable contest based solely on merit.

To take another example, Jim Rice was only elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame on this, his 15th and final opportunity to be enshrined. People who did not vote for him FOURTEEN TIMES in a row suddenly decided to this year. Anyone who doesn't think that has nothing to do with it being his final year of eligibility is deluding themselves.




IMO, people who believe that Ledger's death had absolutely nothing to do with being nominated are being just as naive as those who think him dying had everything to do with it. But really, it's all entirely subjective, and we can't reverse what happened and the view we took of the performance and whether it was effected by being his last completed acting gig.

What I'm saying is that it's asinine to say that every single voter said "He's dead, let's vote for him". I'm not saying that his death hasn't had an influence on some voters, but I find it ridiculous that people say his role in The Dark Knight has played no influence whatsoever.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by GORT

The really strange thing is he owns both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and yet trashes both movies evey chance he gets in the forums

The extras are fantastic. Especially the History channel ones from Dark Knight.

At least those are worth watching again.

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by GORT

The really strange thing is he owns both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and yet trashes both movies evey chance he gets in the forums

Who does Gort?

[Sussudio]

what people seem to forget is that a posthumous oscar is extremely difficult to get...only 1 person has been awarded one in the entire history of the oscars. if anything, heath's death hurts more than helps his chances. he really expanded and improved upon what we thought he was capable of acting-wise, and his performance shows it. everyone has their own opinion of why he may get it--that goes without saying--but remember the facts: posthumous oscars are very very very rarely given out.

[STARSCREAM]

Well, not much longer to go now to see if he wins. I think he will.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Beast

The extras are fantastic. Especially the History channel ones from Dark Knight.

At least those are worth watching again.

You could have DVRed those documentaries for free back when they showed them on the History Channel a few days before TDK was released in theaters. As for Batman Begins' extras, why did you buy the Blu? They are in standard def and you could have simply bought the DVD for a lot cheaper than the Blu. The only new extra on the Batman Begins Blu compared to the DVD is the TDK Prologue, which I assume you hate so there's no reason for you to have bought the Blu.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by nick1091

Again, no arguments there.



This is where we disagree. Whether he died or not should have absolutely no bearing. IF (and it's an if in this case because I feel, like you, that his performance was the best in the category) the sole factor was that he passed away, voting for him because of that is not "having a heart," it's cheapening the whole process by voting out of sentiment instead of performance.

The Academy votes on sentiment a VAST MAJORITY of the time. I'm sick of this ridiculous argument against Ledger's potential win, as if this is the first and only time they've voted this way. They voted out of sentiment for Pacino, for Scorsese, for Newman, for Sean Penn when he won, and on and on. A lot of the time it's a career achievement thing because they previously screwed someone over for their great work on another film. Ironically enough, many people voted for Hoffman against Ledger in 2005 because Hoffman had been screwed over in the past and Ledger was still a young guy with many more opportunities in his career. It's the way they vote. Always has been, always will be. There's a ton of politics involved. Ledger's death is no different than when they award someone who's long overdue but not necessarily the best of the year in their category. Pacino is a great example of that. The difference between Pacino and Ledger, however, is that Ledger was the best of the year according to many people.

I would argue that the bias against superhero movies is just as annoying as the bias for Ledger due to his death. The fact that it took his death for them to take it seriously is a sad commentary on how they vote. They vote for one nutjob performance last year in overwhelming numbers, but when a similarly electric nutjob performance comes along the next year, it would be ignored because it's in a superhero movie and not an Oscar-bait movie like No Country? Their hypocrisy is stunning.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

You could have DVRed those documentaries for free back when they showed them on the History Channel a few days before TDK was released in theaters. As for Batman Begins' extras, why did you buy the Blu? They are in standard def and you could have simply bought the DVD for a lot cheaper than the Blu. The only new extra on the Batman Begins Blu compared to the DVD is the TDK Prologue, which I assume you hate so there's no reason for you to have bought the Blu.

Not in HD.

And for the millionth time, I like supporting the genre. And I hoped The Dark Knight would grow on me, like Batman Begins did. Begins at least is watchable. The Dark Knight is just awful. Everything from Bale's growly performance to Ledger's mediocre Joker. And don't get me started on the Batpod. I hated the Tumbler, but this was crap.

And I didn't know I wouldn't like TDK until I saw it.

[Variable]

haha. I love that people really consider the growl a good reason to dislike the movie. nevermind that it makes sense that he's masking his voice. but this I can get over...

if you want to call ledger's performance mediocre that's fine, but 90% of people ouit there, at least, disagree. now, that doesn't prove anything, but I'm curious as to WHY you thought that. what was your problem with a performance that so many other people thought was the best supporting performance of the year?

and what did you hate about the batpod? I'd LIKE to get you started on it.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

.
I would argue that the bias against superhero movies is just as annoying as the bias for Ledger due to his death. The fact that it took his death for them to take it seriously is a sad commentary on how they vote. They vote for one nutjob performance last year in overwhelming numbers, but when a similarly electric nutjob performance comes along the next year, it would be ignored because it's in a superhero movie and not an Oscar-bait movie like No Country? Their hypocrisy is stunning.

where is this idea coming from that it "took his death" for them to take anything seriously? I've said this exact thing before, but have you managed to check out another timeline where in he is alive and got snubbed? If so please tell me how I can et there.

also, can we prove a bias against superhero movies? Ledger got nominated in the first movie even remotely deserving of being mentioned at the oscars in the genre. where is this "bias" coming from?

you're making superhero movies out to be victims of some imagined slight. I honestly don't understand where it's coming from.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Variable

haha. I love that people really consider the growl a good reason to dislike the movie. nevermind that it makes sense that he's masking his voice. but this I can get over...

Sure. If it was the only reason to dislike the movie. But it's just one of many.

if you want to call ledger's performance mediocre that's fine, but 90% of people ouit there, at least, disagree. now, that doesn't prove anything, but I'm curious as to WHY you thought that. what was your problem with a performance that so many other people thought was the best supporting performance of the year?

I doubt it's 90%. That's pretty unlikely. Regardless, I just didn't care for this incarnation of The Joker. To me, it was so far removed from what I'd consider The Joker, that it seemed to just be a really lame villain imposter. And some of his plans made me think Nolan confused Joker with Clock King. Give me the more chaotic crazy clown version from Jack Nicholson. The Joker is supposed to be scary as well as funny. And Ledger's performance managed neither. Hell, give me Ceasar Romero's over Ledger's dull one-note version.

and what did you hate about the batpod? I'd LIKE to get you started on it.

It was just another terrible design, just like the Tumbler. Frankly it was even more absurd than the Tumbler. Both the design and how it was actually a part of the Tumbler was just goofy. If it's designed as some sort of emergency escape vehicle, the placement of it seems pretty stupid. And the scene where it goes up the wall, ugh. Just lame all around. For me nothing beats the vehicles from the first two Batman films.

And don't get me started on the over the top absurd damage to Harvey Dent.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Beast

And don't get me started on the over the top absurd damage to Harvey Dent.

beast, why do you keep trying to prolong your argument, alluding to more and more things you don't like? this doesn't even have anything to do with heath ledger...we get it, you don't like the movie as much as you had hoped to, that's perfectly fine

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Variable

where is this idea coming from that it "took his death" for them to take anything seriously? I've said this exact thing before, but have you managed to check out another timeline where in he is alive and got snubbed? If so please tell me how I can et there.

also, can we prove a bias against superhero movies? Ledger got nominated in the first movie even remotely deserving of being mentioned at the oscars in the genre. where is this "bias" coming from?

you're making superhero movies out to be victims of some imagined slight. I honestly don't understand where it's coming from.

What do you mean "the first movie even remotely deserving"? I think that's a load of crap. There's been quite a few great superhero movies. X2, Superman, Batman Begins, Spider-Man 2, Iron Man, et al.

And if you need proof that there's a bias, see Chris Nolan's snub. The DGA is one of the most accurate predictors of the Oscars. The DGA nominated Nolan but the Oscars snubbed him for a director and movie that haven't been nominated for any major awards prior to the Oscars. What else do you think it was other than "we have to nominate something other than the superhero movie"?

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

beast, why do you keep trying to prolong your argument, alluding to more and more things you don't like? this doesn't even have anything to do with heath ledger...we get it, you don't like the movie as much as you had hoped to, that's perfectly fine

Hey, he asked. I just keep getting dragged into these discussions.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

what people seem to forget is that a posthumous oscar is extremely difficult to get...only 1 person has been awarded one in the entire history of the oscars. if anything, heath's death hurts more than helps his chances. he really expanded and improved upon what we thought he was capable of acting-wise, and his performance shows it. everyone has their own opinion of why he may get it--that goes without saying--but remember the facts: posthumous oscars are very very very rarely given out.

+1
perfectly stated

[Blu Angel]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

what people seem to forget is that a posthumous oscar is extremely difficult to get...only 1 person has been awarded one in the entire history of the oscars. if anything, heath's death hurts more than helps his chances. he really expanded and improved upon what we thought he was capable of acting-wise, and his performance shows it. everyone has their own opinion of why he may get it--that goes without saying--but remember the facts: posthumous oscars are very very very rarely given out.

Though it's also very very rare for a great talented young actor to die when being nominated..