Eligible After Winning??

[bruce_pullen]

Should an Oscar Winner be eligible for another Oscar after winning?

Hitchcock lost to Billy Wilder (The Lost Weekend, The Apartment) twice. Not to mention all the writing oscars Wilder received (The Lost Weekend, Sunset Boulevard, The Apartment).

Wilder won numerous Oscars. Hitch none. Is it a fair practice? Or too political?

[PH3AR]

No, because wat happens after someone wins one...they probally would stop acting all together since they have nothing else to work for, even thou there are smaller awards but an oscar is the grand daddy to them all

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by P|-|3@R

No, because wat happens after someone wins one...they probally would stop acting all together since they have nothing else to work for, even thou there are smaller awards but an oscar is the grand daddy to them all

Isn't sad? Just to do it, for the award?

Incentive is one thing. But...

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by bruce_pullen

Isn't sad? Just to do it, for the award?

Incentive is one thing. But...

as a counter argument (not that i necessarily agree with it), an oscar is something many people work for, and in many cases helps to push actors to pursue roles they wouldn't normally take up. in that capacity, i think the oscar award has aided in expanding and improving an actor's comfort zone (i.e. if they are a standard comedy star, action star, etc.). i know will smith has said countless times that he has chosen certain roles in the hopes of winning an oscar, and has tried to really improve his acting as a result. just a thought.

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

as a counter argument (not that i necessarily agree with it), an oscar is something many people work for, and in many cases helps to push actors to pursue roles they wouldn't normally take up. in that capacity, i think the oscar award has aided in expanding and improving an actor's comfort zone (i.e. if they are a standard comedy star, action star, etc.). i know will smith has said countless times that he has chosen certain roles in the hopes of winning an oscar, and has tried to really improve his acting as a result. just a thought.

Ageed.

But even you will admit, it's a crime Kubrick never won an Oscar for direction.

Look how long it took Spielberg and Scorsese? And I believe... them not getting it... kept them in it.

But nothing for Stanley or Hitch. Given they're careers... is unbelievable.

I wonder if that's why: they rushed to give Altman his honorary Oscar. Before his death...

Not to repeat the mistake.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by bruce_pullen

Ageed.

But even you will admit, it's a crime Kubrick never won an Oscar for direction.

Look how long it took Spielberg or Scorsese? And I believe... them not getting it... kept them in it.

But nothing for Stanley or Hitch. Given they're careers... is near criminal.

Am I wrong?

i think it is shameful that kubrick never got one, but to me that really doesn't matter. people remember him for his greatness and contribution to cinema, not for an award. it's his legacy that remains timeless. citizen kane is known as the #1 movie in america by the AFI and it was only awarded one oscar--for screenplay.

oscars are designated by some selective committee; but the truly great movies and people who make them will never be forgotten and are remembered by everyone.

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

i think it is shameful that kubrick never got one, but to me that really doesn't matter. people remember him for his greatness and contribution to cinema, not for an award. it's his legacy that remains timeless. citizen kane is known as the #1 movie in america by the AFI and it was only awarded one oscar--for screenplay.

oscars are designated by some selective committee; but the truly great movies and people who make them will never be forgotten and are remembered by everyone.

I couldn't agree with you more.

They choose who they choose. In the end, we'll know the score.

Thanks.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

oscars are designated by some selective committee; but the truly great movies and people who make them will never be forgotten and are remembered by everyone.

I'm not thread-crapping with this question, but I'm still trying to figure it out, especially with your statement above, which I completely agree with.

What is the point with these Oscars? They mean nothing. No Oscar for Hitchcock, or Kubrick...what the hell is the point?

Edit: Kubrick did win an Oscar for the special effect in "2001".

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I'm not thread-crapping with this question, but I'm still trying to figure it out, especially with your statement above, which I completely agree with.

What is the point with these Oscars? They mean nothing. No Oscar for Hitchcock, or Kubrick...what the hell is the point?

The ultimate recognition. By the industry.

Like winning the Green Coat at the Masters. It indicates the peak of success, in the industry.

Like graduating from college, only it's from the business. At least, that's my take.

Hope that helps.

[drobswim13]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

i think it is shameful that kubrick never got one, but to me that really doesn't matter. people remember him for his greatness and contribution to cinema, not for an award. it's his legacy that remains timeless. citizen kane is known as the #1 movie in america by the AFI and it was only awarded one oscar--for screenplay.

oscars are designated by some selective committee; but the truly great movies and people who make them will never be forgotten and are remembered by everyone.

marvelously put. That, my friend, sums it up in a nutshell.

I think that they should be eligible after their first win because it keeps them in the business longer and those who love watching them on screen reap the benefits. Besides, most of those who do win really love what they are doing, so I suppose if they were ineligible for another win after their first, those that truly love the art of acting, directing, writing, etc. would keep on doing it

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by drobswim13

marvelously put. That, my friend, sums it up in a nutshell.

I think that they should be eligible after their first win because it keeps them in the business longer and those who love watching them on screen reap the benefits. Besides, most of those who do win really love what they are doing, so I suppose if they were ineligible for another win after their first, those that truly love the art of acting, directing, writing, etc. would keep on doing it

I agree. Incentive is necessary. I guess. I wish the Oscars weren't so political.

That should have been the question.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by bruce_pullen

The ultimate recognition. By the industry.

Like winning the Green Coat at the Masters. It indicates the peak of success, in the industry.

Like graduating from college, only it's from the business. At least, that's my take.

Hope that helps.

But film is not a sports event. It's not a tournament. It's not a prizefight, or even a beauty pageant. And it can't possibly be measured against other films created within any given calendar year.

It's a publicity stunt, plain and simple.

I much prefer lifetime achievement awards. You drag in an actor or director or somebody, make them stand there and listen while you point out highlight after highlight of a brilliant career, from his or her peers. I think that has real power.

The Oscars? The news the next day is, Wonder If This Will Scare Up Some More Ticket Sales On Re-release.

Anyway, my 2-cent rant.

[drobswim13]

Originally Posted by bruce_pullen

I agree. Incentive is necessary. I guess. I wish the Oscars weren't so political.

That should have been the question.

I also think, however, that if you were to become ineligible after your first win, the Academy Awards would become a little less meaningful, don't you think? Because you are now not judging the Best Actor, Actress, Director, etc., you are judging the Best Actor, Actress, Director, etc. that has not won yet. (so great talent will be thrown out the window for recognition)

[Clark Kent]

No, each film should stand on its own merits. If some filmmaker comes along that made the best movie each year, they deserve to win it each year.

[Marquoz]

Imagine if you will that Meet the Spartans came out a year that every other movie had an Oscar winner in it. It would be an automatic winner for an Oscar because everybody else was ineligable. Is that how you want to see the Oscars diluted?

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by drobswim13

I also think, however, that if you were to become ineligible after your first win, the Academy Awards would become a little less meaningful, don't you think? Because you are now not judging the Best Actor, Actress, Director, etc., you are judging the Best Actor, Actress, Director, etc. that has not won yet. (so great talent will be thrown out the window for recognition)

You're not answering the Hitchcock question?

So these omissions... are just understandable flukes?

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by bruce_pullen

You're not answering the Hitchcock question?

So these omissions... are just understandable flukes?

To go back to your Master's Green Jacket analogy...these omissions are just par for the course.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by bruce_pullen

Ageed.

But even you will admit, it's a crime Kubrick never won an Oscar for direction.

Look how long it took Spielberg and Scorsese? And I believe... them not getting it... kept them in it.

But nothing for Stanley or Hitch. Given they're careers... is unbelievable.

I wonder if that's why: they rushed to give Altman his honorary Oscar. Before his death...

Not to repeat the mistake.

I don't admit that it's a crime Kubrick never won an Oscar for direction. He didn't make "Oscar" movies, why is it a surprise he didn't win an Oscar?

[thedarkangel1975]

To me it is fair. Eastwood was been racking them of late and I say keep going.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

No, each film should stand on its own merits. If some filmmaker comes along that made the best movie each year, they deserve to win it each year.

/\
I agree with this. I hate the mentality that says Tom Hanks shouldn't win for, say, Cast Away, because he's already won twice. Why should that matter?

Personally I think they should just announce the five nominated performances and leave it at that. As George C. Scott and Dustin Hoffman observed, it defies common sense and logic to pick "the best" actor, as if acting is a sport and you can pick a winner.