This was a fantastic film. A sweeping epic by all intents and purposes. Thoroughly entertaining and Leo was absolutely engaging.
But, why in the world did Alan Alda get nominated for his role?? There was nothing to it. 25 minutes of screen time at most and he didn't do anything special at all. He was just there to get lambasted by Hughes in the hearing. He got nominated for some body movements and gestures that any actor in the world could have done. This nomination could have gone to Alec Baldwin if they were just giving them out for this picture. He was much more captivating for the 10 minutes he was on screen.
Someone out there much more deserving, this nomination should have gone to.
Please if someone can explain why exactly he got it, I would love to know...
Cygnet74
02-18-05, 03:23 PM
well, actors are nominated by fellow actors and it would appear that Alda had just enough admirers in the Academy to get the nod. "Deserve" has got little to do with it.
FinkPish
02-18-05, 03:38 PM
I think Alda was very good in The Aviator, but I think he probably got nominated because he was going very much against type in that role. I think most people remember him for his work on M.A.S.H. and Woody Allen shows. I think the fact that he was able to be completely corrupt and slimy made more than a few people pay attention.
scott1598
02-18-05, 03:42 PM
well, actors are nominated by fellow actors and it would appear that Alda had just enough admirers in the Academy to get the nod. "Deserve" has got little to do with it.
i don't think that is true "actors nominate other actors" it is the entire Academy that votes and they aren't all actors.
Fielding Mellish
02-18-05, 03:46 PM
Since Jamie Farr wasn’t up for anything this year…
William Fuld
02-18-05, 03:51 PM
i don't think that is true "actors nominate other actors" it is the entire Academy that votes and they aren't all actors.
No, Cygnet74 is correct. Actors nominate actors, directors nominate directors and so on.
Cygnet74
02-18-05, 03:52 PM
i don't think that is true "actors nominate other actors" it is the entire Academy that votes and they aren't all actors.the academy is broken up into branches for acting, directing, editing, writing, sound, and music. actors nominate actors, then the entire academy votes for one of the nominees to be awarded the oscar statuette.
scott1598
02-18-05, 07:53 PM
ok, i stand corrected, but that still doesn't explain why Alda got nominated for nothing and Paul Giamatti didn't get nominated at all. Sheer travesties!
Cygnet74
02-18-05, 08:42 PM
ok, i stand corrected, but that still doesn't explain why Alda got nominated for nothing and Paul Giamatti didn't get nominated at all. Sheer travesties!more admirers = more votes
scott1598
02-18-05, 09:10 PM
more admirers = more votes
that really doesn't make any sense at all. you mean admirers of Alda? that is the worst reason to nominate someone and i fail to see that as a reason for such a high accolade.
Cygnet74
02-18-05, 09:26 PM
Welcome to Hollywood, scott!!! i'm not saying it was a good reason. I'm saying that's the way it goes in this industry! I'm saying that whether it was for this performance or for the whole of his career, Alda clearly had more admirers with a vote to cast than Paul Giamatti did. simple. :)
PopcornTreeCt
02-18-05, 09:26 PM
Alan Alda = old, paid his dues in Hollywood.
Its all about politics. I predict another Black night at the Oscars with awards going to Jamie Foxx and Morgan Freeman.
badger1997
02-18-05, 09:41 PM
ok, i stand corrected, but that still doesn't explain why Alda got nominated for nothing and Paul Giamatti didn't get nominated at all. Sheer travesties!I hardly see what Alda and Giamatti have to do with each other. While you can argue one should have been nominated and the other shouldn't, they aren't even in the same category.
That being said I thought Alda was good enough to deserve his nomination. It definitely surprised me, but to me he was a standout part of that movie even in his small role. As much as I like Giamatti, I really don't have a problem with him not being nominated. I can see how each of the five actors who got nods were considered better than him this year. Not saying I didn't like Giamatti and Sideways, because I liked both, but I just didn't feel his performance was good enough to get all riled up over it being left out, but that's just me.
Mr. Salty
02-19-05, 12:42 AM
ok, i stand corrected, but that still doesn't explain why Alda got nominated for nothing and Paul Giamatti didn't get nominated at all. Sheer travesties!
Bacause believe it or not, not everyone feels the same way you do. "Best" is subjective.
And as has been pointed out, Alda and Giamatti were up for different catagories. Giamatti's was a lead role; Alda was supporting.
Jackskeleton
02-19-05, 12:45 AM
OH MY GOD!111 people on the internet have opinions that differ than my own?!?!? THAT CAN'T BE!
Crocker Jarmen
02-19-05, 05:39 AM
I really enjoyed The Aviator, but I thought that Alan Alda's performance was out of sync with the rest of the movie. All the other actors we very stylized and refined, and Alda was the one guy who stuck out. Padding his lines with all kinds of stammers and physical tics, like he was still in a Woody Allen movie. It really annoyed me.
His nomination was one of those 'Huh?' moments, like the fantastic Christopher Walken for Cathc Me If You Can. Both great actors, but to nominate them for these roles???
Perkinsun Dzees
02-19-05, 12:57 PM
OH MY GOD!111 people on the internet have opinions that differ than my own?!?!? THAT CAN'T BE!
Only 111, Jack? I would think the number would be much higher than that.
;)
William Fuld
02-19-05, 02:25 PM
Its all about politics. I predict another Black night at the Oscars with awards going to Jamie Foxx and Morgan Freeman.
What's political about two of the best performances of the year winning?
movielib
02-19-05, 04:54 PM
...
Its all about politics. I predict another Black night at the Oscars with awards going to Jamie Foxx and Morgan Freeman.
I think neither Washington nor Berry deserved their 2001 awards (that doesn't mean it was politics then; maybe just bad choices). But Foxx (or Cheadle, for that matter) and Freeman do deserve it.
BizRodian
02-19-05, 05:24 PM
I really enjoyed The Aviator, but I thought that Alan Alda's performance was out of sync with the rest of the movie. All the other actors we very stylized and refined, and Alda was the one guy who stuck out. Padding his lines with all kinds of stammers and physical tics, like he was still in a Woody Allen movie. It really annoyed me.
His nomination was one of those 'Huh?' moments, like the fantastic Christopher Walken for Cathc Me If You Can. Both great actors, but to nominate them for these roles???
I think for the same reasons you disliked them, are the same reasons they were nominated.
scott1598
02-19-05, 05:43 PM
I hardly see what Alda and Giamatti have to do with each other. While you can argue one should have been nominated and the other shouldn't, they aren't even in the same category.
so what does being in different categories have anything to do with it? never did i say one got it because the other didn't. i was merely pointing out that 2 travesties were seen with this year's Oscars and many will attest to it thus the references with each.
Alda had a nothing role in a big movie that shouldn't have gotten noticed in the least. his performance was anything but spectacular or even warranting much recognition and getting nominated for an Oscar is a huge deal that should be based on current performance and perhaps other recent performances. a role should be nominated based on the fact that an actor steals a role and you cannot possibly imagine anyone else filling those shoes...anyone else in that role ever! Alda's role could have been done and done much better or worse than any older seasoned actor in Hollywood. because of his nomination, the argument could be made and made much better for nominations for Beckinsale who i thought was wonderful as Ava or my aforementioned Alec who could have just as easily if Alda was the criteria or what about John C., etc...if Alda got nominated than every other cast member should have gotten besides Leo and Cate and that is my point. those other supporting roles helped make the movie what it was, Alda's did not.
Giamatti should have garnered momentum with his incredible turn in "American Splendor" and then catapulted him over the top to at least recieve a nomination which imo was stolen by Clint Eastwood who i love dearly, but should have only been recognized for Director and picture only which he was and no way for performance in a leading role. the Academy usually abides by that ala no best actor for himself in "Unforgiven" and no actor for Mel Gibson in "Braveheart". those flicks merited technical achievement behind the camera in superior fashion and thus the Director and his entire body of work was recognized but not his work in front of the camera. Clint in "Million Dollar Baby" is an exact replica of these instances imo and thus took it away from a much more deserving Giamatti.
Sierra Disc
02-19-05, 07:33 PM
This is the same category that nominated Jon Voight's laughably bad turn as Howard Cosell in "Ali," it's definitely one where a weird ringer sometimes gets thrown in. I liked Alda in "Aviator," and Hawkeye rules, but no way should he have been nominated for an Oscar here.
Sierra Disc
02-19-05, 07:34 PM
On the other hand, I absolutely think Eastwood deserved the nom for M$B. He's not flashy, but he's acting circles around most folks half his age there. Haven't seen "Sideways" so can't comment on Giamatti.
badger1997
02-20-05, 12:20 AM
Alda had a nothing role in a big movie that shouldn't have gotten noticed in the least. his performance was anything but spectacular or even warranting much recognition and getting nominated for an Oscar is a huge deal that should be based on current performance and perhaps other recent performances. a role should be nominated based on the fact that an actor steals a role and you cannot possibly imagine anyone else filling those shoes...anyone else in that role ever! Alda's role could have been done and done much better or worse than any older seasoned actor in Hollywood.I'm sorry but I can't agree with you there. You state it as fact that everyone should accept that Alda had a "nothing role" but I, and apparently others in the Academy, liked the role and thought it stood out in the movie. To me, Alda did a great job with a little role and he was spectacular. To me, nobody else could play that role the same way and thus I have no problem with him being nominated. You should just accept that others feel differently and understand that the Oscars are subjective and not based on just your own opinions.
ReduxGuy
02-20-05, 04:09 AM
Alan Alda = old, paid his dues in Hollywood.
So, David Carradine's old and paid his dues and he still got screwed over.
Giantrobo
02-20-05, 04:23 AM
What's political about two of the best performances of the year winning?
People are still bitter over Halle Barry's win. It doesn't work for them so they yell "politics" to justify the choice. -ohbfrank-:p
Alan Alda was great in this movie but I'm biased. I've been an Alan Alda Fan for many many years.
Giantrobo
02-20-05, 04:26 AM
I'm sorry but I can't agree with you there. You state it as fact that everyone should accept that Alda had a "nothing role" but I, and apparently others in the Academy, liked the role and thought it stood out in the movie. To me, Alda did a great job with a little role and he was spectacular. To me, nobody else could play that role the same way and thus I have no problem with him being nominated. You should just accept that others feel differently and understand that the Oscars are subjective and not based on just your own opinions.
:up:
Just like I had to accept that many hate Halle's and Denzel's Oscar wins Scott will have to accept Alda's Nomination.
scott1598
02-20-05, 10:50 AM
You state it as fact that everyone should accept that Alda had a "nothing role" but I, You should just accept that others feel differently and understand that the Oscars are subjective and not based on just your own opinions.
no, i don't state that as fact for all and you shouldn't assume that or at least read the post and realize that i didn't state anything as fact and was merely expressing my opinion.
brizz
02-20-05, 04:17 PM
punctuation is your friend.
badger1997
02-20-05, 11:38 PM
Alda had a nothing role in a big movie that shouldn't have gotten noticed in the least. his performance was anything but spectacular or even warranting much recognition and getting nominated for an Oscar is a huge deal that should be based on current performance and perhaps other recent performances. a role should be nominated based on the fact that an actor steals a role and you cannot possibly imagine anyone else filling those shoes...anyone else in that role ever! Alda's role could have been done and done much better or worse than any older seasoned actor in Hollywood. because of his nomination, the argument could be made and made much better for nominations for Beckinsale who i thought was wonderful as Ava or my aforementioned Alec who could have just as easily if Alda was the criteria or what about John C., etc...if Alda got nominated than every other cast member should have gotten besides Leo and Cate and that is my point. those other supporting roles helped make the movie what it was, Alda's did not.
You may think differently Scott, but this hardly sounds like a statement of opinion to me. Rather more like a statement that we're all supposed to accept because you say so.
Josh H
02-21-05, 10:03 AM
Just mentally attach IMO to everything you read on on a message board, saves a lot of bickering.
Everyone is just posting opinions, regardless of their tone, or whether they put IMO at the end.
Crocker Jarmen
02-21-05, 10:16 AM
Just mentally attach IMO to everything you read on on a message board, saves a lot of bickering.
Everyone is just posting opinions, regardless of their tone, or whether they put IMO at the end.
:thumbsup: Sound advice. That's the best way to ensure you don't get bent out of shape over things people post.
IMO.
scott1598
02-21-05, 11:12 AM
You may think differently Scott, but this hardly sounds like a statement of opinion to me. Rather more like a statement that we're all supposed to accept because you say so.
well let me correct you for a second time...THIS IS MY (MY) OPINION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF ALAN ALDA IN "THE AVIATOR" and in no way expresses the opinions or views of anyone else in this forum unless they choose to agree with my opinion! The views are certainly not fact, but simply based on some relevant facts that I (I) choose to include to make my opinion/argument more credible.
Buy: