We are not talking about consecutive performances. We are talking about consecutive Oscar nominations.

Oh, for goodness sake, people! Focus!! What about the fact that Nicholson may become the first male to possibly win three Best Actor Oscars!

--Forget about the consectitive debate, I'm sorry I mentioned it. Sheesh...

I think Nicholson could really break down the door for people with testicles to win more than Two Best Actor Oscars. :)

i think the award should go to Tom Hanks for his performance in Road To Perdition....I know it won't but i personally believe this is the single best male performance of the year

Nicholas Cage will win for Adaptation.

If that doesn't happen, Daniel Day Lewis will win for GoNY.

Jack won't win...and even if he does, there would be nothing "consecutive" about it.....that's a silly proclamation.

Why the big fuss over Nicholson and three awards? Katharine Hepburn has four Oscars, all for Best Actress and two of those were truly consecutive (two years in a row).

Yes he is indeed a great actor, and that would without a doubt raise the bar, BUT I would rather see that Oscar go to someone else...a first time recipient preferably. There were some seriously outstanding actors this year, and really do deserve to be acknowledged for their work.

I never used to understand Jack's acclaim. To me he did seem to be playing the same character in every movie, including (I'm probably asking to get flamed here) Cuckoo's Next. I thought he fell somewhat flat in the scenes where he was supposed to be caring and was the movie's one weak point. I saw Chinatown this year though, and was floored not only by the movie but by him, and since then have made an attempt to seek out some of his performances. I wound up also very impressed by his work in Five Easy Pieces and The Postman Always Rings Twice.

As far as the Oscar subject goes though, I didn't like As Good As It Gets and didn't think his performance deserved a nomination, much less an award. I have't seen About Schmidt, but I'm certainly not rooting for him to get another Oscar now. Adrien Brody's got at least one fan rooting for an upset.

For those of you (myself included) who don't think Nicholson deserved the Oscar for 1997's AGAIG, tell me who you think should have won out of that year's nominees:

1) Matt Damon ("Good Will Hunting")
2) Robert Duvall ("The Apostle")
3) Peter Fonda ("Ulee's Gold")
4) Dustin Hoffman ("Wag The Dog")

Hoffman.

While I enjoyed "Wag The Dog," I thought Hoffman's performance was like a smarter version of Rain Man.

I always sort of wondered what Hoffman did better in the film to deserve the nomination over DeNiro's performance.

The fact that he wasn't even nominated for The Pledge means that he automatically lost. By your analogy, the Chicago Bulls did a 6-peat in the 90s because they weren't in the finals in 93-95. And if they somehow got to the Finals and won this year, you'd consider it a 7-peat?

Well seeing as we are talking about (male) Actors and not (female) Actors, the Katherine Hepburn analogy is just null and void.

I though Jack gave an excellent performance of a person with OCD. The role was very comedic and that also boasted because comedy performances don't win a lot.

I thought Nicholson deserved to win that year, but my next choice would have been Robert Duvall in The Apostle, with Matt Damon in Good Will being a close second.

MATT

I think Fonda should have won, with Duvall a close second.

This thread is funny. And there's no way Jack Nicholson is gonna win the Oscar this year, he has a good a chance as the Raiders winning the Super Bowl. :)

ANSWER:
E) None of the above.

My pick goes to:

Ian holm, the sweet hereafter


As far as the jack debate,

I loved him in about schmidt and I wouldn't mind seeing him have a 3rd best actor oscar. His acceptance speech will be 100 times more interesting than any of the nominees. Guarenteed.


PS
Daniel day lewis can't possibly win since he keeps threatening to quit acting. What kind of work would he want to get into after he quits, used car salesman? Would make sense since that requires some acting skill.

What the hell?

First off, I was just explaining what that first person said about it being "consecutive".

But yes,

You are going to deep into this. We are typing of the actual nominations. The Pledge doesn't even factor in, because he wasn't nominated for it. He did no lose, because he wasn't even nominated.

It can go both ways.

If Jack Nicholson wins for his role in About Schmidt, the Academy has gone to all hell.

DANIEL DAY LEWIS was the actor of 2002. His role as Billy the Butcher in Gangs of New York portrayed one of the best villains in the history of cinema. His performance was flawless.

Jack Nicholson may have put forth a good performance. But Daniel Day Lewis made his performance look like an elementary school play.

C'mon academy. Don't let the world down again. Daniel Day Lewis deserves the oscar this year, there is absolutely no question about that.

You can't win a Super Bowl without winning the playoffs.

If you're not good enough to make the playoffs, you're not good enough to win the Super Bowl.

Nomination = playoffs
Jack was not good enough in The Pledge, and therefore, ruined his streak

Generally, when you talk about someone winning something consecutively, you are talking about the order in which the wins are made for all the wins given.

Tom Hanks can be said to have won consecutively as he won the '93 and '94 award...with 4 other people winning in between Jack's win in '97 and his possible win in '02, he can hardly be said to have won them consecutively.

Yes, it's consecutive if you're comparing only his own nominations vs. wins, but that's not how most people count consecutive wins for Oscars.

I feel stupider for having participated in this conversation. :p

2002 75th Acadamy Awards
Jack Nicholson - ABOUT SCHMIDT (maybe)

2001 74th Academy Awards
Denzel Washington - TRAINING DAY

2000 73rd Academy Awards
Russell Crowe - GLADIATOR

1999 72nd Academy Awards
Kevin Spacey - AMERICAN BEAUTY

1998 71st Academy Awards
Roberto Benigni - LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL

1997 70th Academy Awards
Jack Nicholson - AS GOOD AS IT GETS

1996 69th Academy Awards
Geoffrey Rush - SHINE

1995 68th Academy Awards
Nicolas Cage - LEAVING LAS VEGAS

1994 67th Academy Awards
Tom Hanks - FORREST GUMP

1993 66th Academy Awards
Tom Hanks - PHILADELPHIA

You guys are ridiculous.

Lastly, before I quit this conversation, we are speaking of only Oscar nominations. Not films credited to an actor. In this thread, only nominations are considered.

Thank You.

And Daniel Day-Lewis was only <i>one</i> of the exceptional performances this year.

Adrien Brody
Jack Nicholson
Nicolas Cage
Michael Caine

including others were up there too.

I think the Academy is a big farse anyway. It's all BS politics that gave the oscar to Denzel mainly (if not only) because he is black. Oscars to me mean almost nothing! Although I am still always curious who wins and all that...I don't get hyped up in them. Personally, I believe that Daniel Day-Lewis should win hands down. No contest! THis was one of the greatest performances I've ever witnessed! Also, I hated About Schmidt! I thought it was very boring and moved nowhere! It was slow and the story was just uninteresting in my opinion. I love Nicholson (he used to be my favorite actor), but didn't think he was anything spectacular that somebody else couldn't have done exactly the same role. Anyway, that's my 2 cents about the Academy and About Schmidt. Oh yeah, I also hated Catch me if you can which is also extremely critic friendly....oh well. My top picks for 2002 don't stand a chance anyway (Igby goes Down, To End all Wars, and Punch Drunk Love)...of course I haven't seen adaptation or the hours yet.