If Jack Nicholson Wins The Oscar, It Will Raise The Standard
 

For many years now for male actors, the Standard has been winning two Best Actor Oscars, and perhaps a supporting award to boot. To this day, nobody has won three Best Actor Oscars - but for years, they've tried.

You've got:
1) Dustin Hoffman
He won his first in 1979 ("Kramer Vs Kramer") and his second in 1988 ("Rain Man") and tried for his third in 1997 with his nomination for "Wag The Dog."

2) Tom Hanks
He won his first in 1993 ("Philadelphia") and his second in 1994 ("Forrest Gump") and tried for his third in 1998 and 2000 with his nominations for "Saving Private Ryan" and "Cast Away."

Just to mention two, they didn't make it.

While it may be too soon to say this, but Jack Nicholson just picked up a Golden Globe for Best Actor (Drama) in "About Schmidt." He may receive an Oscar nomination for this role as well for Best Actor, and he will be in the running for being the first actor to win three Best Actor Oscars.

His first Best Actor Oscar, for "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest," was in 1975, and his second, "As Good As It Gets," in 1997. (In between, he won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for 1983's "Terms of Endearment.")

Can Jack do it? Will the Academy give the honor and distinction to him, to be the first in history to win three? I'd have thought they'd have given it to Hanks for "Cast Away," but I suppose they thought it was too soon to give up on this MAJOR prestige. The Academy loves Tom Hanks, but they absolutely adore Jack.

If Jack wins:
1) He will have two consectitive Oscar wins under his belt
2) He will have a total of four Oscars to his name
3) He will have 12 Oscar-nominations to his credit, the most for any actor (he already has the most nominations with 11, but 12...whoa, hey!)
4) oh yeah, he will be the first actor to win three Best Actor Oscars in Academy Awards History

Go, Jack...I'm rootin' for ya!

I didn't see About Schmidt but Jack Nicholson has always been one of my favorite actors. He's simply one of if not the best out there and he deserves to be the first. Of course I'm assuming he did a great job on About Schmidt.

Give it to Denzel for John Q.

Nicholson is excellent when he ACTS ("One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "Five Easy Pieces" and most recently "The Pledge").

It is annoying to me when he just plays "Jack". When he does this, he may as well just phone his performance in.

I thought he was very good in "About Schmidt".

I have never seen the appeal of Tom Hanks. He seems like a good guy in real life but a dull actor.

Eh. Nicholson shouldn't have won for "As Good As It Gets." So I won't weep if he's passed over this year (though he was much better in "About Schmidt.")

If they give him another one, then Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe and Michael Caine supporters will demand more for their idols. Meanwhile, there are plenty of other worthy candidates out there. Spread the love, I say.

Nicholson has a great chance of winning the Oscar for About Schmidt (duh!). However, I have a sneaking suspicion that Daniel-Day Lewis will take home the prize.

Well, I do agree with you about "As Good As It Gets." Just because Nicholson is featured in a good movie doesn't mean he should automatically get an Oscar out of it. That's his job, to star in a good movie, to entertain us! The thing was, 1997's "As Good As It Gets" was his first good movie since 1992's "A Few Good Men" (IMO), so everyone was floored to see Jack back in action. (I saw 1995's "The Crossing Guard," and had to force myself to stay awake.)

Since "AGAIG" in 1997, "About Schmidt" is, again, the first major film Jack's been in (these films are bookends to "The Pledge," which I didn't see, but didn't garner that much attention), but I would hate to see him win just because of that. I have to see "About Schmidt" to really form an opinion (should he actually win).

Re: If Jack Nicholson Wins The Oscar, It Will Raise The Standard
 

How is it conescutive when the last one was in 1997? :confused:

He won in 1997. That's one.
If he wins again in 2003, that's two.

It doesn't matter how many years there are in between Oscar wins, as long as there aren't any nominations in between Oscar wins.

What about Wolf, huh? What about it.








Oh wait you're right.

It DOES matter. It means his performances inbetween '97 and '03 were crappy and unworthy of a nomination -- so how can we build an accolade statistic from a 6-year span of sucktitude?

Tom Hanks' wins in '93 and 94 are consecutive.

I disagree. To me, consectitive wins means that someone won twice in a row - regardless of the years it took.

Yeah, twice in a ROW... those years and other actos winning in between, really split that row all to hell... I would not call it consecutive wins in Jack wins....sure, he'd be 2 for 2 in the last 5 year, but they certainly couldn't be called "back to back" wins...

MATT

But that's the thing. It WASN'T in a row. That's 5 years you're looking at there. Consecutive means one RIGHT AFTER the other. I guess you meant he'll win for 2 consecutive nominations?

Hehe. Is it obvous GuessWho and I are bored? :)

By Buttmonker's logic...

If the Chicago Bears win the Super Bowl next year, they're repeat/consecutive champions because they won last time they competed in the SB ('85 season)

He means:

He won in 1998 for 97's As Good As It Gets.

He has not been nominated since.

He will most definitely be nominated for About Schmidt. That will be his next nomination.

If he wins he will have two consecutive wins.

Now if he were nominated for THE PLEDGE and he lost, then you would not call it consecutive if he Won for About Schmidt



And by the way, Jack is my favorite actor and I completely hate when people say "HE ALWAYS PLAYS HIMSELF"

I bet none of you know him personally. So you really shouldn't be saying this. You should clarify to say "He is playing the same role in a different film."


If he wins, I'll be happy. If he doesn't I'll still think he is the best actor.

THANK you, Conscience, for your support. Amen. My point is made.

My Chicago Bears metaphor still holds true, in that you're saying you only count consecutive appearances in the "championship" of the genre (Oscars/Super Bowl)

Jack Nicholson already doomed himself by winning a Golden Globe. Nobody wins both.

Nah. He won the Globe for "As Good As It Gets" for Best Actor (Comedy), while Peter Fonda won Best Actor (Drama) for "Ulee's Gold."

I still don't think it can be considered "consecutive" wins by any stretch of the imagination. To me consecutive means two years in a row. Like somebody else said, it would be winning for two consecutive nominations, but that ain't the same thing as winning consecutive Oscars.

For those years between 1997 and now, he had nothing worth being nominated. Because he didn't win, or even get nominated, in those years, it won't be consecutive. I think the Chicago Bears analogy is perfect. Look at this way, my favorite baseball team, the Minnesota Twins, won a World Series in 1987. They didn't make the playoffs again (as compared to an Oscar nomination) until 1991, when they won the title again. So can I say they won consecutive World Series titles? No.

Huh?

back on topic, i bet he was embarassed at what lara flynn boyle was wearing. what a tool.

I actually think the opposite is true. I thought that AGAIG was a terrible movie, with the only saving grace being the two outstanding Oscar-worthy performances by the leads. But I digress. :)

So the fact that his performances in between where not worthy of nomination doesn't factor in......by that definition someone who squirts out a decent performance at the beginning and end of their career with nothing but schlock inbewteen is a master thespian? The Chicago Bears Super Bowl metaphor is more valid (IMO).

And am I the only one here who just doesn't like Jack or his performances? Like none, if he's in the film I just completely avoid it.