-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
First of all, what the fuck is it with Canadian news websites? Every link to one (usually from Tahna) I've ever clicked on has taken upwards of five minutes to load. . .
Still not up. So, what do I think based on my own knowledge of this subject?
First off, the likely nomination of DDL which makes anything else "irrelevant." I've not seen Gangs of New York, and even though it is Scorcese, I can't stand bloody DiCaprio and if I see that clip where he tells Cameron Diaz that it'll all be over tomorrow once more, I'm going to scream.
Hey, it's finally loaded. Hmm, interesting.
And I've not seen any of the other films they mention as having likely Best Supporting Actor nominations, so I'm not going to discount Serkis on that point.
So, is his performance Oscar-worthy in and of itself? More than likely. Will it be recognised as such? No way in hell. The mere fact that the end of the day he's just doing a voice for a cartoon character will count against him. Why give some unknown British theatre actor one of cinema's highest rewards when the supporting gongs traditionally go to someone more famous who'll never get an Oscar otherwise?
No doubt when, just before next Christmas, the Two Towers special edition comes out, there'll be loads of making-of features included which show how much he did toward the role, the blue-suit work etc. Perhaps then, if his role in Return of the King is suitably impressive, the two might combine in the Academy voters minds and he might just get a chance.
posted
Very perceptive. I hope your theory strikes home, if Serkis doesn't get it this time around.
The character of Gollum/Sm�agol is so integral and complex to the story (carried on since Bilbo), unlike Dobby House-Elf or Jar-Jar Downs-syndrome (I refer strictly to the movie depictions of these characters).
I must say, looking at Andy Serkis' photo, when we bear in mind what they managed with Lurz the Uruk-Hai, Gandalf, Saruman and Withered-Theoden, I am certain they could've come very close to the real thing with Serkis' face using prosthetics only. His eyes are very much Gollum-material.
But the CGI was spot-on, hands down.
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
The likelihood of Daniel Day Lewis winning does not make Andy Serkis' nomination irrelevant. A nomination is an honour, and something that looks very good on your resume.
So Tom Hanks was nominated for (but didn't win) for Big. In fact, that nomination actually helped his career.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Do they realize that, far from simply "voicing" the character, he had to act out the part twice: once on camera w/ the other actors, and again in the motion-capture suit?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:First of all, what the fuck is it with Canadian news websites?
Well not all Canadian news websites are like that just the national post, (Rightwing=slow)
And yes Andy should get the nod for BSA, I doubt if he will win but he should be nominated.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
LM
Ex-Member
posted
Andy Serkis has been getting some awards lately for his performance as Gollum, and he's actually competing with other actors for the supporting role Oscar, but i can't see the Academy giving him the nomination, let alone the Oscar itself.
Not that he doesn't deserve, for he played the role very well, but this year has an exceptional list of supporting actors, and let's remember Serkis didn't get nominated for the Golden Globes - then again, neither did Ian Mckellen for his Gandalf, and he got nominated for the Oscar.
posted
I seriously doubt the Academy members have the guts to nominate him. The first time this voice versus performance thing came up was thirty years ago, when Linda Blair was nominated for "The Exorcist" even though the character actress Mercedes McCambridge provided the possessed Reagan's creepy voice. The Academy got a lot of bad press for that, and it's ignored voice performances ever since. Frankly, I think it's more likely that you'll see someone nominated for their work in a strictly animated film, though God knows when that will be. (I thought Eddie Murphy deserved a BSA nod for doing Donkey.) It's a shame, because Andy Serkis did a hell of a job with Gollum; he deserves the recognition.
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
