2008 Best Supporting Actor Oscar Nominees Thread

[hammersavage]

Wanted to put this in the your life's a movie but couldn't post a new thread.

The ceremony will be held February 24th, 2008 unless it's derailed by the strike. And with only 2 1/2 months to go, we can start to discuss the nominees for the big awards. I figured we'd start with Best Supporting Actor. Feel free to go back to this thread when new movies roll out. But here is my list so far.

Possible nominees:
Hal Holbrook 'Into the Wild'
Casey Affleck 'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Sheepy'
Tom Wilkinson 'Michael Clayton'
Ben Foster '3:10 to Yuma'


Names that will be added once I actually see them:
Paul Dano 'There Will Be Blood'
Javier Bardem 'No Country for Old Men'
Ethan Hawk 'Before the Devil Knows your Dead'
Philip Seymour Hoffman 'Charlie Wilson's War'


My front runner so far is Casey Affleck. I thought he was great. Anyone have some to add and we'll pick a winner before the Oscars geh, geh, geh.

[zentraed]

Umm, Casey Affleck as Supporting Actor? Why wouldn't he be considered the "Actor"? Wasn't the movie really about Robert Ford?

[TheMojoPin]

Umm, Casey Affleck as Supporting Actor? Why wouldn't he be considered the "Actor"? Wasn't the movie really about Robert Ford?

Nah, it's about both. I think you could nominate both of them for Best Actor.

That said, if Affleck is relegated to this category, which he no dobut will since Pitt is the bigger star, I'd pick him, though Javier Bardem is right behind him. I'd pick Affleck because he just gives such a beautiful and well-rounded performance and really creates an entire character. Bardem is amazing, but he's ulitmately just in "absolute badass" mode the whole movie with little else beyond that.

[patsopinion]

am i the only person that is fucking sick of westerns
wtf
let it go
their guns were inferior
their general technology sucked
shitty movies

whats wrong with die hard formula and why arent more actors going to that?

[TheMojoPin]

am i the only person that is fucking sick of westerns
wtf
let it go
their guns were inferior
their general technology sucked
shitty movies

whats wrong with die hard formula and why arent more actors going to that?

I don't think I've ever hated anyone over their taste in movies as much as I utterly and completely loathe every aspect of your being and soul at this very moment.

[patsopinion]

I don't think I've ever hated anyone over their taste in movies as much as I utterly and completely loathe every aspect of your being and soul at this very moment.

whats the obsession with westerns?
i dont get it

[TheMojoPin]

whats the obsession with westerns?
i dont get it

No, you clearly don't. To just dismiss them all as "shitty movies" when your main reasons are "inferior guns" and that "the general technology sucked" is absurd. And what's the "obsession" that you're seeing? A handful of westerns, like 3-4, come out each year, if that. You're apparently only looking at them as action flicks, which the best ones are so far beyond being. They exist as an analogy for America...what we thought we could do, what we've lost, what we could have been. "The West" was the last true primal American mythology and frontier, and as such it's always going to hold a certain mystique and appeal that lends itself to great films. To say you've never seen a good or great western means you're either going out of your way to avoid them or you're just a goddman liar.

[zentraed]

whats the obsession with westerns?
i dont get it

I'm going to tip my hat to Deadwood for me getting me back on board. I finally watched it this summer. Western or not, Casey Affleck's performances in "The Assasination of..." was incredible.

I actually fell asleep during Die Hard 4.

[patsopinion]

no ive seen a number of good westerns but im sick of em

why do ppl like em so much
it just doesnt register as being anything special for me
never got why these characters were soo cool

[TheMojoPin]

no ive seen a number of good westerns but im sick of em

why do ppl like em so much
it just doesnt register as being anything special for me
never got why these characters were soo cool

Again, why are you "sick of them?" The genre is all but dead. So few westerns come out each year, and sometimes none at all. How can you get sick of something that's barely around these days?

And re-read my last post. It's just my opinion, but that's why I feel the western has had such an appeal and power. America no longer has a great frontier or unknown like the "Old West" was back in the day. It represents the turning point when we went from old America into modern America. It was the last bastion of untamed wildness, in nature and in society and in man, that this country ever knew and ever will know.

[zentraed]

No, you clearly don't. To just dismiss them all as "shitty movies" when your main reasons are "inferior guns" and that "the general technology sucked" is absurd. And what's the "obsession" that you're seeing? A handful of westerns, like 3-4, come out each year, if that. You're apparently only looking at them as action flicks, which the best ones are so far beyond being. They exist as an analogy for America...what we thought we could do, what we've lost, what we could have been. "The West" was the last true primal American mythology and frontier, and as such it's always going to hold a certain mystique and appeal that lends itself to great films. To say you've never seen a good or great western means you're either going out of your way to avoid them or you're just a goddman liar.

A western "action" flick would be missing what makes the stories so compelling in the first place. Heroes and villains are so often determined by circumstance. Every man has to dance with the devil and decide what he's going to fight for.

I can't even name a western that came out last year. "The Proposition" maybe, but that's not even American.

[TheMojoPin]

A western "action" flick would be missing what makes the stories so compelling in the first place. Heroes and villains are so often determined by circumstance. Every man has to dance with the devil and decide what he's going to fight for.

I can't even name a western that came out last year. "The Proposition" maybe, but that's not even American.

Exactly, on everything you said. The best westerns blur the line between "good and bad" beautifully that they end up being those incredible studies in human nature and more reflective of the world as it is. Things aren't just black and white/good and evil.

This year is unusual in how many westerns have come out. Plus you can can confound things with a film like No Country For Old Men. I don't care when it's set, I'll be damned if anyone tells me that movie doesn't meet all the hallmarks of a great and true western.

[patsopinion]

Exactly, on everything you said. The best westerns blur the line between "good and bad" beautifully that they end up being those incredible studies in human nature and more reflective of the world as it is. Things aren't just black and white/good and evil.

This year is unusual in how many westerns have come out. Plus you can can confound things with a film like No Country For Old Men. I don't care when it's set, I'll be damned if anyone tells me that movie doesn't meet all the hallmarks of a great and true western.

well then would you consider la confidential a western
no country for me is def not a western in that it doesnt have horses and six shooters which are the movies i take issue with
just because im fucking sick of horses and six shooters as a genre
i mean that is the most exploited period and place in american history outside of ww2

[TheMojoPin]

well then would you consider la confidential a western

Of course not. It's film noir. NCFOM definitely has noir elements, hence why most people have been calling it "western noir" or a "noir western." Cormac McCarthy writes modern westerns. Westerns in terms of style don't have to be only set in the 19th century or restricted to certain types or levels of technology. The appeal of the genre goes far beyond those kind of superficial distinctions.

no country for me is def not a western in that it doesnt have horses and six shooters which are the movies i take issue with
just because im fucking sick of horses and six shooters as a genre

Good westerns are not defined by "horses and six shooters." You're too hung up on tech, apparently...I suppose you're not a fan of any film that doesn't use modern weaponry, since that's all you're focus on. It's ridiculous to boil down a genre as broad as westerns to the guns they use. So far your complaints amount to superficial asthetics and nothing else. The love of westerns goes far beyond the love of the guns and the horses.

i mean that is the most exploited period and place in american history outside of ww2

What does this even mean? "Exploited?" And what period of history? Western films as a stylistic genre cover a range of around 200 years.

By this logic, your beloved "action" movies suck since they're all about machine guns and have "exploited" the 80's and 90's. Gangster movies must be horrible since they're all about handguns and tommy guns and have "exploited" the last century.

[patsopinion]

i just cant relate to horses as transit and fucking muskets

[TheMojoPin]

i just cant relate to horses as transit and fucking muskets

Oh my God.

First, tell me what you think a "musket" is. Then name me one western where they use "muskets." Most westerns are filled with guns that are still used today, or were used well into the 20th century.

Secondly, there are plenty of westerns that have cars in them, and almost all of them involve trains, so don't act like people were only getting aroudn by horses.

Thirdly, are you basically saying you don't like any movie in a time period before the automobile was commonly used?