Congratulations Heath Ledger

pjfan31

I am so happy that he was recognised for a truly great depiction. He deserves it.

milarso

pjfan31 wrote:

I am so happy that he was recognised for a truly great depiction. He deserves it.

I guess I'll be the dickhead.
Had he not died, he would have never even been in the conversation for an Oscar.
And the fact that he got the award over Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Doubt is a robbery.
To be honest, I thought Robert Downey Jr. was better too.

so-much-clearer

milarso wrote:

I guess I'll be the dickhead.
Had he not died, he would have never even been in the conversation for an Oscar.

That's my thought, too.

TDK was all overrated though.

pjfan31

Look, probably right, However I thought he was awesome. I haven't seen the movie with PSH but I am glad Heath won it.

ozpjman

milarso wrote:

pjfan31 wrote:

I am so happy that he was recognised for a truly great depiction. He deserves it.

I guess I'll be the dickhead.
Had he not died, he would have never even been in the conversation for an Oscar.
And the fact that he got the award over Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Doubt is a robbery.
To be honest, I thought Robert Downey Jr. was better too.

It's easy to say that isn't it?

Only 1 actor has won a posthumous Oscar, not the best odds for Heath, but that performance was worthy of an Oscar.

The performance may not have been your cup of tea, but it's wrong to suggest his death was the sole reason he won an Oscar.

I thought it was an excellent performance

Heineken Helen

milarso wrote:

pjfan31 wrote:

I am so happy that he was recognised for a truly great depiction. He deserves it.

I guess I'll be the dickhead.
Had he not died, he would have never even been in the conversation for an Oscar.
And the fact that he got the award over Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Doubt is a robbery.
To be honest, I thought Robert Downey Jr. was better too.

Agreed... Phillip Seymour Hoffman was absolutely unbelieveably amazing in doubt and could have won the oscar just reading the phone book... I would have liked Robert Downey Jr. to win though... Heath Ledger put in a good performance but oscar worthy??? Nope!

threefish10

i recall there was oscar talk surrounding his role even before he died. but yeah, it probably did help his chances.

i was just thinking today has any comic book type movies ever really been nominated for any oscars before? i could only think maybe the old school superman flicks but i don't know.

pjsteelerfan

I think Heath deserved it, but everyone has an opinion, so I can see why people say what he did with the character as just Good or OK. No way the Dark Knight makes over $500 million without his performance. Or of all the actors in this, people will still talk about his performance a few years down the line. I thought Hoffman did a great job, but in a year, no one will even remember Doubt. And Downey Jr did an amazing job in an OK movie. Neither of them had the expectations to live up to that Heath did, he carried a movie in a genre that Oscar voters hate. But you don't have to bring him down because he died.

Heineken Helen

pjsteelerfan wrote:

I think Heath deserved it, but everyone has an opinion, so I can see why people say what he did with the character as just Good or OK. No way the Dark Knight makes over $500 million without his performance. Or of all the actors in this, people will still talk about his performance a few years down the line. I thought Hoffman did a great job, but in a year, no one will even remember Doubt. And Downey Jr did an amazing job in an OK movie. Neither of them had the expectations to live up to that Heath did, he carried a movie in a genre that Oscar voters hate. But you don't have to bring him down because he died.

I guess that depends on your opinion. I thought Doubt was fantastic... one of the best films of the year and Hoffman and Streep put in two of the all time GREAT performances. I won't forget either of them for a long long time. Just because Heath put in a good performance in a genre that isn't usually performance driven doesn't mean he's more deserving. It should depend on the individual performance and Hoffman is a whole other league altogether.

pjsteelerfan

Heineken Helen wrote:

pjsteelerfan wrote:

I think Heath deserved it, but everyone has an opinion, so I can see why people say what he did with the character as just Good or OK. No way the Dark Knight makes over $500 million without his performance. Or of all the actors in this, people will still talk about his performance a few years down the line. I thought Hoffman did a great job, but in a year, no one will even remember Doubt. And Downey Jr did an amazing job in an OK movie. Neither of them had the expectations to live up to that Heath did, he carried a movie in a genre that Oscar voters hate. But you don't have to bring him down because he died.

I guess that depends on your opinion. I thought Doubt was fantastic... one of the best films of the year and Hoffman and Streep put in two of the all time GREAT performances. I won't forget either of them for a long long time. Just because Heath put in a good performance in a genre that isn't usually performance driven doesn't mean he's more deserving. It should depend on the individual performance and Hoffman is a whole other league altogether.

True, but I guess you could also argue that Hoffman had other great performances that helped his. Streep was as good or better than Hoffmans. You could argue that Adams was as good as well. All time though? And I am a big fan of Hoffman and Streep. I agree as an overall actor, Hoffman is way better.And I am not saying Heaths win was more deserving because it was in genre that is not performance driven, the Oscars usually does not like any thing Comic, Sci-Fi, Fantasy anyway. I am saying he carried the movie pretty much by himself, Hoffman did not do that. I did not have anyone come up to me saying "you have to see Hoffman in Doubt" or did you see it because of him? I did for Heath, and Downey, and Rourke. He trancended his genre and made people that would not normally see the movie go just for him. I would say that is pretty good of an individual performance.

Heineken Helen

pjsteelerfan wrote:

True, but I guess you could also argue that Hoffman had other great performances that helped his. Streep was as good or better than Hoffmans. You could argue that Adams was as good as well. All time though? And I am a big fan of Hoffman and Streep. I agree as an overall actor, Hoffman is way better.And I am not saying Heaths win was more deserving because it was in genre that is not performance driven, the Oscars usually does not like any thing Comic, Sci-Fi, Fantasy anyway. I am saying he carried the movie pretty much by himself, Hoffman did not do that. I did not have anyone come up to me saying "you have to see Hoffman in Doubt" or did you see it because of him? I did for Heath, and Downey, and Rourke. He trancended his genre and made people that would not normally see the movie go just for him. I would say that is pretty good of an individual performance.

good points... the problem with acting with other great actors is that you have to be at your absolute best in order to make any impression. I don't think Streep overshadowed Hoffman... I thought they both complemented eachother... and THAT is an achievement... to up your performance to HER level. I never wanted to see the dark knight... I wasn't a fan of the comic book films but the bf is a HUGE fan of these so I just watched it to shut him up ... I thought it was pretty good but I didn't think he carried the film. Sure he was the most in your face character and the rest was much more subtle but whoever played that role would have had the responsibility of being that character. Sure Heath wasn't working with the same calibre of actors that Hoffman was... but should Hoffman be punished cos ALL the acting in the film was fantastic?

I've said to plenty of people 'you have to see Hoffman in doubt' you'll probably find at least 5 posts of mine here telling people to do so... trixiecat was saying the same.

soulsinging

milarso wrote:

pjfan31 wrote:

I am so happy that he was recognised for a truly great depiction. He deserves it.

I guess I'll be the dickhead.
Had he not died, he would have never even been in the conversation for an Oscar.
And the fact that he got the award over Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Doubt is a robbery.
To be honest, I thought Robert Downey Jr. was better too.

In Tropic Thunder? Don't get me wrong, he was great... but I don't know about that.

Heath was a shoe-in for a nomination. He was in the year's biggest movie and he stole the show while totally reinventing an American cultural icon. He deserved recognition and he would have gotten it regardless. If Johnny Depp can get nominated for being Jack Sparrow, Heath more than deserved his nomination and he'd have had it regardless.

pjsteelerfan

Heineken Helen wrote:

pjsteelerfan wrote:

True, but I guess you could also argue that Hoffman had other great performances that helped his. Streep was as good or better than Hoffmans. You could argue that Adams was as good as well. All time though? And I am a big fan of Hoffman and Streep. I agree as an overall actor, Hoffman is way better.And I am not saying Heaths win was more deserving because it was in genre that is not performance driven, the Oscars usually does not like any thing Comic, Sci-Fi, Fantasy anyway. I am saying he carried the movie pretty much by himself, Hoffman did not do that. I did not have anyone come up to me saying "you have to see Hoffman in Doubt" or did you see it because of him? I did for Heath, and Downey, and Rourke. He trancended his genre and made people that would not normally see the movie go just for him. I would say that is pretty good of an individual performance.

good points... the problem with acting with other great actors is that you have to be at your absolute best in order to make any impression. I don't think Streep overshadowed Hoffman... I thought they both complemented eachother... and THAT is an achievement... to up your performance to HER level. I never wanted to see the dark knight... I wasn't a fan of the comic book films but the bf is a HUGE fan of these so I just watched it to shut him up ... I thought it was pretty good but I didn't think he carried the film. Sure he was the most in your face character and the rest was much more subtle but whoever played that role would have had the responsibility of being that character. Sure Heath wasn't working with the same calibre of actors that Hoffman was... but should Hoffman be punished cos ALL the acting in the film was fantastic?

I've said to plenty of people 'you have to see Hoffman in doubt' you'll probably find at least 5 posts of mine here telling people to do so... trixiecat was saying the same.

I agree with your points too, I think both the best Actor and Best Supporting actor categories were pretty strong. I don't want to sound like I am knocking Hoffman for a fantastic performance, I just thought Heath did better with his role.

Heineken Helen

pjsteelerfan wrote:

I agree with your points too, I think both the best Actor and Best Supporting actor categories were pretty strong. I don't want to sound like I am knocking Hoffman for a fantastic performance, I just thought Heath did better with his role.

and, with that, I think we can respectfully agree to disagree then so cos I can see your points, you can see mine but I still think Hoffman was better... probably cos I thought the film was fantastic... if they'd have swapped roles, who knows, maybe now we'd be taking opposite sides of the argument . I just think Heath was helped by being GIVEN a scene stealing character... Hoffman's was just a dramatic character, nothing really amazing about it... but he MADE it amazing.

AmentsChick

Question. Do you argue simply for the sake of arguing? :roll:

Heineken Helen

AmentsChick wrote:

Question. Do you argue simply for the sake of arguing? :roll:

Answer: Nope, besides it's 'debating', not arguing.

Question: do you get annoyed simply for the sake of getting annoyed?

Horos

Stole my line Helen. I love reading all the debating that goes on here.

Not much of a movie goer myself so I can give an educated opinion, but I did see TDK and HL was very good. Really don't care who wins those stupid little statues anyway.

Heineken Helen

Horos wrote:

Stole my line Helen. I love reading all the debating that goes on here.

Not much of a movie goer myself so I can give an educated opinion, but I did see TDK and HL was very good. Really don't care who wins those stupid little statues anyway.

see my new thread

ok, I get that TDK is the dark knight... but I'm stumped with HL :oops: never was into abbreviations :oops:

chime

Heineken Helen wrote:

Horos wrote:

Stole my line Helen. I love reading all the debating that goes on here.

Not much of a movie goer myself so I can give an educated opinion, but I did see TDK and HL was very good. Really don't care who wins those stupid little statues anyway.

see my new thread

ok, I get that TDK is the dark knight... but I'm stumped with HL :oops: never was into abbreviations :oops:

*coughs* Heath Ledger *coughs*

pjsteelerfan

Heineken Helen wrote:

AmentsChick wrote:

Question. Do you argue simply for the sake of arguing? :roll:

Answer: Nope, besides it's 'debating', not arguing.

Question: do you get annoyed simply for the sake of getting annoyed?

Yep, just a debate on two good performances and why we each thought the other was better

Heineken Helen

Chime wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

Horos wrote:

Stole my line Helen. I love reading all the debating that goes on here.

Not much of a movie goer myself so I can give an educated opinion, but I did see TDK and HL was very good. Really don't care who wins those stupid little statues anyway.

see my new thread

ok, I get that TDK is the dark knight... but I'm stumped with HL :oops: never was into abbreviations :oops:

*coughs* Heath Ledger *coughs*

:oops: ok, that one really couldn't have been much more obvious... I was thinking of film titles