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

Heineken Helen

pjsteelerfan wrote:

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

there was certainly no arguing on my part and i didn't feel that from you either... thought we both discussed our differing opinions quite respectfully actually so slap on the back for you and for me

Horos

Sorry to confuse you Helen, I just hate to misspell things and wasn't sure about Ledger.

milarso

soulsinging wrote:

milarso wrote:

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.

Just a matter of opinion I guess. Ledger played a good role in a good movie.
The thing with Downey Jr. that got me was that he stole the show in an OK movie full of big names. I thought his performance was great too in the sense that,IMO, he did a great job acting in a comedy.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have voted for him I if I had a vote. But I wouldn't have voted for Ledger either.
I thought PSH was the hands down best.
Again, just a matter of opinion.

Heineken Helen

Horos wrote:

Sorry to confuse you Helen, I just hate to misspell things and wasn't sure about Ledger.

it's ok... confusing me is easily done... very easily!

CROJAM95

Where do u think I stand on the topic


WILL SMITH said it best last night....this genre gets no love from the ass licking academy....cause these films actually have fans

not dissing any other film, I like all kinds of movie's, but it seems they go out of there way to not give due when its justified

TDK was a solid film for many reasons....HEATH stole every scene, and he deserved it...period, just my 2 cents

Heineken Helen

CROJAM95 wrote:

Where do u think I stand on the topic


WILL SMITH said it best last night....this genre gets no love from the ass licking academy....cause these films actually have fans

hmm... that's an interesting point... I wonder is it something to do with some movies being considered art, while with comic movies, it's the original comic that is actually the art... but then most movies have to be written by somebody so is it the book/screenplay that's the actual art? Bleh, don't mind me, just thinking aloud

Who Princess

CROJAM95 wrote:

Where do u think I stand on the topic


WILL SMITH said it best last night....this genre gets no love from the ass licking academy....cause these films actually have fans

not dissing any other film, I like all kinds of movie's, but it seems they go out of there way to not give due when its justified

TDK was a solid film for many reasons....HEATH stole every scene, and he deserved it...period, just my 2 cents

Agreed. Why wasn't it nominated for BEST PICTURE? Oh yeah, right.
While I'm on the subject, why no nominations for Iron Man, a great action film where for once the effects didn't detract from the story.

IMHO not only did Heath deserve his win, he should have been honored for Brokeback Mountain 3 years ago.

swede

I think heath ledger deserved it and would have and should have won it even if he hadnt passed away - that role he did gave me chills, gives me chills and even now when i think of it gives me chills - not many perfomances do that... sensational.

I dunno, each are open to their own opinions, that is just mine.

Cheers

grats ledger! wish you could be around longer to produce even more greatness

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

Yeah, but how many actors get a scenery-chewing character like that and end up totally hamming it up? Think of Gary Oldman in Leon... an entertaining performance to be sure, but nobody saw that and thought "give the man an Oscar!" Hell, you could say the same about Philip Seymour Hoffman in MI:3... phenomenal actor given a psychotic villain and doing an adequate but unmemorable job of it. I would also say the same of Nicholson's performance as the Joker... he hammed it up big time and it was entertaining but not Oscar-worthy. Ditto for Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor... great actor, great role, good performance, but nothing award-worthy.

Ledger was given the same kind of role... the kind of role that seems predestined to become an over-the-top cheesefest... but he turned it into a very disturbing and chilling character. That is a relatively rare achievement... and everyone I can think of that did the same thing has won as Oscar for it... see Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men, Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, etc.

You can say you weren't impressed with the performance or you think others were better, but it's bullshit to say he didn't deserve anything and only got nominated because he died. Plenty of actors have died and not been nominated (again, Brandon Lee) and plenty others have given similar performances and won even though they didn't die.

swede

I agree with a lot of what soul singing has to say... good points