And Chalamet nearly swept the critic trifecta for CMBYN, itās not a one to one comparison. CMBYN/Gilbert Grape=breakthrough performances that establishes their name and leads to bigger roles, ACU/Aviator=biopic roles that earns them their second noms and fully establishes them as more than just the pretty Hollywood it boy.
I never called him overdue (some have but I wouldnāt agree with that yet). But was saying heās at the stage Leo was two decades ago of being Hollywood it boy who is continuing to gain respect as a prestige actor.
Kind of. All of his movies that made money were based on existing IP. Can he actually carry an original idea? Thereās a difference between being Wonka and cosplaying as Dylan and being an actual movie star.
I guess you're right that my point wasn't really a rebuttal to your point. But your point wasn't really a rebuttal to the earlier point, because you seem to be arguing that one has to be able to carry a film while portraying a new character to be a movie star. That kind of star doesn't really exist anymore - there are basically no blockbusters that float on the name of an actor. Chalamet is about as close as there is to a modern movie star, and is an excellent actor.
The original post of this thread was saying heās a star. A new character makes it so that the majority of people are showing up for the actor rather than the IP. I agree that a lot has changed. Tom Cruise is among the last few real movie stars. I guess itās all dependent on how you quantify it. I do really like him, just wish he would do more original things (and that applies to Hollywood in general!). Even Bones and All is based on a book.
Almost like one was a good adaptation and one wasnāt. Lynch even had his name removed from it. Villenueve and the first movie being great has more to do with its success than Chalamet playing Paul. Replace him and they would still be great movies.
Chalamet is technically great but there's zero passion in his acting. He doesn't create a character, he just follows the script without adding anything new.Ā
I mean, it makes sense. The youngest winner for best actress was 21, and the youngest best actor winner was 29, so there's more precedent for a younger actress winning. Also, as someone else in the comments pointed out, there are a lot more roles for men in their forties and fifties than for women, so there are more veterans to award in the best actor category, which we all know the Academy loves to do.
It might even be more than ten I just remember a while back I looked it up on wiki and the list of 10 youngest best actress winners were under 28. I didnāt look further into it as they didnāt list more than the youngest 10
I just looked it up and if I counted right there were 24 actresses age 28 or younger when they won. I didnāt go into like how many days into 29 any of them were, hell Jodie Foster was 29 and some days when she won her second, but yeah thereās at least 24 Best Actress winners younger than Adrien Brody was when he became the youngest Best Actor winner.
I disagree. I think Timothee and the other young actors nominated in the past are plenty respected, it's just that the Academy prefers to award veteran actors who have earned some kind of lifetime achievement, and it doesn't feel that way about older actresses to the same extent. Really, I think that if there's an operative "-ism," it's just sexism.
This is of course mostly true. But for male Oscars exclusively youāre penalized for being too young. So yes theyāre respected, not to the extent theyāll win an academy award.
It's the fact that they unconsciously (or not) think actresses have expiration dates but actors still have time.Ā
Even if better roles are being created for elder women, especially if they're the producers of the project, not every actress gets the opportunities Meryl or McDormand get, in contrast with older actors.Ā
Which ends affecting younger actors' chances like Chalamet or back then a young Leonardo DiCaprio.
Sorry for jumping down ur throat. Thereās a post on here that says that the Academy likes to wait, for men, until theyāve got a number of great movies done so when they get their award itās more like theyāre getting a lifetime achievement award. That is ass backward
Someone brought up before that young males getting snubbed from wins in lead categories is actually a result of misogyny towards female actresses. Men in general (doesnāt matter the age) get more opportunities to lead in films. More stories are written by men and for men. Due to the imbalance, older actresses get the short end of the stick while thereās an influx of older actors every awards season. Thatās why itās easier for younger actresses to win vs younger actors. Itās like a domino effect
Itās also that actresses often play older - Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings is a case in point. The character in the book is in her late 30s but Lawrence was in her early 20s.
Opposite age biases. Women will find it hard to find work when they're older, but the industry is more than happy to reward them when they're young and pretty.
They won't respect Chalamet until he stops being young and pretty.Ā
It's an article.about the types of trends and prevailing attitudes that the anonymous quotes might indicate. It only doesn't make sense if you can't parse that for some reason.
This proves nothing. No one has won the Oscar yet lol. Also, actresses have been victims of the āthereās still time to reward themā mentality too. Michelle Pfeiffer?
I'm not saying that the "There's time for them" do not affect women, how could i even say this after Gabourey Sidibe lost to Sandra Bullock for her white savior role?? But it DOES affect young men more.
Lol not if he wanted to win. Blockbusters have huge stigma with Oscar voters, and a bob Dylan biopic is like catnip for the older voters (who are the most likely to be biased against him)
Oh yea prior to Dune part 2, I just dismissed him and don't give a shit about him but after his speech in Dune Part 2. Holy moly cow! Man that was awesome!
Couldn't disagree more. Paul Atreides is a boring, flat character. His performance in Dune is fine but there just isn't much to the role. Blame the source material- lack of characterization and emphasis on the mythos and ideas is standard for OG sci-fi.
Dylan, on the other hand is a much more enigmatic and interesting character (in spite of being a real person), and Chalamet does an excellent job of conveying that.
I disagree. I think he was much better, and had much
more to do, in A Complete Unknown. I did like Dune 2 much better overall, but the performances arenāt the most important part of that movie, imo.
Does anyone actually think Chalemet gave a better performance than Brody? Call me naive but I honestly think Brody simply gave one of those undeniable performances that overrides industry narratives
Frankly I think Brodyās performance was good, but Pearce and Jones both outshine him. No idea why he is the one between the three of them getting singled out for Oscar buzz.
Literally, huh? Well it would appear that āliterallyā everyone disagrees with you at that point, considering he is the most rewarded leading actor performance of the year by critics and industry groups alike
The Best Actress category doesnāt seem to follow the same logic as Best Actor when it comes to age. And is Timmyās performance really better than Brodyās? Or Ralph Fiennesā? I donāt get why people are rooting for him so hard.
I mean, the Oscars donāt seem to give Best Actor to someone too young, but theyāre more willing to award younger actresses. (Iām not talking about nominations, but actually winning.)
Actors tend to get good work as they age on top of having to need to work always. On top of that, a lot Actress also have to deal with being mothers too. Look at Jennifer Lawrence, she literally took a break for motherhood but like say Ryan Reynolds who had many children with Blake Lively just working regardless.
Because i think that the voters should care about the actual performance and not with the age/carrer and i absolutely hate the "There's time for him to win" argument
Im more focused on who compared Mikey Madison in Anora to Brie Larson in Room, two wildly different performances that showed completely different aspects of their performers.
I don't think that Chalamet is the best one this season, but if they think that the nominee's age is more important than their performance, they aren't valuing art.
Maybe Iām wrong, but I feel like thereās less room given for women to have lifelong careers in acting. I feel like Hollywood obsesses over a few (typically white) stars at a time (ex: Jennifer Lawrence), gives them a bunch of roles, and then when audiences get bored of them or they āage outā they get less roles and suddenly their careers are a lot smaller scale than they used to be. Again, I may not be entirely right, after all, thereās lifelong careers of folks like Meryl Streep to counter this argument, but I just always feel like the women that win Best Actress rarely continue to have lifelong serious acting careers. Emma Stone appears to be one example of an exception so far, but when I look at Brie Larson or Jennifer Lawrence or Hillary Swank it feels like they get this moment where everyone loves them and then theyāre forgotten. However, I think stars like Natalie Portman, Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, and Cate Blanchett might prove this point moot, as theyāve had long careers full of noms and wins. However, I do think itās an interesting concept because I do feel that men arenāt talked about in the same way.
Chalamet has done a lot of great work over the past 10 years, worked with esteemed director after esteemed director, been nominated for Best Actor twice, and been in 6 Best Picture nominated films. None of his roles feel the same and they all show off his talent and range.
Holland is a good actor, but is only known for Spider-Man. He hasnāt really showed off his range. In the stuff he has done that isnāt Spider-Man, they either havenāt been well-received or seen at all. Not to mention he went after Scorsese after his comments about Marvel.
Theyāre not lol. I try to watch a new movie at least once a day! Iām just saying because The Odyssey literally comes out next year with Tom as the leadā¦
I guess we'll also just ignore the fact that she was fucking phenomenal and deserves the award she was nominated for, meanwhile his performance doesn't come close to the others in the category. Also, personal opinion, he was better in Dune 2 and should've been nominated for that
Mikey was by far the best actress this year, would be a small injustice if they give a career Oscar to Moore. Chalamet just did Oscar bait in complete unknown.
Chalamet is an established actor already and has been nominated before. Heās had great performances, but none of them have been āthe bestā. Itās different for Mikey since her performance is deemed as the most memorable by many this year.
Geez he just looks young ā¦ heās 29 years old ā¦. the work he did was terrific ā¦. but heās got steep competition with Brody and Fiennes and although it wasnāt available as yet i hear Domingo was stunning in Sing Sing
Well the double standards exists because women have a harder time getting good roles as they get older. Sure there are a few Meryl Streeps but most have a hard time getting work after 40.
Actresses tend to be far younger when they win even if that trend is shifting a bit. So much so that a majority of actresses win at a younger age than the youngest male winners
Chalametās actual talent and his accolades at his age donāt match. Heās not the best actor of his class and very far from the best leading man in Hollywood.
I'll say this again and again but "there's time for him" isn't the same thing as saying "he's too young."
"There's time for him" is pushing back at the "overdue" narrative that we've been seeing, and also explains why amongst many reasonable choices this voter might choose someone else.
The Academy is not deeming Chalamet as anything, and he's been consistently not winning awards in multiple contests--even ones where being young is a benefit. It just doesn't seem to be his year.
Besides that, the reviews by serious critics have been quite divided here--they mostly agree that he's fine enough, but that the boomer music biopic thing is a bit tired, and that the film has a lot of the weaknesses endemic to that subgenre.
Unpopular opinion: I donāt think Leo actually deserved many of the Oscars he got āsnubbedā for over the years š¬
He is a good actor but I oftentimes feel like heās āshowingā or overdoing it. Like with many other actors that are peers of his I feel immersed in the characterās world and oftentimes with him its like āIām watching Leonardo Dicaprio try for an Oscarā haha. Heās also terrible at accents lol. He deserves praise forsure, but heās always talked about like he is the best actor on earth and so many others come to mind first for me before him.
Of his nominations, he easily shouldāve won for Wolf of Wall Street, doesnāt even matter about the others, case closed. The real issue is the Oscars often donāt even nominate to actual worthy ones (Catch Me If You Can)
In acting women's careers are kinda like dog years. Except in your 20's and 30's add 7, in your 40's and 50's add 14, and if you're over 50 you're 80/ a grandma
You're 25 Mikey? That's 32 in showbiz. Emma Stone is 36, but she sure looks good for someone in her 40's
Maybe, but I certainly felt vindicated after she had been terrible in basically every film after. So I truly feel that a narrative won rather than a performance that year.
240
u/Healthy-Passenger-22 Feb 19 '25
Well, it's not like this is Chalamet's first nomination. He's already a star.