No Oscar for DiCaprio? Here's why

[FaheemSaeed]

i thought its going to be that AMERICAN HUSTLE Guy

he did mind blowing amazing acting in the movie

personally loved every single second watching it

and the ACTOR who WON OSCAR he's that SAHARA Movie Guy

yeah i have never seen his movies any other than SAHARA

 

[abobobilly]

^^ The Academy loves a performance which has a disability/or handicap or anything like that.

Or when its borderline racist ... or presenting "American Culture" in "mightiest" possible way.

If you wanna see some A+ Grade Hypocrisy then watch the Oscar Nominations.

 

[Lord Ammar]

Except for Nebraska I've seen all best actor nominated films. There is no way in hell anyone can say Leo was better than either Mathew or Chiwetel. He didn't win because every year he's nominated, there is someone just truly and outrightly better than him.

- - - Updated - - -

^^ The Academy loves a performance which has a disability/or handicap or anything like that.

Because they're always the most difficult roles to portray. Much more difficult than a cool dude in Wolf of Wall Street.

 

[Lord Ammar]

We outta know by now that DiCaprio's Oscar related fiasco is more to do with Hollywood Politics than his "deserving" capabilities.

Personally, i think Oscar is just a piece of metal. He is known for his performance and thats what matters.

HOWEVER, Hollywood doesn't seem to think along such lines. So its understandable why DiCaprio's Oscar is being made a big deal.

You're always playing the blame game without ever backing up your claims so let me do it for you. Let's have a look at the last three nominations Leo got, and look at who won instead.

• 2004 - Jamie Foxx.
• 2006 - Forest Whitaker
• 2014 - Mathew McConaughey

I've seen all these movies, including the ones Leo was in. There is no way anyone can claim Leo's performance in each of these years was better the guys who did win.

The Hollywood politics argument is just laughable. Leo isn't a Pakistani or he isn't a Muslim. He was born in California.

- - - Updated - - -

If Leo really is that desperate for an Oscar, he should do what Brad Pitt is doing. Start producing good movies.

 

[ASKnASK]

He is beyond Oscars Earns more, is loved more (and watched more) than most of the people who usually win. He'll get one eventually.. They can't ignore him forever.

 

[abobobilly]

You're always playing the blame game without ever backing up your claims so let me do it for you. Let's have a look at the last three nominations Leo got, and look at who won instead.

• 2004 - Jamie Foxx.
• 2006 - Forest Whitaker
• 2014 - Mathew McConaughey

I've seen all these movies, including the ones Leo was in. There is no way anyone can claim Leo's performance in each of these years was better the guys who did win.

The Hollywood politics argument is just laughable. Leo isn't a Pakistani or he isn't a Muslim. He was born in California.

If Leo really is that desperate for an Oscar, he should do what Brad Pitt is doing. Start producing good movies.

You make it look like as i am a fan of Leo. I AM NOT. But then i don't turn a blind eye to the "consistent bullseye" performances Leo gave on screen.

And i don't understand. How can someone claim (imply) that acting straight (as in without any disability or so) is easier. If that was the case then Leo should've gotten one for Aviator. Instead, they let him settle for a Golden Globe.

I mentioned about "Hollywood" politics, not "American Politics". As in "Movie Industry's Politics". How the f*ck does "Zero Dark Thirty" films can win awards? I tell you how ... "Politics".

As for playing the blame game without ever backing up your claims ... some facts don't need to be backed up when there are obvious examples out there. I for one value "consistent performance" more, than the one-time performance. Don't think for a second that i don't think those actors who did win, are not any good. They are exceptional. But when it comes to awards, there are either just too many to give awards to, or its simple politics which favors some more over others.

 

[Lord Ammar]

As for playing the blame game without ever backing up your claims ... some facts don't need to be backed up when there are obvious examples out there. I for one value "consistent performance" more, than the one-time performance. Don't think for a second that i don't think those actors who did win, are not any good. They are exceptional. But when it comes to awards, there are either just too many to give awards to, or its simple politics which favors some more over others.

So you don't disagree that the people who won instead should really have won over Leo. What's political then?

And consistent performance has got nothing to do with awards. Awards are handed out for performances in the past 12 months. By that logic no newcommer should ever win.

- - - Updated - - -

He is beyond Oscars Earns more, is loved more (and watched more) than most of the people who usually win. .

If only that was a criteria to win an Oscar. Jim Carrey would have won for every movie he does. Tom Hanks too.

 

[Deadly Shadow]

I've seen all these movies, including the ones Leo was in. There is no way anyone can claim Leo's performance in each of these years was better the guys who did win.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but it just that; Your opinion. Many would (understandably) disagree.

 

[Lord Ammar]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but it just that; Your opinion. Many would (understandably) disagree.

Well the Academy agrees :laugh1: