Page 1 of 2
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 10:20 pm
by Big Magilla
I always thought Nolan shuld have gotten Russ Tamblyn's slot on the nominations list, but Sessue Hayakawa should have won.
Hayakawa was a matinee idol throughout the 1910s and 20s, starring oppoiste some of Hollywood's then top leading ladies. There was no racial divide operating in Hollywood until the talkies came along and roles that he might have played went to Caucasians in squinty eyed make-up.
His great comeback performance was in Three Came Home for which he should have been nominated in 1950. His role in The Bridge on the River Kwai is but a shadow of that great performance, but it was the only opportunity AMPAS ever had to honor him but the membership with its short memory decided TV has-been Red Buttons was more deserving.
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 10:06 pm
by Penelope
Wow. That's really a shame; Nolan shoulda got the spot that Arthur Kennedy took in Supporting.
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 9:52 pm
by Damien
Penelope wrote:Really? 20th Century-Fox promoted Nolan for Lead? Or that's just your opinion of where he should be classified?
Yes, he was promoted as a lead. I remember it specifically because Mason and I saw Peyton Place while we were first writing Inside Oscar and agreed he should have been nominated for -- and probably won -- Supporting Actor and were surprised he was overlooked. Then shortly after we saw the reminder list where he was listed as a lead.
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 9:39 pm
by criddic3
You it's kinda funny, because President Bush has met the Queen before. I recall a formal dinner a while back where Mr. Bush was decked out in a tuxedo and he made a very nice speech about how the two countries are intertwined in history as friends. There was no hitch to that night. I think some of the media are playing a game with this, as usual. But in the interest of peace, I will go along with Sabin and avoid this particular discussion about Bush vs. Queen and move on.
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 8:10 pm
by Penelope
Damien wrote:Penelope wrote:Ha!! Lloyd Nolan in Peyton Place.
Lloyd Nolan is wonderful in Peyton Place, and certainly Oscar-worthy, but for Academy purposes he was considered a lead.
Really? 20th Century-Fox promoted Nolan for Lead? Or that's just your opinion of where he should be classified?
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 7:02 pm
by Damien
Penelope wrote:Ha!! Lloyd Nolan in Peyton Place.
Lloyd Nolan is wonderful in Peyton Place, and certainly Oscar-worthy, but for Academy purposes he was considered a lead.
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:59 pm
by Damien
Sabin wrote:FUCK YOU, YOU LIBERAL DIPSHIT! Sessue Hayakawa!
You say Sessue Hayakawa but you really want it to be George W. Bush!
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 5:35 pm
by Penelope
Ha!! Lloyd Nolan in Peyton Place.
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 4:19 pm
by Sabin
FUCK YOU, YOU LIBERAL DIPSHIT! Sessue Hayakawa!
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 2:15 pm
by Damien
Sabin wrote:I say this with a very strong opinion of the one poster's thought process on this issue, but in lieu of any actual progress getting done I recommend we do something a little more useful like poll who should've won Best Supporting Actor in 1957.
Richard Boone in The Tall T. :p
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 1:41 am
by Sabin
I'm going to recommend that everybody involved bail on this thread and I'm not joking. It started stupid and it's getting uglier. It's not going to go anywhere for reasons that have been determined years and years prior.
I say this with a very strong opinion of the one poster's thought process on this issue, but in lieu of any actual progress getting done I recommend we do something a little more useful like poll who should've won Best Supporting Actor in 1957.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 12:01 am
by Damien
criddic3 wrote: It is incredibly dumb to think that anyone who is against the grain for whatever reason is somehow to be admired.
Well. that was your original premise, liar.
But hey, it's cool, just slink off and deal with the wood you got thinking about Worst President Ever, a man who actually lies more than you do (which I'm sure adds to the erotic quotient).
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:38 pm
by criddic3
Damien wrote:criddic3 wrote:So they were not people of integrity. It isn't just about standing up for what you believe, but standing up for what is right.
So you're now acknowledging that your original premise was a lie. You do not admire people willing to stand up for umpopular opinions, you only admire the people with whom you agree.
criddic, why don't you waste time and effort and instead of writing your lies, just address every issue with, "I love Worst President Ever. He gives me wood."
No, no. I admire people who stand up against what is wrong or for what is right, even when it is unpopular. It is incredibly dumb to think that anyone who is against the grain for whatever reason is somehow to be admired. Sometimes the majority is right and sometimes it is wrong. It is up to individuals to decide which is the truth and which is not. I will not let you talk to me like I'm some nut who doesn't know the difference. My original concept is the same as the one I am giving now. I cannot be called a liar for speaking the truth. You have a problem with my politics, and you have a problem with the way I present them. Fine. I get it. But the more you call me a liar, the more I'm gonna defend myself against it.
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 6:20 pm
by Damien
criddic3 wrote:So they were not people of integrity. It isn't just about standing up for what you believe, but standing up for what is right.
So you're now acknowledging that your original premise was a lie. You do not admire people willing to stand up for umpopular opinions, you only admire the people with whom you agree.
criddic, why don't you waste time and effort and instead of writing your lies, just address every issue with, "I love Worst President Ever. He gives me wood."
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 10:36 am
by Greg
criddic3 wrote:No fiddling around, saying, "let's wait for another attack before we make our next move."
criddic, there's nothing wrong with being gay; but, I think you should stop evalualting U.S. Presidents on the basis of who'd make the best top. Seriously.