Another Oscar for Mel Gibson?

  • Thread starter Thread starter havana1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Like the previous post, I also think his odds are not good.

Hollywood hated his “The Passion of The Christ”, and the
only thing that saved it was that the public liked it and supported it.

IMHO,he does know how to make good movies, but I think if “Braveheart”
were to come out now instead of when it did, that all of his negative
publicity of late would have hurt it’s sucess.
 
havana1 said:
What are the odds? 🤷

deadline.com/2010/09/will-mel-gibson-become-a-late-player-in-this-years-oscar-race/
Click to expand...
Not a chance, IMHO. But that is just ME.

Gibson has made some tremendous, unforgettable movies, but his insane, out-of-control, frankly psychopathic behavior has ruined any chance he may have had of being a “player” in the Hollywood scene anymore. Also, Hollywood has not forgiven him for his vile Anti-Semitic, Mysoginistic outburst to a Policewoman some years ago. Again, not a chance. 😊

He also broke his vows of Marriage to the mother of his 7 children to marry someone else. Then threatened his new wife with death. Some devout Catholic.:rolleyes: I pray for him to find peace in Christ again and to “come home” to the Church again. 🤷
 
Oscar is not based on an actor’s personality or off-screen life or criminal record or past accomplishments. Plenty of actors have won who are not “Hollywood correct”. Even dead actors have won.

The Oscar for Acting is based on an actor’s performance in a film. If Mel Gibson out-acted everyone else in the flight of nominees, he has a good chance. With Jody Foster involved with his project, I would say he has an excellent chance; Foster is the epitome of Hollywood accomplishment these days. If you have her involved with your project it will succeed.

I frankly would not mind seeing him win if he has done a good job in the film, better than the other actors in the flight of nominees. Some of the best acting performances in in history have been given by actors who are/were “off” in some way–mentally ill, depressed, addicted, alcoholic, even criminal.

Heath Ledger comes to mind. This young man was nominated for an Oscar for his role as the Joker in the last Batman film. He was a method actor who believed in not just creating the role, but “being” the role. This is why he died–he worked too hard to actually “become” the Joker. Many actors and schools of acting have condemned method acting as dangerous, but actors continue to dabble in it.

Another actor that comes to mind is Errol Flynn. In fact, I compare Mel GIbson to Flynn, who was notorious in his time, but made a lot of popular “swashbuckler” movies that are loved by kids. I don’t think Flynn ever won an Oscar, but he was very popular.

Joan Crawford is another example. She was a marvelous actor, one of my favorites. But her private life–eugh.

Anyway, I say he has a chance. If he is nominated, much publicity will be garnered for the Academy, and many people who would normally not watch Oscar on TV will watch just to see if there are any fireworks. I’m guessing that Gibson would not attend the ceremony, and if he wins, an agent or some other representative would accept for him.
 
Cat said:
Oscar is not based on an actor’s personality or off-screen life or criminal record or past accomplishments. Plenty of actors have won who are not “Hollywood correct”. Even dead actors have won.

The Oscar for Acting is based on an actor’s performance in a film. If Mel Gibson out-acted everyone else in the flight of nominees, he has a good chance. With Jody Foster involved with his project, I would say he has an excellent chance; Foster is the epitome of Hollywood accomplishment these days. If you have her involved with your project it will succeed.

I frankly would not mind seeing him win if he has done a good job in the film, better than the other actors in the flight of nominees. Some of the best acting performances in in history have been given by actors who are/were “off” in some way–mentally ill, depressed, addicted, alcoholic, even criminal.

Heath Ledger comes to mind. This young man was nominated for an Oscar for his role as the Joker in the last Batman film. He was a method actor who believed in not just creating the role, but “being” the role. This is why he died–he worked too hard to actually “become” the Joker. Many actors and schools of acting have condemned method acting as dangerous, but actors continue to dabble in it.

Another actor that comes to mind is Errol Flynn. In fact, I compare Mel GIbson to Flynn, who was notorious in his time, but made a lot of popular “swashbuckler” movies that are loved by kids. I don’t think Flynn ever won an Oscar, but he was very popular.

Joan Crawford is another example. She was a marvelous actor, one of my favorites. But her private life–eugh.

Anyway, I say he has a chance. If he is nominated, much publicity will be garnered for the Academy, and many people who would normally not watch Oscar on TV will watch just to see if there are any fireworks. I’m guessing that Gibson would not attend the ceremony, and if he wins, an agent or some other representative would accept for him.
Click to expand...
Cat, you may be right. I have a difficult time believing the members of the Academy could shelve their personal opinions of Gibson’s private life, but maybe they are more objective than I give them credit for. 🤷
 
Cat said:
Oscar is not based on an actor’s personality or off-screen life or criminal record or past accomplishments. Plenty of actors have won who are not “Hollywood correct”. Even dead actors have won.

The Oscar for Acting is based on an actor’s performance in a film. If Mel Gibson out-acted everyone else in the flight of nominees, he has a good chance. With Jody Foster involved with his project, I would say he has an excellent chance; Foster is the epitome of Hollywood accomplishment these days. If you have her involved with your project it will succeed.

I frankly would not mind seeing him win if he has done a good job in the film, better than the other actors in the flight of nominees. Some of the best acting performances in in history have been given by actors who are/were “off” in some way–mentally ill, depressed, addicted, alcoholic, even criminal.

Heath Ledger comes to mind. This young man was nominated for an Oscar for his role as the Joker in the last Batman film. He was a method actor who believed in not just creating the role, but “being” the role. This is why he died–he worked too hard to actually “become” the Joker. Many actors and schools of acting have condemned method acting as dangerous, but actors continue to dabble in it.

Another actor that comes to mind is Errol Flynn. In fact, I compare Mel GIbson to Flynn, who was notorious in his time, but made a lot of popular “swashbuckler” movies that are loved by kids. I don’t think Flynn ever won an Oscar, but he was very popular.

Joan Crawford is another example. She was a marvelous actor, one of my favorites. But her private life–eugh.

Anyway, I say he has a chance. If he is nominated, much publicity will be garnered for the Academy, and many people who would normally not watch Oscar on TV will watch just to see if there are any fireworks. I’m guessing that Gibson would not attend the ceremony, and if he wins, an agent or some other representative would accept for him.
Click to expand...
You know, I tend to agree THAT would be possible under that context-----the thing is, Gibson has not done that yet. The only movie that he has come out with in which he has acted, not directed is EDGE OF DARKNESS—which is a standard “Mel Gibson role” and not greatly liked by critics or the public.

His future right now, if he has any, would be in directing (which he IS superb at). His acting “sex symbol” days are Over.

However, if he were to do something on the level of an Olivier, let’s say, I would be tempted to tune in and watch him at the Oscars… And Hollywood would probably put aside his personal dislike of him and honor the acting, not the Man.
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
You know, I tend to agree THAT would be possible under that context-----the thing is, Gibson has not done that yet. The only movie that he has come out with in which he has acted, not directed is EDGE OF DARKNESS—which is a standard “Mel Gibson role” and not greatly liked by critics or the public.

His future right now, if he has any, would be in directing (which he IS superb at). His acting “sex symbol” days are Over.

However, if he were to do something on the level of an Olivier, let’s say, I would be tempted to tune in and watch him at the Oscars… And Hollywood would probably put aside his personal dislike of him and honor the acting, not the Man.
Click to expand...
The article posted in the OP is about The Beaver, a movie in which Gibson has the lead acting role. It sounds like a good movie, although I doubt I’ll go see it. (I really don’t like movies very much, unless they feature my favorite actor.)

Has anyone on this thread seen The Beaver yet? What did you think?
 
If Mel Gibson were “only” a bad boy, yes I think he would have another chance at an Oscar. BUT, because he brings religion into things, THAT will be the reason he will never be forgiven, and why I think he will not have a chance to win another Oscar.

Hopefully things will someday change in Hollywood, and movies about religion will be accepted, not just accepted if they bash religion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top