Eddie Murphy's Oscar Loss: A Concensus
-
Lutzqueen — 18 years ago(December 26, 2007 10:03 PM)
Eddie Murphy was robbed.no doubt about it! Arkinn has given the same performance a million timeseven he ridiculed winning!
But that seemed to be the theme for the Academy Awards last year.Dreamgirls had no nomination for Best pic,lost the costume Oscar to a film that REUSED costumes from Barry Lyndon,and lost Best song.so yes, I think Racism had something to do with the pervasive effort to crap on Dreamgirls at the Oscars.
Watch this year's award season when the non singers in Sweeney Todd get every award they are up for.Depp is a great actor, but no singer. Neither is Helena Bonham Carter. But watch as Sweeney Todd wins a ton of awardslike Chicago, another musical without real singers.but what is the difference between these films and Dreamgirls.oh that! Dreamgirls is an iconic play turned into a movie with a HELL of a cast of singers SINGING those songs to a high level but because they were Black, there seemed to be a problem with that. -
jmcastro — 18 years ago(December 27, 2007 10:50 AM)
Everybody there were goos supporting roles this year Eddie Murphy was amazing, Alan Arkin was funny, djimon Hounsu for Blood Diamond he put a powerful performance, Jackie Earle haley was also good in Little Children he made me cry if you have seen these films all these people were amazing.
-
sseankeating — 15 years ago(June 08, 2010 06:43 AM)
Ummm, Chicago was a hell of a lot better then Dreamgirls. I love Dreamgirls, but your an ass hole.
I also agree it should have won Costume Design, and maybe Song. ("Never Gonna Break My Faith" from Bobby should have been nominated and won.)
Chicago actually had a STORY and a PLOT. Dreamgirls did have amazing vocals, but not much of a story. Beyonc, Danny, Jamie, and Jennifer were all fine. Eddie and Anika Noni were VERY GOOD and both deserved to be nominated. Personally I think Brad Pitt should have won for Babel, but he was not nominated so Alan Arkin, Eddie Murphy, or Jackie Earl Haley should have won.
Personally, although I think Little Miss Sunshine was the best movie of the year, Alan Arkin should not have won. Toni Colette and Abigail Breslin should have won Leading and Supporting Actress respectfully for their roles, but not Alan who only deserved the nomination. I am going to say that Jackie Earl deserved it more, he had a more challenging role, and Eddie is a douche. The way he walked out when he lost was so beep beep up. Like he is a beep
Plus to call it racism is petty bull beep Except that sometimes, other movies are better. And Chicago HAD Queen Latifah in it, and she got an Oscar Nomination. So beep off. -
cmjmmorgan — 18 years ago(December 31, 2007 03:09 AM)
I totally agree Djimon Hounsou was excellent. Eddie was ok. Actually Eddie's performance looked like an old SNL sketch of him impersonating James Brown. Djimon's performance showed depth and layers of his character with passion. He is the one who was robbed.
-
rpniew — 18 years ago(December 31, 2007 08:13 AM)
This is what happened, and I'm not saying it's fair: Eddie Murphy probably was a shoo-in for the part. He was putting himself out there as a serious actor and Hollywood has a tendency to reward that. The problem was that while Academy members were voting, Eddie did "Norbit" which, although a moneymaker, was awful. Eddie totally lost his credibility as a serious actor in a flash and voters fell back on the less deserving (not undeserving, but certainly less deserving) Alan Arkin.
Keep in mind the supporting actor oscars are a bit of a crapshoot anyway Kate Hudson was a favorite and deserved the Oscar for "Almost Famous" and Lauren Bacall should have been the winner for "The Mirror Has Two Faces." -
osu_1996 — 18 years ago(January 05, 2008 02:51 PM)
The proof of a good actor is when you no longer see the actor, but only see the character. Case in point, Will Smith in Pursuit of Happyness. He was fabulous. Even though I knew I was watching Will, all that I saw was Chris.
Eddie, as good as he was, wasn't that good in this film. There were some good scenes, but overall, he was not good. You can't even compare him in the same breath as Jamie Foxx who won my heart in Any Given Sunday. He has the power to convince you that he is someone else; Eddie just doesn't show that, all of the time, in EVERY scene.
Alan Arkin was fabulous in his role. I had to keep reminding myself that this was the same actor usually known for doing madcap comedic roles. He deserved the award.
Finally, please realize that the voters do not usually have the time to watch every single performance. What they vote on is the one scene that is presented to them. I don't know who picks that scene, but if you recall from the Oscars, the scene picked from DG for Eddie was not a significan role for him. At the same time, there is no doubt that the voters are biased by other events at the time. Thus, Eddie's poor decision to play and film a stereotypical, obscene movie such as Norbit, most likely hurt his chance, little as it was.
How people can find it acceptable that Eddie Murphy play such a stereotypical, and cruel intended movie about obese people, and then have people say he is robbed for an Oscar because he is black, please. It had nothing to do with his color of skin, but of his choice in roles. Had he wanted to win an oscar, he should be a bit more choosy in his role choices. Or, be happy being a comedic actor. -
rpniew — 18 years ago(January 05, 2008 08:43 PM)
It is certainly true that the voters do not watch every performance. I am convinced that if everyone had seen "Junebug", Amy Adams would have a best supporting actress oscar. There is no doubt in my mind about it.
-
abens_98 — 18 years ago(January 23, 2008 10:31 AM)
They may not see every film before the nominations. It is a big part of the studios to promote and push the films and stars they think have a shot of getting a nomination. That is where the term "for your consideration" comes from.
However, voters are required to watch every nominated film in a category they are voting for, otherwise they are not supposed to submit a vote for that category. They do not just watch a few clips. -
tomcat69w — 18 years ago(January 07, 2008 10:31 PM)
Nothing Personal,..but to d1esel6, it was Alan Arkin and NOT Alan Alda (T.V. MAS*H) Fame who was in LMSS. Eddie more than deserved this one, and I think the Academy outta be ashamed!
The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get! -
vickyvalle — 18 years ago(January 21, 2008 08:11 PM)
I am also apparently in the minority, but I was not impressed with Eddie Murphy's performance. Oscar worthy? Not in my opinion.
I think he was talented enough to deserve the role, and I think he performed decently. He got some valuable experience here, and he can take it and put it to use in another role, and maybe that role will be Oscar worthy.