We all know he deserves at least..something for portraying "Ray", but the question is...Will he get it??

Post ur thoughts.

Oscar. It's the only lock this year, besides Sideways being overrated.

I would love 2 see it happen, but the academy tends 2 honor a career rather than a singular per4mance. Johnny Depp and Leonardo DiCaprio are LONG over due and will likely get noms. That could be trouble 4 Jamie. Also Don Cheadle will definitely get nominated 4 "Hotel Rwanda" and could b a threat.

Personally I don't see it happening, but U never know. Who knew Hillary Swank would take the oscar away from Annette Benning a few years ago (who every1 and their Mother said was a lock 4 "American Beauty")?

The oscars might actually not suck this year.

Of course they wont. For years them dudes have been been nominating break thru cats for best actor but they never seem to give them the nod. Its the same way Stallone was nominated 4 best actor in Rocky... they only gave the movie itself best picture. If im wrong about this and he does win then ill eat my hat. So is "Ray" a really good film then? Iv been definitely wanting to chek it out.
[Edited 1/11/05 7:57am]

We'll I don't see him getting an Emmy (those are for TV) but I wouldn't be shocked if he got the Oscar and probably as a good chance at the Golden Globe. His competition is Paul Gaimitti in "Sideways" and Paul is an excellent character actor (who I and ohters first noticed as southern Pig Virus in Howard Stern's "Private Parts", which isn't a very over the top comedy but is very sincere and real) and was being fitted for a tux for "American Splendor" but that fell through. If they think about bodies of work....well, other than maybe "Colloratorell", Jamie's comdies might not help him out. Then again, Paul is an indie and while those get a lot of buzz, an excellent performance in a mainstream movie usually fairs better, but it depends.

VoicesCarry said:

Is "Sideways" overrated? I really like Paul Giamatti (I'm sure I keep spellling his name wrong).

VinnyM27 said:

Yes. It's winning all the critics awards this year, but it's the sort of unchallenging material the Academy likes.

VoicesCarry said:

and


his winning an oscar is as sure as whats her nutts winning last year for Monster....Charlize..yeah, thats her name....

and im gonna call it here and say he is going to recieve *two* oscar nods...one for ray and the other for collateral...


and yes he will win the emmy..and a golden globe...and the sag award...

the sag is whats tipping me off to him receiving two oscar nods...its the same group of people (well, for the most part..obviously the sag pool is a bit bigger) who vote for the two awards....

I don't have the nerve to watch the Oscar this year.

I can't take seeing Jamie being rejected by those mofos for some LESS soulful pre4mance by some Hollywood novelty act.

Overrated or NOT, his portrait acting is the BEST from 2004 period. If he won't get props for that, might as well ditchs his WHOLE acting career all-2ghether.

Harlepolis said:

did you read my statement?

it amazes me how we treat these awards...we crap on them for not awarding african americans..then we crap on them for awarding two at the same time..and now we are crapping on them for giving it someone who deserves it...

everything and everyone is saying that foxx is the only guarentee..he *will* win..just like charlize theron won last year....all insider pundits, experts and industry folk say nobody came close to foxx's performance...and everybody is in unison with him winning....nobody is saying, "no, foxx isnt good enough..." or "foxx might not get it cause he is black"..everybody is saying he *will* win...

so why are we crapping on a good thing?

if your just blowing hot air i would recommend heading over to www.goldderby.com.

its an awesome site that tracks the industries award shows.....everyone is in agreement that foxx will win.....

VoicesCarry said:

I think a nomination is a lock but not a win. I think Depp will win. He's a critical favorite for a long-time coming. Rarely does Oscar give awards for a singular performance; they're fans of the "lifetime achievement" award. Personally speaking, I'd rather see Don Cheadle or Liam Neeson win. Both performances floored me.

If I had my way:

Best Actor - Don Cheadle for Hotel Rwanda
Best Actress - Hilary Swank (Million Dollar Baby is amazing!)
Best Supp Actor - Morgan Freeman for Million Dollar Baby
Best Supp Actress - Cate Blanchett for The Aviator

RipHer2Shreds said:

rarely? thats all they have been doing of late....see: Halle Berry, Adrian Brody, Charlize Theron.....

this is hands down foxx's award..i follow the oscar race closely...i predicted Theron's win last year in the middle of the year (created a thread here declaring such)..and im telling you all Foxx is recieving equal amounts of praise for his performance...its a lock!

sosgemini said:

That's your opinion, not mine. You follow the Oscars closely...so do I. That doesn't mean I'm going to default to your opinion. Oscar likes to make up for past injustices by awarding actors later in the game than they should have. A lot of people thought Russell Crowe should have won Best Actor for The Insider over Kevin Spacey for American Beauty. That's why he came out of nowhere and won the Oscar for Gladiator (a role that was otherwise justly ignored come award time). That is why I've been saying for months now that Depp is gonna win.

It doesn't matter that Foxx is winning most of the awards now. Oscars are different. It's sort of an exclusive snotty club, and rarely is the outsider given the award. I'm not saying Foxx winning is an impossibility, but comedic actors who turn a good performance aren't always given their dues. I'm not saying he wasn't good in Ray. I thought his performance was a fine one. I don't even think Johnny Depp should win. I just think he will.

I have no idea who itbh you guys are talking about, but here's another 'jamie' that should get an oscar this year (lifetime achievement that is)


(2005: 50th anniversary)

RipHer2Shreds said:

Nope - Depp won't win. They don't feel they have to pay him back for his loss last year (it was for a Jerry Bruckheimer pirate flick, for God's sake). His time will come, but not this year.

Reason? His name has basically gone unmentioned by major critics associations (Golden Globes excepted....well that's not really a critics organization but there you are). He is not the reason that Finding Neverland is a critical darling. Kate Winslet is making the noise this year, and has the best chance of a nomination (note also that she is much more overdue for a statuette than Depp).

Here is a list of what Foxx has won:

-Boston Society of Film Critics
-Florida Film Critics Circle
-3 Golden Globe noms (he will win one - likely the Best Actor)
-3 Golden Satellite noms
-Kansas City Film Critics Cirle
-Las Vegas Film Critics Circle
-National Board Of Review
-National Society of Film Critics Awards, USA
-Phoenix Film Critics Society
-Seattle Film Critics
-Southeastern Film Critics Association

plus the invaluable SAG nomination - Neeson was not even nominated.

This is the same pattern followed by Theron to her win last year. And she was considered a lock. I have no idea why a bunch of you here are saying that he has no chance in hell of winning .

Best Actress will either go to Imelda Staunton or Hilary Swank (personally I'd rather see Staunton win). Although becuase Winslet is overdue she does pose a threat.

Virginia Madsen is the next closest thing to a lock in the Best Supporting Actress category (for Sideways).

Thomas Haden Church is also pretty much a lock in the Best Supporting Actor category (also for Sideways).
[Edited 1/11/05 13:55pm]

missfee said:

Hell Nah. We all know they are not ready to give an Black Male comedian an Oscar or Emmy for a serious role. No, if they do. It would be a first and they would be proving a sista wrong.

Hotlegs said:

Denzel Washington ?

VoicesCarry said:

Is he a comedian?

RipHer2Shreds said:

ahh..but the big flaw in your theory (and a good guess it is) is this:

The industry felt Crowe actually deserved winning for The Insider...Same for Judy Dench (who ended up winning for her cameo in Shack in Love when she should have won for Mrs. Brown).....but nobody feels that Johnny Depp should have won for Pirates...

sure, the Academy likes to give out legacy awards....but those are usually reserved for the above cases or for people who are overlooked for years (see Henry Fonda, Paul Newman or John Wayne)....Depp is neither.

RipHer2Shreds said:

Oh Didn't see that.

Foxx has made the transition to "serious" roles now. I wonder if he'll turn back.

But there is one important thing to remember - Oscars are not generally given out to comedians of any color.
[Edited 1/11/05 14:01pm]

sosgemini said:

Let's just say that if Bill Murray were the one under consideration this year, there might be some competition. They owe him for Lost In Translation.

Pirates was not a career-best performance. It just made a lot of money. And we all know Depp can be flamboyant. There was surprise when he was nominated, but none when he lost.
[Edited 1/11/05 14:00pm]

kev1n said:

didnt do enough to deserve it alive and since he is dead, aint gonna happen.

VoicesCarry said:

We ain't gonna agree on nothing here. I thought the award was given to the proper person last year. There'd been Oscar buzz about Sean Penn's performance in Mystic River since it premiered at Cannes that year. Far and away, I think it was his best work (though I really loved Bill Murray).

RipHer2Shreds said:

I agree. I didn't say that Penn didn't deserve to win, just that they do feel they owe Murray. Do you remember how they announced that award - "I'm sorry, Bill"?
[Edited 1/11/05 14:02pm]

VoicesCarry said:

good call!!

and you know what people, dont look at foxx as a comedian cause the academy arent hip enough to know of "in living color"...the problem with murray and jim carrey is that they made big blockbuster comedies that unfortunatly stereotyped them as funny guys....same with robin williams..it took years for williams to break that stereotype....and murray and carry are barely starting to do quality films in serious roles and might end up winning eventually....but not just yet.

if you want to compare foxx to anyone it should be halle berry...they both broke preconcieved notions of who and what they could do....and like berry, foxx will win..(ps. you can throw adrian brody and charlize theron into this group too..its not about race folks..but young talent blowing the industry away by doing something nobody thought they could..they were all percieved as young, cute and harmless...and they each picked the perfect roles to break them...)

sosgemini said:

Well, here's the flaw in your theory - Johnny Depp won the SAG last year for Pirates of the Caribbean. Surely somebody - the same pool of actors - felt he deserved it.

VoicesCarry said:

thats not what happened.....after Penn won Murray started to get up and leave..Crystal then said; "Bill, dont go. We love you." which was followed by a standing ovation by the audience....

at the start of the year pundits thought murray *was* the sure winner because of the ovation (for Life Aquatic)...sadly, it wasnt well recieved which killed any momentum he had...

sosgemini said:

He has been up for the academy's lifetime achievement award 3 times allready, wich means the academy thinks he deserves the recognition.

Personally I think he's last century's best actor, after brando. He did more in 3 movies than most actors do in a career that lasts decades...and I'm not saying this out of a romanticised, "omg he's a legend", point of view.

RipHer2Shreds said:

Yes, that was unexpected - and it's probably what got him the nomination. Do you know why he won that, though? Penn was pissing people off at the time by not attending ceremonies and by generally being Sean Penn. That's how they paid him back. Entire articles were written about the politics behind that choice.

Foxx does not have the same politics working against him.
[Edited 1/11/05 14:08pm]