[Riot Act]

Not suprising in the least, which is probably what made me chuckle.

In what could definitely be considered ironic, Scott Siegel (the actor who played Randy The Ram's drug dealer in "The Wrestler") was arrested in New York last night following a crazy police chase. Siegel was charged with distribution of steroids, which is what he provided Mickie Rourke's character in the movie, and assaulting an officer.

Siegel was apprehended in Eastchester, New York following a car chase through Westchester. During the chase, he rammed several police cars and once stopped, he abandoned his SUV and tried to flee on foot.

His arraignment should be held today for distribution of steroids and assaulting an officer.

[Mr. Dashbee]

"You want me to play a guy who sells steroids? Um, yeah I think I can get into that role."

[Demko]

You guys think there's any chance that this guy getting arrested hurt Rourke's chances of winning the Oscar last night? I'd guess that it happened too recently for it to be a factor, but I'm curious what others think.

[The Jewish Cunthead]

No - I think Prop 8 hurt Rourke's chances if that makes any sense at all. Plus I think the Academy looked at it as his nomination should be enough for him, not to mention they could have seen the performance as him playing himself to a degree.

[DevSop]

Just remember, gay retards in period pieces are guaranteed to win Oscars.

Drug addicted moving performances are not. For examples, see Rourke and Hathaway.

[Lucky]

Saturday I told people I was kind of hoping Ledger wouldn't get his inevitable Oscar because I would have loved the hear all the nerd rage by comic geeks who thought the Dark Knight was the greatest film ever made and can't understand how anyone could possibly prefer a niche genre like period pieces or foreign films over a niche genre like comic films.

At least I got wrestling nerd rage from people who freak out about the wardrobe or language but can't understand why the subject matter of the wrestler wasn't universally loved as a consolation.

On the other hand it disappoints me that there's now TWO excuses for why Rourke was screwed by matters other than performance.

[DevSop]

Did not see Milk so I won't compare his performance to Penn, but you can't deny that the Academy has a set criteria and if you hit some of those benchmarks, you're going to get a long look at the Oscar win. Gay is a big one. Mentally disabled is another. And period pieces are a third. The other option to win is to get nominated a lot, but keep losing until the Academy throws you one out of pity (Winslet). Penn hit 2 of the three. Hanks has run the entire gambit and has 3? Oscars to show for it.

[The Jewish Cunthead]

Feb 23, 2009 16:44:35 GMT -5 DevSop said:

Hanks has run the entire gambit and has 3? Oscars to show for it.

Two (Philadelphia, Gump) and should have won for Cast Away.

[Demko]

Nah, he's only won 2. One he deserved, one he didn't.

MTA: Solly preceded me with the correct info.

[DevSop]

Well Gump hit 2 of the 3 benchmarks. And Philadelphia hit the other, so he's good to go.

First, he should not have run for Cast Away. Crowe was awesome in Gladiator.
Second, he could have won for Saving Private Ryan. I would have went with Norton for American History X. You know who I wouldn't have gone with...Roberto fucking Benigini.
Third, he could/should have lost for Forrest Gump. But that's debateable with Freeman for Shawshank and Travolta (comeback story) for Pulp Fiction.
Fourth, Philadelphia was a gimme and the competition doesn't look too good that year.
Fifth, he could have won for Big, but the mentally disabled Dustin Hoffman won.

And that's Tom Hanks Oscar history folks.

[Lucky]

How in the world would I even manage to disprove your theory? If I name guys like Leo in What's Eating Gilbert Grape? who lost does that prove anything? Of course not because we can easily deem Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugitive better by subjective standards. So how am I supposed to debate with a subjective opinion that Hanks "should have lost" for Gump but didn't because he played a retard?

I mean, you're arguing the point made by fucking Johnny Drama in Entourage. One of the most moronic characters on TV with one of the most superficial and silly views of Hollywood that exists.

Honestly? I don't even care about the Oscars and never have because the Oscars seem to exist solely for people to piss and moan because their subjective tastes aren't represented when Hollywood tries to find the best 5 movies or performers of hundreds or thousands of films in a given year. And if their favorite IS chosen then the pissing and moaning just gets loader if it isn't deemed the absolute best of an elite group.

Mickey Rourke should have won if not for Sean Penn playing a gay dude in the '70s. If that's what you believe and assume (even without seeing Milk) that it has nothing to do with Penn's ACTUAL performance then so be it. I know I'm not convincing you otherwise. Irrational rage over this stuff just amuses me and no body does irrational rage better than irrational nerd rage.

[DevSop]

1. Who's raging?
2. I never said playing a gay guy in the 70s guaranteed you'd win, but it definitely increases chances.
3. Look at the history and you can't deny that certain roles get bumped because of certain characteristics.
4. Stop being a fucking asshole.
5. I never said Rourke SHOULD have won over Penn. All I said was that it didn't surprise me that Penn won because the voters of these awards tend to favor certain qualities.
6. Heath Ledger losing would have been a travesty and not because I'm a "nerd" or anything like that, but because he was fucking amazing in the role.
7. Stop being a negative fucking asshole about everything.
8.

[salmonjunkie]

Leo didn't win because he went full retard. You never go full retard.

[Lucky]

Who's negative? I clearly said I enjoyed it.

Feb 23, 2009 17:14:34 GMT -5 DevSop said:

2. I never said playing a gay guy in the 70s guaranteed you'd win, but it definitely increases chances.

Feb 23, 2009 16:21:07 GMT -5 DevSop said:

Just remember, gay retards in period pieces are guaranteed to win Oscars.

back at you.

[The Jewish Cunthead]

Feb 23, 2009 17:20:23 GMT -5 salmonjunkie said:

Leo didn't win because he went full retard. You never go full retard.

EXALT!

[Riot Act]

Hey, about another reason for why he should-have-won-but-didn't:

Source: The Figure Four Newsletter

During an interview following the Academy Awards Ceremony, actor Mickey Rourke had this to say about his loss to Sean Penn at the show: "It's voted for by people from the movie business and in the past I've hacked them all off," Rouke said. "I was good at that. It came easy to me. I stupidly said acting wasn't a job for a real man. I threatened producers, raged at directors, forgot my agent's name. I really burned my bridges. And a lot of people have long memories."

[Habs]

The thing is, lots of Oscar wins came in the last couple of years from actors playing role of real know personalities. Sometimes it's not as much as an acting recognition, but more of an imitating trophy. NAMEDROPS are many here.