SRK Filmfare Best Actor 2024 - Page 5

Originally posted by: rickyproctor27

Hold on, is there a different category for OTT ? Jaane Jaan, 3 of Us, Khufia will not be in the same categories as RARKPK, Animal, Dunki, Jawan etc?

Originally posted by: rickyproctor27

Hhaha. Maybe thats true. But if i look back at all the Critics awards over the years, they make sense 9/10 times.

I think competition is tougher this year in the critics category than popular awards

Pankaj Tripathi for OMG 2

Originally posted by: rickyproctor27

Yeah, very true. that's why Indian awards are a joke for a lot of people. Lot of respected artists care more about State and National Awards and rightly so. Look at the Oscars. For all his popularity and brilliance, Leonardo Di Caprio has won just 1 Oscar. they dont care about appeasing anybody and idol worship and box office collections. So I'm hoping things change in India too but have no hope. I saw KJo's Instagram post about RARKPK a couple of days back praising Alia and also Ranveer a little and it was classic lobbying for award season for his darling daughter. If Alia wins over Rani this year, I'm done with Filmfare for good. I was done 50% when Gully Boy won all the awards over films like Kesari and Super 30 and Kabir Singh but this will be the final nail in the coffin.

P.S. These are your predictions right? Do you want these results or do you think these will happen?

National Film Awards are not much better. We saw that when Saif won for Hum Tum because his mother was on a panel. National Film Awards have as much politics just very different politics from Filmfare but they're really not any more legitimate. There are no awards in the world where they aren't rigged or based on politics and friendship. Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize despite all the people killed on his watch under the name of protecting America.

If you ask American fans about the Oscars, they will say they're just as rigged as the Filmfare Awards. Also heavily based on who campaigns the most, who has the most connections, etc. They're not as focused on box office collections, true, but big stars like Leonardo Di Caprio, Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Brad Pitt, Sandra Bullock, Reese Witherspoon, George Clooney, Halle Berry, etc. all won Oscars because of their fame and popularity from idol worship. It was felt they were too big stars to not have an Oscar. Most all of them were not deserving especially compared to other nominees and it was their big name that won them Oscars. Oscars have even more problems than Filmfare because America is so diverse so now the issue is that the Oscars are getting flack from having mostly white actors so they make a point of awarding racial minorities. Which isn't a problem except when most of them are winning for their race by complaining enough that they never get awards, rather than because they were the best. 2001 was the year the Oscars wanted to have all black winners which is how Denzel and Halle won together so they could make a big point out of it. And the Oscar nominated actors lobby just as much as Kjo and Bollywood and the most infamous examples include Kate Winslet, Anne Hathaway, and Jamie Lee Curtis who won just last year because she was campaigning 24/7 for a whole year, even going as far as visiting children's hospitals for sick children for Oscar publicity. The Oscars also sometimes nominate the big stars just so they can increase TV ratings and viewership because more people will watch if someone like Leo is nominated due to his fanbase.

They were a mix of predictions and wishlist. I just saw 12th Fail so I think that will win Best Film, Best Director, and maybe Best Actor (Critics).

Denzel in training day was only for the race ? I don’t think so

Originally posted by: Maroonporsche

Denzel in training day was only for the race ? I don’t think so

Never seen it so I wouldn't know. But 2001 was the year they wanted him to win along with Halle as the first black woman to win Best Actress and Sidney Poitier was given an honorary Oscar so they could claim that they were racially diverse for giving all the awards to the black community. And Halle's win is considered one of the most undeserved and purely for her race. Angela Bassett also said it was one of the most offensive roles she had seen a fellow black woman play as she had been offered it first but rejected it out of principle.

Originally posted by: Shaitan-Haiwan

Nope. Ranbir my animal is winning

Make multiple id and vote for this nepo kid

For Filmfare awards, it will be the sponsors who have their say, I suppose...

It could very well be SRK for the popular award - he has proved his popularity after a long hiatus again.

But to be honest, I don't care for any award except for the person who is happy to get one/it.

Originally posted by: RaniPreityAish

National Film Awards are not much better. We saw that when Saif won for Hum Tum because his mother was on a panel. National Film Awards have as much politics just very different politics from Filmfare but they're really not any more legitimate. There are no awards in the world where they aren't rigged or based on politics and friendship. Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize despite all the people killed on his watch under the name of protecting America.

If you ask American fans about the Oscars, they will say they're just as rigged as the Filmfare Awards. Also heavily based on who campaigns the most, who has the most connections, etc. They're not as focused on box office collections, true, but big stars like Leonardo Di Caprio, Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Brad Pitt, Sandra Bullock, Reese Witherspoon, George Clooney, Halle Berry, etc. all won Oscars because of their fame and popularity from idol worship. It was felt they were too big stars to not have an Oscar. Most all of them were not deserving especially compared to other nominees and it was their big name that won them Oscars. Oscars have even more problems than Filmfare because America is so diverse so now the issue is that the Oscars are getting flack from having mostly white actors so they make a point of awarding racial minorities. Which isn't a problem except when most of them are winning for their race by complaining enough that they never get awards, rather than because they were the best. 2001 was the year the Oscars wanted to have all black winners which is how Denzel and Halle won together so they could make a big point out of it. And the Oscar nominated actors lobby just as much as Kjo and Bollywood and the most infamous examples include Kate Winslet, Anne Hathaway, and Jamie Lee Curtis who won just last year because she was campaigning 24/7 for a whole year, even going as far as visiting children's hospitals for sick children for Oscar publicity. The Oscars also sometimes nominate the big stars just so they can increase TV ratings and viewership because more people will watch if someone like Leo is nominated due to his fanbase.

They were a mix of predictions and wishlist. I just saw 12th Fail so I think that will win Best Film, Best Director, and maybe Best Actor (Critics).

some lobbying is important to prevent issues like recency bias and lack of audience reach. Awards happen is Jan-Feb and thus films that released towards the end of the year are more in our minds compared to films that released almost a year earlier. I have lived in New York for 8 years now and one thing I can say is culturally people here are more individualistic and strongly opinionated. Its not a criticism but it also means when people you dont like win or the ones you wanted to win dont, then they attack the choices vehemently. So I would think twice about that as a basis for challenging the integrity of the Oscars.

Yes, no awards are perfect. Certainly Saif winning for Hum Tum over SRK for Swades is still mindbaffling but as you said his mother was on the panel. Such few cases will always happen in any field but its the majority that matters. Yes, there was discrimination in the US for a long time on skin and some overcompensation on the other side is understandable and fair. But Lupita for 12 Years a Slave or Denzel for Training Day were the best performances by a distance in those respective years.

Top of my head I remember Hurt Locker winning Best Film above Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, Up in the Air much more globally well known and commerically successful and excellent movies. I was so bowled over by Leonardo's performance in Wolf of Wall Street so couldnt believe when McConaughey won for Dallas Buyer's Club. Only when I watched the movie after I realised he was brilliant as well. Still didnt agree with the award but accepted it 100%. Brad Pitt was terrific in Once Upon a Time..Halle was mind blowing in Monster's Ball and Kate Winslet is brilliant in every role she does. Bullock was out of the world in Blind Side (South US accent and mannerisms were PERFECT). Yes, they are stars but sometimes they are also the Best Actors that year.

Yes, almost all Oscar nominated actors lobby which makes it a fair competition because all of them do. Marlon Brando in Godfather 1, Heath Ledger in Dark Knight, Daniel Day Luis in Lincoln are the best performances ever in history and I dont think lobbying got them these awards.

I wont go into the Obama thing you mentioned because geo-politics is a whole other debate and this is probably not the forum for that. But really appreciate the depth of your analysis. Always fun to have these discussions.

Originally posted by: RaniPreityAish

They were a mix of predictions and wishlist. I just saw 12th Fail so I think that will win Best Film, Best Director, and maybe Best Actor (Critics).

Yes agree totally ..12th Fail is the best movie of the year by a distance. It should win hands down.

Originally posted by: rickyproctor27

some lobbying is important to prevent issues like recency bias and lack of audience reach. Awards happen is Jan-Feb and thus films that released towards the end of the year are more in our minds compared to films that released almost a year earlier. I have lived in New York for 8 years now and one thing I can say is culturally people here are more individualistic and strongly opinionated. Its not a criticism but it also means when people you dont like win or the ones you wanted to win dont, then they attack the choices vehemently. So I would think twice about that as a basis for challenging the integrity of the Oscars.

Yes, no awards are perfect. Certainly Saif winning for Hum Tum over SRK for Swades is still mindbaffling but as you said his mother was on the panel. Such few cases will always happen in any field but its the majority that matters. Yes, there was discrimination in the US for a long time on skin and some overcompensation on the other side is understandable and fair. But Lupita for 12 Years a Slave or Denzel for Training Day were the best performances by a distance in those respective years.

Top of my head I remember Hurt Locker winning Best Film above Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, Up in the Air much more globally well known and commerically successful and excellent movies. I was so bowled over by Leonardo's performance in Wolf of Wall Street so couldnt believe when McConaughey won for Dallas Buyer's Club. Only when I watched the movie after I realised he was brilliant as well. Still didnt agree with the award but accepted it 100%. Brad Pitt was terrific in Once Upon a Time..Halle was mind blowing in Monster's Ball and Kate Winslet is brilliant in every role she does. Bullock was out of the world in Blind Side (South US accent and mannerisms were PERFECT). Yes, they are stars but sometimes they are also the Best Actors that year.

Yes, almost all Oscar nominated actors lobby which makes it a fair competition because all of them do. Marlon Brando in Godfather 1, Heath Ledger in Dark Knight, Daniel Day Luis in Lincoln are the best performances ever in history and I dont think lobbying got them these awards.

I wont go into the Obama thing you mentioned because geo-politics is a whole other debate and this is probably not the forum for that. But really appreciate the depth of your analysis. Always fun to have these discussions.

I don't have a problem with campaigning for awards myself. I find it festive and entertaining and as you said, it helps keep older films in mind although typically Oscar-nominated films are released in the fall or December specifically so they can be released right before the awards season and be fresh in people's minds. I think The Silence of the Lambs is one of the few examples where a film won so many Oscars but was released in the beginning of the year because the studio never thought this film would be such a blockbuster and so critically acclaimed. So that was a rare fluke. I don't live in NY but Americans are more individually opinionated and if you follow Film Twitter, you'll see the fandoms of different films and stars constantly clashing over who should win awards, sometimes going back decades. But frankly the Oscars are not any more valid or less corrupt than Filmfare. Harvey Weinstein was known for having won all the awards in the late 90s/2000s because he spent all the money on campaigns (buying them DVDs so they would watch his movies for free and not make the effort to watch the other nominated movies) and this is why so many of his actresses (the infamous Weinstein women who traded sexual favors for big roles) got awards because he essentially bought them. Gwyneth Paltrow and Jennifer Lawrence are the two most infamous examples. It's gotten a little bit more fair now because he's in jail and there's more awareness now of the tricks he used to do. Shakespeare in Love is one of those films that won all the awards in 1998 but when Oscar voters did a revote several years later, they overwhelmingly agreed they would not have let Shakespeare in Love win. Some campaigns fail like Jennifer Aniston heavily campaigned to get an Oscar nomination for Cake and was even ready to announce a press conference the morning the nominations were announced, but her campaign of actually sending cake to voters failed.

The problem with the recent diversity wins for the Oscars is that minorities only make up a small percentage of the population. The black community is not even 15% of the American population but if you look at the Best Supporting Actress category in the last two decades, they are overwhelmingly black winners because the Oscars find it easy to award them in that category to deflect accusations of racism. I'm not saying all the winners of a different race were always winning just because of their race, like the examples you listed, but there are many which were clearly awarded just so the Oscars can claim they have a diverse winner list. I also don't think it's a coincidence that this last year, when Everything Everywhere All At Once swept all the awards, that the president of the Oscars was an Asian woman, Janet Yang, who made no secret that she was rooting for that film. And Michelle Yeoh even broke the rules by posting on her social media a video which attacked the other female nominees and said their performances were not as good as hers or worthy of winning. That's a clear violation of the rules and would normally get the guilty party a rescinded nomination. But because Janet Yang was rooting for EEAAO and Michelle Yeoh, there were no repercussions and Yeoh was allowed to keep her nomination and even win. Cate Blanchett, who previously was the favorite to win, came to the awards already knowing she would lose so it was obvious to everyone keeping up.

Acting performances are subjective for example I don't like Leo at all outside of Titanic and The Departed. To me he's so babyfaced that he comes across like a little boy playing dress-up in most of his roles. Sandra Bullock is a very big star, one of the last few movie stars in the US, but as an actress she's considered just average and mostly plays the same roles over and over. Her role in The Blind Side is actually considered one of the weakest Oscar winning performances and got a lot of controversy as well for being racist and outdated. The reason she won is because that year was a banner year for her where she had multiple films that were all major hits at the box office. That's often happened at the Oscars where an actor wins, not for one performance, but because they had so many hits that year, such as Loretta Young in 1947. In fact, Oscar campaigns go as far back as then. Joan Crawford won an Oscar for Mildred Pierce by hiring a campaign manager. Olivia de Havilland won an Oscar the next year by hiring Joan's campaign manager. 1947 was the exception as Rosalind Russell hired the same campaign manager that Joan and Olivia hired and was the expected favorite to win Best Actress. She even got up to accept the award as it was being announced only to be shocked that Loretta Young won. And Loretta won, for another performance that is considered rather weak and undeserving of an Oscar, because she had multiple big hits that year so she was being awarded on that basis alone.

Kate Winslet is a favorite of mine and I think one of the most talented actresses to exist. However, her Oscar win was also controversial because it was a Harvey Weinstein backed win. In fact, they were trying to cheat the categories. Kate had two major films that year: Revolutionary Road and The Reader. They wanted her to get two Oscar nominations, one for Best Actress for Revolutionary Road and one for Best Supporting Actress for The Reader. Dual nominations in the same year which is what happened at the Golden Globes and Kate actually won both. The Oscars saw this as category fraud and refused to nominate her for The Reader in the supporting category so she only got one nomination for Best Actress for The Reader which is what she won. Halle Berry I was not impressed with in Monster's Ball. I agree with Angela Bassett that the role just involved her flashing her naked body (she used cruder language which I won't repeat here). Julia Roberts is infamous for playing herself in just about every movie (even Kathleen Turner hinted at this) but her win for Erin Brockovich wasn't because she was the best performance of the year (the other female nominees were all much better), but because she was a megastar and EB was a huge hit because of her starpower. They were awarding her for that because throughout the 90s, she was like America's Madhuri Dixit and almost all her films were always major hits even if they had horrible reviews. Note that Madhuri is also often attacked for not being a good actress and relying on starpower alone.

So my point is that the Oscars, like the Filmfare Awards, can often be a popularity barometer instead of actually awarding the best performance. There's a lot that gets factored into an Oscar win, including momentum and career narrative, which was partly what helped Michelle Yeoh to win based on this narrative that she was a veteran actress who had never been recognized by the Oscars for decades. Or Brendan Fraser (whose performance was good in a very negatively received film) who was making a career comeback after a decade of leaving movies because he had been molested by a bigwig in Hollywood. The more cynical pointed out that during Oscar campaign season, he was on every morning show and interview ready with fresh tears as he recounted this story.

Brando's win was in part also because of a career comeback. He had been hailed as reinventing acting in the 50s but had only won one Oscar and after the late 50s/early 60s, his career flopped and all his movies were deemed terrible. The Godfather was a huge comeback for him because he had been a washed out actor before that. Heath Ledger's win was posthumous so part of the narrative here was that he had literally killed himself over this role and deserved to be recognized. Daniel Day-Lewis is infamous for always stating that he's going to retire and this will be his last film in order for the Academy to feel this is their last chance to award him. I think he did that with Lincoln because he's had a couple of near retirements. He tried again with The Phantom Thread but that film and his performance never took off so it didn't work in getting him a 4th Oscar and he retired for real. Cate Blanchett tried this trick last year as well, saying she was retiring so that the Academy would give her a 3rd Oscar but the narrative and Janet Yang were on Michelle Yeoh's side. Oscar voters also anonymously revealed that there was a lot of Cate backlash after she had a speech at another awards ceremony where she won and said that awards were patriarchal and pit women against each other. That angered a lot of old school Oscar voters who decided if she thinks this way, she doesn't deserve another award.