Daniel Day-Lewis is done.

[Ichinisan]

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/daniel-day-lewis-quits-acting-oscar-winner-1202472766/

Probably the greatest living actor is no longer an actor. Going out on top.

 

[Carson Dyle]

"Greatest living actor" is like "greatest band" or "best car" or "best beer".

 

[mikeymikec]

I should probably watch one of his films at some point.

 

[Ichinisan]

I should probably watch one of his films at some point.

I loved “The Last of the Mohicans”

 

[angminas]

"Greatest living actor" is like "greatest band" or "best car" or "best beer".

Not really. The club gets VERY small at the top. DDL, Oldman, Streep...it's really hard to put anyone else on their level.

If you say Pacino or De Niro, you lose a testicle.

 

[cbrunny]

I have literally never seen that man before in my life.

 

[Squisher]

I have literally never seen that man before in my life.

That is because the Daniel Day-Lewis is a chameleon. There was a time that I wondered what he really looked like because he was so different in every film. And yes, I'd put him in the top 10 all time maybe top 5.

He's gone on hiatus before. I hope after 5-10 years he feels the tug of the acting bug.

 

[tynopik]

That is because the Daniel Day-Lewis is a chameleon. There was a time that I wondered what he really looked like because he was so different in every film.

So a poor man's Gary Oldman

 

[deustroop]

I have literally never seen that man before in my life.

As the article says
Day-Lewis is the only performer to ever win three best actor Oscars.

 

[cbrunny]

As the article says
Day-Lewis is the only performer to ever win three best actor Oscars.

Thanks, detective.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

He hasn't done anything in five years so technically he was done back in 2012 with Lincoln.

 

[mikeymikec]

As the article says
Day-Lewis is the only performer to ever win three best actor Oscars.

It's all a bit of a nonsense IMO, simply because if you have three simply amazing performances for completely different parts and actors in one year, one of them got lucky and picked up an Oscar. Also, other actors pick up an Oscar because they delivered exceptionally written lines in a competent manner, and other actors get nominated simply because they acted a part better than they usually do. A fair few far better than average actors haven't picked up a single Oscar despite plenty of decent performances in careers spanning many decades.

Why on earth would you have a system of giving out a single award for something like 'best actor' anyway? If you get three amazing performances nominated in year 1 then three comparatively mediocre performances in year 2, then what kind of standard is being upheld? The winner in year 2 might not have even picked up a nomination in year 1 for hypothetically the same performance.

IMO if there are say seven amazing performances in a single year, then give out seven Oscars for exceptional acting performances. If there aren't any the next year, then don't award any.

 

[pauldun170]

I'm just going to assume that he is officially quitting due to a health issue.
Daniel Day Lewis will be rushed to the hospital in the next 5 years and dead within 10.

The health issue will be mental
Cause of death will be impalement by goat horn.

He bought a farm awhile back and has been on sabbatical.
My guess is that he has taken up the forbidden dance with his livestock.

 

[cbrunny]

I'm just going to assume that he is officially quitting due to a health issue.
Daniel Day Lewis will be rushed to the hospital in the next 5 years and dead within 10.

The health issue will be mental
Cause of death will be impalement by goat horn.

He bought a farm awhile back and has been on sabbatical.
My guess is that he has taken up the forbidden dance with his livestock.

you think daniel day lewis is a goat fucker?

 

[pauldun170]

you think daniel day lewis is a goat fucker?

No.
I don't think he's gotten past 3rd base yet.
Something about taking it slow....doing it right this time and making it special.

 

[torpid]

It's all a bit of a nonsense IMO, simply because if you have three simply amazing performances for completely different parts and actors in one year, one of them got lucky and picked up an Oscar. Also, other actors pick up an Oscar because they delivered exceptionally written lines in a competent manner, and other actors get nominated simply because they acted a part better than they usually do. A fair few far better than average actors haven't picked up a single Oscar despite plenty of decent performances in careers spanning many decades.

Why on earth would you have a system of giving out a single award for something like 'best actor' anyway? If you get three amazing performances nominated in year 1 then three comparatively mediocre performances in year 2, then what kind of standard is being upheld? The winner in year 2 might not have even picked up a nomination in year 1 for hypothetically the same performance.

IMO if there are say seven amazing performances in a single year, then give out seven Oscars for exceptional acting performances. If there aren't any the next year, then don't award any.

We should do the same thing with all awards and sports. No one is having a good race at the Olympics? No medals! Lots of people playing tremendous soccer this year? Everyone wins the World Cup!

 

[PricklyPete]

I actually thought he had already done this. Great actor, and I bet he'll be back in another decade.

 

[Thebobo]

Didn't Gene Hackman basically say the same, that he hated hollywood and would never be back. Except for a couple years later he was back.

 

[mikeymikec]

We should do the same thing with all awards and sports. No one is having a good race at the Olympics? No medals! Lots of people playing tremendous soccer this year? Everyone wins the World Cup!

If you can think of some way to compare acting performances with the world cup, I'm all ears. If you don't have anything interesting or worthwhile to say, then lay off the sarcasm and quit looking stupid.

 

[torpid]

If you can think of some way to compare acting performances with the world cup, I'm all ears. If you don't have anything interesting or worthwhile to say, then lay off the sarcasm and quit looking stupid.

It's an award. Awards are generally given to one person/team. That's how awards work. If you would like me to go into more detail about how incredibly absurd your idea is for giving out Oscars, I can. I thought it was pretty self-evident when you posted it, but decided that some sarcastic derision might help you understand. Guess not.

 

[mikeymikec]

It's an award. Awards are generally given to one person/team. That's how awards work. If you would like me to go into more detail about how incredibly absurd your idea is for giving out Oscars, I can. I thought it was pretty self-evident when you posted it, but decided that some sarcastic derision might help you understand. Guess not.

Please do, some substance to your argument would be greatly appreciated.

 

[ImpulsE69]

People still think Oscars mean something?

 

[torpid]

Please do, some substance to your argument would be greatly appreciated.

OK. So your really bad idea is that we might not give out best actor awards some year and might give out multiple another year. I assume you aren't so naive as to think this only applies to actors, so it clearly gets expanded to the entire set of awards. I'm sure, given your extremely well-thought-out idea, that you're familiar with how both the nomination and final vote works right? So the first reason the idea is complete nonsense is that the entire system for deciding the short list would have to be thrown out the window. What would you like the ballot to look like exactly?

What you are asking is for a group of actors to collectively somehow indicate that none of their peers did a good enough job to warrant recognition. That will never happen. Then you've got to come up with some system where the group of actors can somehow indicate the specific list of people who ought to win the award. "Indicate who you think did the best job this year. Rank your preferences from 1-5. Now of those preferences, indicate which people deserve an Oscar vs which people just happened to have done an above average job in a year when you and all of your colleagues just kind of sucked it up." Similarly, I'm sure you've got some great ideas on the final ballot, too.

And clearly this is objective right? It's not like the academy members who vote on actors will all have really different ideas about what's Oscar-worthy, right?

Now go on and start coming up with how you'd like the ceremony to work. "Here are the nominees for best actor. There are none." "Here are the nominees for best director. There are only 3 and all of them win the oscar."

Or maybe you are smart enough to realize that just being nominated is a huge career boon. So maybe it works like this "Here are the nominees for best actor. Daniel Day Lewis for xxx, Ryan Gosling for yyy. Edward Norton for zzz. And the winner is... no one. None of you were good enough."

Thoughts?

Of course, there's also the fact that we are basing this entire idea on what a random dude on the internet thinks, seemingly without having any idea what it's like to be an actor. No doubt some years, no one really did a great job at this job because it's easy to do what they do and unless they are truly exceptional, their own peers shouldn't be awarding them anything, right?

 

[Sonikku]

Not really. The club gets VERY small at the top. DDL, Oldman, Streep...it's really hard to put anyone else on their level.

If you say Pacino or De Niro, you lose a testicle.

Pacino.
De Niro.

 

[rstrohkirch]

If you can think of some way to compare acting performances with the world cup, I'm all ears.

I'll take a stab at sporting events. In your OP, you feel that awards like the Oscars shouldn't be limited a specific number but to the amount of "amazing" performances per reviewed year. If there are no amazing performances in a reviewed year then there are no awards given in that category. However, we don't an accurate way to measure performances because they're based on opinion.

Using your logic with sporting events is a lot easier since there is a quantifiable number involved. So if the World Cup was best 3 out 5 not only would have to win 5 but you would have to have as many or more points then the best prior years champion. If you don't then your performance wasn't as good and therefor you don't deserve a trophy. That applies the logic for not giving out awards for non-exceptional performances but it's obviously very silly.

How about giving out multiple awards for exceptional performances. You feel it's silly to only give out 1 award when there could be multiple great performances and you downplay the award system because of that. Do you also downplay things like the Commissioner's or Larry O'Brien trophies because the same exact thing can happen there. You can have a year where two teams are quantifiable better every other team by large margins or even years but only 1 gets a trophy. Shouldn't they give out two trophy's that year?