Meryl Streep : Will she overthrone Hepburn Oscar-wise?

What do you think?
God I hope not

That would be awesome if she did, I think Hepburn is a little overrated

I agree with you..I believe she was type cast and sometimes she was playing herself.for me Bette Davis was much better.maybe Audrey Hepburn too.

No. But I really believe that Meryl will be overtaken by Cate Blanchett.


Rooney Fassbender and Joaquin Blanchett

I don't think anyone will. Those were the olden days and the only reason she got her 4th is out of the nostalgia over the golden days of Hollywood survivor. I don't think that Meryl nor Cate will get there. However, it's quite different for the men. The Academy thinks that Day Lewis is the acting God (and yes he is good) so it wouldn't at all surprise me if he got up to Oscar no 4 somtime soon.

Katharine has 4 leading Oscars and Meryl has 2. So I doubt it. Supporting Oscars ain't worth *beep*
Daniel Day-Lewis on the other hand will catch up and possibly beat her.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COO2X4EUkAA0tNi.jpg

what are you talking about supporting actors win oscars to not garbage

But supporting Oscars carry less prestige than leading ones. An actor is far more likely to receive more leading roles if they win a leading Oscar.
__________________________
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqgk1yGWpE1qj71muo1_500.gif

Tell that to Streep, who started getting lead roles after her Supporting Oscar.


"I'm pretty but tough, like a diamond, or beef jerky in a ball gown."

Yeah, after she did what Chastain did - appear in supporting roles in a few acclaimed movies at once so everyone in Hollywood can see your talent. In Streep's case, two Best Picture winners and Manhattan.

http://tinyurl.com/z8qyzyd

Find the proper citation (if it exists) because that's generally very untrue.
Speaking from within the trade itself, that gold statuette's categorical difference has little - if any - weight.
What matters more than the Oscar is one's visibility. A complete unknown can be crowned the best leading actress of X year while a more consistently excellent actress may win the supporting statuette and be perceived as a better investment. It entirely depends on the circumstances. But in the end, what truly matters is 1.) being the bigger name; 2.) winning one if you can - thus being an accountable name for marketing and obtaining investments for a production budget.

I think Meryl Steep should have more because she is more consistent (consistent in having complex characters/spontaneity)

Her last two wins were for The Lion in Winter and On Golden Pond. While the latter most certainly was not Oscar-worthy, the former is considered her best winning acting role and one of her great performances.

If anything, she didn't deserve the award for Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967), the year either Anne Bancroft (The Graduate) or Faye Dunaway (Bonnie and Clyde) were supreme.

Her first victory in 1933 for Morning Glory was also homage to her role in Little Women, that same year- and her breakthrough into Hollywood.

Hepburn should have prevailed for-

Alice Adams (1935)
Bringing Up Baby (1938)
The Philadelphia Story (1951)
Long Day's Journey Into Night (1962)

I completely agree that she didn't deserve the Guess who's coming to dinner, but that was the year that Spencer Tracy perished and Hepburn said herself that she only won due to his death.
However, as you said, she also had many roles that she should have won and she didn't.

---

Hepburn didn't deserve her last 2 Oscars

---

On the contrary, her third for LION IN WINTER was her most deserved of all.


LBJ's mistress on JFK:

Touch wood, I guess she'll be working in films for another couple of decades. I can't imagine she'll win another two Oscars, but she'll probably win a fourth, for a supporting role.

"Overthrone" isn't a word.

thx.

Dethrone.

I think it would be fair if she won more Oscars. There's really been many years in which she delivered the best performance and should've won but she didn't. Remember "Out of Africa", "Ironweed", "A cry in the dark", "Bridges of Madison" and more Let's just see what roles she gets offered and which ones she plays in the next few years.

Hollywood will find a way to give her one more.

was she the most deserving of all 5 nominees, or just give it to her for the sake of it?
_________________
No, just give it to her because she is Streep and can do no wrong. All of those films mentioned and the respective years they came out, the competition was very good to strong. Of course Streep is still the best though.


Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:

Despite what Streep fan-boys have you believing they won't give her an award just for the sake of it. That's what they did with "Iron Lady", which must be one of the weaker films to ever won an Oscar
Awards don't work like that, consistency and the fact that she's constantly good isn't an criteria. It's whether you're good in a particular role and if others are better. Was Streep really the best choice to win instead of those who actually won?

Besides, not every single role of hers deserves award or to be acclaimed, despite fans wanting it to be so. Did she really deserve to be nominated for Into The Woods, for instance? Was that role that memorable? What was so good about her role as a witch that it deserved acclaim? Other have played more memorable witches without being nominated.
Sometimes I think the academy nominates her just for being Streep, especially these last years. I am amazed they didn't nominate her for "Suffragette".

Sometimes I think the academy nominates her just for being Streep, especially these last years.


At least he got that part right. For up to about a decade ago, winning an Oscar was considered a great achievement within the industry. A winning performer could increase their asking price, it elevated their stature within the industry and access to the better roles.

That's pretty much over, where as now everything is judged more by the box office returns.

So yes, da twit is correct, for now that it's basically been reduce to a television presentation and red carpet event, Streep continuous nominations lend creditability to the Academy and it's dwindling respectability, for the greater honor isn't to win, but to win in a category when Streep is nominated.

That said, who really cares if she wins another? I don't.

I agree. I think she's the worst actress since Ginger Rogers and hope this latest, Florence Foster Jenkins is going to be her last. Enough is enough! Time for others who can do more than smirk and fake accents to work! Greatest actress of her generation, my A**!

It's an interesting premise given that Hepburn reportedly had significant disdain for Streep.

Personally I've always preferred Streep. Although I agree with another poster that Cate Blanchett may come out of left field and beat Streep to three Best Actress wins.

Ladies and gentlemenMr.Conway Twitty

I've never put much to Hepburn's dismissal of Streep, for in truth, Hepburn would have had little knowledge of Streep at the time she said it. Hepburn lived in a bubble, (not even knowing who Ted Turner was), and unlike other Stars from the Golden Era, didn't make it her business to know or support younger actors who were rising in the ranks.

Rather, Hepburn came up during a period in filmmaking where if a studio purchased a script and further marketed a performer for an Academy Award, as with promoting the film, the actor or actress was expected to get out into media and market themselves to win which often meant doing in the competition.

At the time Hepburn reportedly trashed Streep's acting, they were both up for Best Actress and she knew Streep was her only chance of losing. It's also been documented by some of her friends and colleagues, that Hepburn very much wanted to win the fourth Academy Award and felt it was a part of galvanizing her film legacy.

Hopefully. Hepburn is overrated and gets way too much love for mediocre acting skills.
Streep is brilliant.

*beep* r u for real? Katharine Hepburn is one of the greatest actresses ever.

Top 250 Foreign Movies
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076565151/

Thanks for proving my point that Hepburn is overrated.

Thanks for proving that you are an idiot.

Top 250 Foreign Movies
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076565151/

So because I have a different opinion, I'm an idiot?
In that case, you shouldn't be calling people idiots when you think Katharine Mediocre is one of the greatest actresses of all time.

---

No. But I really believe that Meryl will be overtaken by Cate Blanchett.

---

This.

I think Meryl Streep is an outstanding actress, but I find it slightly amusing that so much attention is paid to her, Cate Blanchett has tip-toed in from left field. Cate is my fav actress, and if she was the one who surpassed Hepburn, I would be very happy.

Like some others on the board, I've always felt that Hepburn was a little overrated. She was more type cast then anything else. If an actor/actress is a likable person, that's not necessarily a bad thing. However Blanchett and Streep have the ability to actually become whoever they portray.

Ladies and gentlemenMr.Conway Twitty

I'd largely agree, especially with you're last sentence. Streep and Blanchett aren't necessarily in the best films, but you generally always watch them for both actresses have the ability to rise above their material which is itself interesting to see.

In turn, I remember Hepburn saying on a morning talk show interview back in the eighties that acting simply required a certain personality and style, which was undefinable, yet she said that she had it. Why this was probably true and the quality Hepburn spoke of served her very well throughout her career, bottom line, Hepburn played Hepburn in every role shb68e performed.

---

I think Meryl Streep is an outstanding actress, but I find it slightly amusing that so much attention is paid to her . . .

---

Streep has made it clear that she dislikes the attention, especially to her personal life (but just watch her light up and engage in interview questions about acting 'process'), and that she hates having to promote her films. Blanchett, like Streep, has said she accepts roles based on what's best for her family.

---

Blanchett and Streep have the ability to actually become whoever they portray.

---

I still can't get over what Blanchett did with her small part in "The Shipping News." In 20 years' time, she may have the accolades Streep has now. Both ladies are actor's actors. Hepburn, on the other hand, was more of a celebrity.
5b4

Meryl Streep is a shape-shifter.

I love Cate. But speaking of Kate, Meryl would never have played Kate in the way Cate played Kate which, quite ironically, Cate won an Oscar for.

Cate's Kate was a grotesque. Not that THE AVIATOR (which I didn't hate) deserved any better.


LBJ's mistress on JFK:

I really hope she does. I've never liked Hepburn for her "tick tock" statement

Yeah, Hepburn was borderline bat crap cray cray and she reportedly said really nasty things about Glenn Close as well.