|
|
|
|
|
|
Did Norbit Cost Murphy An Oscar?
| Author |
Message |
|
Atoddr
Veteran
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 3014
Location: Kansai
|
Didn't he publicly diss the Academy for being racist 20 years ago? That'll come back to haunt you..........
|
| Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:50 am |
 
|
|
|
DP07
The Thirteenth Floor
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15497
Location: Everywhere
|
bradley witherberry wrote: Releasing Norbit and it's ad campaign during the Oscar voting probably did hurt his chances -- I bet it was a very close vote. Nobody needed reminding of all Murphy's stinkers just then. Lately he'd been keeping his head down, with just the well-received voice work in Shrek. But, I suppose it was trade-off -- extra BO for Norbit because of the Oscar buzz. I wonder if he would trade the extra Norbit $$$ he made for the Oscar? Are you actually suggesting that the Oscars increased the BO for Norbit?
|
| Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:06 am |
|
|
|
Webslinger
why so serious?
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:24 pm
Posts: 4110
Location: Stuck In A Moment I Can't Get Out Of
|
Did Norbit work against him? I haven't really decided yet. I mean, it certainly didn't help him win any votes, but really, I think he would have lost to Arkin even without Norbit. Arkin had great buzz that kept increasing as we got closer to Oscar night, and Murphy has always been seen as a prick, which I think was always working against him.
And really, can you imagine the phrase "Academy Award Winner Eddie Murphy" appearing on promotional materials for next year's Starship Dave? I didn't think so.
_________________
This Post Has Brought to You by Your Friendly Neighborhood Webslinger.
|
| Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:49 pm |
|
|
|
Marty
Angels & Demons
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 3:14 pm
Posts: 235
|
It's really more that Arkin won, rather than that Murphy lost. Arkin was far more overdue, and in a better received film. I doubt anyone would penalize Murphy for releasing a hit in the midst of Oscar season, no matter how bad it may have been.
|
| Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:45 am |
|
|
|
snack
Extraordinary
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:18 pm
Posts: 12159
|
Marty wrote: It's really more that Arkin won, rather than that Murphy lost. Arkin was far more overdue, and in a better received film. I doubt anyone would penalize Murphy for releasing a hit in the midst of Oscar season, no matter how bad it may have been. Arkin's role wasn't substantial enough for a deserved win. He got his votes based on people believing it was completely ridiculous for Eddie Murphy to win an Oscar, so they voted for the polar opposite.
|
| Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:57 am |
|
|
|
Marty
Angels & Demons
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 3:14 pm
Posts: 235
|
Oh, come on. Non-substantial? People win for small or light roles all the time. He was due, he might not get another chance, he won.
|
| Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:43 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
