I was disappointed that Peter O'Toole did not get an Oscar - He never has had one ever, despite being nominated 8 times - that is crimminal!
I bet when he goes all the hypocritical luvvies will go - wasn't he such a great actor.
2007-02-27 08:36:17 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
yes
2007-02-27 08:38:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He most definatly deserves an Oscar even an honerey one for services rendered.
He is a wonderful actor very underated and should have had one years ago but lets face it your right it will be "oh what a great man" AFTER he has gone.
Do not worry we know he is great and not many actors can be as versatile as he is.He must feel terrible but if he reads this his heart will be lifted.
2007-02-27 08:50:52 · answer #2 · answered by momof3 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Peter O'toole is a wonderful actor, I have seen so many of his films Lawrence of Arabia, Becket, Lord Jim these were in his younger days and now he is still wonderful, I recently saw him in Troy and he made me cry... YES hes does deserve an oscar.
2007-02-27 08:49:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He would have won for Lawrence of Arabia most years but Gregory Peck won for To Kill A Mockingbird.
At least O'Toole has an honorary Oscar and is clearly still 'in the game' for winning one.
2007-02-27 08:40:51 · answer #4 · answered by Gypsy Doctor 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hey! Bite your tongue! He can't go til I get to meet him and talk with him!
Now then, he deserves at least three.
1.) Lawrence of Arabia ( Of course )
2.) Beckett
3.) The Lion In Winter
Maybe ... just maybe ... it's time we started looking at ' Oscar ' and ' Hollywood ' as what they really are, shall we?
Look at who or what they give that thing to in the last twenty or so years.
Ridley Scott never got one for ' Blade Runner ' and well deserved it. Let's look at these
' Method Boys ' who so professionally disdain that thing with their slouching and uncouthness and seedy attire; but when they get one, you'd have to go to a chocolate factory to find browner noses.
The artist is first and foremost responsible to himself and the audience. There are no artists in Hollywood. Okay?
THOSE they have to IMPORT!
Is it Oscar or we, the people who see the work, who decide.
2007-02-27 08:44:09 · answer #5 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I think it would have been nice for him (and us) to see him get it and because awards don't really mean anything important so, on that basis, why not? But, if they are dishing Oscars out it should be with conviction at least. So if the academy thought that Forrest Whittaker deserved it more then fair enough.
2007-02-27 09:29:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2007-03-02 16:04:17 · answer #7 · answered by TheatreFan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't believe he didn't get it for Lawrence of Arabia. He was great in The Lion in Winter, too. I didn't see the latest, but I can't imagine him giving anything but an Oscar-worthy performance.
2007-02-27 08:44:42 · answer #8 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Movie wasn't successful enough for it to be a moneymaker.... hollywood covers it's own interests. He is so good to watch, but the Oscars are so rigged anyway there's no point getting worked up about them.
2007-02-27 08:40:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, it's really NOT criminal. lol Obviously, the Academy who votes for the winner didn't think he was worthy of one. Just because he'd been nominated a lot doesn't mean he should win.
Susan Lucci was nominated 19 times before she won an Emmy!
2007-02-27 08:46:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes i think he deserved one, he is a great actor he should be recognised for the work he has done over the years..
2007-02-27 08:49:36 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋