Just checking these points totals via wikipedia and Paul Newman should have 5.0 instead of 5.4, Dicaprio should have 3.4 instead of 3.8, Kevin Spacey should have 3.0 but has 3.6, Gary Cooper should have 5.2 instead of 6.0 and Jack Nicholson should have 8.0 instead of 9.0. I checked a few other totals and they were all slightly off too. Unless I'm missing something, this quiz might need to be redone.
Ok I see where our difference comes from. Newman got 8 best actor nominations, and from those 8 noms, he lost 7 times and won once. So I was calculating (7*0.4 + 2) + 0.2 for a supporting nomination. Which accounts for our difference. That wiki source counts a win as also being a nomination. I don't know if that's how you meant for it to be calculated, but yeh its all good.
I wondered how Richard Burton missed being on the list. He had a lot of nominations - six best actor and one supporting - but never winning puts him just under with 2.6 (if I did the math correctly.) It's hard to believe he never won an Oscar.
Burton and O'Toole were tied for the most nominations without any wins for a long time. Then, O'Toole won a Life Achievement Award and an 8th nomination 24 years after Burton's death.
Part of what makes this interesting is that, in one case, they were both nominated for the same film: Becket.
If Day-Lewis did more than one movie every three years, he would run away with the top spot. Nicholson is great, but he is no match for Daniel Day-Lewis.
Day-Lewis retired once before and then came back. He's still in his 50's, so it's possible he'll act again if the right script comes along...especially if Paul Thomas Anderson can find something for him to do, but he also seems pretty indifferent to the idea of being a movie star, so who knows. Nicholson is in his 80's and there are persistent rumors that he has disappeared from the screen because age has withered his mind and his memory, so I don't think we'll see him act again.
I guess that’s a good point. Actors don’t always stay retired. Look at Joe Pesci in The Irishman (which was great by the way). And at this point I think we can agree that Nicholson’s pretty much retired already so I think there’s very little chance of him getting nominated again.
He is really overhated. Some of his performances are ridiculous, but he can be really good in the right role. What I think is most admirable about him is that he brings *everything* he has to every role he's in, whether it's Oscar bait or some nonsensical action movie. There are much better actors -- Pacino, Nicholson, De Niro, even Tom Hanks in Da Vinci Code -- who clearly mail it in when they're doing a movie they don't find very interesting. Nicolas Cage gives it 150% every time, which is a big part of what makes him so funny. He's needlessly intense in lightweight movies, especially action movies, in which everyone else is going at about half-speed because they know the dialogue is preposterous and the set pieces will steal the show anyway. But to watch Cage, you'd think The Rock was King Lear.
I know there has to be a metric used to create a list like this but when you have the likes of Cary Grant missing from a Greatest Hollywood Actors list but others who are not old enough to compare by length and, frankly, talent it's a bogus list. Considering there are greats that were never nominated and flash in the pans that have won, Oscars is never a reason to mark someone as the best.
When Oscar wins and nominations are the predicate factor for the quiz as stated by the title, don't be surprised when actors like Cary Grant or Marilyn Monroe aren't present.
Best actor: 8 nominations + 1 win = (8*0.4 + 2) = 5.2
Best supporting actor: 1 nomination = 0.2
Total = 5.4
I didn't check the other ones you mentioned, but I used a script so there's a good chance we are accurate unless the source data is wrong.
Part of what makes this interesting is that, in one case, they were both nominated for the same film: Becket.