Was "Legend" somehow ineligible for Oscars?

Because otherwise I am stunned by the lack of nomination for Hardy as the Kray twins. That’s just flat out criminal itself.

So please tell me there was a technical issue.

He already was nominated for his role in “The Revenant.” Plus, “Legend” only got middling reviews, most of which said his performance was the best thing about it. I’m sure his supporting actor nomination sucked all the juice out of any lead actor consideration.

I’m guessing it’s easier to get nominated for a Golden Globe, but Hardy didn’t get one of those nominations either. He apparently didn’t get a BAFTA nomination for it, either. Didn’t get a Screen Actors Guild Award nomination, either. I could go on.

Trying to think, but in recent years at least, the leading male actor’s character has had at least some redeeming qualities or was fascinatingly evil (Hannibal Lecter, Idi Amin). The Krays though were simply nasty, brutal, gangland thugs.

Perhaps the subject matter and setting were also a bit too “foreign” for the Academy committee’s taste.

shrug I guess we’ll never know.

Did anyone else open this thinking it was about the '80s fantasy film starring Tom Cruise and Tim Curry?

If you did, you may be interested to know that the 1985 Legend was indeed nominated for an Oscar (Best Makeup).

I did.

An actor cannot be nominated twice in the same category.

Which relates to what? Hardy was nominated for supporting for Revenant.

Yeah, but he played twins.


Recent years? Not to make you feel super old, but the Hannibal Lecter nomination was 25 years ago.

It’s easier to get nominated for a Golden Globe if your distributor or production company is willing to do all the work currying favor with the HFPA. But I can’t recall seeing any FYC ads for Legend…I’m not sure they mounted much of a campaign.

I meant it’s probably easier than getting nominated for an Oscar, because the Globes split Best Actor nominations between Drama and Comedy/Musical.

So if we assume arguendo that nominations reflect who was the best there was at what they did – and assume too that Will Smith was the best lead actor this year other than Cranston and Damon and DiCaprio and Fassbender and Redmayne – then Smith wasn’t good enough to get an Oscar nomination, because he was up against all of them; but got a Golden Globe nomination, because he wasn’t up against all of them.

And that Hardy, who for the sake of argument wasn’t even good enough to get a Golden Globe nomination, of course wasn’t good enough to get an Oscar nomination.

I’m going to speculate that this is the issue. The movie essentially bombed, so there was no money to mount a campaign. Oscar nominations don’t just happen, there is a lot of $ investment in making them happen.

As far as I can tell, it’s done better than Fassbender’s STEVE JOBS and Cranston’s TRUMBO, both of which earned Oscar attention. (And it also looks to have done better than Smith’s CONCUSSION, which picked up that Golden Globe nomination.)

Then again, maybe I’m jumping the gun, and shelling out money in hopes of getting a nomination makes sense because that nomination – and possible win – would then maybe equal free advertising, and more money coming back in. Hmm.

The lead actor race was very competitive, with other more high-profile people like Tom Hanks, Will Smith, Steve Carrell, Michael B. Jordan, Johnny Depp, and Tom Courtenay not making the cut. The film was listed as a shortlist contender for the MakeUp Oscar, but did not make the final slate of 3 (the only Tom Hardy movie not to get in, actually).

I’ll agree that the dual performance was a remarkable one, and you had to remind yourself you were watching the same actor, so different were both Kray incarnations. Fantastic work. But (as was previously mentioned), the movie was small and got only so-so reviews, so while his inclusion would’ve been well-deserved, it didn’t surprise anyone that it didn’t happen.

Not according to BoxOfficeMojo. These are the domestic figures (which AMPAS notices the most):

TRUMBO - $7.4M
LEGEND - $1.9M

Huh. Wikipedia has it at $38-million-plus, and on a small budget. Weird.

I think that’s international.

Yeah, but Box Office Mojo isn’t showing that – even though Wikipedia’s cite for that figure is a link to Box Office Mojo. So I figure I’m maybe going to tiptoe out of this for the foreseeable future?

They don’t show the full amount, but you can see it made $27 mil in the UK.