Academy Award atrocities!

big_show

Films that Should of won an award but got robbed by a em.. lesser film

discuss!

personally the insider, losing ever single major award to american beauty, crowe deserved an oscar for this way before gladiator..

Driver 8

Forrest Gump beating Shawshank in 94

Dances with Wolves beating Goodfellas in 90

Pacino having to wait until 92 for an Oscar, and then only for Scent of a Woman

Gosford Park beating Memento for original screenplay

Sad Professor

Agree 100% about The Insider. It's easily Mann's best film imo. And Crowe's performance in it is far superior to anything he's done since. 7 nominations and it didn't get one.

I love Dances with Wolves but Marty definitely should gotten best director that year, much as he should have for Taxi Driver and Raging Bull.

Other Oscar mistakes, where to begin:

- David Lynch (Blue Velvet) losing to Oliver Stone in 1987.
- Coppola losing best director for the first Godfather in 1973 (can't remember who he lost to).
- Kubrick not winning for 2001, Dr Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange.
- Hitchcock wasn't even nominated for Vertigo!

Galvasean

Scorsese getting best director for what was near enough a shot for shot remake.

The Recliner

Shakespeare in Love

Judy Dench getting on for 10 mins work

And Alan Arkin's oscar for Little Miss Sunshine, not only was his screen time short there was no effort needed to play that character

I hate actors getting oscars for playing themselves on screen, Jack Nicholson springs to mind

humanji

Ah, a list thread. In before lock

Driver 8

Scorsese getting best director for what was near enough a shot for shot remake.

With a completely different ending and overall theme...

mike65

Ben Hur winning pretty much everything so denying Some Like it Hot nods for Best Picture and Director.

The Greatest Show on Earth winning Best Picture (and nothing else) in 1952 so robbing High Noon.

Titanic for everything.

Mike.

el dude

Denzel for Training Day. Don't know who lost out to him like but still such an average film. But that raises another question i guess.

Snake Plisken

Gladiator Hanz Zimmer losing out best original score to crouching tiger hidden dragon, go on him the theme to that! Nope didn't think so now try Gladiator yep there u go! Very silly acadamy!

grames_bond

Driver 8 wrote: »

Forrest Gump beating Shawshank in 94

Forrest Gump beating Shawshank AND PULP FICTION in 94

MisterAnarchy

Titanic beating LA Confidential in 97.
To be fair the Academy Awards are a joke.

Pigman II

Dances with Wolves vs Goodfellas

Driving Miss Daisy vs Born on the 4th of July

Terms of Endearment vs The Right Stuff

Chariots of Fire vs Raiders of the Lost Ark

Ordinary People vs Raging Bull

KramerKramer vs Apocalypse Now

Annie Hall vs Star Wars

Rocky vs Taxi Driver



Any of the Above travesties. The good thing is that time is usually the true test of a movies quality.

johnny_ultimate

Pigman II wrote: »

Annie Hall vs Star Wars

Blasphemy! As great as Star Wars is as a piece of trashy entertainment (and it is probably one of the, if not the the, most enjoyable films of all time) but Annie Hall is a vastly superior film. In terms of script, direction, acting and insight AH is a masterpiece. As much as I love Star Wars for the fluff that it is, Annie Hall is a vastly superior film, and is one of the few examples where I will actually defend the Academy's decision.

But overall, I do think the Oscars are a complete farce. You could list for hours all the films and directors that should have won but didn't. It is sad to see the innovative films of David Lynch, Christopher Nolan, Darren Aronofsky, Wes Anderson and the other truly unique American talents passed over in favour of the latest conservative piece of Clint Eastwood trash. It doesn't bother me too much, but I really don't think the Oscars should be taken seriously these days. The glory days are passed, and now it just seems like an excuse for the ageing Hollywood past-elite to engage in backslappery and "Jolly Good Work, Old Chum" levels of jovial conversation.

Zaph

mike65 wrote: »

Ben Hur winning pretty much everything so denying Some Like it Hot nods for Best Picture and Director.

Rather disgracefully, Some Like it Hot wasn't actually nominated for Best Picture.

Pigman II

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Blasphemy! As great as Star Wars is as a piece of trashy entertainment (and it is probably one of the, if not the the, most enjoyable films of all time) but Annie Hall is a vastly superior film. In terms of script, direction, acting and insight AH is a masterpiece. As much as I love Star Wars for the fluff that it is, Annie Hall is a vastly superior film, and is one of the few examples where I will actually defend the Academy's decision.

See this is half my problem with people who criticise the Academy choices and who take it upon themselves to become a popular concensus what the "best movies" are.

A film comes along that technically speaking blows everything of the day out of the water, becomes the highest grossing movie of all time and remains beloved by millions of people even to this day but yet remains a farcical suggestion for best of the year because it doesn't meet some predetermined intellectual or artistic benchmark.

Then, when a film with these shameful components actually DOES win people are sent into a rage. They moan about Titanic or Forrest Gump getting the oscar and that it should go to some film full of snappy dialogue and intense acting. However, when you consider the amount of ambition, innovation, care and sheer work that goes into making a Gump/Titanic I doubt anything could even come close to it.

What exactly makes LA Confidential better than Titanic or Pulp Fiction better than Forrest Gump? Don't anyone bother explaining cos It's like comparing chalk and cheese. The film critic Roger Ebert once said that when he watches a an Action movie he determines its quality not by comparing it to all-time classics such as Casablanca or Citizen Kane but by saying "how does this compare to Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Similarily when he watches a new Super Hero movie "how does this rank against Superman 2?" not Godfather Part 2.

That's why I don't mind Titanic or Gump winning as I realise what actually went into making them and how they achieved what they set out to in such startling degree. I'm only sorry that if they could give them 2 Oscars that they couldn't have been wise enough to give the nod to a movie that pushed the envelope further than any other then or now, Star Wars.

That said tho, it's all just opinions at the end of the day and possibly no more so than with the Oscars.

el dude

Has a comedy ever won an Oscar?

Pigman II

el dude wrote: »

Has a comedy ever won an Oscar?

IIRC The Producers is the only comedy winner.

johnny_ultimate

Pigman II wrote: »

See this is half my problem with people who criticise the Academy choices and who take it upon themselves to become a popular concensus what the "best movies" are.

A film comes along that technically speaking blows everything of the day out of the water, becomes the highest grossing movie of all time and remains beloved by millions of people even to this day but yet remains a farcical suggestion for best of the year because it doesn't meet some predetermined intellectual or artistic benchmark.

Then, when a film with these shameful components actually DOES win people are sent into a rage. They moan about Titanic or Forrest Gump getting the oscar and that it should go to some film full of snappy dialogue and intense acting. However, when you consider the amount of ambition, innovation, care and sheer work that goes into making a Gump/Titanic I doubt anything could even come close to it.

That's why I don't mind Titanic or Gump winning as I realise what actually went into making them and how they achieved what they set out to in such startling degree. I'm only sorry that if they could give them 2 Oscars that they couldn't have been wise enough to give the nod to a movie that pushed the envelope further than any other then or now, Star Wars.

The thing with Star Wars is that while it captured the imagination of millions, as a piece of film-making it is in many ways sub-par. The script in particular is dreadful. The Academy Awards are there to recognise films that excel in particular areas. So while Star Wars may be a wonderful piece of entertainment, in terms of Oscar criteria it probably only deserves nods in technical and design areas, which is where the film truly innovated. But you have to give credit where credits due - if a film has better writing, acting and direction overall than another, surely that deserves the Oscar which is meant to acknowledge excellence in particular areas? So while I love superhero movies like Spiderman 2 or XMen, I'd be annoyed if they won over the more technically and intellectually accomplished films, which I think it is the Academy's job to promote (and one which they continually fail at, IMO).

Please note that I do adore Star Wars, and hate the Oscars, but Im simply arguing that I do see where they are coming from when they make certain decisions.

Giruilla

Sad Professor wrote: »

Agree 100% about The Insider. It's easily Mann's best film imo. And Crowe's performance in it is far superior to anything he's done since. 7 nominations and it didn't get one.
QUOTE]

Totally agree bout The Insider too! But Manns best film, c'mon, it has to Manhunter!!

For me seeing Michael Moore win an oscar for Bowline for Columbine was a disgrace. Think it beat Spellbound but thats not even important!

Sad Professor

One of my biggest problem with the Oscars is how they handle the technical awards. The Academy always gives them to the film they like the most as apposed to the film that actually deserved it for having the best sound, cinematography, etc. For example The Phantom Menace is not a good movie and The Matrix is far superior to it on many levels but there's simply no way in hell it deserved to win best visual effects for some stupid bullet-time effect that was ripped from a GAP ad over ILM's groundbreaking work in TPM. Ben Burt's incredible sound work on the prequels was mostly ignored as well.

I also don't think the best director and picture oscars should go to the same film as often as they do. For example I don't think Titanic deserved Best Picture in '98 but Cameron's director and editing oscars were well deserved, the film was an incredible undertaking and a film of that scope takes a very strong and talented individual to hold it all together.

But I agree with Pigman about Star Wars deserving best picture over Annie Hall in '78. Sure you could poke loads of holes in the quality of Star Wars' acting, directing, writing, etc but a film is greater than the sum of its parts. Great writing, great acting, great lighting, etc, does not make a great movie but rather how all those seperate art forms work together does. Cinema is a chemistry of almost every other art but it's also a separate one of its own which needs to be judged for the whole. The first Star Wars is a great movie despite all it's failings, or perhaps in some way because of them.

Cokehead Mother

Pigman II wrote: »

IIRC The Producers is the only comedy winner.

Shakespeare in Love and Annie Hall?

Pigman II

Cokehead Mother wrote: »

Shakespeare in Love and Annie Hall?

Good stuff.

moe_sizlak

the oscars are by and large pretty predictable , there are a few people they love and there are a few nationalities they love and there are a few kinds of movies they love

PEOPLE = clint eastwood whoom i like but who wins for anything he does
charlton heston whoom i hate , his movies won no matter what
judy dench , she gets nominated almost every year , shes british you see
hillary swank , saw her in 2 movies , she won for both
merly streep , she could fart her way through a movie and get nominated

nationalities = the britts have an immiediete headstart , a lot of americans like to think of the britts as being superior , this is usually with regard art only
they think they have this acting class that is genetic and therefore exclusivley british , might explain the success of the show HOUSE starring upper class twit hugh laurie , show does nothing over here , huge in usa

kinds of movies = they like something a little left field but not too left field , for example farenheitt 9-11 didnt even get a nomination , presumably the academy were afraid of what washington or worse fox news might say


with regard movies that should have won and those that should have not

if forrest gump could win , then so should star wars , there both popcorn movies
dances with wolves is the kind of crap ( and crap it is)they go for and goodfellas was too violent for middle america
shakespear in love winning over saving private ryan , i dont know , i think private ryan is a little over rated to be honest

a travesty in my opinion was when tom hanks won for philadelphia , that year anthony hopkins was up for remains of the day , possibly the greatest performance ever given by an actor but then again in philadelphia tom hanks was dieing of a disease and it was a liberal disease too

but the biggest pile of crap ever to win has to be the english patient but then again pretensous english crap always does well

L'prof

might explain the success of the show HOUSE starring upper class twit hugh laurie , show does nothing over here , huge in usa

I think you're wrong there! House is an excellent show, the only thing it lacks is a prime time slot over here...if it got that, I'm sure it would be huge!

Cokehead Mother

moe_sizlak wrote: »

[AIDS] was a liberal disease too

...?

Snake Plisken

moe_sizlak wrote: »

but the biggest pile of crap ever to win has to be the english patient but then again pretensous english crap always does well

So true, its the worst and I mean worst piece of crap that I have ever sat through in the cinema and this beat the likes of Fargo Jerry McGuire & Shine for best picture all 3 deserved the oscar above this pile of Poo

mewso

Pigman II wrote: »

Rocky vs Taxi Driver

Make that Rocky wins V Taxi Driver, Network + All the Presidents Men.

Looking at Network I make an early prediction for Sidney Lumet as best director at least in 2008.

Valmont

I think when Forrest Gump beat Shawshank and Pulp Fiction, it was just unfortunate that three completely worthy winners were the same year, if any one of them won it, people would always be sad. It's no big deal though, it's not like I would be in HMV and go ''hmmmm...haven't seen pulp fiction but I probably won't buy it because it lost out to forest gump in the oscars a while back..."

moe_sizlak

Valmont wrote: »

I think when Forrest Gump beat Shawshank and Pulp Fiction, it was just unfortunate that three completely worthy winners were the same year, if any one of them won it, people would always be sad. It's no big deal though, it's not like I would be in HMV and go ''hmmmm...haven't seen pulp fiction but I probably won't buy it because it lost out to forest gump in the oscars a while back..."

the oscars care too much what middle america thinks so just like goodfellas , pulp fiction couldnt win , the shawshank could have but forrest gump was the quintesential american dream movie so it had oscar written all over it

Cokehead Mother

moe_sizlak wrote: »

the oscars care too much what middle america thinks so just like goodfellas , pulp fiction couldnt win , the shawshank could have but forrest gump was the quintesential american dream movie so it had oscar written all over it

Then how the feck did Midnight Cowboy win?

Driver 8

Crash over Brokeback Mountain

Adrien Brody (who was excellent to be fair) over Daniel Day Lewis

Jim Carrey not being nominated for Man on the Moon

Ed Norton losing to Robert Benini (sp?) (American History X/ Life Is Beautiful)

Galvasean

Jim Carrey (I know, I know!) not getting a nomination for eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Damn stereotype :mad:

Driver 8

Oh, and Paul Newman losing out on supporting actor for Road to Perdition.

Bad enough he had to wait til the eighties to get his first, but to snub him for such a great performance, what will likely be his last on screen appearence....*sigh* but they'll give his buddy Redford best director. :rolleyes:

L'prof

Driver 8 wrote: »

Crash over Brokeback Mountain

Crash was a much better film in my opinion! Brokeback Mountain just bored the hell out of me!

Driver 8

I'd rather be "bored" than lectured or patronised

Galvasean

Driver 8 wrote: »

I'd rather be "bored" than lectured or patronised

In fairness both movies were a bit preachy. At least Brokeback had some great performances. Every single character in Crash was a horrible stereotype.

L'prof

I just really enjoyed Crash...whether it had stereotypical characters or not didn't bother me, it still had a good storyline which I thought Brokeback lacked!

Call Me Jimmy

jasonorr wrote: »

Crash was a much better film in my opinion! Brokeback Mountain just bored the hell out of me!

I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, but Crash was the most pretentious pile of p!ss i've ever seen. It really is a film for 13 year olds, kind of like pulp fiction. (OH NO HE DI'NT)

L'prof

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, but Crash was the most pretentious pile of p!ss i've ever seen. It really is a film for 13 year olds, kind of like pulp fiction. (OH NO HE DI'NT)

Yeah you're right...13 year olds...:rolleyes:

ixoy

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, but Crash was the most pretentious pile of p!ss i've ever seen.

Aye, I'm kinda of in agreement with you here. I found Crash's laboured preachings about race cringe-inducing and painful (due to my fingernails digging into the palms of my hands). It's an atrocity that it won the Best Picture over any of the other nominees.

Pigman II

It's like listening to Ebony and Ivory for 2 hours.

Call Me Jimmy

jasonorr wrote: »

Yeah you're right...13 year olds...:rolleyes:

Yeah, you know, that first movie ye see where everyone calls each other "nigga" and ye think it's great.

moe_sizlak

pulp fiction is my all time fave movie

brokeback mountain was a movie that critics were not allowed dislike , would be akin to a critic not thinking tom hanks should have won an oscar for potraying an aids sufferer

sacred cows and all

faceman

I take the oscars with a pinch of salt tbh however the treatment of taxi driver when it was nominated (and lost out to Rocky) was quite shameful. It wasnt that it didnt win that was the shock, it was how little publicity it got at the ceremony given it's then controversial theme and anti hero plot

kawaii

What's wrong with Rocky?? I thought it was brilliant! I liked both movies though...

L'prof

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Yeah, you know, that first movie ye see where everyone calls each other "nigga" and ye think it's great.

OK, maybe I need to watch it again because I thoroughly enjoyed it!

Call Me Jimmy

lol ye don't have to reassess your opinion because of me, but when I was around 13-15 I saw it a couple of times and thought it was the bees knees, it was so exciting but I saw it again recently enough and I found it childish and frankly annoying.

grames_bond

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

It really is a film for 13 year olds, kind of like pulp fiction. (OH NO HE DI'NT)

so you think a movie with a big black man getting arse raped is made for 13 year olds?! you need help man!