What's new

Best Picture Winners, Don't agree w/ who won, which would you pick? (1 Viewer)

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,328


I saw it all the way through in the theater back in 1982, and there's NO WAY it should have won. ET remains vastly superior in virtually every way...
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675

The same for me. ET had much greater impact on me in the theater, and is more enjoyable to this day (in fact, I've never bothered to see Gandhi again, which should tell you something about what I think of it).
 

andrew markworthy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 1999
Messages
4,762
Actually, I think the movies that won *should* have won, because they are a pretty accurate reflection of popular taste. As far as I can see, the psychology of the Academy voting process goes something like this:

(i) Was there a movie about disability, especially one where someone succeeds in spite of their disability? If YES, then vote for it because it'll make you feel that you're a caring sensitive person (even if in your heart of hearts you know it's sentimental schmaltz). If NO, then go to (ii)

(ii) Is there a movie that your partner says is brilliant? If YES, then vote for it because that way you stop them nagging. You may know that it's big-budget candyfloss, but what the heck, the voting's anonymous, so nobody can pin the blame on you. If NO, then got to (iii).

(iii) Was there a movie that made lots of money that didn't rely on toilet humour, and had at least some pretentions of art? Well, you'd better vote for it because there are no more options.

The simple fact is that the Oscars(R) reflect popular taste for good or ill. Sometimes a classic movie is chosen, but most of the time it's something innocuous.
E.g. this year's winner is a good exciting movie and will stand the test of time in the way that e.g. Rocky did - i.e. as a wholesome (in the best possible sense of the word) piece of entertainment. However, nobody will convince me that it's artistically superior to e.g. Lost in Translation.

However, why bother fussing? Good movies will stand the test of time regardless of whether they win awards or not. Who remembers now that Citizen Kane didn't win Best Picture? If anyone does, it's only to point out how fallible the Oscars(R) are.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675


I don't think anyone's really debating the ultimate meaning of the AAs. We're just expressing opinions about what films are better.
 

Kevin_H

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
146


You know, to this day I still don't know what film was better THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION or FORREST GUMP. Everytime I watch SHAWSHANK I think its a crime that it didn't win best picture, then I watch GUMP and I think the Academy got it right. Maybe the ideal there would have been for SHAWSHANK and GUMP to have tied.

By the way, I don't think PULP FICTION is in the same league as either GUMP or SHAWSHANK. Its a cool movie which I enjoy greatly, but it wasn't best picture. It won the oscar that it deserved to win, Best Original Screenplay.
 

Vickie_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2001
Messages
3,208


Was Gandhi more popular than ET? American Beauty more popular than The Sixth Sense? Did everyone like A Beautiful Mind oodles more than Fellowship of the Ring? Did Chicago's audience outnumber The Two Tower's by millions? Was Shakespeare in Love embraced by the masses (before the Oscars), far more than Saving Private Ryan? And The English Patient? How much more of a blockbuster was it than Jerry Maguire?

No wonder Seth has (very articulate and intelligent) coniption fits. For many people, the Academy is either too obscure or too populist. There's no middle ground, it seems.
Gandhi over ET? Too elite. Titanic over LA Confidential? Too populist. They can't possibly please everybody. All they can do is what they do do: 5000+ individuals filling out their ballots individually, which then get counted. Majority wins. I don't always agree with them, but this year, at least, I agreed with them wholeheartedly!
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
"Contrast this with my pick for 1939—The Wizard of Oz. Some of the other nominations in the 1940 awards were, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Ninotchka, Of Mice and Men, Stagecoach, Wuthering Heights and the winner Gone with the Wind. And not even nomionated is my favoriate of that great year: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs."

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was released in December of 1937. It failed to win a single Oscar, not even for score or song.

It was awarded a special Oscar at the AMPAS Ceremony in early 1939, after the resulting public and critical outcry.

------

1991: Silence of the Lambs (Winner)
Beauty and the Beast should have won.


Beauty and the Beast is one of the most singularly over-rated movies I've ever encountered. But that's speaking for my own tastes. It had a great set of songs, but I was aghast at how critics were led by the nose by Disney's PR department into declaring it "the best animated feature of all time". That just proved to me how ignorant modern critics are of animation history to begin with. Beauty and the Beast is a fine film -- a bit on the cartoony side, and a bit glib and a bit compromised for youngsters -- but still a fine film. Is it in the same league with Grave of the Fireflies, Yellow Submarine, Fantasia, Pinocchio and Bambi? Laughably, no. It takes more than great songs to make a great animated film, otherwise The Jungle Book would have won Best Picture in 1967.
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
Waitaminnit... you mean to say that you think FOTR should have won and ROTK shouldn't have? (scratching my head on this one) Something's fishy in the state of Gondor on this one...

"I don’t think that I’m alone in this assessment."

No, I agree 1000% and I know other people who agree as well. Fellowship should won in 2001. ROTK was deserving, but it was not the best film of 2003.
 

Andrew Priest

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
79
It seems to me that deserving is about as good as it gets. At least as far as movies and awards go. Once you go past deserving and try to determine which is the best things get awfully hazy. The tighter the focus the more blurred the line becomes.

I'd not be shocked to discover that RotK won partly because FotR didn't.
 

Tommy G

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 19, 2000
Messages
1,233
Vickie, agreed. I guess I always look at the full gambit of movies in a particular year. I always like to look at those films that the Academy has snubbed completely as well. Anyway, it's all opinion isn't it? I mean I find no redeeming value in any of Tarantino's films (and believe me, I've tried) however, on IMDB, Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are both listed in the top 250.
 

Kevin_H

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
146


Fellowship of the Ring didn't win simply because they made three movies at once, or maybe more accuratly, one movie split into three parts. They wanted to see how the movie ended before they gave it best picture. It would be like giving the oscar to Forrest Gump after only seeing the first third of the movie.

Oh, and personaly, Moulin Rouge is the best movie of 2001, not Fellowship.
 

JonZ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
7,799
"ET remains vastly superior in virtually every way... "

I beg to differ here as well. Id take Ghandi over ET anyday.

Along with Grease,Gone With The Wind, Pretty Woman, etc, ET is a film I just despise.
 

Jay E

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 30, 2000
Messages
2,483
The Academy will never get it right the majority of the time as long as they allow all their members to vote on the best picture. Independent voting is the only way you'll see less politics, sentiment, campaigning and favoritism and thus more objective results.
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060

I read your post a couple of times Jay—I’m probably missing something that was written before, but can you explain your meaning of ‘independent voting’?
 

Dome Vongvises

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 13, 2001
Messages
8,172


That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why shouldn't an Academy have its own members vote on what they feel is Best Picture?
 

andrew markworthy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 1999
Messages
4,762

I should perhaps have stressed that I meant popular *critical* taste. Let's take an example. Ghandi was not as popular as ET, but voters probably took the line that Ghandi was a more 'serious' movie and so should win (I think they were wrong - Ghandi is a worthy subject but a dull, do it by the book production; ET is, along with Belle et la Bete, the best constructed fantasy movie ever made, and I will fight anyone who disagrees ;) ). I would place good money that those voters actually liked ET more.
 

andrew markworthy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 1999
Messages
4,762
It's a great shame that the Oscars(R) are so parochial, and almost totally ignore films not in English. Just look at what was available for consideration if Academy members didn't have such problems reading subtitles. I've given the Oscar(R) winner followed by a non-English language movie released that year:

1980: Ordinary People
Kagemusha

1981: Chariots of Fire
Man of Iron

1982: Gandhi
Fitzcarraldo

1983: Terms of Endearment
Carmen

1984: Amadeus
Sunday in the Country

1985: Out of Africa
Ran

1986: Platoon
The Sacrifice

1987: The Last Emperor
Wings of Desire

1988: Rain Man
Pelle the Conqueror

1989: Driving Miss Daisy
Cinema Paradiso

1990: Dances with Wolves
Cyrano de Bergerac

1991: Silence of the Lambs
Double Life of Veronique

1992: Unforgiven
The Best Intentions

1993: Schindler's List
Three Colours: Blue

1994: Forrest Gump
Three Colours: Red

1995: Braveheart
Shanghai Triad

1996: The English Patient
Eighth Day

1997: Titanic
The Taste of Cherry

1998: Shakespeare in Love
The Class Trip

1999: American Beauty
All About My Mother

2000: Gladiator
In The Mood For Love

Now I realise that for some folks Star Wars and LOTR are the crowning achievements of cinema, and they're not going to be persuaded by what I'm about to say. However, in many years I firmly believe that the only really good stuff has been produced by non-American or non-British film makers working on total budgets that wouldn't pay the catering bills on a typical Hollywood commercial product.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,646
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top