Oscar Snubs that make you pissed?

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Serendipity

I'm still annoyed that Leonardo DiCaprio lost for "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" to Tommy Lee Jones in "The Fugitive".

Haven't seen that Gilbert movie,but he had to give an exceptional (for him) performance to beat out TLJ in the Fugitive.Love that movie.

[s2mikey]

Goodfellas losing to Dances with Boredom

The Two Towers losing to Chicago...seriously? BARF.

The English Patient winning an Oscar. Oh gawd.... stab yourself in the eye with a serraded fork.

The Artist winning Best Picture strictly because of how it was made. That year was kind of weak anyways.

Theres more but thats it for now.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Goodfellas losing to Dances with Boredom

The Two Towers losing to Chicago...seriously? BARF.

The English Patient winning an Oscar. Oh gawd.... stab yourself in the eye with a serraded fork.

The Artist winning Best Picture strictly because of how it was made. That year was kind of weak anyways.

Theres more but thats it for now.

Dances with Wolves and The English Patient are very good movies, they just weren't the best of their respective years.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Dances with Wolves and The English Patient are very good movies, they just weren't the best of their respective years.

Dances With Wolves changed the film industry. In many ways, it was far more daring than GoodFellas, and a much more difficult production. The Academy got it right.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Dances With Wolves changed the film industry. In many ways, it was far more daring than GoodFellas, and a much more difficult production. The Academy got it right.

How so? Daring or whatever doesnt mean you win an Oscar. I can appreciate some of these other films for what they tried to accomplish or whatever but taken strictly as entertainment and just being a movie.... Goodfellas is way better as far as me and many others are concerned. Oh well, thay aint changing it.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Dances with Wolves and The English Patient are very good movies, they just weren't the best of their respective years.

Oh they were competently made and all of that. English Patient was a tad melodramatic but made well. And since they werent the best of their respective years then they shouldnt have won

[jebhdb]

Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan for best picture.

[chris_sc77]

Cloud Atlas- Best Original Score, Best Visual Effects, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Makeup, Best Cinematography, Best Production Design, Best Sound, Best Sound Editing
Django Unchained- best Director, Best Original song (x3) , Best Costume Design,

[Jowiko96]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

Cloud Atlas- Best Original Score, Best Visual Effects, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Makeup, Best Cinematography, Best Production Design, Best Sound, Best Sound Editing
Django Unchained- best Director, Best Original song (x3) , Best Costume Design,

Agreed. Although I am basicly a fanboy of Cloud Atlas, I do think it should have been nomminated for score. Oh well.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

How so? Daring or whatever doesnt mean you win an Oscar. I can appreciate some of these other films for what they tried to accomplish or whatever but taken strictly as entertainment and just being a movie.... Goodfellas is way better as far as me and many others are concerned. Oh well, thay aint changing it.

Heaven's Gate - released at the start of the 80's - was such a disaster, it destroyed the studio. As a result, it became taboo in the industry to pitch films with certain elements (these became known as the "Heaven's Gate" rules)...and the most prominent among these were running times longer than two hours.

So here comes Dances With Wolves -- referred to as "Kevin's Gate" prior to release -- because it was a long-form movie clocking in close to three hours, it was a Western, and to add even more controversey, the film was replete with subtitles, like a foreign film. Everyone thought Costner was out of his mind, and it flew up against all the established conventional wisdom.

The film came out, and lo and behold, it was a smash. The effect, as James Cameron would later write, was that the "rules" against longer running times were smashed, and studios began to relax their paranoia against greenlighting films that were epic in tone and content and running time. In the wake of Dances With Wolves, directors were able to produce films again with longer running times, and we saw an explosion of them in short order...JFK, Schindler's List, Malcolm X, Short Cuts...all within three years of Dances With Wolves, with Braveheart and Titanic soon to follow. We also saw a bit of a rebirth for the Western.

So yes, Dances With Wolves changed the film industry. It was an outstanding production, and the heavy favorite to win Best Picture, which it did. Sadly, the "Scorsese as Oscar Martyr" meme became so entrenched, in the years that followed it became very fashionable to trounce Dances With Wolves. Over twenty years later, people living in the American cinema world that Dances With Wolves helped create don't understand the impact of the film, or have forgotten. I haven't. (of course, it didn't help that Costner starred in some turkeys in the 90's, which made it even easier for people to trash the film).

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Heaven's Gate - released at the start of the 80's - was such a disaster, it destroyed the studio. As a result, it became taboo in the industry to pitch films with certain elements (these became known as the "Heaven's Gate" rules)...and the most prominent among these were running times longer than two hours.

So here comes Dances With Wolves -- referred to as "Kevin's Gate" prior to release -- because it was a long-form movie clocking in close to three hours, it was a Western, and to add even more controversey, the film was replete with subtitles, like a foreign film. Everyone thought Costner was out of his mind, and it flew up against all the established conventional wisdom.

The film came out, and lo and behold, it was a smash. The effect, as James Cameron would later write, was that the "rules" against longer running times were smashed, and studios began to relax their paranoia against greenlighting films that were epic in tone and content and running time. In the wake of Dances With Wolves, directors were able to produce films again with longer running times, and we saw an explosion of them in short order...JFK, Schindler's List, Malcolm X, Short Cuts...all within three years of Dances With Wolves, with Braveheart and Titanic soon to follow. We also saw a bit of a rebirth for the Western.

So yes, Dances With Wolves changed the film industry. It was an outstanding production, and the heavy favorite to win Best Picture, which it did. Sadly, the "Scorsese as Oscar Martyr" meme became so entrenched, in the years that followed it became very fashionable to trounce Dances With Wolves. Over twenty years later, people living in the American cinema world that Dances With Wolves helped create don't understand the impact of the film, or have forgotten. I haven't. (of course, it didn't help that Costner starred in some turkeys in the 90's, which made it even easier for people to trash the film).

OK - thats a well put response. Ill buy that. I still dont think it was better than Goodfellas but I see what you are saying.

Although, Id ask about Lawrence of Arabia: that was closer to 4 hours and was a 60's film. Wouldnt that have been the first true mega-epic for the theater with a long running length? It was damned successful too. Curious...

[supersix4]

Megan Fox for Transformers 1&2 best actress

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by supersix4

Megan Fox for Transformers 1&2 best actress

Jennifer Lawrence for Winter's Bone, although that was rectified a bit this year, I think.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

How so? Daring or whatever doesnt mean you win an Oscar. I can appreciate some of these other films for what they tried to accomplish or whatever but taken strictly as entertainment and just being a movie.... Goodfellas is way better as far as me and many others are concerned. Oh well, thay aint changing it.

Dances is better. Goodfellas was great until the last 30 minute trainwreck documentary ("How to Avoid Imaginary Helicopters When You're High on Coke")

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

OK - thats a well put response. Ill buy that. I still dont think it was better than Goodfellas but I see what you are saying.

Although, Id ask about Lawrence of Arabia: that was closer to 4 hours and was a 60's film. Wouldnt that have been the first true mega-epic for the theater with a long running length? It was damned successful too. Curious...

Long-form films go all the way back to the silent era. But Heaven's Gate all but killed American films with long running times in the 80's (although there were a few made in the 80's admittedly). Dances With Wolves was a blockbuster, however, and because of the success of the film, it became easier for directors to tell longer stories again. It essentially revived the "big screen epic".

[Bonzi]

Originally Posted by visualsynth

The Green Mile losing to American Beauty was a huge disappointment.

Originally Posted by SpartanX

American Beauty winning was one of those few times when the Academy really got it right....

Originally Posted by Scholer

Fight Club not drinking all their milkshake was a worse offence

That was one hell of an year at the Oscars: Fight Club, The Matrix, American Beauty, The Green Mile, The Sixth Sense, Magnolia, Being John Malkovich, The Insider, The Straight Story, Sleepy Hollow, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Girl, Interrupted, Boys Don't Cry, The Cider House Rules, The Hurricane...

[Dazed+Confused]

DiCaprio getting snubbed this year for his role as Calvin Candie. He was great and it was well dispersed.

[chad_1138]

L.A. Confidential and Good Will Hunting BOTH losing best picture and director to Titanic

[fgomike]

Frank Darabont not winning for Shawshank or Green Mile.

[42041]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The Artist winning Best Picture strictly because of how it was made. That year was kind of weak anyways.

"how it was made"? Do you think "how a movie was made" is some kind of incidental quality? It won it because it was a good movie. Whether it was the best movie is another question but I don't think any of its competitors were miles ahead of it.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Dances is better. Goodfellas was great until the last 30 minute trainwreck documentary ("How to Avoid Imaginary Helicopters When You're High on Coke")

Its based on a true story and thats what happened. Nothing they could do - besides, how can you not like Henry running around while his brother stirs the sauce, mixing up coke, dropping guns off at Jimmys, and taking Lois to get her focking hat? C'mon man!

DWW had its moments but it seemed long just for the sake of being long. An editor would have come in handy.