The Academy's Biggest Blunders

If you happen to find it, uploading it to the net for me would make my year.:please:
Check youtube
Well, i think all three of the lord of the rings films should have won best picture, but maybe thats just me.
I think the reasoning for that was they didnt want LotR taking over the oscars 3 years straight so decided to reward them at the end. But they do hate sci-fi/fantasy/animation types which really pisses me off
 
Shakespeare in Love is definitely a better movie than Saving Private Ryan...

And Brokeback Mountain should have beat Crash (which wasnt bad, but was by no means the best picture of the year. BBM or Good Night and Good Luck were ten times better.)

GAY!

;)


Sorry, couldn't resist...you just set yourself up for that much too well.
 
Gone with the Wind won Best Picture, Best Actress (Vivian Leigh) and Best Supporting Actress (Hattie McDaniel).

ok well then it was another old movie like that or casa blanca. I remember cause my dad made it a topic of interest one day and i was stunned because people consider to be a must see nowadays
 
ok well then it was another old movie like that or casa blanca. I remember cause my dad made it a topic of interest one day and i was stunned because people consider to be a must see nowadays

...But its Gone With The Wind. I mean.... Its Gone with the freaking wind!
 

I think Baxter misunderstood you. He thought you were "stunned" that it was considered a must-see; when in fact you were stunned to learn that it wasn't nominated.

Also, he thought you were still referring to Gone With The Wind (which I personally regard as 120 minutes of dull melodrama), rather than (the superb) Casablanca, or some other classic that went under-appreciated by the academy.
 
Citizen Kane was booed every time they mentioned it's nominations and ultimately lost the Best Picture award to some obscure film.

Luckily, Orson Welles lived long enough to see his film regarded as the one of the greatest ever.

And for the record, I think the movie deserves its reputation.
 
Rotten Tomatoes had their list of Oscar winners for best picture ranked in order based on their system. Godfather was first. I forget what was last. Something old.

I will say, though, I love Chicago. And not just because I live here, it's just a really great movie.
 
Last edited:
This thread rocks. You know what didn't? THE HURT LOCKER. But it was definitely the best "**** you" to Avatar option, so that's a plus. But seriously, Inglourious Basterds. Moon. Fantastic Mr. Fox. Better in every single way.

Does anybody know if they're doing all ten nominees again next year?
 
This thread rocks. You know what didn't? THE HURT LOCKER. But it was definitely the best "**** you" to Avatar option, so that's a plus. But seriously, Inglourious Basterds. Moon. Fantastic Mr. Fox. Better in every single way.

Does anybody know if they're doing all ten nominees again next year?

Inglourious Basterds was not that great. Hurt Locker was better.
 
This thread rocks. You know what didn't? THE HURT LOCKER. But it was definitely the best "**** you" to Avatar option, so that's a plus. But seriously, Inglourious Basterds. Moon. Fantastic Mr. Fox. Better in every single way.

Does anybody know if they're doing all ten nominees again next year?

It's such a hard rating to gauge considering each movie is of different genres of film. How do you rate a biography of a man out of place in a world hes familiar with as opposed to a light-hearted comedy of talking animals getting into hijinks with great voice acting? And then pair that up against an ultraviolent what-if story placed in WWII.

And then we have the Big Mac, or Avatar. Like the Big Mac, Avatar promised alot but only delivered with visual effects. No real substance or complete satisfaction but you don't feel so bad because you still walked out with a Coke in your hand.

never saw Moon so I can't judge that. Hurt Locker would have been my choice. AS original as a story can be nowadays and it was actually acted and shot well.
 
The Hurt Locker I saw just had no arc or development to anything about it and didn't really go anywhere. James was addicted to war when we meet him and wants more of it.
At the end of the movie, we see an extremely unsubtle five-minute depiction of suburban boredom, and he decides to sign up for more of it, off screen, with no complications. :|
I think it was finely made, acted, etc, and had a faint spark of originality to it, but its one of those films that I think could've easily been completely unnoticed and was lucky enough not to be.

In a year when we had one of the largest supplies of truly original, creative, well-made stuff I just can't see any reason why that made such a splash other than the politics around it.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top