Sickest NO WIN for best pic

Jon-Hebert Barto · March 17, 2006

These types of threads are fun to watch so I thought I'd start one of my own. I don't get angry at WHO wins as I'm rarely suprised by the oscar political sweepstakes. If you've read some of my posts in the past, finding I hate awards shows will be no epiphany. ( was that a prepositional phrase?) However, I do feel strongly about a few historical wrongs.

RAGING BULL-1980

No oscar for best pic :o (and how could redford win over scorsese in the director sweeps?)

THE THIN RED LINE-1999

No oscar for best pic <_< ( again, malick is taken down by speilberg...?)

There are a couple threads where similar views are on display, but I find it hard to read thru some of the diatribes on art. (yes I've gone on tangents...I don't forget) So it would be nice just to have some folks list like, 2, maybe 3 films which they think got the MAJOR SHAFT UP THE REAR from mr. oscar. If not, no biggy. I'll play with, er..., by myself. ;)

OH, yeah! Since the oscars are american lets keep it just that, american. Or at least english speaking. International film is great but way too wide for this oscar thread.

Also, EYES WIDE SHUT SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST BEEN NOMINATED in 1999 !!!!!!!!!! :angry:

Mark Allen · March 17, 2006

Once you've been to a few Academy events the award results won't shock you as much.

It's a club like any other club. If EVERYONE got to vote, we'd end up getting the lowest common denomonator - so I'm not sure that'd work out either. I think that's why it's not so bad having specific awards like the independent spirit awards. There are various groups with ethnic focuses who give major awards. Environmental groups have awards. There are the Razzies. The Academy is just another social club. Only they have the advantage of getting a tremendous amount more media attention than any of these other organizations could dream about. And, to their credit, a lot of the voters really do work in the movie industry. Will they last forever? Be interesting to see what happens in the next 30 years.

You know what awards I'd like to see? Awards to the artists and technicians who made the most difference with the least resources. Let's see the true value awards. Sure, give someone 50 million dollars and they may come up with some cool visual effects for you - but what about the guys who did just as many shots for 500,000 - and they STILL look cool. How about those guys? How about the DP who shot the movie in 2 weeks with 3 lights and a crew of two people and yet told the story beautifully? Give that guy an award!

I don't think it's realistically possible to have that awards show, but would be one I'd go to a friend's house to watch! And then I'd keep notes and hire 'em all!

:)

Matt Pacini · March 17, 2006

I've actually stopped watching the Academy Awards, it's gotten so irritating.

It seems to be all about which actress is wearing what designers dress, and other completely irrelevant crap.

The winners are more excited about how much their fee is going to go up than anything else, I'd bet.

But the thing that REALLY pisses me off, is the fact that they rush the people who win off the stage to keep the show moving, but they let the announcers have unlimited time to crack jokes.

Why don't they start playing the music when Will Smith or someone else, who's supposed to just read a short script, starts improvising?

It just seems to be about everything but what it's supposed to be about; the winners of the awards.

I think they should televise the tech awards, and I also wish they'd televise the Razzies. I'd watch that!

MP

Michael LaVoie · March 19, 2006

For me, it was the year that Forrest Gump beat Pulp Fiction for best picture.

Edited March 19, 2006 by Michael LaVoie

Tim J Durham · March 19, 2006

THE THIN RED LINE-1999

No oscar for best pic <_< ( again, malick is taken down by speilberg...?)

Also, EYES WIDE SHUT SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST BEEN NOMINATED in 1999 !!!!!!!!!! :angry:

"Shakespeare in Love" won best picture that year and it was 1998. Spielberg won best director. THAT is something that has always bugged me. Why isn't the director of the best film automatically the best director winner?

"American Beauty" won in 1999.

And I agree with the "Raging Bull" comments. As time passes, that film is now on most critics list of best films ever made while "Ordinary People" is absent, although I thought it was a very good film.

"Citizen Kane" is the most prominent example, I suppose, of the great film being snubbed by the academy.

Mark Allen · March 22, 2006

Why isn't the director of the best film automatically the best director winner?

Whent he awards were set up, the producer was considered the author of a movie. The director was more of a laborer. Filmmakers like hitchcock were the exceptions to the rule - directors who started providing their own vision. Yes, Orsen Wells. Again, exception to the rule.

However, keep in mind that this took a long time to fade out. How many movies did Ray Harryhausen actually direct verses how many movies is he credited for? Corman was somewhat of a holdover to the old system as well.

So, that's why the producer gets the award for best picture.

Not sayin' it's right or things shouldn't be different, just sayin'.

David Mullen ASC · March 22, 2006

The actual producer of "Casablanca", Hall Wallis, was walking to the podium to pick-up the Oscar for Best Picture when studio head Jack Warner ran past him and took it.

Jon-Hebert Barto · March 22, 2006

"Shakespeare in Love" won best picture that year and it was 1998. Spielberg won best director. THAT is something that has always bugged me. Why isn't the director of the best film automatically the best director winner?

"American Beauty" won in 1999.

And I agree with the "Raging Bull" comments. As time passes, that film is now on most critics list of best films ever made while "Ordinary People" is absent, although I thought it was a very good film.

"Citizen Kane" is the most prominent example, I suppose, of the great film being snubbed by the academy.

Yes, thanks for the corrections. I should probably research a little before posting.....instead of just wingin' it.

The actual producer of "Casablanca", Hall Wallis, was walking to the podium to pick-up the Oscar for Best Picture when studio head Jack Warner ran past him and took it.

That is funny and sad at the same time, but just plain typical for Jack Warner.

Jon-Hebert Barto · March 22, 2006

Once, when he was introduced to Chiang Kai-chek, he muttered that he had forgotten his laundry. :blink: For those of you who don't "get it", trust me. This wasn't a nice thing to say.

What a guy... :lol:

Edited March 22, 2006 by BARCA

Alex Wuijts · March 22, 2006

Whent he awards were set up, the producer was considered the author of a movie. The director was more of a laborer. Filmmakers like hitchcock were the exceptions to the rule - directors who started providing their own vision. Yes, Orsen Wells. Again, exception to the rule.

Hitchcock never won an oscar either, so he's number 1 on my list with his better works.

Edited March 22, 2006 by Alex Wuijts

Tom Bays · March 22, 2006

I loved Raging Bull, but the fight scenes (that everyone seems to love) were terribly unrealistic and factually inaccurate. For this reason I don't mind it being passed up.

Saving Private Ryan was a big one for me. That movie was very important. Shakespeare in Love...come on.

Kim Vickers · March 23, 2006

I thought Thelma & Louise should have won best picture in 1991. I don't think it was even nominated.

I thought Sin City should have been at least nominated this past year and I thought Crash was just a TeeVee movie-of-the-week with a better budget. But I digress....

IMO Raiders of the Lost Ark was by far the best picture of 1981. The Academy gave the Oscar to Chariots of Fire, a soundtrack in search of a movie.

I also think Apocalypse Now got jobbed in 1979. Kramer Vs Kramer is a good film, but come on.

Sean Azze · March 23, 2006

You know what awards I'd like to see? Awards to the artists and technicians who made the most difference with the least resources. Let's see the true value awards. Sure, give someone 50 million dollars and they may come up with some cool visual effects for you - but what about the guys who did just as many shots for 500,000 - and they STILL look cool.

Well, the Independent Spirit Awards does have a category called the John Cassevetes award. This goes to the best picture made for under $500,000. To me, thats the true definiton of an independent film. It always irks me when people categorize a film as independent or low budget, and yet it has a budget of a few million, an all star cast of well known actors, and enough pull to be given a theatrical release. Makes me feel like they should just invent a brand new category for the little guys shooting movies on DV with actors whose prior experience includes high school plays and summer stock.

Jon-Hebert Barto · March 23, 2006

I loved Raging Bull, but the fight scenes (that everyone seems to love) were terribly unrealistic and factually inaccurate. For this reason I don't mind it being passed up.

Saving Private Ryan was a big one for me. That movie was very important. Shakespeare in Love...come on.

I'm not arguing with you :) but just wanted to point out the "hyper-realism", as I call it, in the RAGING BULL fight scenes is like that to show the state of Jake Lomatas mind. It's not about him fighting another boxer, it's about Jake fighting himself. It's not supposed to be "authenic" as you or I would expect to see when watching a real fight. The ring itself is a metaphor. Watch the film and you can see the actual rings used in filmimg are different sizes, to "highten" or "lower" the mental state of Jake. It's not just done with perspective...the rings change size. Also, how many things look "real" when shown in slow-mo? Many shots are done this wayin the film. At one point , when Sugar Ray is about to pounce on Jake, the lighting changes and perspective changes in a single shot. Obviously Scorsese wasn't trying to trick us. He wanted us inside the head of Jake Lomata, which I can assure you would be a surreal experience, hence the "innacurate" fight scenes.

On another note, I used to box. Not in compitition, but a club, a bunde. I still haven't seen a movie that showcased "accurate" boxing. That includes Million Dollar Baby, Rocky, whatever. All these films have like, what, 2, 3 cameras following the action. Maybe more at times. I don't know about anyone else , but when I watch a fight a punch is a punch. My mind doesn't "cut" the action into 3 different shots. To me, this enables the rendering of "inaccurate" punches to maximize a controled impact. Fake. Well, faker. Scorsese shot with one camera, baby. None of that throw a punch, cut, gloved fist thru air, cut, land punch, cut, head rolls back, cut, etc,etc,etc. Watch Rocky and there are 3-4 shots in one thrown punch!!! Is this inabling a a more accurate environment? Not to me...The fight scenes were fight scenes until Scorsese used this hyper-realism to express the were-abouts of Jakes mind.

Remember, RAGING BULL is a drama about a man and his relationships out of the ring. It's inside the ring where he deals with these emotions. This is NOT a boxing movie. :)

PS-As far as the "factually inaccurate" fights, you couldn't be more "inaccurate". Every single fight is coreographed to match the actual fights that took place. Punch for bloody punch.

Edited March 23, 2006 by BARCA