Biggest Academy award fuck ups

[Go Pokes 979]

27 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

How can you be so obtuse? Is it intentional?

 

He's an enigma.  Shawshank is a chick flick but SIL is a good little flick.  I remember watching the year SIL won and I actually was hoping it would win.  I didn't think SPR was that great.  It was a pretty awesome war movie, but I didn't feel like it was Best Picture worthy.   I've never admitted that out loud.  

and yes, ISWYDT

[BigBenBamboozle 1957]

Paul Thomas Anderson having never won an Oscar is pretty tragic, as well as unlucky (TWBB paired with No Country). 

[WBT 20671]

2 hours ago, BigOrange1 said:

pacino never winning for michael corleone.

He wasn't even in the right category for the first one

[mdmost 43056]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

As usual, need to just comment that Shawshank sucks balls and shouldn't have won shit.

But would make a nice triple feature chick flick with Fried Green Tomatoes and Field of Dreams.

You're the Vic Mackey of movie opinions. 

[tantric superman 4668]

2 minutes ago, mdmost said:

You're the Vic Mackey of movie opinions. 

I like my movies like I like my women.

Big and broad and foreign.

[South Austin 52625]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

As usual, need to just comment that Shawshank sucks balls and shouldn't have won shit.

But would make a nice triple feature chick flick with Fried Green Tomatoes and Field of Dreams.

[Patrick Bateman 3933]

2 hours ago, HookEm said:

Chicago is ass.

Chicago was a makeup for missing the previous year on Moulin Rouge.  Maybe should have gone to LOTR 1 also.  A Beautiful Mind won.  That's a nice movie, but very forgettable.

That year Denzel, who had been robbed of probably 2 or 3 Oscars was finally given one for Training Day.  Love me some Alonzo but it's probably a make up vote.  Maybe should have gone to Will Smith (yes Will Smith) for Ali.

 

[52-80 19262]

Do academy awards matter tho?  They're as ridiculous as the heisman

[oSuJeff97 3435]

4 hours ago, Go Pokes said:

You wanna throw up in your mouth?  In 1972, they gave the Supporting Actor to Joel Fucking Grey for Fucking Cabaret over Pacino.  And Caan.  And Duvall. 

In 1974, they gave Best Actor to Art Carney for playing an old dude with a cat over Michael Fucking Corleone.   And Jack for Chinatown.  And Hoffman for Lenny.  Yeah, that makes sense.  

Yeah... problem with that was having the 3 guys from Godfather in the same category.  Everyone probably picked one of those three from Godfather for first and Joel Grey second and the Godfather split vote handed to trophy to Grey.

The big fuck-up was that Pacino should have been nominated for Best Actor, not Supporting Actor.  Of course, Brando would have probably still won, but still... 

[AUS-97HORN 11824]

15 hours ago, BigBenBamboozle said:

Zemeckis’ Forrest Gump winning best picture over Pulp Fiction and Shawshank.

to be fair, until 1998, basically no one had heard of Shawshank. It was a failure an only lasted a few weeks in the theaters, it wasnt until TBS got the rights to the movie and played it every week that folks finally saw it and realized its a good movie.    so you cant blame the academy for not liking a movie that wasnt liked when it was first released.

 

17 hours ago, NWBuck said:

Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny over Vanessa Redgrave in Howard's End

gonna completely disagree with this, yes she was hot, and yes it was her first acting job, but she and Pesci played off each other  pretty damn well. they made that movie hilarious.

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Not meaning to sidetrack too much, but Thin Red Line was the same year as Private Ryan, I think, and since TRL was a better, deeper, films, I'd make the arguments that it should have beaten out SIL.

The art house loonies who insist on shoving TRL down our throats are the same ones the academy loves.  Malick is a borderline lunatic, he shot the movie and then completely rewrote the whole fucking thing to feature Caviziel instead of Brody.... Brody, who played the fucking narrator (and original author of the book) got cut out of the entire movie with the exception of a few lines left in.   and better yet- Malick didnt bother telling Brody prior to the premier that he had basically been cut out of the movie, despite him being interviewed as the lead actor and front-center movie poster-child.

Brody is on record as showing up to the premier, talking to the media minutes before the premier started AND STILL BEING DESCRIBED AS THE LEAD ACTOR BY THE MEDIA.... only to discover watching the movie that his big break was taken from him.

how the fuck do you shoot a movie that revolves around a narrator and literally cut the narrator out of almost every fucking scene in the movie?

[tantric superman 4668]

2 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

The art house loonies who insist on shoving TRL down our throats

Dude, you liked Shawshank. 

The only thing we should be interested is making sure your TBS feed is working.

[Texas St. Armadillos 1381]

30 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Chicago was a makeup for missing the previous year on Moulin Rouge.  Maybe should have gone to LOTR 1 also.  A Beautiful Mind won.  That's a nice movie, but very forgettable.

That year Denzel, who had been robbed of probably 2 or 3 Oscars was finally given one for Training Day.  Love me some Alonzo but it's probably a make up vote.  Maybe should have gone to Will Smith (yes Will Smith) for Ali.

 

Denzel won an Oscar in 1990, 12 years earlier, for Glory.

[ztejas 43545]

18 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

94', Forest Gump over Pulp Fiction.

.....and Shawshank. 

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

As usual, need to just comment that Shawshank sucks balls and shouldn't have won shit.

What is your issue with it? Is it too immaculate of a film? Do you get angry that you can't pinpoint any flaws? I'm all ears.

And, they weren't going to give the franchise more than one best picture so I kind of get it, but The Two Towers blows everything else in 2002 away, whether you are a fan of Gangs of New York or not (personally, I think it's a bit overrated but that doesn't change my stance at all). 

[Patrick Bateman 3933]

4 minutes ago, Texas St. Armadillos said:

Denzel won an Oscar in 1990, 12 years earlier, for Glory.

Supporting.... This was his first for Leading, he should have won for Malcolm X or The Hurricane.  Easily for Malcolm X.

EDIT:  How does that American Beauty Oscar look now for Spacey in 2000?

 

Edited January 11, 2019 by Patrick Bateman

[Go Pokes 979]

21 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Yeah... problem with that was having the 3 guys from Godfather in the same category.  Everyone probably picked one of those three from Godfather for first and Joel Grey second and the Godfather split vote handed to trophy to Grey.

The big fuck-up was that Pacino should have been nominated for Best Actor, not Supporting Actor.  Of course, Brando would have probably still won, but still... 

You think that was a fuck up?  They were smart enough to realize nobody had a chance against Brando.  That's just good strategy.   Even splitting the votes it should have gone Pacino (45%), Duvall (30%), Caan (20%), and then Grey and whoever the other guy who had no chance were should have split the remaining 5%.  Fucking travesty.  

[Go Pokes 979]

20 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

 

gonna completely disagree with this, yes she was hot, and yes it was her first acting job, but she and Pesci played off each other  pretty damn well. they made that movie hilarious.

 

I agree 100% except about it being her first acting job.  It was her first time high profile movie role.  2nd if you count playing Stallone's daughter in Oscar.     

[ztejas 43545]

5 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Or maybe the debate would still be about Pulp Fiction vs. Forrest Gump, and enduring casual viewer popularity wouldn’t be considered

They are all great films in different ways. I think Gump is the least deserving of the three, but Gump would have been the best film in about, oh I don't know, 10 or 12 calendar years? Sure it's sappy as hell, but when you think about how neatly it ties a story spanning so many settings and decades it's really, really impressive. For me it's one of those films that if I walk into a room or flip across it I'm instantly sucked in. 

In terms of breaking the mold and culture shock, Pulp Fiction is easily the most impressive of the three.

In terms of across-the-board standards for what a "good" film should be, or what "good" film-making looks like, I think it's Shawshank. If I had to cast my ballot it would be for Shawshank, but pretty razor thinly over PF. 

[Go Pokes 979]

26 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

The art house loonies who insist on shoving TRL down our throats are the same ones the academy loves.  Malick is a borderline lunatic, he shot the movie and then completely rewrote the whole fucking thing to feature Caviziel instead of Brody.... Brody, who played the fucking narrator (and original author of the book) got cut out of the entire movie with the exception of a few lines left in.   and better yet- Malick didnt bother telling Brody prior to the premier that he had basically been cut out of the movie, despite him being interviewed as the lead actor and front-center movie poster-child.

Brody is on record as showing up to the premier, talking to the media minutes before the premier started AND STILL BEING DESCRIBED AS THE LEAD ACTOR BY THE MEDIA.... only to discover watching the movie that his big break was taken from him.

how the fuck do you shoot a movie that revolves around a narrator and literally cut the narrator out of almost every fucking scene in the movie?

My favorite thing about TRL is this story here, which I've never heard.  That's pretty amazing, but not surprising.  Malick was an overrated lunatic and his movies were almost all boring as fuck.  Just reading through his directing credits on IMDB almost put me to sleep.  

[futureman 22551]

5 hours ago, mdmost said:

Sean Penn for Mystic River over Bill Murray in Lost in Translation. Plus, Sean Penn is a dick.

sean penn is a dick, but he was great in that movie. 

[Pato del Muerto 52610]

52 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Chicago was a makeup for missing the previous year on Moulin Rouge.  Maybe should have gone to LOTR 1 also.  A Beautiful Mind won.  That's a nice movie, but very forgettable.

That year Denzel, who had been robbed of probably 2 or 3 Oscars was finally given one for Training Day.  Love me some Alonzo but it's probably a make up vote.  Maybe should have gone to Will Smith (yes Will Smith) for Ali.

 

Playing a real life person is a double edged sword. So it poorly and it’s very noticeable, but you still have a fully formed character to imitate instead of having to create one.  In your example, will smith could watch video of much of the movie content, and attempt to match it. 

I guess I don’t hold those performances in as high a regard as the academy does. Capote, Churchill, Ray Charles, and now the guys in vice, all highly celebrated mimicry. 

[oSuJeff97 3435]

3 minutes ago, futureman said:

sean penn is a dick, but he was great in that movie. 

Agreed.

Those are just two outstanding performances.  Coin flip, IMO.

[tantric superman 4668]

15 minutes ago, ztejas said:

 

What is your issue with it?

It's cloying, simpleminded rubbish.

The prison guards are cartoon-ish, completely eviscerating any interest or complexity in the flick, and the trajectory leading to the bogus finale is vapid.

The open-mouthed prisoners listening to the opera was just a shitty, ham-fisted scene.  Which was just the most shitty and ham-fisted of lots of scenes in the movie.

CAMERA TRACKS along groups of men, all riveted. 

				RED (V.O.) 
		I have no idea to this day what 
		them two Italian ladies were 
		singin' about. Truth is, I don't 
		want to know. Some things are best 
		left unsaid. I like to think they 
		were singin' about something so 
		beautiful it can't be expressed in 
		words, and makes your heart ache 
		because of it. 

JFC.

Other than that, in fairness to the director, who never did much of anything besides the film, my understanding is that he at least was against the ending as filmed.

I will admit that if most people thought this was a clever little film it wouldn't be worth getting worked up about, but it bugs me when people put it on a pedestal equal to the really best films. 

Makes me want to see Clint Eastwood's Escape from Alcatraz to get rid of the saccharine.

 

[AUS-97HORN 11824]

23 minutes ago, Go Pokes said:

My favorite thing about TRL is this story here, which I've never heard.  That's pretty amazing, but not surprising.  Malick was an overrated lunatic and his movies were almost all boring as fuck.  Just reading through his directing credits on IMDB almost put me to sleep.  

EDIT- it turns out i was wrong about Brody being the narrator, he was supposed to be the primary actor that the movie focued on to move the narrative forward. 

 

Brody wasnt the only one who got cut from the movie,  there were a lot of folks fighting to be a part of the movie since he was directing, and Malick ended up cutting a lot of them out.

 

Bill Pullman, Lukas Haas and Mickey Rourke performed but their scenes were eventually cut. Billy Bob Thornton recorded narration that was scrapped. Martin Sheen and Viggo Mortensen participated in readthroughs of the script and are thanked in the end credits

 

Hell Geroge Clooney was featured prominately in the media and talking about the movie, and he had a small part that could have been called a cameo.

 

Heres the link to Brody talking about the betrayal:

 

Quote

"The editing resulted in many of the well-known cast members being on screen for only a brief period. John Travolta and George Clooney's appearances are little more than cameos yet Clooney's name appears prominently in the marketing of the movie. The unfinished film was screened for the New York press in December 1998 and Adrien Brody attended a screening to find that his originally significant role, "to carry the movie",

^[17] as he put it, had been reduced to two lines and approximately five minutes of screen time. On April 15, 2001, an interview with Brody revealed that he was still upset over the removal of his work. He expressed his opinions in an interview with the London newspaper The independent

I was so focused and professional, I gave everything to it, and then to not receive everything ... in terms of witnessing my own work. It was extremely unpleasant because I'd already begun the press for a film that I wasn't really in. Terry obviously changed the entire concept of the film. I had never experienced anything like that... You know the expression 'Don't believe the hype'? Well, you shouldn't

Edited January 11, 2019 by AUS-97HORN

[tantric superman 4668]

23 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

For example, Shawshank pretty much won jack squat that year, but IMDb and other fan polls rank it neck and neck with The Godfather

This is the shit that drives me crazy.  Nobody who really wants to love movies would put Godfather and Shawshank in the same neighborhood. Every fucking scene in the Godfather is an homage to some other great film that makes you want to go see where Coppola got his ideas for that scene (similar to much of Scoresese).

Every scene in Shawshank makes you think of an average director doing everything in his bag of tricks to he can to score easy points with his audience.

[futureman 22551]

 

30 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

EDIT:  How does that American Beauty Oscar look now for Spacey in 2000?

I think it looks fine.  it was a good performance in a good movie. 

[futureman 22551]

5 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

This is the shit that drives me crazy.  Nobody who really wants to love movies would put Godfather and Shawshank in the same neighborhood. Every fucking scene in the Godfather is an homage to some other great film that makes you want to go see where Coppola got his ideas for that scene (similar to much of Scoresese).

Every scene in Shawshank makes you think of an average director doing everything in his bag of tricks to he can to score easy points with his audience.

yeah, well, what the hell you know about it, capone?

[tantric superman 4668]

I have to say, judging a movie based on slights of the actors or scenes that didn't make it into the finished product seems a weird reason to criticize a movie.  The TRL was Mallick's movie, and it either sucks or it doesn't based on what's on the screen.

 

[tantric superman 4668]

52 minutes ago, ztejas said:

And, they weren't going to give the franchise more than one best picture so I kind of get it, but The Two Towers blows everything else in 2002 away, whether you are a fan of Gangs of New York or not (personally, I think it's a bit overrated but that doesn't change my stance at all). 

The Pianist is a far better movie than either Gangs or Two Towers.   

Road to Perdition was better as well.

[Knoxtnhorn 6066]

17 hours ago, BigBenBamboozle said:

Zemeckis’ Forrest Gump winning best picture over Pulp Fiction and Shawshank. 

The King’s Speech (which is a fine film but doesn’t hold up) winning BP over The Social Network, Black Swan, and The Fighter. (I consider The Social Network and Zodiac two of the greatest modern films)

I don't really give 2 shits about award shows but, did this really happen?

Forrest Gump won over Shawshank? Good Lord.

[tantric superman 4668]

14 minutes ago, futureman said:

yeah, well, what the hell you know about it, capone?

I will admit that I prefer the original title "Immaculate Shawshank Redemption".

[futureman 22551]

11 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I will admit that I prefer the original title "Immaculate Shawshank Redemption".

can you admit that it has the best ending of any movie ever?

[Beau Vine 54459]

Begins and ends with Forrest Gump over Shawshank and Pulp Fiction.

[Beau Vine 54459]

4 hours ago, tantric superman said:

As usual, need to just comment that Shawshank sucks balls and shouldn't have won shit.

But would make a nice triple feature chick flick with Fried Green Tomatoes and Field of Dreams.

This is a terrible opinion and you should feel shame.

[tantric superman 4668]

11 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Begins and ends with Forrest Gump over Shawshank and Pulp Fiction.

There we go again.  Putting a masterpiece like Pulp Fiction alongside little Shawshank and sweet little Forrest Gump.

[Go Pokes 979]

I have to say, judging a movie based on slights of the actors or scenes that didn't make it into the finished product seems a weird reason to criticize a movie.  The TRL was Mallick's movie, and it either sucks or it doesn't based on what's on the screen.
 

I never knew that fact until a few hours ago, yet I’ve thought that movie sucked total shit for 25 years. Hope that helps.

[tantric superman 4668]

1 minute ago, Go Pokes said:

I never knew that fact until a few hours ago, yet I’ve thought that movie sucked total shit for 25 years. Hope that helps.

I'm not sure anything can help that.

[cactusflinthead 27605]

18 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Titanic over LA Condidential. Titanic has not held up at all. Acting was horrific. LA Condidential is still amazing.

Fucking this. 

[Go Pokes 979]

Begins and ends with Forrest Gump over Shawshank and Pulp Fiction.

Meh. If you include directing and acting awards, it’s not even in the top 20 of screw jobs. And Pulp Fiction is my favorite movie of all time. Gump checked all the boxes for the stodgy academy voters and PF probably scared the shit out of them.
Actually, that just explains the thinking behind their awful decision. It doesn’t make it any less egregious of an error. It’s definitely top 5 times I’ve been fucking pissed off about their choice.

[Go Pokes 979]

I'm not sure anything can help that.

Not watching it helps quite a bit. Or obsessing over it. You should think about that when it comes to Shawshank.

[tantric superman 4668]

This list is good, and provides some perspective:

http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films_table.php

Ranking, greatest films of all time.

6.  Godfather

75.  Pulp Fiction (1994)

196.  Thin Red Line

252.  Three Colors (Red) (1994)

387.  Shawshank (1994)

514.  Forrest Gump

387 is pretty good.  But not in Godfather or Pulp Fiction neighborhood by a long shot.

[Go Pokes 979]

Pulp Fiction 75? Yeah, ok. That’s wrong.

I’m not going to fight you on Shawshank. I’ll watch it when it’s on and enjoy the shit out of it. But I’d say the same thing about Gump. Neither is even close to PF as far as being an all-timer.

PF is the Nirvana of film. They both came along when music/film was in a shitty period and rewrote the rules. You don’t have to like them, but if you don’t respect the impact they had, you’re just being “that fucking guy”.

Not you Tantric. People in general.

[Incredulity 11683]

17 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

Hurtlocker over Avatar. I mean WTF did anyone see in that movie?  Oh it made subtle jabs at America invading Iraq? What a joke of a film. I know Avatar's story was dumb, but it's not like Hurtlocker was some drama for the ages. 

Spotlight over Mad Max. I know they love to make political statements with this stuff, but c'mon... Mad Max is the greatest action movie of the decade. It broke new ground!

King's Speech over anything else that year. What a garbage movie. There were 6 other movies more deserving of the award that year. 

Braveheart over Apollo 13 seems dumb in retrospect, but I wasn't old enough at the time to know if that one was valid. I watched Braveheart a few months ago, and it was OK, but Apollo 13 still gives me chills despite knowing how it ends. Great film, and it still holds up. 

Not being trying to be an A-hole.

What new ground did Mad Max break?  It’s a decent action movie but the rave reviews have always been lost on me.

They fight there way out into the desert for an hour.  Roll around in the mud for twenty minutes.  Then drive back. 

What am I missing.  

P.S. Tom Hardy mumbling 

 

[Go Pokes 979]

This list is good, and provides some perspective:
http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films_table.php
Ranking, greatest films of all time.
6.  Godfather
75.  Pulp Fiction (1994)
196.  Thin Red Line
252.  Three Colors (Red) (1994)
387.  Shawshank (1994)
514.  Forrest Gump
387 is pretty good.  But not in Godfather or Pulp Fiction neighborhood by a long shot.

Whoa. I just clicked that link. That is some deep cuts, art house, foreign language shit. Now that I see their list, I’m surprised PF was that high.

Did they really have Vertigo at #2? Or did I misinterpret their list?

[smwhorn 483]

Nicholas Cage (Leaving Las Vegas) over Richard Dreyfuss (Mr. Holland's Opus).

 

[mdmost 43056]

[Rimbo 26138]

The entire 1980s. With the possible exception of Rain Man.

Also, The Sound of Music which is, at best, half of a good movie, and half of a totally shitty one.

1990 - 2009 the Academy is strong to very strong with a rare "meh" here and there.

2011 on, I have no idea what any of these movies are.

Edited January 12, 2019 by Rimbo

[Go Pokes 979]

Not being trying to be an A-hole.
What new ground did Mad Max break?  It’s a decent action movie but the rave reviews have always been lost on me.
They fight there way out into the desert for an hour.  Roll around in the mud for twenty minutes.  Then drive back. 
What am I missing.  
P.S. Tom Hardy mumbling 
 

Yeah I just let that slide. Like Star Wars should have won over Annie Hall. It’s not a favorite movie of a specific year thread. I’d rather watch The Untouchables than The Last Emperor, but I’m completely behind the decision they made. TLE was great, but I’d rather watch The Untouchables.

[Rimbo 26138]

7 hours ago, mdmost said:

Sean Penn for Mystic River over Bill Murray in Lost in Translation. Plus, Sean Penn is a dick.

This is probably the great grandfather of all Academy fuck-ups in all of history. Even Billy Crystal, who was presenting, felt the need to apologize to Murray right then and there. And you could tell from Murray's face that he knew damned well that it was bullshit, too. Because it was. It was fucking bullshit. I'm getting pissed off as hell just thinking about it. That was about as bullshit as bullshit gets. Motherfuckers. I pretty much stopped caring about the Academy Awards after this, which is why I had to fucking look up everything after 2003.

[Go Pokes 979]

The entire 1980s. With the possible exception of Rain Man.
Also, The Sound of Music which is, at best, half of a good movie.

We demand examples in this thread sir. None of this generalizing shit.

SOM - have you looked at the other noms? I think they got it right. And you’re right too. What a shitty year.

I’ll have to dig into the 80’s, but I know Raging Bull not winning was a shitty way to start the decade. Sophie’s Choice not even being nominated two years later is a joke. 80’s were a horrible decade for Oscar movies.

[ztejas 43545]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

The Pianist is a far better movie than either Gangs or Two Towers.   

Road to Perdition was better as well.

Look, man, if you're going to be counterculture at least do it consistently.

You have a problem with Shawshank because it's simple minded and syrupy, but then you offer a fucking Clint Eastwood film as a counterexample? 

And you put Road to Perdition over The Two Towers? What is you qualm with TTT, is it also too simpleminded and heartwarming? 

One list isn't changing anyone's opinion on Shawshank. It is one of the most universally beloved films ever made across any culture or age demographic. 

And to let the door hit you on the way out, I think the Godfather is boring and overrated. Give me Goodfellas over it any day.

One more point: The Godfather and PF are very full of themselves in a way that Shawshank isn't. Scorcese and Tarantino were trying to prove how great they were. Darabont was really just trying to tell a story.

 

Edited January 12, 2019 by ztejas