Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I know everyone has opinions about this and I'd be interested in hearing them. If possible please note the year of the Oscars as well, and what won.

NOTE: PLEASE POST THE ONES THAT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN NOMINATED FOR AND LOST WHEN YOU THOUGHT THEY SHOULD HAVE WON.

1978

Best Picture
What should have won: STAR WARS
What did win: ANNIE HALL

Best Actor in a Supporting Role
Who should have won: Sir Alec Guinness for Star Wars
Who won: Jason Robards for Julia

Best Director
Who should have won: George Lucas for Star Wars
Who won: Woody Allen for Annie Hall


1999

Best Picture
What should have won: SAVING PRIVATE RYAN
What did win: SHAKESPHERE IN LOVE

Best Actor
Who should have won: Tom Hanks for Saving Private Ryan
Who did win: Roberto Benigni for Life is Beautiful


2002

Best Picture
What should have won: LOTR FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
What did win: A BEAUTIFUL MIND

Best actor in a supporting role
Who should have won: Ian McKellen for The Fellowship of the Ring
Who did win: Jim Broadbent for Iris

those are the ones that come to my mind immediately.......

ah who really cares, no one takes presidence on this except for the people being nominated. We all know the best movies and greatest directors regaurdless of the winner.Indiana jones. Rocky, RAMBO, Die HArd, Lethal weapon, and Aliens should have owned them all. that there is my happy ending

well thats YOUR opinion....I remember very clearly sitting there watching the Oscars and being VERY pissed that the piece of crap Shakesphere in Love beat Saving Private Ryan as best movie.

Im kinda surprised that Cinema hasnt weighed in yet

I remember thinking that Sam Jackson (for "Pulp Fiction" was robbed when Martin Landau won for "Ed Wood" in 1995, but I also thought that making Jackson a "suporting" nominee and Travolta a "leading" nominee was just as big an injustice. It's been nearly a decade, and I'm almost over it now.

2000: Gladiator won. Requiem for a Dream should have won.

I agree with 2001.

Forrest Gump won in 1994, Shawshank Redemption should have won.

Chicago won in 2002, Two Towers should have won.

Do The Right Thing not even being nominated for an oscar which is the biggest ripoff ever.

Also probably a lot of people will disagree, but in my opinion JFK should of won best picture instead of Silence of the Lambs which was a great movie but their are few movies if any that I have seen that is better than JFK.

Also isnt it interesting that the two movies ive mentioned were controversial films and didnt win.

I still think Sean Austin should've at least been nominated for Best Supporting actor in the Return of the King

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
note

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre should have won at least 1 oscar in 1974, I dont even think it was nominated, huge ripoff.

Now see I think Gladiator was dead on with that win, but I very much agree that Shawshank should have beat Forrest Gump which is a movie I never really much cared for myself. And I agree with Two Towers over Chicago..........but the big deal was the revival of the musical I guess.

Gladiator was a poor rip off of Sparticus. It was cliche, predictable and very simple in it's presentation of the same basic premise of Sparticus. There were many other films that were far more deserving of the oscar that year. Requiem is just one of them.

hehe. . . sorry

Oh, also, in 2000 best actress should have gone to Ellen Bustyn, not that over rated ***** Julia Roberts.

The most interesting thing here (apart from the fact that you got the years wrong) is that I disagree with the oscars frequently but disagree MORE with every single example you gave - with the exception of best actor 1999 (in reality 1998) which i think should have gone to Edward Norton for American History X.

Zero, go back and REREAD my very first post.........I said the year of the OSCARS.....NOT the year of the movie. And I agree that Edward Norton in American History X was superb. But I could care less if you agree with MY choices or not.....I asked people to post what they thought were Oscar rip-offs not flame my choices.

Didnt mean to flame your choices : Im normally the first person to yell foul where the academy awards is concerned : i was just amazed to see that you managed to choose options that given your choices I disagreed with right across the board (except for Ed.)

Sorry that wasnt interesting to you, but dont take it personally.


(& rather than go with what the academy and - lets face it - everyone else lists as the year for those films you came up with your own system. kudos for being outside the box...)

My lil rant:


1998 Best Picture : Shakespeare in love was simply amusing fluff, but Saving Private Ryan was JUNK - Should have gone to Gary Oldmans Nil by Mouth or Chasing Amy.

2000 I would also have liked to see Requiem for a Dream pick up best film. - The fact that that year Russell Crowe won best actor for Grunting while Ed Harris was giving a masterclass in Pollock is almost laughable.

How can you say SPR was junk, that movie was amazing.

You had to ask...

Half a dozen guys stumble across Normandy during the chaos of the invasion looking for ONE soldier when they only have the vaguest idea where he is... and find him. What LUCK! (JUNK.)

Whats left of this weary broken down rag-tag group then defeat an entire German tank division. (JUNK.)

A german that the good old humane americans let live earlier (because americans are decent god fearing types) comes back - amazingly bumps into the SAME group that let him live and proves that Nazis are bad by killing people. Almost unbearable cliched cinematic JUNK.

Then in one final act of "**** you" it turns out that the film is not being remembered in flashback by Tom Hanks as we were lead to think at the outset - because he's (weep for poor Forest Gump! War is sad!) dead - it's being remembered in flashback by Matt Damon - who wasn't even there for most of it. JUNK.

The first 30 minutes of SPR are amazing, the rest was a below average war movie.

The first 20 minutes i will give you - are some sort of genius at work. Then he screws the pooch.

Nice sig file BTW ... one of my proudest moments.

Agreed, always found SPR hugely over rated. Like everyone else, the first 20 minutes were spectacular and amazing, the rest was basic and formulaic.

I find it odd that you guys thought that movie was for the most part crap when its been widely reported that many of the men that were there at that time in history thought it was a very moving and realistic movie. Why is that? My great uncle was at Normany for the real storming of the beach, and he told me that after he saw this film it brought back nightmares he hadnt had since back then. I thought I had read somewhere that SPR was based upon fact. When families were losing all their sons in the war.