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

Everyone is disappointed with the Oscars every year! Or at least I am, for the most part.

* I have a feeling that this has been done before, but I'll give it a go anyway (feel free to merge if you find an identical topic).

Anywho, the idea's simple. Pick a year, state the movie that won, and then state, in your opinion, which film you think should've won/which movie YOU would've picked.

I'll start (this doesn't have to be in any chronological order or anything):

2008:
- Movie that won - Slumdog Millionaire
- Should have won - The Dark Knight

2000:
-Winner - Gladiator
-Should have won - Requiem for a Dream

Same year. Best actress
-Winner- Julia Roberts
-Should have won- Ellen Burstyn

Nice pick on Burstyn, she was great ^

And yeah I forgot to mention, this goes for anything; actors and actresses, etc. as well, it's not just limited to the Best Picture category. Have fun with it.

Originally posted by BackFire
2000:
-Winner - Gladiator
-Should have won - Requiem for a Dream


2000? That's a toughie...


Either was acceptable, to me. (For best picture.)

I think the Oscars have gotten better with their choices the past twenty years. The Academy have gotten more open to dark, serious, violent subject matter - The Silence Of The Lambs, Unforgiven, Schindler's List all won in consecutive years. They finally honoured the Scifi/Fanatsy genre with The Lord Of The Rings. Martin Scorsese finally won with The Departed, after decades when his films were too dark & disturbing for Academy tastes (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull.)

I didn't think Dark Knight was up for best picture.
if it wasn't it should of been and it should of won.

who won: 2003 sean penn (mystic river)
who should of won: Johnny Depp (pirates)

who won 1977: annie hall
who should of won: STAR WARS

who won 2005: make up narnia
who should of won: star wars episode III

Winner 2010: The Hurt Locker.
Should've won: Moon.

Best Actor 2010: Jeff Bridges.
Should've won: Sam Rockwell. I have no issue with Bridges winning, though. The man's awesome.

Best Actor 2009: Sean Penn.
Should've won: Mickey Rourke. It's a travesty he didn't.

Best Picture 2009: Slumdog.
Should've won: Wall-E or The Wrestler.

-AC

Originally posted by dadudemon
2000? That's a toughie...


Either was acceptable, to me. (For best picture.)

I find Gladiator to be an extraordinarily generic film. Shouldn't even have been nominated, I think.

Also another one. Rourke should have won over Penn in 09. The two performances weren't even in the same league.

None of the LotR films should have won anything.

1998: Shakespeare in Love won best picture...Lets think about what it went up against for a moment...

Saving Private Ryan
The Thin Red Line
Life is Beautiful

So yeah...Probably the worst possible choice.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Winner 2010: The Hurt Locker.
Should've won: Moon.



I misread that as "New Moon" and almost had a heart attack.

Why is everyone, on any forum, saying that to me?

It's so weird.

New Moon shouldn't win anything. The award series it should only ever clean up at is the Razzies.

-AC

Originally posted by Myth
I misread that as "New Moon" and almost had a heart attack.

Me too LOL. and as for the other guy saying LOTR shouldn't of won anything? are you nuts?

this is what it was up against. no contest there.

Lost in Translation
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
Mystic River
Seabiscuit

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Best Actor 2009: Sean Penn.
Should've won: Mickey Rourke. It's a travesty he didn't.

Best Picture 2009: Slumdog.
Should've won: Wall-E or The Wrestler.

-AC I totally agree with these two.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
Me too LOL. and as for the other guy saying LOTR shouldn't of won anything? are you nuts?



No i'm not nuts...They were the equivalent of what Avatar is this year. The big budget visual feasts full of terrible acting and extremely bad cinematography.

Not to mention they just got plain lazy and/or ran out of money towards the end of Return of the King...because the army of the dead looked hideous.

Don't get me wrong...The trilogy had its moments...Namely Elrond's speech to Arwen in The Two Towers when talking about her and Aragorn.

I would've chosen Mystic River and Lost in Translation over it any day.

Opinions eh?...Like Arseholes.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
I didn't think Dark Knight was up for best picture.
if it wasn't it should of been and it should of won.

who won: 2003 sean penn (mystic river)
who should of won: Johnny Depp (pirates)

who won 1977: annie hall
who should of won: STAR WARS

who won 2005: make up narnia
who should of won: star wars episode III

agree with every single thing you just said except for 2005 choices.dont think either of those movies were that good,another flick should have won best picture that year.

He wasn't talking about best picture in 2005.

1995:

Best Picture was for Forrest Gump. My choice for Best Picture....no question...Pulp Fiction.

1998:

Best Actor went to some italian dude...it SHOULD! have gone to Edward Norton for American History X.

Here is a humble suggestion to improve the Oscars for next year.

Don't invite that shit-face Sean Penn. That will get me to watch it.

Originally posted by jaden101
No i'm not nuts...They were the equivalent of what Avatar is this year. The big budget visual feasts full of terrible acting and extremely bad cinematography.

You bite your tongue! How dare you compare LotR to Avatar? The gap in quality is big enough for me to build a bridge!

Bad acting? The trilogy is full of talented actors (Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen, Sean Bean, John Rhys-Davies, Ian Holm, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, etc.) and pretty much everyone delivered.

The Lord of the Rings plot is simple, but executed fantastically well. And bad cinematography? Were you blindfolded? That sweeping shot of Pelenor Fields in the third one immediately comes to mind as one of the most memorable shots I've seen in a movie theater.

Anyway, obviously it's just a difference of opinion/perception but to me it sounds like you're stating blatant falsehoods, sir!

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
You bite your tongue! How dare you compare LotR to Avatar? The gap in quality is big enough for me to build a bridge!

Bad acting? The trilogy is full of talented actors (Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen, Sean Bean, John Rhys-Davies, Ian Holm, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, etc.) and pretty much everyone delivered.

The Lord of the Rings plot is simple, but executed fantastically well. And bad cinematography? Were you blindfolded? That sweeping shot of Pelenor Fields in the third one immediately comes to mind as one of the most memorable shots I've seen in a movie theater.

Anyway, obviously it's just a difference of opinion/perception but to me it sounds like you're stating blatant falsehoods, sir!

Agreed. IMO all 3 LOTR movies should of won best picture and best director. I can't even imagine the under taking to do 3 movies at once!

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
You bite your tongue! How dare you compare LotR to Avatar? The gap in quality is big enough for me to build a bridge!

Bad acting? The trilogy is full of talented actors (Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen, Sean Bean, John Rhys-Davies, Ian Holm, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, etc.) and pretty much everyone delivered.

The Lord of the Rings plot is simple, but executed fantastically well. And bad cinematography? Were you blindfolded? That sweeping shot of Pelenor Fields in the third one immediately comes to mind as one of the most memorable shots I've seen in a movie theater.

Anyway, obviously it's just a difference of opinion/perception but to me it sounds like you're stating blatant falsehoods, sir!

sarcasm aside, this is kind of what i meant by him shoving his opinion down peoples throats ermm

So, use of humor = me shoving my opinion down peoples' throats? I feel like I'm walking on eggshells around here sometimes, which is kind of ridiculous considering it's a forum.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
sarcasm aside

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
So, use of humor = me shoving my opinion down peoples' throats? I feel like I'm walking on eggshells around here sometimes, which is kind of ridiculous considering it's a forum.

You're right. That wasn't a good example, at all, of you shoving your opinion of films down others' throats.


But this was:

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Yeah. Bruce is wrong.


How can Bruce's opinion of what he likes in a film, be wrong?


But, all joking aside, you and I have a large movie "like" overlap. If I make fun of the movies you like, I am making fun of myself, most of the time.

i dunno. whats the text book definition of shoving your opinion down someones throat?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i dunno. whats the text book definition of shoving your opinion down someones throat?

I think it's a colloquialism, so probably nothing.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
You bite your tongue! How dare you compare LotR to Avatar? The gap in quality is big enough for me to build a bridge!

Bad acting? The trilogy is full of talented actors (Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen, Sean Bean, John Rhys-Davies, Ian Holm, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, etc.) and pretty much everyone delivered.

The Lord of the Rings plot is simple, but executed fantastically well. And bad cinematography? Were you blindfolded? That sweeping shot of Pelenor Fields in the third one immediately comes to mind as one of the most memorable shots I've seen in a movie theater.

Anyway, obviously it's just a difference of opinion/perception but to me it sounds like you're stating blatant falsehoods, sir!

I didn't say the film had bad actors...I said it had bad acting. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Ian McKellen was the only decent performance in it. So i'm not questioning the lack of talent but only some directors can get those actors to perform at their best...Peter Jackson is clearly not one of those directors.

The Star Wars prequel trilogy is the same...Packed full of exceptional talent with equally as bad performances.

And yeah...The battle of Pelenor fields is exactly what i'm referring to when I say bad cinematography. Was it a big and epic scene?..Yes I have no doubt. Were the shot choices right?...No. The close ups were completely disconnected from the panning shots. Don't even get me started on how bad the army of the dead looked. As I said....The Two Towers was the best of the trilogy by a royal mile.

300 utilised 1 single overhead shot during the hot gates battle and it was more effective than all of LotR panning shots combined...The one when the 300 Spartans began to march out from the cliff sides. Granted the next shots were epic failures due to the blatently obvious cardboard cut outs in the background being completely static. But that's besides the point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think it's a colloquialism, so probably nothing.

i know dear it was rhetorical

kinda.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How can Bruce's opinion of what he likes in a film, be wrong?


But, all joking aside, you and I have a large movie "like" overlap. If I make fun of the movies you like, I am making fun of myself, most of the time.

Bruce's opinion isn't/can't be wrong, I was being slightly sarcastic at the time and also I just disagree with him so strongly about some things that I phrase it so his opinion is factually wrong, despite me knowing that's not actually possible.

It's just like when someone says that American Idol is their favorite TV show or that Ashley Simpson is their favorite musical artist; of course they're not factually wrong, but to me that's piss-poor taste/a complete lack of it. So it's just easier and more to the point to claim that people like that have worthless opinions; maybe that's a better way to put it. Bruce's opinion isn't WRONG, it's just meaningless to me.

Anyway, yeah we do have an overlap for sure, that's probably why I'm maybe extra harsh on you when we disagree, cause I expect better!

Originally posted by jaden101
I didn't say the film had bad actors...I said it had bad acting. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Ian McKellen was the only decent performance in it. So i'm not questioning the lack of talent but only some directors can get those actors to perform at their best...Peter Jackson is clearly not one of those directors.

The Star Wars prequel trilogy is the same...Packed full of exceptional talent with equally as bad performances.

And yeah...The battle of Pelenor fields is exactly what i'm referring to when I say bad cinematography. Was it a big and epic scene?..Yes I have no doubt. Were the shot choices right?...No. The close ups were completely disconnected from the panning shots. Don't even get me started on how bad the army of the dead looked. As I said....The Two Towers was the best of the trilogy by a royal mile.

300 utilised 1 single overhead shot during the hot gates battle and it was more effective than all of LotR panning shots combined...The one when the 300 Spartans began to march out from the cliff sides. Granted the next shots were epic failures due to the blatently obvious cardboard cut outs in the background being completely static. But that's besides the point.

You raise some good points, I think. I agree that maybe Jackson didn't get the absolute best performances out of the actors, but I still think you're underrating the performances quite a bit.

Then you have to compare it to the prequels... which are far worse in every way (especially the acting) in comparison to the Lord of the Rings flicks.

And now that you're bringing up specific details/shot choices about the battle of Pelenor fields I will have to revisit the film and see if I can understand where you're coming from. As of now though, all I can say is that I don't recall having any problem with the cinematography; I remember really digging it. So I'll have to return here after I rewatch the movie.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite


1998:

Best Actor went to some italian dude...it SHOULD! have gone to Edward Norton for American History X.



Benigni did do a very good job though. I've seen people not like his selection because he was foreign and lots of people don't like watching foreign films. So I just wanted to throw it out there that if you haven't seen it, you should.

Btw, I could go either way between the two. Funny that both movies have to do with racism (though the racism and subject matters of each definitely are not funny).

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Bruce's opinion isn't/can't be wrong, I was being slightly sarcastic at the time and also I just disagree with him so strongly about some things that I phrase it so his opinion is factually wrong, despite me knowing that's not actually possible.

A smug remark is a smug remark (unless you're parodizing a person being arrogant...then it can be funny, especially if it's your boss). Even if it was done with humor, it can still offend or get annoying to the recipient.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
It's just like when someone says that American Idol is their favorite TV show or that Ashley Simpson is their favorite musical artist; of course they're not factually wrong, but to me that's piss-poor taste/a complete lack of it. So it's just easier and more to the point to claim that people like that have worthless opinions; maybe that's a better way to put it. Bruce's opinion isn't WRONG, it's just meaningless to me.

You say rude things when it comes to your opinions on movies. That's what was being said. That's it.

And, lol...American Idol is part of what's wrong with young America. And, I'm quite sure BruceS doesn't care for American Idol, as well.

It doesn't really matter, though, if you couldn't care less what others think of you on the internet. If some opinions are such trash and rubbish, to you, I say have at it, as long as you don't care about alienating people or appearing rude.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Anyway, yeah we do have an overlap for sure, that's probably why I'm maybe extra harsh on you when we disagree, cause I expect better!

K. And that could be true. lulz

I'm still surprised that one movie never even received a nomination.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
You raise some good points, I think. I agree that maybe Jackson didn't get the absolute best performances out of the actors, but I still think you're underrating the performances quite a bit.

Then you have to compare it to the prequels... which are far worse in every way (especially the acting) in comparison to the Lord of the Rings flicks.

And now that you're bringing up specific details/shot choices about the battle of Pelenor fields I will have to revisit the film and see if I can understand where you're coming from. As of now though, all I can say is that I don't recall having any problem with the cinematography; I remember really digging it. So I'll have to return here after I rewatch the movie.

I agree that the acting was worse in the prequel trilogy of SW than it was in LotR...I think that had a lot to do with the fact that everything was done in green screen...Even the vehicles the actors sat in were just green boxes. It can't have been easy to give a natural performance in that kind of setting.

I guess my biggest gripe with the Pelenor fields/Minas Tirith battle wasa that they just packed in as much as they could in each scene. I got bored watching the same shots flying over the city with all the action shown as tiny specks below. It never seemed connected with the known characters during the close up scenes. The only exception being when Denathor falls while on fire and the scene pans out to show the whole city. The framing of the shots was extremely poor. There didn't seem to be any good implementation of the golden ratio to have the object/person that the director wanted focus on in the right spot on screen.

Odd though given that some scenes were constructed brilliantly. The final panning upward shot of Two Towers where you see the mountains surrounding Mordor was fantastic...The scene in FotR when they are passing the giant statues. When Aeowyn walks outside and you see the mountains across the plains of Rohan...Beautiful.

Oscars sucked, just like all of you.

Best Actress 2009 - Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
Should've been - Charlotte Gainsbourg (Antichrist)

Haven't seen An Education though, heard Carey Mulligan was very good.

Originally posted by dadudemon

How can Bruce's opinion of what he likes in a film, be wrong?


Well, he could be lying about his opinion perhaps.

There's always a few surprises come Oscar time.

Has there ever been an Oscar choice you were completely against? Explain why your choice should have been the Academy's - any year, any award, any reason.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=526554&highlight=oscars+forumid%3A2

gack. sorry, please close.

Merged.

Best Picture 1994-Forrest Gump

Should have been- Pulp Fiction

94 is a tough one. It should have been either Pulp Fiction or Shawshank, though.

Originally posted by BackFire
94 is a tough one. It should have been either Pulp Fiction or Shawshank, though.

I still need to see Shawshank. I've heard nothing but good things.

I did see Forrest Gump and didn't like it, so I'm quite upset that it won.