Reevaluating the Oscars (over the years)!

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

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