Top 10 Best Picture Oscar Flubs

[Harvey]

Rocky is at least more sophisticated than any of the sequels that followed (save, perhaps, Rocky Balboa, the only worthwhile follow-up in my view).

I'm not surprised it won, actually. Network is brilliant, but it's a searing indictment of the television industry--probably a little too close to home for most Academy voters. Taxi Driver is equally as good, but was also pretty controversial at the time. I'm not surprised the Academy went with the more conservative choice (as they very often do).

 

[CaptainCanada]

It also made tons of money, which never hurts.

 

[suarezguy]

I'm serious though. What for you makes it a "really, really good movie"? Just from looking in this thread, different people have variety of criteria. Or is this something that can even be quantified at all?

I value originality over convention (if the story is conventional, there can still be a fresh approach) and intensity (without going over-the-top) to an overly slow pace; additionally important are plausibility and how involved the film gets you in the characters and drama.

 

[Admiral Shran]

My top ten....

10.) Chariots of Fire over Raiders of the Lost Ark. (Raiders of the Lost Ark was simply amazing.)

9.) A Beautiful Mind over The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and Gosford Park. (A Beautiful Mind was good, but the others were better.)

8.) How Green Was My Valley over Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon. (Seriously, WTF?!)

7.) Around the World in 80 Days over The Ten Commandments. (Seriously, .)

6.) Annie Hall over Star Wars (WTF is going on?!?! )

5.) Shakespeare in Love over Elizabeth and Saving Private Ryan (Shakespeare in Love is was a good movie, but Saving Private Ryan, despite it's flaws, was superior. If anything Elizabeth should have won.)

4.) The Bridge on the River Kwai over 12 Angry Men. (Both are good, but 12 Angry Men was simply breath-taking in comparison.)

3.) Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption. (Really? .)

2.) Chicago over The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. (Chicago sucked!)

1.) Slugdog Millionaire over Frost/Nixon and The Reader. (OMG, seriously?!?! Frost/Nixon was unbelievably good and The Reader - words can't describe how good it was.)

 

[clint g]

2.) Chicago over The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. (Chicago sucked!)

1.) Slugdog Millionaire over Frost/Nixon and The Reader. (OMG, seriously?!?! Frost/Nixon was unbelievably good and The Reader - words can't describe how good it was.)

quoting these two for absolute truth.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

6.) Annie Hall over Star Wars (WTF is going on?!?! )

"Annie Hall" is one of the truest, most witty, most bittersweet romances on film, probably the best movie of one of the most iconic New-York filmmaker. It deals in a sincere and insightful way with things that we've all had to live through. "Star Wars" is a very entertaining movie, it might even be mindblowing if you're a kid or a teenager, but at the end of the day, it's not about anything in particular.

 

[Admiral Shran]

but at the end of the day, it's not about anything in particular.

Why does it have to be?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

but at the end of the day, it's not about anything in particular.

Why does it have to be?

Because ultimately, art, in all its forms, is about the human experience. It's about us, what we feel and how we feel it, what gives meaning to our lives and what gnaws at us, how we connect to each other and how we break connections. There's nothing wrong with juvenile, mindless entertainment, but there's nothing to celebrate about it either.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

How is it that Zodiac, perhaps the best film I've seen in years, was not nominated for anything?

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3OopQHWGBo&playnext=1&list=PL96228967AE835217[/yt]

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

6.) Annie Hall over Star Wars (WTF is going on?!?! )

"Annie Hall" is one of the truest, most witty, most bittersweet romances on film, probably the best movie of one of the most iconic New-York filmmaker. It deals in a sincere and insightful way with things that we've all had to live through. "Star Wars" is a very entertaining movie, it might even be mindblowing if you're a kid or a teenager, but at the end of the day, it's not about anything in particular.

Absolutely Right(TM) and very well stated. Of course Annie Hall deserved the award over SW.

Because ultimately, art, in all its forms, is about the human experience. It's about us, what we feel and how we feel it, what gives meaning to our lives and what gnaws at us, how we connect to each other and how we break connections. There's nothing wrong with juvenile, mindless entertainment, but there's nothing to celebrate about it either.

I like this, too.

One of the basic flaws in the skiffy fan mentality, IMAO, going all the way back to the pulp magazines of the 1920s is the need to embue too many examples of the genre with more significance than 99 percent of them can support. It's not enough that we like it; it's not even enough that we consider it more important than it is - we demand that it be recognized as important...and it's really, really not.

 

[DevilEyes]

It happens every year, one film wins for best picture and there are often groans of protest from detractors about what should've won. Unfortunately from looking at the complete list of nominees this has been going on for decades.

Come up with a top ten list (or close to it) of which films were robbed the worst in the Oscars and list the film that actually won that year. The only rule is that you must choose from the list of actual nominees. So sorry while films like Empire Strikes Back, the Dark Knight or 2001 probably should've won, they weren't nominated in the first place.

This is my list:
1. Citizen Kane, beaten by How Green Was My Valley (1941)
2. Star Wars, beaten by Annie Hall (1977)
3. Saving Private Ryan, beaten by Shakespeare in Love (1998)
4. Raging Bull, beaten by Ordinary People (1980)
5. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, beaten by A Beautiful Mind (2001)
6.American Graffiti or The Exorcist, beaten by the Sting (1973)
7. The Graduate, beaten by In The Heat of The Night (1968)
8. Raiders of the Lost Ark, beaten by Chariots of Fire (1981)
9. Up or District 9, beaten by The Hurt Locker (2009)
10. Apocalypse Now, beaten by Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

I prefer In the Heat of the Night to The Graduate and I think it was the right call.

I also think that American Graffiti is very overrated, while The Exorcist is possibly the most overrated movie ever, and shouldn't have been anywhere near an Oscar.

Raging Bull and Ordinary People are actually quite close in quality, there is nothing shocking about the latter winning.

I haven't actually seen Annie Hall, Saving Private Ryan, Up or The Hurt Locker (go on, be shocked) so I won't comment.

My question becomes what is meant by "Best Picture"? Obviously the Academy has it's standard (and I'm too lazy to look it up) - but does it always match what people expect by "Best Picture."

Certainly lasting cultural impact isn't what is meant - mostly because it's impossible after all to know what a film's lasting impact will be! So while we can look back at Citizen Kane, The Exorcist, Apocalypse Now, or Star Wars and see how they've lasted, people then couldn't have known.

Surely nobody can deny the cultural impact of Sydney Poitier's "THEY CALL ME MISTER TIBBS!!!"

5) "My Fair Lady" over "Dr. Strangelove". I mean, "My Fair Lady" is cute and has a sweet ending, but it's also a cheesefest much of the time and not nearly as classic as the endlessly clever iconic comedy genius of "Dr. Strangelove" (1964).

I definitely agree with that one.

But the biggest problem in the recent years/decades is that the best and most original movies usually don't even get nominated.

 

[Too Much Fun]

I also think that American Graffiti is very overrated

Yeah, I don't know what the big deal is about that movie. I've been a bit of a George Lucas hater over the past few years because I just thought the original Star Wars movies were forgettable and "Revenge of the Sith" was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

As I did by watching "Heavenly Creatures" for Peter Jackson, I didn't want to write off this director as a hack just because of his franchise works, so I decided to give one of his self-contained movies a shot. "Heavenly Creatures" was excellent and proved to me that Peter Jackson can make fine films outside of a franchise.

"American Graffiti" just seemed to confirm to me that Lucas has nothing. I still haven't seen his "THX 1138", but I'm not impressed by everything else he's done. "American Graffiti" has a nice nostalgic quality due to all the vintage cars and music, but beyond a elegiac atmosphere and a good sense of time and place, what does it have going for it? Just like his Star Wars movies, I liked the look of it, but didn't care about the characters.

Really the only thing I remember about it was thinking it was neat how young Harrison Ford looked when he made his cameo. No wit and no memorable characters. It's not even close to the quality of "The Sting" which has a deviously fun and unpredictable plot, two iconic actors doing some of the best work of their career, and the underrated Robert Shaw as a classic super suave and intimidating villain (already showing signs of the greatness that would immortalize him a few years later in "Jaws").

 

[Trek4Ever]

What I find interesting in alot of these posts is a certain bias against genre flicks. There are too many to quote but the gist of it seems to be "how dare an animated film be nominated" or "Star Wars is for kids" which I think reflects the mentality of voters.
If people who frequent this board are so quick to dismiss something as not worthy of winning or even being nominated then the odds of a genre film winning (putting aside LOTR) will continue to be bleak.
And for the record, I've seen Annie Hall and Star Wars has had more of an emotional, resonating impact to me. But that's just me.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

Shawshank is one that sticks out. Though Forrest Gump which beat it was also a solid movie, just not nearly as good.

 

[Greg Cox]

One of the basic flaws in the skiffy fan mentality, IMAO, going all the way back to the pulp magazines of the 1920s is the need to embue too many examples of the genre with more significance than 99 percent of them can support. It's not enough that we like it; it's not even enough that we consider it more important than it is - we demand that it be recognized as important...and it's really, really not.

To be fair, this is basically an (over)reaction to having one's favorite genre constantly dismissed as junk or kid's stuff by clueless relatives, teachers, coworkers, critics, etc. Most of us, I suspect, have had run-ins with people who insist that science fiction and fantasy isn't "real" literature, and who make no distinction between, say, Ursula K. Le Guin and Buck Rogers. And I've heard plenty of horror stories from aspiring sf writers who got a cool reception from their college writing workshops. (Ditto for would-be fantasy artists, who were discouraged by "serious" art teachers.)

Small wonder then that many fans overcompensate by insisting that STAR WARS is just as good as Shakespeare, damnit!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well that's exactly so, but the operative words there are "overreaction" and "overcompensate." One just can't take too seriously any analysis that's so clearly rooted in defensiveness and insecurity.

Science fiction is as much "real literature" as any popular genre - murder mysteries, romance novels, horror stories, westerns. There are a few classics in all of those.

 

[Greg Cox]

Science fiction is as much "real literature" as any popular genre - murder mysteries, romance novels, horror stories, westerns. There are a few classics in all of those.

What's hilarious, of course, is when sf folks, who have been unfairly derided for generations, do the same thing and look down their noses at fantasies, horror, westerns, romances, etc.

We're all in the gutter together, folks!

 

[Starbreaker]

How is it that Zodiac, perhaps the best film I've seen in years, was not nominated for anything?

No idea. Critical acclaim, excellent performances, based on a true story, on more top 10 lists than all other movies except for There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men, popular director...

It was my favorite movie of the year

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Science fiction is as much "real literature" as any popular genre - murder mysteries, romance novels, horror stories, westerns. There are a few classics in all of those.

What's hilarious, of course, is when sf folks, who have been unfairly derided for generations, do the same thing and look down their noses at fantasies, horror, westerns, romances, etc.

Yep, and then you get another loony chorus of "fans are slans..."

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

And the thing is, Zodiac's story worked on multiple levels, and there was never a lack of substance.

On the surface it was about a serial killer and the hunt for him. Slightly deeper, it was about the relationship between the cops, the media, and the public. Then it was about how the case took a personal toll on those involved, and at the end of the film it wasn't about finding justice for the families, but simply to bring closure for closure's sake. It's about all these things, sure, but even more the film is about communication, or lack thereof. The film takes place at the very onset of the "information age" and, when looked at from that point of view, it is really fascinating.