Personally I feel Gump gets a bad rap. It went from overrated to underrated. It's not masterpiece or hallmark of cinematic achievement, but it succeeds at everything it sets out to achieve (though it doesn't strive for much) and it's a heartwarming tall tale with good acting performances.
Movies: What are the Biggest Oscar Snubs Ever?
- Thread starter Elvis P
- Start date
I am going to defend Dances With Wolves (and Costner winning over Scorcese to some degree).
I think it is easy for people who did not grow up in the time period to not understand how much impact Dances With Wolves had. Costner was the biggest movie star in the world, had thrown a tremendous amount of passion and detail into an epic production and shined a positive light on Native Americans that has rarely been experienced in movies before or since. It kicked off a small rebirth in westerns in Hollywood (the 80s had very few) and also triggered multiple projects focusing on Native Americans like Smoke Signals, Thunderheart, and Last of the Mohicans that likely would not have seen the light of day without it.
Also, Dances With Wolves is often overlooked simply because it is not replayed over and over on TV the way Goodfellas has simply because of its length. It is a terrible movie experience on TV because with commercials it like 5+ hours long. No one wants to commit half a day to watching a movie in that manner. Meanwhile, Goodfellas (like Shawshank) is a perfect TV movie because the story takes place over a long period of time as a series of short stories that lends itself perfectly to TV because the commercial breaks come at logical intervals and really do not break the flow of the film.
I think it is easy for people who did not grow up in the time period to not understand how much impact Dances With Wolves had. Costner was the biggest movie star in the world, had thrown a tremendous amount of passion and detail into an epic production and shined a positive light on Native Americans that has rarely been experienced in movies before or since. It kicked off a small rebirth in westerns in Hollywood (the 80s had very few) and also triggered multiple projects focusing on Native Americans like Smoke Signals, Thunderheart, and Last of the Mohicans that likely would not have seen the light of day without it.
Also, Dances With Wolves is often overlooked simply because it is not replayed over and over on TV the way Goodfellas has simply because of its length. It is a terrible movie experience on TV because with commercials it like 5+ hours long. No one wants to commit half a day to watching a movie in that manner. Meanwhile, Goodfellas (like Shawshank) is a perfect TV movie because the story takes place over a long period of time as a series of short stories that lends itself perfectly to TV because the commercial breaks come at logical intervals and really do not break the flow of the film.
Roo Returns
Skjeikspeare No More
I think Gladiator is the most overrated film of all time. It was made during the height of the "shaky camera during action scenes" error which is what made the Bourne film that came out in July so unappealing.
Wolf Of Wall Street couldn't win because in this era, the profanity and very negative portrayal of women would not fly. That movie comes out 20 years ago, maybe it had a chance.
I love Strange Days (1995) that Kathryn Bigelow directed. She could have easily won best director, Fiennes, Bassett, and Sizemore all could and should have got nominations for their roles.
Wolf Of Wall Street couldn't win because in this era, the profanity and very negative portrayal of women would not fly. That movie comes out 20 years ago, maybe it had a chance.
I love Strange Days (1995) that Kathryn Bigelow directed. She could have easily won best director, Fiennes, Bassett, and Sizemore all could and should have got nominations for their roles.
I just checked this because you had me doubting my sanity.
Gladiator does not use shaky cam.
I hate shaky cam (along with those horrible quick cuts the transporter movies and bourne popularized) more than anything, gladiator didn't do that.
edit: Okay so the final fight between joaquin pheonix and russell crowe makes very small use of shaky cam for about 2 seconds. Still, you pretty much dont see it outside of that.
Last edited:
There have been some pretty underwhelming acting performances that won oscars. Cuba Gooding Jr. In Jerry Maguire? In what world was he better than Norton in primal fear or Macy in Fargo?
Voight
#winning
Hurt Locker was 100% the right choice. District 9 was good, but it didn't have the type of story the voters want, i.e the Hurt Locker.
Roo Returns
Skjeikspeare No More
I haven't seen the movie since prob it's first run on cable because I despised it that much, but the scene with the lion I clearly remember having no clue what was going on. Almost as bad as Batman and Robin.
I love Godfather, I get stuck watching it whenever it is on, but I wouldn't say it not winning best director and best supporting actor were snubs. When I think of a snub I think of instances where it's like what the hell? Caberet was a solid movie changing the way musicals were made and Joel Grey imo carried the movie more than anyone else and that's saying something considering Liza was perfect. If you hate musicals but had to watch one, that is the one I'd recommend.
The English Patient and Forrest Gump get bad raps. They were both solid movies, also not snubs. Sometimes, like in the case of 1972, some years are loaded and I'd hate to be a voter and not everyone can win.
I hated beyond hated Shakespeare in Love. The story was interesting, but it felt like it got lost and too wrapped up in itself. That said, I don't really remember the other movies so I'm unsure if it deserved anything, though I never felt Paltrow's performance was better than Blanchett.
Titanic was a fine movie, but I didn't think it deserved Best Picture. The recreation is something, but it's the same ol' couple from different side of the train tracks story. It also should've received points off for screwing over First Officer Murdoch. Seriously, Jack & Rose weren't real, Cameron could've created someone else who wasn't for that scene.
Elvis P
WNBA fan since 1997
I can't believe it took this long for someone to mention Godfather. Coppola and Scorsese are really under rated in this forum.
Nemesis Prime
Registered User
sully1410
#EggosForEleven
I was always confused by Anthony Hopkins winning best actor in a lead role for Silence of the Lambs...when he is clearly not the lead actor
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,550
- 3,410
Dances with Wolves is still the hardest one for me to swallow. It isn't a bad movie, but it's sort of generically epic in an old school way, but with a more modern POV. I completely understand it would be embraced in the moment.
Goodfellas, on the other hand, is an old story at its core too, but told in a much fresher, vibrant way. And it too put a bit of a different POV on a previously told tale (versus, say, the nostalgia of The Godfather). That was also known at that point of time. That isn't a revisionist take on Goodfellas. It's as alive and revered today as it ever was.
That's why this one sticks with me. I think other beloved "losers" like Pulp Fiction and LA Confidential have grown in stature whereas I think Goodfellas (and Raging Bull for that matter) came out of the gates with the statures both films still hold today.
The Social Network v. Kings Speech is another one that fits this IMO.
I think 3 factors weighed heavy in that vote:
1. Voters traditionally LOVE epic. I may be being a little reductive, but there seems to be a history of bigger = better in voting. And that's at the heart of a lot of these disagreements.
2. Voters historically have been averse to violence -- at least violence without a moral hook and certainly any film that could skews "edgy" or younger. This has lightened up in the past 20 years as the makeup of voters has changed.
3. Do not underrate the boost of having an actor directing. Academy voters LOVE rewarding actors who write or direct. Costner/Beatty/Gibson have the same combined best director Oscars as Scorsese/Coens/Soderbergh/PT Anderson/Kubrick/Malick/Altman/Hitchcock. 3-3.
I think if this same matchup had occurred a 6-7 years alter, Goodfellas might win.
Goodfellas, on the other hand, is an old story at its core too, but told in a much fresher, vibrant way. And it too put a bit of a different POV on a previously told tale (versus, say, the nostalgia of The Godfather). That was also known at that point of time. That isn't a revisionist take on Goodfellas. It's as alive and revered today as it ever was.
That's why this one sticks with me. I think other beloved "losers" like Pulp Fiction and LA Confidential have grown in stature whereas I think Goodfellas (and Raging Bull for that matter) came out of the gates with the statures both films still hold today.
The Social Network v. Kings Speech is another one that fits this IMO.
I think 3 factors weighed heavy in that vote:
1. Voters traditionally LOVE epic. I may be being a little reductive, but there seems to be a history of bigger = better in voting. And that's at the heart of a lot of these disagreements.
2. Voters historically have been averse to violence -- at least violence without a moral hook and certainly any film that could skews "edgy" or younger. This has lightened up in the past 20 years as the makeup of voters has changed.
3. Do not underrate the boost of having an actor directing. Academy voters LOVE rewarding actors who write or direct. Costner/Beatty/Gibson have the same combined best director Oscars as Scorsese/Coens/Soderbergh/PT Anderson/Kubrick/Malick/Altman/Hitchcock. 3-3.
I think if this same matchup had occurred a 6-7 years alter, Goodfellas might win.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,550
- 3,410
Follow up thought on Pulp Fiction. It was absolutely a huge movie in the moment (and still is today). I just remember that year well since it was a very formative year in my movie education and Forest Gump was such a juggernaut it was hard to believe any other movie could compete (whether that's right or wrong).
Even then I believed Pulp Fiction was the better film, but it barely felt worth the argument at the time so I don't hold a lot of ire for that year's contest in retrospect. But oooof, Forest Gump does not age well.
Shawshank Redemption, however, is the definition of a late bloomer.
Even then I believed Pulp Fiction was the better film, but it barely felt worth the argument at the time so I don't hold a lot of ire for that year's contest in retrospect. But oooof, Forest Gump does not age well.
Shawshank Redemption, however, is the definition of a late bloomer.
Voight
#winning
Bjorn Le
Hobocop
I feel like it's popular to **** on Forrest Gump and Shawshank now. Both crazy popular 1990s films that got great critical reviews. It's like post-hipsterism. It's OK if you don't like the movies, but don't try to tell other people they're bad. Taste and quality are two very different factors.
DiCaprio and Hounsou made what was a pretty damn flawed movie a pretty good one. DiCaprio just seems to have the midas touch when it comes to films.
I don't think they'll ever allow a science fiction movie to win Best Picture.
DiCaprio and Hounsou made what was a pretty damn flawed movie a pretty good one. DiCaprio just seems to have the midas touch when it comes to films.
I don't think they'll ever allow a science fiction movie to win Best Picture.
Finlandia WOAT
js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
- May 23, 2010
- 24,215
- 23,946
Well, technically he is the lead actor. It's not Ted Levine. Clarice Starling is the main character, but you do have a point. Hopkins doesn't have a ton of screen time overall.
It's like I didn't get how William H Macy was put in the Supporting Actor category for Fargo. He's clearly the lead, because the story revolves around his character.
Speaking of lack of screen time, how does Judi Dench win for 8 minutes if screen time in Shakespeare In Love?
Elvis P
WNBA fan since 1997
How do you know this? The youngest baby boomers are 52 years old. How many friends do you hang out with that are over 51 years old?
I know this because I know many people who are 52+ years old and I'm not deaf and blind. I don't hang out with any of them, I'm just aware of the world around me and clearly I'm not the only person who recognizes this.
Here's an article though:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/keller-the-entitled-generation.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Game 3 WALTER CUP FINAL - Boston @ Minnesota - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 5Staked: $960.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 4 Milwaukee Admirals @ Grand Rapids Griffins - Milwaukee Admirals leads series 2-1Wagers: 4Staked: $300.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Game 2 Florida Panthers @ New York Rangers - Florida leads series 1-0Wagers: 12Staked: $11,942.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Dallas Mavericks @ Minnesota Timberwolves - Dallas leads series 1-0Wagers: 6Staked: $2,400.00Event closes- Updated: