Worst Oscar winners/ Biggest snubs

The Clamburglar said:
I don't see what it is you're talking about really, all I have said is that Denzel was only given the best actor award because the academy was doing their "blackting" awards that year, in a role that I overall enjoyed, but did not find to be academy award worthy in the least, and you disagreed based on a fake award that he was given in your own mind? I'm not sure what part of my statement you disagree with.

He may very well have been the supporting actor in that movie based on screen time and such, but he was not nominated for that category, and was only nominated for best actor because of politics.

You're free to love the shit out of the role and praise it up and down, but I don't take anyone who thinks that to be some superb piece of acting seriously. It was Denzel Washington playing Denzel Washington, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yet here you are responding to me lol

The Clamburglar said:
But how can you take him over a leading role nominee if, in your mind, he was a supporting role?
Click to expand...

Because leading or supporting it was a better performance than the other nominated roles
 
PolishHeadlock said:
Yet here you are responding to me lol
Click to expand...

Don't mistake having a discussion as taking it seriously.



Because leading or supporting it was a better performance than the other nominated roles
Click to expand...

So then you DO consider it to be the finest piece of acting by a male in 2002. Way to contradict yourself, LOL.
 
The Clamburglar said:
Don't mistake having a discussion as taking it seriously.





So then you DO consider it to be the finest piece of acting by a male in 2002. Way to contradict yourself, LOL.
Click to expand...

No I said it was the best one nominated. What was better? Give me a list of what you think was better and I'll tell you if I agree or not.

And you definitely take what I say seriously
 
Marsupial said:
L.A. Confidential over Titanic.

Pulp Fiction over Forrest Gump.

Man, we could do this all day. The Oscars are a pile of shit.
Click to expand...
They've gotten a lot worse over the past 20 years, but if you compare the list of winners (and especially nominees) to something like the Cannes, then it's rather jolting how relevant mass opinion (i.e. commercial appeal) is as a contributor to prediction of what is truly great and what will stand the test of time. A whole lot of artsy fartsy film festival stuff that felt great at the time just doesn't hold up.
 
Marsupial said:
L.A. Confidential over Titanic.

Pulp Fiction over Forrest Gump.

Man, we could do this all day. The Oscars are a pile of shit.
Click to expand...

Pulp Fiction is overrated imo.

Shawshank should have won that year

Agree on L.A Confidential
 
Also, in another thread, one poster parroted Hollywood's bullshit excuse for why there are now 10 Best Picture nominees (that films with commercial appeal needed more consideration and that The Dark Knight was proof of that). Anyone armed with the most basic facts about the films that get nominated knows this is bullshit. Hell, this year, apart from Amour, there isn't a single film that grossed under $1 million in the US Domestic Box Office. Seven of the ten Best Picture nominations have grossed at least $35 million to date. There are over 96 nominations shared between 7 of the biggest 12 studios: Fox, Universal, Weinstein, Disney, Sony, Warner, and MGM. This ceremony has never been about small, independent film.
The reason they went to 10 Best Picture nominees was because of the atrocious ratings for the awards ceremony in 2008, and that in no conceivable way can be blamed on a lack of commercial appeal. In fact, this year is the first time since 2008, and only the second time ever, that the film that grossed the most money also led with the highest number of nominations (Lincoln, The Curious Case of Benjamin of Button). The reason the ratings bombed that year was because the Academy fucked up the Best Picture nominations worse than ever before in history. I understand that often the best movie doesn't win, but usually the best movie is nominated. Check this out, fellas:


2008 Best Picture Nominees
*Slumdog Millionaire
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Reader
Milk
Frost/Nixon

2008 Movies Omitted from the Best Picture category
Domestic
The Dark Knight
Wall-E
Gran Torino
Doubt
In Bruges
The Wrestler
Changeling
4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
Revolutionary Road
Vicky Christina Barcelona
Defiance
The Visitor
Foreign
Departures
Waltz with Bashir
Let the Right One In
Ponyo
Revanche
The Class


Maybe if they hadn't completely flubbed the nominations, then the public would have given a shit who won. Those top five domestic films on the omission list are better than every single film that got nominated. Those foreign films are incredible; it's understandable, given the nature of the awards, that they don't have as strong a chance in this category, but for not one of those to be nominated is a disgrace. Particularly, IMO, Waltz with Bashir. That film will hit even pro-Israeli viewers like a fucking truck.
 
Last edited:
Madmick said:
Also, in another thread, one poster parroted Hollywood's bullshit excuse for why there are now 10 Best Picture nominees (that films with commercial appeal needed more consideration and that The Dark Knight was proof of that). Anyone armed with the most basic facts about the films that get nominated knows this is bullshit. Hell, this year, apart from Amour, there isn't a single film that grossed under $1 million in the US Domestic Box Office. Seven of the ten Best Picture nominations have grossed at least $35 million to date. There are over 96 nominations shared between 7 of the biggest 12 studios: Fox, Universal, Weinstein, Disney, Sony, Warner, and MGM. This ceremony has never been about small, independent film.
The reason they went to 10 Best Picture nominees was because of the atrocious ratings for the awards ceremony in 2008, and that in no conceivable way can be blamed on a lack of commercial appeal. In fact, this year is the first time since 2008, and only the second time ever, that the film that grossed the most money also led with the highest number of nominations (Lincoln, The Curious Case of Benjamin of Button). The reason the ratings bombed that year was because the Academy fucked up the Best Picture nominations worse than ever before in history. I understand that often the best movie doesn't win, but usually the best movie is nominated. Check this out, fellas:


2008 Best Picture Nominees
*Slumdog Millionaire
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Reader
Milk
Frost/Nixon

2008 Movies Omitted from the Best Picture category
Domestic
The Dark Knight
Wall-E
Gran Torino
Doubt
In Bruges
The Wrestler
Changeling
4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
Revolutionary Road
Vicky Christina Barcelona
Defiance
The Visitor
Foreign
Departures
Waltz with Bashir
Let the Right One In
Ponyo
Revanche
The Class


Maybe if they hadn't completely flubbed the nominations, then the public would have given a shit who won. Those top five domestic films on the omission list are better than every single film that got nominated. Those foreign films are incredible; it's understandable, given the nature of the awards, that they don't have as strong a chance in this category, but for not one of those to be nominated is a disgrace. Particularly, IMO, Waltz with Bashir. That film will hit even pro-Israeli viewers like a fucking truck.
Click to expand...

Never heard of Waltz with Bashir but I'll check it out now
 
PolishHeadlock said:
Never heard of Waltz with Bashir but I'll check it out now
Click to expand...
I'd recommend watching it alone, or at least with people who will respect its subject matter and tone (like Schindler's List). Try to sit down and experience it all the way through. It's one of the most powerful anti-war films ever made, IMO.
 
Madmick said:
I'd recommend watching it alone, or at least with people who will respect its subject matter and tone (like Schindler's List). Try to sit down and experience it all the way through. It's one of the most powerful anti-war films ever made, IMO.
Click to expand...

Was it like Schindler's list?
 
Zer said:
Hated seeing Morgan Freeman get a Shawshank Oscar for Million Dollar Baby when it should have been a toss up between Haden Church and Clive Owen.
Click to expand...

Clive earned the fuck out of that award.
 
Da Speeit said:
Everything's overrated.

Pulp Fiction>>>Forrest Gump
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't agree on that.

LA Confidential and Shawshank were better but not Pulp Fiction.

The ending was shit and the Harvey Keitel scene is the most overrated scene ever.
 
why dont you try using actual logic as to what is better instead just exclaiming something is "overrated"
 
quint.jpg


One of the greatest roles ever played imo.
 
1994 was the most loaded year since the 50's or the 70's; maybe the most loaded year in history apart from 1939. There's just no winning for the Academy in that year.
 
I actually thought Up in the Air deserved "Best Picture" over The Hurt Locker, though i wouldnt call that a snub or a robbery.

I do think it was was a very, wait for it Polish, UNDERRATED, film
 
Oh, speaking of the 82nd awards, Carey Mulligan acted circles around Bullock in that shitty movie she won for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,670
Messages
55,433,201
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top