[Hugh Jboobs]

Whoopi Goldberg not getting one for Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit.

[rawbob]

Originally Posted by Nattie01

ET winning over Blade Runner in the Best Visual Effects category.

Inception winning over Tron Legacy in the same category.

Daft Punk not even getting a nomination for their score for Tron Legacy.

the single acheivement of ET is far more amazing than anything in Blade Runner. While Blade Runner built a world, ET built a totally believable alien that audiences fell in love with and this was far more powerful because we could believe that he actually existed.

Inception didn't have to portray a full environment the way Tron Legacy did but the dedication to in camera effects is epic. Tron Legacy was let down by the never believeable young Jeff Bridges CGI.
.

[lux lisbon 2]

I remember it was a real shock when Edward Norton was nominated for Best Actor for American History X, the Beeb were covering it and were hyping Michael Caine to get the Best Actor Oscar, I think it was for Little Voice and he ended up not even getting nominated!

[Taz93]

Kate Winslet not winning Best Actress for Titanic. Robbed comes to mind...

[Gort]

Originally Posted by lux lisbon 2

I remember it was a real shock when Edward Norton was nominated for Best Actor for American History X, the Beeb were covering it and were hyping Michael Caine to get the Best Actor Oscar, I think it was for Little Voice and he ended up not even getting nominated!

Not sure if you're saying otherwise, and apologise in advance if you're not saying so, but Edward Norton certainly did deserve to be nominated for American History X.

[M. Tourette]

Alfred Hitchcock never won a single academy award.

Rebecca got best film but this was awarded to David O Selznick the films producer, There were nominations for Hitchcock but he never won.
North By Northwest didn't even get a nomination for best film

[Bandit1200S]

Originally Posted by M. Tourette

Alfred Hitchcock never won a single academy award.

Rebecca got best film but this was awarded to David O Selznick the films producer, There were nominations for Hitchcock but he never won.
North By Northwest didn't even get a nomination for best film

Exactly, as I said in the Adele thread the Oscars and The Academy are a Joke and I pay no attention to them, much prefer to enjoy my films for myself.

All pomp and ceremony.

[Scoobyh1]

Am I right in thinking that Harry Potter never got a single Oscar....

I think that just proves how bias the voters are for these awards.

One of the highest grossing movies of all time and nothing...

I don't understand why the movies that are nominated practically HAVE to not have been commercially successful at the box office.

I can think of a lot of Oscar worthy nominations in my movie brain but know that the voters wouldn't ever vote for them.

[rawbob]

it's not that the academy only rewards less popular films. the more popular stuff tends to not have anything to say or be as challenging to the viewer. The popular stuff is popcorn entertainment. Hence why the MTV movie awards exist!

The popular stuff also suffers from fans talking it up to be better than it really is. Skyfall is this year's fan favourite and it is well put together but suffers from the fact that it just really isn't that good.-

[Mystical123]

Originally Posted by Scoobyh1

Am I right in thinking that Harry Potter never got a single Oscar....

I think that just proves how bias the voters are for these awards.

One of the highest grossing movies of all time and nothing...

I don't understand why the movies that are nominated practically HAVE to not have been commercially successful at the box office.

I can think of a lot of Oscar worthy nominations in my movie brain but know that the voters wouldn't ever vote for them.

The Oscars are (supposedly) about artistic quality, not quantity in terms of sales. They're not about popularity, otherwise they'd have been dominated by Harry Potter and Twilight for the past decade, and James Bond for half of the entire existence of the Academy Awards!

They're not about the people's choice, but the professionals'.

[dee123]

Originally Posted by Scoobyh1

Am I right in thinking that Harry Potter never got a single Oscar....

I think that just proves how bias the voters are for these awards.

One of the highest grossing movies of all time and nothing...

I don't understand why the movies that are nominated practically HAVE to not have been commercially successful at the box office.

I can think of a lot of Oscar worthy nominations in my movie brain but know that the voters wouldn't ever vote for them.

Nope they didn't get a single one. Not even in Costume, Sound, anything.

[Lady Spice]

But if that's the case, then the likes of Titanic and Forrest Gump never would have won Best Picture. I realise that I'm in the minority on this, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I was glad that both these films won because I loved them both. And I would still watch them both today.

I know it's not the popular view, but I still think Titanic was an incredible film, and really made you feel like you were on that sinking ship. I think that it suffers from having an annoying (or over played) theme song, but I feel that the film deserved all the accolades it got. (.....runs for cover......)

Having said that, in the year that Forrest Gump won, I also loved Shawshank and Pulp Fiction, and these three movies are all in my top movies of all time. So I would have been happy with any of them winning. As is Braveheart, and IIRC, this was also a huge commercial hit that also won for Best Picture.

Popularity doesn't necessarily doom a movie at the Oscars, but it is true that movies that hardly anyone sees are more likely to win.

[Gort]

Originally Posted by Mystical123

The Oscars are (supposedly) about artistic quality, not quantity in terms of sales.

Precisely. If it were a mere popularity contest (although it can be accused of that to some degree on occasion), then there'd be no need for voting or suspense: a simple totting up of the box office receipts would suffice to find the winner.

[Mystical123]

Originally Posted by Lady Spice

Popularity doesn't necessarily doom a movie at the Oscars.

No, of course not, no-one's said that. What I was trying to say is that popularity is not and should not be a prerequisite for winning an Oscar. There can be great films that are popular, but they win because of their artistic merit, not their popularity.

[degsyhufc]

Originally Posted by Bandit1200S

Exactly, as I said in the Adele thread the Oscars and The Academy are a Joke and I pay no attention to them, much prefer to enjoy my films for myself.

All pomp and ceremony.

Totally agree. There's no way Adele deserves any awards at all.

[degsyhufc]

Originally Posted by Lady Spice

Having said that, in the year that Forrest Gump won, I also loved Shawshank and Pulp Fiction, and these three movies are all in my top movies of all time. So I would have been happy with any of them winning. As is Braveheart, and IIRC, this was also a huge commercial hit that also won for Best Picture.

Strangely thought The Shawshank Redemption was not appeciated at the time so was never in the running.

[Lady Spice]

In 1995, the nominees for Best Picture were Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redeption, Quiz Show and Four Weddings.

Shawshank was a critially acclaimed film (by the Acadamy anyway) but didn't do so well at the box office. It's popularity today though has more than made up for it.

[Muttley76]

Originally Posted by Lady Spice

In 1995, the nominees for Best Picture were Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redeption, Quiz Show and Four Weddings.

Shawshank was a critially acclaimed film (by the Acadamy anyway) but didn't do so well at the box office. It's popularity today though has more than made up for it.

The Shawshank Redemption was a rank outsider to win best picture that year, and while it was well received at the time it was released, it's not quite true to say it was critically acclaimed, that, like it's popularity with a wider audience, came later.

Forrest Gump was one of the hottest favourites to win best picture and it was not remotely a surprise when it did. At the time the wider audience seemed quite enchanted with it too.

Shawshank is my favourite film bar none, but it's a film people say should have won only with benefit of hindsight. It certainly was not a shock it didn't win at the time.

But it is certainly interesting to see how views about films evolve over the years.

[Everlong Girl]

I think Shakespeare In Love beating Saving Private Ryan to best picture was simply shocking. I certainly know which film I have watched more times and it's not the winner.

I think Tom Hanks should have been nominated for his role in The Green Mile.

Crash beating Brokeback Mountain was shocking too - but I guess gay cowboys was just a step too far for Academy voters.

Felicity Huffman not winning best actress that year shocked me too - she was brilliant in Transamerica and Jake Gyllenhaal should have won best supporting actor for Brokeback Mountain.

I'm not a fan of the idea of people getting awards for best actor/actress/supporting actor/supporting actress etc for a single film when it's not their best film, but it's more due to recognition of their career - case in point Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side. IMO she's not an Oscar type actress.

[Tyjet]

Originally Posted by Scoobyh1

Am I right in thinking that Harry Potter never got a single Oscar....

I think that just proves how bias the voters are for these awards.

One of the highest grossing movies of all time and nothing...

I don't understand why the movies that are nominated practically HAVE to not have been commercially successful at the box office.

I can think of a lot of Oscar worthy nominations in my movie brain but know that the voters wouldn't ever vote for them.

Titanic and Return of the King say hi. Both won 11 Oscars, with RotK sweeping, and both were box office behemoths.

[treefr0g]

Originally Posted by dee123

Nope they didn't get a single one. Not even in Costume, Sound, anything.

This should have got an oscar for the musical score alone. imo, whatever beat it, didn't deserve it.

[Mystical123]

Originally Posted by treefr0g

This should have got an oscar for the musical score alone. imo, whatever beat it, didn't deserve it.

Beaten by the first Lord of the Rings in 2002 and Finding Neverland in 2004. The final Lord of the Rings film also won the original score award.

Then again, lots of brilliant scores haven't won the Oscar - the Mission, Gladiator, The Patriot, Saving Private Ryan, Indiana Jones to name but a few.

[Muttley76]

Originally Posted by Mystical123

Beaten by the first Lord of the Rings in 2002 and Finding Neverland in 2004. The final Lord of the Rings film also won the original score award.

Then again, lots of brilliant scores haven't won the Oscar - the Mission, Gladiator, The Patriot, Saving Private Ryan, Indiana Jones to name but a few.

And the score to Lord of the Rings was totally Oscar worthy in any case. The whole trilogy was outstanding in that department.

[performingmonk]

Brokeback Mountain not winning... You just know there was Academy bullshit going on with that decision. i.e. some bigwig saying 'we're not f**king giving it to a gay movie'. Similar to discussions that went on over The Color Purple, I'm sure...

[Mystical123]

Originally Posted by Muttley76

And the score to Lord of the Rings was totally Oscar worthy in any case. The whole trilogy was outstanding in that department.

Absolutely


I really don't consider Brokeback Mountain and The Color Purple not winning as shocks. They may have deserved to win, that's a different matter entirely, but they're not the type of films that the Academy was ever going to vote for really, so their lack of success was not a shock, but merely a shame.