God
5,226 POSTS & 4,219 LIKES
|
Post by thereallt on Feb 14, 2018 18:45:22 GMT
As much as I absolutely adore Shawshank I can't really call this a snub in any way. 1994 was simply a year where you had 3 HIGHLY deserving movies and any one of them would have been a worthy Best Picture winner.
The real snub was that Frank Darbaont wasn't even nominated for Best Director and THAT's why I had to put it on my list.
|
|
God
5,729 POSTS & 4,164 LIKES
|
Post by mikec on Feb 14, 2018 21:15:40 GMT
I like Shawshank, but really find it’s Oscar snub case lacking against Gump. I feel like the general things people hold against Forrest Gump could be also held against Shawshank.
I understand the Pulp Fiction people. I disagree because Pulp Fiction is barely watchable for half the movie for me (if Samuel L Jackson isn’t on screen it’s hard to rewatch, I can do Traviolta and Uma but get the fuck out of here with any of the Bruce Willis shit) but I at least understand that it was new and different and I can see why someone who loves Pulp Fiction would strongly dislike Forrest.
|
|
Junior Member
IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
RESIST
1,919 POSTS & 2,323 LIKES
|
Post by PB on Feb 14, 2018 22:02:38 GMT
At last! One that I agree is a snub. I've made my Forest Gump hate clear before, and Shawshank is probably my favourite of the other movies from that year, apart from Three Colours: Red, but something like that would never win Best Picture. But as I said before I'd have Shawshank, Pulp Fiction, Red and The Lion King as Best Picture winners well ahead of Forest Gump.
|
|
Senior Member
3,714 POSTS & 4,271 LIKES
|
Post by Shootist on Feb 14, 2018 22:22:30 GMT
I'll kill two birds with one stone here as Forrest Gump was a more than worthy winner over both Shawshank and Pulp Fiction. Over the years Forrest Gump has been much maligned and treated as a second class citizen but the story which hit the right nerve (especially to the baby boomer generation) and quality of film making (with the smart use of special effects) make it a much deserving winner.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 2:41:31 GMT
Forrest Gump won best picture?!?! Over Shawshank!?!?!?!? HA!
|
|
Moderator
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
8,706 POSTS & 8,531 LIKES
|
Post by Big Pete on Feb 15, 2018 4:12:02 GMT
I considered it as an honorable mention, because outside of 1994, Shawshank would have run away with every best picture award in that decade. However, Gump is a great movie and while I may prefer Shawshank, there isn't much between either movie.
I prefer a couple of 80s movies, but a lot of them suffer from pacing, bad acting or technological limitations. The style can also be pretty grating, which is why Indiana Jones is timeless because it's going for an older style.
While I think elements of Raiders was present in earlier Spielberg and Lucas movies, this was the movie that put it altogether and gave us back the fun adventure movie. If you look at other movies before Raiders, they were either too silly (eg. Roger Moore Bond movies) or too serious (Logan's Run, West World etc.). Raiders struck a balance where there was an engaging narrative with brutal violence, but if they could get away with a joke, they'd go for it.
As far as the sequels go, the second movie feels like a straight to video idea that halfway through they decided to make into a proper feature. It has some silly ideas and is markedly worse, but I think they salvage enough to make it worth a watch. The Last Crusade is a dream cross-over with Sean Connery basically passing the mantle over to Harrison Ford as the sauve action hero of his generation. I'd rate it on par with the original, and some may enjoy it even more.
I'm sure everyone saw Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull which was just mediocre. I don't think Spielberg or Lucas 'raped' anyone's childhood with the movies, but by the same token, they went to all that effort to bring it back, only to put together a disappointment.
|
|
Senior Member
IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
I came, I saw, I came again.
4,852 POSTS & 1,955 LIKES
|
Post by RagnarokMike on Feb 15, 2018 5:46:36 GMT
Shawshank Redemption I put at #10 on my list, while I do consider it in every way superior to Forest Gump, Gump was still a solid pick in its own right.
I'll never in any way, shape, or form agree with Chicago over Gangs of New York. Not only being maybe DDL's best performance (and that's saying something), but just an entertaining movie start to finish. Chicago was all flash, no substance.
|
|
Legend
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
Fan Fic Legend
27,269 POSTS & 19,953 LIKES
|
Post by UT on Feb 15, 2018 16:48:03 GMT
I considered it as an honorable mention, because outside of 1994, Shawshank would have run away with every best picture award in that decade. However, Gump is a great movie and while I may prefer Shawshank, there isn't much between either movie. I prefer a couple of 80s movies, but a lot of them suffer from pacing, bad acting or technological limitations. The style can also be pretty grating, which is why Indiana Jones is timeless because it's going for an older style. While I think elements of Raiders was present in earlier Spielberg and Lucas movies, this was the movie that put it altogether and gave us back the fun adventure movie. If you look at other movies before Raiders, they were either too silly (eg. Roger Moore Bond movies) or too serious (Logan's Run, West World etc.). Raiders struck a balance where there was an engaging narrative with brutal violence, but if they could get away with a joke, they'd go for it. As far as the sequels go, the second movie feels like a straight to video idea that halfway through they decided to make into a proper feature. It has some silly ideas and is markedly worse, but I think they salvage enough to make it worth a watch. The Last Crusade is a dream cross-over with Sean Connery basically passing the mantle over to Harrison Ford as the sauve action hero of his generation. I'd rate it on par with the original, and some may enjoy it even more. I'm sure everyone saw Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull which was just mediocre. I don't think Spielberg or Lucas 'raped' anyone's childhood with the movies, but by the same token, they went to all that effort to bring it back, only to put together a disappointment. See and I find the humor , outside of a few Ford one liners to be what prevents the movie from holding up. It just lacks a certain charm for me that other movies of the 80's have and I that if they were to cut out some of the schtick I would probably have actually enjoyed the movie for what it was. I know they were later movies , but I look at something like Goonies or even Back 2 The Future as far better films , ripe with action and adventure while also showing that comedy can be done well and made to hold up over decades.
|
|
Moderator
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
8,706 POSTS & 8,531 LIKES
|
Post by Big Pete on Feb 15, 2018 17:02:47 GMT
I appreciate what it's going for though and while it may not have worked for some 36 years after the fact, it set the tone for the rest of the decade.
While I prefer Back to the Future as well, the Goonies is a good example of what I'm talking about. It's an enjoyable ride, but you've got to excuse a few issues to enjoy it.
|
|
Legend
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
Fan Fic Legend
27,269 POSTS & 19,953 LIKES
|
Post by UT on Feb 15, 2018 17:15:33 GMT
|
|
Legend
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
Fan Fic Legend
27,269 POSTS & 19,953 LIKES
|
Post by UT on Feb 15, 2018 17:25:38 GMT
I appreciate what it's going for though and while it may not have worked for some 36 years after the fact, it set the tone for the rest of the decade. While I prefer Back to the Future as well, the Goonies is a good example of what I'm talking about. It's an enjoyable ride, but you've got to excuse a few issues to enjoy it. You've got to ignore a few issues with Indiana Jones too , like the fact the plot (pointed out by BBT) is completely flawed and the hero of the movie is totally irrelevant to the eventual outcome. I'm not going to argue it didn't set a tone , movies like Goonies and the like owe it a ton of gratitude to Raiders , but that doesn't mean they didn't surpass Indiana Jones is almost every way as they were passing it by with a thankful pat on the back. And FINALLY a movie from my list made the countdown - I had it slated at #3 when it was all said and done. I just love the movie , it's such a perfect combination of an air tight script , great pacing and directing from Fincher and excellent performances from a cast no one expected to knock it out of the park they did. I could watch it from any point in the movie , at any time of the day and become totally engrossed all over again. I know it's one of mikec's favorite movies so I look forward to his elaboration on it as well - even though he scared me when he almost forgot to put it on his list. And to add to it's snub credential for me , I could pick like 5 other nominees that I also would of taken over The FRICKEN King's Speech , which is just another movie type that is supposed to win the Oscars but fails to stand the test of time , or even a few years. I could of just as easily slotted Toy Story 3 right behind this and argued it's case as well - also enjoyed Inception , True Grit and The Fighter a lot from that year. That is probably the reason that it only landed at #3 for me - nothing against the movie but it was such a tough year you could argue any number of those movies being snubbed over "Oscar Movie 2010"
|
|
Moderator
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
8,706 POSTS & 8,531 LIKES
|
Post by Big Pete on Feb 15, 2018 17:37:10 GMT
2010 was an amazing year for movies. I'm so glad I made it a point to go to the cinemas as much as possible because I have fond memories of gathering up a crew and going to see movies like Inception, Toy Story 3, Shutter Island, Black Swan, The Kids Are All Right etc. and getting excited for movies. The Social Network was a highlight and it's one of the rare biographical movies I enjoy, largely because they're not telling you about how great this person is, but using this person to tell you this story. It's similar to Ed Wood which has a lot of inaccuracies, but is the power of following your dreams no matter the obstacle.
I enjoyed it, but I was fine with the King's Speech taking it and could have just as easily given it to the other nominees ahead of The Social Network.
|
|
Strong Style Mod
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
11,073 POSTS & 11,287 LIKES
|
Post by Emperor on Feb 15, 2018 18:01:21 GMT
I love The Social Network for reasons already stated. I prefer it to Inception, Shutter Island, and (slightly) Toy Story 3. Not seen The King's Speech, but I'm pretty confident I would like any of the aforementioned more.
|
|
God
5,729 POSTS & 4,164 LIKES
|
Post by mikec on Feb 15, 2018 18:02:50 GMT
Well we should start with that I think the Kings Speech stinks. I suppose it’s an okay movie, but it’s an unrepentantly boring story that I don’t know anyone who cares about even remotely. I agree with UT in saying that I think there are a number of movies that year that were better.
Before I even talk about how The Social Network is my favorite movie made in the last ten years, I will accept some criticism of the movie is valid. The rowing crew scene is not great, the trip to England in general seemed a contrivance just to put the scene in. And yes it’s casual with Zuckerberg’s life story and the book it comes from sounds like a hit piece sourced directly by Eduardo Saverin.. I don’t care.
Sorkin’s writing is lively, it’s his best work which is impressive given his IMDB credits and I think some credit of that goes to Fincher. Even the ridiculous crew scene looks good. The dialogue is snappy and funny, all of the acting is good especially with a younger cast, and it’s a perfectly idealized version of what making Facebook could have been like, even if it wasn’t quite like what making Facebook was like.
Ugh this one makes me angry. It was my number one snub because of how much I love the movie.
|
|
Junior Member
IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
RESIST
1,919 POSTS & 2,323 LIKES
|
Post by PB on Feb 15, 2018 18:08:07 GMT
Yeah I really love The Social Network but wouldn't have voted it because Toy Story 3 is better. I also think it was a really good year for film with lots of worthy winners. It, Toy Story, The King's Speech, Black Swan, True Grit, Inception, Blue Valentine, The Town and even Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 are all great films in my book. I think The King's Speech is really charming. I love the story (maybe moreso than most of you because I'm from the UK and am into history) and think it's a great feel-good overcome the odds type film. There are plenty of years where it would win and people would love it winning, it's just that this was such a strong year.
|
|
Legend
19,061 POSTS & 12,948 LIKES
|
Post by RT on Feb 15, 2018 18:23:14 GMT
I knew 1994 was going to get lots of discussion going with all the great movies that were nominated that year.
This is why I said earlier that I wish I put Apocalypse Now! higher on my list, maybe even at the top. That's a great example of a snub as I have no idea how Kramer vs. Kramer won over that movie. However 1994 is definitely a 'personal preference' snub no matter your argument.
Yeah, I voted for Shawshank Redemption but that's only because I like that movie a lot more than Forrest Gump. You can argue that, you can argue that you think Shawshank deserved to win, sure, but you can't argue that Forrest Gump didn't deserve to win because it was definitely deserving. It's a great movie.
That being said, SPOILERS I put Pulp Fiction at #1 on my list. I'll fight anyone that thinks Forrest Gump should have won over that movie.
|
|
Legend
19,061 POSTS & 12,948 LIKES
|
Post by RT on Feb 15, 2018 18:28:49 GMT
1. Pulp Fiction (winner: Forrest Gump) 2. 3. Gangs of New York (winner: Chicago) 4. 5. The Shawshank Redemption (winner: Forrest Gump) 6. Apocalypse Now! (winner: Kramer vs. Kramer) 7. 8. The Social Network (winner: The King's Speech) 9. 10.
Since I already said what my #1 is I'm just leaving it on there. Not sure how many more of my snubs will make the rest of the list. Should be interesting.
The Social Network was a great movie, had a great soundtrack, was very well cast, and was the most talked-about film that year. Why the hell it lost to such a snooze-fest is beyond me.
Colin Firth deserved Best Actor, sure, but that's it.
|
|
Rookie Member
774 POSTS & 265 LIKES
|
Post by SM on Feb 15, 2018 18:53:10 GMT
Social Network didn’t make my list, because a better movie was nominated and also lost that made my list.
|
|
Legend
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
Fan Fic Legend
27,269 POSTS & 19,953 LIKES
|
Post by UT on Feb 15, 2018 20:14:20 GMT
I knew 1994 was going to get lots of discussion going with all the great movies that were nominated that year. This is why I said earlier that I wish I put Apocalypse Now! higher on my list, maybe even at the top. That's a great example of a snub as I have no idea how Kramer vs. Kramer won over that movie. However 1994 is definitely a 'personal preference' snub no matter your argument. Yeah, I voted for Shawshank Redemption but that's only because I like that movie a lot more than Forrest Gump. You can argue that, you can argue that you think Shawshank deserved to win, sure, but you can't argue that Forrest Gump didn't deserve to win because it was definitely deserving. It's a great movie. That being said, SPOILERS I put Pulp Fiction at #1 on my list. I'll fight anyone that thinks Forrest Gump should have won over that movie. Someone ring the bell! That's what we do in street fights right?
|
|
Legend
23,184 POSTS & 12,594 LIKES
|
Post by 🤯 on Feb 15, 2018 20:33:00 GMT
For stacked years, especially ones that immediately precede weak years, instead of giving a weak film the nod, the Academy should just give best picture to one of the deserving runners-up from the previous stacked year.
Like 2001 doesn't really wow me all that much, so instead of recognizing a film from that year's field, just give Erin Brockovich or Traffic a Best Picture instead.
|
|
Senior Member
IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
I came, I saw, I came again.
4,852 POSTS & 1,955 LIKES
|
Post by RagnarokMike on Feb 16, 2018 2:19:53 GMT
Social Network was the 3rd or 4th rated movie for me that year, but I found the King's Speech to be mightily overrated, it was an okay film, with great performances, but I had it at the bottom of the nominees I saw that year (didn't see "the Kids are All Right" or "Winter's Bone").
|
|
God
5,226 POSTS & 4,219 LIKES
|
Post by thereallt on Feb 16, 2018 2:34:46 GMT
Shawshank is a better movie than Pulp Fiction, so If I don't consider that much of a snub Pulp Fiction isn't going to be either.
I enjoyed the King's Speech and could care less about The Social Network, so obviously it didn't make my list.
|
|
God
5,729 POSTS & 4,164 LIKES
|
Post by mikec on Feb 16, 2018 3:19:50 GMT
Social Network was the 3rd or 4th rated movie for me that year, but I found the King's Speech to be mightily overrated, it was an okay film, with great performances, but I had it at the bottom of the nominees I saw that year (didn't see "the Kids are All Right" or "Winter's Bone"). Winter’s Bone and Kids are All Right are pretty good, I have only seen Winters Bone the one time but it’s a great performance from Jennifer Lawrence.
|
|
Moderator
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
8,706 POSTS & 8,531 LIKES
|
Post by Big Pete on Feb 16, 2018 5:26:25 GMT
So far it seems like if a movie is British, chances are it's going to end up on this list.
English Patient, Chariots of Fire, King's Speech...I wonder what the reaction will be when Dunkirk takes out Best Picture?
Could even see an argument that Forrest Gump was a blowback pick, since it's rife with American culture.
The revolution lives on.
|
|
Senior Member
2,865 POSTS & 2,221 LIKES
|
Post by Lionheart on Feb 16, 2018 6:08:55 GMT
Raiders of the Lost Ark
I basically completely agree with everything UT said about this. I always want to like it because it always seems like it has to be so cool. It's fucking Harrison Ford who is a masterclass badass. It's an epic adventure. It's Indiana Jones! But every time I watch one I slowly become disappointed until I wonder how such a travesty of a movie could even exist. There are entertaining parts, but the plot is a mess and the pacing is totally nonsensical with juvenile humor thrown in at random parts.
And don't get me wrong. I love slapstick comedy. I love Charlie Chaplin and Army of Darkness. The problem is that this movie has bad slapstick comedy. Or at least a kind that I personally don't find very funny. While some movies do show humor can be made to hold up over decades though, I will admit there is no way to predict how society's sense of humor may change over the years. So if this kind of humor was funny to people at the time then I don't blame them for using it.
The Shawshank Redemption
This is an amazing movie. I have it placed on my second highest tier, which is no small accomplishment. It is also the first movie I voted for to come up, so that is cool. I had it ranked at #8. It doesn't take much to notice, and most have, that this movie is of very high quality in both cinematography and acting. It also has a story so powerful that it moves the majority of people who see it, which is a rare thing and something most filmmakers should aspire to. That being said, many claim it as their top movie of all time and that is pushing it a little too far for me. There are many better movies out there. But that by no means indicates that this one shouldn't be appreciated and revered. It already gets as much credit as it deserves though and you all know this, so I don't have to say more.
On the other hand, I find Forrest Gump to be one of the most overrated movies of all time. Tom Hanks is one of the best actors who ever lived and I still can't even like the movie. The story just has zero connection to me and is one of few movies that can't keep my interest at all, but I won't claim the movie lacks in any technical areas. I just don't like the story or the characters. Perhaps that is because I can't relate to them, but in any case I find this a major instance of a snubbing. Even if you like Gump, as most people do, almost anyone would be hard pressed to say it is definitively better than Shawshank which came away with zero Oscar wins.
The Social Network
It's funny that this comes up. I really wasn't expecting to see this here at all but it just came up when I was researching some actors last week. I was pretty shocked to find out that the actor that plays the Winklevii, Armie Hammer, was both the Lone Ranger and the main Russian guy in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. I didn't recognize him at all in either role. It's interesting how the same actors pop up in different films and you don't even realize it sometimes.
Anyway, I knew everyone liked this movie but I didn't know people thought quite this highly of it so that is why I am surprised to see it here. I do prefer Zodiac as far as Fincher movies are concerned, but it was a fairly enjoyable film and I'd gladly watch it again. It has a lot of great components that make it humorous and epic throughout. It takes a lot of effort to turn what most would consider a somewhat bland topic into a widely enjoyed film. And one that is far more relatable than the chosen Oscar winner. Social Network connected to viewers even while detailing a very unorthodox life very unlike the life of most of them; a feat comparable to wizardry.
I haven't seen The King's Speech but from what I've heard it seems like a great movie as well. I'd have no way to know if this was really a snub. Maybe not. The King's Speech got a lot of universal praise among people who actually saw it, but I will say that Les Misérables was a huge disappointment and so I wouldn't be surprised if the director, Tom Hooper, isn't as masterful as people seem to think given my viewing record of his work at the reigns of a production. But it's a bit unfair to already claim that it has failed the test of time. It annoys me as well when a movie clearly won because of its unfair advantage of having an oscar-ish theme, but it should be judged separately of that.
If Social Network had won, I would have voted for True Grit as having been snubbed by it. True Grit was just so great with an already powerful cast that was enhanced even further by the unexpectedly phenomenal acting skills of Hailee Steinfeld. She put most actors to shame with her sheer ability and she was only 13 at the time. It's rare for a kid actor to have much talent at all when weighed up to the experience of older actors, so it was pretty mindblowing. The original True Grit still remains the better film in my eyes, but it couldn't ask for a better tribute.
|
|
God
5,729 POSTS & 4,164 LIKES
|
Post by mikec on Feb 16, 2018 12:11:30 GMT
So far it seems like if a movie is British, chances are it's going to end up on this list. English Patient, Chariots of Fire, King's Speech...I wonder what the reaction will be when Dunkirk takes out Best Picture? Could even see an argument that Forrest Gump was a blowback pick, since it's rife with American culture. The revolution lives on. Hadn’t much thought about this so I checked my list and I did put 3 British movies as undeserving, and I’d stake a good amount of money that all three will make this list. Dunkirk would be such a surprising win I imagine that would be the initial response. Long term maybe we say it snubbed 3 Billboards?
|
|
God
5,226 POSTS & 4,219 LIKES
|
Post by thereallt on Feb 16, 2018 13:29:04 GMT
Goonies rips off Raiders in so many ways it's not even funny. It's essentially Raiders with kids instead of adults. Both movies use largely the same tropes and very similar types or humor, I don't see how one holds up and the other does not.
|
|
Legend
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
Fan Fic Legend
27,269 POSTS & 19,953 LIKES
|
Post by UT on Feb 16, 2018 16:12:31 GMT
|
|
Legend
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
Fan Fic Legend
27,269 POSTS & 19,953 LIKES
|
Post by UT on Feb 16, 2018 16:18:05 GMT
Hey good time for this fucking movie to finally show up , I honestly wish that the movie could manifest it's own lips just so it could kiss my ass , that's what I truly think about Pulp Fiction. And honestly I wouldn't have as much disdain for it if not for the legion of fans who believe it's impossible not to like it and assume you're wrong or just don't "get it" if you're not one singing it's praises. I'm not a huge Tarantino fan in general , Django and Resevoir Dogs are the only two films of his I really enjoy but Pulp Fiction was one of the most boring waste of 2 1/2 hours I can remember from a movie and haven't had any desire to revisit it years later.
All that is to say I understand that it was an important movie in cinematic history , people I enjoy and respect have defended that case and I get it - but I still don't give it the Oscar over Forrest Gump , a movie I find far more palatable , more rewatchable , better acted and better character work. Same with Shawshank which I find to also be infinitely better - so I don't see how it can be a snub at all.
|
|
Legend
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
Fan Fic Legend
27,269 POSTS & 19,953 LIKES
|
Post by UT on Feb 16, 2018 16:21:08 GMT
Goonies rips off Raiders in so many ways it's not even funny. It's essentially Raiders with kids instead of adults. Both movies use largely the same tropes and very similar types or humor, I don't see how one holds up and the other does not. I don't find the humor that similar at all , mainly because Goonies punchlines still largely work and play well to audiences of today. I didn't find that at all in Indiana Jones - and I already conceded that Goonies owes Raiders a pat on the back for setting it up but Goonies built on everything Raiders did and knocked it out of the park to become the better movie that actually stands the test of time. Also at least without The Goonies , the treasure never gets found and they all lose their home to a golf course. That alone makes it a far more well thought out movie from beginning to end.
|
|