Movies: What are the Biggest Oscar Snubs Ever?

[Ben Grimm]

You and two others did on the opening page.

...Also, the fact that none of The Godfather's THREE nominees for Best Supporting Actor won. ...

Obviously no one is gonna count themselves in the OP as a reference. That's the only other mention of it on the opening page. You may have more than 10 posts per page as your setting, but the standard default setting is ten.

 

[Ben Grimm]

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.

So you judge people including racial minorities and gay people based on the small number of people you know, but don't hang out with. Nice. That explains a lot.

 

[Shareefruck]

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.

You say that like telling someone that you think something's good is intrusive in some way (as if it's the same thing as telling someone that they have to agree with you)-- It's still just a subjective opinion that is harmless and doesn't minimize or insult your own in any way, whether you disagree with it or not.

I think how good something is has as much or more to do with how tastefully it's done than it does with how high quality it technically is, personally. Technical quality is a bit overrated-- for my money, what really matters is how right every creative decision feels. I don't think it's possible for personal taste to be removed from how good you think something is. It informs so much of what makes the thing valuable in the first place.

I think Forrest Gump is abhorrent and awful. Feel free to disagree, but I think it would be childish to jump the gun and write that off as a hipster thing just because it's really popular/well received and you don't like the opinion. I hate every moment of the experience, not because I care about people's perception of what I like, but because I find it egregiously annoying/corny/manipulative and self-righteous in the most wrong-headed way possible. It's like preachy conservative dogma disguised as a cloying, BS fake-sentimental/uplifting nonsense (the latter alone is already gag-inducing enough on its own).

It honestly perfectly represents everything I don't like about movies.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

So you judge people including racial minorities and gay people based on the small number of people you know, but don't hang out with. Nice. That explains a lot.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/keller-the-entitled-generation.html

Here's an article. Now please, go talk stupid elsewhere. My post clearly has nothing to do with race or sexuality, reading comprehension is your friend, Mr. Social Justice Warrior.

How many people do I hang out with again? Lmao gtfoh.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Emmanuel Lubezki in 2017.

I got a good chuckle at this.

Then I remembered Birdman beat Boyhood and I got a little angry, then a little sad. I think voters are going to want to take that one back with the benefit of time and hindsight. (Not Lubezki, the movies).

 

[Langdon Alger]

Forest Gump is one of my favorite movies, when I had cable I always watched it when it was on.

Hello, Mr. Gump.

 

[sully1410]

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?

It was a really good eight minutes lol.

But he's not the lead actor at all, the story has very little to do with him outside of that one scene.

It's the same kind of thing for Verbal Kint in the usual suspect. He is the guy telling the story...how is he not the lead actor?

I think if anyone deserves an Oscar with very limited screen time it's Kevin Spacey in Se7en.

 

[Langdon Alger]

It was a really good eight minutes lol.

But he's not the lead actor at all, the story has very little to do with him outside of that one scene.

It's the same kind of thing for Verbal Kint in the usual suspect. He is the guy telling the story...how is he not the lead actor?

I think if anyone deserves an Oscar with very limited screen time it's Kevin Spacey in Se7en.

The scene where Lecter and Starling meet you mean?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

You say that like telling someone that you think something's good is intrusive in some way (as if it's the same thing as telling someone that they have to agree with you)-- It's still just a subjective opinion that is harmless and doesn't minimize or insult your own in any way, whether you disagree with it or not..

I think the difference Glennie is pointing is between I think X is good" and "X is good", vs. I think X is good" and I like X". How your opinion is received has just as much, if not moreso, to do with how you phrase it as with the actual content of the opinion. Here, the point is to emphasize your opinion as an opinion, and avoid coming off as some sort of objective fact and/or Word of God.

This may be obvious to you, but believe you me, it is not always obvious to others.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think the difference Glennie is pointing is between I think X is good" and "X is good", vs. I think X is good" and I like X". How your opinion is received has just as much, if not moreso, to do with how you phrase it as with the actual content of the opinion. Here, the point is to emphasize your opinion as an opinion, and avoid coming off as some sort of objective fact and/or Word of God.

This may be obvious to you, but believe you me, it is not always obvious to others.

That kind of is what I'm arguing against, though. I don't think it should be necessary to throw the "I think" qualifier to every opinion-- that should really go without saying, unless there's some ulterior reason/additional evidence to think there's condescension involved. It's only when an argument actually gets into the intrusive "I'm right, you're wrong, and you should feel bad" territory where an annoyed/outraged reaction is actually warranted, IMO.

 

[Puck]

Then I remembered Birdman beat Boyhood and I got a little angry, then a little sad. I think voters are going to want to take that one back with the benefit of time and hindsight. (Not Lubezki, the movies).

I did not like Birdman either while watching it it but I knew I was watching a quality flick (even if I wasn't onboard totally at the time). I did not mind it winning the Oscar, i suspected as much (I figured it would win that category even if it wasn't my choice; Hollywood likes movies about its own). I don't mind that. It is a good artsie film, even if it wasn't my favorite. Boyhood was equally good, it was daring to make a movie over many years. But it wasn't my favorite either. I don't look at a winning Oscar as the definitive statement on what is good or bad. I figure getting nominated is a win of sorts in its own right. And it really does not matter who won or lost in the end, the discussion it engenders is good enough. And there are other awards (equally deserving IMO even if it does not have the caché of the Oscars in the public sphere).

 

[sully1410]

The scene where Lecter and Starling meet you mean?

Yup that one. It's been years since I've seen it mind you.

 

[Bjorn Le]

You say that like telling someone that you think something's good is intrusive in some way (as if it's the same thing as telling someone that they have to agree with you)-- It's still just a subjective opinion that is harmless and doesn't minimize or insult your own in any way, whether you disagree with it or not.

I think how good something is has as much or more to do with how tastefully it's done than it does with how high quality it technically is, personally. Technical quality is a bit overrated-- for my money, what really matters is how right every creative decision feels. I don't think it's possible for personal taste to be removed from how good you think something is. It informs so much of what makes the thing valuable in the first place.

I think Forrest Gump is abhorrent and awful. Feel free to disagree, but I think it would be childish to jump the gun and write that off as a hipster thing just because it's really popular/well received and you don't like the opinion. I hate every moment of the experience, not because I care about people's perception of what I like, but because I find it egregiously annoying/corny/manipulative and self-righteous in the most wrong-headed way possible. It's like preachy conservative dogma disguised as a cloying, BS fake-sentimental/uplifting nonsense (the latter alone is already gag-inducing enough on its own).

It honestly perfectly represents everything I don't like about movies.

That's not the reason I don't think you should say it. I think you shouldn't say it because to state a film is trash is to imply it is an objective fact and others who disagree are wrong.

 

[Shareefruck]

That's not the reason I don't think you should say it. I think you shouldn't say it because to state a film is trash is to imply it is an objective fact and others who disagree are wrong.

That's exactly what I'm disagreeing with. The only meaning you could reasonably and fairly derive from "This movie is complete ****ing trash" is that this person thinks this movie is complete trash.

It's downright unreasonable to think that just because someone is ruthless, crude, mean, and insensitive about how much they think something is awful, it's therefore fair to jump the gun and assume that they're implying that this is some objective holy truth and that people who think otherwise are idiots. It's possible, but you would really need more evidence before it would be fair to jump to that conclusion.

Think of it this way-- if someone says "This movie is absolute *****ing genius!", are they implying that this is an objective fact and that people who don't think so are wrong? It's the same thing. Things aren't automatically sinister/arrogant just because they're negative. We just react that way because we don't like hearing it, but that's our own irrational impulse/insecurity to get over, not something that should be catered to.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Stephen Rea gets in on the strength of The Crying Game's penis twist.

A plot twist; there were no twisting of penises in the movie.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Only two measly nominations (and no Oscars) for The Wild Bunch

 

[Langdon Alger]

Yup that one. It's been years since I've seen it mind you.

Yeah, come to think of it, he's not in many scenes. I wonder how much screen time he had in the whole movie. Just looked it up. Apparently it was between 12 and 16 minutes. He certainly gave a memorable performance though. Great actor.

 

[TP]

Goodfellas losing to that POS Dances with wolves is the biggest snub ever.

 

[sully1410]

Yeah, come to think of it, he's not in many scenes. I wonder how much screen time he had in the whole movie. Just looked it up. Apparently it was between 12 and 16 minutes. He certainly gave a memorable performance though. Great actor.

And it was a great performance....as a supporting role.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

Yeah, come to think of it, he's not in many scenes. I wonder how much screen time he had in the whole movie. Just looked it up. Apparently it was between 12 and 16 minutes. He certainly gave a memorable performance though. Great actor.

Lecter is one for me that, in spite of low screen time, makes total sense as lead actor. Can't explain it, but watching the movie it feels like he's on screen for far longer.

To what was said a few posts up, I considered mentioning Birdman over Boyhood. I was a lil bit peeved when Boyhood didn't take that one. However, Birdman was a really good film in its own right (especially Keaton and Norton), so I didn't think of it as a full out snub.

 

[DaveG]

Disagreed pretty strongly with then and still do now:

The Kings Speech over The Social Network (2010)

Crash over any of the other 4 nominees that year (2005). Crash was pure garbage. Munich, Good Night and Good Luck, and Capote were the only three I was really taking seriously. Brokeback Mountain would have been fine.

Shakespeare in Love over The Thin Red Line (1998)

Titanic over LA Confidential (1997)

The English Patient over Fargo (1996)

Braveheart over Apollo 13 (1995)

Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction, Quiz Show (1994)


Disagree with strongly in retrospect, wasn't following close enough at the time:

Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas (1990)

Terms of Endearment over The Right Stuff (1983)


... god do I ever piss all over the Academy's selections in the 90s, heh.

 

[Ceremony]

Forrest Gump is awful

 

[Langdon Alger]

Why the hate for Crash?

 

[irunthepeg]

Social Network and Goodfellas losing are two I'd say are snubs.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Why the hate for Crash?

I liked it at the time but I realize its incredibly corny.