They could have honored Woody Allen and George Lucas - give the Best Director Oscar to Lucas, and the Best Picture Oscar to Annie Hall.

They've done this in the past, so I don't see why they had to honor Woody Allen to the point of giving him every Oscar:

-Best Screenplay
-Best Actor (nominated)
-Best Director
-Best Picture

There's such a thing as overkill. Annie Hall was a good movie, but it wasn't that good! George Lucas' Star Wars - man, nobody had seen anything like that, not ever!! Yes, the acting was a little wooden, but the story and the special effects were totally amazing. Its what movie-making is all about!

At least it got nominated, though, I must say that. King Kong was totally snubbed back in 1933, and that, friends 'n neighbors, was what movie-making was all about!

It's actions like these that discredit award shows. There should be no sentimental compromises, each award should be independent. A Best Director award should go to the best director, best picture to the best picture, etc... If one movie happens to be the best in each category, so be it.

Well, the history of the Academy - especially lately - shows that they can't really pick a bonafide winner.

Look at The Godfather. In 1972, The Godfather won the Best Picture Oscar, but director Francis Ford Coppola lost out to Bob Fosse (Cabaret) for Best Director.

Now, was Annie Hall better than The Godfather? I don't think anybody can say that it was - I know, I know, its comparing apples to oranges because one film is a drama and the other is a comedy, but we're talking about the Best Picture of the Year, and that category really doesn't see the distinction between dramas and comedies (or musicals). Yet The Godfather didn't sweep the Oscars in 1972; Annie Hall did in 1977.

Fair? Somehow, I don't think so. Some of that pie from 1977 should have been divied up between the two films.

Yep, according to rumours, that's the real reason why he was banned back in 2005.

She won for playing the queen alright, just a different queen. Dench's award was a cumulative award based on her previous astounding performance in Mrs. Brown. Oscar does this sort of thing frequently. Whoopi's win was as much for The Color Purple as it was for Ghost, for example.

Judi Dench is great in everything, as she is one of our finest performers! Who else is like Judi Dench, who does a great performance in every film they do? ... hmmm....

...gee, nobody. Not even Meryl Streep has done Oscar-calibrated performances in every film...sometimes Meryl does a "fun" movie, just something to have fun with, like riding the rapids, or having your head on backwards, or playing opposite a rhino (in "She Devil"), or being a tiny ant...I don't think we'll see Madam Judi Dench doing any "fun" movies. She's as serious as a haart attakk.

I can see what you're getting at. Even in films which could be considered "fun" such as the James Bond films, she commands respect.

One thing that keeps coming to my mind when reading all of these posts: AMPAS is made up of individuals. They do not convene and talk about who should get the award and why.

People continually talk about the Academy snubbing someone. A snub may have garnered a lot of votes - just not enough to win a majority. You get enough voices thrown in to a voting situation and usually you get a watered down mainstream majority.

Arguing about the awards is becoming (like so many other thing theses days) like arguing about politics and/or religion.

And about as pointless.

These sort of things are mostly just particular people spouting their particular opinions...usually with little in the way of objective facts to support their particularly biased conclusions.

And...you know what they say about opinions... everyone has one.

Hoop Dreams.

DIdn't this snub actually change the absence of documentary filmmakers in the voting process?

Either way, it's one of the greatest movies of all time. I think it transcends the documentary genre and holds up on its own as a fine drama. The fact that it wasn't nominated is a crime.

:cough:the chronicles of Riddick:cough:

I wish Peary would do an updated version taking it to 2006.. But since he hasn't...

Alternate Oscars 1992 to 2006.

1992- Won: Unforgiven. Shoulda Won: The Player
1993- Won: Schindler's List. Shoulda Won: Schindler's List.
1994- Won: Forrest Gump. Shoulda Won: Shawshank Redemption (over Pulp Fiction)
1995- Won: Braveheart. Shoulda Won: Heat.
1996- Won: The English Patient. Shoulda Won: Fargo.
1997- Won: Titanic. Shoulda Won: Titanic (LA Confidential is overrated with a terrible ending)
1998- Won: Shakespeare in Love. Shoulda Won: Thin Red Line
1999- Won: American Beauty. Shoulda Won: The Matrix.
2000- Won: Gladiator. Shoulda Won: Traffic
2001- Won: A Beautiful Mind. Shoulda Won: Fellowship of the Ring.
2002- Won: Chicago. Shoulda Won: The Pianist
2003- Won: Return of the King. Shoulda Won: Return of the King.
2004- Won: Million Dollar Baby. Shoulda Won: Sideways
2005- Won: Crash. Shoulda Won: History of Violence
2006- Won: (TBD) Shoulda Won: Children of Men.

Well, that was fun.

Well, I haven't seen that one.

Nor I.

QFT. Ditto with Jethro Tull winning out over Metallica in the Grammys.

Although ironically enough I am a fan of early Metallica as well as the original cut of Star Wars.

I agree with you on your point, but I truly believe that Jackson didn't win was because the Academy was waiting on the final product of all three films. The Two Towers was a phenomenal film as well, but again Jackson didn't win it either. We as the public were awed when the first film came out. We said to ourselves "Holy crap! what an awesome flick..lets hope that the next one is as good as this and he doesn't f' it up". And of course when The Two Towers came out, we crapped our preverbial pants and nodded to each other that we knew that the The Return of the King was going to be a hell of a finale. The Oscars he received were a culmination of all three films and the movies were not a trilogy, but one big movie as a whole and hence judged upon it. It was filmed on location for over 7 years, so in my personal opinion and I think the publics as well, its one big movie.

Annie Hall vs. Stars Wars...hmm. I haven't yet seen AH and I can't comment on this just yet. As for Stars Wars, I'm a huge fan and was lucky enough at the young tender age of 10 to see this for myself. I've never really been a Woody Allen fan, although I thought Hannah and Her Sisters was well done. SW has had a bigger impact on me and I do see many flaws in the movie. Flubs, errors and the script. It was meant for all ages, to me it was ahead of its time and still very magical to me. I promise to come back with a response on the AH after I have seen it and agree or disagree.

OK, I'll have a go, restricting choices only to those nominated in a major category (as to consider all films from the respective years would take hours):

1992- Won: Unforgiven.
None of the Best Picture nominees really deserved it with The Crying Game probably being the best of the lot. I would have to say Indochine or Glengarry.

1993- Won: Schindler's List.
SL does have a few flaws but it is hard to argue with the win. The Remains of the Day and Shadowlands both would have been worthy winners as well.

1994- Won: Forrest Gump.
An entirely undeserving winner. It probably deserved to make lots of $$$, which it did, but this was a pathetic choice for BP. As I have not yet seen Three Colors: Red and can't judge it on its merits, I would have given the award to Quiz Show.

1995- Won: Braveheart.
Braveheart was the best choice among the five BP nominees. Honestly, nothing in the major categories is an obvious better choice either, although I probably would have voted for Dead Man Walking.

1996- Won: The English Patient
One of the more-critcized winners and I can't fathom why. TEP was a remarkable film in every way. Fargo is a more accessible film and has a storyline more likely to appeal to mainstream audiences but it is hardly a better film. The Academy got this one right.

1997- Won: Titanic
Titanic was a substantial accomplishment but it had so many glaring flaws (mediocre performances in several key roles and a shallow and manipulative screenplay with lots of one-dimensional characters) that it should never have even received its BP nomination. Of the BP noms, Good Will Hunting and As Good as it Gets were probably the most complete films. I would have voted for Mrs. Brown.

1998- Won: Shakespeare in Love
Another undeserving winner but I also fall into the Thin-Red-Line-is-Visually-Stunning-Crap crowd so I obviously don't agree with you there. Elizabeth was the best film among the BP noms (Gwyneth over Cate or Emily for Best Actress, are you kidding me???). All others consider, I'd probably still vote for Elizabeth.

1999- Won: American Beauty
I am also a bigger fan of Beauty than many here so I wasn't upset to see it win. That being said, The Insider was the best of the BP noms and probably of the whole lot.

2000- Won: Gladiator
Probably where Oscar got it most wrong of all of the winners over this timeframe. Really, really bad decision here. I can't really argue with your choice of Traffic overall. I am also a huge fan of You Can Count On Me but it's lack of any flashy elements tends to disqualify it.

2001- Won: A Beautiful Mind
ABM is another Oscar miscue, to be sure. Also, if Pete Jackson and company were going to win for any of the trilogy, it should have been this year since the first one was easily the best one. Overall, it was a pretty weak year for nominees and In the Bedroom should have won.

2002- Won: Chicago
Chicago won the "Oh-Wow, Someone-Made-A-Good-Musical-For-The-First-Time-In-Years" award but this was another weak year for nominees so it really wasn't that horrible of a choice. I would have probably voted with you for The Pianist but without any real conviction.

2003- Won: Return of the King
This was obviously an award for the entire trilogy, but that basis is both unjust and unfortunate since RotK really wasn't that strong of a film standing on its own. I would have voted for Lost in Translation among the BP noms but ultimately I would have voted for 21 Grams in a heartbeat.

2004- Won: Million Dollar Baby
Not a bad choice by Oscar. I have to admit I still have not seen Ray. Considering the other three, I probably would have voted for Sideways also but MDB was very good. Scrolling down the list of other major nominees, Eternal Sunshine is the only one that gives me pause as a complete film, although both Maria Full of Grace and Vera Drake were also excellent.

2005- Won: Crash
Another weak group of BP noms. Of those five, I would have chosen Good Night, and Good Luck. Looking further, I would have voted for either Syrianna or The Constant Gardener.

Since I tend to see film on video after the fact (only seen 3/5 BP noms, for example), I am categorically unqualified to offer an educated opinion on this year's nominees.

1999 had about 10 films that were stronger than The Matrix, American Beauty amongst them. Sure, The Matrix was a fun popcorn movie, but Dark City did it better the year before, only without the hype and marketing blitz. 1999 was the year of Fight Club, Three Kings, The Sixth Sense, The Insider, Toy Story 2, Eyes Wide Shut, Being John Malkovich, The Cider House Rules, Magnolia and The Talented Mr. Ripley and probably more I'm forgetting. It was probably the last great year for film.

With the current Best/Worst Picture Winners by Decade threads, maybe it's time to bump this thread again.

+9

+9000

Disagree. It's easy to look back and see films that haven't aged well. Lets see how silly Dave McCoy's picks look in 20 years.

Titanic was the worst picture to win IMHO.

2005 was such an atrocity in my eyes... when 'Crash' took home Best Picture.

and 2006's lack of love towards 'Babel'

and 1999's dismissal of 'Magnolia' being nominated for anything but supporting actor and screenplay (should've received the awards for best picture, director, and cinematography for sure)

That's a funny way of spelling "Crash."

Really, I hate Titanic, but it's just mediocre. Mediocre acting (who knew how great Leo and Kate would turn out?), mediocre script, GREAT effects, but just overall boring as sin. But not offensive, like Crash.