Let's look at the studios that have won the Oscar for Best Picture in the past decade.

2002- Miramax
2001- Dreamworks/Universal
2000- Dreamworks/Universal
1999- Dreamworks
1998- Miramax
1997- Paramount
1996- Miramax
1995- Paramount
1994- Paramount
1993- Universal
1992- Warner Brothers
1991- MGM
1990- MGM

Seems a little odd that same companies win every year. And 20th Century Fox hasn't won in a long time.

It would seem a little odd, but considering the way studios promote their films come oscar time it doesn't surprise me. It just shows which studios have the best marketing divisions IMO.

And what was the last movie that DID deserve to win best picture? IMO it was Schindler's List from 1993. Anyone else have thoughts?

Also, keep in mind, Dreamworks has only been making movies for a short amount of time and they already have THREE best picture winners... I think they've pretty much thrown down the gauntlet in terms of quality pictures and left the other studios racing after them...

MATT

Where did you get this info?
Silence of the Lambs and Dances with Wolves were both Orion films.

Isn't Miramax headed by Harvey Weinstein (SP?)? I thought he was like the big time oscar marketer. Check out the year Shakespeare In Love won for best picture (98 or 99). It won over a whole heap of better movies that have aged very well. Everyone thought that Saving Private Ryan would win that year (and IMO I thought it should've too). I'm sure this has happened many times before but this just stood out in my mind.

American Beauty (1999).

Yup... It was the best film of that year. Take a look at the other nominees... The Insider, The Cider House Rules, The Green Mile, The Sixth Sense. All fine films but American Beauty was the best of the lot. (of course, Magnolia should have been nominated IMHO, and most of the best films of any given year never receive a nomination, but still...)

MGM does own them now, so lester might have asssumed they did then.

None of them. Ever. There hasn't been one Academy Award that I've agreed with, in any of the major categories.

Miramax and Dreamworks have devoted themselves to winning the Best Picture Oscar, its how they define themselves, as the company that keeps making award winning movies. And the amount of money and PR they put towards those awards is astounding.

Its a very valuable lesson....if you really want to make a movie that will win an Oscar, you can.

A better question would be, why don't the studios really want to make "good" movies? (Though personally, I like their mediocre product!)

Interesting. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I've never agreed with the Academy Award picks, but I usually see the Oscars as a type of popularity contest. The victor doesn't always get the victory.

This has been known in hollywood for awhile that these studios practically buy academy awards through heavy campaigns.

Plus these particular studios make "oscar bait" type film. It's almost become a genre nowadays. "Films that cry oscar" It's kind of funny since most of those types of films aren't anywhere near deserved of them. Unless you put them up next to most of the other crap studios release each year.

Supposedly there is to be a crackdown on the studios practices when it comes to campaigning for oscar consideration... We shall see.

Honestly, Oscars and Nominations dont really mean anything to me because the movies I do like hardly ever get nominated except for a few like saving private ryan a few years back and stuff. And Oscar movies always seem to be very serious movies which I dont mind but alot of those serious movies are quite boring IMO and theres so many serious movies that are quite good but it doesn't have the big name actors so it wont be nominated or anything. Like someone stated before, these movie awards are just popularity contests and nothing less and nothing more.

Isn't Braveheart (1995) a Twentieth-Century Fox film, but was released by Paramount domestically?

About the only thing I'll concede is that American Beauty was released in 1999. There were literally dozens of movies from 1999 that were better than that rancid piece of crap. IMO, the best movie of 1999, and maybe the best movie of the entire decade, was Rosetta. Compared to it American Beauty was a made for TV movie of the week.

I tend to agree with Groucho. I don't know that there's been a single Best Picture that I think deserved it. Maybe the Godfather films, they were pretty good.

Here's how the Academy and I stack up over the past decade:

2003 Chicago - my pick:Lord of the rings:TTT

2002 A Beautiful Mind - my pick: LOTR: FOTR

2001 Gladiator - agree

2000 American Beauty - my pick: The Sixth Sense

1999 Shakespeare in love - my pick: Saving Pvt. Ryan

1998 Titanic - agree

1997 The English Patient - my pick: Fargo

1996 Braveheart - agree

1995 Forrest Gump - agree

1994 Schindler's List - agree

Wasn't Titanic half Fox also?

That would be...Chicago. My favorite movie last year.

That's why we all have opinions... Rancid crap to you, best film of 99 to me... Doesn't make either one of us right, but the Academy is on my side...

IMO, the last deserving winner was 1994's Forrest Gump. After watching that movie in the theater, I told my companions "If that movie doesn't win Best Picture, there is no justice in this world". It's still one of my top 10 favorite movies of all time.

Just to show that opinions differ, I would say that Forrest Gump is probably one of the worst films ever to be named "Best Picture."

One of the most crass, melodramatic, overly manipulative, overpraised, overacted, and overrated pieces of anal spooge ever committed to celluloid!

But again, that's just my opinion. The film has a legion of devotees so I'll sit alone squatting in a field over this one.

I also don't think Gladiator should have even been nominated, let alone winning, Best Picture. It's a good film but nothing great. Chicago definitely earned every last bit of its accolades. A Beautiful Mind is a worthy winner, but LOTR: FOTR was better. (Memento should have won, anyhow.) I got no problem with Titanic. Fargo should have won in 1996. Braveheart isn't Best Picture material, out of that group of nominees Apollo 13 is better (but The Usual Suspects was the best film of that year.)

The only Best Pictures I am in 100% agreement with is Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, Schindler's List, American Beauty, and Chicago.

Don't believe me? I'll break out the genital cuff!!

They still give out those gold statues? I thought they lost relevance in the seventies.

1992 -- Silence of the Lambs, that was really a great Best Picture

Here's what the Academy liked and what I liked over the past decade.

2003 Chicago - Me: Lord of the Rings:The Two Towers

2002 A Beautiful Mind - Me: Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings

2001 Gladiator - Me: Traffic

2000 American Beauty - I agree

1999 Shakespeare in love - Me: Saving Private Ryan

I still remember falling off my couch in complete disbelief when Harrison Ford read the name off the card.

Worst. Best. Picture. Winner. Ever

1998 Titanic - Me: L.A. Confidential

1997 The English Patient - Me: Jerry Maguire

1996 Braveheart - Me: Apollo 13

1995 Forrest Gump - Me: Shawshank Redemption.

2nd. Worst. Best. Picture. Winner. Ever.

1994 Schindler's List - agree

I'm possibly the only person who will admit this, but I was glad Shakespeare in Love won. I didn't think it was the best movie of the year, but it was pretty good. Other than the first 30 minutes or so, I didn't think Saving Private Ryan was very good at all.