This is in no way a thread to start an argument, but I have a report due on "Who did or didnt deserve the Oscar for Best Picture." The problem is, I havent seen all the movies that were nominated because theyre not out for rent yet (Ive just seen Ray), I do plan on seeing them when theyre out, but my dumb teacher I guess expects us to have seen all the nominated films. So can you guys help me out on the question Who did or didnt deserve the Oscar for Best Picture? Ive been reading reviews but none were really in depth enough to do a comparison. So help me out, heres the nominees

BEST PICTURE

THE AVIATOR
FINDING NEVERLAND
MILLION DOLLAR BABY (The Winner)
RAY
SIDEWAYS

Though I havent seen it, I was leaning towards The Aviator because Martin Scorcese is the shit and Im a sucker for aviation related films.

Why does it matter if a teacher expects you to see them all? (Is this something for a film class?)

Oh and the right picture, director, actress, and supporting actor won.

Go with that well-thought-out and articulate argument, in those exact words, and let us know what your teacher says.

Too bad you couldn't do it for 1998. That is an easy one, "Saving Private Ryan" should've won.

Wholeheartedly disagree. Saving Private Ryan was an average film (at best) with a technically amazing battle sequence. A battle sequence which by the way had just about nothing to do with the story of the film. For its story, it used heavy handed attempts at patriotism and trite situations. Oh look, the film starts and end on the US flag, and aren't those military brass so articulate to be quoting a letter from Abraham Lincoln about the loss of a soldier. Blech. Spielberg may have made a technically impressive film, but he blew it in terms of stroytelling, the thing that he is supposed to be a master at.

Shakespeare In Love might not have been everyone's cup of tea or been about something as heavy as WWII, but it was overall a great film that hit all the right notes in terms of story, dialogue, acting and directing. In my opinion, it deserved the title of "best picture" over SPR.

I was quite ecstatic that SIL won, and I think it totally deserved it. Saving Private Ryan was a great movie, but I also felt it was far too easy of a movie to do well, if that makes sense. In other words, once they made the decision to begin the movie with a long recreation of the beach battle at Normandy and once they settled on their technical approach, they would've had to try to make it NOT fantastic. And, as sherm42 said, the non-battle scenes were, at best, a little lacking, and definitely not the reason that movie was so successful. Shakespeare in Love, on the other hand, did not have such an easy premise; therefore, it's ultimate successful execution is that much more impressive.

The Color Purple-I still haven't seen a better made drama from Speilberg yet.

I totally agree. (except I do love Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan)

I wanted Marty...but the right people won, because that is what the majority picked...I would write it from that angle.

Way to help out the OP, guys!

This seems like a strange assignment even for a film class because the choice of Best Picture is purely subjective. There is no right answer. If the teacher wants you to "compare and contrast" the films, you are probably going to have to actually see them. The whole Best Picture thing is REALLY Hollywood patting itself on the back for another lackluster year of movie-making. Some years the "best picture" wins and other years, it doesn't.

Yeah, I'm sorry, no help here either....

[QUOTE=Cameron]I wanted Marty...QUOTE]

IT'S A CONSPIRACY, MAAANNN. The Academy is now just toying with Scorcese. It's no longer a matter of "we'll give him an oscar, since he's been snubbed so many time". Now it's "we're going to make him kiss our feet, and push him to make that picture every two years ... BEGGING on his hands and knees for that Oscar".

If you're writing a paper on it, go for The Aviator. You can still catch it in some theaters. And, due to the talent involved, it's probably the most subjective. You have a cast and crew with quite a bit previous Oscar expierence, a filmmaker that's already a staple in American cinema (and will be considered "legendary" in 50 years), and it's just that grand December Miramax movie that the Academy usually eats up. Scorsese is an interesting guy to boot.

Million Dollar Baby deserved to win. Tell your teacher "because movielib said so."

It should have been "Dawn of the Dead" (2004)...no other movie was as entertaining last year!

What about "Shaun of the Dead," scott1598?

My pick was "Sideways," but MDB was a very close second.

Oh, and you could bash your teacher for placing importance on the Oscars, assuming that he does. In my opinion, they're artistically worthless. But that's just me...

You could also research and write about the BO boost that oscar nominees get, simply from Oscar buzz.

What I'm trying to say is that they need to let Rob Schneider vote.

well, i was just kidding of course. but, i just saw Shaun last night and while it was great, i loved the DotD remake.

Garden State should have won. But out of the nominees the Academy got it right.

I'm still surprised at:

GANDHI over E.T.

and

ANNIE HALL over STAR WARS - Say what you will, but STAR WARS was more of a cinematic achievement over ANNIE HALL and surely deserved more Awards than it got.

There was an Annie Hall in '77?

Never seen it or heard of it.


Saving Private Ryan will also be long remember instead of that other piece of crap...what was it?

Its only been 7 years and all I can remember is that whats her name actress was in it.

We've been through this before, but Annie Hall is superior to Star Wars in every way (except sound and SFX). And this is coming from a Star Wars fan.

I disagree that ET > Gandhi too, but not as strongly. Both are better than the other nominees. Missing? The Verdict? TOOTSIE?!?

The problem is, we really don't know what the nature of the assignment actually is. Is this for a film class, discussing the artistic merits of various films? Or could it be for an English or debate class in which the point is to learn how to argue a particular point, and the Oscars are just a fun way of doing that?

That said, I'm not interested in being Ravenous' homework bitch.

This is easy. The answer is Million Dollar Baby. Why? Because the movie that deserves to win the Oscar is the one the Academy votes to give it to. As if there's some objective answer to what should be best picture.

It'd make a lot more sense to ask what do you think was the best picture of last year, rather then writing a paper saying how the academy member's opinions are wrong.

You can probably get some good opinions on each of the films, and how "deserving" they were by digging up threads on the actual Oscars discussion as well as any when the nominations came out, since it seems people here don't want to help when they know it's helping

That's a sound argument, but I don't agree with ANNIE HALL being superior to Star Wars in every way.

To me, STAR WARS is THE WIZARD OF OZ of my generation. It's just my personal opinion that STAR WARS is still the one movie that had the MOST impact in the late '70's, especially 1977.

I'm a fan of Woody Allen's 1970's works, but when I think of 1977, I think of STAR WARS not ANNIE HALL.

Gandhi is a good, but not great movie. I think it won however because of the subject matter more than anything cinematic. Face it, that was an amazing man with an almost religious impact on the world. (I always say if someone wants to know what Jesus was really like in real life, look at Gandhi. If Gandhi had lived 1000 years ago, he would be a religion now, no doubt in my mind on that.)

As for 1977, there were two great, soon-to-be-classic movies nominated that year, so barring a tie, one had to lose. Just be glad Star Wars lost to Annie Hall instead of one of the other, non-classic nominees (The Goodbye Girl, Julia, or The Turning Point)