Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
DollEyes

Oscar Snubs: They Wuz Robbed!

Recommended Posts

  This is the thread to show love for performances that either should have won an Oscar but didn't or those that weren't even nominated in the first place. One example was Robert Redford, who gave what is arguably his best performance in All Is Lost, as a man stranded on a sinking boat in the middle of the ocean. Despite his performance being mostly silent, Redford said more by just eating a can of beans than many do with whole pages of dialogue, which is why he should have been nominated for Best Actor. Another was Tom Hanks in Captain Phillips. Barkhad Abdi was great, but Hanks' work shouldn't have been ignored.

 

  Then there's Michael B. Jordan in Fruitvale Station and Idris Elba in Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom, the former of which was a star-making performance while the latter strengthened an already impressive resume'. Another great one was Michael Fassbender in Shame, who was brilliant, riveting and devastating as a sex addict. Unfortunately, since Fassbender did full-frontal nudity, his role was reduced to a series of dick jokes, which IMO hurt his chances at a Best Actor Oscar nomination. Meanwhile, the same Motion Picture Academy that dissed Fassbender had no problem with nominating Julianne Moore for playing a porn star in Boogie Nights, a role complete with nudity and sex scenes, 15 years before Shame, exposing what I think is a disturbing double standard.  Anyway, Redford's, Hanks' Jordan's and Elba's performances this year alone convinced me that all the Acting categories should have more than five nominees.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

 I agree with Tom Hanks having been robbed of a nomination.  I'm sure I'll think of more later, but, off the top of my head, I still can't believe that L.A. Confidential didn't beat Titanic for Best Picture.  Actually, I liked Full Monty and Good Will Hunting, too, and would have been fine with either of them winning best picture, but I found L.A. Confidential to be superior in every way except for some of the special effects (which, I'm perfectly fine with Titanic winning, because that was the best thing about the movie, imo). I was pleased, however, that FM and GWH won the awards they did.   I didn't care for As Good as It Gets.

 

I hate the Shakespeare in Love beat Elizabeth for Best Picture.  In last year's race, I wish The Impossible had received more attention. 

 

Also, any movie that wins for best cinematography that is mostly computer graphics w/green screen or outdoor with huge sweeping landscapes (God as your cinematographer!) over one that takes place mostly inside, yet still has beautiful lighting (I haven't seen L.A. Confidential in years, but that might have been the case for that movie as well--beautifully lit, but loses to something grander--Titanic, probably).  The latter movies are the ones that get robbed.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't seen the film in a few years so I have no idea if my opinion would be any different today, but I remember being a little upset that Kevin Bacon wasn't nominated for Mystic River. I don't think his performance was necessarily stronger than either Penn's or Robbins's, but it certainly warranted a nomination. 

 

Also, any movie that wins for best cinematography that is mostly computer graphics w/green screen or outdoor with huge sweeping landscapes (God as your cinematographer!) over one that takes place mostly inside, yet still has beautiful lighting

I'm kind of similar when it comes to costuming and makeup. Period pieces and high fantasy can be difficult, but I feel like they usually get all the awards for costume design and makeup. I love seeing subtler films get nominated.

Share this post


Link to post

Road to Perdition (2002)

 

How was this film not nominated for Best Picture?

 

A History of Violence (2005)

 

Viggo was snubbed, but William Hurt gets a nom for his cringe worthy accent and  performance?

 

 

Devil in a Blue Dress(1995)

 

Don Cheadle deserved a Supporting Actor nom, he was phenominal as Mouse.

 

 

Eve's Bayou (1997)

 

The fact that this amazing film was ignored by The Academy, is a damn travesty.

 

Especially the amazing work by Debbie Morgan as Aunt Mozelle Baptiste.

 

Narc (2002)

 

Criminally underrated cop drama, with outstanding performances from Ray Liotta and Jason Patric. 

Edited by MrsRafaelBarba
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Naomi Watts and Benecio del Toro for 21 Grams.  That movie is devastating, and so well-acted.

 

Ben Kingsley for The House of Sand and Fog.  

 

Emily Watson and Rachel Griffiths for Hilary and Jackie.

 

How The Color Purple won zero Oscars is beyond me

 

Same here.  Whoopi's performance was incredible, especially since they had only seen her as a comedienne and not capable of real drama.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'm kind of similar when it comes to costuming and makeup. Period pieces and high fantasy can be difficult, but I feel like they usually get all the awards for costume design and makeup. I love seeing subtler films get nominated.

Oh, I get wrapped up in the costumes for the period pieces, but I do understand about liking the subtler films.  For example, I'd have nominated Argo for set design in a heartbeat.  They nailed the 70s, but, it's not showy, so, you know......

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Joan Allen's Pat Nixon is just stellar and I remember chewing glass when she lost to some putz that I've repressed.

Share this post


Link to post
How The Color Purple won zero Oscars is beyond me...at minimum, Whoopi Goldberg earned "Best Actress".

 

 

Whoopi got screwed by being a new nominee against someone who "was owed" an Oscar (Geraldine Page won that year, and it was her eight nomination).  That's why I hate the concept of "make up Oscars" and the thought some voters have of "well, they'll have plenty more chances to win."  It always ends up screwing the best person out of a deserved win.  A recent example I can think of (which might also be an UO): In 2010, I thought Jesse Eisenberg or James Franco should've walked away with the Oscar.  Those two gave, by far, the strongest performances in the Best Actor category (and I'd give the edge to Eisenberg).  Whereas Colin Firth was good, but he was fantastic the year prior in A Single Man.  But since Jeff Bridges "deserved" an Oscar, they made it up to Colin Firth the year after.  

 

The 2000 Oscars was the most disappointing year for me.  I only approved of Russell Crowe winning, and even he was more deserving for The Insider and A Beautiful Mind.  But Ellen Burstyn should've had the Oscar over Julia Roberts - her performance in Requiem for a Dream was just masterful.  I don't understand why all of a sudden, it was determined that Julia Roberts deserved an Oscar that year.  

 

And while her acting choices have been suspect following Almost Famous, I thought Kate Hudson was far and away the best supporting actress that year.  I actually gasped when Marcia Gay Harden's name was announced.  I also thought Joaquin Phoenix had a phenomenal performance as Commodus.  I know he'll eventually get his due, but man, he deserved it that year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

Ben Kingsley for The House Of Sand and Fog

 

     While he was good in that movie, I thought he was better in Schindler's List and should have been nominated for it.

 

  Re the 2010 Best Actor race, Eisenberg and Franco were good, but IMO Colin Firth and Jeff Bridges were better, so I was fine with either one of them winning that year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Some non-nominations that have always stuck in my craw:

 

Denzel Washington for Philadelphia.  Taking absolutely nothing away from Tom Hanks' performance, this was the harder role to play and Washington nailed it.

 

Gillian Anderson for House of Mirth.

 

Katharine Hepburn for Bringing Up Baby.  This film inexplicably took a long time to be widely appreciated, let alone regarded as a screwball masterpiece, and it's a shame the sting of that meant Katharine Hepburn never returned to this kind of comedy.  Well outside her comfort zone and smart enough to realize it and make changes during rehearsal, Hepburn turns in a masterfully funny performance.

 

Laurence Fishburne for Boyz n the Hood.

 

Kathy Bates for Dolores Claiborne.

 

Myrna Loy for not having ever been nominated, period, but especially for The Best Years of Our Lives, The Rains Came, or The Thin Man.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is a bit of an oldie, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. Maggie Smith got the nom and the win for Lead Actress but her co-star, Pamela Franklin, didn't get even a nom for Supporting, which I thought was a travesty. She stood toe-to-toe with Smith and totally held her own. Their final scene in the movie is just mesmerizing, the actresses are both so good.

Share this post


Link to post

Robert Downey, Jr. in Chaplin.  His performance was unbelievable - - it was as if you were watching a documentary of the actual Chaplin.

 

The writing for The Women - - the 1939 version, not the inferior 2008 version. 

 

Somewhere in Time - - should have won for costume design and the score most definitely should have been nominated.]

 

The documentaries on the West Memphis 3 were all fantastic documentaries.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Kathy Bates for Dolores Claiborne.

She should have been nominated for clocking her abusive husband upside the head, if for nothing else.  The look on his face when she did it, was priceless.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
The look on his face when she did it, was priceless.

 

Played by the wonderful David Strathairn, who should have been nominated for Memphis Belle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't seen Memphis Belle, but I've always liked Strathairn as an actor, even when he played bad guys. 

Share this post


Link to post

      That Natalie Wood did not get the Oscar for this scene still bugs me:

 

        Her career may have been uneven, but here? She was so completely and totally on.

 

        And while I loved Coal Miner's Daughter, I would've loved Mary Tyler Moore getting the Best Actress Oscar for Ordinary People. 

 

       It was such a complicated role to take on- being the villain in the body of a polite, seemingly nice society housewife, but she did it beautifully and the performance has stayed with me in a way that Spacek's didn't. I'm not saying that Spacek didn't deserve her Oscar, but man that was such a great role.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

It pains me to watch that Natalie Woods scene, even after all these years.  I was a teen when I saw Splendor in the Grass, so I was very impressionable (and in love with Warren Beatty) and  I will always be upset and angry that Bud and Deanie didn't wind up together.  They loved each other, but he "settled" and she "settled."  I hate thinking about it, lol.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

             And while I loved Coal Miner's Daughter, I would've loved Mary Tyler Moore getting the Best Actress Oscar for Ordinary People. 

 

       It was such a complicated role to take on- being the villain in the body of a polite, seemingly nice society housewife, but she did it beautifully and the performance has stayed with me in a way that Spacek's didn't. I'm not saying that Spacek didn't deserve her Oscar, but man that was such a great role.

 

I so agree with this.  MTM was amazing in Ordinary People, especially because we didn't expect that acting depth from her.  I would have loved it if she had won.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

One of each:

 

Worst Oscar Loss: Al Pacino for The Godfather Part II. A nice-but-ruthless guy turns into a complete monster throughout the film, and never loses believability.

 

Honorable Mentions: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Traffic both losing to Gladiator for Best Picture.

 

Worst Nomination Snub: Jack Lemmon's awesome performance in Glengarry Glen Ross.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Worst Nomination Snub: Jack Lemmon's awesome performance in Glengarry Glen Ross.

Agree. There's a scene where he's on the phone to the facility that his daughter (?) is in, and he owes them money.  The desperation in his voice and on his face just gets to me every time I see it.  He was outstanding in all of his scenes but that one comes to mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Agree. There's a scene where he's on the phone to the facility that his daughter (?) is in, and he owes them money.  The desperation in his voice and on his face just gets to me every time I see it.  He was outstanding in all of his scenes but that one comes to mind.

 

You're remembering correctly, but the pathos of the scene becomes even more apparent when you add that his daughter is in the hospital because she needs an operation, and he has just found out that the operation has been canceled and his daughter discharged from the hospital because he couldn't pay for the operation (apparently, that was still legal in those days; I can't think of a hospital today that would be allowed to get away with that sort of patient dumping.  When I had my first pacemaker implanted a few years ago, the staff made a point of telling me not to worry about lack of money or insurance as a problem; they said they'd get me fixed up first and deal with making payment arrangements afterwards -- and they did!).

 

Actually, what's always fascinated me about that movie is that it's the only modern non-gay-porn movie I've ever seen that boasted of an all-male cast, except for the original version of 12 Angry Men, and the casting was pitch-perfect, in my opinion.  In fact, I have to wonder how the story would have played out if there had been a few female real-estate brokers in the mix; I wonder whether we'd have had as much of the salty dialogue as we got with the all-male cast.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, what's always fascinated me about that movie is that it's the only modern non-gay-porn movie I've ever seen that boasted of an all-male cast, except for the original version of 12 Angry Men,

 

Other than the wife who's dispatched with in the opening flashback (and I guess the woman with no lines who runs the halfway house and the female customer with one line at the grocery store), The Shawshank Redemption features only men. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, what's always fascinated me about that movie is that it's the only modern non-gay-porn movie I've ever seen that boasted of an all-male cast, except for the original version of 12 Angry Men...

I can think of one more dramatic film that had no women at all: All is Lost. It's just Redford, his sailboat, and a very unforgiving ocean.

 

And three films with no female speaking roles: Reservoir Dogs, Gray Lady Down and My Dinner with Andre.

Edited by Sir RaiderDuck OMS
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Other than the wife who's dispatched with in the opening flashback (and I guess the woman with no lines who runs the halfway house and the female customer with one line at the grocery store), The Shawshank Redemption features only men.

 

 

 

Ah, true -- and how could I have forgotten about that one?  That's another movie that probably should have gotten more Oscar love than it did (it got seven nominations in 1994, according to Wikipedia, but zero wins).

 

Of course, I'm also still incensed that Evita got shut out in 1996, especially in the acting categories.  I personally thought that Madonna, Jonathan Pryce, and Antonio Banderas all should have been nominated, as should the movie itself.  Maybe people think that Madonna was basically playing herself throughout the movie, but I feel that this was the role that proved that she really could act, especially in the scene where she is told point-blank that she is dying.  The look of simultaneous fear and resignation on her face is hard to describe, but she totally sold it, and I totally bought it.

Edited by legaleagle53
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Lawrence of Arabia is another woman less movie from what I remember, but both Sharif and O'Toole were just wonderful in that and the cinematography! O'Toole lost to Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird which is fair since that's probably one of my favourite performances.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
O'Toole lost to Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird which is fair

 

Agreed, but I think it's a shame that O'Toole never won a competitive Oscar (the honorary one doesn't count). Ditto Richard Burton. I could not understand why Elizabeth Taylor and Sandy Dennis won Oscars for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? but not Richard Burton (or George Segal, for that matter).

Joan Allen's Pat Nixon is just stellar and I remember chewing glass when she lost to some putz that I've repressed.

 

 

It was Mira Sorvino for Mighty Aphrodite. Best Supporting Actress seems to be the place of choice to honor comedy performances, while Best Actress almost always goes to the Serious Stuff.

Denzel Washington for Philadelphia.  Taking absolutely nothing away from Tom Hanks' performance, this was the harder role to play and Washington nailed it.

 

 

If a film has two leading actors, one sick and one not, the lion's share of accolades and awards will generally go to the sickie. I thought Tom Cruise's role in Rain Man was more difficult than Dustin Hoffman's, but Hoffman got the Oscar. But--speaking of Hoffman--both he and Jon Voight were robbed in 1969 for Midnight Cowboy, because of John Wayne's make-up Oscar for True Grit. (I thought Wayne's performance in The Searchers was more deserving.)

 

Deborah Kerr in 1960 should not have lost to Elizabeth Taylor for Butterfield 8. Taylor herself has admitted that she only won out of sympathy for her near-fatal illness.

 

I think that if a performer has less than 15 minutes of serious screen time, he or she should not be considered for an award. I did not think Beatrice Straight should have won for Network, or Judi Dench for Shakespeare in Love.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think that if a performer has less than 15 minutes of serious screen time, he or she should not be considered for an award. I did not think Beatrice Straight should have won for Network, or Judi Dench for Shakespeare in Love.

I guess I agree in theory, but damn Judi had a hell of a presence in those few minutes.  Just like Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs.  He was so powerful that I was shocked to hear that it only totaled about 8-10 minutes of screen time.  Back to Judi--I never saw Network, so it's possible that I'd agree with you on that one. 

 

 

I thought Tom Cruise's role in Rain Man was more difficult than Dustin Hoffman's, but Hoffman got the Oscar.

Amen to that.  In fact, wasn't that the same year that Gene Hackman was nominated for Mississippi Burning?  I remembering thinking he should've won because he had the harder role (less showy).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Thw two that stand out to me over the last few decades, both of whom should have beein nominated in the Best Actress category?

 

Bjork for Dancer in the Dark.  Say what you will her off-screen antics, or the egomania of Lars Von Trier....  Bjork totally knocked it out of the park on this one.  To this day, I cannot watch those last 15-20 minutes without bawling like a baby.

 

Fernada Montenegro for Central Station..  The layers of depth and complexity she brought to an initially unlikable character was a total revelation.

Share this post


Link to post

The unfairness of Judi winning for 8 minutes of screen time ( which even she acknowledged in her acceptance speech) pales in comparison to the travesty of her losing to Helen Hunt the previous year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think the screen time rule should be more a percentage.  For example, Viola Davis in Doubt is only in the movie for about 12-15 minutes but the movie itself is only an hour and a half.  For me, my personal rule is a question of screen time multiplied by the impact that the character has on the story as a whole.

 

I would of voted for Anthony Hopkins and Viola Davis but I wouldn't of voted for Judi Dench, whose Oscar was more of a make up anyway for losing Ms. Brown. 

Share this post


Link to post

Does being robbed of a nomination count as a snub in this thread? Because Val Kilmer deserved a nomination for supporting actor in Tombstone. He just flat out deserved it. That's a movie filled with good performances (and Bill Paxton) but he stole that whole movie out from under everyone else. It's still one of my favorite performances in any film.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Does being robbed of a nomination count as a snub in this thread? Because Val Kilmer deserved a nomination for supporting actor in Tombstone. He just flat out deserved it. That's a movie filled with good performances (and Bill Paxton) but he stole that whole movie out from under everyone else. It's still one of my favorite performances in any film.

WORD!!!

Share this post


Link to post

 

Does being robbed of a nomination count as a snub in this thread? Because Val Kilmer deserved a nomination for supporting actor in Tombstone. He just flat out deserved it.

 

To answer your question, yes it does, like I said when I first started the thread. And ITA that Val Kilmer was robbed.

Share this post


Link to post

Are we allowed to include songs? If so Be Our Guest is better than the title song from Beauty and the Beast and Circle of Life is MILES beyond Can You Feel the Love Tonight? (it's like the 5th best song from The Lion King). I know the Oscar would still go to the same people, but it really irks me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Are we allowed to include songs? If so Be Our Guest is better than the title song from Beauty and the Beast and Circle of Life is MILES beyond Can You Feel the Love Tonight? (it's like the 5th best song from The Lion King). I know the Oscar would still go to the same people, but it really irks me.

I'll see your "Circle of Life" and raise you "Be Prepared"! It's probably my favorite Disney song...but I guess they couldn't reward Mufasa's murderer

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I really wish "Abraham's Daughter" from the Hunger Games had gotten nominated in place of "Safe and Sound." It was just such a visceral tune that really nailed the emotional tone of the Hunger Games, and way more memorable.

Share this post


Link to post

This one may be a little controversial, but - I think Mark Wahlberg deserved a nomination for Lead Actor for The Fighter.  Do I think he should've won?  No, but I thought he was excellent in the everyday man sane role that often gets overlooked when you have flashier parts surrounding you.  I thought he did a really great job in that role, but when it came time for Oscar nominations, he just got overshadowed by the other three.  I did appreciate that Christian Bale acknowledged in his speech that without Mark Wahlberg as the calming center, he [bale]  wouldn't have been as good.  

Share this post


Link to post

Sean Austin deserved a Supporting Actor mom for Return of the King.

Never gave a rat's ass about Fro do, loved me some Sam though.

Correction, Sean Astin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

This one may be a little controversial, but - I think Mark Wahlberg deserved a nomination for Lead Actor for The Fighter.

I haven't seen The Fighter, but this comment doesn't surprise me since I think he's a pretty good actor and was shocked that he wasn't nominated for Boogie Nights.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree, if I would of nominated Mark Wahlberg for anything it would have been Boogie Nights.  I did like him in The Fighter and wouldn't of minded a nomination there.  Ironically I hate the fact that he was nominated for The Departed.  I like Mark Wahlberg but that was an absurd nomination.  I would of nominated about five other actors from that movie over Wahlberg.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mind his Departed nomination, but I agree, he's not the strongest actor of the film. And considering they all campaigned as a Supporting Actor, then it's even more mind-boggling that Matt Damon or Jack Nicholson weren't nominated (I'd include Leo, but apparently the studio only campaigned for his role in Blood Diamond. Which is odd in an of itself; The Departed is one of his strongest performances by far).

And on a slight tangent - I hate that the trend in nominations now seems to be that if there are two actors of the same gender in a movie, come nomination time, one has the be the lead and the other the supporting actor. I know most of that is just to ensure the most nominations, but it is baffling to me, to use The Departed as an example, that Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio would be considered anything except a co-leads of that film. Or even, more recently, that Daniel Bruhl was putting himself in the Supporting Actor category, when he was a co-lead. Ditto for Brokeback Mountain (Ledger for lead, Gyllenhaal for supporting) and Chicago (Zelleweger for lead, Zeta Jones for Supporting). I feel like by doing this, some actor with an actual supporting role gets screwed out of ether a nomination or a win because they're going against someone who has greater screen time.

Share this post


Link to post

And on a slight tangent - I hate that the trend in nominations now seems to be that if there are two actors of the same gender in a movie, come nomination time, one has the be the lead and the other the supporting actor. I know most of that is just to ensure the most nominations, but it is baffling to me, to use The Departed as an example, that Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio would be considered anything except a co-leads of that film. Or even, more recently, that Daniel Bruhl was putting himself in the Supporting Actor category, when he was a co-lead. Ditto for Brokeback Mountain (Ledger for lead, Gyllenhaal for supporting) and Chicago (Zelleweger for lead, Zeta Jones for Supporting). I feel like by doing this, some actor with an actual supporting role gets screwed out of ether a nomination or a win because they're going against someone who has greater screen time.

 

The Oscars don't allow the same actor to be nominated for more than one performance in the same category, unlike some other awards bodies (Golden Globes, BAFTAs). Both Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio had other awards bait movies in 2006 besides The Departed that were pure star vehicles for them (Blood Diamond for Leo and The Good Shepherd for Matt), so they used their lead actor pushes for those roles instead.

 

In Chicago, I would say the Velma character was more of a lead in the stage version than the movie, but Catherine Zeta-Jones did compete in the lead category at the Golden Globes, though in the musical/comedy category where the HFPA often gets very creative and stretches to nominate big names. There are some roles where a reasonable case could be made for either the lead or the supporting designation, but they probably happen a lot less than category fraud. One lead having 5-10 minutes less screen time than the top-billed star does not make a role "supporting", nor does a lead role automatically become supporting just because it involves a child actor.

Edited by Dejana
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with the sentiment but with Chicago I think that they got it right.  Catherine was more of a supporting role, not only in screen time but also in perspective.  The movie was shot from Roxie's point of view and was HER story, with Velma as a character in the story, as opposed to THEIR story.

 

In addition to two co-stars campaigning in separate categories to secure a nomination.  It also has to do with the fact that if both performances got nominated in the same category, there is always a question of splitting the vote.  For example, Thelma and Louise.  Both Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis were nominated as Best Actress, neither won, with the thought being that all the voters who loved the movie voted for one or the other with neither one of them scoring enough votes to win.  With Thelma and Louise, at least they got the nominations right both women were leads and deserved to be nominated.

 

Then you also have the nomination switch based on star power.  Jamie Foxx was in a unique situation with both Ray and Collateral.  He was a lead in both movies.  Now the bigger push was for Ray of course, with Jamie's Collateral performance being nominated as supporting,  but I also think the fact that Tom Cruise was the bigger star of the movie despite the fact that Jaime was the lead also had something to do with it.  In that case it worked out with Jaime winning for Ray, and being added to the Club of those who receive dual nominations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'll see your "Circle of Life" and raise you "Be Prepared"! It's probably my favorite Disney song...but I guess they couldn't reward Mufasa's murderer

Speaking of Disney, I thought it was kind of crazy that Wreck it Ralph lost the best animated award to Brave back in 2012. I mean sure Brave was a good movie, but I think it was pretty much a standard princess/adventure store, where as Wreck it Ralph was something that I really hadn't seen before and the story was really strong. I think a big part of it was that the Oscars seems to love Pixar and I can totally picture that voters seeing a pixar movie on the ballot and just voting for it automatically even if perhaps they hadn't see it or the other nominees.

Share this post


Link to post
In addition to two co-stars campaigning in separate categories to secure a nomination.  It also has to do with the fact that if both performances got nominated in the same category, there is always a question of splitting the vote.  For example, Thelma and Louise.  Both Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis were nominated as Best Actress, neither won, with the thought being that all the voters who loved the movie voted for one or the other with neither one of them scoring enough votes to win.  With Thelma and Louise, at least they got the nominations right both women were leads and deserved to be nominated.

Then you also have the nomination switch based on star power.  Jamie Foxx was in a unique situation with both Ray and Collateral.  He was a lead in both movies.  Now the bigger push was for Ray of course, with Jamie's Collateral performance being nominated as supporting,  but I also think the fact that Tom Cruise was the bigger star of the movie despite the fact that Jaime was the lead also had something to do with it.  In that case it worked out with Jaime winning for Ray, and being added to the Club of those who receive dual nominations.

 

 

Yeah, I know intellectually you are right and I get it, it's just such a peeve of mine.  But I guess that's why the Academy doesn't ask Princess Sparkle on how to do nominations (their loss!)

Share this post


Link to post

Bumping it up with two recent Oscar snubs: Daniel Bruhl in Rush, the fact-based film about 70's-era Formula One racers. Chris Hemsworth was great as James Hunt, but it was Hunt's rival Niki Lauda's story that moved me more and that was because of Bruhl.

 

 The other was Harrison Ford in 42. As branch Rickey, Ford gave one of his best performances since The Mosquito Coast and it was a shame he wasn't nominated for it.

Edited by DollEyes
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think a big part of it was that the Oscars seems to love Pixar

With the exception of Cars 2 and Monsters University.

 

I think WALL-E should have won for best score instead of Slumdog Millionaire.

 

Viola Davis should have won instead of Meryl Streep for best actress.

 

Meryl Streep should have won instead of Sandra Bullock for best actress.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size