- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Best Picture losers that are better than the winners (1980-Present)
Posted on 9/5/14 at 11:23 am to GetCocky11
Posted on 9/5/14 at 11:23 am to GetCocky11
quote:
1997 L.A. Confidential should have gotten the nod, IMO
LA Confidential and Good Will Hunting were better than Titanic. We all know why Titanic won, though.
LA Confidential is still one of my favorite movies. I can sit down and watch it anytime.
i love LA confidential, and in many other years i feel it would/could have been a runaway best picture winner, but titanic 100% deserved to win. there was a thread a few months back about which best picture winner of the last 20 years or so would come out on top if they were all lined up against each other, and the consensus was titanic. the love story plot line may have been a little cheesy, but titanic is one of the best executed/produced movies of all time.
0
Posted on 9/5/14 at 11:27 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Good catch - I missed that on the first pass - just terrible. Titanic is really just a "meh" movie. Not even Oscar material, IMHO.
I think Titanic is Oscar material. I just don't consider it better than LA Confidential and Good Will Hunting.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 11:30 am to GetCocky11
Titanic was Oscar material. While the story might be somewhat sappy, the production values are incredible, the acting is solid, and Rose's character arc is very effective and convincing.
What's more, Titanic was an ode to the epics of Hollywood's so-called "Golden Age". It was an ambitious film that, had it failed, probably would have ruined the careers of just about everyone involved. But Cameron was able to pull it off.
Titanic deserved Best Picture that year because it took risks in ways the other Best Picture nominees did not.
What's more, Titanic was an ode to the epics of Hollywood's so-called "Golden Age". It was an ambitious film that, had it failed, probably would have ruined the careers of just about everyone involved. But Cameron was able to pull it off.
Titanic deserved Best Picture that year because it took risks in ways the other Best Picture nominees did not.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 11:37 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Titanic was Oscar material. While the story might be somewhat sappy, the production values are incredible, the acting is solid, and Rose's character arc is very effective and convincing.
What's more, Titanic was an ode to the epics of Hollywood's so-called "Golden Age". It was an ambitious film that, had it failed, probably would have ruined the careers of just about everyone involved. But Cameron was able to pull it off.
Titanic deserved Best Picture that year because it took risks in ways the other Best Picture nominees did not.
this. what cameron pulled off was amazing. this could have easily been some corny michael bay disaster movie CGI-fest. it wasn't; cameron effectively recreated the real life disaster using a fictional love story. it was a 3 hour movie that didn't drag. the production value was incredible, his attention to detail was amazing. yes la confidential and good will hunting had better screenplays, no way were they better movies though.
This post was edited on 9/5/14 at 11:38 am
Posted on 9/5/14 at 11:41 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Titanic deserved Best Picture that year because it took risks in ways the other Best Picture nominees did not.
Meh. Cameron was batting a thousand with me until Titanic. Since then? Hitless.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 12:03 pm to Ace Midnight
the 1997 discussion of titanic over la confidential/good will hunting is similar to 1994 with forrest gump beating out pulp fiction and shawshank. forrest gump was just better overall in multiple aspects of filmmaking than pulp fiction and/or shawshank. for me, pulp fiction is the greatest screenplay in movie history, that doesn't make it the greatest movie though. i will say that pulp fiction and shawshank are both better movies than la confidential and good will hunting, and forrest gump isn't as good as titanic, thus making the 1994 discussion a lot more interesting. id have no problem if either shawshank or pulp fiction beat forrest gump for best picture, but anything from 1997 beating titanic would have been a travesty.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 12:09 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
1991. The Oscars got it right (The Silence of the Lambs)
Most overrated movie of all time.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 12:12 pm to LSUDAN1
quote:
1991. The Oscars got it right (The Silence of the Lambs)
Most overrated movie of all time.
great movie, but i was watching it the other day and i don't think its aged all that well.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 2:44 pm to 632627
quote:
great movie, but i was watching it the other day and i don't think its aged all that well.
From that era, I can watch Wall St. and Silence on a continuous loop...great movies, great acting and both have that "movie veneer" look and story arc - you just don't see anymore.
Movies feel and look different today.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 3:01 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
. SPR is a run of the mill war film. Nothing exciting outside of the first 15 minutes. It's been done better before on multiple
You're wrong Mox, You're wrong. Points whisky bottle at you
The scene with the nazi slowly pushing the knife in the Jew soldier is chilling and if the ending doesn't move you then you're not human.
This post was edited on 9/5/14 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 9/5/14 at 5:42 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
SPR is a run of the mill war film.
Sorry but this is BS, is it perfect no, was there a more gut wrenching battlefield war movie before, no. Hell the 1st 15 minutes have totally obliterated every combat scene ever before shot. Combine this with the interaction of Cpt. Millers squad which was realistic and accurate not the "Hollywood" bullshite talk like in so many war films critics of SVP claim. The scenes of them digging threw dog-tags while Airborne troops look on in anger or the aforementioned discussions before the last battle are masterful. The portrayal of Cpl Upham and his fear leading to the stabbing death of Pvt Mellish is wrenching to watch. And to end the movie when Pvt Ryan asks his wife if he is a good man is riveting and beautifully done. If you think this movie is not an Oscar worthy movie compared to Shakespeare in Love then you do not know jackshit about war let alone war movies.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 5:51 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
1981. Chariots of Fire over Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Chariots of Fire is a masterpiece. Raiders is a live action cartoon. A well made one, but a cartoon nevertheless.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 6:16 pm to RollTide1987
Driving Miss Daisy was 1989? Damn I thought I was alive when that movie came out
Posted on 9/5/14 at 7:08 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Braveheart over Apollo 13? Not a fan of that decision.
Lol what?
quote:no they didn't. Children of Men
2006. The Oscars got it right (The Departed)
This post was edited on 9/5/14 at 7:09 pm
Posted on 9/5/14 at 7:26 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
2010. The King's Speech over The Social Network? I don't agree.
c'mon
Posted on 9/5/14 at 7:50 pm to RollTide1987
Alright bored while I'm waiting on x-men to finish downloading so even though I hate the oscars since the best movies each year don't even get nominated I'll play along.
But using the winners and the nominees I would pick them:
1980 - Raging Bull
1981 - Raiders of the Lost Ark
1982 - The Verdict
1983 - The Right Stuff
1984 - Amadeus
1985 - Prizzi's Honor
1986 - The Mission
1987 - The Last Emperor
1988 - Dangerous Liaisons
1989 - Field of Dreams
1990 - Goodfellas
1991 - The Silence of the Lambs
1992 - Unforgiven
1993 - In the Name of the Father
1994 - Pulp Fiction
1995 - Braveheart
1996 - Fargo
1997 - L.A. Confidential
1998 - Saving Private Ryan
1999 - The Sixth Sense
2000 - Gladiator
2001 - The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
2002 - Gangs of New York
2003 - Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
2004 - Million Dollar Baby
2005 - Capote
2006 - The Departed
2007 - No Country for Old Men
2008 - N/A I didn't see a single one of those movies
2009 - Inglourious Basterds
2010 - True Grit
2011 - Hugo
2012 - Django Unchained - Only nominee I saw
2013 - N/A I didn't see a single one of those movies
But using the winners and the nominees I would pick them:
1980 - Raging Bull
1981 - Raiders of the Lost Ark
1982 - The Verdict
1983 - The Right Stuff
1984 - Amadeus
1985 - Prizzi's Honor
1986 - The Mission
1987 - The Last Emperor
1988 - Dangerous Liaisons
1989 - Field of Dreams
1990 - Goodfellas
1991 - The Silence of the Lambs
1992 - Unforgiven
1993 - In the Name of the Father
1994 - Pulp Fiction
1995 - Braveheart
1996 - Fargo
1997 - L.A. Confidential
1998 - Saving Private Ryan
1999 - The Sixth Sense
2000 - Gladiator
2001 - The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
2002 - Gangs of New York
2003 - Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
2004 - Million Dollar Baby
2005 - Capote
2006 - The Departed
2007 - No Country for Old Men
2008 - N/A I didn't see a single one of those movies
2009 - Inglourious Basterds
2010 - True Grit
2011 - Hugo
2012 - Django Unchained - Only nominee I saw
2013 - N/A I didn't see a single one of those movies
This post was edited on 9/5/14 at 7:51 pm
Posted on 9/5/14 at 7:52 pm to cas4t
The Social Network was just a movie, nothing frickin special about it but all these Facebook fanboys would have voted it best picture if it was just Jesse Eisenberg shitting in a bucket
Posted on 9/5/14 at 8:15 pm to constant cough
quote:
1998 - Saving Private Ryan
Not you too cough.
I will say this: It's a movie built for a lot of people to like. In a discussion of strict Oscars, I'm kind of surprised it didn't win. It has everything you want in a broad appeal film. But the story is lacking, the ending seems far too manufactured and there's a lot of boring characters in between the two (outside of a few standouts like, surprisingly Madsen. And Hanks being Hanks again, which brings the movie down a notch.). I'm not saying it's a bad film, people need to chill out. It's better than average 2.5-3/4 stars-ish. And yes it fits the Oscar mold quite well, so it winning wouldn't be a travesty.
But on the flip side, neither is SiL winning. It's a competent film, has a ton of good characters, it's extremely well written, etc. There are few films with truly positive themes that win, so it's good that it did. People just have a ridiculous amount of hate against SiL just for this. It's a little unfair because it is a really good film.
I've had this discussion with more than a few people on here, no need to rehash the big notes. But the in short, the hate against SiL is just overdone. And the championing of SPR is, consequently, also over done. Good yes. Great. Eh, probably not. There are better war films, Das Boot, The Longest Day, Patton, Lawrence etc. It's pretty far down the list.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 8:21 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Not you too cough.
Well for me it was either that Elizabeth or The Thin Red Line. Though if it were up to me Dark City or The Big Lebowski would have won.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 8:27 pm to jeff5891
quote:
Lol what?
As I have explained before, Apollo 13 was the most critically acclaimed film of 1995. It sits at 95% on Rotten Tomatoes while Braveheart sits at 78%. I know critical acclaim doesn't mean as much to some people as it does to others, but most people thought Apollo 13 was going to run away with it at the Oscars.....until Ron Howard failed to get a nomination for Best Director.
The Academy loves historical epics and Braveheart is a good one. But better than Apollo 13? It is not.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News