World of KJ
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/

Think Crash is the worst win ever? Check the oscar history!
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=17728		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  baumer72 [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:33 am ]
Post subject:  Think Crash is the worst win ever? Check the oscar history!
There have been way more egregious wins at oscar time. Annie Hall, Chicago, Ordinary People, Shakespeare in Love, Silence of the Lambs, The Last Emperor, Chariots of Fire, Gandhi, The English Patient and finally Million Dollar Baby.[/b] All these films should have far more of an outcry. Chariots of Fire beating Raiders of the Lost Ark? ARe you friggin kidding me? The best pure action film ever made and it loses to a film that no one even remembers? Why? Because of academy envy. They shut out Spielberg in 75, 77, then again in 81, 82, 85 and then finally gave him the prize in 93. A joke. What about Chicago? What a piece of shit that film was. A nomination for Queen Latifa? For what? Singing? And Renee Zelwegger? HAH!!!! The Enlgish PATIENT over Fargo? Silence of the Lambs over one of the five best films ever made, JFK, another joke. E.T. is also one of the top five films ever, and although Gandhi is a very good film, it is safe for the academy to pick that over at that time, the biggest grossing film of all time. Another joke is Shakespeare in Love. An ABC after school special with boobs. That is the worst case of money buying the Weinsteins an oscar. This has to be one of the grossest injustices ever at the oscars. The film is a decent way to pass an afternoon thundershower, but to award it hte best picture of the year when Spielberg made one of the finest, if not the finest war film ever. But the academy is too corrupt to award the true best picture that year. A Beautiful Mind? Rubbish..again another fantasy film gets robbed.

The point is that the academy has and always will have an agenda. They get it right sometimes with films like Titanic and American Beauty winning, or giving Spielberg, Cameron and Polanski oscars. But the academy is up for sale. So you can think that Brokeback is a better film, that is your right, but the backlash towards Crash is downright laughable. All winy suckasses make it sound like this is the first film in the 78 year history of the Oscars that a film got robbed. What about in 1941 when Citizen Kane lost to How Green was my Valley? How Green Was my Valley? What the fuck is that? Now I hate Citizen Kane with all more heart, but it is considered to be the best movie ever made by film historians and it was robbed at gunpoint by a film that no one knows from a documentary on fungus. Looks at 1946...The Best Years of our Lives beats It's a Wonderful Life?!!?? One of the most beloved films of our time gets bitch slapped by another film that sails into anonymity. 1947, A Gentleman's Agreement beats Miracle on 34th Street, you don't think there was collasal bitching back then? Hamlet beats Treasure of Sierra Madre? Why? Because of Olivier? Another gross miscalculation by the academy. 1961 we have another Chicago on our hands as the vastly over rated West Side Story, about two gangs dancing and singing together before the want to knife each other, beating out Judgment At Nuremburg. What kind of farce is this? Another terrible "decision" by the Warren Commission. How about 1967? In The Heat of the Night beats out a trio of seemingly better films in The Graduate, Bonnie and Clyde and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. What a joke. 1973..the Sting beating out The immensely popular and genre defining The Exorcist and American Graffiti? Sure. :mad: Then you have my favourite, and that is One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, a good film, beating out the best film ever made and the highest grossing, genre defining, box office defining, summer film launching :hahaha: JAWS. :hahaha: Up until this point, this is the biggest con job ever. Another shining example of how a film about humans overcoming disease or circumstance to triumph in some way. Yet JAWS would have been the right pick as it is the better film. There still hasn't been a better film some 31 years later.

So ChipMunky, dine on this and get back to me when your "opinion" has some substance. The academy has always picked controversial films to win best picture. And this horsecrap where Brandon equates Box office to wins is nothing but horsecrap. It really wasn't until the mid 90's when hugely grossing films won best picture. JAWS, THE EXORCIST, RAIDERS, ET, STAR WARS, are just some of the examples of films that were top grossing of their year and they lost the best picture race. Forrest Gump, Titanic Gladiator, Rain Man and Return of The Ring are only a handfull of recent films to win best picture with the highest grosses. Other than, more times that not, it's some little film about someone with cancer or missing limbs or nasal problems that wins best picture. So don't go down the road of this sanctimoniously claiming that Crash is the worst best picture ever. Trust me son, there are a littany of oscar winning films that take that prize by a knockout. Crash was a great film. The best of the year? Maybe not, but neither was Brokeback. Two very good films for sure, but there were plenty of other films that weren' even mentioned this year to get shafted. Check back at the list of winners and you'll see more times that not that the film that was favoured to win, doesn't. The academy is infamous for that. There is really no ryhme or reason why some films win and some don't.

:tongue: However, this year they got it right.
Author:  neo_wolf [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Fucking shakespear in love,im still confused at that win.I remember spielberg having a WTF? face when they annouced the winner and Harvey Weinstein with an evil smug.

Lol!
Author:  baumer72 [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:32 am ]
Post subject: 
I think it is this win and some subsequent comments from Miss Perfect Gwynneth Paltrow that has made me forever dislike her. Her best actress win was poppycok as well.
Author:  Johnny Dollar [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:36 am ]
Post subject: 
Oscar has a long, distinguished history of rewarding crap. It's true. Crash is indeed just another in a long line (although I do beleve it's pretty much the WORST). We just disagree on what constitutes a bad Oscar winner.

All of the following had no business winning an Academy Award:

1927 / 1928 -- WINGS - No.
1928 / 1929 -- THE BROADWAY MELODY - Not really.
1930 / 1931 -- CIMARRON
1932 / 1933 -- CAVALCADE
1936 -- THE GREAT ZEIGFELD
1941 -- HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - I love John Ford. I hate How Green Was My Valley.
1942 -- MRS. MINIVER
1944 -- GOING MY WAY
1947 -- GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT
1948 -- HAMLET - Mostly because Henry V was far better.
1949 -- ALL THE KING'S MEN
1951 -- AN AMERICAN IN PARIS - I like it, but it's too pretentious for a musical, and everyone involved had done better.
1952 -- THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH
1955 -- MARTY
1956 -- AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS
1958 -- GIGI
1959 -- BEN-HUR
1961 -- WEST SIDE STORY
1963 -- TOM JONES - But this was a terrible year. None of the nominees were deserving winners.
1964 -- MY FAIR LADY - Better than Strangelove? Ok...
1965 -- THE SOUND OF MUSIC
1966 -- A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS
1967 -- IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - A good film, but there's no justifying its defeat of Bonnie & Clyde or The Graduate.
1968 -- OLIVER!
1970 -- PATTON
1971 -- THE FRENCH CONNECTION - Again, it's solid, but come on...
1976 -- ROCKY
1979 -- KRAMER VS. KRAMER
1981 -- CHARIOTS OF FIRE
1983 -- TERMS OF ENDEARMENT
1985 -- OUT OF AFRICA
1988 -- RAIN MAN
1989 -- DRIVING MISS DAISY
1994 -- FORREST GUMP
1995 -- BRAVEHEART
1996 -- THE ENGLISH PATIENT
1997 -- TITANIC
1999 -- AMERICAN BEAUTY
2000 -- GLADIATOR
2001 -- A BEAUTIFUL MIND
2005 -- CRASH

Some of those I like, but most just kinda stink. None of them should have won an Academy Award. I'm pretty sure that's more than half. Nonetheless, Crash is as bad as any of them.

Some that I left off were not even the best of the nominated films, but I can't argue with them. I liked BBM best, but if Capote or GNAGL had won, they wouldn't get listed above.

For the record, Shakespeare in Love was far from the best movie of 1998, yet I liked it best of the nominees. So it gets to stay off the list.

I can't get too mad at Crash, because none of this is new.
Author:  baumer72 [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:47 am ]
Post subject: 
yoshue wrote:
Oscar has a long, distinguished history of rewarding crap. It's true. Crash is indeed just another in a long line (although I do beleve it's pretty much the WORST). We just disagree on what constitutes a bad Oscar winner.

All of the following had no business winning an Academy Award:

1927 / 1928 -- WINGS - No.
1928 / 1929 -- THE BROADWAY MELODY - Not really.
1930 / 1931 -- CIMARRON
1932 / 1933 -- CAVALCADE
1936 -- THE GREAT ZEIGFELD
1941 -- HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - I love John Ford. I hate How Green Was My Valley.
1942 -- MRS. MINIVER
1944 -- GOING MY WAY
1947 -- GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT
1948 -- HAMLET - Mostly because Henry V was far better.
1949 -- ALL THE KING'S MEN
1951 -- AN AMERICAN IN PARIS - I like it, but it's too pretentious for a musical, and everyone involved had done better.
1952 -- THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH
1955 -- MARTY
1956 -- AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS
1958 -- GIGI
1959 -- BEN-HUR
1961 -- WEST SIDE STORY
1963 -- TOM JONES - But this was a terrible year. None of the nominees were deserving winners.
1964 -- MY FAIR LADY - Better than Strangelove? Ok...
1965 -- THE SOUND OF MUSIC
1966 -- A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS
1967 -- IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT - A good film, but there's no justifying its defeat of Bonnie & Clyde or The Graduate.
1968 -- OLIVER!
1970 -- PATTON
1971 -- THE FRENCH CONNECTION - Again, it's solid, but come on...
1976 -- ROCKY
1979 -- KRAMER VS. KRAMER
1980 -- ORDINARY PEOPLE
1981 -- CHARIOTS OF FIRE
1983 -- TERMS OF ENDEARMENT
1985 -- OUT OF AFRICA
1988 -- RAIN MAN
1989 -- DRIVING MISS DAISY
1994 -- FORREST GUMP
1995 -- BRAVEHEART
1996 -- THE ENGLISH PATIENT
1997 -- TITANIC
1999 -- AMERICAN BEAUTY
2000 -- GLADIATOR
2001 -- A BEAUTIFUL MIND
2005 -- CRASH

Some of those I like, but most just kinda stink. None of them should have won an Academy Award. I'm pretty sure that's more than half. Nonetheless, Crash is as bad as any of them.

Some that I left off were not even the best of the nominated films, but I can't argue with them. I liked BBM best, but if Capote or GNAGL had won, they wouldn't get listed above.

For the record, Shakespeare in Love was far from the best movie of 1998, yet I liked it best of the nominees. So it gets to stay off the list.

I can't get too mad at Crash, because none of this is new.


I'm glad you included those pictures. In 1988, I thought Mississippi Burning was far and away the best film of the year. And Parker should have won best director not only that year,but in 1987 as well when he made one of the most under rated films ever in Angle Heart.
Author:  Johnny Dollar [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:53 am ]
Post subject: 
I'd agree that Mississippi Burning was the best nominated movie in 1988. But that's only because they decided to keep A Fish Called Wanda out of the Picture race.
Author:  baumer72 [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:58 am ]
Post subject: 
yoshue wrote:
I'd agree that Mississippi Burning was the best nominated movie in 1988. But that's only because they decided to keep A Fish Called Wanda out of the Picture race.


As much as I loved A Fish Called Wanda, in my opinion, Mississippi Burning is one of the 30 best made films ever, in my opinion of course.
Author:  A. G. [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've come to believe that a lot of the Shakespeare in Love haters have never heard of Tom Stoppard. It's one of the few explanations I can find for the irrational opinions I see.
Author:  baumer72 [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
Archie Gates wrote:
I've come to believe that a lot of the Shakespeare in Love haters have never heard of Tom Stoppard. It's one of the few explanations I can find for the irrational opinions I see.


I studied Tom Stoppard in high school and university. I was studying English as my major before I left university. I also studied Rosenkrantz and Gilderstern are dead. Uneducation isn't the problem, the movie's quality is.
Author:  TonyMontana [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
So the moral of the story is don't be upset about Crash because the Academy has a history of getting it horribly wrong? Seems like warped logic to me, and actually does more to undermine Crash's win with logic like that.

While I disagree with certain best picture picks because they did not resonate with me personally, I think overall the Academy's list of best pictures is pretty solid. Sure you can look back with 20/20 hindsight and pick up some minor mistakes, but is that really fair? I think the most resounding argument you could make for Crash is to point out the Academy's decent track record and that there isn't a movie on there that is widely accepted as a bad flick.

I think people sometimes have difficulty from separating their personal opinion with fact. I didn't like SIL or M$B, but I don't project my opinion on everybody else, and I can still appreciate that both were well made - they just weren't for me.
Author:  baumer72 [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
TonyMontana wrote:
So the moral of the story is don't be upset about Crash because the Academy has a history of getting it horribly wrong? Seems like warped logic to me, and actually does more to undermine Crash's win with logic like that.

While I disagree with certain best picture picks because they did not resonate with me personally, I think overall the Academy's list of best pictures is pretty solid. Sure you can look back with 20/20 hindsight and pick up some minor mistakes, but is that really fair? I think the most resounding argument you could make for Crash is to point out the Academy's decent track record and that there isn't a movie on there that is widely accepted as a bad flick.

I think people sometimes have difficulty from separating their personal opinion with fact. I didn't like SIL or M$B, but I don't project my opinion on everybody else, and I can still appreciate that both were well made - they just weren't for me.


Naaa, they were still not good chocies for best picture.
Author:  android [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
SIL is underrated right now.. :tongue:
Author:  O [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
You bashed Silence of the Lambs? :cry: I would NEVER include that in the same sentence as Shakespeare In Love and Chariots of Fire. :wacko:
Author:  Anonymous [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
I would say Crash is one of the worst wins ever. Worst ever? Hmm...
Author:  Ripper [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
I pointed this out before, because when I look back on Oscar history, i actually agree with the BP winner less then half the time int he years when I saw all the nominees.

Crash as the worst ever, probably not, I;d more bothered by other wins that people don't complain about (like American Beauty).
Author:  Raffiki [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ripper wrote:
I pointed this out before, because when I look back on Oscar history, i actually agree with the BP winner less then half the time int he years when I saw all the nominees.

Crash as the worst ever, probably not, I;d more bothered by other wins that people don't complain about (like American Beauty).


American Beauty? :huh:

How so?
Author:  Ripper [ Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Raffiki wrote:
Ripper wrote:
I pointed this out before, because when I look back on Oscar history, i actually agree with the BP winner less then half the time int he years when I saw all the nominees.

Crash as the worst ever, probably not, I;d more bothered by other wins that people don't complain about (like American Beauty).


American Beauty? :huh:

How so?


I thikn Sam Mendes is extremely overrated, I don't actually think any of his films are any good, they just come across as shallow and hollow. I thought the ending of Ab was rather predictable, yes it was well acted, but I don;t think its that great. Ab is much better then Mendes other films, but I am not getting the raves about him. I thought The Insider was a much better film.
Author:  Christian [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:03 am ]
Post subject: 
1951- An American in Paris

What an odd choice (it's good though) but considering 3 of the acting winners were from A Streetcar Named Desire and Best Directing went to A Place in the Sun...
Author:  TonyMontana [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:11 am ]
Post subject: 
I simply still don't get any of the logic in this topic. Perhaps somebody can explain it to me.

If the Academy is so bad at picking films, wouldn't you be happy if it didn't select the film you liked? How could you possibly be happy about a film you liked winning the Oscar when you give no credence to many of its other selections? Why would you even follow the Oscars if you feel it was completely idiotic 50% of the time. You wouldn't follow a reviewers advice or tout that reviewer if he was constantly wrong.

I think you have to take the good with the bad, or else why would anybody care?
Author:  Ripper [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:18 am ]
Post subject: 
TonyMontana wrote:
I simply still don't get any of the logic in this topic. Perhaps somebody can explain it to me.

If the Academy is so bad at picking films, wouldn't you be happy if it didn't select the film you liked? How could you possibly be happy about a film you liked winning the Oscar when you give no credence to many of its other selections? Why would you even follow the Oscars if you feel it was completely idiotic 50% of the time. You wouldn't follow a reviewers advice or tout that reviewer if he was constantly wrong.

I think you have to take the good with the bad, or else why would anybody care?


I not sure about your favorite winning, its about the whole process, watching the frontrunners, the shift in focus, and all of the hoopla. Its about winning your Oscar pool at work ;), one your ability to predict what's going to happen. I am never surprised when my favorite fiml doesn't win since alot of the time its not even nominated. Its like caring who wins the Superbowl even if your team only won one game that year.
Author:  baumer72 [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:01 am ]
Post subject: 
O wrote:
You bashed Silence of the Lambs? :cry: I would NEVER include that in the same sentence as Shakespeare In Love and Chariots of Fire. :wacko:


JFK and RAIDERS should haev won.
Author:  baumer72 [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:14 am ]
Post subject: 
Ripper wrote:
Raffiki wrote:
Ripper wrote:
I pointed this out before, because when I look back on Oscar history, i actually agree with the BP winner less then half the time int he years when I saw all the nominees.

Crash as the worst ever, probably not, I;d more bothered by other wins that people don't complain about (like American Beauty).


American Beauty? :huh:

How so?


I thikn Sam Mendes is extremely overrated, I don't actually think any of his films are any good, they just come across as shallow and hollow. I thought the ending of Ab was rather predictable, yes it was well acted, but I don;t think its that great. Ab is much better then Mendes other films, but I am not getting the raves about him. I thought The Insider was a much better film.


I think Michael Man is extremely overrated. The only films that are really well done on his part are Heat and Manhunter. I thought the Insider was tripe. Interesting tripe, but still tripe. To me, American Beauty is the best film in about 10 years. I loved everything about it. I could relate to it even though I have never shot anyone or had any overtly gay issues in my life. But the message in the film was beautiful. I get that it's not for everyone, but it really is a beautiful film.

As for Tony Montana's criticism of this thread, no the purpose of the thread is not to justify Crash's win by pointing out that the academy's judgment is flawed, the point is, there are so many people freaking out over the win. My point is that this is the not the first time that a film has upset another film to stir up controversy. It has happened more times that these myopic, selected memory oscar neophytes can recall. But if you look at the filsm that win, there has been plenty of controversy generated by other films in the 78 history of OSCAR.
Author:  Erendis [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:57 am ]
Post subject: 
Tony Montana has a legitimate point, baumer. What argument are you trying to make?

Are you saying that: "The Academy rewards bad movies all the time, Crash is no different, so BBM fans should just get over it." By that reasoning, you would be admitting that Crash is a bad movie.

Are you saying that: "It's always the Academy losers that are remembered, and the Academy winners that are forgotton." By that reasoning, you would be admitting that Crash will be forgotton and the others (BBM/GNAGL) will be remembered.

Are you saying that: "The Academy gets is wrong a lot, but it got it less wrong that usual this year, BBM fans should be grateful." That's a little stronger, but still admits that Crash was not as stellar as everyone says.

Are you saying that: "The Academy has an agenda and they are up for sale." Then you would be joining Annie Proulx and the rest of the BBM whiners, who have been saying the exact same thing for over a week now.

Are you saying that: "Hey, I had to put up with Jaws losing and Star Wars losing and Raiders losing and FotR losing. BBM fans should just shut up the whining already." By that reasoning, if you're going to demand that BBM fans take their lumps in silence, then why don't YOU take your own advice and shut up about Jaws? That was 30 years ago. Get over it already.

Or are you saying that "Sometimes the Academy is up for sale, sometimes it's not. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't. Other years it's bad but this year they got it right...oh darnit I was looking for a consistent pattern but I didn't find one, but I don't want my long post to go to waste, so I'll just say that's my opinion, and you can't question it. In fact, I love my opinion so much I'll make it a whole new topic." That just makes you an attention hog.
Author:  baumer72 [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:50 am ]
Post subject: 
Erendis wrote:
Tony Montana has a legitimate point, baumer. What argument are you trying to make?

Are you saying that: "The Academy rewards bad movies all the time, Crash is no different, so BBM fans should just get over it." By that reasoning, you would be admitting that Crash is a bad movie.

Are you saying that: "It's always the Academy losers that are remembered, and the Academy winners that are forgotton." By that reasoning, you would be admitting that Crash will be forgotton and the others (BBM/GNAGL) will be remembered.

Are you saying that: "The Academy gets is wrong a lot, but it got it less wrong that usual this year, BBM fans should be grateful." That's a little stronger, but still admits that Crash was not as stellar as everyone says.

Are you saying that: "The Academy has an agenda and they are up for sale." Then you would be joining Annie Proulx and the rest of the BBM whiners, who have been saying the exact same thing for over a week now.

Are you saying that: "Hey, I had to put up with Jaws losing and Star Wars losing and Raiders losing and FotR losing. BBM fans should just shut up the whining already." By that reasoning, if you're going to demand that BBM fans take their lumps in silence, then why don't YOU take your own advice and shut up about Jaws? That was 30 years ago. Get over it already.

Or are you saying that "Sometimes the Academy is up for sale, sometimes it's not. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't. Other years it's bad but this year they got it right...oh darnit I was looking for a consistent pattern but I didn't find one, but I don't want my long post to go to waste, so I'll just say that's my opinion, and you can't question it. In fact, I love my opinion so much I'll make it a whole new topic." That just makes you an attention hog.


I'll say this again, ERendis, read my comments before you come in here once a month and bitch. My comments were that Brokeback is not the first film that has generated controversy by losing. If you can't decipher that, then that's not my problem. And you call me an attention hog? All you do is come in here sporadically and tell everyone how worng they are about everything. Learn how to read, learn how to respond and learn how to decipher what someone is saying befoire you make it your business to be heard. You are an embarrasement to yourself most of the time. Get a grip. :disgust:
Author:  Tyler [ Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Think Crash is the worst win ever? Check the oscar hist
baumer72 wrote:
They get it right sometimes with films like Titanic and American Beauty winning, or giving Spielberg, Cameron and Polanski oscars.


I find the first half of Titanic barely watchable these days. Outside of the production values, it's artistically bankrupt (with a story being a tired Austen rip-off) and a symbol of everything bad with the modern blockbuster. Everything from Winslet's bare breasts onwards is entertaining, but certainly not Oscar-worthy.

And as much as I love Jaws, it does not quite add up to One Flew Over.... It's one of the few times Oscar *did* get it right in my point of view.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/