If the Academy of Motion Picture had to do it over again

[Color Me Badd Fan]

1976- Network instead of Rocky

1990- Goodfellas instead of Dances With Wolves

1995- Heat instead of Braveheart

1997- Boogie Nights (or at least LA Confidential) instead of Titanic

1998- Saving Private Ryan instead of Shakespeare in Love

I saw Ordinary People for the first time and I was actually very impressed with the film. 1980 was a very good year with Raging Bull and The Elephant Man also in the mix, but I do think Ordinary People was deserving.

[The_Tick]

SPR not winning was a terrible terrible terrible oversight.

One of the greatest movies of my life. I still get emotional every single time I watch it.

[Jacob]

Make that Good Will Hunting instead of Titanic in 97

I agree with Saving Private Ryan in 98, but none of the others you listed.

[il Padrino Ute]

That Strange Brew was not even considered in 1983 is the real crime. I lost what little respect I may have had for the academy when that egregious exclusion occurred.

[DapperDan]

I die a little inside when I remember how the Academy robbed Ellen Burstyn (Requiem for a Dream) and gave the Best Actress Oscar to Julia Roberts (Erin Brockovich) instead.

[TheBYUGuy]

I'm not really a movie buff, but I think I remember hearing that The Shawshank Redemption wasn't even nominated for best picture? That is messed up if true.

[Green Lantern]

I'm not really a movie buff, but I think I remember hearing that The Shawshank Redemption wasn't even nominated for best picture? That is messed up if true.

Fortunately it wasn't that badly mistreated. It was nominated for Best Picture, Actor, Cinematography and Screenplay and a few others. Didn't win anything though. It lost to Forrest Gump although the actual winner should have been Pulp Fiction.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

SPR not winning was a terrible terrible terrible oversight.

One of the greatest movies of my life. I still get emotional every single time I watch it.

Shakespeare in Love winning over SPR was the worst choice I've ever seen the Oscars make. I still can't understand it. The Normandy scene in the theater was probably the most intense and scary movie sequence I've ever seen.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Fortunately it wasn't that badly mistreated. It was nominated for Best Picture, Actor, Cinematography and Screenplay and a few others. Didn't win anything though. It lost to Forrest Gump although the actual winner should have been Pulp Fiction.

The 90s Oscars screwed up a lot of things. Though I do think Shawshank should have won over Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction, but there are probably more people that think Pulp Fiction should have been the winner. There was a time in the 90s when the Oscars were being given to the bigger box office draw -- Forrest Gump, Braveheart and Titanic and in all three years there were clearly better films.

Dances With Wolves is more defensible, but Goodfellas was just better.

Ironically, they went the opposite direction and went with Shakespeare in Love instead of SPR and they ended up rewarding the inferior film. I still can't figure out what happened there, there must have been a helluva marketing campaign.

[Paperback Writer]

Don't really agree. There are years where there are two excellent movies and the academy has to pick a winner. But none of those years qualify as a "do-over" in my view. Understand that film is an art form and thus subject to a wide array of opinion.

Both excellent films but I would pick the other as best picture.
1998: Saving Private Ryan - Shakespeare in Love.
1994: Forrest Gump - The Shawshank Redemption - Pulp Fiction.
1989: Driving Miss Daisey - Dead Poets Society.
1962: Lawrence of Arabia - To Kill A Mockingbird.

My opinion on the biggest "do-overs"
1982: Ghandi over ET
1969: Midnight Cowboy over Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid.
Ghandi and Midnight Cowboy are both good films but I personally don't care much for either...and they won over a couple of my personal favorites.

Edit: To include Pulp Fiction in 1994 despite my dislike of Quentin Tarantino as a film maker. It deserves mention along with Forrest Gump and The Shawshank Redemption.

[Paperback Writer]

The 90s Oscars screwed up a lot of things. Though I do think Shawshank should have won over Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction, but there are probably more people that think Pulp Fiction should have been the winner. There was a time in the 90s when the Oscars were being given to the bigger box office draw -- Forrest Gump, Braveheart and Titanic and in all three years there were clearly better films.

Dances With Wolves is more defensible, but Goodfellas was just better.

Ironically, they went the opposite direction and went with Shakespeare in Love instead of SPR and they ended up rewarding the inferior film. I still can't figure out what happened there, there must have been a helluva marketing campaign.

Dances With Wolves is one of my favorite films due to my interest in American history. Goodfellas was also a good film but not "just better". It's opinion - valid arguments can be made for either.

I'm one that does get Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan and SPR is one of my favorite films. Perhaps it's due to my reading too much Shakespeare but I really enjoyed how SIL wove Shakespeare themes throughout. Perhaps I don't understand it myself since SPR is the best movie about one of my favorite topics (Normandy campaign in WWII). And I've read a lot more WWII military history than I have Shakespeare. To borrow a line from SIL "I don't know. It's a mystery".

[Green Lantern]

Ironically, they went the opposite direction and went with Shakespeare in Love instead of SPR and they ended up rewarding the inferior film. I still can't figure out what happened there, there must have been a helluva marketing campaign.

I tend to agree with the theory that one of the reasons that Shakespeare won was because Miramax heavily campaigned for it by flooding Academy members with screener copies. In the end, Shakespeare played better on the small screen than SPR for a lot of these people and that's what made the difference. I think the Oscars would be a lot more fun if they'd actually release the final vote counts. I can't see how it would hurt the process in any way.


Oh and while we're talking about Spielberg, I agree with the comment that Gandhi over E.T. was a travesty.

[Mormon Red Death]

Oh and while we're talking about Spielberg, I agree with the comment that Gandhi over E.T. was a travesty.

Really? Have you rewatched et once since you were 7? The movie sucks. Its slow and really boring.
Sent from my T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide using Tapatalk

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Dances With Wolves is one of my favorite films due to my interest in American history. Goodfellas was also a good film but not "just better". It's opinion - valid arguments can be made for either.

I'm one that does get Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan and SPR is one of my favorite films. Perhaps it's due to my reading too much Shakespeare but I really enjoyed how SIL wove Shakespeare themes throughout. Perhaps I don't understand it myself since SPR is the best movie about one of my favorite topics (Normandy campaign in WWII). And I've read a lot more WWII military history than I have Shakespeare. To borrow a line from SIL "I don't know. It's a mystery".

Dances with Wolves was a beloved film when it won best picture and there was very little argument at the time. However, like A Clockwork Orange in 71 (The French Connection won) and 2001: A Space Odyssey in 68 (Oliver!), I think over time Goodfellas has aged a lot better than Dances With Wolves. It's obviously not as stark as 2001 compared to Oliver!, but I think its there.

It seems like Shakespeare in Love has had zero long term impact. I just don't think it occupies any space in any movie fan's conscience.

Also, I think this list of AFI's top 100 is interesting. I doubt Blade Runner would have sniffed a list like this had one existed just a year or two after it came out. Sometimes it takes time to realize which is the best film. Dances With Wolves didn't even make the list, Goodfellas wasn't very high either though. Shawshank ranks higher than Forest Gump and Pulp Fiction and Gump ranks higher than Pulp Fiction. However Raging Bull is ranked #4 and I thought Ordinary People (not on the list) was deserving in the same year.

http://www.afi.com/100Years/movies10.aspx

Also -- 1976 was a helluva year for movies-- four movies from that year made it on the list: Rocky, Network, All the President's Men and Taxi Driver.

[marsupial]

Dances with Wolves was a beloved film when it won best picture and there was very little argument at the time. However, like A Clockwork Orange in 71 (The French Connection won) and 2001: A Space Odyssey in 68 (Oliver!), I think over time Goodfellas has aged a lot better than Dances With Wolves. It's obviously not as stark as 2001 compared to Oliver!, but I think its there.

It seems like Shakespeare in Love has had zero long term impact. I just don't think it occupies any space in any movie fan's conscience.
Also, I think this list of AFI's top 100 is interesting. I doubt Blade Runner would have sniffed a list like this had one existed just a year or two after it came out. Sometimes it takes time to realize which is the best film. Dances With Wolves didn't even make the list, Goodfellas wasn't very high either though. Shawshank ranks higher than Forest Gump and Pulp Fiction and Gump ranks higher than Pulp Fiction. However Raging Bull is ranked #4 and I thought Ordinary People (not on the list) was deserving in the same year.

http://www.afi.com/100Years/movies10.aspx

While this is true, I LOVED Shakespeare in Love. Loved it!