Features
Headlines
Search
Loading ...
Archives
Okay, the decision has been made and there is not a thing I can do about it, and let’s face it, even I am going to get bored bitching about it. So I went back 20 years to find films that might have been among the 10 nominees had they been doing this in 1988. It was an interesting experiment that perhaps makes it clear why the Academy had made the move.
Attention is drawn to films that might otherwise might not have been seen or heard of by the average Joe on the street, and allows for box office hits to find Oscar attention with a Best Picture nomination. Sure, there would be years that the pickings might be slim, but that is the price of doing something like this, and at that point, is it not smart to look at the foreign language films or — to be a bit self-serving — Canadian work?
Or would sequels such as the superb “The Empire Strikes Back” be nominated along with other good-to-excellent films? It would have been interesting. I did not go for five films each year, but mentioned those I think would have been cinches had there been 10 nominees.
Here we go…
1989 might have seen Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing” in the hunt, thereby preventing Kim Basinger’s drunken rant at the Oscars, and no doubt “Glory,” the splendid Civil War epic from Edward Zwick. There seems little doubt Woody Allen’s sublime “Crimes and Misdamenors” would have made the cut, but what about blockbuster “Batman” and Disney’s “The Little Mermaid,” populist films that really changed the game in Hollywood?
One year later in 1990, “The Grifters” and “Postcards from the Edge” seem the likely nominees, with “Miller’s Crossing” certainly deserving. Would they have gone for Warren Beatty’s under-appreciated “Dick Tracy?” Hard to say. But would the box office success of “Home Alone” or “Pretty Woman” have driven those films to nominations? Grotesque.
1991 would have seen “Thelma & Louise” earn the nod it should have, as well as “Boyz N the Hood,” “The Fisher King” and perhaps — PERHAPS — the box office smash “Terminator 2: Judgement Day.”
In 1992 it seems to make sense that with 10 nominees, Warner Bros. might have promoted the forgotten “Malcolm X,” which was among the best films of the year. After “Beauty and the Beast” the year before, it seems inconceivable that “Aladdin” would not have been there. Francis Ford Coppola’s “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” might have been a nominee and Robert Redford’s “A River Runs Through It.” Would the box office power of “Basic Instinct” have pushed it into the Best Picture category? Ugh.
1993 might have seen Steven Spielberg with two Best Picture nominees, the eventual and deserving winner, “Schindler’s List” and his mammoth box office hit “Jurassic Park.” Many believed Martin Scorsese’s “The Age of Innocence” was a shoo-in for a nod that did not come, but with 10 nominees, it seems unlikely it would have been ignored, while Peter Weir’s brilliant “Fearless” would have joined the list as well. “Short Cuts” might have gotten in to go along with the Best Director nomination for Robert Altman, while others might have been “Philadelphia” or “Sleepless in Seattle.”
“The Lion King,” “Bullets Over Broadway,” and “Speed” might have been among the 10 nominees in 1994, or AMPAS would have been really daring and gone with “Natural Born Killers” or the documentary “Hoop Dreams.” But God would doors have opened for the John Grisham adaptation “The Client” or “Interview with the Vampire?” The mind reels.
There were a lot of brilliant films left out in 1995, among them ‘The Bridges of Madison County,” ‘Leaving Las Vegas,” “Dead Man Walking,” “Toy Story,” “Seven,” or “Get Shorty,” all deserving. Would ‘The American President” have sneaked in along with “Casino?” Or what about Joel Schumacher’s “Batman Forever?” Man.
In 1996, the year of indie domination, the studio films trying to find their way into the 10 would have been box office hits such as “Independence Day,” “The Rock,” “Twister,” or even “The Nutty Professor.” Or AMPAS might have gone for the art films such as the immensely deserving “Trainspotting” (the best film I saw in 1996), “The Crucible,” “Hamlet,” or “The People v. Larry Flynt.”
The year of the big boat, 1997, saw Canada’s Atom Egoyan nominated for Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay for the haunting “The Sweet Hereafter,” which would have been nominated for Best Picture in a year with 10. “Boogie Nights,” “Jackie Browne” and perhaps “Amistad” would have found their way into the Best Picture category, or the science-fiction comedy “Men in Black.”
“The Truman Show” was snubbed in 1998, but with 10 nominees allowed, seems a cinch, as does “Primary Colors,” “Armageddon,” “Out of Sight” and “Bulworth.” Would a non-Disney animated film break through to allow “The Prince of Egypt” a Best Picture nomination?
“Magnolia” was the best film of 1999, in my opinion, but it wasn’t nominated by the Academy. Surely it would have made the cut. So would Anthony Minghella’s superb “The Talented Mr. Ripley,” along with “Toy Story 2″ and the extraordinary “Fight Club.” Does this mean, however, that the box office smash “Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace” would be a Best Picture contender?? The horror, the horror.
2000 would have been an interesting year with 10 Best Picture nominees. Certainly “Requiem for a Dream,” which I thought to be the years’ best film, would have been a contender, along with “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” and “Cast Away.” Cameron Crowe’s “Almost Famous” would be there, but would the box office success of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” make it a nominee? Humbug.
2001 was among the leanest years for Best Picture contenders, but 10 would at least see “The Royal Tenenbaums” up for the award, along with “Shrek” and “Monsters, Inc.” Would the Warner franchise “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” be the first of many nods for the films about the boy wizard, or would the French film “Amelie” have gotten in? One of my favorite Spielberg films, “A.I.: Artificial Intelligence,” might have gotten some attention for Best Picture had there been 10 nominees. It should have.
One year later, 2002, brilliant films such as “Road to Perdition,” “About Schmidt,” “Adaptation,” and “Minority Report” would have been among the 10 nominees for Best Picture. Perhaps the Academy would have liked the Innuit film “Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner” or “Catch Me If You Can.” Or would box office rule the day with nods for major hits such as “Spider Man,”, “Signs,” or “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets?”
The year the Hobbits ruled the Oscars, 2003, saw “Cold Mountain” snubbed for a Best Picture nomination. With 10 contenders, it would be there, along with “Finding Nemo” and the outstanding “Monster.” Would the Best Foreign Language Film winner, the Canadian “The Barbarian Invasions,” have slipped in for Best Picture along with “The Last Samurai?” Or would box office again make its presence felt with “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl?”
Mel Gibson’s searing “The Passion of the Christ” was a monster hit at the box office in 2004, and deserving of a Best Picture nod that did not come. Would it have been in the 10 or would claims of anti-Semitism still have kept it out? Michael Moore’s testy “Fahrenheit 9/11″ would surely have made it through in a highly political year. Ditto “The Motorcycle Diaries.” I think both “The Incredibles” and “The Polar Express” might have been there as well, or maybe the latter edged out by “Spider-Man 2.” Or again, that Potter kid, in his most critically acclaimed installment of the franchise.
“King Kong” would be among the 10 nominees for Best Picturre in 2005. So, I think, would “A History of Violence” and perhaps “Batman Begins.” Would box office drive “Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith” to a Best Picture nod? Or would AMPAS come to its collective senses and nominate something like “Match Point” or “Sin City?”
Wow, I had forgotten what a bizarre year 2006 was, and might have been with 10 nominees for Best Picture. It is almost certain that Clint Eastwood would have had two nominees for Best Picture, the second being “Flags of Our Fathers.” Guillermo Del Toro’s “Pan’s Labyrinth” would be there, along with the sublime “Children of Men” and perhaps the deserving “Dreamgirls.” I believe “United 93″ would be among the 10 along with, again, box office — “The Devil Wears Prada.”
2007 was a great year at the movies and a 10-film Best Picture category would have been easily filled. “Away from Her” would be among the nominees, along with “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” and Sean Penn’s masterpiece “Into the Wild.” Pixar’s “Ratatouille” would definitely be there, as would “American Gangster,” “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” and “Eastern Promises,” or perhaps the box office hit “Hairspray.” Great year.
And of course, the reason they started this whole thing was last year’s crop in 2008, which would have seen “The Dark Knight” get the nomination it deserved. I would hope that “Revolutionary Road” would get some attention, as well as “The Wrestler” or Clint’s “Changeling.” Certainly the acclaimed “WALL-E” would be among the nominees, and “Doubt” or “Gran Torino.” Would the box office of “Iron Man” see another superhero in the Best Picture mix? Maybe so.
Agree? Disagree? Have at it in the comments section below!
39 responses so far
1 7-03-2009 at 10:39 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
Personally, I’m not so sure that everything would be that predictable. I heard a staggering amount of people (Academy members) that they didn’t think “The Dark Knight” was as close to a Best Pic nod as you might have thought. We may simply have gotten more of the same, and might still, with a 10 nominee frame. We’ll see this year how it goes, but I don’t think expanding it to 10 necessarily would have made for radically refreshing Best Picture slates. That’s all I’m saying.
2 7-03-2009 at 10:46 am
Andrew said...
“Armageddon”, the worst film ever produced by the Hollywood system, a BP nominee? No way in hell.
3 7-03-2009 at 11:03 am
Mr. F said...
I don’t think “Armageddon” would have been in the running for BP. If that was true then we might as well consider Transformers 2 a strong BP contender.
4 7-03-2009 at 12:04 pm
Mark Kratina said...
Add these to the BP prospects:
Cinderella Man-2005
A Very Long Engagement- 2004
The Majestic-2001
5 7-03-2009 at 12:09 pm
Zodiac said...
Well reading your suggestions make look like there have been no good foreign movies at all to be consider in the running for a nomination.
I think Three Colours: Blue, Breaking the Waves, The Celebration, Dancer in the dark, All About My Mother, Talk to Her, In the mood for Love, 2046, Dogville, City of God, Triples de Belleville, Amelie, Cache, Der Untergang, Das Leben der Anderen, Amores Perros, 4 month 3 weeks and 2 days would be strong contenders.
You also forgot to mention English speaking movies such as Mulholland Drive, Memento, Zodiac, Kill Bill Volume 1, Kill bill Volume 2, Adaptation, Notes on a Scandal, The Ice Storm, The Matrix
In some years picking 10 best pictures noms woild be hard
6 7-03-2009 at 12:21 pm
John said...
Umm, yeah-I was with you until you said “Armageddon” would be a shoo-in. Not a chance in hell. It couldn’t even win Best Visual Effects that year. There are at least 30 films that are more likely from 1998 (Waking Ned Devine, Pleasantville, A Simple Plan, and The Horse Whisperer come to mind).
7 7-03-2009 at 12:27 pm
John said...
I actually think that you’re greatly blowing out of proportion the Box Office. This isn’t the Globes-the Grinch, the Star Wars films (the later ones, at least), these were critically lambasted, and wouldn’t be included on the end list. I do think that films like Jurassic Park, Shrek, and Harry Potter 1 would have made it, but they had more prestige and better critical reception. And I’m curious why you’d include Armageddon as a possibility but not something like Transformers.
8 7-03-2009 at 1:10 pm
Lance said...
I don’t think barely any big box office action films would have ever made the top ten. I think the majority of voters don’t lean towards these films.
Will every Academy voter get ten votes now instead of five? If everyone only gets five votes than these films have a better chance of making it in. If everyone now gets 10 votes, the majority (or your average academy member) is going to add in five more of the same type films that we almost always see in the top five.
9 7-03-2009 at 1:21 pm
Harmonica said...
This is ridiculous. Just because a film is a box office success doesn’t mean it would crack up the Top 10. “Batman Forever”? “Armageddon”? Pathetic lists.
10 7-03-2009 at 1:41 pm
N8 said...
Many of the possibilities you mentioned as maybe being nominated because of strong box office results are not real possibilities; “Batman Forever”, “Armagedon”, “Pirates of the Caribbean”, any of the “Harry Potter” films? Never stood a chance.
Many of your other suggestions make sense; “The Truman Show”, “The Lion King”, “Amelie”, “Pan’s Labyrinth”, “Almost Famous”. Your list for 2007 is dead on.
11 7-03-2009 at 1:44 pm
Guy Lodge said...
The first “Harry Potter” installment actually got a PGA nod, so I wouldn’t say that was out of the realm of possibility.
But John’s foreign-language blind spot is clearly getting in the way if he doesn’t think “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” would have made it in 2007. It was clearly in the #6 position.
12 7-03-2009 at 1:46 pm
corey said...
Far From Heaven -2002
13 7-03-2009 at 2:19 pm
Eddy said...
Dreamgirls, BEST PICTURE!!!!!! – travesty…
Diving Bell probably would have made it in 2007
14 7-03-2009 at 2:37 pm
John H. Foote said...
“Ghost” was a Best Picture nominee folks, may I remind you, and that mess of a film was at least equally as bad as “Armageddon” — “The Towering Inferno” was a best picture nominee as was ‘Fatal Attraction” – as far back as “The Greatest Show on Earth” bad movies get nominated — Jesus, “The Color Purple” one of Spielberg’s weakest films was nominated!!!!! — do you really think that the ten nominees will be free of bad movies or box office hits?? And yes, I concede “Zodiac” and ‘The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” were ommitted — my bad.
15 7-03-2009 at 2:47 pm
Robert Hamer said...
I’m surprised at some of your oversights, John, as well as your faith in box office numbers. Didn’t you learn anything from the snub of The Dark Knight?
Another film that I think would (and should) have had a very good chance with an expanded field in 2007 that I’m surprised you didn’t mention is Gone Baby Gone.
I’m also surprised you didn’t mention City of God as a nominee for 2003, especially since its director recieved a nod.
And what about Far From Heaven for 2002? My personal favorite film of that year, it would have had a MUCH better shot than Harry-friggin-Potter.
1999 may have seen Election make the cut, which would have been great, but then again Reese Witherspoon was snubbed that year for a Best Actress nomination. I highly doubt The Phantom Menace would have had a snowball’s chance in hell of being the first Best Picture AND Worst Picture nominee in history.
And really, Armageddon over Pleasantville? Puh-leeze!
16 7-03-2009 at 2:52 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Uh, The Color Purple is one of Spielberg’s finest hours.
17 7-03-2009 at 3:19 pm
Guy Lodge said...
I personally love the nomination of “Fatal Attraction.”
18 7-03-2009 at 3:29 pm
Chris said...
How can you forget the decade’s best film when you’re actually just wildly speculating and considering films that are either your personal favourites or crap? I’m so shocked at the omission that I won’t even give you the satisfaction of naming it and giving you the chance to apologise.
19 7-03-2009 at 3:32 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Well, that’s mature of you, Chris.
20 7-03-2009 at 3:40 pm
Adam M. said...
WHY is everyone assuming that with 10 best pic slots, box office smashes will automatically be recognized? I really don’t see it at ALL working out that way.
Box office success does NOT equal Oscar success. It never has and it never will. Period.
21 7-03-2009 at 3:47 pm
Chris said...
I know it’s immature, but so’s the article. It’s just a random list of films without any evaluation or reasoning. I’m sorry to say this, but it’s quite a lazy and effortless article and not worthy of this site, which has had plenty – and much better – coverage of the same topic already.
I don’t know if it’s really that brilliant and mature to assess that “The Passion of the Christ” or “The Polar Express” could have been in for a nod, while omitting “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” (there I said it) altogether. Plus “Hotel Rwanda” seemed like a likely contender that year and isn’t even mentioned. I could go on for every single year and moan about the choices – and that’s particularly why I think this article’s not very good, because first it isn’t very well thought out, and second it’s simply polemic and asks for too much discussion. What John offers up is what could have happened in the most unlikely of events for many years, and another one of his famous articles in which he bitches about films that should have been nominated but weren’t. Can’t he discuss film in a more positive and creative light, which doesn’t include bitching and speculating?
22 7-03-2009 at 4:15 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
I think you could make the case you present in the first graph there in a much more amicable manner, though.
There’s nothing immature about John’s article. He’s just spit-balling. Many of his picks are, I would agree, somewhat questionable. But one can’t make an argument one way or the other here that can be authentically vetted, so why not just have fun with it and use it as a spring board for your own thoughts?
Demonizing the author is unnecessary.
As for your final query, I’ll allow him to speak for himself.
23 7-03-2009 at 4:32 pm
Chris said...
I accept your point, I could have been more amicable, but so far John has never responded well or respectfully to any “amicable” criticisms of mine, and so I don’t think I need to try and be polite this time. (I’d also like to point out that he hasn’t responded to an e-mail I send him months ago concerning the list about the best European directors he’d announced right after his list on American diretors.)
What’s spitballing if not immature? John’s supposed to be a serious film critic and it seems that most of his contributions to this site are nothing but spit-balling, listing of his personal favourites and bitching about the stuff he doesn’t like.
Personally I feel that his articles in general do not live up to the high standards Guy and yourself set, and thus I think as a regular reader I should raise this issue. I’m not trying to demonise him, I just think it’s not much fun to read the same old stuff by the same author over and over again, when you actually enjoy reading a site and tend to read every single article on it. And therefore I am a bit pissed right now, as a reader, yes. That explains my first post, but even though that was immature, I don’t think it was wrong.
24 7-03-2009 at 4:37 pm
Lance said...
Does anybody know how the voting process will work with 10 instead of 5? Will each member do thier top ten in order of preference?
25 7-03-2009 at 5:07 pm
John H. Foote said...
Wow Chris…so sorry to disappoint you — however I will beg to differ and ask that you go back over the last eighteen months of comments to my work and look at the commentary generated and what has been learned, on both sides — isn’t that what the site is all about?? — and I would love to see an example of how I have disrespected you or responded poorly to one of your comments — please, show me that — as for the foreign film oversights, let me state that I reviewed the Oscar choices since 1969 for Best Picture and found that of two hundred nominees for that award only seven of the nominees were foreign language films — the Academy is not terribly fond it seems of nominating films from other countries unless, UNLESS, they are box office hits as the seven nominated were — as for the box office hits I believe would be nominated, I stand by that — and Kris, sorry about “The Color Purple” — the novel was angry and bitter, full of rage and yes, love, but not the sort in the film – he zippied-doo-dahed the film — beautiful to look at it, great Goldberg performance, but a weak film and obvious ploy for an Oscar — I love Spielberg which often gets me in trouble but “The Color Purple” was hardly one of his best films because he did it for all the wrong reasons — if he did it now he would have the courage to show all the novel explored including the lesbianism that is so crucial to Celie finding love. And yes I should have mentioned ‘Far from Heaven”…
26 7-03-2009 at 5:11 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Lance: Presumably. Which is laughable. There are few members who take the ranking serious beyond #1 as it is and, the real dirty little secret, a great many who don’t even write five films down. I think the Academy will get a lot of 6-film and 7-film ballots.
John: I think for when in his career the film was made, it is a hell of an accomplishment. It’s one of my favorites from him.
27 7-03-2009 at 5:34 pm
Douglas said...
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Hands down deserving nominee and possibly even winner. It should have been there with just 5 best picture nominations.
28 7-03-2009 at 6:13 pm
Gustavo H.R. said...
ARMAGEDDON? SPEED? ID4? Are you serious?
29 7-03-2009 at 8:56 pm
katie said...
Agree with Tapley, we really will get just more of the same.
30 7-03-2009 at 10:49 pm
David Krasner said...
Reversal of Fortune would and should have been nominated in 1990.
31 7-04-2009 at 5:07 am
John H. Foote said...
I think a lot of people are forgetting that the Academy has nominated in the past such dreadful films as ‘The Alamo,” the aforementioned “The Greatest Show on Earth,”, “Cleopatra,” “Dr. Doolittle,” “Scent of a Woman,” or “Ghost” as well as major hits such as “Jaws” (a brilliant film), “The Towering Inferno”, “Rocky”, “Star Wars”, “Heaven Can Wait”, “Kramer vs. Kramer”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, “E.T.”, “Tootsie”, “Terms of Endearment”, “Amadeus”, “Platoon”, “Dances with Wolves”, “Forrest Gump”, “Titanic” and “Saving Private Ryan” to name a few — thus I think my argument about where this could go stands — the Academy is not afraid to nominate hits, they never have been, and if they are excellent pictures as many of those I have mentioned are, they should be nominated — what I want never to happen is for the films NOT nominated that should have been never to be forgotten. And if there is injustice in their choices I will call it out, as I did in 1981 when “Chariots of Fire” won best picture and have been doing whenever I think they err.
And by the way if anyone thinks I believe “Cleopatra” is a good film, your crazy, but it was nominated, and there is an outside chamnce that ‘Armageddon” might have been nominated in ‘98 despite the fact it was awful (yep, I know that) — and if I recall it was on my ten worst list in 98.
32 7-04-2009 at 6:22 am
G1000 said...
With 10 in the mix, “Once” would probably have landed a nod in 2007.
33 7-04-2009 at 10:55 am
Manu L. said...
Here’s how I see the list with 10 nominees since 1998, the year I started paying attention to this kind of stuff:
1998 – I think The Truman Show, with its Director nomination, and Gods and Monsters, which won Adapted Screenplay and John forgot to mention, would have been nominated easily. After that, it gets trickier. I agree with Primary Colors and Bulworth as strong possibilities, and I would add Waking Ned Devine which didn’t get a single nomination but was very succesful with the guilds. There’s also Affliction, Central Station, Pleasantville… And I think There’s Something About Mary was closer to a nomination than Armageddon, even if it didn’t really stand a chance.
1999 – Being John Malkovich was probably #6, and Talented Mr. Ripley must not have been far behind. I bet Magnolia was in the #8-10 zone, along with The Hurricane. There’s one spot left, it could have gone to Toy Story 2, The Matrix, All About My Mother or a more traditional nominee like The End of the Affair.
2000 – Almost Famous and Billy Elliot for sure. I think Wonder Boys would have made it, barely. Also Cast Away and You Can Count on Me. Darkhorse possibilities which John mentioned: Requiem for a Dream and O Brother, Where Art Thou?
2001 – Black Hawk Down seems assured, and I think Shrek would have easily made it too. Hard to tell what the other three films are, but I think they’re in this list: Amélie, Harry Potter, Memento, Ali, AI Artificial Intelligence, Iris, maybe Monster’s Ball and, with all its critics awards and the director nomination, Mulholland Drive was probably #9-10, barely in the top 10.
2002 – Adaptation, About Schmidt and My Big Fat Greek Wedding had strong awards seasons, and I think they would have easily made the top 10. Talk to Her won for its Screenplay and had a Directing nomination, so it would have been a strong contender for a spot, just like Road to Perdition, Far from Heaven and maybe Catch Me If You Can.
2003 – Cold Mountain and In America seem like solid bets. City of God came out of nowhere on nomination morning with nominations from 4 different important branches, so my guess is it would have made it. My guess is the last two films are Finding Nemo and The Last Samurai.
Darkhorses: Monster, Pirates of the Caribbean, American Splendor…
2004 – Hotel Rwanda was probably #6 and barely lost the nomination against Ray and Finding Neverland. I would bet on The Incredibles to have become yet another animated nominee, and Eternal Sunshine must have gotten a lot of #1 votes. After that it’s too close to call. Maybe Fahrenheit 9/11, Closer, and foreign language films like A Very Long Engagement, The Motorcycle Diaries and Mar adentro… Vera Drake, even with its 3 very important nominations, would have been a surprise in the the top 10.
2005 – Walk the Line is #6, barely edged out by Munich. I would add The Constant Gardener as an obvious contender. I think the last three would come from very diverse voting blocs: a traditional uplifting Oscar movie (Cinderella Man), a much riskier and unconventional choice (A History of Violence), and a blockbuster & remake of a Hollywood classic (King Kong).
2006 – I think Dreamgirls and United 93 are locks, even if they’re support is not massive. They clearly loved Pan’s Labyrinth, so I think it’s in. I agree when John says Clint would have had 2 films in the top 10. Then we have Children of Men, Blood Diamond, Borat, The Devil Wears Prada and Little Children. I’m guessing Children of Men because of the #1 spots, but maybe i’t’s just wishful thinking.
2007 – Like John said, great year. There’s no way in hell Diving Bell didn’t make the top 10. They didn’t like Into the Wild as much as we thought they would, but it’s still in. I would add American Gangster and Sweeney Todd to the list, with #10 up in the air: Ratatouille? Away from Her? Once? Hairspray?
2008 – The Dark Knight, even if it wasn’t really close to the nomination, is still in the top 10, just like WALL-E. Doubt gets in as a more traditional pick. Then I think there are 3 films for 2 spots: Gran Torino, The Wrestler and Revolutionary Road.
34 7-04-2009 at 4:35 pm
Fernando said...
Damn it! AMPAS you Give the Dark knight the nomination it deserves!
35 7-05-2009 at 3:26 pm
Zodiac said...
Chris: I totally agree with you about how bad this article is written. Its like reading an ew.com article which is not a compliment at all. Kris Tapley, please make someone else take another perspective about the same topic. Please!
John: If this standard of yours is the result of many years of research, responses from reader and as you say “im an educator”, I cannot imagine how bad your previous articles must be.
Kris: I loooove your site!! Just seen Kristin Scott Thomas blowing me away with her performance in Ive loved you so long
36 7-05-2009 at 3:53 pm
Chad Hartigan said...
To chime in on the blockbuster debate- Anything listed before 1995 is basically irrelevant because a very different type of film topped the box office than today. Rocky and Kramer vs. Kramer would be lucky to gross $50 mil today. Wondering if a film like The Dark Knight or to a lesser extent Star Trek has a chance is one thing but speculating about Independence Day or Armageddon is straight up farcical. Those movies weren’t even remotely critically acclaimed in the way that Ghost and Fatal Attraction were upon release. The Academy knows the difference between a movie that captures the zeitgeist of a moment and transcends expectations (The Dark Knight) and a film that was merely intended to make money and succeeded (Armageddon).
37 7-05-2009 at 8:49 pm
Mark Kratina said...
Just finished watching A River Runs Through It- an absolute American classic.
How this film wasn’t nominated in 1992 for Best Picture, Director, etc. is beyond me. One of the great, ambitious achievements in film the last 20 years.
38 7-07-2009 at 11:53 am
JAB said...
I’m sorry, but did you watch Flags of our Fathers? It would not have made it in in that kind of year, especially with a far superior film as it’s counterpart.
39 8-02-2009 at 8:39 am
Chris said...
I’m really surprised at some of the inclusions that could be categorized as the ‘box-office successes.’ A film like Armaggedon may have been a huge hit, but only because pre-teens got to watch explosions and noise for five hours (was it not that long? it felt like it.) I have to believe that the money does not translate to people loving it. Take The Grinch, a film that young children can watch because of the eye candy, but I don’t think I’ve talked to a single person over the age of eighteen who thought that it was a decent flick. It’s rubbish, and even though it made a butt-load of money people still recognize it for what it is; mass produced garbage – not Oscar fodder.
Here are some that I would have included in the Best Picture possibilities;
Delicatessen, Dogfight – 1991
Groundhog Day, Dazed and Confused – 1993
Ed Wood – 1994
Welcome to the Dollhouse – 1995
Heat, 12 Monkeys – 1995
Donnie Brasco – 1997
Gods and Monsters, Central Station – 1998
Three Kings, Election – 1999
You Can Count on Me – 2000
Spirited Away – 2001
Dear Frankie – 2004
The Proposition, The 40 Year-Old Virgin – 2005
Half Nelson – 2006
Zodiac, Lars and the Real Girl – 2007