What Should Have Won

Forgive me if this has been done before but I thought we'd do a fun and simple kind of game relating to the Oscars. It can be from any category (Best Picture, Best Actor/Actress, Best Supporting Actor/Actress, etc.). All you have to do is name the winner of a category along with the ones nominated and other people will agree or disagree with what won. If you disagree name the movie/actor you thought should have won. Then, if you want, post your own category/winner/nominee for others to voice their opinions about.

I'll kick it off.

Best Picture - Gladiator (2000)

Nominees:
- Chocolat
- Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
- Erin Brockovich
- Traffic

For this one I totally agree with Gladiator winning Best Picture. In my opinion it's not even close.

__________________
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” — Gandhi​

Everyone of those is better than Gladiator, even Chocolat, which is pretty terrible.


Traffic probably deserved the win. Erin Brockovich is the one I like the most though.

The right movie won.

What did you not like about Gladiator? Just curious.

There are few movies I've ever seen (at least out of those I was legitimately looking forward to) that I have ever found as bland and by the numbers and completely uninspired as Gladiator.


I've seen it a couple of times, and my impression is always the same. As for why I feel this way, I've got no specifics beyond obvious complaints anyone might make. I would have to watch it again to try and figure out what I specifically found so unbelievably dull and devoid of life. I suspect I might not even entirely know.



All I know for sure is Ridley Scott (can be) a good director. And I generally like gladiator films, even shit ones. But when it comes to this one...nope. It's not the worst film I've ever seen, but it's right at the top of the list of movies I would consider having zero effect on me whatsoever (at least I hated Chocolat...that's something)

Gladiator is fine. I like it enough. Phoenix is a tad overrated in this, imo. Crowe is pretty good, though.
Honestly, though, time and and experience in other films has reshaped my views on whether it should have won, never mind if it should have been nominated at all.
I’d have to take a long look at that year and see what could have been nominated over it, or even Chocolate (which I also didn’t mind).

Gladiator is the best of that bunch. I liked Chocolat at the time but less so when I saw it again more recently.

I appreciate this might not be in the spirit of the game (apologies) but look at the films that were released around that year that were not nominated in this category:

In The Mood for Love
Werckmeister Harmonies
Code Unknown
Yi Yi
Amores Perros
Nine Queens
Sexy Beast
Beau Travail

And people still think the Oscars is some sort of barometer for film quality.

sorry, as you were.

It's not a perfect marker of quality, but what is?

If a film is nominated or wins, it's probably not the worst. It's better to be nominated than to not. It's better win than to not. The best film rarely wins, but better films win far more often than the very worst.

Sexy Beast is a brilliant movie. Weird title for it, but a great movie, with incredible performances by everyone involved.

It's difficult, as I see why people both like and dislike Gladiator.


A lot of the plot is silly. The villain is cartoonishly evil, with him killing our hero's family for no reason, and later 'not killing' Maximus for convoluted reasons.


That said, it is a very well made movie. The scenes in the arena are gorgeous, and the action scenes were amazing.


I think Traffic was a better movie.

I think Traffic would have been a more deserving winner. Gladiator is entertaining and well made, but I don't think it was the best of that year.

Out of those choices I would have taken Crouching Tiger and then probably Chocolat and likely Traffic over Gladiator.

Your own taste. Watch for yourself and decide. Don't let an awards show that dishes out awards based on how much money that films producers have spent on their campaigns (essentially bribes) tell you what's good.

Which is the very definition of useless.

I go with Gladiator. Having spent 5 years in school studying Latin, the Roman Empire seems like an old home and that's why I liked Gladiator. It seemed over the top to some viewers, but really it was somewhat understated. Had it been more realistic, audiences would have left the theater laughing.

Gladiators were cheap entertainers meant to keep the masses in line. It was less like athleticism and more like professional "wrestling", except that it featured real blood, and sometimes lions, if the sponsor was rich enough. Russell Crowe was probably right as a character, although, again, a bit understated since bombast was rewarded. Shows might even have a battle with chariots, release wild beasts, or they might flood the arena and have a mock sea battle. The size of the games was also understated.

Commodus was actually far more demented than Phoenix' portrayal, did participate in combat with hobbled opponents and arenas did have big, movable sunshades. The big change in history was that Commodus was not killed in the arena, but murdered by a slave in his bathtub, after poison didn't work. Nobody was sorry to see him go.

2022:

What won: CODA. I turned it off after 30 minutes. Thought it was atrocious.
What should have won from the nominees: Drive My Car. Terrific film and unbelievably the first ever Japanese film to be nominated for best picture.
What should have won: Quo Vadis Aida or Titane (if they were eligible that year)

If this movie was intended to be over the top, it was even worse than I thought. How anyone could make an over the top movie and have it be this dull and lifeless, is a special kind of non-talent.


I have no idea what happened to Ridley Scott.

I've seen everything but Nine Queens, and yes, even though I would hardly expect the Academy to put pretty much any of them up for consideration (which is fine because....who cares?), they are all better than Gladiator. Or anything else that was nominated that year. They are all in a completely different stratosphere of film.

Haven't seen Coda, but let's just assume I hate it, and that it didn't deserve to win.


I don't know if the word 'deserved' is what I'd use when looking for who should have got the award, but Licorice Pizza would have got my vote.

Let's be realistic, the Oscars have always been about promoting Hollywood films. Just like Cannes is about promoting Western European films.