Should The Oscars Nominate Blockbusters For 'Best Picture'?

The Silence of the Lambs is, apparently, a blockbuster; not only was it nominated, but it won.

No fans shouldn't vote for best picture, unless you want 50 Shades of Grey to be awarded best picture.

I think the Oscars is OK as it is. But I think the Golden Globes should be nominating more blockbuster movies to set it apart from the Oscars and to give good blockbuster movies credible appreciation. There needs to be a more legitimate award than the MTV ones for legitimately good blockbuster movies.

Did it have fans? I wasn't sure.

Perhaps the acting oscars could be more fan-based? I could talk about 1993's acting oscars until I'm blue in the face, but I'll go with the 1977 supporting actors. Did Jason Robards honestly do a better job than Alec Guinness?

50 Shades of Grey was nominated for best Drama at the 2016 MTV Peoples Choice Awards. I'm sure if the people were given the power they would abuse it and nominate **** movies.


I don't know about Jason Robards or Alec Guinness, I don't know much about Movies before the 1980's.


I do feel that Johnny Depp's performance as "Whitey" Bulgar in "Black Mass" should of been nominated for best actor in 2016 over Matt Damon's performance in The Martian and Sam . L Jackson should of been nominated for best actor in 2016 for "The Hateful Eight" over Bryan Cranston's performance in Trumbo. Either Johnny Depp or Sam. L Jackson deserved to win that year. I don't care if the Best Picture is rigged but the acting awards defiantly shouldn't.


Oh yeah and Matt Damon winning the Golden Globe for best Comedy performance was absolutely ********. It was an OK performance but not award winning quality, also The Martian sucked and was not a Comedy and had no business being put in the Comedy section. The Big Short deserved to win best Comedy picture.

Given Hateful Eight's ensemble-cast nature, I would have thought that Jackson was a better fit for supporting actor myself. In light of recent events, Johnny Depp doesn't deserve to win sh*t.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Sam . L Jackson was the major part in all the twists in the Movie which is why I would bump him up to best actor.


What recent events are you talking about? Dog smuggling? Johnny Depp's performance was much, much better than Matt Damon's and Bryan Cranston's he deserved a nomination at least.

It is a little weird how the lead/supporting distinctions shake out sometimes - Jennifer Jason Leigh is in as much of the movie as Jackson is but she still got nominated for supporting instead of lead. There have been a couple of films where the obvious lead character ends up being nominated for support, such as Rooney Mara for Carol or Dev Patel for Lion.

Also, the recent events being when Depp turned out to have physically abused his wife, Amber Heard, which was actually more recent than the dog smuggling incident. Even so, it didn't help that Black Mass as a whole was an extremely generic crime drama and not even in a way that would appeal to the Academy - I can understand Trumbo getting in because the Academy likes Hollywood-based movies and The Martian was up for a bunch of other awards anyway. It seemed from the outset that it was going to go to DiCaprio anyway so the other noms were just there for the hell of it.

Good grief.

I don't believe that Johnny Depp physically assaulted Amber Heard.


I think that has yet to be settled in court.


Black Mass was a true story film though, I enjoyed it for what it was.


Leo should of won the Oscar for The Wolf of Wall Street and should of been nominated for Django Unchained.


Screw Leo anyway, He's a hypocritical douche bag.

I know, right? He used to seem kind of cool but now...no way.

Believe it (it's been settled in court for about US$7m anyway).

Besides, three of last year's Best Actor nominees were in true-story films (four if you want to count The Revenant being loosely based on a true story) so the fact that Depp didn't get in anyway says a lot.

If it were voted by the public, fair enough on 50 Shades of **** winning.

'As part of the divorce settlement, Heard dismissed her request for a continued restraining order against Depp.'

The allegations and restraining order were dropped. Johnny Depp abused no-one.

Yes, he did.

I think in the case of Jennifer Jason Leigh, the studio probably thought she had a better chance at winning if she were to be submitted as supporting instead of lead. Viola Davis was a lead in Fences, but I'm not sure she would have won if she had been submitted as lead, but in the supporting category, she was a dead lock. Timothy Hutton's role in Ordinary People was clearly a lead, but there's no way he could have won submitted as a lead so he was submitted as supporting and he won. On the other hand, Anthony Hopkins only had 18 minutes of screentime in Silence of the Lambs and still won Lead Actor. Sometimes there's no rhyme or reason to it and sometimes not.

If Hollywood can honour a convicted paedophile (Roman Polanski) then they can honour Johnny Depp who allegedly assaulted his ex wife.

I don't think it was generic since it was a true story film so it was what it was it's not like they wrote the plot themselves.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

It doesn't just have to be regarding the plot.

Sure, if they're good, but they aren't usually what the Academy favors, so they don't. From May to September, it's usually fluff.

__________________
Thanks again, Mr Portridge.

I think the Oscars should have a "genre" category run it through committees release a short list(like they do with foreign) for example take this year.

Action (Captain America Civil War)
Adventure (Star Wars Rogue One)
Comedy (Deadpool)
Childrens (Pete's Dragon)
Fantasy (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them)
Horror (Don't Breathe)
Musical (Sing Street)
Period Piece (Silence)
Romance (Loving)
Sci Fy (10 Cloverfield Lane)
Sports (Race)
Thriller (Nice Guys)
Western (Magnificent Seven)

So we end up with say...
Captain America:Civil War
Deadpool
Nice Guys
Silence
Sing Street