Home Forums Movies Best Picture 2000- Can Someone Please Explain Gladiator’s Win?

Best Picture 2000- Can Someone Please Explain Gladiator’s Win?

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
Created
2 years ago
Last Reply
2 years ago
17
replies
759
views
11
users
3
3
2
  • Joe Burns
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 26th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199537

    Sometimes, when I’m bored,  I go over oscar years in my brain, analyzing why winners won.  Going over this year in my head the other day made me wish I was old enough to follow the Oscars back in 2000 because I can’t for the life of me figure out why Gladiator of all films was crowned Best Picture.  It’s an action film that was released in the summer and to me, is one of the oddest Oscar choices for Best Picture, at least on paper (Haven’t watched the film in years. Still, Traffic is hands down the winner that year).  My only explanation was the lack of competition:  Crouching Tiger is a great film, but I doubt the Academy would ever reward a martial arts film with an Oscar win, the nomination was it’s reward  as well as an easy win for Best Foreign Language Film.  Traffic probably came close to winning, but it probably lacked the rooting factor that would have tipped the odds in its favor.  Erin Brokovich was going to be honored with Julia’s Best Actress win and Chocolat suffered inevitable Miramax backlash.  I guess I kinda answered my own question, lol,  but those who  were around back then, please clarify! 

    Reply
    FilmGuy619
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 13th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199539

    Haven’t seen Gladiator, but my biggest question is, ” Where the hell was Almost Famous?”

    ReplyCopy URL
    Joe Burns
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 26th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199540

    Haven’t seen that one in a while either, but I’m sure it would have been nominated if the Academy had 10 films eligible to be nominated then.  I would say Billy Elliot would have been the 6th slot though given it’s Best Director nomination. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Asgaroth
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 1st, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199541

    Epic and grandiose production, roman empire, feel-good, inspiring, lavish, a killer-ending, emotionally effective, and a box office success (back then they liked rewarding movies people actually saw in theaters and which they knew were not going to be forgotten -at least not in the short and mid-run-), and the closest competition were a small movie they knew nobody was going to remember, and a foreign language film that, well executed and everything, it was still a foreign production. There are more reasons to understand the win than not-understanding it….

    ReplyCopy URL
    Hunter Logan
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 17th, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199542

    1. Gladiator is a fantastic film
    2. It was directed by Ridley Scott, who hadn’t really had a flop yet and was pretty beloved at the time (and still is)
    3. It was a pretty weak year for movies, and you already said what made the other films unlikely to win (Chocolat was mediocre, Crouching Tiger was foreign, etc.) 
    4. The Academy decided to view the film in the same vein as Lawrence of Arabia and Ben-Hur and call it a swords and sandals epic rather than a summer blockbuster
    5. A lot of campaigning was done for the film itself, and the fact that Scott didn’t win Best Director kind of proves that it helped

    ReplyCopy URL
    Joe Burns
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 26th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199543

    I forgot about the Academy’s love of epics! That makes a lot more sense! Thanks! 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Tony Ruiz
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 5th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199544

    It’s really a head scratcher for me.  It didn’t win editing, director, or screenplay.  

    ReplyCopy URL
    Asgaroth
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 1st, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199545

    It’s really a head scratcher for me.  It didn’t win editing, director, or screenplay.  

    And that’s why Russell Crowe won best actor; because voters needed a validation for the BP status they wanted to give the movie, since it was going to be the elected one and it couldn’t win the big one without another major one to support that. Personally I think Hanks deserved her 3rd leading actor oscar that year, Crowe deserved to win the following year. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199546

    According to the late Grandma Julia, voters detested the film itself, Cast Away. Not a good sign.

    Did I ever have a good laugh when I read the title of this thread.

    Theories abound, but in the end, nobody knows why, O why, this ‘epic’ with Crowe and his snot won. The snub to Ridley was just, imo…..

    He could win this year for youknowwhat.

    We cant EVER dismiss sentiment….

    ReplyCopy URL
    Teridax
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 12th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199547

    According to the late Grandma Julia, voters detested the film itself, Cast Away. Not a good sign.

    Did I ever have a good laugh when I read the title of this thread.

    Theories abound, but in the end, nobody knows why, O why, this ‘epic’ with Crowe and his snot won. The snub to Ridley was just, imo…..

    He could win this year for youknowwhat.

    We cant EVER dismiss sentiment….

    what about Steve Carell AND Amy Poehler at the Emmys, babypook? Where’s the sentiment there?! 😉

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199548

    [quote=”babypook”]

    According to the late Grandma Julia, voters detested the film itself, Cast Away. Not a good sign.

    Did I ever have a good laugh when I read the title of this thread.

    Theories abound, but in the end, nobody knows why, O why, this ‘epic’ with Crowe and his snot won. The snub to Ridley was just, imo…..

    He could win this year for youknowwhat.

    We cant EVER dismiss sentiment….

    what about Steve Carell AND Amy Poehler at the Emmys, babypook? Where’s the sentiment there?! 😉
    [/quote]

    Well I guess television land is a brutal place….

    ReplyCopy URL
    benbraddock
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199549

    GLADIATOR  won because the academy failed to even
    nominate the 2 best films that year.
    REQUIEM FOR A DREAM
    BILLY ELLIOTT..
    The other 4 nominees all had problems being the winner..

    ReplyCopy URL
    All-Seeing Eye
    Participant
    Joined:
    Mar 8th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199550

    I gave this film a watch and it is truly awful, which is rare for a BP winner. Crash is about the only other winner in the last 15 years that is so actively cringeworthy. So, I don’t know. I understand winning Director, but when a movie wins that, writing and editing, why the fuck does it not win the top award? There is no scenario in which that makes sense.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Joe Burns
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 26th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199551

    I should have told myself this before I started the thread: If Sandra Bullock can win Best Actress at the Oscars for The Blind Side, anything can happen!  

    ReplyCopy URL
    KyleBailey
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 15th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #199552

    It’s also one of the last big box office hits of its year to win Best Picture. That definitely helped 

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
Reply To: Best Picture 2000- Can Someone Please Explain Gladiator’s Win?

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Similar Topics
Jeffrey... - Oct 22, 2017
Movies
darthva... - Oct 21, 2017
Movies