( +1 hidden )
December 26, 2015 at 11:39 pm #204050
About two years ago, there was a topic that asked what were some of the most exciting Oscar Seasons (http://www.goldderby.com/forum/topics/view/7340). Well, this might be kind of a depressing topic, lol, but I’m wondering if there are any Oscar seasons that you recall as being very dull and unexciting and looked forward to them being over? Perhaps it was a painful season such as when The King’s Speech beat The Social Network ? Or just an overall mediocre and unexciting one? Anyway, I’d like to know your thoughts! Also, please don’t be tempted and say all, lol, even though there may be be some truth in it :).
For me, the 82nd Oscar season was an extremeley dull one. None of the categories had any suspense and Bullock’s inevitable Oscar win frustrated and embittered me at the time. I also thought the ceremony was terrible- Overlong and the way the presented the lead acting awards was horrible. Seriously, we had to sit through the whole five previous nominees thing and then the previous winner has to come out and say their names over again?December 27, 2015 at 12:24 am #204052
A Perhaps it was a painful season such as when The Social Network beat The King’s Speech?
You mean The King’s Speech beating Social Network, right? Lol
Yeah Bullock’s win still stings.
Many Oscar seasons start out exciting with critics deeming it “the most unpredictable year ever”- I hear it repeatedly, especially from Sasha at Awards Daily- bless her soul. Then as the precursors start unveiling their picks and all the televised awards show off, it’s usually not very exciting. At least, ever since they started doing the Oscars earlier and not in the Spring when there was more room for upsets ala Denzel Washington/The Pianist/Pollock, etc
Follow Me on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/jasonmovieguy
13K Subscribers, 29 Million Views
FYC: Derbyite of the Year, 2017December 27, 2015 at 1:38 am #204053
It’s fixed now 🙂
Oh, there are still some suspenseful races- 2006 had some sense of an open field in regards to Best Picture and 2007 also had some suspense in regards to Best Supporting Actress and to a lesser extent, Best Actress. 2012 was exciting too in regards ro Supporting Actor and Best Director. However, shocking upsets don’t happen so frequently anymore true. And those three years, 2000, 2001, and 2002 all had very surprising wins that made for an interesting Oscar ceremony.
I wouldn’t call Washington’s win an upset though- Many were predicting him to triumph over Crowe once his bad boy antics started coming into play. Berry’s win was less predicted, but there were pundits who predicted her none the less. I’d say Broadbent’s win was a surprise given that most expected Mckellen to triumph.December 27, 2015 at 7:40 am #204054
Well there are some years when you can pretend things are surprising like Sean Penn vs Mickey Rourke, Kate Winslet being only nominated for The Reader leaving Sup Actress wide open, Meryl vs Viola and will Meryl get a 3rd, but that’s really a category or two in a sea of already locked categories…
I would say this year is shaping up to be a good one with so many question marks and the frauds not allowing people to predict with confidence. I hate frauds, but they are making it interesting and the lack of strong and overwhelming support for the majority of films is also working out fine for us.
2010. Once The King’s Speech took over it was done. Every important category had a locked winner weeks before.
2009. Not much to say except the will she or won’t she with Bigelow but her main competition was James Cameron with a possible second Oscar for Avatar of all things, we knew it wans’t happening. Not really that exciting.
2007. Once things cleared up at least I knew Tilda Swinton was winning (don’t know about the rest), nothing else looked unpredictable.
2003. Not a surprise in sight.December 27, 2015 at 8:04 am #204055
2003 felt very . . . inevitable. It didn’t negate the overall worthiness at the time, but it wasn’t the best year for those who wanted to see other quality films get their due or experience eventful races. That’s the beauty and downfall of sweep years.December 27, 2015 at 8:07 am #204056
2003 and 2008 were about the most boring years I can recall. I don’t think in any of the major categories I had any real doubts.December 27, 2015 at 8:39 am #204057
2008 was also boring because the nominees in most categories were markedly less exciting than the previous year, at least in general.
2013 looked all unpredictable until about two weeks into the ceremony, when things started to clear up. When we got to the ceremony, almost all the obvious frontrunners won. There was some suspense in Original Screenplay, but no one was surprised when Her deservedly won. Still, it was a great year in terms of quality of nominees.December 27, 2015 at 8:45 am #204058
2003December 27, 2015 at 9:31 am #204059
In the years I have been following the awards race (the past 5 pretty much), last year probably was the one. We knew who pretty much all the winners were going to be (only the foolish didn’t) and when the tides started to turn from Boyhood to Birdman that was the nail in the coffin to the season when I just wanted it over with.December 27, 2015 at 11:11 am #204061
The year that Twelve Years a Slave and Gravity won everything and no surprises were anywhere.December 27, 2015 at 11:21 am #204062
I can’t believe no one has said 2011.
The only big category that was up in the air was best leading actress (Streep or Davis). And it was the most GODAWFUL year for movies. The only BP nominees I liked were The Artist and Midnight in Paris. The Help and Moneyball were fine. The rest were quite bad, imo. There is no argument in the world that will be able to convince me that Hugo and/or The Descendants were good. Plus, does anyone even remember who was nominated for Best Supporting Actor that year?December 27, 2015 at 11:24 am #204063
2009 was a little predictable, but the boards were on FIRE that year. Bullock vs. Streep was as passionate as Goldderby has ever gotten.December 27, 2015 at 11:36 am #204064
2009. Horrendous. Avatar vs The Hurt Locker with sad selection of Bullock, easy pick with Bridges and just a plain boring showDecember 27, 2015 at 1:24 pm #204065
There have been no ‘boring’ years for me. Eye-ball rolling ones, and Oforcryingoutloud ones for sure. But not boring. Each Oscar year, has something ‘special’ to share with us….
I happen to be a fan of Samuel Butler’s Erewhon so it makes very much sense….December 27, 2015 at 2:23 pm #204066
2009 was a little predictable, but the boards were on FIRE that year. Bullock vs. Streep was as passionate as Goldderby has ever gotten.
What about Carey Mulligan? She got robbed for her stellar breakout performance in An Education IMO. Bullock was mediocre, and Meryl Streep was Meryl Streep serviceably imitating Julia Child.