



-
-
December 29, 2016 at 1:47 pm #1201977078This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.December 29, 2016 at 2:05 pm #1201977085
No animated film till 1991. Wouldn’t “Bambi” and “Pinocchio” have made great best picture nominees? “The Little Mermaid” was a better film than almost all of the 1989 nominees.
Which is worse: no animated film being nominated for best picture until 1991 or Cary Grant never winning an acting Oscar?
ReplyCopy URLDecember 29, 2016 at 4:29 pm #1201977140I can think of several animated films that were snubbed that could’ve and should’ve been very viable Best Picture contenders, including Pinocchio, Fantasia, The Jungle Book, The Lion King, Toy Story 1 and 2, WALL-E and Inside Out.
ReplyCopy URLI am semi-retired on GoldDerby. Still predicting but infrequent in the forums. I am sorry for my past behaviour.
December 29, 2016 at 7:31 pm #1201977196No animated film until 1991. Then only two more nominated until 2009 and 2010 thanks to the Best Picture x10 rule, to later be ignored again.
Which is worse: No animated film being nominated for Best Picture until 1991 or Best Animated Feature category existing just since 2001?
ReplyCopy URLDecember 29, 2016 at 8:44 pm #1201977252This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.December 29, 2016 at 9:40 pm #1201977260No animated film being nominated for best picture until the 90s is still worse. Much worse!
What’s worse- no animated film being nominated for best picture until 1991 or no documentary film ever being nominated for best picture?
ReplyCopy URLDecember 29, 2016 at 9:55 pm #1201977267This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.December 29, 2016 at 10:02 pm #1201977271I am going to consider “The Thin Blue Line” not being nominated as just one of the more egregious examples of a doc that should have been nominated for best picture. And almost any life has some good aspects so the doc thing is worse.
What’s worse- no documentary ever being nominated for best picture or no science-fiction film ever winning best picture?
ReplyCopy URLDecember 29, 2016 at 10:16 pm #1201977273This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.December 29, 2016 at 11:00 pm #1201977285This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.December 29, 2016 at 11:58 pm #1201977290This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.December 30, 2016 at 3:56 am #1201977352No science fiction movie ever winning Best Picture.
Which is worse, that or “The Blind Side” actually getting BP nom?
Robin Wright not getting nominated for “Forrest Gump” was a tragedy.
…No.
ReplyCopy URLDecember 30, 2016 at 4:15 am #1201977365Hmm, tough question. I don’t know if I ever gave my BP win to a sci-fi movie and there is still time for that to change in the future so I’ll go with the The Blind Side getting nominated out of nowhere(perfect title). The theme song they used when Bullock won at award shows was catchy though.
Which is worse? That or EL&IC getting nominated in BP?
ReplyCopy URLDecember 30, 2016 at 4:36 am #1201977368“The Blind Side” getting in. At least “EL&IC” had Viola Davis who made the history as one of the few performers to star in 2 Best Picture nominees on the same year.
Which is worse? “The Blind Side” BP nomination or “Thelma & Louise” not getting one?
ReplyCopy URLDecember 30, 2016 at 4:58 am #1201977371Thelma & Louise.
The Blind Side is nowhere near the most insulting BP nomination in history, whereas Thelma & Louise should painfully obviously have been nominated.Which is worse, Thelma & Louise not being nominated for BP or Modern Times not being nominated for BP?
ReplyCopy URLWhy are you reporting this post? (optional):Not now
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.