Oppenheimer wins 7 Oscars (Best Picture) (film & awards)

[Red Velvet]

This is actually the strongest set of nominees in years. Oscars only nominate small movies people don’t care about in the last years and which were also not good enough or somewhat boring.

2013 with Gravity; 2016 with La La Land vs Moonlight vs Manchester and 2019 with Parasite (which wasn’t seen by many in US but it was an exceptionally GREAT movie) are the ones that stand out to me. All the other years in last ten tears were too mediocre for me to even remember tbh.

This year there’s a variety that’s healthy and also quite good and exciting. You have as Best Picture nominees:

- Barbie and Oppenheimer, as the big popular blockbusters with rave reviews that everyone watched and loved, both being the ~movie events~ of the year as well.

- Killers of the Flower Moon, as big famous and known Director Auteurish project, with Scorsese being the most recognized Director of the bunch

- The Holdovers, as the fully Original and Fictional adult movie that is well-made, immersive and emotional but also quite Fun, film of the bunch.

- Poor Things, as the well-received quirky and somewhat weird concept film that people find unusual but enjoy a lot and feel like adds personality to the nomination list.

- Anatomy of a Fall and Zone of Interest, as the highly raved foreign films (non-US made) that were loved after premiering in Cannes.

- Past Lives, as the well received Asian-American film following the EEAAO Best Picture last year, guaranteeing not all films are about White people.

- American Fiction, as the well received Afro-American film guaranteeing not all films nominated are about White or Asian people.

- Maestro, as the traditional boring historical biopic of an American figure or celeb guaranteeing that we also have at least one nominee that is basic for the people who like that kind of stuff.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

2019 with Parasite (which wasn’t seen by many in US but it was an exceptionally GREAT movie) are the ones that stand out to me.

This is just blind anti-American bias if you honestly think that. It was the third biggest US Best Picture winner of the 2010s (after The King's Speech and Argo - certainly ahead of Green Book when you account for streaming), and given how poorly the reputation of the other two has aged since their victories, it is probably the most discussed film outside of EEAAO even years five after its release.

[Landslide Lyndon]

"Parasite" was a pretty good movie up until the point it decided to become a splatter.
"Snowpiercer" was much better both as a film in general and as an anti-capitalist satire.

[Red Velvet]

2019 with Parasite (which wasn’t seen by many in US but it was an exceptionally GREAT movie) are the ones that stand out to me.

This is just blind anti-American bias if you honestly think that. It was the third biggest US Best Picture winner of the 2010s (after The King's Speech and Argo - certainly ahead of Green Book when you account for streaming), and given how poorly the reputation of the other two has aged since their victories, it is probably the most discussed film outside of EEAAO even years five after its release.

What? Absolutely not. EEAAO, Shape of Water and even freaking 12 Years a Slave all had bigger box office in US than Parasite as well.

Parasite did great box office in US for a foreign film but it wasn’t even more watched  like it would have if it was in English, because of the natural limitations of being a foreign film.

Only reason so many BP winners have even lower box office than Parasite goes back to my original point: Many of the films the Academy embraced last years were films that average people didn’t care about, besides not being that great or memorable either.

Parasite is the only BP winner from last years that I consider truly a masterpiece, so it should have been much more seen because it isn’t a small film or a slow watch either.

Moonlight was also pretty great but naturally a more intimate smaller film that wouldn’t get much of an audience.

[Landslide Lyndon]

What? Absolutely not. EEAAO, Shape of Water and even freaking 12 Years a Slave all had bigger box office in US than Parasite as well.

Parasite did great box office in US for a foreign film but it wasn’t even more watched  like it would have if it was in English, because of the natural limitations of being a foreign film.

Only reason so many BP winners have even lower box office than Parasite goes back to my original point: Many of the films the Academy embraced last years were films that average people didn’t care about, besides not being that great or memorable either.

Parasite is the only BP winner from last years that I consider truly a masterpiece, so it should have been much more seen because it isn’t a small film or a slow watch either.

Moonlight was also pretty great but naturally a more intimate smaller film that wouldn’t get much of an audience.

ΕΕΑΑΟ was a bone fide blockbuster compared to the Oscar winners of 2010s. Anyway, I couldn't have said it better than James Berardinelli did four years ago, after the "Parasite" win.

I can’t argue with the statement that Parasite deserved Best Picture. I would have said the same about 1917, The Irishman, Once Upon a Time, or Joker. But the “Best Picture” category has never been fully about merit. It’s about celebrating cinema and, on that level, Parasite falls short. Why? Because hardly anyone has seen it. For 2019, it ended up at #70 on the box office chart with a domestic gross of $35M.

To be fair, that’s an incredible haul for a subtitled movie and indicates it had some penetration into multiplexes. Nevertheless, Joe Mainstream or Jane Mainstream probably didn’t see it. And that’s where the Oscars’ continuing problem lies.

Think back to the ‘90s and titles like Dances with Wolves, The Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, Schindler’s List, Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Titanic. Those were excellent movies that everyone saw. They were worthy of the Best Picture designation.
In the 2010s, however, there have been The King’s Speech, The Artist, Birdman, Spotlight, Moonlight, The Shape of Water, and now Parasite. It’s not a matter of quality, it’s a matter of perception. And the perception is that the Oscars have become elitist, losing touch with “regular” movie-goers.

[Red Velvet]

It’s not that Oscars became elitist though, Hollywood simply stopped making big or medium sized “prestige” original films like they used to because they don’t deliver money. Everything is a superhero franchise or another big IP brand that doesn’t have the necessary quality to be nominated.

That’s why the Oscars turned to indies more recently or rely more on “safe” auteurs and also are more open towards foreign films, where they can find that type of adult movie that is original and good more easily.

This year they were just lucky that Barbenheimer was such a critics + box office phenomenon, combining the best of both worlds.

If you look at the other nominees, it’s a strong list in terms of quality but reflects the past decade trends I’ve mentioned. Two non-US foreign films that were acclaimed in Cannes, exactly like Parasite was. One big established auteur film that should always be safe, this year happens to be Scorsese. One bland biopic people don’t care for. Two smaller low-stakes comedy/dramas that bring more diversity to the list and prevent it from being an all-white line up. One quirky film with a crazy premise and vision, also made by a younger auteur that represents ~the future~.

And then there’s “The Holdovers”, which is the film from the line up that probably comes the closest to matching the vibe of traditional old-school Oscar nominees from the past. But which will also not be big at the box office because audiences are infantilized these days and don’t go to cinemas to watch these movies anymore.

Compare The Holdovers box office with the one Oscar nominated Sideways (from same director) got:

- The Holdovers (2023) - $18 Million
- Sideways (2004) - $71 Million

And that’s because The Holdovers is a pretty good movie, on the same level or even better than Sideways. Both original adult movies that cater to the same kind of audience.

Like, movies like Sideways weren’t giant blockbusters or anything but they were pretty well-seen and even more seen than the “big audience successes” from Oscar these days such as EEAAO, which made $77 Million - same box office as Sideways but TWENTY years later, with all the accumulated inflation that happened that is nothing compared in terms of tickets bought.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

2019 with Parasite (which wasn’t seen by many in US but it was an exceptionally GREAT movie) are the ones that stand out to me.

This is just blind anti-American bias if you honestly think that. It was the third biggest US Best Picture winner of the 2010s (after The King's Speech and Argo - certainly ahead of Green Book when you account for streaming), and given how poorly the reputation of the other two has aged since their victories, it is probably the most discussed film outside of EEAAO even years five after its release.

What? Absolutely not. EEAAO, Shape of Water and even freaking 12 Years a Slave all had bigger box office in US than Parasite as well.

Parasite did great box office in US for a foreign film but it wasn’t even more watched  like it would have if it was in English, because of the natural limitations of being a foreign film.

Only reason so many BP winners have even lower box office than Parasite goes back to my original point: Many of the films the Academy embraced last years were films that average people didn’t care about, besides not being that great or memorable either.

Parasite is the only BP winner from last years that I consider truly a masterpiece, so it should have been much more seen because it isn’t a small film or a slow watch either.

Moonlight was also pretty great but naturally a more intimate smaller film that wouldn’t get much of an audience.

Parasite's biggest box office week was 14 February 2020. It experienced an unnatural decline in box office revenue since the whole country closed down about 3 weeks later. It was immediately made available for streaming in April, and basically everyone watched it via streaming services due to theatres being closed. It would have passed both of these films (even without its clearly superior streaming numbers in an era defined by streaming) - although certainly not ahead of EEAAO, which is not part of the 2010s.

Not to mention Shape of Water got a 5 million bump post-win.


I sadly can't argue that The Holdovers was more viewed than Sideways  as it only had a three week theatre run and was released on Peacock, a service which only diehard Notre Dame fans typically subscribe to.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It’s not that Oscars became elitist though, Hollywood simply stopped making big or medium sized “prestige” original films like they used to because they don’t deliver money. Everything is a superhero franchise or another big IP brand that doesn’t have the necessary quality to be nominated.

That’s why the Oscars turned to indies more recently or rely more on “safe” auteurs and also are more open towards foreign films, where they can find that type of adult movie that is original and good more easily.

I don't buy that. Reading all these anonymous Academy members interviews every year I'm pretty sure that if "Titanic" or "Lord of the Rings" came out during the 2010s they wouldn't even have been nominated.

We can debate the reasons for that but I think that the "Dark Knight" snub in 2009 was an inflection point that signalled a turn away from big budget/event movies and towards more obscure, artsy stuff.   

[John Dule]

The problem with the Oscars isn't elitism, it's that they routinely go for the "safe," inoffensive, crowd-pleasing picks. Parasite, American Beauty, and Birdman are the rare recent exceptions when the Academy honored truly subversive, innovative art-- but aside from that, their pattern from the 90s through to today has been pretty consistent. It's either conventional crowd-pleasing period pieces like Titanic or The King's Speech; films with anodyne racial messages like 12 Years a Slave, Green Book, Dances With Wolves, or Moonlight; or just sickeningly feel-good tripe like Forrest Gump.

I'm long past the point of caring about what wins Best Picture, but if we're going to have these types of awards, they should honor boundary-pushing films that innovate with the medium and challenge audiences. The idea that this should be a coronation ceremony for whatever superhero movie the largest number of drooling neckbeards watched that year renders it completely pointless.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I've once wrote something about the last winners so given it seems like were talking that

2010: The King's Speech
Many people consider this a steal, i can see why because it won over the much more popular Inception and Black Swan but these two are indeed not ones you would also have expected an Academy win. I'm sort of okay with this win but it should have been Black Swan.

2011: The Artist
Not a great year for the Academys, so a kind of niche film that won. I haven't seen this one, but it's not really a must to see i believe. A lot of films nominated are underwhelming.

2012: Argo
Yeah this one shouldn't have won either. I think the crowdpleaser Life of Pi or Django Unchained would have been better picks, but almost everything else nominated was a better pick.

2013: 12 Years a Slave
Also sort of overrated i feel. Captain Phillips, Dallas Buyers Club, Her, Gravity, Nebraska and the Wolf of Wall Street all would have been better picks, think the latter shouldve won but usually they don't give the win to that kind of films anymore. If the Academy wanted to award a more laidback intimate film than Nebraska shouldve won.

2014: Birdman
Not the film i would've given the award too i'm kind of okay with this. Style-over-substance though since broadway kind of theme isn't really going to have wide appeal. The best film was Whiplash imo but i also can see why the academy didn't went for that one. Boyhood was also nominated and I consider the same tier as Birdman. Think this one was close if we were flies behind the voting process.

2015: Spotlight
Yea LOL. Literally every other film nominated here would have been a better pick, and i would have been fine with The Revenant. (and no i'm not a DiCaprio stan)

2016: Moonlight
Lots of good contendors, wouldn't have given it to this one but to Manchester by the Sea but still glad it won over La La Land. Has more depth than one would think.

2017: The Shape of Water
Some people consider this a lackluster winner or a steal, i hard diagree here. It was the best film nominated imo.

2018: Green Book
Not a great year for oscars when i check nominated. Most people consider this oscar bait (which is yes to some extent true). It's a bit sentimental. But i still also agree with the pick here, though i would've been fine with The Favourite as well. Everything else is a bit underwhelming and some films didn't deserve the nomination (Vice kuch). Didn't vibe with Roma too much but it would've been allright for me, would have been a more cinematic and daring winner than the easier Green Book.

2019: Parasite
Great year, great winner, right pick as well, not much to say. Haven't seen Little Women and The Irishman but i liked every nominated here that i watched (1917, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Ford v Ferrari, Jojo Rabbit, Joker, Marriage Story), no exceptions, sometimes with the expectation i wouldve not liked a certain film but every film is solid at the very least in its own ways. One of the years that has the reputation for having been great for cinema in general, and it shows at the academy awards.

2020 Nomadland
Yeah no. Seems like a bad year too because of the pandemic but haven't seen much. The Father would for sure have been a better pick.

2021 CODA
Haven't seen much and neither the winner, can't really judge. But this was a surprising winner and a relative safe pick. I think the more cinephile film in contention was The Power of the Dog but i haven't seen that one.

2022 EEAAO
Good pick but Banshees of Inisherin wouldve also been okay to win. Both were the 2 best nominees. But Aftersun was overlooked strongly in almost every category.
seen quite a bit of nominees from the 2010s but a bit behind schedule for 2020s, esp. 2020 and 2021.
but 2020 is a weird year for film
for some understandable reasons
though i've actually seen 3 of the 8 nominees by now

[Landslide Lyndon]

2010: The King's Speech
Many people consider this a steal, i can see why because it won over the much more popular Inception and Black Swan but these two are indeed not ones you would also have expected an Academy win. I'm sort of okay with this win but it should have been Black Swan.

"The Social Network" was the odds-on favourite that year, and should have won.

2018: Green Book
Not a great year for oscars when i check nominated. Most people consider this oscar bait (which is yes to some extent true). It's a bit sentimental. But i still also agree with the pick here, though i would've been fine with The Favourite as well. Everything else is a bit underwhelming and some films didn't deserve the nomination (Vice kuch). Didn't vibe with Roma too much but it would've been allright for me, would have been a more cinematic and daring winner than the easier Green Book.

If the Academy members wanted to send a message about racism then they should have voted "Black Klansman". But I guess they just wanted to pat themselves on the back and that's why they preferred a milquetoast film featuring another white saviour.

2019: Parasite
Great year, great winner, right pick as well, not much to say. Haven't seen Little Women and The Irishman but i liked every nominated here that i watched (1917, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Ford v Ferrari, Jojo Rabbit, Joker, Marriage Story), no exceptions, sometimes with the expectation i wouldve not liked a certain film but every film is solid at the very least in its own ways. One of the years that has the reputation for having been great for cinema in general, and it shows at the academy awards.

It's not even a question, "Irishman" should have won. No other movie came close.

[buritobr]

I though that since 10 films are noms for Best Picture, but only 5 are noms for Best Director, it's very hard for a film which isn't nom for Director to win the best for Picture. But I checked now in Wikipedia and I saw that it happened 3 times: Argo (2013), Green Book (2019), CODA (2022).
However, I still believe that the Best Picture winner of 2024 will be one which was nom for Best Director too.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I though that since 10 films are noms for Best Picture, but only 5 are noms for Best Director, it's very hard for a film which isn't nom for Director to win the best for Picture. But I checked now in Wikipedia and I saw that it happened 3 times: Argo (2013), Green Book (2019), CODA (2022).
However, I still believe that the Best Picture winner of 2024 will be one which was nom for Best Director too.

CODA had just three nominations overall which is a record low for a Best Picture since the early 1930s.

[John Dule]

I though that since 10 films are noms for Best Picture, but only 5 are noms for Best Director, it's very hard for a film which isn't nom for Director to win the best for Picture. But I checked now in Wikipedia and I saw that it happened 3 times: Argo (2013), Green Book (2019), CODA (2022).
However, I still believe that the Best Picture winner of 2024 will be one which was nom for Best Director too.

It's pretty clearly going to be Nolan/Oppenheimer. The Academy feels that it's "his turn," much like the DNC in 2016.

[buritobr]

The problem with the Oscars isn't elitism, it's that they routinely go for the "safe," inoffensive, crowd-pleasing picks. Parasite, American Beauty, and Birdman are the rare recent exceptions when the Academy honored truly subversive, innovative art-- but aside from that, their pattern from the 90s through to today has been pretty consistent. It's either conventional crowd-pleasing period pieces like Titanic or The King's Speech; films with anodyne racial messages like 12 Years a Slave, Green Book, Dances With Wolves, or Moonlight; or just sickeningly feel-good tripe like Forrest Gump.

I'm long past the point of caring about what wins Best Picture, but if we're going to have these types of awards, they should honor boundary-pushing films that innovate with the medium and challenge audiences. The idea that this should be a coronation ceremony for whatever superhero movie the largest number of drooling neckbeards watched that year renders it completely pointless.

They go for the "safe," inoffensive, crowd-pleasing picks, but the awards are not going to big blockbusters anymore, like they used to between 1996 and 2004. After Braveheart, Titanic, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings 3, this kind of picture is not winning anymore.

[John Dule]

The problem with the Oscars isn't elitism, it's that they routinely go for the "safe," inoffensive, crowd-pleasing picks. Parasite, American Beauty, and Birdman are the rare recent exceptions when the Academy honored truly subversive, innovative art-- but aside from that, their pattern from the 90s through to today has been pretty consistent. It's either conventional crowd-pleasing period pieces like Titanic or The King's Speech; films with anodyne racial messages like 12 Years a Slave, Green Book, Dances With Wolves, or Moonlight; or just sickeningly feel-good tripe like Forrest Gump.

I'm long past the point of caring about what wins Best Picture, but if we're going to have these types of awards, they should honor boundary-pushing films that innovate with the medium and challenge audiences. The idea that this should be a coronation ceremony for whatever superhero movie the largest number of drooling neckbeards watched that year renders it completely pointless.

They go for the "safe," inoffensive, crowd-pleasing picks, but the awards are not going to big blockbusters anymore, like they used to between 1996 and 2004. After Braveheart, Titanic, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings 3, this kind of picture is not winning anymore.

Because they don't exist anymore.

[nicholas.slaydon]

The problem with the Oscars isn't elitism, it's that they routinely go for the "safe," inoffensive, crowd-pleasing picks. Parasite, American Beauty, and Birdman are the rare recent exceptions when the Academy honored truly subversive, innovative art-- but aside from that, their pattern from the 90s through to today has been pretty consistent. It's either conventional crowd-pleasing period pieces like Titanic or The King's Speech; films with anodyne racial messages like 12 Years a Slave, Green Book, Dances With Wolves, or Moonlight; or just sickeningly feel-good tripe like Forrest Gump.

I'm long past the point of caring about what wins Best Picture, but if we're going to have these types of awards, they should honor boundary-pushing films that innovate with the medium and challenge audiences. The idea that this should be a coronation ceremony for whatever superhero movie the largest number of drooling neckbeards watched that year renders it completely pointless.

They go for the "safe," inoffensive, crowd-pleasing picks, but the awards are not going to big blockbusters anymore, like they used to between 1996 and 2004. After Braveheart, Titanic, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings 3, this kind of picture is not winning anymore.

You say that as if Oppenheimer isn't the overwhelming favorite to win Best Picture this year.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The problem with the Oscars isn't elitism, it's that they routinely go for the "safe," inoffensive, crowd-pleasing picks. Parasite, American Beauty, and Birdman are the rare recent exceptions when the Academy honored truly subversive, innovative art-- but aside from that, their pattern from the 90s through to today has been pretty consistent. It's either conventional crowd-pleasing period pieces like Titanic or The King's Speech; films with anodyne racial messages like 12 Years a Slave, Green Book, Dances With Wolves, or Moonlight; or just sickeningly feel-good tripe like Forrest Gump.

I'm long past the point of caring about what wins Best Picture, but if we're going to have these types of awards, they should honor boundary-pushing films that innovate with the medium and challenge audiences. The idea that this should be a coronation ceremony for whatever superhero movie the largest number of drooling neckbeards watched that year renders it completely pointless.

They go for the "safe," inoffensive, crowd-pleasing picks, but the awards are not going to big blockbusters anymore, like they used to between 1996 and 2004. After Braveheart, Titanic, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings 3, this kind of picture is not winning anymore.

You say that as if Oppenheimer isn't the overwhelming favorite to win Best Picture this year.

Oppenheimer will be the first blockbuster to win since Return of the King, 20 years ago.
Two years ago CODA became the lowest grossing Oscar winner ever with just 1 million.

[buritobr]

Oppenheimer is not targeted to so broad audiences like Braveheart, Titanic, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings 3

[DaleCooper]

Oppenheimer is not targeted to so broad audiences like Braveheart, Titanic, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings 3

Oppenheimer is way more accessible than Lord of the Rings was. Even my parents went to go see Oppenheimer.

[Red Velvet]

Yeah looking back at this list of winners up until 2010, the only winners I liked were Moonlight; Argo and obviously Parasite.

All others were meh for me or even stuff I disliked even though there were good movies running against them. Gravity for instance, is one of my favorite films.

Love, absolute masterpiece:
- Parasite

Like, pretty strong movies:
- Moonlight
- Argo

Okay, forgettable but enjoyable fluff:
- Shape of Water
- The Artist

Respect because it’s well made but Meeh it’s somewhat boring:
- 12 Years a Slave
- Nomadland

Dislike, forgettable and not enjoyable:
- The King’s Speech
- Spotlight

Hate, these make me angry watching:
- CODA
- Green Book
- EEAAO
- Birdman

[DaleCooper]

I don't want to be too kind to the Oscars, because there are a ton of problems and I really can't stand them most of the time, but I do think they deserve quite a bit of credit for never jumping on the superhero bandwagon. Obviously everyone is pretending to have always hated Marvel now, but for practically the entire 2010s they were trying to force everyone to acknowledge stuff like Avengers 2 as cinema. Endgame is the most powerful film ever, Black Panther is the most bold and important movie ever made, etc. Outside of a few nominations here and there, the Oscars resisted that. I would much rather nonsense like Coda and Green Book win than Marvel. For all their faults, they deserve the award more than something like Infinity War does.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Ryan Gosling getting an acting nomination and not the woman who literally plays Barbie or the woman who made the damn film (for Best Director) goes completely against the overall subtext of that movie. What an Academy moment.

[Progressive Pessimist]

About what I expected. 'Oppenheimer' will probably win everything. It made the most money and the most people saw it. Cillian Murphy getting best actor woud be earned though. If this ceremony is about "turns" he has been in the game long enough.

 I'm a little surprised at 'Maestro' getting so many nominations. I still think an Oscar is going yo elude Bradley Cooper once again though.

Ryan Gosling getting an acting nomination and not the woman who literally plays Barbie or the woman who made the damn film (for Best Director) goes completely against the overall subtext of that movie. What an Academy moment.

I agree, even if they didn't win those should have been layups.

[Red Velvet]

Ryan Gosling getting an acting nomination and not the woman who literally plays Barbie or the woman who made the damn film (for Best Director) goes completely against the overall subtext of that movie. What an Academy moment.

Ryan Gosling steals the show in terms of acting in Barbie though. He’s undeniably the MVP of that movie, so much that he could even WIN the Oscar if RDJ wasn’t the favorite for Oppenheimer.

America Ferrera nomination in Supporting Actress for Barbie is the funny one because she’s basically nominated for that one monologue scene only lol

Margot Robbie was fine but kinda overshadowed by Gosling. Didn’t help that the Main Barbie character basically had no personality and strong traits that defined her, she’s supposed to just be the average Barbie so that any women can identify with the message. Things happen to her, she’s mostly a reactive character. Ken as a character is way more fleshed out even if he’s the antagonist.

Now, the Greta Gerwig snub in Director is definitely unfair as it’s the main reason why movie was so good, but the category just happened to be too strong this year. Nolan is the future winner; Scorsese is Scorsese; Lanthimos movie is supposedly the main threat to Oppenheimer and the other two are the foreign ”High-Art” Prestige nominations that usually get at least one spot in Best Director.

This year “Zone of Interest” and “Anatomy of a Fall” - both raved Cannes films - over performed and took both Greta Gerwig and Alexander Payne out of Best Director instead of just one as expected.

I wonder if sympathy for Gerwig snub in Director can generate goodwill for her to Win Adapted Screenplay over Oppenheimer.