Scorsese, Hitchcock, and Kubrick - No Best Director Oscars? A Travesty!

[Nate6]

What in the hell is the Academy thinking? They give a blowhard like Kevin Costner a Best Director Oscar for an OK film (Dances with Wolves) over the incredibly deserving Martin Scorsese for Goodfellas. And they give Carol Reed an Oscar for Oliver! an award over Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, my new favorite film. And Hitchcock has been screwed over so many times it's hard to count (at least Rebecca won Best Picture). If there are three non-winners (and I know Kubrick won Best Visual Effects for 2001, but that's not the subject of the thread) who deserve(d) them more than these folks, I'd love to hear them. So many great films, so little recognition from the very organization that is supposed to celebrate them. They give out these awards based on spur-of-the-moment intuition and, in latter years, campaigning, instead of giving them to films that will go on to be known as classics (Compare Goodfellas to Dances with Wolves and 2001 to Oliver! now). The unfortunate reasoning I have come up with, and people have known it for years, is that the Academy is simply a swing anomaly, they'll go anyway the film companies want it to, and have very little appreciation for film quality (but don't get me wrong, many films and directors that win Oscars are good films, look at Schindler's List and Steven Spielberg, and The Godfather's Francis Ford Coppola). I hold out hope for Scorsese (Gangs of New York looks like a make-up Oscar if I've ever seen one) but for Kubrick and Hitchcock, time has run out. And that is truly a travesty.

Nate.

[BubbaStrangelove]

the academy is just a country club for movie people

i hope the recent diversity helps make it more realistic.

[Cyclonus]

The Oscars are a fucking joke sometimes. It's just a popularity contest that rarely gives the truly innovative directors their just due. I don't know why I even watch it :mad:

[bob]

Scorcese WiLL win before he dies. I guarantee it. Way too much talent for the academy to completely overlook.

Kubrick was always kind of anti-hollywood, so that's what hurt his chances. Also, the man just could not make a mainstream movie(except Shining).

It's with hitchcock where it gets tricky. Contrary to popular belief, Hitch was not that respected in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. He was seen as a commercial filmmaker, and that was it. The only movie that the academy thought was prestigious enough(Vertigo), was a bomb, so it got screwed. Hitch died without getting film's top honor("top honor", yeah right).

[Tom Samborski]

Scorcese derserved the oscar for Best Director for Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. The assholes at the academy decided to be selfish though, and picked Kevin Costner for Best Director. Years from now, I'll bet my left nut that they'll be talking a lot about Goodfellas, and not Dances With Wolves. A disgrace.

[APzombie]

As Tom Cruise said in A Few Good Men; "You don't need a medal to be a soldier of honor"

now just switch the soldier to director, honor to brilliance and medal to oscar and you'll get my drift....

[El Bracamonti]

you guys are absolutely right. the three directors that we're discussing in this thread, are quite possibly the three best directors of all time. the academy however, doesn't or didn't see it that way. most of the time, a goon like ron howard gets the publicity. what a joke! ron howard is pathetic. and all the others like him, will never compete with the power three. Hitchcock, Kubrick, and Scorsese

[SLAW]

It just shows how irrelevant oscars are, so I pretty much agree with everything said on this thread so far.

[Jerk Shapiro]

It's all politics with those Academy Jackasses... There's no doubt in my mind that these 3 directors deserve and Oscar more than anyone in the whole wide world. I couldn't live with myself if I had deprived one of these men from an Academy Award...

[bluntman86]

I'm not suprised at all. Kubrick and Scorsese are great directors, that is why the academy ignored them. The darts just didn't hit their names when they were throwing them blindfolded. This is how they choose the winners.

[Mr. Orange]

Scorsese will win for gangs of new york. It could be the worst movie ever but the academy is like that They will give him a pity oscar. Or he will desrve it most likely and win. Either way is good for me

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Well, if either one is good for you, you would be the perfect candidate to work for the Academy - ignore the actual film, and achievement of the film itself, and give the award based on past films, and any other factor imaginable. Well, as I just said in another thread; unless he deserves it for Gangs of New York, he just simply doesnt deserve it this year. Understand? Ok, good. Lets hope the Academy will look past the fact that they screwed him, and judge accordingly. hah! Yeah,....right.

[Nate6]

You're absolutely right, Dumb-Fokker, if Scorsese doesn't deserve he shouldn't get it, but probably will anyway. The Oscars are for achievement for a given film in a given year, not for a movie made 25 years ago. And even though I secretly want Scorsese to win anyway (as I said in my original post, it would be nice to win even if it is a make-up Oscar, just because he is so great), I know deep down that he won't deserve the win if the work doesn't warrant it. However, I strongly hope that he will deserve it, and I think he just might.

[tbone]

If there is one person that deserves sorry we fucked you in the past it is Scorsese, and no matter what I will be happy to see him win if he does.

[the_sneaker]

The Academy just doesn't appreciate their work. I don't remember who said it, but the Academy is just a country club and those three were the rebels who didn't feel like dressing up nice.

I will always, and I know I'm not alone, I will always have respect for these... geniuses.

!the_sneaker!

[Jason]

I find funny how Scorsese, Kubrick and Hitchcock all worked their asses off to create great films for years but Costner just decide to direct one day and automatically wins an Oscar.

P.S. Usually the moviestars-turned directors always win the Oscar. I don't agree with awarding Costner or Mel Gibson(Braveheart) with an Oscar. However, I do think that it was a wise choice for Eastwood to win the award for Unforgiven. A great film that was.

[blankpage]

Well if Scorsese does win this year, which he should. I hope the Academy doesn't give him out of sympathy, or apology instead of his talent.

[Scarface98.9]

I think there's an actual reason for each of their snubbing. You take Goodfellas as an example. That was a sort've controversial movie for its violence and profanity. So instead of shooting themselves in the foot (no pun intended) by giving the award to a violent movie, give it to the feel good, "safe" movie, Dances With Wolves. Same with Raging Bull/Ordinary People. Or Taxi Driver/Rocky (though Scorsese wasn't nominated). He didn't make Oscar friendly movies, he didn't conform.

With Kubrick, same thing. A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, 2001, Full Metal Jacket, etc. weren't really Oscar movies. They cater to the masses. Pulp Fiction lost to a safe movie, Forrest Gump. Saving Private Ryan lost to a safe movie, Shakespeare in Love, etc. They made their own movies, so I respect them more for that than winning a gold man. If Scorsese really really wanted to win an Oscar, he would've made A Beautiful Mind, or The English Patient

[Negrotigre]

There is no way Scorsese shouldn't have won for Raging Bull or Goodfellas.

[Moviefan1234]

Scorsese should win best director this year. Whether he does or not is up to the academy.

[notchreturns]

I think it's safe to say Scorsese deserves Best Director this year for Gangs of New York. The vision and filmmaking skills he put forth can't, and won't, be touched by anyone this year, or any year for that matter... pure brillance...

[rushmore beauty]

I still cannot believe that Kubrick didn't win for Eyes Wide Shut or A Clockwork Orange.

[batfreak]

About that Scorsese winning and Oscar thing, Edward Norton said, practically the same thing on T.V. a couple of nights ago. That's the first time I have seen an actor publicly say that. He's so cool.

[eraserhead_99]

I agree. These are three of the greatest filmmakers the movie world has seen, yet no oscar. It basically shows that this Oscar fellow's a HACK!!

[blankpage]

Well after watching GONY today, I think it is now official that Scorsese deserves the win more then anything.

Though if what Scarface says is true, which seems pretty right, he might get snubbed again. :( . I'll see to that it doesn't happen.

[tom horn]

howard hawks is another great director that never won an oscar
i don't believe orson welles won an oscar either

[Negrotigre]

Scorsese shouldn't win this year, not after that Gangs of New York Movie. That movie was not very good at all, substandard for him.

El Negro

[AxeDamn]

What the hell was wrong with Dances With Wolves?

I believe I read somewhere that it was one of the most "visually stunning and emotionally moving films of all time", and I agree. I think it easily deserved to win the Oscar for best director, and say give full credit to Costner for tackling such an epic, insted of cutting his directorial teech with a shitty teen comedy.

With respect to Kubrick, Scorseese and Hitchcock, they ARE getting their due, Oscar or no OScar. Thirty years from now, they'll still be remembered, while many won't. The fact that Hitchcock and Kubrick ("just two guys who never got an oscar for best director and are now dead") are STILL talked about constantly and consistently, proves that they are every bit as respected as they deserve by anyone who really cares about films.

Ignore me, by the way. I don't like Kubrick, that's a matter of taste. On the other hand, anyone who has so many fans and positive critics yet has no Oscar clearly is a misunderstood genius. However, Ed Wood never got an Oscar, so all's fair.

Besides, nobody really cares who wins the Oscars. We all know what we like, and we watch it.

[Michael_myers]

The Oscars always have been like this:

This is purely example:

Best picture:
Lord of the Rings

Best actor:
Tobey Maguire- Spider-man

Best actress:
Kirsten Dunst- Spider-man

Best supporting actor:
Tom Felton- Harry Potter

Best supporting actress:
Liv Tyler- Lord of the Rings

Best director:
Chris Columbus- Harry Potter

Best effects:
Spider-Man

Best animated film:
Lilo and Stitch

that's what it's like sometimkes. What ever's hip and trendy, but not that good, that's what wins.

[Nate6]

After seeing Gangs of New York, I know that if Scorsese wins this year it won't totally be a make-up Oscar. The film is amazing, he did the best job of any director this year. He actually deserves to win it. Let's all hope he does...

[MickeyKnox]

Originally posted by Nate6
What in the hell is the Academy thinking? They give a blowhard like Kevin Costner a Best Director Oscar for an OK film (Dances with Wolves) over the incredibly deserving Martin Scorsese for Goodfellas. And they give Carol Reed an Oscar for Oliver! an award over Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, my new favorite film. And Hitchcock has been screwed over so many times it's hard to count (at least Rebecca won Best Picture). If there are three non-winners (and I know Kubrick won Best Visual Effects for 2001, but that's not the subject of the thread) who deserve(d) them more than these folks, I'd love to hear them. So many great films, so little recognition from the very organization that is supposed to celebrate them. They give out these awards based on spur-of-the-moment intuition and, in latter years, campaigning, instead of giving them to films that will go on to be known as classics (Compare Goodfellas to Dances with Wolves and 2001 to Oliver! now). The unfortunate reasoning I have come up with, and people have known it for years, is that the Academy is simply a swing anomaly, they'll go anyway the film companies want it to, and have very little appreciation for film quality (but don't get me wrong, many films and directors that win Oscars are good films, look at Schindler's List and Steven Spielberg, and The Godfather's Francis Ford Coppola). I hold out hope for Scorsese (Gangs of New York looks like a make-up Oscar if I've ever seen one) but for Kubrick and Hitchcock, time has run out. And that is truly a travesty.

Nate.
I agree with you all the way on this, because it is a travesty to give Kevin Costner the Oscar instead of a great director like Martin Scorcese and giving the Best Director award to Oliver instead of giving it to Kubrick THAT IS PURIFIED BULLSHIT!!!!!

[Grim H.]

Bullshit, indeed, MickeyKnox.
Ron Howard can go to hell!
Sorry, but I didn't think A Beautiful Mind was as good as Lord of the Rings.

Anyway, back to the topic.

Stanley Kubrick is my favorite director, and for that it sucks that he never one best director.

Same goes for Alfred Hitchcock, who only recieved one honorary Oscar. Crock of Shit!

Why can't David Fincher win an Oscar?!