Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > General Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-10-2007, 08:07 PM
How Did Chicago Beat Gangs of New York?

I've been scratching my head over this ever since Chicago won. I would have been okay with it if The Two Towers had won, but Chicago? That movie was a lump of shit.

How the fuck did Chicago win?

Last edited by Bourne101; 05-11-2013 at 04:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-10-2007, 08:22 PM
Well, I personally would have preferred The Pianist to win, but yeah, GONY was better than Chicago and it was totally snubbed in all of its 10 categories. Okay, if someone says Chicago is a better movie, I'd have to respect their opinion, but how THE HELL did Chicago beat it in production design? I know that's kind of a silly category to get so riled up over, but GONY's production design was remarkable, and with all the revolutions in digital technology we have now, we will probably NEVER see something like it again. Chicago's production design wasn't even worthy of a nomination, IMO.


But anyway, here's basically why Chicago won:


1. It made a lot of money while GONY bombed, the simple fact is that The Academy leans towards movies that make more money. Take a look at any Oscar winner other than Crash: it probably made a lot of money.

2. During this Oscar season, it was pretty clear that the U.S. was going to war with Iraq...and by the time the Oscars were telecast I think the war had just started. Even within a week or two.

So, judging by these politics brought into play, the Academy wanted to recognize a "feel good" movie, instead of something darker and more depressing than The Pianist or GONY.

3. The Academy hadn't awarded a musical in over 30 years (the last musical to win being '68's Oliver!), and with Moulin Rouge coming so close to breaking that streak the previous year, I think that in general they just finally wanted to award a musical, to show that the genre is not dead.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-10-2007, 09:55 PM
Academy voters that year were being given a tainted form of crack to get them into the mindset for voting...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-10-2007, 10:23 PM
Nah that was the reason why Crash won.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-10-2007, 10:55 PM
I'm actually trying to figure out how Chicago beat The Pianist myself.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-10-2007, 10:59 PM
The Academy Awards is littered with instances of inferior films beating better films for best picture. Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan is one of the most famous cases. Unfortunately it happens.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-10-2007, 11:21 PM
Because Gangs is a mediocre film with too many storylines some good (anything with DDL) and some terrible (the unconvincing "romance" between Leo and Diaz) subplots.

And Chicago is a good film.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-10-2007, 11:30 PM
These topics come up relatively once every few months, but I still maintain that Shakespeare and Chicago, while not great films or films I would've voted for to win BP, are still better than the films they defeated that many people feel should've won.

Regarding '02, yes, The Pianist was the true deserving winner. It seemed so close, too.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-11-2007, 12:40 AM
The Pianist > Chicago > GONY
...

for me.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-11-2007, 09:19 AM
.....CHICAGO was a musical. Thats my only guess. The Academy fucking LOVES musicals and look to give them awards at every turn.

If Bill the Butcher had done a musical number about hacking people up, GONY would have won for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-11-2007, 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinton View Post
Because Gangs is a mediocre film with too many storylines some good (anything with DDL) and some terrible (the unconvincing "romance" between Leo and Diaz) subplots.

And Chicago is a good film.

Yep, if they would have cut all Diaz's scenes out it would have won and also would have been considered one of the greatest flicks of all time. Also the Pianist was the flick that got robbed and from what I read GONY had a lot of drama in the editing room and the final edit wasn't exactly what Marty wanted.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-11-2007, 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
I've been scratching my head over this ever since Chicago won. I would have been okay with it if The Two Towers had won, but Chicago? That movie was a lump of shit, and even if you are into movies like that, I doubt it was all that great for you.

How the fuck did Chicago win?

The Question really is how did Chicago beat anything, PERIOD.

Frankly Gangs wasn't that great. It was either The Pianist(sp) or TTT that was the best pictures that year.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-11-2007, 11:40 AM
I saw Chicago for the first time last week and when it finished I thought to myself (just as you have) 'How did that win Best Picture instead of TTT or Gangs? Then I continued to think and said to myself, 'Wait, even The Pianist should have won rather than that!'

I guess its just one of those crazy academy choices and many people say the same about Crash which I loved and thought deserved Best Picture.

Also, have you seen that it got 13 nominations in total, 4 of them acting ones. Its Crazy! Personally I would have nominated the film only for Art Direction, Costume, Sound, Song and probably Leading Actress.

It wasn't a bad film though:

Chicago - 6/10
Gangs of New York - 9/10
The Hours - N/A
The Pianist - 7/10
LOTR: The Two Towers - 10/10
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-11-2007, 11:41 AM
Curious, who beat Daniel Day lewis out for his oscar?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-11-2007, 11:46 AM
Adrien Brody for The Pianist (making him the youngest actor to win the award).
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-11-2007, 12:15 PM
I agree that Gangs, Two Towers and The Pianst are great films. I would have no problem with any of them movies any awards. I have not seen Chicago so I can't really say that I would hate or like the movie. Like one of you said. The Oscars have hard on for musicals
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-11-2007, 12:33 PM
Gangs of New York and Chicago were both great movies and both are in my top 5 of 2002. So I'm actually fine with Chicago winning. Infact, Chicago is #3 and Gangs of New York is #4.

So out of the five films nominated, Chicago is the one that deserved it.

However, the two best movies of 2002 weren't even nominated. That would be Road to Perdition and Minority Report.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-11-2007, 01:11 PM
Basically all the nominees for that category that year were pretty underwhelming. The Pianist is boring and overrated, Chicago is alright, Gangs of New York sucked, haven't seen The Hours, and The Two Towers was pretty decent.

Pretty much Two Towers was the only one that really deserved the oscar. Can't say much for The Hours because I haven't seen it, but all the others are terribly overrated.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-11-2007, 01:49 PM
Neither one of them deserved a nomination
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-11-2007, 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
However, the two best movies of 2002 weren't even nominated. That would be Road to Perdition and Minority Report.
BINGO!

Road to Perdition was my favorite film of 2002. But, if we're talking best films of 2002, here's my list:

1) Road to Perdition
2) The Pianist
3) Punch Drunk Love
4) Adaptation
5) Minority Report
6) Chicago
7) Solaris
8) The Bourne Identity
9) About a Boy
10) Catch Me If You Can
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-11-2007, 02:52 PM
I think the Oscars was yearning to award a musical really bad. Plus, they probably looked at Gangs of New York as a little "flawed" which I dont agree with but thats what some of them were probably thinking.

Gangs of New York should of won IMO. Or DDL should of at least won for that matter.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-11-2007, 03:53 PM
Uh... lesser of two evils?


Seriously, The Pianist was a hundred times better than both of those turkeys.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-11-2007, 03:59 PM
Gangs of New York is a masterpiece and Daniel Day-Lewis is god. Brody was great, but no performance that year was better than Daniel Day-Lewis'. There's not even an argument about it. Day-Lewis was just simply perfect.

Watch DDL get robbed again this year by some n00b like James McAvoy.

If DDL and Javier Bardem don't win Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor respectively, there is something seriously fucking wrong with this world.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-11-2007, 04:01 PM
You know what pisses me off more than Chicago winning? Nicole Kidman winning for a 20 minute performance over Diane Lane who carried an entire film. Bullfuckingshit.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-11-2007, 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dman476 View Post
The Pianist > Chicago > GONY
...

for me.

Exactly. I think Gangs of New York was one of Scorsese's weakest personally. Chicago was still fairly entertaining at parts and overall a pretty good musical (pales in comparison to Moulin Rouge for me though). And The Pianist was far and away the best of the five that year for me...

My top 5 for 2002 was 01. Catch Me If you Can/02. Road to Perdition/03. The Pianist/04. Adaptation/05. The Ring

Last edited by JCPhoenix; 12-11-2007 at 04:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-11-2007, 04:59 PM
I've never seen Chicago, and i will never watch a movie like Chicago, but Gangs of NY is disgustingly overrated, hated it
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-11-2007, 06:30 PM
For those of you who hated Gangs of New York and haven't given it a second chance, I recommend a re-watch because I actually enjoyed it much more the second and third time around then the first time. You get a better understanding for the story and characters and discover a lot of great dialouge (which is some of the best ever written) that you may have missed the first time around.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-11-2007, 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Gangs of New York is a masterpiece and Daniel Day-Lewis is god. Brody was great, but no performance that year was better than Daniel Day-Lewis'. There's not even an argument about it. Day-Lewis was just simply perfect.

Watch DDL get robbed again this year by some n00b like James McAvoy.

If DDL and Javier Bardem don't win Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor respectively, there is something seriously fucking wrong with this world.
I beg to differ. Day Lewis was good, but of the actors he was up against, I'd only rank him a head of Jack Nicholson. Brody and Cage are a head of him. I can't remember who the fifth nominee is.

Of coarse, I haven't seen There Will Be Blood yet but if it is even half as great as it looks, then this should be his year.

I found Bardem's performance to be slightly overrated. He's good but I can think of several other performances that I liked more than his.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-11-2007, 10:08 PM
"The Pianist" and "The Two Towers" (my 2 favorite films of '02) were both better than "Chicago" and "Gangs of New York."

"Munich" was better than both "Crash" and "Brokeback Mountain."
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-11-2007, 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
I beg to differ. Day Lewis was good, but of the actors he was up against, I'd only rank him a head of Jack Nicholson. Brody and Cage are a head of him. I can't remember who the fifth nominee is.

Of coarse, I haven't seen There Will Be Blood yet but if it is even half as great as it looks, then this should be his year.

I found Bardem's performance to be slightly overrated. He's good but I can think of several other performances that I liked more than his.
To each his own, but if you watch Gangs of New York in enough depth (not saying you didn't) you will realize Day-Lewis was completely robbed.

Bardem is clearly the best supporting actor this year. His performance was sheer brilliance. There is no other supporting performance better than Bardem's this year.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-12-2007, 02:00 AM
While DDL was good in Gangs, his performance was really pretty much one note all the way through: "I'm crazy as hell! Look out!"

Brody's performance was a huge range of emotion and personality, which makes it the better acting performance in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-13-2007, 08:57 AM
well the oscars are bullshit, its always been a fact that if you play a retard you'll at least get a nomination, chicargo is a film full of retards so i guess thats why it won, but then again shouldn't high school musical have on this account?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-13-2007, 02:29 PM
Gangs of New York was too long, too boring, and too poorly acted by everyone not named Daniel Day Lewis. Chicago wasn't great, but I thought it was better. I think Lewis should've won Best Actor, but that's the only award it should've walked away with.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-13-2007, 04:06 PM
If you put a lot of faith in the Oscars you will often be very disappointed. It always seems to be screwed up and you wonder afterwards what the heck were they thinking. It has been rumored though that a lot of the times the votes are picked not by the people they are supposed to be but the maids, etc....or they may not have even seen some of the nominees.

There's always fuck ups, "what the hell?"s, etc...

I personally feel Gangs of New York is a lot better than Chicago, but it's not as good as TTT. TTT would never win because it's a "Genre" movie and therefore "silly nonsense". Jackson winning for ROTK has more to do with the fact it was an award for the overall work rather than just the movie itself. If the Lords films had been released as a single movie, he probably wouldn't have won.

I feel Pulp Fiction should have won for Best Picture, not Forrest Gump...

I think we all have been pissed off by the Oscars at one time or another. The best thing to do is to go by your own "best" I think....
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-13-2007, 04:08 PM
I think you shouldn't try to wrap your tiny little brain around the giant and oversized Mega-Hype Train that is the Academy Awards, and look for ways of justifying the reasoning behind almost ALL of the decisions made each year.
In the end, it would be like trying to define pi, comprehend infinity, prove the existence of God, or having a movie with Jessica Simpson getting nude.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-13-2007, 04:47 PM
DDL in GONY is my fave performance ever. Brody won cause he played a jew. GONY was fucked in each catagory. U2's song lost to mandm, damn shame. A sex offender beating scorsese- that made me want to die. Fuck the oscars...oh and while i'm at it, FUCK CRASH. It was only OKAY. munich and walk the line got fucked, just like assassination of jesse and into the wild will get fucked this year by atonements lame ass.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-13-2007, 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by franky4fingerz View Post
DDL in GONY is my fave performance ever. Brody won cause he played a jew. GONY was fucked in each catagory. U2's song lost to mandm, damn shame. A sex offender beating scorsese- that made me want to die. Fuck the oscars...oh and while i'm at it, FUCK CRASH. It was only OKAY. munich and walk the line got fucked, just like assassination of jesse and into the wild will get fucked this year by atonements lame ass.
Brody didn't win because he played a Jew; that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard/read. He could've won because he was the only nominee that year that had never won before .

Try not taking the awards too seriously, like the two previous posts suggest, and it won't matter too much.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-13-2007, 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
While DDL was good in Gangs, his performance was really pretty much one note all the way through: "I'm crazy as hell! Look out!"

Brody's performance was a huge range of emotion and personality, which makes it the better acting performance in my opinion.
haha, waht the fuck.

i thought brody's performance was amazing, but bill the butcher isn't one note, for the love of GOD. he is in fact the definition of a character with LOTS OF NOTES.


Quote:
Originally Posted by franky4fingerz View Post
DDL in GONY is my fave performance ever. Brody won cause he played a jew.
what thte fuck is this
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-13-2007, 10:07 PM
Gangs was sloppy as hell and held together basically by the gorgeous sets and DDL. And for that, it's still a decent film.

The best film of that year wasn't even nominated: Adaptation. Towers, PDL and Minority Report come a close second, with Road To Perdition and Pianist not far behind. Pianist is hampered somewhat by being rather detached and giving little background to the main character, but it's still incredibly powerful and basically flawless on a technical and acting level.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-13-2007, 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by franky4fingerz
DDL in GONY is my fave performance ever. Brody won cause he played a jew.

what thte fuck is this

That's racism. You may recognize it from such popular films as Malcolm X, Do the Right Thing, American History X and the X-Men.

That is probably the dumbest reasoning I've ever heard franky4fingerz, can you not drudge up anything better than that?

Damn, a lot of movies about racism feature X's in their titles. I just realized that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump