MovieChat Forums > The 77th Annual Academy Awards (2005) Discussion > Eastwood over Scorsese!?!?!?

Eastwood over Scorsese!?!?!?

posted 19 years ago by pumpkinhead_lance
6 replies | jump to latest

Scorsese's contributions to Hollywood have far out weighed Eastwoods.... I'm pissed and cant talk right now...

Man, I'd hate to see how you would react if Uwe Boll won an Academy award for "Alone in the Dark".

What's the point of living....if you don't have a d***? -Donnie Darko

[–] pumpkinhead_lance 19 years ago

I'd probably never watch the awards ceremony again!

Well, I'm sure that Eastwood deserved it. Sure. I'm not denying that, and I think Eastwood's films have been terrific. So don't get me wrong.

I'm just mad at the fact that Scorsese has never won an Oscar for best director. It's insane. Why has he been denied so many times when his movies are legendary?

[–] nyccma1974 19 years ago

But Million Dollar Baby was the better movie. If you want the Academy to give him an Oscar, it should have been for Goodfellas and Raging Bull. I don't believe in giving someone their due just because they had a great career. Let's face it, Pacino was good in Scent Of a Woman but did a bit of over-acting, yet, he won the Oscar that year because he was "due". Pacino should have won for Godfather, Serpico, and Dog Day Afternoon, far superior performances to the one he gave in Scent. I'm happy for Clint. He deserved it this year. And so did Morgan Freeman!!

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nyccma1974 19 years ago

Well said, and yes "Baby" was better. Hate to say it, but much, much better.

[–] howveryrandom 19 years ago

Yes "baby" was better, but there seems to be a habit in the academy of awarding people for lifetime achievement, or because they deserve it from a previous film, but didn't get it.

This is particularly the case with Cate Blanchett, who really deserved the oscar fro 'Elizabeth', but instead that award was given to Gweneth Platrow in 'Shakespeare in love'. I am a huge fan of both these films, but Cate really deserved the oscar. It is similar with the three Lord of the Rings films. Clearly the third movie did not live up to any expectations I had, and yet it won 11 oscars. This was more of an epic win. Individually the third film was far less superior than the others, but Peter Jackson definately deserved the oscars, it was an amazingly well concieved series.

The point is, where do you draw the line between lifetime achievement and a really good movie?? In alot of cases the academy gets it wrong...but not in the case of 'million dollar baby' it was an amazing film.

*gets of soap box*