Instead of doing just five, ill list all of those worth my time to list...
1943 - The Song of Bernadette(7/10) instead of Casablanca(2/10)
1961 - The Hustler(9/10) instead of West Side Story(?/10)
1969 - Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid(7.5-8/10) instead of Midnight Cowboy(?/10)
1990 - The Godfather Part III(7.5-8/10) instead of Dances with Wolves(5/10)
1994 - Pulp Fiction(9/10) instead of Forrest Gump(7/10) (hell, I would have taken Shawshank(7.5-8/10) over Forrest Gump to. but for the record... all three are solid)
1996 - Jerry Maguire(9/10) instead of The English Patient(?/10)
1997 - Good Will Hunting(9/10) instead of Titanic(2/10)
1999 - The Green Mile(8-8.5/10) instead of American Beauty(5/10)
2004 - The Aviator(7.5-8/10) instead of Million Dollar Baby(5/10)
2005 - Munich(8-8.5/10) instead of Crash(?/10)
2009 - Up in the Air(8-8.5/10) instead of The Hurt Locker(6/10)
2010 - True Grit(8-8.5/10) instead of The King's Speech(?/10)
2011 - The Descendants(8/10) instead of The Artist(5/10)
2012 - Django Unchained(7.5-8/10) instead of Argo(5/10)
2013 - Nebraska(7.5-8/10) instead of 12 Years a Slave(5/10)
2016 - La La Land(6-6.5/10) instead of Moonlight(?/10)
basically I came up with the above list on the years where the Winner was worse than another movie on the list that I gave a 7/10 or higher. La La Land is the only one I did not adhere to the 7/10 or higher standard of which I gave a 6-6.5/10 but that's a bit shy of favorite movie status so I figured I would list it.
also, I think the the following years of those I listed above that the general public would agree with my choices is... 1969/1996/1999/2005/2010/2012. NOTE: I am not necessarily saying my choices for those years are exactly what the general public would have chosen if given the choice (although some probably are) but between the two listed I am confident the public would agree with me as a whole in that the movie I listed is overall more enjoyable than the one that actually won.
also, while there are other years I would have changed winners, only those above stand out the most to me. so I just stuck to movies worth my time to list.
NOTE: my basic rating scale... 5/10 or less = Thumbs Down. 6/10 or higher = Thumbs Up. although My Favorite Movie status begins at a 7 and anything in the 6-6.5/10 is just shy of favorite movie status, so I figured I would list the one 6-6.5/10 on the list above to.
side note: I know some will see the "(?/10)" stuff above and wonder how I can choose the movie that I have. but I know myself well enough (and I am confident enough in my choices) to where my choices are unlikely, to very unlikely, to change had I seen those movies. like for example... the 1961 option of The Hustler vs West Side Story, while I have not seen West Side Story it's pretty much set in stone it won't touch The Hustler for me to the point I would bet money on it. in fact, I would bet money on all of those choices I made above vs those who have a "(?/10)" next to it.
Exactly.
it's pretty obvious to those of us who ain't blinded by leftist politics as they are more concerned with giving awards based on politics(basically skin color/minority status (or a movies political message)) than choosing what's actually best, or what they actually like the most.
because with all of those pretty much telling them to give awards to minorities, just because they are a minority, they are just lowing the quality of those awards by doing that since it's obviously politics with the more recent surge in minorities winning awards more than legit wins like it was in the past before they started with this BS.
here is a good example to prove my point on what I said above about it lowering the award (but reversed with a situation white guys are the minority and black guys are the majority and why I would not complain about it)...
take the NBA MVP award for example, it's typically going to be given to black guys since white guys are in the minority. this is what those on the left just can't see and they pretty much start telling them to give them awards just because they are a minority as it would be like me complaining that not enough white guys win the NBA MVP award, I just would not do it because it would lower the quality of the MVP award by doing so since your basically telling them to give you awards because your in the minority and when they comply it's basically because of the politics and not because it's a legit win and that's the reason I would not complain that a white guy has not won that since 2006-2007 with Dirk Nowitzki, because naturally, since black guys pretty much dominate the NBA, it's natural they will get the MVP awards etc in general even though a white guy can and does win once in a while. but at least when a white guy does win, we don't have to worry about it being tainted by politics like is the case with Oscars which is dominated by leftist politics nowadays and just lowers the quality of the win. so in other words... if they actually care about their award being more legit they would not say jack in regards of basically telling them we want more awards because we are minorities instead of letting the acting/movie do the talking straight up. but at this point it's too late as the damage has already been done.
p.s. but anyways, it is funny though as they have become more political the general quality of the movies nominated for Best Picture have declined to in recent memory. maybe it's just a coincidence though as even outside of the politics stuff... it's getting more difficult to find movies in general that stand out in very recent memory as the volume of movies I personally score a 7/10 or higher has noticeably declined vs not all that long ago.
That's not true as it's not that they won that bothers us, it's how they won. basically they won due to politics (i.e. #OscarsSoWhite etc BS) instead of things playing out straight up. plus, you got the whole gay/minority angle which the left loves nowadays. at least not all that long ago if a minority won, it was more legitimate unlike lately where it's obviously political (at the very least, you can see how someone could make this claim to where it's plausible) as things have gotten pretty bad lately, unlike not all that long ago.
even if you want to bring race into my particular situation... look at my example above, my 1994 choice of Pulp Fiction over Forrest Gump, I thought the black guy (Sam Jackson) has the best scenes in the entire movie and I even mentioned that Shawshank would have beat Forrest Gump to which Morgan Freeman, while not the lead in Shawshank, was still a major player as he's basically the 2nd most important character in the movie since the central character is Tim Robbins. hell, even my 1996 choice of Jerry Maguire has Cuba Gooding Jr in there and he won in 1996 for best supporting actor, now that's a legit win for a minority right there (as he's got a solid presence, interesting character, in a quality movie (see below))!
plus, I guess at least for myself regardless of politics... if a actor/actress wins a acting award I generally prefer if the movie itself is strong to. because while someone can give a solid acting performance in a so-so movie, if the movie is forgettable then the performance ultimately ends up being forgettable which is why I would tend to favor performances in interesting movies over performance in movies that are nothing special. NOTE: I am not saying they always have to give acting awards based on whether a movie stands out or not, but as a general rule it's better that way.
I know that comment was directed at someone else but...
I don't think one can truly be objective with movies anyways as we all have our biases/preferences. so ultimately what movies are good and what is not is pretty much all subjective (who knows, maybe some technical aspects are less subjective etc but you get the gist).
but if a movie is boring to the viewer, I can't fault him in the slightest for not finishing it as the movie is clearly a failure at that point to that viewer as even if he forced himself to finish it, his opinion would still be basically the same in that it's boring as if someone gives a movie a fair amount of time (say around 40 min or something like that (say at least 30min+)) and it's like watching paint dry for that viewer, the movie is just straight up boring and it's not worth finishing it and I don't blame them in the slightest for turning it off and calling it total crap as I do the same thing as I am not quick to write off a movie but I do stumble into movies like that here and there which, over the long run, comes out to about 1 out of every 14 movies I have seen that it occurs that I cannot finish watching a movie due to genuine boredom.
Maybe, but well made does not automatically translate into a interesting movie.
because I am sure I could guesstimate a bunch of movies that would be considered 'well made' but that the overall movie is just average or so when I bottom line my overall interest in it.