NFT: How did 'Goodfellas' not win Best Picture?

I was only 10 or 11 but even at that age I remember DWW being a big big deal culturally. Not to say its a better film. Ive never seen it. But you know those awards are and always have been a circlejerk.

if I did, I'm sure I thought DWW over Goodfellas was ridiculous. I loved Goodfellas and thought DWW was lame.

I enjoyed dances with wolves
Anytime I stumble onto goodfellas, i cant turn it off
Maybe its an ode to my NY Italian self and my old man being on the periphery of guys like that
Love to watch it, never wanted anything to do with it
Enjoyed casino too. Not as much , but solid
Fact is after tax season, time to watch godfather 1&2 again!

his 2007 win was deserved anyway but it was also his lifetime achievement award in a way. I think he deserved the win for Hugo too. Silence he should have been at least been nominated for.

I feel the same way about Pulp Fiction. The academy is afraid of Tarantino because he’s not conventional. This also happened with Shakespeare in Love beating out Saving Private Ryan ... sometimes it just doesn’t make sense.

of examples of great movies losing to films that are just decent.

Citizen Kane didn't win the Oscar, either.

But yea.. history has concluded that Goodfellas is greater than Dances with Wolves.

The was/is a lot of anti-New York bias out here (don't ask me why) and Scorsese represented that ilk so it was always "stick it to the New Yorker."

Same with Paul Newman (from the East) who won his only Oscar the one time he wasn't going show up at the ceremony.

Petty stuff, I know, but that's Hollywood.

In comment 15167951 Stan in LA said:

Quote:

The was/is a lot of anti-New York bias out here (don't ask me why) and Scorsese represented that ilk so it was always "stick it to the New Yorker." Same with Paul Newman (from the East) who won his only Oscar the one time he wasn't going show up at the ceremony. Petty stuff, I know, but that's Hollywood.

But tons of actors from NJ and NY have won Oscars - Nicholson, Pacino, Streep, Hathaway, DeNiro, Dreyfus, etc.

In comment 15167958 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 15167951 Stan in LA said: Quote: The was/is a lot of anti-New York bias out here (don't ask me why) and Scorsese represented that ilk so it was always "stick it to the New Yorker." Same with Paul Newman (from the East) who won his only Oscar the one time he wasn't going show up at the ceremony. Petty stuff, I know, but that's Hollywood. But tons of actors from NJ and NY have won Oscars - Nicholson, Pacino, Streep, Hathaway, DeNiro, Dreyfus, etc.

ey, buddy, dont get in the way of a good nonsensical argument when there’s an opportunity to feel like an aggrieved party! this is America in 2021, dont you know how this goes?

The real reason is because of political correctness and the liberal Hollywood agenda. A gangster movie that has been done many times before (albeit not with the same skill as Goodfellas) will NEVER win out against a movie that glorifies the minority struggle against the oppressive white man. There, I said it.

.

In comment 15167965 Dukie Dimes said:

Quote:

The real reason is because of political correctness and the liberal Hollywood agenda. A gangster movie that has been done many times before (albeit not with the same skill as Goodfellas) will NEVER win out against a movie that glorifies the minority struggle against the oppressive white man. There, I said it.

Lmao. Cool story.

A number of movies that in retrospect were obviously not the best picture of the year. Many times a picture has won because it came at a time when it’s content was heavily in the public’s mind. Examples (Best picture/Picture that should have won:

1979: Kramer vs Kramer / Apocalypse Now - Divorces exploding in America
1986: Platoon / Hannah and Her Sisters - Appreciation of Vietnam vets reaches apex
1994: Forrest Gump / Pulp Fiction OR The Shawshank Redemption - First big time and seamless use of CGI within film’s live action

And still my #1 favorite. Not an off moment in the whole thing.

Dances with Wolves had everything going for it that year that is all.

And still my #1 favorite. Not an off moment in the whole thing.

Dances with Wolves had everything going for it that year that is all.

...that otherwise would've gone to Goodfellas.

deserved to win. It was an original idea, well acted and well made. SPR, as much as I like it, was typical Spielberg- a lot of technical wizardry along with a tsunami of schmaltz.

The Academy was not going to award another movie about Italian mobsters- they did that with the Godfather- when they had a movie sympathetic to Native Americans handed to them on silver platter.

In comment 15167999 Milton said:

Quote:

...that otherwise would've gone to Goodfellas.

You broke that jaw?

In comment 15167965 Dukie Dimes said:

Quote:

The real reason is because of political correctness and the liberal Hollywood agenda. A gangster movie that has been done many times before (albeit not with the same skill as Goodfellas) will NEVER win out against a movie that glorifies the minority struggle against the oppressive white man. There, I said it.

You are now my favorite poster on BBI.

Just saying

It's common for the Best Picture winner to be kind of forgettable, a film that hardly anyone watches in later years, while some other nominees turn out to age much much better.

Winners:
The Artist (has anyone watched that movie since Oscar night?)
Driving Miss Daisy
Crash
Forrest Gump
Dances With Wolves
Shakespeare in Love

Didn't Win:
Field of Dreams
Brokeback Mountain
Pulp Fiction
The Shawshank Redemption
Saving Private Ryan
Goodfellas

I don't know how many of you have spent a lot of time talking to Academy members, or to movie people more broadly, but I have, and the thing most people miss is: This is a snapshot of how a certain group of movie people feel on a particular date, and that group has some identifiable quirks.

They're mostly older, because once your'e in, you're in, and can keep voting for years and years. Because of that, their tastes tend to be small-c conservative. They are reluctant to recognize cutting-edge stuff, genre films or stuff that's edgy. (Like edgier Scorsese movies.) Not all of them watch all the nominated films (not required in most categories); they ask their similarly older, conservative friends.

There is absolutely a "clubby" element to the selections, especially in crafts categories. Some sound guys have racked up 15 or more nominations. The same sound guys tend to be nominated over and over again. Almost never anyone from Europe or Asia, ever. Why? Because the sound branch is mostly L.A. based men (women in sound are rare and quite open about facing sexism) who tend to nominate each other. There is some of that in other categories as well.

Also remember that many voters have actually worked with the people who are up for awards, and there are people they absolutely hate and will never vote for. (I tried to explain that to a cousin from Akron once. She said "That's not fair!" I said, "Picture someone you used to work with who made your life miserable, whom you despised every minute with." Ok, she said. "Now imagine you can vote to give that person one of the most prestigious, famous awards on the planet. Would you?" "NO WAY!" she said. I said "Well, that's how it works in the Academy.") Bill Murray apparently made a lot of enemies when he was a big star and there are people who haven't forgiven him. It matters now when he's up for awards.

And then there's acting. An actor buddy of mine observes: "Actors like voting for performances that make acting look hard." This is true. Once you're aware of it, you'll never stop noticing it.

And another buddy of mine observes: "It's not best, it's most. Most Sound. Most Acting. Most Directing." Also true.

Plus they often can't see what's in front of their nose. Alan Rickman wasn't nominated for his role in "Die Hard." He delivered one of the great movie villains of all time. It's a spectacular performance. But Rickman was new to movies, they didn't know him, and "Die Hard" wasn't the Academy's idea of an Oscar movie.

The Academy has expanded to a lot of younger, more diverse, more international members in the last few years. I think has already led to more interesting choices. But the Academy isn't the general public, and they don't have the regular public's taste. The don't see movies the same way civilians do. They're never going to align with public tastes -- even when the public is right.

Is one of those movies that people just feel really strongly about one way or another. For a certain people of a certain age, that’s their favorite movie ever or close. Also, Kevin Costner was America’s sweetheart during this era. It’s just really hard to compare Costner to other recent actors, he just had a different vibe on screen that so many people gravitated to even if he wasn’t a particularly good actor.

Although “Dances with Wolves” isn’t close to my favorite movie of his, it was probably the peak of Costner’s career as an American icon. He also directed that movie and won “Best Director” at the Academy Awards that year.

Personally, I don’t like the movie. “Goodfellas” is a classic and most of us consider it a better movie, it’s just one of those things.

Goodfellas is my all time favorite film — but Dances With Wolves was a mega hit, a Western, and stared and was directed by a huge star at the top of his career. Normal Oscar popularity stuff.

Some of you guys are going to b.u.m.m.e.d. to learn Scorsese is a big time New York liberal and makes movies with Jews, and Italians in unions, and all kinds of lefty stuff.

In comment 15168057 christian said:

Quote:

Some of you guys are going to b.u.m.m.e.d. to learn Scorsese is a big time New York liberal and makes movies with Jews, and Italians in unions, and all kinds of lefty stuff.

Nope. Not surprising at all.

Are you going to tell us next DeNiro isn't really like the tough guy he plays in every movie?

the Academy Awards is not a popularity contest. Dances with Wolves is an epic film. It presents the West in a fashion like other great epic films present an age or era. AFI defines "epic" as a genre of large-scale films set in a cinematic interpretation of the past. The Academy would choose an epic film over a gangster genre most of the time. Goodfellas is a top ten gangster film. Dances is not a top ten epic or even Western. But it is an epic. Something that Goodfellas is not. Here is a list of AFI's epic films.
https://www.filmsite.org/afi10toptennoms10.html - ( New Window )

In comment 15168035 81_Great_Dane said:

Quote:

It's common for the Best Picture winner to be kind of forgettable, a film that hardly anyone watches in later years, while some other nominees turn out to age much much better. Winners: The Artist (has anyone watched that movie since Oscar night?) Driving Miss Daisy Crash Forrest Gump Dances With Wolves Shakespeare in Love Didn't Win: Field of Dreams Brokeback Mountain Pulp Fiction The Shawshank Redemption Saving Private Ryan Goodfellas I don't know how many of you have spent a lot of time talking to Academy members, or to movie people more broadly, but I have, and the thing most people miss is: This is a snapshot of how a certain group of movie people feel on a particular date, and that group has some identifiable quirks. They're mostly older, because once your'e in, you're in, and can keep voting for years and years. Because of that, their tastes tend to be small-c conservative. They are reluctant to recognize cutting-edge stuff, genre films or stuff that's edgy. (Like edgier Scorsese movies.) Not all of them watch all the nominated films (not required in most categories); they ask their similarly older, conservative friends. There is absolutely a "clubby" element to the selections, especially in crafts categories. Some sound guys have racked up 15 or more nominations. The same sound guys tend to be nominated over and over again. Almost never anyone from Europe or Asia, ever. Why? Because the sound branch is mostly L.A. based men (women in sound are rare and quite open about facing sexism) who tend to nominate each other. There is some of that in other categories as well. Also remember that many voters have actually worked with the people who are up for awards, and there are people they absolutely hate and will never vote for. (I tried to explain that to a cousin from Akron once. She said "That's not fair!" I said, "Picture someone you used to work with who made your life miserable, whom you despised every minute with." Ok, she said. "Now imagine you can vote to give that person one of the most prestigious, famous awards on the planet. Would you?" "NO WAY!" she said. I said "Well, that's how it works in the Academy.") Bill Murray apparently made a lot of enemies when he was a big star and there are people who haven't forgiven him. It matters now when he's up for awards. And then there's acting. An actor buddy of mine observes: "Actors like voting for performances that make acting look hard." This is true. Once you're aware of it, you'll never stop noticing it. And another buddy of mine observes: "It's not best, it's most. Most Sound. Most Acting. Most Directing." Also true. Plus they often can't see what's in front of their nose. Alan Rickman wasn't nominated for his role in "Die Hard." He delivered one of the great movie villains of all time. It's a spectacular performance. But Rickman was new to movies, they didn't know him, and "Die Hard" wasn't the Academy's idea of an Oscar movie. The Academy has expanded to a lot of younger, more diverse, more international members in the last few years. I think has already led to more interesting choices. But the Academy isn't the general public, and they don't have the regular public's taste. The don't see movies the same way civilians do. They're never going to align with public tastes -- even when the public is right.

Good post, totally agree. Remember Tom Cruise in Born on the Fourth of July? His best acting by far. And he happened to be up against Daniel Day Lewis. I have never seen My Left Foot, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t watch it more than once. Born on the Fourth of July was an excellent film I have seen at least a handful of times. But no award there.

And walked out of the theatre at the time due to the violence.

Pretty sure the version I saw was more graphic than the final release. I was a first time father with a new born infant at the time and couldn't take it.

I've seen the movie since without the visceral reaction. Turns out it's just a movie.

And I'd have to understand the criteria before agreeing it's inherently a better one than DWW.

kind of feel it fell apart at the end. I guess I am different because I love DWW. Both are really good movies.

As for Saving Private Ryan, remember that Hanks had a run of great movies - Philadelphia Story, SPP, Moonshot and Forrest Gump. All should have been or could have been "Best Movie" but they could not give him the Oscar every year.

Pulp fiction is a movie that I like better each time I see it. It is crazy in that Travolta is killed by Willis, but later walks out of the diner with Sam Jackson....

And any performance should be separate of the film itself. I didn't like There Will Be Blood but DDL was awesome. I saw Last of the Mohicans a long time ago so I don't remember that like I should. The one performance that I liked a ton and is most memorable, not necessarily his best performance, was The Butcher in Gangs of NY. He was a villain who you wanted to see more of. And people don't really appreciate how good he is until you see him give an interview when he isn't in character.

Watching a movie repeatedly doesn’t mean much to me. For example I like The Godfather more than Goodfellas, just a better movie, yet ive seen Goodfellas many more times. The first hour is just not stop great, but I agree with Section, the end doesn’t do it for me and I usually turn off the last 30/45 minutes.

Tarantino deserves more consideration. Just a fantastic film maker, his worst movies are still no worse than “good”.

Interesting point on Epics. I’ve always weighed that into my own ranking/grading as pulling off movies of that kind of scale is impressive.

DDL is hands down the best actor I’ve ever seen. This brings in a lot of personal preference so I wouldn’t fight tooth and nail on it, but every character he plays is just taken to a whole other level. I’m not a Tom Hanks fans but take his best 3 performances head to head with DDL and I think it’s a landslide.

In comment 15168108 robbieballs2003 said:

Quote:

And any performance should be separate of the film itself. I didn't like There Will Be Blood but DDL was awesome. I saw Last of the Mohicans a long time ago so I don't remember that like I should. The one performance that I liked a ton and is most memorable, not necessarily his best performance, was The Butcher in Gangs of NY. He was a villain who you wanted to see more of. And people don't really appreciate how good he is until you see him give an interview when he isn't in character.

Check out the Boxer. It’s labeled as one of if not the most accurate movie depicting boxing. He trained 18 months with a former champion in preparation.

Rogan talks about it, 5 minute mark
The Boxer - ( New Window )

My impression is that the studios campaign for films / actors and that the voting is influenced by some deal making. Not even close to being "fair". As an aside, at some point, there was a "People's Choice" Award, where filmgoers could vote for their favorites. In truth, I don't pay any attention at all ---I watch the films which appeal to me, regardless of "awards".

who got the most votes? It is about as meaningless as pro bowl selections.

one I ever watched. More "how did they not wins?":

* Raging Bull not win over Kramer vs. Kramer?
* Martin Scorcese never win for Director until The Departed despite Raging Bull, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and more
* Paul Newman not win until the piece of shit Color of Money that couldn't hold a candle to The Hustler and any of the other great movies and roles he did? Verdict was WAY better. And Hud, The Sting, Butch Cassidy, Cool Hand Luke and many others
* ditto Al Pacino until equally lame Scent of a Woman.
* Stallone not Best Actor for Rocky?

In comment 15167965 Dukie Dimes said:

Quote:

The real reason is because of political correctness and the liberal Hollywood agenda. A gangster movie that has been done many times before (albeit not with the same skill as Goodfellas) will NEVER win out against a movie that glorifies the minority struggle against the oppressive white man. There, I said it.

nice knowing you :-)

rating it above The Godfather is way out of line.

But I have a sentimental weakness for many posters on BBI, as you can see. They talk when they should listen...

DWW was an epic and depicted pretty much what happened to the American Indians.
DWW was definitely a deserving winner

Good post & I get the reasons DWW won, but to me...it's not close between the two films.

In comment 15168124 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

one I ever watched. More "how did they not wins?": * Raging Bull not win over Kramer vs. Kramer? * Martin Scorcese never win for Director until The Departed despite Raging Bull, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and more * Paul Newman not win until the piece of shit Color of Money that couldn't hold a candle to The Hustler and any of the other great movies and roles he did? Verdict was WAY better. And Hud, The Sting, Butch Cassidy, Cool Hand Luke and many others * ditto Al Pacino until equally lame Scent of a Woman. * Stallone not Best Actor for Rocky?

Then you have Meryl Streep who is a good actress but NOT as good as her nominations and awards would suggest. It it beyond ridiculous ...

Goodfellas has far more rewatch ability than Dancing WW does so it has built up in people’s minds over time since it’s release. Also Dancing loses a lot when watched on television set compared to the theater. DWW came off with a much grander scale when watched for the first time on a large screen. But once you have watched it and experienced it the story isn’t one you will enjoy as much coming back to over and over again on tv. With Goodfellas when you come across it on television it is like seeing an old friend again and the experience improves with time.

Also many of us from the NYC area likely appreciate many aspects of Goodfellas far greater then many people throughout other regions of the country.

If somehow everyone in the country could go back and see each one for the first time in a theater I’m guessing we would see a similar outcome.

Also while a terrific movie, Goodfellas isn’t better than The Godfather.

And always keep your mouth shut.

In comment 15168025 Route 9 said:

Quote:

In comment 15167965 Dukie Dimes said: Quote: The real reason is because of political correctness and the liberal Hollywood agenda. A gangster movie that has been done many times before (albeit not with the same skill as Goodfellas) will NEVER win out against a movie that glorifies the minority struggle against the oppressive white man. There, I said it. You are now my favorite poster on BBI.

Hahaha.

In comment 15168058 Route 9 said:

Quote:

Are you going to tell us next DeNiro isn't really like the tough guy he plays in every movie?

Another reason why I have always said that Deniro is one of the most over-rated actors in modern history.

He is playing the same guy in every movie. Same intimidating character even in Fochers movies. It does not mean we do not enjoy the movies or his roles.. but please tell me when he starts acting. Let's see his range one day if it is not too late for that.

Is a bunch of bullshit.

In comment 15168136 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

rating it above The Godfather is way out of line. But I have a sentimental weakness for many posters on BBI, as you can see. They talk when they should listen...

It is fair to rate Goodellas above The Godfather. I do. It is wildly original and modern. By comparison The Godfather lumbers along. It is amazingly sarcastic and dark. And very little humor in The Godfather.

In comment 15168114 varco said:

Quote:

My impression is that the studios campaign for films / actors and that the voting is influenced by some deal making. Not even close to being "fair". As an aside, at some point, there was a "People's Choice" Award, where filmgoers could vote for their favorites. In truth, I don't pay any attention at all ---I watch the films which appeal to me, regardless of "awards".

This is not the same issue it was long ago when the studios would fill out the ballots, but it absolutely makes a difference if there's an awards campaign for a film, and whether that campaign is well-designed and effective.

Not sure what you mean by deal-making, but I don't think that is really a thing, at least not in final voting. There are thousands of Oscar voters scattered around the world, in different professions, in different stages of their life, who don't all know each other. It's not like the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which is less than 100 people who know each other, live in the same city and talk about their choices.

If you get into really inside-baseball stuff, there is a lot of politics at the branch level, where most of the nominations get made. In the categories where an executive committee makes the decision about which films make the first cut and the short list, it makes a big difference who is on the committee that year.

In comment 15167965 Dukie Dimes said:

Quote:

The real reason is because of political correctness and the liberal Hollywood agenda. A gangster movie that has been done many times before (albeit not with the same skill as Goodfellas) will NEVER win out against a movie that glorifies the minority struggle against the oppressive white man. There, I said it.

Please, for your own good, go outside and get a life.

In comment 15168296 EricJ said:

Quote:

In comment 15168058 Route 9 said: Quote: Are you going to tell us next DeNiro isn't really like the tough guy he plays in every movie? Another reason why I have always said that Deniro is one of the most over-rated actors in modern history. He is playing the same guy in every movie. Same intimidating character even in Fochers movies. It does not mean we do not enjoy the movies or his roles.. but please tell me when he starts acting. Let's see his range one day if it is not too late for that.

I’ll see your point and respond with godfather 2. Deniro as young Vito is so good in this role. He’s not intimidating at all until he is. And even when he’s sort of arrived as the Don, he’s more respected than feared but the fear is there too.

Not many could have pulled that role off. Deniro not only had to model himself out of an almost impossible character but 30-40 years younger, he had to portray the progression.

In comment 15168459 Ben in Tampa said:

Quote:

In comment 15167965 Dukie Dimes said: Quote: The real reason is because of political correctness and the liberal Hollywood agenda. A gangster movie that has been done many times before (albeit not with the same skill as Goodfellas) will NEVER win out against a movie that glorifies the minority struggle against the oppressive white man. There, I said it. Please, for your own good, go outside and get a life.

Scorsese would have been far better off making a film glorifying a minority outsider being brought into the inner circle of a culture he didn’t fully belong. A culture full of oppressive white men.

He could have called this film Goodfellas ... wait ...