Talk:Academy Award for Best Picture/Archive 2

Grand Hotel

We show Irving Thalberg as the producer of the movie Grand Hotel, which means it was he who accepted the Best Picture Oscar. However, IMDB says that both Thalberg and Paul Bern were producers, and moreover, that neither of them was credited in the movie. Did MGM nominate only Thalberg to the Academy, or was there another reason Bern is not shown as an Oscar winner? JackofOz 12:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC

This question was answered @ Talk:Paul Bern/Archive 1#This illiterate absurdity must stop. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Years

Surely all the years need bumping along one. Although Million Dollar Baby was made in 2004, it won the Oscar in 2005. If someone who had no knowledge of film s look at this they would think a year was missing.

Jimmmmmmmmm 12:13, 18 January 2006 Media:ALBINOBLACKSHEEP.COM

I cleaned up the introductory text, as well as the years (especially in 1990s and 2000s), to follow Academy convention, which is to use the year of release instead of the year of award. Though I eliminated the "Academy Award" tags for the 1990's and 2000's (which were confusing), it seems whoever inserted them inadvertently removed the bold formatting for the winners by removing the opening single-quotes; my edit restored the formatting. --Anon (13 May 2006)

Change to years' links?

Might it not make more sense for the Year links before each winner to point to the awards ceremony (eg, 78th Academy Awards) instead of the year itself? Just an idea.

My edit of 13 May 2006 added links to each ceremony's article in parentheses after the year. --Anon

25/01/2008 - the years are still complete rubbish - whoever is responsible for setting up this page needs to actually fix it properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.20.135 (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please give me the credit, not someone else!

Please not cut out my edits just to give yourself the semblance of perfection.

When I corrected the "broken link" by adding "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" instead of "Academy of motion Picture Arts and Sciences", that constituted a legitimate correction.

WB2 06:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• P.S. Please consider booting this Sysop if this this is not corrected: there is no telling how many credits he has fraudulantly attributed to himself or someone else if you do not.

• I consider this SERIOUS!

• WB2 06:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• • The user who was incorrectly given the credit is Charles Merriam
  • WB2 06:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • He appears to have used the following script program:

<script type="text/javascript" src="/w/index.php?title=User:WB2/monobook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>

• • • I have the whole thing if you want to see it, but dontcountme=s seems to indicate more than just a simultaneous posting problem.
    • WB2 06:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Flags

Gosh they're annoying, distracting, and don't add much other than make the page look like radioactive fruit salad. I move they be removed. Nohat 21:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we take off the flags. It makes the whole article messy and confusing with the colorful flags all over the place. The flags overshadows the names of the nominees and winners, in my opinion. Besides this is the Oscar not the Olympics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.3.232.79 (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree, and I don't think they are accurate, anyway. Jmartinsson 07:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Bye bye, flags! Nohat 10:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Very cluttered

I'm stunned people bothered to nominate this for featured status. I think either all the details besides the names of the movies should be removed, or a new article (a clean list) of only the winners and nominees should be made. Supertigerman 02:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone should clean all this out. make it readable.

I support moving Winners and Nominees to a new article. This one is long and unwieldy in its current form. Diaphane (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Godfather Part II not the first sequel to win Best Picture

This is not true. The first sequel to win Best Picture was The Apartment(1960), which was the .sequel (follow up) to Some Like it Hot/ 02:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. They were both directed by Billy Wilder and both starred Jack Lemmon, but the characters were competely different and the story lines had absolutely nothing in common. "The Apartment" is described as "Wilder's follow-up" to SLIH, but that's market-speak for "That made me a lot of money; let me see if I can repeat the process with the same lead actor and another story involving men and women". JackofOz 02:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ben-Hur not the first remake to win Best Picture

The historical incident portrayed in Mutiny on the Bounty was filmed as In The Wake of the Bounty just two years earlier in Australia (MGM bought it, in fact, to prevent competition); Hamlet was filmed multiple times in the silent era; Marty was, of course, a remake of a TV drama; and Gigi had been filmed (non-musically) in 1949 in France.Mgmax 04:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Mgmax

I have corrected the information in the article to reflect that Mutiny on the Bounty was the first remake to win Best Picture. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

Superlatives section

What is this doing here????? Has basicly nothing to do with "Best Picture Oscar" at all!!!

Why do you say that? The section / chart lists the superlatives for the Best Picture Oscar ... namely, which film has the most awards and the most nominations for the Best Picture Oscar. How does that have "basically nothing to do with the Best Picture Oscar at all" ...? In fact, it has everything to do with the Best Picture Oscar. No? Am I missing something here? Perhaps you can clarify your question? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

No film has more than one nomination for "Best Picture". Some producers have more than one nomination/win. Please add that instead. jnestorius^(talk) 19:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Independent film?

Crash being listed as the only independent film to win best picture is dubious. What constitutes an independent film? Almost under any definition, this film is not the first independent film to win Best Picture.Wideeyedraven 21:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording to read as follows: The film Crash was the first (and only) film festival acquisition to win Best Picture. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

Four acting categories

You have both From Here to Eternity and Reds as being the last BP nominees to have nominations in all four acting categories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.226.61 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the heads-up. I double checked the info, after reading your post. There actually is a significant distinction between these two films, which explains why they each have a separate entry:

From Here to Eternity - the last Best Picture winner to date to receive nominations in all of the four acting categories

Reds - the last Best Picture nominee to date to receive nominations in all of the four acting categories

So, the first film actually won Best Picture, and the second was nominated without winning. I hope this explanation clears that up. Thanks again. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Good Night, and Good Luck.

Shouldn't you have this for last BP nominee to be Black and White?

I don't think so. While it is the most recent, who knows if it will be the last? Jeffpw 16:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes. I think that the original poster meant the last film to date or the most recent film to achieve this milestone ... as opposed to the last film ever that will achieve it. I added the information into the chart, consistent with all of the other entries of the last films to date to achieve certain milestones. At a very quick glance, the Milestones Chart has 13 other such entries. Thanks for the suggestion. (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

Longest nominee / winner

In the "Milestones" section, this article lists Gone With the Wind as the longest film ever to win or be nominated, but in the "Superlatives" section, Lawrence of Arabia is given that distinction. Clearly, these things both can't be correct. Based on the run-times listed in this article, Lawrence gets the nod by a few minutes, but it'd be worth it to double-check the original theatrical run-times (don't just look at modern rereleases, since both films exist in a number of chopped-up edits, due to the fact that both are (let's be frank) a bit too long.) In any case, someone should fix this. 69.209.219.237 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! Actually, I have been meaning to clear up this discrepancy for quite a while. There is, however, good reason for the discrepancy. Here is the information that I have been able to gather.

• Gone With the Wind ran 222 minutes in its first theatrical release. In 1962, Lawrence of Arabia was released at 216 minutes. (Source: http://theoscarsite.com/fmo/fr13f1.htm [1])

• Gone With The Wind has long been acclaimed as the longest Best Picture winner at almost 221 minutes (3 hours, 42 minutes) - with the Overture, Intermission, Entr'acte, and Walkout Music, it reaches 234 minutes. Other sources have noted that the original version of Lawrence of Arabia was approximately 222 minutes, slightly longer, but with additional elements extended only to approximately 232 minutes. (Source: http://www.filmsite.org/bestpics1.html [2])

I will make the appropriate changes. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

First Biopic

You have the Life of Emile Zola listed as the first biopic (1937) to win best picture, but The Great Ziegfeld came out the year before and was a biopic about the producer of the Ziegfeld Follies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.137.211 (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Children's Movies

You list The Wizard of Oz as the first children's movie to be nominated for best picture, but Skippy came out in 1931 and was nominated for Best Picture. Although I haven't been able to nab a copy, it's based on a comic strip and sounds like a children's movie, from what I've read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.137.211 (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Remakes

You list Mutiny on the Bounty as the first remake to win best picture, yet The Depared is "the first (and only) remake of a foreign film to win Best Picture." The original Mutiny on the Bounty was from Australia, and starred Erol Flynn. Thus, MotB was the first remake of a foreign film to win best picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.137.211 (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I've actually just read that the Australian version of Mutiny on the Bounty is more of a documentary on Pitcair Island, with some 'dramatic' scenes added (with Erol as Fletcher) in order to portray what happened. In which case, the Hollywood Mutiny on the Bounty really isn't a remake. If that's true, The Departed is the first remake of a foreign film, and Hamlet would be the first remake to win best picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.137.211 (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just did a very quick check on IMDb. It seems that there are two Australian versions of Mutiny on the Bounty ... one from 1916 and one from 1933. Which of these two versions is your above note referring to? In any event, surely both Australian versions were not documentaries --- were they? In which case, the original statement would stand. That is, that the 1935 Best Picture winner Mutiny on the Bounty is indeed the first remake to win Best Picture ... regardless of whether it was a remake of the 1916 Australian version, the 1933 Australian version, or both. Your thoughts? I only did some very, very quick research about this just now. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

A quick after-thought to my above post. If indeed the information in my above post is correct ... then, wouldn't that make Mutiny on the Bounty (and not The Departed) the first remake of a foreign film? Wouldn't those two Australian versions be considered "foreign films" ... or no? And, thus, is The Departed the first remake of a foreign film ... or is it the first remake of a foreign-language film? Does anyone know about all this? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Also, see the discussion above: Talk:Academy Award for Best Picture#Ben-Hur not the first remake to win Best Picture for relevant information about all of this. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

The whole question is irrelevant because the mutiny on the Bounty was a real event. So the various films on the subject are not 'remakes', they are different adaptations of the same historical event (just like Titanic is not a remake of A Night to Remember). Cop 663 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Great point! However, this is just off the top of my head. As I don't have time at the moment to dig into the research. But ... I thought that a novel was written ... and that the novel was based on the real-life events, but "not quite". And then, the films were based on that novel (and not on the real-life events). No? In that case, are they not film remakes ... that is, if the films were based on a novel and not necessarily on the real-life events? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Two interesting items from Wikipedia that support my above post: Number 1 = from the article about the 1935 film: Mutiny on the Bounty (1935 film) ... The film's "historical accuracy has been seriously questioned (inevitable as it is based in a novel about the facts, not the facts themselves)". Number 2 = from the article about the 1932 novel: Mutiny on the Bounty (novel) ... "The novel tells the story through a fictional first-person narrator by the name of Roger Byam, based on [an] actual crew member". (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Even if they were based on the same novel, they're still not remakes. They're different adaptations of the same source material. For example, Mel Gibson's film of Hamlet is not a remake of Laurence Olivier's Hamlet. Or The Thin Red Line (1998 film) is not a remake of The Thin Red Line (1964 film), they're both adaptations of The Thin Red Line (1962 novel). Cop 663 (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your interpretation of a remake, but that makes the question even harder. The only flat out remake is The Departed. Do Hamlet or Ben-Hur have enough similarities to their prior versions to be considered remakes if Mutiny on the Bounty isn't one? I think sometimes movies try to pretend they aren't remakes (the new Charly & the Chocolate Factory may have changed some details, but the impact of Willy Wonka & the Choc Factory on it seems undeniable). Where's an official film historian when you need one?

"The only flat out remake is The Departed." Besides being untrue (Ben-Hur is certainly one, and Marty is a film remake of a TV original), I think this is exactly what's wrong with this discussion. You're trying to define remake hard and fast to fit that specific answer. And so there's all kinds of special pleading going on. Okay, maybe Olivier wasn't remaking Asta Nielsen's Hamlet. But it's absurd to say MGM wasn't thinking hard about MGM's previous version of Ben-Hur even if they went back to the book for the script. The sensible thing to say, it seems to me, is that Hamlet, Marty, Ben-Hur, The Return of the King and The Departed are all remakes in the sense that their underlying material has been filmed before (including for TV), and Gigi, West Side Story, My Fair Lady, Oliver! and Chicago are all musical remakes of material previously filmed in non-musical form. Those are all pretty clearcut cases without getting into fuzzier ones like that Mutiny on the Bounty and Titanic are both based on historical events which have been filmed before (and while Titanic may not resemble A Night to Remember, it takes dialogue from the 1953 Titanic and bears a strong resemblance to 1937's History Is Made at Night), while Gladiator's producers bought remake rights to 1964's The Fall of the Roman Empire to cover themselves legally while not acknowledging that they were making a remake. Mgmax (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Mgmax 5 April 2008

Addendum to the above: turns out The Sound of Music is arguably a musical remake like Gigi, etc. The Von Trapps sold their story to the producers of a 1956 film called Die Trappe-Famille, and Rodgers & Hammerstein acquired the rights from them. Since the remake section is missing now anyway, this is moot, but I bring it up anyway just in case it ever comes back. Mgmax —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

Superlatives

Is the Superlatives section really relevant to this article? It is about most oscars overall, not just best pictue, so it isn't relevant here. I'll remove it if no one objects. Reywas92^Talk 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I definitely object. It's very relevant, indeed. Actually, the superlative information is exactly about Best Picture films. It is not about most Oscars, overall. But, obviously, a film that is "great" (superlative) ... in that it wins many awards and nominations ... is likely going to be either a nominee or a winner for Best Picture. So, to that extent, there would always (by definition) be some overlap. But, as it stands, this particular Chart delineates:

• the Best Picture (winner or nominee) with the most total awards;
• the Best Picture (winner or nominee) with the most total nominations;
• the Best Picture (winner or nominee) of the longest duration;
• the Best Picture (winner or nominee) of the shortest duration.

So, yes, the chart is indeed about Best Picture information, and it is indeed relevant to this Best Picture article. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

Milestones

I'm concerned about the 80th Academy Awards saying 'the first (and only) Best Picture winner to be produced, directed, written, and edited by the same nominee', although I understand what is being implied, I think it is confusing and many people would point out James Cameron Produced, Directed, Edited and Wrote 'Titanic', I suggest it is re-phrased or removed --86.131.81.191 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Can you clarify this post? If James Cameron did this (produce, direct, write, and edit a Best Picture winner) ... then the Coen's were certainly not the first ones to do so ... nor were they the only ones to also so. So, what exactly is the distinction between Cameron and the Coens ... and what exactly is being implied (although perhaps incorrectly worded) in the Coen statement quoted above? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

James Cameron was not the only editor on Titanic - he shared that credit with two others - the Coen Brothers were the only editors on No Country for Old Men, so your comparison doesn't work. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But, in both cases, the producer credit was also shared with some other third-party ... no? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

Wait a minute what relevance does Cameron sharing the editing credit have. The Coen Brothers shared Producing credit and put up a pseudonym for editing, so technically not being recognized by the Academy. If Roderick Jaynes (The Coen Brothers) had won editing, the Coen Brothers would not have been able to accept the Oscar, this was made clear by the Academy when the Brothers were nominated for editing for Fargo in 1996. I think therefore 'the first (and only) Best Picture winner to be produced, directed, written, and edited by the same nominee' should be removed as James Cameron is in fact the first person and The Coen Brothers were not technically nominated for Editing --86.131.81.191 (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Having researched I would agree with the above comment, and agree the statement should be removed --Duncanbruce (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clarify the above conversation, because I am having trouble following it. The current article reads: "No Country for Old Men is the first (and only) Best Picture winner to be produced, directed, written, and edited by the same nominee." Should that statement be eliminated altogether? Or should it simply be edited to read: "Titanic is the first (and only) Best Picture winner to be produced, directed, written, and edited by the same nominee." ...? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

This is what we should do and I will change it on the main page:

Titanic 'Is the first Best Picture Winner to Produced, Directed, Written and Edited by the Same Person'. No Country For Old Men 'The Coen Brothers are the first people to be Nominated for Directing, Producing, Writing and Editing (Under the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes) a Best Picture Winner --Duncanbruce (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've now changed it by Adding the James Cameron section to Titanic and re-phrasing the No Country For Old Men section, I hope this pleases everyone. --Duncanbruce (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, is this the distinction? Cameron did all four functions (produce, direct, write, edit) ... he simply was not nominated for all four of these awards / functions ... but he did win Best Picture. The Coen brothers also did all four functions (produce, direct, write, edit) ... and the difference is that they were indeed nominated for all four of these awards / functions ... and they also won Best Picture. Do I have this all straight? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Correct Almost. James Cameron did all 4 roles, however he was not nominated for writing. The Coen Brothers also did all four roles, and were unofficially nominated for all roles. The problem being Editing where Roderick Jaynes was nominated a Pseudonym for the Coen Brothers. Under the Academy rules the Coen Brothers cannot be credited with an Editing Nomination and should they have won they would have been unable to collect the Award. This is why I changed the phrase to say 'The first Best Picture winner winner to be produced, directed, written and edited by the same persons, The Coen Brothers, although in the case of editing under the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes' Someone has changed this so I am going to put it back, I hope we can all agree.--86.131.81.191 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be pedantic, but I will be pedantic. I believe that I now understand all of the above discussion thread. As of the latest edit (I presume by User 86.131.81.191 directly above) ... the milestone reads: No Country for Old Men is the first Best Picture winner to be produced, directed, written, and edited by the same persons, The Coen Brothers, (although in the case of editing under the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes). I just don't see how this is correct.

Let's say that we take that statement:

Statement A: No Country for Old Men is the first Best Picture winner to be produced, directed, written, and edited by the same persons, The Coen Brothers (although in the case of editing under the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes).

Now ... let's just cross out the title of No Country for Old Men and replace it with Titanic. And, furthermore, let's delete the irrelevant stuff about Roderick Jaynes (all the parenthesized info). And let's just cross out the name of The Coen Brothers and replace it with James Cameron. Then, we get the following statement:

Statement B: Titanic is the first Best Picture winner to be produced, directed, written, and edited by the same person, James Cameron.

Now, is Statement B a true statement or not?

If Statement B is true (and I think that it is), then Statement A cannot possibly be a true statement. (In other words, they both can't possibly be the first ones to do this.)

If Statement B is not true, what makes it not true?

I think that the distinction (sticking point) is this: Cameron was the first ... he did all 4 functions on the film (produce, direct, write, edit) ... but he was not nominated for all four functions (awards) ... he was only nominated for three out of the four. Now, the Coen's come along. They also did all 4 functions. So, therefore, they were the second ones -- after Cameron -- to do all four functions. But they were also nominated for all four functions (awards). So, they were the first to do that.

In other words, Cameron was the first person to do all four functions in a Best Picture. The Coen's were the second people (not the first) to do all four functions in a Best Picture. Cameron was not nominated for all four functions. The Coen's were (regardless of under what name they were nominated). So, the Coen's were the first to do all four functions and ... on top of that ... to also be nominated for all four functions (since Cameron did not do the latter achievement of all four nominations).

Thus, if all that I have said above is correct ... (but, who knows?) ... the way that the Milestone now reads is incorrect.

I think that is why I had (earlier) changed things so that the Cameron milestone said "first person to do such and such" (as opposed to first nominee) ... and the Coen milestone said "first nominee to do such and such" (as opposed to first person). Any thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Quick follow-up: Maybe these statements -- with a little cleaning up -- would work correctly? Yes? No?

• Titanic = the first Best Picture for which one person (Cameron) received credit for producing, directing, writing, and editing
• No Country = the first Best Picture for which one person (Coen duo) received credit and nominations for producing, directing, writing, and editing

Those certainly need cleaning up ... but are they on the right track? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Strike that last suggestion regarding No Country. The "person" (Coens) did not get the nomination (at least, in Editing). However, the work of that person (Coens) did get the nomination (for Editing), albeit under a different name. Hmmmmmmm. Therefore, how is this:

• Titanic = the first Best Picture in which the work of one person (Cameron) received credit for producing, directing, writing, and editing
• No Country = the first Best Picture in which the work of one person (Coen duo) received credit and nominations for producing, directing, writing, and editing

How is that? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

In regards to the No Country For Old Men issue, Lets get rid of it, Sorry to put it bluntly, the statement can't be made right because of the Roderick Jaynes issue and the James Cameron issue.--86.131.81.191 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I removed the No Country Statement on the Main Page until we have decided what to do, however Jospeh A. Spadaro has put it back can you clarify why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.81.191 (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhhh ... this is Joseph A. Spadaro here. I put what back? And when? What are you talking about? Please go back and check again before "accusing" me of something that I did not do. So, I am asking you for some clarification on your above comment. You are claiming that I put what back? And that I did so when? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

My apologies I have spoken in haste and failed to check the facts, I apologize to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.81.191 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted it stated "for the record" that I did not do anything improper in this article. That's all. No problem, though. Thanks for your insights and contributions to these Academy Award articles. You seem to catch a lot of errors and stuff that might otherwise go unnoticed. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Silence of the Lambs

"Silence Of The Lambs" is listed as being the first horror film to win Best Picture--isn't SOTL generally considered a "Crime Thriller"?Shirtwaist (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article itself, The Silence of the Lambs (film), categorizes the film as a thriller. (The Silence of the Lambs is a 1991 American thriller film that blends elements of the crime and horror genres.) This makes the statement "First (and only) horror film to win Best Picture" wrong. Then, Rebecca being "First (and only) thriller to win Best Picture" becomes wrong, as well.Obuli (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

X-rated: Milestones

Clockwork Orange is listed as the first X-rated film to be nominated for Best Picture; however Midnight Cowboy is listed as the first X-rated film to win Best Picture, 2 years prior. Halfabeet (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange is listed as the last X-rated film to be nominated for Best Picture. And -- since the MPAA does not use the X rating -- that will indeed literally be the last X-rated Best Picture nominee (or winner) ever. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Oh dear, I must have misread the sentence in question - apologies. Halfabeet (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

New milestone

A far more interesting milestone would be that accomplished by Warren Beatty, who is the only person to receive nominations in the Best Picture, Actor, Directing and Writing categories. A feat that is all the more impressive since he achieved it twice: the first time for Heaven Can Wait (1978), the second time for Reds (1981). BomBom (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

True, that is quite an achievement! Are you going to add it in? Not only on this page, but also as a Superlative on the Best Actor / Best Director pages. If not, I will do so. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Orson Welles is the first person to be nominated for Picture, Director, Actor and Writing not Warren Beatty --86.131.81.191 (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Orson Welles was never nominated for Best Picture. Although he was the producer of Citizen Kane, a Best Picture nominee, he did not receive a nomination in this category since it was the production companies not the individual producers which were nominated for this award until 1950. Thus, the Best Picture nomination received by Citizen Kane officially went to Mercury, the production company. Therefore, Warren Beatty is the first (and only) person to be nominated for Best Picture, Actor, Directing and Writing. BomBom (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In The Academy Awards Handbook published by the Academy, Orson Welles is named as receiving four nominations. Can we clarify that the nomination was not bestowed afterwards? I've found it difficult to clarify this for example this site http://littlegoldenguy.com/Movies.asp?movid=2450, backs up my statement, as well as this visiting Citizen Kane on wikipedia lists Orson receiving four nominations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.81.191 (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To 86.131.81.191 ... I do not quite follow your above post. Can you clarify? In particular, I don't know what you mean by this comment: "Can we clarify that the nomination was not bestowed afterwards?" What does that mean, about a nomination being bestowed afterwards? In any event, why not go directly to the source? I checked the official Academy / AMPAS website (oscars.org) ... and Orson Welles has three nominations: (1) Actor -- Citizen Kane {"Charles Foster Kane"}; (2) Directing -- Citizen Kane; and (3) Writing (Original Screenplay) -- Citizen Kane [Herman J. Mankiewicz, Orson Welles]. He lost the first two, but won the third. He also, later, won an Honorary Oscar in 1970. So, that is straight from the horse's mouth. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Also, to 86.131.81.191 ... the website that you refer to (littlegoldenguy.com) really does not back up your statement ... it backs up BomBom's statement. The website you cite states that Citizen Kane was nominated as Best Picture and that Welles was the producer of the film. All correct information. But, as BomBom states above, it was not the producer but the production company (in this case, Mercury) that officially receives the nomination (and/or award) back at that time. So, BomBom is correct. And the website you cite is also correct ... but it backs up BomBom's claim, not yours. That website is simply stating that Welles was the producer and that the film was nominated for Best Picture. The website is not saying that Welles himself received the Best Picture nomination. And, after all is said and done, it's the official Academy website that matters. And that website indicates what I have stated in the above post --- which also supports BomBom's statements. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

PS: The Wikipedia article on Orson Welles does list him with an Oscar nomination for Best Picture. But that is wrong. The editor of that page probably meant "the film was nominated as Best Picture and Welles was its producer". Or perhaps the editor was unaware that, back in 1941, the nomination for Best Picture went to the production company and not the producer. (Today -- and since 1950 -- it goes to the producer.) I will go in and clean up / fix up / edit the Wikipedia article at some point. But I want to read it thoroughly first and not just make a quick haphazard edit. With all this mess, I can see why you or anyone would get confused. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

What I was asking for was clarification. The Academy's site has not always been correct, this is mainly to do with the fact that they have changed and added nominee's throughout the years, for example there is debate about how many nominations Alfred Newman has as the Academy decided in some publications to list nominee's for the early score categories, in essence bestowing a nomination after the fact. Several of the Black Listed Writers of Hollywood had nominations bestowed afterwards. In regards to the Best Picture Oscar we run into difficulties, I'm not sure if many people know this but two (Sets) of Best Picture Oscars are given each year (One to the Producer or Producers of the Winning Film and One to the Studio(s) of the winning Best Picture if requested), for example this year with 'No Country For Old Men' Producers Scott Rudin, Joel Coen and Ethan Coen each received an Oscar, As did Paramount Vantage who requested one. Before the change in 1950 the Production Chief of the Studio also received an Oscar as did the Studio. Since Mercury did not have a Studio Executive, Orson Welles was the defacto claimant. However I agree that this is complicated and not worth putting on the site, its too detailed for what should be basic and clear information, However I would suggest if we are going to mention Warren Beatty as being the first person to receive the four nominations it might be wise to say something along the lines of 'Under the present day rules of the Academy, Actor Orson Welles would have been the first to achieve this with Citizen Kane.) --86.131.81.191 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, and it is indeed complicated and thorny. But the fact remains that Welles did not receive a nomination for Best Picture. And, in fact, that was an impossibility -- given the rules of the day back then. Whether he was the de facto recipient (by virtue of Mercury not having a Studio Executive) is not particularly relevant. He merely "stood in for" that vacant post ... but that still does not make him the nominee (or winner). That would be tantamount to saying that Sacheen Littlefeather received a Best Actor Oscar in 1972 ... when she merely stood in for Marlon Brando as recipient. Second point: I think it is unnecessary and unwarranted to start adding hypothetical "what if" scenarios, as you propose above. Your proposal is tantamount to saying "If the rules had been different back then, Orson Welles would have achieved such and such ...". I think that the if and would have are dangerous territory, so to speak. I mean, we can add ifs and would haves all day long, every which way. There would be no end. I don't think it adds much to introduce a remarkable achievement that is only remarkable if predicated on the hypothetical of changing certain conditions and premises and rules. That's my opinion. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

I agree with you that adding 'ifs' and 'buts' is not the way to go. The subject of Orson Welles and number of Oscar Nominations will have to remain in question until the academy makes a definitive statement, I know several people at the Academy and I might e-mail one of my contacts and see if Orson Welles does indeed just have Director, Actor and Screenplay or whether at some later date the academy did also bestow the Producer credit, I will keep this discussion informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.81.191 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please keep us posted and informed. If indeed there are any changes to Orson Welles' status, I would like to know ... and I am sure that others would, also. It's great that you have some contacts at the Academy. That can be very helpful, especially in instances such as this one. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Hello, I finally got a response from the Academy, they simply referred me to '75 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards' by Robert Osbourne. They point out this is there official publication on the Academy Awards, and that it is assembled by them with Mr. Osbourne. The book states that Orson Welles was the first person to receive 4 Oscar Nominations for the same film, Picture, Director, Actor and Screenplay for Citizen Kane. I would suggest we name Orson Welles as the first person to get four nominations and reference the book as the source. --86.131.80.27 (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for looking into this. Two thoughts. (1) Did the Academy in any way indicate why their database does not reflect this information correctly? (2) I have the book right here in front of me. It says (page 375): The first person nominated as a producer, director, actor, and screenwriter in a single year: Orson Welles, 1941, for Citizen Kane. The complete information on the book is as follows. Title: 75 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards. Author: Robert Osborne. Publishers: Abbeville Press (New York, London). Copyright: 1989. ISBN: 0-7892-0787-0. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

They didn't mention the website I am afraid, simply just referred me to the book and advised me to use that as our source.--86.131.80.27 (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Palme d'Or

The first Palme d'Or was awarded to Marty in 1955, making that film the only one to win bith the Best Picture and Palme d'Or. Prior to 1955, the Cannes Film Festival awarded the Grand Prix du Festival International du Film. This same award was also given from 1964 through 1974. From 1975 through the present, the Palme d'Or has been awarded.Wav01 (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well ... yes and no. But, moreso on the "no" side. The Cannes Film Festival awards a "top prize" each year ... which is a great honor, similar to the Academy Award for Best Picture. The only thing is ... the actual name of that Cannes award has simply changed throughout the years. Today, it is called the Palme d'Or. As your post points out ... historically, this top prize has been given varying names throughout the years. Nonetheless, it is still the same prize (the "top prize" for films awarded at the Cannes Film Festival). This is no different than the Academy Awards --- the Academy often changes the titles of some Academy Awards, including the Best Picture Award. But, whether the Top Prize was called "Best Production" or "Best Picture" or "Best Motion Picture" (or whatever) ... it is still the Academy's top film prize of the year (regardless of its semantic title). So, semantically speaking, there have been two Best Picture Oscar winners (The Lost Weekend and Marty) that have also won the Top Prize at Cannes. When The Lost Weekend won the Top Prize at Cannes, the Top Prize was called "Grand Prix du Festival International du Film" ... and when Marty won the Top Prize at Cannes, the Top Prize was called "Palme d'Or". It is not a different prize ... it is the same exact prize, with a different semantic name / title. And, today (2008), the name for that Top Prize has evolved into "Palme d'Or." It's a distinction without a difference. To rely on such semantics would be akin to saying that the Academy has only awarded 70 Best Pictures (and not 80) ... because, in the first ten years, there was a Prize called "Outstanding Production" and there was no prize called "Best Picture". That would be a silly distinction to make. There were indeed 80 Best Pictures throughout the past 80 years ... it's just that, in some years, the title was different. All this being said, the Milestones Section in the article is correct. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

The new Citation Tag

"The Academy Award for Best Motion Picture is universally considered the most important of the Academy Awards, as it is the final result of the collaborative producing, directing, acting, and writing efforts put forth for a film." It may be best to delete that line. There is no prove as there is no massive consensus displayed on the internet or whatsoever. It may lead to weasel words like " The Bla bla bla is considered BY MANY to be best bla bla bla". Oh, and by the way, a Collaborative effort doesn't mean the best. Besides, a Director may want best director more, an actress may want best actress more. Just my thought.165.21.155.116 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, ya ... a director may want Best Director more ... an actress may want Best Actress more ... obviously. But, what does that have to do with anything at all? Why, for example, would we expect that an actress would want a Best Cinematographer Award? What are you saying? I think the sentiment of the article statement is that most people think of Best Picture as the biggest / most important award of the Oscar ceremony ... hence, its being presented last (climax of the event). Not an unlikely sentiment. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

I guess I missed it

Wasn't there something on the top where you could click on any decade and be sent directly to that decade's Best Picture winners and nominees? I read the History section and it seems like the image was deleted at some point. I didn't know it was an image; I thought it was just a way to go wherever you want on the page with one click.

Why was the image deleted? Is it possible to get that back so it's easier to navigate the page? Thanks. -- Frightwolf (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess you must be referring to Template:TOCDecades20. I just added it back to the article. Hope this satisfies your request. Regards. BomBom (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fracking Hueg

The article is unreasonably huge, 23 pages is definitely too big. I highly suggest moving each decade to its own subpage or just some other place that's on on the main article. The history is fine being on a different page from the winners. I would change it myself but I'm afraid of being auto-corrected by a bot for suspected page-blanking. 76.225.156.26 (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with your criticism of the article's length. However, I don't think creating separate articles for each decade would be a good idea. What we should first do is to separate the list of winners and nominees from the description of the award itself. This was already done for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, and it is actually strongly recommended by Wikipedia guidelines, which discourage mixing up long lists and long texts in the same article. Secondly, we should completely remove the "Milestones" section as well as the "Superlatives" section (what an awful heading anyway!). Essential information (such as saying that Titanic, Ben-Hur and LOTR are the three Best Picture winners with the most Oscar wins) could be summed up in two or three sentences in the lead section. These sections are a mere indiscriminate collection of information. Anyway, if people really insist on keeping them, then I suggest they be moved to the List of Academy Award records as they would be far more appropriate there. BomBom (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Most Awards and Nominations

Why is this category included (at the top, no less) of the Superlatives? It's not a functional statistic, since it double-counts categories won. The subsequent categories, Most Wins and Most Nominations, are the real stats of note. What use is it to point out that Titanic was nominated in 14 categories, won in 11 of those categories, and those two numbers combined add up to 25? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.215.173.166 (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange nominated before The Excorcist

While A Clockwork Orange may not be a horror movie as much as it is weird, it still scared people at the time. It counts a a horror film, and was nominated two years before The Excorcist. Please change that in the interesting facts sections. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, A Clockwork Orange is a science fiction film, not a horror film. However, it was the first science fiction film to be nominated for Best Picture, which is itself a milestone. Interestingly, only two other science fiction films have been nominated for Best Picture: Star Wars (1977) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982). TheLastAmigo (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction - Lost Horizon (1937) was actually the first science fiction film to be nominated for Best Picture. I guess I should take back my above statement. TheLastAmigo (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with this and suggest that Star Wars is inaccurately given credit as the first science fiction film to receive a best picture nomination. (PS Ratliff, 2/10) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.32.255 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Silent films to win best picture

The milestone section says Wings is the first and only silent film to win best picture. Yet Sunrise is listed for the same year for the "other" best picture award. I'm feeling it should be changed? D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.38.90 (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured List

Okay, this is almost ready, IMO, to become FL status. There's only a few more things to do.

1. Source The Academy Award for Best Motion Picture is universally[citation needed] considered the most important of the Academy Awards or reword.
2. Copyedit if necessary.
3. Make list into charts if necessary.
4. Add footnotes where needed.

If there's any comments about this list becoming featured, please leave them below. When all suggestions are complete, I'll nominate this. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 21:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

American Beauty

It states in milestones that "Shakespeare in Love" is the last comedy film to date to win Best Picture. But isn't "American Beauty" a comedy film? Romarth, 20:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Parts of it are laugh-raising, as are parts of most every film, no matter how dark and bleak they may be overall. But was it primarily intended as a vehicle for comedy? I wouldn't have thought so. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1941 best picture nominees

You only have 9 listed, you're missing "One Foot in Heaven." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.137.3 (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Two things about the "milestones" section

The first, you have "The Life of Emile Zola" listed as the first biopic to win best picture, but The Great Ziegfeld should hold that distinction. Ziegfeld came out the year before, and is a biopic on Florenz Ziegfeld. Second, you have The Wizard of Oz as the first children's film to be nominated for best picture, but Skippy (1931) should be the first. Skippy is all about the adventures of two kids, and even garnered a Best Leading Actor nomination for Jackie Cooper, the youngest actor to receive a leading nomination. 67.162.137.3 (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Producer?

This article should feature the director and the screenwriter. They're more important than the producer. The Person Who Is Strange 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the producer who gets the award. There are separate awrds for Director and Screenplay. jnestorius^(talk) 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Sunrise"

And the other nominees for "Artistic Production" at the first ceremony need to be here. Vidor (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars

Star Wars did NOT win best picture. It lost to Annie Hall, which isn't listed. Tbarlag (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Following up on that, is it appropriate to call it anything but Star Wars? The Episode IV: A New Hope was not part of the original title, was it? Alanmjohnson (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Slumdog millionaire actually the FOURTH partial foreign language film to win Best Picture

It says that Slumdog Millionaire is the third partial foreign language film to win Best Picture after The Godfather Part II and The Last Emperor, but the original The Godfather also was part foreign-language! Therefore it should say that Slumdog Millionaire was the fourth and not the third partial foreign language film to win Best Picture.24.171.52.43 (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This depends on what you call a "foreign" language. The page uses the term "non-English," whereby the prominent use of the Lakota language in Dances with Wolves should also be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.20.89 (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What about District 9? (Afrikaans/English) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.234.156 (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And what about Babel? (Japanese/Spanish)74.232.83.13 (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And what about keeping this to films that WON Best Picture, as per the OP's question. Those two were nominated only. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Skippy

DICK TRACY (1990) is down here as the first comic book/strip movie to receive an actng nomination when SKIPPY's lead Jackie Cooper was nominated for Best Actor. The movie (1931), which was also nominated for Best Picture and won it Norman Taurog the Best Director award, was based on a comic strip of the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.235.109 (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Broadway Melody

This list has Harry Rapf as the producer of The Broadway Melody (Winner, 1929), but the page for that film lists Irving Thalberg and Lawrence Weingarten as the producers. IMDB lists all three as uncredited producers, and Oscars.org lists only MGM. Anyone have a good source for this? Raronow (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Academy expands number of nominees to 10

The Academy announced today that they are expanding the number of Best Picture nominees to 10. This should be integrated into the article.

http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2009/20090624.html TheLastAmigo (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Terrible new setup....

thats it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.98.122 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are the Nominees ????

What kind of silliness is this? You redesign the Best Picture entry and leave out the Reason for having the entry in the first place, the historical information? Cripes! You people sure are stupid. What Philistines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.92.186 (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

someone's screwing with this page.

I came here look at the list of best picture winners (something I have done before) and noticed that the 2000 film winner listed was Cast Away, a film not even nominated for Best Picture! Chocolat had been taken out of the list, and Gladiator had become a "nominee". I removed the fake and replaced Chocolat, re-crowning Gladiator. Then, I noticed that 2002's apparent new winner is The Pianist, and Good Night, and Good Luck. along with Children of Men are all new winners of this award.

please fix. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.2.234 (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

1990's Section

Best picture winners for the 1990's are all wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neclordxxx (talk • contribs) 04:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Table layout

The table layout for the Winners and Nominees section is simply awful and not at all easy to read. The previous list-style layout was much simpler and readable. I strongly suggest changing it back (or at the very least, fix the current table so it doesn't look like complete garbage). tdogg241^TC 19:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did like the bullet points better, but i do like this tables structure, so I can see the appeal of it. I dont believe its bad and believe it is readable. Do you have any suggestions on how the table could be improved?Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I liked the bullet points better. Every other Academy Award award (except the foreign language film award for some reason) has the bullet style list, it is much easier to read because it makes a clear distinction between winners and nominees (different indenting rather than different colors) and groups years together clearly. Meanwhile this table makes it appear at first as though this is only a list of winners and that the highlight indicates some certain kind of winner. It also makes it visually hard to see which films are grouped together in which years, and it makes each row take up a lot of space, so the article is longer. I intend to revert this table thing back to the bullet liost that all other Academy Award categories have, because this table looks bad and is difficult to read. Givememoney17 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You must have missed the fact that the List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film is a WP:Featured List. Take a look at any one of them. The high-quality lists are all tables. Every other Oscar list is bulleted because they are years old and no one's taken the time to improve them. This one, with a little work, could also be featured. Wikipedia aims for professional design, not the boring, generic bulleted list you can find anywhere online. Not only is a table much more appealing to most people, it is sortable. Unlike a bulleted list, you can sort a table by year, title, company, or producer. And please, rather than saying it looks like complete garbage (in which case most of Wikipedia's best lists must also be garbage), give actual reasons why you don't like the format. Reywas92^Talk 22:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm... you make a good case here. I actually have a suggestion for cleaning it up. Could we put all the nominees from a single year into the same cell, with the winner listed first (bold and italicized) and the other nominees listed underneath, indented. Then it could still be sorted, although everything would be by winnner, not nominees. That way we kind of combine the bullets and the sorted table, group years together better, and make it more visually appealing. I admit thats not perfect, but I think it's better than the current table. Another alternative would be to use the Golden Globe's format. Thoughts?Givememoney17 (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that just removes half the purpose of the table. Now you can't sort by all titles. What Golden Globe format do you mean? All the ones I saw are just bullets. Reywas92^Talk 01:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama It's a cleaner looking table, although you can't sort it. Givememoney17 (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an idea: you could take a look at this table: fi:Parhaan elokuvan Oscar-palkinto. You loose on sortability but on the other hand I think most people are interested in winners... (althouhgh your split between production company and producer is good; why didn't we think of that?)--Nedergard (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, well, the current table layout is actually very good, I think it's a step toward Featured status for this article, now we need to do something about those milestones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Givememoney17 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of Comedies

In the discussion of comedies being overlooked at the Academy Awards, it states that only one comedy has won in the last thirty years (Shakespeare in Love). Surely Chicago counts as well; it's a satire. People tend to think of it first as a musical, of course, but if you're fitting films into a comedy/drama binary, Chicago fits much better into the former than the latter.

CaptainCanada (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Move Superlatives and milestones into notes section of main table

I think this would reduce the length and clutter of the page, so I think this should be done, thoughts? Givememoney17 (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

2009 Milestones

"Avatar: Last science fiction film to be nominated for Best Picture"

And District 9?

It should also be pointed that The Hurt Locker is the lowest-grossing film to win best picture. Sherick (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of Milestones

I think I finally have an idea for how to cleanup the milestones section. What if we split it into several tables, each regarding a certain type of milestone. We could have milestones of ratings table, a milestones of musicals table, a milestones of sequals; prequals; and remakes table, and maybe a few others. I think this would eliminate some of the tendency to have too many random milestones that require about ten qualifying words to make the category work, are indiscriminate information, and are quite frankly things that nobody cares about (for example I deleted this one: "District 9 - First Best Picture nominee to be filmed in a partly documentary style"). Along these lines I would move that other than milestones by movie musicals, milestones by genre be eliminated. For one thing genres have subgenres which have subgenres which have subgenres. For another thing exactly what genre a movie is can be debated endlessly, as the discussion above proves about what qualifies as a so called biopic. Family film is also a debatable genre (PG and G rating should serve as a fine substitute). Thoughts? Schnapps17 (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have begun working on this and have so far been using the following categories:

• Milestones Related to Other Academy Awards
• Milestones Related to Country or Language
• Milestones Related to Other Award Ceremonies
• Milestones Related to Sequels, Prequels, and Remakes
• Milestones of Movie Musicals
• Milestones Related to Rating
• Milestones Related to Technology (B&W, Color, Sound, Silent, 3-D, Widescreen, HD, etc.)

Any other suggestions are welcome. I am going to work on this over the next two weeks to give time for people to comment, in case their is consensus against this reformatting.

Schnapps17 (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

emboldening - movie names

The list of movies segregated by year with the winner of Academy Award highlighted in yellow looks impressive. However the other Movie Names (other nominations) should be emboldened (made Bold), as the second row has the cast of that movie. --Joglekar (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How many actors?

People have been adding extra names to the lists of actors in the "Winners and nominees" table. Is there any consensus of how many actors should be listed for each film? —Coder Dan (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• More importantly, why have the actors at all? They're not a part of the nomination. It's an irrelevancy. Why not list the director as well? And the writer? Doesn't make any sense to me. .... 14:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Out of Africa

Hi. Can anybody here possibly tell me if Kim Jorgensen is a case of mistaken identity? I swapped in Anna Cataldi, Judith Thurman, Kim Jorgensen for producer of Out of Africa (1985). Jorgensen was the executive producer. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Most common distributors for Oscar winners noms

I thought this be intersting, is there a list for this? Such as I realized that if The Social Network wins it will be the first Sony film since The Last Emperor to win best picture and such as how The French Connection was the last Fox film. I think MGM still has the most even if it has not won since Rain Man

I do remember reading somewhere that Paramount has the most nominations in every cat. But I don't remember where.

Kamkek (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Toy Story 3

I feel like all mentions of this film in the milestones category except for "Only sequel to be nominated for best picture without any of its predecessors being nominated" is absolutely redundant. Latest family film to be nominated? Third of three animated films to be nominated? Not really milestone material to me. Thoughts? --haha169 (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are the actors listed?/Animated films in the milestones

Hello everyone, I'm really confused as to why the actors are listed under every best picture nominee. It makes the article way too long and the actors are not included in the best picture nominations - only the producers. I can understand the production company, but in my opinion, I don't understand why the actors were ever added. They used to not be there, and it was a much easier article to read.

Also, with regard to the animated films in the milestones section, I don't understand why "Toy Story 3" is known as the "third of three animated films to be nominated for best picture." Who cares? "Beauty and the Beast" should obviously be included because it was the first, and "Up" was the first digitally-animated or whatever you want to call it (CGI, I don't know). But who cares if it's the third? There are tons of crime films that have been nominated. Does it say fifth of x number of crime films to be nominated for best picture? No. So why include that for "Toy Story 3?" Dump it.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.196.43 (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Production companies/distributors

The table has the heading "production company", but in almost all cases lists the American distributor, not the production company. Could the heading be changed to Distributor, or US Distributor, or something similar? 86.138.94.157 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Toy Story 3 NOT only sequel nominated without previous film being nominated

Silence of the Lambs was a sequel to "Manhunter"---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.139.253 (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Most Nominated Film that Did Not Receive A Best Picture Nomination

I believe "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" (1969), with 9 nominations, is still the most-nominated film that did not receive a Best Picture nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.178.1.101 (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Longest Best Picture

In a footnote to the Longest Best Picture in the Superlatives section, the last sentence states, "However, the Extended Edition of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King runs 251 minutes (4 hours and 12 minutes), making it unofficially the longest Best Picture winner." I don't think it's proper for the article to declare it the "unofficial" longest Best Picture. Voters weren't considering the Extended Edition in their votes. The Extended Edition wasn't released until about 10 months after the Oscar ceremony. It may not even existed sitting around in some office at Peter Jackson's facilities or New Line. So I don't think something unseen by the voters couldn't be viewed as a Best Picture winner in even in an "unofficial" sense. It would be akin to declaring a winner which was colorized years afterwards to be the unofficial first color Best Picture. So for now, I'm going to change the sentence to read, "However, the Extended Edition of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, which was released almost a year after the shorter theatrical versionof the film won Best Picture, runs 251 minutes (4 hours and 12 minutes)." --JamesAM (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Number of comedies

Does anyone have an opinion on the number of comedies mention? I edited the text to say The Artist applies as a comedy pick, along with Shakespeare in Love. And I would say that correctly, those are the only two since Annie Hall. However, others argue against that. A recent NYTimes opinion on the lack of comedy choices says there has not been one since Annie Hall (and before that, The Apartment) and that there is no way The Artist is a comedy (contesting the Golden Globe category). If you ask me, The Artist is as much as comedy as SiL, without question, despite neither of these being slapstick. Still others lump Chicago into the category of comedy and musical as the Globes does. I don't agree with that one. CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)