My Opinions On The 2019 Oscars!

Alright! Today I’m breaking down what makes a Best Picture Academy Award winner.
I’m looking at Oscar stats since 1988, so a good 30 years.
Keep in mind, the movie world 30 years ago was very different than the one today; no CGI,
no superheroes, and no Chris Pratt. I’m also not counting Best Picture nominations,
because those are really pity awards, like “Oh, you were good, but you weren’t as good Oscar bait.”

To be a best picture winner, you basically need to have about 6 qualifications:

The Rating

The last PG-13 movie to win Best Picture before Green Book was the Artist in 2011.
And before that, Million Dollar Baby in 2004, Return of the King in 2003, Chicago in 2002,
A Beautiful Mind in 2001, and before that Titanic in 1997, Forrest Gump in 1994,
Dances With Wolves in 1990, and Driving Miss Daisy in 1989.
That means that since 1988, 30 years of Academy Awards, a PG-13 movie has only won Best Picture
9 times, and a PG movie has one once (Driving Miss Daisy).

The Box Office (This is unadjusted for inflation, because I don’t care)

Let’s compare the box office results of the Best Picture winner (By decade) to that of the arguably
worst and least-grossing MCU film, the Incredible Hulk, which made $263 million, which is on the
very, very low end of the modern blockbuster that people actually see

In 2010, the King’s Speech made $414 million, which is more than the Incredible Hulk and
Captain America: the First Avenger, but still less than Thor.

In 2008, 2006, 2003, 2002, 2001, and 2000, we had Slumdog Millionaire ($377 million),
The Departed ($291 million), The Lord of the Rings: Return Of The King ($1.120 billion),
Chicago ($306 million), A Beautiful Mind ($313 million), and Gladiator ($460 million), respectively.

For the 1990s, we had 1999, 1998, 1997, 1994, 1993, 1991, 1990,
with American Beauty ($356 million), Shakespeare In Love ($289 million), Titanic ($2.187 billion),
Forrest Gump ($677 million), Schindler’s List ($322 million), the Silence of the Lambs ($272 million),
and Dances With Wolves ($424 million).

For the 1980s, the only 80s movie was Rain Man ($354 million), released in 1988.
And that’s not just counting the 30 year limit; the only movie in the 1980s that made over $267 million
was Rain Man.

Going back further, the only movie in the 70s was the 1972 winner, the Godfather ($286 million),
and the only movie in the 60s was the 1965 winner, the Sound Of Music ($286.2 million).
Next is the 40s, which has Gone with the Wind ($390 million) in 1939, and that’s it!

17 movies in 91 years. That’s about 18% of the winners.

The Genre

Best Picture winners like the following words: Period Piece (Historical Drama), Drama, Biography,
Epic, Romance, War, Crime Thriller, and Comedy Drama (NOT Comedy).
In fact, the only three I could find are the Silence of the Lambs (Psychological Horror-Thriller),
the Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (Epic Fantasy), and
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance (Black comedy).
Literally 1% of the past 30 years have not been connected to Period Pieces and Drama, and that’s
counting the Lord of the Rings: Return of the King and
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance, which both include genres previously mentioned
(Comedy and Epic). 10 of the 30 films do not have Wikipedia referring to them as dramas, or 33.3%
of the films.

It’s sad that we can have thousands of movies come out in 30 years, and yet only 1% of them earned
an Academy Award for Best Picture and was not related to the aforementioned categories.

No documentary, slasher, art, noir, anime, speculative, musical, religious, satire, or absurdist.
In the popular genre category, the Academy Awards have ignored adventure, science-fiction, action,
superhero, family, and animated films (Which are arguably the most popular film genres).

In fact, every film that has made over $1 billion has been related to those popular categories.

You also shouldn’t be a sequel; only two sequels have ever won, and they are the Godfather II, and
the Lord of the Rings: Return of the King.

It should probably have a diverse cast, or focus on a minority group

It seems like the Oscars really like focusing on diverse films; it helps if they have a minority group
present.

For example, the LGBTQ+ group has earned nominations for Bohemian Rhapsody,
Call Me By Your Name, and won with Moonlight in the past three years, and
Brokeback Mountain going back further.

For the “Not American” group, you have films like Roma, Armour, Letters From Iwo Jima,
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Life Is Beautiful, and the Postman (Il Postino).

For the african-american group, you have movies like Moonlight and 12 Years A Slave, and for
nominations, you have Black Panther, BlacKkKlansmen, and Get Out.

It should have at least a nomination for Best Director

Only 5 Best Picture winners have not had a nomination/win for Best Director; Wings (1972),
Grand Hotel (1932), Driving Miss Daisy (1989), Argo (2012, directed by Ben Affleck), and
Green Book (2018). Every other Best Picture winner has had a nomination/win for Best Director in
91 years. 5.5% of the Best Picture winners have also not had a nom/win in the Best Director category.

It should have critical acclaim and avoid controversy

The Best Picture winner should avoid controversial press and reviews, and should have
more than 88% on Rotten Tomatoes.  

So now let’s figure out what movie really should’ve won 2018’s Best Picture award:

A Star Is Born

Checks: 3/6 qualifications; Genre, Rating, and Critical Reception.

A Star Is Born is R-Rated, and is a love story, Unfortunately, it was not nominated for Best Director,
made $427 million, and did not focus on a minority group.

BlacKkKlansman

Checks: 6/6 qualifications; Genre, Rating, Critical Reception, Best Director, Minority Group, and
Box Office

BlacKkKlansman was an R-Rated, period biography centered on a minority, nominated for Best
Director, and made $90 million. It seems like maybe this should have won.

Black Panther

Checks: 2/6 qualifications, Critical Reception and Minority Group.

Black Panther gained strong reviews (It actually had the highest rank on the tomatometer, 97%.
BlacKkKlansman had 96%) and centered on a minority group. In fact, an entire country of a minority
group. Unfortunately, it was PG-13, made $1.347 billion, was not nominated for Best Director, and
was, this might be the biggest push factor of all, a superhero movie.

Of course, we were all hoping it might pull a Return of the King and win with only 2/6, but it didn’t.
They went with an Oscar Bait.

Bohemian Rhapsody

Checks: 2/6 qualifications, Genre and Minority Group

Bohemian Rhapsody was a movie about a gay man (Minority group, check), and was a period
biographical romance type. So, that’s two. Unfortunately, it was not critically acclaimed and did not
avoid controversy, and in fact had about three controversial decisions; hiring Bryan Singer, an alleged
predator, and treating Freddie Mercury's diagnosis with AIDS and his homosexuality bluntly.
It also was PG-13, made $867 million, and was not nominated for Best Director.

The Favourite

Checks: 5/6 qualifications, Genre, Rating, Critical Reception, Best Director, and Box Office

The Favourite is an R-Rated historical period drama film with a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, a
nomination for Best Director, and made $88 million. It did not, however, focus on a minority group; in
fact, it was about England monarchs or something, I don’t know, I don’t think anyone actually cared
about this one.

Green Book

Checks: 2/6 qualifications, Genre and Box Office

Those two checks might be the most standard Oscar checks ever. Green Book focused on a
white guy, was PG-13, wasn’t even nominated for Best Director, and had a 79% on Rotten Tomatoes.
However, it did make only $188 million, and was a biographical comedy-drama period film.
But what really bites is that this was the opposite of focusing on a minority group; it was accused of
having a “White savior” narrative.

Roma

Checks: 6/6 qualifications, Genre, Rating, Critical Reception, Best Director, Minority Group, and
Box Office

Roma was directed by Alfonso Cuarón, and did win Best Director, focused on a Minority Group, was a
Netflix film, so it didn’t even make box office (Actually, it made $4 million), had critical acclaim, was
R-Rated, and was a period semi-autobiographical romance.

Vice

Checks: 4/6 qualifications, Genre, Rating, Best Director, and Box Office

Vice was a R-Rated biographical comedy-drama period film about Vice President Dick Cheney,
portrayed by Christian Bale (That might seem like an odd choice, but it did win Best Makeup and
Hairstyling). It was nominated for Best Director and made $66 million. Unfortunately, is was not
critically acclaimed and did not focus on a minority group.

And the winner is...

At this point, the winner should be either BlacKkKlansman or Roma, right?
Well, let’s put it to whichever made the least at box office. BlacKkKlansman made $90 million,
but Roma was released online, so it made far less, $4 million. Roma also won Best Director,
so… yeah.

The winner is…. Green Book? What? Where? Why? It only made 2/6! , The film that was accused of a white savior narrative beat Black Panther, BlacKkKlansman, and Roma! It wasn’t even nominated for Best Director or critically acclaimed! And it was PG-13! Out of all the 2/6 qualification movies, they chose the one nobody saw?

Yeah, Green Book did not deserve Best Picture. If you're going for the cultural impact, that would be Black Panther. If you're going for Best Director, that's Roma. If you're going for Box Office, that would be Roma. If you're doing the rating, that would not be Green Book. It you're doing critical acclaim, that is still not Green Book.

Black Panther was the true winner (That's not an opinion, that's a fact). The full impact of it is yet to be determined, but it is definitely an important film.