The Biggest Best Picture Snubs

A couple of weeks ago, the Academy Awards announced that Family Guy creator, Seth McFarland, would be hosting this year's Oscars and I couldn't be more excited about such a bold choice.  Not only is the guy a comedic genius, but he is also multi-talented.  He has a cool speaking voice and can sing a lot better than you would think for a guy who does the voice of Peter Griffin.  On top of that, I thought he was great on this season's Saturday Night Live premiere.  But let's get down to business.  Because of this announcement, I got to thinking about some of the worst Best Picture snubs in Oscar history and decided to compile a Top 10 list for you guys.  One of the big factors that I took into consideration when making this list was how well each movie has held up over the years which basically means - would you watch this movie if it came on TNT and you were bored?  Hell, a better question would be, would TNT even buy the rights to these movies?  So, here goes:

10)  2002
Who Won - Chicago
Who Should Have Won - The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers or Gangs of New York
Why - A musical v. two violently awesome movies, sometimes I wonder if the "Academy" even knows what makes a good movie.

9)  2008
Who Won - Slumdog Millionaire
Who Should Have Won - The Dark Knight
Why - Do you realize that Slumdog is a movie based around the game show, Who Wants to be a Millionaire?  And did you know that The Dark Knight had nothing to do with a game show that no one under the age of 60 has watched in years and had more to do with fucking Batman?

8)  1941
Who Won - How Green Was My Valley
Who Should Have Won - Citizen Kane
Why - Come on, has anyone even heard of How Green Was My Valley?  Of course not.  And Citizen Kane is considered one of the greatest films of all-time.  What were the voters thinking?

7)  1996
Who Won - The English Patient
Who Should Have Won - Fargo
Why - I can honestly say that I have never seen The English Patient and I doubt anyone else has either.  But I have seen Fargo and the wood-chipper scene alone is definitely worth an Oscar.

6)  1979
Who Won - Kramer v. Kramer
Who Should Have Won - Apocalypse Now
Why - Kramer v. Kramer was actually a pretty decent movie, however, Apocalypse Now was definitely better.

5)  1977
Who Won - Annie Hall
Who Should Have Won - Star Wars
Why - Did you know that Annie Hall was supposed to be a murder mystery spoof and that the title character was only supposed to have a minor part?  When the editor watched it, he thought it sucked, so Woody Allen literally cut out the entire main plot and accidentally made an Oscar winner.  Yet, Star Wars changed movie history.  So, I could see Annie Hall winning Best Editing, but Star Wars should have won the big one.

4)  1990
Who Won - Dances With Wolves
Who Should Have Won - Goodfellas
Why - At the time, Dances With Wolves was great and Kevin Costner could do no wrong.  Today, Dances With Wolves is boring and Kevin Costner can't find steady work.  Goodfellas was great then and it's just as good today.

3)  2005
Who Won - Crash
Who Should Have Won - Brokeback Mountain or Munich
Why - I will admit that Crash was a good movie, but there is no way it was better than Munich or The Gay Cowboy Movie, but I have never seen the gay cowboy one, so I can't confirm that.

2)  1994
Who Won - Forrest Gump
Who Should Have Won - The Shawshank Redemption or Pulp Fiction
Why - Once again, the winner was actually a good movie but come on Academy voters, The Shawshank Redemption has to be one of the Top 10 Greatest Movies of All-Time and Pulp Fiction was incredible, how could they possibly get this one wrong?

1)  1998
Who Won - Shakespeare in Love
Who Should Have Won - Saving Private Ryan
Why - This Academy Award winner was just terrible.  Not only has no one every seen Shakespeare in Love, but Saving Private Ryan was easily the best World War II movie ever made.  The Battle of Normandy scene alone would have made a better movie than Shakespeare in Love.  This was easily the biggest Best Picture snub and the Academy should apologize to Steven Spielberg on a daily basis for this egregious mistake.

"This scene was incredible, I'm pretty sure it would have won the Best Picture no matter what year it was nominated."

NOKW - Tron: Legacy

Here comes the next chapter in our "I'm Okay With, I'm Not Okay With" series (if you don't know what this is, click here for all of the past posts):

Movie:  Tron: Legacy

Basic Plot:  Technically a sequel to the 80's movie, Tron.  This time, Kevin Flynn's son finds his way into The Grid and has to fight Flynn's evil computer clone in order to escape.  Also, the super sexy Olivia Wilde is in this movie and that automatically makes it worth watching.

I'm Okay With:  The fact that Flynn's Arcade is still standing even though it is full of outdated arcade games and is owned by a company that is all about making as much money as possible and would probably get rid of the arcade because it is bleeding cash.  The fact that Sam Flynn didn't get his ass killed in the first "Game" he played in The Grid considering he had never played before and didn't have a clue what he was doing.  The fact that Flynn, his son, and the super sexy Olivia Wilde are shown eating while in The Grid even though they are technically computer programs and eating doesn't benefit computer programs in any way.  The fact that The Grid created "isomorphic algorithms" on its own and Flynn thought that these things would somehow solve the mysteries of science, religion, and medicine.  The fact that the super sexy Olivia Wilde is a computer program and when she transported into the real world, she is able to blend in like a normal person despite having the mind of Microsoft Excel.

I'm Not Okay With:  The fact that evil clone Kevin Flynn's evil plan relied on the use of a laser made in the 80's that is able to turn programs into people.  Basically the plot of this movie is that Kevin Flynn's evil computer clone is building an army that he is going to take into the real world by using the laser that good Flynn uses to jump into and out of The Grid.  However, how exactly is that even possible?  I can (kind of) understand how just one person is able to get out of The Grid because that person's body is still in the real world and the laser can use that to make them real again, but where is that laser going to get enough physical matter to create an army's worth computer programs trying to get out?  And I can't stress this enough, this was a piece of hardware that was built in the 80's back when computers could only add and subtract numbers, play Pong, and were usually as big as a house.  So, how in the hell did evil Flynn expect to get his entire army into the real world?  And for that matter, what exactly did he think his army was going to accomplish once he got there?  He would appearing in the middle of the US which has a National Guard bigger than his army and they would most definitely have better weaponry.  I am not okay with that.

"She might be the reason I get out of bed every morning."

Stupid State Laws - Iowa

Here comes another post about a state law that still exists on the books and why it is ridiculous (to see them all, click here):

Iowa

"One-armed piano players must perform for free."

That's just cruel.  If a dude from Iowa is one-armed and his only talent is playing the piano, how in the hell is he supposed to make a living?  For that matter, why would anyone even think to make a law about such a matter?  Was that lawmaker so pissed off about how much better a one-armed man was at playing the piano than himself that he got revenge by requiring one-armed piano players perform for free?  That would be beyond petty, but I can't figure out why else this law would come into existence.  Hopefully there is no law against giving the one-armed dude tips.  So, the next time you are in Iowa, make sure to generously tip your one-armed piano player, he doesn't even make minimum wage.

"What!  You want to be paid for your playing?  Ha!  Get lost, you one-armed  loser."

NFL Awesome Picks Spectacular Week 10

Because we here at Brainfart love us some football, we decided that we would not only be doing college football picks each week, but we would also be doing some NFL picks, too. So, here is where I make my NAPS (NFL Awesome Picks Spectacular):

Picks are in red

All lines are provided by Sportsbook.ag

Detroit Lions (-2) at Minnesota Vikings

Sunday 1:00

-  The Vikings are in a little bit of a tailspin.  Despite a few games of Ponder trying to prove otherwise, the truth that he blows is out.  Peterson is still an unstoppable beast but without Harvin there are simply not enough weapons for the Vikings to win.

New York Jets (+6) at Seattle Seahawks

Sunday 4:25

- I know, I know - the Jets are a big joke but they aren't as bad as you would think.  They still have some solid people, just not at the skill positions. The Seahawks are coming around somewhat but they still are nothing special.  The Jets may not win this game but they will keep it close enough.

Dallas Cowboys at Philadelphia Eagles (+2)

Sunday 4:25

- Romo is mud.  He cannot do anything right and even if he has a moment of brilliance he has to overcome Dez Bryant's craziness.  The Eagles have not been winning but they have been moving the ball on offense.  I think they can move the ball better than the Cowboys and the turnovers could be numerous, but the Cowboys are pretty good at turning it over themselves - or just sucking.

Buffalo Bills at New England Patriots (OVER 52.5)

Sunday 1:00

- The Bills and Patriots are giving up 31 and 21 points a game this year along with 800 combined yards.  Offensively, they are scoring 33 and 22 points.  This has shootout written all over it.  The Pats are good at scoring fast and furious and the Bills are good at scoring a lot of points after the game is already over.  I expect a 42-21 point game or something in that neighborhood.

Kansas City at Pittsburgh Steelers (-12)

Monday 8:30

- This is a pure sucker bet but I am all in on it.  I just do not see a way that KC can score many points on one of the better defenses in the league at home on Monday Night. The Chiefs have played three straight games against sub-.500 teams and have lost all three by an average of over 18 points - none of those teams were as good as the Steelers.  This will be what I call a classic Alabama game - you never feel like your are getting crushed but you also know you have no shot to win.  At the end of the game you look at the scoreboard and you just lost 38-6.

Last Week's Results: 2-1-0
Season Results: 17-18-1

Why College Basketball Sucks

College basketball kicks off today and surprisingly there will even be a couple of good match-ups (three games involving Top 25 teams and one of them played on the deck of a ship).  Having gotten that out of the way, here comes a rant as to why I think college basketball sucks.

One-and-Done Players are ruining the sport.  If you don't know what a "One-and-Done Player" is, it is a college basketball player that enrolls to a college, plays for a year, and then leaves for the NBA.  And because of them, college basketball stupid.  You may be saying - how is watching the best talent in the sport playing at the college level a bad thing?  Easy, it makes rooting for a team hard to do.  How can you have any sort of attachment to your favorite team when they have a new roster every year?  If you look at college football, they have a rule in place that requires that a player can't enter the NFL Draft until they have been out of high school for three years.  Therefore, you can root for your team's best players for at least three years which results in a true attachment to that player.  But in college basketball, the rule is that a player only has to play for one season before going pro and that means that the elite teams have such high turnover that it is impossible to ever feel like you got to know the best players that come through there.  For example, Kentucky has been able to bring in the best talent in the country year-in-and-year-out, but that talent only comes in for a season and then immediately abandons that school for a paycheck.  So, how exactly can you consider that guy a part of the team if he was there for such a short amount of time?  You can't.  Then again, Kentucky competes for a National Championship every year, so their fans forgive those players for never really being apart of their school.  And sure, some of the smaller schools are able to hold onto their best player for more than one year, but those schools have to have the stars align in order to actually compete for anything meaningful.

However, there is one exception to this rule.  Duke.  The Blue Devils are able to bring in elite talent (albeit white talent) and keep them there for a couple of years.  And because they are able to bring in great players that stay for multiple seasons, you would think that I would applaud their team and pull for them.  However, Duke is evil and I will never be able to pull for them even if I were to have a son who was to go on to be a star player for the Blue Devils (it's possible, he would be white after all).  In the end, I think college basketball is a waste of time and I find it harder to watch every year because I couldn't tell you who the best players in the sport are because none of the best players stay more than a year.

"Makes me laugh every time."

Weekly Picks of the Week - Week 11

Picks in Bold

Rankings based on BCS Standings
All lines provided by Sportsbook.ag

#10 Florida State Seminoles @ Virginia Tech Hokies (+14.5)

Thurs 7:30
ESPN

#24 Northwestern Wildcats (+11) @ Michigan Wolverines

12:00
ESPN

#11 Oregon State Beavers (+4.5) @ #14 Stanford Cardinal

3:00
FOX

#15 Texas A&M Aggies (+14) @ #1 Alabama Crimson Tide

3:30
CBS

Penn State Nittany Lions @ #16 Nebraska Cornhuskers (-7)

3:30
ABC or ESPN2

#21 Mississippi State Bulldogs @ #7 LSU Tigers (-14.5)

7:00
ESPN

-Colin Klein looks like Sean Austin from Rudy.  I was watching a game or highlight of his this weekend and when Colin Klein is wearing a helmet, I couldn't get the image of Rudy out of my head.  Check it out, it's uncanny:

Okay, maybe that's not the best picture I could find that made my point, but check him out this weekend when he is playing TCU (that is, if he plays, he might be injured) and you will see what I mean.  However, if you see Colin Klein without a helmet, those two couldn't look less alike, it's only when he is wearing his helmet.

-So, I was watching the New Orleans Saints' game this week and noticed something odd - Drew Brees was wearing eye black.  Why was that odd?  I'm glad you asked.  1) Eye black is used to reduce the glare from the sun.  2) The Saints were playing in a dome.....  3) At night.  So, why in the hell would a player need to wear eye black in a game played in a dome at night?  Beats me, but I definitely found it odd when I saw it.

-I got back to my winning ways last week by finishing 4-2.  After looking at this week's lines, I do not feel comfortable about any of my picks.  But I'm to inspire confidence for gambling addicts, so ignore that last sentence and know that I'm going 6-0 this week or you money back.

The Funniest College GameDay Sign From Last Weekend Said:

(I saw another one that said "Do We Get A Re-Do If We Lose, Too?" that was equally as funny but I couldn't find a picture of it.  Plus, who in the hell is Boosie and why does he need freeing?)

Last Week's Results: 4-2
Season Results: 33-29

Why Isn't This Standard - Internet Voting

What year is it?  If you guessed any time after 2000 then you may wonder why the United States doesn't already allow internet voting.  Al Gore gave us the great gift of the worldwide web and he wanted us to use it for good - like porn and voting!  We have mastered one, now onto the next - internet voting.

I think a lot of the younger generations would be much more likely to vote with this option.  Who wants to go out in the rain, or the cold, or the rainy cold to stand in line with a random cross-section of America to push some buttons.  It's basically like forcing you to be in an outdoor Walmart.  There is a reason people willingly avoid lower prices to not go to Walmart - it's because that's where the general public hangs out.  And good luck if you can actually find your polling location - even if you find the right school or church you still have to figure out the right building or room to go to which leads to a bunch of people wandering around a school - super creepy.

Another voting issue is that other than the really big guns, no one really knows what the candidates' platforms are which means most people are funneled only to vote based on the R or the D by their names.  What if, on the official US voting website, each candidate got to make a 90 second video that you could watch before voting?  At least then you would have some viable research option that is easy to access - a few minds might be changed at the voting booth.  Take it a step further - what if you HAD to watch each video?  More informed voters cannot be a bad thing.

The main worry about internet voting is hacking.  I am not an expert so I don't know how to fix that, but the cost of using all the polling centers across the nation and the collecting and the counting processes has to make up some of that cost.  Plus, who do you trust more - a security encryption internet voting model designed by the smartest computer geeks in the U.S.?  Or Beverly, the 90 year old who can barely see when checking your ID?

This year because of hurricane Sandy, New Jersey is allowing some people to vote online.  Let's hope it all goes well and we all get to enjoy the thrills of electing the leader of the free world while pants-less.

"If this was the ballot, I would vote for 'OF THE'."