"Seemed Like Pettiness To Me": People Are Sharing Unforgivable Times The Oscars Truly "Robbed" Actors Of A Nomination
Hot Topic
🔥 Full coverage and conversation on the Oscars
With the 2025 Oscar nominations out and the awards ceremony only weeks away, we asked the BuzzFeed Community which iconic actors were snubbed by the Academy even though they played truly legendary characters. So, ahead of the March 2 show, here's what people sent our way:
Note: Submissions have been edited for length and/or clarity.
1. Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth in Furiosa
— banana_bebop
2. Kirsten Dunst in Interview with the Vampire
Warner Bros. Pictures / Via youtube.com
"She was nominated for a Golden Globe but she DESERVED an Oscar nomination. She was a child and gave such a great performance as Claudia and held her own against Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise. The scene where she's angrily lashing out at Lestat and Louis over her creation is so brilliantly done that you forget she's not an adult woman trapped in a girl's body. She's an 11-year-old girl."
— monikap6
3. John Goodman in The Gambler
Paramount Pictures / Via youtube.com
"He played against type portraying a ruthless loan shark coming after Mark Wahlberg's gambling-addicted character. From the sauna scene to the final 'good boy,' Goodman was cold, calculating emotionless, and caring only for the money he was owed. Goodman was the best Jabba the Hutt since... Jabba the Hutt."
— sassychair337
4. Faye Dunaway in Mommie Dearest
Paramount Pictures / Via
5. Sam Rockwell in The Green Mile
Warner Bros / Via youtube.com
"Sam Rockwell should have been nominated alongside Michael Clarke Duncan in The Green Mile (Michael would have won anyway). Sometimes [an] outstanding performance is given an extra push because you have two (or more) actors who complement or contrast each other. I look at this as the sum of all parts played."
— charmingstar3132
6. Liza Minnelli in Arthur
Warner Bros. / Via youtube.com
8. Toni Collette in Hereditary
A24 / Via youtube.com
"Anyone who has seen that performance can't deny that it was masterful."
— shypepper634
"Toni's scream and breakdown when she found out what happened to her daughter still haunts me. It was a tour de force."
— diamond_girl_7
"Performance of her life."
— coolporcupine39
9. Eddie Murphy for Dolemite Is My Name
Netflix / Via youtube.com
"I'm a white guy from England with no clue who Dolemite was or what he meant to people, but I genuinely believe it's one of Eddie's greatest roles. The Golden Globes at least gave him a nomination. Hell, even the Razzies gave him a 'Redeemer Award' for it. Again, I feel like it's the Academy being unfairly prejudiced against comic actors. Giving Eddie a nod would mean so much to so many people."
— jonsharky
10. Taron Egerton in Rocketman
Paramount Pictures
"That boy put everything he had into that performance, and it felt like a pointed snub so close on the heels of Rami Malek winning Best Actor for his portrayal of Freddie Mercury just the year prior."
— kaitlinh4eea98774
11. Jim Carrey in Man on the Moon
Universal Pictures / Via youtube.com
"Jim Carrey in Man On The Moon and The Truman Show. The former won Carrey a Golden Globe for Best Male Actor in a Leading Role (Comedy or Musical), while the latter had Oscar nominations for Ed Harris as a Supporting Actor and Peter Weir as Director, so the Oscars ignoring Carrey as an actor seemed like pettiness to me."
— jonsharky
12. Philip Seymour Hoffman in Flawless
MGM / Via
13. Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can
DreamWorks Pictures
"Leonardo DiCaprio should've been nominated for Catch Me If You Can and The Departed. He should've won for What's Eating Gilbert Grape."
— boringcadet85
"I'd vote for Django Unchained before Catch Me If You Can. I'm not a fan of his, but he was SO good in the former."
— baobaopanda
14. Kathy Bates and Judy Parfitt in Dolores Claiborne
15. Amy Adams in Arrival
Paramount Pictures / Via youtube.com
16. Margaret Qualley in The Substance
Mubi / Via youtube.com
17. Denzel Washington in Gladiator II
Paramount Pictures / Via youtube.com
"Denzel ate everyone up with his role. The fact that they nominated Edward Norton [for A Complete Unknown ] instead of Denzel... 🙄"
— antoinette_yoo
18. Harrison Ford in Star Wars
Twentieth Century Fox / Via youtube.com
19. Finally, Naomi Scott in Smile 2
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Jaws' turns 50: Steven Spielberg's caught-on-camera Oscar snub still smarts — and shows need for Best Director reform
Steven Spielberg, one could say, was less than pleased when he found out he was not nominated for the Best Director Oscar for his game-changing shark thriller Jaws. On Oscar nominations morning in 1976, the then 29-year-old was so confident that the blockbuster was "about to be nominated in 11 categories" that he turned the camera on himself to document his live reaction. "You're about to see a sweep of the nominations," Spielberg boasted in the footage (watch above), which has since become legend thanks to the Media Burn Archive collection. More from GoldDerby All the 'Abbott Elementary' Season 4 Emmy predictions, including those 'Sunny' guest stars Ryan Murphy and the JFK Jr.-Carolyn Bessette controversy, explained: Why 'American Love Story' Instagram post got so much hate Everything to know about 'The Pitt' Season 2 Along with friends Joe Spinell and Frank Pesce—both of whom were filming Rocky, which would go on to win Best Picture at the subsequent Oscars—Spielberg watched as Best Director was announced on TV. The nominees were Federico Fellini for Amarcord, Stanley Kubrick for Barry Lyndon, Sidney Lumet for Dog Day Afternoon, Robert Altman for Nashville, and Miloš Forman for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. While that's legendary lineup of directors, Spielberg was aghast: "Oh, I didn't get it! I didn't get it! I wasn't nominated. I got beaten out by Fellini!" (Amarcord was the only film without a corresponding Best Picture nomination and had also won Best Foreign Language Film the year prior, giving it international distribution for 1975 eligibility.) By the time Jaws was announced as a Best Picture nominee moments later, it seemed like a consolation prize to the young director. "Well, it's about time," Spielberg stated, the sting still fresh. Spinell and Pesce also expressed frustration, comparing it to 1972 when The Godfather and Cabaret split the top two categories. "You cannot have the Best Picture unless the director is also nominated. Who made the picture?" Spinell declared. "The greatest picture of all time was made and they haven't recognized the director," Pesce added. Universal Pictures/Everett Collection After being informed by his assistant that Jaws was only up in four categories instead of the 11 he expected, Spielberg attributed the snubs to commercial backlash, meaning: "When a film makes a lot of money, people resent it. Everybody loves a winner, but nobody loves a WINNER." Although much has evolved with the Academy Awards in the 50 years since, Spielberg's theory still rings true. Jaws became the catalyst for the movie business model that exists today and also redefined what we think of as box office success. Still, high grosses don't necessarily translate to certain Academy Award recognition. At the time, many were overwhelmed by Jaws' commercial success and perhaps thought that was enough for the movie. Even today, the Oscars remain more of a launching pad for independent and purposely "artistic" films, only occasionally recognizing blockbusters for the top category—and even less so for Best Director. Back when there were only five slots in Best Picture, the stars would have to align for the kind of golden sweep experienced by box office juggernauts like Titanic and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, each of which won 11 Oscars and tied for the most all-time wins. The reason the Best Picture field expanded to 10 nominees can be credited to the outrage over Christopher Nolan's 2008 smash The Dark Knight being shut out of major categories. Since then, more blockbusters have been nominated—including Black Panther, Wicked: Part One, Top Gun: Maverick, Barbie, and both Dune films—but none of those corresponded to the directing category. As Spinell said incredulously in that 1976 clip, "Who made the picture?" READ: 'Jaws' at 50: Jeffrey 'Deputy Hendricks' Kramer recalls 'horrific' first scene and an epic Roy Scheider flub Jaws ended up winning three of its four Oscar nominations, taking home Best Original Score for John Williams, as well as Best Sound, and Best Editing. Spielberg went on to amass 23 nominations, including nine Best Director mentions and two wins. So while he may have been disappointed 50 years ago, Jaws kickstarted the career of Hollywood's most commercially successful director. At the same time, the Academy got it wrong then and continues to get it wrong too often now. Don't hold your breath for the organization to revamp the Best Director category to include more nominees; there is a lingering snobbery when it comes to the perception of art versus commerce, with the two rarely intersecting for voters. In the case of Jaws, history has proven the film's immense value. No offense to, say, Fellini or Kubrick—both undisputed titans of cinema—but a half-century later, neither of their 1975 offerings has the cultural cachet of Jaws. "Amarcord at 50" headlines just aren't a thing. Jaws, meanwhile, is still enjoyable as an intense, suspenseful thriller about an unlikely trio trying to thwart a great white shark before it kills any more innocent civilians. However, Spielberg also makes it a story about the complicity of local governments and the value of corporate greed over human lives—something that still resonates. And what Spielberg does with his camera, establishing the horror through underwater shots, split diopters, dolly zooms, and the alternating iconic two-note score by Williams has influenced filmmaking for five decades. Jaws is universal and unforgettable... and its Oscar omissions are truly unforgivable. Best of GoldDerby Tom Cruise movies: 17 greatest films ranked worst to best 'It was wonderful to be on that ride': Christian Slater talks his beloved roles, from cult classics ('Heathers,' 'True Romance') to TV hits ('Mr. Robot,' 'Dexter: Original Sin') 'It almost killed me': Horror maestro Mike Flanagan looks back at career-making hits from 'Gerald's Game' to 'Hill House' to 'Life of Chuck' Click here to read the full article.
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
A Love Story That's Afraid of Romance
Modern dating, experts have lamented, has become a numbers game; the more matches you make, the more likely you are to land a mate. But in the new film Materialists, the only number that really matters is a suitor's net worth. Take Harry (played by Pedro Pascal), for example: He's a partner in a private-equity firm and the owner of a $12 million penthouse apartment in Manhattan. John (Chris Evans), meanwhile, lives paycheck to paycheck as an aspiring actor and part-time cater waiter who splits his rent with roommates. Between the two of them, Harry's the obvious 'unicorn'—the most desirable kind of bachelor, according to Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a professional matchmaker and the film's protagonist. Lucy sees dating as a marketplace of potential spouses whose worth is determined by their income as much as their looks. Never mind their interests or how they'd treat a partner; a guy like Harry is inherently more valuable than someone like John. Lucy isn't heartless. Rather, she sees herself as pragmatic about modern romance. Materialists, the writer-director Celine Song's follow-up to her sensitive Oscar-nominated feature, Past Lives, tracks Lucy as she finds matches for her clients, many of whom also think about future partners as commodities. The men tell her that they want women under a certain BMI and age; the women want men above a certain height and tax bracket. As amused as she might sometimes be by their demands, Lucy promises to introduce them to their 'grave buddy.' To her, finding love should be easy—it's just math, she likes to say—yet Lucy's own love life has remained stagnant. She asserts to anyone who asks that she'll either marry rich or die alone. This being a romantic dramedy, Lucy ends up in something of a love triangle anyway: She falls for Harry while harboring a lingering affection for John, who happens to be her ex. But her predicament isn't really about which suitor she'll choose; instead, she's caught between two versions of herself—the cash-strapped idealist who once pursued acting alongside John, and the polished working girl she's become. The core conflict of Materialists is similar to that of Past Lives, yet Song renders it less successfully here. Lucy's journey takes too many cynical turns to be satisfying, and the film's ideas are too scattershot to be convincing. Materialists falters most when it tries to mesh its competing aims: to deliver a throwback love story while also deconstructing the reality of modern dating. Instead, in the end, the film resembles the very world it tries to critique, offering a litany of observations about finding The One without ever substantially arguing for any of them. The film's glossy veneer of confidence, much like that of its lead, belies an uncertainty. Apart from some punchy dialogue probing the economy of marriage, its tale is shallow, with almost nonexistent stakes. John and Harry pose little challenge to Lucy's notions about partners needing to check each other's superficial boxes; both are handsome and smitten with her, and the disparity in their wealth never presents much of an obstacle for Lucy either. She had taken issue with John's poverty when they were together, as shown in a clunkily inserted flashback, but his finances are a mere asterisk to their present-day dynamic. Lucy is as thinly written as her suitors—a nod, maybe, to the threadbare profiles of app-fueled dating, but one that makes her a frustratingly inscrutable romantic lead. It doesn't help that Johnson, whose flat affect can be an asset in enigmatic dramas such as The Lost Daughter, isn't particularly believable as a woman with hang-ups about money. (If she's the provenance behind ' iPhone face ' in the misguided Netflix adaptation of Jane Austen's Persuasion, here she has what I call 'property-portfolio face.') The bigger problem, however, lies in Lucy's inelegant transformation from a skeptic about love to a wholehearted believer in it. When her most persistent client, Sophie (Zoë Winters), is sexually assaulted on a date, Sophie alternates between being furious at and grateful for Lucy, leaving the third act a confused mess. Although Winters captures Sophie's despair, her character gets compressed into a plot point and her arc produces a jarring shift in mood. Lucy's realization that she should, as Sophie advises her, treat her clients as more than 'merchandise' rings hollow as a result. Not to sound like someone still pining for an ex, but Materialists made me miss the work Song did in Past Lives. In that film, which followed a married woman yearning for the person she used to be after reconnecting with her childhood crush, Song used intimate specificity to unearth reflections about love—romantic, platonic, and otherwise. In Materialists, the director has essentially done the opposite: Her characters are mouthpieces for broad philosophies about connection, while their stories end up getting buried. The effect is a work that's tonally at odds with itself. Though Materialists is similarly packed with insightful monologues, it's heavy-handed in a way that Past Lives never was. Song bookends her latest with sappy scenes of prehistoric humans falling in love, and she injects flippancy into moments that call for sentimentality: When Lucy and Harry finally have a much-needed conversation, the script incorporates an absurd bit of physical comedy that undermines the poignancy of their heart-to-heart. There's much about Song's movie that I enjoyed. The fizzy sequences of Lucy meeting one client after the next, inspired by the director's own experience as a matchmaker, remind me of classics such as Broadcast News; they offer a glimpse into a gig that consumes a person whole. Besides, there's a real pleasure in seeing Hollywood stars fall for each other. But in trying to both critique and poke fun at the costs of modern love, Materialists never coheres into an emotionally potent tale. To put it in Lucy's terms: The film is beautiful and smart, and it clearly contains enough appeal to make it stand out in the marketplace. It's just no unicorn.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Superman' Director Teases Batman's Appearance in Upcoming Film
'Superman' Director Teases Batman's Appearance in Upcoming Film originally appeared on Parade. As audience members count down the days to the release of Superman, director James Gunn is fielding certain long-standing questions about the future fate of the DCU. Rebooting the DC Universe from the ground up, the 58-year-old Gunn has had his hands full plotting out the course of DC's cinematic trajectory. But as speculation runs rampant about the rumors of projects centered around Batman, Wonder Woman or Green Lantern, the former Guardians of the Galaxy is sharing his candid thoughts on each character's presence in the DCU. In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, Gunn specifically discussed the significant wait behind a solo Batman film, referring to the character as the "biggest issue in all of DC right now." 'Batman has to have a reason for existing, right?" Gunn said. "So Batman can't just be 'Oh, we're making a Batman movie because Batman's the biggest character in all of Warner Bros.,' which he is." "I'm not interested in a funny, campy Batman, really," the director continued. "So we're dealing with that. I think I have a way in, by the way. I think I really know what it's — I just am dealing with the writer to make sure that we can make it a reality.' Earlier this year, a DCU-oriented Batman film entered production. Titled The Brave and the Bold, the project will follow the Caped Crusader as he struggles to connect with his estranged son, Damian. Meanwhile, Gunn continues to oversee development of a sequel to director Matt Reeves' The Batman. As the film slowly chugs along in its early production phases, Gunn also discussed the potential for Robert Pattinson's iteration of the Dark Knight to appear in the DCU -- a prospect Gunn called unlikely, but also not impossible. "I would never say zero, because you just never know," Gunn said. "But it's not likely. It's not likely at all." 'Superman' Director Teases Batman's Appearance in Upcoming Film first appeared on Parade on Jun 17, 2025 This story was originally reported by Parade on Jun 17, 2025, where it first appeared.
