Published Updated

"Gumby's Get-Together" #4: The 1994 Oscars - Did the Academy get it right? ... FORREST vs. SHAWSHANK vs. PULP

The 4th edition of "Gumby's Get-Together" is here, as we continue to all come together, to discuss the most hotly debated and contested topics in all of cinema.

With 2012 now entering Oscar season, it's only fitting that our next topic to discuss, is one of the most debated and talked about "Oscar topics" amongst all film fans:

The 1994 Oscars and the three most well-known, well-renouned films of that year:

FORREST GUMP ... THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION ... PULP FICTION

The Oscars during this year were hotly contested between these three films. "FORREST GUMP" wound up being the big winner that year ... winning a total of 6 Oscars from it's 13 total nominations, that included Best Picture, Best Director (Robert Zemeckis), and Best Actor (Tom Hanks).

"THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION" and "PULP FICTION" did not fare as well at the Oscars, with "SHAWSHANK" getting blanked in all 7 categories it was nominated in ... and "PULP" winning only one Oscar (Best Adapted Screenplay) among it's 7 nominations.

Now while "FORREST" was the big winner, many people have made the argument that both "SHAWSHANK" and "PULP" have had a much more lasting and significant impact/impression on the film industry and the film audience than "FORREST". Both "SHAWSHANK's" and "PULP's" reputations and popularity have increased immensely with each passing year ... while "FORREST" (while still a great film in its own right) really hasn't benefited quite as well over time like the other two films have.

So I leave the discussion to you ... lets all either get into a time machine, and jump back to 1994 ... or lets look at all three films in the present now.

- Did the Acedemy get it right?

- Who would you of voted for at that time if you were on the Academy?

- Did "FORREST" deserve the Oscar fame back then, or do you think "SHAWSHANK" or "PULP" deserved it more?

- Which film of the three do you think has had the best overall impact or lasting impression on the film industry or the film public?

- Did "SHAWSHANK" or "PULP" deserve Best Picture over "FORREST"?

- Did Quentin Tarantino deserve Best Director more for "PULP" than Robert Zemeckis for "FORREST"?

- Did Tom Hanks deserve the Oscar for Best Actor over Morgan Freeman and John Travolta?

So many ways to dissect and argue this ... its one of the most hotly debated topics I have ever discussed with my film friends ... so I now leave it to all of you. Lets discuss!

FORREST GUMP vs. THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION vs. PULP FICTION

Again, please keeep it friendly and civilized ...

4 Comments

  • Gump is garbage.

    Shawshank is waaaaaay too forced.

    Pulp Fiction wins by default.

    I think The Lion King may be better than all three.

  • Pulp Fiction deserved the win.

    Although it is understandable that the academy would give it to Forrest Gump.

  • I see why FORREST GUMP was the big winner, but for me ... I would probably give it to PULP FICTION as well. PULP FICTION has had a much bigger impact in cinema and our culture.

    Although I will say, SHAWSHANK is my favorite of the three films, and it did not deserve to get "blanked" ... it should of won at least something.

    I can make a case that Morgan Freeman deserved the Oscar for Best Actor, more than Hanks ... but again, at the same time, I have no problem with Hanks winning it that year.

  • What Ryan said.

Please to comment.