Talk:List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees

Copies and Mistakes Everywhere?

So it is clear that there are many duplicated of many academy award years, many names that are attributed with best actor, actress, picture etc... In particular the 47th Academy Awards due not credit the Godfather Part II with best Picture or Director which it did win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.42.130 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Best Writing

I'm assuming Best Writing refers to either original screenplay or adapted screenplay, whichever is applicable. I think that if that's the case it could use some explanation. Also the links all go to adapted, which is a little confusing, unless adapted screenplay is considered somehow superior to original. I'd make the changes but I don't know if there's a reason that it is the way it is. Greatersam (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Films nominated in all of the Big Five categories

Million Dollar Baby is missing from the list. I noticed this because it is mentioned on the page for Silver Linings Playbook that Million Dollar Baby was the last one nominated in all five Big Fives, and that appears to be true based on the Million Dollar Baby page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.90.144.23 (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody else think there should be a section on movies that were nominated for all five but didn't necessarily win any or all of them. I.E. American Beauty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00:51, 5 September 2006 (talk • contribs) 71.131.199.135

I do. I think it would be interesting, as it would show which films at least had the potential to earn the Oscar Grand Slam. Can you add the info? (JosephASpadaro 06:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Update: It looks like someone recently added to this article the list of films nominated in the Big Five categories. Apparently, there are 40 films that have been so nominated (including the three films that have won the Big Five). (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

I moved some stuff around. I really like the "near misses" section, but it seemed a bit tacked on to the rest of the article. Specifically, having a section for those that won 4 out of 5 nominations is redundant with the "4 awards" section higher up. The special section on "From Here To Eternity" was interesting, but seemed like it could just be with its mention higher up, and the remaining 12 near misses were simply in chronological order. I noticed that those 12 fell into three categories: no leading lady, leading lady/man nominated for best supporting, and leading lady not nominated. That is very significant in my opinion. I'm more impressed that Patton won all four POSSIBLE nominations than I am that Amadeus just lacked a strong female lead role (that's a knock on the movie, not the actress, btw). It also demonstrates, I think, the male bias of many films. I tried to be gender neutral, but really, there is only one case out of the 12 where the issue was with an actor not an actress (Terms of Endearment) which most of us would call a 'chick flick'. The other 11 either lacked females outright, had them play minor, yet impressive, roles, or major, yet weak, roles. Anyways, I fixed up the whole section based on my above suggestions. I hope everyone thinks it's an improvement. Let me know either way.--Crazytonyi (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Apartment

On Wikipedia page of the movie "Apartment" it says that the movie received 5 Oscars, not three! Where's the truth?? 85.250.10.105 (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Per the Academy, The Apartment was nominated for ten and won five Academy Awards for 1960. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

A-ha! I see what you mean. In total, The Apartment won five Oscars. This article is indicating that The Apartment was nominated for all five of the "Big Five" Awards (from its grand total of ten nominations). And -- out of these Big Five nominations -- it won three awards out of the Big Five awards. So, that is ... it won three Big Five awards out of its five Big Five nominations ... and (in total), it won five awards out of its ten nominations. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

Kramer vs. Kramer

The 1979 love drama Kramer vs. Kramer also one the "Big Five" oscars (acting, actress, picture, directing, and writing). Why isn't this on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.83.224 (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It won Best Supporting Actress. Still this wikipedia page is flawed in that in only puts up movies that were at least nominated for all of the Big Five. Kramer vs. Kramer won 4 out of 5 which is alot more than half of the movies on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.213.84 (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dances with Wolves

This movie won Best Picture, Director (Kevin Costner), and Best Writing (Michael Blake) plus Costner was nominated for Best Actor, so why isn't this on here? 69.112.221.166 (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No nomination for Best Actress. The film needs all five nominations to be on this list (Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Screenwriter). It did have Best Actress in a Supporting Role, but it did not have Best Actress in a Leading Role (which is the requirement for this list). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR?

As a annual Oscar watcher, I know what we are speaking of here with the "Big Five" (though I occasionally here persons speak of the "Big Four", leaving out the screenplay), yet I can't help but think that this is just a bit of OR. If this is truly an established and recognized partition, then surely there can be some sourcing to support it? Otherwise this whole list should be deleted as OR. 98.71.255.161 (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorting Issues

Not exactly sure this is the right place, but the sorting arrows on the first column (Xth Academy Awards) does not sort correctly. It orders the items by the first number, so going from what should be greatest to least (latest to earliest) we get 7th, 77th, 72nd...51st, 50th, 4th, 49th... Perhaps, since the second column is the year, we could just remove the sorting arrows from the first column. Otherwise, somebody needs to fix the code or whatever, which is way over my abilities as a grammar Nazi and vandalism-reverter. Billytrousers (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave this a "back door" method solution, at least for now. Instead of having the 4th and the 7th Ceremonies listed as "4th" and "7th", I listed them as "04th" and "07th" (with a leading "zero" before the digits). That seems to sort correctly. This is the best solution I can devise, at the moment. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

A Beautiful Mind

This film won four of five Big Five awards. The only one it didn't win was for Best Actor. --46.161.125.57 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not true. The film won Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Writer (of the Big Five awards). It did not win Best Actor, nor did it win Best Actress. It did, however, win Best Supporting Actress. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

New columns

I suggest adding some new columns into the chart. I think that we should have columns for a film's: total awards; total nominations; Big Five awards; and Big Five nominations. The latter two detail the very purpose of this article and this chart; the former two place them in context. This would be somewhat similar to the chart in the following article: List of films with all four Academy Award acting nominations. I will add these new columns in at some point in the future, when I have some free time. But, in the meanwhile, does anyone have any thoughts on this suggestion? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Order of the films in the chart

I think that the films should simply be listed in chronological order, from oldest to most recent. The sorting ability of the table will allow readers to sort by any column that they wish (including from most to least awards). I believe that the chart was originally set up this way (many years ago) before the table had the ability to sort. So, at that time, it was a relevant concern (i.e., being able to see which films won the most awards down to which won the fewest). The sorting ability now makes that issue moot. Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Bold with Green Background

Text says "Award winners are listed in bold with green background" What does that mean? Network won Best Actress. On Golden Pond won 3 of the 5. Dickbalaska (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis?

It appears to me that this article is entirely WP:SYNTHESIS, and should be delete as being original research. Can somebody explain why this is not the case? --ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And more fundamentally, the article does not reference a source for the concept of "The Big Five". I see a number of sites that use the phrase, including iMDB, but I'm not sure there's a notable one. Unless "The Big Five" as a concept has been the subject of significant writing in reliable sources, then this article fails notability and should be deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Argo and 12 Years a Slave

These entries are completely messed up. The cast does not match the film and they are not marked as winners of Best Picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardogreene (talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Academy Awards which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Parasite

Song Kang-ho & Cho Yeo-jeong were not nominated and thus Parasite was not in contention to win the big five. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kormanuser (talk • contribs) 07:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)