The Oscars (and other awards)

None of those were "smaller movies." The Godfather was a seven million dollar movie (which is only four million less than Star Wars) and was based on a best seller, Forrest Gump cost just slightly less than American Sniper without even adjusting for inflation, and while Rain Man is slightly lower budgeted than some Hollywood studio films it had two major celebrities in it (in an era before these kind of stars were in indies) and still cost more than Whiplash, Boyhood, Birdman, Selma, and The Theory of Everything without even adjusting for inflation. 

Your also forgetting, Gladiator, Titanic, Return of the King.

It's not like blockbusters don't have a chance...

I'm going to argue with Dracula while he sleeps. Like sshuttari pointed out, in the 21st century, there has only been two blockbusters to win Best Picture: Gladiator and Return of the King. Now let's look at the 20th century.

In the 1990's, there was four box office hits to win Best Picture: Dances with Wolves, The Silence of the Lambs, Forrest Gump, and of course, Titantic.

In the 1980's, believe it or not, almost every Best Picture winner was a box office success. Driving Miss Daisy ranked 8th for 1989. Rain Man was the highest grossing movie of 1988. Platoon ranked 3rd for 1986. Out of Africa ranked 5th for 1985. Amadeus missed the Top 10 and ranked 12th for 1984. Terms of Endearment was the 2nd highest grossing movie of 1983, behind a Star Wars movie. Gandhi, like Amadeus, missed the Top 10 and ranked 12th for 1982. Chariots of Fire ranked 7th for 1981. And, Ordinary People ranked 11th for 1980. So basically, The Last Emperor is the only Best Picture winner from the 1980's that wasn't a box office hit. Hilarious!

In the 1970's, every Best Picture winner ranked in the Top 10 box office for their respective year. Although, before home media, movies remained in theaters until the print wore out. Jaws, which was a Best Picture nominee, was released in June of 1975 and in Christmas it was still in theaters. So we're comparing apples and oranges here.

In the 1960's, every Best Picture winner ranked in the Top 10 box office for their respective year, except for In the Heat of the Night. But that's because two other Sidney Poitier movies, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and To Sir, with Love ranked in the Top 10 and there wasn't room for a third Poitier movie. 1967 was a very competitive year.

In the 1950's, every Best Picture winner ranked in the Top 10 box office for their respective year, except for On the Waterfront and Marty.

In the 1940's, every Best Picture winner ranked in the Top 10 box office for their respective year, except for The Lost Weekend and Hamlet.

In the 1930's, every Best Picture winner ranked in the Top 10 box office for their respective year, except for Cavalcade.

Wings was a blockbuster for 1927. The Broadway Melody did okay in 1929.

The definition of blockbuster has always been the same. It's inflation that changes the numbers. Grossing $100 million is no longer considered blockbuster territory. Look at the Top 10 for 2014. Big Hero 6 is at #10 with $220 million. You don't see $100 million until the 33rd spot, which is Edge of Tomorrow, a movie that was considered a box office disappointment. By contrast, Top Gun, another Tom Cruise movie, was #1 in 1986 with $176 million. Ferris Bueller was #10 with $70 million. Mainstream movies have always been around. Wings, the first Oscar winner for Best Picture, was an action movie and a blockbuster in its day. What's different now is that "smaller movies" don't have the opportunity to make blockbuster money. Look at Rain Man, another Tom Cruise movie. It was #1 in 1988. Can you imagine a movie like Rain Man being the top grosser in 2015? Of course not. And that's why studios push for "smaller movies" to win awards. It's their way to attract attention to these movies and hopefully encourage people to rent them. Birdman only made $37 million at the box office, but it'll double that at the iTunes store just for having Best Picture next to the title. Christopher Nolan's Interstellar doesn't need a Best Picture award to attract attention. David Fincher's Gone Girl doesn't need a Best Picture award to attract attention. But Birdman does. That's the reality of the Oscars these days. It's not about honoring the best. It's about selling alternative movies to the mainstream.

I don't buy that the Academy is trying to sell these company's films for them, why would they care about that? "Birdman" and "Boyhood" were CLEARLY the best films of the year from both a critical standpoint and word of mouth from viewers who actually saw the films. If any other film had won Best Picture it would've been total bullshit and I'd be bitching about it forever. There are some years where bigger budgeted films have been overlooked, I don't think anyone would argue that "Slumdog Millionaire" is a better film than "The Dark Knight", but there's not some hidden agenda to trump the big fish. "12 Years a Slave" was CLEARLY the best film of 2013, to me it doesn't matter if the film is a blockbuster or an indie flick, if it's the best movie then it should win. "Lawrence of Arabia" is a 10/10, so is "On the Waterfront", both for completely different reasons. The Academy fluctuates its picks over the years, yes, I mean the '90s were all wide release, well publicized and viewed films, especially in comparison to recent choices. But a hidden agenda? No, no, no. They're not smart enough to concoct that. I doubt the Transformers audience will suddenly go "Oh wow, that Birdman flick won, I should see it!" Crappy people like crappy things. You can shove good food in their face all you want but they'll pick McDonalds each time.

Yeah, I'm not saying there's a blueprint that the Academy follows or that they make sense with their selections, they screw up a lot. And not in the sense of "oh well we can only nominate so many so we had to cut out these ones" but where they just blatantly get it wrong. I mean, "The Boxtrolls" got nominated over "The Lego Movie", what the hell is that? That's just mind-boggling and it's just one example. Hell, even the last Harry Potter film should've garnered a nomination for Best Picture, it was one of the best reviewed films of the year. I don't think it's an agenda, I think they're just completely out of touch and have no clue what they're doing. The fact that a piece of shit like "The Blind Side" got nominated for Best Picture proves just that.

It was very clear cut. I enjoyed both "Gone Girl" and "Nightcrawler" tremendously and thought they absolutely should've garnered nominations, but they aren't on the level of "Birdman" or "Boyhood". There are very good movies, and then are great movies that we'll see on Best Of lists forever. The Big B's are innovative, incredibly unique films that aren't like anything we've seen before. That alone places them on a higher pedestal.

Birdman had some really fine acting, but it wasn't a great story from what I watched - admittedly I did not watch it all the way though because it really did not hold my interest

Gravity. 

Harry Potter was filmed over many years. Where's its Oscar?

Great cinematography in "Gravity". As good? Not in my opinion, but Alfonso is as much a master behind the camera as Alejandro is.

I didn't watch Biutiful, but I agree about 21 Grams and Babel. Wait! Wasn't Sean Penn in 21 Grams? That explains a lot.