I speak of Scott getting it in the sense that he should have gotten it as the lifetime acheivement award the Oscar gives its members for lesser films years after ignoring them for their best work (I.E. Scorsese for The Departed). I would have been fine with either Inside Out as Best Picture or Miller as Best Director.

In truth as time goes by I'm pretty sure my overwhelming favorite would have been Bridge of Spies, another one of those films that would be considered any directors greatest work had it been done by anybody BUT Steven Spielberg. It is one of the most historically accurate films in recent years (my father actually knew James Donovan, so he acknowledged it) and the fact that the Oscars actually gave Mark Rylance Best Supporting Actor is one of those things that makes me think that sometimes the Oscars DO know what they're doing. Because by Oscar ules Rylance SHOULD have won, not only because Sylvester Stallone was the sentimental favorite (it was a great pefromance, I acknowlege but because it is no way the kind of role that wins Oscars. Rylance's work is subdued and underplayed the entire way through: it is a masterpiece of subtlety which the Oscar NEVER acknowledge when there's a showy performance in the same category. But they did give it to Rylance and he deserved it. I would say its a broken clock, but that work is not a time I don't remember the Oscar ever getting stuck on before. Do you?