2012 Academy Awards thread

I think that's part of the reason we're seeing such a proliferation of 3D movies. Theaters need to do something to make you leave your house, with your HDTV, HBO and digital surround sound systems.

It's the same reason theaters went to widescreen films using Panavision and Cinemascope back in the day. As TVs became commonplace in homes, using the same 4:3 aspect ratio, the theaters needed to do something different to continue making going to the movie a special experience.

 

People don't go to the movies as much because movie theaters aren't as appealing to go to. It was an experience going to an old movie theater with the majestic-sized screen and a crowd that was there to watch the movie.

Multiplexes, you're crawling over screaming kids and gang-bangers looking for fights. Just another casualty of the loss of civility.

 

I think there's a lot of truth to this. It used to be an event, going to the movies. Now, it's not worth the money and aggravation most of the time. JR and I see almost all our movies at weekend pre-noon matinees. They're cheaper and not crowded and seem to attract people that don't talk/text, etc. for the most part.

 

For me it's a combination of cost and the quality of the home experience. They've really shortened up the lag time between theatrical release and DVD/OnDemand. Except in rare cases where the movie is a current cultural touchstone -- Avatar's use of 3D being the last example I can think of -- there isn't much to gain from seeing it earlier.

So for a maximum of $6, and often for free because we have the premium channels, I can see all those movies in damn good picture and sound quality on my 55-inch Sony with its home theater sound system.

 

I like going to the movies because it is the only way I can keep my wife from falling asleep five minutes into the film.

 

I think you could make the argument that the Academy's tastes have changed more than America's. They seem to go out of their way to champion little films that most of the public hasn't responded to. Which begs the argument, if a film isn't seen, does it make an impact?
I wonder if the number of awards shows impacts the Academy's nominations. You see film critics lists late in December, and they seem to have a big influence on what is rewarded later. Twenty years ago, I'm not sure they had as much.

 

See, I think the critics' lists are different than the Academy's at this point. No critic I know of had "The Help" or "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" on their year's end list. There are a bunch of movies, like "Martha Marcy May Marlene" and "Take Shelter," that the critics went ape shit over and the Academy flat-out ignored.

I think it's tough to say that America's tastes haven't changed when you compare those box office lists from 30 years ago to the one for today.

 

Oh, my wife has elbowed ME in the ribs more than once in a theater. Most recently, the latest Holmes.

 

We have similar issues. In the rare instances that we can actually stop chasing two little ones around and sit on the couch to watch a movie, the chances that one, or both of us is asleep within 30 minutes are pretty high.

 

There's a calculating reason why some of the Academy movies have little box office: a slow rollout. I heard many people lamenting that no one had seen 'The Artist,' yet much of that was more a choice of the distributor/producers.

Harvey Weinstein perfected the idea of slowly releasing a film, letting it build word of mouth -- denying it the opportunity to even fail at the box office.

 

True. People have no memories anymore. Let people see a good movie in January, it will linger a bit and it helps if yours is the last Oscar contender they see.