Academy Awards Reaction Thread

Ratings conversations, and box office conversations, always baffle me. What - your enjoyment of something is only validated by whether an appropriate number of normally disinterested parties enjoyed it, too? What is this - Colin Cowherd's show?

As for the awards themselves...EVERY acting award was the right choice, especially Marion Cotillard, who could be one of the great actresses. She has the beauty, the talent, and the ability to handle the English language (which has eluded the last import of this scale, Penelope Cruz). She'll be nominated again in two years when Nine comes out.

The media had, thus far, really missed the boat on Cotillard. Watching the five performances, hers was the most extraordinary and prestigious (considering Piaf's standing in France). She was treated like a token nominee; her work was as good as Daniel Day-Lewis or Helen Mirren last year.

La Vie En Rose is not a great movie. But the performance was legendary.

 

Oh, for God's sake, don't be so fucking condescending.

Of course popular interest is a factor. And if a movie hasn't generated enough buzz to fit its way into your local metroplex and is shuffled off to the art houses, the majority of the movie-going public isn't going to think of it as one of the best movies of the year.

What made Marion Cotillard so much better than Ellen Page this time around? Because she used the proper verb tenses in her speech?

If the Academy Awards are the realm of the classically trained artist, that's fine. But don't sit there with your mouth agape when the public at large begins to lose interest.

 

The Academy tries to the best of its old-fart abilities to honor quality, distinctive performances, and frequently even succeeds, despite their inherent quirks
and prejudices.

Box-office receipts are their own reward.

The Academy does not exist to honor Spiderman 3.

 

And again, fine. Just don't be surprised if the No. 68 grossing movie is met with a collective yawn from the public.

 

No agenda here, Shottie, but why are you such a champion for the popular?

 

I won't deny an agenda. I LIKE the popular film more than the deep film. And if I think about it, I must admit that the people who produce popular movies garner their own rewards, like lotsa money.

But I've always accepted the Academy Awards as the end-all in moviemaking. And somebody or somebodies have decided that lowbrow doesn't go. I guess it's a matter of, who made them the arbiter of what's quality?

I think what was accomplished in "Animal House" was probably as effective, nailed its audience, more than anything else done in that calendar year. Think there was any chance of the Academy giving that any notice?

 

I will admit it really went up my keester this morning when I hit MSN's home page and their link to fashion disasters featured one Diablo Cody.
1: She's a writer, dammit! She's not one of the staaaaahs we expect to be "glamourous." She probably didn't have Gaultier, Wang, etc. clogging her cell dying to dress her for the occasion,. either.
2: I'm not usually a fan of tattooed women, but she was rockin' something a little different. She basically stuck her tongue out at the chichi and self-important. Tres cool, D.
I was also annoyed to see Mrs. DDL savaged. She is the wife of a nominee. She is a civilian. If the fashionistas are now picking on civilians at the Oscars, that is really, really low.
Have some more kidney pie, Cojo.

 

Is Jennifer Hudson pregnant?

 

Shotglass,

Is "The Sopranos" or "The Wire" or "Deadwood" a lesser TV program than "Nash Bridges" was? Because more people watched "Nash Bridges" and "Dr Quinn, Medicine Woman" because they were on network TV, whereas the first shows I mentioned were on HBO - which, of course, has a smaller audience.

Of course not. Nobody's sitting here pulling dollar rank because some people don't have HBO.

Same for movies. Movies don't wiggle their way into theaters. Their fate is, 90 percent of the time, preordained months (if not a whole year) before it ever goes in the theater. Spider-Man 3 was in 4,000 theaters for a month. It could have been the worst movie on the planet, and it would have gotten those 4,000 theaters no matter what. How do I know? See "The Fantastic Four." See "Battlefield Earth," one of the worst movies ever made, that went into 3,000 theaters its opening weekend. See "Wing Commander," which got a release in 2,500 theaters because it had a fucking "Star Wars: Episode I" trailer attached to it. People were actually going to the movie, watching the trailer, and leaving. Hell, see "Star Wars" where the new movies aren't the highest grossing films of all time precisely because George Lucas refused to show them in theaters that didn't meet his specs, reducing the theater count by 1,000.

"No Country" was in, at most, 1,500. For weeks, "No Country" was in less than 100 theaters. I'm sure Miramax was thrilled with its output, absolutely thrilled.

Theater owners don't want "No Country," or "Atonement", and you know why? Cuz kids don't want to see them. Cuz kids can't see them without a parent. Kids wanna see cartoons, action movies, horror shit, and Miley Cyrus. We're supposed to determine the quality of films based on what some <i> kid </i> wants to see? Because that's from where at least half of these numbers you tout come.

All that said…I understand the gist of your point. These movies seem to be getting less and less popular with the moviegoing public. I think that's true, and unfortunate. Part of it is that movies are too long. Part of it is that moviegoers go to films to escape, and not to engage. The growing list of extremely stupid comedies - offensive, sickening, gross, wholly unrealistic comedies - that make money is disturbing to me. The growing list of violent porn like Saw and Hostel is disturbing, because people are using extreme, disgusting gore to escape.

If you really want to know how the business works, really really, go to Hollywood Stock Exchange…hsx.com. It's a game, and a great one. A very involved, fascinating game. You play it for one year, and you'll know everything you ever wanted to know about how movies make money. Let me tell you: It's wholly unrelated to quality.

 

That makes good sense.

 

Which is why, Alma, IMHO, No Country and Blood will eventually outperform some dreck in DVD sales and Netflix rentals (do they even receive money for that?).

About the TV shows, how many people will buy a season of The Wire and how many will buy a season of Nash Bridges?

Quality always makes money over time.

Heck, look at the sales of The Great Gatsby when it first came out. Once people began to appreciate the quality of something, then it will make money.

Buzz wears off.
Quality does not.

 

Last comedy to win BP was Annie Hall ('77), which did terrible box office early on, especially between the coasts. Odd year . . . competition was The Goodbye Girl
(acquired taste Neil Simon), Julia (womans' picture), The Turning Point (ditto) . . . and Star Wars, which might actually have won if they'd thrown the same five pictures out there, this year.

As comedy standards have coarsened, it's more and more difficult for a comedy to win. Funniest two pictures since Nixon resigned were Animal House and the South Park movie, and still love them both . . . but they ain't The Philadelphia Story. Put Wedding Crashers, third.