The Academy Awards

[bumpy mcgee]

Before you go pointing to EEAAO, can we start with "Out of Africa" or "Driving Miss Daisy"? those movies are targeted for a specific niche of the public, guess which one?

I loved The Money Pit

 

[Azrael]

this ****ing guy

 

[Alma]

There really is something to be said about the Oscars tending to recognize movies almost specifically-targeted for for a very small niche of the public. It bugs me that some people almost "shame" the general American movie going crowd for not seeing a lot of these films.

That’s been increasingly true in the last decade or so. In the 90s and early 00s you had a ton of crowd pleasers. Silence of the Lambs, Titanic, Braveheart, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, LOTR…

That said, some recent movies deserve a chance. Parasite is terrific - funny, smart, weird. And Nomadland is worth the effort.

 

[garrow]

this ****ing guy

F you, Ben. Argo rules!

 

[jr/shotglass]

There's something to be said for mindless diversions. And the Academy has never given that one bit of credence.

Of course, there are a lot of segments of society that like to turn their noses up at simple pleasures.

 

[Alma]

Before you go pointing to EEAAO, can we start with "Out of Africa" or "Driving Miss Daisy"? those movies are targeted for a specific niche of the public, guess which one?

I don’t think it has anything to do with that. Birdman shouldn’t have won best picture. And although I think Nomadland should have, you could make a strong argument for it not winning. (It was not a good year for movies.)

Moonlight is tricky, because it is absolutely better than La La Land, an annoying millennial picture. But Moonlight, while very lovely and important, is not better than Arrival. Few movies in the last decade have been. I’m just not sure people knew exactly what to do with it.

 

[dixiehack]

So best picture should be Obscure Marvel Character or Fast & Furious 54?

 

[jr/shotglass]

So best picture should be Obscure Marvel Character or Fast & Furious 54?

If it's the most entertaining film of the year ... yes. Sorry. Yes.

 

[Azrael]

There's something to be said for mindless diversions. And the Academy has never given that one bit of credence.

Never?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture

 

[DanOregon]

Make it like the college football playoff - you have to be among the top 50 box office to qualify. I have no problem with great films being recognize - but the Oscar crowd shouldn't be surprised when viewers don't watch. There is very little difference between what the Independent Spirit Awards nominate and what the Oscars do now. The "Indies" used highlight these films and give them the pub.
I really don't know what the answer is - art obviously isn't getting its ass kicked (see quote below) during the awards season - but it almost seems now that outside of the token mainstream movie nominated for Best Picture - most films that people have seen don't need to bother showing up.

And what is the Oscars fascination with animals during its broadcast? It's weird. You don't see it at the Emmys - but the producers seem hell bent on putting an animal onstage every year, whether it makes sense or not.

 

[jr/shotglass]

Never?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture

Perhaps overstated on my part. But look at the winners over the past decade. You have to put in considerable concentration and brain work to fully enjoy those films.

 

[Webster]

The whole point of the Oscars was to make the public care about less popular films.

 

[Azrael]

If it's the most entertaining film of the year ... yes. Sorry. Yes.

Perhaps overstated on my part. But look at the winners over the past decade. You have to put in considerable concentration and brain work to fully enjoy those films.

It's the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Not the Academy of Box Office Darlings. That's what the Peoples' Choice and the Golden Globes are for.

All awards in the arts and are subjective and ridiculous.

 

[dixiehack]

Ok, so why don’t the People’s Choice Awards do the best ratings of any show?

 

[Azrael]

Ok, so why don’t the People’s Choice Awards do the best ratings of any show?

Maybe it's a bad show.

Has the People's Choice Awards show ever won a People's Choice Award?

 

[DanOregon]

I'd say the broader purpose was to "celebrate the year in film." And the Academy can do what they wish - but if the Pulitzers operated this way - some medical journal would win the top prize on a study read by about 50 people.

I'd suggest the Oscars use the telecast (and the nominations to some extent) to get people excited about going back to the movie theater - not highlight movies about depressing topics and charge them $15 for the privledge. Maybe Hollywood is so detached they think "misery" IS something most Americans can't get enough of these days, and will spend a chunk of their pay and a part of their weekend to be reminded of it.

 

[Neutral Corner]

Copped from the FB of science fiction writer Keith DeCandido:

"Quote of the day from my buddy, screenwriter Zack Stentz: "Encino Man, Laurie Strode, Short Round, and the lady who rode a motorcycle onto a moving train in Supercop all won Oscars tonight. Generation X is eating well."

Indeed..."

 

[jr/shotglass]

I'd say the broader purpose was to "celebrate the year in film." And the Academy can do what they wish - but if the Pulitzers operated this way - some medical journal would win the top prize on a study read by about 50 people.

I'd suggest the Oscars use the telecast (and the nominations to some extent) to get people excited about going back to the movie theater - not highlight movies about depressing topics and charge them $15 for the privledge. Maybe Hollywood is so detached they think "misery" IS something most Americans can't get enough of these days, and will spend a chunk of their pay and a part of their weekend to be reminded of it.

Wish there was something stronger than a mere like for that.

 

[Neutral Corner]

I'd say the broader purpose was to "celebrate the year in film." And the Academy can do what they wish - but if the Pulitzers operated this way - some medical journal would win the top prize on a study read by about 50 people.

I'd suggest the Oscars use the telecast (and the nominations to some extent) to get people excited about going back to the movie theater - not highlight movies about depressing topics and charge them $15 for the privledge. Maybe Hollywood is so detached they think "misery" IS something most Americans can't get enough of these days, and will spend a chunk of their pay and a part of their weekend to be reminded of it.

Art versus commerce is an old debate. Much of the film making community leans toward art, while the corporations funding them favor shameless commerce and are just fine with 'The Fast and the Furious 54' so long as it brings in enough money.

 

[Azrael]

I'd suggest the Oscars use the telecast (and the nominations to some extent) to get people excited about going back to the movie theater -

But that's exactly what that broadcast was. A longform commercial for Hollywood.

Top Gun was nominated for Best Picture. As were Avatar and Elvis.

Remember too, that Hollywood is trying to sell movies into huge new middle class economies in India and China.

Also, Everything Everywhere All at Once is a really good movie.