(GT)-2018 Academy Awards

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The Oscars biggest problem now is that the vast majority of people only care about 7-10 awards (the big six, plus the screenwriting and musical awards), and those awards are the absolute most predictable since the Oscars come after all the Guilds have their awards, plus the Globes and BAFTA etc...So who wants to watch an overly long, self-indulgent show for which you pretty much know who the majority of the winners you care about will be? The Oscars should consider switching things up and going first so there's a bit more drama/unpredictability to things.

But those other categories have always been awarded, even during years with high ratings. The predictability of the major awards is a problem but it can also be a boon -- especially if the frontrunner is a blockbuster. One day, there will be another Oscars in which the frontrunner aligns with the box office (like Titanic and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King) and the high ratings will return.

[Party Elephant]

Speaking for myself here, I read the results because that interests me but I have no interest in actually watching an award show of any length. Even if they managed to cram it all into an hour where they just announced winners I probably still wouldn't watch it. It's the same with sports, I care a great deal about who wins the individual NHL awards and can usually recite off most of the winners and nominees, but I have never once watched the NHL awards.

[OutOfTheCube]

I think the problem is that film is the only entertainment industry where the best and most awarded productions are frequently the most obscure and unpopular.

Think about it, the Grammy’s and Emmy’s, the big winners are always popular artists and TV shows. Video games, the most popular games are always critical hits. It’s only movies where quality doesn’t necessarily equal commercial success. So people end up just not caring when ever year there’s maybe one movie they’ve seen that’s up for awards (and it doesn’t win).

It would never happen, but it would be interesting to see if things shifted if they put a minimum commercial success barrier. Say, you had to gross $100 million or more at the domestic box office to even be considered.

On the plus side, these Oscars did introduce me to Eiza Gonzalez.

[speede5]

It's art, not entertainment. When my kid was in drama they would all have a lot of fun with the comedy type plays but they really got invested in and cared more about the meaningful drama.

I could see it in their performances and in the films he and his friends appreciated in everyday life. He loves hitting up a superhero movie and is there on opening day for Star Wars, but when it comes to the artform and awards its all about the dramas.

I always found it a bit pretentious, but it is what it is.

Comedy is fun and is hard work, but a real emotional role is draining and can change a person. I never see a comedian talk about how draining a role was it's always how much fun they all had doing the movie.

[CliffFletcher]

The problem isn't so much that the Oscars reward artistic and commercially marginal films. The problem is it rewards a particular type of artistic and commercially marginal film. Best film nominees are drawn from the Venn diagram overlap of artistic merit and earnest social message. Look at European film festivals to see awards where the latter isn't a factor.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I do think that in recent years the Oscars have done better at ensuring that honest-to-goodness fantastic movies win, rather than stuff like Gladiator, Shakespeare in Love or LOTR:ROTK. Yes, they have to pass a litmus test, but when stuff like Birdman or Shape of Water can actually win best picture, it's still an improvement.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I think the worst part of the current Oscars is that stuff like Gladiator will never win again. At least it seems that way right now.

It's like just because a movie has some semblance of action and entertainment that it no longer qualifies to be nominated. I've found they've pushed too far in the wrong direction. Basically only artistic movies get nominated. Rare exceptions are musicals. But all musicals suck except La La Land.

Shakespeare in Love was a great movie no matter how you look at it and I have no problem with it winning, even if Saving Private Ryan was better. These things aren't always cut and dry.

ROTK is a bit different in that is kind of sucked compared to the first two and the previous two LOTR movies both could have won BP deservedly but we all knew the academy was never going to let either of the first two win any awards and that all the snubs would be made up for with ROTK as a sort of combined award.

Hollywood is also to blame. There's been a strict line drawn between tentpoles and artistic films and not much in the middle.


When I look at the last 20 years of Oscar winners I notice that I don't just disagree with some of the winners, I'm flabbergasted that they even got nominated. But then again, the Oscars are as much about politics, bribes and campaigning as they are artistic merit. Don't forget about the Academy voting with whichever way the "cause of the day" wind is blowing to try and justify their existence as some sort of bastion for social issues.

Crazier yet is that it isn't Shakespeare in Love or Crash that make my worst, or most undeserving, winners list. It is The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, The Departed (Scorsesse's least deserving movie, clearly a make up for all the times he was snubbed), ROTK (how in god's name did this beat Mystic River and Master and Commander), Chicago (might be the worst BP winner in the last 25 years, beat Two Towers and Gangs of New York), The English Patient beat Fargo and on and on.

When you look at Gladiator, sure it maybe should have lost to Traffic, and Crash should have lost to Brokeback mountain and Shakespeare in Love should have lost to Saving Private Ryan but these were close races and sometimes weaker fields.

Look at Titanic. You could make a good argument it was the weakest of the entire category. As Good as It Gets, Full Monty, Good Will Hunting and LA Confidential all are probably better movies. But I don't have a huge problem with Titanic winning. It was such a spectacle and filmmaking achievement that the mediocre acting and script plus the predictable love triangle. But I respect that it won. I like the idea that sometimes the spectacle of a movie will trump the more artistic pieces.


We also need to consider the field. Hurt Locker beat one of the weaker BP groups I've ever seen, especially since it was 10 movies. Precious, Up, The Blind Side. Are you serious with these nominations? Avatar (even though it is better than people give it credit for, very similar to Titanic for me).

Then you have the very next year The King's Speech beats out Inception, The Fighter, The Social Network and Black Swan. That's five movies that are better than any single movie in some years.



I don't know if I have a point anymore with this post. It is a crapshoot. Voters seem to often go for consolation prizes for some awards (word before the show was Jordan Peele won because they were never going to give him director or BP win, that and, well, you know, social stuff). Sometimes it is more of a lifetime achievement award. Like Cliff said they have a huge bias to looking relevant with social causes and artistry. They tend to ignore technical achievements and entertainment and overvalue overwrought drama with a social message and great performances even if the plot is a bit bland.

I don't really care about the ratings. I like debating which movie deserved it more, and with the exception of years where total trash won or the academy loses their minds with the acting winners, it is an enjoyable discussion.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't even know where to start with that. The notion that Avatar was anywhere near a best picture category is, for me, laughable. That movie is visually impressive, but it's an impressive garbage fire. You seem to imply that it's a problem that Chicago beat Two Towers when neither should have been anywhere in the running at all (The Pianist was the obvious Oscar-bait that year). I agree with you that in addition to some of the BP winners, some of the fields were weak.

But mostly you've sort of reinforced my point that ten or fifteen years ago, there was some real junk being nominated. Now, these are all actual well made films with some real artistic depth to them. I don't think they ignore entertainment value so much as they focus on meaningful content, which doesn't usually take the form of a popcorn flick. Gladiator is a fun movie, but it doesn't make you think, and the fact that it would never get in the conversation over something like Memento these days speaks well of the current iteration of these awards as actually honouring movies as an art medium.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Well I guess you did sum up everything everyone dislikes about the Oscars nowadays, that's for sure.

Unfortunately most of the garbage that gets nominated or wins nowadays has hardly any true artistic merit compared to the truly outstanding films that showcase movies as an art medium but they have little or no audience and would never get a sniff at being nominated. If you're going to talk about movies as art, the Oscars probably isn't the right place to make that argument.

It's this problem that mainstream, entertaining and action oriented equals bad, not thought provoking or artistic that is the problem.

This isn't just about nominating the most artistic movie, or at least it shouldn't be, that's why people complain. Movies are so much more than a purely thought provoking medium. They should evoke emotion and that's not always purely the result of movies devoid of action, predictability, special effects etc.

I hope the academy can find a happy medium where films with little entertainment value but high on the artistic merit can find a place alongside films that focus more on emotion and entertainment. If they want something that can appeal to at least some of the general public, then moving beyond the hilarious movie snobbery is gonna be necessary.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Hollywood is also to blame. There's been a strict line drawn between tentpoles and artistic films and not much in the middle.

Absolutely. Go back 20, 30, 40 years, and most of the nominees were in that middle ground.

Unforgiven, Silence of the Lambs, Hope and Glory, Chariots of Fire, Rocky, The French Connection - exceptionally well crafted mid-budget films that don't aspire to more than telling an engaging story well. That whole class of film rarely gets made by Hollywood today. It's either tentpole blockbuster or social issue indie film.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Absolutely. Go back 20, 30, 40 years, and most of the nominees were in that middle ground.

Unforgiven, Silence of the Lambs, Hope and Glory, Chariots of Fire, Rocky, The French Connection - exceptionally well crafted mid-budget films that don't aspire to more than telling an engaging story well. That whole class of film rarely gets made by Hollywood today. It's either tentpole blockbuster or social issue indie film.

I think that's also a cultural shift of today, and we see it in music as well.
20 years ago, middle ground between artistic and mass appeal existed.

Now days, the masses only really watch and listen to pop pieces.
I don't mind Marvel movies, but they're really the Katy Perry's of film and I respect that the Oscars actually go to movies with more depth then that.

It's the reason I'll watch the Oscars but never the Grammy's.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I think that's also a cultural shift of today, and we see it in music as well.
20 years ago, middle ground between artistic and mass appeal existed.

Now days, the masses only really watch and listen to pop pieces.
I don't mind Marvel movies, but they're really the Katy Perry's of film and I respect that the Oscars actually go to movies with more depth then that.

It's the reason I'll watch the Oscars but never the Grammy's.

Other than the fact we all agree the grammy's are a joke, I don't know if there's much of an analogy between the music and movie industries.

Marvel is definitely in the spectrum of pop music in that analogy but they're probably more comparable to Bruno Mars. It's pop music, but it isn't trash either. It's just not very original or groundbreaking.

Transformers is probably the Katy Perry.

Is that splitting hairs? Maybe, but the big difference is that the grammys literally pander to the Transformers and Emoji Movies of the music world. They don't give a damn about quality.


On the other hand, could you imagine if every single Grammy winner was some obscure experimental rock band that no one had ever heard of and only sold 10k albums?

Mass appeal and crap quality do not have to go hand in hand.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm not sure how you can in the same breath say Bruno Mars is okay while at the same time saying the grammys are trash, considering he won album of the year last time out.

I actually looked at the list of past winners prior to the last few years, and it's not totally disimmilar to what the Oscars used to be fifteen years ago... some stuff that's obviously not great but is popular, catchy, sort of defensible and clearly not complete garbage (Adele, Daft Punk, Mumford & Sons), the occasional really good artist with mainstream recognition (Arcade Fire), and the occasional out-of-left field pick (Beck, Herbie Hancock). In no case did they actually get it right in terms of artistic merit other than arguably The Suburbs.

It may not be a perfect analogy but there is an analogy there, I think. And to extend it to this conversation, I don't think anyone's suggesting that some obscure experimental artist would win the grammy in anyone's ideal world, but more that the picks would look more like what Pitchfork considers its top five albums of the year, rather than mainstream radio friendly hits.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Oh god, if the Grammy winners were the top 5 albums from Pitchfork, I'd be laughing at what a ridiculously pretentious thing the Grammy's had become. While I do read Pitchfork from time to time, they're far too concerned with artistic integrity. They have this weird idea that obscure music = better music, and yes, it's often experimental. Sometimes they're right, and I find stuff that's very good but obscure. Most of the time what they think is great is really pretty awful, and isn't anything that people are listening to regularly. I certainly don't want the Oscars to become anything like Pitchfork.

[Senator Clay Davis]

This is so pathetic. Might as well add some MTV Movie categories like best fight or best villain.

The film Academy has announced a number of changes to the Oscars, including the introduction of a new category.

From next year, there will be an award for outstanding achievement in popular film, the first time a new Oscar has been introduced since best animated film in 2001. Details on eligibility have yet to be announced.

In a letter sent to members, the Academy also announced that the telecast will now be kept to under three hours which means that some of the 24 categories will be announced during commercial breaks and then edited into the ceremony later on. This year’s ceremony, which saw The Shape of Water take the top prize, ran to just under four hours.

“We are committed to producing an entertaining show in three hours, delivering a more accessible Oscars for our viewers worldwide,” the letter reads.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...001?CMP=twt_gu

[Nyah]

So it's essentially a consolation prize for the films that aren't good enough for the regular categories? That's so bizarre.

[direwolf]

Wasn't the reason they expanded the best picture category was so they could include more mainstream/popular films? I guess that didn't work the way they initially wanted it to.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Wasn't the reason they expanded the best picture category was so they could include more mainstream/popular films? I guess that didn't work the way they initially wanted it to.

I don't think so -- it was pretty transparent that they just wanted to nominate 2 or 3 more popular movies to say that they did, but everybody knew they didn't actually have a chance of winning. Then they had a chance to finally reward an action/popular movie that deserved it (Mad Max) in a field that didn't have a clear cut winner, and gave it to another boring drama movie that nobody cares about now instead, as usual.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Then they had a chance to finally reward an action/popular movie that deserved it (Mad Max) in a field that didn't have a clear cut winner, and gave it to another boring drama movie that nobody cares about now instead, as usual.

At first I was going to say, "wait a minute, Birdman totally deserved that best picture", and then I checked and saw that that was the year before and 2016 was... Spotlight. Which I had, indeed, forgotten was even a movie.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

At first I was going to say, "wait a minute, Birdman totally deserved that best picture", and then I checked and saw that that was the year before and 2016 was... Spotlight. Which I had, indeed, forgotten was even a movie.

Spotlight is a very good film, and arguably one of the best movies about journalism ever made. But I agree completely that Mad Max should have won the Oscar.