Jump to content

Oscars Won’t Televise All Awards, Adds Popular Film Category


Koray Savas

Recommended Posts

I don't like it. The whole idea behind this new category is that these movies are frankly not good enough to garner the prestigious awards, so they get to sit at their own kiddie table separate from the adults. It just kinda cheapens the entire event.

 

It's a sure-fire way for the Oscars to lose credibility and respect, and it also makes it less impressive when a popular blockbuster ala The Return of the King and Titanic turns out to be a major award winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Disco Stu said:

This new category manages to be disrespectful to both sets of films.   It tells the popular films “You’re not good enough to be over there.” and it tells the BP films “You could never find a major audience so you belong over here”

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve McQueen said:

The Best Picture is now less likely to go to a popular film.  That is being highbrow to me.

Really? Sorry but do you even understand math. There is virtually no chance a popular film wins as it stands now.

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

This new category manages to be disrespectful to both sets of films.   It tells the popular films “You’re not good enough to be over there.” and it tells the BP films “You could never find a major audience so you belong over here”

You dont know that? No here seems capable of seeing the possibility of a popular film also being worthy of both nominations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

This new category manages to be disrespectful to both sets of films.   It tells the popular films “You’re not good enough to be over there.” and it tells the BP films “You could never find a major audience so you belong over here”

 

Definitely. My very first reaction was that maybe this was an interesting idea. However I realised that once you start making a distinction between 'proper' films and popcorn films, you start sending all sorts of messages. What if some filmmakers were going for BP but won the popular one instead? You'd have them being all 'grateful' and the usual kiss-assery to the academy, while secretly feeling like they've been swept aside to make way for a 'real' film.

 

It's reinforcing the very pretentious idea that to win a 'real' award, your film has to be serious and not 'popular', which is a viewpoint I hate. I watch all sorts of rubbish at the moment (lots of Netflix), which if considered on the strength of the writing and sheer entertainment value, would win more awards than the latest character study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

Really? Sorry but do you even understand math. There is virtually no chance a popular film wins as it stands now

But that's mostly politics. It'll be set in stone now.

6 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

No here seems capable of seeing the possibility of a popular film also being worthy of both nominations.

Of course a popular film can be worthy of both.  But I don't think a popular film will ever get both.  They tend not to be popular with academy voters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 21st century only one film was best picture and boxoffice champ. The odds are some obsure film, Moonlight, comes to mind, that few saw and lucky for those who missed it. It is time popular films to be recognized as also great films. In the last 40 years Kramer vs Kramer, Rain man; TiTanic, and Return of the King managed both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's definitely room for crossover. I see that in 2016 Mad Max and The Martian were BP nominated. The latter is probably my definition of a popular film. In 2014 Gravity was up for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Heh.  It’s my sports!  Just like an NFL fan getting worked up about a change in football rules or something.

 

There's much more inebriation and riots involved with Oscars debates, though, I'm sure.

 

"That muthafuckin' Santalolla, Santalalala, whatever the fuck, does that son of a BITCH know what he just did to John Williams, the MUTHA, FUCKIN', JOHNNY T. MAN himSELF!?!?!?!? He FUCKED him up, man! One thing ya know, Johnny boy's lined up for a sixsth Oscur for one ov is greatest scores of all dam tttiimmee, and then like a goddamn jolly roger fuck-up Santa Claus, this guitar-playin douche comes outta nowhere and diddles that Oscur right from JT's asss!!!! Fuck, man, fuck!" *hiccups while wistfully staring at empty Coor's Light can with John Williams' smiling frame printed on in a bizarre promotional campaign* ".......Fuck, man."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering how many people dismiss the Oscars these days, the reactions here are amusing.

 

I’m more “outraged” at the awards being brushed aside that the tv viewer won’t see live. 

 

The top grossing film of the year should be worthy of a nomination for best picture to begin with. Remember, Star Wars was nominated for best picture

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupid category is stupid.

 

How anyone took this idea seriously beyond the brainstorming stage is beyond me. Guess they're that desperate for the ratings.

 

I'm sure the category will be discontinued in about 2-3 years. I mean, it's essentially a category for Marvel to finally reel in some Oscars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, El Jefe said:

The top grossing film of the year should be worthy of a nomination for best picture to begin with. Remember, Star Wars was nominated for best picture

 

But Star Wars is a great film, many top grossing films are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked Birdman a lot (although I haven’t seen anything it was nominated against, so who knows how I’d think it ranked).

 

Like all awards, the Oscars reflect the zeitgeist but have little bearing on what movies history ultimately remembers as classics - partly due to the marketing flurry, and partly because the movies are so fresh that time hasn’t told us yet. Most of the winners hold up pretty well, but look at critics’ all time best-of lists and you’ll see more big losers than Best Picture winners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stopped taking the oscars seriously probably when Santaollala started winning and I realised that the awards were based on association more than actual quality.

 

And I stopped paying any attention to the film that win BP when Moonlight won. The reason being that I prefer to watch films that have a balance of opinions and also which don't just focus on excellence in one filmmaking aspect - usually the acting. I absolutely hate the pretentiousness and manufactured acclaim (by which I mean that everyone pretends that a particular film is really important and that the director/actor is flawless) of the oscars.

 

I wondered last year whether they might resolve some of these problems by naming, say, 5 BPs. You would of course lose the cache of being 'the winner', but you'd get a variety of films being honoured, so you could quite comfortably award both the art-house character study and a fun popcorn movie for their respective qualities, and viewers/critics from all perspectives would 'win'. That could also reduce token voting for smaller categories, as there's a higher chance of the movie receiving an awards and the voters could *shudder* actually start voting on quality....

 

12 hours ago, John said:

I don't like it. The whole idea behind this new category is that these movies are frankly not good enough to garner the prestigious awards

 

Interesting point, because how do you determine exactly when a film  'qualifies' to be considered for a prestigious award? I was reminded yesterday that The Martan was BP nominated, yet it's definitely a popcorn film, so you can't say that films of that style aren't good enough. What does a film need to have to be 'prestigious'? I would strongly argue that strong performances and a meaningful story, while important, should not be considered the only indicators. Waaay more to cinema than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys seem to compare the Oscars/Academy against some idealized version that exists only in your head and judge them on what they aren't.  I find the reality what they are very fascinating, and I love that there's a 90 year history to delve into, as I have been since I was young.  I love the movies and I love, like, the sociology of Hollywood.  And I love the way the history of Hollywood relates to the history of America (and the world).  I'm a weirdo though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to be really into the Oscars, but as time has gone on and real life has gotten in the way of watching lots of movies, it's less fun (last year, the only major category nominees I saw were Get Out, and The Big Sick, although I have since seen Dunkirk, I Tonya, and Coco;  even in the technical categories, I had only seen TLJ, War for POTA, and Guardians 2).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

You guys seem to compare the Oscars/Academy against some idealized version that exists only in your head and judge them on what they aren't.  I find the reality what they are very fascinating, and I love that there's a 90 year history to delve into, as I have been since I was young.  I love the movies and I love, like, the sociology of Hollywood.  And I love the way the history of Hollywood relates to the history of America (and the world).  I'm a weirdo though.

 

Respectfully, I’d submit that you’re doing a little idealising yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

Respectfully, I’d submit that you’re doing a little idealising yourself.

 

How exactly?  I'm perfectly aware the Oscars aren't a perfect meritocracy, how boring would that be?  They're the film industry telling us how they wish to be seen, the image they'd like to project at their most "ars gratia artis."  I find it fascinating to track that over time.

 

They've also always been seen as filthy, amoral leftists by much of the country, and it's equally fascinating to see the shifting values over time.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, the version that you and others here seem to want (a sort of airless, academic feel it seems to me but correct me if that's wrong) is exactly what would make me less interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

They've also always been seen as filthy, amoral leftists by much of the country, and it's equally fascinating to see the shifting values over time.

 

I was fascinated to see somebody link to this the other day - the reason the Academy Awards were started!

 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/55360/why-were-oscars-created

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mstrox said:

 

I was fascinated to see somebody link to this the other day - the reason the Academy Awards were started!

 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/55360/why-were-oscars-created

 

 

Oh yes.  The absolutely insane balance between bloodthirsty capitalism and idealized socialism in Hollywood is hilarious.  And of course between prudishness and lewdness.

 

And then in the aftermath of the Fatty Arbuckle rape/murder scandal, Hollywood was in a serious crisis of having to change the public view of them as immoral decadents.  It's partially what lead to the creation the Hays Code.  I love watching creative filmmakers try to express themselves within the strictures of the censorship rules during that period.

 

I'm an avid listener of the Hollywood history podcast You Must Remember This, which is great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

And then in the aftermath of the Fatty Arbuckle rape/murder scandal, Hollywood was in a serious crisis of having to change the public view of them as immoral decadents.  It's partially what lead to the creation the Hays Code.  I love watching creative filmmakers try to express themselves within the strictures of the censorship rules during that period.

 

Hey, those sorts of restrictions led to great stories based on subtext. Then onto television restrictions leading to similar storytelling devices in shows like The Twilight Zone and Star Trek. Maybe filmland could do with a renewal of its old restrictive ways to challenge itself in new and exciting ways?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you see conservatives pining for those more innocent days, when contemporary conservatives thought those movies were the height of violence and promiscuity, even with the censorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New forms of puritanism are evolving where loud leftist minorities force an actress to leave a role before shooting even begins because she isn't a real transgender. Is social media the new regulator and defacto censorship authority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

I'm perfectly aware the Oscars aren't a perfect meritocracy, how boring would that be?  They're the film industry telling us how they wish to be seen, the image they'd like to project at their most "ars gratia artis."  I find it fascinating to track that over time.

 

Wow! Must have hit pretty close to the mark to get you all riled up like that!

 

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

They've also always been seen as filthy, amoral leftists by much of the country, and it's equally fascinating to see the shifting values over time.

 

Not exactly. Up until (and during) the war, Hollywood was actually regarded as more conservative...at least conservative for the time. Certainly moreso than now. That all changed sometime after the HUAC committee. Definitely going into the 1950's, and by the 60's the culture had changed completely. But that's neither here nor there. While I think Hollywood's politics may have something to do with Oscar ratings, I don't think it has anything to do with the merits of this new award.

 

As an aside, you don't need to be a right winger (I'm certainly not) to find the preaching and sanctimonious speechifying at the Oscars to be tiresome.

 

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

I guess what I'm saying is, the version that you and others here seem to want (a sort of airless, academic feel it seems to me but correct me if that's wrong) is exactly what would make me less interested.

 

Not sure why you assume this is my position, I haven't said anything about wanting the Oscars to have an "airless, academic" feel. Nor did I say it should be some sort of meritocracy.  It's never been that...at least not in recent memory. Indeed, I don't think there are many people around here saying this.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

 

And I stopped paying any attention to the film that win BP when Moonlight won. The reason being that I prefer to watch films that have a balance of opinions and also which don't just focus on excellence in one filmmaking aspect - usually the acting. I absolutely hate the pretentiousness and manufactured acclaim (by which I mean that everyone pretends that a particular film is really important and that the director/actor is flawless) of the oscars.

Moonlight was an nice little personal film with a good message but BP it was not IMO.  It's the same deal with 2017's Ladybird where the only acceptable opinion to have about it is that it's a masterpiece (and not some run of the mill indie drama about coming of age, staying true to your roots, blah blah blah)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Not Mr. Big said:

It's the same deal with 2017's Ladybird where the only acceptable opinion to have about it is that it's a masterpiece (and not some run of the mill indie drama about coming of age, staying true to your roots, and blah blah blah)

 

I would not have personally voted for Ladybird for Best Picture, but I think it's nice that it got recognition.  I absolutely would have voted for Laurie Metcalf.  I didn't think it was run-of-the-mill nor did I think it was a masterpiece.  Moonlight I liked less than most, though.

 

5 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Not exactly. Up until (and during) the war, Hollywood was actually regarded as more conservative...at least conservative for the time. Certainly moreso than now. That all changed sometime after the HUAC committee. Certainly going into the 1950's, and by the 60's the culture had changed completely. But that's neither here nor there. While I think Hollywood's politics may have something to do with Oscar ratings, I don't think it has anything to do with the merits of this new award.

 

Hollywood was definitely known as something of a den of iniquity and immorality in the 20s and 30s.  Either way, it will certainly be interesting to watch how all this plays out over the next couple of years.  As far as I'm aware, the new award isn't in effect until 2020?  Not sure.

 

Also, I'm certainly not immune to rolling my eyes at some speeches...but it's whatever.  They're over quick.  I'm willing to bet we roll our eyes at different speeches too, haha.  I liked Frances McDormand's a lot this past time, I bet you hated it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Also, I'm certainly not immune to rolling my eyes at some speeches...but it's whatever.  They're over quick.  I'm willing to bet we roll our eyes at different speeches too, haha.  I liked Frances McDormand's a lot this past time, I bet you hated it!

 

McDormand is an excellent actress.

 

2 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Hollywood was definitely known as something of a den of iniquity and immorality in the 20s and 30s. 

 

Well, true. But that doesn't have much to do with their politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

McDormand is an excellent actress.

 

Very true.  I wish I liked Three Billboards more than I did.  As it is, I find myself somewhere in the middle on it.  Admiring much about it, but it didn't gel together.  Unfocused rage didn't do much for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Not Mr. Big said:

Moonlight was an nice little personal film with a good message but BP it was not IMO.  It's the same deal with 2017's Ladybird where the only acceptable opinion to have about it is that it's a masterpiece (and not some run of the mill indie drama about coming of age, staying true to your roots, blah blah blah)

 

Yep, that's a large part of the problem - when a film getting awards attention essentially means that every critic has to rave about it and the filmmakers are not only filled with a partially deserved sense of purpose, but are also given a temporary platform to give a speech on whatever crowd-pleasing ideological message is trending.

 

(I really don't like the oscars..)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to find the newsgroup of people who view this stuff like I do.  I'll try rec.AwardsSeason in the 'ol Usenet.

 

 

I agree with this anonymous member of the Sound Branch of the Academy:

Quote

"Turning the show into a popular variety show is a mistake," the member added, arguing that the crafts categories are not the reason the show tends to runs long. “Most of us are played off pretty quickly; it’s all the bloated stuff in between. They could do many things to streamline the show."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/oscars-ceremony-changes-spark-fear-outrage-crafts-members-1133357

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, John said:

I don't like it. The whole idea behind this new category is that these movies are frankly not good enough to garner the prestigious awards, so they get to sit at their own kiddie table separate from the adults. It just kinda cheapens the entire event.

 

16 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

The funny thing is, the Oscars have always been a popularity contest, disguised as a prestigious awards ceremony. Now it’s official!

 

They’re just desperate for viewership.

 

15 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

It's reinforcing the very pretentious idea that to win a 'real' award, your film has to be serious and not 'popular', which is a viewpoint I hate. I watch all sorts of rubbish at the moment (lots of Netflix), which if considered on the strength of the writing and sheer entertainment value, would win more awards than the latest character study.

 

Glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

 

 

Glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity.

 

Neil Peart's just another example of a resentful introverted nerd who has to tell himself he's at least smarter and deeper than the popular kids!

 

(this was a joke, I love Rush)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a kid, I loved the Oscars...I'd stay up later and take it all in. It was really all about the magic of cinema...inspiring even.  This lasted into adulthood. But now it seems to be about making the "right" kind of movies with the right kind of subject matter. The shows are just...boring. 

 

All that said, I believe all this machinery making modern movies can still be open hearted.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My parents usually order pizza and watch all of the red carpet and preshow stuff, so I was there for all of that and the host monologue before I left to put my kid to bed.  I don't have TV at home, so I just followed the rest on Twitter.  Worked well for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mstrox said:

I don't have TV at home

 

What do you mean?  I mean, you watch movies all the time.  Do you mean you don't have cable?  Why not get an antennae for free OTA channels?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We haven't had cable since 2012 but we have a nice antennae that picks up tons of local HD broadcasts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

What do you mean?  I mean, you watch movies all the time.  Do you mean you don't have cable?  Why not get an antennae for free OTA channels?

 

We don't have cable or TV service, and we never watch TV live so the antenna would be a waste of money for us.  We have Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, and Netflix, and everything we watch from network or cable comes on to them either the day after they air (Hulu) or at the end of the season (Netflix/Amazon).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

Neil Peart's just another example of a resentful introverted nerd who has to tell himself he's at least smarter and deeper than the popular kids!

 

(this was a joke, I love Rush)

 

Plus for a long time he was an Ayn Rand acolyte and hard core libertarian! (though apparently he's mellowed with age).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jay said:

Waste of money? They are $20 I think

 

It would be $20 for something we'd never use, which I'd consider a waste.  Even when we paid for TV, we would absolutely never watch something as it aired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jay said:

We haven't had cable since 2012 but we have a nice antennae that picks up tons of local HD broadcasts

 

Most Dutch stations have their programs steaming on their websites. Free with ads. Its fine for watching current news stuff. 

 

I mooch on my sisters cable TV streaming app.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.