Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Variety)   The real reason the Oscars added that "popular film" category: ABC wants better ratings   ( variety.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Emmy Award, Academy Award, Academy Awards telecast, Oscars, Oscars telecast, Primetime Emmy Award, Disney-ABC Television Group, Motion Picture Arts  
•       •       •

825 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 09 Aug 2018 at 1:35 PM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-08-09 12:31:56 PM  
Art films make great artistic statements, explore new visions, question long held beliefs.

Pop films are loud, shallow, have plots made of tissue paper and pay the bills.
 
2018-08-09 12:54:11 PM  
Here's how to help it attract more viewers.

1)  End it on time.  Most other awards and live shows are able to end it withing a minute or two of the anticipated end time.  Yet if the Oscars are able to bring it in only 30 minutes long that's a win?

2)  Cut out the extraneous crap.  Do we really need a 20 minute homage to a classic movie that was released 50 years ago?

3)  Take a look at the bits that are added to make the host or presenters appear funny and are they really funny, or needed?  If not, cut them.  Even if they may be funny, keep an eye on the running time and if you're going to be long because somebody gave an extra long acceptance speech, cut them out.

4)  Let the winners give a decent acceptance speech.  If you've gotta cut time, cut it from the filler that is just that, filler.
 
2018-08-09 12:58:00 PM  
Duh
 
2018-08-09 01:36:35 PM  
I thought it was because Black Panther was so popular, but not Best Picture worthy, so they created a new separate but equal category.
 
2018-08-09 01:36:52 PM  
A popular film category? Why I never! *Monocle drops*
 
2018-08-09 01:39:57 PM  
I have yet to figure out why the Oscars don't treat the presentation like a movie. Keep people's interest & move the plot along. Here's the show.

Opening monologue
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best director
Best Song
Best Film

Work the best songs throughout the presentation & add the In Memorium section in there somewhere. That's it. If it goes over three hours, there'd better be a damned good reason.
 
2018-08-09 01:42:01 PM  
Here's an idea: start nominating popular, quality movies for best picture. When Avatar was nominated, Oscar ratings went up. When you nominated Gravity, ratings went up.
 
2018-08-09 01:44:59 PM  
Just a slippery slope for the Oscars to de-evolve into the MTV Movie Awards.
 
2018-08-09 01:47:22 PM  

Jaws_Victim: A popular film category? Why I never! *Monocle drops*


The Best Picture used to be the Popular Picture category.  Until someone figured out there was a series of elements that increased your share of the votes for Best Picture because the Academy is hilariously Old, White, Male, and Criminally Sentimental.  So, studios vying for that award build a schlocky schmaltz-fest tailor-made to trip those endorphin centers in a very specific demographic.  And could care less for anything else in their catalog doing that.  Even in the late 70s and early 80s, virtually all 5 nominees would be in the top 15 grossing films of the year, if not the top 10 - and the winner was almost always in the top 5.  Now, the nominees are often essentially unheard of before the nominations are released, and their combined revenues are dwarfed by student film coffee budgets, because the studios neither want nor expect people to watch what are essentially boring performance art pieces in Pavlovian theory.
 
2018-08-09 01:47:54 PM  
Didn't The Shape of Zoophilia win Best Picture last time?

/A clue/
 
2018-08-09 01:48:27 PM  

phalamir: Jaws_Victim: A popular film category? Why I never! *Monocle drops*

The Best Picture used to be the Popular Picture category.  Until someone figured out there was a series of elements that increased your share of the votes for Best Picture because the Academy is hilariously Old, White, Male, and Criminally Sentimental.  So, studios vying for that award build a schlocky schmaltz-fest tailor-made to trip those endorphin centers in a very specific demographic.  And could care less for anything else in their catalog doing that.  Even in the late 70s and early 80s, virtually all 5 nominees would be in the top 15 grossing films of the year, if not the top 10 - and the winner was almost always in the top 5.  Now, the nominees are often essentially unheard of before the nominations are released, and their combined revenues are dwarfed by student film coffee budgets, because the studios neither want nor expect people to watch what are essentially boring performance art pieces in Pavlovian theory.


I remember this from the last thread we had on it. I was making a joke.
 
2018-08-09 01:49:52 PM  

JJRRutgers: Just a slippery slope for the Oscars to de-evolve into the MTV Movie Awards.


static.seekingalpha.comView Full Size
 
2018-08-09 01:50:00 PM  

Jaws_Victim: phalamir: Jaws_Victim: A popular film category? Why I never! *Monocle drops*

The Best Picture used to be the Popular Picture category.  Until someone figured out there was a series of elements that increased your share of the votes for Best Picture because the Academy is hilariously Old, White, Male, and Criminally Sentimental.  So, studios vying for that award build a schlocky schmaltz-fest tailor-made to trip those endorphin centers in a very specific demographic.  And could care less for anything else in their catalog doing that.  Even in the late 70s and early 80s, virtually all 5 nominees would be in the top 15 grossing films of the year, if not the top 10 - and the winner was almost always in the top 5.  Now, the nominees are often essentially unheard of before the nominations are released, and their combined revenues are dwarfed by student film coffee budgets, because the studios neither want nor expect people to watch what are essentially boring performance art pieces in Pavlovian theory.

I remember this from the last thread we had on it. I was making a joke.


Ohh....

You for got the trying between was and making.
 
2018-08-09 01:50:04 PM  

Elfich: Art films make great artistic statements, explore new visions, question long held beliefs.

Pop films are loud, shallow, have plots made of tissue paper and pay the bills.


"Pop films" make a great artistic statement as well, which is that explosions are awesome and violence is always the answer.
 
2018-08-09 01:52:52 PM  
1.) Absolutely cut any segment that involves 'lets bring this tour bus to the oscars, or lets go mingle with the normies' it looks painful every time.
2.) No one wants to hear an acceptance speech unless it is someone who absolutely didn't expect to win.
3.) Every year they should have a small segment to remind us about things that won best picture that no one remembers because they weren't actually that good to begin with.  *cough dances with wolves cough shakespere in love*
 
2018-08-09 01:53:42 PM  
This is not new, if anything this is a return to tradition. Originally the Oscars had a category for Best Unique and Artistic Picture and one for Outstanding Picture. Outstanding picture was for crowd favorites, and Artistic was for critical darlings. They decided to drop the Artistic picture category and just have the one category which became Best Picture.
Even if a person is interested in the Oscars, why would they subject themselves to watching a 3 hours commercial filled telecast. They can just read an article with the winners when the ceremony is over. I usually just check the wiki page periodically out of curiosity, and there is no way I would watch the whole thing. You can throw a party in your honor if you want, but I don't have to pretend it has any significance or watch it.
 
2018-08-09 02:00:10 PM  
I don't think the length of the awards show is really what's driving people to stop watching the Oscars.

The show has run needlessly long for as long as I can remember - it being long didn't make people tune out in the olden days.  And sure, there weren't smartphone apps and social networks demanding our attention back then, but those things actually make it easier to endure something like the Oscars.

I think that a big part of the appeal of the awards shows was getting to see the actors and actresses, dressed up but not in costume.  The Oscars were one of the few occasions people used to get to see these actors as people and not the characters they portray - especially those who decline to purchase the salacious gossip rags.

But these days every notable and aspiring actor has a twitter, an instagram, and a social media coordinator, providing a real-time view into their lives.

Part of what used to make the awards shows special just isn't special anymore.

And besides, why bother to watch it live when any notably good / bad outfits / behavior / highlights will be on the internet the next morning?  Sure, if something cool happened at the 1994 Oscars and you missed it, you had to tune into Entertainment Tonight or something and hope they re-aired the moment.  Now you can see it on Youtube within minutes of it happening.
 
2018-08-09 02:01:00 PM  

phalamir: Jaws_Victim: A popular film category? Why I never! *Monocle drops*

The Best Picture used to be the Popular Picture category.  Until someone figured out there was a series of elements that increased your share of the votes for Best Picture because the Academy is hilariously Old, White, Male, and Criminally Sentimental.  So, studios vying for that award build a schlocky schmaltz-fest tailor-made to trip those endorphin centers in a very specific demographic.  And could care less for anything else in their catalog doing that.  Even in the late 70s and early 80s, virtually all 5 nominees would be in the top 15 grossing films of the year, if not the top 10 - and the winner was almost always in the top 5.  Now, the nominees are often essentially unheard of before the nominations are released, and their combined revenues are dwarfed by student film coffee budgets, because the studios neither want nor expect people to watch what are essentially boring performance art pieces in Pavlovian theory.


Imagine if you're some old dude who grew up in a time where movies were about three people sitting at a kitchen table, talking for two hours about who committed the crime.  You learn that "good movies" are about Cary Grant and his female companion (also played by Cary Grant) interrogating the bad guy (a dog, once again Cary Grant), to fess up on who ate the dog food.

Then Star Wars comes out and movies are now about cooler things, like the entire future of the galaxy being at stake, and being able to recreate the action in your own home with the help of these Kenner action figures.  You're so enraged by this absolute cutting-edge masterpiece, which obsoletes your Cary Grant dog food advertisements, that you vow to get revenge.

That is when the year 2018 comes around, and you're on the board for the Academy Awards, you can now vindicate the kinds of movies you grew up with, or at-worst, attack those loud and expensive thrillers that take full advantage of cinema as visual spectacle.  That is when you declare that "The Soccer Ball Meets the Racquet" is one of the greatest films of 2018.

The irony is that you are okay with the CGI when it allows the soccer ball to be played by Cary Grant, but since you are on an "academy" with other like-minded Cary Grant fans, nobody will be there to attack your stupidity and ignorance.  That is when the little girl kicks the soccer ball and Cary Grant takes off into another masterpiece performance.

Thank you, Cary Grant.  Your performance didn't just lead to a zero-zero tie soccer game, you tied up my heart.
 
2018-08-09 02:01:29 PM  
I watch a lot of movies.  In any given year I see damn near all of the films nominated for the major awards, the documentaries, shorts, and foreign language films.  I would rather shiat in my hands and clap than watch a single second of the Oscars.
 
2018-08-09 02:03:35 PM  

ODDwhun: This is not new, if anything this is a return to tradition. Originally the Oscars had a category for Best Unique and Artistic Picture and one for Outstanding Picture. Outstanding picture was for crowd favorites, and Artistic was for critical darlings. They decided to drop the Artistic picture category and just have the one category which became Best Picture.
Even if a person is interested in the Oscars, why would they subject themselves to watching a 3 hours commercial filled telecast. They can just read an article with the winners when the ceremony is over. I usually just check the wiki page periodically out of curiosity, and there is no way I would watch the whole thing. You can throw a party in your honor if you want, but I don't have to pretend it has any significance or watch it.


Even this change isn't going to get viewers.  Why would I sit and watch a commercial filled time sink with 15 minutes of actual interesting content (if that) when I can catch the highlights/lowlights a few minutes or hours later on youtube.  There just isn't as big of a market for shows like this except live TV is just about the only thing they can sell diminishing advertisements for.
 
2018-08-09 02:03:47 PM  
Drop the politics: you're a bunch of overpaid actors. I don't give two shiats about your "opinion" on things.
 
2018-08-09 02:11:14 PM  

Thong_of_Zardoz: Drop the politics: you're a bunch of overpaid actors. I don't give two shiats about your "opinion" on things.


A thousand times THIS.

Celebrities are allowed to have political views, opinions, and causes they support as much as the next person...but the Oscars (or any other awards show, for that matter) are not the time or place to get on a soapbox and preach about them.  I don't care if the cause or issue is directly relevant to Hollywood.  Save that stuff for Instagram or another media format that isn't on a time and content budget.

You wanna wear a certain color of clothing, pin, or something else that promotes a cause or movement?  Have at it.  But when it comes time for you to speak/accept your award, say your thank yous and move along.
 
2018-08-09 02:13:17 PM  
Stop giving awards to movies that are just masturbation fodder for the image of Hollywood?
 
2018-08-09 02:14:30 PM  

Elfich: Art films make great artistic statements, explore new visions, question long held beliefs.

Pop films are loud, shallow, have plots made of tissue paper and pay the bills.


Agreed. But we don't have to honor them with worthless awards. Complete bullshiat to add this. They were watered down enough when they started nominating 10 films for best picture.
 
2018-08-09 02:22:46 PM  

Jaws_Victim: phalamir: Jaws_Victim: A popular film category? Why I never! *Monocle drops*

The Best Picture used to be the Popular Picture category.  Until someone figured out there was a series of elements that increased your share of the votes for Best Picture because the Academy is hilariously Old, White, Male, and Criminally Sentimental.  So, studios vying for that award build a schlocky schmaltz-fest tailor-made to trip those endorphin centers in a very specific demographic.  And could care less for anything else in their catalog doing that.  Even in the late 70s and early 80s, virtually all 5 nominees would be in the top 15 grossing films of the year, if not the top 10 - and the winner was almost always in the top 5.  Now, the nominees are often essentially unheard of before the nominations are released, and their combined revenues are dwarfed by student film coffee budgets, because the studios neither want nor expect people to watch what are essentially boring performance art pieces in Pavlovian theory.

I remember this from the last thread we had on it. I was making a joke.


in the 1970s and 1980s, people had taste.

1970Patton
1971The French Connection
1972The Godfather
1973The Sting
1974The Godfather Part II
1975One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
1976Rocky
1977Annie Hall
1978The Deer Hunter
1979Kramer vs. Kramer
1980Ordinary People
1981Chariots of Fire
1982Gandhi
1983Terms of Endearment
1984Amadeus
1985Out of Africa
1986Platoon
1987The Last Emperor
1988Rain Man
1989Driving Miss Daisy

Several of those are what would be considered "art films" today and not have a chance at a budget, even if they were made.

There's not a action-adventure-blow-things-up movie in the lot.

And they were all very popular high-grossing films.  Because people would pay to watch Ordinary People.

Hell, The Godfather would struggle to find an audience today.
 
2018-08-09 02:23:25 PM  

AgtSmithReloaded: Thong_of_Zardoz: Drop the politics: you're a bunch of overpaid actors. I don't give two shiats about your "opinion" on things.

A thousand times THIS.

Celebrities are allowed to have political views, opinions, and causes they support as much as the next person...but the Oscars (or any other awards show, for that matter) are not the time or place to get on a soapbox and preach about them.  I don't care if the cause or issue is directly relevant to Hollywood.  Save that stuff for Instagram or another media format that isn't on a time and content budget.

You wanna wear a certain color of clothing, pin, or something else that promotes a cause or movement?  Have at it.  But when it comes time for you to speak/accept your award, say your thank yous and move along.


You sound incel.
 
2018-08-09 02:25:25 PM  

BizarreMan: Here's how to help it attract more viewers.

1)  End it on time.  Most other awards and live shows are able to end it withing a minute or two of the anticipated end time.  Yet if the Oscars are able to bring it in only 30 minutes long that's a win?

2)  Cut out the extraneous crap.  Do we really need a 20 minute homage to a classic movie that was released 50 years ago?

3)  Take a look at the bits that are added to make the host or presenters appear funny and are they really funny, or needed?  If not, cut them.  Even if they may be funny, keep an eye on the running time and if you're going to be long because somebody gave an extra long acceptance speech, cut them out.

4)  Let the winners give a decent acceptance speech.  If you've gotta cut time, cut it from the filler that is just that, filler.


Agreed on all counts.

All of those "tributes" and "salutes" and what not are nothing but filler to distract viewers and attendees so the backstage people can prep the next presenters or usher the last winners back to their seats or to press areas or whatever it is they do.  They can keep the "In Memoriam" feature, because I think that's important, but they need to do better research on those who were lost in the past year so they don't leave people out, which they've been frequently doing over the past few years.

They also need to ditch the gimmicky hosts.  We don't need comedians or whatever doing their schtick on-stage.  If they want to do that, there are comedy clubs or other venues for that.  Get someone charismatic and charming enough to do the job they're there to do, without all of the side commentary that no one needs to hear...especially since it's rarely funny anyway.

And they've got to do something about acceptance speeches.  Some of these poor souls get cut off way too soon on what is often their first time getting such a prestigious award.   Look, you don't need to cut someone off in the middle of their heartfelt speech just so you can get Matt Damon on-stage to do a sing-along tribute to the best performances by orangutans in cinema history (of which Dr. Zaius should be the top choice, of course...just sayin').  Set an allotted time for these speeches, drill it into the nominees' heads ("See this?  This is your timeframe!!!  Say what you've got to say before this runs out, or we're cutting you off!") and make sure they can edit their speeches to compensate.  Besides, if they'd cut out all of that other pointless guff, you can allow a little more time for acceptance speeches anyway, which are a lot more important than a salute to the gaffer who worked on Casablanca, or something.
 
2018-08-09 02:27:29 PM  

AgtSmithReloaded: BizarreMan: Here's how to help it attract more viewers.

1)  End it on time.  Most other awards and live shows are able to end it withing a minute or two of the anticipated end time.  Yet if the Oscars are able to bring it in only 30 minutes long that's a win?

2)  Cut out the extraneous crap.  Do we really need a 20 minute homage to a classic movie that was released 50 years ago?

3)  Take a look at the bits that are added to make the host or presenters appear funny and are they really funny, or needed?  If not, cut them.  Even if they may be funny, keep an eye on the running time and if you're going to be long because somebody gave an extra long acceptance speech, cut them out.

4)  Let the winners give a decent acceptance speech.  If you've gotta cut time, cut it from the filler that is just that, filler.

Agreed on all counts.

All of those "tributes" and "salutes" and what not are nothing but filler to distract viewers and attendees so the backstage people can prep the next presenters or usher the last winners back to their seats or to press areas or whatever it is they do.  They can keep the "In Memoriam" feature, because I think that's important, but they need to do better research on those who were lost in the past year so they don't leave people out, which they've been frequently doing over the past few years.

They also need to ditch the gimmicky hosts.  We don't need comedians or whatever doing their schtick on-stage.  If they want to do that, there are comedy clubs or other venues for that.  Get someone charismatic and charming enough to do the job they're there to do, without all of the side commentary that no one needs to hear...especially since it's rarely funny anyway.

And they've got to do something about acceptance speeches.  Some of these poor souls get cut off way too soon on what is often their first time getting such a prestigious award.   Look, you don't need to cut someone off in the middle of their heartfelt speech just so you can get Matt ...


Also, we should just put in on You Tube in 9-minute parts because that's all the attention span anyone has anymore.
 
2018-08-09 02:28:19 PM  
1. Eliminate the opening comedy monologue.
2. Take the nominated songs and make all fit into a 5-minute medley
3. NO DANCE NUMBERS EVAR
4. Since it's near impossible to see the short subject films, move them to the non-televised award night.
5. Also move costume design and makeup to the other night because who really gives a shiat
6. Follow the following guideline on presenters: one person or couple presents all four acting awards; one person presents best director and best picture; one person or couple presents all technical awards: cinematography/editing/sound/FX/etc...​.you get the idea.
7. Every winner gets as long as they want to say thanks.
8. Lengthen the only thing anyone gives a shiat about..."In Memoriam"
9. Profit.
 
2018-08-09 02:28:57 PM  

She comes in colors everywhere: AgtSmithReloaded: Thong_of_Zardoz: Drop the politics: you're a bunch of overpaid actors. I don't give two shiats about your "opinion" on things.

A thousand times THIS.

Celebrities are allowed to have political views, opinions, and causes they support as much as the next person...but the Oscars (or any other awards show, for that matter) are not the time or place to get on a soapbox and preach about them.  I don't care if the cause or issue is directly relevant to Hollywood.  Save that stuff for Instagram or another media format that isn't on a time and content budget.

You wanna wear a certain color of clothing, pin, or something else that promotes a cause or movement?  Have at it.  But when it comes time for you to speak/accept your award, say your thank yous and move along.

You sound incel.

*sad nod, sympathetic pat on your head*

Yes, dear...whatever you say.
 
2018-08-09 02:33:28 PM  

She comes in colors everywhere: Also, we should just put in on You Tube in 9-minute parts because that's all the attention span anyone has anymore.


TL;DW
;^D
 
2018-08-09 02:33:28 PM  
Bring all of the nominees on the stage at once, have them group together by category, bring out that janitor's cart loaded down with all of the Oscar and stop in front of each group, hand out an Oscar and the winner has until next winner receives his or her Oscar to give a speech.
TA DA!
 
2018-08-09 02:39:39 PM  

She comes in colors everywhere: Jaws_Victim: phalamir: Jaws_Victim: A popular film category? Why I never! *Monocle drops*

The Best Picture used to be the Popular Picture category.  Until someone figured out there was a series of elements that increased your share of the votes for Best Picture because the Academy is hilariously Old, White, Male, and Criminally Sentimental.  So, studios vying for that award build a schlocky schmaltz-fest tailor-made to trip those endorphin centers in a very specific demographic.  And could care less for anything else in their catalog doing that.  Even in the late 70s and early 80s, virtually all 5 nominees would be in the top 15 grossing films of the year, if not the top 10 - and the winner was almost always in the top 5.  Now, the nominees are often essentially unheard of before the nominations are released, and their combined revenues are dwarfed by student film coffee budgets, because the studios neither want nor expect people to watch what are essentially boring performance art pieces in Pavlovian theory.

I remember this from the last thread we had on it. I was making a joke.

in the 1970s and 1980s, people had taste.

1970Patton
1971The French Connection
1972The Godfather
1973The Sting
1974The Godfather Part II
1975One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
1976Rocky
1977Annie Hall
1978The Deer Hunter
1979Kramer vs. Kramer
1980Ordinary People
1981Chariots of Fire
1982Gandhi
1983Terms of Endearment
1984Amadeus
1985Out of Africa
1986Platoon
1987The Last Emperor
1988Rain Man
1989Driving Miss Daisy

Several of those are what would be considered "art films" today and not have a chance at a budget, even if they were made.

There's not a action-adventure-blow-things-up movie in the lot.

And they were all very popular high-grossing films.  Because people would pay to watch Ordinary People.

Hell, The Godfather would struggle to find an audience today.


The Godfather has never struggled to have an audience at any time.  And there was amazing amount of complete shiat churned out in every year of Hollywood.  It isn't that audiences are less willing to like nice things, it is that they are not offered nice things.  The big difference is that Best Picture has become a Skinner Box for Old, White, Monied Farts.  You craft a souless collection of elements to maximize clicks from the same people who wonder why the coloreds are not picking cotton anymore.  You then show it as little as possible to meet the bare minimum for being a viable Oscar picture.  Its min-maxing for the non-RPG set with relentlessly TOed films.  Everything else is pared of these elements to direct the relentless Pavlovian pigeons to the designated nominee.  If you never offer the audiences good product, you can't complain when they don't watch good product.
 
2018-08-09 03:00:19 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-08-09 03:06:46 PM  

Jack Sabbath: I thought it was because Black Panther was so popular, but not Best Picture worthy, so they created a new separate but equal category.


It really does seem like a we-need-to-give-Black Panther-something-other-then-costume-d​esign award, so transparently that Ryan Coogler should feel offended if it's in fact nominated.
 
2018-08-09 03:06:51 PM  

phalamir: She comes in colors everywhere: Jaws_Victim: phalamir: Jaws_Victim: A popular film category? Why I never! *Monocle drops*

The Best Picture used to be the Popular Picture category.  Until someone figured out there was a series of elements that increased your share of the votes for Best Picture because the Academy is hilariously Old, White, Male, and Criminally Sentimental.  So, studios vying for that award build a schlocky schmaltz-fest tailor-made to trip those endorphin centers in a very specific demographic.  And could care less for anything else in their catalog doing that.  Even in the late 70s and early 80s, virtually all 5 nominees would be in the top 15 grossing films of the year, if not the top 10 - and the winner was almost always in the top 5.  Now, the nominees are often essentially unheard of before the nominations are released, and their combined revenues are dwarfed by student film coffee budgets, because the studios neither want nor expect people to watch what are essentially boring performance art pieces in Pavlovian theory.

I remember this from the last thread we had on it. I was making a joke.

in the 1970s and 1980s, people had taste.

1970Patton
1971The French Connection
1972The Godfather
1973The Sting
1974The Godfather Part II
1975One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
1976Rocky
1977Annie Hall
1978The Deer Hunter
1979Kramer vs. Kramer
1980Ordinary People
1981Chariots of Fire
1982Gandhi
1983Terms of Endearment
1984Amadeus
1985Out of Africa
1986Platoon
1987The Last Emperor
1988Rain Man
1989Driving Miss Daisy

Several of those are what would be considered "art films" today and not have a chance at a budget, even if they were made.

There's not a action-adventure-blow-things-up movie in the lot.

And they were all very popular high-grossing films.  Because people would pay to watch Ordinary People.

Hell, The Godfather would struggle to find an audience today.

The Godfather has never struggled to have an audience at any time.  And there was amazing amou ...


If audiences would watch The Shape Of Water, which was a fantastic film and not a farking Skinner Box in any conceivable way, it would be in theaters. You act like Hollywood doesn't like money.
 
2018-08-09 03:20:12 PM  
I guess we'll see what happens but they probably should have just called it the 'Superhero movie' category.
 
2018-08-09 03:24:01 PM  

Lord of the Highway: I guess we'll see what happens but they probably should have just called it the 'Superhero and Star Wars movie' category.

 
2018-08-09 03:38:52 PM  
People wouldn't be so annoyed at popular movies being ignored if the unpopular movies that got nominated were actually better. The problem is that the unpopular movies that end up getting nominated aren't even better than the popular movies that are left out. Take last year... Had the Oscars tracked with actual critical reception, the nominees would have been (according to RottenTomatoes): Lady Bird, Get Out, Dunkirk, Coco, Wonder Woman, The Big Sick, Logan, The Shape of Water, The Florida Project, and Baby Driver. That's not a bad list, actually. It has beloved indie movies along with well-made commercial movies that people actually saw.

The Oscars have just become way too pretentious - unwilling to admit that popular genre movies can be not only good, but better than a lot of the indie crap that they praise.
 
2018-08-09 03:50:22 PM  
The Oscars telecast is the biggest piece of event programming for [dumb nickname redacted] - the only one of the Big Four broadcasters without an NFL package, and thus lacking the boost that its competitors get from television's most powerful driver of live viewing.

If the problem is that you don't have football, have football.  Replace the Academy Awards with the Academy Bowl.
 
2018-08-09 03:57:38 PM  

This Honkey Grandma Be Trippin': Here's an idea: start nominating popular, quality movies for best picture. When Avatar was nominated, Oscar ratings went up. When you nominated Gravity, ratings went up.


You know what the most popular song was in 1966, the year of Sgt. Pepper, Pet Sounds, Village Green Preservation Society, et al.? This:

https://youtu.be/m5WJJVSE_BE

There is a difference between popular and good. You may not be able to understand that yet, but the Academy has attempted to avoid being the fad-chaser in favor of pursuing works that have actual cinematic merit, which they then screwed up cuz teenagers loved Titanic and Boomers loved Forrest Gump.
 
2018-08-09 04:00:27 PM  

Thong_of_Zardoz: Drop the politics: you're a bunch of overpaid actors. I don't give two shiats about your "opinion" on things.


The president is a game show host. The president five presidents prior was a C- to D-movie star. There is cultural relevance, even if you can't quite keep up.
 
2018-08-09 04:48:08 PM  
Younger people don't care about awards shows. The telecast could start at 7pm EST or 7:30 and not 8:00 or  8:30 EST. Perhaps the academy needs to start figuring out how to get voting members to actually watch all the possibilities. There's a reason we see the same people nominated over and over. Perhaps this new category will finally give comedies some due.
 
stk
2018-08-09 04:51:28 PM  
Reminds me when Fury Road was shown at Cannes, everyone thought it was the best movie, but it didn't get any awards because it was shown out of competition because they're all snooty blowhards.
 
2018-08-09 05:08:54 PM  
Never watched the Oscars and probably 95% of the movies they push.
 
2018-08-09 05:56:51 PM  

stk: Reminds me when Fury Road was shown at Cannes, everyone thought it was the best movie, but it didn't get any awards because it was shown out of competition because they're all snooty blowhards.


Fury Road is the perfect action film, a visual and aural experience distilled from decades of genre evolution that rarely comes together(like it did for The French Connection and Dog Day Afternoon).  I guess we should be happy it was even nominated for Best Picture(unlike Straight Outta Compton, which got shafted that year).
 
2018-08-09 06:06:34 PM  

bhcompy: stk: Reminds me when Fury Road was shown at Cannes, everyone thought it was the best movie, but it didn't get any awards because it was shown out of competition because they're all snooty blowhards.

Fury Road is the perfect action film, a visual and aural experience distilled from decades of genre evolution that rarely comes together(like it did for The French Connection and Dog Day Afternoon).  I guess we should be happy it was even nominated for Best Picture(unlike Straight Outta Compton, which got shafted that year).


Totally agree: it's one of the few films I can think of that so wonderfully hits every little thing it went out to do.

/Ghostbusters and Robocop come to mind, as well
 
2018-08-09 06:45:07 PM  

shut_it_down: People wouldn't be so annoyed at popular movies being ignored if the unpopular movies that got nominated were actually better. The problem is that the unpopular movies that end up getting nominated aren't even better than the popular movies that are left out. Take last year... Had the Oscars tracked with actual critical reception, the nominees would have been (according to RottenTomatoes): Lady Bird, Get Out, Dunkirk, Coco, Wonder Woman, The Big Sick, Logan, The Shape of Water, The Florida Project, and Baby Driver. That's not a bad list, actually. It has beloved indie movies along with well-made commercial movies that people actually saw.

The Oscars have just become way too pretentious - unwilling to admit that popular genre movies can be not only good, but better than a lot of the indie crap that they praise.


The Deer Hunter is to thank/blame for this.

The film got poor reviews from test audiences (A 3+ hour-long movie about Vietnam War prisoners being savagely tortured made less than 3 years after the Vietnam War ended in disappointment? No kidding!), so the producers held a private screening for Academy members, who hyped it up with Oscar nominations, thus making it more "respectable" for audiences.
 
2018-08-09 06:46:23 PM  
It makes sense that they'd try to attract a younger (i.e. Millennial) audience by giving out participation trophies.
 
2018-08-09 06:59:27 PM  
They should just have "Best Woke Picture" and call it a night.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report