A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Greatest Showman -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

Seriously? There's a reason this wasn't nominated for Best picture even thought we now have 9 nominees! It was just OK.

Yes, seriously as I wasn't even talking about this film not getting a Best PIcture nomination! I was referring to subjective opinions about films and in this case musicals. Please name your top 10 ten musicals and I bet there is one that I thought was just OK? It doesn't make your list wrong nor me wrong for thinking one of them is just OK, it's just my opinion.

 

[PMF]

I don't know how
The Shape of Water
beat this film out for Best Picture.​

But really, with the huge expanded list of titles the Academy now nominates, you mean to tell me The Greatest Showman couldn't even make that list?

"The Shape of Water" visually held me and was a fun enough story told artistically; but the only film concerning the plight of a fish that ever emotionally reached me was "The Incredible Mr. Limpet".

Every once in a while comes a Best Picture winner that I don't get; and this year was one of them.

As for "The Greatest Showman"? Well, I wanted to chirp in on Mr. Epstein's valid argument (as quoted), concerning the expanded number of Best Picture nominees from within the decade. Mr. Epstein is more than right, for in a year that produced 9 nominees for Best Picture, AMPAS actually allows for 10. With that reminder, this omission of "The Greatest Showman" becomes all the more beguiling. I know that I am preaching to a majority of HTF posters who also love this film when I say that "The Greatest Showman" has so much heart, flair and wonder. "The Greatest Showman" is also a fare where one can safely bring the entire family to its rings, as were the real-life presentations of Barnum and Bailey, itself. And short of a Pixar production, such things are rare in today's cinemas. I suspect that "The Greatest Showman" will prove to be one of those films that will grow throughout the years within its stature and following.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

We finally watched this film last night -- I picked it up from Best Buy using a $15 Rewards certificate, so it only cost me $10 out of pocket, plus I got a $5 Best Buy e-gift card for a future purchase as part of a promotion with Fox.

My wife and I both enjoyed the film. I thought Jackman was excellent, and Efron did a decent job -- although he did seem to have some difficultly hitting some of the notes in the songs. The other performers all were excellent, as well. The story was entertaining and held our interest.

My one criticism is that most of the musical numbers seems too similar -- there just wasn't much variety in them. With other "modern" musicals which are favorites of mine -- Grease and Chicago -- I felt compelled to buy the soundtracks to those films. I doubt I will be doing this with The Greatest Showman. Maybe it's the difference between a film based on a musical stage play with already developed musical numbers and an original work for the screen.

Maybe the musical numbers will grow on me more with a subsequent viewing. I don't usually watch films multiple times in a short period of time, though, so it will be a awhile before I watch this again. But I do not feel compelled to sell the disc, as I did with La La Land.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

As for "The Greatest Showman"? Well, I wanted to chirp in on Mr. Epstein's valid argument (as quoted), concerning the expanded number of Best Picture nominees from within the decade. Mr. Epstein is more than right, for in a year that produced 9 nominees for Best Picture, AMPAS actually allows for 10. With that reminder, this omission of "The Greatest Showman" becomes all the more beguiling.

Isn't it possible that the voters didn't think it was a good enough film to merit a nomination?

People act like "TGS" was some kind of shoo-in that got neglected mysteriously. The movie earned mediocre reviews - it has 56% on RT and that plummets all the way to 36% when only "top critics" become the focus.

You can get a BP nod with bad reviews - "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" earner one with similarly weak reviews - but it's an exception.

I don't get the apparent belief that "TGS" was screwed out of Oscar love...

 

[PMF]

Isn't it possible that the voters didn't think it was a good enough film to merit a nomination?

People act like "TGS" was some kind of shoo-in that got neglected mysteriously. The movie earned mediocre reviews - it has 56% on RT and that plummets all the way to 36% when only "top critics" become the focus.

You can get a BP nod with bad reviews - "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" earner one with similarly weak reviews - but it's an exception.

I don't get the apparent belief that "TGS" was screwed out of Oscar love...

There's was room for 10 Best Picture nominations. So be it "The Greatest Showman" or any other film from 2017, one motion picture got the short end of the stick. And since that spot was never utilized, then fans of "The Greatest Showman" or any other film have filled in the blank with their own favorite. One thing is for certain, "The Greatest Showman" deserved far more than a single nomination; even if it couldn't be one for Picture. So, this is why we love our HTF, as not everyone can agree on everything; and its done so with the greatest of passions.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

There's was room for 10 Best Picture nominations. So be it "The Greatest Showman" or any other film from 2017, one motion picture got the short end of the stick. And since that spot was never utilized, then fans of "The Greatest Showman" or any other film have filled in the blank with their own favorite. One thing is for certain, "The Greatest Showman" deserved far more than a single nomination; even if it couldn't be one for Picture. So, this is why we love our HTF; as not everyone can agree and its done so with the greatest of passions.

The Oscar system isn't designed for 10 nominees - it's designed for up to 10 nominees.

The voting system intends to ensure a certain level of support for each nominee - if the film doesn't receive a certain percentage of votes, it doesn't get the nomination.

This means no movie "got the short end of the stick" - no movie was deprived of that 10th spot as it's not guaranteed.

In any case, I still don't see how "TGS" was screwed because - as noted - it wasn't a film that received good reviews.

A lot of people liked it, apparently - great. There are tons of movies every year with lots of popular support - I don't think it's a sin these movies don't get Oscar nominations...

 

[Matt Hough]

Yes, you have to remember that a ton of people were pissed off Wonder Woman wasn't nominated, and in another thread, we were talking about Hostiles having pre-Oscar buzz that didn't materialize.

 

[Jason_V]

A lot of people liked it, apparently - great. There are tons of movies every year with lots of popular support - I don't think it's a sin these movies don't get Oscar nominations...

It's not a sin, granted and understood. But the post-telecast hand wringing over ratings and eyeballs tends to argue this point. The more the arty, no one has seen them movies get nods, the less people tune into the show. Add some more popular movies in there and you may get more eyeballs. People are always complaining about the politics in the show, but I don't buy that as much as everyone wants to sell it.

I'm not saying you nominate/vote based on popular opinion. But if you have a bunch of nominees no one has heard of, it doesn't matter if we're talking Citizen Kane...no one is going to watch.

A more likelier reason is the voters passed the movie over on screener or in screenings because it was only a musical or was untrue to history or had Jackman/Efron, etc. So they didn't watch it, though it is their duty to watch it. I haven't heard this is the case, but I'm not ruling it out. Same thing happened to Brokeback Mountain years ago. Voters didn't watch it so it didn't really have a shot at BP.

 

[PMF]

Well, one things for sure...
we can all agree upon an Honorary Oscar for Robert A. Harris in 2019.
Right?

 

[PMF]

[...]A more likelier reason is the voters passed the movie over on screeners or in screenings [...] though it is their duty to watch it.
I haven't heard this is the case, but I'm not ruling it out.

It's an absolute duty. If one is going to vote at all, then play the game and play it fairly. Like a film or don't like a film; but respect and see the work put forth. Otherwise, don't send in the ballot, at all.

 

[Worth]

It's an absolute duty. If one is going to vote at all, then play the game and play it fairly. Like a film or don't like a film; but respect and see the work put forth. Otherwise, don't send in the ballot, at all.

Then every Academy member really should be watching every single film released within a given year, which is somewhere around 700, or about 2 per day.

 

[Jason_V]

Then every Academy member really should be watching every single film released within a given year, which is somewhere around 700, or about 2 per day.

It's part of the gig, isn't it? Otherwise, every award is a crock of crap.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It's not a sin, granted and understood. But the post-telecast hand wringing over ratings and eyeballs tends to argue this point. The more the arty, no one has seen them movies get nods, the less people tune into the show. Add some more popular movies in there and you may get more eyeballs. People are always complaining about the politics in the show, but I don't buy that as much as everyone wants to sell it.

I'm not saying you nominate/vote based on popular opinion. But if you have a bunch of nominees no one has heard of, it doesn't matter if we're talking Citizen Kane...no one is going to watch.

A more likelier reason is the voters passed the movie over on screener or in screenings because it was only a musical or was untrue to history or had Jackman/Efron, etc. So they didn't watch it, though it is their duty to watch it. I haven't heard this is the case, but I'm not ruling it out. Same thing happened to Brokeback Mountain years ago. Voters didn't watch it so it didn't really have a shot at BP.

Um... you know Ang Lee won Best Director for "Brokeback", right? It had a strong shot at BP - it was an upset that "Crash" won instead.

I still think the most likely reason "TGS" didn't get a BP nom is because voters didn't think it was a very good movie.

If the Academy wanted to find a big hit movie to nominate, they could've gone with "Wonder Woman:" - great reviews and massive box office.

"TGS" wasn't some massive hit. It ended up in 18th place for 2017 - behind actual BP noms "Get Out" and "Dunkirk".

So it's not like "TGS" was this super-smash that the Academy ignored in favor of obscure art house fare.

There seems to be a cult building around "TGS' that makes it out to be a massive hit that is an all-time great film that got screwed out of Oscar love. None of this makes any sense to me.

"Wonder Woman" has a waaay better argument for getting screwed out of that 10th slot than "TGS" - and if you wanna look at other 2917 hits, there are others than have a better argument as well. "Logan" or "It" or "Beauty and the Beast" all make stronger claims for possible BP attention than "TGS", a moderate hit with generally mediocre/weak reviews...

 

[Jason_V]

Um... you know Ang Lee won Best Director for "Brokeback", right? It had a strong shot at BP - it was an upset that "Crash" won instead.

Totally. But how many voters publicly acknowledged not watching the film? How many others didn't acknowledge it but didn't? Is anyone actually going to make the case that Crash is a better film? If you look at ye ole' loved Rotten Tomatoes, BM wins with critics and Crash has the lead with audiences. If we look at world wide dollars, that's Brokeback by a mile.

So, moving on. The first weekend of TGS grossed a paltry (relatively) $9ish million domestically. It legged out to $173 million domestic. Dunkirk is "barely" more at $190 million, and Get Out at $176 million. I would call it a financial hit. The first weekend looked awful. But from word of mouth, it stayed in theaters for months. Longer than Wonder Woman, Beauty and the Beast and Star Wars.

 

[Mike Frezon]

"Logan" or "It" or "Beauty and the Beast" all make stronger claims for possible BP attention than "TGS", a moderate hit with generally mediocre/weak reviews...

Don't forget Wind River.

...every award is a crock of crap.

This is pretty much it.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Totally. But how many voters publicly acknowledged not watching the film? How many others didn't acknowledge it but didn't? Is anyone actually going to make the case that Crash is a better film? If you look at ye ole' loved Rotten Tomatoes, BM wins with critics and Crash has the lead with audiences. If we look at world wide dollars, that's Brokeback by a mile.

So, moving on. The first weekend of TGS grossed a paltry (relatively) $9ish million domestically. It legged out to $173 million domestic. Dunkirk is "barely" more at $190 million, and Get Out at $176 million. I would call it a financial hit. The first weekend looked awful. But from word of mouth, it stayed in theaters for months. Longer than Wonder Woman, Beauty and the Beast and Star Wars.

Didn't say it wasn't a hit - it just wasn't some massive hit, despite many apparent claims to the contrary.

You feel the Academy needs to nominate more hits and used "TGS" as the likely party. I pointed out the fact that a) bigger hits were nominated, and b) even bigger hits had a better claim to being "screwed" because they had better reviews.

Yes, the movie had nice legs - that's the factor that makes it more popular than the other movies?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Don't forget Wind River.

How does "Wind River" fit this discussion? It got good reviews but made little money...

 

[Jason_V]

Didn't say it wasn't a hit - it just wasn't some massive hit, despite many apparent claims to the contrary.

You feel the Academy needs to nominate more hits and used "TGS" as the likely party. I pointed out the fact that a) bigger hits were nominated, and b) even bigger hits had a better claim to being "screwed" because they had better reviews.

Yes, the movie had nice legs - that's the factor that makes it more popular than the other movies?

Well, look at the numbers. If you start at $9 million and make $178 million, the movie ends with almost 20x its opening weekend. The Last Jedi, for example, ended with about 3x it's opening weekend. I call 20x a hit. That means the people who did see it started telling their friends and family to see it. And they told other people. And so on. That clearly didn't happen with The Last Jedi or Wonder Woman or really anything else. I could find TGS in a first run, quality theater the weekend before it's home video release. When did Last Jedi or BatB get pulled? Only Black Panther has those kind of legs right now.

If the issue of Oscar ratings are actually a "problem" and the Academy cares more about eyeballs than honoring the actual best movies, yes. Popular movies are the culprit. Wonder Woman was a huge hit. Absolutely. Beauty and the Beast was polarizing. TGA has a higher audience score on RT than BatB, btw.

 

[Mike Frezon]

How does "Wind River" fit this discussion? It got good reviews but made little money...

I just identified it as a movie which could have received a BP nomination last year. Until I finally say The Shape of Water, I thought it was the best movie I had seen from last year.

I guess I missed the point the particular point about Box Office in this discussion.

But I gave up a long time ago caring a whit about these types of award shows since the premise of rewarding quality work is a ship that sailed long ago with inter-industry politics taking over the process.

I will now quietly back away from this discussion.

 

[TJPC]

If you look into their history you will find the Oscars were always more about lobbying than voting.