New OSCARS Category: "Popular Film" (1 Viewer)

[Richard M S]

This is beyond patronizing; it absolutely deems the "popular" film to be not as worthy of the "big prize", the Oscar for Best Picture. No one will be fooled.

While The Academy does sometimes make questionable choices with their nominations (The Post) and wins (Crash, The Kings Speech, The Shape Of Water), they do get it right more often than not.

One thing I am happy about is the ceremony being moved up to earlier in the year.

 

[Cineman]

Well, I thought The Dark Knight was a dreary, over-wrought, badly acted, thematically chaotic mess. I agree that Ledger's performance would not have won, probably not even nominated had he not died that year. He was ok in the role. But I did not see him bring anything new or surprising to his character after the first minute. Then again, most of the Best Picture nominees for that year were not all that notable either, imo, so it probably would have fit in as a BP nominee just fine.

I would not discount a movie's quality just because it is based on a comic book-type hero. I loved Deadpool 1 and 2 and wanted to see Deadpool nominated for a couple of awards. But if the stuff is only going to be cranked out as formulaic as most of this fare is, I just don't see a reason to consider them Oscar-worthy or for that matter to mention them at all in the ceremony.

 

[Mark Booth]

Twitter has exploded with complaints about the new Popular Film category.

I think it's a great idea. In fact, I think it is a genius idea.

Those that participate in film forums and home theater forums like this one are probably going to watch the Oscars regardless. But there's no denying that the popularity of the show and popularity of the importance of winning an Oscar on the show is waning with the general public. Most folks today don't give a flying dung beetle about the Oscars. Far too many people feel it's a waste of time and intended only for film nerds and film elitists.

That's a BAD thing for the Academy. We have fewer and fewer stodgy old farts left to support the telecast by actually watching it. If something isn't done to increase viewership and overall interest, there won't be an Oscar telecast. It's as simple as that. The Oscar ceremony needs to attract sponsors and, with viewership declining, fewer and fewer companies will be interested in writing the check.

So, adding a category that EVERYONE can root for, even folks that think the rest of the categories are elitist, is genius. If I was in charge, I'd present that award last. Because, frankly, in my humble opinion, it will be the most important award of the night.

Mark

 

[TJPC]

How about nominating movies anyone has actually heard of, or want to see after you do hear about them?

Also

Don’t disqualify all movies that people like and are popular.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I guess I’ll play devil’s advocate and ask this: why should the popular films be shuttled off to the “not good enough for a real award” designation? If the problem is that the Academy continues to nominate esoteric, independent and difficult films which often seem to be made solely to garner awards and not to atttact, enlighten or entertain an audience, why not send those films into a new subcategory? Why not simply make a “best independent production” or “best limited release” award instead of a “best popular film” award? Maybe change the eligibility requirement so that it takes more than renting out a theater for a week in Los Angeles to qualify for BP, that the film must actually open up in a certain number of theaters, giving audiences the opportunity to see it. So many of the nominees in recent years haven’t even been available to see in real theaters unless you lived in a major coastal city. Changing the rules that way might force the studios to actually have to promote those films and open them more widely, which could benefit audiences too. Or they’d have to decide if this was a movie worth financing if they had to decide “Are we making this because it has artistic merit and audience appear, or are we making this to shame voters into giving us a trophy?”

I think that’s a change that would most directly benefit the ceremony.

 

[WillG]

Twitter has exploded with complaints about the new Popular Film category.

I think it's a great idea. In fact, I think it is a genius idea.

Those that participate in film forums and home theater forums like this one are probably going to watch the Oscars regardless. But there's no denying that the popularity of the show and popularity of the importance of winning an Oscar on the show is waning with the general public. Most folks today don't give a flying dung beetle about the Oscars. Far too many people feel it's a waste of time and intended only for film nerds and film elitists.

And that's a BAD thing for Academy. We have fewer and fewer stodgy old farts left to support the telecast by actually watching it. If something isn't done to increase viewership and overall interest, there won't be an Oscar telecast. It's as simple as that. The Oscar ceremony needs to attract sponsors and, with viewership declining, fewer and fewer companies will be interested in writing the check.

So, adding a category that EVERYONE can root for, even folks that think the rest of the categories are elitist, is genius. If I was in charge, I'd present that award last. Because, frankly, in my humble opinion, it will be the most important award of the night.

Mark

I get what you’re saying. In its simplest terms they want the kids to be watching. These telecasts have been declining in the ratings (Though I believe there’s a specific reason for it). However, I wouldn’t want to see the Oscars become the MTV awards.

 

[WillG]

I guess I’ll play devil’s advocate and ask this: why should the popular films be shuttled off to the “not good enough for a real award” designation?

By that logic, “Weekend at Bernie’s” would have had a serious shot at a statue. (And I like Weekend at Bernie’s, but Oscar caliber it is not)

 

[Mark Booth]

It's just ONE award out of 25. It's an EXTRA award. The Academy isn't eliminating any of the other 24 awards to make room for this Popular Film award. Yes, it appears that some of the technical awards will get presented during commercials and that's a little disappointing. But, seriously, when was the last time a technical award acceptance speech didn't half bore you to death?

One thing that's an absolute in life is that change is inevitable. Those that can accept change or even revel in change are usually the ones that live happier lives.

Mark

 

[Raul Marquez]

Twitter has exploded with complaints about the new Popular Film category.

I think it's a great idea. In fact, I think it is a genius idea.

Those that participate in film forums and home theater forums like this one are probably going to watch the Oscars regardless. But there's no denying that the popularity of the show and popularity of the importance of winning an Oscar on the show is waning with the general public. Most folks today don't give a flying dung beetle about the Oscars. Far too many people feel it's a waste of time and intended only for film nerds and film elitists.

That's a BAD thing for the Academy. We have fewer and fewer stodgy old farts left to support the telecast by actually watching it. If something isn't done to increase viewership and overall interest, there won't be an Oscar telecast. It's as simple as that. The Oscar ceremony needs to attract sponsors and, with viewership declining, fewer and fewer companies will be interested in writing the check.

So, adding a category that EVERYONE can root for, even folks that think the rest of the categories are elitist, is genius. If I was in charge, I'd present that award last. Because, frankly, in my humble opinion, it will be the most important award of the night.

Mark

Mark,

Fully agree with this. The other thing is to keep politics out of the Oscars.

Raul

 

[Jake Lipson]

Don’t disqualify all movies that people like and are popular.

I'm sure that they won't technically disqualify anything. Theoretically, a film that is nominated in the popular film category would still be eligible in the Best Picture category, the same way that foreign and animated films are despite having their own categories. But practically, this will mean that it's okay for them to ignore a popular film in the top category because they can just give it the prize in its own category and feel like that's enough.

I do not think that this will increase viewership, either. If Black Panther were to be nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Supporting Actor, Screenplay, and other major awards -- meaning that the Academy actually likes the film and stands a chance to legitimately honor it -- the ratings would go up. If Black Panther is only nominated in the Popular Film category, and its achievements are not deemed worthy of inclusion in the other categories, then fans of that movie probably won't bother to watch since it is being viewed as "lesser."

 

[Tino]

I enjoy each and every award and they should ALL be televised.

It would be a disgrace and a slap in the face to all those artists if it wasn’t televised.

 

[Mike Frezon]

After a discussion amongst the moderating team, two concurrent threads on the topic of the Oscar's proposals have been merged into this single thread.

 

[TravisR]

I guess the Academy somehow doesn't understand that TV ratings are down for everything and literally nothing will get them back to the numbers that watched 20 or 30 or 40 years ago.

I do look forward to laughing as the Oscar diminishes itself by giving an award to some dumb piece of junk movie though.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Why not simply make a “best independent production” or “best limited release” award instead of a “best popular film” award?

Obviously, because that would devalue the awards being given to the films they actually like. They're happy to send the popular films off to a ghetto category because they haven't cared about honoring popular films in years. But they don't want to diminish the value of the films they actually hold in high regard, even if it is the same basic thing.

The issue here is that the Academy clearly does not respect mainstream blockbuster filmmaking anymore. They haven't for a long time, and adding a category where they are able to acknowledge it separately won't change that. If something like The Return of the King or Titanic were made this year, they'd probably send it off to the blockbuster ghetto too.

This whole thing is just dumb.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I guess the Academy somehow doesn't understand that TV ratings are down for everything and literally nothing will get them back to the numbers that watched 20 or 30 or 40 years ago.

Apparently ABC requested these changes: https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/abc-oscar-changes-ratings-popular-film-1202899515/

 

[TravisR]

Apparently ABC requested these changes: https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/abc-oscar-changes-ratings-popular-film-1202899515/

Fair enough, ABC needs to keep dreaming then.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The irony is that Disney owns ABC, and Disney is planning on a Best Picture campaign for Black Panther, but this new category which ABC suggested may actually prove an impediment to getting Black Panther a Best Picture nomination.

 

[Cineman]

Meh. It's not as though the Oscars were ever pure. It was always about hype and promotion. Louis B. Mayer reportedly said:

I found that the best way to handle [filmmakers] was to hang medals all over them. […] If I got them cups and awards they’d kill themselves to produce what I wanted. That’s why the Academy Award was created.

I whole-heartedly support and appreciate what ol' L.B. said there. Particularly because in his era and for quite a while afterwards, some of the best movies (not all) were also among the most popular movies and the most popular movies (not all) were also among the best movies. I would say that axiom began to fall apart sometime around the late 1970s.

Which gets to the heart of why considering this new AMPAS category makes sense even if it never flies; today, the goal of filmmakers who want to make "best" movies is all too often not remotely related to the goal of filmmakers who want to make "popular" movies. In fact, the reality of the industry almost fights against them being the same goals. Not so in the past. But it is so today.

The best filmmakers who made some of the best movies in L.B.'s day, in all probability had this in their minds as they approached every new project, almost ALL of it geared toward producing something very "popular", which, make no mistake, were the kinds of movies L.B. Mayer "wanted" made:

"If we do a really good job of this movie (which will make it more popular), create strong, believable and identifiable characters (which will make it more popular), create a compelling dramatic arc (which will make it more popular), sprinkle it with effective moments of suspense, pathos and humor (which will make it more popular), we will have a great success on our hands (it will be popular). It might play in theaters for months, maybe as long as a year. Hopefully we'll get great reviews (which will make it more popular), maybe even win some Oscars (which will make it more popular and well remembered)."

It would have been normal for such thoughts to cross the mind of Selznick, Wise, DeMille, Pasternak/Lean, Disney and others on that previously posted list of "most popular" movies by ticket sales of all time.

Today, the goal of filmmakers who want to make big box office blockbuster (popular) movies is to win the opening weekend box office sweepstakes. Or to break the last box office opening weekend record. Which is virtually all about hype, studio promotion, widest distribution as possible, connecting it to a series as a sequel or packaging it somewhat like 1000 similar movies, impressing the twitersphere of social network reviewers before the Thursday midnight show is over and practically nothing to do with the elements I mentioned above or winning Oscars. Unlike the best and most popular filmmakers of the past, they (talking about the Avengers 5 and Batman 10 crowd) are not the least bit interested in competing for and winning the traditionally top 6-7 major category Oscars. And their output more than proves it, imo.

 

[rsmithjr]

Popular movies often were, in the past, also very artistic. There was a reasonable correlation with some artistically excellent movies being seen as popular. I have no trouble at all in seeing GWTW, Ben-hur (1959), On the Waterfront, and Lawrence of Arabia as belonging in both categories, and many others.

In recent years, this correlation has all but disappeared. The Academy voters, who have an economic interest in the health of the industry, are still supporting good films while the big grossing films are being largely ignored. This last year, the nearest thing to a blockbuster that was artistically worthy was Dunkirk, and it was nominated.

The increase from 5 to a maximum 10 nominated for best picture hasn't helped much. We now just get 9 or 10 art/indie movies nominated.

The real problem is that the industry is focused on the big CGI blockbusters with billion dollar grosses rather than movies that deal with human life or values. The Marvel Cinematic Universe just doesn't cut it for me, and it has been 38 years since a good Star Wars movie was released.

 

[Cineman]

Popular movies often were, in the past, also very artistic. There was a reasonable correlation with some artistically excellent movies being seen as popular. I have no trouble at all in seeing GWTW, Ben-hur (1959), On the Waterfront, and Lawrence of Arabia as belonging in both categories, and many others.

When a movie expected by the distributor or studio to be well received both artistically/critically and popularly by ticket sales would first be released (often on a WEDNESDAY, by the way, allowing time for legit reviewers to put out the word on it well before that first weekend), "Exclusively at..." in a handful of theaters in major cities around the country sometimes for weeks or months and then "In These Select Theaters..." for a while after that before going wide in "A Theater Near You..!" possibly for as long a year or MORE down the line before being sold to TV, then it damn well needed to be really good if it wasn't going to be trashed and dismissed by reviewers and bad audience word-of-mouth by the time it got to the big bucks endgame.

Not necessary today. Today, the most mediocre movies will be released wide in 8 of the 10 screens at your local cineplex even if you live in Podunk, Ark., and nobody expects it to last in theaters more than 2-3 weeks before being sold to other mediums down the line. As long as the hype, the connection to the umpteenth in a series for fanboys and, as you alluded to, the CGI is polished to a contemporary standard, movies that are nowhere near qualified for serious top category Oscar consideration can and will be the biggest box office winners of the year.