What's new

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

Thomas T

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
10,288
I would love to sit down with actual Academy voters and have back-to-back screenings with them of The Dark Knight and then Slumdog Millionaire. I’d then like them to explain why The Dark Knight, a movie celebrating its tenth anniversary this year with a sold-out-in-advance IMAX re-release (at a time in our culture when repertory cinema is dead), is so vastly inferior to Slumdog Millionare, a film barely remembered today that has made no impact on either the filmmaking industry or the culture at large.

I’m not here to say whether or not The Dark Knight is the best movie ever made. But it’s a movie that revolutionized how films are made and presented theatrically, a film with near universal critical acclaim, a film that was an overwhelming box office success, and a film that continues to move me even after years of repeat viewings. Films that can still make you cry and still make you think ten years after their original release are pretty special. And everything that made that film special was apparent ten years ago too.

So I’d love to actually watch it with Academy members so they could explain what about it was so terrible that it wasn’t even worthy of their consideration.

It could be that lots of Academy members didn't see it. I know I hated Batman Begins so much that I skipped The Dark Knight although I made the mistake of going to the hideous The Dark Knight Rises (or whatever that thing was called) just to see Anne Hathaway's Catwoman.
 

Nick*Z

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Messages
1,802
Location
Canada
Real Name
NICK
If they gave out Oscars for the televised broadcast, there would be no nominees.

AMPAS, bring back the Honorary/Lifetime Achievement segment. Live and complete.
America is not just tuning in to see the stars, we also want to see our legends.

P.S. No matter how AMPAS labels it, there is no such thing as TWO Best Pictures.

The problem here is that most honorary/lifetime achievement Oscars have already been bestowed on what remains of the living recipients (Scorsese, Spielberg, etc.) and that the rest worthy of such an award are long-since dead. Lifetime achievement ought to be given to someone whose body of work towers above the rest. You don't just get a lifetime achievement award for sticking it out and making terrible movies that nobody remembers or will in the next ten years. Also, since almost all of the 'new' stars barely have careers that last a decade, no body of work a la the likes of a Bette Davis or John Wayne is possible. Four movies does not a career make. We've entered an era where entertainment is, indeed, quite disposable. As such, there is a dearth of contenders for the Lifetime Achievement Award.

PS - no kidding about 'two' best pictures. Silly, stupid, misguided, and, worst of all, boooooooooring!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMF

Nick*Z

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Messages
1,802
Location
Canada
Real Name
NICK
Up until 2-3 decades ago, American movie audiences habitually rewarded better made movies, shockingly, even movies not based on comic book heroes and sci-fi fantasy, with blockbuster level ticket sales. However, note a trend beginning to creep in and overlap by 1977. Look at any list of 5 Best Picture nominees from the 1930s-early 1980s and at least 3 of them will likely also be among the top 5 most successful movies at the box office that year as well.

It isn't a bias against "popular" movies that kept AMPAS from including the most popular movies of last year, the year before that and so on in their major categories. AMPAS voters love popular movies and will certainly include them in the major category nominations if they are also somewhat smart, well written (which certainly helps them to be well acted) and directed with some sense of cinematic finesse and not just non-stop action sequences with arch-heroes squaring off against arch-enemies every 6 minutes for 2 1/2 hours.

Also, look at the kind of budgets, promotion, distribution and studio support the list of movies above got in their day compared with what a typical Best Picture-quality movie of today gets. As long as filmmakers, studios and investors can make much, much more money funding and supporting Avengers 5 and Batman 10, better sourced and more intelligently realized material will continue to look a bit puny, trotted out in the last month or two of the year mostly as Oscar-bait and audiences will respond in kind, which means not particularly enthusiastically.

Well said. But you're preaching to the choir. I wholeheartedly concur with your assessment. The problem here is that somewhere along the way Hollywood realized it didn't have to try so hard to impress. Systematically dumbing down the audience and our expectations over time, and also playing to our present era cultural amnesia, easily to set aside anything that wasn't made last year, pop-u-tainment has become vacuous, and streamlined into endless action or crass comedy. The finesse is gone from film making. I recall reading a terrible article in the Times about films of the 80s, in which the author chastised the entire decade as the culprit for making 'bad movies' that lowered our expectations for everything that was to follow.

Clearly, this reviewer forgot to consider that, along with the garbage that came out of that decade there were such sterling examples of classical film-making as Driving Miss Daisy, Chariots of Fire, Amadeus, The Mission, Out of Africa, Cry Freedom, Gandhi, Steel Magnolias, Terms of Endearment, and on and on.

Even the stuff then branded as the lighter 'fluff' from that decade was memorable: Tootsie, Ghostbusters, Caddy Shack, Adventures in Babysitting, The Secret of My Success, Mannequin, The Breakfast Club, Sixteen Candles, Pretty in Pink, The Goonies, When Harry Met Sally, etc.

The action and horror/sci-fi market yielded an incredible vintage to include: Die Hard, Alien, Terminator, Robo-cop, The Thing, The Shining, Blade Runner, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Poltergeist, etc.

Finally, the 80's did not put a period to good movies being made. On the contrary, they opened the flood gates for a slew of quality product that flooded the 90's; A Few Good Men, The Remains of the Day, Sense and Sensibility, Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, L.A. Story, Pulp Fiction, The Silence of the Lambs, Forrest Gump, The Shawshank Redemption, Se7en, Fargo, Braveheart, American Beauty, and on and on.

No, the real decline in American movies started shortly after Robert Altman's Gosford Park and Baz Luhrman's Moulin Rouge - both exemplars of the finest the early 2000's had to offer. But afterward, it was as if Hollywood paused and thought "hey, we're working too hard, here. We can give the audience less and they'll be satisfied with it."

Also, I think 911 had a lot to do with souring Hollywood's drive for 'fluff'. Somehow, 'fun' just didn't seem to be in the lexicon after the Twin Towers came down.

So, cynicism in American movies won out. We've been stuck in that rut ever since, cynicism turning, first bitter, then angry. That's what I detest most about movie culture today. It's about rage and discontent with life as we know it. Nobody is living 'the good life' anymore. When a comedy is made, its crude and extolling the worst of humanity doing what David Letterman used to refer to as Stupid Pet Tricks, but I would re-label as Stupid Human Tricks. Comedy doesn't delight us. It simply shocks us with its audacity.

Those invested in making action movies have sincerely forgotten you cannot simply make a movie where the opening shot is a fist fight and the finale is a blood-bath in which no pyrotechnic is spared. CGI and stunt work have overtaken Hollywood's yen for good solid storytelling. It's a shame too. Because, as there is obviously far too much for the eye to take in, there is absolutely nothing to nourish the heart or soul.

High time Hollywood thought about how far they want to go with this charade masquerading as entertainment. Entertainment in the classic sense...well...it entertains. This new breed of dumb show up on the screen merely anesthetizes the senses, warping those who have no back catalog of memories about some of the movies I have listed here, and scores more that came before them, and thus, no way to filter the quality from the crap, pause, and then say, "Hey, wait a minute. This isn't great. It's not even passable."

The Oscars are the recipient of Hollywood's shortage in quality. You can't have an awards show celebrating the very best in entertainment when Hollywood hasn't really given it to us all year long. Celebrating mediocrity is blah at best. Improve your movies and you'll improve the ratings for the annual Oscar race, because the movies nominated will be of interest to a wider audience tuning in to hope their candidate wins.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Adkins

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 18, 1998
Messages
2,842
Location
Tampa, FL
Real Name
Jeff Adkins
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.
How about they just keep nominating the best films of the year, regardless of box office success?

They don't disqualify films just because they are popular. You don't think people had ever heard of these films?:

Get Out
Dunkirk
The Post
Hidden Figures
Mad Max: Fury Road
Bridge Of Spies
The Martian
American Sniper
Captain Phillips
Gravity
The Wolf Of Wall Street
Argo
Django Unchained
Lincoln
The Help
War Horse
Inception
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
Avatar
The Blind Side
Inglourious Basterds
Up

 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,429
Location
The basement of the FBI building
How about they just keep nominating the best films of the year, regardless of box office success?

They don't disqualify films just because they are popular. You don't think people had ever heard of these films?:

Get Out
Dunkirk
The Post
Hidden Figures
Mad Max: Fury Road
Bridge Of Spies
The Martian
American Sniper
Captain Phillips
Gravity
The Wolf Of Wall Street
Argo
Django Unchained
Lincoln
The Help
War Horse
Inception
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
Avatar
The Blind Side
Inglourious Basterds
Up
Yeah, those movies are perfect examples of why there should be no Popular Movie category. They were financial successes and that didn't mean that the Oscars automatically deemed them unworthy of consideration.

Just like they ghettoized animated movies by having the Best Animated Feature award, they're going to make it so that quality popular movies rarely get a Best Picture nomination because a popular movie award allows voters to feel like they've recognized those movies without giving them the same recognition that 'real' movies get.
 

SamT

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
5,824
Real Name
Sam
And the problem is, who is going to vote? Is it the Academy members? Should it be the public voting by phone and texting? That is really no Oscar.
 

Jeff Adkins

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 18, 1998
Messages
2,842
Location
Tampa, FL
Real Name
Jeff Adkins
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.
People were saying that even back in the 1980s. There's already a show that rewards popular films. It's called The People's Choice Awards and it gets about 1/4 of the audience that the Oscars telecast gets.

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.
Viewership in pretty much everything is down, not just the Oscars. This is especially true with live events. It's just a symptom of having so many viewing options. The amount of entertainment that is available in our homes is nothing like it used to be.

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.
I'm afraid it will have the opposite effect. A film like Black Panther could receive fewer votes for Best Picture just because voters know it's going to be in the "Popular Film" category anyway.
 

Jonathan Perregaux

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 10, 1999
Messages
2,035
Real Name
Jonathan Perregaux
I can see even more useless stickers affixed to packaging. And what’s next, “Academy Award Oscar Winner for Most Likes and/or Tweets by Non-fake User Accounts on Social Media!”
 

Tino

Taken As Ballast
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
23,573
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
It seems like a desperate attempt to create buzz and garner fake attention.

They should revert back to 5 BP nominees, let every award be televised, let everyone accept and speak, and let it last as long as that takes. This is every nominees dream to win. And they should be allowed that respect. And if you don’t wanna watch, just don’t watch.
 

TJPC

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
4,820
Location
Hamilton Ontario
Real Name
Terry Carroll
Wow! That would be even more incredibly boring! I used to watch the Oscars to see if the actors I loved and the movies I had seen and were rooting for would win the awards they deserved.

Now I see largly a group of unknowns make speeches about movies I have probably never heard of or want to see.

The strange thing is that my wife and I are now retired and see at least a movie a week at the IMAX/Cineplex that is 5 minutes away from us. Most of these incredibly popular movies — which have at least 70% on Rotten Tomatos, or we don’t attend, are never even mentioned on Oscar night.

Do we live in an ulternate universe?
 

WillG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
7,563
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.

A little over six months ago I was pretty damn convinced that Wonder Woman was going to be the first superhero movies to get a BP nom. It had everything going for it, female superhero, directed by a female, was a critical and commercial success and it came about in the #MeToo era. But it didn't get the nom anyway. Disney can't bank on Black Panther getting a BP nom, but this new category guarantees Panther is going home with a statue next year.
 

Jason_V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
8,955
Location
Orlando, FL
Real Name
Jason
It seems like a desperate attempt to create buzz and garner fake attention.

And just like all half-baked attempts to generate buzz, this one won't work in the long run. Here's the thing that I haven't seen mentioned: ratings for almost everything are down across the board. There are too many viewing options these days and the ratings won't ever be back where they are. No one is going to tune into a three hour show to see Black Panther (or Last Jedi) get handed an Oscar. It's just not going to happen.

Johnny Carson and Billy Crystal hosting together won't make it happen. What will?

I'm not sure anything will. Ratings are down. Period. Movies are seen as disposable pieces of entertainment by a grown number of people in the country. Sure, we all go to Avengers and give that a $300 million opening (exaggerating), but we don't really turn out for the smaller, non-franchise and non-effects films...the ones which statistically get more Oscar noms.

Frankly, this past year was the first year I watched the whole ceremony. And by the end, I was done. WAY too many commercials, WAY too long. I don't bother with this show or the Emmy's. I actually had this argument with my best friend. He has to see all the nominated movies and anything with good critical buzz (he won't see anything with bad reviews). I see what I think I'll have fun watching. If that's The Meg tonight or The Paper early in the year or Upgrade...I don't really care to see the "best" movies. I wonder how many other people are in the same boat.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
25,141
Real Name
Malcolm
It seems like a desperate attempt to create buzz and garner fake attention.

They should revert back to 5 BP nominees, let every award be televised, let everyone accept and speak, and let it last as long as that takes. This is every nominees dream to win. And they should be allowed that respect. And if you don’t wanna watch, just don’t watch.
At that point, the networks likely would not want to televise it at all since the ratings would continue to decline and the show would be five hours long.

If broadcast at all, it would end up on some small cable channel that not everyone gets, and which would not be willing to fork out too much money for the rights, like some of the other awards shows, pageants, and non-football sports in recent years.

AMPAS does need to make some changes if the televised awards show is important to them, and it sounds like they make a fair amount of money from it from the sale of the broadcast rights and other sponsorships.
 

Jake Lipson

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
24,506
Real Name
Jake Lipson
AMPAS does need to make some changes if the televised awards show is important to them, and it sounds like they make a fair amount of money from it from the sale of the broadcast rights and other sponsorships.

What bothers me about this is that you can still do the whole show in three hours with all 24 categories being announced on air. They just don't. What you need to cut are the endless introductory speeches by the presenters, clip packages, and stunts like movie stars walking into a theater to promote a Disney product which happens to release the following Friday. If they just focused on honoring the work, they could tighten the show effectively that way.

Instead, they're going to eliminate actual categories from being presented on air, but I'm sure they'll keep a bunch of crap like the movie theater stunt and presenter banter that we don't need.
 
Last edited:

Traveling Matt

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
929
Popular movies often were, in the past, also very artistic. There was a reasonable correlation with some artistically excellent movies being seen as popular... In recent years, this correlation has all but disappeared.

Precisely. The majority of voters are the artists and technicians making the business work. But the business is actually run by corporate Hollywood and that machine has different values, among them marketing which heavily influences popular opinion.

When there's a crippling disconnect between art and commerce such as we have now, a compromise such as "Popular" film is unsurprising.
 
Last edited:

Jason_V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
8,955
Location
Orlando, FL
Real Name
Jason
What bothers me about this is that you can still do the whole show in three hours with all 24 categories being announced on air. They just don't. What you need to cut are the endless introductory speeches by the presenters, clip packages,s and stunts like movie stars walking into a theater to promote a Disney product which happens to release the following Friday. If they just focused on honoring the work, they could tighten the show effectively that way.

Instead, they're going to eliminate actual categories from being presented on air, but I'm sure they'll keep a bunch of crap like the movie theater stunt and presenter banter that we don't need.

Well, it's the same reason why the Emmy presenters are usually skewed heavily to the network airing them AND air in the early fall right before the new season starts: put the names and faces in front of as many people as possible.

I'm not saying I like it, for the record. But it makes sense to use the show as a marketing platform.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
25,141
Real Name
Malcolm
What bothers me about this is that you can still do the whole show in three hours with all 24 categories being announced on air. They just don't. What you need to cut are the endless introductory speeches by the presenters, clip packages,s and stunts like movie stars walking into a theater to promote a Disney product which happens to release the following Friday. If they just focused on honoring the work, they could tighten the show effectively that way.

Instead, they're going to eliminate actual categories from being presented on air, but I'm sure they'll keep a bunch of crap like the movie theater stunt and presenter banter that we don't need.
I would agree. Just present the awards, get rid of all the extras except perhaps the "In Memoriam" segment and performances of the nominated Best Songs. I'd even get rid of the host. Just have the PA announce the presenters and performers. No stunts, no sketches, no monologues.

And if there is a time limit on acceptance speeches, it should be announced to all nominees in advance and strictly adhered to for everyone. None of this variable time, where veterans get unlimited time and newbies are cut off after a minute. Something like "winners have 3 minutes to accept their awards, if there are multiple persons in your group of winners, you should decide in advance how much time will be used by each person." I would even put a countdown clock on the screen so the home audience could see exactly how much time they have, so there's no post-show controversy about so-and-so getting extra time or so-and-so getting cut off prematurely.

But this is why I don't believe them when they say they're going to shorten the show. They've said this before and have never been willing to cut what is necessary. They seem to think they can somehow keep all the fluff and just keep it moving faster, which seldom works very well.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
I've been saying for years that Hollywood puts out a lot of B movies on A movie budgets. They aren't much interested in putting the effort into good scripts, focusing instead on visual effects. They don't care about trying to change that, because they see the current formula as what sells.

I see posts saying that ratings are down because people don't watch as much broadcast TV as they used to, but it hasn't been mentioned that a hell of a lot of people are sick and tired of the broadcast dwelling on things other than movies. That's not going to change anytime soon, probably never given the nature of the movie enclave, and this silly attempt to show that they really do give a rat's ass what people think who don't live where they do and don't share their view of the world won't fix it or convince a lot of people to watch who don't watch now.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,830
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top