Except a saturated market will be full of bullshit already. Most of it’s complete crap. If you’re producing content in that kind of market, it really doesn’t matter how much of the crap you’re contributing, because it also allows you to produce quality material you might otherwise not be able to. There would be no Tom King today if DC had concluded based on sales that it should’ve kept Omega Men cancelled. Instead, they and others within the comics industry realized there was a diamond in the rough, and now he sells crazy amounts of comics on DC’s flagship.
Like this AVClub video points out, the Academy has deliberately expanded their membership to take in more diverse voices, to help make the spread of nominated films less samey.
They also raise the point, and I don’t really agree with it, that the Oscars should in some way recognise underdogs - Ignatiy is clear in his support for Dunkirk, but concedes that Nolan doesn’t need the help, so instead had his fingers crossed for some of the smaller films.
Here’s where I moan about Scorsese not winning for Taxi Driver or Goodfellas but for The Departed, and Pacino winning for Scent of a woman instead of Dog Day Afternoon or Serpico.
The English Patient will live forever as a plot point in that Seinfeld rerun.
And for Naveen Andrews in something besides Lost! Or at least, that’s why I tried watching it. But it’s a tedious, pretentious movie.
Aye, just like the Shape of Water as a romance with a fishman.
With a suspicious lack of romance.
I kept thinking about that Seinfeld episode during the recent “Carl” episode of Walking Dead.
And yet people have been complaining for two days that the Oscars were not diverse enough. I don’t know if the complaints are valid or not (they seem to be making strides in my eyes) but it’s just impossible to make that awards show appeal to everyone.
The Best Picture Oscar winners have been pretty dire this decade overall. I might go this way with the nominees, selecting “should have won” based on the filmmaker, where it fits in the zeitgeist, popularity in some cases, and the film itself:
My choice: Toy Story 3
Should have won: The Social Network
Winner: The King’s Speech
My choice: The Tree of Life
Should have won: Moneyball
Winner: The Artist
My choice: Lincoln
Should have won: Django Unchained
My choice and should have won: Gravity
Winner: 12 Years a Slave
My choice: Grand Budapest Hotel
Should have won: Boyhood
My choice and winner: Spotlight
Should have won: Mad Max: Fury Road
2016 (bad year):
My choice: Hell or High Water
Should have won and did win: Moonlight
My choice: Phantom Thread
Should have won: Dunkirk
Did win: Shape of Water
A list of winners this decade that is Social Network, Moneyball, Django Unchained, Gravity, Boyhood, Fury Road, Moonlight, and Dunkirk is suddenly, I think, a lot more rich and wide-ranging, and tells the story of the decade much better.
The thing we’ve got to remember is that these are voted on by industry insiders. It’s not even patting themselves on the back so much as their not really caring about audience perspective. They’re always going to vote for the stuff they think represents their craft best at any given moment, and like any popularity contest with popular kids perennially in contention, whether their current work deserves it or not. And the convergences and divergences from other awards play into that. Sometimes they’ll go with what the other awards have done, and sometimes they’ll deliberately choose a different winner, to prove their own point.
The reason the Oscars are relevant, and why the other major awards are relevant, is because of the massive amount of history behind them at this point. They’re a continuity of film history, as it was experienced, so even the flaws are worth celebrating. As long as large amounts of people are still watching movies, they will remain relevant, no matter how popular their choices are. If all the popular movies are shutting out attention for the kinds of movies the Academy likes, it’s almost more important for them to focus on them. It’s the only real form of popular attention most of them will get.
To challenge that, you’ve got to develop a legitimate alternative. MTV is not even relevant anymore. AFI could do it. Just produce a list of its favorite movies of the year, give some awards, and produce that shorter broadcast Jim wants. The Golden Globes aren’t a challenge. They’re a boozier Oscars club, and they don’t take their responsibility seriously.
2010: Yeah Toy Story 3 is the best movie. Or Inception maybe - it’s the kind of movie you know they’ll give a lot of technical awards to but wouldn’t have the stones to make it Best Picture.
2011: Moneyball is one of my top movies, but I’d have given it to Harry Potter 8 and gone the Return of the King route. Recognition for the entire series and the quality and innovation it brought.
2012: Django was the best movie by a mile.
2013: This was a good year. Gravity, Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle. Honestly though I think it should have gone to Frozen.
2014: I’d have given it to LEGO. I think that movie was a technical marvel and a superb story. It’s among the best kids movies ever.
2015: Mad max, or The Martian for me.
2016: I haven’t seen most of the movies so I have no idea.
2017: I want to give it to Thor Ragranok, but probably Dunkirk.
Ha you are much more populist than I am.
Have you actually seen Frozen?
Do you wanna watch some Frozen?
Come’on let’s watch TV,
If you want we’ll skip the Olaf bits,
We both know he’s shit,
On that we can agree-eee!
But the songs are really catchy,
And the story’s good,
The animation is divine…
Do you wanna watch some Frozen?
Everybody loves some Frozen!
Of all the 2013 movies it’s the one that will last the longest in our memories. It’s this generations Wizard of Oz.
I would have gone more with Harry Potter 7. 8 was pretty bad, and that bit with Dumbledore’s brother was a clusterfuck of badness. More points off for battles in the dark (getting to be a personal peeve - buy some light bulbs!).
IMNSHO awards shows have increasing flaws as they become institutions and develop traditions. The more rules, more standards, more dividing into smaller categories the farther the whole mess gets from what was the original intention; artist(s) presenting their work to audiences. Too much critique rips out the soul, as does too much analysis. When these awards shows and such develop too many expected and repeated behaviors from participants they quickly become stereotypes and parodies of themselves. This removes emotional contact. This leads to watching re-runs of Mayberry RFD instead of awards shows.
In any situation where the institution/structure becomes more important than the humans; it is an evil disaster. (Go ahead, apply this principle to just about anything and see if I’m right.)
I don’t know, I think Frozen was a bit of a flash in the pan buoyed by the popularity of the song. People despised the Frozen short that came before Coco and I bet the sequel does 2/3rds the business, maybe worse. Guess time will tell.
I think the Harry Potter movies are fading in esteem from our collective memory, too, despite being on cable 24/7. Although the books remain very popular.
Having a 4 year old girl -I feel comfortable weighing in.
Frozen has some REALLY good stuff in it. The songs, the sisters, the emotional beats - but it has way too many ideas thrown in it (Trolls, Elsa’s powers, Olaf) that seem shoe-horned in.
Moana is superior. FAR better songs.
Moana has had more lasting appeal in our house too. Both my kids love it and still watch it regularly (they haven’t watched Frozen for a long time now).
And yes, great soundtrack.
As for screenplay, I have to put a word of defense to current regulation. Some adapted scripts are really good, and deserved the award to the letter. And having the nomination jointed with original stuff, wouldn’t be fair toward the latter writers.
As for the best movie, The Shape of Water is fun to watch, but not more than that. Political connotation didn’t appeal to me.
Suddenly I feel so bad for this generation
“What do these awards mean?” questions Andy Serkis, a British actor who starred in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and most recently, in Black Panther.
“They are prestige awards for serious film-making. But blockbuster films have performances that take a lot of skill. You have to be an athlete, a comedian, skillful, technically-minded, and you have to bring a character to life that’s believable in a fantastical world. It’s not sitting at the kitchen table moping about life.
I mean, it’s more like you have to not be wooden while shooting and/or dodging lasers of some kind.
Serkis does a lot more than ‘not being wooden’ in Black Panther. He’s a lot of fun in it, and I think he makes a good point that those kinds of roles require a lot of skills but simply aren’t taken seriously.