Should the Acadamy nominate more "mainstream" films for the Oscars?

[James885]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 3:44pm

I found a very interesting article on Time Magazine's site. The author talks about the declining ratings for the Oscars and attributes it to the fact most of the nominees in the major catagories are films that the general public hasn't seen. The article goes on to point out that the highest reated telecasts have been the years when mega-hits like Titanic and Return of The King were nominated. I thought it'd be interesting to get some input from people here on the topic.




Do Film Critics Know Anything?

Updated On: 1/10/08 at 03:44 PM

[bobby_luvs_bway]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 5:23pm

To answer your question...no they shouldn't. I find it a disturbing trend, this dumbing down and mainstreaming things for profit while also casting aspersions on intellectually stimulating works.

Just because a film makes a lot of money and is popular with the masses, doesn't make it well made. It makes for a fun time, but the rewards are the millions of dollars they will make. We need both types of films, but let's keep our standards high.

[tazber]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 5:30pm

nominating The Transformers for best picture may boost ratings, but we'll feel dirty in the morning.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 5:32pm

It's a tough call. The Academy Awards were originally created to elevate the "artistic awareness" of film. It WAS and always has been a publicity stunt.

But the Academy itself was also created to celebrate, honor, and nurture "excellence."

It's that whole "show vs. business" argument again. You can't have one without the other.

That's why I think it's fine that it's kinda evenly distributed already. Certain nominations (and wins) are as much about popularity (aka "business") as they are about artistry (aka "show"). That's as it should be to keep the industry going.

They shouldn't be dumbed down anymore than they already are, in other words.

BUT they shouldn't become an acquired taste for the self-appointed elite either.

[tazber]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 5:35pm

threr's always one crowd pleaser that sneaks in anyway.

[nitsua]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 5:40pm

Do people still care?

Getting an OSCAR doesn't make you any better an actress, nor does it make your performance any better (after the fact).

Same with any other award.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 6:02pm

Personally, I don't believe this article really addresses anything new such as:

Actually, it's hard to tell which if any of the critical faves will be popular, because most of the big winners (Diving Bell, No Country, Persepolis, Starting Out in the Evening, Sweeney Todd, There Will Be Blood) are November or December releases. Half of them haven't hit the commercial theaters yet. Maybe the critical establishment has A.D.D.

That is the case every single year. There's always a scramble to catch the nominated films before the awards because in many major markets, they're not released until January entirely for the reason that they know the film will be fresh in voters' minds. This is really old news.

And virtually every Best Picture winner has been a major release and/or a commercial success. Some of them may be a bit forgotten today, but they were big in their respective year of release. The Academy has always leaned towards commercialism and probably always will, which is why there are so many other award ceremonies.

Dozens of scribes raved about the smash comedies Knocked Up and Superbad, but neither film has won a critics' prize. The comedy they love now is Juno, which came out last week.

Could it possibly be because they liked Juno better? This is so stupid.

In the old Golden Age days, most contenders for the top Oscars were popular movies that had a little art. Now they're art films that have a little, very little, popularity.

WTF? Like Crash, Lord of the Rings, or The Departed weren't popular? The only one I can think of in recent years that didn't seem like a big broo-ha-ha to me was Million Dollar Baby, but probably because I really wasn't impressed with it anyway.

[James885]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 6:11pm

I agree, usually there's at least one crowd-pleasing movie that gets nominatated in the major categories. I think Best12 nailed it when he said that it's pretty much evenly distributed right now. If there's a mainstream film that embodies the qualities that the Academy is looking for, then it should be nominated. The same goes for an art-house film.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 6:26pm

I agree with best. the oscars should honor art, though the business does play a big role in who actually gets nominated and wins.

that kind of thinking in that article is why mtv and vh1 don't really show music videos anymore.

and, nitsua, the Oscar does indeed have no affect on talent. but it does boost careers and box office. part of the business aspect.

[DG]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 6:31pm

"Just because a film makes a lot of money and is popular with the masses, doesn't make it well made."

Doesn't mean it isn't, either.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 6:49pm

No. They should nominate the best. If that includes blockbusters, well good. But it shouldn't be a necessity.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 9:22pm

What annoys me more is a movie that seems made for the sole purpose of winning awards. MILLION DOLLAR BABY definitely felt that way and so did A BEAUTIFUL MIND, although the latter was decent enough.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 9:58pm

"Should the Acadamy nominate more "mainstream" films for the Oscars?"

That's what the People's Choice Awards are for.

Updated On: 1/10/08 at 09:58 PM

[Liverpool]

Posted: 1/10/08 at 10:28pm

YEah the Academy should nominate more mainstream movies if they want to be the MTV Movie Awards. If they want to retain the shred of credibility they have now then they'll continue to nominate GOOD movies.

[Not Barker, Todd.]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 1:16am

They don't make you a better actor, but they promote good work.

[Baine]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 7:23am

If more of the "mega-hit movies" are put into nomination categories, less of the really good fics will have a chance to claim the spot. With hugely-successful movies, they are already well-known and everyone has seen them. Some of the movies that pass through the words don't get that much attention until they win awards, so the show is a vehicle to help them along. Why heap praise on mediocre fair just to get more people tuning in when it can hurt more deserving works?

[worrell4077]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 12:29pm

Couldn't you just see it now, instead of movies like There Will Be Blood, Juno, No Country For Old Men, Atonement, Sweeney Todd, etc being consider and nominated for Best Movie, you get Transformers, Epic Movie, Ghost Rider, Shrek The Third, Spider Man 3, and other movies that are good, but not Oscar worthy.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 2:19pm

Well, don't be surprised if something like The Bourne Ultimatum gets in with a Best Picture nod.

...or even Hairspray.

They both had box office success IN ADDITION to critical praise... that "success" part on a well-reviewed film factors in a lot more than people think.

But no, you won't see Transformers or Spider Man 3 there.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 2:42pm

Hairspray?

You honestly see that happening?

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 2:46pm

...only as a long shot, but it could. That Best Ensemble SAG nomination says a lot about what the actors think.

And SAG actors (albeit a small group of them) make up the largest voting and nominating branch of the Academy.

It's not as far-fetched as you think, even if it is a dark horse.

The big "count" against it? It's a musical.

EDIT: The big movies this year that were both popular AND critical darlings:

Hairspray
Ratatouille
The Bourne Ultimatum

They should all be considered viable "dark horses" for a Best Pic nomination, regardless of any precursor awards.

One of them could easily sneak in.

Updated On: 1/11/08 at 02:46 PM

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 2:48pm

"That Best Ensemble SAG nomination says a lot about what the actors think."

Yeah, but then they did nominate BOBBY last year.

I guess it could happen, but there are soooo many more worthy films to nominate.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 2:54pm

"I guess it could happen, but there are soooo many more worthy films to nominate."

That's not the point. The point is, it could happen, and has happened in the past.

Updated On: 1/11/08 at 02:54 PM

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 2:57pm

I know, I know. I'm just already getting defensive because the idea of it getting nominated peeves me. Though I certainly see why it could.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 3:01pm

These old awards will never please everybody. But I like the mix of popular and critical recognition.

I wouldn't want it to be ALL one way, or the other. Ever.

I'm just as irritated by the idea of it being a snobby-fest, art-house, boring, stare-at-the-mirror-and-"act" parade too. It would almost (I said ALMOST) be better to have a bloaty Transformers get in there, in that case.

'cause the other makes me itch.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 3:05pm

Don't you think, though, that JUNO greatly hurts HAIRSPRAY's chances?

I would consider JUNO mainstream at this point, too, considering it's fast rise at the box office.