Academy Awards

69,037 Views | 626 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by Tanya 93
GiveEmHellBill
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

La La Land has made $341 MILLION worldwide. Nearly every person I know - both in California and Texas - has seen that movie.
True, and I'm not trying to put the film down. I'm not trying to put down any of the Best Picture nominees. Far from it. I just don't think that this is the kind of movie that's going to draw casual viewers in to see if it wins awards. None of those movies were.

I'm speaking purely about ratings for the Oscars, not the quality of the films.

The Oscars extended their nominations to allow for more commercially popular films to be nominated so as to draw in the more casual viewer.
nai06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fig96 said:

nai06 said:

Jim01 said:

I'd say $140 million is pretty damn popular. Not to mention the fact that the soundtrack has been in the top 10 albums for a couple months.
its really not though. The top 10 movies from last year were all nearly double that or more.
Lemme guess, all animated films and superhero movies, maybe one other scifi blockbuster?

For what it is Lala Land has done pretty fantastic box office.

yep all animated and superhero except star wars.



And I agree that for the type of movie La La Land is, its done well. But that doesnt mean a bunch of people have seen it. And when not a lot of people have seen the major contenders for the awards, its going to lead to a decline in viewership. As great as all these films are, they just arent as popular with the general public.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I guess I don't understand what the "solution" would be? Do you some of you want there to be a box office minimum for nominees? Do you want fans/average movie goers to have a say in the voting like the NBA does with All-Star balloting?

Regardless, I've never understand why Oscar ratings are important. Sure, ABC obviously cares, but outside of them, the Oscars are a celebration of Hollywood by Hollywood. Why does it matter how many people watch? The point is to honor the best films of the year regardless of how many people have seen them.
White Liberals=The Worst
How long do you want to ignore this user?
La La Land could be the greatest and most fabulous musical of all time, but it never stood a chance against a gay black man struggling with his identity in the "evil" and "backwards" south...especially with this role being played by a Muslim. That movie could have just showed him in front of a mirror for an hour and a half talking and crying to himself and it would have been a shoe in for best picture. As someone said previously, it checked all the boxes of liberal identity politics.

Next year it will be a movie about some latino transexual who takes a "hateful" Christian bakery owner to court for refusing to cater his wedding or something and as punishment they are ordered by the court to pay for his gender reassignment surgery. Will be a shoe in.

We are going to see more and more "statement" victories and fewer and fewer great movies are going to win from here on out.
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't even think La La Land is that great, but I never understand when they give a movie so many awards (Director, Actress, Screenplay, etc), and yet give Best Picture to a movie that hardly won anything else.

What exactly is the logic here?
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You clearly didn't watch Moonlight.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hundreds of Academy members vote for the Oscars. It's not like a board of 12 members decided to give certain awards to one movie and then other awards to another movie. It's just the way the votes landed.
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Right, but given how the voting turned out, a lot of people must have voted for La La Land almost across the board except for BP.
The Collective
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brian Earl Spilner said:

I don't even think La La Land is that great, but I never understand when they give a movie so many awards (Director, Actress, Screenplay, etc), and yet give Best Picture to a movie that hardly won anything else.

What exactly is the logic here?


I have always found this to be interesting as well.
nai06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

You clearly didn't watch Moonlight.
he wandered over from the politics board to troll the entertainment board. Ignore him
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
But it lost quite a few categories. I don't understand what you're saying. Honestly, this Oscars seemed like one of the most fair and evenly spread I can remember in years.
Definitely Not A Cop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

But it lost quite a few categories. I don't understand what you're saying. Honestly, this Oscars seemed like one of the most fair and evenly spread I can remember in years.
I don't think he was complaining, I just think he was saying it's weird the votes landed that way.
Jim01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brian Earl Spilner said:

I don't even think La La Land is that great, but I never understand when they give a movie so many awards (Director, Actress, Screenplay, etc), and yet give Best Picture to a movie that hardly won anything else.

What exactly is the logic here?
Many reasons come to mind.

Director - La La Land was a bigger undertaking overall. Moonlight was brilliant but La La Land had a lot more to manage (sets, costumes, music, variety of shots, etc.) I think most viewed it as a bigger mountain to climb from a directing stand point because a large part of directing is just being a manager. Moonlight was more about the writing, and putting the camera down and letting the actors nail the script. Especially recently the Academy has awarded not just artistry but movies that required a lot technically and a lot to manage (Birdman, Gravity, Life of Pi, etc.)

Actress - Well there was no leading actress in Moonlight so that explains that

Screenplay - Moonlight actually won screen play while La La Land did not, so that really doesn't belong on your list.

As for the other nominations/awards, La La Land was just the type of movie to garner a lot and be eligible for a lot (big production, musical, lots of different types of cinematography, two main stars, etc.). Moonlight was simpler, no big sets or costumes or music so it just wasn't up for as many things.
Jim01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree. It played out perfectly to me.

La La Land - Damien directed the sheet out of it. Emma was amazing and so was the music.

Manchester By The Sea - Affleck was a force, and the script was devastating and yet funny.

Moonlight - Extremely powerful script. It was all about the script. All the actors were great but hard to award so spread out, but Ali deserved it.

The best three movies got awarded for EXACTLY what they all did well.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seriously. I was honestly shocked how "right" they got it.
Bruce Almighty
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I never understood people getting worked up over the Oscars, or really any award show. I don't need a movie or album winning or not winning to validate what I think of it. It's nothing but opinions. As TCTTS said above, its Hollywood honoring Hollywood.
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Champ Bailey said:

TCTTS said:

But it lost quite a few categories. I don't understand what you're saying. Honestly, this Oscars seemed like one of the most fair and evenly spread I can remember in years.
I don't think he was complaining, I just think he was saying it's weird the votes landed that way.
Exactly.

You'd think the Best Picture would win some more awards.

But I screwed up on Screenplay. Probably thinking of Production Design.
Ag Since 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Also keep in mind that now beat picture voting works differently in that it's based on preferential ranking rather than just top choice. So if a movie is divisive/has backlash against it and is rated low on a lot of ballots it can lose to a film that is consistently rated high even if the first film has more first place votes.

I think in the old system La La Land and The Revenant both win given the way the other awards went
corleoneAg99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

I guess I don't understand what the "solution" would be? Do you some of you want there to be a box office minimum for nominees? Do you want fans/average movie goers to have a say in the voting like the NBA does with All-Star balloting?

Regardless, I've never understand why Oscar ratings are important. Sure, ABC obviously cares, but outside of them, the Oscars are a celebration of Hollywood by Hollywood. Why does it matter how many people watch? The point is to honor the best films of the year regardless of how many people have seen them.


Ratings are important for the Oscars for the same reason they're important for anything on TV.

Eyeballs = $

And fewer eyeballs are watching the Oscars over the past several years.

For someone who is apparently so embedded in the entertainment industry I'm a little surprised that's not remotely concerning. Or interested maybe more than surprised.
Ag Since 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Also ratings are important because the more people watching, the more Hollywood can pontificate to
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Eyeballs = $ for ABC. And I could not care less how much money ABC makes off the Oscars.
corleoneAg99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Eyeballs = $ for ABC. And I could not care less how much money ABC makes off the Oscars.


You don't think eyeballs = $ for the movies themselves?

As in the more people who watch the Oscars, the more people there are who are likely to see Moonlight for example that was not widely available?

That's not a factor at all?

Seems odd then that the movies themselves would then advertise themselves after the fact as "Academy Award Winner..." so and so.

I'd think that for exposure purposes alone you'd want as many people watching as possible?

Squirrel Master
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
People see movies that are nominated or win awards, but they don't have to see the actual awards show to be motivated to see those movies.
corleoneAg99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Squirrel Master said:

People see movies that are nominated or win awards, but they don't have to see the actual awards show to be motivated to see those movies.


Correct. It is not a requirement. I'm saying it would seem like it would help get more people to watch them.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, I hear you, but it's so marginal. The amount these smaller films make is almost irrelevant in the big picture. Any bump Moonlight would get from a slightly larger Oscar audience is peanuts compared to what something from Marvel or Lucasfilm does in a single day.
israeliag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Eyeballs = $ for ABC. And I could not care less how much money ABC makes off the Oscars.
Who owns and sells the rights to the Oscars?
corleoneAg99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Yeah, I hear you, but it's so marginal. The amount these smaller films make is almost irrelevant in the big picture. Any bump Moonlight would get from a slightly larger Oscar audience is peanuts compared to what something from Marvel or Lucasfilm does in a single day.


Fair enough.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
20ag07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Ratings are important for the Oscars for the same reason they're important for anything on TV.

Eyeballs = $

And fewer eyeballs are watching the Oscars over the past several years.

For someone who is apparently so embedded in the entertainment industry I'm a little surprised that's not remotely concerning. Or interested maybe more than surprised.
Fewer eyeballs are watching everything on TV. All broadcast TV is down double digits over the last several years. See all the hand-wringing about NFL ratings this year. The Oscars aren't down more noticeably than anything else on TV, and maybe even less so.
corleoneAg99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
20ag07 said:

Quote:

Ratings are important for the Oscars for the same reason they're important for anything on TV.

Eyeballs = $

And fewer eyeballs are watching the Oscars over the past several years.

For someone who is apparently so embedded in the entertainment industry I'm a little surprised that's not remotely concerning. Or interested maybe more than surprised.
Fewer eyeballs are watching everything on TV. All broadcast TV is down double digits over the last several years. See all the hand-wringing about NFL ratings this year. The Oscars aren't down more noticeably than anything else on TV, and maybe even less so.

True although how have ratings been for the Superbowl?

The Oscars are reported on and presented at that level. People even comment similarly about the commercials they run during the show.

If the position is that ratings don't matter then ok...but comparing The Oscars to run of the mill network TV is faulty logic IMO.
Sex Panther
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ChiliBeans said:

Ironically, I was watching for a while because I didn't think anything else good was on and realized I had missed The Third Man on TCM.


Wait... Harry?
Liquid Wrench
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So long, Holly.

Tanya 93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wycliffe_03 said:

La La Land could be the greatest and most fabulous musical of all time, but it never stood a chance against a gay black man struggling with his identity in the "evil" and "backwards" south...especially with this role being played by a Muslim. That movie could have just showed him in front of a mirror for an hour and a half talking and crying to himself and it would have been a shoe in for best picture. As someone said previously, it checked all the boxes of liberal identity politics.

Next year it will be a movie about some latino transexual who takes a "hateful" Christian bakery owner to court for refusing to cater his wedding or something and as punishment they are ordered by the court to pay for his gender reassignment surgery. Will be a shoe in.

We are going to see more and more "statement" victories and fewer and fewer great movies are going to win from here on out.
Why do you keep up with this lie?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.