| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
 Posted - 02/26/2008 : 08:29:56 AM
|
Doesn anyone think that the Oscar will ever become as irrelevant to the movie industry as the Grammy is to the music industry?
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
 |
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 12:08:59 PM
|
Oddly, this year's Oscars were quite short, and Stewart was very funny as host, and yet I still felt it was a slog. And I'm obviously not alone. And as I said, I loved seeing the Coens win, but obviously they're not crowd-pleasing favourites, so that's just me.
I'm always glad to watch once in a while to remember why I don't have to watch most of the time.
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
TheFoywonder
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
833 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 2:59:15 PM
|
quote:
Foy, relax a little. I don't think anyone has seriously challenged the competence of the movies. The concern is about the trend over the past 7-10 years for Hollywood and entertainment in general to only equate good film making with the dark, the brooding, the dysfunctional, and at best the amoral. This year seems to have hit the pinnacle of that trend with every film pretty much falling in that category.
Challenging the competence of the movies based on their grim tone is precisely what the article that kicked off this whole thread was about, and it's a sentiment I've seen tossed about all over the place the past few days to a ridiculous degree. Sorry, but I'm not the one who needs to relax here. It's mindblowing how one year where the majority of the film's nominated for Best Picture happen to be dark and grim and suddenly all these naysayers (and no shortage of big mouth pundits) come out of the woodwork screaming about how depressing it is, how Hollywood only rewards such films, and even you're echoing this inane concern about the trend. What trend? The last 7-10 years? I think it's time for a little reality to get interjected into this conversation.
1997: TITANIC
As Good As It Gets
The Full Monty
Good Will Hunting
L.A. Confindential
1998: SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE
Elizabeth
Life is Beautiful
Saving Private Ryan
The Thin Red Line
1999: AMERICAN BEAUTY
The Cider House Rule
The Green Mile
The Insider
The Sixth Sense
2000: GLADIATOR
Chocolat
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Erin Brokovich
Traffic
2001: A BEAUTIFUL MIND
Gosford Park
In The Bedroom
Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring
Moulin Rouge!
2002: CHICAGO
Gangs of New Yor
The Hours
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
The Pianist
2003: LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING
Lost in Translation
Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World
Mystic River
Seabiscuit
2004: MILLION DOLLAR BABY
The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Ray
Sideways
2005: CRASH
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Good Night, and Good Luck
Munich
2006: THE DEPARTED
Babel
Letters from Iwo Jima
Little Miss Sunshine
The Queen
2007: NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
There Will Be Blood
Eleven years worth of Oscar winners and nominees. I ask again: what trend? Where's all this inhumanity that Hollywood's supposedly championing? If anything, the Oscars have generally gone out of their way to avoid rewarding such films.
And the biggest explanation for the Oscar ratings slump is that people generally do not give a damn about award shows anymore. There's so many of them nowadays that the whole notion of an awards show meaning something has become highly diluted. The the broadcasts have become increasingly long and boring and the nominees aren't runaway blockbusters only makes the slump all the more so.
Now Playing in Foyeurism at Foywonder.com: ACTION U.S.A. - The best kept secret in all of action b-moviedom explodes into the Foyer
Plus: B-WARE THE BLOG is alive at http://www.livejournal.com/users/foywonder |
|
|
|
gangrene
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
60 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 3:17:24 PM
|
I thought No Country was easily the best movie I've seen for several years and I was extremely pleased to see this type of movie get some attention.
I think that that the decline in viewers may simply have a lot to do with people getting more and more information from the internet. Why sit through the whole thing when you can catch the highlights on YouTube the next day? Same reason newspapers are going out of business.
Steve |
Edited by - gangrene on 02/27/2008 04:14:24 AM |
|
|
|
Flangepart
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
2329 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 4:20:22 PM
|
To quote thou, Scott...'I paid to see SAVEING PRIVATE RYAN and FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING'...and nothing else on your oscar list.
My spider sence knows what I'm likely to enjoy.
And my tastes in films are good enough for me, so the Academy means diddly to moi.
I can see why some make a point that H-wood seems to like 'Dark for darks sake', as it were.
Look at the nominees for 1999.
If the world view of those films suits you, you don't have a problim with it. Some of us get depressed watching the news, so we want a break from the harsh reality we live with each day.
Mind you, I respect a dark take sometimes, for the sake of remembering that context.
I watched THE HOST finaly this weekend. The ending was a downer, true. Yet the final playout worked, regards how the father of the girl dealt with her loss. I can respect that.
But, most of the time, I don't want the bad guys or monsters to win.
I have mentioned how much I like the TREMORS flicks, right?
I say that, because to me, that seems the best definition of the dour, cynical mindset of H-wood. And yes, that is my view of them.
I don't see the need for most films. I'm pickey, like most of youse guys. Hey, what ever floats you're liferaft. I'm just saying I see why some call the 'popular' Academy choices dark. I guess, some people like the dark more then others.
Marvin the Paranoid Android to Buzz Lightyear "Too infinity and beyond-i've been there, its rubbish!"
"Hoody Hoo, i waste 'em with my cross bow!" Bob Herzog- KODT
|
|
|
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 4:35:40 PM
|
Foy, I'm not going to get in some heated debate over this. I am somewhat surprised at your attitude about this. If you disagree, fine. As I stated before, no one here is questioning the quality of the films, just the outlook. Anyways, I'll just ditto Flange's post.
- Si desea pulse 2 para español, encontrar un país diferente. - |
|
|
|
TheFoywonder
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
833 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 5:23:43 PM
|
quote:
As I stated before, no one here is questioning the quality of the films, just the outlook.
One more time: that is precisely what Mitch Albom's point of view is in the article linked as the basis for this entire thread. His whole attitude is that films like those nominated for Best Picture this year are overpraised garbage because they're violent and because they don't fall into his personal tastes and the worldview he prefers that we're all worse off because such films exist. That's exactly what his entire statement is about. Am I the only one who actually read it? Terra, that's why when you said you agreed with Albom's take I took you to task for it. That and this dark outlook you write about which was easily debunked with little more than a simple listing of the past decade's Oscar winners. There's no heated debate here - just a plea for a little rationality.
Now Playing in Foyeurism at Foywonder.com: ACTION U.S.A. - The best kept secret in all of action b-moviedom explodes into the Foyer
Plus: B-WARE THE BLOG is alive at http://www.livejournal.com/users/foywonder |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 5:24:25 PM
|
Okay, fine, Foy, have it your way:
2007
Juno : $130M
No Country For Old Men : $64M
Atonement : $49M
Michael Clayton : $48M
There Will Be Blood : $35M
AVERAGE: $65M
TELECAST: 29M Viewers
2006
The Departed : $132M
Little Miss Sunshine : $60M
The Queen : $56M
Babel : $34M
Letters from Iwo Jima : $13M
AVERAGE: $59M
TELECAST: 40M viewers
2005
Brokeback Mountain : $83M
Crash : $54M
Munich : $47M
Good Night, and Good Luck : $31M
Capote : $28M
AVERAGE: $43M
TELECAST: 39M Viewers
2004
The Aviator: $102M
Million Dollar Baby : $100M
Ray : $75M
Sideways : $71M
Finding Neverland: $51M
AVERAGE: $79M
TELECAST: 42M Viewers
2003
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King : $377M
Seabiscuit: $120M
Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World: $94M
Mystic River: $90M
Lost in Translation: $44M
AVERAGE: $145M
TELECAST: 43M Viewers
2002
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers: $339M
Chicago : $170M
Gangs of New York : $77M
The Hours : $41M
The Pianist: $32M
AVERAGE: $131M
TELECAST: 33M Viewers
2001
Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring : $313M
A Beautiful Mind : $170M
Moulin Rouge! : $57M
Gosford Park : $41M
In The Bedroom : $35M
AVERAGE: $123M
TELECAST: 41M Viewers
2000
Gladiator : $187M
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon : $128M
Erin Brokovich : $125M
Traffic: $124M
Chocolat : $71M
AVERAGE: $127M
Telecast: 42M Viewers
1999
The Sixth Sense : $293M
The Green Mile : $136M
American Beauty : $130M
The Cider House Rule : $57M
The Insider : $29M
AVERAGE: $129M
TELECAST: 49M Viewers
1998
Saving Private Ryan : $216M
Shakespeare in Love : $100M
Life is Beautiful : $57M
The Thin Red Line : $36M
Elizabeth : $30M
AVERAGE: $87M
TELECAST: 46M Viewers
1997
Titanic : $600M
As Good As It Gets : $148M
Good Will Hunting : $138M
L.A. Confidential : $64M
The Full Monty : $46M
AVERAGE: $199M
TELECAST: 55M Viewers
To simplify, the top-rated Oscar telecasts are, in order:
1. 1997 ($199)
2. 1999 ($129)
3. 1998 ($87)
4. 2003 ($145)
5. 2004 ($79)
6. 2000 ($127)
7. 2001 ($123)
8. 2006 ($59)
9. 2005 ($43)
10. 2002 ($131)
11. 2007 ($65)
Of the lower-ranking broadcasts, the statistical outlier would be 2002, but there's a very good reason for this. Bear in mind, awards are given out the following year. Thus, the 2002 telecast aired in 2003 and therefore during the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom, when millions of viewers were concerned with matters far more important than the cut of Jennifer Lopez's Versace dress.
Taking this into account, let's omit 2002 altogether. If we then average out the top five telecast years versus the bottom five telecasts, we come up with this statistic:
Top 5 Telecasts: $127M Average Gross/47M Viewers
Bottom 5 Telecasts: $83M Average Gross/38.2M Viewers
The results are rather stark, and just as predictable: the more popular the movies nominated, the higher the viewership.
POSTSCRIPT: As I've never read Mitch Albom nor have even heard of him before, I neither dispute nor take issue with his analysis of recent Oscar trends. My opinion of why the Oscars have been tanking in the ratings stands. |
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 02/26/2008 5:30:39 PM |
|
|
|
TheFoywonder
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
833 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 5:44:22 PM
|
quote:
The results are rather stark, and just as predictable: the more popular the movies nominated, the higher the viewership.
There's no denying that nominating more popular movies will garner higher rating, though there are other factors as well. The question I again would again ask is does this mean the movies nominated this year didn't deserve to be just because they weren't super popular blockbusters? Should the Academy voters should start nominating films based of box office popularity and what will get the show higher ratings and not what the films they deem to be artistic merit? If so, then what's the point?
Now Playing in Foyeurism at Foywonder.com: ACTION U.S.A. - The best kept secret in all of action b-moviedom explodes into the Foyer
Plus: B-WARE THE BLOG is alive at http://www.livejournal.com/users/foywonder |
|
|
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 6:00:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
One more time: that is precisely what Mitch Albom's point of view is in the article linked as the basis for this entire thread. His whole attitude is that films like those nominated for Best Picture this year are overpraised garbage because they're violent and because they don't fall into his personal tastes and the worldview he prefers that we're all worse off because such films exist. That's exactly what his entire statement is about. Am I the only one who actually read it? Terra, that's why when you said you agreed with Albom's take I took you to task for it. That and this dark outlook you write about which was easily debunked with little more than a simple listing of the past decade's Oscar winners. There's no heated debate here - just a plea for a little rationality.
I hesitate to jump in here because it seems tempers have flared and anything I say is probably going to exacerbate things further. I didn’t think people would be so passionate about some Coen brothers’ movie, but I have lived and learned.
I just have to say though Foy, with all due respect, I think you are taking what Ablom wrote as some kind of personal insult instead of weighing it on its merits. I’ve read the article several times and I defy you to quote the part in which he calls this year’s nominees – quote – “overpraised garbage”. So he didn’t like the nominees this year and found them depressing. So did a whole lot of other movie goers as ZW pointed out artfully above before he was bullied into editing it out. Does it make him a sanctimonious a*@hole just because he and hundreds of thousands of others don’t share your taste in movies? And I think he has a point. A lot of people do go to the movies to have a good time – not watch a bunch of innocent people take an air hammer to the head. Are they a bunch of Oprah-fied dimwitted morons too? Do we have to subscribe to the “spinach” school of movie-going where we must watch things that are “good for us” rather than what we enjoy? And as for the trend, I’d like point out that it was TH that mentioned a trend. Ablom primarily discusses movies released this year. You’re reading a whole lot more into what he wrote if you think he was ranting about a trend. And for what it’s worth, I think TH too has a point. You’ve thankfully provided proof with your list above that in the last 4 years we’ve had movies about assisted suicide following paralysis, heroin addiction, racism, a novelist’s tender feelings for two mass murderers, McCarthyism, genocidal terrorism at the Olympics, Scorsese’s umpteenth trip to the Goodfellas murderous-thug well, a bunch of random people getting shot and committing suicide and WWII with the Japanese as the good guys. You’re right. I wish they would stop nominating such feel-good The Sound of Music-style fare year in and year out.
For what it’s worth, I think you have a point in that there are many plausible reasons to explain declining ratings for the Oscars. Most certainly any single explanation is an oversimplification, but I don’t understand why Ablom’s take couldn’t at least be a part of the story. I certainly don’t understand why we can’t discuss it without getting steamed. Ultimately it’s a matter of taste and I’d argue that just as many people share Ablom’s as they do yours given the anemic box-office this year. |
|
|
|
TheFoywonder
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
833 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 6:45:43 PM
|
Let me clarify something since so many seem to think I'm frothing at the mouth. First of all, here's the quote from Albom's piece that set me off.
quote:
Here's a news flash: Killing without remorse doesn't make a story art. Cold and cynical dialogue doesn't make a story valuable.
Right there the implication is that the films nominated are overpraised garbage because he doesn't approve of their content. Aside from the fact that this blanket statement just disqualified a whole lot of great works cinema and literature, he's gone beyond saying I don't want to watch a dark violent movie and entered the territory of villifying it, the people that made it, and those that thought it was a good movie. He's gone beyond just stating matters of taste and turned it into another idiotic salvo in so-called culture war.
We've reached the point now where it's no longer a case of I'm not interested in watching, reading, or listening to something because it doesn't appeal to me; now it becomes a smear campaign and often even gets turned into part of a greater cultural conspiracy. It's no longer "I didn't see any of this year's Oscar nominees because they were too dark and violent for my tastes". Now we've got the Bill O'Reilly's and his ilk screaming about how secular-progressive Hollywood only nominated these movies because they wanted to stick it traditional American values and the Mitch Albom's out there denying a movie's artistic merit because it wasn't all happy and sanitized (i.e. The Oprah mentality). If it doesn't fall into the narrow confines of my narrow worldview I don't want to see it, I wish they'd stop making it altogether, and I'm not too fond of the people that make it or so see it. It has nothing to do with whether or not this thing they're not interested in has any merit to it, it's just plain bad - for everyone. I remember when Forrest Gump was getting attacked by liberals screaming about how it smeared Sixties radicals and that it was too sentimental. I just remember thinking it was a damn good movie. Now No Country For Old Men gets hit for being too violent and too grim. I just remember thinking it was a damn good movie (albeit with a poor ending). Not wanting to see something becaues of the subject matter is one thing - how many people refused to watch United 93 and it's going to be hailed a masterpiece for generations to come - but the if it doesn't reflect my values then it's no good for anyone is the sort of closeminded attitude I see and hear all over the place nowadays and it never fails to tick me off. Too conservative. Too liberal. Too Christian. Too secular. Too violent. Too sentimental. Too something. I say save the who makes this crap and what's wrong with the people who like this crap slanders for the people who keep flocking to film's like Meet The Spartans, the film's where artistic merit is non-existent.
quote:
You’ve thankfully provided proof with your list above that in the last 4 years we’ve had movies about assisted suicide following paralysis, heroin addiction, racism, a novelist’s tender feelings for two mass murderers, McCarthyism, genocidal terrorism at the Olympics, Scorsese’s umpteenth trip to the Goodfellas murderous-thug well, a bunch of random people getting shot and committing suicide and WWII with the Japanese as the good guys. You’re right. I wish they would stop nominating such feel-good The Sound of Music-style fare year in and year out.
With all due respect, that is one of the most insulting oversimplifications I've ever seen.
Now Playing in Foyeurism at Foywonder.com: ACTION U.S.A. - The best kept secret in all of action b-moviedom explodes into the Foyer
Plus: B-WARE THE BLOG is alive at http://www.livejournal.com/users/foywonder |
|
|
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 6:57:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
With all due respect, that is one of the most insulting oversimplifications I've ever seen.
Are you sure you're not thinking of this?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/movies/reviews/5214729.html
(I know it's weak! It's the best google match I could get!) |
Edited by - R. Dittmar on 02/26/2008 7:00:16 PM |
|
|
|
TheFoywonder
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
833 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 8:51:53 PM
|
RENDITION would also be a good example of gross oversimplification. It would also be a better example of how too many filmmakers all across the political and religious spectrum can't make a message movie these days without beating the audience over the head.
Now Playing in Foyeurism at Foywonder.com: ACTION U.S.A. - The best kept secret in all of action b-moviedom explodes into the Foyer
Plus: B-WARE THE BLOG is alive at http://www.livejournal.com/users/foywonder |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 8:57:28 PM
|
Foy, I can't pretend to know what Albom believes in his heart of hearts, but here's my two cents, for what it's worth:
quote:
Killing without remorse doesn't make a story art. Cold and cynical dialogue doesn't make a story valuable.
I agree with this statement. However, I also agree with this statement.
quote:
Killing without remorse doesn't mean a story isn't art. Cold and cynical dialogue doesn't mean a story isn't valuable.
In other words, whether a movie rises to Pollyanish heights or plummets into a Neptunian abyss doesn't automatically qualify or disqualify a movie from greatness. On this point, I'll bet you and I are of one accord.
But there is a segment of the art world out there that holds a different view:
"Killing without remorse makes a story art. Cold and cynical dialogue makes a story valuable."
You don't subscribe to this way of thinking, I assume, but there are many critics who do, and perhaps that's the point this Albom fellow was trying to make. If the Coen brothers made an upbeat, family friendly movie equal to No Country for Old Men in its artistry, would the same critics still be cheering for it to win Best Picture?
|
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2008 : 9:22:59 PM
|
Nor can it be said that audiences themselves have evinced any prejudice toward one end of the spectrum or another.
American Beauty was a protologist's view of suburban America yet it grossed $130M domestically as well as taking home the top prize. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was well-crafted but also dour and downbeat, yet it raked in $128M, a record sum for foreign films (to say nothing of martial arts imports). Steven Soderbergh's Traffic was even more bleak in its outlook yet managed to gross nearly the same amount. Chicago was a dancing and kicking musical romp about two (rhymes with witches) who literally get away with murder: it grossed $170M and tapped away with the Best Picture award. The Departed set a new high (meaning low) mark for nihilism yet copped Martin Scorese a long overdue Academy Award and managed to rake in $132M at the box office.
And need I remind you that Platoon, a bitter and highly unflattering portrait of Vietnam vets, grossed a stunning $138M and made Oliver Stone a household name -- and this during the era of Reagan!
So, yes, the marketplace will dictate what movies will be made, but thankfully the marketplace is so unpredictable that no single type of film can categorically be counted in or out. Ditto the Oscars. No Country For Old Men and The Departed won Best Picture, but so did Shakespeare in Love, Forrest Gump, and Return of the King. There's room for everybody at the dinner table. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked