Why Best Picture Nominees Fare Poorly at the Box Office

[MartyMcFly]

I wonder if the rift between popular movie sales and critics' and actors' choice is mirroring what we're seeing in politics. Where the people who really study the craft have a wildly different idea about what makes a good movie than the people who just consume movies as escapism.

I think it's always been that way. Cameron did an interview either over the weekend or today where he said the academy takes it upon themselves to educate the public on what they should be watching

James Cameron Says the Oscars Have a Bias Against Blockbuster Movies

 

[NobodyReally]

I would posit that good is a subjective classification that people try to apply in a objective manner. Either you personally like a movie or you don't, outside of that there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" film, since taste differs so much.

I do feel you on some level. 'Boyhood' and 'Crash' are great examples of movies we were told are top notch and technical and universal achievements, that I think are really, really not worthy of the praise they get. But then there are other movies like "The Artist" or "American Beauty" that I actually do think are well made and good, but that I don't particularly like and would never watch twice. Something doesn't necessary have to entertain or please you to be a good film, but like you said, some of the stuff they say are good films, really aren't. That's when the politics of Oscars comes into play though. People don't like to talk about that, especially film snobs. But there are a lot of behind the scenes politics and campaigning for awards.

 

[Cattle Mutilation]

Movies are like books. The best ones that stand the test of time and are recognized as great novels over a hundred years later often don't sell a lot upon intial release.

 

[FlyRy]

You're in the wrong forum then. Go talk about how Transformers "Dark Of The Moon" got robbed for an academy award in The Locker Room. That shyt might fly there. But as far as criticism of film goes saying there is no such thing as a good or bad film is nonsense. If you can't understand why "Goodfellas" is better than "Shottas" then you probably should just watch films instead of discussing them.

:gandalf:

 

[MartyMcFly]

I do feel you on some level. 'Boyhood' and 'Crash' are great examples of movies we were told are top notch and technical and universal achievements, that I think are really, really not worthy of the praise they get. But then there are other movies like "The Artist" or "American Beauty" that I actually do think are well made and good, but that I don't particularly like and would never watch twice. Something doesn't necessary have to entertain or please you to be a good film, but like you said, some of the stuff they say are good films, really aren't. That's when the politics of Oscars comes into play though. People don't like to talk about that, especially film snobs. But there are a lot of behind the scenes politics and campaigning for awards.

There's definitely politics involved but at the same time, it's still a matter of taste. If No Country For Old Men wins best picture and i show it to someone and they say "meh" then that means it doesn't work for them but it doesn't mean it's not worthy of its acclaim

 

[BelowTheMasonDixon]

There's definitely politics involved but at the same time, it's still a matter of taste. If No Country For Old Men wins best picture and i show it to someone and they say "meh" then that means it doesn't work for them but it doesn't mean it's not worthy of its acclaim

He's acting like every Academy award nominated film is some deliberately monochrome art film or some shyt. Django and The Blind Side were up for a fukking Oscar. Like I said dude is on that "Man why Popstar: Never Stop Stopping isn't up for an Oscar steez" just cause he "enjoyed" and it kept him "entertained"

 

[MartyMcFly]

He's acting like every Academy award nominated film is some deliberately monochrome art film or some shyt. Django and The Blind Side were up for a fukking Oscar. Like I said dude is on that "Man why Popstar: Never Stop Stopping isn't up for an Oscar steez" just cause he "enjoyed" and it kept him "entertained"

Shyt John Wick is my love thing but i don't need it to get an oscar

 

[BelowTheMasonDixon]

Shyt John Wick is my love thing but i don't need it to get an oscar

Right. like the oscar should be about something more than entertainment. Like is the script sharp? What about the cinematography? Are the characters memorable? Is the story some shyt you haven't seen before?

He's right about movies should be entertaining. But Ideally they should also be good as well. Suicide Squad was entertaining. Fences was entertaining(to me) did I go see Fences expecting the SAME kind of entertainment as Suicide Squad. No, Would I be stupid to expect to? Hell yeah.

 

[Jello Biafra]

I would posit that good is a subjective classification that people try to apply in a objective manner. Either you personally like a movie or you don't, outside of that there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" film, since taste differs so much.

I would have to disagree. There are movies that entertain the living fukk out of me but that are not objectively good by any measure (cinematography, direction, writing, editing, even acting).

By the same token I can find a movie to not be entertaining but still admit that it was well made. I am not a fan of The Arrival but I recognize that it is an achievement in direction, acting, editing etc. even if it isn't my particular cup of tea.

 

[David_TheMan]

I would have to disagree. There are movies that entertain the living fukk out of me but that are not objectively good by any measure (cinematography, direction, writing, editing, even acting).

By the same token I can find a movie to not be entertaining but still admit that it was well made. I am not a fan of The Arrival but I recognize that it is an achievement in direction, acting, editing etc. even if it isn't my particular cup of tea.

I would argue if it entertains and is rewatchable it is good to you and that is all that matters.
I don't think Arrival is a good movie, because my main quality of watching any movie is would I watch it again, was it a waste of my time, and i feel with regard to Arrival the answer is no I wouldn't watch again and it was a waste of time for me.

Now production values and cinematography aren't the be all end all to me, same with the other criteria, as long as its entertaining. Thats the reason I still can look at Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai and be entertained with its terrible effects, spot acting and etc, while looking at a movie like the Pianist, with its top level cinematography and immersive acting and saying I would never look at that again and I'm mad for having wasted my time to do so.

 

[David_TheMan]

Shyt John Wick is my love thing but i don't need it to get an oscar

Why not though, why can't movies that people enjoy be nominated for best film?
Star Wars was nominated for best picture, best supporting actor, and best director. It was a by the numbers movie that the masses enjoyed with great special effects but no one slights the academy for nominating it, no one acts like it didn't belong there now.

This notion that certain movies are "below" the oscars is absurd to me. If people vote with their dollars that they like something, that movie is talking to someone, whether elitists want to acknowledge or not IMO

 

[BelowTheMasonDixon]

I would have to disagree. There are movies that entertain the living fukk out of me but that are not objectively good by any measure (cinematography, direction, writing, editing, even acting).

By the same token I can find a movie to not be entertaining but still admit that it was well made. I am not a fan of The Arrival but I recognize that it is an achievement in direction, acting, editing etc. even if it isn't my particular cup of tea.

but but. Movies should only be judged by being entertaining.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Why not though, why can't movies that people enjoy be nominated for best film?
Star Wars was nominated for best picture, best supporting actor, and best director. It was a by the numbers movie that the masses enjoyed with great special effects but no one slights the academy for nominating it, no one acts like it didn't belong there now.

This notion that certain movies are "below" the oscars is absurd to me. If people vote with their dollars that they like something, that movie is talking to someone, whether elitists want to acknowledge or not IMO

Because I recognize there are aspects of John wick that aren't oscar worthy homie. I love the movie but profoundly but I wouldn't put it as a movie on the same level of Selma which was my other favorite movie from that year. And Selma also entertained the hell out of me. Like I said before the entertainment factor is purely subjective because we all have good taste but as someone else pointed out, there's are actual objective reasons why goodfellas is more technically sound and put together better than ace Ventura

 

[Apollo]

Most of these "Academy" movies would be something I would catch on netflix, nothing groundbreaking or masterful that I need to rush to see.

 

[BelowTheMasonDixon]

Why not though, why can't movies that people enjoy be nominated for best film?
Star Wars was nominated for best picture, best supporting actor, and best director. It was a by the numbers movie that the masses enjoyed with great special effects but no one slights the academy for nominating it, no one acts like it didn't belong there now.

This notion that certain movies are "below" the oscars is absurd to me. If people vote with their dollars that they like something, that movie is talking to someone, whether elitists want to acknowledge or not IMO

And ANOTHER thing. If moves are just suppose to be "entertainment" then why the fukk even make a "Fences" or "The Color Purple" why even bother telling stories like "Moonlight", "City Of God" or "Slumdog Millionaire" because who gives a fukk right? Shut the fukk up and entertain us...