Why Best Picture Nominees Fare Poorly at the Box Office

[BelowTheMasonDixon]

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

Do you really need to rush to see 99% of movies though. Hell why even make movies 12 months out the year just start and end the film season with Summer for that matter.

 

[David_TheMan]

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

funny I dont think selma is a oscar "worthy" movie, its a bit paint by the numbers overly melodramatic movie and bored me.
That said again you say this like there are set criteria to be nominated for a oscar, why do you think so?
technical oscars are cool but to a very real extent when you get high level of production that shyt is splitting hairs and might as well be a roll of the dice in certain categories.

That said goodfellas is cool nominate it, people enjoyed it. Ace Ventura is a classic comedy nominate it.

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...

City of God was entertaining. slumdog millionaire was entertaining nothing great but kept my attention. The color purple is entertaining to a lot of people who quote lines from the movie.

I never liked Fences when I had to watch the stage play in school, the story itself is terrible IMHO.

I"m sure August Wilson wrote Fences to deliver a message but most definitely to be entertainment enough to make people want to see it and invest in the characters and the experience.

 

[Cattle Mutilation]

Box office is what measures the entertainment value and mass appeal. The Oscars should be for the art of the movie.

 

[BelowTheMasonDixon]

funny I dont think selma is a oscar "worthy" movie, its a bit paint by the numbers overly melodramatic movie and bored me.
That said again you say this like there are set criteria to be nominated for a oscar, why do you think so?
technical oscars are cool but to a very real extent when you get high level of production that shyt is splitting hairs and might as well be a roll of the dice in certain categories.

That said goodfellas is cool nominate it, people enjoyed it. Ace Ventura is a classic comedy nominate it.


City of God was entertaining. slumdog millionaire was entertaining nothing great but kept my attention. The color purple is entertaining to a lot of people who quote lines from the movie.

I never liked Fences when I had to watch the stage play in school, the story itself is terrible IMHO.

I"m sure August Wilson wrote Fences to deliver a message but most definitely to be entertainment enough to make people want to see it and invest in the characters and the experience.

So you can't differentiate the quality Of film making in a "The Color Purple" and "Selma" to a "Ace Ventura" or "Spaceballs" you said selma is melodramatic like the subject matter it gets is inspiration from is some ho hum bs. I don't get you dog. at all. but you know what fine. you like what you like. hell "Demolition Man" deserved an oscar and "Friday The 13th part 22" should have got a nod.

 

[MartyMcFly]

funny I dont think selma is a oscar "worthy" movie, its a bit paint by the numbers overly melodramatic movie and bored me.
That said again you say this like there are set criteria to be nominated for a oscar, why do you think so?
technical oscars are cool but to a very real extent when you get high level of production that shyt is splitting hairs and might as well be a roll of the dice in certain categories.

That said goodfellas is cool nominate it, people enjoyed it. Ace Ventura is a classic comedy nominate it.


City of God was entertaining. slumdog millionaire was entertaining nothing great but kept my attention. The color purple is entertaining to a lot of people who quote lines from the movie.

I never liked Fences when I had to watch the stage play in school, the story itself is terrible IMHO.

I"m sure August Wilson wrote Fences to deliver a message but most definitely to be entertainment enough to make people want to see it and invest in the characters and the experience.

No I say it like there's a set critieria as to why one film is above another. The Godfather is a better movie than gangster squad. Does that mean gangster squad doesn't have its moments and didn't entertain me? Of course not. But The Godfather is better written better acted better directed has a better score and does everything it's supposed to do at a high level.

 

[David_TheMan]

So you can't differentiate the quality Of film making in a "The Color Purple" and "Selma" to a "Ace Ventura" or "Spaceballs" you said selma is melodramatic like the subject matter it gets is inspiration from is some ho hum bs. I don't get you dog. at all. but you know what fine. you like what you like. hell "Demolition Man" deserved an oscar and "Friday The 13th part 22" should have got a nod.

I don't see what the issue is the Oscar really needs a category for action and comedy if they are going to purposely ignore these very popular genre films for "deep" oscar bait films.

If you don't create categories for them, atleast nominate them if they are extremely successful or very well made. Why ignore John Wick but give nominations to films no one saw last year like The Imitation game, boyhood, and etc.

 

[David_TheMan]

No I say it like there's a set critieria as to why one film is above another. The Godfather is a better movie than gangster squad. Does that mean gangster squad doesn't have its moments and didn't entertain me? Of course not. But The Godfather is better written better acted better directed has a better score and does everything it's supposed to do at a high level.

What is the set criteria as to why one is above the other.
Godfather is rated highly because it was a box office smash that resonated with viewers. That said a gangster squad nominatin, especially if it had been a financial success doens't take away from the godfather.

Same token, what makes Zero Dark Sixty anything more than a jingonist military propaganda action movie? What makes it different than say Top Gun? Top gun is inducted to the national preservation of film archives, but its not good enough to be nominated for best film, but you move 30 years ahead and you can get a movie that removes the jets and puts in soliders and its a nominee?

Make a throwback sword and sandals epic and get nominated (Gladiator) but first mummy can't get a nomination? Its all so incredibly subjective and arbitrary.

 

[666 ReVeNGe 666]

Academy is out of touch, probably why people don't watch the award show anymore either

I can't think of a bigger waste of time than watching award show

 

[David_TheMan]

I can't think of a bigger waste of time than watching award show

I agree with you I don't watch them and I don't really keep up with all the craziness of people begging for nominations and movies getting ignored.
Enjoy the movies that you enjoy

 

[Saint1]

The best doesn't always win the most prestigoius award. this isn't anything new.

Just because it makes the most money doesn't mean it's the best, otherwise Harry potter would be the best movie series of all time.

The award is supposed to go to the BEST film that tells a story, has great performances and great production. not a fan favorite. Although this year LA LA Land is just winning off being a god damn musical.

 

[Mortal1]

The past oscar nominees have been niche and do not appeal to the common movie viewer the oscar films that did have great success where more universal in theme and subject Titanic = one of the most horrific accidents in history, Dances with Wolves = Native Americans and frontier life in America, Gladiator = Big Roman based epic drawing back to the old days of films like Spartacus etc..

 

[MartyMcFly]

[

.

Same token, what makes Zero Dark Sixty anything more than a jingonist military propaganda action movie? What makes it different than say Top Gun? Top gun is inducted to the national preservation of film archives, but its not good enough to be nominated for best film, but you move 30 years ahead and you can get a movie that removes the jets and puts in soliders and its a nominee?

Make a throwback sword and sandals epic and get nominated (Gladiator) but first mummy can't get a nomination? Its all so incredibly subjective and arbitrary.[/QUOTE]

No the criteria is the things you learn in film school homie. Kubricks movies are rated highly and they weren't all box offices smashes. There are plenty of movies that are ranked highly that didn't do diddly at the box office.

No country for old men and there will be blood are perfect examples of that. Not smashes by any means but critical smashes and oscar winners. No country for old men isn't even the highest grossing Coen brothers movie and it's talked about as one of their best.

 

[Tasha And]

I'll say this (or reiterate if it's already been said). The limited relase of "oscar caliber" films is annoying as hell, and for most movie goers, they probably won't ever know when it's actually in a theater near them. I watched 60+ films in theaters this year, I go multiple times a week, and it was a pain in the ass to catch some of the better films released in 2016. The film will have a release date, but when you check your theater or the wiki page, you find out that it's limited, and you might have to wait a few weeks or a month until it's anywhere near you. Jackie had an early Dec release date officially but I had to keep checking wikipedia before it updated and said the wide release would be around Christmas. I did eventually get around to seeing most of what I wanted, but I had to fukking make a spreadsheet and update it with release dates just so I wouldn't miss anything.

That's way too much for most movie goers.

 

[MartyMcFly]

I'll say this (or reiterate if it's already been said). The limited relate of "oscar caliber" films is annoying as hell, and for most movie goers, they probably won't ever know when it's actually in a theater near them. I watched 60+ films in theaters this year, I go multiple times a week, and it was a pain in the ass to catch some of the better films released in 2016. The film will have a release date, but when you check your theater or the wiki page, you find out that it's limited, and you might have to wait a month or two before it's actually anywhere near you. I did eventually get around to seeing most of what I wanted, but I had to fukking make a spreadsheet and update it with release dates and and shyt just to make sure I didn't miss it.

That's way too much for most movie goers.

Exactly what me and someone else said earlier. The limited release shyt hurts. Unless you live in cali or New York or sometimes D.C.

 

[Soymuscle Mike]

I don't really care about critics or awards but if you're going to host a party as such they should reward ideas as well.

I saw dude mention Rogue One, the 8th entry in a franchise, and Civil War, the 15th or sth?

They can be entertaining as fukk but you don't reward shyt like that. At this point all those entries are just to please the existing fanbase they're not pushing or reinventing or challenging the status quo films.

Arrival is a braver concept than any SW movie except for the OG, plus it was done very well so of course that should get noted more than Rogue One (or any comic book movie). In these cases the Oscars definitely got it right, and of course they get it wrong sometimes as well.