-
-
They used to regularly nominate popcorn pictures like “Airport” and “The Towering Inferno” back when there were just five nominees.
These days, even with up to 10 films making the Beat Picture lineup, why aren’t we seeing popular fare that is well-reviewed, such as “Guardians of the Galaxy,” nominated?
ReplyMaybe it’s because the majority of the academy doesn’t work on these types of films and would rather nominate a film which could benefit financially from an Oscar such as The Theory of Everything or Birdman did last year.
This year they have at least three opportunities to nominate a popcorn film for Best Picture, Star War’s: The Force Awakens, Mad Max:Fury Road and Inside Out all have shots at getting a nomination. Inside Out seems the most likely popcorn film to be nominated this year.
ReplyCopy URLAnonymous
^Uh-huh.
Which Towering Inferno btw? You mean, the all-star-studded cast from 1974? That cliche-ridden film was worth it for the cast and the Vx. Screenplay? Lol.
Are Oscar voters snobs? Especially when it comes to Best Picture?
That’s not the noun I would assign to them. Btw, what exactly, is a “popcorn” movie? An entertaining one?
Lol
ReplyCopy URLGuards of the Galaxy was shit and Mad Max is just mediocre. Both are good actions, but that’s all.
I’m glad I didn’t have to be the one to say this because I’m not in the mood to defend it!
To answer the question though–I mostly think this is a troublesome thing to consider. It seems to be that the conversation used to be “why aren’t independent filmmakers being recognized?” or “why do so many great films go unnoticed by The Academy?” And, in a lot of ways, that question isn’t asked anymore because The Academy listened, got snobbier and started paying attention to smaller pictures that are often great despite the fact that the majority of the country doesn’t ever watch them. So now we’re whining about the fact that the studio films, franchise films, big-budget money-makers aren’t getting recognized by the same group of people we once asked to pay attenion to smaller films? To be honest, these huge films don’t need the recognition of the Oscars to leave a mark in film history.
My vote is for Oscar voters to be even MORE snobby. I want them to go further than the palatable nonsense of things like The Theory of Everything and David O. Russell films. Snobs enjoy things like Ex Machina, It Follows, The Lobster, Under the Skin, Inherent Vice, The Master and Terrence Malick. Give me more of that flavor at the Oscars!
ReplyCopy URL[quote=”Vincelette”]
Guards of the Galaxy was shit and Mad Max is just mediocre. Both are good actions, but that’s all.
I’m glad I didn’t have to be the one to say this because I’m not in the mood to defend it!
To answer the question though–I mostly think this is a troublesome thing to consider. It seems to be that the conversation used to be “why aren’t independent filmmakers being recognized?” or “why do so many great films go unnoticed by The Academy?” And, in a lot of ways, that question isn’t asked anymore because The Academy listened, got snobbier and started paying attention to smaller pictures that are often great despite the fact that the majority of the country doesn’t ever watch them. So now we’re whining about the fact that the studio films, franchise films, big-budget money-makers aren’t getting recognized by the same group of people we once asked to pay attenion to smaller films? To be honest, these huge films don’t need the recognition of the Oscars to leave a mark in film history.
My vote is for Oscar voters to be even MORE snobby. I want them to go further than the palatable nonsense of things like The Theory of Everything and David O. Russell films. Snobs enjoy things like Ex Machina, It Follows, The Lobster, Under the Skin, Inherent Vice, The Master and Terrence Malick. Give me more of that flavor at the Oscars!
[/quote]This; although it would help if we placed a definition for the word “snob”, as in film snob. The more esoteric, creative, and ‘out there’, the more I generally like it.
The difficulty lies in Oscar being a business. It almost has to cater to the mainstream with their mainstream ‘tastes’. Not always bad, but it dictates a lot imo.
ReplyCopy URLWhy?
The mainstream press; flawed education ‘systems’ where reading, writing, spelling, grammar, and critical thinking is discouraged; repeating lying mantras over and over again until noone questions them; fluoridated water; toxic phuds; making it easier to ‘follow the crowd’…..lots of other stuff.
Well, you asked.
ReplyCopy URL. . .
Btw, what exactly, is a “popcorn” movie? An entertaining one?Lol
Not only entertaining, but one that was made purely for entertainment . . . you can check your brain at the door on the way in . . . there won’t be any content requiring any thinking. Typically an action movie, often with stunts that employ Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics (according to the Intuitor web site), which is why you need to check your brain at the door, with the studio, producers and distributor hoping it will be the Summer Blockbuster. I would class the Mummy, MiB, Mission: Impossible, Back to the Future, and Indiana Jones franchises as popcorn movies. Most recently, Jurassic World is a popcorn movie.
John
ReplyCopy URLAirport is honestly made for TV trash. I couldn’t finish watching that disaster fast enough.
Popcorn~ movies would have easier times getting nominated if they were so mediocre half the time. Probably half the reason people are so attached to Fury Road and why people were so pissed TDK got tossed aside. They’re both actually worth the hype placed on them.
ReplyCopy URLI’m not sure if they are snobs. Sure you used to have movies like Jaws and Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark get nominated for BP, but since when have we had blockbusters that good? And yet, we still will occasionally have a blockbuster be nominated (Avatar, Up, District 9, Toy Story 3, Inception, the Lord of the Rings films, Gravity).
Obviously there are always snubs (The Dark Knight chiefest among them), but there were snubs back then too. Back to the Future, Close Encounters, The Empire Strikes Back, etc.
I will say that if you look back at the top ten highest grossing movies of the year for the 1970s and 80s, you generally have a much better set of films then we get now (and subsequently more Oscar nominees). But that has more to do with modern Hollywood’s obsession with sequels, prequels, and spin-offs and people’s willingness to eat them up than anything else. Oscar shouldn’t have to nominate a blockbuster if it’s shit.
ReplyCopy URL
