Home Forums Movies Why are Oscar voters such snobs?

Why are Oscar voters such snobs?

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
Created
2 years ago
Last Reply
2 years ago
23
( +1 hidden )
replies
1200
views
17
users
5
3
1
  • Paul Sheehan
    Keymaster
    Joined:
    May 14th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195023

    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?

    Reply
    ATadPolish
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 5th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195025

    Maybe 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 URL
    Anonymous
    Joined:
    Jan 1st, 1970
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195026

    Guards of the Galaxy was shit and Mad Max is just mediocre. Both are good actions, but that’s all. The Towering Inferno is a masterpiece.

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195027

    ^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 URL
    benutty
    Keymaster
    Joined:
    Jul 3rd, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195028

    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!

    ReplyCopy URL
    M
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 5th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195029

    They’re not snobs at all. Octavia Spencer and Matthew McConaughey are Oscar winners.

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195030

    [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 URL
    M H
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 7th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195031

    Perhaps a better question is why have mainstream audiences developed such bad and monolithic taste. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195032

    Why?

    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
    John
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 3rd, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195033

    . . .
    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 URL
    AMG
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 20th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195034

    Popcorn movie I.e. A film made primarily to make a killing at the box office, with little care or consideration for the story, characters or anything that a film SHOULD be made for!

    ReplyCopy URL
    DamianWayne
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 21st, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195035

    Airport 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 URL
    DominicCobb
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 12th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195036

    I’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
    CanadianFan
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 23rd, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195037

    Thankfully, they are moving to the indie sphere.

    Most big studio films are bad. In some respects, I would say they are not snobby enough (noms for ‘The Help’, ‘Precious’, ‘Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close’). 

    ReplyCopy URL
    24Emmy
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #195038

    I’ll take several popcorn films over the dreadful British period dramas that storm our lives at the end of the year.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
Reply To: Why are Oscar voters such snobs?

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Similar Topics
AviChri... - Oct 18, 2017
Movies
Hunter-ish - Oct 18, 2017
Movies