The problem is, some people felt that the Academy Awards don't pander enough to the general audiences by selecting movies that are popular or have high box office ratings. I.E. there wasn't enough 'Star Wars' or comic book films on the list of nominees, though 'The Last Jedi' was on the sound editing and musical score (thankfully, it didn't win. 'The Shape of Water' did.) A few opinion articles cropped up before the awards asking us to rethink Oscar. Should more box office hits be in the rankings?
For those who don't know, the Academy Awards started as a way for Hollywood to promote movies. It's taken on a more profound meaning since then, but marketing was one of the main reasons behind this show. It gave studios an opportunity to showcase movies to help push audiences to go out and see them. Since then, it's morphed to highlight the accomplishments of actors, directors, screenwriters, designers, and a small handful of the unsung heroes behind the screen. In doing so, it's been a place where both box office hits and indie flicks converge in the same room.
In fairness, I do think that there aren't as many big selling movies on the docket. But, it's for a good reason. They are not always thought-provoking, climate-changing movies. Many of them, 'Transformers,' 'James Bond,' 'Spiderman #591082' all exist with 2 specific purposes: to entertain and turn a huge profit. They don't exist to question to medium or challenge the current status of film. They entertain. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with this. But I would never put 'Spiderman' over 'The Shape of Water' in film composition. From the acting, directing, script, design, the popular films are not the best in quality. This is why we have movies like 'Get Out' and '3 Billboards' - movies that challenge our notion of reality and provide an experience that unsettles us in new ways. We need more of these movies in the mainstream settings. But those are not profitable, according to studios. Until we, the consumers, start spending our dollars more wisely, we'll continue to see more 'Transformers' and less 'Dunkirk.'
Why is this bad? Because the "popular" films typically pander to audiences. See my review on 'The Last Jedi'. It's no different then a "popular" video games. See my review on Battlefront II. These movies and games are designed to attract the most people possible. So their focus is on great visual effects and graphics, big battles and action sequences, with actors and actresses that you might like enough to buy a ticket for. Script, direction, the meat of the content doesn't matter. It's big robots fighting each other and Mark Wahlberg standing around, saying random things!
That's not art. That's pandering to get your money.
And that is not what the Oscars are about. When given the choice between 'Avatar' (the blue people one) and 'The Hurt Locker,' the right movie won in 2010. Hands down. 'The Hurt Locker' elevated what a "war" movie could be while simultaneously showing that a deep story can produce compelling action. You'll find a number of films post 'The Hurt Locker' emulating the same techniques. 'Avatar' brought 3D back to theaters, with mixed results. That's it! We're only now seeing the use of the digital effects in a realistic manner. 8 years later. So, um...thanks for the $35 ticket price for a movie I can't watch due to my eyesight? I'll stick with the $7.50 ticket.
Not all movies are created equal. And the best films are not going to be blockbuster hits. You may not know that they exist because Hollywood is constantly marketing what they think you want to see, not what's "good."
Of course "good" is a relative term. For this film-goer, it's not 'Transformers.'
If you like/love 'Transformers,' cool. That's your thing. Is it Oscar-worthy? Far from it. Let's keep the "box office" hits out of the Oscars until Hollywood produces MORE of these unique, complicated, and diverse ideas that they become the "box office" hits.
Why is this bad? Because the "popular" films typically pander to audiences. See my review on 'The Last Jedi'. It's no different then a "popular" video games. See my review on Battlefront II. These movies and games are designed to attract the most people possible. So their focus is on great visual effects and graphics, big battles and action sequences, with actors and actresses that you might like enough to buy a ticket for. Script, direction, the meat of the content doesn't matter. It's big robots fighting each other and Mark Wahlberg standing around, saying random things!
That's not art. That's pandering to get your money.
And that is not what the Oscars are about. When given the choice between 'Avatar' (the blue people one) and 'The Hurt Locker,' the right movie won in 2010. Hands down. 'The Hurt Locker' elevated what a "war" movie could be while simultaneously showing that a deep story can produce compelling action. You'll find a number of films post 'The Hurt Locker' emulating the same techniques. 'Avatar' brought 3D back to theaters, with mixed results. That's it! We're only now seeing the use of the digital effects in a realistic manner. 8 years later. So, um...thanks for the $35 ticket price for a movie I can't watch due to my eyesight? I'll stick with the $7.50 ticket.
Not all movies are created equal. And the best films are not going to be blockbuster hits. You may not know that they exist because Hollywood is constantly marketing what they think you want to see, not what's "good."
Of course "good" is a relative term. For this film-goer, it's not 'Transformers.'
If you like/love 'Transformers,' cool. That's your thing. Is it Oscar-worthy? Far from it. Let's keep the "box office" hits out of the Oscars until Hollywood produces MORE of these unique, complicated, and diverse ideas that they become the "box office" hits.
\
