Do you think Academy Awards has hurt film?

Tools    





I don't think the average film was better because they were harder to make. I think the people, the artists did better work.
I think this is kind of impossible. If the only people able to make movies back in the day were professionals who'd already worked in the industry, it's pretty much inevitable that the average film is going to meet a baseline level of quality that's not going to be possible when anyone with an iPhone can get it on the action.

On your last question, "Do you want more people to make films (lower average quality, but more people expressing themselves) or fewer (higher average quality, fewer people expressing themselves)" - I rather have a few more bad movies for a chance to get a couple of great ones.
Me too! And that's what we have now. We have way more films being produced than ever before, because we're a wealthier society with more leisure time, and because making films is as easy as it's ever been. That means we have to be (get to be?) more discriminating about what we watch.

When people say there's a lot of crap movies out there, they're not wrong. What they seem not to realize is there's still a lot of great movies, too. There's just a lot more of everything.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
This started with the AFI Top 100, or just the best movies in general. Now anyone can make a movie, but regardless, wouldn't you say there were more GREAT films before as compared to today.. Not just the GREAT movies, but a ratio. I think that a majority of movies made 50 years ago compared to a majority of today's movies were better back then. This isn't my opinion, but the opinion of people, critics, etc., --- still, it's all opinion. Someone can think "Howard The Duck" is a great film, but I was 6 at the time



This started with the AFI Top 100, or just the best movies in general. Now anyone can make a movie, but regardless, wouldn't you say there were more GREAT films before as compared to today..
I would not, no. I think there are lots of great films today.

Not just the GREAT movies, but a ratio.
Well, that's an entirely different question. Yes, the ratio of great films to non-great ones is totally different, because people are making lots more films. There are more crappy or mediocre movies than there used to be, and therefore the ratio has shifted. I don't see this as a problem, however, and it certainly wouldn't be an indicator that we're getting worse at making movies.

I think that a majority of movies made 50 years ago compared to a majority of today's movies were better back then.
I agree, but for the reasons I mentioned earlier: there was a higher barrier to entry, and thus higher standards. But a lot of people who might have been able to make great films never got a chance. I don't think that's better.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Are you talking about youtube videos some of us make on here for fun? I agree that suppression of artists who made great films weren't given the chance; I use the Hollywood Ten Blacklist for example. I think universal valued humanistic systems suffered, although in other countries where they didn't look for Communist Party members under every bed still made great films. Bergman in Sweden, Kurosawa in Japan, De Sica, Pontecorvo, Fellini, etc., in Italy.

I looked at your Top 10, most were older movies. For not only my sake, but for others, can you name some of the greatest films ever that are new? I'd like to see them, I would never want to deprive myself of seeing something great. And to further that, the new movies I watch are critically acclaimed, films with awards, including the great thinkers on this board.

Wouldn't you agree that many of the older films won't ever be watched because of silly things like "It's old" or "I hate black and white" - Most people I know from many countries almost seems like the movies are imposed on them. So many people will say how they'll watch a movie on TV, so they're only getting current movies, unless you watch TCM, which I think is the best channel for films, not only because of how great a lot are, but the fact it's the only cable news channel that doesn't interrupt films.

But I'm being serious about being open to seeing the really great films of today considering you probably have a good idea the kinds of films I watch. I only discuss because I want everyone to find great movies every day. That's my passion. And for that to happen, sometimes we have to lay our egos low, and try to be more open when someone introduces you to something.

I'll end with a small example. My cousin (young adult) says he loves philosophy and wants to get into that, and so I'll go over to his place, put it in, and within ten minutes, he'll say, "I don't get it." - If people don't know the terms, theorists, and don't educate themselves, of course they won't like it, but it's probably for the wrong reasons. If you can't understand the vocabulary, you can miss out on the entire movie, especially in the 40's when the language was a bit different, different times, values, things that would seem decadent to an average viewer who didn't live during those days.



The movies that go to the Oscars absolutely are not Hollywood blockbusters, but I do find them relatively mainstream compared to the foreign gems I don't discover until 1-2 years later. Personally, I rarely like the choices they make, but still pay attention for the culture of it all. And they don't always bring attention to the best films, but I do appreciate the attention they bring to film in general.

Do the Academy Awards hurt film? I don't know. I don't really care, TBH. I just love arguing with people about the selected films. Maybe I even enjoy being outraged by the snubs etc. every year.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
The movies that go to the Oscars absolutely are not Hollywood blockbusters, but I do find them relatively mainstream compared to the foreign gems I don't discover until 1-2 years later. Personally, I rarely like the choices they make, but still pay attention for the culture of it all. And they don't always bring attention to the best films, but I do appreciate the attention they bring to film in general.

Do the Academy Awards hurt film? I don't know. I don't really care, TBH. I just love arguing with people about the selected films. Maybe I even enjoy being outraged by the snubs etc. every year.
It sounds like the reason why I'll watch the major 3 networks for news. I'm interested in what millions of people are listening to, and it's pretty scary.

What's your pick for Best Picture? I thought "Boyhood" was ok, but pretty sure it'll win. Maybe Linklater can make an indie next with the advertising of "From the director who brought you 'Boyhood'" and have a one-scene movie like "Tape" or the "Before ______" series.



It sounds like the reason why I'll watch the major 3 networks for news. I'm interested in what millions of people are listening to, and it's pretty scary.

What's your pick for Best Picture? I thought "Boyhood" was ok, but pretty sure it'll win. Maybe Linklater can make an indie next with the advertising of "From the director who brought you 'Boyhood'" and have a one-scene movie like "Tape" or the "Before ______" series.
Yes, I'd say Boyhood as well. I wasn't too big on The Grand Budapest Hotel or Birdman, and I couldn't stand American Sniper. I still have to see Selma and The Imitation Game, but as of now I think of Boyhood as the best all-around movie out of the choices.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
I didn't like Birdman, thought I would. I think Michael Keaton is a decent actor. A few of my friends said Grand Budapest was bad after telling them I liked Rushmore... I won't see American Sniper only because I know it's going to be a nationalistic POS.. I know it's historically incorrect, even Eastwood said of Bill Maher and Michael Moore, "They're right,"
but I'm guessing "Selma" is going to be typical. Haven't heard of The Imitation Game... I didn't like Inherent Vice, and PTA is my favorite director who still makes film. I'd put Linklater at 2nd... If Boyhood was made by anyone else, I'd probably like it more - I guess I come to expect more from Rick, he didn't really have to write anything, it's all been said in his earlier films, and I'm not a boy anymore, and I don't have kids (doubt that would change my opinion).



Registered User
I don't see any benefits... During every show they all joke about how long and boring it is. It seems like a place to compare clothing. I haven't watched in a while, but I remember a great movie that had a 10 second music clip would have forever shows during the Oscars with all the dancers, this and that... Also, I don't think many people are interested in "Best Choreography" as they are in whose presenting them. I think it's mostly a big business show; they know already how many people are going to watch it, and that kind of prediction seems like we're not too original. I looked at the "Best Picture" list, and the movies seem to be getting worse and worse. If you go back 40-50 years, you have 5 great films, lots of snubs.

They know if you have a certain actor, they know it will equal x amount of viewers.. They know a "Best Picture" will add a few more million viewers. Commercials wouldn't be so expensive if they didn't influence. The Superbowl commercials cost $150,000 per second. Every major news channel was talking about the commercials, and how they seem depressing, and how that's working, etc etc...
I think the Oscars good, even though there have been lots of questionable picks. I don't think it's all just a "big popularity contest". I think back in the day, less films were made per year, so likely the critics had an easier time sifting through available films to choose the best ones.

Even if the a movie doesn't win BEST PICTURE, the nominations will bring about so many more viewers. I'm not saying people are manipulated to liking certain things (at least not the people here) but what happens is that a great movie, say with a low-budget, or one that doesn't have "pretty" actresses, or household names won't ever get the attention.
If it has a low budget and marketing then it's going to be hard for the film to get noticed; there's no way they could possibly go through every film ever made.



I try to see all the movies that get nominated for best picture. Sure I see some crap, but occasionally I get a Whiplash or a Birdman. I say it is a good thing. I see some flicks that may not have been on my radar outweighs the crappy Oscar bait.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Without the Oscars, I think the word on great films would get out, but maybe more selection... Having said that, a lot of Oscar Best Picture winners are great films. And having said that, I know sometimes I just look at the Best Picture winner when I need something to watch... And, the stuff on TCM this month are not only winners, but nominations too, which is great, as I've seen a few great films I never heard of before.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
It seems so this year.. It's a show to advertise (and pat themselves on the back) the movies but I wonder if people remember who won/lost, and if there's a surge in those movies that were at least nominated for Best Picture



Welcome to the human race...
You're asking people on a movie forum, we're probably more likely to remember winners and losers than most. Just the other day we were relitigating the 58th awards and what we thought deserved the win over Out of Africa.

As for this year, I have to imagine that CODA being a Best Picture winner/nominee prompted people to sign up to Apple TV+ just to watch it (I know I did).
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Registered User
Yes, it's easy to make a film, but it doesn't mean it's going to be viewed.


Same problem in music. Never has it been so easy to make your music available to an audience. Today, however, there is a ton of clutter. Everyone is an artist. Every hack and their dog is on Soundcloud or Bandcamp or YouTube. More music than ever is being made, but more of it is bad.



Originally Posted by original title question
Do you think Academy Awards has hurt film?
No.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



The trick is not minding
It seems so this year.. It's a show to advertise (and pat themselves on the back) the movies but I wonder if people remember who won/lost, and if there's a surge in those movies that were at least nominated for Best Picture
Considering it has long been my goal to watch every film ever nominated for BP, yes. I go through them often*. Iím a bit behind, but Iím also not most people. I dare say the same about those on this board. The average person isnít going to care, but most of us will seek the nominees out to see if they were worth the nominations to behind with.

*I have made amazing progress over the years. Still lots to watch.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Same problem in music. Never has it been so easy to make your music available to an audience. Today, however, there is a ton of clutter. Everyone is an artist. Every hack and their dog is on Soundcloud or Bandcamp or YouTube. More music than ever is being made, but more of it is bad.

Yes, it makes it hard for the talented ones with so much saturation.



I was hoping talented people would upload straight to YouTube, get so many views because it's actually good, and then get funding for their next project if they wished.



I don't think the Academy Awards have hurt film. I do think their choices have hurt the prestige of the Academy Awards itself. Becoming much more overtly political than they were before, especially in the last few years, I think have hurt the ratings for the Academy Awards. I also think the movies they are nominating are also hurting the perception of the awards because they are increasingly tending to choose an increasingly narrower band of films that are not widely seen or appreciated by the public at large. The movies they used to choose were both widely seen and appreciated, and of a high quality. When they continue to nominate movies that the public has largely not seen, or which are not widely appreciated, it impacts who is interested in watching the Academy Awards. I also think that the prestige of the awards has declined because they are not viewed by the majority of the public as the trusted arbiter of quality that they once were. They are still being seen that way now by some, namely industry professionals and film critics, but it's becoming a much smaller number of people in my opinion, and that does not bode well for the longevity of the Academy Awards, or its continued place in our culture.