2009 Academy Awards (from Avatar thread)

[DolfanBob]

Wow. It looks like the Academy is going to go ahead and let a huge box office draw and money maker, have a chance at one of their precious awards.
I guess I better watch the Hurt Locker so I can see why it beats out Avatar.
I hate to seem senicle but thats usually what the stuffed shirts of Hollyweird do.
Anything that makes money and is popular is usually left to just be satisfied with its personal gain.

[rwarn17588]

Wow. It looks like the Academy is going to go ahead and let a huge box office draw and money maker, have a chance at one of their precious awards.
I guess I better watch the Hurt Locker so I can see why it beats out Avatar.
I hate to seem senicle but thats usually what the stuffed shirts of Hollyweird do.
Anything that makes money and is popular is usually left to just be satisfied with its personal gain.

Dude, 19 of the last 20 films that won Best Picture grossed well over 100 million dollars. The one that missed the mark grossed $98 million -- not exactly chump change.

Eighteen of the last 20 Best Pictures grossed $200 million.

The Academy apparently very much likes box-office hits. Where are these stuffed shirts that you claim?

[Hoss]

Dude, 19 of the last 20 films that won Best Picture grossed well over 100 million dollars. The one that missed the mark grossed $98 million -- not exactly chump change.

Eighteen of the last 20 Best Pictures grossed $200 million.

The Academy apparently very much likes box-office hits. Where are these stuffed shirts that you claim?

I don't doubt that, but the question now is how much of that box office was made AFTER it won Best Picture.  That would be an interesting statistic.

[Conan71]

I don't doubt that, but the question now is how much of that box office was made AFTER it won Best Picture.  That would be an interesting statistic.

That's true.  Some of those flicks were pretty obscure before awards season.  No one knew about "Slumdog Millionaire" until it won.

Although, getting back to Dolfan's point, Titanic was a huge grosser well before the Oscars and yet it still won best pic.

Is it just my imagination, or is this the first year they have had 10 best pic nominees?  Tell me they aren't doing that in every category this year. 

[Hoss]

That's true.  Some of those flicks were pretty obscure before awards season.  No one knew about "Slumdog Millionaire" until it won.

Although, getting back to Dolfan's point, Titanic was a huge grosser well before the Oscars and yet it still won best pic.

Is it just my imagination, or is this the first year they have had 10 best pic nominees?  Tell me they aren't doing that in every category this year. 

No, it's just Best Pic they're doing that in.  I remember hearing about it earlier this week, and the reasoning, but I can't remember why now.  Damned age...

[rwarn17588]

I don't doubt that, but the question now is how much of that box office was made AFTER it won Best Picture.  That would be an interesting statistic.

Well, as a movie buff, I can tell you the Best Picture movies from the past 20 years that were hits before the Oscars:

Big hits:

"Dances with Wolves"
"The Silence of the Lambs"
"Schindler's List"
"Forrest Gump"
"Braveheart"
"Titanic"
"Gladiator"
"The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"
"The Departed"
"Unforgiven"

Sizable hits

"Million Dollar Baby"
"Slumdog Millionaire"
"A Beautiful Mind"
"Chicago"
"American Beauty"
"The English Patient"
"Shakespeare in Love"
"No Country for Old Men"

One that did only OK before the Oscars:
"Crash"

All but one of these movies found a large and appreciative audience before the Oscars. Half of the list consists of big, popular movies. And even the one that supposedly didn't do well was a relatively low-budget film that got back all of its investment in one week and wound up earning more than 10 times its cost.

[rwarn17588]

No, it's just Best Pic they're doing that in.  I remember hearing about it earlier this week, and the reasoning, but I can't remember why now.  Damned age...

The trade mags have reported that reason the Best Picture field was expanded because a bunch of folks were mad that "The Dark Knight" wasn't a nominee last year.

(And I concur that its omission was a big mistake. It may have been a superhero movie, but it was positively Shakespearean as a human tragedy.)

The Academy thought the risk of having too many Best Picture nominees was better than having too few.

[Hoss]

The trade mags have reported that reason the Best Picture field was expanded because a bunch of folks were mad that "The Dark Knight" wasn't a nominee last year.

(And I concur that its omission was a big mistake. It may have been a superhero movie, but it was positively Shakespearean as a human tragedy.)

The Academy thought the risk of having too many Best Picture nominees was better than having too few.

I hope we can agree to disagree here.  Although I liked DK, I don't think it was BP material.

Honestly...would the hype have been so big had Heath Ledger not passed right after it's filiming?  I seriously wonder...

[rwarn17588]

I hope we can agree to disagree here.  Although I liked DK, I don't think it was BP material.

Honestly...would the hype have been so big had Heath Ledger not passed right after it's filiming?  I seriously wonder...

I don't think it would have mattered. The movie got such a powerful word-of-mouth the first week of its release, it was unbelievable. The Ledger death angle became secondary by then; his extraordinary performance overshadowed that.

Let's put it this way ... I went in with fairly high expectations, and it exceeded them in ways I didn't expect -- the sophistication of the script and the tortured ambiguity of the choices many of the characters had to make.

After reading what I just wrote, yeah, it was Best Picture material.

[Red Arrow]

Well, as a movie buff, I can tell you the Best Picture movies from the past 20 years that were hits before the Oscars:

Big hits:

"Dances with Wolves"
"The Silence of the Lambs"
"Schindler's List"
"Forrest Gump"
"Braveheart"
"Titanic"
"Gladiator"
"The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"
"The Departed"
"Unforgiven"

Sizable hits

"Million Dollar Baby"
"Slumdog Millionaire"
"A Beautiful Mind"
"Chicago"
"American Beauty"
"The English Patient"
"Shakespeare in Love"
"No Country for Old Men"

One that did only OK before the Oscars:
"Crash"

All but one of these movies found a large and appreciative audience before the Oscars. Half of the list consists of big, popular movies. And even the one that supposedly didn't do well was a relatively low-budget film that got back all of its investment in one week and wound up earning more than 10 times its cost.

I've seen Braveheart and Chicago.

[heironymouspasparagus]

rwarn,
How could you put Unforgiven on that list, then leave off Grand Torino??

Back to thread;  Avatar was/is great.  It deserves to get big crowds.  I think I would have preferred without the 3D crap.  It just ain't here yet.


But - there always has to be a "but"...
It follows the time proven concept of white man as saviour to the poor downtrodden savage.  It is "Dances With Wolves" in space.

And "Broken Arrow" (1950 James Stewart and Jeff Chandler)

[rwarn17588]

rwarn,
How could you put Unforgiven on that list, then leave off Grand Torino??

Because "Gran Torino" did not win Best Picture. All of the movies I listed were Best Picture winners from the past 20 years. All of them, with the possible exception of one, were box-office successes before the Oscars. About half of them were downright blockbusters.

I'm not sure why "Hurt Locker" hasn't made much money yet. Haven't seen it yet, but every description I've read indicates it is a thriller, Hitchcock suspense style. No one would ever accuse it of being a ponderous, plodding film.

I've seen quite a few movies this year. This is the best film sequence I saw in 2009:

[sgrizzle]

I tend to think the movies that win awards are the ones you will watch over and stand the test of time. Like Gone with the Wind, the Wizard of Oz and Star Wars. Of the last 20 yrs winners, almost all are a "watch once" or as DVD reviewers would rate it, a "rent."

One indicator about how re-watchable a movie is, is box office. Here are the first and second highest grossing movies or each of the last 20 years. Compare the previous list to this one:

Home Alone / Ghost
Terminator 2 / Robin Hood
Aladdin / Home Alone 2
Jurassic Park / Mrs Doubtfire
Forrest Gump / Lion King
Toy Story / Batman Forever
Independence Day / Twister
Titanic / Men In Black
Saving Private Ryan / Armageddon
SW: The Phantom Menace / Sixth Sense
The Grinch / Cast Away
Harry Potter / LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring
Spider Man / LOTR: The Two Towers
LOTR: The Return of the King / Finding Nemo
Shrek 2 / Spiderman 2
SW: Revenge of the Sith / CON: The lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe
POTC: Dead Man's Chest / Night at the Museum
Spider Man 3 / Shrek 3
The Dark Knight / Iron Man
Avatar / Transformers 2


Now keep in mind, I'd never suggest Home Alone should win an Oscar, but memorable movies, that are rewatchable, and advance the trade should be honored.

What also needs to be adjusted is timing. I believe the oscars should only include movies that hit major release in the previous 6-18 months. The end of the year is known as "Oscar movie time" as the veteran actors with the more deep philosophical pictures launch then. Consider this year, Avatar and Star Trek were both lauded by critics and have near-identical rating and are both in the same genre. However, Avatar is in theaters at the time of the nominations. One is the frontrunner to win, the other didn't make the top ten. Why? I say it's largely timing. Avatar came out in December and Star Trek in May.

Last year they had 5 nominees and all 5 were movies released in the last 7 weeks of the year. That can't be coincidence. This year, they upped it to ten slots, but there is still a lean:
Q1: 0 nominees
Q2: 2 nominees
Q3: 2 nominees
Q4: 6 nominees

[Conan71]

Film producers and distributors know when the best timing is to release a pic for Academy recognition if that's what they are worried about.  Money is the primary driver of the film industry.  Egos are a close second and awards are third, if you ask me.  I really don't worry too much about the awards programs it's just a self-love fest anyhow.

[rwarn17588]

Money is the primary driver of the film industry. 

I'm shocked, SHOCKED by your assertion.