MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Aren't the Oscars actually IRRELEVENT?

Aren't the Oscars actually IRRELEVENT?


Aren't they just a bunch of movie people patting each other on the back, voting for their 'friends or fellow brown nosers, or downright being 'bought' for their votes?

You just have to look at the list of nominees throughout the years, the winners and losers, and those that have been blatantly left unacknowledged.

(For example, Nicole Kidman winning best supporting actress for a five minute stint in The Hours, where her prosthetic nose actually upstaged her 'performance'. Ridiculous!)

Yes, I know sometimes ...once in a while...they get it right, more or less, but isn't it all just about nepotism and $$$$ and not really about rewarding true talent?

Anyone agree?




reply

I thought she was great as Cocknose.

reply

LOL!!!



reply

Haha

reply

lol

reply

Yes, the awards themselves are irrelevant, especially when you see what films usually win, but this year the show itself is relevant due to the Donald.

reply

Oh no doubt.

reply

Yeah, true, I am actually watching it live to see any political stuff really, don't normally bother.
Been a good show though, enjoying it, even though I am not too bothered about what wins what.

reply

No, if anything, Trump being elected has shown even more how irrelevant anything Hollywood does is.

reply

I must concur. Every industry seems to have its awards and self-congratulations. It's mostly marketing in the end.

In the case of the Oscars, I have pretty much lost interest in what the industry deems worthy. Sometimes the awards align with my observations, but mostly they don't.

There's some real head-scratchers there too! Hitchcock, Kubrick...never won anything. That right there is probably enough evidence to discredit them forever.

David Fincher's masterful 'Zodiac' didn't get nominated for anything at all...amazing.

Annie Hall, on the other hand, won four Oscars; now that I can agree with!

reply

Yes like you say, some real 'head-scratchers' there. For sure, it's mainly just a marketing tool.

reply

I largely agree with this. I do like when people I'm a fan of win, but that's as much interest or bias I put into it. I've watched them before if absolutely nothing else was on, but I've never had an investment in them. Sometimes they get it right, but I don't think it should be a metric for what's the, "best," or what's of quality at all.

After all the money and campaigning, it's basically just a popularity contest. You pointed out some amazing examples of why we shouldn't look towards a films, actors, or shows awards as a surefire way to know it'll be great. A moniker over your name or a number of nominations next to the title is hardly ever what makes or breaks something in terms of endurance or legacy when it comes to these things. It tends to be, time, the craft put into it, and just plain ol' sentiment from the viewer.

And, at the end of the day, that's what matters, in my opinion. That said, I do think celebrating arts is a good and necessary thing for a culture and society. Although people tend to think of films and the like as frivolous things, they do make quite an impact whether we can or like to realize it or not. Of course, this is coming from a film/tv junkie so I would feel that way, haha, but I do think they can be important in the grand scheme of it all. Story telling has lasted this long for a reason...

And dorky rant over :P

reply

I was shocked to learn that some Academy members vote without even seeing the movie, but just "go with the flow". That indeed makes it a popularity contest.

reply

Yeah, one of the best things Kimmel said about "Moonlight" was "You didn't even watch it did you? But you all love it SO much."

reply

Yeah, that was brutally honest. They spend more time criticizing politics than watching movies.

reply

<< For example, Nicole Kidman winning best supporting actress for a five minute stint in The Hours >>

To make matters worse, it was BEST ACTRESS, not supporting....when "The Hours" was a true ensemble piece. There was no lead actress in that film!

reply

I chose not to watch the Oscar ceremony this year after all the category fraud that was committed with regard to last year's Best Supporting Actress category.

reply

Oh, that sounds interesting. What do you mean? What happened? I wouldn't be surprised in any case.

reply

Geez, yes that's even worse. Totally ridiculous!!!!

reply

I know I have a bad attitude, but the last Best Picture winner I actually enjoyed and would watch more than once was A Beautiful Mind. There have been some good movies in the past that won, though. The 70s in particular had a bunch of good ones.

reply

Oh, the 70s were great for American film. Some called it the Golden Age for it, even. Those films, even the ones nominated and such had much more...I don't know, guts? Than they do now. It was more film first, and let's care about the awards later kind of attitude it seemed.

Maybe I'm talking out of my ass here, but you can just see in the list of films that came out then what a boon it was. I'm much more of a tv person these days, honestly, because I think that's where the majority of the quality is now. Maybe that's sacrilege to say on a site called, "moviechat," lol!

But basically, I feel ya!

reply

I agree about the films of the 70s. Basically new films are irrelevant now and have been for many years. It's now a fashion show. Critics were talking about the Academy Awards being irrelevant back in late 60s. Talent is irrelevant now. What gets talked about is who designed each dress. Movies started to die in the late 70s when all that mattered was blockbusters after Star Wars. When something good is done now it's shocking, as if "How did it get through all of the other crap?". Movies used to go in cycles by the different decades. It's all become a permanent con. TV is just about the only place where something good can be done. Sitcoms in the 90s were the last to do it. Gather together a small group of talented people, keep them together, and they can turn out good work for a few years.

reply

Yes the 70s were great for American film, I have to agree. So many great films from this period, throughout all genres. Some great European films too in the 70s.

Oh for sure, all those films and the people involved in them DID have more guts. Actually I think it was a very exciting and rewarding decade right across the Arts, for example, the music industry. So many great musicians and bands then too.

Nowadays, fashion, music and film can be very bland and boring. There's no guts, no real risk taking, no new auters. I fear for the future of film, I really do. Two genrations down the line, will anyone actually remember what a movie theatre was?

I'm a lot like you in that I too am more into TV now than film. That's a real shame, because before I would go and see a film at least 2 times a week, whereas now, I rather stay home and watch a tv show, because they are more interesting than what the movie theatres have to offer. In the first place, I don't even like their choice of films they screen, so imagine.

reply

Your last paragraph is exactly me, now. Why go to the theater when what I get on my tv screen will most likely be better? There is almost no incentive to really keep patrons going, to be honest. They're putting all their eggs into the superhero basket, for the most part, and that is limiting after a while.

Like I've seen people in the industry state, there is just no room much anymore for the "middle" movie. A movie done on a reasonably sized budget between the super indie film and the massive blockbuster that could sandwich comfortably between them, do well in the business still, while also being about something substantial. It's very sad, I worry for films future too, if they don't get with the times more and pay attention to how the market and its viewers are going.

Tv has already become the go to for a lot of folks, and who knows, maybe down the line it'll suck the film industry dry if it keeps being as great as it is....that among several other factors of course.

p.s. this is dipping into similar territory of the thread not too far below this one about tv surpassing film. I'd recommend checking that one out too ;)

reply

Oh don't get me started on those repetitive super hero / comic book films!!!! I'm so sick to death of them. Yeah, as if I am going to watch 20+ Spiderman/Batman/X-Men/EasyBoxOfficeGarbage films...when they just are all the same. Seriously. Maybe if I was 12 years old I would enjoy them, but even at 12 I had better taste.

Yes definitely, as you say, there is no room for the 'middle movie', and what a shame that is. Some of my favourite films, no, some of the BEST films imo are those kind of movies that are neither too small a budget, nor too big.

Back in the day, when my dad was a little boy he would go with his mother and siblings to their local cinema to see a double bill, most evenings. Sometimes he would stay put in his seat and watch the whole double bill again. Actually, maybe it was a triple bill! The thing is, that it was really cheap to go to the cinema, a great day's entertainment at a very reasonable price. There is no way anyone would be able to afford it now. Not in a big city, anyway. Nor would you want to with all the rubbish they churn out.

Now so many of those nice old fashioned cinemas are closing their doors to make room for franchise businesses like Starbucks, who can afford the huge hike in property leases most inner cities are experiencing. Even nice old fashioned cafeterias, the places with real 'character' are being replaced by the boring bland 'chains'. No wonder we prefer to stay home and watch tv!

I'll now go and check out the other thread you mentioned. Thanks for letting me know about it!👍



reply

I understand your frustration, I really do. It hurts even more considering how much I love movies and know what they're capable of and how they can make me feel and just aren't all that much anymore.

And even the superhero thing is being done better on tv these days! So it's not like that's going to last as the tentpole much longer anyways either. They better think of something else quick or they'll be lost in the dust, especially if creating content continues to be so democratized.

Hope ya like the other thread I mentioned, happy reading!

reply

Yes I posted there!

reply

Oh I agree some good films have won in the past (and many not so good).... but even then, in the prolific 70s, some great films and performances were snubbed too. For example, Don't Look Now in 1974.



reply

This year, it was worth watching just to see Janelle Monae in that dress!

reply

I had to google it ....god it was horrible!

Why can't they just turn up in their jeans?

reply

I think there is a midget in the back of her gown

reply

LOL

reply

I think the Oscars used to serve an important purpose during the age of video stores. There was no internet, no buzz, no way to stir up interest in films. The Oscars basically worked as a rating system and seal of approval. You bought your movie a bunch of Oscars and then you printed that crap right on the video box. Best picture! Best actress! And you rented it and took it home. Must be good. In this day and an age, it's just a circle jerk. Which is pretty much why the common man is fed up with it.

reply

You certainly have a point there. I agree. They were taken more seriously before we entered the age of internet.

reply

I haven't watched these "pat myself on the back" shows in decades. Bunch of idiots.

reply

Oh they are so full of themselves.

reply

Oh they are.

reply