Is an Oscar what it used to be ?

[Mandon Knight]

General discussion about Oscar (and other award ceremonies really), in that, has the prestige, value and above all, honour of winning an Oscar or equivalent lost it's merit ? it's heritage ?

Great accolade was made of winning an Oscar back in the 30's, 40's, 50's, the golden age of film making or perceived golden era, where winning would mean something, have a 'feather in the cap', now I'm not saying it's lost its importance but there doesn't seem to be the career defining 'wow' factor these days with it, in a 'it'll never get better than this' feeling too it all, in fact, quite the opposite, it appears to have a 'deathnail' effect for some, Cuba Gooding Jr, Berry etc.

Any thoughts ?

 

[Herofan]

Hmm, I thought you would be comparing pre- and post-2010, the ceremony when Best Picture was expanded to up to 10 nominees.

It's somewhat hard to try to understand perceptions back in the '40s and '50s but I think perceptions of the Oscar were not that different even though filmmaking in general has changed. Stars probably did have more prestige and stability back then due to the few studios having such control but even then there probably were feelings that the wrong nominee sometimes won and/or that the Oscars were biased toward particular types of films. And even then some winners very much were character actors who had long but not very big careers.

I think the scarcity and attention of the award, relative to all the films and competition, still does have a lot of value with film buffs but that's a minority of viewers; the studios today don't give it a lot of value, winning doesn't particularly increase box office pull with the general public and thus studios aren't much more likely to cast winners as stars, let alone in expensive projects.

 

[DACrowe]

General discussion about Oscar (and other award ceremonies really), in that, has the prestige, value and above all, honour of winning an Oscar or equivalent lost it's merit ? it's heritage ?

Great accolade was made of winning an Oscar back in the 30's, 40's, 50's, the golden age of film making or perceived golden era, where winning would mean something, have a 'feather in the cap', now I'm not saying it's lost its importance but there doesn't seem to be the career defining 'wow' factor these days with it, in a 'it'll never get better than this' feeling too it all, in fact, quite the opposite, it appears to have a 'deathnail' effect for some, Cuba Gooding Jr, Berry etc.

Any thoughts ?

Overall yes. There is the "curse" of folks (ahem, usually minorities at that) who see their career opportunities diminish afterward. But usually that also is due to a lack of opportunity for minorities and women in general for good parts until recent years.

Winning an Oscar for an actor, filmmaker, or Best Picture for the film continues to be a career defining moment and is filled with prestige. Even if people around the world watch the Oscars less, they still watch the Oscars more than they do any other awards show, and the award isn't from the popularity of the public (generally) it is from the estimation of the industry. For all the politics, that still has resonance and historical value, as your performance or contribution is recorded as the year's best (even if it's not). At the very least, people decades later will look up and say, "So wait, how in the world did Ordinary People beat Raiders of the Lost Ark?!" Even if your work is not recalled as a classic 40 years later, it will still be valued for incredulity.

 

[DACrowe]

Hmm, I thought you would be comparing pre- and post-2010, the ceremony when Best Picture was expanded to up to 10 nominees.

It's somewhat hard to try to understand perceptions back in the '40s and '50s but I think perceptions of the Oscar were not that different even though filmmaking in general has changed. Stars probably did have more prestige and stability back then due to the few studios having such control but even then there probably were feelings that the wrong nominee sometimes won and/or that the Oscars were biased toward particular types of films. And even then some winners very much were character actors who had long but not very big careers.

I think the scarcity and attention of the award, relative to all the films and competition, still does have a lot of value with film buffs but that's a minority of viewers; the studios today don't give it a lot of value, winning doesn't particularly increase box office pull with the general public and thus studios aren't much more likely to cast winners as stars, let alone in expensive projects.

Disagree with this part. Studios still want prestige and the Oscars. Again, Oscars are status symbols within the industry run by the studios. If they didn't care about them, they wouldn't spend millions of dollars every year campaigning for them. There is somewhat a financial incentive, as smaller movies (which most studios at least claim they want to make, because they don't want to feel just like soulless IP-shovelers) do see box office boosts if they have awards buzz. Oscars helped propel in recent years movies like The Shape of Water, Three Billboards, La La Land, and Hidden Figures into being bonafide hits. Most people wouldn't have seen (or given money to) Moonlight if it had not won Best Picture.

But finally, studios are always anxious for the prestige of an Oscar and newly minted Oscar winners tend to be cast in high paying franchises in our IP-driven current industry. Look at Brie Larson and Alicia Vikander both winning Oscars in 2016. One became Captain Marvel and the other Lara Croft. Eddie Redmayne won an Oscar and a year later got to lead the Harry Potter spinoff franchise. Felicity Jones was nominated for the same movie and winds up leading a Star Wars film. After Michael Keaton was robbed of his Oscar by Redmayne, his status as a frontrunner and a "comeback kid" led to plum roles like The Founder, Spotlight, and a nice payday in a Spider-Man movie.

Studios still care.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Not exactly, they make it with new materials now so there are slight changes in the structure, but the statue mostly reminds the same.

Or where you talking about the prestige is brings?

 

[Mandon Knight]

Not exactly, they make it with new materials now so there are slight changes in the structure, but the statue mostly reminds the same.

Or where you talking about the prestige is brings?

Weight or wait perhaps ?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Weight or wait perhaps ?

Both it seems

 

[Herofan]

Disagree with this part. Studios still want prestige and the Oscars. Again, Oscars are status symbols within the industry run by the studios. If they didn't care about them, they wouldn't spend millions of dollars every year campaigning for them. There is somewhat a financial incentive, as smaller movies (which most studios at least claim they want to make, because they don't want to feel just like soulless IP-shovelers) do see box office boosts if they have awards buzz. Oscars helped propel in recent years movies like The Shape of Water, Three Billboards, La La Land, and Hidden Figures into being bonafide hits. Most people wouldn't have seen (or given money to) Moonlight if it had not won Best Picture.

But finally, studios are always anxious for the prestige of an Oscar and newly minted Oscar winners tend to be cast in high paying franchises in our IP-driven current industry. Look at Brie Larson and Alicia Vikander both winning Oscars in 2016. One became Captain Marvel and the other Lara Croft. Eddie Redmayne won an Oscar and a year later got to lead the Harry Potter spinoff franchise. Felicity Jones was nominated for the same movie and winds up leading a Star Wars film. After Michael Keaton was robbed of his Oscar by Redmayne, his status as a frontrunner and a "comeback kid" led to plum roles like The Founder, Spotlight, and a nice payday in a Spider-Man movie.

Studios still care.

Interesting points and good examples. I was mostly thinking of how little advantage and how much career decline Hilary Swank, IMO very unfortunately, got after winning twice. Jennifer Connelly also got little career boost although I almost wonder if she prefers supporting roles or if that's all she can get.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Look at how much work GDT is getting now fresh off The Shape of Water. Yeah, it matters

 

[redhawk23]

Look at how much work GDT is getting now fresh off The Shape of Water. Yeah, it matters

Despite the reporting, both of those contracts, with Dreamworks especially was really just him re-upping on contracts and relationships that he's had in place for about 10 years.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Despite the reporting, both of those contracts, with Dreamworks especially was really just him re-upping on contracts and relationships that he's had in place for about 10 years.

I thought the Searchlight deal was new?

 

[Deck Rickard]

Suicide Squad got an Oscar nomination, so... no, it doesn't mean anything anymore.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Suicide Squad got an Oscar nomination, so... no, it doesn't mean anything anymore.

It got one for Hair & Make-up, which was a good aspect of the film. Bad movies can be great in some regards. Heck, look no further than the SFX award. Usually a bad movie is in that group, but the overall quality doesn't matter. Good VFX are good VFX. Same for make-up.

 

[Deck Rickard]

LOL, I know. I was just making a joke.