New Moon related-deserves own thread.

[Aesop Rocks]

If New Moon Doesn't Win Awards, What's the Point of Awards?

Why does the movie industry even give out awards anymore? It's not like anybody cares what they think. New Moon was the biggest phenomenon of 2009, and the critics can't stand it.
—Glama, Detroit via the Answer ****** inbox


Can't stand the movie, or can't stand that you could stand the movie—to the tune of an obscene $268 million domestically so far?
I could make up my own All-Twilight-Franchise Awards to please you people (Best Almost Kiss: Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner!) but that's already out there. It's called the MTV Movie Awards.


You're right, though. Increasingly, the movies Hollywood likes to honor are not the same movies people like you want to see. (The Hurt Locker was great, according to the Hollywood Foreign Press. Did you see it? Exactly.) There are some exceptions—I'll share some examples in a second—but the real question is why.


The answer may kind of insult you...
...and that's that Hollywood—the moviemakers and the critics—seems to kind of not like you.
In fact it just may resent you and your populist tastes real bad. At least, more than it did back when the Academy honored Titanic with the Best Picture crown.


No one can say for absolute certain whether today's Golden Globes nominations are a direct result of this film-geek resentment, or merely a schoolmarmish need to instruct us all on good taste, but it's the best guess box-office historians have got.


"Inherent in the awards process is that the Academy and other industry people want to be the ones who dictate the culture, so if the public has already chosen a movie before them, they'll naturally try to buck it," posits Brandon Gray, who runs numbers for Box Office Mojo. "Not to mention, as wannabe artistes and intellectuals, they think one must appreciate darkness, ambiguity, relativism, primitivism and the gutter among other things."


In other words, Hollywood knows you liked New Moon and Star Trek and Transformers 2—it's wallowing around in all that Twilight cash as I write this. But by nominating brutal fare like Precious and Hurt Locker for Globes and (I'm sure) Oscars, it's saying, "Here's what you should like—ya tools."
But it isn't working.


According to Gray, "2008's Oscar Best Picture nominees were the least popular as a whole in decades, despite Benjamin Button having passed $100 million at the box office," and the underdog appeal of Slumdog Millionaire.


How long has the gap between Hollywood and the masses been growing? For years now. The year 2003, when The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Seabiscuit and other popular titles were nominated, "was the last time the Best Pictures were popular as a whole. Each year since, there's been a tremendous disconnect overall."


Got your own theory as to why? Tweet me; would love to hear it.

Um.....wow. Really? Really?

 

[Deaths Head II]

I thought awards were given for artistic merit. Silly me. Clearly if awards aren't given to the popular choices then they have no meaning.

New Moon should be get the Oscar for best picture and Megan Fox should get best actress for her role in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. They need to make a "**** blows up real good" category and give it 2012.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

The robot twins from ROTF? Best Support Actors!

 

[ross2287]

I got pissed when I saw a commercial earlier today calling it the best romantic movie of the year.

Really? Really...?

 

[mr. peasant]

I thought awards were given for artistic merit. Silly me. Clearly if awards aren't given to the popular choices then they have no meaning.

New Moon should be get the Oscar for best picture and Megan Fox should get best actress for her role in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. They need to make a "**** blows up real good" category and give it 2012.

I think the point the article's author is that the trend of late is for the critics to go out of their way to pick things that the masses don't seem to favor. For that matter, what really counts as 'artistic merit'? It seems the critics nowadays seem to focus purely on the issues being tackled (and more specifically, the angsty/depressing kind). Why can't art just be pretty? Personally, I think technique should count nearly as much as content and to that end, the mainstream movies tend to do better in the former.

 

[Motown Marvel]

if the s**tty movies are pulling the audiences and money, let them have that reward. and let the good films be recognized for their artistic quality at the awards shows. if you dont like whats nominated, thats fine. dont watch the award shows. just go watch transformers instead.

 

[corby]

if the s**tty movies are pulling the audiences and money, let them have that reward. and let the good films be recognized for their artistic quality at the awards shows. if you dont like whats nominated, thats fine. dont watch the award shows. just go watch transformers instead.

QFT

 

[mr. peasant]

if the s**tty movies are pulling the audiences and money, let them have that reward. and let the good films be recognized for their artistic quality at the awards shows. if you dont like whats nominated, thats fine. dont watch the award shows. just go watch transformers instead.

I'm just saying. Again, what counts as 'artistic quality' and 'good'? While the Globes aren't nearly as bad (thanks to their division of movies by genre), the Oscars are notorious for being very formulaic in their consideration of what makes good movies. Notice how few comedies ever get nominated, let alone win awards there?

 

[Deaths Head II]

I think the point the article's author is that the trend of late is for the critics to go out of their way to pick things that the masses don't seem to favor. For that matter, what really counts as 'artistic merit'? It seems the critics nowadays seem to focus purely on the issues being tackled (and more specifically, the angsty/depressing kind). Why can't art just be pretty? Personally, I think technique should count nearly as much as content and to that end, the mainstream movies tend to do better in the former.

Because art in any form just can't just be pretty. In paintings or any other medium there has to be elements like craft, style, and vision in play to make a work memorable or stand out. There is a reason why those common paintings of cabins in the woods that you see in your aunt's house aren't considered to be as good as something by Van Gogh. While your aunt may prefer that pretty little cabin in the woods, that does not make it a superior work of art. That painting was turned out quickly to be sold, the artist has made millions of them before, and he puts none of himself into it. Art is supposed to be a person basically saying "this is my vision and this is the only way I can show it to you." In every art form there is the pretty but ultimately forgettable works that don't offer much in terms of substance or soul. Why should films be the exception? Because films are so popular in American culture they don't have the follow the standard rules of art critique?

The only reason the Oscars try to stray so far from the public opinion nowadays is because of the rise of summer blockbusters. These movies are often made to show off the special effects and are naturally soulless. There are exceptions, but for the most part the special effects are there mostly to distract you from the shallow characters, the shallow plot, and the complete lack of a heart and soul. They're there mostly for a cheap thrill and if the Oscars embraced them as a work of art just because a lot of people like a cheap thrill then it will only ruin any integrity the Oscars might have. The awards are to be given out based on artistic merit.

I'm sure not even a lot of people that watch these popular films consider them to be fantastic cinema. A lot of people just go to see them for fun or whatever. So why should the people giving out these awards pretend they are works of arts? A lot of people don't even see these movies as works of art in the first place. They go to see the movie for fun. In the case of Twilight, most girls probably see them to see the hot guys or watch the story that was based off a woman's sex fantasy. If Twilight wins an Oscar, then those books for women with Fabio on the cover should win book awards. The only reason people make a big deal about movie awards being too artsy fartsy is because movies are the one medium everyone pays attention to in the US. So everyone thinks their movie opinion is supreme.

 

[Dark Helmet]

This is like the best article ever of all time & for all of the wrong reasons. An article whining about why New Moon not winning any awards. Well any serious awards that people will take seriously. New Moon will kick ass at the MTV Movie Awards though

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

Haha. Lets go post this on all the Twilight forums. LOL

 

[Motown Marvel]

I'm just saying. Again, what counts as 'artistic quality' and 'good'? While the Globes aren't nearly as bad (thanks to their division of movies by genre), the Oscars are notorious for being very formulaic in their consideration of what makes good movies. Notice how few comedies ever get nominated, let alone win awards there?

the award ceremonies have their own standards to live by. so again, if you dont like it, dont watch it.

 

[piccolo]

Great article. I have no problem with Hollywood saying "this is what you SHOULD be watching" because most of the time its true. The nominees for best picture are usually very good movies that were overlooked at the box office for blockbusters and crap like Twilight. New Moon was one of the worst movies I have ever seen, from a story, dialogue, and acting standpoint, and if it got anywhere near the oscars or even golden globes it would destroy all of my faith in humanity. I get why Hollywood keeps making the Twilight movies, they're a cash cow, but I do respect at least their refusal to put true crap anywhere near an awards ceremony.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

I think she said New Moon was better than The Hurt Locker.

Really? Really?

 

[mr. peasant]

Because art in any form just can't just be pretty. In paintings or any other medium there has to be elements like craft, style, and vision in play to make a work memorable or stand out. There is a reason why those common paintings of cabins in the woods that you see in your aunt's house aren't considered to be as good as something by Van Gogh. While your aunt may prefer that pretty little cabin in the woods, that does not make it a superior work of art. That painting was turned out quickly to be sold, the artist has made millions of them before, and he puts none of himself into it. Art is supposed to be a person basically saying "this is my vision and this is the only way I can show it to you." In every art form there is the pretty but ultimately forgettable works that don't offer much in terms of substance or soul. Why should films be the exception? Because films are so popular in American culture they don't have the follow the standard rules of art critique?

I agree with this. However, movie critics often neglect all of this in favor of the movie's message/theme to near exclusivity. If you think about it, it's actually the 'summer blockbuster' movies who innovate cinematography in the sense they are the ones thinking of new ways to shoot things, developing new technology and effects as well as polishing expensive ones into something that is more feasible for smaller companies to use.

The only reason the Oscars try to stray so far from the public opinion nowadays is because of the rise of summer blockbusters. These movies are often made to show off the special effects and are naturally soulless. There are exceptions, but for the most part the special effects are there mostly to distract you from the shallow characters, the shallow plot, and the complete lack of a heart and soul. They're there mostly for a cheap thrill and if the Oscars embraced them as a work of art just because a lot of people like a cheap thrill then it will only ruin any integrity the Oscars might have. The awards are to be given out based on artistic merit.

It's funny you should say this as to me, new special effects are to the movie industry (and theater) what new drugs are to the medicine and new construction methods and material are to architecture. Developing new special effects is kind of a major aspect of what is ultimately a very visual and auditory industry. Yes, storytelling is important as well but not the end all and be all or even the most important aspect. That kind of prioritizing would be more appropriate for the world of literature (i.e. books, comics, etc).

the award ceremonies have their own standards to live by. so again, if you dont like it, dont watch it.

My problem with it is that it is very formulaic. It's very predictable what the judges will like and thus producers, directors, etc alike are able to deliberately pander to those tastes in order increase their odds. Stuff that are depressing, morally ambiguous, set in a historical setting, based on an important social issue, requires actors to do outrageous things to themselves 'for the sake of their craft' etc all increase the odds of getting an Oscar nod. Notice how comedies, science fiction and the like almost never win regardless of their production values, innovation, cultural significance or wit in the dialog? I guess it's fair enough that people will like certain things more than others but why pretend to be judges who are supposed to be fair, impartial and objective?

I mean, should anyone create a biopic about a fat, hideous, Jewish, gay guy played by Johnny Depp who had to gain 50 pounds for the role and is nearly unrecognizable under makeup and set in an internment camp during WWII where the main character is tortured and eventually dies while his tormentor manages to get away scott free, and if said movie is released somewhere between November and December, you can almost guarantee it will at the very least be nominated for an Oscar if not actually winning it.

 

[Motown Marvel]

My problem with it is that it is very formulaic. It's very predictable what the judges will like and thus producers, directors, etc alike are able to deliberately pander to those tastes in order increase their odds. Stuff that are depressing, morally ambiguous, set in a historical setting, based on an important social issue, requires actors to do outrageous things to themselves 'for the sake of their craft' etc all increase the odds of getting an Oscar nod. Notice how comedies, science fiction and the like almost never win regardless of their production values, innovation, cultural significance or wit in the dialog? I guess it's fair enough that people will like certain things more than others but why pretend to be judges who are supposed to be fair, impartial and objective?

I mean, should anyone create a biopic about a fat, hideous, Jewish, gay guy played by Johnny Depp who had to gain 50 pounds for the role and is nearly unrecognizable under makeup and set in an internment camp during WWII where the main character is tortured and eventually dies while his tormentor manages to get away scott free, and if said movie is released somewhere between November and December, you can almost guarantee it will at the very least be nominated for an Oscar if not actually winning it.

i think you're being a bit too cynical about it. but to be completely sensible, what comedies and sci-fi movies have come out over the past few years that have been more worthy of nominations than the dramatic films that have been nominated? i actually believe that the academy would in fact nominate them were any of them worthy. but an oscar quality sci-fi movie is extremely rare. lord knows i'd love to see one, but they just hardly ever happen. and if directors and such are trying to pander to the academy for what they think they want to see rather than taking a chance on being innovative, blame the directors for that, not the academy.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I agree with this. However, movie critics often neglect all of this in favor of the movie's message/theme to near exclusivity. If you think about it, it's actually the 'summer blockbuster' movies who innovate cinematography in the sense they are the ones thinking of new ways to shoot things, developing new technology and effects as well as polishing expensive ones into something that is more feasible for smaller companies to use.

It's funny you should say this as to me, new special effects are to the movie industry (and theater) what new drugs are to the medicine and new construction methods and material are to architecture. Developing new special effects is kind of a major aspect of what is ultimately a very visual and auditory industry. Yes, storytelling is important as well but not the end all and be all or even the most important aspect. That kind of prioritizing would be more appropriate for the world of literature (i.e. books, comics, etc).

Story should always come first, while visual effects are interesting, it's more icing on the cake than the actual cake. Some of the best movies don't even need a special effects team, because it's about the story, not stuff blowing up real good. By this logic Transformers 2 definitely should be nominated and win best picture, it's very pretty and using CGI to great effect. Who cares that the story is utter crap, things blew up real good and that's what really makes a movie good.

i think you're being a bit too cynical about it. but to be completely sensible, what comedies and sci-fi movies have come out over the past few years that have been more worthy of nominations than the dramatic films that have been nominated? i actually believe that the academy would in fact nominate them were any of them worthy. but an oscar quality sci-fi movie is extremely rare. lord knows i'd love to see one, but they just hardly ever happen. and if directors and such are trying to pander to the academy for what they think they want to see rather than taking a chance on being innovative, blame the directors for that, not the academy.

I do however, think good sci-fi does tend to get the shaft at awards shows. While it was a TV series and not a movie Battlestar Gallactica is one show that should've consistently been nominated and been winning awards, however, it's genre killed it.

As for movies, while not sci-fi, the comic book source material is what probably kept The Dark Knight from being nominated. I'm not saying that as a Dark Knight fanboy either, I saw Slumdog Millionaire and it was not a good movie, seriously conviently every bad experience in this kids life leads to a question on the game show? Chessy storytelling if you ask me. Benjamin Button, I like the movie better the first time I saw it, when it was callled Forrest Gump. The Wrestler, we're supposed to cheer for a guy who deliberately screws up the second chances he's being given to get his life on track.

In terms of pure sci-fi, I think Serenity would've been a good nomination, the acting was excellent and the story incredible. The rag tag outlaws uncovering the governments deep, dark secret that they created the universe's most dangerous people. Also the bad guy was great a bounty hunter who believes his cause is just until he learns the truth. I personally thought the movie was amazing and it was before I watched much if any of Joss Whedon's work.

 

[AndThePickles]

The nominees for best picture are usually very good movies that were overlooked at the box office for blockbusters

Very true.

 

[Matt.S99]

I got pissed when I saw a commercial earlier today calling it the best romantic movie of the year.

Really? Really...?

But dont they say things like that in almost every TRAILER? ''#1 movie of the year.'' ''Best movie of the year'' etc

 

[mr. peasant]

i think you're being a bit too cynical about it. but to be completely sensible, what comedies and sci-fi movies have come out over the past few years that have been more worthy of nominations than the dramatic films that have been nominated? i actually believe that the academy would in fact nominate them were any of them worthy. but an oscar quality sci-fi movie is extremely rare. lord knows i'd love to see one, but they just hardly ever happen. and if directors and such are trying to pander to the academy for what they think they want to see rather than taking a chance on being innovative, blame the directors for that, not the academy.

The problem is that the Academy eats it up and does award those panderers. That's why the term 'Oscar baiting' exists. Moreover, producers routinely promote their movies, actors, directors, etc to the Academy in order to receive a nomination. This clearly is a form of marketing. In other words, those who shell out the money, time and effort to attract the judges' attention are in a better position to win over those who don't regardless of their respective content. This is undoubtedly true or these companies wouldn't be diverting resources into it.

As for what comedies should have been nominated, one that comes to mind is Tropic Thunder. It is one of the best satires I've ever seen that successfully makes fun of while at the same time act as a tribute to the movie industry and the people in it. It was smart, with a witty script, memorable characters and accurate if somewhat exaggerated insights into the movie industry. Odds are, it will be a classic that will stand the test of time (for at least the next few years). Isn't this what the Best Picture ought to be?

Story should always come first, while visual effects are interesting, it's more icing on the cake than the actual cake. Some of the best movies don't even need a special effects team, because it's about the story, not stuff blowing up real good. By this logic Transformers 2 definitely should be nominated and win best picture, it's very pretty and using CGI to great effect. Who cares that the story is utter crap, things blew up real good and that's what really makes a movie good.

The key point here is innovation. While I don't claim to be an expert in the field, I didn't find the special effects in TF2 particularly groundbreaking or innovative. It was just more of the same of that which had already come before.

 

[Venomfan]

replace any mention of twilight in this article with the dark knight and you'll get what people were saying all over this site last year (or was it 2 years?)

 

[Aesop Rocks]

Best Romantic Comedy: The Dark Knight.

Wait...

 

[mr. peasant]

Well, if you think about it... the Joker would probably describe his relationship with Batman as somewhat like this.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

Someone in the Iron Man 2 boards complained about in the trailer how RDJ stole "you complete me from TDK". Granted it's not even used in the same context, Joker used it as a joke. Stark used it as a playful flirt toward Pepper.

Now I mean, if The Joker had a crush on Batman, I'm not one to judge...

 

[gwynplaine]

Someone in the Iron Man 2 boards complained about in the trailer how RDJ stole "you complete me from TDK". Granted it's not even used in the same context, Joker used it as a joke. Stark used it as a playful flirt toward Pepper.

Now I mean, if The Joker had a crush on Batman, I'm not one to judge...

No, I don't think so. He really meant it, and it wasn't romantic at all either. They're just like the Yin and the Yang. Two facets of the same character.