Oscars to add "Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film" Category

Kurt Russell deserves lifetime achievement award of some kind. One of those shows needs to honor him.

 

“In Memorium” is a downer. We’re replacing it with “Alive & Awesome!”

 

Man, talk about desperation. And just a backhanded compliment-“hey, we want the viewership you’ll bring, but we still don’t actually respect you.”

 

So you'd be fine with three hours of jokes about black people and women, right?

 

what does this have to do with "popular movie" category

 

I've seen a lot of black comedians make fun of black people and female comedians make fun of women. It didn't seem offensive. Maybe some people just aren't so easily aggrieved.

 

Precisely why Whoppie should host.

 

Some people seem to be trying really hard to get this thread locked for politics (I'm looking at you, rhymes with Bodiac)

 

"Crash" I would put third after "Gladiator" and "Braveheart" on the worst list. "Brokeback Mountain" should have won that year
I thought "Moonlight" was a very good film. I actually thought the Oscars that year would do what the NY Film Critics Circle did and give "LaLa Land" the Best Pic award, and Barry Jenkins Best Director, but they did the reverse

 

...I suppose my separate thread on this subject was deleted for reputation? Well, I did say in it that I'd looked at two pages and seen no threads on the topic.
Whatevah.
As for the " popular " concept, the obvious first thought for why they'd do it would be, obviously, " Can we, pulleazze, get some movies on the show that PEOPLE ACTUALLY SAW?!! " That was why the expansion to ten Best Pic nod-ees happened, you will remember. However, it has been posted out that that change actually, in a Law of Unintended Consequences illustration, made it even easier for Not So Big pictures to get nominated!
A second possible reason for this could be seen as ABC being thought to like the prospect of some of " their "...Disney/Lucas/Marvel/Pixar's...movies gettin' some love.
But, a VANITY FAIR pice came up with, quoting an " Academy insider ", still ANOTHER supposed reason for it!!! A rather convoluted concept where this would encourage the majority studios to Make Nicer Movies, return to being willing to finance high middlebrow Movies Like They Used To Make..............

 

...I'll point out that this Vanity Fair article somehow managed to drag Harvey Weinstein into the whole matter, too, blaming him in part for What's Wrong With The Oscars ...BTW, I think one problem with this-century Oscar telecast is that they try too hard to be tasteful/cool! What happened to the adorably tacky concepts of yore, I ask yez?

 

...Hey, COMICS JOURNAL guy. Sick of those adolescent power fantasies?







ostworld, post: 19266784, member: 10514"]Hey at least they’re admitting Marvel and DC will never be deemed the “high art” by the Academy. That’s a positive. I completely agree.[/QUOTE]

 

I long thought there should be a Box Office Oscar. Automatic win for largest gross.

 

Not a whole lot of suspense during the ceremony, though!

I think this new award is silly, but if they're gonna do it, they should at least make Academy members try to find the blockbuster they think has the most artistic merit.

I'm fine if they take the top 5 grossing films from one year as automatic nominees, but there should be a vote based on that pool.

I'd be happier if they used the top 10 as the pool and then generated 5 nominees - and an eventual winner - from it...

 

11 Movies That Could Have Won a Best Popular Film Oscar

 

I am kind of in the middle on the whole Oscar thing. On one hand I get that they are concerned about lack of viewers, for obvious reasons. But at the same time there's no point in making the awards about only what's most popular. If they did that they could merely suspend the voting and just give an "award" to the movie with the most ticket sales.

I get that they want to encourage and recognize films and performances that show talent rather than just appeal to the masses. But they haven't gotten the balance right in many ways. At least as I see it, but then that's just my opinion.

For example I loved Dunkirk last year. For Nolan it was not as big a seller as Batman, but it was relatively popular while updating a non-FX kind of filmmaking art and craft. At least it was nominated. My other favorite was at the opposite end of the spectrum, The Florida Project, precisely the kind of new film the Academy should have recognized. Other than Willem Dafoe's nomination for supporting actor, it went largely unrecognized and did not get a best picture nomination. Hard to figure they end up giving it to a fish guy.

 

I think "The Shape of Water" was a very well done film. But I also think it was seen by many as a political commentary on America today...not to veer into political territory here, but think of the Michael Shannon character as a Trump stand in, and see who gets revenge against him....

 

To paraphrase "Mad Men's" Don Draper when Peggy asks for "recognition" when he promotes her : "That's what the MONEY is for !"

 

Maybe I should have liked it more then.

 

Perhaps see it again in that context- in the film a handicapped woman, a Black woman, a gay man, and the ultimate "alien" defeat a racist , violence prone, sexually predatory man. Again, I don't want to get too political here, or offend anyone, but I can't help but think that this was the subtext of the film. Especially in the context of being created by a Mexican filmmaker.

 

The fallacy of such films is that they end up looking very ignorant as their reactionary political views are generally based on ignorance anyway.

 

I don't think the plan is going to be to just give it to the most popular movie. I would imagine they will take the top 5(?) grossing movies, then ask voters to pick their favorite among them.

It's still kind of a dumb concept. It's basically pandering to the masses, and allowing them to say to the Academy, "Hey, tell us that the movie we all liked was actually really good, and not just lowest-common-denominator garbage."

 

NOW I understand!
Your posts won’t bug me anymore!

 

So do some posts in this very thread.........

 

given it was conceived well before trump ran and shot before he won I think it is not appropriate to claim it is a response to him particularly. currently he represents the racist bigoted side of America that has been present since the beginning so any film being anti that can easily be considered specifically about him but I think it is more about intolerance racism etc in general which will likely continue to be a theme explored in films and real life long after Trump.