Oscars to add "Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film" Category

True, it may have been conceived before Trump. I just can't help believing that a lot of people took it that way when they saw it, or that Del Toro wasn't fully aware of this when he was actually making it. Pehaps he was just prescient ...

 

in these heightened political times me and my wife can't help but see trump in movies from before he was born. he is just a unfortunate archetype.

 

Sadly, I agree....

 

I see all the Best Picture nominees, and my wife sees every film nominated in every category, and think the whole idea of a "Popular Film" category is a shame, and a sop to those people who see far too few films (we both loved The Shape of Water, though it is NOT our favorite del Toro film.)

 

I think you're a bit late on that, comrade

 

I think the academy is being naïve thinking it can bring people back with one little category. honestly I think most people nowadays just don't care to watch a ceremony like this and are happy with just seeing the results after the fact.

part of me really thinks this is just so they can give black panther a big award to ward of the Oscars so white crowd when it doesn't win best picture (not gonna say it deserves it one way or another I just don't see the academy ever giving best picture to a marvel movie no matter how great)

 

Well, I don't know what the thinking is here on this new award. It may be as you say.

But it is also possible that they could reward a popular film that was well done but did not add much to the overall art of film. Perhaps that is what some felt Dunkirk was, although I disagree it did not add much. I thought it did.

It is funny how far the Oscars have come, though, although I don't condemn them categorically for having a pov intended to promote film as an art form.

But compare I think it was 1935, when It Happened One Night was viewed in the industry and by critics as mediocre to okay, but was a huge success with the public. It swept the top four (best pic, best actor, best actress, best director). Clark Gable's only Oscar. Can't imagine something like that happening in this era.

 

It'll be interesting to see if there's ever any overlap between the "Best Picture" and "Best Popular Picture" (or whatever they end up calling it) category, or if it ends up working out that the Academy ends up only nominating pictures for "Best Picture" that weren't huge commercially, because they feel the "Best Popular Picture" category already has those covered.

None of the top 10 grossing pictures for 2017 were nominated for Best Picture.

 

And "The Shape of Water" did? Hahahahahhaah.

 

I tried in an earlier post to voice displeasure with the Shape of Water. It was just a bad choice, I don't know what the voters were thinking even trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. I did watch Mark Kermode's review of it, which was favorable. But for Mark also unconvincing. Didn't understand his pov for once.

 

The Shape of Water winning was Hollywood giving a gold star to a guy who has 30 big-budget upcoming features booked with the studios. End of story. He's the filmic equivalent of Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift at the Grammy's. Produces mediocre work but EVERYONE KNOWS HIS NAME!

 

Pretty much lol. The Oscars are a joke and have been for a long time. Cannes too. They’re both a Gramscian wet dream now

 

At a 92% Rotten Tomatoes critic review, the problem appears to lie with you, not the film.

 

As I slog through this thread, it’s with no slight amusement to read posts regarding “The Shape Of Water” - whether Pro or Con -
By Gill-man .

 

The “critics” also liked Three Billboards and it was a hot mess. They’re not infallible and some of them aren’t necessarily well-versed enough in certain areas to make a proper critical assessment.

Let’s take Ebert. I liked Ebert and have fond memories of his show. He initially didn’t get the underpinnings of Antonioni’s L’Avventura. Maybe because Ebert wasn’t steeped in European philosophy or didn’t make the connection. He eventually changed his perspective on that film.

One could like or hate Antonioni, doesn’t matter to me. But let’s not think some of these critics are “experts” in any particular area.

 

Nope. It was the film.

It was a fantastic film, but it was also a film that appeared committee-approved, from the fairy-tale "ohhh, if only" vibe, to the Capra-neatly-tied-up denoument. I find myself torn between enjoying it as an exquisitely-crafted genre assembley of plot points, but then later, as a "how did they miss, how many people weren't 'on-board' for this film"

Sometimes overwhelming approval for things about to be judged, tends to overlook the people in the vox populi who are irritated purely because so many of the predictable people, are enraptured. And they even know how to pick the people who make them angry, because of those people getting what they want. Then you get basic, pointless critique such as, "A GREEN film?! I hate green...!", trying to justify their opposition with no considered wisdom.

Boggles the mind, watching this film sopping-up the polarizing debate, based on somebody wanting to be mad, with no validity.

Again, I thought it was a great film. Still, didn't see "Oscar triumph" in it.

 

Upon further reflection, seems I have further to say about this knee-jerk Oscar-massage, but, not sure if I shouldn't wait to see which way this thread blows first. I have some opinions that I'm just not ready to passionately back at this point.

 

Exactly. Though some seem to fervently wish it to be otherwise, this change has nothing to do with political correctness, but instead good old fashioned corporate American greed. They used to have awards, with a broadcast attached. Now they have a broadcast, with awards attached. The awards are being calibrated to fit the broadcast. With some really encouraging moves in recent years to nominate films for artistic reasons (even if I didn't always agree that they were good movies - see: Shape of Water), this is incredibly disappointing. The irony here is that an absence of nominated films in the "popular entertainment" styles would probably never have happened if the blockbuster films themselves hadn't become products of boardrooms and market strategy (see: Disney's Star Wars films). As long as a blockbuster or franchise is a global hit the studios couldn't care less if it got critical recognition. Now they want to have their cake and eat it too, I guess. If the blockbuster type films were any good, they'd get nominated. Heck - there's 10 slots for best-picture nominees now. The reason why the Lord of the Rings, Titanic and ET's of today don't get nominated is because there aren't any, not because the hundreds of Academy voters suddenly decided to turn their collective noses up at films that do well at the box office.

 

Interesting... since the director purposely set the film in the '60s to avoid comparisons with anything going on today:

Review: The Shape of Water

 

well this thread took a turn

 

As did the Oscars, which is why I thought the thread would soon take the turn and head into oblivion...

 

they need to get back to their roots. no more 10 movies....def not this popular popcorn movie nonsense....

 

Maybe....but you don't think the Oscar voters (and many audiences) still made that connection ? Or that del Toro was completely oblivious that some would ?

 

I totally agree : look at the diversity of that year : "The Godfather", "Deliverence", "Cabaret", "Sounder", even a film mainly in Swedish , "The Emigrants".

 

Glad to hear.