Why Best Picture Nominees Fare Poorly at the Box Office

[MartyMcFly]

The academy caares, if no one watches, then they lose money when a network drops them. No one watches them they lose prestige and their brand means less and less and they get less money for studios paying them for their award.

And I'm saying I don't think they care because actors will always always care. You want to be recognized by your peers for your achievements and be etched in history. How many people watching doesn't mean a damn to you if you're an actor. The oscars will always hold a prestige in Hollywood regardless of how many eyeballs are on it. That's for the business side of it but for actors and directors and writers and producers you get extra clout for being able to say you're an award winner or award nominee. If they cared that much civil war or rogue one or deadpool would've made the list. They've had almost a decade of this 10 nominee thing and if they really really wanted to change shyt up they would've.

 

[David_TheMan]

And I'm saying I don't think they care because actors will always always care. You want to be recognized by your peers for your achievements and be etched in history. How many people watching doesn't mean a damn to you if you're an actor. The oscars will always hold a prestige in Hollywood regardless of how many eyeballs are on it. That's for the business side of it but for actors and directors and writers and producers you get extra clout for being able to say you're an award winner or award nominee. If they cared that much civil war or rogue one or deadpool would've made the list. They've had almost a decade of this 10 nominee thing and if they really really wanted to change shyt up they would've.

Actors care the same reason studios care, money, oscars are associated with more money for them in the future.
As for recognition, most of the academy aren't their peers, the real peers are in the SAG awards. How many times do you see actors talking about the importance of winning a SAG award? They are more likely to talk about winning a Golden Globe than a SAG or Spirit award or sundance jury selection or caanes jury selection or SXSW award. Its because of the eyeballs and the prestige of the Academy Award and the Globes.

The academy has shown its out of touch last year, I'm not surprised that they are reactionary in trying to fix long term dwindling in viewership numbers.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Actors care the same reason studios care, money, oscars are associated with more money for them in the future.
As for recognition, most of the academy aren't their peers, the real peers are in the SAG awards. How many times do you see actors talking about the importance of winning a SAG award? They are more likely to talk about winning a Golden Globe than a SAG or Spirit award or sundance jury selection or caanes jury selection or SXSW award. Its because of the eyeballs and the prestige of the Academy Award and the Globes.

The academy has shown its out of touch last year, I'm not surprised that they are reactionary in trying to fix long term dwindling in viewership numbers.

It's not about how many time I see them talking about a SAG to know it means a hell of a lot to them. The academy is their peers when the acting bloc makes up the largest voting bloc. Actors directors writers producers special effects guys etc. they all are represented in the academy. Some of them are old cats and then you've got younger people like Ava Duvernay and Seth rogen. That shyt matters to them. They'll get more money in the future regardless of ratings. It's how felicity Jones got paid so much more than anyone else on rogue one. Her agent said she's an academy award winner and Disney wrote a bigger check. They didn't say "well only X amount of people watched the ceremony therefore no go." For better or worse, Hollywood is a bubble man. It may as well be another planet and in that bubble the number of people not watching the telecast means it's something wrong with them not Hollywood

 

[woof]

La La Land and Hidden Figures both crossed the $100M mark this weekend and are each going to finish north of $130M domestic (possibly sniffing $150M, depending on holds staying as good as they have been) when it's all wrapped. e: Arrival is probably going to crawl to $100M domestic too, now that I just looked.

That's not Star Wars/Marvel/DC/Animation money, but this really isn't the year to complain too much about a lack of populist choices either.

 

[David_TheMan]

It's not about how many time I see them talking about a SAG to know it means a hell of a lot to them. The academy is their peers when the acting bloc makes up the largest voting bloc. Actors directors writers producers special effects guys etc. they all are represented in the academy. Some of them are old cats and then you've got younger people like Ava Duvernay and Seth rogen. That shyt matters to them. They'll get more money in the future regardless of ratings. It's how felicity Jones got paid so much more than anyone else on rogue one. Her agent said she's an academy award winner and Disney wrote a bigger check. They didn't say "well only X amount of people watched the ceremony therefore no go." For better or worse, Hollywood is a bubble man. It may as well be another planet and in that bubble the number of people not watching the telecast means it's something wrong with them not Hollywood

I disagree with your contention entirely, like I said if its about values of peers and not studio influence, then its SAG, DGA, or WGA pure valuation by peers, but writers, directors, and actors don't care about the peer valuation, they care about the money and prestige associated with GG and Oscars. IMHO.

They can add younger people like Cuvernay and roge, the average age is still 63 and the majority are white. They aren't getting significantly younger anytime soon.

As for money they will not get more money if they lose a tv deal and studio support.

Your aside about Felicity Jones proves my point, the only value in a AA is the money bump it can give, not peer value.

That said it will be interesting to see this years ratings, and nice having a cool discussion.

 

[MartyMcFly]

I disagree with your contention entirely, like I said if its about values of peers and not studio influence, then its SAG, DGA, or WGA pure valuation by peers, but writers, directors, and actors don't care about the peer valuation, they care about the money and prestige associated with GG and Oscars. IMHO.

They can add younger people like Cuvernay and roge, the average age is still 63 and the majority are white. They aren't getting significantly younger anytime soon.

As for money they will not get more money if they lose a tv deal and studio support.

Your aside about Felicity Jones proves my point, the only value in a AA is the money bump it can give, not peer value.

That said it will be interesting to see this years ratings, and nice having a cool discussion.

And money value to an actor means the world homie. Always. Their worth is all they have man. I feel where you're coming from just disagree. Whatever they can do or say to leverage more money and more points on the backend is worth their weight in gold

 

[TheGodling]

Great cinema is often underrated by the disgusting low-class plebians, this comes as no surprise. :ducreux2:

Of course the Academy rarely actually nominates the best films of the year, they simply nominate the "best" films that studios spent lots of money on to raise their profile during the awards season. You'll rarely catch them nominating a film that actually changes the face of cinema completely.

 

[Goat poster]

Yeah increasing he nominees was supposed to be done to get more top earners nominated, but seems like the academy is very adament that they don't want to nominate movies people actually go see or want to see, so after the expansion it has slowly gone down in viewership again. Wouldn't be shocked to see record lows and to see a continuation of the loss of viewership

What big films this year would you say deserve best picture?

I enjoy superhero/blockbuster movies but they are rarely the best films of the year.

Most are more entertaining than good.

 

[David_TheMan]

What big films this year would you say deserve best picture?

I enjoy superhero/blockbuster movies but they are rarely the best films of the year.

Most are more entertaining than good.

Rogue One and Civil War could have got the spots from Hacksaw Ridge, Arrival, or Lala Land in my view, it was far more entertaining than either of those 3.
To me the key part of a movie is entertainment, just like any story, if it can't capture your mind or make you want to finish its failed at its job, the 3 movies I posted all failed at their job of being entertaining and engaging film. Let me add that overrated Hell or High Water too.

 

[FlyRy]

3 of the nominated films should hit 100 mil domestic. (Arrival is righy there along with HF and La La)But I think this is going to be the lowest rated Oscars ever

 

[Ol’Otis]

Academy is out of touch, probably why people don't watch the award show anymore either

 

[Jello Biafra]

There are plenty of answers. But one of them is just that a lot of these flicks are given limited runs and don't get the advertising blitz or number of theaters the tent poles do. Plus more and more a lot of the movies selected for best picture nominations are niche

That is it right there. Movies like Dances with Wolves, Silence of the Lambs and Forrest Gump were more widespread in their appeal while the newer movies are very narrow in their subject matter and audience.

 

[MartyMcFly]

That is it right there. Movies like Dances with Wolves, Silence of the Lambs and Forrest Gump were more widespread in their appeal while the newer movies are very narrow in their subject matter and audience.

And then you get to the thing that a movie like dances with wolves is now a tv mini series. The mid budget crowd pleaser like hidden figures is an anomaly these days

 

[Lord_Chief_Rocka]

Because most of the movies nominated are trash.

Take this Streep bytch for example. Everyone says she's the best actress but she makes movies nobody gives a fukk about

Charlize and Hathaway filmography>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streep

 

[FlyRy]

Rogue One and Civil War could have got the spots from Hacksaw Ridge, Arrival, or Lala Land in my view, it was far more entertaining than either of those 3.
To me the key part of a movie is entertainment, just like any story, if it can't capture your mind or make you want to finish its failed at its job, the 3 movies I posted all failed at their job of being entertaining and engaging film. Let me add that overrated Hell or High Water too.

:hitch: :smugford: