Why Best Picture Nominees Fare Poorly at the Box Office

[David_TheMan]

[

.

Same token, what makes Zero Dark Sixty anything more than a jingonist military propaganda action movie? What makes it different than say Top Gun? Top gun is inducted to the national preservation of film archives, but its not good enough to be nominated for best film, but you move 30 years ahead and you can get a movie that removes the jets and puts in soliders and its a nominee?

Make a throwback sword and sandals epic and get nominated (Gladiator) but first mummy can't get a nomination? Its all so incredibly subjective and arbitrary.

No the criteria is the things you learn in film school homie. Kubricks movies are rated highly and they weren't all box offices smashes. There are plenty of movies that are ranked highly that didn't do diddly at the box office.

No country for old men and there will be blood are perfect examples of that. Not smashes by any means but critical smashes and oscar winners. No country for old men isn't even the highest grossing Coen brothers movie and it's talked about as one of their best.[/QUOTE]
The criteria is the things you learn in film school? Again whare are the criteria then, just list them.
No country for old men is a violent movie about a drug deal gone bad but if I throw in some bullsit heavy handed metaphorical shyt, its a oscar movie?
Kubrick makes a film version of a pretty good Stephen King novel its oscar worthy, but if you make running man, also a stephan king novel its not oscar worthy?

This is exactly what i'm talking about, its random pretentiousness and subjectivity of what is "oscar" worthy that is a joke. A good movie that entertained people to where they want to go out and spend their money to see it is oscar worthy imho.

 

[TheGodling]

They're art house films, that's why.

Lol, no! Do not mistake a limited release schedule with "arthouse". Dudes like @David_TheMan would kill themselves if they started nominating actual arthouse films. Hell, do any of you really believe that the ten best movies each year are produced exclusively by Hollywood?

You guys worry about that glorified Hollywood circle jerk party called the Oscars so goddamn much, and then you wonder why I look down upon all of your plebian asses.:ducreux:

 

[MartyMcFly]

No the criteria is the things you learn in film school homie. Kubricks movies are rated highly and they weren't all box offices smashes. There are plenty of movies that are ranked highly that didn't do diddly at the box office.

No country for old men and there will be blood are perfect examples of that. Not smashes by any means but critical smashes and oscar winners. No country for old men isn't even the highest grossing Coen brothers movie and it's talked about as one of their best.

The criteria is the things you learn in film school? Again whare are the criteria then, just list them.
No country for old men is a violent movie about a drug deal gone bad but if I throw in some bullsit heavy handed metaphorical shyt, its a oscar movie?
Kubrick makes a film version of a pretty good Stephen King novel its oscar worthy, but if you make running man, also a stephan king novel its not oscar worthy?

This is exactly what i'm talking about, its random pretentiousness and subjectivity of what is "oscar" worthy that is a joke. A good movie that entertained people to where they want to go out and spend their money to see it is oscar worthy imho.[/QUOTE]

Look man if you can't comprehend the difference between no country for old men and underworld and think those movies are working on the same level and aiming for the same peaks then this is really a moot discussion. I can get with your populist thing to a degree but your argument is basically any movie that makes a lot of money is a great movie. By that same logic vanilla ice and hammer should go down as two of the greatest rappers in the history of the game because of the incredible amount of records they both sold and money they made in the game.

 

[David_TheMan]

The criteria is the things you learn in film school? Again whare are the criteria then, just list them.
No country for old men is a violent movie about a drug deal gone bad but if I throw in some bullsit heavy handed metaphorical shyt, its a oscar movie?
Kubrick makes a film version of a pretty good Stephen King novel its oscar worthy, but if you make running man, also a stephan king novel its not oscar worthy?

This is exactly what i'm talking about, its random pretentiousness and subjectivity of what is "oscar" worthy that is a joke. A good movie that entertained people to where they want to go out and spend their money to see it is oscar worthy imho.

Look man if you can't comprehend the difference between no country for old men and underworld and think those movies are working on the same level and aiming for the same peaks then this is really a moot discussion. I can get with your populist thing to a degree but your argument is basically any movie that makes a lot of money is a great movie. By that same logic vanilla ice and hammer should go down as two of the greatest rappers in the history of the game because of the incredible amount of records they both sold and money they made in the game.[/QUOTE]
Seems to me you don't know the criteria for a "oscar" movie.
I'm not asking you too much, in saying list the criteria, but you can't, because there isn't criteria.
If a movie is successful and it has a studio behind it willing to campaign it will get a oscar nom period.
As for great movie, like good movie, its a subjective value, not an objective one.
As for the vanilla ice and hammer talk, great is subjective, they are both of the two most successful rap artists of all time though and that is simply a fact. Where a person would rank them on their own Mt. Rushmore is their opinion based on their personal criteria, that I bet if someone asked thm they could easily list.

Lol, no! Do not mistake a limited release schedule with "arthouse". Dudes like @David_TheMan would kill themselves if they started nominating actual arthouse films. Hell, do any of you really believe that the ten best movies each year are produced exclusively by Hollywood?

You guys worry about that glorified Hollywood circle jerk party called the Oscars so goddamn much, and then you wonder why I look down upon all of your plebian asses.:ducreux:

I watch art house films, indies, and foreign language films though.
I like what I like and don't like what I don't like.
That said indy's have their own politicing at the Spirit awards.

 

[Conz]

not reading entire thread, but who the hell NEEDS to see most Oscar movies on the big screen? Most of them aren't even cinematic. Especially when half the people are internet savvy enough to know it's gonna leak before the Oscars anyway.

Which best picture movies this year are must sees on the big screen? La La Land for a couple scenes, and Arrival?

 

[MartyMcFly]

Look man if you can't comprehend the difference between no country for old men and underworld and think those movies are working on the same level and aiming for the same peaks then this is really a moot discussion. I can get with your populist thing to a degree but your argument is basically any movie that makes a lot of money is a great movie. By that same logic vanilla ice and hammer should go down as two of the greatest rappers in the history of the game because of the incredible amount of records they both sold and money they made in the game.

Seems to me you don't know the criteria for a "oscar" movie.
I'm not asking you too much, in saying list the criteria, but you can't, because there isn't criteria.
If a movie is successful and it has a studio behind it willing to campaign it will get a oscar nom period.
As for great movie, like good movie, its a subjective value, not an objective one.
As for the vanilla ice and hammer talk, great is subjective, they are both of the two most successful rap artists of all time though and that is simply a fact. Where a person would rank them on their own Mt. Rushmore is their opinion based on their personal criteria, that I bet if someone asked thm they could easily list.


I watch art house films, indies, and foreign language films though.
I like what I like and don't like what I don't like.
That said indy's have their own politicing at the Spirit awards.[/QUOTE]
Minot saying there's oscar criteria. I'm saying there's criteria for being a good movie and a great movie. There's criteria for having a good script and a bad script. Good storytelling and meh storytelling or bad storytelling. And some movies do those things better than others and they should be recognized for it whether it's oscars sag awards golden globes whatever the case.

And again selling records or tickets isn't the only sign of greatness. Hammer and vanilla ice are not as good as BIG or Pac or Nas or jay or scarface or Andre or even Kendrick and cole. Can ice and hammer both rap? Yes. Can they rap as well as the people I mentioned? Hell no. And they shouldn't be in that conversation just because they sold a lot of records. Baby and fresh said it best when talking about the big tymers and what their aim was: just to sell records and be game spitters, not trying to be the best rappers in the world or the best ever. They acknowledged that there's a difference in what they do and what Wayne was doing at the time or Eminem.

 

[David_TheMan]

Seems to me you don't know the criteria for a "oscar" movie.
I'm not asking you too much, in saying list the criteria, but you can't, because there isn't criteria.
If a movie is successful and it has a studio behind it willing to campaign it will get a oscar nom period.
As for great movie, like good movie, its a subjective value, not an objective one.
As for the vanilla ice and hammer talk, great is subjective, they are both of the two most successful rap artists of all time though and that is simply a fact. Where a person would rank them on their own Mt. Rushmore is their opinion based on their personal criteria, that I bet if someone asked thm they could easily list.


I watch art house films, indies, and foreign language films though.
I like what I like and don't like what I don't like.
That said indy's have their own politicing at the Spirit awards.

Minot saying there's oscar criteria. I'm saying there's criteria for being a good movie and a great movie. There's criteria for having a good script and a bad script. Good storytelling and meh storytelling or bad storytelling. And some movies do those things better than others and they should be recognized for it whether it's oscars sag awards golden globes whatever the case.

And again selling records or tickets isn't the only sign of greatness. Hammer and vanilla ice are not as good as BIG or Pac or Nas or jay or scarface or Andre or even Kendrick and cole. Can ice and hammer both rap? Yes. Can they rap as well as the people I mentioned? Hell no. And they shouldn't be in that conversation just because they sold a lot of records. Baby and fresh said it best when talking about the big tymers and what their aim was: just to sell records and be game spitters, not trying to be the best rappers in the world or the best ever. They acknowledged that there's a difference in what they do and what Wayne was doing at the time or Eminem.[/QUOTE]

What is the criteria that makes every Ridley scott period piece action film great, but makes modern action films not great/
Movies that tell poor stories are typically not entertaining, in which case people don't watch them or only a few watch them, why is it that elitist like to discount movies that the masses like as if that is inferior a project? Seems nothing more to me than jealousy and pretentiousness. James Cameron makes action movies T2, Terminator 1, Abyss, Titanic True Lies, and Avatar. The movies still get nominations and the story telling is nothing ground breaking, and there is nothing wrong with it. Why if you don't have his or ridley's background those action movies are automatically dismissed from contention?

You keep making this strawman about greatness, I haven't once said anything about the subjective label of greatness. As for YOUR Opinion on hamer and vanilla ice, that is your OPINION. YOUR SUBJECTIVE VALUATION. It seems that you don't understand that your opinion on what is good, bad, great, legendary, memorable, forgettable is your opinion, it is not fact. If you want to talk about lyrical complexity or rhyming scheme those are thing you can objectively classify, but start talking about good that is simply your opinion. Hell the fact that you mention lil wayne and eminem when there are rap purists that hate both, some saying wayne is garbage and emiinem was a horrible catalog of work that doesn't match his fame, is evidence enough of the complete subjectivity of what you are trying to claim is objective "greatness"

All that to say, I have no care what you consider great or not, but there is room at the table to acknowledge and atleast nominate films that people by their actions show they have interest in or have connected with.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Minot saying there's oscar criteria. I'm saying there's criteria for being a good movie and a great movie. There's criteria for having a good script and a bad script. Good storytelling and meh storytelling or bad storytelling. And some movies do those things better than others and they should be recognized for it whether it's oscars sag awards golden globes whatever the case.

And again selling records or tickets isn't the only sign of greatness. Hammer and vanilla ice are not as good as BIG or Pac or Nas or jay or scarface or Andre or even Kendrick and cole. Can ice and hammer both rap? Yes. Can they rap as well as the people I mentioned? Hell no. And they shouldn't be in that conversation just because they sold a lot of records. Baby and fresh said it best when talking about the big tymers and what their aim was: just to sell records and be game spitters, not trying to be the best rappers in the world or the best ever. They acknowledged that there's a difference in what they do and what Wayne was doing at the time or Eminem.

What is the criteria that makes every Ridley scott period piece action film great, but makes modern action films not great/
Movies that tell poor stories are typically not entertaining, in which case people don't watch them or only a few watch them, why is it that elitist like to discount movies that the masses like as if that is inferior a project? Seems nothing more to me than jealousy and pretentiousness. James Cameron makes action movies T2, Terminator 1, Abyss, Titanic True Lies, and Avatar. The movies still get nominations and the story telling is nothing ground breaking, and there is nothing wrong with it. Why if you don't have his or ridley's background those action movies are automatically dismissed from contention?

You keep making this strawman about greatness, I haven't once said anything about the subjective label of greatness. As for YOUR Opinion on hamer and vanilla ice, that is your OPINION. YOUR SUBJECTIVE VALUATION. It seems that you don't understand that your opinion on what is good, bad, great, legendary, memorable, forgettable is your opinion, it is not fact. If you want to talk about lyrical complexity or rhyming scheme those are thing you can objectively classify, but start talking about good that is simply your opinion. Hell the fact that you mention lil wayne and eminem when there are rap purists that hate both, some saying wayne is garbage and emiinem was a horrible catalog of work that doesn't match his fame, is evidence enough of the complete subjectivity of what you are trying to claim is objective "greatness"

All that to say, I have no care what you consider great or not, but there is room at the table to acknowledge and atleast nominate films that people by their actions show they have interest in or have connected with.[/QUOTE]

I mentioned them because they're eons ahead of what baby and fresh do and I don't see how that's not objective. Like I said before I can get with your populism to a degree but I don't think every damn movie that makes 100 mill should be up for an oscar. Do I think they go too far to one end? Yes. 2009 was a good mix of smaller budget movies and bigger budgets and hits. Doesn't mean every year will produce that though nor should it. But from a personal standpoint I really don't give a damn how much money a movie makes. If it's good it's good. The people who vote for awards have their own criteria and whether anyone agrees or disagrees that's on them. So like I told you before they've had almost 10 years to change it. If they really really wanted to then they would've. They're cool with it so fukk it. If you aren't interested then don't be interested.

And homie when I talk about lyrical complexity flow subject matter depth and all of that, that goes into whether I believe an MC is good or not. Baby and fresh aren't switching flows layering their rhymes or being intricate storytellers. So by those objective terms they're not nice. Whether someone fukks with them or not is on them but those dudes aren't nice and they admit it

 

[David_TheMan]

What is the criteria that makes every Ridley scott period piece action film great, but makes modern action films not great/
Movies that tell poor stories are typically not entertaining, in which case people don't watch them or only a few watch them, why is it that elitist like to discount movies that the masses like as if that is inferior a project? Seems nothing more to me than jealousy and pretentiousness. James Cameron makes action movies T2, Terminator 1, Abyss, Titanic True Lies, and Avatar. The movies still get nominations and the story telling is nothing ground breaking, and there is nothing wrong with it. Why if you don't have his or ridley's background those action movies are automatically dismissed from contention?

You keep making this strawman about greatness, I haven't once said anything about the subjective label of greatness. As for YOUR Opinion on hamer and vanilla ice, that is your OPINION. YOUR SUBJECTIVE VALUATION. It seems that you don't understand that your opinion on what is good, bad, great, legendary, memorable, forgettable is your opinion, it is not fact. If you want to talk about lyrical complexity or rhyming scheme those are thing you can objectively classify, but start talking about good that is simply your opinion. Hell the fact that you mention lil wayne and eminem when there are rap purists that hate both, some saying wayne is garbage and emiinem was a horrible catalog of work that doesn't match his fame, is evidence enough of the complete subjectivity of what you are trying to claim is objective "greatness"

All that to say, I have no care what you consider great or not, but there is room at the table to acknowledge and atleast nominate films that people by their actions show they have interest in or have connected with.

I mentioned them because they're eons ahead of what baby and fresh do and I don't see how that's not objective. Like I said before I can get with your populism to a degree but I don't think every damn movie that makes 100 mill should be up for an oscar. Do I think they go too far to one end? Yes. 2009 was a good mix of smaller budget movies and bigger budgets and hits. Doesn't mean every year will produce that though nor should it. But from a personal standpoint I really don't give a damn how much money a movie makes. If it's good it's good. The people who vote for awards have their own criteria and whether anyone agrees or disagrees that's on them. So like I told you before they've had almost 10 years to change it. If they really really wanted to then they would've. They're cool with it so fukk it. If you aren't interested then don't be interested.

And homie when I talk about lyrical complexity flow subject matter depth and all of that, that goes into whether I believe an MC is good or not. Baby and fresh aren't switching flows layering their rhymes or being intricate storytellers. So by those objective terms they're not nice. Whether someone fukks with them or not is on them but those dudes aren't nice and they admit it[/QUOTE]

Why you mentioned them is not a counter to the contention that regardless of how you felt about them, there are others who look at them as just as "bad" as wayne and eminem or just as "good" depending on the individual.

Why shouldn't a hit be nominated, that is my point, because its a hit? because it isn't made by the "right" type of director? Again if you don't care how successful a movie is cool, but what is the point of an award if the whole metric for nomination is completely arbitrary and politically oriented?

As for them changing I believe I told you in response, oscars is incredibly old and disconnected from the majority of the population, they are reactionary and their continued tone deafness will have their influence diminished if it reaches a certain point where people simply stop watching.

As for what you believes makes a good MC or a bad one, I don't care to be honest. It has no weight with me what anyone likes and why they like it, I focus on what I like.

 

[FlyRy]

not reading entire thread, but who the hell NEEDS to see most Oscar movies on the big screen? Most of them aren't even cinematic. Especially when half the people are internet savvy enough to know it's gonna leak before the Oscars anyway.

Which best picture movies this year are must sees on the big screen? La La Land for a couple scenes, and Arrival?

Hacksaw Ridge

 

[FlyRy]

I mentioned them because they're eons ahead of what baby and fresh do and I don't see how that's not objective. Like I said before I can get with your populism to a degree but I don't think every damn movie that makes 100 mill should be up for an oscar. Do I think they go too far to one end? Yes. 2009 was a good mix of smaller budget movies and bigger budgets and hits. Doesn't mean every year will produce that though nor should it. But from a personal standpoint I really don't give a damn how much money a movie makes. If it's good it's good. The people who vote for awards have their own criteria and whether anyone agrees or disagrees that's on them. So like I told you before they've had almost 10 years to change it. If they really really wanted to then they would've. They're cool with it so fukk it. If you aren't interested then don't be interested.

And homie when I talk about lyrical complexity flow subject matter depth and all of that, that goes into whether I believe an MC is good or not. Baby and fresh aren't switching flows layering their rhymes or being intricate storytellers. So by those objective terms they're not nice. Whether someone fukks with them or not is on them but those dudes aren't nice and they admit it

Why you mentioned them is not a counter to the contention that regardless of how you felt about them, there are others who look at them as just as "bad" as wayne and eminem or just as "good" depending on the individual.

Why shouldn't a hit be nominated, that is my point, because its a hit? because it isn't made by the "right" type of director? Again if you don't care how successful a movie is cool, but what is the point of an award if the whole metric for nomination is completely arbitrary and politically oriented?

As for them changing I believe I told you in response, oscars is incredibly old and disconnected from the majority of the population, they are reactionary and their continued tone deafness will have their influence diminished if it reaches a certain point where people simply stop watching.

As for what you believes makes a good MC or a bad one, I don't care to be honest. It has no weight with me what anyone likes and why they like it, I focus on what I like.[/QUOTE]
The Oscars nominate movies aimed at adults, not those that are for teenagers or kids

Look at the top 10 grossing movies last year breh all kids movies and superhero joints. And rating be damned Deadpool was for teenagers IMHO.

 

[Conz]

Hacksaw Ridge

ok, so what's that 33% of them? Maybe Hidden Figures has some great launch scenes or something? 4/9? Why the hell would anyone see Moonlight on the big screen? Go see Lion to see a couple nice screensaver landdscape scenes?

There's basically no reason to go to a movie unless it's a spectacle anymore. $15-20 for just yourself to see something that you can watch on your big screen tv without missing a thing... for free if you have no morals about downloading shyt... which you shouldn't in 2017.

People always bytch about how Hollywood only makes blockbusters and retreads of known properties, but think about it for like 4 seconds, and it makes total sense. Then people try to use the few and far between surpris hits like they aren't flukes. Why am I running to see a movie like Fences when again, i know it's gonna be online in a week? To see 1950s Brooklyn or whatever the hell it is a little bigger? I might miss some detail on a pigeon in one scene by watching it at home?

 

[Regular_P]

It still disgusts me that most people believe a comedy should never win Best Picture or even get nominated.

 

[the next guy]

Lol, no! Do not mistake a limited release schedule with "arthouse". Dudes like @David_TheMan would kill themselves if they started nominating actual arthouse films. Hell, do any of you really believe that the ten best movies each year are produced exclusively by Hollywood?

You guys worry about that glorified Hollywood circle jerk party called the Oscars so goddamn much, and then you wonder why I look down upon all of your plebian asses.:ducreux:

Yeah true. I think the problem is they're so out of touch now.

 

[Tasha And]

It still disgusts me that most people believe a comedy should never win Best Picture or even get nominated.

Just curious. What are the comedies you believe should have gotten some best picture noms in the last 10 years or so?