Thursday, August 09, 2018

Oscarrific

The Oscars are changing their rules. Responding to plummeting ratings, they plan to keep the show down to three hours, partly by handing out the less exciting awards during commercial breaks.  I think this is unfair--the people who win the "minor" awards are never heard from again.  This is their one chance to shine, don't take it away from them.

Instead, I would suggest instead of separate performance of the nominees for Best Song, all of them should be sung in a medley that takes less than two minutes. (And perhaps that should be done during commercials.)

But the biggest change they're making is to create a new category, Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film.  This is presumably so that blockbusters, often left out of the non-technical categories, can win a big award.

How you feel about this depends on how you see the mission of the Academy.  If you see the Oscars as essentially a TV show, why not?  But if you see them as an annual award for artistic quality, then this is stupid.

Sure, people want to see the films they watched win awards. (Though it is funny that some feel the Academy is too highbrow, when they're about as middlebrow as you can get.) Some years ago the Academy allowed more films to be nominated for Best Picture, and added a separate animation category.

But this is a bridge too far.  The awards are for quality, take it or leave it.  We don't need a separate category for superhero films.  We didn't used to have this split.  It's true to first Oscar ceremony gave an award for Outstanding Picture and Unique And Artistic Picture, but they were working out the bugs and that was gone by next year.

Over the early years of the Oscars, what was considered the Best Picture was often the same as the high-grossing picture.  Then, a few decades ago, it's hard to say when, there came a separation between what was considered quality films and blockbuster films.  If that's the way it is, so be it.  There are plenty of people's award. The Oscars can be one night of the year where grosses don't matter.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Eobard Thawne said...

If you nominate a bunch of superhero films, and then let the highbrow folks vote on them, the winner won't be the one that all the kids loved. Instead, the winner will be the one in which the writer used "persecution of mutants" as a metaphor for "persecution of LGBTQ people", or the one in which an Amazon princess criticizes the cruel patriarchy of man's world, contrasting it to the peaceful Paradise Island.

So why add the intermediate stage of voting? Yes, by all means, add a new category: Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film. But don't vote on it. Simply award this trophy to whatever film made the most money. That's what they are trying to do here, so why not do it right?

Initially there will be resistance. But once the blockbuster actors like Scarlett Johanssen and Robert Downey Jr. prove to the Academy that they can give anti-Trump speeches that are every bit as impassioned as an indie actor, the Academy will realize the wisdom of this choice.

9:30 PM, August 09, 2018  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who are we kidding? This is a chance for the Academy to show its wokeness by giving Black Panther the award.

10:31 PM, August 09, 2018  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lol. Obviously true (now that you've said it).

What will be interesting is how it dilutes the brand--which movie will now be the big winner for the night? Boring old Best Picture, or really cool New Thing?

4:45 AM, August 10, 2018  
Blogger New England Guy said...

Another reason to stop watching this trade association program

5:48 AM, August 11, 2018  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter