The Oscars are just around the corner, and I am not excited. Hollywood is notorious for releasing garbage. I remember in 1999, there was a lucky streak of good intelligent movies (like American Beauty) and people heralded it as the new golden age of American cinema. The only problem was that the years following 1999 were full of absolutely terrible movies. How often did you go to the theatre, only to find that you had to make the bitter choice between Date Movie and Big Momma's House 2?Last year, I saw the Oscars go to movies that the majority of people did not see. The pretentious academy loves to delude themselves in thinking that American cinema is full of culture, dignity, and intelligence. In reality, there are only a handful of movies that fit that description, and those are the movies that people generally don't watch. The Oscars should be honest and get off their high horse. Hollywood movies are crap, and it's time they start admitting it.
The public is not watching Crash or Brokeback Mountain. They are watching King Kong, War of the Worlds, Hitch, and Fantastic Four.
Check this out... 2005 gross revenues in the United States:
- King Kong grossed $216 million.
- Hitch grossed $179 million.
- Walk the Line grossed $117 million.
- 40-Year-Old Virgin grossed $104 million.
- Brokeback Mountain grossed $75 million.
- Crash grossed $53 million.
7 comments:
While I find the choices that the Academy makes tend to be safe rather than insightful (Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction? Boo-urns!), I question your reasoning that the movie with the best box office results should win best picture.
I genuinely do not think that Hitch was a better movie than Brokeback Mountain, despite what the dollar signs say. And I challenge anyone to dispute this claim with a straight face.
Sometimes, the point of highlighting a film with a Best Picture nod is to convince audiences to give good films a chance.
I think a better rule to keep in mind would be that popularity - whether it be with the Academy or the popcorn crowd - does not equal quality.
By the way, have you even seen Brokeback Mountain? Or does it challenge your masculinity?
Like the majority of North Americans, I did not see Brokeback Mountain. That's really my point. The Academy Awards are handing out awards to films that people don't really watch.
I agree that popularity does not equal quality when it comes to Hollywood movies. But you know what? It really should.
If the public is content on watching crap on the big screen and ignoring quality films, then Hollywood will continue to produce crap. If the masses would just have some dignity and NOT make Big Momma's House 2 the number one film on it's opening weekend, then we could be in for some real change.
Until that happens, then the Academy
Awards is just a fantasy world where quality movies get recognition, while they are largely ignored in the real world.
All the more reason that the Academy Awards should highlight lesser-seen films in order to overcome the large scale preference for Big Momma's House 2.
FYI, the majority of North Americans are still uncomfortable with gay relationships being depicted on the big screen. So the fact that Brokeback Mountain grossed $75 million is quite the feat.
And it was a very good film. Just because a large number of people choose not to see it, for whatever reason, doesn't mean you should avoid it, too.
I see you're highjacking my Oscars blog and turning it into a promotion for Brokeback Mountain. There's not much I can say about it because I haven't seen it. Your insistent support of the movie has convinced me to rent Brokeback Mountain when it comes out on video... as well as season 1 of Battlestar Galactica.
In slightly related news, "Brokeback" has been named Hollywood's word of the year.
Another celebration of Hollywood class, as an Oscar favorite becomes the butt of jokes over the water cooler.
I'm just surprised that Ang Lee didn't get fed up with everyone referring to his film as the "gay cowboy" movie.
FYI Brokeback Mountain is not a rugged depiction of 1/5 of the Village People.
I'm afraid I'm forced to agree with celestialspeedster. Box office numbers should have little to nothing to do with Awards success. If nothing else, maybe they should include awards for must successful box office gate to appease the likes of Flocons. Remember, these aren't people's choice awards. They're voted on by the academy. Whether or not they know what they're doing is another matter.
I haven't seen Big Momma's House 2. I wouldn't. But if I did, it doesn't mean that I liked it. Just because I pay $12 or whatever to see a flick, does that mean I like it and that I feel it deserves to win awards? Of course not. Just the opposite is true. How many times have you walked out of a movie wishing you could've had those two hours back because the movie was so crappy??
For what it's worth, I didn't really decide to rent and watch Million Dollar Baby and The Aviator until AFTER all of the nominations and awards they received.
PS: For a cool message board which includes a thread on why Flocons sucks, go to http://peterlily.proboards39.com/index.cgi
Post a Comment