• More
Back to PopWatch Home
EW Home

The Oscars are out of touch, but not in the way you might think

Feb 27, 2008, 03:58 PM | by Gary Susman

Categories: Oscars 2008, Things That Make Me Die Inside

Camerondiaz_l There's been a lot of handwringing and fingerpointing over the record low ratings of Sunday's Oscar telecast, but it's actually pretty easy to place the blame: It's mainstream Hollywood's fault. People didn't watch because they didn't have a rooting interest in the nominated movies, since they hadn't seen most of them. And that's because they were mostly indie movies that didn't have the marketing and distribution behind them that big-studio movies typically have. Viewership always spikes in those years when hit movies that have been well marketed and widely distributed are the top contenders (Titanic, Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The Departed). But those years are almost accidental now because the studios generally are not in the business of making Oscar-worthy movies. They've left that business to the indies (or the studios' own quasi-indie specialty divisions). The Oscars has therefore become a niche show, not much different from the Independent Spirit awards, only with better clothes. The mystery isn't why fewer people are watching, it's why the Oscars can draw an audience as large as that for an American Idol season premiere.

I've seen a lot of complaints that the Oscars are out of touch, that the show would be a bigger draw if they'd stop picking critic-approved movies with foreign stars and become more populist. This sounds suicidal to me. Sure, the Academy could dispense with voting altogether, simply look at the box office chart, and pick something like Transformers as Best Picture every year. But the only reason anyone wants to win an Oscar is the sense that it's based more on artistic merit than on popularity. Simply awarding the top ticket sellers would turn the Oscars into the People's Choice Awards — which, last time I checked, has never been anywhere near the ratings-grabber that the Oscars is.

In order for the show to draw more viewers, it's not the Academy that should change, it's Hollywood. The major studios would have to develop an interest in making movies with artistic merit and not just lowest common denominator blockbusters. Or they'd have to back their specialty divisions with real marketing and distribution power, so that the awards contenders aren't just playing in Los Angeles and New York during awards season. At the very least, everyone would have to get out of the mindset that the last few weeks of the year are the only time anyone wants to see grown-up, awards-worthy movies and release them earlier in the year, so they could be out on DVD by the time the nominations are announced and people who hadn't seen them in the theater could at last have access to them. But Hollywood is not interested in making any of these changes or creating a culture that actually appreciates film, and one of the most egregious signs of this came during the ceremony itself, when Cameron Diaz (pictured) took the podium.

Not to pick on Diaz, who stumbled over the word "cinematography," since she didn't write her own presentation patter. Still, some Hollywood writer, someone employed by the Academy (and who should, therefore, have a sense of history and context) actually wrote her lines, which poked fun at 1928 Oscar-winner Sunrise for having characters so archetypal that they were credited as "Man," "Wife," and "Woman from the City." Now, Sunrise is a parable, so it naturally features stock characters, but it's also one of the most beautiful movies ever made -- intensely emotional, lovingly detailed, and gorgeously shot in some of the most stunning black-and-white camerawork in film history. That a film as visually sumptuous as Sunrise could get a knock during a cinematography award presentation is an especially stinging insult, but perhaps an inevitable one in a culture whose memory of film history goes back only about five minutes. Literally, in this case; anyone making fun of a movie for having nameless archetypes as main characters obviously hasn't seen Once — you know, the movie that won Best Song only moments before Diaz took the stage. Audiences everywhere ought to be better educated about the glorious wealth of movies, old and new, available to them, but it's clear that that education is going to have to start among Hollywood's own gatekeepers.


mgtu gtkc Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 01:41 PM EST

orlxwv bkxvgwfe vuclpf kiyj vshc seygu phedgvfr

Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 02:50 PM EST

I've noticed a lot of people both here an elsewhere saying to axe categories like the short subjects and technical awards. If you knew someone who worked in those techincal fields or made short subjects or you yourself were involved in those things, you would want to be recognized. Actors, Directors, Producers, and the like are recognizable people. They're the ones that we so easily associate with movies. But those tech awards that people want to shove out of the limelight are won by people who get very little recognition for the very hard work that they do. Take away the costume designers, the make-up artists, the sound editors, the sound mixers and you're left with a hollow shell of a movie.

orville Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 02:02 PM EST

Why not make the ceremony more of an intimate affair like the Golden Globes? I've always liked the Globes better since the pacing is better, there's more of a relaxed feel, and there's alcohol involved! And I like the idea of adding a comedy category--they've been talking about that for years, but never seem to do it. And while I know that this isn't particularly economically feasible for the big Hollywood cash machine, but why not make all of the movies nominated in the "big" categories available on DVD before the awards air? Even if it was just a bare bones, no extras sort of release. They could even partner with some of the video stores and online suppliers like Netflix to offer specials (discounts or 2-for-1 deals) for those particular movies. I would have loved to have seen more of the movies, but I rarely go to the theatre anymore even when Oscar movies come to this area. I don't feel like dealing with theatre crowds and rudeness.

Joe Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 06:34 AM EST

Not a bad idea V

Chris D. Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:59 PM EST

AMEN, GARY!!!!

v Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 04:30 PM EST

What if the Oscars ran earlier in the season? By the time the Oscars roll around, there's very little suspense because so many other awards have been given out. Oscars first as the big formal affair, followed by the looser, more relaxed Golden Globes a week or two later. Then all the critic and guild awards can be handed out after that. Am I onto something here? Did it used to be this way and I just don't know about it?

Marty Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 04:14 PM EST

Oh and, many many MANY shows would kill to have a 32 millions ratings, so lets not exagerate!

Marty Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 04:13 PM EST

Right on Gary, the Oscars shouldn't change their way of voting. I have, since the ceremony, watched La Vie en Rose and I've rarely seen such a strong perfomance as Marion gave in that one. She was the right winner. The oscars could, though, also acknowlege some mainstream movies with maybe just a new category or to include them more into their presentation. Numeros surrounding these movies, gags related, clips, something to make the viewers feel less stupid (many feel that way). Lets celebrate the best in movies and the movies at their best (entertainment)!!!

kana Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 02:39 PM EST

Exactly. THANK YOU!

PM Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 01:56 PM EST

Very well said. Having been involved in some "lowest common denominator" movies myself (resulting in severe self-loathing), I say YOU ARE RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!

Alex Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 01:25 PM EST

My favorite thing about the Oscars is that films AREN'T nominated simply for being huge successes! (Like "Umbrella" at the Grammy's).

The only reason why the Oscar's are becoming irrelevant is because movies (esp. GOOD movies) are slowly becoming irrelevant.

josher Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 01:24 PM EST

That was brilliant Gary, and not just because I've said the same thing several times.

Steven Feldman Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:47 PM EST

>>

THANK YOU! If people had more time or opportunity to see films, or at hte very least, if the Academy learns to recognize films that came out earlier in the year and not just the fall, then Rescue Dawn would never have had its WELL deserved nominations stolen by the likes of Juno. Juno was a fine, fine film. But one of the five best of the year? No chance. Rescue Dawn was robbed.

GeeMoney Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:18 PM EST

I can agree with the quality of movies having greatly diminished over the last 10 to 20 years being a reason that people don't watch the Oscars anymore, but I don't think that's the only reason. People have more variety in what they can watch now, not to mention, everyone has a cell phone and everyone has the internet. And also, reality shows that have more drama and action on them are more interesting to watch. I agree with everything that the person who wrote this blog said, but I also think that people have other, namely better things to do with their time now.

And it sucks when all of the news magazines predict the winners in advance, and then almost every year, they are right. Who wants to watch an Oscar show when everyone already knows who's going to win????

Heather A. Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:59 AM EST

The Oscars are a GUILD awards ceremony, a chance for people in the motion picture industry to celebrate the achievements of their own members. Believing viewers should have a say is like saying you should be able to vote for "Electrician of the Year" at your IBEW Local 1234 chapter banquet.

It has already been bastardized enough for television by having split off the "technical" awards one week earlier than the televised awards. Some people who actually work in this industry are trivialized and shunted aside to the "Schmoscars" (as Kathy Griffin might put it). They're not allowed their big night to mingle with the stars they're making famous because their award categories aren't glamorous enough.

For all those who think you should have a vote in which awards go out in a trade/industry in which you are NOT a member, guess what? You DO...it's called the People's Choice Awards. Dial in, log on, cast your votes and SHUT UP.

Jen Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:04 AM EST

Gary, You rock. I agree with every point.

Jael Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:29 AM EST

I really want to see all the nominated movies, but I'd only seen La Vie En Rose because it's all I could get on DVD. Putting out a slew of good movies when my Christmas credit card bills are rolling in is annoying.

Jayel Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 09:53 AM EST

Once again, EW bemoans the world they helped create. Mr. Susman, you're absolutely right on all points. But here's the problem. Movies (and art in general) at the moment are praised much more for being "fresh" than for being intelligent or emotionally resonant. We love the snark; we love the meta; we love the new; we LOOOVE the endlessly interactive Internet. And EW (which I love, which I subscribe to and have done for years)has led the charge into the madness. Even 'Atonement,' the movie cited everywhere as this year's old school Oscar movie, is WAY more about such meta matters as the exquisite fallibility of sight and memory and art than it is the characters who enact those things and the actors who play them.
I don't know whether Oscar needs to catch up or movies as an art form need to deepen and slow down (I have an opinion, but I don't trust it to be objective), but until one happens or the other, Oscar will be more and more irrelevant.

Eric Friedmann Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:57 AM EST

I find myself thinking about an episode of "Seinfeld" in which George Castanza is trying to impress a woman by telling her that he's writing a sitcom. She laughs in his face instead.

I think today if I ever met a Hollywood producer, after I was done laughing in his/her face, I would say to them, "My condolences!"

Diane Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:53 AM EST

I find the Golden Globes a much more enjoyable show for a number of reasons (I missed it this year.) By having a comedy option they can-and do-incorporate a few more mainstream films while still honoring the smaller dramas. Maybe the Oscars should consider doing something like that.

Ten years from now Bourne, Waitress, Zodiac or Ratatouille is going to be on TBS and I'll stop flipping channels and watch. Can the same thing be said for No Country or There Will Be Blood?

Eric Friedmann Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:53 AM EST

Here are some studio-released best picture Oscar winners of the past which, by today's incredibly low Hollywood standards, I'm guessing would be considered low-key independent films:

- MIDNIGHT COWBOY (1969)
- ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)
- ROCKY (1976)
- ANNIE HALL (1977)
- ORDINARY PEOPLE (1980)
- CHARIOTS OF FIRE (1981)
- DRIVING MISS DAISY (1989)

Nix Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 06:53 AM EST

Powerful rant, Gary, but now go and put this into an actual column in the actual magazine so it will do some actual good. Meanwhile, I am content that the best picture of 2007 did indeed get honored the other night. All hail Ratatouille!

sayhere Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 04:17 AM EST

I've already spouted off about this in another thread but the exclusion of the Bourne Ultimatum in (at least)best Picture was what was wrong with the Oscars this year.
And it *is* Hollywood's fault - when they don't nominate a critically acclaimed, high earning film starring the most bankable star of their own universe. Film, star and director all should have been nominated.
A blockbuster, The Bourne Ultimatum was hardly mindless. And it did swe ep the 3 categories it was nominated in - film editing, sound editing and sound mixing. It's like when they gave the Matrix their similar awards.
Maybe the Bourne team didn't "campaign" as well as some of the others?

LPaz Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:14 AM EST

I find myself struggling to take one side on this issue. I feel like the Oscars have gotten far too serious. Think about it: Juno was the only movie nominated for best picture this year that wasn't super serious. And the ceremony itself is serious as well. Most of this stuff is too far out there for the general public to want to see. But on the other hand, you can't go around nominating Transformers (to note one example) and the like. But that doesn't satisfy most people.
I guess the dilemma comes from a fundamental difference in moviegoing attitudes. The Academy is (rightfully) looking at films from an artistic standpoint. But the general public tends to view them as pure entertainment. Not that they can't blend. Maybe there needs to be a seperate ceremony? Oh wait, they call that People's Choice.

Leslie Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:47 PM EST

I totally agree with Kevin's comments (down below). It's like the Academy goes out of the way to make sure NOT to pick big hits that are actually worthy of Best Picture. I liken Bourne U. to Raiders of the Lost Ark worth, and Ratatouille to Beauty and the Beast. Why not celebrate these? Because their too mainstream? That's ridiculous. While I don't deny the impressiveness of Michael Clayton and Juno (the only 2 of the 5 I saw this year), these could've been swamped and I would've been completely satisfied. Anymore, however, it appears the Academy is looking only at art films ONLY. Just because something is enjoyed by the masses doesn't automatically make it bad. Unlike this article claims, we aren't expecting Transformers to be Best Pic, but we do acknowledge the staying power of Bourne or Ratatouille or Knocked Up or Waitress, for their box office as well as their artistic merit, and wonder why these get left out. The Academy's becoming an "exclusive club".

Karla Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:48 PM EST

This is one reason I kind of miss Miramax. (I know it still exists, but the Miramax of today doesn't do what the Miramax of 10 years ago did, or Becoming Jane would have been marketed as this year's Shakespeare in Love!) Granted, they did go a bit overboard with their fierce Oscar campaigning, and many of their films that did get Oscar recognition were not quite the epics Miramax made them out to be (*cough* Chocolat *cough*). But they got so many really good independent films out there in theatres. If a company like that had been behind something like Once or Pan's Labyrinth, not only would those (already popular) independent films have reached a wider audience, but they likely would have had more Oscar success, too. I think that intelligent, quality independent films would enjoy much more popularity if the studios actually put them out there for people to see instead of booking four prints per theatre of some garbage that will be forgotten on the DVD store shelf in three months . . .

Jenners Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:17 PM EST

I agree with you that a movie is either good or bad. What irks me is that independent films are marginalized by many as "intellectual and boring" and that studios won't put any real support behind them. (And yes some independent films are intellectual and boring just as most popcorn films are made completely for the Male 18-25 demographic with the only goal being a hefty profit for the studio). Does a Transformers type movie really make you get caught up in it more than No Country? Because while the former was a pleasant diversion for an evening, the latter had me completely enveloped. Do we really need all the big-budgetry to feel swept up in the story? I feel like movies studios are infantilizing people by waving big, shiny movies in front of our faces. Aren't unique plots and incredible characters a good selling point to the masses?

J Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 08:42 PM EST

Why does everyone seem to think that "popcorn movies" aren't/can't be art? Or that "art" films (whatever that is) can't be entertaining? What is this investment we seem to have in the idea that smart can't coexist with popular? Or that popular=stupid? I teach film. And there are lots of films that would qualify as "art" that are just badly made. And vice versa. I paraphrase Oscar Wilde: There is no such thing as an arty or popular film. A film is either badly made, or made well. That is all.

Rob Grizzly Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 08:28 PM EST

The problem with the Oscars isn't the nominees, its the show itself. They need to be less stuck-up and show more energy. Give the night a sense of urgency; that would help pull in viewers. I know it's not about ratings, but if it were, here's an angle they could try:
It's not self-congradulatory anymore- It's all about winning! All or nothing! Like the Superbowl. Pit the movies against each other. Give the show a more agressive feel. Let presenters and winners talk a little smack! After all, getting the golden guy means you're the best doesn't it? Don't be gracious, be obnoxious! Losers should feel free to throw tantrums! Lose the short film and doc categories- they can show that stuff with the technical awards the night before. Promote upcomming movies! Maybe get a little more interactive. Ditch Ryan Seacrest, tear into the horrible dresses on the red carpet, not the next day. Make it a show you're not gonna want to miss. Damn celebs...

Rob Grizzly Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 08:11 PM EST

It annoys me when people run completely in the wrong direction with a thought or comment. When viewers complain about the Oscars not adding more mainstream movies, that doesn't mean we want stupid s*** like Transformers or Spiderman nominated for Best Picture. It just means the Academy doesn't have to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to nominate the most obscure and boring movies they can find. It's this sort of ultra-high snobbery that turns off viewers, not the movies themselves. American Gangster was mainstream. And good. But it wasn't "indie" enough was it? Neither was Hairspray, a film that nearly everyone enjoyed. Back in the day the Oscars actually used to nominate popular movies for things, and not just the stuff that came out after November. Anyway, the Oscars problem isn't the nominees, it's the show itself.

Snarf Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 08:00 PM EST

Gary I agree with you whole heartedly except that it's still one giant popularity contest albiet a more high brow one than the PCA's. The few times a very popular film does win, it inevitably suffers a "what were we thinking?" backlash years later a-la "Titanic" and to a lesser degree "Gladiator". While I will watch thought provoking dramas on DVD at home from time to time, I tend to go out to see "movies" not "films" for entertainment myself.

Kevin Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:52 PM EST

Brandon: That just goes to show that the Academy HAS changed. I believe there are still films like this being made but the Academy does not honor them anymore. For example The Bourne Ultimatum, Knocked Up and Ratatouille were all huge hits that I would not have been upset to see in the Best Picture race.

kim in kentucky Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:35 PM EST

AMEN Miranda AMEN!!

Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:18 PM EST

One can only hope that everyone was listening to Glen Hansard...

Miranda Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:16 PM EST

My favorite movie of 2007 was No Country for Old Men. Other movies on the list include Ratatouille and Enchanted. I have a wide range of movies in my DVD collection. I simply love movies. But, I do want to see Hollywood giving serious financing to serious movies. I want to see smart movies. I want to see movies that challenge how I think. Am I really going to get that with Step Up 2 (I think that's the name of the movie)? I don't think so. Now I'm not calling for every movie to be a Bergman film or even a Coen Brothers film, but I do want to be able to look at my local movie times and not feel sick to my stomach about all the garbage playing at most theaters. Recently the one real arthouse theater was playing The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Persepolis, and The Savages. All of the other theaters were playing things like Fool's Gold and Witless Protection. It makes me very, very GRRR!

Glen Hansard Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:59 PM EST

Make art! Make art!

me Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:56 PM EST

If your comments are correct and Hollywood and the Academy are separate, then why in h*ll was Jessica Alba at the Oscar's???

Sara Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:55 PM EST

Gary I COMPLETELY agree with this blog. It was a fluke that Juno even premiered, not because it wasn't great but because studios don't trust American people to go see smart, gripping movies that don't have a big action scene in the middle. I hope they're starting to realize that the Americans that save shows like 30 Rock, Lost and The Office actually want to go see movies too, not just the reality TV junkies that will sell out your "Another Teen Movie".

Brandon Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:43 PM EST

To Kevin: Funnily enough you disproved your own complaint about the Academy's inability to honor popcorn and mainstream films by citing Jaws, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones(Raiders of the Lost Ark); all films nominated for best picture.

To Eric Friedmann Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:36 PM EST

Your point is a lot less effective when you are so abrasive. Why be so rude about it?

Kevin Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:31 PM EST

Jenners- I agree that Transformers is not the kind of movie that will resonate decades from now, but I do think that there are "popcorn movies" that stand the test of time, and I don't see any reason for the Academy to ignore them. For example, Jaws, the original Star Wars trilogy, and the Indiana Jones movies are all considered classics by many people, and they are probably the quintessential popcorn movie. I think that when a movie comes out whose main purpose is to be very entertaining and it succeeds masterfully at that, the Academy should not dismiss it out of hand.

Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:24 PM EST

Anyone who thinks Oscar nominated films are all depressing has never seen Juno.

Jenners Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:10 PM EST

To teneil and all the other "we just want to be entertained" people: The indie movies this year were all also the most entertaining. If having to concentrate on plot and characters and think about the larger meanings of a film mean that you can't be entertained then I guess you really are the target audience of every Hollywood studio. Don't get me wrong, I rented Transformers and even liked it (thank you, Shia Lebouf) but movies like that are not the kind the resonate and survive for decades. Its perfectly okay to see popcorn movies... as long as that is not the only kind of movie you see.

teneil Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:58 PM EST

to ryan b: i don't appreciate being called stupid just because i like my movie going experience to be fun and upbeat, not some sad faced, 2 hr long, depressing episode, like most of those independent movies are, that get nominated for Oscars. if i want that, i'll just stay home and watch CNN or the local news; thanks but no thanks. i agree with diane, some of us want to go to the movies to get away from reality and be entertained.

Ames Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:55 PM EST

I thought the best part of the night is when they went through all the previous Best Picture winners, and how many of them were such stinkers. It was pretty funny -- and not something I want repeated. Not everyone can agree on what movie is "the best" but at least they should try not to be laughing stocks.

Also, it's rare that Oscars are a surprise anymore. Not even the winners seem all that surprised -- or pleased for that matter.

Eric Friedmann Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:52 PM EST

With the exception of the last ten minutes, to see what wins best picture of the year, I will NEVER watch the Oscars again! It's not worth my time or my brain cells!

Ryan B Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:43 PM EST

I'm so sick of everything being dumbed down for my consumption. What should they nominate for Best Picture? Fantastic Four? Transformers? The big "hit" movies are all over-hyped and bottom out after the first huge week, when everybody figures out what the fuss was about. The Oscars are there to honor quality, and should remain doing so. If someone watches the Oscars and then discovers Once or Away from Her, then great. If they don't tune in in the first place because they haven't heard of the nominees, then they get left behind. Period. I'm cool with that. Stupid people should have less fun than the rest of us. I live in the Midwest and saw all five best picture nominees, all the acting nominees, and four of the documentaries. It's not that hard.

Michael Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:41 PM EST

Most of the so called 'independent' studios are just subsidiaries of the major ones. The money made off of the huge blockbusters now helps fund the smaller movies. Ratings be damned --- Afterall it's the Oscars, not the People's Choice Awards.

Pamela Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:37 PM EST

Gary (and others): I have faulted this year's Oscar telecast as again failing to properly accorded respect to nominees/winners/film history: For me, more egregious than the cinematography presentation was the camera cutting to Bill Conti and to the audience when Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova were still finishing their Best Song performance). This too seems to support your view - which I am wholly in agreement with - that Hollywood treats quality films poorly on the whole. It's like failing to feed your show pony for ten months of the year then bringing him out come Awards time expecting everyone to drop everything and say how pretty that little skeleton is looking. If Hollywood doesn't care about raising the bar to provide challenging and entertaining adult-themed films throughout the year to reward audiences and film-makers alike, ultimately why should we?

Got a feeling we will all be back here this time next year making the same types of comments. Sigh.

Kevin Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:37 PM EST

But the thing is, this year there were hit movies from major studios that were intelligent and Oscar-worthy. Knocked Up, Superbad, and the Simpsons Movie were three of the funniest movies I have ever seen. Ratatouille will probably go down as one of the best animated movies ever made, and was one of the best movies of this year, animated or not. The Bourne Ultimatum was an intelligent, gripping thriller. Any of these movies would have made worthy Oscar contenders. So no, I don't think the disconnect is all Hollywoods fault. Partly, sure, but the Academy has to change too.

Diane Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:37 PM EST

The real problem is that the awards are supposed to honor excellence in film making, but the Oscars are trying to attract people (like me) who go to the movies to be entertained and enjoy themselves. Without reconciling conflicting goals (and no I don't think the answer is to nominate Spiderman 3) the Academy Awards are going to feel like something is lacking.

Eric Friedmann Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:28 PM EST

Hollywood knows very well that it's main target audience are immature, inconsiderate, cell-phone-yaking idiots, and they cater garbage films like TRANSFORMERS to their idiot tastes. Most people don't want to bother watching a film in which (Heaven forbid!) they might have to take a moment and use what little brain they have! Most indie films that are nominated for best picture of the year deserve it because (pay attention now, idiots) it's just a well-written, intelligent STORY! And if Hollywood cannot recognize the simple value in that alone and put more marketing efforts into it, they should fold their tents now and disappear forever. I won't miss them!

By the way, does anybody else remember that CHARIOTS OF FIRE won best picture of 1981 and was released by the major Hollywood studio known as Warner Brothers? Ah, the days of Hollywood's artistic past...it's dead now!

yssys Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:21 PM EST

I agree...it's not that people don't know about this year nominees because they didn't want to see them but because they couldn't see them, the poor distribution is something that has to change so everybody can watch these amazing films (and this year case truly amazing)..that was my complaint last year when Children of Men, a fantastic movie, got such a poor distribution deal from Universal, that movie had everything to attract a huge audience but the studio had no interest in showing it...

Jeremy Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:21 PM EST

It also doesn't help that all the nominated movies were depression-fests. As if any movie that doesn't imply that the world is not worth living in is not worth watching. Nobody wants to watch that

Ashley Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:15 PM EST

I agree with everything in this blog! Especially the part about movie studios releasing Oscar worthy movies earlier in the year. I live in a small town in Tennessee, and I really try to see as many of the nominated films as possible. However, I usually do not have access to many of them, because of my location and due to the fact that they are not on DVD yet. I am proud to say that this year I was able to see 4 out of the 5 Best Picture nominees. Maybe one day Hollywood will get a clue!

MrKitty Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:03 PM EST

I actually thought the Oscars got it just right this year. So many past years were full of overblown spectacles. If honoring excellent writing, acting, directing and cinematography is bad for ratings...so be it...and if they want Americans to win more awards, they need to make better movies.

AA Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:01 PM EST

Hear hear!

Eric Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 04:57 PM EST

Great post, Gary. It would be a travesty if the Oscars lost their luster and started giving awards to sub-par movies merely because they were commercially successful. I could care less how many people are watching the show as long as the most artistically excellent movies continue to win. What are they going to do, cancel the Oscars because of poor ratings? I doubt it.

Martha Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 04:50 PM EST

Great writing, Gary, and I couldn't agree more. As a 37-year-old mother, I often feel like big movies are marketed at my 14-year-old nephew. That's why I was disappointed when "The Bourne Ultimatum" wasn't nominated for Best Picture. It's an action film with great characters, a thoughtful premise and gripping action. And wow, what a shocker, it cleaned up at the box office too!

Broadway Baby Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 04:47 PM EST

I think the Academy might think that they have to 'write down' for these type of awards to keep the audience at home watching. If indeed that is what they are thinking then the cinematography, editing, effects, etc. awards should be presented like the technical awards are - separately. That way the televised awards could include all the couture etc., be 90 minutes long, have as many montages as anyone could produce and still feel as if they are supporting true film artistry. A somewhat alienating solution since it takes hundreds of people to make a film - but an idea nonetheless.

By the way - This is why I love the popwatch blog. I get to dish and mock celebrities and also read really well thought out ideas and opinions on popular culture. I like all the writers on ew.com - I want Gary Susman to live with me. My family won't care - I don't think.

Dave Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 04:41 PM EST

The ratings also vary from hour to hour during the course of the show, usually sagging in the middle when they do the documentaries and other technical awards. And when the Oscars lose some viewers they don't come back. There has to be something that can increase the suspense and keep people entertained. Frankly, I would like to see them make a bigger deal of the musical nominations, but Oscar producers rarely if ever gotten this one right. It seems that this year's writing and montages were the worst.

Andy Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 04:36 PM EST

So true.

The Acadmey should be proud of their winners this year. They were all excellent and very deserving.

Andy Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 04:36 PM EST

So true.

The Acadmey should be proud of their winners this year. They were all excellent and very deserving.

Tony Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 04:25 PM EST

I still haven't seen "There Will Be Blood." I want to, but I don't want to have to go into Boston to do it.

Granted, just having seen the movies wouldn't make me want to watch the Oscars. I can find out the winners the next day easy enough. And I prefer reading various critics' lists, they always have a couple of surprises on there.

KG Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 04:20 PM EST

I agree that it's the movies that mostly affect the ratings of the Oscars telecast. The Oscars recognizing box office more than artistry is unthinkable, so what else is there to do for Gil Cates and Co.? I read somewhere (I think USA Today) that maybe they could get a more widely-likable host, perhaps Will Smith? I know the host won't affect it that much but hey it doesn't hurt to try...

Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 04:15 PM EST

very very well-written

megan Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 04:09 PM EST

wow. i fully agree. i live in a small arkansas town, and NONE of the five best picture nominees came to our town. i still watched the oscars, but it would have been a hell of a lot more fun if i'd had any vested interest in who won and who lost based on something other than their public persona.


advertisement

Add Your Comments

The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject — or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.



  • 1000 characters remaining
    • When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.
Latest Comments
Top Categories

All Categories

Blog Roll
Top Authors
Recent Posts
PopWatch Archive
July 2009
S M T W T F S
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Complete Archive