Audiences on the Oscars: Less Politics, More Mainstream Love?

[Pirate King]

I thought this thread was about how the audience feels about the oscar show. Not the movies. I, personally do not want to hear any political speeches given by the winners. Just accept your award, be gracious and thankful and walk off the stage. I do not want to hear a bunch of garbage that has nothing to do with the oscars. That is my opinion.

[DigitalfreakNYC]

Originally Posted by Pirate King

I thought this thread was about how the audience feels about the oscar show. Not the movies. I, personally do not want to hear any political speeches given by the winners. Just accept your award, be gracious and thankful and walk off the stage. I do not want to hear a bunch of garbage that has nothing to do with the oscars. That is my opinion.

Here's a question:

what if their political comments are associated with the role they played (a la Tom Hanks in Philadelphia)?

[assydingo]

I meant don't need more but put it wrong.

I don't watch many films in theater anyways. Especially since blu-ray.

[WriteSimply]

It's a poll but it's not a useful one. Not when they reject technical awards and indie films but want red-carpet fashion banter.


fuad

[EricJ]

Basically, they're last-minute panicking, trying to find an explanation for last year's Jon Stewart ceremony being, in the words of an Entertainment Weekly cover, "Shorter, hipper, BORING!"

They seem to have hit on most of the questions, and they've already discarded of the Chris Rock experiments ("Maybe if we let the technical people stay in their seats?")
But to answer their questions, what went wrong with Jon 2.0:

- It's not just a TV special, the host is also entertaining a crowd of celebrity butts-in-seats: A host has to know how to shmooze an actor crowd with in-jokes, to keep them happy. (Although I agree, less danged Nicholson cut-aways)

- Sorry, Jon...We LIKE Chuck Workman montages. More to the point, we like being reminded that the Oscars are about "future classic" movies, and getting a little TCM bit of old-movie recap--classic-obituraries included--to remind us about what class they'll be joining. (In fact, seemed like after Jon's "Salute to binoculars" last year, seemed like there was an awkward pause, as if the audience didn't realize that was supposed to be a joke--"Hey, c'mon, show some more of that! " )
Ideally, like the Tony Awards trying to sell more Broadway tickets, the Oscars should be designed to send you down to Blockbuster renting more old movies you'd never heard of until now...Without the Classic Cool, people walk up to the stage, pick up their "diplomas" and leave, we get a speech from the life-acheivement "valedictorian", and the orchestra might as well be playing graduation music.

- People...you can come out now: Debbie Allen is gone. Between-act stage-number diversions to break up the monotony aren't "evil" anymore.
(And if you're going to throw "Dance tributes to Saving Private Ryan" in my face, I'll just throw Cirque du Soleil back in yours. So there. )

- The Dark Knight Question: Not that we want to unduly influence the voting in favor of cheap ratings--c'mon, it's not the Golden Globes, after all --at what point did YOU give up on last year's ceremony after you'd gotten half of your predictions wrong and realized you weren't going to win the pools? Just as we'd all finally gotten around to seeing "There Will Be Blood", old-favorite "No Country" goes back to sweeping the awards, and the general reaction was "Oh, THAT one... "
Not that I particularly think TDK deserves anything more major than Heath Ledger (and I don't ...), if "Wall-E" doesn't get a Best Picture nod, the prospect of seeing a tight Doubt vs. Benjamin Button race promises to be even LESS exciting than that tight Brokeback vs. Crash contest of years past...Oh, what happened to the "Chicago" and "Return of the King" populist hit-sweeps of yesteryear?

- Last year, as the Oscar's annual "What went wrong?" survey, ceremony gagwriter Bruce "Whoopi's Pal" Villanch went on Yahoo!Answers with the question, "What can we do to improve the ceremony this year?"--Yes, I counted at least fifteen people who gave the answer you're thinking of right now, counting my own.

[J_UNTITLED]

Originally Posted by jsteinhauer

Look at the box office hits. They are about action, visual effects and sound effects. That's what most people are going to see. That's what is the most fun to watch.

Not all "box office hits" are purely explosive, CGI-enhanced spectacles for the eyes and nothing more -- totally untrue.

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

Sometimes mindless entertainment is "fun" but there is much, much more out there to be enjoyed.

To me, a movie without a "mind" cannot be entertaining as to be absent of depth and strong narrative is the complete opposite of what I'd call "fun."

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Many studies have shown that folks want to go to the movies in order to sit down, turn off their brain, eat some popcorn and just relax and not think about the world. To be entertained.

Where are these supposed countless studies that you speak of? I cannot believe every single audience member or movie-frequenter is going to simply have leave their brain off the hook and be visually-occupied by a rapid succession of moving images on a screen.


If that's all anyone wanted, why even bother with concocting a story or characters at all? One could just put together a compilation of random big, splashy and shocking visuals that have no relation to one another, no meaning, no depths or other virtues that which cinema can provide and that would or should be sufficient.


Cinema, in simplest and shortest terms, is about storytelling (even though it is about so much more than that) -- and without a story I doubt THAT many people would be sufficiently-entertained.

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

Just because something makes money, it's not a judge of quality. Perhaps to businessmen, it is.

Granted, 2 of the 3 movies you mentioned were excellent and I'm not saying that mainstream films can't also be intelligent and well-made but, unfortunately, those are few and far between. If Hollywood centered on making well-made mainstream films, perhaps there would be more of them involved come Oscar time.

More people may have seen the other films than will go see Milk but that doesn't mean they're more important than Milk is.

Quite, quite the contrary.

Thank you and thank you.

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

Again, a lot of crap makes money in this country. Definitely doesn't mean it's any good.

True and thank you.

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Untrue.

Quality is shown in many ways. How much money something makes shows that it was quality to many people as opposed to a small niche of people.

Political movies don't make a huge amount of money, because they cater to a niche audience.

Big action movies make far more money on average because they have something that appeals to a broader majority of people. The people who want to go to a movie to be entertained.



Sorry, gotta disagree here, how many action movies hit in the summer? How much money do they make, and how much do people like them?

Yet they are few and far between when Oscar time comes along.



Depends on what your definition of the word 'important' is in this particular capacity.

If someone doesn't particularly care for the story of Milk, or for political movies in general, then it's importance doesn't mean much to those people.

Just because YOU might think that something is more important than something else, doesn't mean that it's fact. Political movies have their place, but they are far less popular and less important than mainstream action movies to the vast VAST majority of people.

Logan

You make many assumptions (a few of which I find to be ridiculously-untrue and presumptuous) but they are, just as what I say is, ultimately your own opinions and are true for you -- that does in no way mean it is actually the case for all of these people whom you are speaking for.

Originally Posted by Romulus

I'm sorry, but that's got to be the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever read. If quality is shown through money, then shouldn't Star Wars Episode I and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest be among the best films of all time? Are you kidding me?

Couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by jadedeath

I'm not saying that Milk is a bad movie, but it's a movie that won't be that important or on the viewing lists of the majority of people.

Well, that's fine if you believe so but you (and I) ultimately do not know what a "majority" thinks or feels about either movie and therefore the above is only speculation.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Why do most people assume that crap movies are made only in the USA? Believe me I see a lot of movies from France here in Montreal on TV. Some are right up there with the worst that America as too offer. In general you just see the more quality ones or at the very least hear of them because those are the one pick to go to the Oscars or to be release in other countries. But you will have quite a few of them that you will never hear about.

Crappy films are made everywhere (just as crappy TV shows, crappy music, crappy books, crappy paintings etc.). Quality is harder to find than quantity.

Originally Posted by thedarkangel1975

Agood serious drama can be just as entertaining as a popcorn flick.

It can -- and, by the same semi-token, who says that a so-called "popcorn flick" can't be just as deep, layered and involving as the other?

Originally Posted by jadedeath

It's entertainment value.

Logan

Reducing the point of film (or any art) to mere "entertainment value" is, in my opinion, taking so much away from what this medium or art itself is truly about.

Originally Posted by Romulus

And I hate to break it to you, but I'm willing to bet a lot people on this site don't watch films for the story. They watch for the eye candy and because they want their sound system to make them orgasm.

That's probably true, and I find it incredibly sad.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Wanting to watch the fun popcorn movies as nothing to do with intelligence or lack of it.

When one would rather watch something that only will involve them visually but basically leave all other senses and inner workings cold, I personally would not be able to understand that.

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

Look, i'm not pointing fingers. I have a Star Wars tattoo and have a HUGE amount of mindless popcorn flicks in my collection. I've bought Point Break several times on several formats, ok? But I also do enjoy other movies that have more of an impact on society, are more dramatic and more "important." I would never be deluded into thinking that Look Who's Talking is an important film. Is it in my collection and do I enjoy it? Yes. But it is by far an "important" film.

I also wouldn't assume that any of the fun popcorn flicks would get best picture because they don't deserve it. None of them have the best story, acting, directing, etc for their year, in an artistic sense. Let's not forget: this is an art form. We shouldn't have to dumb down the awards so that mainstream public will be more interested.

Should we elect any "joe six pack" to the presidency because people like him? No. We should pick the person that is RIGHT for the job.

Really, it is all up to the eye of the beholder, and for some "The Incredible Hulk" or "Transformers" will have the better story, performances and directing than say "Milk" or "The Wrestler."


Granted, I personally find little to enjoy in either of the first-two-mentioned titles as I do not see (especially in the latter) any real depth of character or narrative but again, that's just me.

Originally Posted by jadedeath

If they have a choice between two movies, say 'milk' and 'incredible hulk' and they're movie shopping, chances are they'd buy 'incredible hulk' over 'milk' due to the fact that they feel that entertainment is more important than a political message in a movie.

Who said that "Milk" is only about a political message or was made simply to provide a political message? And who says a film like "The Incredible Hulk" is only there to mindlessly dazzle the eyes and not actually provide what any good story and/or work of art does?

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

You also think that people only enjoy certain movies because of their "political messages." It's great to have a "political message" but without a good story, said message is meaningless. Don't undermine the credibility of many films just because they're political. They can definitely be amazing and important.

Thank you again and, yes, without a strong story (which in turn means inhabited and driven by strong characters) a movie is lost.

Originally Posted by assydingo

A lot of great movies would fly under people's radar if not for award shows.

Unfortunately, that's probably true.

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

There are a lot of movies that people don't get the chance to see because they're not shown at big multiplexes in smaller cities. I've read some people on this board having to drive an hour to see smaller films and that shouldn't be. Perhaps if they were more accessible, they would make more money.

It's true and that's the nature of the very-inane beast that is the business. Money trumps all, not quality.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

There are a lot of movies that people don't get the chance to see because they're not shown at big multiplexes in smaller cities. I've read some people on this board having to drive an hour to see smaller films and that shouldn't be. Perhaps if they were more accessible, they would make more money.

i doubt if these movies were more accessible they would much more money. the general public for the most part just doesn't want to see these types of films usually. that is how it has almost always been. people want to go to the movies to get away from it all, have fun, and not worry about anything serious for a couple of hours. their lives are filled to the brim with so much sadness and so much that could depress them. they want to pay to see something that could also make them sad and depressed. i certainly understand that reasoning. it's not a bad thing really.

[Bluray_ne1]

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

Here's a question:
what if their political comments are associated with the role they played (a la Tom Hanks in Philadelphia)?

An excellent example.

Then be humble and gracious, keep the personal comments to a minimum and let the portrayal and film speak for itself. A film with a message that has obviously been widely embraced by the public needs no further explanation. If it's a relatively unknown film then an Oscar nod gives it notariety. More people will see it and be moved by it's message.

I believe Philadelphia was a tremendous film. AIDS affects all people, gay, straight or whatever. The message? Folks with the disease needn't be wrongfully discriminated against based on bogus information and fear. Tom's acceptance speech was both gracious and informative. I hadn't seen the film, but his award and speech encouraged me to see it.

The kind of thing that makes people turn off is when certain self-important actors/film makers decide to be opportunistic with a large, national audience and spew a political diatribe that has nothing to do with the movie they're accepting the award for. When you hear a mixture of applause and boo's coming from the audience (especially that audience), you know you've gone too far with it. It's simply not the appropriate forum for activisim IMO. Call a press conference or start a foundation but let the Oscars be what they're supposed to be about: appreciation of the art of film making. Let the audience decide for themselves if it is important to them.

[fighthefutureofhd]

that is very well written and said. i really think you hit the nail on the head. thanks for posting that.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

Where are these supposed countless studies that you speak of? I cannot believe every single audience member or movie-frequenter is going to simply have leave their brain off the hook and be visually-occupied by a rapid succession of moving images on a screen.

http://www.marketingcharts.com/outdo...all-winterjpg/

That's just one of many.

Also, if you READ what I'm writing, I say that there are different strokes for different folks, the majority of people want one thing, then that's usually what Hollywood ends up giving them.

Neither is right nor wrong, it's all opinion.

If that's all anyone wanted, why even bother with concocting a story or characters at all? One could just put together a compilation of random big, splashy and shocking visuals that have no relation to one another, no meaning, no depths or other virtues that which cinema can provide and that would or should be sufficient.

You're either intentionally not getting it, or just not reading what I'm writing.

You make many assumptions (a few of which I find to be ridiculously-untrue and presumptuous) but they are, just as what I say is, ultimately your own opinions and are true for you -- that does in no way mean it is actually the case for all of these people whom you are speaking for.

And backed up by studies, your opinions on the other hand, are backed up by...?

Crappy films are made everywhere (just as crappy TV shows, crappy music, crappy books, crappy paintings etc.). Quality is harder to find than quantity.

It's also in the eye of the beholder.

It can -- and, by the same semi-token, who says that a so-called "popcorn flick" can't be just as deep, layered and involving as the other?

I never said it could or it couldn't. But the fact remains that popcorn flicks are by-and-large the movies that the majority of people want to see and find 'important' enough to spend money on.

Reducing the point of film (or any art) to mere "entertainment value" is, in my opinion, taking so much away from what this medium or art itself is truly about.

Again, neither here nor there.

People want to be entertained, and some of them choose movies in order to get entertained, the majority of them don't choose political dramas.

Really, it is all up to the eye of the beholder, and for some "The Incredible Hulk" or "Transformers" will have the better story, performances and directing than say "Milk" or "The Wrestler."

When did anyone ever say that they did?

I have a strange feeling you're going to have to re-adjust yourself because you're reaching pretty far for a straw man, you might fall off your chair if you're not careful.

Who said that "Milk" is only about a political message or was made simply to provide a political message? And who says a film like "The Incredible Hulk" is only there to mindlessly dazzle the eyes and not actually provide what any good story and/or work of art does?

Noone actually, you're reaching for another straw man, if you just ask, I'm sure someone would get it for you.

It's true and that's the nature of the very-inane beast that is the business. Money trumps all, not quality.

What? Hollywood is a business?

You're kidding.

Wait till I tell the New York Times, they'll want to stop the presses {while they still have them} and run this on a full page front story article.

What a revelation!

Logan

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

Cinema, in simplest and shortest terms, is about storytelling (even though it is about so much more than that) -- and without a story I doubt THAT many people would be sufficiently-entertained.

tell that to the many disaster, epic, date, etc. movies that come out year after year and find a fairly huge audience. the saw movies even. or just about any summer blockbuster that comes out. i find that many movies without much a story entertain a lot of people greatly. remember batman and robin was able to take in well over $100 million at the box office. sure, it didn't make its budget back, but that it was able to make that much alone is astounding.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

tell that to the many disaster, epic, date, etc. movies that come out year after year and find a fairly huge audience. the saw movies even. or just about any summer blockbuster that comes out. i find that many movies without much a story entertain a lot of people greatly. remember batman and robin was able to take in well over $100 million at the box office. sure, it didn't make its budget back, but that it was able to make that much alone is astounding.

Oh, those have stories.

They're just paper thin or not very good to begin with.

Logan

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Oh, those have stories.

They're just paper thin or not very good to begin with.

Logan

batman and robin had a story? i didn't notice it under all the dead weight.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

batman and robin had a story? i didn't notice it under all the dead weight.

I think it had something to do with...

Batman? I think...

Logan

[Pirate King]

Originally Posted by Bluray_ne1

An excellent example.

Then be humble and gracious, keep the personal comments to a minimum and let the portrayal and film speak for itself. A film with a message that has obviously been widely embraced by the public needs no further explanation. If it's a relatively unknown film then an Oscar nod gives it notariety. More people will see it and be moved by it's message.

I believe Philadelphia was a tremendous film. AIDS affects all people, gay, straight or whatever. The message? Folks with the disease needn't be wrongfully discriminated against based on bogus information and fear. Tom's acceptance speech was both gracious and informative. I hadn't seen the film, but his award and speech encouraged me to see it.

The kind of thing that makes people turn off is when certain self-important actors/film makers decide to be opportunistic with a large, national audience and spew a political diatribe that has nothing to do with the movie they're accepting the award for. When you hear a mixture of applause and boo's coming from the audience (especially that audience), you know you've gone too far with it. It's simply not the appropriate forum for activisim IMO. Call a press conference or start a foundation but let the Oscars be what they're supposed to be about: appreciation of the art of film making. Let the audience decide for themselves if it is important to them.

I could not have said it better. Well Done. I agree.

[Astalder]

Originally Posted by Bluray_ne1

The kind of thing that makes people turn off is when certain self-important actors/film makers decide to be opportunistic with a large, national audience and spew a political diatribe that has nothing to do with the movie they're accepting the award for. When you hear a mixture of applause and boo's coming from the audience (especially that audience), you know you've gone too far with it. It's simply not the appropriate forum for activisim IMO. Call a press conference or start a foundation but let the Oscars be what they're supposed to be about: appreciation of the art of film making. Let the audience decide for themselves if it is important to them.

Yes. I have no interest in what pretty people with degrees (maybe) in theater think about foreign affairs, economic policy, rocket science, etc. They of course can have their opinion, but it has no place on the Oscars, they are not remotely qualified to speak to those issues. I am more qualified to pass out the Oscars myself, alone, now, than most actors/actresses are to lecture the public on politics. They can push their politics through channels devoted to that discussion. Now, if the Oscars remain nothing but Indie films I'm still not going to watch them, but I will accept a Indie film beating out a blockbuster if it can be demonstrated to me that it's because the film is better and not because of its politics.

No Country For Old Men is an example of a smaller film I could back, Juno is an example of a small film that if it had won (it didn't) would have been for political reasons. I do try to at least rent (if available) Oscar nominees, and it's usually pretty obvious when a nominee is only there for political reasons. All you have to do is ask yourself if this same format was used to make the exact opposite political statement, what treatment would the film receive?

[P@t_Mtl]

[QUOTE=J_UNTITLED;1527364]

When one would rather watch something that only will involve them visually but basically leave all other senses and inner workings cold, I personally would not be able to understand that.
QUOTE]

That is your opinion and you are allowed to think so but I am sorry to say, I have to do a job that requires a lot of concentration and attention to details all day long, if I would rather relax at night with my TV, my BD and watch something mindless like Mummy instead of Milk or any other movie of that type, well that's my choice

[DigitalfreakNYC]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

Lol, so true!

Guess y'all missed the other option.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by GORT

Well the 08 election just proved that statement wrong

But it took an idiot to get there first. If Star Wars Episode I won Best Picture everyone would be changing their position. It only takes one screw up to change everything.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by GORT

Well the 08 election just proved that statement wrong

LOL. Aint that the truth!