-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Lets Talk the last 5 years of Best Picture Oscar winners and where they stand now
- Thread starter Anthony Mooch
- Start date
I get what you're trying to say in this thread. Some blockbusters will be remembered more than Oscar winning films. That's not a mind blowing statement. However, I do want to point out that the vast majority of people still have cable. "Cord cutters" are a small minority so far.
If you go by popularity, you inevitably limit the types of stories that can gain acknowledgment, which is a shitty thing to do for an organization that should be about rewarding artistic merit. Consider Moonlight's concept: A movie about a gay, black man growing up in the hood. It also has no stars in the cast. It doesn't even have a single white character. What chance does this film have of grossing a ton of money at the box office?
The Oscars are about rewarding films that are created regardless of whether every thought going into them was "how can I attract the highest numbers to the box office?"
You really think blockbusters need MORE publicity or recognition? Are the millions or billions of dollars not enough?
I'll take a thought provoking or controversial film over a by the numbers IP any day of the week. Oscar season is the best time of year for film.
You really think blockbusters need MORE publicity or recognition? Are the millions or billions of dollars not enough?
I'll take a thought provoking or controversial film over a by the numbers IP any day of the week. Oscar season is the best time of year for film.
We arguing Hunger Games 3 should have gotten an Oscar? That's whats happening on resetera dot com?
Did someone made you feel like a Philistine, OP? Is this so we help you fell better about it?
You don't need to feel bad about not watching the good american dramas. Just as long as you watch the foreign ones. ;)
You don't need to feel bad about not watching the good american dramas. Just as long as you watch the foreign ones. ;)
I adored La La Land soooo much more than I did Whiplash, haha. Easily one of my favorite movies of the decade. Still listening to the soundtrack at least once a week or so since I first saw it. I definitely enjoyed it more than Whiplash.
I'm really into photography and those gorgeous landscape shots put the Revenant over the top for me, Spotlight definitely wasn't bad though.
Let's get some things out of the way:
1. Don't put so much stock in awards for art. At the end of the day, who cares? The mere notion of one organisation labelling a single film the "Best picture" of the year is obnoxious and obviously not going to please everyone.
2. The Academy Awards are obviously not taking every film or every genre into consideration fairly. There's clearly a bias for certain types of films and yes, that's kinda bullshit.
3. With that in mind, flipping the table when mediocre blockbuster schlock doesn't win Best Picture just because it made a bunch of money is ludicrous and undoes the aim of the Oscars: to find the quality films, regardless of their earnings. The Oscars are, hypothetically, able to highlight films that haven't overwhelmingly been marketed down our throats for months on end.
Is the current system perfect? Absolutely not and forgettable culturally vapid Oscar bait makes me discredit the Academy Awards almost entirely, but I'd much prefer this then ending up with an Infinity War, Black Panther, Wonder Woman and Star Wars jerk-fest where we prop up already mammoth franchises that absolutely do not deserve any more propping up. Films like Moonlight or The Shape of Water, which are actually really really good and really really well made by really really interesting directors are far worthier picks than just going with another blockbuster because of its perceived cultural relevance. Your argument amounts to "Look at all these films no one's talking about regardless of quality. Look at all these films everyone's talking about regardless of quality. May as well talk about the latter more and the former even less!"
Hell, in recent years the Academy has nominated films that break from stereotypical Oscar film because they've risen to a really high quality. Mad Max: Fury Road, for all the whining in this thread that it didn't win, did get nominated for Best Picture, which is about as good. The Academy recognised a sci-fi post-apocalyptic balls-to-the-wall action blockbuster. That's got to count for something.
No, the Academy Award picks aren't as simple as they used to be, but neither is the industry and I'd say that's less the fault of the Academy and more with the studios and audiences. The Godfather was not only a beloved cultural darling, but also a box office smash and extremely well made. That makes it easy to heap the awards its way. But these days studios deliberately set out to make films that make money (a big explosive blockbuster), and then separately, make films that garner awards (An awards-season drama). That isn't to say there can't be crossover or that there aren't quality films spread across both areas, but when something like Transformers is earning billions of dollars, can you really blame the Academy for hesitating to simply gravitate towards what the general populous is lapping up?
1. Don't put so much stock in awards for art. At the end of the day, who cares? The mere notion of one organisation labelling a single film the "Best picture" of the year is obnoxious and obviously not going to please everyone.
2. The Academy Awards are obviously not taking every film or every genre into consideration fairly. There's clearly a bias for certain types of films and yes, that's kinda bullshit.
3. With that in mind, flipping the table when mediocre blockbuster schlock doesn't win Best Picture just because it made a bunch of money is ludicrous and undoes the aim of the Oscars: to find the quality films, regardless of their earnings. The Oscars are, hypothetically, able to highlight films that haven't overwhelmingly been marketed down our throats for months on end.
Is the current system perfect? Absolutely not and forgettable culturally vapid Oscar bait makes me discredit the Academy Awards almost entirely, but I'd much prefer this then ending up with an Infinity War, Black Panther, Wonder Woman and Star Wars jerk-fest where we prop up already mammoth franchises that absolutely do not deserve any more propping up. Films like Moonlight or The Shape of Water, which are actually really really good and really really well made by really really interesting directors are far worthier picks than just going with another blockbuster because of its perceived cultural relevance. Your argument amounts to "Look at all these films no one's talking about regardless of quality. Look at all these films everyone's talking about regardless of quality. May as well talk about the latter more and the former even less!"
Hell, in recent years the Academy has nominated films that break from stereotypical Oscar film because they've risen to a really high quality. Mad Max: Fury Road, for all the whining in this thread that it didn't win, did get nominated for Best Picture, which is about as good. The Academy recognised a sci-fi post-apocalyptic balls-to-the-wall action blockbuster. That's got to count for something.
No, the Academy Award picks aren't as simple as they used to be, but neither is the industry and I'd say that's less the fault of the Academy and more with the studios and audiences. The Godfather was not only a beloved cultural darling, but also a box office smash and extremely well made. That makes it easy to heap the awards its way. But these days studios deliberately set out to make films that make money (a big explosive blockbuster), and then separately, make films that garner awards (An awards-season drama). That isn't to say there can't be crossover or that there aren't quality films spread across both areas, but when something like Transformers is earning billions of dollars, can you really blame the Academy for hesitating to simply gravitate towards what the general populous is lapping up?
Lolololol
Shape of Water is a masterpiece. They got it right.
The box office is low-bar trash, which is what the people like. People also like junkfood and McDonalds and the obesity epidemic is out of control.
I agree with your other two picks, though.
Shape of Water is a masterpiece. They got it right.
The box office is low-bar trash, which is what the people like. People also like junkfood and McDonalds and the obesity epidemic is out of control.
Of all of the BP Noms I watched, which is now most, Phantom Thread I enjoyed the least. And I like PTA movies a lot.
I agree with your other two picks, though.
All of these films were nominated for Best Picture, so the academy all but agrees with you. When it comes down to picking one of 6-10 really good movies, it's almost entirely subjective, so what's the point in even arguing at that point?
The Academy is recognising these films.
Again, MMFR was nominated for Best Picture. The Academy is recognising, amongst tens of thousands of films released in 2015, your film as one of ten best of the year and you're still complaining because it wasn't recognised as the single best? It's entirely subjective at that stage and completely and utterly futile.
Last edited:
Not once over the past 5 years my fav film of the year won the award (Her/Whiplash/Mad Max/Arrival/Call Me By Your Name), but I'm fine with the picks, but I'm fine with all the picks. I'm just glad Revenant didn't get BP for 2015, I actively dislike this movie.
Now once you get before the past 5 years it gets worse, The Artist won only because it was a weak year and nobody is giving an Iranian film BP, The King's Speech really didn't deserve it over The Artist and obviously Crash getting BP was a travesty.
Now once you get before the past 5 years it gets worse, The Artist won only because it was a weak year and nobody is giving an Iranian film BP, The King's Speech really didn't deserve it over The Artist and obviously Crash getting BP was a travesty.
Well that's why it got best cinematography, very much deservedly so. But outside of cinematography, a good performance by Tom Hardy and torturing DiCaprio the movie was trite garbage. It's an empty film that uses symbolism to cover up for the fact that it has nothing to say. Birdman was a fluke.
People need to stop assuming that the Academy Awards exists to entertain them or validate the 3 films they saw theatrically all year. It's not about you.
If you don't like watching the Academy Awards, don't watch. I don't care about the Grammy's, so instead of complaining about how my favorite no-name musician didn't get the shine I think they deserved, I simply just don't watch.
With the exception of Birdman, all the Best Picture winners in the OP are more interesting films than those in the column of the highest grossing films. I liked Rogue One and TLJ, but Spotlight and Moonlight are easily more interesting and heartfelt films than both of them. Just because people didn't want to give them a shot doesn't invalidate how good they are.
If you don't like watching the Academy Awards, don't watch. I don't care about the Grammy's, so instead of complaining about how my favorite no-name musician didn't get the shine I think they deserved, I simply just don't watch.
With the exception of Birdman, all the Best Picture winners in the OP are more interesting films than those in the column of the highest grossing films. I liked Rogue One and TLJ, but Spotlight and Moonlight are easily more interesting and heartfelt films than both of them. Just because people didn't want to give them a shot doesn't invalidate how good they are.
I feel like you're moving the goal posts here. We started out the thread with you saying that the fucking Hunger Games and the third Avengers movie should have won best picture by virtue of being popular. Now you just seem to be saying "I disagree with most of the specific movies that won recently," which, yeah, we all do. A lot of movies come out every year; your favorite one probably isn't going to win.
This is a pretty stupid argument to make.
All those box office bests are franchise juggernauts but they're ultimately disposable and forgettable. No one is re-watching any of that shit ever again. They're (unless true conclusions to a story) mostly just big budget episodes in large format stories we're all culturally following. Nothing about them contributes meaningfully to any discourse beyond fanboy wars.
Comparing them to artistic endeavors like Moonlight/12 Years or something retelling an important story like a Spotlight is asinine.
And yes, I'm aware how pretentious this all comes off. But it's still pretty damn true.
All those box office bests are franchise juggernauts but they're ultimately disposable and forgettable. No one is re-watching any of that shit ever again. They're (unless true conclusions to a story) mostly just big budget episodes in large format stories we're all culturally following. Nothing about them contributes meaningfully to any discourse beyond fanboy wars.
Comparing them to artistic endeavors like Moonlight/12 Years or something retelling an important story like a Spotlight is asinine.
And yes, I'm aware how pretentious this all comes off. But it's still pretty damn true.
Last edited:
All I know is that Moonlight is one of the most inspired and off the wall Academy winners of this century.
Don't even dare trying to tell me an art house coming of age picture about a gay black man with an entire black cast influenced by Wong Kar-wai was Oscar catnip.
Don't even dare trying to tell me an art house coming of age picture about a gay black man with an entire black cast influenced by Wong Kar-wai was Oscar catnip.
I really didn't like it once it finished For certain the actors gave stellar performances, but the ending was so disappointing. There was zero closure.
Popularity and ultimate quality (by my definition) rarely correlate. I don't mean this in a condescending way. I enjoy plenty of popular entertainment, and love seeing something I enjoy succeed.
By design most of what is wildly successful has the broadest appeal. In striving to be broadly appealing, there are often artistic sacrifices made. Concessions to appeal to the widest possible audience. Design by committee. Certain parameters that can't be exceeded. It's not easy to pull a massive hit out of the bag, very hard in fact, but I prefer my art to be largely independent of seeking to please a specific audience.
By design most of what is wildly successful has the broadest appeal. In striving to be broadly appealing, there are often artistic sacrifices made. Concessions to appeal to the widest possible audience. Design by committee. Certain parameters that can't be exceeded. It's not easy to pull a massive hit out of the bag, very hard in fact, but I prefer my art to be largely independent of seeking to please a specific audience.
But none of those movies are as big as star wars. If people are talking about star wars, that'll probably come up at some point.
I hated it. He played a song really well and earn the approval of a piece of shit....and then it ends. Presumably the protagonist continues to make terrible life choices in pursuit of his artistic goal, and the piece of shit continues to be a piece of shit.
This is ironic considering the news that they are alarmed about continuingly falling ratings of the Oscars year upon year and how there are talks about how they should cater to the general public taste more if they want to reverse that trend
The Box Office list consists purely of sci-fi genre movies. If you think five sci fi blockbusters are the five most important, talked about, best movies from that period in 10, 20, 50 years you're out of your mind.
I like some of those blockbusters a lot. But you're making a stupid argument. Is Ingmar Bergman's Cries and Whispers (1972) remembered more fondly and talked about more today or is Shaft's Big Score!, one of the top grossing movies of 1972?
Of course, the Oscars often make odd choices for their Best Picture winner. But you're not talking about that, you're simply saying because they grossed less they're important. Which is plain dumb.
Did you You not see that Disney are the ones forcing these changes on them?
Well, even if Disney is not there to force them, the fact that the ratings for the show is in a rapid decrease year after year clearly indicates how the Academy Award is increasingly irrelevant in the eyes of the general public.
Now, one might just scoff at the trend and say, "who cares about the general public!", but I suspect this is not the attitude the Academy Award will take in the future, we'll see how it goes.
Moonlight is going to be talked about in film classes for generations.
Avengers whatwver is just gonna get lumped in a paragraph with all the other super hero movies. Get outta here with that nonsense.
All award shows are on the decline. Even ones that cater to the general public like The Grammys. I think it has more to do with people ditching cable and these award shows still not being available to stream online.
Spotlight and Moonlight are fine, but I put them in a similar category to The Artist where they don't hold up that well. Moreso Spotlight.
Well, you can also say the fact that the "best picture" award means little for the movies that won it in terms of generating revenue, is also an indication that the general public just generally increasingly apathetic towards the Oscar.
Didn't realize the Oscars were supposed to be awarded to the films with the most merchandising potential. They've been really fucking up then.
I thought they were great. Hardy left a much better impression for me in The Revenant than he did in Mad Max, which I didn't like at all. DiCaprio was especially fantastic.