Oscars 2018 - Nominations

[Eric Paddon]

I didn't watch. But in the course of the work I have to do to earn a living, I must go through news sites that also report what was said at the event. So that's why I have as much an ability to comment on the goings-on there as others do about cable news channels and radio talk shows.

[esteban miranda]

I wonder if the sagging ratings have more to do with lack of interest in the current Hollywood output or in the awards ceremony itself.
Are those who buy most movie tickets also those who will sit through the (long) awards ceremony?
I myself used to (years ago when I still had a VHS recorder hooked up) record the show and scan through the highlights the next day, but I haven't done that in 15 years.
Since 2007 I've watched an average of 7 or 8 new movies a year, most of them pretty forgettable, and most years I find myself having not seen any of the films nominated in major categories so I really have little incentive...

[AndyDursin]

It's primarily a function of the films and the declining collective interest in them. Go back and look at most of the films that won even in the 90s...people still watch and talk about Silence of the Lambs, Braveheart etc. today. I find it hard to believe most are going to care about Moonlight and The Shape of Water a couple of months from now much less decades.

[AndyDursin]

[KevinEK]

Eric, there’s a key difference in the situations you’re describing. The others you’re referring to have actually watched the programming on those cable news networks and have listened to those radio shows. You’re saying that you didn’t watch the show but are still making comments that none of the jokes were funny and that the show was saying things like “f-off”. I’m surprised to hear that. I get it that you don’t like the people or the show, but why spend any time on it if that’s the case?


Andy, I agree with most of your posting (Funny nickname for Shape of Water) but I promise there’s a big difference between a movie like Moonlight and Shape of Water. The latter film is actually quite a good film and a good showing by del Toro. It’s not a blockbuster but it did good business and I think it earned it. I’ll be curious to see your reaction once you’ve seen it for review here, unless you’ve already seen it.

On the notion of what movies are going to be talked about in years to come, how many people talk today about Ordinary People, Tender Mercies, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Being There, or Children of a Lesser God? And I say that as someone who appreciates and enjoys those films. This year we had a few good ones in the mix, certainly more than last year’s showing. And I’m not referring to super hero movies or sequels, although Logan surprised me in that area.

[Paul MacLean]

We are in a time when the movies are either mindless giants with $250 million budgets and lots of CGI and stunts or they are $2 million budget indie arthouse movies that most people have never cared to see.

I miss the the days of Orion, Hemdale, Saul Zaentz, Handmade Films, etc. and their more modest-budgeted productions -- films which could take more chances because they weren't obsessed with appealing to the widest demographic, yet weren't so "independent" as to be dense, "personal films" which no one other than the director (and poseur college professors) could appreciate.

[Eric Paddon]

Actually there is no difference since you're admitting that what you post about a cable news channel and a radio talk show is based on what you read about them. Which makes our respective situations identical.

[Monterey Jack]

On the notion of what movies are going to be talked about in years to come, how many people talk today about Ordinary People, Tender Mercies, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Being There, or Children of a Lesser God? And I say that as someone who appreciates and enjoys those films.

Hell, regardless of Awards Season consideration, there are TONS of movies every year -- some that even attained blockbuster status -- which no one talks about decades after the fact. Independence Day is a classic example of a "Teflon Blockbuster" that raked it in twenty+ years ago on the basis of a slick ad campaign and the then-novelty of CGI, yet the anemic take of its belated sequel proved that no one really remembered the movie with any degree of fondness. The same summer's Twister comes to mind as well...I remember enjoying that on a dumb, shallow "flying cow" level back in the day, yet I have NEVER owned a copy of it, not on VHS, laserdisc, DVD or Blu-Ray. I must have rented it on VHS at least once, but other than that, I can barely remember anything about it other than Philip Seymour Hoffman droning on about the "Suck Zone" and Helen Hunt in a wet t-shirt.

Let's face it...90% of ALL aspects of pop culture is inherently disposable, something you take in, enjoy for a short period, then forget about it five years later. A catchy song that's on the radio constantly for about a month, then you hear on the Oldies station decades later and kinda remember rocking out to it on summer vacation when you were fifteen. That dumb comedy movie that was on HBO every day for a month straight in 1986 that you don't remember anything about other than a random line you and your friends always shared with each other. There's this great podcast, "80's All Over", hosted by film critics and wroters Drew McWeeny and Scott Weinberg, and it's gone meticulously on a month-by-month basis through the whole decade (the latest one covers January of 1983), and for every formative classic from that era, there are at least four or five movies I have never even HEARD of, some so obscure they don't even have Wikipedia entries. Want to know what the ninth highest-grossing film of 1981 was?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fourseasons.htm

What?!

[AndyDursin]

You mean people in 1981 actually paid to see movies that didn't have a group of idiots running around in spandex?? NO WAY!! What fools!!

Did you ever hear of a show called M*A*S*H? One of the most popular sitcoms of all-time? There was this actor on it named Alan Alda, and he made a few of his own movies. That one made a LOT of money...

I actually saw that film with my parents. We were in a small town in Maine on vacation and it was the only film playing in a really old-time, single-screen theater. I don't remember a lot about it (I must have been 6 or 7, and they dragged me to it because there was no other option!), but I do remember sitting in the top row of the balcony, and the bit where Jack Weston's car fell through the ice and the crowd was roaring with laughter. That film got a lot of good reviews and was a big hit at the time -- just because a group of milennials whose film IQ extends back to SPEED (which seems to be 80% of the quoted "Tomato Meter" critics) haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's not worthwhile.

Sure there are always "bad movies" but, worth bearing in mind, there were a LOT more movies being made and released in 1981 than today, so the fact some of those films are unknown to a certain audience doesn't mean there still weren't better quality films being produced back then. There was certainly a much more diverse set of films being released in that era also. If you want to take any year from the 1980s, show me every major studio release, and match it up with the output of every major studio in any given year from the last decade or so -- you are crazy (or you just have terrible taste) if you think we're in a "better place" or even an equivalent place in terms of where cinema is in 2018. There are far fewer films, and far fewer choices, in general for someone who's going out to see a movie on the big screen today. THAT is why attendance continues to decline, and that's a serious problem the industry much less the Academy is facing. (And I'm just talking about movies here, not what's available on video, on demand, streaming etc)

I mean, get yourself primed for Disney's schedule until 2023 (linked in this tweet below). This is where cinema is going, and unless you're going to command 4000 screens with some pre-fab brand, the small screen is going to be more and more of a viable outlet for most any project I'd imagine.

[KevinEK]

A lot to respond to here:

Andy, you're absolutely right that more interesting stuff is being found on the small screen these days than the large screen. For exactly the reasons I pointed out before - that for the cinema, we have either the giant drunken brontosauruses of the summer or we have the tiny Awards Bait indie movies of the fall, and there is precious little in between. Some years go better than others. Some years have a lot of high fructose corn syrup and very little actual substance. Most of what used to be the mid-level solid movies that would get more attention is now being done for HBO or Netflix as a miniseries (and sometimes, frankly, to better effect than they would have as a 2 hour movie). It is pretty much unlikely today that we ever see an actual blockbuster that has anything on its mind, to the point that you'd have a Best Picture race between two major crowdpleasers like My Fair Lady and Mary Poppins. I agree with you there. But I think it's unfortunate to dismiss the movies that did get nominated or considered as all being nothing films that nobody cares about or will ever see, particularly when several of them are actually quite good and worthy of people's attention. A movie making over $100 million is not doing nothing. And both Three Billboards and Shape of Water did just that. They are not contenders for the movies that the fewest people ever saw. There are always good quality movies being produced. It's incorrect to think that just because Disney wants to crank out cookie-cutter franchise sequels that this means there will be nothing of substance for the rest of us that isn't a movie that was made for two bucks and a sandwich and short ends. The reason there were a LOT more movies released in 1981 is because that and network TV was the only real pipeline at the time - and network TV was mostly considered a wasteland of lowest common denominator dreck. Even the "quality shows" haven't necessarily aged well, as much as I personally admire them. In the meantime, a lot of new pipelines have come into play, including premium channels and streaming channels, and now we have a major font of new content that doesn't depend on the cinema. There's a part of that which saddens me, but at the same time, I'm happy to see that there is so much interesting new material, albeit in a new iteration. I have a decent home theater for myself, and I tend to watch material at home most of the time. I only rarely go out to the cinema, and I'm probably a typical case in that matter. But that doesn't mean that decent movies aren't being made. Dismissing the good ones we do get in the name of "well, nobody's heard of this and who cares" is unfortunate, and it denigrates the work of people like Guillermo del Toro, who resisted the wishes of Universal Studios to instead make a movie he actually wanted to make.


Jack, your point is well-taken. Most blockbusters have a VERY short half-life. And, like Andy, I too have seen The Four Seasons. Although I saw it on the Z Channel in Los Angeles. Frankly, I was scared you were going to bring up the classic film "So Fine", where Ryan O'Neal debuts a new form of cutoff jeans while fleeing for his life from angry husband Richard Kiel. (And I really wish I was making that one up) I admit actually laughing twice during that movie, during the points where it went over the top so far that I finally couldn't help myself anymore...

Paul, I agree with you completely. But I also note that some of the productions we see that get distribution from Focus Features or Fox Searchlight are actually pretty good. They don't have a perfect track record, but they do have some winners in there. The difference these days is that Handmade Films and Orion actually stood behind their movies from the beginning, as I understand it. In the 70s and 80s, if you were making a movie for them, you really were working for Orion or George Harrison or Mel Brooks or whoever. Nowadays, the movies get made very cheaply by indie producers, who live on the hope that their movie will get featured in one of the major film festivals so that a studio will agree to do a negative pickup and get them in the running for awards. Sadly, the large majority of these indies never even get the pickup. I know multiple producers who made good movies that never found purchase. The ones that do get through, most of the time, are the ones with marketable stars or a name director. In spite of that, in some of the recent years, we have still seen some solid movies get through that weren't artsy to the point of driving one crazy and weren't simplistic to the point of wasting one's time.

Eric Paddon, you've somehow misunderstood what I've been posting in the past. I don't know where you got the idea I was saying that I posted about what I "read about" a cable news channel or a radio talk show. To clarify, I have watched plenty of shows over the past 10 years on Fox News and I've heard plenty of AM radio shows on KFI and KEIB in Los Angeles, with comedian personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, John & Ken, Armstrong & Getty, Bryan Suits, John Ziegler, etc. I do so because I listen to both ends of the opinion spectrum and because friends of mine in Los Angeles tend to rely on those sources, and it helps to know from whence they will approach a discussion. So to repeat what I said before, yes, "the others" you were referring to have actually seen and heard the shows they are discussing, and therefore have firsthand knowledge of the matter. I note that you have confirmed that you didn't watch this Oscar broadcast but feel free to pass judgment on it based on reading some secondhand accounts of it. Yes, there is a difference between those two approaches. I'm frankly surprised to hear that you are unclear on this.

[Eric Paddon]

Once more since you seem to keep ignoring what I posted initially. I have read up on what was said in outlets that I have to read as part of my job (and that includes news outlets from all over the spectrum) so that is how I become aware of what was said. Each one of your replies has ignored that point that was made more than once which makes an expression of surprise that I am aware of such things irrelevant. Unless you want to say that the remarks I've commented on are inaccurate comments, you really haven't much of a reason to complain about the fact that I chose to comment on what was said. In short, there is again no difference.

[AndyDursin]

But I think it's unfortunate to dismiss the movies that did get nominated or considered as all being nothing films that nobody cares about or will ever see, particularly when several of them are actually quite good and worthy of people's attention. A movie making over $100 million is not doing nothing. And both Three Billboards and Shape of Water did just that. They are not contenders for the movies that the fewest people ever saw. There are always good quality movies being produced. It's incorrect to think that just because Disney wants to crank out cookie-cutter franchise sequels that this means there will be nothing of substance for the rest of us that isn't a movie that was made for two bucks and a sandwich and short ends.

Kevin I am making a general statement. I never said there wouldn't ANY films made of substance for people to see. However, are there fewer, especially from major studios? I don't see how you can argue that there aren't. Or that attendance isn't dropping off. We know that's a fact. Or that the kinds of movies I really enjoyed going to see that weren't the 22nd Marvel Comics movie or the 4th fairy tale remake or the 11th Star Wars film aren't being made as movies -- they are going to streaming, cable TV, whatever. You are making my point there. I am only talking about the experience of going to the movies here. I am not talking about the how or the why behind it.

As for the Oscars themselves, I actually have seen most of the field this year, and I was totally underwhelmed by I TONYA (in spite of Janney's performance), LADY BIRD (grossly overpraised), DUNKIRK (technically brilliant, dramatically a massive disappointment), GET OUT (reasons already outlined). DARKEST HOUR was fine, Oldman was great, I had some reservations with the movie. Great movie? No. THREE BILLBOARDS I thought was well-acted and solid, though it is also not something I would ever watch a second time (same reaction I've had to that filmmaker's pictures in the past), nor would I necessarily recommend it unless you are a fan of his work.

I really don't feel like going back over the last few years and parsing through the field again -- suffice to say GENERALLY I've had the same reaction to what's been nominated in recent years (or maybe decades at this point, I'd have to go back and look).

Also, I've seen SO FINE -- it's a favorite too. Comedies are another dying component of the big-screen experience as well, lamentably (and what we do get are usually R-rated bodily fluid joke machines).

[Monterey Jack]

You mean people in 1981 actually paid to see movies that didn't have a group of idiots running around in spandex?? NO WAY!! What fools!!

That film got a lot of good reviews and was a big hit at the time -- just because a group of milennials whose film IQ extends back to SPEED (which seems to be 80% of the quoted "Tomato Meter" critics) haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's not worthwhile.

I wasn't implying that film was bad or anything (I've never seen it), I just find it kind of amazing that a middle-aged relationship dramedy would be the ninth-highest grossing film of the year almost thirty years ago...and that it grossed only $50 million to make it that high. And look at it now...even people who made it a hit back then probably don't remember a lick about it.

I totally agree that the "all event movie franchises, all the time" model of current Hollywood is draining and can't possibly be sustained in the long run, and that we've come a long way from the era when a silly, benign comedy like Every Which Way But Loose or 9 To 5 could gross $100 million and be one of the top-grossing films of the year. Nowadays the only comedies being made are R-rated raunch-fests that are nothing but actors improvising non-stop with no clear plot structure. Pretty much the only good comedy made last year was the charming The Big Sick, and I was pleased to see it earn an Oscar nomination for its screenplay and become a modest hit.

[Eric Paddon]

I think it was a hit because Alda back then had a lot of drawing power because of MASH and because of his whole "sensitive man" image. As the 80s progressed and MASH ended that whole image of his fell out of favor completely with audiences.

[AndyDursin]

I wasn't implying that film was bad or anything (I've never seen it), I just find it kind of amazing that a middle-aged relationship dramedy would be the ninth-highest grossing film of the year almost thirty years ago.

Well, adults used to go to the movies -- it wasn't just a playground for teenagers and nerds. There wasn't any Netflix or a glut of cable TV shows to choose from. Plus like Eric said, it was a movie starring/directed by one of the most popular TV actors on one of the most popular shows. Film was well-reviewed, even spawned a short-lived TV series of its own shortly thereafter (which Alda even had a cameo in at the start).

I haven't seen it since -- and you're right, it's seldom been circulated over the years -- and Alda turned out to be hit or miss as a filmmaker. SWEET LIBERTY though has its moments (Michael Caine, Bob Hoskins, and Michelle Pfeiffer too), as does A NEW LIFE. BETSY'S WEDDING is more miss than hit, lol.

...and that it grossed only $50 million to make it that high.

You shouldn't be surprised by that. A $50 million grossing film in 1981 is roughly the same as a $200 million grossing film in 2018 when inflation is adjusted. That's why comparing numbers from today compared to decades ago is totally useless.

But even inflation alone doesn't factor in how the gross of every blockbuster today is pumped up by things like IMAX and 3-D. That's why the breathless reportage of box-office records being continuously smashed is close to a worthless statistic when the playing field isn't level. RAIDERS didn't open on 4000 screens and have IMAX available to inflate its numbers the way something like BLACK PANTHER does today.

The real comparable number for all of these things ought to be tickets sold, but that's not a stat that's ever been calculated.