James Berardinelli's solution to fix the Best Picture Oscar award

That's stupid.

stupid frickin solution

That's pretty goddamn communist if you ask me.

quote:

---

solution to fix the Best Picture Oscar award

---

This needs to be fixed? I thought lots of big films have won it?

quote:

---

Or another solution is we could recognize the Oscars for what they really are: nothing more than an evening where the Hollywood elite get to enjoy the smell of their own farts on national television.

---

agreed, as usual

self-indulgent, self-congratulatory circle jerk

That is a horrible idea. It is just to try and push out high quality independent films.

You should preface this by saying what it is, a way to make the Oscar telecast more successful. On that note, it's a good idea.


It's also a slight nod to finding movies that are both high quality and reach an audience. There's something to that. Too many of these gut reactions are about thinking Berardinelli means "high quality films make money," which is, although debatable, not the point.

And I find it strange that many here don't like this, but constantly moan about SPR over Shakespeare in Love.

Would it really change anything though? The Hurt Locker and Crash are the only Best Picture winners in the last 25 years to not gross 100+ million at the box office. Birdman/Boyhood will probably be added to the list this year but all in all, it's rare for a Best Picture winner to not be a success at the box office.

quote:

---

SiL hit his $100 million threshold

---

I'm just thinking from the "bigger hit shouldn't win," idea. SPR was ~$210 to SiL's, 100.

quote:

---

and its not a gut reaction.

its a stupid idea. period.

---

His goal is to say what would make the Oscars more watchable, that's all. And he has a point.

Again, the Oscars, even at the current level, have nothing to do with budget, quality or anything else. It's pure manipulation and media savvy. There's nothing to keep "pure," so a terrible idea it is not.

He asks a simple question:

quote:

---

Are the Oscars out of touch?

---

quote:

---

Yes, its a terrible idea and he doesnt have a good point at all.

---

He's merely poking a hole and opening a discussion to point to the question of what deserves honor? Does something need to be "in touch," to be "great?" Or can it be "out of touch," and still be great.

It's a viable artistic question.

quote:

---

More popular movies doesnt make it more watchable

---

Maybe not watchable, but viewership probably increases.

quote:

---

Having a solid host and speeding up the damn thing does that

He is making the same stupid argument some try to make when a small market sports team makes a championship game.

---

Not really:

quote:

---

The Academy's argument is straightforward. Supporters of the current Best Picture selection claim that the films are chosen by artistic merit rather than for commercial reasons. This is, of course, bullshite. Studios spend millions upon millions of dollars attempting to buy nominations and, for the most part, they are successful, at least if a movie is well regarded. The end result isn't necessarily that the nominees represent excellence but the perception of quality is high. Box office blockbusters rarely get nominated, and even more rarely win, because there's a stigma against them. In many cases, money is perceived as the antithesis of quality. It's a hypocritical stance but that's one reason why Whiplash (which I adored) got a nod and Interstellar (which I cited as the best film of 2014) didn't.

---

He's saying it's already tainted, which you must agree with.