Why I don't give a shit about the Oscars (R) this year:

I haven’t seen any of the films. Of the films/directing jobs/performances up for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Supporting Actress, I’ve seen one – Marion Cotillard for La Vie en Rose.

Why haven’t I seen them? A more depressing goddamn group of pictures I really can’t remember. (Okay, not Juno – but the two times I’ve tried to go see Juno both fell through on me for logistical reasons, so I still haven’t seen it.) So instead of my usual one or two movies a month – nothing compared to Archive Guy, I realize, but a reasonable number of movies for a normal person to see in the theater – I’ve seen three movies in the last year. (That can’t be right, can it? La Vie en Rose; Once; Walk Hard. Yup, three.)

What the hell is going on, if there’s nothing in the theaters that doesn’t make me want to slit my freaking wrists (including “blockbusters” that make me want to slit my freaking wrists at the lowness of the lowest common denominator of moviemaking)?

Don’t feel bad…I haven’t seen any of them either.

It hit me the other day when I read that the Oscars were coming up, I was completely unaware. Used to be a day that I circled on the calendar, but it utterly snuck up on me this time around. A few short years ago, I considered myself a major film buff – I saw as many movies as I could, and the ones we didn’t see in the theatre, we rented.

The last movie I saw in the theater was Revenge Of The Sith, and I still haven’t picked a new video store since moving here almost two years ago.

Hmmm…now that I think about it, my waning interest in movies pretty much coincides with the birth of my daughter. Funny thing, that. :slight_smile:

The problem for me is the type of movies that are generally up for Oscars, are the ones that I wait for to come out on DVD.
I’ll go to the theatre to see a loud surround sound F/X filled summer blockbuster but when it comes to something like There Will Be Blood, Michael Clayton, or No Country for Old Men, I’ll wait for the DVD for two reasons. 1) These movies don’t need the “big screen” treatment. A 40-50" set at home is fine. And 2) I don’t want the movie ruined by people talking. Someone talking during Transformers doesn’t bug me but somebody chatting during Eastern Promises surely would.

So all the serious drama Oscar noms have to wait for street release for me.

Yeah, but you’re interested in seeing them. I’m not interested in any of the nominated films – aside from Juno; I’d kind of like to see He’s Not There, though none of my usual movie-going pals is interested; and a friend wants to see There Will Be Blood, and I’m not adamantly against it.

But overall – what a grim, dark, bleak, depressing group of films. How do they expect to lure people back to the theaters with this shit?

I wouldn’t say the crop this year is depressing so much as they are realistic. Realistic vs. escapist. All of them are pretty plausible, in their own way – they document fairly realistic situations.

In past years there have been a lot of movies that are pure escapism, and that’s fine – love those kinds of movies. This years crop present events that, while fictional, are believable.

I’ve seen all the nominees for best picture, and most of the films for which other awards are based. In fact, this year I’ve seen more of the Oscar films than any year I can remember. I’ve also reviewed and rated them, so I remember more of why I liked or didn’t like them. I agree that this year hasn’t been great for big, block-busting escapist fantasies, but the gritty, in-your-face movies that are nominated are all solid films that people will want to watch again.

Except for Atonement, which I found pretentious and lame, I think any of the nominees would be good choices for best picture.

Some people will. Other people will not want to watch them even once.

I’m annoyed at so many of the noms being films that came out in late December and not even wide release until 2008.

So you haven’t seen any of the movies, but you’re sure they’re all depressing? Interesting. It’s not as if Once was the feel-good escapist movie of the year, but I assume you wanted to see it. And personally, I can’t think of anything more depressing than another weak parody (Walk Hard). Haven’t seen La Vie en Rose, though.

It was depressing. shrug And we went to see Walk Hard not because we thought it would be a great film, but because we were in the mood to laugh at a movie. Not a lot of options for that in 2007.

I see plenty of grim films. Oscar-winners of recent years that I’ve seen and loved include Million Dollar Baby and The Lives of Others – neither one exactly a light-hearted romp.

What I’m bitching about is that there’s **nothing but ** grim, gritty, depressing, and in-your-face being represented here.

I hadn’t noticed it before, but there does seem to be a large amount of bleak & depressing films this year getting high praise from the Oscars, not to mention several of my favorites that weren’t even nominated (“Sweeney Todd,” “The Orphanage” [or is that 2008?], etc.) But is that really a bad thing? They’re all great films, IMO. I’d rather have many well-made, well-acted and engrossing bleak films than poorly made comedies & mindless action films.

Oscars? Are they still doing those?

I’m not sure what makes this year all that different, other than that the general quality is higher.

Remember some of last year’s top nominees: The Departed, Babel, The Last King of Scotland, Letters from Iwo Jima, The Queen, Blood Diamond, Little Children, Notes on a Scandal, United 93, Pan’s Labyrinth? That’s a particularly glum bunch (with Little Miss Sunshine being the only high-profile exception).

And the year before? Crash, Brokeback Mountain, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich, Capote, North Country, A History of Violence, The Constant Gardener, Memoirs of a Geisha, Syriana? Walk the Line and Pride and Prejudice were the closest thing to major uplift there.

The year before lightened up a teeny bit (relatively speaking, with Sideways, Ray, Finding Neverland), but there was still Million Dollar Baby, Hotel Rwanda, Vera Drake, Maria Full of Grace, The Passion of the Christ, Closer, The Aviator, et al.

So is this year that much different? I don’t think so–it’s just that the movie subjects themselves may not interest you as much this time around. Heck, this is the first time in a decade that 4 comedies are nominated in the Original Screenplay category. And The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is beautifully inspiring as well.

I’m sorry if you’ve had an off-year with the cinematic choices available, but I’d argue the landscape hasn’t changed that much. Perhaps you have…

Both NCFOM and TWBB need the big screen treatment. The oil fire in TWBB needs to be seen on the big screen.

Good point – and certainly a possibility, given how many of the other films you list I’ve seen.

No Country For Old Men was a fantastic movie (and I hope and pray it gets best picture), but there was nothing about it that required it to be seen on the big screen.

It’s also the only movie in the running this year that I’ve seen. I’ll get around to Juno eventually, but I agree with whoever said Oscar-type movies are usually better experienced on DVD.

The sound and the cinematography. Unless you’ve got a great setup at home, it’s not gonna be as thrilling or stark in stereo on a standard TV. I saw it twice because I knew it wouldn’t be as good at home. YMMV.

Are teenagers piling in to see a three hour epic about a turn of the century oil man? Most of the best picture nominations were very limited release, and I had to go to art cinemas to see most of them. Those teenagers are probably at Eastern Promises to see the steam room scene. The kids love Viggo Mortensen.

What do the Oscars have to do with you seeing a movie? If you don’t want to see a bleak film, don’t. There were plenty of well-reviewed happy movies this year. Ratatouille, Hot Fuzz, Superbad, Juno, Knocked Up, and Once off the top of my head. Most people seeing limited release Oscar bait aren’t as picky as you.

It’s always amusing to me when people who don’t go to many or any movies complain about the “state of movies today” when, unless you live in hicksville where the theater selection is dismal, which you don’t because Philadelphia is not, there’s always something to see that’s not wrist slitting-inducing.

It’s not amusing when people like you complain about films but when a good film of the type that you would probably enjoy comes out, you don’t go to see and support it, therefore it bombs, and what’s the incentive of studios to make more like it? It’s people like you, on a large scale, that makes studios think “nobody wants to see these kinds of movies” when it comes to quality, interesting, inspiring films.

Luckily they’re still making them because their money will probably be made back on DVD and television sales, but you’re not helping.

I just looked through the list of movies I saw in 2007 (around 150), deleted the Seriously Heavy Dramas such as There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men, the genre movies like 3:10 to Yuma, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and Grindhouse, the more mainstream dramas like Michael Clayton and We Own The Night, and the embarrassments (god help me, I didn’t WANT to go see Fred Claus, but I thought, how bad could it be with the amiable Vince Vaughn and Paul Giamatti? god help me, I found out). I also took out the blockbusters like Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean.

The ones that remain range from the enjoyably frothy (like Enchanted and Stardust) to the really dumb but lots of fun (like Balls of Fury and Dragon Wars), to some more serious and with weighter subjects, but enjoyable and inspiring (such as Amazing Grace, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Talk To Me, The Great Debates and Freedom Writers).

(Btw, the ratings only indicate how much I enjoyed them, not to indicate a be-all and end-all of their quality. I enjoyed the hell out of Across the Universe, it was my 3rd favorite film of 2007, but it’s not on the same level as, say, There Will Be Blood, which would also get an A+. TWBB I consider a masterpiece, a classic, AtC I consider a cracking good time at the movies. I know that makes my ratings fairly useless, but I only kept this list for myself, not to post, and I’m too lazy to take out all the ratings.)

The bolded ones were nominated for Oscars.

Across The Universe - A+
Amazing Grace - A
Astronaut Farmer, The - B
August Rush - B+
Balls of Fury - C+
Becoming Jane - B
Bee Movie - B
Bridge to Terebithia - B+
Bucket List, The - B-
Catch And Release - B-
Charlie Wilson’s War - A+
Dan In Real Life - B+
Darjeerling Limited, The - A-
Death At A Funeral - B
Diving Bell and the Butterfly, The - A+
Dragon Wars - C+
Enchanted - A+
Feast Of Love - B+
Final Season, The - B
Freedom Writers - B
Golden Compass, The - B
Gracie - B+
Gray Matters - B
Great Debaters, The - B+
Hairspray - A-
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - B+
Hot Fuzz - A-
In The Land Of Women - B
Introducing the Dwights - B
Jane Austin Book Club, The - B
Juno - B+
Knocked Up - A-
Ladron Que Roba A Ladron - B+
Lars and the Real Girl - A-
Last Mimzy, The - B-
Martian Child - B+
Meet The Robinsons - B
Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium - C
Music Within - A
Namesake, The - A
No Reservations - B-
Ocean’s Thirteen - B-
Once - A-
P.S. I Love You - B-
Perfect Holiday, The - B-
Ratatouille - A+
Savages, The - A

Shoot 'em Up - B+
Simpsons Movie, The - B+
Stardust - A-
Starter For 10 - B+
Superbad - A-
Surf’s Up - B+
Talk To Me - A
Waitress - B+
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story - B
Water Horse: Legend of the Deep, The - B
Wristcutters: A Love Story - B
Year Of The Dog - B+
You Kill Me - B

There were some decent blockbusters. Harry Potter, The Bourne Ultimatum, Spider-Man 3, Pirates 3, and I Am Legend. I actually even enjoyed Transformers.
I’m not implying you should have to care about the Oscars or the Oscar movies. If Big Heavy Dramas are not your thing, no problem, but the Oscars are not the People’s Choice Awards and BHDs are, as ArchiveGuy pointed out, usually what gets nominated for Oscars for their content, the craft involved, and for their performances. There’s almost always the enjoyable Little Movie That Could in the mix, like Babe, The Full Monty, Little Miss Sunshine and this year’s Juno, which you admit you haven’t even seen (so don’t say there’s “nothing but” BHDs). In years to come the Oscar history books aren’t going to notate which movies Twickster wanted to see nominated and win, they’ll show a cross-selection of (usually) very good movies from that year. Not all the very good ones can get in, and not all the best ones win (subjective), but they’re always quality movies worthy of attention for one reason or another no matter what the naysayers say (“How the hell did Titanic get nominated for anything, let alone win?” “Why in the world is Michael Clayton up for Best Picture??” “Babe? Are you freakin’ kidding me?”).

I’d be one of the ones in your group. I don’t watch movies for “realism,” I watch for “escapism.”

I guess they’re a bit worried about the Oscar audience considering that few of the films nominated for best picture were blockbusters – I guess they’re all or mostly in the under $100,000,000 camp. They’re hoping that people will tune in just out of boredom because they’re tired of no original programming.

Good luck with that.

How many of these movies from Archive Guy’s list broke $100 million?:

Oscar-nominated movies are never really popular until after they win an Oscar.