The industry term is “four walling.” If you just want to qualify for Oscar consideration, you directly buy a week of cinema time in LA and NY and get yourself on the list.
I remember how two separate biopics of Steve Prefontaine came out in 1998. And I think the two Truman Capote movies were released within a year of each other as well. I understand when two volcano movies, or two asteroid movies, both get greenlit at the same time, but I’m baffled as to what in the zeitgeist said “Two movies about Pre! The audience is there!”
Correct and the movie they submitted was not nominated. They messed up on that one.
I’m very disappointed to see that “In the Court of the Crimson King - King Crimson at 50” is not nominated for Best Documentary. It’s an outstanding film, and has not got the distribution nor the streaming deal it deserved.
I agree that Pearl deserved consideration in several categories, Mia Goth as best actress certainly being one. Maybe the judges got put off by the “slasher film” stigma, which as many have said many times, that is certainly not what this film was.
I’m surprised to see “Top Gun: Maverick” in there. It struck me as a typical mega-big-budget production just skating on visuals, FX, and ersatz patriotism.
Avatar is one of the few nominees that I haven’t seen, but here’s a secret: I never saw the original, either. The whole concept just doesn’t interest me. Absolutely loved Cameron’s Titanic, though, and most of his other films.
I really loved Elvis but I suspect the Academy will brush it aside for Best Picture, though I definitely think Austin Butler should be a strong contender for Best Actor. The guy was amazing. He was Elvis Presley.
I’ve seen Avatar and it is pretty good, but not amazing. It’s visuals are amazing, but as a movie, it’s just a decent good movie…that is not one I go back to ever. I’ll probably re-watch it before seeing Avatar 2 when that movie hits streaming or Blu-ray.
I disliked Top Gun 2. Well, more like I didn’t really get it. “He makey plane go fast” is almost all I took away from it.
I think for sure the horror genre is overlooked. Toni Collette gave the performance of the year in Hereditary a few years back and was ignored. And that is horror, but no slasher type movie, either.
Isabelle Adjani won awards for her performance in Possession, another stunning performance, but it was deemed horror and ignored by the Academy as well.
What’s not to understand? It’s a Men On a Mission flick. For the first two thirds of the movie they assemble the team and prepare for the mission (bickering all the way), then they have the mission, then something goes wrong. It’s one of the oldest formats in Hollywood: The Dirty Dozen, The Magnificent Seven, The Guns of Navaronne… it’s not that hard to understand.
It’s also quite consciously an extended metaphor for Cruise’s career as an action star in Hollywood. There’s more going on than just “planes go vroom.”
The thing that’s hard to understand is what it’s doing on the Best Picture nominees list.
It is exceedingly well crafted as a film. Most all of the elements that go into film making are of top quality. The Academy that votes on these things recognize the achievements.
The Academy Awards are industry awards, nominated and voted on by those in, or with strong ties to, the film industry. Top Gun is a solid film, it’s well made, and it made a ton of money in a down time for the industry. Plus, Tom Cruise is actually well liked, by his fellow actors and those behind the camera.
Fair enough – but that would justify it getting technical awards such as visual effects, art direction, cinematography, or editing. In my view “Best Picture” should be a recognition of the totality of the film with particular emphasis on its artistic merit, of which Top Gun 2 (again in my humble view) has very little.
Though note, Top Gun Maverick has gotten a decent amount of accolades beyond this. It was on the Top 10 Films of the Year by the AFI, nominated for Best Motion Picture - Drama at the Golden Globes, nominated for Best Picture by the Hollywood Critics Association Awards, etc
It’s called “show business”, not “art business”.
There’s indisputably some truth to that, within limits. There was once an old adage that movies that were great box office hits – i.e.- appealed to the unthinking masses due to things like car chases and big explosions – were automatically doomed at the Oscars. That started to change in recent years when spectacular extravaganzas like Titanic won Best Picture.
I’ve asked myself how I could justify Titanic deserving Best Picture but not Top Gun 2, since Titanic was also notable for its technical excellence yet had a rather weak story line. My answer is that the nominal story line – the romance between Jack and Rose – was really secondary to the film. It was basically a sort of frame around which to build the real story, which was the famous sinking of a giant luxurious ocean liner on her maiden voyage, and that story was told brilliantly and evocatively. Top Gun 2 has the technical excellence, but, at least for me, lacks the compelling story.
The Oscars are not immune to the fact that fewer people care about them year after year. The broadcast rating are plummeting. People want to see the movies they like win or at least be nominated and not some art house film that played for a week in NYC and then was buried on Prime never to be seen again. It’s why they expanded the film nominees to 10. They are advocating for the movie industry so the movies people actually watch are being honored. In general the more artistic movies with still have the advantage to win. My money is on Everything Everywhere for the win. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging the well made money making movies that are keeping the industry afloat and pleasing the audience at the same time.
Those are all excellent points. There is obviously very, very big money involved in the film industry and in the Oscars themselves, and where there’s that kind of money involved, money talks. Maybe one reason the Oscars have been falling out of favour is that the suspicions that they’re somehow “rigged” are at least partially true. Besides the influence of the studios and market forces, there’s also the idea of “best”–whatever awards being deserved because “it’s about time”, or not deserved because “the nominee is young”, rather than purely on merit. There are many things about the Oscars that piss people off. I used to watch them without fail, and with great anticipation, but no more.