# This is what's wrong with the Oscars **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 27, 2005, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137 "2005-02-27T09:25:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/1 "2005-02-27T09:25:10Z")
From an AP article bemoaning the fact that Oscar nominees haven’t much money: > [@](#): > > The big hits of 2004 included “Shrek 2,” “Spider-Man 2” and “The Incredibles,” but they were lighter flicks that never drew much best-picture buzz. A) I loved Spider-Man 2. It was deserving of something greater than sound editing and visual effects. B) I haven’t seen it, but others tell me (and I’ve read from well-respected critics) that The Incredibles was the best movie of the year. It’s a cartoon about superheroes that’s good. Get over it. C) Almost every movie that’s “Oscar-worthy” this year came out in the last week of December and didn’t go wide until about two weeks ago. Who can keep up with that? The Academy needs to realize that this is not the way to reward the year in movies and require everything to go wide before it can be nominated. It still bugs that there was all this buzz in 1998 about some movie called Rushmore that supposedly had Bill Murray’s greatest performance ever. Except Rushmore didn’t open wide until February 5 and didn’t come to my city (Rochester, NY) until March. What a waste. And Rushmore freakin’ blew! Of course this year, The Life Aquatic, an actual honest-to-god great movie, opens in December and it ignored. Maybe this should have gone in The Pit… ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/2 "2005-02-27T16:32:01Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > A) I loved Spider-Man 2. It was deserving of something greater than sound editing and visual effects. As this is literally the only film nominated for anything that I’ve seen, I can state that no, no it didn’t. > [@JB](#): > > B) I haven’t seen it, but others tell me (and I’ve read from well-respected critics) that The Incredibles was the best movie of the year. It’s a cartoon about superheroes that’s good. Get over it. I don’t know what the Academy’s rules are, but could it be that the film is eligible for best animated film but not best picture? Or that the producers had to choose what category to run it for and they chose animated because it would have a better shot? > [@JB](#): > > C) Almost every movie that’s “Oscar-worthy” this year came out in the last week of December and didn’t go wide until about two weeks ago. Who can keep up with that? The Academy needs to realize that this is not the way to reward the year in movies and require everything to go wide before it can be nominated. Academy rules require that a film play in Los Angeles for one week during the nominating year. This is actually beneficial to smaller films, because they don’t have to be released nationally to be considered. You’re factually incirrect regarding the release dates for this year’s nominated films. The US release dates of each were: Aviator: 12-17 Finding Neverland: 10-29 Million Dollar Baby: 12-15 Ray: 10-24 Sideways: 10-12 ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/3 "2005-02-27T16:36:55Z")
The thing is, you don’t get to vote on the Oscars, so it’s meaningless whether the movies open wide or not. Members of the Academy get copies of all the movies sent to them on DVD, or shown at private showings for some of the documentary or short film categories. Prestige movies tend to open in the fall or just before the end of the year. Summers are taken up by crappy blockbusters - like Spider-Man 2, of which all that can be said is that it was better than Spider-Man 1, damning it with faint praise. Halloween is horror films, Thanksgiving is children’s films, the beginning of the year is crap that wouldn’t have a chance any other time. Fall is set aside for adults. We get so little, after all. Leave us something. A few movies come out right before the end of the year because they have to play in Los Angeles to be eligible in that calendar year. Not that many movies do this any more. Most of them have a few weeks of rollout before wide opening. This is a good thing, because it means that word of mouth can spread and they aren’t subject to the opening weekend Must Make Money or Die effect. But the alternative is having them come out in January and have everyone assume that they’re crap. The Incredibles was a good cartoon. Yes, it is eligible for Best Movie. Was it comparable to a good movie about real people? No. It was a cartoon aimed at kids and compromised in any number of ways because of that. And Shrek 2 blew chunks. Get over it. I’m not sure why people complain about this aspect of the Oscars. Are all the films available to be watched before the ceremony? Yes, they certainly are, at least for all the major acting categories. They’re in the theaters right now. So why do you care when they’re released? ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/4 "2005-02-27T16:58:12Z")
So you’re going to ignore the fact that [Spider-Man 2](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_2/) sits at 93% on Rotten Tomatoes and [The Incredibles](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/incredibles/) is at 97 and the best reviewed movie of the year. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/5 "2005-02-27T17:21:43Z")
Yep. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/6 "2005-02-27T17:22:04Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > So you’re going to ignore the fact that [Spider-Man 2](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_2/) sits at 93% on Rotten Tomatoes and [The Incredibles](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/incredibles/) is at 97 and the best reviewed movie of the year. Popular does not equal great. Neither do good reviews. Those movies are reviewed with consideration for what they are - light, fun, and made for broad popular appeal. This is not what the Academy Awards are about. The Academy rewards the “art” of filmmaking, and Spiderman isn’t very artistic. It is a simple boy-girl mismatch film with a guy who shoots spiderwebs out of his hands. It is very good for what it is, but that is all. This year has the best group of nominated films I can remember. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/7 "2005-02-27T17:25:56Z")
gee, Popular movies should get the Oscar. Except for that Titanic, that sucked. ---
**Author:** ![archmichael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@archmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/archmichael)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/8 "2005-02-27T17:45:05Z")
For someone who claims to write about video games, your attitude is very puzzling. In your world, is a better selling game just better than a low selling game? Is the better reviewed game always better? Or lets try a different industry. Is Britney Spears a better singer than Andrea Boccelli, because she sells more records? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![James\_Westphal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9bd4f/32.png) [@James\_Westphal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James_Westphal)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/9 "2005-02-27T17:49:46Z")
I’m pretty sure the whole Hollywood never ceasing to give itself awards so it can make even more money off of us dunces is what’s wrong with the oscars, but, to each his own. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/10 "2005-02-27T17:51:54Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > I haven’t seen it, but others tell me (and I’ve read from well-respected critics) that The Incredibles was the best movie of the year. It’s a cartoon about superheroes that’s good. You don’t acknowledge that _The Incredibles_ got one of the top Oscar nominations: Best Original Screenplay. Plus Best Animated Feature and two other nominations. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/11 "2005-02-27T17:54:02Z")
> [@Lamar Mundane](#): > > The Academy rewards the “art” of filmmaking, and Spiderman isn’t very artistic. Cite? Seems to me that the Academy should be rewarding, with its “Best Picture” award, the movie that best integrates ALL the parts of film making. So if you had a movie with acting and a script that were 9.5/10, and then a different movie that had acting and a script that were only 9/10, but which also had fantastic special effects and costumes, then second movie should win. People often speak dismissively about special effects, but they’re part of movie-making, too. And for that matter, why are dramas more important than comedies or horror movies? What if someone made a silly slapstick comedy that was, clearly, head and shoulders, far and away the funniest slapstick comedy ever made. Should it, potentially, win Best Picture? Why not? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/12 "2005-02-27T18:05:19Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > A) I loved Spider-Man 2. It was deserving of something greater than sound editing … Spider-Man 2 got a _sound_ nomination? That’s funny because my girlfriend and I were sitting in the theatre laughing our asses off at how horrible the sound effects were. At one point, Harry pulls out a knife (or was it a letter opener? I can’t remember), and it makes that cliched _SHIIINGGG!_ noise even though it doesn’t even scrape against anything! Seriously, the sound was bad enough for us to consistently notice ill-placed sound-effects and we’re not even sound geeks. My mind is boggling as to how or why this film got a sound nod. They had to have been throwing a bone because they movie was so popular. Oh, and I’m a lifelong Spider-Man fan and comic book geek, but I’m also a film aficionado, and Spider-Man 2 was crap. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/13 "2005-02-27T18:06:20Z")
> [@Lamar Mundane](#): > > Popular does not equal great. Neither do good reviews. Those movies are reviewed with consideration for what they are - light, fun, and made for broad popular appeal. This is not what the Academy Awards are about. The Academy rewards the “art” of filmmaking, Actually, the Academy Awards are about rewarding **censored** **censored** for **censored** studio exec **censored** to **censored** **censored** **censored**. There are some fantastic “art” films, especially foreign films, that the Academy snubs every year. And there are some great commerical films that it avoids as well. The notion that the Academy is populated by film afficiandos and people who have a prescience about films that are destined to be “classic” is bunk, as can be seen by looking back over the lists, and worse, they’ve created the “Oscar Movie”, a genre of “serious” (but dreck) films with those overblown “grand” moments that are designed for no other purpose than to win Oscars. (House of Sand and Fog comes to mind.) And FTR, The Incredibles was far more than _just_ a superhero film. On top of being the best “Bond film” in years, it also had a lot of very serious, adult themes. It was surprisingly nuanced (as well as being extremely funny). > [@](#): > > This year has the best group of nominated films I can remember. Meh. I’ll avoid the Oscars like I do every year. It’s just a bunch of self-congratulatory crap. Time will tell what films are destined to be great, and which actors/directors/writers/cinematographers/editors/et cetera will be remembered. The Oscar is just a cheap, gold-plated statue. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/14 "2005-02-27T18:08:56Z")
It Happened One Night, You Can’t Take It With You, Going My Way, Tom Jones, My Fair Lady, The Sting, Annie Hall, Forrest Gump, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago. Comedies (three with music) that won the Oscar for Best Picture. ---
**Author:** ![archmichael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@archmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/archmichael)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/15 "2005-02-27T18:17:59Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Seems to me that the Academy should be rewarding, with its “Best Picture” award, the movie that best integrates ALL the parts of film making. So if you had a movie with acting and a script that were 9.5/10, and then a different movie that had acting and a script that were only 9/10, but which also had fantastic special effects and costumes, then second movie should win. So you believe that all the different aspects of film making should be given equal weight? The current system of picking Best Pictures is not great, but I can’t see how your system is any better, if not worse. In your system, a great coming of age movie that takes place at a modern day summer camp, and requires no special effect would automatically lose to an equally well acted and written love story that takes place in a post apocalyptic future. ---
**Author:** ![Just1Lurk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c0e974/32.png) [@Just1Lurk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just1Lurk)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/16 "2005-02-27T18:34:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **MaxTheVool** : > And for that matter, why are dramas more important than comedies or horror movies? What if someone made a silly slapstick comedy that was, clearly, head and shoulders, far and away the funniest slapstick comedy ever made. Should it, potentially, win Best Picture? Why not? Exactly what I wanted to say - Why are “heavy” films considered more worthy than “light” films? Was Jeff Goldblum’s performance in **The Fly** any less of an acting challenge that John Hurt’s in **Elephant Man**? And \*\*Exapno \*\* (love the name, btw) - why isn’t \*\*The Incredibles \*\* comparable to “a good movie about real people”? Is \*\*Animal Farm \*\* a lesser work because it’s ostensibly about animals? And in what way was it compromised? Are **Gulliver’s Travels** , **It’s a Wonderful Life** , or \*\*Singin’ in the Rain \*\* compromised because they were made under the restraint of the Hays Code? It seems to me that making a film that can speak to both adults and children would require more movie-making skill then one geared only to kids or adults. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/17 "2005-02-27T18:38:26Z")
I was going to come in and complain about how Oscar fashion has gotten sooo boooring, but now I find I just don’t have the heart. You guys watch to see what _wins_? You were under the impression that it mattered in some way? I’m just there for the gowns, myself. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/18 "2005-02-27T18:41:47Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > It Happened One Night, You Can’t Take It With You, Going My Way, Tom Jones, My Fair Lady, The Sting, Annie Hall, Forrest Gump, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago. > > Comedies (three with music) that won the Oscar for Best Picture. In what way were most of these comedies? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/19 "2005-02-27T19:29:58Z")
Have you seen those movies? If not, do. If so, maybe there’s not much hope in trying to explain to you how those are comedies. But don’t take my word on it. Here are the genre listings from _The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures_, 1893—1970: _It Happened One Night_ (1934): “screwball comedy” _You Can’t Take It With You_ (1938): “screwball comedy” _Going My Way_ (1944): “comedy-drama” _Tom Jones_ (1963): “comedy” _My Fair Lady_ (1964): “musical comedy” Golden Globe nominations: _Annie Hall_ (1977): “best motion picture: comedy or musical” _Shakespeare in Love_ (1998): "best motion picture: comedy or musical _Chicago_ (2002): “best motion picture: comedy or musical” American Comedy Awards: _Forrest Gump_ (1994): “Funniest Actor in a Motion Picture (Leading Role) Tom Hanks” ---
**Author:** ![Tracy\_Lord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@Tracy\_Lord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tracy_Lord)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/20 "2005-02-27T19:46:57Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > _Chicago_ (2002): “best motion picture: comedy or musical” > > American Comedy Awards: > > _Forrest Gump_ (1994): “Funniest Actor in a Motion Picture (Leading Role) > Tom Hanks” I agree with everything but these two. _Chicago_ clearly falls under the latter of the “comedy **or musical** ” category (no way is that movie a comedy, dude), and even if the American Comedy Association or, whatever the organization is, thinks that Tom Hanks was “funny,” that doesn’t automatically make the movie a comedy. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137.md?page=2)