# 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:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/41 "2005-02-28T23:50:16Z")
I like **Fern Forest** ’s idea of a “New Classic” Academy Award for past also-rans. Just the thing to revive them DVD sales/rentals, I think the agents would love it… BTW, someone mentioned the _Silence of the Lambs_ year – that was the same year _Beauty and the Beast_ was nominated for 6 awards including Best Picture. Remember? Granted, it was THE one that kicked off the Great Disney Musical Renaissance of the 1990s (that they later proceeded to run into the ground and flog to death…), but still. However, at the same time it may be a while before another such gets to that point, specially because anything comparable coming now would very likely be shoved into the “Best Animated Feature” ghetto (which BTW very quickly became more of a “Best CGI 3-D Renderfest” category; of the 4 years it has been awarded, two (2001 and 2004) had all-CGI-3D fields, and only in '02 did _Spirited Away_ save face for 2-D animation by actually winning). ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/42 "2005-02-28T23:58:25Z")
> [@Fern Forest](#): > > I’d like to see something along the line of the Baseball hall of fame. They become eligible 5 years after their release date and are eligible for a few years. Any nominees that got the thumbs up from some set number of voters gets in. The Library of Congress [already does this](http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/Web/Unofficial/Movies/NFR-Titles.html), though without all the horrible award-show mentality you described. ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/43 "2005-03-01T01:07:50Z")
> [@Lamar Mundane](#): > > Popular does not equal great. Possibly, but there is no such thing as “great” in an absolute or objective sense when you’re talking about something like a movie. It’s **ALL** opinion. > [@Lamar Mundane](#): > > 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 No, each Academy member votes for which of the nominated movies is, in their individual opinion, the “best” movie, using their own individual criteria and definition of “best”. Some of those people may use “art” as part of their criteria, some may not. How would you know? So the majority of the people in this self-serving organization of people in the movie-making business think that _Million Dollar Baby_ is a “better” movie than _Spider Man 2_. So what? The majority of the people who actually have to **pay money** to see their movies think that _Spider Man 2_ is a great movie. So what? I saw _Spider Man 2_ and thought it was a snooze-fest. So what? None of these people are “right” or “wrong” in any sense of those words, it’s just people’s opinions. I agree with **Stranger On A Train** ; if there is any meaningful definition of “great” w.r.t. a work of art such as a movie, it can only be the test of time. If a movie is remembered and watched and loved many years after it was released, than it might be great. And – oh look – that will depend far more on popular opinion than on what the members of the Academy in one year used as their voting criteria. So maybe popular does equal great after all, at least in the long run. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/44 "2005-03-01T02:04:54Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Granted, it was THE one that kicked off the Great Disney Musical Renaissance of the 1990s Actually, that distinction is usually reserved for its predecessor, **The Little Mermaid**. ---
**Author:** ![Fern\_Forest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/71c47a/32.png) [@Fern\_Forest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fern_Forest)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/45 "2005-03-01T03:06:57Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > The Library of Congress [already does this](http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/Web/Unofficial/Movies/NFR-Titles.html), though without all the horrible award-show mentality you described. But that’s not doing the Oscars any good. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/46 "2005-03-01T03:21:20Z")
> [@Fern Forest](#): > > But that’s not doing the Oscars any good. I’m still not sure how what you’re proposing would do the Oscars any good. Where’s the suspense? What would be the incentive of attending as a star if the honor is diluted? Who would want to face multiple rejections? What kind of incentive is there for an audience to watch, since many of the films will be “old news”. The Oscars are already a popularity contest, but it sounds like this would be even more so–more prone to sentimentality (a nominee dies) or second-guessing. This’ll be less about what deserves it and more about regret. You might argue that’s why Freeman won this year anyway, but he still had to beat 4 other guys. If all you need is a percentage, who wouldn’t vote for their favorites, especially if it’s simply a Yes/No vs. Either/Or. This wouldn’t increase the standings of the Oscars (it would make them look more wishy-washy), it wouldn’t help with ratings, it wouldn’t be popular within the industry. Who exactly is this for? ---
**Author:** ![Fern\_Forest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/71c47a/32.png) [@Fern\_Forest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fern_Forest)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/47 "2005-03-01T09:32:29Z")
Why, for me. Isn’t that obvious? I don’t really care about any of what I said in my post except for the fact that I dislike the one best per year. Everything else is just idle rambling. To me, the way it is makes things look uneven and as a whole rather flukeish (sadly not a real word) and rather then sending me to the internet in consternation over people winning because of split votes it bores me. Heh, I have similar issues with elections. Since they’ve been doing it that way for 77 years I highly doubt they’d ever tamper with the formula in any way other then superficially. I just would rather see something more along the line of the baseball hall of fame. It would mean more to me and I would find it more exciting. That and I want to watch things like that live. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/48 "2005-03-01T10:52:56Z")
The Oscars are not about either audience popularity or critical recognition. They are certainly not a Hall of Fame. They are about the reaction to the past year’s films by the film industry itself. There are plenty of other forums for other reactions to films. If all you want to know about is current audience popularity, you can look at a list of the highest grossing films from the past year. Or you can watch the People’s Choice Awards, which is more or less the same thing done as a typical awards show. There are lots of other awards for the past year’s films. There’s one for each of the various guilds (actors, directors, writers, etc.) and dozens for critics. There are lots of critics’ lists of the best films of all times. Hollywood wants to do the Oscars the way it is now. It’s obviously full of prejudices. A person’s popularity within the film community has a lot to do with how well they do for Oscars. The genre and theme of a movie influence how well it does for Oscars in all sorts of ways that have nothing to do with the quality of the film. Hollywood doesn’t care. They also don’t care that the ceremony seems to be mostly a fashion show. This is what they want to do. If you don’t like this way of doing the show, turn it off. The only way you have of influencing the Oscars is to not watch it if you find it boring. Maybe eventually Hollywood will get the idea from seeing how poor the TV ratings are and change it. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/49 "2005-03-01T12:02:35Z")
What amazes me is that some people can suggest with a straight face that big, popular movies get shafted by the Oscars. Go to [this page](http://www.filmsite.org/oscars.html) and take a look at the last 15 years of Best Picture winners. They include: _Lord of the Rings: Return of the King Gladiator Titanic Braveheart Forrest Gump Schindler’s List Silence of the Lambs Dances with Wolves_ Now, in my opinion, some of those movies deserved their nod (e.g., _Silence of the Lambs_), and others did not (looking at you, _Titanic_). But, whether you agree with particular selections, the fact is that popular blockbusters do win Oscars. The fact that _Spiderman 2_ failed to win is not evidence of some conpiracy; it’s just that, in some cases, the Academy’s definition of quality coincides with public popularity, and in other cases it doesn’t. Personally, i thought _Spiderman 2_ was a big let-down. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2005, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137/50 "2005-03-01T13:12:52Z")
> [@Fern Forest](#): > > Since they’ve been doing it that way for 77 years I highly doubt they’d ever tamper with the formula in any way other then superficially. For the first seven years of the awards, the eligibility year ran from August of one year through July of the next. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-whats-wrong-with-the-oscars/292137.md?page=2)