What makes something the Best Picture? And why have so many of them been forgotten about? Many movies that were considered the best movie of that respective year are not really talked about and pander to many of the voters expectations and agenda during that time. Great movies that are still talked about today like Citizen Kane, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Saving Private Ryan unbelievably lose to something that a lot of people consider lesser. While film opinion is subjective, it’s a failure from the voters to recognize and snub a film that has resonated with a lot of people for legitimate reasons. What makes voters so caught up in the moment with certain films that causes the notorious awards snub?
In writing this topic it's definitely important to talk about the handicaps of the Oscars. As the poster said, the voters have a lot of room to improve on. Many vote only for what they know and for movies that focus on people similar to their demographic - usually white, affluent males. There's the notorious animation section which almost always goes to Disney, then Pixar. Superior animation is ignored in favor for the well known, status quo Disney. There was also that quote of the voter who said he votes for whatever animation his daugher likes. Does the Oscar's shortcoming stem from subconscious bias, laziness, or connections/deals or for preserving the status quo? – RyderVii2 years ago
"Snub" is a cute word. When it is used it implies some broad acceptance that many know a movie is good and was ignored. But, is that true? We all have our own favorites that were ignored and instead of just saying "my choice was ignored" saying "snub" raises it to a different level. Is that different than wondering why certain players are not in the Hall of Fame?
– Joseph Cernik2 years ago
With every year comes a new award season and while there are always surprise contenders (Moonlight , Room , Slumdog Millionaire ), there are always films that everyone views as being made purely to receive awards and acclaim.
The recent commentary surrounding La La Land (2016) as being awarded purely because Hollywood like a film about itself; any number of period dramas (The Kings Speech [2010, The Artist ) as well as films that don’t do too well at the box office but receive multiple Academy Award nominations.
Is there anything wrong with this?
Is the ‘Oscar Bait’ a valid category of film? Is it a genre?
This could definitely be an interesting topic to discuss. You could look at the common features of movies such as La La Land and how these turn a movie from something made for the public to something made for the awards. Are there certain themes, genres (drama, action, comedy), and/or plot lines that are used in 'Oscar Bait' movies? – SophIsticated3 years ago
It is definitely and interesting topic to discuss. Particularly the point about Hollywood loving a film about itself and acting in general. The success of The Artist, Birdam and La La Land at the oscars is a great example as they are all vastly different movies but all have that one Hollywood aspect in common. – AbbeyThorpe3 years ago
Very interesting topic for discussion. It's undeniable that oscar baiting is prevalent in the production, timing and distribution of films nowadays but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a genre or category but more a by-product of studio's self-importance. The only thing more farcical than films pandering to Hollywood was the worldwide outrage surrounding DiCaprio's (deserved and overdue) Oscar win. – danieljubb3 years ago
I think this topic could definitely use some exploring. I think for the most part, a good film has a set formula to execute and achieve in order to snatch that Oscar and it's almost entirely undeniable to say that some movies don't set out with those awards in mind. However, I think even though these movies don't always appeal to the public it doesn't necessarily take away from their beauty or brilliance. This is for sure an interesting discussion and eludes to that greater issue of Hollywood simply patting themselves on the back or actuality creating art for the sake of art (and not an award). – JulieCMillay3 years ago
Sophie Vannan,My colleagues above are kind in saying that the topic is interesting, but I'd go so far as to say that not only is it interesting, it IS absolutely real.You need only look at the difference between critical accolades/Oscar wins and box-office earnings to see that there is a gulf of difference between what folks in the Academy like and what the public likes.Take this into consideration. The following is a list of the movies that have won the Oscar for best picture in the last four years:2016: Moonlight
2013: 12 Years a SlaveThese movies were given the award by the people who made the movies. Now, let's see which movies would've won if the award was given by the people who watch the movies (I'm basing these "winners" on box-office returns; I got these figures from thenumbers.com):2016: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
2015: Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
2014: American Sniper
2013: The Hunger Games: Catching FireAs I said, there's a huge difference as to why the movies that people most care about are the ones that so often get overlooked during award season. I think that, in large part, this is due to Oscar baiting. Perhaps the best way to proceed would be to see 1. what kind of "bait" do modern directors use and 2. why doesn't the public care about it given it's obvious divergence from critical opinion.Thanks for your time,
August – August Merz3 years ago
The recent outcry from the public about the lack of diversity in the Oscars nominations has created a huge scandal. But is the Oscars really something that matters? Do these awards actually correlate with the general recognition received in popular cinema – critics and audiences alike? Is this issue something that we should focus on or should our attention be better spent elsewhere? This will discuss the history of the Academy Awards and the diversity of its nominees and winners, as well as recent trends.
Is it really the Oscars fault for not having any diversity for there nominations, or is it just the unfortunate truth that people of different races don't get as many opportunities for leading roles as someone who is white? There certainly is a reason for people being upset for the lack of diversity, but it seems it is being directed at the wrong people. 2006 was a year full of black nominees at the Oscars, so it is not like oscars are deliberately tying to shun out black actors. Also being upset over the lack of Oscar diversity is ok, but boycotting the Oscars over it seems to be way overboard. People are now encouraging Chris Rock to not host the Oscars because of this issue, and seems like people are missing the point that being asked to host the Oscars is a high honor in Hollywood, so lets not be ungrateful for that. Thats just my thoughts – Aaron Hatch4 years ago
I have written a pending article on this topic. Please feel free to comment on it.– Munjeera4 years ago