Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The “Oscar movie” is dying

worldofreel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 165 posts

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#111

Post by sheepybloke »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #96

I'm astounded that this article doesn't mention what to me seems like a no-brainer: We're in the golden age of television. People don't want to watch 10, unconnected movies now. They want 10-20 hours of a continuous story. Netflix, Apple TV, Prime, and other streaming platforms have been delivering a quality experience that immerses the viewer in an engagement that film can't compete with on depth, world-building, et…

100% agree with this. TV has allowed writers to take more time with their characters, develop them more, give more time to other storylines and plots, and write more complex and interesting tales. People are also starting to expect more story and plotlines in their content, which I think is another reason movies are getting so much longer, since more time is needed to meet those expectations(see The Irishman). In the end, it's hard for movies to match the potential of a good TV series, just because a TV series has more time available to explore the universe of the series.

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#112

Post by et-al »

havblue wrote: post #28

I would think film criticism is dying as well. Was there a true successor to Ebert? When I think of film criticism now I think of YouTube reviews and not writers who eloquently describe what makes a good movie good.

In addition to YouTube reviewers, I enjoy reading Emily St. James'critiques.

E.g. Hollywood’s hot new trend: Parents who say they’re sorry

https://www.vox.com/culture/23025832/everything-everywhere-a...

https://twitter.com/emilyvdw

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#113

Post by sheepybloke »

jdlyga wrote: post #6

Going to the movies was always a habit left over from an earlier time. Of course when all you have is a standard definition tube TV and VHS movies, going to see something on the big screen is exciting. But nowadays, large 4K HDR TV's are cheap now, and you can get almost everything on streaming. Covid really hit the big reset button and made people question a lot of their habits, including still going to movie theate…

Went to the movies recently and was disappointed about how bad the screen looked compared to my TV at home. I've got a nice OLED TV, but I was still shocked about how muted the colors were on the screen.

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#114

Post by jfengel »

bmitc wrote: post #106
jfengel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an actor myself, I find that the Oscar bait is often the "Academy Award for the Most Acting". It has become a cliche that you seek an Oscar by playing a highly damaged character with obvious quirks. More subtle performances are usually passed over, even though I consider them more challenging. They're often nominated, but rarely win. Which is fine, since those kinds of films are usually not going to attract big au…

> It has become a cliche that you seek an Oscar by playing a highly damaged character with obvious quirks. Even more likely if it's a biopic, and even, even more likely if the character has a disability. For example, The Theory of Everything vs Birdman for best actor and supporting roles.

Excellent example. Redmayne is a very talented actor, but that role was awarded for for its acting stunts rather than his understanding of who Hawking really was.

Birdman was very much an actor's movie. I went to see it with my actor friends, and had a wonderful time. Even setting aside the wonderfully long (and tricky) takes, it was an incredible exercise in performing the same scene several times in different ways. It was full of great performances, and Keaton surprised the heck out of everyone.

I notice that Iñárritu has a new film coming out on Netflix soon, Bardo, and I'm really looking forward to it.

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#115

Post by pradn »

darth_avocado wrote: post #102
mc32 wrote: post #2

I wouldn't overdramatize it. The movie business didn't start with Oscar awards and it does not need them to continue. The Oscars are essentially a self-congratulatory award which often were at odds with the public. The critics and audience don't always agree. And now with less capture by the studios and cinema resulting in people having more choices of what to watch, people are choosing the more basic and entertainin…

> The Oscars are essentially a self-congratulatory award which often were at odds with the public. Not to state the obvious, but Oscars over the years have degraded into “who can wine and dine the voters the most”. There was a time (more than a decade ago) when almost all “Best Pucture” nominees were really entertaining and fun to watch. You look at the more recent lineups and almost all of them are a drag to watch.…

The new West Side Story is incredible. It's what a 100-million dollar musical looks like. Every frame is planned out, the actors are vulnerable, the songs are touching and super fun. The dance numbers are exuberant, some of the best ever produced by Hollywood. The film brings together the very best of American artists: Tony Kushner for the screenplay, Gustavo Dudamel conducts, the NY & LA philharmonics for recording, Justin Peck for choreo.

There's no way it can be argued to be a bad movie. I have no idea why audiences didn't go to see the movie. But I had a ball bawling my eyes out for two hours at the iMax.

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#116

Post by standardly »

gota wrote: post #71
havblue wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rlm guys are very insightful and have great taste in movies. I think the difference is that they do a great job explaining why a movie is entertaining while Ebert was great at explaining why a movie is art.

RLM guys (at least the main ones) seem great at pointing out when a movie sucks, mostly because of: - poor structure. Bad setup/payoffs, useless sequences, confusing narrative without any merit behind it - poor pacing. Too much "brain-off" action, shitty dialog, too fast/slow for the theme - uninteresting characters, with no redeeming characteristics (e.g. a great actor or enough plot quality to compensate) These in…

Could someone kindly establish what "RLM" is? Some of us have a enough acronyms in the database already.

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#117

Post by mc32 »

standardly wrote: post #116
gota wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RLM guys (at least the main ones) seem great at pointing out when a movie sucks, mostly because of: - poor structure. Bad setup/payoffs, useless sequences, confusing narrative without any merit behind it - poor pacing. Too much "brain-off" action, shitty dialog, too fast/slow for the theme - uninteresting characters, with no redeeming characteristics (e.g. a great actor or enough plot quality to compensate) These in…

Could someone kindly establish what "RLM" is? Some of us have a enough acronyms in the database already.

Red Letter Media. The clue is "Mr Plinkett"

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#118

Post by dcchambers »

Are they even marketing these movies?

> The result is a fall movie season that has manifested the total disinterest of mature moviegoers, who are now unwilling to watch any of the well-reviewed/Oscar contenders. The list keeps piling up: “Till” ($8.6 million total), “The Banshees of Inisherin” ($7.8 million), “TÁR” ($5.1 million), “She Said” ($4.2 million), “Triangle of Sadness” ($4 million), “Bones and All” ($3.7 million), “The Fabelmans” ($3.4 million), “Armageddon Time” ($1.8 million), “Aftersun” ($790,000).

This is the first time I have heard of any of these.

Anyway, my wife and I used to love going to movies...but life changes (COVID followed by young kids) make that a lot harder. Our date nights are much fewer and far between and we prefer to spend them doing more high quality activities together. If we want to sit in silence in close proximity eating some tasty treats staring at a screen why wouldn't we just do that in our own home after the kids are in bed for the night?

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#119

Post by donmaq »

gfxgirl wrote: post #57
mc32 wrote: post #2

I wouldn't overdramatize it. The movie business didn't start with Oscar awards and it does not need them to continue. The Oscars are essentially a self-congratulatory award which often were at odds with the public. The critics and audience don't always agree. And now with less capture by the studios and cinema resulting in people having more choices of what to watch, people are choosing the more basic and entertainin…

> The critics and audience don't always agree. The Oscars are not decided by critics. They're decided by peers. Directors vote for best Director. Actors vote for best Actor. Composers vote for best Music. Etc...

> The Oscars are not decided by critics. They're decided by peers.

That's the Oscar nomination process: it's by peers.

The entire Oscar Academy (ie all previous winners in good standing) get to vote on the winners in all categories.

Which is why many in the industry consider "it's more important to just get nominated", & also why the final winners are often a popularity context. Many of the ppl voting aren't skilled in the areas being voted for. E.g. there's 4x more actors voting for technical categories, etc.

Re: The “Oscar movie” is dying

#120

Post by donmaq »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #86
cainxinth wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Oscars are essentially a self-congratulatory award which often were at odds with the public. The Oscars is Hollywood's prom and Best Picture is the Prom King. It's a popularity contest.

True, but at least its a popularity contest among peers . As noted elsewhere in the comments here, actors vote on the best actors, etc.

Nominations are by peers. Overall winners are voted on by the entire academy, & thus often a popularity contest.
Post reply on HN