Should the Oscars Nominate Certain Films to Obtain Better TV Ratings?
If 'The Dark Knight' had been nominated would you be watching?
Recently I have seen people saying how they won't be watching the Oscars now that The Dark Knight wasn't nominated for Best Picture. The poster to the right is a mock-up of the official 81st Academy Awards poster made by someone that obviously believes people will not be tuning in now that a sympathetic Nazi is in contention and Batman is not. I wonder though, why is it that people would have watched the Oscars if The Dark Knight had been nominated for Best Picture? It's not like anyone ever thought it had a chance of winning. So what difference would it have made?
I can understand the point if this were a situation such as in 2004 when The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was nominated for Best Picture and went on to win 11 Oscars and everyone pretty much expected it to win after the first two films had seemingly been overlooked in order to award the third film as a gesture of goodwill. However, with The Dark Knight it wasn't going to win, but Heath Ledger still will. Sure it was a bummer Chris Nolan didn't get a director nod or the fact the script didn't get a nomination, but with eight nominations to its credit it could still do quite well.
I have a feeling the animosity comes as a result of people feeling as if they are watching an award show that simply doesn't come close to sharing their opinion on film, which means they don't connect to what they are watching and would be bored quickly, or possibly even mildly offended when one film is called the best of the year and they either haven't seen it (or perhaps heard of it) and their favorite film didn't even have a chance. Had The Dark Knight simply been given that Best Picture nod it would have allowed for the art house snobs and the fanboys to finally agree on something. Unfortunately, selling Batman to the Academy is far different than selling Tolkien.
However, I remain stuck on this argument with regards to the ratings. Should the Academy consider television ratings when picking their year's best? Instead of voting The Dark Knight as their fourth or fifth favorite film of 2008 should it move up to #1 or #2, simply to ensure it gets nominated and therefore excites the general public into watching their show?
One of the more vocal Oscar bloggers upset with the decision to not include The Dark Knight as one of the five Best Picture nominees was Kris Tapley at In Contention, but based on his top ten films of 2008 and the way the Academy counts the votes his pick for The Dark Knight as the fifth best film of the year wouldn't have really helped matters. Especially if everyone voted similarly.
Based on what I believe are flawed voting procedures, if the majority of the Academy members didn't have The Dark Knight in their top 3 it had an almost impossible chance at receiving a Best Picture nom. I listed it as my fourth favorite film of 2008 so I am afraid my ballot wouldn't have helped much either.
I would be interested to see how close it came to making the Best Picture list because I wouldn't be surprised if it had been close, but I will say the last thing I would like to see would be for the Oscars to begin nominating films and performances simply as an effort to gain ratings. Then again, if they were ever going to do such a thing this would have been the year since it wouldn't look like pandering, which is what could happen later on down the line. So often with the Academy they are always a year or two behind the times and it becomes the reason why people begin winning Oscars because it was "their time". Is The Departed really the film that should have won Martin Scorsese his first Oscar? It's another reason why Milk may stand a chance after the gay cowboy movie was outdone by the long forgotten coincidence flick Crash.
It's the reason people thought Clint Eastwood would get an acting nomination for Gran Torino since he has never won an Oscar for acting. This year it looks like Kate Winslet is the "deserving" winner. I guess 33-years-old is considered old when you see Meryl Streep won her first statue at the age of 30. Winslet only has 6 nominations to Streep's 15 and the Academy needs a new golden girl for the next several years. However, Winslet is getting nominated at a faster rate than Streep who didn't hit 6 noms until she was 37. What's up with that?
The Oscars are already bordering on irrelevance after recent years and a rise in online coverage and discussion points out many of the flaws. So many people have their eyes on the show now and expectations to change with the times continue to grow. Will the Academy ever join the ranks of the majority or will they continue to remain in obscurity for the sake of doing so?
- Should the Oscars nominate films to obtain better TV ratings?
- Should box-office results be considered?
- Should critical reviews be considered?
- Consider some Rotten Tomato Ratings:
- WALL-E (96%)
- The Dark Knight (94%)
- Iron Man (93%)
- U2 3D (92%)
- The Wrestler (98%)
- 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (97%)
- Let the Right One In (97%)
- The Reader (60%)
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (71%)
- Milk (93%)
- Frost/Nixon (91%)
- Slumdog Millionaire (94%)
- Do you think the Oscars will ever change?
Showing 19 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New CommentNOTE: The Facebook login option has been disabled. We apologize for any inconvenience. |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
-Should the Oscars nominate films to obtain better TV ratings? Hell no. The idea of the Academy Awards is to give the honors to the best movies of the year, which is significantly different than the highest-grossing movies of the year. I'm sorry to say that the masses generally go to watch movies for the purpose of escapism, which often conflicts with thought-provoking and intelligent themes. I think that best movies are movies that provoke thought, or are at least some sort of a different, more visceral experience. For example, I unashamedly love the two Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, but despite being the highest-grossing movies of the year, are they really the BEST movies? No way. The Academy exist to honor the finest movies, not the most popular movies. The Dark Knight's snub is annoying not because of its popularity, but because of its nature as an intense, gritty, and thought-provoking movie; precisely the type of movie that should get a best picture nod.
-Should box officer results be considered? Same thing as above. Box office results are a general testament to a film's amount of popularity and masses support, which is a far different story than quality. Again, people want to have fun watching movies- nothing more. The Oscars, I would like to hope, are about more than just that.
-Should critical reviews be considered? Definitely, but they're not the only factor. I think Benjamin Button is a much better movie than Iron Man, for example, despite having a far lower rotten tomatoes score. The Academy needs to nitpick between critically acclaimed films, like the example I gave above, but a critically panned movie like the Reader should certainly not be in contention. I understand it has a very 'oscar' premise to it, but if the critics- people who are paid and educated to review movies- didn't like it, it certainly says much about the actual film. Critics are the ones who run the movie review and honor industry, not the Academy. And the Academy needs to acknowledge this fact, although they should still look at more factors (again, see the Iron Man vs. Benjamin Button example).
-Rotten Tomatoes stuff: Above. The Academy should look at critical reviews as one factor (a mixed reviewed film like the Reader should be thrown out of contention immediately), but then nitpick between the well-reviewed movies to see which ones are the best. Last year, Rataouille was the best reviewed movie- because it flawlessly achieved its purpose of giving massive fun. But that's all. Movies with greater ambitions may be more flawed, to be sure, but even if they achieve some of them and still provide great entertainment, they should be more extensively considered for Oscar awards.
-Do you think the Oscars will ever change? Last two years, the Departed and No Country for Old Men, two very violent thrillers, won best picture. I think this is a sign of the changing times in the Academy; like America itself, they're beginning to acknowledge that their senseless traditions are no longer relevant to today's world, and this calls for a change in the whole 'awards culture'. I'm sad that last year's award show was scarcely watched- it was one of the best Oscars shows in a damn long time. Regardless, if this year's Academy Awards is the lowest rated in history (I hope it will be), I think the Academy will have to take a long, hard look at itself and think of what they did wrong. I think this will add to the growing change, which will finally complete itself when the Academy is no longer dominated by old men who are obsessed with the past and refuse to acknowledge more modern premises.
They shouldn't nominate for better ratings. But they should've nominated The Dark Knight because it's a wonderful movie, that's it.
Whatever, the movie is not nominated for Best Picture or Director, but it's for 8 other awards. That's something! I'll watch the show (I would've watched regardless) and root for these technical awards. Surely winning 'Best Sound Editing' is not really that special, but I don't care, when I like a movie I like to root for it.
The last time I watched the Oscars to root for something was in 2004, because of Lord of the Rings.
the dark knight was a very good film better then the reader(i saw the reader its not that good to me ) so i thought the reader getting that best picture nod over the dark knight was a joke!
uh-oh…the math again. true, kate winslet has 6 oscar noms to her name at the age of 33. true, meryl streep streep got her 6th oscar nom when she was 37.
but the undeniable facts are:
kate winslet had her first feature film at about the age of 18. therefore, she accumulated her 6 nods in approximately 15 year.
meryl streep started in film when she was 28; thus she collected her 6 nominations at age 37 in less than 10 years in the business.
the remarkable thing is that meryl streep got her first oscar trophy after only less than 3 years in film, her 2nd oscar award after only 5 years. along the way, she already tucked an emmy best actress and mountains of other awards from the time of "deer hunter" to "sophie's choice".
don't even dare do the math as to who is more deserving this year for losing the most —-kate winslet has lost only 5 times while meryl streep has lost 12 times. a dozen times!!!! and many of these to much lesser actresses or much lesser performances. if only for that, meryl streep deserves the "apology" oscar!!!
oh, and to answer the banner question…who cares anymore? the oscar awards ceremonies have long become too boring. even the wit of jon stewart was repressed by the staid and predictable format of endless montages, in memoriam sequences, song-and-dance routine of nominated songs. same same every year…
Do I agree movies should be nominated to boost ratings? Not at all. That would definetly make the Oscars lose what little credibility they have left.
But I am sick of the same dramatic movies year in and year out that were designed to be oscar contenders. I can't stand the fact that movies such as Curious Case get so much oscar attention even BEFORE the movie is released. If ever you want to know which movies are considered oscar material, just look ahead in the calendar to the movies released in November and December. (I'm calling it already: The Lovely Bones in 2009). That, or if Sean Penn is starring in it. For some reason I find if they filmed that guy on the toilet for two hours he would still get nominated.
I just find that the Oscars have become "The Award Show for the Best Dramatic Movies Released in November and December". Because when you think about it, nothing else gets as much attention as those ones. And I understand why studios push for movie release dates in that time of the year. It just makes me wonder if those were truly the "best" movies of the year, or simply released at the right time of the year, when all oscar eyes are hunting for their contenders. Would Milk get this much attention if it was released in the July weekend of The Dark Knight? Would Slumdog Millionaire become the sleeper hit it has become if it were released in March? What if The Dark Knight became the phenomenon it ended up being had it been released on Christmas weekend, right alongside Curious Case?
The Dark Knight deserved more recognition but it was never able to leave the shadow of "comic book movie", no matter how great it was. As fantastic as it was across the boards, in the end it's still a Batman movie, and that's a tough act to sell to an academy that thrives on movies like Milk and Doubt.
Hey, maybe if Sean Penn played Batman, Kate Winslet played Rachel Dawes and David Fincher thrown in as the director for good measure, maybe we would have seen The Dark Knight up for best picture.
They should not nominate a film that isn't even remotely worthy of Best Picture just for the sole purpose of getting big ratings. If that was the case, Twilight and Sex and the City would be nominees this year. It's rare for a film to be both a popular hit and a critical darling. These rare breeds don't come often but this year, the stars and planets aligned perfectly which led to The Dark Knight and Wall-E. The Academy wouldn't be accused of a "ratings-grab" ploy should both have been in the big race for they are exemplary films that are worthy of such high honor. The Academy dropped the ball big time, for It will be a long time again before a film comes around that everyone (filmlovers, fanboys, critics, film bodies, etc..) sees eye to eye on.
It's obviously a tough call. I mean, nominating "The Dark Knight" would have been a logical move; it was not just immensely popular, but also immensely great. Such a move would have shown for the first time in five years that the Academy was in line with the general public after all. Instead, for the fifth straight year, we have a couple of small hits and a lot more obscure under-the-radar arthouse stuff.
But I think it should also be made very clear that many of us who have followed this group for a long time DON'T want the Academy to just pander to what's the biggest hit of the year. This website already did a "ten questionable noms" segment, and on them were "Airport" and "The Towering Inferno." Do we really want to go back to those days?
I think what the Academy needs to do is stop being so corruptible. This problem is far deeper than just seemingly being "out of touch," the Academy needs to clean up some of their ways. Firstly, they need to stop holding the awards ceremony so soon, which really just allows the late releases to stay fresh. And stop it with the short attention spans and start paying better attention throughout the WHOLE year instead of just in November and December. And yes, they should broaden what they consider to be great film making. They need to drop their prejudices against animated pictures and start being a little nicer towards comedies. They can never please anyone, but if they weren't so susceptible to the same old gimmicks that resulted in rather predictable noms, they might be taken more seriously and have more people "respectively disagree" with them instead of just downright not trust them.
The sentiment of that poster is like the old saying "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"; if you TDK fans don't watch them, you'll miss seeing how Heath Ledger's nomination for Best Supporting actor in The Dark Knight ends up.
If TDK not being nominated for best picture is enough to make you not watch the Oscars, it's very likely you weren't going to watch them anyway.
"Hey, maybe if Sean Penn played Batman, Kate Winslet played Rachel Dawes and David Fincher thrown in as the director for good measure, maybe we would have seen The Dark Knight up for best picture." – Roger
But that truly would have been a different picture, and I'll bet if any one of your variables had been in place, it would have been an even better picture. You talk about those people like they're interchangeable set pieces, and the whims of the Academy sway toward them because they have better Facebook pages or something, but really the people you list are some of the best of the best in our times. Actually, your cast and Fincher directing would have been awesome.
People will just tune in to see Ledger win the supporting actor award, then afterwards they'll just go tune out and do whatever. What the Oscars and ABC wants are people who will actually watch the entire telecast or at the very least most of the telecast. The Academy should not nominate films just for ratings. I think they should just open their minds and realize the fact that "popular summer blockbuster" fare can be every bit as "artsy" as indie films or "prestige films" that they seem to lean on every year. Granted, it is not often that we see summer films that are actually exemplary (This year is an abomination with Dark Knight, Wall-E) and warrants mention as a Best Picture nominee. Since summer isn't the usual haven for potential Best Picture films, I guess voters tend to lump summer films all together, and in doing so, they actually end up missing actual gems like Dark Knight and Wall-E. Then again, one may argue that they really didn't miss Dark Knight and Wall-E and that it was "genre-biases" that kept both out of the running for the big prize (That discussion is for another post)
@Billions:
My closing comment was sarcastic and those three really could NOT have made the movie better. And you just proved my point by thinking the movie would be that much better had it been Sean Penn as Batman for example. Why? Cuz he's a better actor, has better charisma, a better personality? No, cuz he's Sean Penn. Look at his past track record in the past 10 years of the kinds of movies he's done. They were ALL aimed towards the eyes of the academy. And what, Fincher would have a better visiion than Nolan? Why cuz he;s Fincher? Cuz he did Fight Club? The movie was great, but the book was better. Please dude, they are all talented individuals, but don't tell me they could have made that movie better simply because of who they are.
I'm trying to say that those actors and directors (and some others) are indeed interchangeable when it comes to placing them in specific movies that are aiming for oscar recognition. Are you gonna see Sean Penn do another Fast Times at Ridgemont High? Or Kate Winslet do a movie like Knocked Up? Never. They are in times of their careers where they get roles that are almost always automatically linked to something that will get award recognition. I don't doubt their talents one bit, but I do strongly believe that "Movie X" starring Sean Penn will get the oscar looks more than the same exact movie starring Vince Vaughn, simply because it's Sean Penn.
Penn, along with Winslet and many others, have developed careers that have now made them known as serious actors and therefore their movies get more academy looks because of it.
@Billions: I've watched the Oscars every year, even the horrible 1998 year. This will be the first time I won't be watching, they screwed up so badly this year, I can't stand to think of watching. If* (sadly it's not as certain as it should be) Ledger wins, I'll read the result and watch the acceptance speech on-line the next day, that's it.
btw Roger, I'm calling "The Road" over "Lovely Bones" for next year, since it's a Weinstein film. It'll finally be the first film that Weinstein will buy a nomination/win for that I'll actually like; if it's at least close to as good as the book anyway.
hahahaha…. the Oscars have done just that… they have played the TV ratings card… i am from India been following the Oscars pretty much religiously but there was nothing that appealed to the billion people of India about the Oscars… all that is about to change… Slumdog millionaire which in my opinion is a ugly look at the underbelly of Indian poverty and the same cynical white man's perspective of the third world country they believe India to be. i hate the movie and cannot bear to see it win but there are scores of people in India who will tune in to see an "Indian" movie win and danny Boyle will have the token thanks to the people of mumbai for their love and warmth and other such gooey emotions… and the TV ratings will go through the roofs…
i myself am boycotting the Oscars this year
though i may change my mind since its HUGH JACKMAN hosting and want to see heath ledger get a standing ovation but thats it. i cannot bear to see slumdog win anything at all. and to think that sukhwinder singh will open the show with a song from Oscars is cringe worthy enough for me to stay away… that guy is a creep
Look, I knew what you were doing, and I can respect that you have that opinion, but no, I didn't prove your point, Roger. You think I did because you won't acknowledge the difference in the people you mention. Except that you've forgotten about their careers, the substance that has put them where they're at. For example, without going on and on, Bale is good but Penn has been giving amazing performances for decades… THAT'S why people take notice when Penn does something. And truthfully, I enjoy seeing both of Penn and Bale acting and seeing both of their films. They're different people, not in competition. Penn could make a great Batman in the Frank Miller 'Batman' canon, when Wayne is older, past his prime. But it's way beyond "cuz he's Sean Penn": it's because he's delivered some great acting since the days of Taps, Bad Boys, Fast Times, all the way through Carlito's Way and Milk.
I mean really man, this is pointless: I'm never gonna change your opinion on this. TDK is a good fun film but you're SO into it you're actually discounting people like Penn and Fincher as interchangeable in their respective fields. It's like some Dark Knight fans have gone into a 'berserker' mode, lashing at anything that DID get nominated and throwing it under the bus. These posts are never gonna make you think otherwise, but it's really a lot more than just "cuz he's Fincher, Penn, etc."
Having read so many comments above, i can`t help but wanted to join in: ^^
- First of all, I love The Dark Knight, but after have watched it 2-3 times, somehow, it`s not as great as i saw it for the first time at the theaters. It`s thrilling yes, captivating, yes…. Heath Ledger was phenomenal, and he made all previous villain like Dr. Octopus, Green Goblin, Venom, Kingpin, and other looks like a joke…. Puting it on best picture race is somehow a right thing to do, but with a list of nominee of best picture we all know now, I`m not disagree with it at all…. All of movie list in best picture nominee is very good movie…. (even compared to The Dark Knight), it`s MY point of view.
- Harvey Weinstein didn`t "buy" the way to the Oscar, he just simply made good film, that`s all… (I love the Reader….. i still don`t get why some people didn`t like it), and please, don`t compare it with The Dark Knight coz it`s just different from every aspect.
- There are many good films this year and you can`t put everything in best picture nominee, and as far as I learned from critics, you can`t please all people. Academy is academy…. they chose what majority voices IN ACADEMY think the best.
So sorry for Wall – E, The Dark Knight, Vicky Christina Barcelona (they just missed the cut)….
Just enjoy the Oscar… as I said, you can`t please everybody, make them satisfied with every decision….
I can`t wait February 22nd….
Regards from Indonesia-
To be honest, I think the oscars are pretty stupid. Anyone in there right of mind knows The Dark Knight was the best film of the year. It outdoes any attempt at a superhero movie. Heath Ledger gave the best preformance in the acting business than anyone had the entire decade.
I do not know why people put as #4 or #5, so I blame people as well. But to not recognize this excellent film for a ton of awards is just plain dum.
The movies up for best picture should be:
1. The Dark Knight
2. Incredible Hulk
3. Quantum Of Solace
4. Twilight
5. Iron Man
And perhaps Hellboy 2: The Golden Army if the drama in it wasn't so bad, but it definitely deserves a nomination the special effects category.
I'm sure that none of these films will get anything, because people would rather watch boring, badly done art dramas about people that are not anywhere near likeable and all deserve to die a painful death.
Period.
I usually wouldn't rant like this but it had to be said.
FROM BRAD: And how many movies did you see last year?
@Billions:
Billions, I respect your opinion as much as any other's, but im not defending Dark Knight like some fanboy because as great as it was, there were flaws. All I was trying to say is that I have become quite bored with the same nominees/types of movies that get all the oscar attention every year that always include the same actors. I singled out Sean Penn but I never questioned his talent. I just find it funny that everything he touches gets oscar attention which makes me question whether or not he (or actors like him) really deserve that nomination or because everyone is so accustomed to the fact that he indeed is a talented actor and it's almost an automatic nomination.
And since the same nominees/type of movies are always in the spotlight, that's the reason I am not as into the Oscars as I used to be.
Hey as you said, those names are some of the best of the best, and I can't doubt that. Can they make a good movie better? I don't think so. But if they're making the same decisions that they have been making, they will continue to produce good features. I just find that always seeing the same names is like always seeing the New England Patriots win the Super Bowl. As talented as they are, it makes for a boring event.
I dunno, am I the only one who finds it a bit boring to see the same names pop up at the oscars all the time?
I think the voting method they have is fine. In fact, it's a very good method. The problem is with the people voting. They're all arthouse snobs. They're behind times. They're like the person in your college dormitory that watches a 6-hour Lebanese documentary when everyone is having a Lord of the Rings at the other end of the hall. The Academy needs to realize that popularity does not cancel out excellence. For the past few years, it seems that the more money a film made, the less chance it had of being nominated for Best Picture. This didn't happen 10 or 20 years ago; why can't movies like "The Dark Knight" and "Wall-E" get into the Best Picture race? 8 and 6 nominations, respectively, are good, but if they're not for Picture or Director, it's just not good enough. The Academy needs to go more with their hearts than their brains. Then they'd be able to honestly admit to themselves that TDK and Wall-E were the BEST theater experiences of the entire year. Seriously. Benjamin Button and Slumdog were amazing and deserve their nominations, but can you honestly say they were better than TDK and Wall-E? That they were greater cinematic achievements? That it took more skill to pull them off? You might say "No" to one of these questions, but if you say "No" to all 3, you're not being honest with yourself.