The Oscars have been called irrelevant since the start. Committing to their principles (i.e. not "popularity") has kept them alive. It's like if Jeopardy! added a multiple choice round. More people would know answers at home but do you really want to win Multiple Choice Jeopardy?
-
-
I really don’t think that’s the case. There are great popular films that just don’t fit with the Academy’s conception of what makes for a best picture. Those films deserve recognition.
-
Yes but it seems so superfluous. Like, the “award” for being a popular film is the money. Why also give them a statue? A statue that simply recognizes the fact that they made a lot of money? It seems pointless.
-
it’s not simply that they made a lot of money. It’s that film can mean very different things to very different people, and the academy has one conception of it. Bad but very popular movies are not going to win this category.
-
Like, this is maybe meet projecting that if I had to guess what this category will come down to its “of the top 20 movies, which one did you enjoy the most.” It’s just very different question than “what was the best piece of art this year”
-
That makes more sense to me, though I still disagree with the category. I’m interested in the Oscars expanding their definition of what constitutes art, not dolling our awards for “stuff people like.”
-
So, people go to the movies to enjoy them. But art isn’t meant to just be enjoyed. Great art should have an emotional impact. But great movies can just be something that you love.
-
Sure, but we also don’t award the Booker Prize to, like, the Fifty Shades Trilogy, y’know?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.