8 ms·

The “Oscar movie” is dying

57 points by pmcpinto 4y ago

cocacola1 4y ago
One of my favorite subscriptions is Regal Unlimited. ~$25 a month and I can see as many movies in theaters as I want. Going to the movies is still something I do pretty often, and it’s certainly one of my greatest joys.
topkai22 4y ago
IMO a big part of the issue is that these media products simply don’t need a full theatrical experience like a more commercialized “popcorn movie” does, so consumers who want an “film” experience don’t go to the expense and hassle of going to the theatre. They just watch it on their TV
mc32 4y ago
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 entertaining "plotlines" or rather, content. The industry is changing, the audience probably didn't change too much, but the Oscars don't matter any more except to some (high profile) actors and some industry insiders and it looks like they are sad about it.
- cainxinth 4y ago
  > 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.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    True, but at least its a popularity contest among peers. As noted elsewhere in the comments here, actors vote on the best actors, etc.
    - donmaq 4y ago
      Nominations are by peers. Overall winners are voted on by the entire academy, & thus often a popularity contest.
- slothtrop 4y ago
  Yes, and one could argue it's just cyclical.
- nonameiguess 4y ago
  The Oscars often don't agree with critics, either. I don't think anyone had Ordinary People, Dances with Wolves, Titanic, Shakespeare in Love, Crash, Green Book, even CODA at #1 on their year-end best of list. Best Picture is usually going to favor something that is at least serious enough that the voters don't feel like children for loving it, i.e. they're never going to award a tentpole or franchise entry, sci-fi, fantasy, horror genre-type stuff will only very rarely even be considered, but they're also going to favor relatively inoffensive, unchallenging, often feel good work that isn't particularly novel or ground-breaking, which is more what critics will lean toward. They also have a tendency to reward message movies and films about filmmaking and Hollywood itself, even if no one likes them.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Excuse me? Most if not all of these could easily end up on peoples year-end best of list. Some people don't even remember any other than Titanic from the 90s.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      >The Oscars often don't agree with critics, either. I don't think anyone... They're talking about critics.
    - prometheus76 4y ago
      When Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan, I quit the Oscars and never looked back. How many people still watch Saving Private Ryan vs. Shakespeare in Love?
  - Fricken 4y ago
    "The Favorite" won best picture, director and original screenplay in 2019, and it's the first film in a long time a worthy film took the accolades. "The Favorite" is a black comedy and totally not the type of film you describe. I was astonished it did so well.
    - 4y ago
- baandam 4y ago
  I quite enjoy the type of movie they are referencing and have almost never watched a super hero movie but The Fabelmans looks like a total bore. That is even with wanting to see Julia Butters acting evolve. We will see with Nolan's Oppenheimer next year. This is all over dramatized. Butters will probably be the biggest actor in the world in 10 years making "serious" dramas. Tarantino has even talked about how this goes in cycles and we have been going through a boring time like in the late 50s.
- jfengel 4y ago
  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 audiences. The Academy Awards are a big industry advertisement, and they get the most bang for their buck by promoting a film that could catch the attention of an audience but hasn't yet. I find that audiences are often puzzled by the Oscar winners. They go see them, and don't see what the fuss is about. But that does at least fund the next round of movies that are different from the summer blockbusters (which make plenty of money and need no help).
  - ggambetta 4y ago
    Rare to find a fellow actor on HN :) You don't have contact details on your profile, but I do - would be interesting in knowing more!
    - jfengel 4y ago
      I'm just an amateur, and I only do local theater. I'm very glad to be able to do programming for a living so that I can do theater the way I want to do theater, rather than having my dinner depend on whether I win an audition against long odds. It sounds like a terrible way to suck the joy out of the craft. I have nonetheless helped a few actors build minor careers. Despite the fact that my main advice is "don't".
      - boppo1 4y ago
        I'm not interested in acting as a career at all, but I realized I'd love to try playing in local theater. How do I get in with no/low (I once read 'an actor preparss') background? Last I looked at it the local place was a bunch of people who went to school and had credentials. As far as starting my own, I'm worried there would be too many who would join and make a farce* out of it instead of striving for a serious, if amateur, effort. *it's okay and ideal to have fun, but I've seen too many amateur bands/art projects/films/etc veer off due to members dismissing things 'cuz it's not for real' and just turning the effort into a hang-out
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  My take from the post was less about the Oscar per se — more about the decline fit the theater experience (sans Marvel/Pixar flicks).
- gfxgirl 4y ago
  > 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...
  - donmaq 4y ago
    > 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.
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    This is not how it works. Anyone in the Academy can vote on the nominees. The nominees themselves are decided by the people in their specific category.
    - datapolitical 4y ago
      Other way around. See above. Source: my family is in the Academy
      - CyberDildonics 4y ago
        I think you have misunderstood either what I said or what they said. https://variety.com/feature/who-votes-on-oscars-academy-awards-how-voting-works-1203490944/ https://variety.com/feature/who-votes-on-oscars-academy-awar... Each person belongs to one of 17 branches. Each branch nominates for its own category — e.g., editors nominate editors, actors nominate for the four acting categories. Everyone gets to nominate best picture. For the final voting of the winner, all branches vote for everything.
- darth_avocado 4y ago
  > 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. I’m not sure what else did anyone expect with West Side Story? It’s a movie adaptation of a Broadway show that has been adapted countless times. Anyone who has any interest in this genre has probably seen the story multiple times. What value add did the film have?
  - pradn 4y ago
    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.
    - darth_avocado 4y ago
      No doubt it was a great movie. But my question was more around whether it was worth it. In an age when an imax ticket costs $25+ or you don’t have an imax theater nearby, but watching a movie still costs $20, how many people do you expect will go to watch the movie. (Rotten tomatoes suggests that the audience liked the movie, there are no questions about it)
    - gamblor956 4y ago
      I went in with someone who was unfamiliar with the musical, and they walked out halfway deeply offended by the excessive and casual use of slurs throughout the movie directed at a specific racial group. If that had been a different group and the slur had started with a "k", nobody would think West Side Story is incredible. And on a substantive note, the plot is fairly nonsensical. Yes, the movie was technically well made but that's about it.
- atoav 4y ago
  In regards to basic plotlines: These might go well if you look at movies in pure commercial terms or a made up metric of "how many people did a single piece of media manage to distract from their lives for a few minutes". But both as a musician and a film maker I'd be warn about relying overly on such metrics alone. People (can) form connections to the media they interact with that go beyond these metrics and the functions culture itself performs for humanity is more than the money it produces and the minds it keeps busy. It is also about reflection, documentation, memories, meaning, representation and similar hard to define things. Some of the most important pieces of music I heard or films I experienced have been commerical flops and have small (but passionate) audiences. Humans are wildely different in their tastes and psychological needs — the media we really love is a reflection of that. Commercially successful media is media that a broad majority of people find good or at least worth consuming and there is nothing bad about that. But it is often more specific productions that really strike a deep chord withing their audience. Maybe it brings up memories from their childhood, maybe it expresses feelings they always had, but never could put their finger on, maybe it is a particularily good expression of a (power) fantasy that individual has and so on. There might be a film with horses in it that saved a teenage horse loving girl from suicide and even if 99% of the world (including me) thinks that movie sucks, it might not have sucked for that girl. The point here is: Often the stuff that really hits deep for one personally might not woo the broad commercial audiences at all. Because what hits you might not hit all. And what hits most might also hit you, but not as hard or deep. Obscure media has it's value.
mynegation 4y ago
I don’t think it is going to end the culture of famous actors and directors but will at least level the field a bit. The amount of available quality entertainment on streaming sites is immense and it affects the balance of the decision between going out to the cinema and see an outstanding movie or stay home in the couch and see and okay TV show.
andrewclunn 4y ago
Mature films rarely require huge budgets anyways. And are we really lacking in good stories? Hell there's such a back catalog of entertainment I will never get to. We've saturated the market so now movies will be more like the fashion industry. Perhaps if they were to fill the gaps, with say historical dramas from perspectives that aren't usually shown, but that would require real research and work, and true creatives stay as far away from "the industry" as possible these days because that's not what it's about.
jdlyga 4y ago
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 theaters. What's the point of spending $15 per person for tickets to a movie I could see in a few months on my own equivalently good screen for a subscription I'm already paying for?
- nsxwolf 4y ago
  The ability to pause, rewind and get up to go to the bathroom changes the experience for the worse. You just don't have to get serious about watching a movie anymore. You don't have to prepare to settle down, be quiet, and focus.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > The ability to pause, rewind and get up to go to the bathroom changes the experience for the worse. You just don't have to get serious about watching a movie anymore. You don't have to prepare to settle down, be quiet, and focus. I disagree. Nothing is stopping anyone from staying at home and acting like they're in a theater. If that's what you really value you can choose to just ignore any important dialog that you didn't catch the first time instead of rewinding to hear it again. You can be distracted by the fact that you have to pee without pausing the film to run to the bathroom. You can divert your attention while you try to be as silent as possible while eating or opening snacks so as not to annoy anyone else in your virtual theater. I think that it's far easier to focus on a movie when I'm at home and don't have anyone else talking or kicking seats or getting up and walking between me and the screen. While I have the option to obsessively check my phone while the movie is playing at home somehow I see fewer screens blaze up like beacons when I watch movies with the family than when I'm at the theater. I can also fully control the lighting and temperature, and all while not spending a fortune on crappy food and drinks. The one time I actually prefer to see things in a theater are live performances or special events where part of the fun is being in a crowd. I have some good memories of special showings and long awaited releases where the whole audience was buzzing with excitement while lined up outside and cheering and clapping while the film was rolling. None of that is getting serious about and focusing on the movie though, it's more about being a part of a shared experience and that's something genuinely harder to replicate at home.
j-bos 4y ago
Has anyone crunched the numbers on what percentage of Oscar winning movies are themselves focused on Hollywood and it's early days vs the overall percentage?
dfxm12 4y ago
This isn't necessarily different from previous years. Hollywood has always had tentpole films fund these types of dramas that they know aren't going to make as much money. 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 author then lists 10 Oscar movies. They are not dying. The Oscar movie exists & will exist well into the future, even if people aren't necessarily watching it in theaters. Theaters are kind of a bad experience for a few reasons and the home viewing experience keep improving.
wmorein 4y ago
The people who used to watch an "Oscar Movie" want to watch independent films right now.
dangus 4y ago
This article feels so very out of touch, like a car enthusiast telling parents with 4 kids that their minivan should have a manual transmission since it's a better driving experience. It gets the whole situation backwards: it blames the modern audience for not wanting to take the time and money to go out to the theater unless they get a theme park-style spectacle. In other words, the article is blaming the customer. How dare they look to their Internet-connected 4K television in their living room to get Oscar-quality storytelling? How dare they turn to long-form television story arcs to deliver deep character development rather than Oscar-winning directors who pack it all in to a two hour movie made to be watched in a sticky theater? The article laments that things aren't right in the world when Steven Spielberg can't draw a theater crowd. Well, Steven Spielberg is an old, wealthy man now, and he is making movies for himself, not for the kind of audience that made Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park massive successes. The Fablemans might be a good movie, but it's still at its core a piece of Steven Spielberg fan service. It's the deepest of the deep cuts. If you didn't know who Steven Spielberg was, The Fablemans is supremely skippable. The article continues on to describe a theater environment where the vast majority of Oscar contending movies are financial failures, but to me this is the natural evolution of film as technology advances. When you look at things like 4DX, IMAX 3D, and the kind of advanced sound systems you can find in theaters, it's quite obvious that the most beneficial movie for that experience involves action-packed escapism. Yes, it is a mini-theme park, that's what people want, and that's okay.
- allturtles 4y ago
  > The article laments that things aren't right in the world when Steven Spielberg can't draw a theater crowd. Well, Steven Spielberg is an old, wealthy man now, and he is making movies for himself, not for the kind of audience that made Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park massive successes. I sort of agree. I've enjoyed many of Spielberg's movies, but I have no interest in watching a fictionalized Spielberg biopic. West Side Story was meh, I tried watching it on Disney+, and gave up after 30 minutes or so. The music was dull and old-fashioned. But the most obvious counter-argument to this is Schindler's List, a black-and-white Spielberg movie about the Holocaust (granted it has some 'feel-good' elements, but still). That movie made nearly $100M in the domestic box office in 1993. It's hard to imagine box office success for that kind of movie today.
prohobo 4y ago
It's not that people only go for theme park rides, they'll also go for "kino" movies. That's why Tarantino can still do it. His movies are all about completely immersing the audience in the movie's world and making use of tech and techniques that make for an epic viewing experience. No one wants to go to the theater for a "basic" (maybe intimate?) movie where the cinematography doesn't really matter, the sound and visual effects aren't interesting, there's no grand cinematic vibe, etc. Don't get me wrong, it might be a great movie, but why would I want to see it in theater instead of at home? People will go to theaters for Spartacus and 2001: A Space Odyssey, not for Life Is Beautiful or The Pianist. A more modern example: I'm really stoked to watch The Whale, but I will absolutely watch it at home. I don't see any point in going to the theater for it.
- sheepdestroyer 4y ago
  Don't say "No one". Usually the sound of action movies is too strong for me in theaters and I hate the experience ; I also never got the argument about special effects being better there. I can see them as well detailed on my computer screen, unless you're going to one of those ultra rare 8k laser room. However, I genuinely really enjoyed seeing Michael Moore and Woody Allen movies in theater. I also loved seeing Lost in Translation on a big screen (and it's opening!, but you could argue that scene was going for the cinematic experience :p)
raydiatian 4y ago
I mean, one part of the problem I see at a local level is Black Panther 2 is currently occupying 50% of available projectors at all of my local movie theatres. I’m sort of just waiting and hoping the silly capeshit phenomenon will die out already. I think we need to see that the cinematic universe concept was a novelty and is extremely difficult to execute, especially when it’s driven by soulless profiteering. I mean, it’s not at all difficult or dishonest to argue that the MCU was 80 years in the making. More importantly, it was made by people that genuinely cared about comic books and their characters, as opposed to caring about (and subsequently engineering for) shareholder satisfaction.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  > I’m sort of just waiting and hoping the silly capeshit phenomenon will die out already. Ha ha, capeshit. I confess, I can't stand super hero movies either. Instead I've been working through the "1001 Film to See Before You Die" and it regularly reminds me what film can be (has been). As an aside, I also remember wondering when rap music would die out. We may both be waiting a long time.
  - Der_Einzige 4y ago
    It IS capeshit. The majority of the fans of capeshit today we're bullying the old school capeshit fans 20+ years ago.
- bitwize 4y ago
  I used to not take people who grouse about capeshit too seriously. I would go okay, maybe this whole superhero thing is starting to get played out, but I'll go see the next Marvel just to be sure. Up until Captain Marvel (2019), the Marvel films were solidly entertaining if not great, and very respectful of the characters. There were still some Marvel films like that after that, but most of Phase IV has been a hard skip for me. Now I'll sometimes watch anime or science fiction on streaming, but the last movie to make me really want to go to the theaters was Maverick.
  - raydiatian 4y ago
GeekyBear 4y ago
I still tend to watch the best picture nominees, provided I don't have to go to a theater to do so.
seydor 4y ago
Isn't it about time?
racl101 4y ago
Oscars are meaningless anyways.
havblue 4y ago
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.
- mc32 4y ago
  Mr Plinkett is not everyone's cup of tea for various reasons. But it does some deep dives into some key movies.
  - havblue 4y ago
    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.
    - gota 4y ago
      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 decreasing order of importance for them - They will certainly critize other things (plain scenes, bad framing, technical flaws, bad lighting, etc.) but I don't think I've ever seen them give a purely negative review based only on these. If any of those three criteria above are met, though, (and god forbid all three) they will absolutely pile on a terrible rating with complaints on how the scenes are ugly and general filmmaking is lazy. Oh, and also, they'll point out most editing errors, seeing as they are editors too. And insert pointless Star Trek references no matter what, of course
      - standardly 4y ago
        Could someone kindly establish what "RLM" is? Some of us have a enough acronyms in the database already.
0x445442 4y ago
I don’t want to spend my entertainment dollars subjecting myself to political gaslighting. I want to be entertained by a good story. Sadly, this seems to be an insurmountable hurdle for Hollywood at the moment.
- DeetrixDotter 4y ago
  Nothing quite breaks the immersion for me like having so many gay and interracial couples crammed into the cast that I end up sitting there wondering if there is any place on Earth that's anything like the "normal" town Hollywood is presenting to me.
  - jmull 4y ago
    Movies, nor any other story-telling, is really about representing statistical averages. Anyway, there are plenty of gay people and interracial families out there, so these aren't exactly bizarre.
    - boppo1 4y ago
      >Anyway, there are plenty of gay people and interracial families out there, so these aren't exactly bizarre. That's true! But it seems like there's a new Hayes code where every single new show must have x, y, z "identities"[0] and they have to be represented in particular and empowering ways. Frequently also that the fact of their 'identity' has lent them a special advantageous approach to the situation at hand. Feels like all good ideas need to be edited by the HR department before they get on screen these days. [0] this is, IMO, a really shallow way of understanding individuals' identities.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        I think the greatest beneficiaries of the "representation" push seem to be diplomat's kids. They usually tick multiple (or mystery) racial boxes, have exotic accents, and are of the class where the people who greenlight movies socialize.
  - 4y ago
fullshark 4y ago
This has been at least a 5 year long trend, exacerbated by the pandemic. The Big Picture is basically about this https://www.amazon.com/Big-Picture-Fight-Future-Movies/dp/0544789768 https://www.amazon.com/Big-Picture-Fight-Future-Movies/dp/05... and that came out in 2018.
aliqot 4y ago
There never were Oscar movies. Maybe for the first or second, but now it's just a good-boy's club of who was a good-boy this year.
- ryanlitalien 4y ago
  I'd disagree. There are a few (or more?) actors, directors and producers that make movies solely for receiving the Oscar nomination/win. One example is "The Deer Hunter". Note, on looking into provide specifics, this came up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_bait https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_bait
  - mc32 4y ago
    I can't tell from the summary and have not read IMDB to follow the timelines, but it appears that the Deer Hunter had already been made, but flopped in initial screenings, so they held it back and instead of an initial wide release they showed it to critics who loved it and got it nominated. In other words it wasn't initially made-to-order to cater to an Oscar, but ex-post did it that way because initial audiences hated it.
Timwi 4y ago
I kinda stopped reading where it started to equate a movie's box office revenue with its success. A successful movie is a movie that entertains its audience, not one that makes a few people rich. The correlation is there, but it's weak. I don't consider it problematic to see movie theaters go out of fashion and movie makers take a deeper look at what makes their art an art.
kazinator 4y ago
Could it be that people consume too much online video to have spare video cycles to see a movie. There is just a glut of audio-visual material out there.
trts 4y ago
Arguably many "Oscar movies" are not that great. There are often good films nominated but I am always surprised to look back post-1980s or 90s and see how many fairly mediocre films, many of which have since receded from critical awareness, have won "Best Picture" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture
- danem 4y ago
  Which films are you referring to? I wouldn't say that an Oscar nomination is definitive proof of quality, but it certainly is a strong signal of quality, which can't be said about similar award shows (Grammys).
davexunit 4y ago
Oscar should start listening to Gregg Turkington from On Cinema if they want to save mature cinema and their awards show from declining box office earnings and ratings.
jedberg 4y ago
During the pandemic a few movies that were supposed to be in theaters launched as expensive paid streams (mostly Disney, but also stuff like Bill and Ted). I gladly paid for every one of them. My wife and I used to go to the movies every weekend, sometimes twice, before we had kids. After we had kids we went to theater maybe three times. I was perfectly happy to pay $30 to watch a movie in my house, where I can watch it after I put the kids to bed but don't have to hire a sitter, can pause if I need to pee, can rewind, turn on subtitles, or watch it again. The only advantages the theaters provide is a bigger screen, louder speakers, and the psychological effect of knowing that I will be watching a movie for two hours and doing nothing else (which I can replicate at home after everyone is asleep if I want to). And participation in the cultural zeitgeist. I used to love going to see movies in a theater, and will still do it occasionally (we watched Top Gun 2 in a theater, but we brought the kids because it's cheaper than a sitter!), but I much prefer to watch at home.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Meanwhile, I haven't spent thousands of dollars on a home cinema, because I have neither the room, time, or spare cash to buy a giant 4k TV, really good internet, 37 independent streaming services at their max tier, $14 a pop to buy a movie on a streaming service, etc etc etc. $20 to see a movie on a local 50ft IMAX screen is such an incomparable experience.
  - jedberg 4y ago
    Sure that's true if you never use TV otherwise. But most people are already getting all those things anyway. And I also I very clearly said that having kids is what made home streaming worth it. Because for me to go to a movie, I have to pay a babysitter $25/hr for 4 hours (to cover driving, waiting in line, previews, etc), and my wife likes popcorn so I have to pay $10 for that instead of popping an instant one at home for 20 cents. And I have to pay for two seats. So now a movie trip costs me $150. And I already have all the streaming services because kids.
- verdenti 4y ago
yoz-y 4y ago
For me this is mainly because the home cinema experience is getting better. I want the big screen for good visuals, sound and music. I can watch a story driven movie at home, where I don't need the speakers to drown out the sound of somebody wolfing down popcorn.
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  In the pandemic I got a lot more sensitive to ‘disgusting’ and the thought of people making dirty popcorn and coke messes makes it hard for me to go back to the theatre. It is going to take something really special to get me to go. I wish they had real 3D IMAX movies at the theatre in Syracuse instead of ‘4d’ movies that seem really cheesy.
janmarsal 4y ago
> if Spielberg can’t even bring people to a movie theatre anymore, then who can? Big shocker a 75 year old man can't attract kids to the theaters like he used to back in the 80s.
pcthrowaway 4y ago
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, etc. I'm not trying to suggest film isn't an art form in itself, that often has significant differences from television, but watching trends have been favouring television over film lately, especially by hour watched.
- bmitc 4y ago
  Almost all modern TV series are just a movie spread out over entire TV seasons. They are filled with nothing but teasers and cliff hangers in order to artificially stimulate intrigue and extend the relatively thin plots. I can barely imagine something more boring than modern streaming TV series. They also tend to devolve into characters forming romantic relationships with each other, because there's usually nothing else to do with a small and finite character set once the initial ideas are exhausted. Movies are far deeper because they try to focus on a coherent story and character development. The incentives for TV series are all wrong aside from episodic comedies and docuseries. The trends of TV have more to do with attention span, addiction, marketing/advertising, etc. than it being a supposedly more wanted format for actual content reasons.
  - pcthrowaway 4y ago
    I'm sorry, but I think this is an incredibly reductive take on television. You could make all the same arguments about novels vs. short stories. The fact is that they're both related forms of art which take different approaches to developing narratives. > Movies are far deeper because they try to focus on a coherent story and character development. The incentives for TV series are all wrong aside from episodic comedies and docuseries. Here you seem to be arguing that movies, as a form, are superior (or perhaps that TV can't practically compete with film because the incentives are wrong, so that in practice, films are higher quality than TV). I wasn't making an argument about the potential of the form though, merely about what viewers want. It should go without saying that in long-form writing you have more of an ability to develop characters, stories, and plot arcs than in short-form writing. These more fully developed characters, stories, and plot arcs are more compelling to readers/viewers. Historically, this is why we've rarely seen short stories achieve the same level of commercial success as the successful novels, and now that we have the internet, the barriers[1] to television asserting the same dominance over videographic media have been torn down. edit: And to be clear, I also disagree that in practice, television (as produced) is inferior to film (as produced). Of course there is plenty of filler and contrived drama in television (this has always been the case in film too), but we're in a renaissance of television shows which are incredibly tightly written and even dense, from a storytelling perspective. [1]: namely, that you couldn't run a movie/episodes for 10+ hours on television, due to the complexity around scheduling slots, so you'd have to break it up, leading to confusion and fragmentation of understanding among the viewership
SNosTrAnDbLe 4y ago
I think there are great directors and movies in the adult drama genre but a lot of them are not being made in English anymore.
dcchambers 4y ago
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?
AzzieElbab 4y ago
Maybe it is about the cost of tickets and availability of streaming services
stevage 4y ago
I've never really understood the hand wringing about this, or the assumption that movie theatres are real cinema, and watching at home is something lesser. As long as films are being made and people are watching them, what does it matter how big the screen is?
simonblack 4y ago
Too much unrealistic computer graphics in US movies. Also melodramatic story-lines. I no longer watch them. British movies, on the other hand probably can't afford too much CGI and have more realistic story-lines as well. I've watched several of those in the last few years. But overall, movies are just no longer on my 'to-do' list.
thefounder 4y ago
The Oscars died for good after the diversity quotas. You can't have a Best Picture without having heads of major departments(such as editing, director, makeup and hairstyling, costuming, sound) from underrepresented identity group(i.e lgbtq). I fail to see how this makes the best movie "win". Perhaps that's why all the new movies became have some kind of forced gay plot just to tick some boxes. Not even the remakes are spared of this "upgrade".

57 points by pmcpinto 4y ago

One of my favorite subscriptions is Regal Unlimited. ~$25 a month and I can see as many movies in theaters as I want. Going to the movies is still something I do pretty often, and it’s certainly one of my greatest joys.

topkai22 4y ago

IMO a big part of the issue is that these media products simply don’t need a full theatrical experience like a more commercialized “popcorn movie” does, so consumers who want an “film” experience don’t go to the expense and hassle of going to the theatre. They just watch it on their TV

mc32 4y ago

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 entertaining "plotlines" or rather, content. The industry is changing, the audience probably didn't change too much, but the Oscars don't matter any more except to some (high profile) actors and some industry insiders and it looks like they are sad about it.

cainxinth 4y ago
> 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.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  True, but at least its a popularity contest among peers. As noted elsewhere in the comments here, actors vote on the best actors, etc.
  - donmaq 4y ago
    Nominations are by peers. Overall winners are voted on by the entire academy, & thus often a popularity contest.
slothtrop 4y ago
Yes, and one could argue it's just cyclical.
nonameiguess 4y ago
The Oscars often don't agree with critics, either. I don't think anyone had Ordinary People, Dances with Wolves, Titanic, Shakespeare in Love, Crash, Green Book, even CODA at #1 on their year-end best of list. Best Picture is usually going to favor something that is at least serious enough that the voters don't feel like children for loving it, i.e. they're never going to award a tentpole or franchise entry, sci-fi, fantasy, horror genre-type stuff will only very rarely even be considered, but they're also going to favor relatively inoffensive, unchallenging, often feel good work that isn't particularly novel or ground-breaking, which is more what critics will lean toward. They also have a tendency to reward message movies and films about filmmaking and Hollywood itself, even if no one likes them.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Excuse me? Most if not all of these could easily end up on peoples year-end best of list. Some people don't even remember any other than Titanic from the 90s.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    >The Oscars often don't agree with critics, either. I don't think anyone... They're talking about critics.
  - prometheus76 4y ago
    When Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan, I quit the Oscars and never looked back. How many people still watch Saving Private Ryan vs. Shakespeare in Love?
- Fricken 4y ago
  "The Favorite" won best picture, director and original screenplay in 2019, and it's the first film in a long time a worthy film took the accolades. "The Favorite" is a black comedy and totally not the type of film you describe. I was astonished it did so well.
  - 4y ago
baandam 4y ago
I quite enjoy the type of movie they are referencing and have almost never watched a super hero movie but The Fabelmans looks like a total bore. That is even with wanting to see Julia Butters acting evolve. We will see with Nolan's Oppenheimer next year. This is all over dramatized. Butters will probably be the biggest actor in the world in 10 years making "serious" dramas. Tarantino has even talked about how this goes in cycles and we have been going through a boring time like in the late 50s.
jfengel 4y ago
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 audiences. The Academy Awards are a big industry advertisement, and they get the most bang for their buck by promoting a film that could catch the attention of an audience but hasn't yet. I find that audiences are often puzzled by the Oscar winners. They go see them, and don't see what the fuss is about. But that does at least fund the next round of movies that are different from the summer blockbusters (which make plenty of money and need no help).
- ggambetta 4y ago
  Rare to find a fellow actor on HN :) You don't have contact details on your profile, but I do - would be interesting in knowing more!
  - jfengel 4y ago
    I'm just an amateur, and I only do local theater. I'm very glad to be able to do programming for a living so that I can do theater the way I want to do theater, rather than having my dinner depend on whether I win an audition against long odds. It sounds like a terrible way to suck the joy out of the craft. I have nonetheless helped a few actors build minor careers. Despite the fact that my main advice is "don't".
    - boppo1 4y ago
      I'm not interested in acting as a career at all, but I realized I'd love to try playing in local theater. How do I get in with no/low (I once read 'an actor preparss') background? Last I looked at it the local place was a bunch of people who went to school and had credentials. As far as starting my own, I'm worried there would be too many who would join and make a farce* out of it instead of striving for a serious, if amateur, effort. *it's okay and ideal to have fun, but I've seen too many amateur bands/art projects/films/etc veer off due to members dismissing things 'cuz it's not for real' and just turning the effort into a hang-out
JKCalhoun 4y ago
My take from the post was less about the Oscar per se — more about the decline fit the theater experience (sans Marvel/Pixar flicks).
gfxgirl 4y ago
> 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...
- donmaq 4y ago
  > 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.
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  This is not how it works. Anyone in the Academy can vote on the nominees. The nominees themselves are decided by the people in their specific category.
  - datapolitical 4y ago
    Other way around. See above. Source: my family is in the Academy
    - CyberDildonics 4y ago
      I think you have misunderstood either what I said or what they said. https://variety.com/feature/who-votes-on-oscars-academy-awards-how-voting-works-1203490944/ https://variety.com/feature/who-votes-on-oscars-academy-awar... Each person belongs to one of 17 branches. Each branch nominates for its own category — e.g., editors nominate editors, actors nominate for the four acting categories. Everyone gets to nominate best picture. For the final voting of the winner, all branches vote for everything.
darth_avocado 4y ago
> 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. I’m not sure what else did anyone expect with West Side Story? It’s a movie adaptation of a Broadway show that has been adapted countless times. Anyone who has any interest in this genre has probably seen the story multiple times. What value add did the film have?
- pradn 4y ago
  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.
  - darth_avocado 4y ago
    No doubt it was a great movie. But my question was more around whether it was worth it. In an age when an imax ticket costs $25+ or you don’t have an imax theater nearby, but watching a movie still costs $20, how many people do you expect will go to watch the movie. (Rotten tomatoes suggests that the audience liked the movie, there are no questions about it)
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    I went in with someone who was unfamiliar with the musical, and they walked out halfway deeply offended by the excessive and casual use of slurs throughout the movie directed at a specific racial group. If that had been a different group and the slur had started with a "k", nobody would think West Side Story is incredible. And on a substantive note, the plot is fairly nonsensical. Yes, the movie was technically well made but that's about it.
atoav 4y ago
In regards to basic plotlines: These might go well if you look at movies in pure commercial terms or a made up metric of "how many people did a single piece of media manage to distract from their lives for a few minutes". But both as a musician and a film maker I'd be warn about relying overly on such metrics alone. People (can) form connections to the media they interact with that go beyond these metrics and the functions culture itself performs for humanity is more than the money it produces and the minds it keeps busy. It is also about reflection, documentation, memories, meaning, representation and similar hard to define things. Some of the most important pieces of music I heard or films I experienced have been commerical flops and have small (but passionate) audiences. Humans are wildely different in their tastes and psychological needs — the media we really love is a reflection of that. Commercially successful media is media that a broad majority of people find good or at least worth consuming and there is nothing bad about that. But it is often more specific productions that really strike a deep chord withing their audience. Maybe it brings up memories from their childhood, maybe it expresses feelings they always had, but never could put their finger on, maybe it is a particularily good expression of a (power) fantasy that individual has and so on. There might be a film with horses in it that saved a teenage horse loving girl from suicide and even if 99% of the world (including me) thinks that movie sucks, it might not have sucked for that girl. The point here is: Often the stuff that really hits deep for one personally might not woo the broad commercial audiences at all. Because what hits you might not hit all. And what hits most might also hit you, but not as hard or deep. Obscure media has it's value.

mynegation 4y ago

I don’t think it is going to end the culture of famous actors and directors but will at least level the field a bit. The amount of available quality entertainment on streaming sites is immense and it affects the balance of the decision between going out to the cinema and see an outstanding movie or stay home in the couch and see and okay TV show.

andrewclunn 4y ago

Mature films rarely require huge budgets anyways. And are we really lacking in good stories? Hell there's such a back catalog of entertainment I will never get to. We've saturated the market so now movies will be more like the fashion industry. Perhaps if they were to fill the gaps, with say historical dramas from perspectives that aren't usually shown, but that would require real research and work, and true creatives stay as far away from "the industry" as possible these days because that's not what it's about.

jdlyga 4y ago

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 theaters. What's the point of spending $15 per person for tickets to a movie I could see in a few months on my own equivalently good screen for a subscription I'm already paying for?

nsxwolf 4y ago
The ability to pause, rewind and get up to go to the bathroom changes the experience for the worse. You just don't have to get serious about watching a movie anymore. You don't have to prepare to settle down, be quiet, and focus.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > The ability to pause, rewind and get up to go to the bathroom changes the experience for the worse. You just don't have to get serious about watching a movie anymore. You don't have to prepare to settle down, be quiet, and focus. I disagree. Nothing is stopping anyone from staying at home and acting like they're in a theater. If that's what you really value you can choose to just ignore any important dialog that you didn't catch the first time instead of rewinding to hear it again. You can be distracted by the fact that you have to pee without pausing the film to run to the bathroom. You can divert your attention while you try to be as silent as possible while eating or opening snacks so as not to annoy anyone else in your virtual theater. I think that it's far easier to focus on a movie when I'm at home and don't have anyone else talking or kicking seats or getting up and walking between me and the screen. While I have the option to obsessively check my phone while the movie is playing at home somehow I see fewer screens blaze up like beacons when I watch movies with the family than when I'm at the theater. I can also fully control the lighting and temperature, and all while not spending a fortune on crappy food and drinks. The one time I actually prefer to see things in a theater are live performances or special events where part of the fun is being in a crowd. I have some good memories of special showings and long awaited releases where the whole audience was buzzing with excitement while lined up outside and cheering and clapping while the film was rolling. None of that is getting serious about and focusing on the movie though, it's more about being a part of a shared experience and that's something genuinely harder to replicate at home.

j-bos 4y ago

Has anyone crunched the numbers on what percentage of Oscar winning movies are themselves focused on Hollywood and it's early days vs the overall percentage?

dfxm12 4y ago

This isn't necessarily different from previous years. Hollywood has always had tentpole films fund these types of dramas that they know aren't going to make as much money. 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 author then lists 10 Oscar movies. They are not dying. The Oscar movie exists & will exist well into the future, even if people aren't necessarily watching it in theaters. Theaters are kind of a bad experience for a few reasons and the home viewing experience keep improving.

wmorein 4y ago

The people who used to watch an "Oscar Movie" want to watch independent films right now.

dangus 4y ago

This article feels so very out of touch, like a car enthusiast telling parents with 4 kids that their minivan should have a manual transmission since it's a better driving experience. It gets the whole situation backwards: it blames the modern audience for not wanting to take the time and money to go out to the theater unless they get a theme park-style spectacle. In other words, the article is blaming the customer. How dare they look to their Internet-connected 4K television in their living room to get Oscar-quality storytelling? How dare they turn to long-form television story arcs to deliver deep character development rather than Oscar-winning directors who pack it all in to a two hour movie made to be watched in a sticky theater? The article laments that things aren't right in the world when Steven Spielberg can't draw a theater crowd. Well, Steven Spielberg is an old, wealthy man now, and he is making movies for himself, not for the kind of audience that made Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park massive successes. The Fablemans might be a good movie, but it's still at its core a piece of Steven Spielberg fan service. It's the deepest of the deep cuts. If you didn't know who Steven Spielberg was, The Fablemans is supremely skippable. The article continues on to describe a theater environment where the vast majority of Oscar contending movies are financial failures, but to me this is the natural evolution of film as technology advances. When you look at things like 4DX, IMAX 3D, and the kind of advanced sound systems you can find in theaters, it's quite obvious that the most beneficial movie for that experience involves action-packed escapism. Yes, it is a mini-theme park, that's what people want, and that's okay.

allturtles 4y ago
> The article laments that things aren't right in the world when Steven Spielberg can't draw a theater crowd. Well, Steven Spielberg is an old, wealthy man now, and he is making movies for himself, not for the kind of audience that made Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park massive successes. I sort of agree. I've enjoyed many of Spielberg's movies, but I have no interest in watching a fictionalized Spielberg biopic. West Side Story was meh, I tried watching it on Disney+, and gave up after 30 minutes or so. The music was dull and old-fashioned. But the most obvious counter-argument to this is Schindler's List, a black-and-white Spielberg movie about the Holocaust (granted it has some 'feel-good' elements, but still). That movie made nearly $100M in the domestic box office in 1993. It's hard to imagine box office success for that kind of movie today.

prohobo 4y ago

It's not that people only go for theme park rides, they'll also go for "kino" movies. That's why Tarantino can still do it. His movies are all about completely immersing the audience in the movie's world and making use of tech and techniques that make for an epic viewing experience. No one wants to go to the theater for a "basic" (maybe intimate?) movie where the cinematography doesn't really matter, the sound and visual effects aren't interesting, there's no grand cinematic vibe, etc. Don't get me wrong, it might be a great movie, but why would I want to see it in theater instead of at home? People will go to theaters for Spartacus and 2001: A Space Odyssey, not for Life Is Beautiful or The Pianist. A more modern example: I'm really stoked to watch The Whale, but I will absolutely watch it at home. I don't see any point in going to the theater for it.

sheepdestroyer 4y ago
Don't say "No one". Usually the sound of action movies is too strong for me in theaters and I hate the experience ; I also never got the argument about special effects being better there. I can see them as well detailed on my computer screen, unless you're going to one of those ultra rare 8k laser room. However, I genuinely really enjoyed seeing Michael Moore and Woody Allen movies in theater. I also loved seeing Lost in Translation on a big screen (and it's opening!, but you could argue that scene was going for the cinematic experience :p)

raydiatian 4y ago

I mean, one part of the problem I see at a local level is Black Panther 2 is currently occupying 50% of available projectors at all of my local movie theatres. I’m sort of just waiting and hoping the silly capeshit phenomenon will die out already. I think we need to see that the cinematic universe concept was a novelty and is extremely difficult to execute, especially when it’s driven by soulless profiteering. I mean, it’s not at all difficult or dishonest to argue that the MCU was 80 years in the making. More importantly, it was made by people that genuinely cared about comic books and their characters, as opposed to caring about (and subsequently engineering for) shareholder satisfaction.

JKCalhoun 4y ago
> I’m sort of just waiting and hoping the silly capeshit phenomenon will die out already. Ha ha, capeshit. I confess, I can't stand super hero movies either. Instead I've been working through the "1001 Film to See Before You Die" and it regularly reminds me what film can be (has been). As an aside, I also remember wondering when rap music would die out. We may both be waiting a long time.
- Der_Einzige 4y ago
  It IS capeshit. The majority of the fans of capeshit today we're bullying the old school capeshit fans 20+ years ago.
bitwize 4y ago
I used to not take people who grouse about capeshit too seriously. I would go okay, maybe this whole superhero thing is starting to get played out, but I'll go see the next Marvel just to be sure. Up until Captain Marvel (2019), the Marvel films were solidly entertaining if not great, and very respectful of the characters. There were still some Marvel films like that after that, but most of Phase IV has been a hard skip for me. Now I'll sometimes watch anime or science fiction on streaming, but the last movie to make me really want to go to the theaters was Maverick.
- raydiatian 4y ago

GeekyBear 4y ago

I still tend to watch the best picture nominees, provided I don't have to go to a theater to do so.

seydor 4y ago

Isn't it about time?

racl101 4y ago

Oscars are meaningless anyways.

havblue 4y ago

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.

mc32 4y ago
Mr Plinkett is not everyone's cup of tea for various reasons. But it does some deep dives into some key movies.
- havblue 4y ago
  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.
  - gota 4y ago
    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 decreasing order of importance for them - They will certainly critize other things (plain scenes, bad framing, technical flaws, bad lighting, etc.) but I don't think I've ever seen them give a purely negative review based only on these. If any of those three criteria above are met, though, (and god forbid all three) they will absolutely pile on a terrible rating with complaints on how the scenes are ugly and general filmmaking is lazy. Oh, and also, they'll point out most editing errors, seeing as they are editors too. And insert pointless Star Trek references no matter what, of course
    - standardly 4y ago
      Could someone kindly establish what "RLM" is? Some of us have a enough acronyms in the database already.

0x445442 4y ago

I don’t want to spend my entertainment dollars subjecting myself to political gaslighting. I want to be entertained by a good story. Sadly, this seems to be an insurmountable hurdle for Hollywood at the moment.

DeetrixDotter 4y ago
Nothing quite breaks the immersion for me like having so many gay and interracial couples crammed into the cast that I end up sitting there wondering if there is any place on Earth that's anything like the "normal" town Hollywood is presenting to me.
- jmull 4y ago
  Movies, nor any other story-telling, is really about representing statistical averages. Anyway, there are plenty of gay people and interracial families out there, so these aren't exactly bizarre.
  - boppo1 4y ago
    >Anyway, there are plenty of gay people and interracial families out there, so these aren't exactly bizarre. That's true! But it seems like there's a new Hayes code where every single new show must have x, y, z "identities"[0] and they have to be represented in particular and empowering ways. Frequently also that the fact of their 'identity' has lent them a special advantageous approach to the situation at hand. Feels like all good ideas need to be edited by the HR department before they get on screen these days. [0] this is, IMO, a really shallow way of understanding individuals' identities.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      I think the greatest beneficiaries of the "representation" push seem to be diplomat's kids. They usually tick multiple (or mystery) racial boxes, have exotic accents, and are of the class where the people who greenlight movies socialize.
- 4y ago

fullshark 4y ago

This has been at least a 5 year long trend, exacerbated by the pandemic. The Big Picture is basically about this https://www.amazon.com/Big-Picture-Fight-Future-Movies/dp/0544789768 https://www.amazon.com/Big-Picture-Fight-Future-Movies/dp/05... and that came out in 2018.

aliqot 4y ago

There never were Oscar movies. Maybe for the first or second, but now it's just a good-boy's club of who was a good-boy this year.

ryanlitalien 4y ago
I'd disagree. There are a few (or more?) actors, directors and producers that make movies solely for receiving the Oscar nomination/win. One example is "The Deer Hunter". Note, on looking into provide specifics, this came up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_bait https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_bait
- mc32 4y ago
  I can't tell from the summary and have not read IMDB to follow the timelines, but it appears that the Deer Hunter had already been made, but flopped in initial screenings, so they held it back and instead of an initial wide release they showed it to critics who loved it and got it nominated. In other words it wasn't initially made-to-order to cater to an Oscar, but ex-post did it that way because initial audiences hated it.

Timwi 4y ago

I kinda stopped reading where it started to equate a movie's box office revenue with its success. A successful movie is a movie that entertains its audience, not one that makes a few people rich. The correlation is there, but it's weak. I don't consider it problematic to see movie theaters go out of fashion and movie makers take a deeper look at what makes their art an art.

kazinator 4y ago

Could it be that people consume too much online video to have spare video cycles to see a movie. There is just a glut of audio-visual material out there.

trts 4y ago

Arguably many "Oscar movies" are not that great. There are often good films nominated but I am always surprised to look back post-1980s or 90s and see how many fairly mediocre films, many of which have since receded from critical awareness, have won "Best Picture" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture

danem 4y ago
Which films are you referring to? I wouldn't say that an Oscar nomination is definitive proof of quality, but it certainly is a strong signal of quality, which can't be said about similar award shows (Grammys).

davexunit 4y ago

Oscar should start listening to Gregg Turkington from On Cinema if they want to save mature cinema and their awards show from declining box office earnings and ratings.

jedberg 4y ago

During the pandemic a few movies that were supposed to be in theaters launched as expensive paid streams (mostly Disney, but also stuff like Bill and Ted). I gladly paid for every one of them. My wife and I used to go to the movies every weekend, sometimes twice, before we had kids. After we had kids we went to theater maybe three times. I was perfectly happy to pay $30 to watch a movie in my house, where I can watch it after I put the kids to bed but don't have to hire a sitter, can pause if I need to pee, can rewind, turn on subtitles, or watch it again. The only advantages the theaters provide is a bigger screen, louder speakers, and the psychological effect of knowing that I will be watching a movie for two hours and doing nothing else (which I can replicate at home after everyone is asleep if I want to). And participation in the cultural zeitgeist. I used to love going to see movies in a theater, and will still do it occasionally (we watched Top Gun 2 in a theater, but we brought the kids because it's cheaper than a sitter!), but I much prefer to watch at home.

mrguyorama 4y ago
Meanwhile, I haven't spent thousands of dollars on a home cinema, because I have neither the room, time, or spare cash to buy a giant 4k TV, really good internet, 37 independent streaming services at their max tier, $14 a pop to buy a movie on a streaming service, etc etc etc. $20 to see a movie on a local 50ft IMAX screen is such an incomparable experience.
- jedberg 4y ago
  Sure that's true if you never use TV otherwise. But most people are already getting all those things anyway. And I also I very clearly said that having kids is what made home streaming worth it. Because for me to go to a movie, I have to pay a babysitter $25/hr for 4 hours (to cover driving, waiting in line, previews, etc), and my wife likes popcorn so I have to pay $10 for that instead of popping an instant one at home for 20 cents. And I have to pay for two seats. So now a movie trip costs me $150. And I already have all the streaming services because kids.
verdenti 4y ago

yoz-y 4y ago

For me this is mainly because the home cinema experience is getting better. I want the big screen for good visuals, sound and music. I can watch a story driven movie at home, where I don't need the speakers to drown out the sound of somebody wolfing down popcorn.

PaulHoule 4y ago
In the pandemic I got a lot more sensitive to ‘disgusting’ and the thought of people making dirty popcorn and coke messes makes it hard for me to go back to the theatre. It is going to take something really special to get me to go. I wish they had real 3D IMAX movies at the theatre in Syracuse instead of ‘4d’ movies that seem really cheesy.

janmarsal 4y ago

> if Spielberg can’t even bring people to a movie theatre anymore, then who can? Big shocker a 75 year old man can't attract kids to the theaters like he used to back in the 80s.

pcthrowaway 4y ago

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, etc. I'm not trying to suggest film isn't an art form in itself, that often has significant differences from television, but watching trends have been favouring television over film lately, especially by hour watched.

bmitc 4y ago
Almost all modern TV series are just a movie spread out over entire TV seasons. They are filled with nothing but teasers and cliff hangers in order to artificially stimulate intrigue and extend the relatively thin plots. I can barely imagine something more boring than modern streaming TV series. They also tend to devolve into characters forming romantic relationships with each other, because there's usually nothing else to do with a small and finite character set once the initial ideas are exhausted. Movies are far deeper because they try to focus on a coherent story and character development. The incentives for TV series are all wrong aside from episodic comedies and docuseries. The trends of TV have more to do with attention span, addiction, marketing/advertising, etc. than it being a supposedly more wanted format for actual content reasons.
- pcthrowaway 4y ago
  I'm sorry, but I think this is an incredibly reductive take on television. You could make all the same arguments about novels vs. short stories. The fact is that they're both related forms of art which take different approaches to developing narratives. > Movies are far deeper because they try to focus on a coherent story and character development. The incentives for TV series are all wrong aside from episodic comedies and docuseries. Here you seem to be arguing that movies, as a form, are superior (or perhaps that TV can't practically compete with film because the incentives are wrong, so that in practice, films are higher quality than TV). I wasn't making an argument about the potential of the form though, merely about what viewers want. It should go without saying that in long-form writing you have more of an ability to develop characters, stories, and plot arcs than in short-form writing. These more fully developed characters, stories, and plot arcs are more compelling to readers/viewers. Historically, this is why we've rarely seen short stories achieve the same level of commercial success as the successful novels, and now that we have the internet, the barriers[1] to television asserting the same dominance over videographic media have been torn down. edit: And to be clear, I also disagree that in practice, television (as produced) is inferior to film (as produced). Of course there is plenty of filler and contrived drama in television (this has always been the case in film too), but we're in a renaissance of television shows which are incredibly tightly written and even dense, from a storytelling perspective. [1]: namely, that you couldn't run a movie/episodes for 10+ hours on television, due to the complexity around scheduling slots, so you'd have to break it up, leading to confusion and fragmentation of understanding among the viewership

SNosTrAnDbLe 4y ago

I think there are great directors and movies in the adult drama genre but a lot of them are not being made in English anymore.

dcchambers 4y ago

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?

AzzieElbab 4y ago

Maybe it is about the cost of tickets and availability of streaming services

stevage 4y ago

I've never really understood the hand wringing about this, or the assumption that movie theatres are real cinema, and watching at home is something lesser. As long as films are being made and people are watching them, what does it matter how big the screen is?

simonblack 4y ago

Too much unrealistic computer graphics in US movies. Also melodramatic story-lines. I no longer watch them. British movies, on the other hand probably can't afford too much CGI and have more realistic story-lines as well. I've watched several of those in the last few years. But overall, movies are just no longer on my 'to-do' list.

thefounder 4y ago

The Oscars died for good after the diversity quotas. You can't have a Best Picture without having heads of major departments(such as editing, director, makeup and hairstyling, costuming, sound) from underrepresented identity group(i.e lgbtq). I fail to see how this makes the best movie "win". Perhaps that's why all the new movies became have some kind of forced gay plot just to tick some boxes. Not even the remakes are spared of this "upgrade".