Clubhouse rules for Academy Award winning movies?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

There's always been speculation about this or that movie having should won an Oscar, but are the Oscars really based on critical or even artistic merit?

My main concern is about who's voting and what influences their selection. The Golden Globes awards are determined by press and critics, so yeah it makes sense that that would entail a fair amount of critical acclaim to it. But the Academy is all people who basically work in the film industry. Are they voting for critical, or even artistic merit? I feel like it's more a lens of craftsmanship in achieving provocative content.

In other words, I feel like the Oscars are basically a group of people saying "I c wut you did there," with films and give merit to stuff that hits audiences in an innovative way like they wish the idea was theirs. Does that make sense?

[Karha of Honor]

There's always been speculation about this or that movie having should won an Oscar, but are the Oscars really based on critical or even artistic merit?

My main concern is about who's voting and what influences their selection. The Golden Globes awards are determined by press and critics, so yeah it makes sense that that would entail a fair amount of critical acclaim to it. But the Academy is all people who basically work in the film industry. Are they voting for critical, or even artistic merit? I feel like it's more a lens of craftsmanship in achieving provocative content.

In other words, I feel like the Oscars are basically a group of people saying "I c wut you did there," with films and give merit to stuff that hits audiences in an innovative way like they wish the idea was theirs. Does that make sense?

I don't think the Oscars are biased towards weird rule breaking movies.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

There's always been speculation about this or that movie having should won an Oscar, but are the Oscars really based on critical or even artistic merit?

My main concern is about who's voting and what influences their selection. The Golden Globes awards are determined by press and critics, so yeah it makes sense that that would entail a fair amount of critical acclaim to it. But the Academy is all people who basically work in the film industry. Are they voting for critical, or even artistic merit? I feel like it's more a lens of craftsmanship in achieving provocative content.

In other words, I feel like the Oscars are basically a group of people saying "I c wut you did there," with films and give merit to stuff that hits audiences in an innovative way like they wish the idea was theirs. Does that make sense?

I don't think the Oscars are biased towards weird rule breaking movies.

Wait what do you mean by rule breaking specifically?

[Karha of Honor]

There's always been speculation about this or that movie having should won an Oscar, but are the Oscars really based on critical or even artistic merit?

My main concern is about who's voting and what influences their selection. The Golden Globes awards are determined by press and critics, so yeah it makes sense that that would entail a fair amount of critical acclaim to it. But the Academy is all people who basically work in the film industry. Are they voting for critical, or even artistic merit? I feel like it's more a lens of craftsmanship in achieving provocative content.

In other words, I feel like the Oscars are basically a group of people saying "I c wut you did there," with films and give merit to stuff that hits audiences in an innovative way like they wish the idea was theirs. Does that make sense?

I don't think the Oscars are biased towards weird rule breaking movies.

Wait what do you mean by rule breaking specifically?

Incoherent narrative, super high budget erotica, super despicable protagonist etc...

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

There's always been speculation about this or that movie having should won an Oscar, but are the Oscars really based on critical or even artistic merit?

My main concern is about who's voting and what influences their selection. The Golden Globes awards are determined by press and critics, so yeah it makes sense that that would entail a fair amount of critical acclaim to it. But the Academy is all people who basically work in the film industry. Are they voting for critical, or even artistic merit? I feel like it's more a lens of craftsmanship in achieving provocative content.

In other words, I feel like the Oscars are basically a group of people saying "I c wut you did there," with films and give merit to stuff that hits audiences in an innovative way like they wish the idea was theirs. Does that make sense?

I don't think the Oscars are biased towards weird rule breaking movies.

Wait what do you mean by rule breaking specifically?

Incoherent narrative, super high budget erotica, super despicable protagonist etc...

But I never said anything about all those things?

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

I think there's a lot of factors involved, including Hollywood politics and some shady dealings that most of us will never know about. For instance, in hindsight it seems obvious that everyone even remotely involved with the industry knew about the power Harvey Weinstein held and the ways he wielded it. How Weinstein managed to snag best picture for Shakespeare in Love is one of the most infamous cases of "other considerations" taking precedence over the work's actual artistic merit or value as a film. Even at the time, some of the commentary about Weinstein and his tactics were thinly veiled at best.

I would agree that the Academy typically picks the movie that they feel most deserves to be acknowledged. Artistic merit is a large part of that, but it isn't the full story. They just looove movies celebrating Hollywood, for one thing, and people in the good graces of the system are the ones the powers that be most want to recognize. Sometimes I think they actually have no idea who deserves best actor, best actress, etc., and so go with whatever safe industry darling that has won the award half a dozen times already.

Social justice and politics both play a role, although it probably makes more of a difference in getting you nominated. Black Panther is fine, but the reason it's the first superhero movie to be nominated for best picture certainly isn't because it's the best superhero movie to come along so far. They thought it deserved acknowledgement, and understandably so. Interesting to me that Vice also scored a nomination while failing to impress critics (only 66% on rottentomatoes and 61% on metacritic).

There's also a lot of make-up calls and lifetime achievement awards given out. Return of the King deserved a lot of rewards, but personally I think Fellowship of the Ring was actually the best of the trilogy. In a sense RotK cleaning up was acknowledgement for the whole trilogy.

[Karha of Honor]

But I never said anything about all those things?

Bu anyone could legit think that you did based on your last sentence on this page in post 1.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

But I never said anything about all those things?

Bu anyone could legit think that you did based on your last sentence on this page in post 1.

My last sentence was "does that make sense?" Not following.

[Karha of Honor]

But I never said anything about all those things?

Bu anyone could legit think that you did based on your last sentence on this page in post 1.

My last sentence was "does that make sense?" Not following.

Okay, last 2 sentences.

[Wargriffin]

I believe Paw once went into during his Music Movie review of Dr Dolittle

IE The Flop that still won Best original song 'audience members burst into flames' and Special Effects

While having STILL not made a profit


Basically It was box office bomb with meh to negative reviews but the people in charge Wined and Dined the academy to get a nomination or 9... The damn thing killed Rex Harrison's career 'granted part of that was due to Rex Harrison'