HOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
I've long felt the Academy has a choice to make.
Perhaps it is just me, but it feels as though there delta between what the Academy voters consider to be the best and what the moviegoing public considers to be the best. Not to say that these have ever been exactly the same, but I sense they were closer together many decades ago.
I don't think this has been good for the Academy Awards show, and may be a component as to why ratings have been trending down. Moreover, I believe this is a missed opportunity for selling the movie experience to a bigger audience, which wants the spectacle of Hollywood and big pictures.
Winning Best Picture did not do much for The Artist-- it did not cause a ton of people to flock to it in the theaters after, and it did not make it a hit in home entertainment. Therefore, it's win did not really cause the public to celebrate Hollywood.
To me, that's the choice the Academy needs to make. Is the purpose of the Academy Awards to give accolades to performers, with the public getting a chance to see it happen? Or is it to lead the public to celebrate movies? And that's not to say it should be "The People's Choice Award." That doesn't strike me as what it was "back in the day." However, I do think that years and years ago, the Academy Awards did a better job of leading to a public celebration of film.
LT: The Academy added a second DUNKR screening for members after the first reached capacity. Jul 24, 09:56
I've long felt the Academy has a choice to make. Jul 24, 11:48
winning best picture did everything for the artist. No one sees that movie without the awards campaign and the win Jul 24, 12:00
Did everything for the movie Jul 24, 12:11
I don't think that, in the 50s-80s, they were pandering to Joe Sixpack. {nm} Jul 24, 12:11
or, the movies studios made for Joe Sixpack were just much better quality in general {nm} Jul 24, 12:12
Definitely a possibility. Jul 24, 12:22
during the heyday of the studio system, pre-1970s, there was almost nothing that could be thought of as "independent cinema" Jul 24, 13:29
Though it may be the public tastes that have changed, not the Academy's, based on what movies it is not possible to make Jul 24, 13:35
* now possible {nm} Jul 24, 13:43
thats part of the reason why they make less. They are giving the audience what they want {nm} Jul 24, 14:31
thats part of the reason why they make less. They are giving the audience what they want {nm} Jul 24, 14:31
thats part of the reason why they make less. They are giving the audience what they want {nm} Jul 24, 14:31
sorry, my cat did that. they are giving the audience what they want which is {nm} Jul 24, 14:31
ugh! Louis!...which is give spectacle entertainment which is expensive. {nm} Jul 24, 14:32
Need to give that cat a PR job. :D {nm} Jul 24, 14:37
Louis is a big jerk cat! {nm} Jul 24, 14:39
he enters into panic mode when his food dispenser gets low {nm} Jul 24, 14:41
you *are* the food dispenser, to a cat {nm} Jul 24, 14:57
Better than being the food. {nm} Jul 24, 16:34
I would love him. {nm} Jul 25, 07:04
That Darn Cat {nm} Jul 24, 19:38
It is a peer vs populism question. The Academy exists as a peer group, awarding their fellows for what they think ... Jul 24, 12:51
Dunkirk Vet, 97, Breaks Down in Tears After Watching Movie: 'I Never Thought I Would See That Again' Jul 24, 21:10
