General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy do you think the Super Bowl gets so many viewers year after year while Oscar ratings plummet?
So, the Academy Award ratings are in and they were poor again this year. Is it because, in American culture, athleticism is more celebrated and thought to be more important than the Arts? Perhaps, in a way the Academy Awards are too sophiscated for the average American whereas football and sports require very little brainpower to follow? It's kind of nauseating that some guy like Mahomes, who can throw a ball well, is lionized while people who pour hours of blood, sweat, tears and intellect into trying to build a product to make people think and grow are derided as "woke, libtards". Perhaps, also, the decline of the Academy Awards is related to the general anti-establishment, anti-elitism backlash in the US? At the same time, there are certainly way more Democrats in the US than the 18.1 million who watched the Academy Awards on Sunday.
I re-watched the opening of this year's Super Bowl tonight and it has the feel of a Nuremberg rally. Many of the "stars" of the Super Bowl, at least in the pre-game ceremonies look like they could come out of central casting for the deplorables, as Hillary Clinton so aptly called the MAGA crowd. The attendees for the Academy Awards, conversely, could most definitely not be lumped in with the deplorable MAGA crowd.
The Super Bowl and the Academy Awards used to garner a roughly equal viewership level.
Is the decline of the Academy Awards another victory by the right-wing in the culture wars? They did seem to have their sights set on destroying the Oscars since Michael Moore blasted their illegal Iraq war the weekend it started back in 2003, during that year's ceremony!
I think it can also be found in our schools where the high school athlete is treated like a god whereas the artistic kid interested in theater and the performing arts gets nowhere near the amount of credit and accolades that their athlete counterparts garner.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JI7
(93,138 posts)it's just different things. I can see why more people would be into that and watch it even though I have no interest in it.
I don't care much to watch these award shows either.
And it has nothing to do with politics. Even among liberals more would watch sports than these award shows.
I would watch the films if I had time but just don't care for award. shows.
It's similar to pageants, parades and some other things. People just have access to see more things and would rather watch something else.
ggma
(711 posts)Remember, we only had three stations back in the day. We watched the award shows and pageants because there was usually no competition in the scheduling on the other channels. Now we have so many options we don't have to settle. I don't watch either one because I got sick of them in my childhood and now I don't have to.
However, I believe the Super Bowl is better received because it's non-stop action and I know that at one point the academy awards had gotten so ponderous they were painful to watch.
Just my opinion, of course.
gg
Buckeyeblue
(6,180 posts)Award's Shows are boring. And long. The Super Bowl, especially the first half and half-time show, are fun to watch. If the game isn't good, there is a big drop off in second half viewership.
But mostly you are right, we have a lot of choices.
mobeau69
(12,210 posts)aren’t. Staying home and watching entertainment on tv is convenient and cost a lot less. If one hasn’t seen a nominated movie one can’t have a horse in the race and therefore the awards lack the fun and excitement of having a movie to “root” for.
Captain Stern
(2,249 posts)Comparing the Superbowl ratings to the Oscar ratings doesn't make all that much sense.
The Superbowl is the NFL's crown jewel. It's the culmination of an entire season, where a championship is finally won.
The Acadamy awards are basically a 'look at me' event put on by members of the film industry to publicly pat each other on the back. A fairer comparison of rating would be to the NFL's Pro Bowl, which is essentially the NFL's version of the Academy awards........which also sucks.
And to say the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards used to garner roughly equal viewership isn't really true, at least not recently. Maybe fifty or more years ago, when the Super Bowl was a new thing, the ratings were close, but that hasn't been the case in a very long time.
The most watched Academy Award show ever was in 1998 with 55 million viewers. The last time the Super Bowl had less than 55 million viewers was in 1974, and even the very first Super Bowl had about 50 million viewers. The lowest rated Super Bowl ever (the second one) had 39 million viewers
betsuni
(28,666 posts)Hillary Clinton for going to a fundraiser for electing Democrats at George Clooney's house. Populist idiots.
brush
(61,033 posts)where millions gather at watch parties to socialize and be entertained by not just the game, but the half time show and new commercials.
I'ts entertaining and compelling if the game is good.
The Oscars are sometime entertaining and compelling, but often it's interrupted by too many periods of boredom, and unfortunately like last year, a disgraceful spectable of violents. I imagine that has something to do with this year's ratings being down.
Again, it's not about politics unless one wants to view it that way. It's about entertainment. I'm a life-long progressive Dem and I never miss the game, but many times I don't bother with the Oscars as the winners, commercials and any unfortunate incidents will be covered incessantly the next day.
I watch the Super Bowl even on the rare occasions that my team (Steelers) is not playing ( 
) because I always get together with friends and our dogs to hang out and it can be exciting to see the action live. I do not watch any of the pre-game or halftime crap or commercials (some of my friends love all that stuff) unless an extreme favorite of mine is performing---which is not often. I can live without all the giant flags, flyovers, and previews of commercials that I'll be seeing later anyway. I pretty much focus on the football, food, dogs, and conversation.
While I like movies and live theatrical performances, I don't think I like enough genres to sit through all the various categories. Nor do I care about anyone's clothes or anything like that.
Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)Most people just don't have any interest in most of the movies that get nominated.
BlueWaveNeverEnd
(12,730 posts)s" are watched by millions more than saw "Everything everywhere All at Once" or "Whale" or "Tar".
And the internet killed off having to watch the Oscars to see special moments like Ke Huy Quan winning an Oscar. the clip is posted immediately on youtube.
I recall when watching the Oscars was an event because we wanted to see what the actresses would wear. Had to watch it live to see that. Now, I can see their dresses immediately on the web without watching the Oscars.
IcyPeas
(24,805 posts)I don't know who 75% of the actors are.
Seems it's more about the red carpet pre-show (or champagne as the carpet was this year) fashions and the after parties.
Personally i think its just become meh
multigraincracker
(36,891 posts)Hate the tribalism that sports promotes and I refuse to watch drama as I avoid drama at all cost.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the championship game. It is more comparable to going to see a movie, where the actual arts are happening.
The award shows would be more comparable to some type of ceremony lauding football and giving awards to various players for having the most of this or that - the longest pass and such.
A decline in going to see movies, plays, etc. vs. going to see sports events (which may well be) would be more indicative of a bias against arts and in favor of sports.
petronius
(26,695 posts)(mostly) about talking about the thing. Oscars vs. Espys would be the apple-apple comparison...
Xipe Totec
(44,466 posts)oldsoftie
(13,538 posts)And millions of people throw Super Bowl parties. The only Oscar parties I know of are people who I know that are involved in the business.
tavernier
(14,250 posts)The attraction of football makes absolutely no sense to me. It’s a ball… they spend three hours running around throwing it and catching it, once in a while kicking it.
Theater, on the other hand… an idea is transferred to a page in writing, often taking years, eventually to a stage or a screen. The idea can take place in a house or by an ocean or on the moon. Years of work by many people, writers, artists, musicians, craftsmen, actors, all collaborating to bring three hours of imagination, laughter, tears, education, inspiration.
But I believe the question is wrong. People love football and they love movies. But there wouldn’t be any more interest watching a televised awards sports show than watching the Oscars.
JI7
(93,138 posts)That would be a better comparison to the Oscars .
DenaliDemocrat
(1,721 posts)Football is. The mental processing and strategy elements of the game are huge at the pro level and it takes two to three years to fully grasp it. Many don’t. It’s why a lot of college athletes fail at pro bowl. They cannot process the game fast enough
oldsoftie
(13,538 posts)Or it usually falls apart. Just like an actor forgetting his lines.
DenaliDemocrat
(1,721 posts)He has to look at the defense. Is it man or zone? If man inside or outside. If zone Cover 1, 2, 3 or 0. Are they showing blitz? Are they disguised?
He calls out to the line. Based upon that call the line has to adjust its protection thus blocking assignments. The center must identify the Mike correctly on the play or it doesn’t matter what protection the QB calls - it’s not going to work.
Now the QB may have a play with motion - a receiver runs parallel to the line of scrimmage- it will help him see what the defense might be running. Like Peyton Manning said - I didn’t do all that presnap motion to know what they were doing - but it let me see what they weren’t doing- and that helps.
So based upon his reads, the QB and the receiver know who should be open or on single coverage and where they should come open. Receivers typically have a route tree and adjust to the defense at the line of scrimmage. If either reads wrong, the QB will be throwing to a place the receiver should be. They anticipate the route and the throw happens BEFORE the receiver comes open. Otherwise it’s late and will likely be intercepted.
The defense is doing exactly the same thing on their end. The coaches have statisticians that are e alt each scenario and the. Relaying statistically back what play SHOULD work at the current place, down, and position- called situational football. The defense is doing the same.
All of this happens on about 9 seconds pre-snap and then 2 seconds post snap.
If you understand what you are watching you realize this is a chess match - not a bunch of big dudes pummeling each other. Football is mostly MENTAL. Only the ignorant would say it’s just brute force.
oldsoftie
(13,538 posts)Its good when you have good color men too
DenaliDemocrat
(1,721 posts)A scramble drill. Mahomes thrives on this. Elway did too. However as a QB ages, their athleticism declines and their game must become more cerebral.
tavernier
(14,250 posts)I just don’t find that interesting. My kids would rather have root canal than sit through an opera or Shakespeare play. Different strokes.
GoCubsGo
(34,649 posts)I don't like football, so I don't watch the game. I do tune into the half-time show if I want to see that particular ARTIST. I'll also watch the collection of TV ads the next day--another form of performance art. As for the Oscars, I find them boring and tedious. I don't care who wins, and if I did, all I have to do is check out the list of winners later in the evening. None of it will make any difference as to whether or not I watch a particular film.
Emile
(40,450 posts)JT45242
(3,816 posts)From pick a square pools to online betting.
Plus there is the generally the unveiling of new commercials.
Plus, football is really America's past time not baseball based on ratings.
Finally, the halftime show. Some watch it because they like it. Some watch it to find a reason to be offended. Some watch to see how badly the performance and lip syncing will be.
It has something for everyone.
Most people haven't seen most of the movies nominated, so why care.
Orrex
(66,648 posts)Six, if you count Best Supporting Actress/Actor.
And these come late in the program. Almost no one gives a damn about "best short subject documentary" or most of the other categories. That's unfortunate for the very dedicated people working in those categories, but I'd say it's just about undeniable.
There's also a perception that the Oscars is a bunch of highly successful people congratulating themselves and each other, and I can see why that would have diminishing appeal.
What's the viewership like for the NFL Hall of Fame induction ceremony? That would seem a more direct comparison IMO.
I don't watch Sports awards shows, either (ESPYs or whatever) because it does seem like lots of rich people sitting around congratulating themselves and each other. I like the live nature of sports (I'll rarely re-watch a sporting event--unless my favorite team was in it AND it was epic).
oldsoftie
(13,538 posts)You're comparing things that are nothing alike.
Look at the Miss America pageant. It used to have high viewership too, now, not so much. Dont even know what network its on
twodogsbarking
(17,533 posts)bucolic_frolic
(53,905 posts)Football and TV and stadium jobs and tax subsidies and local heroes. It's all about money.
Yet society runs on smart people too. Doctors and lawyers and accountants in those high school classes. But they don't womp nobody.
blueinredohio
(6,797 posts)
GB_RN
(3,506 posts)But sports in general, remind me of descriptions of the Roman arena fights (panem et circes). Don’t get me wrong, I love a good (Yankees) baseball game, but it’s all a major distraction and the amount of money poured into pro sports shows how screwed up our priorities are (vs spending on paying educators, healthcare, military personnel, and science professionals, etc).
JMHO.
ecstatic
(35,009 posts)Personally I wouldn't watch either event if it were completely up to me. I find both events boring and they both have a random, rigged feel.
634-5789
(4,616 posts)mainer
(12,492 posts)That’s the only reason I’d tune into what I consider a brutal, violent sport.
But then, I love the movies.
Maybe it splits along male/ female audiences? Men watch football, and by default so do their wives, while women watch the Oscars?
WhiskeyGrinder
(26,219 posts)things is more interesting than watching people get awards. It would make more sense to compare the Super Bowl to movies in general.
ProfessorGAC
(75,789 posts)If you want to compare things, compare the Oscars to the ESPY awards.
I'd bet the Oscar programming greatly out rates the ESPYs.
There's really no comparison between a live sporting event that is the pinnacle of America's biggest sport to a celbratory event about movies released 5 to 12 months prior.
It's apples and aardvarks.
C_U_L8R
(48,815 posts)Weeks of it... hyping everything from the game and gatherings to the ads and brands.
Just imagine what the Oscars would be like with that much media coverage.
Renew Deal
(84,668 posts)dsc
(53,315 posts)and those are the awards people care about. I have watched and have not watched the Oscars. I didn't watch this year as with DST I didn't want to stay up super late. As is, I am more tired this week than I would like. The Super Bowl also is marketed fantastically. Having the unique commercials is a stroke of genius plus a half time show which has made moments. Add in the fact the anthem often is also mindblowing, think Whitney Houston, and you have the total package.
Although it seems to me that the Stupor Bowl has crept later and later, it still starts more than an hour before the Oscars, and there is promise of something happening on the field throughout, instead of having to wait and wait for the final awards.
Bettie
(19,231 posts)real people damaging other real people.
That is what our culture values these days. Violence and harm to others.
oldsoftie
(13,538 posts)College football even longer. Boxing has been around for well over 100 yrs.
And years ago, there was far LESS protection for those involved.
ProfessorGAC
(75,789 posts)Teddy Roosevelt demanded changes to college football almost 120 years ago due to the casualty rates.
Admittedly, there were 17 deaths due to football related injuries in 2021, but that was at all levels from peewee to pro. The link only covers one year of college & high school football when the whole population of the USA was less than 25% of what it is today & the fraction of the population that attended full HS or college was far lower than today. So, we have a slightly lower absolute value in a total sampling vastly greater.
Is it still dangerous? Of course. But, far less so than 120 years ago.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/how-teddy-roosevelt-saved-football
oldsoftie
(13,538 posts)Unless they specified from "injuries"
Each year about 2000 student athletes have some kind of cardiac issues. Those aren't all deaths, but most the result of an unknown existing cardiac issue. I imagine it happens at the collegiate level too. I notice we usually dont see it at the NFL level. I guess because if you HAVE one of those problems its probably gonna show up in grades 8-12
ProfessorGAC
(75,789 posts)The piece I read (which I didn't excerpt) said 10 of the 17 were "extreme exertion". That could easily be cardiac related.
GoCubsGo
(34,649 posts)Some of them are quite graphic in their violence, too. Watching a guy get blown up in a war film, like "All Is Quiet on the Western Front" or "Saving Private Ryan" might be fake, but it still depicts violence. So do "Rocky" and Oscar winner "Million Dollar Baby." I could go on and on...
mathematic
(1,602 posts)It's not that hard to understand. The recipients (note: not "winners" ) of the Oscars are voted on by an exclusive group of insiders based on fashion, politics, whim, and subjectively determined artistic merit. The performances and works are often not considered the "best" of the year (if such a thing could even exist) a decade later.
The winner of the superbowl really did win.
Perhaps you should examine why you don't like athletic competition, a feature of all human societies throughout history, the way you think other people should examine why they don't like the "arts".
Ace Rothstein
(3,369 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(68,098 posts)
Model35mech
(2,047 posts)either in the theatres or on pay-to-view of movies upto a year old.
I didn't go to see those movies (or 12 years of previous movies) in the theatres because the cost of attendance is now too high for my income and my priorities.
I'm cool with others celebrating the elite ability of various players in the movie industry, but I have zero personal interest. IF later some movie piques my interest and I can watch it at reasonable cost I can watch it in coming years.
It's sort of like worrying about how Kate and Fergie and their families are doing in the Royal Family: I don't actually worry about that. Until George is King I really am not gonna see him as part of my international interests.
Shanti Shanti Shanti
(12,047 posts)Tell better stories and maybe more would care, Hollywood is pumping out garbage to the masses these days, fuck them all.
WhiskeyGrinder
(26,219 posts)DenaliDemocrat
(1,721 posts)To the “undesirables”. Can you say dog whistle?
EX500rider
(12,136 posts)I am guessing there are more people of color on the field then getting a Oscar.
oldsoftie
(13,538 posts)
Johonny
(25,321 posts)To people in movies you most likely didn't watch. You get tired of trying to understand how most of the best movies on various great movie lists, never won an Oscar. How many of the most famous actors living today never won an Oscar? It turns out, a surprising a lot of them. Hey, it's big news Tom Cruise wasn't at the Oscars this year. Why? Why should he go, he's never nominated despite being a huge Box Office draw. Harrison Ford, never won nothing. Joseph Cotten is in three movies that are in most greatest lists top 20, he was never nominated for an Oscar. I mean, he has zero nominations. Alfred Hitchcock never won the best director Oscar. Hitchcock! Last year Avatar II made about 1 zillion dollars. It's also not horrible, but it was nowhere in the big categories on Oscar night. Same for Top Gun II. I mean, they expanded the category nominations to get more big films nominations and big names on the list, but they still didn't bother to do it.
Watching the Oscars is like watching the Super Bowl only if after watching for 4 hrs KC bests the Eagles in a see-saw match on the field, in the post game you watch the commissioner march out the Jets and give them the trophy.
That's why people don't watch anymore.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)
LeftinOH
(5,612 posts)It's always baffling that so many people (not referring to the OP) casually dismiss Hollywood/movies/TV as trivial nonsense, but then obsess over athletic events.
It's. All. Entertainment. Athletes are are performers, too - and some of them have pretty limited skills beyond their sport.
bluedigger
(17,391 posts)On the one hand, you have a live sporting event presented in high def on wide screen tvs. On the other hand, you have an awards show that celebrates past performances that much of the public hasn't seen, due to the decrease in movie attendance and proliferation of streaming services diluting the audience for most shows.
Earth-shine
(4,044 posts)but I could tell you about some of the half-time acts.
Sympthsical
(10,833 posts)If you look at the ratings over years, it had a steady viewership that wavered based on years where all the nominated movies were things the public largely didn't watch. The biggest dip started in 2008. What was nominated that year?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80th_Academy_Awards
The public at large was not watching nor invested in anything that was going on there.
What started really getting going in earnest around 2014 when modern decline really got going? Simple. People began streaming in large numbers.
Why would anyone be invested in movies they've never heard of and never seen? I watch a lot of movies, and if you ask me at any given time what is actually in theaters, I don't think I could tell you. Attention is splintered. More than attention, marketing is splintered. People are watching television less and less. I haven't seen a movie commercial in . . . ten years? Fifteen? It's been a minute. Growing up, movie marketing campaigns were ubiquitous, because there were limited outlets for people to choose.
Now, you can be active on the internet, stream from a dozen different services, and still come away with not being familiar with any of the movies the Academy nominates.
SNL had a great skit about this recently.
The ratings this year were actually up. I'd argue it's because films like EEAAO had a large Millennial/X following online. Rhianna was performing. People were at least interested. Everywhere I hang out was crazy excited that Short Round/Data might win an Oscar.
In other words, the Academy actually engaged pop culture for a change instead of their usual disappearing act straight up their own keisters.
Maybe diversifying and youngifying the Academy voter pool will help more in this regard. I love literary, slow burn films as much as any other movie lover. The Banshees of Inisherin is one of the best screenplays I've seen in years.
I would also never attempt to make my partner sit through it.
Model35mech
(2,047 posts)about how the two front leads were allegories of the Irish Civil war and later Troubles.
I think we saw it through Prime but it might have been Netflix. OK acting, good costuming, OK cinematography
Deciding you can no longer talk to another mostly because they are just another other you don't understand?
Chopping your music playing fingers off to show your spite for an opponent?
I thought that was reasonably obvious critique of Ireland's problems, and yet simultaneously over the top.
Such conversations don't really take place with our friends. It's just the way, as 2 people, we look for meaning to enrich what was our experience.
In the end we concluded that level of post-hoc consideration of the film went far to far beyond average movie watchers.
Response to Model35mech (Reply #75)
Paladin This message was self-deleted by its author.
themaguffin
(4,886 posts)
xmas74
(30,022 posts)Even premium cable doesn't schedule against it.
The most recent example is HBO's The Last of Us. It's become a juggernaut of a TV series airing on Sunday nights. On Super Bowl Sunday the aired it but allowed streaming starting Friday night so no one would need to miss it. The Academy Awards was the same night as their first season finale and even had a lead as a presenter. No early screening was available.
Kaleva
(40,143 posts)
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,579 posts)Times change.
Kaleva
(40,143 posts)And people have to adapt
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,579 posts)I tried watching Everything Everywhere All at Once and failed miserably. I was hopelessly lost, as I was when watching The Matrix, The Gods Must Be Crazy, or Macunaima.
Women Talking was moving.
pstokely
(10,848 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 16, 2023, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)
And pro bowlers made more $ than pro baseball or football players
JCMach1
(29,073 posts)1. Boring as hell.
2. Never reflect either the film marketplace, OR real artistic achievement.
3. Film is no longer THE medium. Televised broadcasts and streaming have eaten their lunch. People no longer consume films as they did in the past.
onenote
(45,977 posts)The largest audience for the Oscars was the year of Titanic, 1998, with around 57 million viewers. The Super Bowl that year? 90 million. Indeed, the last time the Super Bowl drew fewer than 60 million viewers was 1976. And its viewership has doubled (or more than doubled ) the Oscar viewership pretty much every year since the 1980s.
Yes, viewership for the Oscars has been in decline, but the notion that it is the result of some right wing conspiracy is nonsense. As this thread (and polls taken on DU before the Oscar telecast ) indicate, there are lots of progressive Democrats who don't bother with the Oscars. (There also are many that don't watch the Super Bowl, as well as those that don't watch either or who watch both ).
And the idea that the decline in Oscar viewership can be linked to Michael Moore's comments in 2003 is sheer nonsense. The viewership in 2004 actually was up 26% over 2003. And while it dropped below 40 million in 2007 and 2008, it was back up above that level in 2009 and 2010.
As the posts in this thread indicate, there are many reasons for the decline in Oscar viewership in recent years. But politics probably is the least of those reasons.
Sibelius Fan
(24,783 posts)I could not care less about the Oscars.
On the other hand, I do watch the Super Bowl, but I turn it off as soon as the game is over, ie: when they start handing out the awards.
Kid Berwyn
(22,779 posts)The Oscars, well…
eissa
(4,238 posts)Sports, movies, etc. used to be a form of escapism. Unfortunately, many celebrities have been using award shows to spout off about their cause du jour, which will always alienate a portion of your audience. Football also suffered a ratings dip during the Kapernick era, but has managed to bounce back from that. Furthermore, if you're a football fan, you're following all the games, which isn't hard to do. You don't have to find out if it's at the theater, on Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, or who knows where else.
Response to NewsCenter28 (Original post)
Prairie_Seagull This message was self-deleted by its author.
ProfessorGAC
(75,789 posts)My wife watched the Oscars.
Are you referring to us, by chance?
If so, it's presumptuous nonsense, & given the degree of education & achievement in this house, it's flat wrong.
Mosby
(19,225 posts)The superbowl is a real competition, in real time.
melm00se
(5,141 posts)compare those to how many people actually go and see them and honestly have you seen them and you quickly figure out that the nominated films are some of the least seen/watched films of the year.
Best picture nominees
10 - All Quiet On The Western Front - Box office: $0 (Netflix release)
9 - Women Talking - Box office: $7 million
8 - Tár - Box office $26 million
7 - Triangle of Sadness - Box office $28 million
6 - The Fabelmans - Box office: $37 million
5 - The Banshees of Inisherin - Box Office: $56 million
4 - Everything Everywhere All at Once - Box Office: $180 million
3 - Elvis - Box Office: $425 million
2 - Top Gun: Maverick - Box Office: $2.1 billion
1 - Avatar: The Way of Water - Box Office: just shy of $3 billion
Of these 10, I saw 2 and I would hazard that if you asked 100 average people, they saw the same 2. The others? Never heard of them and the quick summary did nothing to draw me (or other people) in and the 3rd film (Elvis) according to many folks was "meh".
Most of the films, directors and actors are from films or roles or actors that most people have never heard of.
So why care about what a bunch of nameless, faceless people and films get awards from other nameless and faceless people?
Plus most of us have a boatload of other options as to what we can (and did) watch.
Sky Jewels
(9,148 posts)is the perfect sport for a country chock full of violent, misogynistic, anti-intellectual, anti-"woke" lib haters.
I can't even watch a minute of it without feeling a little physically sick. I've felt that way ever since I was a very young girl.
tishaLA
(14,710 posts)The Academy expanded best picture nominations a while ago to include more films, but that doesn't much natter when most of the films that get nominated remain largely unseen. Even 20 years ago when popular and artistically meritorious weren't mutually exclusive--and some films like Black Panther manage to bridge that divide--but an increased reliance on foreign audiences, especially the Chinese audience, leads studios to make films with less character development in favor of crashes, explosions, CGI, and superheroes. So smaller films that appear on fewer screens, and often get little play outside cities, fill the void and end up getting nominated.
I will say, though, as a fan of both film and the NFL, that it requires athletes to "pour hours of blood, sweat, tears and intellect into trying to build a product" if they want to succeed, just as it does in almost any professional sport. They just need a different kind of intellect than screenwriters, directors, or actors.
