Author: Darren Franich / Source: EW.com
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced Wednesday that its annual Oscar ceremony will add a new “popular film” category, along with other changes implicitly geared toward audience expansion. Like everything that ever happens with the Oscars, this inspired many loud, profound opinions. Below, Entertainment Weekly critic at large Leah Greenblatt and TV critic Darren Franich discuss their own thoughts on the Academy’s announcement.
DARREN: “A new category is being designed around achievement in popular film,” declares the
But it’s the “achievement in popular film” that’s causing such a stir. Hard enough to define “achievement,” because everything’s subjective and some wrong people hated The Shape of Water. But “popular film” isn’t too precise either. You assume this “new category” is the Big Money Lineup, a spot for superhero movies and Chris Pratt sequels and movies where Tom Cruise falls gracefully.
But I ask you, Leah, what is “popular”? In 2009, The Hurt Locker became the lowest-grossing Best Picture ever. Nearly a decade later, I’m not sure Hurt Locker is considered an essential classic, though it’s definitely Top 3 Renner. But that same year, it grossed a couple hundred million dollars less than X-Men Origins: Wolverine — a financially “popular” film so widely disliked that Ryan Reynolds launched a new career making fun of it.
Even people who didn’t see The Hurt Locker like The Hurt Locker more than X-Men Origins: Wolverine.Popularity changes, is what I’m trying to say. The Academy Awards feel that vividly, and this announcement seems to reflect a sincere outreach to viewers after years of declining ratings. The show will also take place earlier in the season as of 2020, a shift I don’t care about. It will also aim to be three hours long, a shift I care A LOT about. But before I rant about the cultural necessity of long Oscar montages, I’m intrigued to hear what you think of all this, Leah. Do you feel like this awards show needs to change? And how do you feel about these changes?
LEAH: Oh my God, I didn’t even realize how passive that voice was until you pointed it out! Now all I can hear is Gary Cole’s boss character in Office Space going, “Yeah, so I’m just gonna need you come in this weekend and collate some popular achievements, mmmkay?”
Clearly, they’re going to need to define exactly what qualifies for this category at some point in the near future, though I’m guessing they’re going to put that off for as long as they can. Because it is a terrible, amorphous idea they most likely have not honestly thought through, and because Vin Diesel has probably already sent them 57 Edible Arrangements made entirely of sliced mango and for-your-consideration Fate of the Furious DVDs.
The most obvious metric for this does seem to be box office, like you say — though if we really want to be all Scrooge McDuck about bottom lines and profit, why not acknowledge the films that brought in the most money proportionate to their outlay? And see what a good accountant would have to say about the eastern-territories marketing budget for the most recent Transformers versus a movie like Moonlight, which grossed more than $65 million mostly by critical word of mouth, and cost under $4 million to make.
Look, I totally get that they’re worried about diminished ratings and the widening gap…
The post The Oscars make some changes: EW critics debate a shorter, more ‘popular’ show appeared first on FeedBox.