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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.
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.
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".
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).<p>I gladly paid for every one of them.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>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?<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
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?
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.<p>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?<p>People will go to theaters for Spartacus and 2001: A Space Odyssey, not for Life Is Beautiful or The Pianist.<p>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.
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.
> if Spielberg can’t even bring people to a movie theatre anymore, then who can?<p>Big shocker a 75 year old man can't attract kids to the theaters like he used to back in the 80s.
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
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.<p><i>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.</i><p>The author then lists 10 Oscar movies.<p>They are not dying. The Oscar movie exists & will exist well into the future, even if people aren't necessarily watching it <i>in theaters</i>. Theaters are kind of a bad experience for a few reasons and the home viewing experience keep improving.
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.
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.
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.<p>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.
Are they even marketing these movies?<p>> 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).<p>This is the first time I have heard of any of these.<p>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?
Too much unrealistic computer graphics in US movies. Also melodramatic story-lines. I no longer watch them.<p>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.<p>But overall, movies are just no longer on my 'to-do' list.
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?
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.
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.<p>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.
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"<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture</a>
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?
This has been at least a 5 year long trend, exacerbated by the pandemic. The Big Picture is basically about this <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Big-Picture-Fight-Future-Movies/dp/0544789768" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Big-Picture-Fight-Future-Movies/dp/05...</a> and that came out in 2018.
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.
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.
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.