Is Hollywood out of touch, or is the American public out of touch?

[begin_within]

Top grossing films of 2005: Star Wars, Harry Potter, Chronicles of Narnia, War of the Worlds, King Kong

Nominees for Best Picture of 2005: Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Crash, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich

So who is "out of touch?" Movie ticket buyers or Academy voters?

[jmowreader]

1. The Academy has never liked the same films the public likes

I attribute this to the fact that the Academy contains no members of the general public. It contains movie-industry people...who like this real artsy stuff.

[Deja Q]

5. And I keep thinking film is an art...

It's a biz like any other.

Dumbed down and consumed like chocolate covered amphetamines.

[Duncan Grant]

2. Art becomes a commodity.

What an idea! :popcorn:

[Deja Q]

6. Commodity means 'lowest common denominator'

Therefore anything that's not "mainstream" enough is shunned; even given a stigma that it's bad.

Why?

Because individuality is not profitable.

The herd and "pied piper" philosophies are.

[Duncan Grant]

12. And also, commodity meaning: $$$=Award worthy.

By the OP's reasoning, McDonald's and Burger King should be considered fine dining. Since when is the almighty dollar a valid indicator of what constitutes "out of touch"? I find the entire premise faulty (as you do, too). :hi:

People can call me a snob if they want but I'm not buying this "out of touch" hypothesis as anything but RW anti-gay spin. I said it and I'll defend it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. Movies that appeal to teenagers (and children, to a certain extent) always

gross higher than movies that appeal to adults. (And sometimes the emphasis is on "gross.")

[Floogeldy]

4. Why must you assume that something is, or some people are, out of touch?

Top grossing films and artistic awards are not necessarily connected. Different functions.

Broaden thyself and categorize according to reality, when practicable.

;)

[Orangepeel]

7. why would the criteria for "best" and "highest grossing" be the same?

There are lots of awards given to movies in a year -- the Oscars, People's Choice, MTV Movie Awards, SAG & Director's Guilds, Golden Globes... Different awards have different criteria. What's wrong with that?

[JI7]

8. exactly, the Oscars would go down in my opinion

if they did focus on highest grossing over quality.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

9. Nobody's out of touch. Annie Hall won Best Pic over the original Star Wars

Which do you think had more box office? Who was "out of touch" then?

[eppur_se_muova]

10. Is there any reason it can't be both?

And is there any reason to restrict the discussion to movies?

[lady raven]

11. action films, Rush Limbaugh, *

I am in the middle of one of the reddest of the red states, in a small hick town, and I have no desire to see any of the top grossing films. Not that there is anything wrong with them, but they just don't have any appeal for me. I have seen Brokeback and Crash (loved both- Crash disturbed the hell out of me) and I want to see every single other one of the nominees.

I am as average as average can be.

It's the American public that is out of touch. But I'm not just judging this based on movies. They voted for *, for God's sake.

The Academy likes art. The public likes explosions.

[Floogeldy]

13. You've gone too far.

The top grossing films have good qualities, too. You should not avoid them. Just because artistic awards are different from top grossing does not mean that you should not watch the top grossing films. Don't be a snob. :)

[Oeditpus Rex]

14. It's not snobbery

if someone simply doesn't enjoy a film genre. And I refuse to see a film simply because "everybody's seen it."

[Indy_Dem_Defender]

15. I've always felt

that the Oscars are just bought by the movie companies. The movies that are usually nominated aren't big marketed flicks, So it's just another way for them to get the word out for some of these films, by paying for them to be consider the best flims of the year.