Tuesday, April 27, 2021

Why no one gives a shit about the Oscars

One of the reasons that the Academy Awards are such an afterthought is that movies play a much smaller role in our lives. 

In movies’ heyday, which I believe lasted until the mid ‘70s when cable was introduced and first run movies could finally be seen in their entirety — uncut and uncensored — on television, movies were a major form of entertainment.

Going to a theatre was exciting.  Movies were meant to be seen on giant screens in glorious technicolor (especially when TV was still just black-and-white).  The studios provided a variety of styles and genres.  Action, comedy, romantic comedy, horror, adaptations of novels and plays, political thrillers, drama, period pieces, sweeping scope, intimate stories, war films, fantasy, fairy tales, musicals — major studios produced them all.  Many featured big stars you could only see in the movies. 

Movies would have an impact.  They reflected society and changed society.  But in an entertaining way.  Films like THE GRADUATE spoke to an entire generation. 

Today studios only make comic book blockbusters or sequels trying to squeeze every dollar out of the only theatre-going customers they still have — young males.  Remember “date movies?”  Romantic comedies that were tolerable for both sexes on a weekend date?   Now a studio comedy is a raunchfest aimed at — you guessed it — young males. 

So the Oscars used to celebrate excellent but popular movies.  And everyone had a rooting interest.  We saw all the Best Picture nominees.  We debated them at the water cooler.    What are our choices now?  NOMADLAND and eight equally dreary depressing “art” films or box-office champ, KING KONG VS. GODZILLA? 

Yes, the pandemic has thrown a monkey wrench into going to your local cineplex.  But with higher prices, commercials, vending machines instead of concession stands, and people texting — the exodus from movie palaces was well underway prior to COVID. 

Will they come back?   Yes, once or twice for the novelty of it.  But then they’ll return home, watch movies on their big screen where the monthly subscription to Netflix is less than the cost of one ticket at an AMC.   Or they’ll watch on their phone.   We’ve gone from the big screen to five inches. 

So when no one cares who the Oscar nominees are, when movies are not an important part of our lives, who gives a shit if some actor you've never heard of (and will disappear in two years) in some movie you’ll never see and never want to see wins?  They might as well televise the Fred Sands salesmen of the year awards.   At least they have a raffle and you could win a dinner at Benihana's.  

UPDATE:  Let me respond to several readers who considered this just an old guy rant ("things were better in my day," etc.)   It's not about whether the movies were better, it's that Oscar ratings were HUGE, and now they're dismal.  My post was looking for a possible explanation.  Rating WERE better.  Interest in the Oscars WAS higher.  That's a fact, not an opinion.  If I were 25 I'd write the same post. 


Anonymous said...

The Graduate today would be characterized as a stalker movie.

Jeff said...

To me if a movie is artfully made than no matter what the subject matter it isn't depressing or dreary to me. Bad movies depress me. NOMADLAND and THE FATHER may have depressing subject matter, but they were both supremely well made and therefore to me they were very good movies! PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN was hardly depressing. It was a clever black comedy with terrific direction and performances; again, not dreary at all . To each his own, as they say.

Dixon Steele said...

Remind me not to piss you off.

Ali said...

The other issue is that there are so many award shows. By the time the Oscars come around all the movies have won awards somewhere else, and people are pretty sure who's winning what. Who cares when there are so many award shows for the same movies. Boring.

Dave H said...

I checked the ratings in the past 10 years. There seems to have been a steady decline since 2014. Ellen hosted that year. Back in the day Best picture winners were movies that made a lot of money. The average person knew the movie. In the last 5 years the winners have included Birdman, Spotlight, Moonlight, 12 years a slave, Shape of Water, Parasite. They may have been good quality films by critics. But not huge hits.

I think they need to bring a good host back too. A lot of people tuned in to see the host. And a good host would keep the show moving along.

James V Hilliker said...

Damnit Ken. You're right!!! I never thought about it until now! I am only 65 and I didn't even know that any movies were made in the past year, due to the pandemic. I love the Oscars and the history of the Academy Awards, tradition. But, there are rarely any new movies I care about. Thank you very much for shedding some light on this topic. I totally agree with you! Now, I have to get back to watching some real movies on TCM'S 31 Days of Oscar!! Hooray for Hollywood, or the Hollywood that made magnificent movies before the days of cable and home video. Signed, Jim Hilliker, old movie fan.

Anonymous said...

You're so right, Ken. Movies are meant to provide an escape from the outside world. That's hard to do when people are constantly texting through a film. I also agree with what you said about going to films to see big stars, but ask ten different people who they consider to be a big star today, someone who is actually making films on a semi-regular basis, and you may get ten different responses.

I'll still go see something truly epic, a period epic (such as "Atonement") on the big screen (something worth ten bucks to see), but the visits to the local cinema have been, with each passing year, are becoming fewer and farther between.

Fed by the muse said...

I have to say social media has taken a lot of fun out of the film-anticipation experience. In the 1980s I couldn't wait until the new Village Voice or Films in Review appeared in our local library so I could find out what big films would (eventually) be making it my way or those limited releases getting awards attention (movies like "The Dresser" or "Testament"). That was a great time to be a movie fan.

Joseph Scarbrough said...

My heart always goes out to the poor, unfortunate souls who have to stage, rig, coordinate, and put those award shows together - speaking from experience, those are some very demanding and thankless jobs, and you think any of them get any of the glory that those who are up on the stage get?

Toby the Wonder Horse said...

I for one would gladly venture back to the multiplex to see KING KONG VS. GODZILLA VS. NOMADLAND.

Pat Reeder said...

I'm a lifelong movie buff, and Laura and I had the COVID early on, so we aren't afraid of going to the movies to support our local theaters. Plus, we prefer seeing movies on the big screen. But even though I'm actively looking for something I want to see, I find that we hardly ever go to new movies. If you're an adult who prefers intelligent writing to CGI explosions and comic books, there's not much for you. In the past year, "Nomadland," "Ma Rainey" and "Mank" were the only new movies we saw, and they were all depressing as hell. (BTW, it was nice of them to make an entire movie just for people like me who care about the making of "Citizen Kane," but if old movie trivia buffs are the target audience, you'd think they would've made it more accurate.)

Mostly, we've gone to Fathom Events/TCM showings or older movies at our local indie theaters. In the space of one week, we saw "Nomadland" and "The Maltese Falcon." There's no question in my mind which one people will still be watching 50 years from now.

Incidentally, I know a lot of people think "Nomadland" is a leftist movie about the cruelty of capitalism on the lower working classes. But Frances McDormand's character clearly chooses to live like that. She was offered two nice homes, in her sister's house and her friend's family's guest house, but turned them both down. She couldn't even spend one night in a nice warm guest bedroom without getting up to go sleep in her cold, cramped van, where she could eat canned beans and have no interaction with other humans. I suspect the movie is actually a commercial for Libertarianism.

Call Me Mike said...

The last movie I saw in a theater was, somewhat fittingly, The Last Jedi. I thought the movie was too long and a mixed bag of good and terrible (I'm not going to do the internet thing here and complain endlessly about it). Rather, it was the theater itself that really turned me off.

I had skipped lunch and was starving that evening. So, naively thinking I would get something like real food, I ordered a "hamburger" at the concession stand - from a surly teenager, of course! A few minutes later, I was handed a disgusting, microwaved, gelatin, pulsating wad of material that perhaps could be seen as meat and cheese from a great distance. Perhaps from outer space. But, suffice to say, I didn't eat the thing. When I arrived home, I gave it to my dog. She didn't eat it either.

I swore off the "theater experience" right then and there. At least, I'll never be returning to a multiplex again.

Glenn said...

If you don't tell the story the exact way the "woke" crowd wants it told, you're cancelled.

Anne said...

No Zoom for you, Sir Anthony!

Just learned that Hopkins, age 83, pleaded to join the Oscars via Zoom, but the producers said That's a hard No.

Well, Tony had some nerve asking, am I right? It's not like there's a world pandemic making travel to L.A. difficult for an 83 year old actor who lives in Wales.

Hopkins did release a gracious thank-you afterwards.

Wendy M. Grossman said...

The other part of it is that film critics were among the early casualties of local newspapers struggling to compete with the Internet. On his blog and at his film festival, Roger Ebert talked a lot about this and the resulting difficulty for great films to find their audiences. If you ask a recommendation algorithm why it chose a particular movie for you, it goes on about what you liked before. It doesn't tell you why *this* movie is great or even why it's interesting though badly flawed. Those intermediaries were really important. Ebert did follow up by creating a community of critics around his festival and blog that continues to this day. And that's good, but it's not really a replacement.


Jeff said...

I watched all eight movies nominated and also I watched Godzilla v Kong. Godzilla v Kong depressed me far more than any of the best picture nominees. Mind-numbingly stupid spectacle with not an ounce of wit or invention.

Jeff Boice said...

I agree with you, but I remember hearing similar sentiments from my parents and their friends 40+ years ago. They stopped going to the theater- they went to the video rental store and watched movies at home instead. The complaints were that modern movies were too violent, there was too much cussing, and the subject matter was unpleasant. My Uncle asked me "Why would they make a movie about Jake LaMotta? He was a bum!". So I realize I must concede the passage of time, acknowledge that the Entertainment Industry doesn't make stuff for me anymore, and stick to nostalgia channels that have lots of ads for Medicare Advantage plans.

Dave H said...

Look at some past movie nominees and winners..

1991 - Dances With Wolves (winner), Ghost, Goodfellas, Godfather 3

1992 - Silence Of The Lambs (winner), JFK, Beauty and The Beast, Bugsy, Prince Of Tides

1995 - Forrest Gump (winner), Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption, Four Weddings and Funeral, Quiz Show

1998 - Titanic (winner), Good Will Hunting, LA Confidential, As Good As It Gets, The Full Monty

Things have changed. Now a lot of people have never seen the winners or nominees.

Steve Bailey said...

I agree entirely with you. At some point, the movie and TV industries got smug. Network TV had only three channels, so at some point or other, you practically *had* to watch whatever they were broadcasting. Similarly, the movie folks started throwing commercials, a half-hour of trailers before the main feature, and endless car crashes at us and figured we were stuck with it. Now that there are about a zillion entertainment options for the average viewer, TV and movie factories don't know what to do with themselves.

Call Me Mike said...

Film culture has changed, too. Or maybe I should say fan culture. Anyway, I'm somewhat nostalgic for when being a fan of movies simply meant watching them in a theater and talking about them in the parking lot afterwards. And it ended there.

Now with the internet there's this thick layer of endless noise over all of it. There are months of buildup, articles, spy photos from the sets, casting news, recasting news, location news, and interviews with everyone from the director to the guys who roll up the extension cords but really can't say anything because of course it would be the end of their careers if they did. Then there's the litany of think pieces about every minute detail about the movie - often before it's even released! Not to mention the fan outrage and counter outrage striking back and forth like lines of troops at Gettysburg.

Why engage with film culture anymore? It's exhausting.

Rob Greenberg said...

Network television has gone a similiar route: reality shows, sitcoms without jokes, and derivative procedurals. It's digressed significantly. Instead of Hill Street Blues or St. Elsewhere, we now get bland 'Chicago' versions. Yet, in the case of Television, cable and streaming channels have stepped up their game by producing terrific alternatives that are both critically AND commercially successful. So far, the indie film companies have only learned to go the critical route with these arthouse films. It's time for them to start producing today's (as per the Dave H's post above) 'Good Will Huntings' and 'As Good as it Gets.'

Roger Owen Green said...

Watching films on their phones? I'm sure it happens but UGH.
I saw all eight Best Pic noms, four in the last week, one (Mank) in a theater, and I liked half of them, but none of them probably would have been big box office, even without COVID. Movies, save for the blockbuster, don't matter as much in the culture.

Just finished the Oscars. The location was an attempt that didn't happen to work. But the In Memorium and moving Best Picture earlier were unforced errors.

flurb said...

People have been complaining about the Oscars ever since I became aware of them. I think the problem lies in its being essentially a bad idea for a show in the first place. The networks, over the years, have tried their mightiest to disguise it as an extravaganza, but they got ripped for that too. Soderbergh seems to have wanted to return it to its roots, and he's gotten slammed. An awards banquet for a mostly arcane profession can't really be expected to be a slam-bang entertainment, no matter the list of nominees.

Though I am with Jeff, far above, about "The Father," which was sad but astoundingly good, a lot of less-dire other pictures were left off the Academy's list this year, some of which our family liked very much - John Patrick Shanley's "Wild Mountain Thyme" - a lovely little romantic comedy of the kind you miss, Ken; the Tom Hanks vehicles "News of the World" and "Greyhound"; and "The Dig", beautifully made, with a terrific performance from Ralph Fiennes among its gallery of great actors. So check some of those out.

jenmoon said...

My mom kept calling and texting me on Sunday trying to get me to watch the Oscars. To which I was all, "I haven't seen any of the movies and I don't care who wins." I literally don't want to see artsy, depressing movies and it sounds like all the nominees were like that. I have real life for depressing, thanks! I don't need to bring more of that into my life for fun and recreation.

Jeff Maxwell said...

Alas poor Oscar, I knew him.

opimus said...

Sounds like a typical meal at my nursing home .

Mike Bloodworth said...

You mentioned "date night" and "young men." When I was a young man (Where did the time go?!) the DRIVE-IN theater was a big part of my life. When you were a horney teenager who still lived at home the drive-in was the perfect place to make out with a girl. Also, if you were a heavy consumer of marijuana as I was back then the drive-in offered some relatively safe place to indulge.

It wasn't always a great time, however. Once I saw "Under the Rainbow" staring Chevy Chase at a drive-in with a girl who's only reason for going out with me was to make her boyfriend jealous. The movie sucked and I didn't even get to touch her boob.


P.S. I had read several articles that said that drive-ins had made a slight resurgence during the pandemic. Too bad there are none near me. I no longer smoke pot, but I wouldn't be adverse to making out with a teenage girl. (Legal, of course.)

JS said...

You seem angry.

I'm kind of pragmatic. I liked Godzilla v. Kong. It was the right movie at the right time. I also liked the Sound of Metal and Game Night (I think that was the last 3 movies I watched).

I really don't care if the Oscars come or go.

Award shows are a dying institution. I worked at a hospital - you think people who took care of Covid patients are getting an award?

Necco said...

I'm seeing a lot of "good old days" comments in here. I'll repeat, "woke" has been totally latched onto, by the Far Right. I'm not sure that all of you realize that. Or maybe you do.

I was a theater goer through the mid-90s, but switched to VHS/DVD, after that. Pre-COVID, I went to a theater maybe once a year.

Somebody was complaining about theater food. Alamo Drafthouse serves some pretty good stuff, but I don't like staff walking around during a screening.

I am not a huge fan of theater-going. I prefer a private viewing, with no audience distractions. Half the time, the picture is not being projected properly.

Times have changed. Entertainment is evolving. The major networks have totally botched their ability to remain relevant. They now appeal to the LCD. (A term used in the industry.)

You have WAY too many non-professionals with their film blogs, babbling endlessly. Think the old AICN. I worked several films where Harry Knowles showed up. The entire crew groaned. I did go to an AICN screening one time, in Austin. It made my skin crawl. 250 fawning geeks - the director was present. I had to leave during the Q & A.

I was lucky to be at USC Film School in the mid-80s. AMAZING screening guests - from Jimmy Stewart to Terry Gilliam, etc. Saw "Double Indemnity" with Fred MacMurray. Can't remember which of his films, Edward Dmytryk screened.

There are SO many people writing about films, who have no experience or education in the field. Yet, these people sometimes determine the future of a film, or TV series.

Andrew said...

I was thinking about what year I first cared about the Oscars. I remember vividly: 1985. I was 14. I had seen each of the movies, and genuinely cared about which picture won. Each movie had made an impact with the public, and each arguably deserved the award. The movies were Amadeus (which won), The Killing Fields, Places in the Heart,A Passage to India, and A Soldier's Story. Jack Lemmon was master of ceremonies. Lawrence Olivier read the Best Picture winner, without naming all the nominees.

I haven't experienced that kind of excitement regarding the Oscars in many years.

Anonymous said...

I struggle with the fact that Oscar nominees are held until just the "right" moment to go to theatres. I don't care much about movies, but I will see one when the mood strikes me. But now that they're all backloaded to "Award season", my choice is to watch movies I know nothing about get awards, or blitz through a package of them quickly. Neither appeals.

Anonymous said...

"There are so many people writing about films who have no experience or education" yea but they still have the $120,000 dollars they saved by not going to USC film school.

Necco said...


I was on a full scholarship to USC Film School. Phi Beta Kappa. Summa cum laude. It was not $120,000 at that time, regardless. Cheers!

Jay Thurber said...

I love your work, Ken, but this criticism reminds me of everyone who complains, "cars were better when I was a kid" or "none of today's baseball players is as good as (DiMaggio/Aaron/Clemente)" or "all rap and hip-hop music sucks."

Back in the golden age of movie-making, how many terrible Abbott & Costello and Jerry Lewis films did Hollywood grind out? How many long, unfunny "caper comedies" were produced in the '60s?

We all remember "The Graduate." No one remembers "Hot Rods to Hell," "Come Spy With Me" and "The Venetian Affair," to name three other random 1967 U.S. films.

Other top-grossing films in 1967 included "Casino Royale," "You Only Live Twice," "The Dirty Dozen," and "Grand Prix" --- two James Bond films (OK, one of them only loosely a Bond movie) and two action movies.

Aren't those essentially "comic book blockbusters (and) sequels"?

According to Wikipedia, "Gone With the Wind" was re-released in 1967 and was the number one movie for eight weeks, and I'm sure plenty of people were saying "that's because this modern stuff is garbage, they don't make movies like that any more."

I'm not trying to defend the Oscar telecast (which I didn't watch), the Oscars as an institution, or even current Hollywood theatrical releases --- all I'm saying is, memory is highly selective.

We remember the good stuff and in our memory, it gets even better. (Cars were faster! Candy tasted sweeter! Movies were greater!) We don't remember the dross.

By Ken Levine said...

Let me respond to several readers who considered this just an old guy rant ("things were better in my day," etc.) It's not about whether the movies were better, it's that Oscar ratings were HUGE, and now they're dismal. My post was looking for a possible explanation. Rating WERE better. Interest in the Oscars WAS higher. That's a fact, not an opinion. If I were 25 I'd write the same post.

David Riche said...

I'm a couple decades younger than you, and I can say that your post is NOT an old-guy rant. Movies used to be woven into the fabric of public consciousness. They reflected our lives badk to us. Something like The English Patient could be a history lesson, an emotional catharsis, and a metaphor for any number of things that were happening in our own lives. Movies can still be like that, but they are no longer a shared experience. I think it was Scorcese who said that watching a film in a theater was a "shared hallucination."

The Oscars were a culmination of those experiences where we saw the superficial glamor of Hollywood and all the "popcorn movies" bump heads with the art world. Movies played with our perceptions of the world, and the Oscars somehow both validated and played games with our world view. Why that has disappeared is hard to say. Partly it's the death of the theater experience and the fracturing of the media we watch movies on. Partly it's the culture, and how there are now so many authoritarian rules about what is allowed to be shown and criticized in entertainment now. Nobody wants to see a movie, say they didn't like it, and then be called a racist because the supporting actress was a person of color. An exaggeration perhaps, but that's part of what's going on. We have become afraid to let art reflect our culture.

Anonymous said...

I remember staying awake for the Oscars in the 90s and going to school the next day. Keep in mind I lived in Germany - watching the entire show meant that best picture would be around breakfast time here. But it was worth it. The Oscars were glorious, we'd talk about them for days, and some of the shows I'd tape and watch over and over again. There's still a VHS of Billy Crystal doing his Titanic / Good Will Hunting / The Full Monty / LA Confidential / As Good As It Gets mashup.

Today I don't even check the results anymore. Maybe it's me, maybe it's the movies and the endless sequels, but I just don't care anymore.

Anonymous said...

The best thing about a lot of actors and their phoney self aggrandizing, politically woke speeches is that they are now screwing themselves out of awards, fans and an audience.
I think it's hilarious!

brian t said...

I gave "Parasite" a chance based on the good reviews, and I'm glad I did. It has a little social commentary, but from an oblique angle, and it's mostly an entertaining story. Mild spoiler: the main characters thought they were so smart, but uncover whole new layers of WTF which they're totally unprepared for.

Anonymous said...

@ Necco
I'm seeing a lot of "good old days" comments in here. I'll repeat, "woke" has been totally latched onto, by the Far Right. I'm not sure that all of you realize that. Or maybe you do.

Hey Necco, I don't want to burst. your bubble but James Carville gave a long interview yesterday explaining how the Democratic Party had a huge problem with wokeness.

I haven't seen him at any Trump rallies recently.

Anonymous said...

The "old guy rant" argument, which has nothing to do with the merits, is a tacit acknowledgement what you are saying is true.

Mike Barer said...

What we have been missing for the last decade or so have been movies that have an impact. It seems like most of the fare that I have watched in theatres are movies that I may enjoy, but have no lasting memory of them.

tavm said...

Last night, I rewatched Anchors Aweigh. I knew beforehand it was nominated for Best Picture and Gene Kelly for Best Actor, which was the only time that happened in his career (though a few years later when An American in Paris was in the running Gene got a special award for his contributions to dance on film). Now while I loved the animated sequence he did with Jerry the Mouse, I otherwise didn't think it was such a great film do get such recognition as the story-about sailors on leave-didn't warrant a running time of 140 minutes-90 minutes would have been fine. But they had way too many musical numbers (especially that long Franz Liszt piece though I remember enjoying that one when it was in the Bugs Bunny short Rhapsody Rabbit), had one too many Gene Kelly dreams (there was a second one when he romances leading Kathryn Grayson) which resulted in the actual story being delayed several times. And Kelly was a better actor in AAIP and Singin' in the Rain. Still, it's more memorable and enjoyable than some of the recent actual Best Picture winners like Parasite, Spotlight, and The Green Book...

Anonymous said...

Maybe the public -- and I'm talking about the entire public, not one faction -- was hoping that the Oscars would carry a message of empathy to a world that has seen a year of loved ones and friends lost. Some could not even be with them. Some could not be at their funerals. Some who lived after being stricken will never be the same again.

After years of Hollywood types carry themselves as the sort who care about others and seek ways to express that in their art, it was telling that the evening was simply one person after another touting their specific brand and/or agenda. We needed reassurance and did not get it, except that we should be grateful to all the people on the screen for doing what they did for making our lives worth living. If it wasn't for them.

They had a chance to reach out but they made little or no effort. Instead we were instructed to get off our chairs and get into theaters again. Will they be there with us? Will it be safe yet?

This was the biggest worldwide crisis in history, something we all shared and they had a chance to make an effort to connect us. It would have actually been good for them and for the movie business. But their personal vanity, personal causes, career agendas and arrogance blinded them.

These are not the same kind of people who rallied when the country was at war against bigotry in WWII, or McCarthyism in the fifties. They are trying to tell us what movies to watch, they are not listening. They don't care and it really showed on Oscar night.

Philly Cinephile said...

Badly behaved audiences keep me out of the cinemas. I love the experience of seeing a film in a theater, as long as the theater is less than half-full and I can get a seat in the back row. I have a large TV at home, hi-def, Blu-ray, etc., but nothing can replace the experience of seeing the images projected onto a large screen.

myrna said...

Back in the day, (1950s and after) my whole family gathered round the big TV in the living room and watched the Oscars together- a family tradition. We also watched the Miss America pageant with Burt Parks, a favorite of my grandmother.

This year I skipped the Oscars entirely- just checked out the winners at the end. Didn't bother to dvr the program so I could scroll past the commercials, boring production numbers, boring speeches, etc. I didn't anticipate any highlights. Here's why.

#1 Many (too many) other award shows had preceded this one.
#2 The 2021 Oscars were all about celebrating diversity. I support the cause, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit in front of the TV for 3 hours, listening to speeches on this subject.
#3 No rooting interest since I'd seen only a couple of the nominated movies: if it wasn't on Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO, I missed it. No plans to join Hulu just to see the winner Nomadland.

MikeN said...

I consider Netflix and the rest too expensive. However, I will go to a theater and spend almost $30 on food at Alamo.
I have stopped doing it because
1) they got rid of plastic straws
2) COVID protocols that require paying with an app
I don't agree to give Alamo my name and number to watch a movie.

MikeN said...

You should give more consideration to the superhero movies that give studios the money to take chances on other films.

Marvel has real character development, it is just split across multiple movies. You do a disservice to all these great actors calling the movies just CGI.
Thor is directed by Kenneth Branagh(and it shows).
Robert Downey Jr could have won an Oscar for Iron Man 3.

In fairness to your snobbishness, these movies are considered by the fans as the weakest.
There are character arcs for Black Panther(also he gets one in Captain America 3), Captain America, Black Widow, Thor, Hulk, Iron Man, Nick Fury(Samuel L Jackson), Loki, and more.
If you are paying close attention, Thanos actually has a hero's journey in Infinity War.
You said you thought it was pointless, but the whole movie has a theme of sacrifice.
Granted 40+ hours is a big investment, but you can fast forward through the fights, skip Dr. Strange, Ant-Man, Captain Marvel, and you'd be down to about 20 hours.

Necco said...


You didn't burst my bubble on anything. Using one quote about "wokeness" from Carville, does not negate the fact that THOUSANDS - no millions - of Right Wing posters are chanting it, daily...hourly. You know that. It's a favorite word at Fox News. From the clips that I've seen. To imply otherwise, is to be intentionally misleading.

Going back to the Oscars. People just don't care. I watch it from a historical standpoint. (By the way, "New AP" users - UGH - when the "h" is "hard," you use "a," not "an." Chicago Manual lover here. Don't get me started on crap like "CBS' schedule, congress' vote, Lucas' film, etc.," INSANITY.)

Anonymous said...

Re: Whether woeness is simply a Right-wing thing.
You judge this exchange.

James Carville:
Wokeness is a problem and everyone knows it. It’s hard to talk to anybody today — and I talk to lots of people in the Democratic Party — who doesn’t say this. But they don’t want to say it out loud.

Sean Illing:
Why not?

James Carville:
Because they’ll get clobbered or canceled

StoicJim said...

Watching the slow demise of motion pictures makes me think of what must have happened 100 years ago when they were just becoming a thing and the effect it had on Vaudeville. You had an entire industry that literally disappeared within a couple of decades. Sure some of it morphed into comedy clubs and nightclubs but probably thousands of entertainers along with the ancillary jobs that when along with supporting their performances went away.

Movies killed Vaudeville, television is killing the "Motion Picture" experience and new technologies are killing traditional television.

Jahn Ghalt said...

Your comment that studios pander to the tasteless and juvenile is well-observed.

(we, who enjoyed comic books before discovering actual novels for grownups, remain unimpressed)

As the NBC suits discovered with Frasier (and as you and Peri Gilpin noted awhile back) literacy and literate tastes are really "everyones" tastes. I'm sure many, who don't read much, "get" and love "sophisticated" films and TV. That's a lot of movie goers who are staying home.