Infographic: Online Buzz for Oscar Nominees
Need more evidence of the unprecedented disconnect between public perception and the thundering silence of the actual Oscar avalanche about to roll down the mountain? (via Banyan Branch)
Interesting findings:
- Though The Help did not top the list in terms of nominations – it generated the most likes on Facebook and Twitter mentions of all the films nominated
- Hugo and the Artist received the greatest number of nominations but a low level of social interactions
- Brad Pitt has the greatest overall social share of voice of all the nominated actors, though only a small portion of those posts actually reference his role in Moneyball
- Viola Davis captured the greatest share of voice in US conversations of the actresses nominated. Over 1/3 of that volume stemmed from conversation about her role in The Help
- Meryl Streep generated the largest global share of voice of all the actresses nominated for an Oscar
Check out the gigantic full-length graphic, after the cut:
*Banyan Branch is a Seattle-based full service social media agency.
78 Comments
Leave a Comment
Tracker Pages
Recently on AD
Follow Us!
Tags
Gallery
My favorite one is Best Actress – Demian Bichir again? Well, either way, he still gets the lowest ranking for both Actor and Actress. Poor Demian, no love. He was great in A Better Life!
Demian Bichir is the ultimate chameleon. His stunning portrayal in A Better Life was so engaging, the audience could not even decipher his sex. Talk about tapping into a universal human connection. Meryl Streep who?
I’m sure The Vow would top the best picture list if it was included so let’s give this “disconnect” argument a rest. It is not the Oscars job to predict the vapid minds of American movie goers.
Um, Moneyball has 203k likes
It is not the Oscars job to predict the vapid minds of American movie goers.
Fact.
This is the same American public that ensured a talking chihuahua movie was a box-office hit.
I’ll take critics’ opinions over the general masses any day.
Nik Grape.
I don’t think anybody is trying to argue that Twitter buzz is a reliable gauge of movie taste.
The chart’s purpose is clear. It shows us what movies the public was interested in this year. It tells us that the public will watch the Oscars muttering a collective WTF?
I have to say, I’ve bee muttering WTF for 2 months.
“The Hangover 2″ has 526,000 “likes.” The Academy is so out of touch.
And the fact that the American public will be indifferent to the Academy’s choices this year makes it different from previous years how?
It’s only on sites like this that people seem to be determined to pretend that that public’s tastes and the Academy’s haven’t differed pretty much since the Academy Awards were born.
Has the public ever not said “WTF” to most of the nominees in the last…30 years? Seems to be more of a case of the public’s collective taste going downhill than anything else.
I look at stuff like “The Informer” being in the top 5 of the box office in 1935 and say WTF.
Guys, we have a new contender for Best Actress!
http://tinyurl.com/8ywzt7t
What a shame that votes have already been sent
@Brock
When you look at the beginnings of the Oscars they actually do seem to line up surprisingly more often than they do now. A film like “Sunrise” just wouldn’t be in the top 10 grossing films of the year these days, but that doesn’t mean the Academy shouldn’t have nominated it.
@Aaron B
Thanks — though I think you and I are still pretty much on the same page. At the time of its broadcast, the 1976 Oscars were the lowest rated ever, and look at the list of Best Pic nominees: All the President’s Men, Bound for Glory, Network, Rocky and Taxi Driver. Network and Taxi Driver in my opinion are two of the best movies ever made — and they still didn’t get the public interested in the awards.
Maybe the public’s tastes and Oscar’s used to be more aligned than it is now, but in any case it’s been a looooooong time since they were close in any significant way.
Well, I can only pimp ‘Hugo’ on Facebook so many times. Evidently, I need some help.
Jack And Jill has 613,011 likes on Facebook. I kinda think Facebook likes and Twitter mentions don’t mean shit. The truth about this “Academy is so out of touch” business is that the general audience is about 900 times more out of touch when it comes to determining quality. Terrible movies make TONS of money and some of the best movies of the year are ignored. And don’t give me that bullshit about quality being subjective. Just Go With It made 100 million dollars in America, and Hugo didn’t. That’s a fucking shame no matter who you are. We’re talking about the same country that finds Jersey Shore and the Kardashians worth watching, that drinks Coors without a gun being pointed at them, that boos openly gay soldiers and applauds politicians who argue that we should let folks die that don’t have health insurance. Fuck the general public. I hope the Academy never looks like that.
Also interesting to note that “Extremely Loud” is more socially popular than four of the best pic nominees, including the frontrunner, but yet everyone though the Academy had a screw loose to nominate it. Maybe the Academy’s not so out of touch with the general public after all?
Good to see Demian Bichir up for both Best Actor and Best Actress. Like a hermaphrodite Barry Fitzgerald.
Also good to see that Hugo’s social media summary looks like a massive knob.
@ Yogsss
DEAD!!! That is, without a doubt, the funniest thing I have seen all week. OMG! The Sasha blurb is priceless. I cannot! I just can’t. LOL!!
I really DISLIKE their gender normative uses of colors pink for women, blue for men and using a women graphic in dress. BOO
“It tells us that the public will watch the Oscars muttering a collective WTF?”
Does this not apply to every other year though? what’s new????????
I love that Demian Bichir is not only listed in Best Actress, but he replaces Glenn Close, who played a woman posing as a man.
The chart’s purpose is clear
Other’s have made my point so I won’t be redundant by stating the same question they did.
The problem with this chart is that its purpose is meaningless.
Though, the Bichir fuck up has made everything alright somehow.
I know Glenn Close played a man, but I didn’t realize she changed her stage name for it.
Rooney Mara portrayed Glen Close? Well damn! LOL
Even more than Demian Bichir for Best Actress, I’m a huge fan of Rooney Mara in “Glenn Close”
Why is everyone missing the screaming obvious: the movie going demographic that gives Hollywood its billion dollar box office receipts are ages 12 – 35 y/o. The HUGE VAST majority of them didn’t study film nor have any association with the film industry and their experiences with film are developed when they are pre-teens so the older of that demographic were first exposed to films in the burgeoning blockbuster era of the 90s. This demographic’s social environment upbringing consists of comic book movies and transformers and twilight stuff.
This age group forms the very foundation of MTV awards and People Choice awards.
Who do you folks thinks forms THE largest age group core of Facebook and Twitter?
If you were to open up the voting on Facebook and Twitter to voting for all films, not just the nominated ones, which films do you think would top the Facebook and Twitter lists?
Would you be at all surprised if we were to see Thor or Captain America or Transformers or Twilight topping the “open” list?
I keep stating it: WE ALREADY HAVE “POPULIST” MOVIE AWARDS IN PEOPLE’S CHOICE AND MTV.
If we sent out mailing to the stupid masses (and I intentionally use that term) on what they consider great canvas art how well do you think Picasso or Matisse would hold up in that vote?
Wait? so Glenn Close was Bichir and Rooney? damn! she really wants that Oscar. Talk about not putting all your eggs in one basket. The girl with three faces.
There are a lot of mistakes on these infographics. Didn’t they proofread before editing it?
Once again, Moneyball has way more likes than what the infographic says. It should be at the number four spot for most likes out of the BP nominees. I don’t know how you could make such an egregious error and then completely fudge up the Best Actress infographic by including Demian Bichir and Rooney Mara playing Glenn Close.
Fact:
The Academy’s tastes differ greatly from the general public’s. This has always been and will always be, so we should not continue to quibble about such things that have no resolution whatsoever.
Fact:
Based on my countless viewings of films, I agree more with the filmmaking community and film critics than the general movie-going public.
Fact:
Demian Bichir IS Glenn Close.
PLEASE I NEED AN ANSWER!!!!!!!!!
Do you know if Natalie Portman, Colin Firth, Christian Bale and (ugh!) Melissa “[deleted*]” Leo are confirmed as presenters on Sunday?
* [please stop that, Rita. It's as bad as the n-word. ~ Ryan]
“Like a hermaphrodite Barry Fitzgerald.” Wouldn’t that be Barraldine Fitzgerald, currently remaking A Trip to Bountiful which co-stars Rooney Mara as Glenn Close as a goth Norma Desmond.
What a stupid error – must be the Seattle dampness or the proofreader who didn’t drink their Starbucks.
“Do you know if Natalie Portman, Colin Firth, Christian Bale and (ugh!) Melissa “[deleted*]” Leo are confirmed as presenters on Sunday?”
@Rita: Yes, they are. http://www.imdb.com/news/ni23273215/
““The Hangover 2″ has 526,000 “likes.” The Academy is so out of touch.”
hahahahahha i really like it!!!!!
I wonder why Awardsdaily wasn’t beating the same drum when Avatar was a nominee? Oh I know why, b/c you were behind The Hurt Locker, a movie nobody will remember 40 years from now. This website became a joke.
So now we know Meryl Streep is an international star.
The Academy is damned if they do (Titanic, Forrest Gump) and damned I they dont (THL, TKS, etc) depending on who’s pov. So really the only time they can win is when the public and critical consensus both come together the same year which is quite I frequent (schindlers list, LOTR). They had a chance with saving private Ryan and brokeback mountain but blew it.
Meryl needs to win Best Actress already!!!
How is Extremely Loud so popular? I think when a movie is seen as more marginal than other nominees, it’s more likely to get a swell of online support. The only real telltale stat here is that The Help is far and away the most popular of the nominees.
If they had Twitter and Facebook in 1859, #loveslavery would have been a trending topic and Jefferson Davis would have had more fans than Abraham Lincoln.
I know, let’s use the Chris Christie method – let’s put it to a vote!
Hi!
I was just reading your blog and thought it was a really great way to gear up the excitement leading to the Oscars. I just want to post a link to a graph that I thought you would be interested in. This is graph is something I built and thought you would be interested in it as it clearly paints a better picture as to who all will be making the award speeches this year.
http://tinyurl.com/6mqtx9w or here.
Hope this helps!
Jessica Murguia
http://www.microstrategy.com
I think it’s pretty bad that neither The Descendants nor Moneyball is doing that great in the social media department but their stars are. It just makes you realize that to most Pitt and Clooney are merely personalities and not actors. Their star power should have those movies higher on that first list. But I guess most people are just talking about their private lives.
I don’t know if these statistics necessarily show that this year there is more of a disconnect than in normal years but there is. If you haven’t noticed it, I’m going to guess this is your first year watching Oscar season. I’ve seen next to nothing on news programs. They can’t stop talking about gas prices for a minute to talk about the biggest weekend in Hollywood because there is nothing to talk about. This is the problem with a foregone conclusion year like this one. The only way to fix it, is to have people interested next year by having them miss an upset this year. And that won’t happen. If popular movies like Harry Potter and Drive were nominated but it was still a foregone conclusion that The Artist was going to win, we’d be in the exact same boat. We need a race to the finish. This is like waiting for a delivery of coffee filters.
But the thing is that Oscar voters are not there to reflect the public opinions. They vote for what they like, they don’t care what the audience or critics think and there is no reason for them to have to agree with critics or movie audience.
Yeah they’re not supposed to vote so that people will tune in. The point is if they repeatedly show that they are out of touch with the general public, the general public will continue to ignore the Oscars more and more. If the trend continues over time you’ll have generations who see the Oscars as nothing more than the last award show for the previous year’s movies, if they even think of it at all. You might have a couple of generations coming up right now who don’t pay attention to the awards at all and think it has nothing to do with them. So the prestige of winning an Oscar won’t mean anything to that generation. So when us oldies are all dead the Oscars might no longer exist. And what won for 2011 or 1977 or 1941 won’t matter to anyone. It might not even be a trivia question.
This is why some of us think that the Best Picture winner should represent the year they are in and when people vote they should vote with history on their minds.
I’ll go ahead and quote Pretty in Pink, which probably wasn’t nominated for anything:
If you give off signals that you don’t want to belong, people will make sure that you don’t.
Antoinette, fair point. And I do think that the public should factor into nominating films IF AND ONLY IF the film in question is worth nominating. In a perfect world, something like Harry Potter or Dark Knight which receives box office success and widespread acclaim would easily make it into the race and perhaps be a frontrunner, because it’s movies like those, which were made with care but also with an eye on appealing to the mainstream, that represent the film industry at it’s best. Many of my favorite movies ever, and I suppose most people’s favorites as well, walk that tightrope between critical and commercial success. But I must stress that there are many, many, many shitty movies that are commercially successful, and I simply can’t abide considering those movies for awards attention simply because lots of people were stupid enough to plonk down 10 bucks on them.
Chris Price, I fully agree. I believe the true great movie is the one that appeals to the mainstream and is also a great achievement cinematic-wise. Those are the movies that truly make history.
But I must stress that there are many, many, many shitty movies that are commercially successful, and I simply can’t abide considering those movies for awards attention simply because lots of people were stupid enough to plonk down 10 bucks on them.
Of course not. No one wants that. The problem is that even amongst the snobs who try to see everything the Academy often gets it wrong. So it’s not that they pick a brilliant movie no one’s seen, it’s that they often pick a movie that’s not brilliant that no one’s seen.
And we should call this chart “Exhibit A as to why the general public should not vote”. Hehe.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-24/save-oscars-with-live-voting-and-hindsight-commentary-by-virginia-postrel.html
“Sunday night’s Academy Awards ceremony faces the real possibility of ratings humiliation. The Oscar telecast will almost certainly draw a smaller TV audience than the Feb. 12 Grammy Awards.
True, Whitney Houston’s death the day before boosted Grammy viewership to more than 39 million. But that’s only part of the equation. The Oscar ceremony is gradually losing viewers.
In only two of the past five years — and five of the past 10 — has its U.S. audience topped 40 million, according to Nielsen Co. (Last year’s Oscar show attracted 37.9 million viewers.) By contrast, from 1990 to 2002, the audience never dropped below 40 million, and it swelled to 55 million in 1998, when the monster hit “Titanic” won Best Picture and 10 other awards.
The downturn isn’t inevitable. American TV viewers love competitions. “American Idol,” “Dancing With the Stars,” and football account for eight of the top 10 regularly scheduled programs. This year’s Super Bowl was the most-watched TV show in U.S. history, with 111.3 million viewers, beating the record set by the 2011 game.
Although TV audiences may be fragmenting, live events where fans have a rooting interest are still major draws. They give people something to argue about. They engage viewers’ passions. They create must-see TV.
So the Oscar telecast has great potential. At No. 9, it was still the only non-sports program to rank in last year’s top 10. (It ranked 10th among younger viewers, ages 18 to 49 — another bad sign.) But the usual approach of looking for the perfect emcee and tweaking the live performances — this year’s show promises a one-time-only Cirque du Soleil act — won’t stop the decline. The Oscars are about the movies, not podium jokes and stage spectaculars. Generating audience enthusiasm requires more radical steps. Here are a few ideas for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, all designed to engage moviegoers’ interests without sacrificing Oscar voters’ independent critical judgment.
1) Split the Best Picture category into two, based on the number of tickets sold.
The argument here is simple. More people watch the Oscars when the nominees include beloved movies that the audience cares about. The biggest audience of the past five years, 41.7 million, came in 2010 when the Best Picture nominees included such box office hits as “Avatar,” “Up” and “The Blind Side.” (“The Hurt Locker” won.) The biggest audience of the past decade, 43.5 million, was in 2004, the year “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” won Best Picture. And, of course, there was the famous year of “Titanic.”
As Hollywood historian Neal Gabler notes, however, Academy voters don’t like the movies that bring in the bucks, an attitude that seems to have intensified in recent years. “They are using the Oscars,” he suggests, “to stage a small protest against the sorts of movies they feel we the audience sadistically forces them to make.” The audience, in turn, stages its own protest by staying away — or watching the show only for the evening gowns.
Expanding the number of Best Picture nominations to 10 in 2009 looked as though it might alleviate the problem. But this year the Academy sabotaged that plan by implementing a new nomination system of preferential voting. This process rewards polarizing movies like “The Tree of Life” and “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close,” which few people saw, many detested, and a few adored.
Suppose, like the many journalism awards that divide publications by circulation, the Oscars included a Best Picture (less than 10 million tickets sold) and a Best Picture (10 million tickets or more). Add to that a Dec. 31 cutoff date for counting tickets, which would encourage less crowding of Oscar- worthy pictures in the waning weeks of the year.
For 2011, selling 10 million tickets at the average ticket price of $7.93 puts a film in the top 38 of the year. (An alternative would be to borrow a concept from the music industry and limit eligibility to the Top 40, regardless of ticket sales.) Assuming no change in the release dates, two more- compact Best Picture categories might yield something like the following nominees:
Best Picture > 10 Million Tickets
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2”
“Rise of the Planet of the Apes”
“The Help”
“Bridesmaids”
“Super 8”
Best Picture < 10 Million Tickets
“The Artist”
“The Descendents”
“Hugo”
“Midnight in Paris”
“Moneyball”
“War Horse”
If there had been two categories, it’s likely “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” and “War Horse” wouldn’t have waited until late December to open, giving them a shot at the 10 million-plus award.
These two slates of nominees would undoubtedly boost ratings significantly, if only because of all the Harry Potter fans. By drawing more viewers who actually spend money at the box office, the change would also provide valuable exposure for movies like “The Artist,” which have a small audience but are genuinely entertaining. And, who knows, a process that rewards ticket sales might remind Academy voters that a science-fiction movie like “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” can be one of the year’s best. (It’s as good as “The Artist,” and much more haunting.)
2) Create a Hindsight Award for the Best Picture from 25 or 30 years ago. Nominees would be selected by the same process as the current year’s Best Picture nominees, but from the earlier year’s offerings.
What Gabler calls Hollywood’s “lust for respectability” manifests itself in the Academy’s notorious slighting of comedies and genre films, no matter how influential or well made. Hence the recent shutout of the Harry Potter films or the outrageous slighting of “The Dark Knight.” The Hindsight Award would give the Oscars a chance to rectify the most egregious oversights. And, regardless of genre, current enthusiasms may not pass the test of time. Looking back allows perspective and, of course, sparks lively debate and, hence, audience interest.
Here, the list of nominees is more important than the winner. (“Groundhog Day,” which received no Oscar nominations at all after being released in 1993, may arguably be a better movie than “Schindler’s List,” but it would never beat it in a vote.) A Hindsight Award would allow Academy members and the TV audience to revisit the best of the past. If such an award existed this year, looking back to 1986 the list might not only recognize such enduring popular favorites as “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” and “Aliens,” but remind audiences of why “Platoon” (that year’s third-highest grossing movie) and “Hannah and Her Sisters” were so celebrated in their day. And though David Lynch’s “Blue Velvet” and David Cronenberg’s “The Fly” are probably still too outre for Academy sensibilities, they’d at least warrant consideration — and some critical discussion.
As for 1981, the win by “Chariots of Fire” is one of the most ridiculous in Oscar history and enough all by itself to justify a Hindsight Award. In the academy’s defense, however, that year’s nominees didn’t include that many enduring films, and it’s quite possible that only “Raiders of the Lost Ark” would reappear on a new list. The un-nominated classics of 1981 range from “Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior” to “My Dinner with Andre,” “Body Heat” to “Stripes.” (Bill Murray vehicles often look good in hindsight.)
3) Add campaign speeches and live voting. “American Idol” and sports events share an appeal the Oscars lack: Something is happening that affects the outcome while the viewers are actually watching. Movie performances can’t be live, of course, but the ceremony could include a real-time element of argument and judging.
Here the Hindsight Award provides an ideal opportunity. Give each nominated film’s producers a fixed length of time to make its case with clips and an on-stage advocate. Although movie makers might prefer the comfort of showing only a video, requiring the advocate adds the compelling immediacy of a real person. It also poses an intriguing strategic question: Who would be the most persuasive representative? For real drama, instead of reading prepared statements, the advocates might appear in a debate format, answering questions from a moderator.
After the presentations, the live audience would vote — a radical departure from Oscar tradition. As a new category, the Hindsight Award need not conform to the requirement that every far-flung academy member have a chance to vote. Instead, all 5,765 members could participate by choosing the nominees. To vote on the Hindsight Best Picture, you would have to attend the ceremony, a requirement that favors people — both academy members and other guests — associated with films up for Oscars, adding a certain nervous energy to the process.
Limiting the vote to those present would undoubtedly strike some members as unfair. But you can say that about the Oscars themselves. They will never be fair. But they could be more interesting."
Just going through the list of the top 100 movies ever in domestic box office. I counted about 55 movies on that list I’d say are good, not even necessarily deserving of a Best Pic nod, simply just good. 27 of those movies deserved a Best Picture nomination in my opinion. 19 movies out of the top 100 were nominated for Best Picture. There are a handful of those (Blind Side, Ghost and a couple more) that weren’t deserving nominees in my opinion. But they nominated about half of the movies I felt deserved to be nominated on that list. While I think they could do a slightly better job than they’re doing (i.e. They really should’ve nominated Dark Knight and Harry Potter), they do seem to recognize a decent percentage of populist films each year that are actually worthy of recognition.
@Gage and Chris: I’m in your camp; almost all my favorite films were the sort of mainstream studio flicks that took a big chance or indy films with a few extra bucks and a hot director on the upswing (like Pulp Fiction). Unfortunately, with hundreds of millions of dollars to be made by turning Velveeta into film, the mainstream increasingly means oozy whizz. The Dark Knights, Dragon Tattoos, and Departeds look more and more like anomalies. I was hoping the trend would reverse when 2010 produced some really great 20-30 million films that became hits, but 2011 took an Optimus Prime-sized step backward.
Any other youngsters wish they were around in 1972-1973 when the Best Picture winners were massive hits popular with critics, audiences, and film lovers?
Also, another bit of math. Over the last 21 years, we’ve seen 54 movies nominated for Best Picture to gross over 75 million dollars domestically out of 115 nominees. Going by the wonderfully written article that SClub88Official references above, those 54 movies meet the “Top 40″ requirement of having sold more than 10 million tickets during their theatrical run, and that number is about half of all movies nominated for Best Picture since 1991. That seems like a pretty good balance of smaller and bigger fare, doesn’t it? Even if we limit ourselves to the last 10 years, 32 of the 60 movies to receive a Best Pic nod grossed over 75 million dollars domestically (22 of those were over 100 million). I don’t mean to be the devil’s advocate here, but I don’t think the perceived disconnect the Academy has with the public is as pronounced as some might claim.
Jesse, 2010 was a GREAT year for that kind of movie. I call them “mid-size” mainly cause they don’t have either major or micro budgets. While I don’t agree with the outcome of the Oscar season, I can’t deny that they got a lot right last year. 7 of the 10 Best Picture nominees were in my top 10 of the year, and they matched up 9 out of 10 with the Movie City News collection of critics’ top tens, AND 7 of the 10 movies hit (or were very close to hitting) 100 million at the box office. It makes it very confusing as to why they felt the need to abandon 10 nominees. If you ask me the experiment was working very well. There was room for both Winter’s Bone and Toy Story 3. Or District 9 and An Education. Sure we got The Blind Side, but it was so all inclusive that it didn’t really matter. Something for everyone!
This would be great information if everyone took time to “like” movies’ Facebook pages. All this really shows are the diehard fans for any film or performer.
It’s kind of fun to look on your own Facebook and compare how many likes some of your favorite movies have. GoodFellas has about 3 million and Thief has 4000, funny because I’m sure 95% of the people who enjoy one enjoy the other. Exposure, exposure, exposure.
SClub88Official
Can you stop? who did you quote this time? another high school “reporter”? SMH
“As Hollywood historian Neal Gabler notes, however, Academy voters don’t like the movies that bring in the bucks, an attitude that seems to have intensified in recent years. “They are using the Oscars,” he suggests, “to stage a small protest against the sorts of movies they feel we the audience sadistically forces them to make.”
Nonsense. There’s no intensified disliking going on, or protests against the masses, or sadistic pressure to make certain kinds of movies. And the phrase “Hollywood historian Neal Gabler” just made me pass a stone.
“Any other youngsters wish they were around in 1972-1973 when the Best Picture winners were massive hits popular with critics, audiences, and film lovers?”
@ Jesse – It was the same as today, except there were more “better” movies, most of which were unnoticed by the general crowd. 1973 oscars: The Sting (the nostalgic, gimmicy entry), The Way We Were (the pseudo-lefty heartstrings-puller) – unnominated Don’t Look Now, Badlands (Malick). Last Tango in Paris (The Shame of its time) was only recognized in one category. The Oscars DID reflect the box office, however, but I think that was because more people went to the movies then.
@Steve50: Aww, I love The Sting. To me it’s nostalgia at its best because it was intricate, brilliantly acted, and so much fun. But I know that Butch Cassidy has generated some criticism from esteemed sources like David Thomson, and since The Sting also involved Hill, Newman, and Redford, I’m not surprised that it’s looked on with some disfavor.
Mean Streets should have gotten a nod, and I really like Badlands, but Newman’s delivery of “Sorry I’m late, I was takin’ a CRAP!” brought The Sting halfway to the podium all by itself.
Exactly, Jesse. People are complaining about The Artist now, but in 40 years, it could be beloved. I really enjoyed The Sting at the time (ended up going thru a whole Scott Joplin thing), but it was a nostalgic gimmick, with similar anachronisms (ragtime music was from another period entirely), stealing from other artists (remember the diner shot from outside at night, where Redford meets the “waitress” – look at the Edward Hopper painting “Nighthawks” – talk about stealing music from Vertigo). Same criticisms that are being leveled at The Artist.
@steve50: But The Sting had a much better script and those great desaturated hues. My issue with The Artist (a film I still liked) was in its overly simplified narrative. And at least Joplin’s compositions were written before The Sting took place as opposed to Herrmann’s Vertigo score from 30 years after The Artist’s time frame. I hear you, though. The Sting isn’t groundbreaking, but I think it’s to con movies what The Great Escape was to war movies: Unoriginal but outstanding. The Artist could have been done much better while The Sting, I thought, represented the best in star-driven period filmmaking.
The Oscars will become interesting again when all the nearly-dead academy members kick the bucket …
Plus, it (The Sting) was HUGE at the BO, which you don’t/can’t get today. I think all 5 films were BO hits, that year.
LOL!!!
Avatar: 27,725,924 Facebook likes
THL: 593,691 Facebook likes
The Hurt Locker is still a better movie than Avatar. Academy mostly got that one right (still think Basterds is better than both).
This is the most pathetic argument against the Academy yet. I can’t believe that Ryan wants to continue highlighting the disconnect between the Academy and the general public as it it were a bad thing. For all its faults, the last thing the Academy needs to do is start thinking even more about the lowest common denominator. All these stats prove is how conservative and close-minded the wider movie-going public is. If you want to see the Oscars come more in line with their tastes, then prepare for Twilight dominance this time next year. Seriously, it’s time you either make peace with the devil you know before getting into bed with the devil you don’t.
Either that, or just skew the site’s coverage to the MTV awards rather than the Oscars.
And I still believe that maybe, just maybe, the public might watch the Oscars and instead of saying WTF?, might be prompted to go and seek out something of greater interest than the majority of what they’ve been watching the rest of the year. For all its noted omissions and disappointments among the nominations, the Academy is still evidently enhancing the prospects of worthier films and at least attempting to raise the bar rather than consolidating the low standards that are generally tolerated by ticket-buyers (who are currently handing over their hard-earned to watch a film they’ve already seen, know is bad but are going again anyway because of brand recognition – The Phantom Menace).
Oh lord, that best actress graphioc is hilarious!
I’m still laughing!
OMG!
Rooney Mara plays Glenn Close!
And she managed to be on two places at the Oscar lunch! Amazing! *lol*
Someone above asked why is EL&IC so popular.
Well, the trailer/tv spots was played a million times. The 9/11 topic. Thomas Horn. Sandra Bullock. Tom Hanks. I could go on.
But also, I spoke to 2 co-workers who saw and LOVED it. Like … LOVED. They are in their 70s. So I wonder if EL&IC got a lot of the older vote (roughly 250 of them, or more).
I have to say that when you look at this chart – and stop laughing – that any theories that the “next generation” will be better judges that the previous one go right out the window.
My generation was certain of the same thing, and it turned out not to be true. Ageism isn’t the issue here, it is the mindset of the establishment. For every 70 yr old AMPAS member who loved EL&IC, there were an equal number outside the circle who didn’t – look at the veteran critics from the same generation.
It’s an easy target for blame and I’m as guilty as the next person of taking shots at the old coots, but that isn’t the underlining problem. That lays with who gets “in”, who even wants “in”, and who doesn’t.
I’m sorry but even I have to agree that citing Facebook as some type of dipstick for measuring a dissconnection between filmgoers and AMPAS is really like scraping the bottom of an Iranian oil barrel. Facebook which now has teenage girls posting pictures of themselves asking the public to tell them “they’re pretty” and finding out that there are many people out there who will just for the joy of making someone feel like shit will tell them they’re ugly.
Also comparing 1972 to 2012 doesn’t really equate when you find that the number for films released was probably around 25 percent of what’s released today. The industry has grown in proportion to population growth and the insatiable need for the public to find mindless diversion.
I’m sorry but I have a facebook page and I really don’t bother with it much but it’s there. The most activity I see is people sending me game applications asking me to contribute a chicken to their stew or a sheep to some stupid farm. Yeah I want Facebook to be the basis for underscoring the public’s propensity for Transformers over Shame.
I can’t believe that Ryan wants to continue highlighting the disconnect between the Academy and the general public as it it were a bad thing.
yeah, Alec. Where did I say it’s a bad thing? Fact: the disconnect is worse this season than it’s been in all the years I’ve been paying attention to the Oscars. That’s my definition of “unprecedented disconnect.”
I thought these charts were a cute curiosity and funny, errors and all. Sorry, do I need to start putting idiot smiley faces and ‘hahaha!’ on everything I post for the fun of it?
Here’s the thing, folks. Sasha and I get unsolicited things like this sent to us 10 times a day with requests for us to post. You think this one is dubious, you should see the crap we pass up.
Sasha will fwd something to me, with a note: “what about this?” And I’ll write back: “eh, maybe pass” or “sure, why not.”
That’s all this is.
Here’s another thing. I’ve enjoyed the comments here immensely. Hardly anybody at all showed up to cry about Harry Potter or Meryl Streep. Most of you took this in the lighthearted spirit in which it was offered. Thank you. I’ve had a lot of fun reading the majority of your reactions here. Posts like this are not sacred gospel lessons — they’re just a springboard for friendly discussion, ok? (If only it could be friendlier).
Here’s the final fucking thing:
This Infographic got dozens of comments, thousands of page views. Traffic churned like crazy. As we knew it would.
How about everybody who’s come here to this page to sneer and carp — just leave this page, take your ultra-sophisticated self, and go contribute a brainy comment to the article about Best Foreign Language Films or go write something in appreciation of the great interview with the co-presidents of Film Independent.
Because those articles are getting a tiny fraction of the page views and hardly any comments at all. Those interviews and reviews involved a huge amount of thought and effort on the part of our guest contributors who spent hours writing them.
And yet, everybody is HERE looking at the pretty charts, writing your essays of disgust in the comments.
Why is everybody here, where it’s apparently beneath your dignity? Why not go read the other excellent articles on the main page and come up with a thoughtful essay to write in THOSE comment pages.
We all know why not. Because it’s easier to look at colorful charts and bitch about them than it is to sit and read smart articles for 10 minutes, concentrate on something serious, and come up with a meaningful comment to contribute.
Why do we post things like this? Because silly features like this are where thousands of readers come to gather.
Ryan, I don’t post here much, but that post was awesome. STFU, losers! You rock.
I can’t believe that Ryan wants to continue highlighting the disconnect between the Academy and the general public as it it were a bad thing.
yeah, Alec. Where did I say it’s a bad thing? Fact: the disconnect is worse this season than it’s been in all the years I’ve been paying attention to the Oscars. That’s my definition of “unprecedented disconnect.”
Come on Ryan – the tone of every post you’ve put out recently has been negative so I’m not exactly reaching when I draw the conclusion that you’re slanting it to read as “a bad thing”.
It’s very disappointing to find that in recent weeks both yourself and Sasha have taken to simply telling people who happen to disagree with you to go and find another page or another site. I’ve been reading this site since the days when it was Oscarwatch, and for 9-10 months of the year is as good a resource for current and upcoming movies as any – but unfortunately the last two months of the run-in now descends into a petulant toy-smashing exercise in which the Academy is pilloried for being responsible for every ill in the world.
I’m posting on this story because the stats are interesting – but not as a reflection of the Academy’s taste (or lack thereof), but the deficiencies and lack of awareness of audiences. But God forbid a chance is missed to go over old ground and piling on the Academy hate than take a look at what is, in my opinion, a much deeper problem for studios and filmmakers.
It’s very disappointing to find that in recent weeks both yourself and Sasha have taken to simply telling people who happen to disagree with you to go and find another page or another site.
Good grief, Alec.
I did not say in this post that I think Facebook has better taste than Academy. Do you think I’m insane? This is a casual infographic. It provides amusing factual information. It’s not an editorial. You inferred a bunch of negativity here that I’m not feeling.
I did not say in my comment “go find another site” — quite the opposite. I said if you don’t like this post, why are you wasting your time on it? I helpfully directed any disgruntled readers to please PLEASE go check out two or three other things I posted last night that are being neglected.
Our friends Brian Whisenant and Jackson Truax put hours and hours of thought and effort into assembling in-depth features — a lead-in to the Spirit Awards, interviewing the guys in charge of Film Independent; and a last-look survey at the foreign language film category. Those posts are barely getting any response at all.
So if you don’t like this infographic why are you wasting my time and yours by bickering about it? Go read those other other articles and share your wise reaction to those, why don’t you?
I’m asking you to please stop pestering us about everything you don’t like and try focusing on something you feel is worthy of your attention.
I did not “pile on the Academy” in this post. I noted that there’s a disconnect. Everything else that you’re reading into what I wrote today, I’m afraid you’re fabricating from your own frustration.
But you know what, Alec? If it aggravates you that I’m not head-over-heels to see The Artist on the verge of winning 6 or 7 Oscars, then you should ignore me and read what Sasha’s been saying for 9 months — because Sasha has prepared us for this inevitable outcome. For nearly a year almost everyone with significant influence has agreed that The Artist is a charming crowd-pleaser, that its charismatic stars are hard to resist, that it’s just what the doctor ordered for another lovely relaxing easy-to-swallow Oscar night.
Focus on THAT. And please get off my back for not worshiping every film the Academy anoints.
Does this sound like an extreme reaction? You asked for it, Alec. It’s a reply suitable for your own ridiculous hyperbole:
“the Academy is pilloried for being responsible for every ill in the world.”
Now that you’ve declared I’m a raving maniac who blames the Academy for the Holocaust, can we please move on?
With all due respect Ryan, you reap what you sow – go back and re-read every other article posted in the last few weeks. Obviously, my ‘every ill in the world’ comment is a tongue-in-cheek exaggeration – but the tidal wave of pessimism has been there for all to see. This article is there to be commented on – I’ve done just that. It’s hardly bickering. You’re trying to neutralize the tone of comments you’ve made and though they may seem fairly innocuous in case of this article or your comments below the line (visitors have on other occasions been advised to do more than find other articles to comment on even if that was not the case here), they don’t exist in a vacuum, coming as they do on the back of so much constant complaining (and certainly not a fabrication of my supposed frustration).
Look, I’m not head-over-heels about all of their choices, but I do happen to think there’s more right than wrong this year. The Artist isn’t my choice for the top prize but I like it a great deal so I’m cool with it winning. My choice rarely takes Best Picture so for me any year that I can still say that is a good one, especially when great solace can be taken in some of the nominated films that have been recognised. All I’m saying is restore some balance – because a year’s worth of excellent coverage has often descended into tantrum as the end of the season has approached. I really couldn’t care less whether or not you’re content with who wins or loses, but if you feel the situation really is as dire as the slant of your articles suggests that we’ll just have to respectfully disagree. But in an open forum, everyone is more than entitled to call you on it if they see fit.
In any event, I suggest we draw a line under this.
You’re trying to neutralize the tone of comments you’ve made
I stand by every comment I’ve ever made. I know what tone I project, and that tone is no accident. I’m proud of my tone. Why would I want to neutralize my feelings? You don’t know me very well, friendo.
I’m just telling you, Alec: I posted this infographic with no ill intent.
If you persist in calling me a liar, please go fuck yourself.
And we’ll be having this exact same discussion/argument next year at this time……
Unlike you Ryan, I have managed to refrain from addressing you in such a unpleasant manner though I may disagree with you.
Perhaps you should read your own comment policy before posting again.
Don’t tell me I’m trying to cover up, neutralize, disguise, or otherwise try to wiggle out of something you think you caught me trying to sneak around and do, Alec.
I’ve tried 3 times to patiently explain you’re mistaken if you think I posted this thing to prove Twitter is a smarter authority on the year’s best movies. That’s a stupid and insulting accusation, and I’m not having it, ok?
You’re disagreeing with me? No, you’re telling me you know what I intended. I’m telling you’re wrong.
I’m the best authority on my own intentions, and you’re being a pest if you keep telling me I’m lying.
See how this works? This is me not being afraid to say what I think, with no need to waffle around and neutralize my tone.
Ryan, you kind of remind me of Juror 11 in ’12 Angry Men’ during the scene toward the end when he just can’t stop himself from ranting, revealing just how abusive and belligerent he is.
You haven’t even read my posts accurately because at no point do I suggest that the article posits that Twitter, Facebook or any other social media is any kind of authority on anything, so the “stupid and insulting accusation” you attribute to me is completely specious. My point was the general issue of the disconnect between the public and the Academy, an issue that has been raised on more than one occasion in more than one article and the overriding tone across these pieces has been seemingly to side more with the former. I disagree with this and if that wasn’t the intent of this particular piece then, as I said earlier, it is hardly much of a stretch to assume that it was given your recent postings. And clearly judging by your subsequent responses, you haven’t changed your largely negative view of the matter at large but if you’re adamant that your intent was benign then I’ll accept that – even if it does appear to contradict recent history. But not once have I called you a liar or resorted to swearing or your name-calling tactics, and the fact that you keep repeating yourself suggests that you’re just spoiling for a argument and I’m not sinking to your level. Consider me done.
I know you’d like to be done, Alec, and holy hell, I want to be done with you too.
But I think you’ll have trouble finding any isolated quotes — much less “an overriding tone in more than one article” where I ever side with the general public.
As I say, you don’t know me very well if you’ve never noticed my eye-rolling disdain for the multiplex tastes of “the public.”
So, please, if you can dig up 3 or 4 quotes where I’ve lauded the public for their coolness and sophistication, go find examples from among the dozens of occasions when you seem to think I’ve said that.
Otherwise, what I see here handy on this page is your very clear opinion that I lean toward “skewing the site’s coverage to the MTV awards” — on the basis of posting this single playful infographic and… and what else?
What else have I done to make you think I want the “Oscars to come more in line with the public tastes”?
yes, I’m disappointed that Michael Fassbender was overlooked. Is that all it takes to make you think I’m ready to “prepare us for Twilight dominance”?
ah, Shame, right? such a huge hit with the general public. The public sure flocked to see all my favorite films of the year, didn’t they? Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, We Need to Talk About Kevin, Take Shelter, Drive, The Tree of Life, Margin Call… even Hugo.
Yes, me and the general public are always on the same wavelength alright. That’s why half my Top 10 of 2011 are movies in other languages, because the general public fawn over foreign films.
That’s why I’m always saying Joe Popcorn has better taste than the Academy, right? — that’s why I’m sure you won’t have any trouble at all finding 3 or 4 times I’ve ever said such a thing on the main page — or anywhere in the comments.
So can I respectfully ask that you please take a second to go do that, Alec? Instead of just fabricating this shit out of thin air and then claiming you see me writing it all the damn time?
…so you say — great! that’ll be convenient for you, Alec. You won’t even have to go back very many days to find me praising the taste of the general public in all “these pieces” — Shouldn’t take you 5 minutes. We’ll wait here while you go find a shred of evidence, ok?
Yeah, look out, Ryan’s vexed again. You’re great at calmly taking jabs at my integrity and taste, Alec — and then gasping with your hand over your mouth like one of the three little maids in The Mikado when you succeed in pissing me off.
Why are all the Facebook hands white? Aren’t there black folks voting on FB as well? I mean, come on, really?
;^p