A couple of people have been leaving comments in various “award” posts asking why a movie that isn’t even released in theaters can get award nominations. Good question… the answer is actually pretty simple.
Awards like the Oscars and the Golden Globes aren’t voted on by the general public… so it becomes irrelevant if we’ve seen it yet or not. Those who DO vote have seen the films because they are given copies of them by the studios.
Often, when a studio feels their movie has a real shot at one of the major awards, they will schedule the release date to coincide with Award season time. What that means for them is huge free positive publicity for their movies (getting nominated by the various academies) before they’re even released for the general public to see.
It’s a smart move. The Aviator for instance is going to get a lot more people out to it opening weekend than it otherwise would have because of these nominations it’s racking up.
The only risk the studio takes is that other studios do the same thing, so they’re putting their best films up against other studio’s best films. However, it’s a gamble that usually pays off.
Personally, I have no problem with this little system… because it just seems to make good sense. And good sense is often hard to come by in this industry.
I’d like to debate you, John, but I’d rather here everyone else’s opinions on this. For example, Forrest Gump was a huge movie before it was even nominated, and it was a good movie, but ask anyone who’s read the book and they’ll tell you it didn’t deserve the award.
I urge anyone who reads this to take a look at the Legacy section of OSCAR.com and let us know how many of those awards you think were a little suspicious or downright wrong and post your opinions, or you can email me and let me know what you think. Perhaps we can inspire an entire post devoted to *RESPECTABLY* debating the Oscars. :-) I love debates!
Actually Justin… the very fact that the Oscar DON’T usually go to the popular nominees is what gives it more credability in my eyes.
Except for Titanic, and Return of the King (which by far was indeed the best film of the year), it’s never a big blockbuster film or huge money making movie that wins. Just look at Adrian Brody winning best actor agaisnt some much more popular guys. Remember The English Patient?
So no… I don’t think they’re rigged. I don’t always agree… and often there are stupid choices made… but by far the Oscars are the most credible of all the Awards shown in any entertainment industry.
I hate the Academy Awards. I believe they’re fixed, and for just this reason. Studio execs like to butter up the judges. Send them copies, take them out to dinner, free screenings, etc. I think the Academy Awards need to be led by people who care more about the film.
Also, the Oscars are very much popularity contests. I’m not Denying Halle Berry is a great actress, but don’t you think at least half of the reason she wona few years ago was the pressure on the Academy about her being the first Black woman to be nominated? What about Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes? I admit it wasn’t that great of a film, but everyone who saw it, whether they liked it or not, said the make-up effects were fantastic. So where was the nomination for best make-up? The movie wasn’t popular or successful enough for the Academy to bother acknowledging it.
I am a huge fan of The Haunted Mansion attraction at Walt Disney World/Disneyland. I really liked the movie, and I loved the score. But Disney never released a score album, despite public and fan demand for it. They did however make a promo CD of the score in the hopes that it would be nominated for an award. So what they’re telling us is that winning an award is more important that pleasing the fans.
I prefer the Golden Globes. Besides, they actually give awards to comedies and comedy actors.