Hot Steaming Fresh Oscar Response

Can you believe it?  The Oscar nominations just came out and I am already here to discuss them.  You have to really be impressed with my commitment to this site.  (Oh, by the way, you like how I managed to fail to put up the Weekend List in just my SECOND weekend of doing it?  That is dedication.)  Where was I?  Oh yeah, commitment.  I just happened to time it right, and catch the nominations right after they were read.  So, here are my thoughts. 

PPPPBBBBLLLLBBBLLLLLTHHHPPPPP!

Yes, that is a word.  Go look it up.  Seriously, though, this is RIDICULOUS!  Last year, I wrote an amazing post about my feelings on the lame Oscar nominations.  I read it again this morning - you should too.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.

You done?  That was fast.  Did you catch the whole thing?  Hmmm?  Even the Pirates joke?  That was funny, wasn't it?  Yup.  Oh, yeah, back to THIS YEAR.  So, I pointed out last year about how the ratings have been horrible for the ceremony because the nominees are stuff no one cares about.  Well, if you liked last year's post, here comes the lame sequel.

I once again did my number crunching on the nominees.  And this is how it looks:

Best Picture - $43.32 mil (avg.)

Director - $37.28 mil (avg)

Best Actor - $24.12 mil (avg)

Best Actress - $24.38 mil (avg)

Supporting Actor - $34.50 mil (avg)

Supporting Actress - $45.20 mil (avg)

Overall - $29.7 mil for the 19 nominated films

Like those numbers?  And the sad things is that they are skewed by American Gangster ($130 mil and 1 nomination) and Juno ($90 mil and 3 noms).  Last year I pointed out how seven times recently a category was below $40 million.  This year FOUR categories are - and the entire average is UNDER $30 million.

Again, these are totals at the time of the nominations - and these will go up some.  For examples, Juno will probably go over $100 million soon.  And a few others will get some more money (There Will Be Blood).  But again, I ask the question, "Who is watching these films?"  How can you tell me that the movies nominated in the big six awards COMBINED should be out-earned by the two highest grossing movies of the year?  Again, I am not saying that Spiderman 3 should have been up for Best Picture.  But, what about Amy Adams in Enchanted?  Or what about The Bourne Ultimatum?  That movie was the THIRD HIGHEST REVIEWED movie of the year, when critics and moviegoers were combined.  Where is it today?  What about the highest reviewed movie of the year on rottentomatoes.com?  That would be Ratatouille.  It, of course, is up for best animated film - and it did scored a Best Screenplay nom.  But, shouldn't a movie that is that well received have a shot a Best Picture?

This was the lowest grossing year from the last ten years for nominations - while being the biggest box office year ever.  I am so confused as to how there is such a wide gulf between movies now.  Critics and voters love movies that people don't want to see.  And they deride the "mass-marketed summer atrocities" - which make hundreds of millions of dollars.  Honestly, I hope the writer's strike is still going so they cancel the Oscar telecast.  Otherwise, it will probably pull in its lowest audience ever, and will just be a boring testament to the complete lack of consensus between the people who think they matter (critics and voters) and the people who should matter (ticket buyers).