What's Constitute As An Award-Worthy Movie?

[Bartmanhomer]

I've been watching the Oscars for a few years and many movies that get nominated and win the award by their own merits. At the same time, I watch so many movies and I feel that some movies are award-worthy even though they don't get nominated for an award. So my question is what constitutes as an award-worthy movie? :confused:

[khadgar567]

one thing would be not trying to reinvent the damn wheel like try to tell story in different medium when your tried and true method works. like reason birds of prey kinda crashed is people like mature total crazy harley right know not the joker obsessed one. and one important thing do not retell same story second time just to grab more cash. and the PG18 you are thinking is actually PG 13 right now. another good way to grab oscars would be re embrace the damn cartoon animation style.

[Willie the Duck]

I've been watching the Oscars for a few years and many movies that get nominated and win the award by their own merits.

Okay, this sentence doesn't grammatically make sense, but I think your point is that we are discussing movies that win on their own merits. Okay good, that means we can recognize that occasionally a movie wins simply because the actor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Leonard o_DiCaprio)or director (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000217/awards)didn't win for a previous movie that was award-worthy, and ignore those.


At the same time, I watch so many movies and I feel that some movies are award-worthy even though they don't get nominated for an award. So my question is what constitutes as an award-worthy movie? :confused:

I don't want to pretend that I know you very well, but simply from the posts here, it seems that your viewing habits tend to trend towards super-heroic action movies and (lower case) blockbuster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(entertainment)) fare. I think we've already gone over this, so I don't want to belabor the point. However, as the film industry has developed, these films don't tend to fit the mold of films that get awards consideration. I don't really want to frame that as being 'worthy,' so much as not being of the style in which the awards are interested.

As to what that style is, I'd say it (usually) includes these rules:
1) Is a drama (as opposed to comedy, horror, action*, etc.)
*yes, the distinction between action movies and dramatic movies is rather nebulous, but bear with me
2) Touches on a 'big, important subject' -- race, religion, mental health, war (particularly WWII), fame, or growing up/what it means to be an adult.
3) Is often visually stylized, but very rarely an absolute visual spectacle (Titanic and The Lord of the Rings movies that won would be the only ones I can think of that look as amazing as something like an Avengers movie).

Probably more.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

Not an action movie(especially a superhero movie), not a horror movie, not an animated movie, not a foreign film. There are exceptions, especially for the technical Oscars(soundtrack, special effects, costuming, etc), but for Acting, Directing, Picture? You're looking for a drama or similar.
Appeal to the actual voters. The Academy voters are mostly old white men who have Hollywood careers. Stuff set in the time of their childhoods, stuff set in California/about movies, hits those primal notes in the back of their brain to get votes.
(see also the obsession with WWII) (and how movies that basically just played at Cannes and a handful of theaters around LA can win)
This is harder to put into words, but they're looking for quality more than being good. Here's a dance metaphor: If a normal director is filming a dance, you get a lot of shots of the face and the interaction between the dancers. If a dancer is filming it, you're going to get wide shots that show their whole bodies, with very few cuts. These are dancers judging it, so even if the first one is more appealing and tells a better story, the second is what they're going to consider better, since it displays more skill. You are not a expert in the field, so what appeals to you won't necessarily be what appeals to them.*

Release date and other people the academy loves being involved are traditional things people look at, but I doubt they're actually that relevant. If the academy voters love a specific director, then that director is likely to win, but I don't think that really helps the Supporting Actress all that much, beyond more of the voters actually seeing the movie. Same with release date, yes they'll absolutely remember the film if it came out in December, but I don't think they'll completely ignore one from August if it's nominated.

*The most incomprehensible Academy decisions are always ones where the voters AREN'T experts. Foreign Film, Animated Feature, even Makeup or Special Effects are all ones where the Academy might be predictable, but it's severely wrong about half the time.

[Olinser]

Obviously different people will consider different things award-worthy, but for the Oscars, winners tend to fall into major categories that can pretty reliably predict winners (for major categories, not getting into minutiae categories like costume design)

For Best Picture/Director there tend to be 5 major categories and they tend to generally follow the same themes:

1) The movie is around a familiar topic that is suitably EPIC - these tend to be the least controversial, and are generally on a handful of subjects that are 'award-worthy' like World War 2, Dunkirk, Civil War, etc. Movies like Dunkirk, Saving Private Ryan, The King's Speech, etc.

2) Drama movies that tell important historical events very well. These are very high production value movies that tell aspects of well-known stories/subjects. Things like Schindler's List, Green Book, 12 Years A Slave,

3) The movie/actor did something NEW that was considered impressive - things like Shape of Water or The Godfather.

4) High production value movies that tell stories of the right political message. Not to get too deep into the weeds here, but these are easily the most controversial because its politics that Hollywood agrees with.

And of course:

5) Consolation prizes for previous movies that didn't win previous years. Also really obvious when they give other categories to losers of best director/picture - Best Original/Adapted Screenplay is the favored consolation prize for directors that lose. (like Jordan Peele losing both Best Picture and Director for Get Out, but winning Best Original Screenplay, Quentin Tarantino for Pulp Fiction, Spike Lee for BlacKkKlansman). George Clooney accepted his Best Supporting Actor Oscar by starting out joking, "Well I guess I'm not winning Best Director." (Both for Syriana, and he was correct)


For actors/actresses (both supporting and leading) you tend to see 4 major categories:

1) Portrayal of important/popular historical figures done very well. Things like Eddie Redmayne playing Stephen Hawking, Meryl Streep playing Margaret Thatcher, Gary Oldman playing Winston Churchill, Colin Firth playing King George VI, Remi Malek playing Freddie Mercury, etc. Essentially they're getting the award for bringing the legend to life.

2) Exception job bringing bringing a previously known character to life, usually when adapting a very popular character. Joaquin Phoenix and Heath Ledger for Joker, Natalie Portman in Black Swan, etc

3) Extraordinary performances that make you forget you're watching an actor/actress and just watch the character

4) Consolation prize again, either for missed nominations or previous losses. Here's where you see crap like Ingrid Bergman winning Best Supporting Actress for Murder on the Orient Express 1974 when she had something like 14 total minutes of screen time, had an atrocious fake accent, and delivered a competent but not particularly extraordinary performance.

[Beleriphon]

The other thing to keep in mind with the Academy Awards is that films are nominated by the studios that distribute them. They are promoted by the studios as well. They send free copies to the people that vote for them, especially films that didn't get a wide release. There is a whole lot of wrangling going on beyond just voting.

[Dienekes]

The only thing that constitutes award worthy if it is arguably best for the criteria the award is looking for.

If there was an award for best explosions perhaps a Michael Bay film might win.

But there is no award for best explosions so we instead look to what awards there are. For the Oscars, the claim is that they try to find the best movie of the year. The problem is best is inherently pretty meaningless. And probably can’t be recognized until years later when the full quality and influence of the movie can be best contextualized.

But the main paramount goal is to make the awards appear important. So they will usually cater to movies about things usually deemed more important than the usual fair for the masses. Olinser has a pretty decent list as to what topics the award choosers might pick.

It’s also important to note that the people picking are mostly actors with I think 30% of the remaining voting body being directors and script writers and designers and whatnot. And well I‘ve always found their voting habits to have the veneer of trying to impress people and recognizing there are themes that should. Without really having a full grasp on how to go about it.

For example women’s rights. That’s important. That’s relevant. That’s a topic that should be important. So they vote for Shakespeare in Love because that’s what the movie is not so subtly about. Ignore the fact that it’s a boring drag of a movie that has no idea what it’s talking about. But it’s saying something.

Compare and contrast with a blockbuster. Now you can totally have a movie that also addresses women’s rights in a blockbuster film. And does it more visually, interestingly, and in depth. But it doesn’t have that veneer of importance. So it probably won’t win. But at least these type of movies are getting nominated these days.

[Caledonian]

I would suggest you find critics or reviewers that have a "Best Films of [whatever year]" list each year that you find interesting and useful, and go with them.

I regularly listen to "Ken and Robin Talk About Stuff", in which famous game designers Ken Hite and Robin D. Laws... talk about all kinds of things, just like on the label. They're big movie buffs, and each year they have an episode in which each talks about their top movies for the year, including a lot of arthouse and film festival fare that often doesn't appear across the country.

Anyway, *this* year their episode dwelt quite a bit on movies which were excellent but weren't going to receive the traditional awards, and they spent some time talking about why that sort of thing happens.

[Aedilred]

For actors/actresses (both supporting and leading) you tend to see 4 major categories:

1) Portrayal of important/popular historical figures done very well. Things like Eddie Redmayne playing Stephen Hawking, Meryl Streep playing Margaret Thatcher, Gary Oldman playing Winston Churchill, Colin Firth playing King George VI, Remi Malek playing Freddie Mercury, etc. Essentially they're getting the award for bringing the legend to life.

2) Exception job bringing bringing a previously known character to life, usually when adapting a very popular character. Joaquin Phoenix and Heath Ledger for Joker, Natalie Portman in Black Swan, etc

3) Extraordinary performances that make you forget you're watching an actor/actress and just watch the character

4) Consolation prize again, either for missed nominations or previous losses. Here's where you see crap like Ingrid Bergman winning Best Supporting Actress for Murder on the Orient Express 1974 when she had something like 14 total minutes of screen time, had an atrocious fake accent, and delivered a competent but not particularly extraordinary performance.

A fifth element - related to the above but which which has sometimes been noted in its own right - is dramatic physical transformation on the part of the actor. For male actors, this often means putting on or losing a lot of weight for a role. (McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club, De Niro in Raging Bull, etc.) For actresses, it can mean an otherwise attractive woman "playing ugly" (see Halle Berry in Monsters Ball, etc.) But it can be more subtle (see for instance Redmayne, or Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot).

[Xyril]

The only thing that constitutes award worthy if it is arguably best for the criteria the award is looking for.

If there was an award for best explosions perhaps a Michael Bay film might win.

But there is no award for best explosions so we instead look to what awards there are.


It wouldn't surprise me if this actually fit under the umbrella of one of the Scientific and Technical Awards, which aren't broadcast.

[SaintRidley]

A fifth element - related to the above but which which has sometimes been noted in its own right - is dramatic physical transformation on the part of the actor. For male actors, this often means putting on or losing a lot of weight for a role. (McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club, De Niro in Raging Bull, etc.) For actresses, it can mean an otherwise attractive woman "playing ugly" (see Halle Berry in Monsters Ball, etc.) But it can be more subtle (see for instance Redmayne, or Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot).


Notable nod for an actress undergoing dramatic physical transformation in terms of putting on a lot of weight for a role and getting Best Actress for it (and the fact that her performance was absolutely fantastic): Charlize Theron in Monster.