Academy Awards adding a "Best Popular Film" category. Good or bad idea? Academy walks it back, won't be presented this year

[CoolioD1]

1 minute ago, filmlover said:

It sucks that they're still going forward with the "categories won by not famous people will take place off air" plan though (and are gonna be "rotating" them lol just for that rare occasion when somebody famous does win ala Kobe Bryant). And with 6-8 categories too. We all know they're just gonna fill up that time with more unfunny host antics and unnecessary montages and tributes no one cares about.

you mean you're not excited for the 10 minute dead air section where jimmy kimmel gives everyone in the audience hot dogs.

[filmlover]

4 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

you mean you're not excited for the 10 minute dead air section where jimmy kimmel gives everyone in the audience hot dogs.

I wonder what their plan is this year since they already did the "tour bus stop at the Dolby" and "movie theater crash" angles. A surprise appearance at the nearest 7-Eleven?

Edited September 6, 2018 by filmlover

[The Futurist]

Good, masterpieces like Roma seen by 500K people in theaters will win all the awards.

All is right and jolly in the world after all.

[Barnack]

5 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Good, masterpieces like Roma seen by 500K people in theaters will win all the awards.

All is right and jolly in the world after all.

Will be on the suggested list off over 100m screens too seen by over 230m people, could be one the most watched fall release Oscar nominated movie at the time of the ceremony ever.

[TalismanRing]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

Will be on the suggested list off over 100m screens too seen by over 230m people, could be one the most watched fall release Oscar nominated movie at the time of the ceremony ever.

It will be available to that many people, not necessarily watched.  Those Adam Sandler abominations probably will get 50x the viewing number.

[filmlover]

Yeah, a foreign language black and white film is gonna remain limited in appeal even within the confines of being available on Netflix.

[Barnack]

9 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

It will be available to that many people, not necessarily watched.  Those Adam Sandler abominations probably will get 50x the viewing number.

Obviously otherwise I would have said the most watched ever.

 

But if it score a 35% of the market share, could be an about 100+m movie equivalent. With Netflix getting 130m users, with 2.5 viewer by account each 1% of the market share is around 30m in box office.

 

Having the Oscar winner available to watch right away to watch at home "for free" will be an novelty, at least for the first 5minutes could have a good traffic. There is 13m latin america Netflix user.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Barnack

[Jake Gittes]

 

[CoolioD1]

1 minute ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

also using hours instead of viewers (like with bright when they said 11 million people in the US watched it in the first three days or something like that) means that they're probably also accounting for people who switched it off after 30 minutes to watch Fuller House instead.

[The Futurist]

Yeah, that s what the world needs, streaming masterpieces up our arses 24/7.

Yay !

[The Futurist]

Also, comparing movie goers with movie streaming make it sound you think seeing such a beautiful film like Roma on a fucking I-Phone is a progress for the Art-form.

Please Excuse me while I go puking about that thought.

Edited September 6, 2018 by The Futurist

[Warmaster506]

Disney backed out because they competition is starting to get fierce. 

[dudalb]

3 hours ago, filmlover said:

I feel like we're never going to hear about this "new category" ever again. Not that it wasn't a dumb idea in the first place.

Yeah, the term "it is going to studied" is usually a eumpheism for  'killing it off but never actually admitting it's being killed off".

[Barnack]

23 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

How is it generous to count only one person was watching the stream, that is an harsh worst case scenario.

 

$5 average ticket price for the movie when making the comparison is an extremely low theater average cost also, probably overestimating the ticket buyer quite a bit.

 

Strange premise use for the math there.

 

If we count $8.50 by ticket and 1.5 viewer for Mudbound we have around 12 million viewer of the movie on Netflix, or 102m at the BO viewer type of run.

 

20 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

also using hours instead of viewers (like with bright when they said 11 million people in the US watched it in the first three days or something like that) means that they're probably also accounting for people who switched it off after 30 minutes to watch Fuller House instead.

Yes but at least if someone watch only 50% of it, it count for only that time and do not count someone that watch only 45 minute has a watcher, but only has 40% of a watched and so on.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Barnack

[Barnack]

10 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Also, comparing movie goers with movie streaming make it sound you think seeing such a beautiful film like Roma on a fucking I-Phone is a progress for the Art-form.

Please Excuse me while I go puking about that thought.

Almost no one watch netflix on a phone after the first month (were they test it just to see if it works / time to set up a tv)

 

It is a giant majority of the viewing that is made on large HD TV on Netflix:

 

https://www.recode.net/2018/3/7/17094610/netflix-70-percent-tv-viewing-statistics

 

That netflix == phone and not an 50+ inch TV does not match the reality of anyone a know, in north america at least household without TVs are extremely rare.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Barnack

[filmlover]

7 minutes ago, Barnack said:

How is it generous to count only one person was watching the stream, that is an harsh worst case scenario.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that most people who have Netflix watch alone, even those who share an account (like me).

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that most people who have Netflix watch alone, even those who share an account (like me).

Most I am not sure (for the long movie type of watch), but using 1.0 is still the absolute worst case scenario and is presented by the author as being generous. A movie like that was not watched by a lot of family of 4 type of audience, so using a low average make sense, but 1.0 is low.

[MrPink]

Lol I watched Mudbound with 6 other people.

 

What a riot that experience was.

[aabattery]

2 minutes ago, MrPink said:

Lol I watched Mudbound with 6 other people.

 

What a riot that experience was.

 

Ain't no party like a MUDBOUND party.

[4815162342]

3 hours ago, Barnack said:

At this point they must have a reason why they do not have the category, too small industry was a supposition in the past (some year SAG didn't go to 5 nominee).

 

1) Who get the price ? SAG simply declare a winning movie:

 

 

The stunt coordinator for the film obviously