Academy Award talk

[JasonEvans]

The nominations are not out yet, but the Producer's Guild announced its nominees this morning. The PGA tends to be a pretty good indicator of Best Pic nominees... better than the silly Golden Globes.

The ten films nominated for the PGA's award are--



127 Hours
Black Swan
Inception
The Fighter
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
The Social Network
The Town
Toy Story 3
True Grit


This is a tough race. I think Social Network, Kids Are Alright, Inception, and Toy Story 3 get overlooked a bit because they came early in the year, but they are some of the strongest nominees this year in my mind.

-Jason "glad some boxoffice successes are here and not just 'artsy' films" Evans

[JasonEvans]

The Writer's Guild has announced the screenplay nominees.

Original Screenplay--

"Black Swan," "The Fighter," "Inception," "The Kids Are All Right" and "Please Give"

Adapted Screenplay--

"127 Hours," "I Love You Phillip Morris," "The Social Network," "The Town" and "True Grit"

I think Inception and Kids Alright are the two strongest contenders in Original. All 5 of the Adapted nominees are very strong and I am not sure I could pick among them.

-Jason "I expect most of these to be the Oscar nominees too" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Director's Guild nominees are out--


Darren Aronofsky for "Black Swan," David Fincher for "The Social Network," Tom Hooper for "The King's Speech," Christopher Nolan for "Inception" and David O. Russell for "The Fighter."

No big surprises there. I don't think many folks expected the Coen Bros to get a Directing nod for True Grit.

--Jason "I am starting to think that Inception and Social Net could be major players come Oscar night, somewhat unusual for summer and fall flicks" Evans

[throatybeard]

-Jason "glad some boxoffice successes are here and not just 'artsy' films" Evans

This is pretty much the opposite of what's wrong with the Oscars. Do the Oscars always name best picture to the most mondo box-office hit? No, but what they do name has usually had a very wide release, and often is far less artsy than the films it beats. The Academy is relentlessly middle-brow.

Box office take is an awful metric for assessing quality. There is money-making junk, money-making art (True Grit qualifies this year), low-box office art, and low-box office junk. All throughout the spectrum.

[Vincetaylor]

Toy Story 3 gets my vote. Definitely best movie I've seen this year. It won't win, but the Academy Awards have become a joke anyway.

[JasonEvans]

This is pretty much the opposite of what's wrong with the Oscars. Do the Oscars always name best picture to the most mondo box-office hit? No, but what they do name has usually had a very wide release, and often is far less artsy than the films it beats. The Academy is relentlessly middle-brow.

Box office take is an awful metric for assessing quality. There is money-making junk, money-making art (True Grit qualifies this year), low-box office art, and low-box office junk. All throughout the spectrum.

I do not disagree. I don't think that boxoffice success automatically means a film is well made and deserving of award-level praise. Good god, just look at that monstrosity Transformers II if you want proof that incoherent junk can make a boat load of money.

My point is that it sometimes feels like the major Hollywood awards take boxoffice success as a sign that a film is "made for the masses" and not a piece of art worth award consideration. I was pleased that a few films that were very high quality and yet made a lot of money were in the running for these awards (and also appear to be in the running for some Oscar awards).

I will admit that this not as much of a problem as it was a few years ago. In 2006, when the nominations for Best Picture were announced, the most successful of the 5 nominated films was Crash, which has been released in the summer and had concluded its run making $53 million at the boxoffice. None of the major category nominees that year were films that had much boxoffice success with the sole exception of Walk The Line, which only got nominations in the lead acting categories.

Of course, much of the problem that year was a lack of quality films at the top of the boxoffice. I mean, were they supposed to nominate George Lucas for Revenge of the Sith? I think that when Spielberg (War of the Worlds) and Peter Jackson (King Kong) laid eggs with their big-budget releases, it opened a void allowing Capote, Munich, Good Night and Good Luck, Syriana, Crash, and Brokeback to dominate. Those are all excellent films, but I like there to be a sprinkling of mainstream "make some money" films too.

--Jason "I suppose the academy could have nominated Wedding Crashers for something ;) " Evans

[darthur]

Of course, much of the problem that year was a lack of quality films at the top of the boxoffice. I mean, were they supposed to nominate George Lucas for Revenge of the Sith? I think that when Spielberg (War of the Worlds) and Peter Jackson (King Kong) laid eggs with their big-budget releases, it opened a void allowing Capote, Munich, Good Night and Good Luck, Syriana, Crash, and Brokeback to dominate. Those are all excellent films, but I like there to be a sprinkling of mainstream "make some money" films too.

There weren't many good box office hits in 2005, but there was at least one: Batman Begins. And since Munich was downright terrible, I'd argue Batman should have gotten a nomination over that.

[darthur]

Toy Story 3 gets my vote. Definitely best movie I've seen this year. It won't win, but the Academy Awards have become a joke anyway.

I have seen four movies from the list: Toy Story, Inception, True Grit, and Social Network. I thought all four were really good and would be happy with any of them winning best picture.

It has been a terrific year for high-quality blockbusters.

[Mal]

There weren't many good box office hits in 2005, but there was at least one: Batman Begins. And since Munich was downright terrible, I'd argue Batman should have gotten a nomination over that.

Munich as "downright terrible" seems a bit of a stretch for a film some serious critics thought was the best of the year. There were just as many detractors for Batman Begins. Myself among them - I liked it, but Munich to me was a more important, much more ambitious, film. Not enjoyable every second of the way, obviously, and not perfect. Anyway, personal tastes vary and all, but if you needed to nominate Batman, then for me, Crash was the easy drop. That movie was a derivative fraud, in my humble opinion. That it actually won the Oscar was really perplexing - I couldn't understand why the powers that be in Hollywood couldn't recognize what a pretentious, awkwardly shrill piece of watered down Altman it was.

[darthur]

Munich as "downright terrible" seems a bit of a stretch for a film some serious critics thought was the best of the year. There were just as many detractors for Batman Begins. Myself among them - I liked it, but Munich to me was a more important, much more ambitious, film. Not enjoyable every second of the way, obviously, and not perfect. Anyway, personal tastes vary and all, but if you needed to nominate Batman, then for me, Crash was the easy drop. That movie was a derivative fraud, in my humble opinion. That it actually won the Oscar was really perplexing - I couldn't understand why the powers that be in Hollywood couldn't recognize what a pretentious, awkwardly shrill piece of watered down Altman it was.

Well it's strictly personal preference of course, but Munich is one of very few movies I have seen that I found actively unpleasant to watch.

As for Crash, I didn't see it but I thought the whole year was very weak. I really hated Munich. I liked Goodnight and Good Luck but didn't find it nearly memorable enough for Best Picture. Capote was powerful, but I didn't find the watching particularly enjoyable, and it wasn't quite powerful enough for me to completely forgive that. Didn't see the last three that Jason mentioned. Of the top box office hits, only Batman stood out to me as a particularly worthy film.

[JasonEvans]

So, Social Network and Kids Are Alright won Best Pics last night at the Globes. Two deserving winners and two excellent films.

I think Social Network may now be the front-runner for Best Picture a the Oscars. It won Director, Screenplay, and Picture at the Globes. It has taken several other critic awards as well. While none of these wins make an Oscar a sure-thing, as the voting pool for the Oscars is very different from the critic awards, it tends to be difficult to win an Oscar if you get shut out at all of the earlier critic awards.

Colin Firth has now clearly established himself as the Best Actor front-runner after winning the Globe and the Critic's Choice award over the weekend. Natalie Portman did the same thing and I think she is the most likely pick to win Best Actress at the Academy Awards.

-Jason "Aaron Sorkin's work on Social Net is a shoe-in to win Best Adapted Screenplay too" Evans

[A-Tex Devil]

Ricky Gervais for next year's Oscar host!!!

That is if he doesn't vanish for cracking wise about scientologists last night.

[mph]

Ricky Gervais for next year's Oscar host!!!

That is if he doesn't vanish for cracking wise about scientologists last night.

Agreed. The harshest criticism of Gervais' performance seems to be coming from media outlets rather than from the celebrities themselves. I'm sure many in attendance felt he crossed a line or two, but Hollywood can't expect millions of people to tune in to watch celebrities congratulate themselves on their mutual greatness without providing someone to do a little mocking.

[rthomas]

Winter's Bone was by far and away the best movie I watched in 2010. Where's the love?

[weezie]

Geoffrey Rush for "King's Speech" supporting actor. Wonderful.

[Duvall]

Winter's Bone was by far and away the best movie I watched in 2010. Where's the love?

AMPAS has the love (http://oscar.go.com/nominations), with nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress (Jennifer Lawrence), Best Supporting Actor (John Hawkes) and Best Adapted Screenplay.

[rthomas]

AMPAS has the love (http://oscar.go.com/nominations), with nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress (Jennifer Lawrence), Best Supporting Actor (John Hawkes) and Best Adapted Screenplay.

yes, I withdraw my original complaint!

[weezie]

Best Supporting Actor (John Hawkes)

Oh yeah, forgot about Hawkes. He was superb, too. OK, changing my vote to Hawkes in the dark horse spot.

[brevity]

I'm semi-retired from Oscar talk (former enthusiast, now may catch up on nominees via DVD/cable if time permits), but I wanted to point out three things:

1. Impressive discovery here (http://thefilmexperience.net/blog/2011/1/25/oscar-decree-thou-shalt-not-perform-cunnilingus.html) (NSFW in terms of subject matter, but nothing visual). Best Actress nominees Annette Bening, Natalie Portman, and Michelle Williams can now attest: 'tis better to receive than give.

2. A fun pastime for me -- sad, I know -- is to scan the nominee list, particularly in obscure categories, and look for recognizable names. Past years included Fisher Stevens (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001770/) (who produced the documentary The Cove, and won!) and William "Sweep the leg" Zabka (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0951420/) (who directed a live action short, and lost).

This year only has a few: musicians Trent Reznor (score) and Dido (song), and author Sebastian Junger (documentary). Sadly, the Thomas Lennon nominated for documentary short is not the guy who plays Lt. Dangle on Reno 911!

3. Everyone complains about who got left out, but this year it looks like any person who got shafted in one category got included in another. As it turned out, the 5 directors of the Best Picture nominees who didn't get nominated for Best Director still got a mention:

Danny Boyle, 127 Hours: producing, writing
Christopher Nolan, Inception: producing, writing
Lisa Cholodenko, The Kids Are All Right: writing
Lee Unkrich, Toy Story 3: animated film, writing
Debra Granik, Winter's Bone: writing

Also, Mark Wahlberg did not make the Best Actor cut, but is nominated for producing The Fighter.

There are snubs, obviously, as not everyone can be nominated. But this year has a certain lack of, um, egregiousness.

[rasputin]

There are snubs, obviously, as not everyone can be nominated. But this year has a certain lack of, um, egregiousness.

But next year, there will be 68 nominees instead of 65. Seth still won't be invited.

[Duvall]

There are snubs, obviously, as not everyone can be nominated. But this year has a certain lack of, um, egregiousness.

I dunno. I think Roderick Jaynes has a pretty serious beef.

[brevity]

Came and went. The little film produced by Harvey Weinstein beat the little film produced by Scott Rudin.

I saw some of the ceremony. I only laughed aloud once, seeing Alec Baldwin drink the Ambien juice packet. (Twice, if you include the Modern Family movie charades commercial.) The Autotune treatment of Twilight was also amusing.

Melissa Leo is a good actress, pretending to be surprised when she swore on stage. I don't think anyone who knows her was surprised that word slipped out.

I will never understand why Oscar producers are so obsessed with the films of the past. Time is at a premium and you're spotlighting Gone With the Wind? There are ways to celebrate tradition, but what they did this time made no sense.

[Jarhead]

Came and went. The little film produced by Harvey Weinstein beat the little film produced by Scott Rudin.
...I will never understand why Oscar producers are so obsessed with the films of the past. Time is at a premium and you're spotlighting Gone With the Wind? There are ways to celebrate tradition, but what they did this time made no sense.

They do it for the same reason that we hang banners in Cameron. Have you watched Gone With the Wind? If you have then you should understand why such movies are so revered by Hollywood. By the way, the last time I checked, Gone With the Wind still beats out every other movie ever made in total attendance. Not dollars, people.

[bjornolf]

They do it for the same reason that we hang banners in Cameron. Have you watched Gone With the Wind? If you have then you should understand why such movies are so revered by Hollywood. By the way, the last time I checked, Gone With the Wind still beats out every other movie ever made in total attendance. Not dollars, people.

Yea, I've never liked the whole box office numbers as a basis for comparison. Number of tickets sold should matter more. Between inflation and things like iMax and 3D, it's just not apples to apples. Heck, there are more people in the US now than before. Isn't that advantage enough?

[cato]

Yea, I've never liked the whole box office numbers as a basis for comparison. Number of tickets sold should matter more. Between inflation and things like iMax and 3D, it's just not apples to apples. Heck, there are more people in the US now than before. Isn't that advantage enough?

Gone With the Wind does have a slight edge in time in the theaters, though.

[Mal]

Gone With the Wind does have a slight edge in time in the theaters, though.

More important to my mind is that it came to theaters originally when (a) it didn't face the almost unlimited entertainment options we now have to compete with movies, and (b) there weren't nearly as many theatrical releases of movies, either. Certainly there are more available rears to put in seats these days than when GwTW hit the screens, but that's countered by the above. I mean, who goes to the movie theater on a regular basis nowadays, anyway? I've been once or twice in the last year and a half, and yet I'd seen 6 of the 10 Best Picture nominees for last night.

Anyway, can't argue with the movie's cultural imprint or importance to the industry, generally. I did think it unusual the way it was highlighted at the Oscars, shoehorned in as a lead-in to the awards for technical achievements/special effects or whatever, as some kind of teaser to "if some movie wins this technical awards double, it might win Best Picture like this old classic did." That's really straining for an excuse. Also, when you're trying to be young and appeal to a different demographic, I don't think Gone with The Wind's the best avenue.

[JBDuke]

More important to my mind is that it came to theaters originally when (a) it didn't face the almost unlimited entertainment options we now have to compete with movies, and (b) there weren't nearly as many theatrical releases of movies, either. Certainly there are more available rears to put in seats these days than when GwTW hit the screens, but that's countered by the above. I mean, who goes to the movie theater on a regular basis nowadays, anyway? I've been once or twice in the last year and a half, and yet I'd seen 6 of the 10 Best Picture nominees for last night.

Anyway, can't argue with the movie's cultural imprint or importance to the industry, generally. I did think it unusual the way it was highlighted at the Oscars, shoehorned in as a lead-in to the awards for technical achievements/special effects or whatever, as some kind of teaser to "if some movie wins this technical awards double, it might win Best Picture like this old classic did." That's really straining for an excuse. Also, when you're trying to be young and appeal to a different demographic, I don't think Gone with The Wind's the best avenue.

It wasn't the lead-in to the technical award or special effects - it was the lead-in to the awards for Cinematography and Art/Set Direction - a couple of big hitters. Tom Hanks was pointing out that it is a rare feat for a film to sweep Cinematography, Art/Set Direction, and Picture. GWTW was the first, and "Titanic" was the last. I would think that the first would appeal to the classic film buffs, while the latter was a sop to the younger audience. He was also trying to build some anticipation for these two awards, since there were 3 films nominated in all 3 categories: "Inception", "True Grit", and "The King's Speech". "Inception" won the Cinematography award, "Alice in Wonderland" took the Art/Set Direction award, and, of course, "The King's Speech" took Best Picture.

My favorite bit of Oscar trivia involves another suite of awards - Picture, Director, Screenplay (either adapted or original), Actor, and Actress. Only 3 films have swept all 5 awards - one in the 30's, one in the 70's, and one in the 90's. Can you name them?

[Mal]

It wasn't the lead-in to the technical award or special effects - it was the lead-in to the awards for Cinematography and Art/Set Direction...

Ahhh, yes. Nice memory, Mal. Still seems a strained lead-in, to me. There are probably more films that have won both of those and not won Best Picture.


My favorite bit of Oscar trivia involves another suite of awards - Picture, Director, Screenplay (either adapted or original), Actor, and Actress. Only 3 films have swept all 5 awards - one in the 30's, one in the 70's, and one in the 90's. Can you name them?

I'll go with The Silence of The Lambs for the last one. Had no idea on the one from the '30's. For the '70's, I know this one, but thought people might enjoy a related bit of trivia as a hint. You can narrow down JB's question pretty quickly by just thinking of films that won both lead acting Oscars, as there are only seven of them (I looked that stat up - I just knew it wasn't many). Anyway, the answer to the '70's film that won all 5 big Oscars had a Best Actor winner who's also won Best Actor in another one of those seven films that produced Best Actor and Best Actress.

Another fun trivia question I learned in my research: one parent/child combination have both won best lead acting Oscars in movies that garnered both Best Actor and Best Actress (though not for the same movie). Who are they? Interesting tidbit hint: the films were only separated by three years.

[pfrduke]

The 70s picture, I believe, is One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

[Olympic Fan]

Several people have mentioned the snubs in the nominations, but what about the In Memorium segment?

Usually one of my favorite moments on Oscar Night, a hommage to the members of the film community we lost in the previous year. I sort of disliked what they started last year, cutting back and forth between the montage and a live singer. I mean, Celine Dion is great, but wrong place and wrong focus (sort of like how CBS screwed up the "One Shining Moment" after the national title game).

Still, I can't understand the selection vs. omission of faces in the montage. There was a lot of outrage over the omission of Corey Haim, who died of a drug overdone at age 39. He made at least two decent films (Lost Boys and Lucas) and was certainly as significant as some of the behind the scenes honorees (an agent?).

But despite the uproar (much of it generated by his buddy Corey Feldman), I find Haim's absence far less perplexing that Peter Graves. Okay, he was first and foremost a TV star, but he he made a number of significant movies in his 68-year career ... from Stalag 17 (he was the Nazi infiltrator) to The Long Gray Line to Night of the Hunter to Airplane ("Joey, do you like gladiator movies?").

Yet, even Graves' absence was not as perplexing as the omission of Betty Garrett. C'mon, people does anybody have sense of history? Garrett not only starred in some of Hollywood's greatest musicals (including the groundbreaking On The Town, as Frank Sinatra's love interest), but she was the a genuine heroine in the fight against the Hollywood Blacklist. She as married to Larry Parks, nominated for an Oscar in The Jolson Story, who was blacklisted after admissing membership in the Communist Party. Both their careers were blighted in 1951 by a refusal to name names.

Garrett later re-emerged on TV in a number of sitcoms, but she was a Hollywood star before most of today's nominees were born. Her passing should have been noted.

[rasputin]

More important to my mind is that it came to theaters originally when (a) it didn't face the almost unlimited entertainment options we now have to compete with movies, and (b) there weren't nearly as many theatrical releases of movies, either. Certainly there are more available rears to put in seats these days than when GwTW hit the screens, but that's countered by the above. I mean, who goes to the movie theater on a regular basis nowadays, anyway? I've been once or twice in the last year and a half, and yet I'd seen 6 of the 10 Best Picture nominees for last night.

Anyway, can't argue with the movie's cultural imprint or importance to the industry, generally. I did think it unusual the way it was highlighted at the Oscars, shoehorned in as a lead-in to the awards for technical achievements/special effects or whatever, as some kind of teaser to "if some movie wins this technical awards double, it might win Best Picture like this old classic did." That's really straining for an excuse. Also, when you're trying to be young and appeal to a different demographic, I don't think Gone with The Wind's the best avenue.

Not nearly as many theatrical releases? I don't know what the sheer numbers were, and changes in population would have an effect here, but in the day when the studios controlled everything, they were quite busy. Major stars would do four or five movies in a single year. You're right about the relative lack of other entertainment options, but in the era we're talking about, motion pictures were THE entertainment option.

[Mal]

Not nearly as many theatrical releases? I don't know what the sheer numbers were, and changes in population would have an effect here, but in the day when the studios controlled everything, they were quite busy. Major stars would do four or five movies in a single year. You're right about the relative lack of other entertainment options, but in the era we're talking about, motion pictures were THE entertainment option.

Good point, certainly. However, there was also no thriving independent film world at the time (or the resulting production of dozens of films annually that didn't even end up on the big screen), and no distribution of foreign-made films. I think. I'd like to see some numbers on how many distributed movie openings there were per annum back in the '40's vs. today (but not enough to take the time to look it up myself). It seems like in the last 15-20 years we've gone from a landscape where one movie could dominate the box office for a couple months, to a landscape where there are so many flicks premiering every weekend that a lot of them simply get no notice at all, and the first weekend is more critical than ever for blockbusters. Maybe I'm just imagining it. But just look at the tiny window the big hype summer popcorn movies have to make their splash nowadays, and how the summer release season is now May through September as the big titles jockey around trying to avoid going head-to-head.

[JBDuke]

Good point, certainly. However, there was also no thriving independent film world at the time (or the resulting production of dozens of films annually that didn't even end up on the big screen), and no distribution of foreign-made films. I think. I'd like to see some numbers on how many distributed movie openings there were per annum back in the '40's vs. today (but not enough to take the time to look it up myself). It seems like in the last 15-20 years we've gone from a landscape where one movie could dominate the box office for a couple months, to a landscape where there are so many flicks premiering every weekend that a lot of them simply get no notice at all, and the first weekend is more critical than ever for blockbusters. Maybe I'm just imagining it. But just look at the tiny window the big hype summer popcorn movies have to make their splash nowadays, and how the summer release season is now May through September as the big titles jockey around trying to avoid going head-to-head.

This piqued my curiosity. According to this Encyclopedia Brittanica article (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394161/history-of-the-motion-picture), American movie studios released about 7500 movies between 1930 and 1945, which comes to about 500 per year. And according to this release from the MPAA (http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/653b11ee-ee84-4b56-8ef1-3c17de30df1e.pdf), there were 560 films released into US/Canadian theaters in 2010, 555 in 2009, and anywhere from 454 to 634 in the last decade.

Pretty consistent! Much moreso than I would have thought.

[NashvilleDevil]

My favorite bit of Oscar trivia involves another suite of awards - Picture, Director, Screenplay (either adapted or original), Actor, and Actress. Only 3 films have swept all 5 awards - one in the 30's, one in the 70's, and one in the 90's. Can you name them?

TCM played them all on Saturday night, 1934-It Happened One Night, 1975-One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and 1991-Silence of the Lambs. And yes I watched all the movies after the Duke game and that was a late night.

[juise]

TCM played them all on Saturday night, 1934-It Happened One Night, 1975-One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and 1991-Silence of the Lambs. And yes I watched all the movies after the Duke game and that was a late night.

Which was more disturbing? One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Silence of Lambs, or Duke-Va Tech? :p I'd take Hannibal over Seth Greenburg most days.

[rasputin]

Which was more disturbing? One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Silence of Lambs, or Duke-Va Tech? :p I'd take Hannibal over Seth Greenburg most days.

Boston College ate Seth's liver with some fava beans (and a nice Chianti) tonight.

[NashvilleDevil]

Which was more disturbing? One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Silence of Lambs, or Duke-Va Tech? :p I'd take Hannibal over Seth Greenburg most days.

Honestly Cuckoo's Nest and Silence of the Lambs helped me forget about the Duke/Va Tech game.

[cato]

This piqued my curiosity. According to this Encyclopedia Brittanica article (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394161/history-of-the-motion-picture), American movie studios released about 7500 movies between 1930 and 1945, which comes to about 500 per year. And according to this release from the MPAA (http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/653b11ee-ee84-4b56-8ef1-3c17de30df1e.pdf), there were 560 films released into US/Canadian theaters in 2010, 555 in 2009, and anywhere from 454 to 634 in the last decade.

Pretty consistent! Much moreso than I would have thought.

That is very interesting. To get a complete picture, though, we'd also have to look at how many tickets were sold each year. I wonder if that has changed significantly, or also remained fairly constant. And, of course, I'd be curious about how long hits stayed in the theater (and how often they were brought back) in the days before on demand home viewed (i.e., the video cassette).

[darthur]

That is very interesting. To get a complete picture, though, we'd also have to look at how many tickets were sold each year. I wonder if that has changed significantly, or also remained fairly constant. And, of course, I'd be curious about how long hits stayed in the theater (and how often they were brought back) in the days before on demand home viewed (i.e., the video cassette).

Attendance has gone way, way, way down according to the New York Times:

"In 1948, when weekly movie attendance reached its peak with an estimated 90 million souls, The New York Times published four articles on the awards. Over the decades, as attendance plunged, the paper published more on the Oscars. In all of 1988 it ran 14 pieces on the event, fewer than the number of articles that it ran last week. Weekly movie attendance meanwhile now hovers at under 26 million."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/movies/awardsseason/06DARGIS.html

[Mal]

This piqued my curiosity. According to this Encyclopedia Brittanica article (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394161/history-of-the-motion-picture), American movie studios released about 7500 movies between 1930 and 1945, which comes to about 500 per year. And according to this release from the MPAA (http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/653b11ee-ee84-4b56-8ef1-3c17de30df1e.pdf), there were 560 films released into US/Canadian theaters in 2010, 555 in 2009, and anywhere from 454 to 634 in the last decade.

Pretty consistent! Much moreso than I would have thought.

Nicely done, JB, and thanks. I've now been wrong twice in one thread, so I'll just hang 'em up and slink away. :(

All I have left is the more entertainment options thesis, which at least darthur's link seems to support. That's more than 1 paid theater ticket for every person in the country every two weeks in 1948. Amazing.