What if they gave an Oscars show...

... and nobody cared?

Oscar organizers are justifiably concerned that the Writers Guild of America strike may turn the Feb. 24 telecast into a starless non-event like the recent Golden Globes.

But even if the strike ends and celebrities attend, how many mainstream moviegoers will tune in for an awards show refusing to reflect their tastes?

On Hollywood’s own Super Tuesday, millions of moviegoers realized their box office votes didn’t count: No nominations for 2007’s top-grossing film, Spider-man 3, or the runner-up, Shrek the Third. The year’s third-ranked movie, Transformers, earned three nods, in special effects and sound categories.

Not exactly the way to make an Academy Awards show into must-see TV. It isn’t coincidental that two of the event’s highest-rated telecasts were dominated by Titanic and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, the leading money earners of their release years.

You have to scroll down the 2007 box office rankings all the way to No. 9 before finding a hit that Oscar voters found worthy of major nominations: Disney/Pixar’s Ratatouille ($206.4-million) that made the short lists for best animated feature and original screenplay among its five nominations.

In fact, Ratatouille’s box office performance is only a few million dollars behind tickets sales for the five best picture nominees combined.

Juno, a saucy comedy about a pregnant teenager (best actress nominee Ellen Page) seeking suitable adoptive parents for her baby, is closest to being a popular hit. Best director Jason Reitman’s film has earned $88-million at North American box offices. The boost that usually comes from major Academy Award nominations should soon push it over the coveted $100-million mark.

That isn’t likely to happen with the other four best picture nominees, although Michael Clayton ($39.2-million), starring best actor finalist George Clooney as a conscience-stricken insurance fixer, will soon be re-released to try. Michael Clayton is the second-highest grosser among best picture nominees.

Nomination leaders There Will Be Blood ($9-million) and No Country for Old Men ($45-million) – currently in theaters with eight nods each – will need an Oscars windfall and maybe a couple miracles to reach the $100-million plateau. The British World War II drama Atonement ($32-million) has about the same chance, which is to say none.

Why is there such a discrepancy in tastes between Academy Awards voters and regular moviegoers?

Certainly the subject matter of this year’s top Oscar contenders is a key reason. Juno is the lone best picture candidate that could be considered “light-hearted” entertainment although its comedy is darker than, say, Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler’s. The other nominees deal with murder, corruption, period-era deceptions and other topics unappealing to moviegoers seeking pure escapism.

But it precisely the artistry and originality inspired by such topics that the academy seeks to reward. Nobody should fool themselves into thinking that a movie deserves a best picture nomination simply because it sold millions of tickets. Oscar voters are doing what feels right in their hearts, and so will Joe and Josephine Moviegoer. Even if that means switching to another channel on Feb. 24.

Comments

[GlennS.]

A buddy of mine once said, "Who cares about the Academy Awards? The Best Picture Oscar always goes to whatever movie had a shot of two elephants walking in the distance with the sun setting behind them."

I've quoted that to people before and gotten a blank stare, but I knew exactly what he meant. Oscar almost always favors that which is stately, serious, and slow-moving.

I will take a pass on them this year as I have for the last couple of decades, stars or no stars.

[Steve]

"two elephants walking in the distance with the sun setting behind them"

That's hilarious. I caught that shot in Chicago, or maybe that was Queen Latifah and John C. Reilly.

But your friend has a point.