Why is it that these highly rated movies nominated for awards rarely in theaters?

Sakuraba is #1

Blue Belt
@Blue
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
944
Reaction score
396
For example "Birdman" got high praise and nominated for many awards yet it's not playing in many theaters. You would think that a movie with so much critical acclaim would be readily accessible to watch. I've noticed this with other movies as well. What gives?
 
Sabotage and Under the Skin were two movies I was hyped to see (both turned out to be bad) and I just couldn't, I had no choice but to watch online.
 
theaters would rather show blockbusters
 
Because a shitty movie starring Mahky Mahk and a buncha Transmoprhers will blow the doors off the theater for a couple months whether its good or not. Birdman is going to attract a handful of people for two weeks tops.
 
Ask yourself who drives ticket sales and you will probably understand.
 
if you make a movie that nobody saw and didn't play in most theaters it seems those always win awards.
 
Critically acclaimed films are first ushered into the hands of critics because "indies" don't have the marketing nor distribution budget/value for a full-court press.

They debut the film at festivals late in the year in order to qualify that year's awards, whose lateness tends to count for more than movies lauded toward the beginning of the year. Thereby, marketing is then powered by the critic and our recognition of award status. Which still doesn't put as many asses into seats as the run-of-the-mill actor vanity piece -- pretty looking garbage is constantly being hustled onto us -- hence the difficulty in finding them despite hearing all these glorious reviews and accolades.
 
You should note the inde theaters in your area, they'll always have smaller movies and foreign stuff, but the big multiplexes usually pick up smaller movies for limited runs too, although usually couple weeks after they premier at the smaller theaters. It might be because I'm in a city, but I have no problem finding any of these movies on the big screen.
 
General public cares for entertainment over substance.
 
I only had one theater near me for 50 miles in any direction that was playing Birdman, and that was only for a couple weeks. Glad I ran out and saw it when I did.

Same story with Inherent Vice. There is only one theater anywhere near here that is showing it, and you can bet that I am going to have to go run out and see it within the next few days just to be sure that I get to lol. Gonna have to go to downtown Fort Worth...
 
General public cares for entertainment over substance.

They might care more if it was available. I was able to see both Birdman and FoxCatcher due to living just outside a major city. There is an arthouse theater (for lack of a better term) just a few miles from me. For a lot of people that's not the case.
 
General public cares for entertainment over substance.

I think it's more of the industry only making one or the other these days.

I remember Slumdog Millionaire, No Country For Old Men, The Hurt Locker, The Departed, Galdiator, Braveheart, A Beautiful Mind, Forrest Gump etc... all doing well in the box office.
 
Birdman sucked- It's tries to be artsy but it wan't entertaining.
 
They aren't money makers; film industry caters to teens who like big explosions. Once Oscars come out, they'll get re-released and the older, non-movie watching crowd will come out to see it.
 
Because Birdman would have likely been a financial flop had it not a limited release.

Really, the whole concept of the film sounded kinda lame.
 
Back
Top