Possibly. I didn’t see the Shape of Water, so I can’t comment on it. I tend to only watch movies that interest me. I would presume that’s the case for others, so the Shape of Water crowd might claim the reverse to your statement.
It’s all subjective. It’s one of the reasons I don’t put any stock in reviews & don’t watch award shows.
Like Matt said, I think it's important to remember how subjective this all is. What's rewatchable for one person is awful to another. Increasingly since the 1960's Oscar voters give out the big awards to movies that are viewed as more "serious" or "high-minded"/"artistic" than superhero films. Genre films, by their nature (since they often follow a predictable template), are generally not the kinds of movies Oscar voters wish to award. They tend to be very popular though, precisely because they are so entertaining and rewatchable.
I personally don't like that the Oscars are creating a new category just so they can allow a popular film to get nominated and thereby get more people to watch the awards ceremony. Which is the only reason movies like BP and Dark Knight get nominated at all IMO. I also don't care for the idea that if certain groups (and I include geeks, of which I am one, here) just complain enough on social media the Academy will cave in and nominate/award said movie to appease that group. It's essentially mob rule mentality for something that's inherently subjective.
IMO, people like what they like. Oscar voters like to give awards to a certain kind of film. That kind of film is usually not a genre film. They generally value films that are less fantasy based. Shape of Water won because they liked the "artistic vision" (i.e. production and art design) of Del Toro (who in my opinion, has become the new Tim Burton, and I don't mean that as a compliment) and the "poetry" of the film (i.e. it's a fairy tale based in "reality" or magical realism, which thanks to certain authors, is viewed as sufficiently "serious" as long as there's a message about human nature in the story).
Messages of "the good guys win" is not what Oscar voters value, which I think is understandable. It's the kind of message one associates with material targeted to children.
I do agree 100% that the popular films are usually far more rewatchable than the Oscar winners, but I think that's a result of the Oscar winners usually trying to achieve something more "high minded" or "serious" than "just" being entertaining. BP is highly entertaining. The Hurt Locker is "serious". Oscar prefers "serious" even though the average person does not. Oscar films are the ones most of us put on our Netflix queues but never get around to watching. (There's research showing this is true.) Oscar winners are usually vegetables. Superhero movies are usually deserts. I think it's admirable to give the award to the vegetable since everyone's buying the desert anyway. Making a new category to honor deserts as well just to increase viewership is a terrible idea IMO. Fun things don't need awards.
Matt pretty much summed up my comments. I’m certainly not against a blockbuster film being the best film of the year. As of now the latest Mission Impossible fills that slot for me
And I also agree that Black Panther is better than the Shape of Water
Comments
It’s all subjective. It’s one of the reasons I don’t put any stock in reviews & don’t watch award shows.
I personally don't like that the Oscars are creating a new category just so they can allow a popular film to get nominated and thereby get more people to watch the awards ceremony. Which is the only reason movies like BP and Dark Knight get nominated at all IMO. I also don't care for the idea that if certain groups (and I include geeks, of which I am one, here) just complain enough on social media the Academy will cave in and nominate/award said movie to appease that group. It's essentially mob rule mentality for something that's inherently subjective.
IMO, people like what they like. Oscar voters like to give awards to a certain kind of film. That kind of film is usually not a genre film. They generally value films that are less fantasy based. Shape of Water won because they liked the "artistic vision" (i.e. production and art design) of Del Toro (who in my opinion, has become the new Tim Burton, and I don't mean that as a compliment) and the "poetry" of the film (i.e. it's a fairy tale based in "reality" or magical realism, which thanks to certain authors, is viewed as sufficiently "serious" as long as there's a message about human nature in the story).
Messages of "the good guys win" is not what Oscar voters value, which I think is understandable. It's the kind of message one associates with material targeted to children.
I do agree 100% that the popular films are usually far more rewatchable than the Oscar winners, but I think that's a result of the Oscar winners usually trying to achieve something more "high minded" or "serious" than "just" being entertaining. BP is highly entertaining. The Hurt Locker is "serious". Oscar prefers "serious" even though the average person does not. Oscar films are the ones most of us put on our Netflix queues but never get around to watching. (There's research showing this is true.) Oscar winners are usually vegetables. Superhero movies are usually deserts. I think it's admirable to give the award to the vegetable since everyone's buying the desert anyway. Making a new category to honor deserts as well just to increase viewership is a terrible idea IMO. Fun things don't need awards.
And I also agree that Black Panther is better than the Shape of Water