Awards becoming meaningless?

[Zauriel]

I somewhat recall there was talk or debate about Academy Awards also known as oscars becoming meaningless in the TV/Film forum.

I wonder if the same can be said about other awards like Nobel Prizes, JFK Profile in Courage Award or the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Recently, it has been announced Mitt Romney will receive the JFK Profile in Courage Award

https://www.jfklibrary.org/about-us/...d-announcement

I agree that Romney deserves the award but so do the governors whose tough response to the pandemic is so unpopular they are in danger of being recalled.

the Presidential Medal of Freedom isn't worth anything since it was awarded to undeserving people like Rush Limbaugh or Tiger Woods. it was also given to other athletes and entertainers.

[Kusanagi]

I don't know if I'd label Awards such as the Oscar as meaningless, it certainly means something for those that win it. I'd say where its losing it's value is as a television event. I feel it certainly means something, but increasingly it's just to those in the industry.

I doubt the same could be said for the Nobel Prize, while some of it's winners are controversial it's still a desired prize in those fields.

Now I will agree the Medal of Freedom has been devalued in recent years, I'm not sure it's worthless, but it definitely isn't worth as much.

[Starter Set]

Meaningless maybe, yet, everyone still watch the Oscars ceremony.

So maybe not that meaningless in the end lol.

There is a big difference between what people say and what they actually are thinking.

[Kieran_Frost]

I wouldn't say any of those awards are meaningless, personally. They all seem pretty awesome to get!

[Enigma]

Speaking about the Nobel prizes for physics, chemistry and physiology or medicine, I would argue that they are increasingly losing meaning. Research is so collaborative now and so many people contribute so much, that one to three people being put up for an award feels pointless. That just isn't how we function anymore. There are other awards that are awarded, which all who make significant contributions to a body of work can receive during their career. I think that in a strange way, people outside of the field care more about the Nobel prize for physiology or medicine than we do within the field.

[worstblogever]

The Weeknd didn't get a Grammy nomination.

As much as that might be evidence that they don't matter, he made enough noise about it that it's clear it still matters to the artists.

They shouldn't need validation from some board of out-of-touch stooges, though. At this point, it's more about establishing a legacy compared to the artists that came before you.

[Timothy Hunter]

You mean they haven't ALWAYS been meaningless?

[jb681131]

I somewhat recall there was talk or debate about Academy Awards also known as oscars becoming meaningless in the TV/Film forum.

I wonder if the same can be said about other awards like Nobel Prizes, JFK Profile in Courage Award or the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Recently, it has been announced Mitt Romney will receive the JFK Profile in Courage Award

https://www.jfklibrary.org/about-us/...d-announcement

I agree that Romney deserves the award but so do the governors whose tough response to the pandemic is so unpopular they are in danger of being recalled.

the Presidential Medal of Freedom isn't worth anything since it was awarded to undeserving people like Rush Limbaugh or Tiger Woods. it was also given to other athletes and entertainers.

Most awards don't mean much. There are always lots of conditions you must comply to to apply. Sometimes it's not free to apply or you must be in a specific guild to apply. Then it's a select few people that vote. And most often the votes are political choices.
Then awards that are given without applying, are always a political move.

[Kieran_Frost]

Most awards don't mean much. There are always lots of conditions you must comply to to apply. Sometimes it's not free to apply or you must be in a specific guild to apply. Then it's a select few people that vote. And most often the votes are political choices.

The same is true of life. Who gets promoted at work is political. Who gets the better shifts. Who gets the best car parking slot. At school, who gets singled out doing the best is political. Who's made Head Boy. Valedictorian. Who gets into what university. And in family too. Which family members get treated one way and which another, all political to some degree. WEDDINGS! Oh, love wedding politics. Who gets invited the service and who gets invited only to the reception. Who gets a plus one and who doesn't. WHERE they are sat at the reception is massively political. The point I'm make is LIFE is political.

This idea all awards are significantly more political that any good reward or benefit in life is just silly (and in my opinion comes from an idea that being 'too cool' for awards is somehow anti-establishment and trailblazing; and the easiest arguement is 'oh but they are so political'... but when examined that logic really doesn't hold up).
#justmyfivecents

[Mister Mets]

You mean they haven't ALWAYS been meaningless?

That's fair. All the big awards have major omissions, and some decisions that were inexcusible.

The Searchers is acknowledged as one of the best movies ever made, but wasn't nominated for any Oscars, even if it is considered John Ford's masterpiece, John Wayne's best performance and one of the best-shot films ever made.

The New York Times won a pulitzer for dispatches from the Soviet Union in the 1930s that covered up a major famine.

https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes...alter-duranty/

Even if mistakes are made, the awards can be meaningful, as a signal of quality. Was Parasite the best movie of 2019? Maybe not, but it was pretty good.

Awards can lose meaning, if it seems to be done for reasons that have nothing to do with quality, like the Hugo sad puppies fiasco. That's a trap organizers should avoid falling into.

[Scott Taylor]

The Oscars are a great shorthand way to learn about where society was as a culture during any given year. Its an interesting way to track trends over the years. In that respect I find most awards to be meaningful, even if they are necessarily products of their times.

[Kieran_Frost]

The Searchers is acknowledged as one of the best movies ever made, but wasn't nominated for any Oscars, even if it is considered John Ford's masterpiece, John Wayne's best performance and one of the best-shot films ever made.

To be fair, at the time the Searchers wasn't seen as that fantastic upon release, and considering John Ford had already been awarded 4 Oscars for directing by then, add in the somewhat tepid critic reviews and this was territory he'd tread before (and be awarded Oscars for before)... I get why it was overlooked. Personally, I don't much care for the film either. But that's just me.

[Zauriel]

Most awards don't mean much. There are always lots of conditions you must comply to to apply. Sometimes it's not free to apply or you must be in a specific guild to apply. Then it's a select few people that vote. And most often the votes are political choices.
Then awards that are given without applying, are always a political move.

Yes that is true. Pulitzer Prize is no exception. Remember that John F. Kennedy won a Pulitzer Prize for his book "Profiles in Courage" on which the award for political courage was based on? It turned out that JFK's father actually asked the Pulitzer Prize board to vote for him. So Pulitzer Prize given to JFK was a political move.

After its release on January 1, 1956, Profiles in Courage became a bestseller. The book won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography in 1957, even though it was not one of the finalists forwarded to the prize board from the selection committee. Kennedy's father Joseph asked columnist Arthur Krock, his political adviser and a longtime member of the prize board, to persuade others to vote for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profil...rage#Reception

To be fair, at the time the Searchers wasn't seen as that fantastic upon release, and considering John Ford had already been awarded 4 Oscars for directing by then, add in the somewhat tepid critic reviews and this was territory he'd tread before (and be awarded Oscars for before)... I get why it was overlooked. Personally, I don't much care for the film either. But that's just me.

it's fine if John Ford can't receive another oscar. But John Wayne still deserved an oscar. After all he didn't receive one until True Grit. Anyways I don't think His True grit performance was great as his Searchers performance.

[Mister Mets]

The Oscars are a great shorthand way to learn about where society was as a culture during any given year. Its an interesting way to track trends over the years. In that respect I find most awards to be meaningful, even if they are necessarily products of their times.

It's not necessarily where society was, but one non-representative subset of society (members of the film industry.) I do agree that the results are revealing about culture, though there has been a recent divide between what's popular and what's nominated.

For example, of the 21 top-grossing films of the 70s, twelve were nominated for Best Picture and five won (though there seems to be a divide around 1977.)

https://ventured.com/highest-grossin...es-of-the-70s/

To be fair, at the time the Searchers wasn't seen as that fantastic upon release, and considering John Ford had already been awarded 4 Oscars for directing by then, add in the somewhat tepid critic reviews and this was territory he'd tread before (and be awarded Oscars for before)... I get why it was overlooked. Personally, I don't much care for the film either. But that's just me.

For awards to be meaningful, there are going to be times when the same people win a lot.

If there were awards for theater in Elizabethan England, it would be natural for Shakespeare to dominate.

The issue with the Searchers isn't that Ford and cinematographer Winston C. Hoch should have won (although they probably should have) but that they weren't even nominated.
There are plenty of other major omissions in Oscar history. In some cases, it's understandable, as it can take a while for a work to get exposure, and awards are a deadline.

In other cases, it's not that understandable. North by Northwest, Singing in the Rain and Spartacus weren't nominated for Best Picture, Best Director or Best Actor. Psycho wasn't nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor or Best Score.

That said, imperfect awards can still be meaningful.

[Kirby101]

I don't see a connections with popularity/pop awards like the Oscars and Grammys and awards for particular achievements like the Nobel and Pulitzer. The latter are a recognition for important work done, not for "the best" of anything.