Talk:Oscar bait

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Daniel Case in topic List of films considered "Oscar bait"

Refimprove

edit

I've tagged this for refimprove; we need sources (preferably multiple for each film named) saying that it was Oscar bait for these reasons. It's not enough to say "source says historical films are Oscar bait, Shakespeare In Love is a historical film, therefore it is Oscar bait" - that sort of syllogism is WP:OR. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

This can be much better

edit

Properly developed, this article could be as rich as (tooting my own horn alert) dump months. There's a lot of interesting discussion in the cited sources. We could have a lot more than just lists of films here. I think we have a shot at a DYK nomination if we act fast. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Possible earliest use

edit

This New York Times article from 1955. Beats the 1968 one we have at Wiktionary. Can someone look behind the paywall? Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Beat it. The New Republic in 1948 [1]. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, I beat that one too, here are some 1942 mentions: [2][3] (subscription is required to view full pages but can't do anything about that) Tehonk (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

List of films considered "Oscar bait"

edit

Is the list of Oscar bait films that failed to receive nominations truly needed? My reasoning is that it reveals little about the meaning of Oscar bait, its characteristics, etc. It can also give the impression that films perceived as Oscar bait never actually win anything (and there have been, i.e. Shakespeare in Love, Green Book, All Quiet on the Western Front, etc). I expect the list will get longer, and it is already such a specific topic.

Also, the list is almost word-for-word a list of episodes from the podcast This Had Oscar Buzz. The list could simply be removed and replaced with a reference for the podcast. @Espngeek Spectrallights (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

At the very least, as the main contributor to this article, I think it could be spun off into a separate list, as it has the potential to get very long. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply