Posted at 10:28h in Film FundamentalsMovies are irrelevant. It's official. The New York Times says so. Well, not exactly. But a recent article plays with the idea. For more than a year, countless bloggers (myself included) have been saying the same thing. The Times is a bit late to the party and seems determined to sneak in through the back door, basing part of their thinking on the Academy's decision to have Seth MacFarlane as the next Oscar host. Note to The Times: the choice of MacFarlane actually makes more sense than the David Letterman fiasco back in 1995. At least MacFarlane's movie made money (unlike the Letterman production of Cabin Boy). But it is a valid question for reasons The Times article barely mentions.