2015 Awards Season Discussion

[AshleyN]

Hoo boy, I think this is the worst one yet:

 

The biggest snub for me was Chris Miller and Phil Lord not getting in for [The] Lego [Movie]. When a movie is that successful and culturally hits all the right chords and does that kind of box-office — for that movie not to be in over these two obscure freakin' Chinese fuckin' things that nobody ever freakin' saw [an apparent reference to the Japanese film The Tale of the Princess Kaguya, as well as the Irish film Song of the Sea]? That is my biggest bitch. Most people didn't even know what they were! How does that happen? That, to me, is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

➻ BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
I didn't get around to seeing any of them. You want the truth? I shouldn't have voted, but I did. This is bad, but here's the power of advertising: everywhere I looked, I saw pictures of this stupid carcass — whatever the fuck that was — and I thought, "That's a cool-looking thing." And I fucking voted for a movie based on the dead whatever it was in the ad thinking that it looked cool. [laughs]

➻ BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
It gets worse, for the same fucking reason. I didn't see any of the nominees, but goddamn Virunga is running commercials late-night every freaking hour, and those gorillas, man — I was like, "Wow, that looks heavy." I said, "That looks good," and I voted for it.
MY VOTE: Virunga

Not a single one of his acting votes appears to be based on who he thought gave the best performance.

 

Also, it's amazing how defensive almost all of these voters are about the Selma thing.

 

I actually wonder how these voters are chosen. Maybe I'm just not cynical enough, but I can't help but think that while there are undoubtedly a lot of stupid voters in the Academy, the guy behind these might be deliberately choosing the dumbest/most controversial options in an effort to get noticed and rack up the page views.

Edited February 21, 2015 by AshleyN

[thuganomics85]

And, what I believe is the last of the pre-Oscar awards: the Independent Spirit Awards.

 

No surprises for any of the acting categories (Keaton, Moore, Arquette, and Simmons all take it), but Best Feature when to Birdman, while Director when to Linklater.

[Shannon L.]

I listen to a news station on satellite radio what had a member of the voting academy as a guest on Friday.  I didn't catch the whole interview, but from what I did hear, he said that he wouldn't be surprised if Birdman beat Boyhood because the largest voting block in the academy are the actors and Birdman was a movie that they could relate to. 

[vb68]

Really interesting post-mortem  on this year's Oscar season.

 

I agree that they just should go back to five nominees.  It didn't work out like they intended.

[Dejana]

Really interesting post-mortem on this year's Oscar season.

I agree that they just should go back to five nominees. It didn't work out like they intended.

Best Picture, the year before they expanded the lineup...the "public" liked Slumdog Millionaire well enough, but it's not a favorite among awards snobs. The Reader, Milk, Frost/Nixon? Even Benjamin Button hit a wall with garnering broad audience appeal, after getting off to a huge start. There will be discontent with the lineup, whether it's 5 or 15 nominees.

[ruby24]

I think it's for the best to just go back to five. If you look back on the last six years, if it had been a 5 film lineup, this probably would have been the case:

 

2009- Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, Precious, Up in the Air

2010- The Fighter, Inception, The King's Speech, The Social Network, True Grit

2011- The Artist, The Descendants, The Help, Hugo, Midnight in Paris

2012- Argo, Life of Pi, Les Mis, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook

2013- 12 Years a Slave, American Hustle, Dallas Buyers Club, Gravity, Nebraska

2014- American Sniper, Birdman, Boyhood, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Imitation Game

 

I mean, give or take a Nebraska or a Les Mis, these lineups would have been pretty close, at least. And if that's the case, what's really the difference between these films and what they've done with the expansion? The big hits would likely still have made it in, based on what they got nominated for (Gravity, Sniper, Inception). And overall, it's not that bad of a mix between commercial stuff and indie arthouse fare. If these had been the lineups, I don't even think the ratings for the show would have been any different than they have been for the past few years.

 

The goal of increasing the ratings by nominating more popular movies just hasn't happened, so I think they ought to just go back to five and leave it at that.

 

The only other thing they could try would be to nominate five studio movies and five independents, and see if that does it, but I guess that's unlikely to happen.

[ruby24]

I also think they should extend the nominating period to late January and push the show back to March, like it used to be. Separate the Oscars from the million other awards shows as much as possible, and it brings back to the possibility of surprises in the nominations, and also maybe the winners. It also gives everyone time to catch up with the movies, both the voters and the public.

[manbearpig]

This year's award season seemed never ending for me, so...I'd kind of prefer if they moved the Oscars up a little. I mean, I do agree that it'd be great if the movies nominated could be available a little more widely before the ceremony, but I love reading about movies and the industry and who's nominated for what and all that stuff, and even I was just ready for it all to be over this year.

[ruby24]

But I think that's exactly because everything is all smushed together. All the guild awards, the Golden Globes, everything happens in a two month window- if there was only some distance between the Oscars and everything else, it would make them seem like the bigger deal, and it would also give some time for upsets to occur in some of the major categories. I think it would benefit everything to push it back to where it used to be.

 

They'll probably make some kind of change this year, because every time they try to change anything it's always in response to a low ratings year. Pushing the ceremony up had to do with the lowest ratings they'd ever had the year before. But I don't think any of that stuff affects the ratings of the telecast- it always has to do with a combination of the movies and actors nominated (and in the running to win), plus whoever the host might be (I think there's evidence to show that certain names like Billy Crystal, Ellen and even Seth MacFarlane actually did bring viewers in; NPH not so much). It doesn't matter when the ceremony takes place, but I think pushing the date back would allow for the kinds of movies they want nominated to actually get in there.

[Oreo2234]

Unpopular opinion but I prefer the Oscars having more than 5 nominees. Movies like Her and Up, and more would not have gotten a best picture nomination otherwise,it brings attention to movies that would have been dismissed as not awards friendly. 

Edited March 5, 2015 by Oreo2234

[Dejana]

Movies like Gravity, American Sniper, Avatar—I think they would have made a field of five. If they really expected things like Marvel or Hunger Games movies to be in the Best Picture lineup, then they needed to change who's voting on the awards, rather than the number of movies that can be nominated. Sure, Star Wars made it in 1976, but it was perceived as innovative at the time, whereas now, the big-budget fantasy/sci-fi adventure movie is more likely than not part of a franchise that is or is soon to be long-running, with its own TV series/spinoffs/theme parks. Now, it's the kind of movie that is supposedly killing the mid-budget adult drama, or relegated it to awards season/VOD releases, so it probably causes resentment among the voters. If they were just starting to make the Lord of the Rings movies now, IMO they'd have trouble making the Best Picture race, because the studio would have split each book into two or three parts and big shock that Oscar isn't rushing to nominate half a movie.

 

But I think that's exactly because everything is all smushed together. All the guild awards, the Golden Globes, everything happens in a two month window- if there was only some distance between the Oscars and everything else, it would make them seem like the bigger deal, and it would also give some time for upsets to occur in some of the major categories. I think it would benefit everything to push it back to where it used to be.

 

When Oscar moved their show up, all the other shows followed, so they would just move their nominations and awards back as well. Oscar can't really control the fact that there are a lot of other awards given out. I would be really surprised if Oscar pushes the ceremony date back to the end of March; it would just give the naysayers another month to complain about how irrelevant and out of touch and possibly racist they are, in any given year.  A big point of releasing your awards bait movie around the holidays and in January is to use the buzz and hype from nominations and wins (at lesser shows) to get people to see the movies as a result (in theaters during their first run). They love listing all the nominations in the TV ads during award season. If, one year, everything nominated for Best Picture had been released by November, you would get tons of complaints (especially from writers on the awards show beat, who follow the race all year) about being "bored" with movies that "everyone has seen already". You might get more "controversies" and awards bloggers second-guessing the races and trying to predict upsets and start whisper campaigns, simply because there is more time to fill, not based on the quality of any given performance/movie.

 

I saw a writeup about the central problem with Oscar being that it's trying to please very different factions of the audience who want diametrically opposed things from it. Some people like the spectacle, some hate musical numbers, some think the tech categories should be relegated to another night, others think the "below-the-line" winners usually give the best speeches. Some want movies like Guardians of the Galaxy to win Best Picture and others love Oscar season because they are fans of "real", "adult dramas" and think Marvel movies like that are a joke. Some like naturalistic acting while others say, "they're not doing anything!" and prefer the histrionics. You can't really please everyone, but AMPAS keeps thinking the right host will do it.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Dejana

[yourstruly]

 

I also think they should extend the nominating period to late January and push the show back to March, like it used to be. Separate the Oscars from the million other awards shows as much as possible, and it brings back to the possibility of surprises in the nominations, and also maybe the winners. It also gives everyone time to catch up with the movies, both the voters and the public.

If they do that, all the other award shows will just push back accordingly. There is nothing they can do. And changing it back to five movies so soon after expanding it is just the Academy admitting that they are flailing for relevance and don't know what to do.

 

 

then they needed to change who's voting on the awards, rather than the number of movies that can be nominated.

 

Exactly. That's basically the problem and I think deep down the powers that be know that but don't want to piss people off. There was that LA Times article that revealed that the average age of the Oscar voter was mid 60s, they were 90% white and 80% male. That is the problem. That explains everything IMHO. They need to go through their rolls, and if they haven't had a significant credit in x-number of years (aka worked in anything), thank them for their service and remove them from voting and replace them with someone significantly younger and more active in the profession. That would open it up to more women and minorities as well if they do it right.

 

But the older members will pitch a fit and this will never happen.

[King of Birds]

They need to go through their rolls, and if they haven't had a significant credit in x-number of years (aka worked in anything), thank them for their service and remove them from voting and replace them with someone significantly younger and more active in the profession. That would open it up to more women and minorities as well if they do it right.

Not that I'm saying I'm FOR more 60 year old white men voters -  but to determine "a significant credit in x-number of years" is just a minefield. As someone who lives in Los Angeles and has a bunch of neighbors who are in or are peripheral to the film industry, there are so many things that are uncredited but still important.

 

One of my neighbors is someone in the Academy, who years ago was too busy to see all the movies (when you had to go out, not pop in a dvd) and now in "their later years" are able to see everything and participate more fully, go to the Q&A sessions, etc. A lot of people are hard at work MAKING the movies/ tv shows etc but their main life prerogative is not about Oscars, if you're really busy on your own project.  My guess is that those "old fogeys" you want out, probably see more of the films now than they did when they were invited to join.

 

I do understand the idea posed, is that their generation/bias is something you want out , to bring balance- but I'm not sure how obvious it would be to excise certain people from a membership that is so exclusive, and earned when you're younger.

 

If, one year, everything nominated for Best Picture had been released by November, you would get tons of complaints about being "bored" with movies that "everyone has seen already"

Hell, I was so busy / distracted that I missed most of the nominees this year. I would not mind this "problem" described here. As it is, the movie rotations in theaters near me, made it impossible to see some movies I wanted to catch. The Laemmles chain had some odd times- a movie didn't get 4 or 5 showings a day. If you only get a weekend or so to see a film, at either 1pm or 10pm, well, I missed them this year.

 

And I'm very sorry to single out this phrase - I don't mean to pick on Dejana - but: Awards bloggers?  Are these people more important to the process than the people who make movies? Do we really care what an awards blogger thinks?

[Dejana]

And I'm very sorry to single out this phrase - I don't mean to pick on Dejana - but: Awards bloggers?  Are these people more important to the process than the people who make movies? Do we really care what an awards blogger thinks?

 

After Eddie Redmayne won the SAG Award, he called the founder of GoldDerby.com to thank him for continuing to predict him for the Best Actor win, in the face of other Oscar experts "ditching" him. During awards season, these sites are awash in online ads for the various contenders. Many who run/contribute to these blogs don't just write about the awards race in the winter, but do interviews with actors and filmmakers year-round, and some have votes in things like the Critics Choice Awards or with other critics' groups. Because they get wooed by a lot of stars and studios looking for positive press for their contender, some get colossal egos and see themselves as very important (and some are equally laid back about the scene and their place in it).

 

A handful of Hollywood/awards reporters who were just galled by the fact that Mo'Nique skipped an NY critics' circle dinner to tape her talk show fanned the flames of the whole "Mo'Nique refuses to promote Precious unless she gets paid!" controversy.  I know for a fact that at least one (Jeff Wells, Hollywood Elsewhere) just plain didn't want her to win and coincidentally had all these negative stories about the issue. If you watched the more mainstream entertainment media that year, you would've seen Mo'Nique at the Golden Globes, the SAGs and all the big televised shows, working the red carpet no different than what's typical for a nominee. When she referenced the controversy in the Oscar acceptance speech, stating that awards should be about the performance, many viewers didn't have any idea what she was talking about and the concept that she wasn't promoting the movie would've seemed strange to them. It was just that she didn't do enough scraping and bowing at Q&As and critics' society dinners for someone so "new" to the Oscar scene that was just outrageous (to awards obsessives) and had to be punished.

 

For better or worse, the awards bloggers do shape the race throughout the year. They can start/build narratives about actors and films, which get picked up by the more mainstream media. Some egoists like to think they can kill a nomination/win with their editorials, but I don't think they have quite that much power.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Dejana