The Annual Academy Awards - General Discussion

[BW Manilowe]

42 minutes ago, ProudMary said:

I caught that also and thought it was wonderful, acknowledging all the humans standing on the stage, not just the famous ones.  

Changing topics.
Can we discuss what E! is going to do moving forward?  They've got about 6 months until the Emmys and they'd better figure out how they're going to fix the disaster that was their coverage of the Oscars.  First, why was Giuliana stationed across the street at the Roosevelt Hotel?  In past years, she had a place elsewhere on the red carpet.  Was there an "only one representative" dictate that came down from the Academy?  Giuliana usually gets a certain percentage of the arrivals on her end and holds her own quite well at the other awards' shows.  Most of the nominees/presenters seem pleased and comfortable speaking with her.   As my ABC affiliate did not show red carpet coverage until 7 p.m. EST, E! was my only option and in reading this thread from 5-7, it became apparent that Ryan Seacrest was getting very few of the arrivals to speak with in comparison to ABC. I was only seeing many of the celebs as they exited their limos.  Regardless of how one feels about Ryan Seacrest, E! has a definite problem.

I read that they went ahead with an option, regarding Ryan & the Red Carpet interviews, they came up with after the alleged victim in his sexual misconduct case went public, & at least somewhat graphic, about what she alleges Ryan did to her--this despite the fact E!/NBC Universal says they conducted a 2-month investigation into the matter & found the claims against Ryan without merit (which should've meant the whole thing was over, but the accuser apparently wants to keep beating a dead horse).

They apparently pre-arranged who Ryan interviewed, & he talked to celebs he was comfortable with & who were comfortable with him ("Ryan-friendly") so that there wouldn't be any on-air awkwardness about how the celebs/random celebs might've really felt about Ryan's situation (Alleged situation?), & so hopefully nobody would have a chance to call Ryan out publicly, on air about the continuing allegations against him despite the fact he's already been cleared of them after a 2-month internal corporate investigation, which he eagerly participated in.

As long as they don't replace Ryan as a main Red Carpet host with Ross (Ross the Intern) Matthews, whose voice gets to me after awhile, I'm fine. She's no real prize either, but if they decide to cut Ryan loose (which I really doubt since the company's internal investigation cleared him, before the accuser renewed her accusations), gimme back the skeletal, vapid Giuliana Rancic as lead interviewer.

[Chas411]

I thought E! Coverage was crap because ABC had the rights to the show/red carpet. Ryan looked like he was stationed down the back of the carpet with a hundred other networks surrounding him. I didn't think they usually had Giulianna on the carpet for the Oscars given how limited their coverage usually is.

I think E! Have actually stopped trying to make Ross Mathews happen. He wasn't at any of the red carpet shows this year and thank god for that. He is awful.

[ProudMary]

14 minutes ago, Chas411 said:

I thought E! Coverage was crap because ABC had the rights to the show/red carpet. Ryan looked like he was stationed down the back of the carpet with a hundred other networks surrounding him. I didn't think they usually had Giulianna on the carpet for the Oscars given how limited their coverage usually is.

I think E! Have actually stopped trying to make Ross Mathews happen. He wasn't at any of the red carpet shows this year and thank god for that. He is awful.

ABC's exclusive rights to the red carpet have been growing as the years have gone on.  For a while there, they had exclusivity for just the 30 minutes prior to the Oscars' kickoff.  Within the past couple of years, it has been a 60 minute exclusive.  E! used to have a couple of hours of solid coverage.  This year, they had permitted coverage from 5-7 EST, with ABC's exclusive window beginning at 7.  Between 5-7, I was seeing plenty of arrivals stepping from their limos, but Seacrest interviewed only a handful of mostly non-A list celebs.  As @BW Manilowe mentioned above, I highly doubt that E! ends their relationship with Seacrest, but based on Sunday night's lackluster coverage, they should consider an alternate red carpet interviewer for the next awards season, specifically one who's not being boycotted by a substantial number of celebrities.  

[HunterHunted]

18 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

T.Lo can suck an egg.  I find them supremely annoying.

As is your right to find them annoying, but I agree with them about Moreno's dress. She should have left the bodice as is. By making it strapless, it didn't set off the proportions of the skirt as well.

[mojoween]

The article I read about Frances’s nearly stolen Oscar amused me because at the end it said they celebrated the reunion by getting a double cheeseburger at In-and-Out.

[mtlchick]

4 hours ago, ProudMary said:

I highly doubt that E! ends their relationship with Seacrest, but based on Sunday night's lackluster coverage, they should consider an alternate red carpet interviewer for the next awards season, specifically one who's not being boycotted by a substantial number of celebrities.  

I think by the time the Emmys roll around, the dust would have settled enough where Ryan isn't stepped around.  But as I said before, I think there's something bigger at play that no one involves want to talk about yet. 

 

4 hours ago, Chas411 said:

I thought E! Coverage was crap because ABC had the rights to the show/red carpet. Ryan looked like he was stationed down the back of the carpet with a hundred other networks surrounding him.

He was parked right next to Ben Mulroney, which they have joked about in the past on how they're always shoulder to shoulder at most shows.  And in a weird twist, Ben was the host of Canadian Idol when it was a thing up here. 

[Mumbles]

I’m just getting through this show on my DVR and I’m getting to the part where they crash the movie screening and what grates me is this theme of “Let’s deign to give the little-people rubes a little excitement by giving them a few minutes of our time.” They did it last year with the Hollywood tour people.  Get over yourselves.

Another observation I have from being able to watch this in small segments is wow, Meryl Streep’s husband is a pill or has somewhere else he wanted to be. Massive bitchface from him.

[Thumper]

I also dislike the "little people" segment, for the same reason.  Also, it takes up a lot of time.

[absnow54]

I thought the movie theater stunt was dumb, but I lost it when they brought out the hot dog cannons. 

[anniebird]

5 hours ago, Chas411 said:

I think E! Have actually stopped trying to make Ross Mathews happen. He wasn't at any of the red carpet shows this year and thank god for that. He is awful.

Isn't he in the Celebrity Big Brother house or did he get kicked out? I haven't watched it.

[blackwing]

9 hours ago, ProudMary said:

Regardless of how one feels about Ryan Seacrest, E! has a definite problem.

I agree.  E! has a problem, and it's Ryan Seacrest.  I avoided E! not because I feel strongly about the alleged sexual harassment (in fact, the allegations surprised me only in the sense that I always thought it was widely assumed he is gay, and that Julianne Hough was a beard) but because I simply just don't like him.  

I know he works hard but I've always thought he was one of those that got famous and successful for pretty much doing nothing. I mean, how difficult is it to host American Idol?   He was just a moderator and had absolutely nothing to do with the success of the show.

I try to avoid watching him at all costs but especially this year because I just was tired of all T3H DRAMAZ in the media leading up to Oscar night about who would or wouldn't speak to him or what might he talk about.  

[JAYJAY1979]

Hmmm.. Sara Haines handled a lot of the red carpet for ABC... so let me think... Sara Haines that is a sweetheart or Ryan Seacrest that takes overexposure to new heights... I would prefer Sara Haines to interview me over him... but that is just me.

[mojoween]

6 hours ago, anniebird said:

Isn't he in the Celebrity Big Brother house or did he get kicked out? I haven't watched it.

The show ended last week so he is back out in the wild.

[Inquisitionist]

11 hours ago, Mumbles said:

Another observation I have from being able to watch this in small segments is wow, Meryl Streep’s husband is a pill or has somewhere else he wanted to be. Massive bitchface from him.

Don Gummer doesn't seem to smile much in general, but I do suspect it was a chore for him to sit through this.  Denzel, on Meryl's other side, didn't look thrilled either.

[HunterHunted]

3 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

Don Gummer doesn't seem to smile much in general, but I do suspect it was a chore for him to sit through this.  Denzel, on Meryl's other side, didn't look thrilled either.

She should just alternate taking one of her kids. They're all in the business. I'm sure they'd like to achieve their success all on their own, but really the business and town are built on relationships. There's no reason to ignore a potential foot in the door. Both Cody Horn and Alexander Ludwig have film executives for parents. Horn's being at Disney and Ludwig's at Lions Gate. I think I've only seen it mentioned once at the beginning of both of their careers. As long as you can back it up with talent, no one really cares how you got your start. It will also allow them to spare their dad the punishment of having to attend another awards show.

When are we going to get functional holograms? You can always tell who hates the Oscar campaigning, red carpet posing, and after awards schmoozing the most.

[slowpoked]

15 hours ago, absnow54 said:

I thought the movie theater stunt was dumb, but I lost it when they brought out the hot dog cannons. 

I agree it's dumb, but I actually like it when they do light-hearted stuff like that. People accuse these stars of being stiffs when it comes to the Oscars, like they take it the ceremony seriously like it's a life or death matter. People don't understand why these stars have a blast during the GGs, but the same stars are all scowls during the Oscars. So yeah, it's dumb, but it helps a little to make the Oscars not too formal. 

[wonderwoman]

38 minutes ago, slowpoked said:

15 hours ago, absnow54 said:

I thought the movie theater stunt was dumb, but I lost it when they brought out the hot dog cannons. 

I agree it's dumb, but I actually like it when they do light-hearted stuff like that. People accuse these stars of being stiffs when it comes to the Oscars, like they take it the ceremony seriously like it's a life or death matter. People don't understand why these stars have a blast during the GGs, but the same stars are all scowls during the Oscars. So yeah, it's dumb, but it helps a little to make the Oscars not too formal. 

agreed that the some people can take the oscars (and themselves:) way too seriously. but when the show runs almost an HOUR over schedule...

i got rid of cable a while back, and one of the few things i miss is being able to watch the baftas on ifc. dignified, but not stuffy; real conversations on the red carpet, not just "who are you wearing." and witty hosts in stephen frye, and now joanna lumley.

Edited March 7, 2018 by wonderwoman

[Milburn Stone]

20 minutes ago, slowpoked said:

I agree it's dumb, but I actually like it when they do light-hearted stuff like that. 

I'm all for light-hearted, but count me in the column that says that these "ordinary fan" bits have been condescending to the max. 

[mtlchick]

2 hours ago, slowpoked said:

I thought the movie theater stunt was dumb, but I lost it when they brought out the hot dog cannons. 

 

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

I'm all for light-hearted, but count me in the column that says that these "ordinary fan" bits have been condescending to the max. 

I think it should have been a combo of both.  Light hearted stuff but directed towards the celebrities.   Leonardo DiCaprio licking his lips when he's about to eat a Girl Scout cookie from 2016 was outstanding.  Ellen's Selfie Full Of Stars?  Broke Twitter.  But I'm not a huge fan of "celebs mixing the commoners for a few minutes." 

[biakbiak]

On 3/6/2018 at 5:07 PM, mojoween said:

The article I read about Frances’s nearly stolen Oscar amused me because at the end it said they celebrated the reunion by getting a double cheeseburger at In-and-Out.

A lot of people do that, you want to see celebrities on the night of an awards show hangout at an In and Out.

[Tanichka]

On 05/03/2018 at 11:23 PM, mightysparrow said:

I have no doubt that Donald knew EXACTLY who he was speaking to but, like many of us, find it hard to believe that any Mulroney is REALLY Canadian.

Still a shitty attitude, isn't it?  Don't do the interview if you can't show some grace.  Silly old man.

[aradia22]

This sketch really taps into what I've been feeling about award show red carpets. 

1. Everything a woman says is not right because she's a woman. Because there is no sisterhood and monolithic thinking and women will inevitably disagree and then who gets to be right? Is it the person with the most credentials? The person who wins the identity politics game? That's a losing game when we collectively have to talk about the right course of action and not pick a side and defend it to the death instead of being willing to refine our perspectives. This is all to say that I'm not totally down with what 3rd wave feminism and pop feminism is putting out all the time. 

2. I grew up on this stuff. Bad reality tv, fashion critiques, etc. And sure, we should leave some of it in the past. Fat shaming and rape culture and misogyny. But just because a bunch of actresses don't want to be asked about their dresses or people in the public eye feeling like anything that isn't wholly positive can just be written off as "haters" doesn't make it so. If the clothes aren't important, don't do red carpets anymore. I'm happy to read and listen to them talk about the movies and their process and everything during promotions and proper interviews. But no one watches red carpets for those insights. Frankly, unless the guys are wearing something interesting, I want them to GTFO so I can see more clothes. And I do feel like people should be able to take on constructive criticism. Of course people say some vile things. But if you designed an ugly dress and you made it for people to look at it, then I should be able to comment on that. I mean, it's an awards show. The entire thing is about subjective judging. And now suddenly we're supposed to be opposed to that? 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

On 3/5/2018 at 11:25 PM, Inquisitionist said:

  On 3/5/2018 at 6:08 PM, wonderwoman said:

tom and lorenzo didn't like it:

https://tomandlorenzo.com/2018/03/oscars-2018-rita-moreno-and-eva-marie-saint-red-carpet-fashion/

They didn't love the altered neckline. They appreciated the reuse of the dress overall.

[Inquisitionist]

The Academy is bumping the 2018 Awards show up by two weeks to Feb. 9, 2019, will shorten the broadcast by relegating some categories to commercial breaks, and is introducing a "new category [that] will recognize achievement in popular film."  Wow.

[aradia22]

I don't think the long broadcast is because they give away too many awards (compared to the Grammys or something) but because  they waste too much time on nonsense that mostly isn't entertaining. Also, lots of commercials (which is understandable, but don't pretend it doesn't extend the running time). 

I'm not sure how I feel about the popular film thing. On the one hand, I think they need a better name for it. On the other hand, I think it has become necessary because their other attempts at getting popular/commercially successful films nominations or awards has failed. In the old days you'd get a romantic melodrama, a comedy... now Oscar bait has become a joke. I think it might feel awkward at first but eventually it could become like the Animated Film category and we'll all just get used to it. I hope it doesn't become ridiculous like the Golden Globes where they throw in movies that do NOT qualify (How is that movie a musical OR a comedy?) for the category.

[chitowngirl]

And speaking of the Golden Globes, they have way more awards and they manage to do it in 3 hours.

And what a way to diminish the importance of certain categories by banishing them to a commercial break. Their big moment, one family and friends are watching for at home, and no one gets to see it.

Edited August 8, 2018 by chitowngirl

[Kel Varnsen]

5 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

I'm not sure how I feel about the popular film thing. On the one hand, I think they need a better name for it. On the other hand, I think it has become necessary because their other attempts at getting popular/commercially successful films nominations or awards has failed. In the old days you'd get a romantic melodrama, a comedy... now Oscar bait has become a joke. I think it might feel awkward at first but eventually it could become like the Animated Film category and we'll all just get used to it. I hope it doesn't become ridiculous like the Golden Globes where they throw in movies that do NOT qualify (How is that movie a musical OR a comedy?) for the category.

I wonder if it will become like the Animated feature category in that it becomes sort of a consolation prize. It could end up thata great blockbuster comes out and voters don't nominate it for best picture figuring that best popular movie is good enough.

I am good with giving other awards during commercial breaks. Giving out awards for short films during the broadcast seems like a waste of time.

[aradia22]

I'm worried about "technical" awards. Cinematography, costumes, sets, screenplay, etc. This is an extreme worst case scenario but there's already too much focus on all the face talent (actors, directors) and I don't want a Grammy's situation where they only give out a few awards. The Tony's have already been getting kind of shitty about shortchanging writers and some technical awards are flashed on screen really fast instead of giving them the respect of showing their speeches.

https://broadway.news/2018/06/13/dramatists-guild-calls-out-cbs-for-not-airing-playwrights-during-the-tonys/

[BW Manilowe]

1 hour ago, aradia22 said:

I don't think the long broadcast is because they give away too many awards (compared to the Grammys or something) but because  they waste too much time on nonsense that mostly isn't entertaining. Also, lots of commercials (which is understandable, but don't pretend it doesn't extend the running time). 

I'm not sure how I feel about the popular film thing. On the one hand, I think they need a better name for it. On the other hand, I think it has become necessary because their other attempts at getting popular/commercially successful films nominations or awards has failed. In the old days you'd get a romantic melodrama, a comedy... now Oscar bait has become a joke. I think it might feel awkward at first but eventually it could become like the Animated Film category and we'll all just get used to it. I hope it doesn't become ridiculous like the Golden Globes where they throw in movies that do NOT qualify (How is that movie a musical OR a comedy?) for the category.

Not to mention the speeches that seem to go on forever, where the winner(s) has (have) to thank everybody they’ve ever known or worked with in their entire life (lives), & all their family members, by name. Those extend the running time too. 

I thought they were supposed to have something about (shortening) those, but it seems practically everyone who ends up winning still insists on doing a “laundry list” acceptance speech (the naming of everyone in their life who possibly contributed to their win in any way, shape, or form) when they get on stage & have the Oscar in their hands.

Something else that contributes to the show running over, though not really as frequent an occurrence as a particularly long-winded acceptance speech, is when there’s a technical glitch of some kind; or the next award presenter or performer (of the Best Original Song nominees), or somebody else (like the President of the Academy, or the reps from the accounting firm which counted the votes—if they’re still being introduced/name checked during the show after the debacle with the Best Picture award a couple[?] of years ago) isn’t quite ready or in position for their bit onstage when they’re supposed to be.

[ProudMary]

4 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I'm worried about "technical" awards. Cinematography, costumes, sets, screenplay, etc. This is an extreme worst case scenario but there's already too much focus on all the face talent (actors, directors) and I don't want a Grammy's situation where they only give out a few awards. The Tony's have already been getting kind of shitty about shortchanging writers and some technical awards are flashed on screen really fast instead of giving them the respect of showing their speeches.

https://broadway.news/2018/06/13/dramatists-guild-calls-out-cbs-for-not-airing-playwrights-during-the-tonys/

I certainly hope they don't present the screenplay awards during a commercial break.  I WAIT for those!  I don't think it's fair for any of the awards to be relegated to the commercial breaks.  An Oscar winner is an Oscar winner and deserves the glory!

As to the popular film category, I've been thinking about it for much of the day and I've decided that I truly don't like the idea.  What criteria are they using to define "popular?"  Box office only?  As someone said above, it would seem that some truly great films that also happened to be "popular" might not be properly recognized in the "Best Picture" category.  Historically, there have been some immensely popular films that have won Best Picture (Titanic, Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.)   Could films of that caliber be nominated in both categories?  
Yeah, I don't like it.

[crimsongrl]

With the move to February 9th, will that stop studios from releasing Oscar worthy films in January? I miss the days when all the contenders were out by Christmas.

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, crimsongrl said:

With the move to February 9th, will that stop studios from releasing Oscar worthy films in January? I miss the days when all the contenders were out by Christmas.

All contenders are out in a limited fashion by the end of the year.  I guess it will depend on the film's rollout strategy and if they're hoping nominations/wins will boost the box office. 

I do think studios will be more cautious when it comes to limited releases around Christmas with going wide in Jan. as movies released at the very end of the year don't always fare as well as they might have had they been released earlier.  But for the voters, they get screeners.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Irlandesa

[Milburn Stone]

13 hours ago, ProudMary said:

As to the popular film category, I've been thinking about it for much of the day and I've decided that I truly don't like the idea.  What criteria are they using to define "popular?"  Box office only?  As someone said above, it would seem that some truly great films that also happened to be "popular" might not be properly recognized in the "Best Picture" category.  Historically, there have been some immensely popular films that have won Best Picture (Titanic, Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.)   Could films of that caliber be nominated in both categories?  
Yeah, I don't like it.

It's a horrible idea for so many reasons. To add to your list, this new award also implies that it's impossible for a film to be great and popular at the same time. What happened to the concept that a film could be so artistically worthy that it would appeal to vast numbers of people--that a film could be popular because of, not in spite of, its artistic merit? A concept, by the way, that was responsible for some of the greatest Hollywood films of all time. If we have reached the point of conceding that popular films cannot also be good films, we might as well throw in the towel.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Milburn Stone

[WarnerCL45]

The Academy Awards are not relevant to most people.  Too many award shows, overall.  I don’t think this new idea will do much for ratings.  I only watch for the fashion.

[MostlyC]

If they want a "popular movie" award, they need to find a way to call it something fancier.  Otherwise, it sounds like a participation award.  

Maybe they should split it down the middle.  Artist Oscars for films that make under a certain box office number, and Wide release oscars that are over?

[aradia22]

Quote

If they want a "popular movie" award, they need to find a way to call it something fancier.  Otherwise, it sounds like a participation award.  

I do think they need to think through the language. Because let's be honest, we kind of know what they want. They want to separate the prestige Oscar bait (period pieces, biopics, WWII movies, etc.) from the commercial and genre stuff (superhero movies, action movies, romantic movies, comedies, etc.). But of course it's hard to define that and if you want to be annoying you can certainly argue about it. Like, is a Scorsese movie an action movie? Is Lord of the Rings a prestige epic? Is La La Land popular because it's a romance/musical? What about Titanic? Is Gravity sci-fi? This is also how I think these prestige movies might try to game the system and go for the "popular" category and edge out the popular stuff the fanboys are clamoring for.

It's a way of trying to get around the Academy's difficulty of nominating and voting for popular movies that the general population sees. These awards used to be more reflective of the movies that did well at the box office. I'm not saying they should be nominating Transformers but surely popular movies can have artistic merit but they're not being recognized that frequently.

[Pink ranger]

A “popular movie” could be defined as any movie that made over $100 million world wide. The rest would be considered for the existing best picture award. Looking at best picture winners of the past ten years, Argo, The Kings Speech and Slumdog Millionare would have made that cut. 

Edited August 11, 2018 by Pink ranger

[Milburn Stone]

10 hours ago, Pink ranger said:

A “popular movie” could be defined as any movie that made over $100 million world wide. The rest would be considered for the existing best picture award. Looking at best picture winners of the past ten years, Argo, The Kings Speech and Slumdog Millionare would have made that cut. 

 

That could be the definition, and it's fraught with problems if so. For starters: What do you do with the movie of unquestioned artistic ambition and accomplishment which goes on to make over $100 million? Is it no longer eligible for Best Picture because now it must be put in the "Best Popular Picture" silo? As for the traditional Best Picture category, is the definition of that category going forward to be "Best Picture That Didn't Make Money"? In both cases, the honor is diminished.

Edited August 11, 2018 by Milburn Stone

[Pink ranger]

What if there are two subdivisions for best picture: Independent and studio, each has 5 eligible nominees.

At the ceremony three trophies are handed out: best independent film, best studio film and best picture, which is picked from among all 10 nominees. 

[BW Manilowe]

9 hours ago, Pink ranger said:

What if there are two subdivisions for best picture: Independent and studio, each has 5 eligible nominees.

At the ceremony three trophies are handed out: best independent film, best studio film and best picture, which is picked from among all 10 nominees. 

Then you probably could eliminate the Independent Spirit Awards. I thought those were created because the Oscars weren’t recognizing independent films/film performances. That’s (or it would be) kinda like when they used to have the Cable ACE awards when cable TV was still fairly new, because the Emmys wouldn’t recognize cable programs or performances in them; then those awards were discontinued after the Emmys began recognizing cable programming & performances.

[ProudMary]

On 8/8/2018 at 11:52 PM, ProudMary said:

As to the popular film category, I've been thinking about it for much of the day and I've decided that I truly don't like the idea.  What criteria are they using to define "popular?"  Box office only?  As someone said above, it would seem that some truly great films that also happened to be "popular" might not be properly recognized in the "Best Picture" category.  Historically, there have been some immensely popular films that have won Best Picture (Titanic, Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.)   Could films of that caliber be nominated in both categories?  
Yeah, I don't like it.

I found an answer to my own question in an article from The Hollywood Reporter.                                                         https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/academy-plans-three-hour-oscars-telecast-adds-popular-film-category-1133138?facebook_2018811

Quote

If the popular film award (likely to be nicknamed "the Popcorn Oscar") is implemented in time for the 91st Oscars, then there is little doubt that ratings will improve, since blockbusters like Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War, Deadpool 2, Mission: Impossible – Fallout, and Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again — and their fan-favorite stars — will be guaranteed a presence at the ceremony. (Black Pantheralready was expected to seriously contend for competitive nominations and awards, and the Academy confirms, "A single film is eligible for an Oscar in both categories — Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film and the Academy Award for Best Picture.")

[KLovestoShop]

The network thinks that having that new category will bring in more viewers, but I think that notion is silly. Let's be honest here, there are at least two big reasons why viewership has fallen. First, it's irrelevant to most people, and two, people don't care for super wealthy out of touch with reality celebrities lecturing them about politics.   Even if you agree with their stance, people want to watch award shows for entertainment and not politics.  We get enough politics in our everyday lives.  

[Irlandesa]

Those things have always been a part of the Oscars more or less.  I think a decrease in ratings is more likely due to what has decreased ratings overall in that there are so many other things people can choose from.  And for the categories people care about the most, the speeches will be up on YouTube quickly. 

[Kel Varnsen]

What I find interesting is that the emmy awards have never considered mixing it up to give special awards to popular shows. Look at Mad Men, when it was on and with all the media coverage it was getting it still only had 1 to 2 million viewers. But it was cleaning up at the emmys, yet I don't remember anyone ever suggesting changing the award categories so NCIS could get an award.

[Milburn Stone]

3 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

What I find interesting is that the emmy awards have never considered mixing it up to give special awards to popular shows. Look at Mad Men, when it was on and with all the media coverage it was getting it still only had 1 to 2 million viewers. But it was cleaning up at the emmys, yet I don't remember anyone ever suggesting changing the award categories so NCIS could get an award.

Right on. And even more than the Emmys, the Academy Awards have always been a symbol of the highest achievement. Over the years they've even worked their way into the language. Just one example: When someone we know acts out in some way in daily life, we may remark with sarcasm, "Wow, you should get an Academy Award." We don't say "You should get a Golden Globe" or "You should get a People's Choice Award." Just imagining those alternatives we can see how absurd they would be. There's a reason we choose to say Academy Award. It occupies a special place in our daily lexicon as a signifier of excellence (whether we mean it sarcastically or sincerely in a given situation).

Now, among the winners of Academy Awards over the years, there have been some real head-scratchers. We know that. But even this hasn't tarnished the position of the Oscar in our minds as the pinnacle of reward and recognition, because we understand what it aspirationally represents. AMPAS seems intent on flushing all that down the toilet.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Milburn Stone

[Blakeston]

I'm not convinced that the Best Picture categories and Best Popular Film categories will be completely separate.

Right now a film can be nominated for Best Animated Film and Best Picture. (Same goes for Best Foreign Language Film and Best Picture.) I can't imagine why they'd handle the Best Popular Film any differently.

A film like Black Panther has a good chance of getting nominated in both categories. I can't imagine why they'd want to limit it to one.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Blakeston

[ProudMary]

On 8/9/2018 at 12:20 PM, WarnerCL45 said:

The Academy Awards are not relevant to most people.  Too many award shows, overall.  I don’t think this new idea will do much for ratings.  I only watch for the fashion.

I just read this article from THR's Pret-A-Reporter and thought you might find this interesting.  The change in date of the Academy Awards to the early part of February may have effects on the fashion world.
What the New Oscars Date Could Mean for Fashion

[BetterButter]

Academy Postponing New Popular Oscar Category

[BW Manilowe]

From The Journal Gazette (Fort Wayne, IN): Academy Announces Governors’ Awards, Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award Recipients

[GaT]

On 8/12/2018 at 8:38 PM, ProudMary said:

I just read this article from THR's Pret-A-Reporter and thought you might find this interesting.  The change in date of the Academy Awards to the early part of February may have effects on the fashion world.
What the New Oscars Date Could Mean for Fashion

If they're going to change the date anyway, why would they schedule the awards during NYFW? They must know about the problems since its been during the European Shows, it makes no sense to continue the problems hee. Schedule the stupid thing the next week instead.