The Annual Academy Awards - General Discussion

[Nidratime]

I have to admit, until it was nominated this morning, I had never heard of Roma. 

[blackwing]

3 hours ago, Nidratime said:

I find the political statements to be one of the more entertaining aspects of the show, better than the long list of thank yous to people I've never heard of ... or thanking Jesus, of whom I have heard. Besides, it's not like film-making and politics have no connection. Some of the nominated films are even about politics and/or social justice!

 

I don't care for them... I go to movies generally to be entertained.  I appreciate the performances and I like seeing people get rewarded for their performances.  But I don't like when they somehow translate that into an opportunity to soapbox preach their beliefs to a captive audience.  I hated that guy who won for Green Book at the Globes, spent like seemingly five minutes laundry list thanking people and then shushed the orchestra because he had something "important" he wanted to say.  Get off your high horse, longhair Green Book guy.  I get that they are people too just like all of us and have their own beliefs, but I just don't think an awards show is the right venue for it.

Unless it's Viola Davis!  Seriously, I don't even care if I don't agree with her.  I could listen to that woman read a phone book and I would appreciate it.  Sadly, she got passed over this year.

1 hour ago, Chaos Theory said:

Honestly I think the funniest moment this award season was when Christian Bale thanked Satan.  Not that I watched the movie or anything but for that alone....I hope his luck holds.

 

I like Christian Bale and I think he's a near lock for winning.  His performance was great but I think he sealed the deal with this typical Hollywood speech.  People ate it up.  95% of Hollywood is seemingly liberal and I think they will translate their hatred of the current government to their dislike of Dick Cheney and the Republican establishment and give Bale the win.

Edited January 22, 2019 by blackwing

[Neurochick]

18 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I have to admit, until it was nominated this morning, I had never heard of Roma. 

Me neither, I don't have Netflix, too expensive.  

Edited January 22, 2019 by Neurochick

[slowpoked]

Even though she has a less than zero shot of winning, I'm glad Melissa McCarthy got a nom. It was a great performance from an unusual movie character, not your typical Oscar-baity roles. Everyone knows by now it's a two-way race between Gaga and Glenn Close. But it's a nice rebound from MM after a few so-so, middling movies, with that puppet movie landing on practically everyone's worst movies of the year lists.

Also nice to see that an actress like her, an actress who looks like her and at her age, is failing up. 

[Valny]

56 minutes ago, slowpoked said:

 Everyone knows by now it's a two-way race between Gaga and Glenn Close

I would definitely put Olivia Coleman in there also IMO. Her performance in The Favourite was so good.  I'm rooting for Close and if not her,then Coleman.

[stonehaven]

I am still sad that Three Identical Strangers did NOT get a nod in Documentary.

[Dr.OO7]

1 hour ago, Valny said:

I'm rooting for Close and if not her,then Coleman.

I'm guessing Close is going to get it because she too is an Oscars Susan Lucci and the Academy might decide that it's finally time to reward her.

[BW Manilowe]

2 hours ago, slowpoked said:

Even though she has a less than zero shot of winning, I'm glad Melissa McCarthy got a nom. It was a great performance from an unusual movie character, not your typical Oscar-baity roles. Everyone knows by now it's a two-way race between Gaga and Glenn Close. But it's a nice rebound from MM after a few so-so, middling movies, with that puppet movie landing on practically everyone's worst movies of the year lists.

Also nice to see that an actress like her, an actress who looks like her and at her age, is failing up. 

Don’t forget, Melissa was also nominated a few years ago for Bridesmaids. So this is her second—& second time with a less than zero chance at winning.

[Shannon L.]

10 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

And that's why viewership of the Oscars has been down for years.  Most of the country has never heard of these movies, let alone seen them, by the time they've been nominated.  People aren't going to watch a boring telecast honoring movies that they had no idea even existed until now.

I always watch regardless of whether or not I've seen the movies (although, I try to read up on them so I'm a little familiar with the stories and what people are saying about them), but I'm so psyched this year because I've seen 5 of the 8 and loved them all (seen a few of them multiple times) and am looking forward to seeing 2 more.  Roma gives me pause, only because it's not my kind of movie, no matter how beautiful the trailer looks.  I may try it, though, and see how it goes.

8 hours ago, blackwing said:

I'm ticked that "Crazy Rich Asians" got shut out completely.  For all the talk about how groundbreaking it was... zero nominations.  There was room for two more Best Picture nods.  It was on the list of many of the year's best.  Golden Globes, Critics Choice, SAG Ensemble nod and a Producers Guild nod.  I know that Michelle Yeoh had pretty much been written off for a Supporting nomination but I was still hoping for an outside chance.  Her performance as the regal and stern matriarch was sensational.  And I believe the movie had chances to get nominations for Costumes and Production Design. 

 

Yeah, what's up with that?  I thought for sure it was a lock for at least Costumes and Production Design.  I'm also upset that Bad Times at the El Royale didn't get nominated for at least Production Design.  This really was a great years for movies, though.  So many good ones didn't make the cut. 

4 hours ago, Neurochick said:

I know this is a UO (don't know why) but I loved Green Book.  If it wins I'll be happy.  If Black Panther wins I'll be happier.

Come sit by me.  I really liked it, too.  I'd prefer Blackkklansman win*, though, but in much the same way that @Chaos Theory hopes Gaga wins just to see the reaction of others, that's how I feel about Bohemian Rhapsody.  I don't think it's going to win anything, though, because I think Bale is a lock, too.   I would love Rami to take it, would be happy for Bradley, but I'll understand why Bale wins when/if he does. 

Personally, there are so many good movies nominated this year, I hope they spread out the awards a little and not award the bulk of them to just one or two movies.

*Remember I haven't seen them all yet, so this is just based on what I've already seen.

[BW Manilowe]

Have the expected winners in the acting, directing & Best Picture categories always been so clear cut, like in recent years, or has there ever been a time when you could watch an Oscars ceremony & be truly surprised by the winners in those categories?

I’d swear it was like that when I was much younger, that there was a bigger element of surprise; then as time went on it became a thing of you already knew who/what film was probably gonna win the major awards before the Oscars even aired.

Which could leave one with a “Why bother watching, if you already are sure of the winners?” feeling, although there’s still the nominees’ clothes & acceptance speeches (at least from any winners who are activists in politics &/or other areas) to watch for.

[truthaboutluv]

10 hours ago, BW Manilowe said:

Have the expected winners in the acting, directing & Best Picture categories always been so clear cut, like in recent years, or has there ever been a time when you could watch an Oscars ceremony & be truly surprised by the winners in those categories?

I’d swear it was like that when I was much younger, that there was a bigger element of surprise; then as time went on it became a thing of you already knew who/what film was probably gonna win the major awards before the Oscars even aired.

Which could leave one with a “Why bother watching, if you already are sure of the winners?” feeling, although there’s still the nominees’ clothes & acceptance speeches (at least from any winners who are activists in politics &/or other areas) to watch for.

The many precursor awards is what has largely made the Oscars predictable. With the Golden Globes, SAG, Critics Choice and  BAFTA, not to mention all the smaller critics awards, it's made it fairly easy to predict who would likely win as many of these - particularly the members of the various Guilds (Actors, Producers, Directors, etc) are the ones who make up members of the Academy and vote for the Oscar winners. And of course with the Internet and social media where people can discuss, break things down, etc. it makes it easier to predict. 

That said, I think this year is far less predictable than last year. Last year by this point there was no question Frances McDormand, Gary Oldman, Sam Rockwell and Alison Janney were going to win the acting awards. This year, Regina King seems the favorite for Supporting Actress but she was not nominated for the SAG or the BAFTA awards. Best Actress is a toss up, with Glenn Close, Olivia Colman and Gaga all in the mix. Glenn won the Globe but so did Olivia because of the split categories. The Critics' tied her and Gaga. I'm going to bet BAFTA is going to give Olivia the Best Actress award. So who really knows how that one will shake out. 

And Best Actor too is also not set in stone as both Rami Malek and Christian Bale won Globes and when Award season started, most thought Bradley was a lock for Best Actor. I do think after Sunday night's SAG and later the BAFTA awards, it will make it clearer who is likely to win the Oscar.

I'd also add that there HAVE been surprises on Oscar night, despite all the precursor awards. Adrien Brody was a come from nowhere Best Actor winner, Marion Cotillard's win was considered an upset, Eddie Murphy was the favorite to win the Supporting Actor category the year Alan Arkin did. Many thought Viola had sewn up the win for The Help, especially after she won the SAG Award and come Oscar night, Meryl snuck in and snatched it. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by truthaboutluv

[Nidratime]

Quote

Best Actress is a toss up, with Glenn Close, Olivia Colman and Gaga all in the mix. Glenn won the Globe but so did Olivia because of the split categories. The Critics' tied her and Gaga. I'm going to bet BAFTA is going to give Olivia the Best Actress award. So who really knows how that one will shake out.

To me, it would be a joke for Gaga to win over Glenn Close. I saw The Favourite but I'm not familiar with all the rest of Olivia Colman's work so I'll leave her out of this. But seriously, to have Gaga sweep in and win it in a role that's kind of tailor-made and in a movie that's been remade and remade and remade to the point where I, frankly, don't want to ever see the movie again, well....

[truthaboutluv]

Personally, I think GaGa gave the weakest performance of all the Best Actress nominees. So the fact that she's considered a favorite to win, is insane to me.

[Dr.OO7]

22 hours ago, chitowngirl said:

I’m so glad Meryl Streep did not get nominated for Nutcracker or Mary Poppins. It always seems like an appearance by her was an automatic nomination.

I agree. I love her, but that was starting to drive me crazy.

[Shannon L.]

4 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

Personally, I think GaGa gave the weakest performance of all the Best Actress nominees. So the fact that she's considered a favorite to win, is insane to me.

I don't even think her role in the movie was good enough to show real acting chops.  She was always going to be good at the singing/dancing/concert stuff, but the real part of the story--the love story--wasn't really that powerful.  Even the way the death scenes were written weren't enough to for any actress to sink her teeth into.  I haven't seen the other versions, but I suspect that they were more about the woman's rise to the top than the man's downfall. This one, however, was Jackson's story and Ali's was smaller, side story, imo.  I still loved the movie and think the nominations are justified, but I've always been baffled at her front runner status.

[Nidratime]

Quote

Personally, I think GaGa gave the weakest performance of all the Best Actress nominees. So the fact that she's considered a favorite to win, is insane to me.

I think it's more about the novelty and making the Academy "relevant". 

[Dr.OO7]

49 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

Personally, I think GaGa gave the weakest performance of all the Best Actress nominees. So the fact that she's considered a favorite to win, is insane to me.

I'm wondering about that. I admit, I haven't seen "A Star Is Born",  but I get the feeling it's overrated.

Is there a separate thread for "undeserving winners" or do we stay here? 

[Dr.OO7]

14 hours ago, Nidratime said:

I saw The Favourite but I'm not familiar with all the rest of Olivia Colman's work so I'll leave her out of this

Colman was fine, but I'd have her as Supporting, not Lead. If anything, it's Weisz and Stone who should be up for Lead.

There's been talk of having more than five nominees in the acting categories and I really wish the Academy would do that. It would cut down on the "snubs" and it would cut down on the Category Fraud. It's a shame that someone who was essentially in a lead role should have to submit themselves in the supporting category to have a better chance of winning--and consequently pushing out someone who WAS truly in a supporting role.

[Silver Raven]

22 hours ago, slowpoked said:

Even though she has a less than zero shot of winning, I'm glad Melissa McCarthy got a nom. It was a great performance from an unusual movie character, not your typical Oscar-baity roles. Everyone knows by now it's a two-way race between Gaga and Glenn Close. But it's a nice rebound from MM after a few so-so, middling movies, with that puppet movie landing on practically everyone's worst movies of the year lists.

Also nice to see that an actress like her, an actress who looks like her and at her age, is failing up. 

She got a Razzie nomination for the puppet movie.

[truthaboutluv]

6 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

She got a Razzie nomination for the puppet movie.

Razzie nominations aren't always necessarily an indictment on the actor/actress acting abilities. Sometimes it's just because the movie itself was awful so they get nominated. And unfortunately many good actors sometimes make some terrible movie choices. 

[Irlandesa]

On 1/22/2019 at 2:40 PM, blackwing said:

I think they will translate their hatred of the current government to their dislike of Dick Cheney and the Republican establishment and give Bale the win.

Nah.  If/when Bale wins, it'll be because of his "transformation" in that he looked so unlike Bale and so like the real person he was playing. That's truly the kind of thing Hollywood eats up.  It's why Oldman won last year. McCaunaghey lost weight and won.  Charlize Theron uglified and won.  And won of the biggest jokes around this tendency is Nicole Kidman and her prosthetic nose for The Hours.

 

12 hours ago, Camille said:

There's been talk of having more than five nominees in the acting categories and I really wish the Academy would do that. It would cut down on the "snubs" and it would cut down on the Category Fraud.

I still think it'd feel like there are snubs because there are always really good performances out the outskirts.  But I'd like to see it too--although I still think movies would avoid putting more than one lead in each category.

[slowpoked]

On 1/22/2019 at 5:34 PM, truthaboutluv said:

Many thought Viola had sewn up the win for The Help, especially after she won the SAG Award and come Oscar night, Meryl snuck in and snatched it. 

Personally, I don't believe Meryl "snuck in and snatched it". She won the BAFTA Best Actress after Viola Davis won SAG. So her Oscar win wasn't exactly out of nowhere.

 

On 1/23/2019 at 3:33 AM, truthaboutluv said:

Personally, I think GaGa gave the weakest performance of all the Best Actress nominees. So the fact that she's considered a favorite to win, is insane to me.

The hype machine of that movie was unbelievable. The hype was probably greater than the acting itself.

[truthaboutluv]

12 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Nah.  If/when Bale wins, it'll be because of his "transformation" in that he looked so unlike Bale and so like the real person he was playing. That's truly the kind of thing Hollywood eats up.  It's why Oldman won last year. McCaunaghey lost weight and won.  Charlize Theron uglified and won.  And won of the biggest jokes around this tendency is Nicole Kidman and her prosthetic nose for The Hours.

Yup, case in point, the Best Actor race is really between him and Rami Malek, someone who also had a dramatic transformation, to play Freddie Mercury. 

[galaxygirl76]

James Bulger: Mother of murdered child urges Detainment director to withdraw from Oscars race

The mother of murdered child James Bulger has urged the director of a film about her son’s killers to pull out of the Oscars.

Denise Fergus said she was “disgusted” upon learning that Irish director Vincent Lambe’s Detainment had been recognised in the Best Live Action Short category, but has now called upon him to withdraw the nomination.

Seaking on This Morning, Denise Fergus said: “He should remove it from the Oscars, he’s nominated himself... remove it from the public domain – withdraw yourself.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/james-bulger-detainment-movie-oscar-nomination-murder-killers-vincent-lambe-a8744541.html

[Cotypubby]

13 minutes ago, galaxygirl76 said:

James Bulger: Mother of murdered child urges Detainment director to withdraw from Oscars race

The mother of murdered child James Bulger has urged the director of a film about her son’s killers to pull out of the Oscars.

Denise Fergus said she was “disgusted” upon learning that Irish director Vincent Lambe’s Detainment had been recognised in the Best Live Action Short category, but has now called upon him to withdraw the nomination.

Seaking on This Morning, Denise Fergus said: “He should remove it from the Oscars, he’s nominated himself... remove it from the public domain – withdraw yourself.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/james-bulger-detainment-movie-oscar-nomination-murder-killers-vincent-lambe-a8744541.html

I'd never heard of this short film until this "controversy" started appearing. If she wanted the film to be ignored, the best thing she should have done was to ignore it. Very very few people care about or remember the short films nominated. Now this one is in headlines. (I will be seeing it when IFC runs their Oscar Shorts Showcase in a few weeks.) Why should the film be withdrawn (is that even a thing?) just because she doesn't approve?

[Crs97]

I think when a woman discovers someone made a film about their son’s torture and murder, even as far as hiring an actor to depict his last days, without giving her a heads up, she is allowed to be as publicly angry as she wants to be.  I, for one, find it disgraceful that he didn’t talk with the victom’s family first.

[blackwing]

Just saw a commercial for the Oscars which flashes through various scenes from movies from the past year.  Among the included movies are “First Man”, “Crazy Rich Asians”, “Widows” and “Won’t You Be My Neighbour?”.   Which together combined received a whopping ZERO nominations.  Seems like maybe someone put that commercial together a bit too early?  What an insult to the cast and crew of these movies.

[truthaboutluv]

To be fair, I think First Man did receive a few technical nominations.

[Quickbeam]

My hope is that Gaga will win for song and that Close will win best actress. Something for everyone.  I loved Green Book so anything it takes will be a plus. And Rami was just amazing in Bohemian Rhapsody. 

Edited January 25, 2019 by Quickbeam

[JAYJAY1979]

I think Gaga shouldn't have been nominated because she was overshadowed by Bradley Cooper and I think she only got the nomination because of the hype and not because of any sort of acting ability.  I still recall Bjork's sole acting role.. and I thought she did leaps better than Gaga in terms of acting and didn't get nominated.

And I think five nominees for acting awards is fine.. and this thing about being snubbed makes me laugh because I'm sure there were movies/performances that weren't nominated that deserved to be since the start of the Oscars.  Not everyone will get recognized, or even win and that's part of life.  

[Quickbeam]

13 minutes ago, JAYJAY1979 said:

I think Gaga shouldn't have been nominated because she was overshadowed by Bradley Cooper and I think she only got the nomination because of the hype and not because of any sort of acting ability.  I still recall Bjork's sole acting role.. and I thought she did leaps better than Gaga in terms of acting and didn't get nominated.

And I think five nominees for acting awards is fine.. and this thing about being snubbed makes me laugh because I'm sure there were movies/performances that weren't nominated that deserved to be since the start of the Oscars.  Not everyone will get recognized, or even win and that's part of life.  

Bjork was luminescent in 'Dancer In the Dark', a brilliant performance. 

[DearEvette]

I would be tickled if Black Panther wins best picture.  It probably won't but I'll giggle like a loon if it does,

However I rooting hard for Ruth Carter to win for costume design because the costumes for BP were sublime!  Also for Production design because it was a breathtaking movie to look at.

I am also rooting for Spike Lee.  Glad to see he got his directing nom finally.

[Simon Boccanegra]

On 1/25/2019 at 1:59 PM, JAYJAY1979 said:

I think Gaga shouldn't have been nominated because she was overshadowed by Bradley Cooper and I think she only got the nomination because of the hype and not because of any sort of acting ability. 

I thought she was better than competent, but when the film was at the height of its "inevitability" period in its first month of release, expected to sweep major categories, I thought I had seen a different film from most people. The reception for Gaga's performance was part of that. She does have some acting ability. She's very good at playing the surface quality essential to whatever scene she's doing. She's certainly better at it than Jennifer Hudson, who delivered one of the stiffest Oscar-winning performances in history but was great in a musical number.  

But since she (Gaga) isn't a full-time actor, she isn't well honed enough to link things up and convey much in the way of subtext, which great actors can do with a flawed script...and the script of this one was flawed, to put it charitably. The fact that I ended a long movie having no idea what the film wanted me to think about Ally (other than (1) really talented and (2) loved her man) was mostly the screenwriters' fault, but she couldn't bail it out.

Quote

And I think five nominees for acting awards is fine.. and this thing about being snubbed makes me laugh because I'm sure there were movies/performances that weren't nominated that deserved to be since the start of the Oscars.  Not everyone will get recognized, or even win and that's part of life.

Agreed. Directors too. How it ever became a talking point that no women were nominated for directing this year eludes me. None was even in the "possibles" of the predictors anywhere I was looking. Some years there's going to be a Greta Gerwig or a Kathryn Bigelow who helms one of the best-received films of the year, and it will be a big shock if she's not nominated. One hopes there will be a year soon when there are two, or three. But this was not one of those years.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[Milburn Stone]

I'm disappointed that the nominated song from Mary Poppins Returns won't be performed. (Neither will 3 other nominated songs, apparently.)

[Crs97]

58 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

 

I'm disappointed that the nominated song from Mary Poppins Returns won't be performed. (Neither will 3 other nominated songs, apparently.)

 

Let me guess - we’ll still hear from Lady Gaga, though, right?  Infuriating.

[Crs97]

58 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

 

I'm disappointed that the nominated song from Mary Poppins Returns won't be performed. (Neither will 3 other nominated songs, apparently.)

 

Let me guess - we’ll still hear from Lady Gaga, though, right?  Infuriating.

[truthaboutluv]

19 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

Let me guess - we’ll still hear from Lady Gaga, though, right?  Infuriating.

But of course. Apparently only Shallow (by Gaga) and All the Stars (by Kendrick Lamar/SZA) will be performed at the show. That might change though since they're getting some backlash for this and Lin Miranda, performs on the Mary Poppins Returns song which was nominated, tweeted his disappointment in the decision. I'm also surprised they would boot a Diane Warren nominated song as well. 

[cpcathy]

This Oscars is a clusterfork.

I'm of the belief that if you watch the Oscars on a regular basis, that you are well aware that they are long. You are also aware that you will need to watch awards being given out for sound, cinematography, editing, costume, screenplay, etc (you might even watch the end credits of a movie all the way through). Movies are not all done by the actors and actresses (newsflash!). Cutting out the distribution of the more technical awards is shameful. Those people worked hard and deserve to be recognized. I'm not sure why ABC or the Academy (or whoever is  really in charge of the telecast) are fearful that people won't watch. I saw a tweet the other day that no one ever worries about the Superbowl being cut for time, and I thought this was a brilliant comparison.

Anyway, I doubt I'll be watching.

[Crs97]

If they would cut the unfunny, forced banter between presenters, we would all be better off.  Nothing wrong with two presenters coming out and getting right into the nominees.  I don’t need an explanation of why it’s important to recognize the writer who adapted material for the screen before the winner is announced.  Very few presenters can make the intro interesting, and I swear those that do are ad libbing.   Cut that and the dumb gimmicks (FYI- no one in the audience needs food during the ceremony so cut it out!), and the night would go so much faster.

[Shannon L.]

25 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

If they would cut the unfunny, forced banter between presenters, we would all be better off.

I was thinking the same thing while watching the SAG awards.  The moments when the forced banter was eliminated were so much better.  I like to have a good host with a (hopefully) humorous opening and occasional stuff in between awards, but the banter just before the announcement of the nominees rarely works.

[ProudMary]

The banter between presenters is often cringe-worthy.  Just announce the presenters and let them present the award.  Next!

I found ALL of the musical numbers from Mary Poppins Returns to be sub-standard.  When I go to a theater to see a Disney movie, live or animated, I fully expect to walk out of the theater humming at least one of the songs from the film.  From MPR?  Not one of them.  And to top it off, I thought every musical number in the film went on for too long.  I wanted to love the movie but I was very disappointed. 

As for the Oscar telecast, personally I think they should just play a 20 second clip from each of the 5 nominated songs and then present the award.  It's definitely wrong to allow 2 of the songs to be performed live, in full.  Should be all or nothing and I'd prefer it to be nothing.

[vibeology]

I agree with all of this. Why to the people running the Oscars hate the Oscars? I want to see all 24 awards handed out. I want clips of the nominated movies and performances. I want to hear all the songs.

What can be cut? An overly long opening that mostly just pointing out the famous people in the front two rows. Trips to movie theatres next door. Food delivery. Bringing in people for a surprise tour of the Oscars. A never ending magic trick, especially if the pay off sucks. Group selfies. Food raining for the ceiling. So I'm cool with no host.

Also, if they want to speed up the show, make the stage smaller. The time we spend watching people slowly walk out to microphones is unnecessary. It won't be hours worth of savings, but the stage design slows down the show. Same with the seating. They seat below line nominees way in the back so they can have non-nominated stars up front, have some poor set designer take 90 seconds to get to the microphone and then only give her 30 seconds to give her speech. Maybe rotate the seating so that nominees are up front for their categories?

[Notwisconsin]

On 1/22/2019 at 10:20 AM, Camille said:

It appears that poor Amy Adams (officially the Susan Lucci of the Oscars) will once again go home empty handed, being up against Regina King for Best Supporting Actress.

The Susan Lucci of the Oscars is Glenn Close. She may actually WIN this year.

[scarynikki12]

I remember there was at least one year where they actually explained what each job was before presenting the award.  I'd like to see that again.  Lots of people don't know the difference between sound mixing and sound editing, for example, so having the presenter explain, or the production providing a quick demonstration, wouldn't hurt.  If done right, they could then use that to build to Best Picture and that award would feel more like the culmination of the night rather than the moment we can finally stop watching.

Not having a host should, in theory, also stop some of the random segments but I wouldn't be surprised if they take this as a challenge and go totally bonkers.  But they should still feed everyone.  That's one tradition that needs to stay.  I've enjoyed watching different actors zero in on the pizza, cookies, and other snacks when they show up.  Plus they're all in much better moods when they've had something to eat.

[Irlandesa]

4 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

Not having a host should, in theory, also stop some of the random segments but I wouldn't be surprised if they take this as a challenge and go totally bonkers.

You would think but they'd probably just up the random montages that have dominated the show recently.  "Random clips of westerns."  "Dancing people in black and white."  "Costumes through the years." 

Just a second or two that you can barely see or recognize honoring the past (where most people are dead) and they're indistinguishable from year-to-year.

[BW Manilowe]

On 1/29/2019 at 3:23 PM, Crs97 said:

If they would cut the unfunny, forced banter between presenters, we would all be better off.  Nothing wrong with two presenters coming out and getting right into the nominees.  I don’t need an explanation of why it’s important to recognize the writer who adapted material for the screen before the winner is announced.  Very few presenters can make the intro interesting, and I swear those that do are ad libbing.   Cut that and the dumb gimmicks (FYI- no one in the audience needs food during the ceremony so cut it out!), and the night would go so much faster.

Respectfully, I disagree with the bolded comment. The Oscars (actual ceremony) starts at around 5:30PM Pacific Time. But the nominees & other attendees have to arrive who knows how much earlier than that, so the nominees can navigate through the red carpet interviews & the others can just get to their seats, or in the venue, before airtime. So, let’s say most nominees/attendees will be leaving home or their hotel perhaps between 3:30 & 4PM Pacific. Then the ceremony could last 3 to 3 & a half hours, or longer. Unless they ate breakfast or tried to eat something while getting ready (& hoping they don’t spill on their fancy duds while doing that)—& many nominees may be either too nervous (or superstitious) to eat before the ceremony—if they don’t bring munchies from home, or the bar doesn’t have hors d’ oeuvres to go with the drinks, they won’t be eating until the Governor’s Ball, other after parties they may attend, or until they hit up In and Out Hamburgers or their other favorite junk food joint after the awards. That could be around 8:30/9PM, or even later. Some people who go to this either can’t wait that long to eat, once their nervousness about winning or not ends, or perhaps they need to eat at a certain time for medical reasons, & they can’t change it just because of the Oscars. So, some people may need food during the ceremony, I think. Plus, like @scarynikki12said, they’re all in much better moods when they’ve had something to eat (&, I hope, less likely to get drunk if booze were the only thing available to consume). If having a food-related bit in the ceremony helps, I’m all for it.

Edited January 31, 2019 by BW Manilowe
To fix a spacing issue.

[Crs97]

Mileage definitely varies.  I loved hearing afterward the awards show that Melissa McCartney snuck in sandwiches.  Unfortunately, I have no doubt that we will have a long gimmick at this ceremony involving her and food.  I won’t think it funny because it will be a retread of past stunts, she already did it, and it will take away from winning speeches.  Someone who has dedicated his or her life to perfecting his/her craft finally gets recognized and gets played off stage so we can chuckle yet again at some exaggerated “hoagie” cannon.  Not my thing.

[Simon Boccanegra]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

You would think but they'd probably just up the random montages that have dominated the show recently.  "Random clips of westerns."  "Dancing people in black and white."  "Costumes through the years." 

Just a second or two that you can barely see or recognize honoring the past (where most people are dead) and they're indistinguishable from year-to-year.

God, do I agree with this. I'll never forget the year a while back when there was that montage of "children in film." No reason for it, no topical thing going on in the news related to children, just because. Someone in production had the earth-shaking realization that a lot of movies over 100 years had featured children, so we got a time-wasting montage. Hey, remember Shirley Temple? Remember Paper Moon? Remember those kids on bicycles in E.T.? Remember Robin Williams's kids in Mrs. Doubtfire?  

I would like all such things cut except for the in memoriam montage. Unless Harrison Ford or someone else associated with Raiders of the Lost Ark is getting a lifetime achievement award, I never want to see Indiana Jones running from that boulder again.

[Milburn Stone]

There was a time--I'm going to say as recently as the early years of this century--when the montages actually worked to remind me in a visceral, emotional way how central the movies are to our culture, to our very psychologies. But the montages don't work on me that way anymore. I can think of three reasons this might be so, and I really don't know which of the three it is: 1) The montages are not being put together by people who themselves understand the importance of movies; 2) The montages are being put together as well as they ever were, but the show that surrounds them robs them of impact; or 3) The movies actually don't occupy the central place in our culture and psychologies that they once did, and no amount of art or craft in the creation of montage can change that.

[Irlandesa]

I think it can be another reason in that anyone can get a montage these days---done better than anything the Oscars have done.