The Annual Academy Awards - General Discussion

[Chas411]

On 29/1/2019 at 6:22 PM, truthaboutluv said:

Apparently only Shallow (by Gaga)

I wonder if she’ll ham it up as much as she did in Vegas last week. Oh who am I kidding of course she will.

[truthaboutluv]

Regarding the nominated Original Songs, as predicted, because they were getting called out, the Academy announced yesterday that a shorter version of all the nominated songs will be performed on the night. 

 

4 hours ago, Chas411 said:

I wonder if she’ll ham it up as much as she did in Vegas last week. Oh who am I kidding of course she will.

It's funny how different people can view the same thing because I saw so much gushing about that Vegas performance (I assume you're referring to the one where Bradley joined her on stage) with people going on about their amazing chemistry, etc. I mean I'm going to assume these were fans of the movie so they may be biased. But honestly I watched the performance and felt the same way I have felt whenever Gaga goes on about Bradley - slightly uncomfortable. Like I feel like if I was his girlfriend, I'd have told Gaga to take a seat already. She's just so overly dramatic with it all. 

Edited February 1, 2019 by truthaboutluv

[Chas411]

On 1/2/2019 at 12:55 PM, truthaboutluv said:

honestly I watched the performance and felt the same way I have felt whenever Gaga goes on about Bradley - slightly uncomfortable.

Yup. While I’m delighted most of Hollywood has copped how insanely dramatic she is about their relationship (not to mention. That She keeps trying to imply the relationship mirrors that form ASIB). I’m surprised nobody has called out how inappropriate she acts around him considering he’s supposed to be in a committed relationship.. but also the fact that he lets her and until he finally realized at the Golden Globes everyone was laughing st them he seemed Just as into the act as her.

[bannana]

On ‎2019‎-‎01‎-‎29 at 6:27 PM, BW Manilowe said:

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.

A protein bar, in the purse or in the pocket, that is how the rest of us survive in food-deprived situations.

[Jul 68]

I put a poll up on Twitter to try and convince The Academy (AMPAS) to change the day the Oscars are held to a Friday or Saturday so that we don't have to stay up so late on a work night.

So far, I only have 1 vote. This is why I'm posting a link here (hoping to get more votes because I feel very strongly about this).

Thank you.

Click here to vote

[Kromm]

6 hours ago, Jul 68 said:

I put a poll up on Twitter to try and convince The Academy (AMPAS) to change the day the Oscars are held to a Friday or Saturday so that we don't have to stay up so late on a work night.

So far, I only have 1 vote. This is why I'm posting a link here (hoping to get more votes because I feel very strongly about this).

Thank you.

Click here to vote

Good lord. You're NOT joking?

[ProudMary]

7 hours ago, Jul 68 said:

I put a poll up on Twitter to try and convince The Academy (AMPAS) to change the day the Oscars are held to a Friday or Saturday so that we don't have to stay up so late on a work night.

So far, I only have 1 vote. This is why I'm posting a link here (hoping to get more votes because I feel very strongly about this).

Thank you.

Click here to vote

I don't know if you're aware of this or not but through 1998, the Oscars were held on a Monday night at 9 p.m.  In 1999, they were moved to Sunday night at 8:30 p.m.  Sunday was the compromise, specifically because it's not on a workday which means no L.A. traffic jams, but even that was not a preferred night as producers feared a Sunday night telecast would cut into weekend box office.

Sorry, but they're not changing the night of the awards.

[Quickbeam]

I record it and watch it the next morning before work. 

[Jul 68]

20 hours ago, ProudMary said:

I don't know if you're aware of this or not but through 1998, the Oscars were held on a Monday night at 9 p.m.  In 1999, they were moved to Sunday night at 8:30 p.m.  Sunday was the compromise, specifically because it's not on a workday which means no L.A. traffic jams, but even that was not a preferred night as producers feared a Sunday night telecast would cut into weekend box office.

Sorry, but they're not changing the night of the awards.

Thanks for the info. I didn't remember all of the changes over the years. But hey, a girl can dream. 💫

Maybe it would help if they simulcast it in theaters. They really need to toss some actual creativity into the broadcast to keep it relevant. This idea would bring people back into the theaters (which they've been begging for) and get them off the couch/streaming (no offence to Netflix and Roma intended).

[blackwing]

On 1/29/2019 at 12:22 PM, truthaboutluv said:

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. 

I think there was a backlash and now all of the songs will be performed.  It was announced that a "special guest" will perform the song from "Mary Poppins Returns".  Does anyone NOT think it will be Dame Julie Andrews?  I know she had issues with her voice, not sure what the status of it is now, but I do think she will make an appearance (maybe with Emily Blunt) on this song.  If it's not her, or Blunt, maybe Angela Lansbury or Dick Van Dyke.  As long as no Meryl Streep!  We don't need to find a way to shoehorn her into everything even when she's not nominated.

I guess I am one of the few that is very unimpressed with "Shallow" and don't understand the fuss.  I find it very boring.

I also just read that winners will get a total of 90 seconds from the second their name is announced to the end of their speech.  Good.  Less time to read a laundry list of names, less time to proselytize.  The winners need to make every second count and decide what is most important to them.  

Edited February 5, 2019 by blackwing

[truthaboutluv]

Just now, blackwing said:

I think there was a backlash and now all of the songs will be performed. 

I know. I mentioned it a few posts above. Speaking of, word from insiders is that the Academy really wants Kendrick Lamar to perform but so far, he hasn't committed to it. So All The Stars may not be performed after all, unless SZA somehow does it herself. I'm not surprised Kendrick's not rushing to commit to this. Everyone and their mother know Gaga will win and this isn't really his scene so why bother going through the process of planning a performance and all that only to lose. 

 

Quote

I also just read that winners will get a total of 90 seconds from the second their name is announced to the end of their speech.  Good.  Less time to read a laundry list of names, less time to proselytize.  The winners need to make every second count and decide what is most important to them.  

There have been time limits for speeches for years and that hasn't stopped plenty of people from just speaking over the music. My money's on at least one or two doing the same this year. 

Edited February 5, 2019 by truthaboutluv

[blackwing]

16 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

I know. I mentioned it a few posts above. Speaking of, word from insiders is that the Academy really wants Kendrick Lamar to perform but so far, he hasn't committed to it. So All The Stars may not be performed after all, unless SZA somehow does it herself. I'm not surprised Kendrick's not rushing to commit to this. Everyone and their mother know Gaga will win and this isn't really his scene so why bother going through the process of planning a performance and all that only to lose. 

 

There have been time limits for speeches for years and that hasn't stopped plenty of people from just speaking over the music. My money's on at least one or two doing the same this year. 

Good for him.  I can't really say I blame him.  I'm sure they want him on the show because... "diversity" and to show they are on the cutting edge.  I agree with you, why would he want to bother.

If they really want to enforce the time limits, then they need to actually enforce them.  Not like the Golden Globes where that dick from "Green Book" said "No!  No!" and just kept talking.  I think they should just turn off the microphone, have the orchestra play loudly, have the announcer start speaking, and cut away to commercial.  But I'm with you, I think they will probably cave.  Especially to a winner deemed "socially important" like Gaga for song or Regina King.  

[rcc]

I love Shallow and hope it wins. Who knew Cooper was such a fine singer.

[DearEvette]

On 1/29/2019 at 7:52 PM, scarynikki12 said:

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.

Yeah, I like when they do that with the more technical awards.  I appreciate the little bit of knowledge.  My ideal telecast would just be no cringey patter, no stand up set, no schtick like ordering food or man-on-the-street shit.  It would be nice to have a witty host to move things along.  But an announcer can do that.

For the acting awards show a clip of each actor in a scene.  Then announce the winner.

For the song awards, perform the songs.  I do like them dispersing them throughout the show.  And then awarding the winner after the final song.

For the tecnhnical awards, explain a little of what they are, give and example or show  scene showcasing., e.g. screenwriting show a shot of the screenplay om  page then a little clip of the words on translated to the scene screen.  etc.etc.

They could cut an entire hour out of the telecast by shedding the extraneous crap.

 

And speaking of technical stuff, on a more fun note, I follow Ruth Carter (the Oscar nominated costume designer from Black Panther) and she is doing a daily 28 days of costume design where each day she tweets about the movies she's done work on and give a little snippet about them.  So far she's done: School Daze, Real life Superheros (Malcolm X, Selma, Marshall) and BAPS (don't judge me I love that movie) and today's is Black Panther.  It is a nice daily treat.

[Shannon L.]

3 hours ago, blackwing said:

I guess I am one of the few that is very unimpressed with "Shallow" and don't understand the fuss.  I find it very boring.

It was my least favorite of the three that were submitted for consideration.

[blackwing]

Even though they are asking winners to keep their speeches short, I’m sure there will still be a few montages.  I don’t necessarily mind montages but I would prefer if they identify the movies/actors in the clips.   Any guesses on what the montages will feature? 

Let’s see, no doubt they will be political.  So I’m thinking perhaps a montage on standing up for what you believe in, a montage on rebellions, a montage on journalists, and a montage on dream(er)s.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Because we all talk the next day about how the speeches of the Oscar winners, some of whom have dreamed of this moment for their whole lives, went on too long. We don't complain about the show dragging on for four and a half hours because of the filler that the self-aggrandizing producer added, and the 15-minute stretches in which awards are talked about but never actually given out, and the stilted banter of the presenters. Like, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone will present a musical category, but only after some painful shtick reminding us that they were both in La La Land, and she pretends to hate his singing, and he pretends to have hurt feelings over it, and there are faint titters in the audience, and it drags on and on, and you start wondering if there's any reason to go on. I don't even mean go on watching the telecast; I mean life itself.  

Once again (to borrow from vibeology), the Oscars seem to be in the hands of people who hate the Oscars. Seeing (and hearing) the winners is the only reason most of us watch, unless I run with a really strange crowd. When you think back on memorable moments in the history of this telecast, do you ever say "I remember that wonderful eight minutes of Debbie Allen choreography, and that beautiful montage of aviation in film"? No. You think of what people did when their names were called, whether you loved it or hated it. Sacheen Littlefeather accepting for Brando and scolding the Hollywood people for their portrayals of Native Americans. Vanessa Redgrave blasting the "Zionist hoodlums" and getting booed. Sally Field expressing relief that they liked her. Tom Hanks rambling about the streets of heaven being too crowded with angels. The 11-year-old Anna Paquin's attack of hyperventilation. Michael Caine paying tribute to every one of his competitors. Halle Berry's full-on meltdown. Et cetera.  

Yes, some of the speeches do turn into a dull list of names, but just as often they are spontaneous and exuberant, and sometimes they are even eloquent. I feel the winners should have as much time as they need.

Not that I expect this 90-second rule to be enforced. Whenever we're told in advance that this is the year they're going to get tough, it turns out only to apply to the people in the first half of the show. That is, mostly the non-famous people in the technical and documentary categories.  

Edited February 6, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[GHScorpiosRule]

51 minutes ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

When you think back on memorable moments in the history of this telecast, do you ever say "I remember that wonderful eight minutes of Debbie Allen choreography, and that beautiful montage of aviation in film"? No.

Well, yes. Maybe not the aviation, but I do recall in years past, talking about what a great opening montage Billy Crystal did that one year, singing and "being" in all the movies that had been nominated for Best Picture. Or how Funny Whoopi Goldberg was in her second turn as host, when she riffed on having a ribbon for every cause. Or how I got all misty-eyed the year Mira Sorvino won and saw her father, Paul Sorvino (who I have loved since Law & Order), break down in tears.

In more recent years, I only tune in for the people I want to see win. Like Daniel Day-Lewis, and yes, Christian Bale. So I'll be tuning in this year to see if Bale gets that Oscar, or if Rami will get it.

[cpcathy]

Honest to goodness, I enjoy the opening monologue. I thought Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin did a great job, and I enjoyed Ellen Degeneres' most recent show. I even enjoyed Seth MacFarlane, forgive me!

There are also times when I thought the montages did a great job, but there can be too many of them. Last year there were too many filmed bits and too long a bit with Jimmy and the "real" people. Cut that stuff short if not cut it altogether. There's no reason to rush everything else.

[Milburn Stone]

1 hour ago, cpcathy said:

I even enjoyed Seth MacFarlane, forgive me!

Me too.

[blackwing]

I enjoyed Seth MacFarlane as well.  I still laugh about "We Saw Your Boobs".  So many people were so uptight about this.  The reactions of actresses in the audience like Charlize, Naomi and Jennifer Lawrence were hilarious, even if they weren't "live" (they were wearing different dresses that evening).  I think back to recent Oscars shows and this is the most memorable thing I can remember about any of them.  I loved Whoopi Goldberg too.  Jimmy Kimmel was not funny so if anything I am glad we won't have a "surprise appearance by regular people" on the show this year.

[Shannon L.]

I did love Jimmy Kimmel including his "feud" with Matt Damon.  "Ladies and gentleman, Ben Affleck and guest". lol! 

[Inquisitionist]

An opening number and a few montages that have a relevant theme are fine.  It's the time wasted on "stunts" throughout the show that irritate, especially at the expense of speech time.  There is no reason this thing needs to run longer than 2.5 hours even if each winner gets a "whopping" two minutes to talk.

[truthaboutluv]

So the BAFTA Awards, the last big precursor awards are done and here's how things seem to be shaping up for the key categories, IMHO. 

Best Picture

Looks like Roma will take it. If they could win at BAFTA, which clearly had so much love for The Favourite, the latter which is so quintessentially British, that bodes really well for their chances at the Oscars. Thing is, the BAFTA's have actually been off the last few years with their Best Picture pick. Last year they awarded Three Billboards and of course Shape of Water won the Oscar. And it's hard to ignore that PGA awarded Green Book Best Picture. And PGA is something like 90 percent accurate with their picks when it comes to what film wins the Oscar.

Best Actor 

Rami Malek is the clear favorite at this point. In fact this race has turned out very similar to the one between Michael Keaton (for Birdman) and Eddie Redmayne (for Theory of Everything) a few years ago. In that year, Keaton started the race a front runner. Then the Globes happened where both he and Redmayne won because they were competing in different categories, just like with Rami and Christian Bale at this year's Globes. Then Micheal Keaton won the Critics Choice, like Bale did this year. But then Eddie Redmayne won the SAG, like Rami and then won the BAFTA, like Rami and of course we know he won the Oscar. So hard to bet against Rami at this point but anything can happen on Oscar night so still not a complete done deal but looking close.

Best Actress

Still think Glenn Close will win even though the BAFTA awarded Olivia Colman tonight. I just think Olivia's win was one of those, "she's one of our own and was too amazing in this film for us to not award her, since we know the Oscars are going to give the trophy to Glenn".

Best Supporting Actor

This is probably the only truly sewn up acting category in my book. It's done. Mahershala's winning his second Oscar. 

Best Supporting Actress

Oh what a tangled mess. Like the Best Actor, I have to look at past award years on this one and if I do that, it is possible that Rachel Weisz might pull out a late run award season run and snatch the Oscar. I admit it was someone else who pointed this out on another board that made me realize that yes, this is shaping up exactly like a few years ago when many thought Sylvester Stallone was a sure thing to win Supporting Actor for Creed. Like Regina, Sylvester won the Golden Globe and Critics Choice but was snubbed by SAG and BAFTA. At SAG, they gave the award to Idris Elba who wasn't even nominated for an Oscar, much like Emily Blunt's win a few weeks ago. Then Mark Rylance won the BAFTA for a performance the critics had praised a lot and then of course he won the Oscar. Well Weisz just won the BAFTA. So yeah, does eerily feel like a bit of deja vu but I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for Regina. 

Best Director 

Like Mahersala for Supporting Actor, this is done. It's Cuaron. While I would love to Spike win as he's long overdue, I think he'll get his moment for Adapted Screenplay which I'm pretty sure will go to BlacKklansman. 

Edited February 11, 2019 by truthaboutluv

[ruby24]

The Supporting Actress category might turn out a surprise winner this year. I wouldn't even be totally shocked if Marina de Tavira comes out of nowhere and takes it.

I thought Regina King still had a path to the Oscar if the other awards shows split, and it looks like they have, BUT...looking at how many nominations The Favourite has and how much BAFTA loved it, I have to imagine that movie is going to win something in a bigger category on Oscar night. And Rachel Weisz is basically a lead in the movie, which gives her an advantage. And despite Regina King being liked in the industry, now I'm wondering how many people are even watching Beale Street (it only got three nominations).

I'm really wavering on this one. I could see Weisz winning now, even though it'd be her second Oscar. I could also see King pulling it off. And I could see a shocker happening with de Tavira (Roma also has 10 nominations). This is the most wide open race.

[cpcathy]

I foresee:

Rami Malek

Glenn Close

Mahersala Ali

Regina King

Cuaron

Spike Lee for adapted screenplay

Best Picture.....hmmmmm, too close to call!

Edited February 11, 2019 by cpcathy

[ProudMary]

While I do think that Roma will most likely be named Best Picture, I'd just like to go on the record with my upset pick for the trophy. (If I say it "out loud," maybe it'll happen! 😁 )  Because of the preferential ballot, I honestly believe that Black Panther could slip in and grab the night's big award. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm stubborn. I'm going to keep hoping that Christian Bale wins the Oscar. If he loses and Rami wins it, I won't be that upset. But I really want Bale to win it.

[ruby24]

So, the Academy announced today that they're taking four categories off the broadcast, to be presented during commercial breaks: Cinematography, Editing, Live-Action Short and Makeup & Hairstyling.

I think this is really absurd, to be honest. This mandate that the show HAS to be three hours doesn't apply to ANY other awards show (the Grammys were nearly four last night!). ABC is taking advantage of the Academy by demanding stupid shit like this. The Oscars are what they are, let them give out all the awards. And geez, film editing and cinematography are two of the most important below-the-line categories to filmmaking!

[ProudMary]

I was just coming here to post the THR article.  I'm stunned that Cinematography and Film Editing are among the "demoted" categories.  These artists deserve their due as much as the actors who are allowed to exceed the set limits for acceptance speeches just because they're recognizable to the TV audience.  Not cool, Academy. 😡

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/academy-unveils-4-oscars-categories-be-presented-commercial-breaks-1185505

[Shannon L.]

20 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

So, the Academy announced today that they're taking four categories off the broadcast, to be presented during commercial breaks: Cinematography, Editing, Live-Action Short and Makeup & Hairstyling.

What?!  That's ridiculous and really disrespectful to the nominees and their friends and families.  Personally, I don't care about shorts, but I know there are many who do.  I do, however, have opinions about the other three and would like to see the announcement of who wins.  Seriously, cut back on the number of montages (which I love, but can live with just one or two) and cut back on the stupid banter before announcing the nominees and cut back on the number of bits that the host does.  Keep him/her to the opening number, then just a couple of quick moments throughout.   No more shenanigans that take too much time and that most people don't find funny anyway. That will help. 

As for Best Picture, if you are in this thread on in the Movies thread, then you know that I have a track record of one of the Best Movies nominees that I don't watch ends up winning.  A couple of times, I had seen every movie on the list except one, and the one I didn't was the winner.  So, if anyone believes in superstition, then I'm not watching Roma at all and won't get to Vice before the show--and I doubt Vice will win.  So, put your money on Roma  :)

ETA:  Last year, two of the categories I was most invested in were Sound Editing and Sound Mixing and even I think Cinematography and Editing are a bigger deal.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Shannon L.

[ruby24]

The four categories kicked off the telecast just happen to be the ones with no Disney nominee in them. 

Now there's a coincidence! This is SOOO transparent. ABC wants to turn this into a commercial for Disney product. It's time for the Oscars to go elsewhere, imo.

[scarynikki12]

This is getting a lot of negative press so I'm hoping the decision gets reversed.  Every single winner of each of these four categories deserves their moment and shame on ABC for trying to deny them that.  What if they'd done this in previous years?  We wouldn't have seen Rachel Shenton using sign language incorporated in her speech about deaf education when she won last year for Silent Child.  We wouldn't have seen any of Thema Schoonmaker's wins for her brilliant editing of Scorsese's movies.  We wouldn't have seen David Mari and Montse Ribe win for their outstanding work on Pan's Labyrinth.  For fuck's sake, just last year the great Roger Deakins finally won an Oscar after years of stunning cinematography and we'd have missed it.  Each of these people, and the many other winners in all the categories, deserves their moment in the spotlight as much as Glenn Close, Mahershala Ali, Spike Lee, and Alfonso Cuaron.  Some of the best acceptance speeches in general have come from the winners of the "lesser" categories if they're worried about the entertainment aspect.  If they don't reverse it, fuck them. 

48 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

As for Best Picture, if you are in this thread on in the Movies thread, then you know that I have a track record of one of the Best Movies nominees that I don't watch ends up winning.  A couple of times, I had seen every movie on the list except one, and the one I didn't was the winner.  So, if anyone believes in superstition, then I'm not watching Roma at all and won't get to Vice before the show--and I doubt Vice will win.  So, put your money on Roma  🙂

Thank you for your service.

[BW Manilowe]

The Hollywood Reporter article says the acceptance speeches for the categories not given on air will be seen elsewhere in the telecast, & on the Academy’s various social media platforms (maybe also their website; I forget). But I can’t see how they’re gonna do that without making the speeches look disjointed(?)/out of place. They also say that 6 of the Academy groups actually volunteered to have their awards given during the commercial break & 4 were chosen from those 6 (so the point about the chosen groups not including Disney-connected nominees on an awards show airing on a Disney-owned network is probably still valid). The other thing they said is (assuming they don’t come to their senses & realize this was a bad idea & they scrap presenting some awards during a commercial break & reinstate them to the show in 2020) they’ll rotate the categories for which the awards will be given out during the commercials (like they at least supposedly rotate the Grammy categories for which the awards are given out during the non-televised preshow); so if they keep doing this as long as Disney owns ABC & ABC airs the Oscars, it may not always hold that the unaired/barely aired categories have no Disney-connected nominees.

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, ruby24 said:

So, the Academy announced today that they're taking four categories off the broadcast, to be presented during commercial breaks: Cinematography, Editing, Live-Action Short and Makeup & Hairstyling.

I'm kind of ok with this. Especially the short catergories since who actually sees those? I mean they already have the technical awards ceremony right? So there are already numerous awards that aren't being given out during the telecast. Giving these ones out during commercials seems like a readonable compromise. It is not like they are stopping giving out those awards.

[ruby24]

I think they ought to give the three shorts out before the ceremony and run the clip package of those. And combine sound editing and sound mixing into one award- Best Sound. 

And there you have it- four awards eliminated from the show. I've thought for YEARS this is how they should do it.

[scarynikki12]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Especially the short catergories since who actually sees those?

I’ve watched the nominated shorts at my independent theater for the last few years and it’s always the highlight of Oscar season. The theater has several showings  every year and it’s always packed. They don’t get the same viewership (due to not being as available outside of the Netflix produced ones) as the features but plenty of people still see them. A lot of feature filmmakers have gotten their start with short films so denying them their moment ignores that experience and history. 

[VCRTracking]

Also this tweet has a good point:

Edited February 12, 2019 by VCRTracking

[cpcathy]

Has anyone seen the video on Youtube, "How Star Wars was Saved in the Editing?" I'd link but I'm at work with no access to Youtube. Please do watch, it just solidifies how editors are important.

[VCRTracking]

My problem with that video is that it supposes Lucas had this fully formed concrete thing that he wrote and shot and only when he found out from others that it wasn't working that it was drastically changed in post. Nothing could be more false.  Star Wars movie was designed to be shaped and constructed primarily in the editing stage.   It was always changing and evolving throughout the process from the scriptwriting, through filming to the editing.   It also misses the point that there were three editors(all who won Oscars for it) overseeing different parts of the movie and it all works as a cohesive whole because Lucas was overseeing it all.

Now a movie that was really saved in the editing is the original Ghostbusters. That movie changed a lot from the original script and a lot of it was cut out or re-arranged to make it the movie we know and love today.

Edited February 12, 2019 by VCRTracking

[ShadowHunter]

It seems like they are trying to make the show move smoother and be shorter but they are making the wrong decisions.  I understand live action short being moved. Not to be mean or rude to those who worked hard. 

Agree with others about Editing and especially Cinematography.

The show needs to start at least a half hour earlier. That is all I feel the Academy would move is a half hour.

I also heard they wanted more big names and didn't ask last years winners to return this year to present. They asked them now because they got negative attention.

Sadly I know many people who only care about the major awards so they will be happy. Again I understand them trying to make the show shorter many people complain it's too long. They are not going about it the right way. 

Edited February 12, 2019 by ShadowHunter

[Kel Varnsen]

18 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

I’ve watched the nominated shorts at my independent theater for the last few years and it’s always the highlight of Oscar season. The theater has several showings  every year and it’s always packed. They don’t get the same viewership (due to not being as available outside of the Netflix produced ones) as the features but plenty of people still see them. A lot of feature filmmakers have gotten their start with short films so denying them their moment ignores that experience and history. 

That is sort of my point, if it is where people get their start then short films aren't really on the same level as big time features. I mean you don't see Major League baseball giving out an award to best little leaguer at their end of season awards and you don't see the Nobel Organization handing out a Nobel Prize for best High School Science Project.

Plus if they aren't being shown anywhere but indie theatres during Oscar time they obviously aren't on most people's radar the same way actual movies are, so all the more reason not to have them during the televised show. It is not like they aren't giving them out anymore. Now if this was back in the day where you could see a short and a newsreel and all that stuff before a movie I could see a reason for it, but times change.

[Silver Raven]

2 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

That is sort of my point, if it is where people get their start then short films aren't really on the same level as big time features. I mean you don't see Major League baseball giving out an award to best little leaguer at their end of season awards and you don't see the Nobel Organization handing out a Nobel Prize for best High School Science Project.

Plus if they aren't being shown anywhere but indie theatres during Oscar time they obviously aren't on most people's radar the same way actual movies are, so all the more reason not to have them during the televised show. It is not like they aren't giving them out anymore. Now if this was back in the day where you could see a short and a newsreel and all that stuff before a movie I could see a reason for it, but times change.

My local theater is showing all of the nominated shorts this month. It's a Century theater.

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, Silver Raven said:

My local theater is showing all of the nominated shorts this month. It's a Century theater.

Even that kind of proves my point though. If the only way to see short films is through a special screening of ones that have already been nominated then I don't think they are really relevant. 

[Irlandesa]

6 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

That is sort of my point, if it is where people get their start then short films aren't really on the same level as big time features. I mean you don't see Major League baseball giving out an award to best little leaguer at their end of season awards and you don't see the Nobel Organization handing out a Nobel Prize for best High School Science Project.

These aren't film school projects, though.  These are professionals who put together a short film with the budget they can muster up.  To me it's more like the home run battle before the all-star game.  It's a very short part of playing baseball but it's still aired.

[ProudMary]

I think Alfonso Cuaron pretty much dropped the mic on why Cinematography and Editing MUST be included in the main ceremony.

[Kel Varnsen]

14 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

These aren't film school projects, though.  These are professionals who put together a short film with the budget they can muster up.  To me it's more like the home run battle before the all-star game.  It's a very short part of playing baseball but it's still aired.

If the short movies are the equivalent of the home run derby why aren't big name directors, the kind who win best director, making shorts that are in the running for those oscars? You never see Spielberg, or Kathryn Bigelow or Guillermo del Toro or David Fincher up for the best short oscars. It doesn't even seem like well known tv directors make movies that compete for those awards, even though they would probably transfer to that medium quite well. 

[BW Manilowe]

Read This (Not That It Changes Anything)

From Variety: Film Academy Clarifies Controversial Oscar Plans

 

On 2/13/2019 at 12:59 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

If the short movies are the equivalent of the home run derby why aren't big name directors, the kind who win best director, making shorts that are in the running for those oscars? You never see Spielberg, or Kathryn Bigelow or Guillermo del Toro or David Fincher up for the best short oscars. It doesn't even seem like well known tv directors make movies that compete for those awards, even though they would probably transfer to that medium quite well. 

Emmy (& multiple other) Award-winning actress Christine Lahti won an Oscar a number of years ago as director of the winning film in 1 of the short subject categories. I don’t remember the name of it though, or exactly how long ago she won.

[ruby24]

That explanation changes nothing. We know that's what they're doing and NO ONE LIKES THAT IDEA. This whole revolving categories thing is bullshit. Yeah, I'm sure one of these years they're going to announce Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Costumes and Best Visual Effects in the commercial breaks because they just happen to be the ones on the chopping block. Nope! That will NEVER HAPPEN.

The whole point is to allow everyone to have their moment and not let any category be shortchanged. I mean for god's sake, this is saving them what, seven minutes? It's absurd.

[blackwing]

I guess I am one of the people that these changes are trying to attract and retain.  I watch the Oscars because I want to see movie stars.  I want to see what they are wearing, who they are sitting next to, what they are saying.  I get that this is supposed to be an annual awards ceremony that honors everything about the movies (and not just the big movie stars), but sorry, I'm all about the stars.  I don't particularly care about categories like Live Action Short and I wouldn't mind sitting through categories like Best Sound Mixing but unfortunately too many people in the industry have viewed an awards show acceptance speech not as an opportunity to thank their peers for the recognition, but as a way to get their own political views across.  It's one thing if you are a renowned talent like Viola Davis.  But if you're a (relative) no-namer, I just want to hear you give some brief words of thanks and then move on.  I don't need to hear you go on and on for over 60 seconds about your wife the love of your life and hi Bobby and Sally at home if you're watching this it's past your bedtime.

So I actually don't mind if some of these awards are given out during the commercial.  I guess we are going to see the announcement of the winner and then there will be a brief clip of the acceptance speech.

Everyone always talks about how these people work so hard and they should deserve their moment too.  Everyone always talks about that woman that said "you know you've made it when your dress costs more than it cost you to make your film".  Sorry, but in the end, I honestly don't care.  If that makes me a bad person, then oh well.  Sorry.