The Annual Academy Awards - General Discussion

[Crs97]

On 2/10/2022 at 9:08 AM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I am hesitant to watch Belfast because I know enough of the history of The Troubles.  I really do not want to watch a film steeped in nostalgia for a place that was deeply segregated through the eyes of someone who never experienced it. 

I don’t think I understand; Kenneth Branagh experienced it as a child, which is how he tells the story.

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, Crs97 said:

I don’t think I understand; Kenneth Branagh experienced it as a child, which is how he tells the story.

The Belfast Kenneth experienced us not the same Belfast as someone the same age who grew up in a Catholic neighborhood experienced.  The city he is waxing nostalgic about was a shithole to others with a government designed to favor the Protestant minority.  Working class Protestants had it better than their Irish Catholic counterparts.   The Troubles began as civil rights protests before devolving into sectarian violence.   

[ProudMary]

9 hours ago, Bill1978 said:

I dunno, this may seem crazy, but perhaps they could return to voting for movies that the public have flocked to watch like the Academy use to do in the 80s and 90s. Not saying they should ignore the 'arty' films but surely with 10 spots you can find 3 places for a decent box office favourite. I feel that if Titanic or Return of the King were released last year they'd be lucky to get anywhere near the nominations they got let alone the wins.

But then again, I guess the public's mood to movies has changed since then cause honestly I cannot see something like Driving Miss Daisy being a box office hit today like it was when it was released.

Agreed on the first item I bolded. Return of the King would now be branded a genre film and while it might still have been nominated for Best Picture, especially under the 10 BP nominees format (see this year's Dune,) I don't think it would have won.

As to the second item, I do agree with you; yet Green Book won BP only three years ago. (Eyeroll)

5 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

The problem with this is the biggest box office movies are all franchise movies or are created to be box office hits. The writing, directing, and acting in these movies do the job but don't transcend or innovate.  So, they are not getting nominations in those categories.  Without those nominations,  a best picture nomination is not going to happen.  A Marvel movie will get nominations in the technical categories because that is where the movies do innovate by design.  Disney is not going to allow a director or actor take risks that may actually nab a nomination in the big 5 categories.   

Just my opinion. I believe Black Panther broke the mold here and SAG even recognized the acting ensemble to have been the very best that year, which they absolutely were. Ryan Coogler should have received a Directing nomination, but they nominated Spike Lee for BlacKKKlansman and there was no way the Academy was nominating TWO Black directors. One of those two films should have won BP. Instead it was given to the aforementioned, more Oscar-friendly choice, Green Book. I'm still mad. (Had they awarded BP to Roma, I could have accepted it. I'd have been disappointed, but not angered.)

[Ohiopirate02]

9 minutes ago, ProudMary said:

 

Just my opinion. I believe Black Panther broke the mold here and SAG even recognized the acting ensemble to have been the very best that year, which they absolutely were. Ryan Coogler should have received a Directing nomination, but they nominated Spike Lee for BlacKKKlansman and there was no way the Academy was nominating TWO Black directors. One of those two films should have won BP. Instead it was given to the aforementioned, more Oscar-friendly choice, Green Book. I'm still mad. (Had they awarded BP to Roma, I could have accepted it. I'd have been disappointed, but not angered.)

Yes Black Panther was a cut above the rest of the MCU.  I still blame Disney and their instance of neutering all of their output.  BP had a compelling storyline with a sympathetic villain and while the movie didn't fully delve into the ethical implications Killmonger brought to life, it did at least let them breathe.  The Nolan Batman movies showed that it is possible for superhero movies to gamer major accolades.  The issue isn't genre.

Movies are  like other forms of art.  Award winners are not always crowd pleasers.  I work in books, and the most popular authors are not the ones who win awards.  James Patterson, John Grisham, Danielle Steel and Nora Roberts are never going to win the National Book Award.  And there is nothing wrong with this.  Their books do a different job than the award winning books.  

 

[ProudMary]

2 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Yes Black Panther was a cut above the rest of the MCU.  I still blame Disney and their instance of neutering all of their output.  BP had a compelling storyline with a sympathetic villain and while the movie didn't fully delve into the ethical implications Killmonger brought to life, it did at least let them breathe.  The Nolan Batman movies showed that it is possible for superhero movies to gamer major accolades.  The issue isn't genre.

Movies are  like other forms of art.  Award winners are not always crowd pleasers.  I work in books, and the most popular authors are not the ones who win awards.  James Patterson, John Grisham, Danielle Steel and Nora Roberts are never going to win the National Book Award.  And there is nothing wrong with this.  Their books do a different job than the award winning books.  

 

I'm a fairly avid reader yet I've never read a book by any of the major authors you've listed. I tend to like different books than the masses generally do and my taste in movies tends to be similar. I generally prefer indie films, bio-pics and documentaries, however I'm a sucker for the MCU. 😄 I think that's why I loved Black Panther so much. Sure, T'Challa was part of the overall arc of the MCU, but the film dove into so many more of the individual stories than most of the other MCU entries had.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled Academy Awards discussion...

[Avabelle]

6 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

The Belfast Kenneth experienced us not the same Belfast as someone the same age who grew up in a Catholic neighborhood experienced.  The city he is waxing nostalgic about was a shithole to others with a government designed to favor the Protestant minority.  Working class Protestants had it better than their Irish Catholic counterparts.   The Troubles began as civil rights protests before devolving into sectarian violence.   

The film is about a Protestant family living in a catholic area. It certainly doesn’t try glamourise Protestants or try say that they in anyway had it tougher then thr catholics. His family essentially had to leave because they wouldn’t support the Protestants violence against catholics.

[sugarbaker design]

On 2/8/2022 at 4:24 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

I fully expect Lata Mangeshkar to appear in the In Memoriam segment. Considering the show has included the passing of Bollywood stars in the past few years. And she contributed a LOT. More than 60 years.

She was included in this week's memorial scroll on CBS Sunday Morning.

[Bruinsfan]

I liked Black Panther and was happy it was a huge success, but I don't think it was robbed of a BP award. In my opinion it won the Oscars it deserved, in the areas where it stood out as superior (mostly involving worldbuilding). It had a stellar cast, but other MCU films have had the likes of Jeff Bridges, Anthony Hopkins, Robert Redford, and Tilda Swinton so I wouldn't say that made it unusual. In my opinion Chadwick Boseman's performance in Civil War was superior, and the story somewhat fizzled in the climax/resolution.

[mariah23]

The Academy announced its hosts: Regina Hall, Amy Schumer and Wanda Sykes.

[ProudMary]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/oscars-twitter-2022-1235092124/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Beginning this Monday, Twitter users will get to vote on their favorite films that were released in 2021 — regardless of if the film was nominated for an Oscar — using the hashtag #OscarsFanFavorite. The film that receives the most fan votes by March 3 will be recognized during the awards broadcast on March 27.

[MicheleinPhilly]

On 2/15/2022 at 10:55 AM, ProudMary said:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/oscars-twitter-2022-1235092124/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Beginning this Monday, Twitter users will get to vote on their favorite films that were released in 2021 — regardless of if the film was nominated for an Oscar — using the hashtag #OscarsFanFavorite. The film that receives the most fan votes by March 3 will be recognized during the awards broadcast on March 27.

Isn't this what the People's Choice Awards are for? 🙄

[Slade347]

On 2/14/2022 at 3:25 PM, mariah23 said:

The Academy announced its hosts: Regina Hall, Amy Schumer and Wanda Sykes.

It's almost as if they picked three random names out of a hat.

[Vermicious Knid]

No monologue. No opening number. Just get on with it.

[Milburn Stone]

10 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

No monologue. No opening number. Just get on with it.

The one out of those three who would make me laugh is Amy. So I hope she gets a chance to.

[MicheleinPhilly]

I love Wanda but am "meh" on Amy. I'm a bit perplexed by the selection of Regina. I know and like her as an actress but her inclusion here seems very random. Does she have any hosting or comedic chops I'm not aware of? 

Overall though I'm delighted the Academy didn't go in the direction I thought they were. 

[SlovakPrincess]

On 2/8/2022 at 1:17 PM, kittykat said:

I haven't seen Nightmare Alley it's the Don't Look Up Nom that has me rolling my eyes.  I mean, I get what they were doing but I can't stand films that spend the whole time telling us how clever they are and Don't Look Up is THAT film.

As stars if maligned film franchises, I hope that Jamie Dornan, Kristen Stewart and even Dakota Johnson continue taking roles with some better material the way Robert Pattinson has. If Jamie was going to get a nom it should have been for Barb and Star go to Vista del Mar 😁.

I'm kind of surprised Ruth Negga got snubbed for Passing.  I thought she was a lock.

Nightmare Alley and Don't Look Up have the dubious distinction of being movies in which Cate Blanchett was just kinda ... meh.  I was not a big fan of either movie (though Nightmare Alley was at least competently edited and had great art direction), but what was most baffling was how blah I found Blanchett's performance in both movies.  Because she's usually mesmerizing (see Elizabeth, Blue Jasmine, The Gift).  Maybe poorly written femme fatale is not the right role for her?  

Ruth Negga and Tessa Thompson were both so good in Passing, honestly surprised neither got a nomination.  

Kristen Stewart ... I've really grown to like her in more recent projects (Happiest Season and Spencer), and she was actually quite good as a child / teen actress (Panic Room).  What in the world was going on in the Twilight films that made her acting so bad?  I mean, the material itself was unserious, but that doesn't fully explain the night-and-day badness in those films compared to her acting in other films.  

[Sarah 103]

On 2/8/2022 at 12:00 PM, TakomaSnark said:

Being The Ricardos, the film that asked the question: What if J. Edgar Hoover wasn't such a bad guy after all?

🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

My biggest problem was that in real life, Desi Arnez had a really funny clever line that difused the situation, which they cut in the movie for same fake dramatic moment involving J. Edgar Hoover. 

[KaveDweller]

23 hours ago, SlovakPrincess said:

Kristen Stewart ... I've really grown to like her in more recent projects (Happiest Season and Spencer), and she was actually quite good as a child / teen actress (Panic Room).  What in the world was going on in the Twilight films that made her acting so bad?

I think it would be hard for anyone to act well with the material in Twilight. The author of the books actually said she tried not to give Bella a personality so that any girl reading the books would be more likely to identify with her. What does an actress do with that?

[Bruinsfan]

Apparently, stare blankly with a dead-inside expression.

[Cementhead]

[ShadowHunter]

So apparently the new plan for the Academy Awards is them not airing certain awards during the show anymore. I remember hearing about that a few years ago but they ditched it. Seems they are going to make it happen this time. That's not going to help the ratings.

[Kel Varnsen]

8 hours ago, ShadowHunter said:

So apparently the new plan for the Academy Awards is them not airing certain awards during the show anymore. I remember hearing about that a few years ago but they ditched it. Seems they are going to make it happen this time. That's not going to help the ratings.

I have thought this was a good idea for years. Most people don't care about make up artists or editors. Back when the sound award was two different awards they would have to explain the difference every time. And if you have to go to the trouble to explain it you have already lost the audience's interest. 

I would love to see what kind of ratings they could get if they just stripped it down to like a 2 hour show and just did the acting awards, director, writing, animated feature, documentary, lifetime achievement, maybe best foreign language and then best picture. 

[xander874]

10 hours ago, ShadowHunter said:

So apparently the new plan for the Academy Awards is them not airing certain awards during the show anymore.

I don't think this will help ratings or the show length. They will still bloat it with silly bits that will keep it at 3+ hours. And I don't think they people who were staying away are suddenly going to flock to it because they don't have to sit through the animated short category.

I just think that the movies nominated don't have a far a reach as they once did. It used to be you could make a blockbuster that was also "artsy" but it is rare now that happens. I don't know what the solution is. Maybe they just need to lower expectations and expect more of a Tonys audience as opposed to a Super Bowl one.

It's also a pandemic. I usually see all BP nominees but I don't see that happening this year because I prefer streaming and my theater options are limited. It's just a weird year for films and this is not the time to "fix" the Oscars.

Edited February 23, 2022 by xander874

[ShadowHunter]

I agree they need to realize they are not going to get back the audience they had 30 or 20 years ago.  While it is true most people only care about the big awards this still doesn't feel like this is the answer. Best Original Score feels important or at least I thought it was but even that is getting dropped from the official ceremony.

[blackwing]

12 hours ago, ShadowHunter said:

So apparently the new plan for the Academy Awards is them not airing certain awards during the show anymore. I remember hearing about that a few years ago but they ditched it. Seems they are going to make it happen this time. That's not going to help the ratings.

I think this is a good thing.  I do recall most people here (or on the predecessor board) were against the idea when it was proposed several years ago.  I think that was the year that the "lesser awards" had to accept their statues from their seats.

Those in favour of airing every single award, even the small ones, tend to point to the example of the lady who won best documentary short (or some similar award) and commented that her dress cost more than it cost to make her movie.  People were saying that we would miss moments like that if the lesser awards were cut out.

Personally I think this is a good thing.  I don't particularly care about awards like Best Live Action Short or Best Documentary Short or Best Sound Editing.  Those are always snoozers to me.  Nobody knows who these people are, and most don't care.  Blame the people like the guys who win these awards and then drone on and on and on for two minutes reading a laundry list of names as well as pontificating about a social issue that is important to them.

I do think Production Design, however, deserves to be aired.  

It's a fine line of course, what one person finds important, someone else doesn't.

For me, I watch the Oscars because I want to see movie stars.  I don't really want to see unknowns taking their "moment" and wasting time.  I recall there was a guy from last year or the year before that actually told the orchestra to wait and stop trying to cut him off.  Those are the kind of people the show seems to be trying to exorcise.  The worst is when there are three winners, and one guy who nobody knows uses up 95% of the time and then the other two who nobody knows are still expecting to get their time as well.

If they really want to speed up the show, the Academy should tell people they get one minute maximum.  Just turn off the microphone after one minute, dim the lights, and play music.

Edited February 23, 2022 by blackwing

[ShadowHunter]

40 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I think this is a good thing.  I do recall most people here (or on the predecessor board) were against the idea when it was proposed several years ago.  I think that was the year that the "lesser awards" had to accept their statues from their seats.

Those in favour of airing every single award, even the small ones, tend to point to the example of the lady who won best documentary short (or some similar award) and commented that her dress cost more than it cost to make her movie.  People were saying that we would miss moments like that if the lesser awards were cut out.

Personally I think this is a good thing.  I don't particularly care about awards like Best Live Action Short or Best Documentary Short or Best Sound Editing.  Those are always snoozers to me.  Nobody knows who these people are, and most don't care.  Blame the people like the guys who win these awards and then drone on and on and on for two minutes reading a laundry list of names as well as pontificating about a social issue that is important to them.

I do think Production Design, however, deserves to be aired.  

It's a fine line of course, what one person finds important, someone else doesn't.

For me, I watch the Oscars because I want to see movie stars.  I don't really want to see unknowns taking their "moment" and wasting time.  I recall there was a guy from last year or the year before that actually told the orchestra to wait and stop trying to cut him off.  Those are the kind of people the show seems to be trying to exorcise.  The worst is when there are three winners, and one guy who nobody knows uses up 95% of the time and then the other two who nobody knows are still expecting to get their time as well.

If they really want to speed up the show, the Academy should tell people they get one minute maximum.  Just turn off the microphone after one minute, dim the lights, and play music.

All valid points. The show will probably still drag they will just make the skits longer. I'm all for a show that doesn't drag on but knowing them as I said it still could. 

[NUguy514]

This idea is completely stupid, and I hope everyone realizes this change will not, in fact, do anything to make the show shorter or more entertaining.  In lieu of airing these eight awards live, the producers will fill space with more bits, more performances, more montages, more bullshit.  Kind of like the Grammys, except that the Grammys can be a glorified concert since they exist to award musicians.  Having Billie Eilish or Beyoncé perform or having a montage of superhero films (seemingly the only films people go to theaters to see now) is not suddenly going to increase viewership.  The people who don't watch the Oscars (which, to the producers, would be boys and young men in the middle of the country) are never, ever, ever going to watch them – doesn't matter what they do to try to attract that audience.  Many people who do watch the Oscars are going to be alienated by making the Oscars less about the awards and more about the "show."  I don't give two shits about all of the extraneous crap the Oscars stuff themselves with, and I prefer having exactly zero hosts – that actually moves things along much more quickly.  Beyond feeling insulted that they're giving out score, production design, and (especially) film editing pre-telecast, I actually do want to see the short awards given out live and hear the winners' speeches; they worked much harder than, say, Will Smith (as an actor, I can tell you with 100% confidence, they worked a LOT harder than Smith and every other actor nominated; actors spend 95% of filming sitting around), and it feels so elitist and gross for the producers to decide that these awards are fine for the telecast but those are not.

The ratings are going to suck this year, no matter what, because no one saw the movies nominated, because the nominated films aren't superhero films, because COVID changed everything, etc.  Also, there just weren't that many good films or great performances in 2021, so even I, an Oscars junkie, feel very unenthusiastic about most categories (I do still have a few films to watch, so I guess that could change).  All these changes will cause me to do is to DVR the telecast and fast-forward right through everything that isn't an award, so good job, AMPAS/Disney/ABC/producers.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I can't stand when they remove awards from the show for other shit.  So incredibly dumb.

On 2/20/2022 at 10:19 PM, SlovakPrincess said:

Kristen Stewart ... I've really grown to like her in more recent projects (Happiest Season and Spencer), and she was actually quite good as a child / teen actress (Panic Room).  What in the world was going on in the Twilight films that made her acting so bad?  I mean, the material itself was unserious, but that doesn't fully explain the night-and-day badness in those films compared to her acting in other films.  

I really liked her in "Clouds of Sils Maria".  That's one of her most acclaimed performances.  I haven't seen "Personal Shopper" yet but she got a buttload of nominations for that one.

On 2/17/2022 at 1:09 PM, MicheleinPhilly said:

I love Wanda but am "meh" on Amy. I'm a bit perplexed by the selection of Regina. I know and like her as an actress but her inclusion here seems very random. Does she have any hosting or comedic chops I'm not aware of? 

Overall though I'm delighted the Academy didn't go in the direction I thought they were. 

I love the Wanda and Regina ideas, the Amy idea is the one that makes me ???????????????????????

[MicheleinPhilly]

44 minutes ago, NUguy514 said:

This idea is completely stupid, and I hope everyone realizes this change will not, in fact, do anything to make the show shorter or more entertaining.  In lieu of airing these eight awards live, the producers will fill space with more bits, more performances, more montages, more bullshit.  Kind of like the Grammys, except that the Grammys can be a glorified concert since they exist to award musicians.  Having Billie Eilish or Beyoncé perform or having a montage of superhero films (seemingly the only films people go to theaters to see now) is not suddenly going to increase viewership.  The people who don't watch the Oscars (which, to the producers, would be boys and young men in the middle of the country) are never, ever, ever going to watch them – doesn't matter what they do to try to attract that audience.  Many people who do watch the Oscars are going to be alienated by making the Oscars less about the awards and more about the "show."  I don't give two shits about all of the extraneous crap the Oscars stuff themselves with, and I prefer having exactly zero hosts – that actually moves things along much more quickly.  Beyond feeling insulted that they're giving out score, production design, and (especially) film editing pre-telecast, I actually do want to see the short awards given out live and hear the winners' speeches; they worked much harder than, say, Will Smith (as an actor, I can tell you with 100% confidence, they worked a LOT harder than Smith and every other actor nominated; actors spend 95% of filming sitting around), and it feels so elitist and gross for the producers to decide that these awards are fine for the telecast but those are not.

The ratings are going to suck this year, no matter what, because no one saw the movies nominated, because the nominated films aren't superhero films, because COVID changed everything, etc.  Also, there just weren't that many good films or great performances in 2021, so even I, an Oscars junkie, feel very unenthusiastic about most categories (I do still have a few films to watch, so I guess that could change).  All these changes will cause me to do is to DVR the telecast and fast-forward right through everything that isn't an award, so good job, AMPAS/Disney/ABC/producers.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

8 hours ago, ShadowHunter said:

All valid points. The show will probably still drag they will just make the skits longer. I'm all for a show that doesn't drag on but knowing them as I said it still could. 

That's why I am thinking more and more that a 2 hour show would be way better. Get rid of the awards categories and the filler bits. Then people who tune in casually for a short time are more likely to see someone famous. Plus if you had it shorter then you could do like the super bowl and have the show that airs after the Oscars be a big deal.

Plus I bet that it won't be long before more and more of these categories are irrelevant because of technology. I think to Avengers Endgame where in the time travel scenes instead of putting the characters in time travel suits they just wore mocap suits and they made the suits digitally. If more movies do that you don't really need costume design 

The Mandalorian doesn't have real sets, they film the whole thing in The Volume, which is just a giant room covered in HD screens and the backgrounds are all CG. You don't really need actually production design if you have that.

Not to mention that for years movies have been de-aging or fixing people's faces digitally. If you can do that you don't need make-up.

[Milburn Stone]

A second (or third) to everything you said, @NUguy514. You know the underlying reasons the Oscars suck now (and will suck worse than ever this year, with the elimination of the craft awards)? There once was a time that Hollywood folks thought what they were doing was important. Now, to be sure, they could be known to exaggerate their importance in their own minds, but that was better than their cynically deciding (from the executive suite down to catering) that nothing they do is worth a shit, which is how they feel now. When Hollywood is only (instead of just mostly) about making money, and hates itself, how can we expect it to create the reverence for movies that the Oscars once did? Of course the Oscars will fill the time with bullshit. Hollywood doesn't believe in itself anymore.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Milburn Stone

[scarynikki12]

Every year the network keeps trying to come up with ideas to bring the ratings back to what they were twenty or thirty years ago and it makes them seem stupid. You want those ratings back? The ratings of the days before streaming services, DVRs, and binge watching? Twenty and thirty years ago the Big Four still ruled television and the average show was getting much higher numbers because, even with cable, the options weren't as wide as they are now. ABC and the other networks need to accept that they are NEVER getting those numbers ever again and to change how they approach award shows. They need to hire people who know how to put on a live show but, most importantly, they need to recognize that the Oscars are about celebrating the previous year's achievements in movies and to lean into that. 

Yes, that means keeping the "lesser" categories like film editing and production design in the broadcast. First and foremost this is an industry event where the people who are essential to filmmaking but are not in front of the camera get their moment to shine. Let those "lesser" winners be celebrated alongside the movie stars.

If they truly only care about ratings then they need to be watching social media as Twitter alone explodes with Oscar content every year. Just because they won't reach the 90s Nielsen numbers ever again doesn't mean people aren't watching.

Many actors express appreciation for the people behind the scenes who make them look good for the camera so my hope is that the presenters and winners take control and make a point to recognize the people in those "lesser" categories who aren't pretty enough to be in the main show. 

If these award shows should only be about the celebrities, then why not let Best Picture be announced off camera as well? There are occasionally some famous faces in that group but it's mostly won by unrecognizable people who only work behind the camera so why should we care to see their acceptance speech? Why not dump the Animated Feature, Cinematography, Documentary, and International Film awards too as the people nominated for those movies aren't recognizable to the average viewer? Why not just take half an hour out of an evening once a year, announce the four acting winners, and then move on to another program while the rest of the winners eventually show up online somewhere? The point of having all of the "lesser" awards included in the broadcast is to recognize that they are just as important to making a complete movie as the acting. This is the only time of year that they get to be on the same level as the movie stars and they deserve their moment. 

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, scarynikki12 said:

Yes, that means keeping the "lesser" categories like film editing and production design in the broadcast. First and foremost this is an industry event where the people who are essential to filmmaking but are not in front of the camera get their moment to shine. Let those "lesser" winners be celebrated alongside the movie stars.

The reverse of that argument though is if there are no lesser awards and every winner is important, why not give out the science and tech awards on Oscar night instead of at a separate ceremony?

[Avabelle]

I just hope they learned from last year and will avoid manipulating the category order. I still think that was such a manipulative move ie moving best actor to the last award because they thought Chadwick Boseman would win and they’d get their big (mostly pseudo) emotional send off. While I was disappointed for Chadwick and his family that he didn’t win I was also glad that it backfired as had he won I’d always have doubted if he really won or if it was just done for the tv moment.

my issue with this year is that save for Belfast I didn’t enjoy any of the films. I find all the awards movies in recent years to be boring. They power of the dog was dull but with the level of critical snobbery these days everyone feels that they have to jump in on the praise but I’d question if they actually really liked the movie. 

[scarynikki12]

8 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

The reverse of that argument though is if there are no lesser awards and every winner is important, why not give out the science and tech awards on Oscar night instead of at a separate ceremony?

I'd be fine with that. The year when whoever was in charge of the show made an effort to explain what the non-acting nominees do was great idea and I'd like that to become the approach again. That would be a great way to re-incorporate the science and tech awards since they'd be explained to the viewers. Conversely, if they want to keep them separate, air the two ceremonies. Let the science and tech people have their night to shine and then the next week/day bring on the rest. 

I appreciate that the networks don't want to devote a long time to the ceremony, though cutting out all the filler would accomplish that far more easily, so I'm among those who would like to see it get streamed on YouTube or another service. For free, to be clear. That would allow the entire event to be broadcast without worrying about delaying other programming. 

[Kel Varnsen]

6 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

Conversely, if they want to keep them separate, air the two ceremonies. Let the science and tech people have their night to shine and then the next week/day bring on the rest. 

I am honestly surprised that no cable channel ever tried to pick up the science and tech awards ceremony. Like discovery or bravo or A&E or E! I mean isn't it always hosted by some young hot actress? I probably wouldn't watch it but I imagine there is a big enough audience that would to show it on cable. Plus if it was on TV it would probably make it easier to move other awards to that ceremony.

[scarynikki12]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I am honestly surprised that no cable channel ever tried to pick up the science and tech awards ceremony. Like discovery or bravo or A&E or E! I mean isn't it always hosted by some young hot actress? I probably wouldn't watch it but I imagine there is a big enough audience that would to show it on cable. Plus if it was on TV it would probably make it easier to move other awards to that ceremony.

And they do the honorary awards then. Those often get presented to big name actors so I think people would tune in to watch Samuel L Jackson get his Oscar and say a few words.

[FilmTVGeek80]

19 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

The point of having all of the "lesser" awards included in the broadcast is to recognize that they are just as important to making a complete movie as the acting. This is the only time of year that they get to be on the same level as the movie stars and they deserve their moment. 

THIS.

Like you indicated, this partly feels so arbitrary. Why is cinematography still part of the main ceremony, but stuff like editing is out? Who decided cinematography was more important?

I've been watching the Oscars since I was a kid and there have always been award categories I was bored by. The older I've gotten - and the more into film I became - the more I appreciated stuff like cinematography, production design, etc., but there will always be categories I don't care for - like documentary short. But I do get that these "nobodies" are just as important to the filmmaking process as the actors and they deserve their night to be celebrated. I get that the Oscars is on TV to entertain, but the main point of it is to honor everyone who had a role in film, not just actors, writers, and directors. 

[scarynikki12]

40 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

Why is cinematography still part of the main ceremony, but stuff like editing is out? Who decided cinematography was more important?

Among the people I follow on Twitter who have been talking about this two points stand out:

The first is that the Editing winner often goes on to win Picture so it's a good award for foreshadowing. 

The second is that Dune is the frontrunner to win for Cinematography as well as getting nods for Picture and Adapted Screenplay but also earned nominations in the "lesser" categories like Editing, Costume Design, Makeup/Hairstling, Production Design, Sound, Visual Effects, and Score. Let these awards stay in the broadcast and Dune winning some/most/all of them will build momentum going into Best Picture. If it wins it will be the culmination of a triumphant night and if it doesn't it's a twist. You'd think these network guys, who puts twists into every show they greenlight these days would be all over that possibility but it sailed right past them.

[KaveDweller]

On 2/23/2022 at 6:42 AM, Kel Varnsen said:

I have thought this was a good idea for years. Most people don't care about make up artists or editors. Back when the sound award was two different awards they would have to explain the difference every time.

I care about make up and editing and even sound. I know most people don't, but most people don't even watch and aren't going to. They are never going to get the same viewers that they used to because there are just too many other things to watch. Plus if they keep those awards in the show then you notice when a movie is sweeping the awards versus when they get spread out.

I wouldn't mind them moving short film or documentary out of the main show, but I also think it is nice to see different types of movies get recognition.

[cpcathy]

Yes, it’s a different time. We have people who won’t watch the Oscars for various reasons, and then there are film fans, who have seen a number of the nominated movies and will sit for a long telecast. Sports fans have a Super Bowl for five hours, let us have the Oscars!

[NUguy514]

5 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

The first is that the Editing winner often goes on to win Picture so it's a good award for foreshadowing. 

The second is that Dune is the frontrunner to win for Cinematography as well as getting nods for Picture and Adapted Screenplay but also earned nominations in the "lesser" categories like Editing, Costume Design, Makeup/Hairstling, Production Design, Sound, Visual Effects, and Score. Let these awards stay in the broadcast and Dune winning some/most/all of them will build momentum going into Best Picture. If it wins it will be the culmination of a triumphant night and if it doesn't it's a twist. You'd think these network guys, who puts twists into every show they greenlight these days would be all over that possibility but it sailed right past them.

For what it's worth, the predictive power of the Editing Oscar has diminished greatly lately.  The last Best Picture winner that also won Editing was Argo, which was nine years ago.  I don't think this year's Editing winner will necessarily presage anything about the BP winner.

Also, I think it's exceedingly likely that Dune will win the most Oscars by racking up those "lesser" wins and not win BP.

[DanaK]

The show is too long and includes a lot of extra entertainment stuff that could be cut as others have suggested. I guess they need to somewhat entertain viewers and not bore them with just handing out awards so some of it could stay, but 3+ hours is just too long. They should figure out how to do a reasonably entertaining but brisk show in 2 hours. At times it seems like they deliberately throw in a lot of entertainment segments just to keep it at a bloated 3+ hours

[Milburn Stone]

2 hours ago, DanaK said:

They should figure out how to do a reasonably entertaining but brisk show in 2 hours. At times it seems like they deliberately throw in a lot of entertainment segments just to keep it at a bloated 3+ hours

Back in the olden days, Bob Hope or Johnny Carson would do an excellent monologue, and then they'd get on with the show. What a concept!

[chitowngirl]

Even Billy Crystal knew when to run with the moment (Jack Palance’s push-ups moment) and when to move the show along

[Vermicious Knid]

The industry is not happy either. “Contentious” Oscars Telecast Zoom Meeting Held With Sound Nominees, Branch Governors.
 

Quote

 

As widely believed, the decision to retool the show stems from discussions with broadcaster ABC about dwindling Oscar ratings, it was understood from the meeting. Sound representatives were said to have been vocal in their objection to the format, calling it insulting and disrespectful, while the Academy representatives acknowledged having received such messages and requests to reconsider the format. A source tells THR that a reversal seemed unlikely.

On the day that the announcement of the new format was made, some Academy members had already started to reach out to directors, producers and studio execs seeking help in reversing this latest plan...

“The Academy made an explicit promise not to eliminate sound from the live broadcast if they agreed to the travesty of combining Sound Editing and Sound Mixing into one category,” said Mark A. Lanza, president of Motion Picture Sound Editors, in a statement to THR on Tuesday, describing this as as “bill of goods the sound branch was sold.” (The decision to combine those categories was met with mixed reactions from the branch at the time, with those who opposed it arguing that they are different disciplines.) “The Academy’s mission is to honor the craft of filmmaking in all its parts. Eliminating certain categories from the live broadcast degrades that mission.”

 

 

[Milburn Stone]

Ironically, those "unimportant" awards served a function beyond honoring deserving craftspeople. They built suspense. You watched, and either enjoyed those speeches or didn't, with an increasing sense of anticipation for the big awards. Getting to the big awards faster--or, even more stupidly, putting some of the big awards at the beginning--destroys the drama. We don't watch to see rich people get richer. We watch the unfolding of a play. You don't put the climax in Act One.

[Irlandesa]

If I were an actor, I'd skip the red carpet in favor of watching these awards since they're going to be happening at the same time.

[Sarah 103]

On 2/25/2022 at 11:53 AM, DanaK said:

The show is too long and includes a lot of extra entertainment stuff that could be cut as others have suggested. I guess they need to somewhat entertain viewers and not bore them with just handing out awards so some of it could stay, but 3+ hours is just too long. They should figure out how to do a reasonably entertaining but brisk show in 2 hours. At times it seems like they deliberately throw in a lot of entertainment segments just to keep it at a bloated 3+ hours

I agree. If you want to cut something, don't cut awards or the performances for best original song. Cut the skits, the montages (except for in Memorium-that stays) and the other stuff like that. People are tuning in for the awards, so just show the awards.  

There are people who don't/won't watch the Oscars. Cutting awards isn't going to get them to watch. Giving popular/blockbuster films a random shout-out isn't going to get them to watch. My solution is to add a new category-best blockbuster. The top five to ten films at the US box office are automatically nominated, and all of the members of the Academy get to vote on the winner. 

[yowsah1]

On 2/25/2022 at 1:00 AM, NUguy514 said:

For what it's worth, the predictive power of the Editing Oscar has diminished greatly lately.

I'm so old I remember when the Costume Oscar was supposed to be the one that predicted the winner of Best Picture.

Another possible reason they are moving at least Animated Short off prime time is that one of the nominees is an extremely controversial movie (BESTIA).