2021 Oscar Nominations And Discussion Thread. (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

She did not win all those three, so why do you consider her the favorite?

I Stand corrected. My bad.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I first watched the Oscars in 1975. I loved "Towering Inferno" and wanted to see anything related to it.

I didn't make it through the whole ceremony - I was 7! - but I tried.

I think I skipped the next 2 but I definitely watched in 1978, and I'm pretty sure I've seen every Oscars since then.

I've never been as unenthusiastic about an Oscars ceremony as I am this year.

I don't mean that as an insult to the movies nominated, as I'm sure most are good.

But due to the pandemic, this year I've only seen a handful of them - a smaller percentage than since my childhood, I suspect - so it's harder to feel invested.

I'll watch but I can't claim to feel excited about it like I usually do...

 

[Jake Lipson]

But due to the pandemic, this year I've only seen a handful of them - a smaller percentage than since my childhood, I suspect - so it's harder to feel invested.

The funny thing is that the pandemic has actually made a lot of these movies more widely available than they otherwise would have been, especially if you don't live in a major city.

There would usually be one or two stragglers that took a long time to make it out into wide release. Amour waited until a couple weeks before the ceremony, well after it had already been named a Best Picture nominee, to go wide. Phantom Thread a few years ago didn't go wide until the week after the nominations. I remember because it was the only Best Picture nominee that year that I had not seen in advance of nominations. It literally was not available to me until later than that. There is usually at least one or two of the foreign language/international film nominees that would wait to do a significant rollout until after the ceremony, even if they lost. I remember back when Roma was nominated and everyone knew it was going to be the winner because it was also nominated in several other categories. Never Look Away from Germany was nominated against it in the foreign language category, and yet Sony chose not to give it a wide release until after the ceremony was over. This might make sense if you were expecting a win, but since it was always going to lose, I'm not sure why they didn't try to release it while the result was still technically pending. I saw it and I liked it very much, but not very many people did and my arthouse cut it down to one show a day for its second week. Then it was gone after that. No one went.

You can find a lot of the nominees as streaming rentals right now. Chicago 7 is Netflix, Sound of Metal is Amazon, and Nomadland is available on Hulu even though it isn't a Hulu original. The premium cost is preventing me from seeing Minari and The Father because I don't want to pay $19.99+tax for a 48 hour rental of anything. That's just not worth it to me even if the movie is good. So I will be waiting to see those until they hit normal rental prices, which will be after the ceremony. Promising Young Woman is available everywhere now, including on disc. Judas and the Black Messiah was on HBO Max earlier in the year, where I saw it, and is now a PVOD rental.

So if someone wants to find the nominees, streaming has actually made that easier in a lot of cases.

And yet my enthusiasm for the awards this year is at an all-time low since I have been following the Oscars, as well. I'm really not sure why, but I just feel "meh" about the whole thing. Like you, I'm sure I will watch. But it will be out of habit more than passion this year, and that's the first time I've felt like that.

 

[MartinP.]

Also, at the bottom of the article it says: "Word is all the nominated songs will be performed for the first time on the pre-show. We shall see."

That feels ridiculous to me as well. What are they doing that for, just so that they can have more Time for awkward presenter banter during the actual awards? The nominated song performances being part of the ceremony is something they should absolutely eep. But they're not asking for my opinion. If they did, Soul would be a Best Picture nominee.

Although I don't know for sure, this may have something to do with the ceremony taking place at Union Station (and partly at the Dolby). It may also be there is no red carpet for pre-show hosts to babble with the celebrities. The latest I read is "It's not clear that there will be a formal red carpet." The Oscars website on street closures says nothing about Hollywood Blvd. or the Dolby Theatre, only downtown around Union Station.

If you're interested:

https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/93_streetclosures_map.pdf

Actually, this is one year I'm more interested in the show than the movies nominated. People keep complaining about the show every year. This year had to be different, so they're trying something, let's see if it works.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The Oscars Best Picture nominees are the subject of this week's Honest Trailer:

 

[Mark Booth]

If the Academy wants to bring viewers back then the number one thing it needs to concentrate on is having an ENTERTAINING HOST to tie everything together.

Of the people that are feeling hesitant or lackadaisical about watching the Oscars this year, how many of you would definitely watch if Johnny Carson or Billy Crystal was doing the hosting?

The problem is, for the life of me, I can't think of anyone that would have the draw of a Carson or Crystal.

(Yes, I realize we lost Carson already, I'm just using him as an example of someone you could 100% count on to deliver an entertaining hosting performance.)

Mark

 

[Jake Lipson]

Hugh Jackman can reliably be counted on to do a great job with hosting. He's already done it once for the Oscars and multiple times for the Tonys. But for whatever reason, the Academy seems seriously and erroneously committed to the no host thing.

 

[TravisR]

I'm not much of a viewer of the Oscar show but the two steady complaints that I remember are the running time of the show and the internet saying that the host(s) sucked so after years of people griping, I can see them trying something different. At a minimum, the people who think writing snarky tweets or bitchy Buzzfeed articles is a personality don't have anything to attack this time around.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I can see them trying something different.

They've been trying something different for a while now to diminishing results. The last time there was a host was...well, I'll let Jimmy Kimmel explain:



That ceremony (honoring The Shape of Water as Best Picture) was in 2018.

For the 2019 ceremony, Kevin Hart was hired and then fired, so the no host thing came out of that messy situation since they couldn't find anyone else who wanted to step in on short notice. For the 2020 ceremony, they chose not to offer anyone a hosting gig because they liked how it went without one. This year, they are again going hostess by choice.

I think a good host can bring a lot to the proceedings. But I also think that the general public's apathy toward (or ignorance of in many cases) the nominated films is a bigger problem than whether or not they have a host. I don't think there is anyone in Hollywood whose presence would get people who don't know or care about the nominated films to watch it just because of them hosting.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The show often does run too long, but “too long” is rarely the sole fault of the number of minutes it’s on, and it’s rarely the sole fault of the person/people hosting.

The problem is almost always bloat from segments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is looking back at the previous year in film, with a specific emphasis on films the Academy has chosen to recognize. It’s when they interrupt a theatrical screening of a film not even eligible for awards at a neighboring movie theater to give out popcorn to random strangers. It’s when they do a live theatrical Riverdance segment in the middle of announcing nominees. It’s when they show endless montages of films from yesteryear that have no connection to the films being honored that night. It’s when they pick as presenters people who haven’t been active in filmmaking or culture in decades, who read the names and films on the cards as if they were sounding out a new word for the first time, instead of people recognizable and relevant to the audience they say they want to watch. It’s when they cut off a first time award winner for time, perhaps someone from a background that’s never been represented at the awards before, but allow other people who have never had any difficulty in finding representation to go on forever. It’s when they say they don’t have enough time to have live performances of all the nominated songs, but they do have time to show pretaped skits that aren’t good enough to show on a weekly SNL broadcast at midnight, let alone a ceremony that only happens once a year. It’s when they refuse to consider common sense staging choices that would eliminate dead air - like having the nominees for a particular category gather near the stage prior to the announcement of that category, so that when the winner is announced, they could claim their prize immediately, instead of showing two minutes of them walking to the stage and then cutting off their speech once they get there.

The sheer number of commercial interruptions don’t help with momentum. They’d be better served partnering with fewer sponsors, showing less ads, and then charging more for the ads they do show.

They do a very old school show from the time when there were three networks and, out of deference or common sense, the other two would cede a big night and not try to complete, but they’re doing it in an era of practically unlimited choice, in an era where one does not need to view the show to know exactly what’s happening on the show. Unless/until they begin to acknowledge that people watch TV in a different way and for different reasons in 2021 than they did in 1981, they’re going to continue making the same mistakes again and again.

 

[Mark Booth]

Of the people that *might* watch the Oscars *if* it had a highly entertaining host, 90% of them don't give a damn which film wins what.

Those of us in this forum are a tiny minority of the potential viewing audience. Just because we might care about which films win an Oscar doesn't mean most viewers give a flying rat's butt.

If the Academy only seeks to attract film geeks, people that truly care about the art of moviemaking, then the show will soon be off the air. To make the show viable, it needs to attract a WIDE audience. And, these days, MOST of those potential viewers aren't watching to see which film wins. They are watching to be entertained.

Mark

 

[Josh Steinberg]

And, these days, MOST of those potential viewers aren't watching to see which film wins. They are watching to be entertained.

I agree with that.

I think everything that the Academy does these days works against that basic need to entertain audience, which is a pretty stunning failing for a guild that makes entertainment. Audiences aren’t entertained when the supposed movie authority tells them their taste is all wrong and the movies they enjoy aren’t real movies. Watching endless montage after montage of film clips from decades ago isn’t entertaining. Watching popcorn being delivered to people at a real movie theater isn’t entertaining. Watching the same Bruce Vilanch-style patter that’s long grown stale year after year isn’t entertaining.

I think Billy Crystal was a phenomenal host during his time period, but the mistake they make is in trying to do that same specific style of show again and again when that’s not what today’s audience wants. Look what other awards bodies are doing. As an example, Amy Poehler and Tina Fey aren’t exactly my cup of tea for humor, but they are for a lot of people, and when they get asked to do a show, the show gets tailored to their humor rather than the other way around. But the Academy would rather make its host do routines that would have been dated two decades ago, and would rather show a 70 year old film clip than allow a present day nominated song to be played in full.

 

[TravisR]

They are watching to be entertained.

That's a very good point. I just want to find out who won but I'm definitely in the minority and the vast majority of people tuning want to see an entertaining show.

 

[TravisR]

They've been trying something different for a while now to diminishing results. The last time there was a host was...well, I'll let Jimmy Kimmel explain:

The best part of that is that Andy Cohen has TV and radio shows dedicated to talking about that kind of thing and even he doesn't remember.

 

[Mark Booth]

I agree with that.

I think everything that the Academy does these days works against that basic need to entertain audience, which is a pretty stunning failing for a guild that makes entertainment. Audiences aren’t entertained when the supposed movie authority tells them their taste is all wrong and the movies they enjoy aren’t real movies. Watching endless montage after montage of film clips from decades ago isn’t entertaining. Watching popcorn being delivered to people at a real movie theater isn’t entertaining. Watching the same Bruce Vilanch-style patter that’s long grown stale year after year isn’t entertaining.

I think Billy Crystal was a phenomenal host during his time period, but the mistake they make is in trying to do that same specific style of show again and again when that’s not what today’s audience wants. Look what other awards bodies are doing. As an example, Amy Poehler and Tina Fey aren’t exactly my cup of tea for humor, but they are for a lot of people, and when they get asked to do a show, the show gets tailored to their humor rather than the other way around. But the Academy would rather make its host do routines that would have been dated two decades ago, and would rather show a 70 year old film clip than allow a present day nominated song to be played in full.

I believe the Academy's history of being in the charge of mostly "old white guys" is why its big show is dying a slow death. And too many of the award winners decide to make impassioned pleas about some group's rights or about some cause.

To the average Joe & Jane (the audience that the Oscars *need* to attract to remain viable), this just looks like privileged rich folks whining while they are accepting another darn trophy. Not exactly entertaining.

Acceptance speeches should be heartfelt and, whenever possible, humorous. And relatively brief.

Don't get me wrong... All too frequently I am in agreement with a particular rant during an Oscar ceremony but such rants won't help save the Oscars.

MAKE IT ENTERTAINING or watch it die.

Mark

 

[MartinP.]

There have been previous years before recently, and since television began broadcasting them, where there have been no hosts.

AMPAS had no designated hosts these years:
41st in 1969 / 42nd in 1970 / 43rd in 1971 / 61st in 1989

Several years had multiple hosts.

From 1953-1957 they had one host in Hollywood and another in New York City.

From 1972-1977 each year had 4 separate designated hosts, except 1976 which had 5.

From there multiple host years were as follows: 1983 (4 hosts), 1985 lists Jack Lemmon as host and ten stars labeled co-hosts, 1986 (3), 1987 (3), 2010 (2), 2011 (2).

It would take up space, but I could post the AMPAS's designated Oscar hosts for every year from 1929 to present if it is okay to do that.

 

[Jake Lipson]

It would take up space, but I could post the AMPAS's designated Oscar hosts for every year from 1929 to present if it is okay to do that.

If you want to take the time necessary to do that, I don't see why it wouldn't be okay to do so. I'm not a moderator, but as far as I know, there isn't a HTF rule against listing Oscar hosts.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It would take up space, but I could post the AMPAS's designated Oscar hosts for every year from 1929 to present if it is okay to do that.

I am a moderator and I don't see a problem with posting the hosts.

 

[JoeStemme]

My Ranking of Supporting Actor:

5. Sasha Cohen 4. Daniel Kaluuya 3. Leslie Odom Jr 2. LaKeith Stanfield #1. Paul Raci
Yours?

 

[MartinP.]

My Ranking of Supporting Actor:

5. Sasha Cohen 4. Daniel Kaluuya 3. Leslie Odom Jr 2. LaKeith Stanfield #1. Paul Raci
Yours?

5. Daniel Kaluuya 4. Paul Raci 3. Leslie Odom Jr. 2. Sasha Baron Cohen 1. LaKeith Stanfield