The Official 2019 Oscars Nomination Announcements Discussions & Predictions Thread (13 Viewers)

[Tino]

Niche crowd?? That’s hilarious.

Other than your opinions you haven’t said anything in this thread that all of us don’t already know. Are you just trolling us now?

 

[JQuintana]

I get it. You are one of the 10% who feel that every single nomination category needs to be shown live regardless but the producers don't feel that will boost ratings so they scaled it down to the "main" categories that the general public prefers to see and you are very angry about that decision.

 

[Tino]

so they scaled it down to the "main" categories that the general public prefers to see

Actually that’s not what they did. Do you even know what they are doing? Do you even know what we are talking about here? No offense JQ but I don’t think you do.

 

[JQuintana]

Besides giving out awards during the commercials? What else is it that is making your angry?

 

[Tino]

Besides giving out awards during the commercials? What else is it that is making your angry?

Jeez. Really? That what we have ALL been complaining about dude.

And our point is that it’s absolutely possible to keep the show under three hours and show all the Awards.

And there’s a difference between being angry and being passionate.

 

[JQuintana]

I knew that's what you were angry about and I laid out my thoughts on why I feel the change was a good move and will help keep people watching. It sucks for the niche 'passionate" movie crowd but the AA have changed and it's now all about style and little substance so if you don't like it, just don't watch and read about your fav nominees and categories online because that's how the world is changing. You can't change it.

 

[Tino]

if you don't like it, just don't watch and read about your fav nominees and categories online because that's how the world is changing.

That’s for people that feel the the way you do. NOT the way that most of us here do.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I think some of Johnny's points represent the thinking on the part of the Academy that led to this misguided decision in the first place.

What the Academy is missing is that the show is supposed to be about the awards, and not airing the awards inherently devalues the show.

We know that ABC suggested the creation of the popular film category as a way to mitigate declining ratings. I'm sure ABC sees the shortening of the show as a ratings issue, because it's their job as the network to be concerned about the ratings. I still blame the Academy for bowing to their suggestion, but I'm sure ABC pushed for it.

The Academy's job should be to put on the best show possible that honors the best achievements of the year in film. They're not doing that if they cut out categories. So their priorities have shifted.

 

[Malcolm R]

So who is more to blame here?

ABC or The Academy?

Or are they equally guilty?

I think both.

It's both. ABC wants a streamlined show that will hopefully boost ratings by attracting casual viewers who don't want to sit through a 4-hour show, and that will not push the newscasts on their affiliate stations into the wee hours of the morning (which will piss off the affiliates). ABC is already pushing their luck by stating they're running the full pilot of Whiskey Cavalier after the AA's and before the local newscasts. That's why they're pushing for a 3-hour max, because WC will run another hour after the ceremony.

The Academy cares about the ratings because the higher the ratings, the more they can charge the networks to buy the TV rights to broadcast the ceremony. As the ratings decline, the value of the broadcast also declines, resulting in less willingness of the networks to fork out big bucks.

They don't have to worry about the die-hard cinemaphiles, as many of them will watch no matter what the length or content of the show. They're trying to pander to the casual fans who may be interested enough to tune in with nominees like BP or BR, but don't want to sit through a bloated 4-hour show.

Sadly, the Academy has taken that to mean removing some categories of awards rather than trying to streamline the show in other ways.

 

[Tino]

I think some of Johnny's points represent the thinking on the part of the Academy that led to this misguided decision in the first place

Yes obviously.

What the Academy is missing is that the show is supposed to be about the awards, and not airing the awards inherently devalues the show.
.

Exactly.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Not presenting the awards for Cinematography or Editing as part of the main broadcast? WTF?

I feel like a film quote applies to this decision...

Ripley: Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?

Everyone has their opinions, but that strikes me as a terrible idea.

- Walter.

 

[Tino]

Not presenting the awards for Cinematography or Editing as part of the main broadcast? WTF?

Two of the most important aspects of filmmaking nonetheless.

Amazing.

 

[Malcolm R]

I'm a bit confused because from what I've read, they say they are presenting the awards during commercials, but will still broadcast the acceptance speeches later in the show. So I'm not sure what that really saves other than the announcement of the nominees by the presenter, the announcement of the winner, and the time it takes them to get from their seat to the stage. Doesn't seem like a huge savings of time (maybe 3-5 minutes per award?). I guess that potentially adds up to about 20 minutes, but it still seems like a drastic change for minimal return.

 

[Jake Lipson]

How long into the show do you think until they have some pandering skit like the Wrinkle in Time nonsense from last year? Then we can all point to that and be like, "Cut that." But they'll keep it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I'm a bit confused because from what I've read, they say they are presenting the awards during commercials, but will still broadcast the acceptance speeches later in the show.

If they do it like the Tonys -- which, again, has been directed and produced by Glenn Weiss before, who is also directing and co-producing the Oscars this year -- they will air about two seconds of the speech later in the show. The announcer will say "Earlier, the award for cinematography went to Roma," and then there will be one sentence or so of the speech and then they will move on. I highly doubt it will be the entire speech. So they're saving airtime that way by saying what the winner is and then moving on.

 

[Tino]

And in case some missed this tidbit, this will be a revolving decision meaning next year a different 4or 5 awards will be shown during commercials while this years omissions will be shown.

 

[JQuintana]

I'm sure nothing is set in stone. The rating this year will be a big factor in how it all plays out. If they jump, then I can see them doing more commercial awards, if they slump yet again, it may all change next year.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The ratings this year will jump because they actually have three box office hits in contention for Best Picture.

ABC will infer it was because they truncated the show when in reality the length of the show will have very little to do with it.

 

[Malcolm R]

The ratings this year will jump because they actually have three box office hits in contention for Best Picture.

ABC will infer it was because they truncated the show when in reality the length of the show will have very little to do with it.

Yes, they could run a 2-hour show, but if the nominees are all low-grossing niche films, fewer would watch anyway. Any ratings boost this year is solely due to the nominees involved, most of which did quite well at the domestic box office.

 

[Wayne_j]

I definitely agree that a bump in the ratings would be due to films being nominated that people have actually seen. Get rid of stupid stunts like the Wrinkle in Time thing and maybe trim one of the large number of montages and you could broadcast all the categories.