Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Ronald Epstein, Jan 22, 2019.
There are multiple ways to shorten the show without sacrificing any awards.
Why the Academy has not explored those options Is a mystery.
How do you know that they haven't?
I don’t. But Obviously if they had, they wouldn’t be eliminating televising four awards. And would have addressed those options in the numerous press releases.
I personally think they looked at all possible options very thoroughly being that this was a more radical change from years past. They found the 4 awards in question the "least" entertaining for a general audience and set them aside. It's a tough pill to swallow for some folks but it's all about keeping people tuned in. They can't afford to lose another 10 million viewers.
I’m pretty sure you’re the only one here who thinks that.
We can agree to disagree. I highly doubt any involved took the matter lightly.
But one thing is for sure, they are no longer catering to the niche hardcore cinefile's
So next year they will be entertaining enough for a general audience?? And a different four or five categories won’t??
I'm sure there is a decent size list of non-entertaining categories that they could rotate.
It’s obvious by this and your other posts in this thread that you don’t care about the artistic integrity of these awards and the artists that win them. So, yeah, let’s agree to disagree. Big time.
By the way it was nice to see the BAFTAS having issues with the host. Kind of. Every one of Joanna Lumleys jokes in the opening monologue landed with a thud. You could hear a pin drop. Yikes. Poor Joanna. The writers should apologize to her publicly.
And I thought Sandra Oh and Adam Sanberg hosting the GG’s were bad. Oof.
Actors, Directors Slam Oscars For Pushing Some Awards To Commercial Breaks
Deadline has reported that previous Oscar producers have lobbied the Academy to allow them to do some categories in the commercial breaks before and the answer was always "no."
The ratings have been falling for a long time. That isn't new.
So I'm interested in knowing why they finally agreed to this at this juncture. It would make more sense if they were doing this in a year that didn't have Black Panther and A Star is Born and Bohemian Rhapsody in the Best Picture category.
I would still object to it just as strongly as I do now, but if, say, those three nomination slots had gone to Beale Street, Eighth Grade and Leave No Trace, and there were no high-grossing films in contention at all, then I would understand this more as a desperation move. But they're not desperate this year. So what gives?
A great quote among many from that article.
“the decision discredits the work of people behind the camera and will give less attention to some underrepresented voices, especially in the female-dominated category of makeup and hairstyling,”
THis one is hilarious.
Agreed. Not quite sure why the Academy Awards seems to hate the Academy Awards this year.
The whole idea of relegating some Oscars to the commercial breaks is so ridiculous. If they would simply ditch all the non-essential comedy and all the silly banter that has plagued the show for the past several years, they could have all the awards on the telecast and still find time to bring back the honorary lifetime achievement awards that were jettisoned years ago. If I could see real stars receiving the lifetime achievement awards, I might even start watching again. But as it is, I'll pass and read about it the next day.
The Academy deserves to have ratings fall again this year.
For the first time in a decade, there is a real possibility that the Academy could give Best Picture to a film I have not seen.
And yet I can't imagine not watching the ceremony.
Yeah. As disappointed as I am by these developments, there’s no way I would ever skip the Oscars.
The American Society of Cinematographers isn't happy. Naturally.
And here's another article from Variety about the blowback:
My own feeling is that it doesn't matter what the particular eliminated categories are. If a discipline is deemed significant enough by the Academy to have a category, then it should be shown live on the air. Period.
Ex: Will the cinematographers still be up in arms next year when they get to be shown on the telecast but some other category rotates out? They should. And members from the other branches whose awards ARE being televised live should be up in arms this year, because filmmaking is a collaborative effort that requires everyone. Everyone should be acknowledged.
Also, let's look at the nominated films in the categories they've chosen.
Cinematography is A Star is Born ($208 million gross-to-date), The Favourite ($30 million), Cold War ($2 million), Never Look Away (currently under $1 million from an extremely limited release), and Roma which Netflix isn't reporting.
Editing has Bohemian Rhapsody ($210 million), Green Book ($61 million), BlacKkKlansman ($48 million), Vice ($45 million), and Favourite ($30 million.)
Makeup has Vice ($45 million), Mary Queen of Scots ($16 million) and Border (which is under $1 million.)
And of course live-action shorts are rarely seen by anyone outside of the hardcore Oscar fans who go to those when they're shown together theatrically.
With the exception of A Star is Born in Cinematography and Bohemian Rhapsody in Editing, they chose categories with films that the average mainstream viewer has not seen. Neither A Star is Born nor Bohemian Rhapsody is considered a frontrunner for their affected category, so what they're doing is taking an award which they expect will go to a low-grossing film and casting it off. They're not being random here. It's all being driven by the perceived popularity of the likely winner.
If Black Panther had been nominated instead of Never Look Away, Cinematography wouldn't be out of the broadcast.
And that's what the core of the problem is.
It's not about honoring the work; it's about what the Academy thinks will draw eyeballs.
The show is called the Academy Awards. They need to find a way to draw eyeballs without sacrificing their namesake.
Also, here's more on the controversy from Deadline. This article is also a reminder that final voting is now open, today through next Tuesday.
I know this was reported elsewhere, but NONE of those categories have a Disney film as a nominee.
I still love movies as much as ever, but I've drifted away from the enterprises that surround them. I know the Oscars have long been about the Oscars and the industry as much as the movies themselves. But shunting two of the most critical and meaningful components of the filmmaking process (Cinematography and Editing) into commercial time is, for me, a brazen admission that the show is effectively completely about audience eyeballs and famous people.
I've said it before here (years ago with an embarrassing Sandra Bullock bit about editing that I am certain she must have grimaced her way through), but editing is the most essentially filmmaking skill in the medium. It's the part of making movies that doesn't exist in other related artforms. Relegating it to secondary status is demoralizing, especially for the "premiere" awards show.