The Official 2019 Oscars Nomination Announcements Discussions & Predictions Thread (1 Viewer)

[MartinP.]

Some of you would have a better argument if you stopped singling out Editing and Cinematography as more important than the Makeup and Hairstyling and Live Action Short categories.

Maybe they chose Editing and Cinematography to cut down on Alfonso Cuarón acceptance speeches.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

They are.

They shouldn’t cut ANYTHING out, and they should add several categories (most notably stuntwork), but all categories are not equal. I consider Editing just below Direction, Script, and Lead Performance. Furthermore, Editing is what SEPARATES film from stage.

I’m not trying to have a “better argument.” I am not arguing for anything. The Oscar can and should do want they want.

I am only making the point that the Oscars clearly aren’t for me, and giving a specific example why.

 

[JQuintana]

Like I pointed out earlier, maybe it's time for the Academy to move away from network TV and just create a show 100% online via Hulu or Netflix or whatever service and they can make it a 4-5 hour event if they want. No rules, no bickering, then if folks want to sit for 5 hours watching every single category give a 5 minute speech than they can.

 

[Jake Lipson]

5 hours watching every single category give a 5 minute speech

I get that we disagree on several points, and that's fine, but at least get your facts straight. It doesn't help your case to be exaggerating.

As long as I've been watching them, the Academy Awards have never run for five hours. It would not take five hours to present 24 categories, and even the long speeches are usually less than five minutes. I haven't timed them, but that's an obvious exaggeration.

 

[JQuintana]

It's been 3 hours BECAUSE it's tied to network TV. I'm saying if they have NO time constraint that network TV forces on them, then why not make it a 5 hour, or at the least 4 hour true event that many more film folks can attend and show off their wares etc. They can show awards, speeches, embellish more, not have speeches cut short etc.

Speaking of speeches, any time I've watched the show pretty much every winner takes at LEAST 5 minutes to get in their thanks, their speech about whatever other topic they have, AND bring other members of their team on to speak, 5 minutes is being conservative. I've never seen a speech run just 1-3 minutes.

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

2018 Speech Lengths by category (in seconds) - You'll see that the longest speech of the night was just under 3 mins

Average time needed to start the speech: 34.9s
Average time needed for the speech: 74.7s
The combined average time: 109.6s

Courtesy of: https://awardswatch.com/2019/02/08/oscars-full-breakdown-of-speech-length-for-2018-oscar-winners/

 

[Robert Crawford]

Oops!

 

[Vic Pardo]

https://www.theatlantic.com/enterta...TXNdFP72CAoNs8CFsWfJRsGqspLSMysRRpwlduUxVTb_4

Steven Soderbergh makes several interesting comments about the Oscar broadcast in this interview.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

So it appears that cutting off four awards -- the highest possible recognition that the people in those professions could ever hope to receive - would save a whopping 6 to 8 minutes. Color me unimpressed.

 

[bujaki]

I believe the longest acceptance speech on record was delivered by Greer Garson when she won for Mrs. Miniver. That was way back in 1943 and was not televised. Gloria Grahame's "Thank you" was probably the shortest and most appreciated by all.

 

[Jake Lipson]

6 to 8 minutes

Using those calculations, the 3-hour-17-minute Franco/Hathaway show that @Tino has mentioned repeatedly would still be ovreer 3 hours if you took out 4 awards from it. And that's the shortest it's been in a while.

Watch the show run over 3 hours even without the four categories this year.

Good job, Academy. Good job.

 

[Tino]

Speaking of speeches, any time I've watched the show pretty much every winner takes at LEAST 5 minutes to get in their thanks, their speech about whatever other topic they have, AND bring other members of their team on to speak, 5 minutes is being conservative. I've never seen a speech run just 1-3 minute

Well then you have serious issues with the passage of time. You should have that checked out. See a doctor.

 

[Tino]

I get that we disagree on several points, and that's fine, but at least get your facts straight. It doesn't help your case to be exaggerating.

That seems to be the norm unfortunately.

 

[Vic Pardo]

Speaking of speeches, any time I've watched the show pretty much every winner takes at LEAST 5 minutes to get in their thanks, their speech about whatever other topic they have, AND bring other members of their team on to speak, 5 minutes is being conservative. I've never seen a speech run just 1-3 minutes.

I think you need a stopwatch when you watch the Oscars this year. Most speeches by winners at the Oscars are under a minute. Every so often, someone high-profile or historic runs over a minute or two. (I'm thinking Halle Berry when she won.) There may have been a rare instance or two where it went five minutes, but I can't recall one in over 45 years of watching these shows. If someone can identify a specific speech that was that long or close to it, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Matt Hough]

The Academy NEEDS the money that ABC pays for the license to broadcast in order to fund their projects for the year. Taking it off network TV would not be feasible.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Boom.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...present-oscar-categories-commercial-b-1186605

Relegating these essential cinematic crafts to lesser status in this 91st Academy Awards ceremony is nothing less than an insult to those of us who have devoted our lives and passions to our chosen profession," the letter reads. "When the recognition of those responsible for the creation of outstanding cinema is being diminished by the very institution whose purpose it is to protect it, then we are no longer upholding the spirit of the Academy’s promise to celebrate film as a collaborative art form."

Lots more at the link.

I think they would have much more success if they were focused on the indignity of any award being presented during commercials, rather than primarily focusing on the cinematography one. Like I sad, I believe that if the Academy thinks it is worth presenting an award in a given category, that category should be presented on air. Any awards they don't fully believe in don't need to be presented at all.

The problem is that this letter could read mostly like cinematographers are upset that their category is being removed, rather than people being upset about ANY category being removed.

However, at least it's something.

We'll see what happens.

Edit: That didn't take long. Deadline has printed a response from the Academy defending their choices, which I think doesn't really take into account why this matters to the people who are upset about it.

https://deadline.com/2019/02/quenti...mys-oscars-changes-in-open-letter-1202557028/

 

[Tino]

Here is the Academy’s clueless response:

“As the Academy’s officers, we’d like to assure you that no award category at the 91st Oscars ceremony will be presented in a manner that depicts the achievements of its nominees and winners as less than any others,” said the Academy statement released Wednesday night. “Unfortunately, as the result of inaccurate reporting and social media posts, there has been a chain of misinformation that has understandably upset many Academy members. We’d like to restate and explain the plans for presenting the awards, as endorsed by the Academy’s Board of Governors.”

· All 24 Award categories are presented on stage in the Dolby Theatre, and included in the broadcast.

· Four categories – Cinematography, Film Editing, Makeup and Hairstyling, and Live Action Short – were volunteered by their branches to have their nominees and winners announced by presenters, and included later in the broadcast. Time spent walking to the stage and off, will be edited out.

· The four winning speeches will be included in the broadcast.

· In future years, four to six different categories may be selected for rotation, in collaboration with the show producers. This year’s categories will be exempted in 2020.

· This change in the show was discussed and agreed to by the Board of Governors in August, with the full support of the branch executive committees. Such decisions are fully deliberated.

Our show producers have given great consideration to both Oscar tradition and our broad global audience.

We sincerely believe you will be pleased with the show, and look forward to celebrating a great year in movies with all Academy members and with the rest of the world.

John Bailey, President
Lois Burwell, First Vice President
Sid Ganis, Vice President
Larry Karaszewski, Vice President
Nancy Utley, Vice President
Jim Gianopulos, Treasurer
David Rubin, Secretary

 

[Jake Lipson]

clueless response:

This.

I would give you a Like for your above post, but I don't want to Like that response in any way, shape or form.

Like I said, I don't think the Academy understands why this matters to people. If they did, they wouldn't have cut categories in the first place.

Despite the letter's best intentions of doing so, it was clearly unsuccessful in making the Academy's leadership understand any perspective that is different than their own.

 

[Tino]

They just don’t get it.

I have not heard ONE suggestion from the Academy on other ways to shorten the show other than presenting 4 awards during commercials.

NOT ONE.

Edit. I forgot about the eliminating three songs as Jake notes below but still. Nothing about comedy banter, skits etc.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I have not heard ONE suggestion from the Academy on other ways to shorten the show other than presenting 4 awards during commercials.

Cutting three of the song nominees was one. People didn't like that so they reversed course -- which is what they need to do again, but they wont't. You haven't heard any other suggestions because they found the one they're going to go with which they think will work. They're locked and loaded now. Anything further, if there is any, they don't feel the need to disclose to the public. They're not going to use the public as a sounding board for other ways to shorten the show. They're just going to do what they're going to do.