I found their whole argument hideous. I can never look at or listen to Peter Guber without remembering that he got his start in Hollywood as Barbra Streisand's hairdresser.
His theory that the independent films are major nominees these days because the studios own the independents and they've already made their money on the Pirates of the Caribbean and Spiderman 3 and don't need Oscars to sell them.
His sports anaolgies are annoying as Peter Bart's suggestion that the Oscars have an audience award.
80th Annual Academy Awards
"Why was Russell Crowe snubbed for American Gangster?" Um, maybe because he SUCKED, guys. In such a strong year for supporting actor performances, why would he have been on anyone (except for criddic's) radar?
I find the two Peters' take on the snubbing of big studio pictures totally flawed. The performances just weren't as good. Sorry. I'm not going to champion Matt Damon in The Bourne Ultimatum or, even worse, Tobey Maguire in Spiderman 3, simply because they did good box office.
Edited By flipp525 on 1205150482
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
In Argentina, believe it or not, the Oscar live transmissions began in 1986. In 1978 the show was televised for the first time (recorded).Mister Tee wrote:So, Magilla, even though you had a head start on me in viewing the Oscars, I preceded you in deeming it an unmissable event: I saw my first in '62, and haven't skipped a moment of it in all the years since.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8647
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
I doubt we'll ever get the date moved back to late March (though early March will probably happen in Winter Olympics years). The people with the loudest megaphones on this are media folk who HAVE seen all the films, either because they're critics and reviewed them pre-Christmas, or industry-ites/bloggers (Poland/Wells) who have easy access to screeners. (Liz Smith actually opined they should move the show EARLIER, because everyone she knew was tired of waiting past early January; Poland quoted this approvingly) The industry has also become so used to catering to the I'll-see-it-opening-night crowd of adolescents that it has totally lost sight of the adult audience, which tends to take its time getting to movies. It seems to me this is precisely the Oscar audience that can feel alienated from the ceremony if they haven't been able to see the films; a wider window would allow alot of them to acclimate better.
Magilla is correct, of course, that the prelim shows would only expand their schedules, and we'd still have the problem of too many leading-up shows that resemble the Oscars. The only solution to that would be to abolish the SAG, Broadcast and (now that they're slavishly imitating AMPAS) BAFTA events, which unfortunately isn't going to happen.
So, Magilla, even though you had a head start on me in viewing the Oscars, I preceded you in deeming it an unmissable event: I saw my first in '62, and haven't skipped a moment of it in all the years since. (A college girlfriend once threatened to start seducing me moments before showtime, but I don't think she truly trusted she could be successful)
The 10PM start time does seem absurd now, but at the time it had the same special quality for me that it did for Damien. It was somewhat akin to staying up for Midnight Mass on Christmas -- told you it was a once-a-year event.
My see-a-movie/get-a-pizza/then-watch-the-show year was the '72 awards (the movie the far-less-interesting than Privilege but nominated Poseidon Adventure). And, oh, for the days when I could eat pizza at 10 PM!
Magilla is correct, of course, that the prelim shows would only expand their schedules, and we'd still have the problem of too many leading-up shows that resemble the Oscars. The only solution to that would be to abolish the SAG, Broadcast and (now that they're slavishly imitating AMPAS) BAFTA events, which unfortunately isn't going to happen.
So, Magilla, even though you had a head start on me in viewing the Oscars, I preceded you in deeming it an unmissable event: I saw my first in '62, and haven't skipped a moment of it in all the years since. (A college girlfriend once threatened to start seducing me moments before showtime, but I don't think she truly trusted she could be successful)
The 10PM start time does seem absurd now, but at the time it had the same special quality for me that it did for Damien. It was somewhat akin to staying up for Midnight Mass on Christmas -- told you it was a once-a-year event.
My see-a-movie/get-a-pizza/then-watch-the-show year was the '72 awards (the movie the far-less-interesting than Privilege but nominated Poseidon Adventure). And, oh, for the days when I could eat pizza at 10 PM!
I honestly don't think anything could have been done to save this show. The combination of the Writer's Strike AND a slew of blatantly uncommercial films sank the show. Were 'Titanic' or 'Lord of the Rings' up for awards, it would've killed. Were the show more strongly crafted, it would've at least kept people from tuning out.
I will say that this was a miserably produced show and Gil Cates just needs to stop. The fact that he did not show the five nominated films he had built a show around to celebrate indicates how far up his ass he really is. That's an unprecedented oversight. Keep everybody who has ever won an Oscar but lose the five nominated films?
I will say that this was a miserably produced show and Gil Cates just needs to stop. The fact that he did not show the five nominated films he had built a show around to celebrate indicates how far up his ass he really is. That's an unprecedented oversight. Keep everybody who has ever won an Oscar but lose the five nominated films?
"How's the despair?"
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
The suggestions for change were intended for increasing flagging interest in the show in the general public. We Oscarphiles will always watch, no matter what. Perhaps more people would watch if the show were put back in March, but then the Globes and SAG awards would push back their awards as well. The time frame between shows would expand to where it was a few years ago, but there would still be too much of a glut of pe-cursors. With the Academy basically falling into lock-step, the suspense for the most part is gone for good.
I don't know if we'll ever get back to the point where more of the general public feels the need to see all the major Oscar contenders before the awads. They have other interests now. Even when the films are made available on DVD they don't rush to rent or buy them.
My history with the Academy awards probably goes back further than anyone here except maybe Cam, but funny Damien should mention the 1967 awards becasue that's the year I started watching them religiously. Prior to that they would be on too late for me so I would either watch the beginning or go to sleep and get back up and watch the end. I remember Rosalind Russell bestowing Maurice Chevalier's special Oscar at the 1958 awards and Ingrid Bergman opening the best picture envelope. I remember seeing Liz Taylor's win at the 1960 awards and Rita Moreno's win at the 1961 awards, or maybe I just think I did because they've been replayed a thousand times. I remember listening to the 1963 on radio and part of the 1964 awards on radio as well as seeing part of the 1964 on TV for some reason. Then I was drafted. I missed the 1965 and 1966 shows as I was stationed in Germany without access to them. So 1967 was the beginning of my steady watching.
I never liked that the awards didn't go on until 10 P.M. in New York. I never understood why they couldn't start at least an hour earlier. Eventually I think they did. When I moved to California it seemed that they were on too early as I had to rush home from work to catch the beginning of the show when they were on a week day. Now that they are on Sunday it's much more convenient, though I think the half hour pre-show at 5 P.M., 8 P.M. EST is a waste of time. With E!, the TV Guide Channel adn the local ABC Station all running their own pre-shows for two hours or more prior to that, it's redunant and silly. It's also boring now that everyone is dressed professionally and we can longer expect to see someone outrageously attired. Even the hosts have become interchangeably bland. You could at least count on Joan Rivers to put her foot in her mouth at least once a night on the red carpet. My favorite was when she asked Anthony Hopkins, then in the throes a divorce, if the obviously elderly woman with him was his wife, and he replied, "no, it's my mother".
I don't know if we'll ever get back to the point where more of the general public feels the need to see all the major Oscar contenders before the awads. They have other interests now. Even when the films are made available on DVD they don't rush to rent or buy them.
My history with the Academy awards probably goes back further than anyone here except maybe Cam, but funny Damien should mention the 1967 awards becasue that's the year I started watching them religiously. Prior to that they would be on too late for me so I would either watch the beginning or go to sleep and get back up and watch the end. I remember Rosalind Russell bestowing Maurice Chevalier's special Oscar at the 1958 awards and Ingrid Bergman opening the best picture envelope. I remember seeing Liz Taylor's win at the 1960 awards and Rita Moreno's win at the 1961 awards, or maybe I just think I did because they've been replayed a thousand times. I remember listening to the 1963 on radio and part of the 1964 awards on radio as well as seeing part of the 1964 on TV for some reason. Then I was drafted. I missed the 1965 and 1966 shows as I was stationed in Germany without access to them. So 1967 was the beginning of my steady watching.
I never liked that the awards didn't go on until 10 P.M. in New York. I never understood why they couldn't start at least an hour earlier. Eventually I think they did. When I moved to California it seemed that they were on too early as I had to rush home from work to catch the beginning of the show when they were on a week day. Now that they are on Sunday it's much more convenient, though I think the half hour pre-show at 5 P.M., 8 P.M. EST is a waste of time. With E!, the TV Guide Channel adn the local ABC Station all running their own pre-shows for two hours or more prior to that, it's redunant and silly. It's also boring now that everyone is dressed professionally and we can longer expect to see someone outrageously attired. Even the hosts have become interchangeably bland. You could at least count on Joan Rivers to put her foot in her mouth at least once a night on the red carpet. My favorite was when she asked Anthony Hopkins, then in the throes a divorce, if the obviously elderly woman with him was his wife, and he replied, "no, it's my mother".
-
Franz Ferdinand
- Adjunct
- Posts: 1457
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
- Location: Calgary, Alberta
- Contact:
Agreed. My computer took the high road for a couple of months, around the time the Oscar heat generally turns up. I was unable to really participate in these discussions, to get excited/disgusted by movies, and the race felt much shorter. Having the Oscars in February has been a sweet treat in that I have to wait less time, but it makes the process of watching and debating a lot more hectic and unpleasant.
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
Damien, your nostalgic quirks never cease to amaze, or amuse, me.Damien wrote:Tee, I used to love it when the broadcast began at 10pm on the East Coast. It made it seem more special and exciting, especially when I was a kid. (MY favorite year was the 1967 Oscars. At 7 o'clock I went to the Peter Watkins movie Privilege (which I loved and which unbelievable actually played in a small town in Connecticut) then we got a bacon pizza and then headed home in time for the Oscars. Life doesn't get sweeter than that.
I agree that moving the Oscars to late March would be wonderful. Everything seems so rushed now, from seeing movies to cramming in awards shows. It can be overwhelming for me, an Oscar junkie, think of how the casual viewer feels. Plus, with faster and faster DVD release dates, the movies would get out to more viewers in time.
And think, we would still be gearing up for the Oscars here. Greedily, the Oscar season would still start kicking in during early November, so we would have one less month of waiting now for things to start to heat up. The longer the Oscar season, the more exciting it is around here.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Does anyone agree with me that the ratings might well rebound if the Academy went back to the old schedule of having the show in late March?
I think doing so would have two advantages. Fiest of all, the public would have more of a chance to see the late year releaes and thus have more of a rooting interest.
Secondly, and more importantly, there wouldn't be such a glut of awards shows over a small period in time. The other award shows would be able to operate on a more leisurely schedule instead of being backed up like planes on the tarmac. If you had 2 or 3 weeks between various awards shows, there wouldn't be the numbing effect of seeing the same thing (both in terms of the participants/awardees and of having a similar format).
Tee, I used to love it when the broadcast began at 10pm on the East Coast. It made it seem more special and exciting, especially when I was a kid. (MY favorite year was the 1967 Oscars. At 7 o'clock I went to the Peter Watkins movie Privilege (which I loved and which unbelievable actually played in a small town in Connecticut) then we got a bacon pizza and then headed home in time for the Oscars. Life doesn't get sweeter than that.
I think doing so would have two advantages. Fiest of all, the public would have more of a chance to see the late year releaes and thus have more of a rooting interest.
Secondly, and more importantly, there wouldn't be such a glut of awards shows over a small period in time. The other award shows would be able to operate on a more leisurely schedule instead of being backed up like planes on the tarmac. If you had 2 or 3 weeks between various awards shows, there wouldn't be the numbing effect of seeing the same thing (both in terms of the participants/awardees and of having a similar format).
Tee, I used to love it when the broadcast began at 10pm on the East Coast. It made it seem more special and exciting, especially when I was a kid. (MY favorite year was the 1967 Oscars. At 7 o'clock I went to the Peter Watkins movie Privilege (which I loved and which unbelievable actually played in a small town in Connecticut) then we got a bacon pizza and then headed home in time for the Oscars. Life doesn't get sweeter than that.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell