10 Things I hate about Award Season
What I hate most about Awards season are:
1) going to movies I have no objective interest in but feel obligated to see (such as Revolutionary Road and The Reader) and
2) While attending those lousy movies, having to sit through the same abominable trailers for abominable movies I have no interest in (one of which will inevitablt star Bruce Willis).
1) going to movies I have no objective interest in but feel obligated to see (such as Revolutionary Road and The Reader) and
2) While attending those lousy movies, having to sit through the same abominable trailers for abominable movies I have no interest in (one of which will inevitablt star Bruce Willis).
"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
OscarGuy wrote:The cut off date doesn't matter. Studios would shift their end-of-year qualifiers to the new cut off date, precursors would shift their dates accordingly and we'd be in the same boat as before, except that we'd have even more months of rampant discussion.
You're right of course. Therefor I suggest this new rule: screeners of a certain film can only sent out if this particular film has earned more than 20 million at the box office.
Now that would be a very popular rule
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
The cut off date doesn't matter. Studios would shift their end-of-year qualifiers to the new cut off date, precursors would shift their dates accordingly and we'd be in the same boat as before, except that we'd have even more months of rampant discussion.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
I pretty much agree with the sentiments already expressed regarding the proliferation of critics' awards and the internet speculation.
From the the 60s through the mid-1990s we would occasionally get a newspaper article listing the top contenders in the major races which was always fun to read. Usually, however, our first clues as to what the front-runners were, were the few critics' awards then in existence.
1995 was the year that changed that and it's gotten worse ever since.
1995 was the first year the Broadcast Critics voted. I had always thought that home video and the burgeoning internet had influenced the push for Braveheart and probably they did, but the Broadcast Critics were not without influnce. They were the first to give Mel Gibson a Best Director award even as they voted Leaving Las Vegas their Best Picture prize. The Globes rubber-stamped Gibson and gave their Best Picture-Drama award to the film as well. Even though the DGA went with Ron Howard for Apollo 13, the die was cast.
Howard was shut out of the Oscar nominations. Mike Figgis (Leaving Las Vegas) and Tim Robbins (Dead Man Walking) were nominated for Best Director but their films were snubbed in the Best Picture race. Howard's film and Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility were nominated for Best Picture but neither was nominated for Best Director, leaving Braveheart the only major nominee with nods in both categories. The other two, Il Postino and Babe had virtually little chance of winning.
It only got worse as more and more critics' groups got into the mix, all of them more or less echoing one another, giving Oscar voters the idea that awarding anything or anyone else would be tantamount to sacrilege.
We can't go back to "the good old days", nor would I want us to, but I do wish the various groups would show more independent thinking so that by the time we get to Oscar night it's not anti-climatic.
Sijmen's suggestion that films released in December not count until the following year isn't a bad one, and not really without precedent. The recoding industry's cut-off for Grammy consideration is October. October 31st would be an ideal cut-off date for awards that begin surfacing in early December, often going to films that no one except a privileged few have seen.
From the the 60s through the mid-1990s we would occasionally get a newspaper article listing the top contenders in the major races which was always fun to read. Usually, however, our first clues as to what the front-runners were, were the few critics' awards then in existence.
1995 was the year that changed that and it's gotten worse ever since.
1995 was the first year the Broadcast Critics voted. I had always thought that home video and the burgeoning internet had influenced the push for Braveheart and probably they did, but the Broadcast Critics were not without influnce. They were the first to give Mel Gibson a Best Director award even as they voted Leaving Las Vegas their Best Picture prize. The Globes rubber-stamped Gibson and gave their Best Picture-Drama award to the film as well. Even though the DGA went with Ron Howard for Apollo 13, the die was cast.
Howard was shut out of the Oscar nominations. Mike Figgis (Leaving Las Vegas) and Tim Robbins (Dead Man Walking) were nominated for Best Director but their films were snubbed in the Best Picture race. Howard's film and Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility were nominated for Best Picture but neither was nominated for Best Director, leaving Braveheart the only major nominee with nods in both categories. The other two, Il Postino and Babe had virtually little chance of winning.
It only got worse as more and more critics' groups got into the mix, all of them more or less echoing one another, giving Oscar voters the idea that awarding anything or anyone else would be tantamount to sacrilege.
We can't go back to "the good old days", nor would I want us to, but I do wish the various groups would show more independent thinking so that by the time we get to Oscar night it's not anti-climatic.
Sijmen's suggestion that films released in December not count until the following year isn't a bad one, and not really without precedent. The recoding industry's cut-off for Grammy consideration is October. October 31st would be an ideal cut-off date for awards that begin surfacing in early December, often going to films that no one except a privileged few have seen.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
A few, off the top of my head:
Oscar bloggers with access to screenings and/or screeners, who claim "everyone" is bored with the lengthy season and wants the show to be in early January, before many of us could possibly have seen everything.
BJ already highlighted it, but it can't be said enough: the Broadcast Critics. Not only do they epitomize everything that's gone wrong with Oscar season -- "predicting" the Oscars -- they also inflate their prominence by redubbing their awards "Critics' Choice". Yeah -- they represent ALL critics.
Prelim shows once or twice a week leading up to the main event, wherein we hear any speech anyone has to offer over and over. And I wish I could quit watching them.
The seems-like-a-thousand critics' groups that have sprung up in recent years, who do more than anything else to create group-think. Very few films, and only a few performances, have truly been across-the-board winners with the long-standing groups (NY, National Society, LA, and, if I'm feeling generous, NBR). But those other groups (from seemingly ever more parochial areas) will pick Slumdog or Charlize Theron every damn time and create an echo chamber that makes races into runaways.
Oscar bloggers with access to screenings and/or screeners, who claim "everyone" is bored with the lengthy season and wants the show to be in early January, before many of us could possibly have seen everything.
BJ already highlighted it, but it can't be said enough: the Broadcast Critics. Not only do they epitomize everything that's gone wrong with Oscar season -- "predicting" the Oscars -- they also inflate their prominence by redubbing their awards "Critics' Choice". Yeah -- they represent ALL critics.
Prelim shows once or twice a week leading up to the main event, wherein we hear any speech anyone has to offer over and over. And I wish I could quit watching them.
The seems-like-a-thousand critics' groups that have sprung up in recent years, who do more than anything else to create group-think. Very few films, and only a few performances, have truly been across-the-board winners with the long-standing groups (NY, National Society, LA, and, if I'm feeling generous, NBR). But those other groups (from seemingly ever more parochial areas) will pick Slumdog or Charlize Theron every damn time and create an echo chamber that makes races into runaways.
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
10. Groupthink.
9. Watching Julianne Moore lose Oscars.
8. The Academy's Foreign Language Film branch.
7. Web-commentators who attempt to ignite blacklash and counter-backlash against films months in advance before anyone has had a chance to see them.
6. People who forget the bird-in-the-hand-rule.
5. Columnists who criticize awards-groups for their failure to "predict" the Oscars. (See also #2).
4. Tom O'Neil.
3. The Broadcast Film Critics. (See also #4).
2. Leads nominated in support.
1. "Critics" who claim the Academy is out of touch for nominating "unpopular" movies like Titanic and Gladiator.
9. Watching Julianne Moore lose Oscars.
8. The Academy's Foreign Language Film branch.
7. Web-commentators who attempt to ignite blacklash and counter-backlash against films months in advance before anyone has had a chance to see them.
6. People who forget the bird-in-the-hand-rule.
5. Columnists who criticize awards-groups for their failure to "predict" the Oscars. (See also #2).
4. Tom O'Neil.
3. The Broadcast Film Critics. (See also #4).
2. Leads nominated in support.
1. "Critics" who claim the Academy is out of touch for nominating "unpopular" movies like Titanic and Gladiator.
Award Season starts next week. And I'm really looking forward to it. I've been thinking about why, actually. What is it that I love so much about it? Why do I care who wins the LAFCA Best Screenplay award? I haven't figured it out yet...
What I DID find, were 5 things that bother me every year.
1. All the awards going to the same films over and over and over again.
2. The phrase ‘out of touch’ when an other film wins an award
3. Conspiracy theories
4. Critics groups that give their best picture award to a film that ‘just happens’ to be released that same week (or is that a conspiracy theory?)
5. Films that are released in December. (seriously, they should be disqualified without notice. It’s about best films of the year, not the best films of December. Frost/Nixon, Milk, Benjamin Button and The Reader are all 2009 films in my book, they should be contenders this year!)
What are the things that you love/hate about the annual Film Award Circus? Just curious...
What I DID find, were 5 things that bother me every year.
1. All the awards going to the same films over and over and over again.
2. The phrase ‘out of touch’ when an other film wins an award
3. Conspiracy theories
4. Critics groups that give their best picture award to a film that ‘just happens’ to be released that same week (or is that a conspiracy theory?)
5. Films that are released in December. (seriously, they should be disqualified without notice. It’s about best films of the year, not the best films of December. Frost/Nixon, Milk, Benjamin Button and The Reader are all 2009 films in my book, they should be contenders this year!)
What are the things that you love/hate about the annual Film Award Circus? Just curious...