Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Add Dorothy McGuire, the Marmee of the 1978 TV mini-series, to the list of Oscar nominees.

It's Aunt March among the Little Women characters, though, who has attracted the most Oscar nominees - Edna May Oliver (1933), Lucile Watson (1949), Greer Garson (1978), Angela Lansbury (2017), Meryl Streep (2019). Only Mary Wickes in the 1994 version was not an Oscar nominee at some point.

Okri wrote:

Mister Tee wrote:
Factoid about this nomination: in the years of the last two Hollywood versions of Little Women, the actress playing Marmee ended up nominated for a different film.

Almost the same thing with the 1933 version (Spring Byington) - but I also forgot that Sarandon was nominated for The Client so I thought "down the road" nominations counted!

You could extend that to note that 1949's Marmee is Mary Astor -- meaning every single talking motion picture version has a Marmee who was at some point an Oscar nominee. (Three of them winners!)

Mister Tee wrote:
Factoid about this nomination: in the years of the last two Hollywood versions of Little Women, the actress playing Marmee ended up nominated for a different film.

Almost the same thing with the 1933 version (Spring Byington) - but I also forgot that Sarandon was nominated for The Client so I thought "down the road" nominations counted!

I was surprised to see Sigourney Weaver still looking the same she did 30 years ago. She has aged very well with no apparent cosmetic re-structuring on her face. Wish she would make more movies.

Teesian (adj.): thoughtful, thorough, well-informed, and well-argued.

Okri wrote: I think we differ on basically every facet of this discussion, but a more complete response requires a Teesian post.

Than you for (I think) putting me into the language.

An amusing article from The Guardian with some suggestions for the Academy that would ruffle a lot of feathers:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/f ... point-plan

taki15 wrote:

Okri wrote:

taki15 wrote:As a matter of fact, Academy members don't just ignore commercially successful films, they seem to resent them. Just see what happened with Scorsese and his attack on comic book movies. Frankly, I'm doubtful that something like "Titanic" or "Lord of the Rings" would've been nominated nowadays, let alone win.

Mad Max. Avatar. Black Panther. The Martian. Gravity. These films got nominated in part because of their outsized commercial success. The idea that AMPAS resents commercial success is certainly not corroborated by my observations.

The members of the Academy seem to disagree with you. Otherwise there wouldn't be all that (silly) talk about creating a separate Popular Film category.

I think we differ on basically every facet of this discussion, but a more complete response requires a Teesian post.

Besides, with few exceptions, the Oscars are within the top 10 most watched events every year on American television. So, clearly, they are still doing something right.

I agree with the takes of FilmFan and Anonymous on this. Personally I'm not invested in whether the Academy Awards ceremony gets huge ratings, as if that somehow enhances their validity. The Oscars seem to have found the sweet spot along the spectrum of super-populist and elitist. Works well enough for the bulk of folks who appreciate quality filmmaking, like the people on this board.

Okri wrote:

taki15 wrote:As a matter of fact, Academy members don't just ignore commercially successful films, they seem to resent them. Just see what happened with Scorsese and his attack on comic book movies. Frankly, I'm doubtful that something like "Titanic" or "Lord of the Rings" would've been nominated nowadays, let alone win.

Mad Max. Avatar. Black Panther. The Martian. Gravity. These films got nominated in part because of their outsized commercial success. The idea that AMPAS resents commercial success is certainly not corroborated by my observations.

The members of the Academy seem to disagree with you. Otherwise there wouldn't be all that (silly) talk about creating a separate Popular Film category.

taki15 wrote:As a matter of fact, Academy members don't just ignore commercially successful films, they seem to resent them. Just see what happened with Scorsese and his attack on comic book movies. Frankly, I'm doubtful that something like "Titanic" or "Lord of the Rings" would've been nominated nowadays, let alone win.

Mad Max. Avatar. Black Panther. The Martian. Gravity. These films got nominated in part because of their outsized commercial success. The idea that AMPAS resents commercial success is certainly not corroborated by my observations.

OscarGuy wrote:Get some major names to show up at the Oscars and do more than just present an award.

It might be enough just to have more of them show up even if it's "just" to present. For years now, It's been rare for a "star" to bother any more unless they're nominated or have a film coming out the week of the Oscars. This year's list of advertised presenters, with few exceptions, was a list of second tier performers. I even had to look a few of the names up.

Two years ago they missed an opportunity to invite past winners for a picture taking get-together in honor of the 90th awards. The best they could do was Rita Moreno and Eva Marie Saint, both of whom it was great to see, but neither of whom were ever big names. With a little arm-twisting they could have gotten Glenda Jackson then making her Broadway comeback along with Maggie Smith, Judi Dench and other notorious no-shows. One big name draws another, then another and another.

Taking the honorary awards out of the show left a big hole that has never been filled.

I think the big difference here is that while the Superbowl advertises the events that will take place on it, the Academy doesn't. If Eminem was an attempt to get younger viewers to tune in, then why the hell didn't they advertise the shit out of that? So, no, I don't think they are trying to appeal to younger viewers with that kind of stunt. If they are, then the are utterly inept at it.

As Anonymous mentioned, six films this year made more than $100 million at the box office. The movies nominated were seen and one of them was even forecast to be the big winner. The biggest problem is that there is no big event at the Oscars that will draw audiences. The songs were terrible and most people hadn't heard of them, so there was no one to draw a global audience. If the Academy really wants to get people to tune in, they need to do more unique and well-advertised events. Take away the commercials and the half-time show and the Superbowl wouldn't be as popular as it is, I don't think.

What if the Academy asked an Oscar-winning performer to show up and do a special performance? Then they advertised the fuck out of it. Making it the event of the year might help. Do what the Grammys do, limit the performers and presenters to not working for or showing up on any other televised broadcast so that they are a unique experience. Get some major names to show up at the Oscars and do more than just present an award.

The Academy isn't going to appeal to younger audiences unless they start doing more to mark them as the single most important event of the year.

You also have the fact that the novelty of seeing celebrities on the awards show is diminished. It used to be that the Oscars were one of the few places where you could see major movie stars on TV being themselves -- besides maybe a couple of talk shows and such. Today, celebrities are everywhere. We know what is going to be said because they have said all of these on hundreds of TV appearances and social media before. The "mystique" of the movie star has faded and with it the novelty of the Oscars.

Plus, if I don't watch the show, the really great moments will be all over the internet instantly. I can watch the 15 minutes of the good stuff and be done...