Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Okri wrote:AMPAS member resigns because of change

Mark Harris pointed this comment, though

"“I can’t imagine a purpose for staying in an organization that doesn’t respect my craft anymore,” Kurland tells The Hollywood Reporter. “I tried to resign today, and they sent me back an email asking me to hold off until next week.”

There's also a report that some members of the below-the-line branches of the Academy are abstaining from voting this year in protest. I wonder what effect that will have on the results. If craziness ensues, we can blame it on that.

AMPAS member resigns because of change

Mark Harris pointed this comment, though

"“I can’t imagine a purpose for staying in an organization that doesn’t respect my craft anymore,” Kurland tells The Hollywood Reporter. “I tried to resign today, and they sent me back an email asking me to hold off until next week.”

Spielberg already announced his concern, though he stopped short of demanding a change.

How are most of these people heavy-hitters?

I counted about ten including del Toro, Desplat, J. Williams, and Storaro. No actors. No directors other than del Toro and Cameron. Kathleen Kennedy is there, but where is Spielberg? Needs a few bigger names to have much of an impact.

Over 70 Hollywood heavy-hitters slam controversial Oscar changes in open letter:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a ... es-cameron

I've seen a bunch of people say they like this idea, and I don't get why. My issues:

1) I LIKE that I don't know which award is coming next; it keeps me on my toes. I prefer a mix of small award/big award; saving everything for the end creates a certain monotony. (There were a couple of years -- 1969 and 1973 -- where all four acting awards were held till the final segment; it didn't feel right, and they quickly dispensed with the idea.) Also, there are below-the-line awards that play a key role in what comes later in the big categories; knowing where to spot them in the order is part of the canny producer's job. Here, it doesn't matter; they'll all be given out before the "awards people care about" appear. (And, yes, by the way: this format is just as patronizing to the craft categories as the Academy decision is.)

2) Strictly personal here, but plotting an Oscar party will be hellacious. I can't imagine friends showing up at 5 or 6 o'clock and staying till 11, with dinner somehow fitting inside the window.

3) Maybe most of you don't remember, a similar thing was tried with the Tonys. By the late 90s, the Tonys were having a true ratings crisis (well beyond what the Oscars are facing today). Following a Rosie O'Donnell suggestion, PBS aired a lead-in hour (8-9PM), wherein all design categories, plus directing/choreography/score and book of a musical were distributed. The two hours on CBS were thus limited to play/musical/8 acting categories/revivals. It actually didn't work that badly (though, I emphasize: only an hour, already in prime time, followed immediately by the network show). But what happened next? After a few years, CBS grabbed back the 8-9PM hour, and, having already stigmatized the design categories as lesser-interest, simply used all that extra time for filler (a number from the 8th company of Jersey Boys!), leaving design winners with the fragments you see today. Do not be suckered: the Oscar producers would do the exact same thing.

Yep, love it.

This person on Twitter just proposed a brilliant idea that would solve the Oscars' ratings and relevancy woes.

I love it. It would satisfy EVERYONE. Hardcore cinephiles and awards watchers can watch all five hours. People who only want to watch the big stars and big categories can watch the last two or three hours. Everyone is happy. It will be just like the Superbowl.

mlrg wrote:Jimmy Kimmel hosted twice, in 2016 and 2017.

Ellen de Generes and Steve Martin are my favourites this century.

Thanks. Will fix.

Probably Hugh Jackman but Whoopi Goldberg the year she entered as Queen Elizabeth I in white face is my favorite post-Billy Crystal host.

My all-time favorite hosts/presenters were those at the 1968 awards. Ingrid Bergman owned that one, from gamely singing "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" with Paula Kelly, Sidney Poitier, and the UCLA Marching Band to opening the Best Actress envelope and screaming "it's a tie!"

My personal favorite host was Steve Martin in 2000, although I liked both times Jon Stewart hosted and thought Jimmy Kimmel did a mostly good job in 2016. Hard job. I’d argue that the most all-around successful host was Ellen Degeneres both times. She really got the mood of the room. Whoopi Goldberg did a strong job in 2001 too.

I think the worst hosting job is objectively Hathaway/Franco, so I’ll cite my runner up: Neil Patrick Harris.

Jimmy Kimmel hosted twice, in 2016 and 2017.

Ellen de Generes and Steve Martin are my favourites this century.

Big Magilla wrote:It's too late for most of this now, here's the way to do this stuff properly:

1. Sign on a name host with some gravitas a year in advance so he or she can clear their schedule to be available for rehearsals, publicity campaigns, etc.

....

3. Get as many name presenters as are willing to participate, including actors and actresses who were in strong contention but missed out on the nominations to show that still count.

For you (and everyone), who's your favourite modern host? Let's stick with the 21st Century for now

2000/Gladiator: Steve Martin
2001: Whoopi Goldberg
2002: Steve Martin
2003: Billy Crystal
2004: Chris Rock
2005: Jon Stewart
2006: Ellen DeGeneres
2007: Jon Stewart
2008: Hugh Jackman
2009: Steve Martin/Alec Baldwin
2010: James Franco/Anne Hathaway
2011: Billy Crystal
2012: Seth MacFarlane
2013: Ellen DeGeneres
2014: Neil Patrick Harris
2015: Chris Rock
2016-2017: Jimmy Kimmel
2018-2020: n/a

As for the presenters, I'm gonna be annoyed if Al Pacino and Liza Minelli don't present best picture in the 50th anniversary of The Godfather and Cabaret, just sayin'

rolotomasi99 wrote:

Okri wrote:And to add on Oscarguy's point, I think we're overestimating the amount having genuinely popular films affects the ratings. The 2019 year had five films score above $100 million and the genuine blockbuster of the bunch was a frontrunner for best actor. Yet 9 million fewer people watched that show than the 2005 show, which had no 100 million dollar grossing films. Now, you can't compare across eras for ratings because everything's cratered, but more people watched American Beauty win than watched Return of the King.

Great point about the difference in ratings between AMERICAN BEAUTY winning Best Picture and RETURN OF THE KING winning four years later. Particularly interesting since there was a clear populist streak of winners in between -- with GLADIATOR, A BEAUTIFUL MIND, and CHICAGO all making north of a $170 m at the domestic box-office.

Why is it we all understand there is nothing the Oscars can really do to stop their slide in the ratings, but the folks in charge of the Academy seem too stupid to get it?

And yet the highest rated show remains the year Titanic won, 1998. 55 million viewers, a spike of 15 million compared to the 1997 telecast. Last year's drop was pretty dramatic, but the factors are so varied that it's hard to pinpoint exactly why people aren't watching. The 1998 broadcast was bolstered by a couple of things. One was that a lot more popular critical and box-office hits were nominated compared to the previous "Year of the Indie," in which some great movies were nominated that few people had seen. Another was that Billy Crystal was a popular host doing one his best performances for that particular show (he won an Emmy for it). Still another was that the 1998 show was well-paced despite being long. There was excitement. Granted, that was 25 years ago. What's interesting is that only 5 years ago, the show was still getting upwards of 30 million viewers. There is a disconnect, as you all have highlighted, but I do think that part of it is the lack of truly popular-yet-well-reviewed offerings. But maybe they are panicking too much and not really finding the solutions. Some of the suggestions made here would be worth considering.

rolotomasi99 wrote:Why is it we all understand there is nothing the Oscars can really do to stop their slide in the ratings, but the folks in charge of the Academy seem too stupid to get it?

Because by doing so we don't have to admit to ourselves that we'll be taking a hit in our pocketbooks.