Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

I don't even think any behind the scenes voting for the "winner" in any category is needed....I suggest....

A big barrel, like the ones used in raffles, contain all the nominees names on little folded slips of paper.  Then the telecast's PRODUCER spins it around a few times, then reaches in and pulls out the name of who wins the statuette for each category.

NO jokes, quips, guest presenters flubbing their teleprompter reading, big dance numbers and "special" guests singing EACH nominated song. The "In Memorium" segment should be the longest, which means it should be NO LONGER than what it is now! OH!  And just a simple "thanks" from each winner will suffice, NOT the thanking of everyone down to the "tween" who babysat them when they were TWO YEARS OLD need be done.

If a "host" IS needed, then it should be someone like ALEX TREBEK, PAT SAJAK or any other GAME SHOW HOST, who usually ARE more entertaining than the "hosts" they usually foist upon us every year.  ;)

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about John Bailey, the president of the Academy Of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences, hosting? No fluff; just reading the nominees and announcing the winners ( who will merely thank the academy and exit the stage). Record winner speeches and upload them to YouTube.  Open the show with the In Memorium tribute, then Bailey can make his entrance directly afterward with a short explanation of what this particular award is, then on with the ceremony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, none of the above will ever occur. The only thing that will occur are having pairs of Hollywood sstars )so-called) appear to present the nominees and announce the winners. The Hollywood establishment which now consists of mega stars, and mega star wannabe's want their "day in the spotlight". Or in this case their "night in the spotlight". Self-congratulating seems to be the order of the day on Oscar night.

The Oscar telecast really has mushroomed into announcing some cause or event that rankles the Hollywood establishment and because so many people watch the telecast, I am sure those who either are the presenters, or the actual winners get to have a few moments making political statements.

This is the main reason why I do not watch the telecast anymore in addition to the fact that I know so little about the newer films that were nominated. My wife Annie and I do not go to the movies anymore and often do not see the newer movies until a year or more after their general theatrical release.

Although I have to say that I have seen quite a few videos of the movie Vice and if I were able would see that one in the theater. But it can wait until it is released in DVD or is available to stream.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Michael Rennie said:

I agree with "If a "host" is needed." But not a game show person. I suggest, since it is Black History Month, Oprah. She has personality without being corny.

Or I could just leave it on TCM.

 

On 2/1/2019 at 12:20 PM, Sepiatone said:

I don't even think any behind the scenes voting for the "winner" in any category is needed....I suggest....

A big barrel, like the ones used in raffles, contain all the nominees names on little folded slips of paper.  Then the telecast's PRODUCER spins it around a few times, then reaches in and pulls out the name of who wins the statuette for each category.

NO jokes, quips, guest presenters flubbing their teleprompter reading, big dance numbers and "special" guests singing EACH nominated song. The "In Memorium" segment should be the longest, which means it should be NO LONGER than what it is now! OH!  And just a simple "thanks" from each winner will suffice, NOT the thanking of everyone down to the "tween" who babysat them when they were TWO YEARS OLD need be done.

If a "host" IS needed, then it should be someone like ALEX TREBEK, PAT SAJAK or any other GAME SHOW HOST, who usually ARE more entertaining than the "hosts" they usually foist upon us every year.  ;)

Sepiatone

This would work out fine, if my suggestion is not taken that would be...cancel all awards shows.

One needs to ask, why do these people need such awards anyway? Looking back on the history of who actually won such things shows how poorly the judging was to begin with, being that many exemplary films got nada and many stinkers won for all kinds of things. Okay, once in a blue moon, something like Lawrence of Arabia is honored but the majority of winners aren't worth their salt. I say, dump the whole shebang and replace it with something worthwhile like live broadcasts of monkeys having a tea party or dancing squirrels. Too bad J. Fred Muggs isn't still alive because he could run around destroying furniture and sets, which is always fun to watch and much more entertaining than the Oscars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GordonCole said:

 

This would work out fine, if my suggestion is not taken that would be...cancel all awards shows.

 

Awards shows are necessary because I think when you have stars, you have to have that one special night. That spectacle where you can gather all the celebrities in one place. And they can attempt to outdress each other to see who wore the memorable outfit. The red carpet, the interviews where no one says anything of note. And frankly, some sound drunk already.

For many, this is their "super bowl". The event when they invite friends, eat hors d'oeuvres (yes, I copy and pasted that), comment on the stars, bet on the winners etc...

I think the problem is no one knows anything about the films. its backwards. Films get nominated, then people go to see them. That also means less chance of a well known winning. And that's what people want to see.

Blockbuster awards was on to something. What they did was take the top 50 or so box office films (I forget the number), and vote on awards from that list. At least its films someone actually saw that get the noms. Not that cute film someone heard about. That you have to drive across town to the little art theater to see.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GGGGerald said:

Blockbuster awards was on to something. What they did was take the top 50 or so box office films (I forget the number), and vote on awards from that list. At least its films someone actually saw that get the noms. Not that cute film someone heard about. That you have to drive across town to the little art theater to see.

But is it the indie film's fault that folks have to drive across town to the little art theater to see it? They don't have the same backing, audience and exposure , but many are just as worthy of seeing as the films which play at the big plex theaters (my opinion only, of course.)

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sagebrush said:

But is it the indie film's fault that folks have to drive across town to the little art theater to see? They don't have the same backing, audience and exposure , but many are just as worthy of seeing as the films which play at the big plex theaters (my opinion only, of course.)

Agreed. This year is an anomaly as there were three of the Best Picture nominees (Black PantherA Star Is BornVice) that played at my local theater. For the last couple of decades it's been one or maybe two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sagebrush said:

But is it the indie film's fault that folks have to drive across town to the little art theater to see? They don't have the same backing, audience and exposure , but many are just as worthy of seeing as the films which play at the big plex theaters (my opinion only, of course.)

It was in the case of "The Hurt Locker", which opened at little art theaters the same weekend every kid was rushing to the mall cineplex to see "Transformers 2", and caused critics to meltdown, including Roger Ebert literally proclaiming the "death of culture".  (Which he did frequently on his private blog, to a degree that would embarrass Bill Maher.)  "Why didn't you see 'Hurt Locker'?" was the big battle cry of 2008, and no suspense about who was going to win that year.

Ten years later, though, and after '08, the question isn't whether voters are SEEING the indies, it's about why they're not putting anything ELSE on their ballots.  And the answer is because, in most cases, they only have time to vote early nominations by buzz and reputation formed on the Golden Globes and critics' awards, and now even the Globes only pays attention to the critic-buzzed Indie films.  Except when they get handed a big package of studio publicity about a movie's "surefire Oscar buzz", as Disney went into overdrive concocting for "Mary Poppins Returns", and even convinced the Globes that it was going to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2019 at 11:20 AM, Sepiatone said:

If a "host" IS needed, then it should be someone like ALEX TREBEK, PAT SAJAK or any other GAME SHOW HOST, who usually ARE more entertaining than the "hosts" they usually foist upon us every year.  ;)

Sepiatone

They should get that toupee wearing man from the Apprentice to host. That would be something!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sagebrush said:

But is it the indie film's fault that folks have to drive across town to the little art theater to see it? They don't have the same backing, audience and exposure , but many are just as worthy of seeing as the films which play at the big plex theaters (my opinion only, of course.)

 

The already have a show. Its called the Sundance festival. Another channel nobody watches.

This is the ultimate gala. Now there are sports awards, sag awards, golden globes etc... all came into being because of the grandeur of the oscars. People want to see stars. 

Maybe if you do well at the indie awards, you can advance to the big leagues and then you can challenge for the Oscar.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GGGGerald said:

The already have a show. Its called the Sundance festival. Another channel nobody watches.

This is the ultimate gala. Now there are sports awards, sag awards, golden globes etc... all came into being because of the grandeur of the oscars. People want to see stars. 

Maybe if you do well at the indie awards, you can advance to the big leagues and then you can challenge for the Oscar.

 

 

 

If as you suggest the Oscars are designed to market stars and the films they are in (which is the primary purpose IMO but instead of stars I would say the studios and producers that finance the films),  and therefore such a show needs to appeal to popular taste,   the Academy could do something like the NBA does for their All-Star game;  inclusion is based on votes from 'experts' (those Academy members that get vote today in their specific category),  and the general public.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

If as you suggest the Oscars are designed to market stars and the films they are in (which is the primary purpose IMO but instead of stars I would say the studios and producers that finance the films),  and therefore such a show needs to appeal to popular taste,   the Academy could do something like the NBA does for their All-Star game;  inclusion is based on votes from 'experts' (those Academy members that get vote today in their specific category),  and the general public.

 

Not the worst idea. Its hard to expect the general public to care when the voting is limited to a few people in this "academy" whom most fans can't relate to. Only recently did they expand the membership to make it more representative of the general public. The Oscars is a TV program like any other. And many of the popular programs allow fans to vote. I have voted myself on occasion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GGGGerald said:

. Only recently did they expand the membership to make it more representative of the general public. 

:o

You mean they now include FACTORY WORKERS, CUSTODIANS, CASHIERS, CONSTRUCTION WORKERS and SALES LADIES and such in the membership??  you know, the people who make up the LARGEST NUMBER of people who GO to the movies!?!  :huh:  ;)

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

:o

You mean they now include FACTORY WORKERS, CUSTODIANS, CASHIERS, CONSTRUCTION WORKERS and SALES LADIES and such in the membership??  you know, the people who make up the LARGEST NUMBER of people who GO to the movies!?!  :huh:  ;)

Sepiatone

Those people already vote with the tickets they buy. The real awards that matter happen at the box office. That's the award every studio wants to win. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, "triple G"....

But ticket sales were never a factor.  Quite often which movie or actor/actress that wins a statuette was NEVER the top box office seller for that year.  In fact, there are probably MORE cases in which WINNING the Oscar is what generated LARGER box office receipts than it had BEFORE winning than before.

At any rae, it's NOT SUPPOSED to be a popularity contest.

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GGGGerald said:

The real awards that matter happen at the box office. That's the award every studio wants to win. :lol:

This is true. I think it's time some of these Oscar winners started including "I would like to thank the public for seeing my film and purchasing over-priced concessions" in their speeches!  At least the sports winners usually acknowledge the fans who come to see them do their job.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Industry awards and the associated award show were created for one purpose;  as PR for that industry.   

If the Oscars and the award show are no longer achieving this purpose  (e.g.  the industry isn't getting the same level of PR or the cost-to-PR ratio they are getting is too high),   something should change.    

This being the social media age,  allowing the public to vote via social media could be a way to gain the attention of those in the public that have grown up with social media.     Allowing voting DURING the broadcast would really wake-things-up.

Note:  I'm not saying I would welcome these type of changes (I'm not on any social media platforms other than this one and the jazz forum).    I'm just saying that times have changed and so maybe the Oscar 'process' should change with it.

The NBA allows fan voting using Social Media and changed how the teams are formed (having two captains that can pick the players on their team):  These changes were made for PR purposes and they are working well in that regard.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Industry awards and the associated award show were created for one purpose;  as PR for that industry.   

If the Oscars and the award show are no longer achieving this purpose  (e.g.  the industry isn't getting the same level as PR or the cost-to-PR ratio they are getting is too high),   something should change.    

This being the social media age,  allowing the public to vote via social media could be a way to gain the attention of those in the public that have grown up with social media.     Allowing voting DURING the broadcast would really wake-things-up.

Note:  I'm not saying I would welcome these type of changes (I'm not on any social media platforms other than this one).    I'm just saying that times have changes and so many the Oscar 'process' should change with it.

They already have the People's Choice Awards for that, and I think one or more of the MTV Movie Awards categories. And we see how much respect those two ceremonies elicit. 

The Oscars should remain the purview of the Academy. The general population does not need to be included in the process, except as viewers. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...