|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Feb 28, 2017 10:04:53 GMT
I have a couple...
1. The author of the source material should be included as a nominee for best adapted screenplay. Similar to what the WGA and USC Scripters do.
2. 5 or 10 nominees. Don't care which.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Feb 28, 2017 10:44:32 GMT
Not sure what you mean regarding your first one. For instance, you'd like Solomon Northup to be an Oscar winner along with John Ridley? And I don't think WGA includes the source authors as nominees btw.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Feb 28, 2017 10:52:39 GMT
Not sure what you mean regarding your first one. For instance, you'd like Solomon Northup to be an Oscar winner along with John Ridley? And I don't think WGA includes the source authors as nominees btw. Northup would be a strange case but yes that is what I'm saying. I guess the WGA doesn't. USC scripters does and that is what I prefer.
|
|
|
Post by fujiwarafan on Feb 28, 2017 11:07:23 GMT
If they think that cinema is a universal language, that there are no borders and walls in art and bla bla bla, then why don't they abolish the Best Foreign Language Film category? I don't think it should be done, but I wanted to hear your opinions. lol
|
|
|
Post by phenix714 on Feb 28, 2017 11:27:08 GMT
Having two categories for costumes, makeup and hairstyling may be a bit too much. They could just have a general Dressing category.
The existence of the Song category is a bit dubious. I mean, it's not like it's an integral element of filmmaking or anything. Most movies don't have songs. It's something super specific.
Also, I wonder whether it's desirable to reward visual effects in themselves. They are just a means to an end, and whatever effects you see on screen should just be seen as part of the overall production design of the movie.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Feb 28, 2017 11:40:05 GMT
If they think that cinema is a universal language, that there are no borders and walls in art and bla bla bla, then why don't they abolish the Best Foreign Language Film category? I don't think it should be done, but I wanted to hear your opinions. lol Well, I know that everyone at the Oscars says those things about cinema, but they are inherently an American award show and an American academy. Unless the Academy starts to claim that it's a fully international all-encompassing award, the Foreign Film Oscar should absolutely stay.
|
|
|
Post by phenix714 on Feb 28, 2017 11:46:43 GMT
If they think that cinema is a universal language, that there are no borders and walls in art and bla bla bla, then why don't they abolish the Best Foreign Language Film category? I don't think it should be done, but I wanted to hear your opinions. lol Well, I know that everyone at the Oscars says those things about cinema, but they are inherently an American award show and an American academy. Unless the Academy starts to claim that it's a fully international all-encompassing award, the Foreign Film Oscar should absolutely stay. In that case, then foreign movies should be inelegible for Best Picture. They can't have it both ways. The current system sucks because it gives the impression that foreign movies have their own category sort of as a consolation prize because they can't compete with the American stuff. It's the same problem with the animation category.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Feb 28, 2017 12:50:20 GMT
Well, I know that everyone at the Oscars says those things about cinema, but they are inherently an American award show and an American academy. Unless the Academy starts to claim that it's a fully international all-encompassing award, the Foreign Film Oscar should absolutely stay. In that case, then foreign movies should be inelegible for Best Picture. They can't have it both ways. The current system sucks because it gives the impression that foreign movies have their own category sort of as a consolation prize because they can't compete with the American stuff. It's the same problem with the animation category. The current system exists because if it didn't, then you'd see no Foreign and Animated movies there at all. And this way the Academy gives them at least some chance to shine. And when foreign films do get in Best Picture, it's an example of the American academy being real impressed by them. As you know, those examples are scarce. Technically foreign films are not banned from being there in all the other categories, they just don't get in because it's, once again, an American award. Whereas something like the Cannes Film Festival is international. I understand some people's frustration with this, but what can I tell you - that's the way it is. It's the same in France with Cesars, in Spain with Goyas, in Russia with Nikas. Countries have their own Academies and big awards. America has the Oscars.
|
|
|
Post by phenix714 on Feb 28, 2017 13:13:08 GMT
In that case, then foreign movies should be inelegible for Best Picture. They can't have it both ways. The current system sucks because it gives the impression that foreign movies have their own category sort of as a consolation prize because they can't compete with the American stuff. It's the same problem with the animation category. The current system exists because if it didn't, then you'd see no Foreign and Animated movies there at all. And this way the Academy gives them at least some chance to shine. I know, but IMO it's not desirable because, while at least the category gives the foreign stuff exposure, it sort of reinforces this notion that they are "inferior", and that encourages voters to keep being lazy with their viewing habits. I guess the way around this would be to up the Academy's standard, quite simply. Make sure, somehow, that all Academy members are big cinephiles who, come Oscars time, will have watched a lot of movies from all around the world. Like, they could be given an account where they can list and rate the movies they've seen, and for them to be able to vote there would be a requirement of having seen, for example, at least 60 English language movies and 20 non-English language movies from that year. It may seem like too much to ask, but, I mean, it's the Academy we are talking about ! They are not supposed to be casual viewers. They are voting for the most important awards show in the world ! So I think it's fair that we require them to be familiar with the stuff that came out during the year, so that we get fair, informed results.
|
|
|
Post by fujiwarafan on Feb 28, 2017 13:18:48 GMT
In that case, then foreign movies should be inelegible for Best Picture. They can't have it both ways. The current system sucks because it gives the impression that foreign movies have their own category sort of as a consolation prize because they can't compete with the American stuff. It's the same problem with the animation category. The current system exists because if it didn't, then you'd see no Foreign and Animated movies there at all. And this way the Academy gives them at least some chance to shine. And when foreign films do get in Best Picture, it's an example of the American academy being real impressed by them. As you know, those examples are scarce. Technically foreign films are not banned from being there in all the other categories, they just don't get in because it's, once again, an American award. Whereas something like the Cannes Film Festival is international. I understand some people's frustration with this, but what can I tell you - that's the way it is. It's the same in France with Cesars, in Spain with Goyas, in Russia with Nikas. Countries have their own Academies and big awards. America has the Oscars. In fact I agree with you. Every nation has its Academy Awards. It's legitimate. But what I don't like the hypocrisy of the message they send from the Oscars. Cinema has barriers and language is a barrier. Barriers must stop to be viewed as evil. They determine identities, languages, cultures and also protect them from omologation and standardization. To promote diversity is to protect diversity. I also agree with phenix, who is right when says that at that point there must be a limit in the eligibility of foreign films in other categories, because otherwise really sounds like "oh you little inferior foreign movie, you made it among us, aren't you feeling blessed?"
|
|
|
Post by fujiwarafan on Feb 28, 2017 13:25:11 GMT
The current system exists because if it didn't, then you'd see no Foreign and Animated movies there at all. And this way the Academy gives them at least some chance to shine. I know, but IMO it's not desirable because, while at least the category gives the foreign stuff exposure, it sort of reinforces this notion that they are "inferior", and that encourages voters to keep being lazy with their viewing habits. I guess the way around this would be to up the Academy's standard, quite simply. Make sure, somehow, that all Academy members are big cinephiles who, come Oscars time, will have watched a lot of movies from all around the world. Like, they could be given an account where they can list and rate the movies they've seen, and for them to be able to vote there would be a requirement of having seen, for example, at least 60 English language movies and 20 non-English language movies from that year. It may seem like too much to ask, but, I mean, it's the Academy we are talking about ! They are not supposed to be casual viewers. They are voting for the most important awards show in the world ! So I think it's fair that we require them to be familiar with the stuff that came out during the year, so that we get fair, informed results. When I was in the jury of an important Italian movie award, at a certain point we introduced this method and lowered the number of voters. Believe me, the quality of nominations and winners became extremely higher then the earlier years.
|
|
fotodude
Junior Member
Posts: 398
Likes: 132
|
Post by fotodude on Feb 28, 2017 13:58:48 GMT
The current system exists because if it didn't, then you'd see no Foreign and Animated movies there at all. And this way the Academy gives them at least some chance to shine. I know, but IMO it's not desirable because, while at least the category gives the foreign stuff exposure, it sort of reinforces this notion that they are "inferior", and that encourages voters to keep being lazy with their viewing habits. I guess the way around this would be to up the Academy's standard, quite simply. Make sure, somehow, that all Academy members are big cinephiles who, come Oscars time, will have watched a lot of movies from all around the world. Like, they could be given an account where they can list and rate the movies they've seen, and for them to be able to vote there would be a requirement of having seen, for example, at least 60 English language movies and 20 non-English language movies from that year. It may seem like too much to ask, but, I mean, it's the Academy we are talking about ! They are not supposed to be casual viewers. They are voting for the most important awards show in the world ! So I think it's fair that we require them to be familiar with the stuff that came out during the year, so that we get fair, informed results. Agreed. The standard for the average Oscar voter is just too low.
|
|
agent69
New Member
Posts: 246
Likes: 83
|
Post by agent69 on Feb 28, 2017 14:43:48 GMT
- Back to 5 BP nominees (with preferential voting), - preferential voting for everything, - as few montages, dances, etc. as possible, - original score rules seem to be very rigid so maybe some fixing there, - bring back lifetime achievement award to the main show (imagine Jackie Chan this year. It would mean only one award though), - it may sound horrible, but maybe shorts could move from the main show
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous ĂȘtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Feb 28, 2017 15:58:06 GMT
I'm probably in the minority here, but I wouldn't drop any category (not even Best Song) and I wouldn't go back to having a fixed number of BP nominees. I like the current system.
Expand Makeup and Hairstyling to 5 nominees. CUT THE SHOW DOWN BY AT LEAST ONE HOUR. And I don't mean cut categories from the live broadcast or cut down the winners' time to speak. Keep forced, unfunny shtick to a minimum and don't insert a 5-minute commercial break after every two categories. They'd never agree to cut down their advertisers' time, but ratings would certainly go up if the damn thing wasn't such a horrible bore to sit through from beginning to end.
|
|
|
Post by cornnetto on Feb 28, 2017 16:34:13 GMT
For the foreign category there is 2 reasons that I think were pointed out.
1) It is an american industry award, like the other similar awards all around the world, the impression that it is a world cinema event is mostly an illusion, there is not 1 billion people watching worldwide, it is closer to 60 million world tv rating, with more than half of that from the US, it is not the best movie in the world. Very similar that the baseball world series champion is not a world champion, Americans have a tendency to put the word world in front of there local event to make them sound bigger. It is Hollywood celebrating and promoting itself.
2) You probably need for a jury like this to build an eligible list in some way with some rules and not have a witch year the movie is mess, that rules could change, but the current released in Los Angeles during the year is not a bad one. Once you have that rules, bingo it is automatic you just created a difference between foreign or not de facto, and giving a chance to movies that didn't got a US release is not a bad idea.
As for the voters being big cinephile that watch more stuff, I'm not sure that is relevant, award like that are easy to do, we have many of them already. Oscar is about people that work in the industry, often not having time and amateur movie watcher doing it for free and it is part of the game achieving to get your movie seen by them by that definition. For something else, critics award should do.
For the ceremony change.
I liked last year the video montage that was showing of the technical aspect of the category, maybe having more of that (say for best SFX, instead of showing part of the final product, something a bit longer and similar to a SFX demo)
Removing category none of the audience care, like the many shorts, if not removing the category all together putting it in a day show. If not to compress time, to give more time to the bigger category, also the way Lexi Alexander describe achieved to get an Oscar nomination in a category like that, it seem to be a big joke and cheapen the trophy, people often complain about the others category or name them in worst win/noms, but the big category that people follow are much more serious.
Because it is 90% of the academy revenue, that one is maybe impossible to ask realistically (like reducing running time) reducing number of ads in a creative ways, or making a larger proportion of ads movie related. The WalMart series of short movies was an excellent step in that direction.
Better presentation numbers, from people that will have test them and make them good in comedy club (i.e. more Louis CK type presenter, most actor are simply boring in stand up mode).
A bit more time for the best pictures moment, more involved speaking after the win, it is the biggest award and end up being often rushed at the end.
More montage, they tend to be the best and a good way to promote stuff.
|
|
bkguy182
New Member
IMDB member since January 2001
Posts: 119
Likes: 47
|
Post by bkguy182 on Feb 28, 2017 16:40:55 GMT
create rules on whats a lead and whats a supporting performance. and then have a 5 person panel for anyone who wants to contest the decision.
5 nominees for makeup.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Feb 28, 2017 16:45:51 GMT
I wouldn't drop any category. I think the Docs, Shorts winners often give the best speeches. But I agree about streamlining the shtick - especially with presenters - who aren't funny.
I would prefer more montages. But I would not showcase any Best Song nominee - unless you have a well known song (like Justin Timberlake).
|
|
tonyz
New Member
Posts: 98
Likes: 43
|
Post by tonyz on Feb 28, 2017 17:02:48 GMT
1. Only one short montage each year. Celebrate one thing in film history but that's it. Each Oscars has like 5 of these things. 2. No Best Song performances. 3. Combined the three Best Shorts into one category. 4. Combined the two Sound categories into one. 5. Combined Best Makeup and Best Costumes. 6. Less stupid shit like having tourists walk through. 7. Less time with the Honorary Oscars (don't do it every year just keep it for special circumstances), technical ones given out beforehand, the president of the Academy, etc. 8. Add a Best Stunts and/or Best Performance Capture to help get bigger films in that more people have seen.
|
|
|
Post by Mustard_Supreme on Feb 28, 2017 17:24:16 GMT
- Forget the homages to the films nominated for best picture. Nobody cares - Have presenters present more than one category to speed it up (I know they already do this for some categories but do it for all except the top 4 plus supporting actors) - Original Songs don't need to be performed, even if the person singing is super famous. - Since the hosts are not Ricky Gervais nor Team Tina and Amy, less talking more presenting, you're lame and tame.
As BJ said - Have fixed rules for placement in supporting and leading acting categories. The last 2 years we have had leading actresses winning for for their performance in supporting. This category was made for a reason, let the real supporting actors get their glory.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 28, 2017 17:31:05 GMT
1. Makeup category expanded to five nominees.
2. Stunt Choreography to be made a category.
3. Kill most of the useless skits and jokes of the ceremony and give the winners more time to speak.
4. Find some way to verify that voters managed to actually see the films nominated for the categories they vote upon. For instance, if you vote for Best Actress, you need to prove that you saw the five films by either attending a verified Oscar screening or buying a ticket and submitting that ticket with your ballot, or if you view a screener, have it be one of those digital files that can alert someone (the Academy, in this case) that it was viewed in its entirety. If they do not fit all of these guidelines, their vote is nullified. They can bitch or complain all they want, but that's what an Academy member should do: watch everything nominated prior to voting.
|
|
|
Post by elevenx23 on Feb 28, 2017 17:53:07 GMT
Kill preferential ballot because it works only in favor of movies that do well exclusively in big cities and nowhere else. That is not a real Best Picture. 12YS, Birdman, Spotlight, Moonlight = #NotMyBestPicture
There are terrifically well reviewed big movies that both big cities and heartland embraced. yet preferential ballot will never allow them to win because it favors "important" fad. AMPAS votes for what they think is important to win at that particular moment, not what's really the best or will stand the test of time. No wonder ratings keep going down and they hit second all time low on Sunday.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Feb 28, 2017 18:31:51 GMT
Kill preferential ballot because it works only in favor of movies that do well exclusively in big cities and nowhere else. That is not a real Best Picture. 12YS, Birdman, Spotlight, Moonlight = #NotMyBestPicture There are terrifically well reviewed big movies that both big cities and heartland embraced. yet preferential ballot will never allow them to win because it favors "important" fad. AMPAS votes for what they think is important to win at that particular moment, not what's really the best or will stand the test of time. No wonder ratings keep going down and they hit second all time low on Sunday. The year 12YS won was one of the highest rated broadcast.
|
|
|
Post by elevenx23 on Feb 28, 2017 18:45:51 GMT
Kill preferential ballot because it works only in favor of movies that do well exclusively in big cities and nowhere else. That is not a real Best Picture. 12YS, Birdman, Spotlight, Moonlight = #NotMyBestPicture There are terrifically well reviewed big movies that both big cities and heartland embraced. yet preferential ballot will never allow them to win because it favors "important" fad. AMPAS votes for what they think is important to win at that particular moment, not what's really the best or will stand the test of time. No wonder ratings keep going down and they hit second all time low on Sunday. The year 12YS won was one of the highest rated broadcast. Cause there was a great chance that Gravity would win and it was star packed. I think that Gravity loss broke the camel back and people will keep dropping like flies because it's obvious that political crap that only few big city liberals care to see will keep winning.
|
|
|
Post by Kirk-Picard on Feb 28, 2017 18:53:45 GMT
I know, but IMO it's not desirable because, while at least the category gives the foreign stuff exposure, it sort of reinforces this notion that they are "inferior", and that encourages voters to keep being lazy with their viewing habits. I guess the way around this would be to up the Academy's standard, quite simply. Make sure, somehow, that all Academy members are big cinephiles who, come Oscars time, will have watched a lot of movies from all around the world. Like, they could be given an account where they can list and rate the movies they've seen, and for them to be able to vote there would be a requirement of having seen, for example, at least 60 English language movies and 20 non-English language movies from that year. It may seem like too much to ask, but, I mean, it's the Academy we are talking about ! They are not supposed to be casual viewers. They are voting for the most important awards show in the world ! So I think it's fair that we require them to be familiar with the stuff that came out during the year, so that we get fair, informed results. When I was in the jury of an important Italian movie award, at a certain point we introduced this method and lowered the number of voters. Believe me, the quality of nominations and winners became extremely higher then the earlier years. Which one?
|
|
|
Post by cornnetto on Feb 28, 2017 19:12:44 GMT
Kill preferential ballot because it works only in favor of movies that do well exclusively in big cities and nowhere else. Can you explain the reasoning why that would be the case ? It favor movie with less passion behind them, less divisiveness that make most voters top 3, why that would be in favor of movies that do well only in some market ? I would have thought that it favor movie that make more consensus and can play toward larger audience, I'm not sure how movie like Argo or Spotlight are big cities and no where else movie. Are you not refering to people taste but in the sense that small cities have only a small amount of screen that only play blockbuster ? If so, I'm not sure how making the movie with the most number one vote win would favor them.
|
|