|
Post by OrsonHepburn on Aug 9, 2018 22:13:42 GMT
I supporting getting rid of the most of the minor categories on the broadcast. Just show them in a highly condensed form and make them available on social media. The Emmys and Grammys do this all the time. Lets face it guys, there is very little interest or debate about who wins art direction or costume design. We focus our attention on picture, director, screenplay, and the acting categories. Making the broadcast shorter is a GREAT thing. The Oscars are overly long and gets very boring. You want to create something fit for television and make something that people want to watch. I have no idea what "most popular film" means. Does this mean an audience-voting award? Does this mean the Academy votes for their top ten films that grossed at least 100 million dollars? Whatever it is, if it gets people to watch the program, I am all for it. Comparing the Emmys and Grammys to the Oscars is a bit of an apples to oranges situation. The Oscars have far fewer categories, therefore they could very easily broadcast all of the winners within the telecast. While I agree with you that most of the attention is put on the picture, director, and acting categories, I don't feel that is justification for making the other categories a "lesser" achievement whose winners are any less worthy of their moment in the spotlight than the actors or directors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 23:22:08 GMT
Why not just give Black Panther a special award - like they did with Snow White?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Aug 9, 2018 23:29:14 GMT
Comparing the Emmys and Grammys to the Oscars is a bit of an apples to oranges situation. The Oscars have far fewer categories, therefore they could very easily broadcast all of the winners within the telecast. While I agree with you that most of the attention is put on the picture, director, and acting categories, I don't feel that is justification for making the other categories a "lesser" achievement whose winners are any less worthy of their moment in the spotlight than the actors or directors. The Oscars have fewer categories, but their ceremonies last LONGER. The typical Oscar ceremony lasts between 3.5 hours and 4 hours. The Grammys start at 8pm and end close to 11:30pm. It's a much more efficient system, and they play more live performances. Lets be clear here: The Oscars are still going to show the winners of every category, and every winner receives the same Oscar. The difference here is that they are going to show the condensed version on television rather than the drawn out ones for the major categories. The big picture is that the Oscars are a PROFIT BUSINESS. They are not doing this for charity. They are out to make money. If people are watching the Oscars less and less, then you're essentially losing customers/clients. One of the big complaints about the Oscars is the length. When the Oscars are longer than the movie Titanic and Lord of the Rings, you have a problem.
|
|
agent69
New Member
Posts: 246
Likes: 83
|
Post by agent69 on Aug 10, 2018 11:38:48 GMT
Raison d'être for Oscars is (or better said 'was') not making money. Helping movies make money definitely. And I think most of us agree that these changes will not help them in their intention, but will diminish their brand. It is disrespectful, idiotic and most f all pathetic.
And I would dare to say that anyone who agreed to these changes didn't give a rats ass about movies, Oscar history, Oscar brand or peer respect.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Aug 10, 2018 15:39:06 GMT
Raison d'être for Oscars is (or better said 'was') not making money. Helping movies make money definitely. And I think most of us agree that these changes will not help them in their intention, but will diminish their brand. It is disrespectful, idiotic and most f all pathetic. And I would dare to say that anyone who agreed to these changes didn't give a rats ass about movies, Oscar history, Oscar brand or peer respect. This is pure opinion/speculation. The issue here is that their brand is damaged and want to encourage more people to see the program. We do not what "achievement in popular film" means or the guidelines. We do not know how they are going to whittle the awards ceremony down to 3 hours and make the same length as the Emmys. What I am seeing here is pure "rather the devil you know, than the devil you don't know" type of deal. I am all for an "audience award," if they require people to register, pay an entrance fee, and require them to see X amount of movies per year.
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Aug 11, 2018 12:22:57 GMT
Okay, my 2 Cents about this:
First of all " Most Popular Film award" WTF???! What is the qualification for that? Box Office? Then thank god that we did not have it years ago otherwise "Fifty Shades of Grey" Would be an Oscar winner now.... I mean seriously, what are the reasons for the Oscars in the first place? Why where they established? Yes, to motivate studios to create good and quality films. To encourage them to make successful films that are even good. And that indeed worked until the mid 20s when slowly the independent cinema started to dominate the Oscars.... but are they to blame? No, the studios are to blame because do not care for art anymore but just quick money, its like they became the fast food chains fo the food industry. So now we need to establish the "Most popular film" award to give them a piece fo the cake again? Seriously? How about getting your asses down and create quality films again that even are able to earn money! That is such a lazy decision it makes me sick and I agree with everybody that this makes the Oscars like 80% less meaningful ... yes one category, that Is as silly and as immeasurable as this can provoke such a Huge downfall in once.
Oh and they want to shorten the running time to make it more attractive to the wider audience?? And this on the cost of some talented people who worked their whole life to be honored like that?? Good decisions, yeah.... make the Oscars even more unappealing as they already became with your little new category. How about scratching down the commercials? Do we really need every 10 minutes a 5 minute commercial break? Its not the speeches that make the show so fucking long its the annoying commercials... how about reducing it to 4 and more exclusive and expensive breaks, so you do not need to bringing down the people those awards are all about.
Yes, I really start to not care for the Oscars anymore... and I did not think that would happen.
SUCK IT
|
|
agent69
New Member
Posts: 246
Likes: 83
|
Post by agent69 on Aug 11, 2018 18:53:28 GMT
I am all for an "audience award," if they require people to register, pay an entrance fee, and require them to see X amount of movies per year. How on Earth would you impose those rules? They can't even make Academy members name 10 films on a ballot.
|
|
|
Post by michael128 on Aug 13, 2018 18:53:35 GMT
Was there this much of an outrage when Best Animated Film was added?
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Aug 15, 2018 14:06:17 GMT
Was there this much of an outrage when Best Animated Film was added? There definitely was some, but not this much. Having said that, in 2002, it wasn't as easy for people to get all hysterical on the interweb.
Also, Best Animated Film was immediately won by one of the all-time great films, Animated or otherwise. We'll have to wait and see if the same can be said about this new category. I'll cross my fingers it might be at least on of the years better 'popular films'. If something like Ready Player One or A Quiet Place found its way to an Oscar via this award, I wouldn't totally hate that, but I'm just suiting myself in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Aug 15, 2018 14:21:55 GMT
Was there this much of an outrage when Best Animated Film was added? There definitely was some, but not this much. Having said that, in 2002, it wasn't as easy for people to get all hysterical on the interweb.
Also, Best Animated Film was immediately won by one of the all-time great films, Animated or otherwise. We'll have to wait and see if the same can be said about this new category. I'll cross my fingers it might be at least on of the years better 'popular films'. If something like Ready Player One or A Quiet Place found its way to an Oscar via this award, I wouldn't totally hate that, but I'm just suiting myself in that regard.
Can't tell if serious.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Aug 15, 2018 14:32:34 GMT
There definitely was some, but not this much. Having said that, in 2002, it wasn't as easy for people to get all hysterical on the interweb.
Also, Best Animated Film was immediately won by one of the all-time great films, Animated or otherwise. We'll have to wait and see if the same can be said about this new category. I'll cross my fingers it might be at least on of the years better 'popular films'. If something like Ready Player One or A Quiet Place found its way to an Oscar via this award, I wouldn't totally hate that, but I'm just suiting myself in that regard.
Can't tell if serious. Serious that Spirited Away is an all-time great film? Pretty serious .
Edit, I meant almost immediately won by. I forgot Shrek won the first one.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Aug 15, 2018 17:23:22 GMT
Serious that Spirited Away is an all-time great film? Pretty serious .
Edit, I meant almost immediately won by. I forgot Shrek won the first one.
Haha yeah, that was my confusion. Thought you were saying Shrek is an all timer.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Aug 15, 2018 18:05:57 GMT
Was there this much of an outrage when Best Animated Film was added? I wasn't following much at the time, but I seem to recall outrage about it. Stuff like Brother Bear and Shark Tale and The Boss Baby were getting Oscar nominations simply by virtue of existing, and it pissed a lot of people off.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 18, 2018 5:15:12 GMT
So I guess the other movies in other categories connected with no one? Lol, just name the category Best Blockbuster already.
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Aug 18, 2018 5:41:27 GMT
So I guess the other movies in other categories connected with no one? Lol, just name the category Best Blockbuster already. This is actually pretty accurate and makes me appreciate the change more. The first time I got so mad I turned into a giant destructive green monster, I just kept thinking "No one will ever relate to me. " and then some movies came out that I found really connected with me.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Aug 19, 2018 17:56:31 GMT
I am all for an "audience award," if they require people to register, pay an entrance fee, and require them to see X amount of movies per year. How on Earth would you impose those rules? They can't even make Academy members name 10 films on a ballot. I am perfectly fine with going with the honor system, but if we're going to do a "movie quota," then you can always give out a Popular Film credit card. Every time you go to the movies or go to Red Box or rent a movie on FandangoNow, the credit card keeps track of the films you saw. Once you have seen 20-30 films, you can access your ballot and participate in the award.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Aug 20, 2018 5:01:45 GMT
Have they defined what is popular yet? If they use box office, won't that cause a whole lot of problems? Most of these movies don't open until late Dec so if an amount determines popularity then how is that going to be fair? So will it be that you have to gross $100 mil before end of Dec? La La Land didn't even hit $100 mil till the end of January and that's after the ballots closed, right?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Aug 24, 2018 16:04:33 GMT
So I guess the other movies in other categories connected with no one? Lol, just name the category Best Blockbuster already. If it's purely about hitting the 100 million milestone, then December releases would struggle to be eligible. A true "popular film" category would be an audience award, where you have the general public signs up online, pays a fee, and then nominate the top 10 films they liked the best for said year.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 25, 2018 0:25:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Aug 25, 2018 0:32:10 GMT
That rule makes no sense. They don't do that for best picture. There have been plenty of times where one studio had two best picture nominations. We don't even know the rules yet.
|
|