Obviously forever, but what I’m talking about is in promos for movies. I don’t think I’ve ever see Goldie Hawn listed as AA winner in movie previews (Cactus Flower 1969) or Jason Robards (two consecutive ones in the 1970’s). Would Tom Hanks be listed as an Academy Award winner in the movies if he were to make one today?
So how long after winning an AA Award do the movie companies use it in the promos?
I think it depends more on what type of movie is being promoted and if the actor is one of the stars of the movie with their name above the title. If Goldie Hawn was starring in a serious movie that was opening in November that the production company was pushing for Oscar consideration, then I’m sure it would say “starring Academy Award winner Goldie Hawn.” But if she was starring in a light comedy coming out in the summer, the Academy Award wouldn’t be mentioned. And if she was just a supporting role where she might be seen in the commercial but her name isn’t mentioned, then obviously the point is moot.
I think they throw the AA label around if you’re also in the league of other AA winners or nominees, since the sheer multitude of them should exude quality.
I always wondered what it would’ve been like to market something like Ocean’s 13 this way, since that had no less than 3 winners and 5 nominees (not including Oprah) in its cast (and Casey Affleck would join that company later that year).
Mr. Hanks will be Academy Award Winner Tom Hanks until the day he dies. Ditto other “serious” actors.
ETA - it has always struck me as funny that the X-Men movies have two Academy Award winners in them, but none of them are Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, or Brian Cox.
Until it inspires snickers from the people watching the commercial. For exaple, hearing “Academy Award Winner: Cuba Gooding, Jr. in Snow Dogs 2” is not likely to make you think that it’s a great movie but that the Academy’s standards have slipped.
I’m not sure that I totally agree with the above posters.
I find that “Academy Award wnner” is usually applied to people who aren’t quite as well-known as Goldie Hawn and Tom Hanks. Everybody knows who they are and what they’re famous for.
You might, on the other hand, hear it applied to Jennifer Hudson or Chris Cooper. They’re not household names, so calling them “Academy Award Winner” serves to remind people that they are “that girl from Dreamgirls” and "that guy from Adaptation, respectively. Or if people don’t make that connection exactly, it suggests that they do have some credentials.
A major exception, as noted above, is where an ensemble movie is being promoted as having multiple Oscar winners, as in “Starring Academy Award winners Tom Hanks, Goldie Hawn, and Marisa Tomei.”
The thing which exasperates me is when Acadamy Award Winner is used to label people on movies they made before they won the award.
I watch a lot of older movies picked up at the library more or less on the basis of the title. If the title grabs me, I pick it up, look at the pictures, check out the stars, the synopsis, maybe the director, and take it home with me.
Some movie that I did that with recently–maybe Gotham, pissed me off because the labeling of more than one star “Academy Award Winner” obscured the fact that the movie was made 20 years ago, and Academy Award were won much more recently than that.
It’s not that I minded that the movie was 20 years old, it’s just that the movie was confusing enough without having to remind myself that it wasn’t so much a “period” piece as it was a movie made 20 years ago.
It’s never happened to an actor, but the producers of the documentary feature Young Americans were stripped of their Academy Award when it was revealed that the film had actually been released in 1967, not 1968, the eligibility year for which it won its award.
It has happened. Not directly, of course, but back in the 30s, studio employees were told who to vote for or else. The studios decided which one of them was due an Oscar, and the votes were set up so the winners were as planned.
In the late 40s, when the Academy* started giving Best Picture to British films, the studios withdrew their support (they didn’t see why they should pay for awards that went to furriners). The Academy Awards might have died out then, but, luckily, TV had started and was willing to pay to televise the ceremony, making the awards independent of the studios.
Concerning the OP, the Academy Award listing is primarily on DVDs as a selling point. I doubt the Academy can stop them from doing that. The trademark is always acknowledged, but mentioning an actor in the DVD is an Academy Award winner is merely stating a fact, not infringing on any trademarks.
*Originally conceived as a company union to keep labor organizers out; the award was an afterthought.