I kind of hate to say it, but other than the bumbling intros, the least enjoyable thing for me is the speeches. I wish the nominees would be more prepared. That they would stop thanking five million people. That they’d arrange ahead of time how to handle group awards. And that more time would be slotted for the speeches of the bigger awards.
Well, I guess there’s three issues there to examine -
It ends fairly late, often around midnight. I guess they could just start it earlier.
It is fairly long, a few hours. There’s a bunch of suggestions already to deal with that.
It tends to run late. This one I don’t understand. They rehearse it, and they have decades of prior examples to get an accurate idea of which parts might go over the allotted time. They should just put it on the schedule for the amount of time it’s realistically likely to run.
No, they don’t. The ratings are fine. Tens of millions of people will still watch no matter what. Yes, ratings have fallen over the past 50 years, but like a lot of other television institutions it competes with more options (and ratings don’t track how many people time-shift or watch online). Plus people like to do bullshit things like compare the ratings for a No Country For Old Men year with the ratings for a Titanic year, which is crazy.
The Oscars still get much higher ratings than the Grammys, which caters to much more populist tastes. It’s higher than the Golden Globes, which includes TV awards, and speaking of, the Oscars get much, much higher ratings than the Emmy awards. Do people bitch about the Emmys the way they do the Oscars?
People will always watch the Oscars. People will always bitch about the Oscars. There will always BE an Oscar ceremony and they will always honor the crafts people. Anyone who thinks the Academy Awards are “elitist” should just lobby for the Razzies to be televised, since those nominees are probably more their speed.
No worries ! Yes, a rig was shown shooting the presentation of Garrett’s Class A Oscar ( The Statuette ). I agree 100%, with the advent of Vimeo and YouTube, showing the entire Sci Tech event would be really nice. It’s always produced and recorded anyway.
Those in the thread who seem quite angry in their insistence that the Oscars exists for the mooooveeee stahhr fans should remember that unlike, say, the People’s Choice Awards, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was not founded to serve the fans.
So you see, the Academy was founded not so we can all gush over Jennifer Anniston’s latest visit to the Doctor hidden exposé video, but for a slightly loftier set of reasons.
Like it or not, without the crafts of filmmaking, you have Radio. Except that without Sound Design, you have Newspapers. Except that without Screenwriters, you have…well, nothing.
Suck it up and go pee or thumb through your latest issue of Us or People or Them or whatever, while the Oscars for the noble crafts are being handed out.
When Mad Men finally returns to the screen, I’ll be riveted in place–& probably won’t even touch the remote during commercials.
I don’t pay that kind of attention to the Academy Awards. Even the dinky non-cable TV in the kitchen will pick up the show, so I won’t be riveted anywhere. It’s the kind of stuff to watch with one eye & one ear until the really interesting bits come up–& who knows which bits will be interesting? Not a real film buff, I’ll get hints on what’s worth renting–or even catching if it’s not totally disappeared from the theaters. The technical stuff & short subjects are sometimes more interesting than the “big” awards. I’ll probably catch some of the Red Carpet action, too, & will definitely watch Joan Rivers & her pals judge them all on Monday…
So let the Academy have their show–I’ll treat it like a buffet…
One sports bar in the neighborhood has “Oscars” on the marquee. That would be a great way to watch!
Thank you for proving my point for me. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you about the Oscars can’t possibly be sufficiently enthralled by ‘the cinema’ and is obviously a troglodite and incapable of understanding anything more nuanced than Showgirls. Right. :rolleyes:
Hey, now. Showgirls featured some breathtakingly fine and nuanced Steadicam™ work including a brilliant and complex opening shot out in the dusty windy desert in Nevada. Perfect horizons, beautifully composed frames. Some of the quick work up and down the stairs backstage tracking the unfortunate ingenue are also superb.
You’re wrong, I don’t think any of that at all. If someone doesn’t like the Oscars as much as I do or at all, I have no problem with that. I specifically singled out your using the word “elitist” which is a bullshit teabagger term (for instance, President Obama was called an “elitist” because he was educated).
I don’t even know what you mean by it. Because there are movies you haven’t seen/heard of? I’m not into the Grammys because I haven’t heard/heard of most of the nominees, but it would never occur to me to call them “elitist” because of my lack of interest.
You said:
[QUOTE=Crawlspace]
Personally, I think the Oscars are over rated. It’s dominated by arrogant, elitest snobs who speak of the power of cinema, but regularly get taken in by Oscar bait.
[/QUOTE]
What makes them arrogant? What makes them “elitest”? What makes them snobs? What makes for “Oscar bait,” (another bullshit term)? The membership is made up of individuals from all over the world. It’s not like they get together and conspire on what to nominate and vote for.
They’re people who work on movies and like movies (most of them, anyway, Bob Hoskins aside). There are a handful of movie stars and famous directors and high-powered producers, but the majority of the membership consists of people who work in obscurity, just doing their various jobs in sound, editing, costume design, character acting, set decoration, and so on. I doubt more than a fraction are “snobs” let alone arrogant or elitist. Whatever “Oscar Bait” is, they wouldn’t nominate or vote for anything they didn’t personally like. And they vote as individuals, not as an entity. Majority wins (nominations and Oscars), even if a big chunk of other voters think whatever-it-is doesn’t deserve it. I’ll bet as many Academy voters said WTF? about Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (a movie I liked) getting in over Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (a movie I liked much more) as we did. That’s how it is.
Funny, I just posted a complaint in the general Oscar thread that the awards this year seem rushed. Absolutely agree with Equipoise, and would go so far as to say that they need to be re-lengthened. As I wrote in my other post, wouldn’t it have been nice to hear from James Earl Jones about his lifetime achievement award, for example? Or to see more clips during the montage of people who died in the past year?
People always like to complain about the show running long, but I think this year they were maybe three or four minutes over the allotted time? Also, it’s traditional to joke about long-winded acceptance speeches and the orchestra playing them off, but I didn’t notice too much of that this year.
I liked that this year the audience held their applause during the In Memoriam segment. As someone else mentioned upthread, it always seemed rude to me that there was an audience “applause-meter” for popularity.
I also liked the montage of interviews with various actors about why they love the movies, what movies they loved as kids, etc… (although it could have been a little shorter).
Some of Billy Crystal’s joke segments went on too long. And I don’t know if I just wasn’t in a good mood, but none of his jokes really struck me as funny. I know he’s a “safe” choice for Oscar host and lots of people like him, but I thought he was pretty boring. I also thought that most of the poorly scripted “funny” banter between co-presenters wasn’t very funny. The bit with the cast of Bridesmaids was pretty good. Not so much with the guys with the cymbals.
I agree that I would have liked to hear a speech from James Earl Jones.
Get rid of all the filler production stuff. E.g., why on Earth did we need Cirque du Soleil? What a waste of time. The break to commercials just hung forever on the musicians in the balcony. No one needs that. Too much just walking around.
I’m also in the “just the read the nominees and say who won” crowd. The “tribute” to the best actors blurbs are horrid. Whatever happened to just show the clip?
(And hopefully this will allow less screw ups like giving away the ending to The Artist.)
I think the winners should be allowed much longer times. That’s the whole point of the show. Let them do their thing.
I am also in the “I like to see all of the winners” camp.
That being said, I don’t think the telecast needs to be shortened, but it could be separated into two parts - have the “unpopular” (or what I like to call, especially for Emmys, “who cares”) categories shown earlier in the day, then have an intermission of some sort so they can have the “popular” categories start at a predetermined time (e.g. 8 PM Eastern). That way, the people who want to watch the whole thing can do so, and the people who want to see just the “major” categories don’t have to sit through the whole thing just in case one of the categories is given out “early”.
