93rd Academy Awards Discussion Thread | Nomadland, Hopkins, McDormand, Zhao, Youn, Kaluuya win

[Chicago]

17 hours ago, titanic2187 said:

Probably the most important message in whole night. I haven't seen Nomadland, still waiting for the chance and condition to improve to see it on big screen because size matters   

 

 

Nomadland looking like it was shot on a cheap JVC cam holder is the wrong film to be promoting cinema going. 

[Macleod]

15 hours ago, Barnack said:

It did occur in the past at some level, one example Harrison Ford was about to give the best picture oscar to Steven Spielberg here, Shakespeare in love was a surprise winner:

 

 

Some journalist already had wrote their article after Spielberg won best director (with Saving Private Ryan winning BP in them) before the announcement.

Hilarious.  Ford's smirk is barely keeping in a "COME ON, MAN!"  😂  He clearly didn't want to say that title.  

 

Shakespeare is a "nice" movie and makes you "feel nice."  But I'd vote for 'Thin Red Line' or 'Private Ryan' anyday over that one.  Even 'Elizabeth'!  The powah of you-know-who...  

 

This is also the Oscars that made me sign off on the ceremony for a few years because I was so offended at Cate Blanchett not winning for ELIZABETH.  I just couldn't understand it.  She's on another level in that movie (and its sequel).  Paltrow???

Edited April 27, 2021 by Macleod

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

On 4/26/2021 at 10:09 AM, Chicago said:

All that shows is they that they don't make films like Titanic or ROTK anymore.  Those films blew the competition out of the water in most of the categories they were nominated for. These films are rare events and would have sweeped the awards with this years competition too.

Forget epics-how about a Best Picture winner that makes $100 million (domestic) ever again? Obviously impossible this year, but voters these days seem allergic to anything too popular in the top category.

 

Titanic and Return of the King came along under the "first past the post" voting system and five nominees, the preferential ballot leads to least objectionable/consensus winners. Anything too big will have a lot of detractors-just imagine how Awards Twitter would have reacted to Titanic if social media had existed back then. Not that voters always listen to Twitter....You know, if Bohemian Rhapsody had been directed by somebody who wasn't reprehensible (allegedly), it probably would have won Best Picture and gotten even more nominations than it did. Not an "epic", but a massively popular movie the Academy was clearly crazy about. 

 

 

On 4/26/2021 at 10:56 AM, Joel M said:

And he should be.

 

This was a terrible and sleazy choice by the producers, and it would still be if Boseman had actually won. BP should always be last, changing it had nothing to do with "honoring" Boseman and everything to do with milking the public sentiment about his tragic death. At least it blew up in their face spectacularly.

 

And it's a nice reminder that the oscars aren't the globes. The people that produce them don't have any inside info about who is winning. It feels that way because most races get settled after months and months of other awards etc. but they really don't know. Everytime there's an obvious set up to compliment an obvious winner's narrative I always wondered what would feel like if something goes sideways. What if Spielberg, Lucas and Copolla got up on stage and someone other than Scorsese ended up winning? What if Barbra Streisand who was brought to award the first woman Best Director just ended up giving another oscar to James Cameron? I guess now we know and the answer is pretty weird.

 

I have no opinion on the Father or Ma Rainey, I haven't seen half of this years nominees because well it was a weird year. But the oscars are doing this "let's sprinkle a bit more NARRATIVE on this obvious win" bit since forever and this kind of whoopsie was bound to happen at some point. But blowing up in their face in such a way with the unprecedent category shift and the eventual winner sleeping in his home is kind of hilarious.

 

 

There have been awkward presenter/winner pairings before, but the stakes of Baby Driver losing when Ansel and Eiza Gonzalez presented the Sound categories were a lot lower than this year's debacle. ABC is defending themselves about the show ending like it did, because of course they are:

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[filmlover]

Yikes.

The Guardian is reporting that Olivia Colman was meant to accept Anthony Hopkins’ award for Best Actor, but instead the ceremony ended abruptly. #Oscars pic.twitter.com/BbCi7Xa9Am

— Affinity Magazine (@TheAffinityMag) April 26, 2021

At least Hopkins is getting pretty much zero backlash and this whole mess is being blamed on the producers between the sleazy way they tried to exploit tragedy for headlines (made even more pathetic by the fact it backfired), the winner not being present (and the stupid decision to not allow anyone appear via Zoom), and the awkwardness of the entire situation resulting in a "let's get out of here and hit the after party" ending since there was no host to close out the show.

Edited April 27, 2021 by filmlover

[SLAM!]

38 minutes ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

ABC is defending themselves about the show ending like it did, because of course they are:

 

 

[WittyUsername]

What a train wreck all around. 

[Barnack]

17 hours ago, filmlover said:

La La Land became the most nominated movie since Titanic

It was a small budget Liongates movie and achieve to pile nominations, if the next Titanic do fail it will be official, but has of now it is hard to discern between we just didn't had a titanic-ROTK since them versus a change of pattern in voting.

 

The Oscars did move away from one movie dominating, but movie production did move away from that type of movie that was dominating (and they were rare to be at that level).

Edited April 27, 2021 by Barnack

[filmlover]

10 minutes ago, Barnack said:

It was a small budget Liongates movie and achieve to pile nominations, if the next Titanic do fail it will be official, but has of now it is hard to discern between we just didn't had a titanic-ROTK since them versus a change of partner in voting.

 

The Oscars did move away from one movie dominating, but movie production did move away from that type of movie that was dominating (and they were rare to be at that level).

I honestly don't see there ever being another Titanic again. Pearl Harbor was hyped to be the next Titanic 20 years ago but it ended up with poor reviews and only made it to the tech nominations. The historical drama is still alive but mainly as action spectacle (Dunkirk, 1917) or character drama (Darkest Hour), while big-budget tentpoles exist only in the IP world (which the AMPAS are mostly averse to beyond techs). Only time we'll see a movie like that up for Best Picture these days if it becomes a Black Panther-esque pop culture phenomenon that breaks barriers, and those are becoming increasingly rare beasts.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

1 hour ago, SLAM! said:

 

 

Very familiar with Rob Mills from my years of watching The Bachelor franchise: so not surprised he'd view the Oscars like just another reality show where manufactured drama and reveling in the pain of the participants are fine, so long as it gets "buzz". 

 

Next year, Best Picture is going back to a fixed ten nominees, that will also help with getting more populist movies nominated, at least.

Edited April 27, 2021 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[filmlover]

18 minutes ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

Next year, Best Picture is going back to a fixed ten nominees, that will also help with getting more populist movies nominated, at least.

I imagine they're also gonna try and get a host again since the last time there was one was in 2018. As useless as it was (especially so late in the show), Lil Rel Howery's trivia bit did get some chuckles out of me and made me wonder if the show would've been better off if he had just hosted the whole thing.

[WittyUsername]

19 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I imagine they're also gonna try and get a host again since the last time there was one was in 2018. As useless as it was (especially so late in the show), Lil Rel Howery's trivia bit did get some chuckles out of me and made me wonder if the show would've been better off if he had just hosted the whole thing.

I don’t know why anyone would want to host the Oscars at this point. The moment someone is announced to host the Oscars, the Internet will start digging through their past to try and find something problematic. 

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

41 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I imagine they're also gonna try and get a host again since the last time there was one was in 2018. As useless as it was (especially so late in the show), Lil Rel Howery's trivia bit did get some chuckles out of me and made me wonder if the show would've been better off if he had just hosted the whole thing.

Hosting the Oscars has become a pretty thankless job. Casual watchers enjoy Billy Crystal and Ellen types, the more hard-core awards junkies want more "sophisticated" humor, a big segment of hate watchers who "don't care" about awards make the most noise complaining about the show, and producers are trying to please all of these factions. Not to mention that any well-known comedian with decades of experience is going to have jokes/bits in their history that Awards Twitter will deem "problematic", and will try getting them thrown off the gig. Any comedian who's not like that is probably not famous enough for AMPAS to consider. They can go the non-comedian route, but if they pick a theater type, the musical haters will complain about the extra singing, even when it works (Hugh Jackman), or the person may be "too theater" for the Oscars (Neil Patrick Harris). They can just pick any movie person, but the James Franco/Anne Hathaway experiment didn't go so well, few actors want that target on their backs.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[SLAM!]

1 hour ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

Very familiar with Rob Mills from my years of watching The Bachelor franchise: so not surprised he'd view the Oscars like just another reality show where manufactured drama and reveling in the pain of the participants are fine, so long as it gets "buzz". 

 

Next year, Best Picture is going back to a fixed ten nominees, that will also help with getting more populist movies nominated, at least.

 

That's the only reason that I'm excited for next year's Oscars at all. And it's not even that blockbusters or animations have a better chance to get in--it just allows there to be a good mix of films from a wider variety of backgrounds. I don't think they should have ever gotten rid of the guaranteed ten in the first place.

[filmlover]

6 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

I don’t know why anyone would want to host the Oscars at this point. The moment someone is announced to host the Oscars, the Internet will start digging through their past to try and find something problematic. 

 

6 hours ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

Hosting the Oscars has become a pretty thankless job. Casual watchers enjoy Billy Crystal and Ellen types, the more hard-core awards junkies want more "sophisticated" humor, a big segment of hate watchers who "don't care" about awards make the most noise complaining about the show, and producers are trying to please all of these factions. Not to mention that any well-known comedian with decades of experience is going to have jokes/bits in their history that Awards Twitter will deem "problematic", and will try getting them thrown off the gig. Any comedian who's not like that is probably not famous enough for AMPAS to consider. They can go the non-comedian route, but if they pick a theater type, the musical haters will complain about the extra singing, even when it works (Hugh Jackman), or the person may be "too theater" for the Oscars (Neil Patrick Harris). They can just pick any movie person, but the James Franco/Anne Hathaway experiment didn't go so well, few actors want that target on their backs.

I agree that the days of the "superstar" host are definitely over, especially after that Hollywood Reporter (I think) article about how being the host of the Oscars has become the most unwanted gig in the industry around the time of the Kevin Hart thing. But they don't need have a "regular" host. FWIW I watched the entertaining pre-show (with Howery and Ariana DeBose) and post-show (with Andrew Rannells and Colman Domingo) and it got me thinking that it is possible to have an always-welcome couple of personalities (like the aforementioned four) that can help navigate the ceremony without feeling they have the weight of the entire show on their shoulders (which hasn't worked out for the hosts this past decade).

 

But that would require the producers giving up on trying to put together The Most Incredible, Starry, Unforgettable, Least Offensive, Most Everything-For-Everyone Oscars Ever like they have these past several years except for maybe the 2018/2019 year (due to lack of options following multiple failed attempts at ratings boosts), a tactic that reached arguably its nadir two nights ago when they rearranged the entire show to gamble on a powerful finale that didn't come and ended up exposing their crass attempt at headlines for what it was.

Edited April 28, 2021 by filmlover

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

10 hours ago, filmlover said:

 

I agree that the days of the "superstar" host are definitely over, especially after that Hollywood Reporter (I think) article about how being the host of the Oscars has become the most unwanted gig in the industry around the time of the Kevin Hart thing. But they don't need have a "regular" host. FWIW I watched the entertaining pre-show (with Howery and Ariana DeBose) and post-show (with Andrew Rannells and Colman Domingo) and it got me thinking that it is possible to have an always-welcome couple of personalities (like the aforementioned four) that can help navigate the ceremony without feeling they have the weight of the entire show on their shoulders (which hasn't worked out for the hosts this past decade).

 

But that would require the producers giving up on trying to put together The Most Incredible, Starry, Unforgettable, Least Offensive, Most Everything-For-Everyone Oscars Ever like they have these past several years except for maybe the 2018/2019 year (due to lack of options following multiple failed attempts at ratings boosts), a tactic that reached arguably its nadir two nights ago when they rearranged the entire show to gamble on a powerful finale that didn't come and ended up exposing their crass attempt at headlines for what it was.

I always wondered if they would be able to keep the host a secret prior to the ceremony, or at least not announce anyone ahead of time. The ceremony could use an emcee (or several), but not knowing in advance would cut down on so much of the "noise" about the choice. Having "de facto" hosts is probably the best option for the Academy, but like you said, it will take a complete change in their approach to the telecast. They are just too in their heads trying to please everyone, an impossible task, but they have a huge TV contract to consider.

 

It's funny that the 2019 ceremony actually went up in ratings, when most of their grand plans to "shake things up" (Popular Film! Not inviting back last years winners! Categories during commercial breaks! Shortened song performances!) got called off after massive backlash. 

[titanic2187]

https://deadline.com/2021/05/oscars-hit-bottom-do-something-anything-call-bill-maher-1234748230/

As The Oscars Hit Bottom, Do Something, Anything. Call Bill Maher!

So the final rating number is at 10.4m, at least it did break 10m threshold. I wonder why is everyone so panic about this. Can't they foresee this before the ceremony? This year the Oscar buzz  just isn't there for obvious reason. People have other priority and no way streaming can replace that fuzzy buzzy Oscar hype.

 

[SnokesLegs]

2 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

https://deadline.com/2021/05/oscars-hit-bottom-do-something-anything-call-bill-maher-1234748230/

As The Oscars Hit Bottom, Do Something, Anything. Call Bill Maher!

So the final rating number is at 10.4m, at least it did break 10m threshold. I wonder why is everyone so panic about this. Can't they foresee this before the ceremony? This year the Oscar buzz  just isn't there for obvious reason. People have other priority and no way streaming can replace that fuzzy buzzy Oscar hype.

 

It definitely feels like Deadline has an axe to grind here, they’re so desperate to paint it as a failure that they’re not taking into account the fact that it was always going to be a historically low year given the entire pandemic situation. The hype around most of the nominated movies was almost non existent outside dedicated cinephile social circles, ask anyone on the street about Nomadland and The Father and they probably wouldn’t have a clue, so it’s not surprising that casual viewers didn’t tune in.

 

It’ll likely rebound and be back above 20 million viewers next year as cinema-going gets back to normal over the next few months. Viewership for these awards ceremonies is definitely on the wane, but this year was an anomaly beyond what would normally have happened.

[filmlover]

9 hours ago, titanic2187 said:

https://deadline.com/2021/05/oscars-hit-bottom-do-something-anything-call-bill-maher-1234748230/

As The Oscars Hit Bottom, Do Something, Anything. Call Bill Maher!

So the final rating number is at 10.4m, at least it did break 10m threshold. I wonder why is everyone so panic about this. Can't they foresee this before the ceremony? This year the Oscar buzz  just isn't there for obvious reason. People have other priority and no way streaming can replace that fuzzy buzzy Oscar hype.

 

lol this is definitely a hyperbolic article. The Oscars were always doomed to having zero buzz beyond film circles this year due to movie theaters being closed the past year, plus the nominated crop of movies being a bunch of movies that were basically unsellable to a broad audience despite being easily accessible at home, especially when the real world has been depressing enough as is. Maybe if they had nominated a ton of movies that would've had blockbuster aspirations in normal times, but almost all of those ended up held back for the following year (and the very few that did see the light of day in time for the deadline were generally considered divisive/disappointing with the exception of Soul, which ended up snubbed, so that likely wouldn't have helped much either).

 

It doesn't help that the ceremony itself was a sloppily-produced mess that likely made everyone that didn't watch happy that they didn't waste their time from reading the highlights. It's honestly getting to the point where the only real way to "save" the Oscars is by going to streaming without the struggle of padding the show out to three hours with filler, but that's not happening until the end of the decade at the earliest.

[filmlover]

Steven Soderbergh Reveals Why Oscars Show Order Was Changed https://t.co/HF1YRO1lv3

— Variety (@Variety) May 5, 2021

 

Quote

 

Perhaps he was aware of the backlash about the unfulfilling ceremony finale, during which best actor winner Anthony Hopkins was unable to accept his award due to the no Zoom rule. The Times questioned if, in hindsight, he would rethink the decision to prohibit attendance via Zoom. Soderbergh’s answer was a prompt: “No.” Still, he holds that the decision to not end the show with the standard best picture award was out of a respectful conscience.

“We thought it might be fun to mix it up, especially if people didn’t know that was coming,” Soderbergh said. “So that was always part of the plan. And then when the nominations came out and there was even the possibility that Chadwick could win posthumously, our feeling was if he were to win and his widow were to speak on his behalf, there would be nowhere to go after that. So we stuck with it.”

 

Indeed, Hopkins’ win came as a shock to many — and without a speech, caused quite an abrupt ending to the awards show. Variety‘s film awards editor, Clayton Davis, wrote that the new show order combined with the unexpected win “undid an aesthetically rich ceremony and made it into a jaw-dropping and ill-advised decision.”

 

Sorry Steven, a fan of many of your movies but no.

 

The main takeaway from the ceremony (other than never, ever changing the traditional order of the categories based on who you think will win) is that Soderbergh should never be asked to produce a live event again.

[titanic2187]

20 minutes ago, filmlover said:

 

Sorry Steven, a fan of many of your movies but no.

 

The main takeaway from the ceremony (other than never, ever changing the traditional order of the categories based on who you think will win) is that Soderbergh should never be asked to produce a live event again.

Actually the production team have been doing this as to assign "somebody" as presenter to the category based on their likely winner.

 

Last year, 3 superhero actresses giving out best original score to female composer hildur last year. Sophia Loren give best foreign language to Roberto. All these are the examples of how the ceremony create its so-called moment. In those cases, many of the outcome went exactly as predicted and were done more naturally and subtle. 

 

This year order switch carry the same spirit but this flub was done way more intentional and therefore when it failed, the disaster got bigger. Worst of all, they didn't even have plan b to have at least olivia Colman to deliver speech on behalf.