94th Academy Awards Discussion Thread | WHAT JUST HAPPENED

[filmlover]

5 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

 

in real life:

 

==

 

More seriously,  if you don't want to cut down the speeches, and if you don't want to cut down on the "celebration", and in fact you think that's why it should be there, then it stands to reason you can't shorten it.

 

I have no idea if speeches have gotten longer has time has gone on.  Given how self-absorbed we are as a culture, it wouldn't surprise me, but I'd still want some hard data to back up the conclusion.

 

So if we're not seriously willing to cut back on folks' acceptance speeches, then the only place to trim the fat is the celebration angle.  But, again, if you're not willing to cut individual numbers or shorten them...

 

Well, tell me again how to squeeze the blood out of the stone.

Speeches don't seem any longer than they have in years past, but that hasn't stopped ABC from trying to tinker with how long they can go on for. There was one year (I think it was 2016?) where they tried limiting the "thank yous" in speeches to a news-like crawl at the bottom of the screen, only for the winners to continue listing off people they wanted to thank in their speeches anyway. Their attempts at trying to reinvent (if you want to call it that) the Oscars in an attempt to appeal to a younger demographic have yet to be actually successful, in large part because they refuse to acknowledge the shifting methods of media consumption.

[Porthos]

3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Speeches don't seem any longer than they have in years past, but that hasn't stopped ABC from trying to tinker with how long they can go on for. There was one year (I think it was 2016?) where they tried limiting the "thank yous" in speeches to a news-like crawl at the bottom of the screen, only for the winners to continue listing off people they wanted to thank in their speeches anyway. Their attempts at trying to reinvent (if you want to call it that) the Oscars in an attempt to appeal to a younger demographic have yet to be actually successful, in large part because they refuse to acknowledge the shifting methods of media consumption.

 

At the same time, @Potiki is absolutely right about current consumption.

 

Probably the closest analogue would be Olympic coverage.  More than a little difficult given the time differences out of Beijing this year, but how much did streaming really help there with the events that were streaming only?

 

I suppose I am saying: Broadcast TV ain't dead yet, and let's not act like it is.

 

Simulcasting on YT or D+ or even better a multitude of streamers would probably help more than streaming exclusive.

 

The only danger here, I think would be the ***STRONG*** temptation to start shunting lesser things to 'streaming-only', as the Oscars already dipped their toes into the water with the tech awards fiasco.  

 

[filmlover]

Just now, Porthos said:

 

At the same time, @Potiki is absolutely right about current consumption.

 

Probably the closest analogue would be Olympic coverage.  More than a little difficult given the time differences out of Beijing this year, but how much did streaming really help there with the events that were streaming only?

 

I suppose I am saying: Broadcast TV ain't dead yet, and let's not act like it is.

 

Simulcasting on YT or D+ or even better a multitude of streamers would probably help more than streaming exclusive.

 

The only danger here, I think would be the ***STRONG*** temptation to start shunting lesser things to 'streaming-only', as the Oscars already dipped their toes into the water with the tech awards fiasco.  

 

If I had to guess, one of the reasons why they haven't shifted to streaming is because of licensing issues regarding the movie clips (especially for the acting nominees). Go on their YouTube channel and watch winners from previous ceremonies and you'll notice that the movie clips that were featured in the ceremony as they were announcing the nominees are all missing.

[Cap]

How I would attempt to streamline the Oscars:

 

1.  Picture in picture. Maybe I just watched too many wrestling shows, But AEW always continues the match this way. So we can still see what’s going on, but they’re getting their advertisers in.

 

Everyone gets an allotted time to deliver their acceptance speech, and then after that it goes to picture in picture.

 

I don’t find this disrespectful, because we live in a world where you can close caption the speech as the commercial goes on. Or you can put up the full speech on your Twitter account. And it’s not disrespectful, if they keep it as a hard time limit and they do it to every person.

 

2. No hosts gags during the show. I think an opening number is important. You want to set the tone for the night, you need to get a little bit a Razzle Dazzle. What gets you into trouble is when they start taking celebrities over to a movie theater to surprise everyone, or they decide to do some five minute bit in our three. No one gives a shit. The moment has passed.

 

3. Pepper In The Best Songs Through The Night Instead of trying to do one group montage, I would basically book these every 20 minutes to break in the evening. This also includes the memorial. 

 

4. Cut down on the presenter banner. It’s either not funny, or like in Kevin Costner’s case this year, it just rambled forever. Pick up 👏 your 👏 pace. It was a super sweet story. I didn’t Need to take five minutes. 
 

5. Limit Random We Love Movies Montages this one kind of pains me, because sometimes they’re my favorite part of the show, but I don’t think we need like 10 montages about random things. I don’t think we need celebrations about it’s been 50 years since so-and-so and now here’s a montage about it. If the movie was not nominated, it should not be discussed. If we wanna do tributes to movies, we can do a variety show. Or bring back the AFI countdowns. I loved that stuff as a kid. Where is my hundred greatest moments list? 

 

None of this is revolutionary. I just think it’s common sense.

[Potiki]

14 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

At the same time, @Potiki is absolutely right about current consumption.

 

Probably the closest analogue would be Olympic coverage.  More than a little difficult given the time differences out of Beijing this year, but how much did streaming really help there with the events that were streaming only?

 

I suppose I am saying: Broadcast TV ain't dead yet, and let's not act like it is.

 

Simulcasting on YT or D+ or even better a multitude of streamers would probably help more than streaming exclusive.

 

The only danger here, I think would be the ***STRONG*** temptation to start shunting lesser things to 'streaming-only', as the Oscars already dipped their toes into the water with the tech awards fiasco.  

 

Even with that said sports has more general appeal, it will interesting to see how Thursday Night Football does now it is exclusive to Amazon. ESPN+ even without really going big into NBA or NFL has over 20m subs so demand for sports is there be it streaming or broadcast/cable but if both options are there most so far we've seen most people will stick with broadcast/cable with the Olympics being a great recent example, although think that will slowly change over time.

 

10 minutes ago, filmlover said:

If I had to guess, one of the reasons why they haven't shifted to streaming is because of licensing issues regarding the movie clips (especially for the acting nominees). Go on their YouTube channel and watch winners from previous ceremonies and you'll notice that the movie clips that were featured in the ceremony as they were announcing the nominees are all missing.

YouTube streaming is a bit different from what I thought you were meaning with sending it to an SVOD service but if the demand was there (which I don't believe it is, at least not on a large scale) they would be able to clear rights, the TV studios do it all the time with interviews leaving the film clips in such as below.

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Potiki

[grey ghost]

Another issue is dwindling star power.

 

The Oscars used to be a rare opportunity to see big stars dazzle audiences with fashion (it was often called the superbowl for women) while we sat around to see blockbusters compete in various categories.

 

Now blockbusters no longer rely on star power so the general public is less invested in which star or artist wins these awards.

 

Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Leonardo Dicaprio, Julia Roberts, Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep, etc were powerhouses. They were the batteries that powered Hollywood. Now it's all about IP's because star vehicles were less reliable and more risky so Hollywood made the transition. 

[titanic2187]

On 3/28/2022 at 11:44 AM, Cmasterclay said:

I hope you got your "Will Smith punches a guy on live television" bet in at the casino man

I think even will smith he himself failed to predict this.

 

but still, i won 8 free movie tickets for predicting correctly in almost all categories except best action film, nothing more to complain.

[Fielding]

You know there's something deeply wrong with the Oscars when Shawn Mendes is a presenter.

[eddyxx]

7 hours ago, filmnerdjamie said:

 

He looked real broken up last night. Apology totally seems legit.

 

One of these people is not like the others.

 

[Borobudur]

3 hours ago, grey ghost said:

Another issue is dwindling star power.

 

The Oscars used to be a rare opportunity to see big stars dazzle audiences with fashion (it was often called the superbowl for women) while we sat around to see blockbusters compete in various categories.

 

Now blockbusters no longer rely on star power so the general public is less invested in which star or artist wins these awards.

 

Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Leonardo Dicaprio, Julia Roberts, Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep, etc were powerhouses. They were the batteries that powered Hollywood. Now it's all about IP's because star vehicles were less reliable and more risky so Hollywood made the transition. 

Also, the internet made stars actor and actress so traceable. Back then, we only got to know the story about our loved stars once in a while through news or papers but now within click, every wanted and unwelcome news, video and pictures are here with us. And many stars have tittok or Instagram that we no longer need to cherish their presence during the award show. The stars are far more reachable thanks to internet age and that reduce the "event" status of the award shows 

[eddyxx]

7 hours ago, grey ghost said:

Oscar bait ain't what it used to be.

 

Gone are the days when most people you knew went to see Goodfellas, Forest Gump, Saving Private Ryan and Titanic.

 

Did the culture change or did the movies?

 

I would say both but especially the latter. Today's oscar bait is far less accessible and compelling to the general audience. 

 

 

I never even heard of that koda movie til I read this thread. 

[lorddemaxus]

 

I honestly thought Adam Sandler tweeted that Chris Rock died for a second

[Tarintino]

7 hours ago, Eric Says Trans Rights said:

Honey it ain't less accessible, at least in quality and content. It's just that their marketing and distribution is way worse. Plus audiences today are so undemanding and only want cheap thrills out of their entertainment that the very idea of a movie that isn't designed to sell toys or milk sequels out of is too much for their tiny brains to handle.

 

Baby food culture is a disease, and sadly nobody wants to grow up and act like adults

No the problem is all these film studies classes taught new filmmakers that metaphors and political matters brought into movies are more important than a good story. Now we have really well made movies with ridiculous and unrelatable stories so people naturally show less interest. 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Tarintino

[grim22]

 

 

[Torontofan]

9 hours ago, Porthos said:

 

At the same time, @Potiki is absolutely right about current consumption.

 

Probably the closest analogue would be Olympic coverage.  More than a little difficult given the time differences out of Beijing this year, but how much did streaming really help there with the events that were streaming only?

 

I suppose I am saying: Broadcast TV ain't dead yet, and let's not act like it is.

 

Simulcasting on YT or D+ or even better a multitude of streamers would probably help more than streaming exclusive.

 

The only danger here, I think would be the ***STRONG*** temptation to start shunting lesser things to 'streaming-only', as the Oscars already dipped their toes into the water with the tech awards fiasco.  

 

 

Olympics ratings crash because of people dont want to support China and the CCP. 

[filmlover]

9 hours ago, grey ghost said:

Another issue is dwindling star power.

 

The Oscars used to be a rare opportunity to see big stars dazzle audiences with fashion (it was often called the superbowl for women) while we sat around to see blockbusters compete in various categories.

 

Now blockbusters no longer rely on star power so the general public is less invested in which star or artist wins these awards.

 

Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Leonardo Dicaprio, Julia Roberts, Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep, etc were powerhouses. They were the batteries that powered Hollywood. Now it's all about IP's because star vehicles were less reliable and more risky so Hollywood made the transition. 

We discussed this the other week in another thread but the 2000s was when star vehicles started to fade away due to the lack of viable rising stars and a shifting pop culture that was dominated by the takeover of "reality" TV. That more than anything else opened the door for IP to become the new star power.

[Eric is Quiet]

 

[Torontofan]

issue is the oscars dont have the cultural importance anymore.

 

1. People used to care about seeing stars in fancy outfits 

2. A lot of the movies nominated are obscure and not very mainstream that get nominated...that is because our culture is way more fragmented then 20 years ago.

3. The oscars have become more a show for the LA and NYC crowd with politics and such and no longer seen as the escapism and spectale so most of the country has stopped caring for it. 

[titanic2187]

37 minutes ago, Torontofan said:

issue is the oscars dont have the cultural importance anymore.

 

1. People used to care about seeing stars in fancy outfits 

2. A lot of the movies nominated are obscure and not very mainstream that get nominated...that is because our culture is way more fragmented then 20 years ago.

3. The oscars have become more a show for the LA and NYC crowd with politics and such and no longer seen as the escapism and spectale so most of the country has stopped caring for it. 

I actually disagree with the 3rd point. The international attention for the Oscar actually grew in recent year. Just look at parasite year, and multiple there was multiple coverage across new outlets or TikTok talking about Oscar winner green book. It is in the USA where the Oscar relevancy falls

[Joel M]

33 minutes ago, filmlover said:

We discussed this the other week in another thread but the 2000s was when star vehicles started to fade away due to the lack of viable rising stars and a shifting pop culture that was dominated by the takeover of "reality" TV. That more than anything else opened the door for IP to become the new star power.

 

I think all those are reasons but the biggest shift by far imo was 2001 as a whole. hp1 and lotr1 made close to a billion dollars starring nobodies with sequels already in the pipeline sending the entire industry chasing popular IP and Shrek, Monster Inc were #3 and #4 signaling that animation isn't just Disney turf anymore. It was every bit the tectonic shift that Jaws and Star Wars were in the late 70s even if some already established movie stars continued to be relevant long after 2001.

 

The top 5 the previous year:

1.Jim Carrey star vehicle

2.Tom Hanks star vehicle

3.Tom Cruise star vehicle

4.Russel Crowe star-making vehicle

5.Mel Gibson star vehicle

 

This is litteraly the last time the top of the boxoffice looked like this.