The 96th Academy Awards Live Feed Thread | Oppy wins it all, but Ryan Gosling is still kenough

[Maggie]

I don't think it was about the runtime.  It's just that it wasn't a showy performance like Emma Stone's

 

 

[titanic2187]

1 minute ago, Maggie said:

I don't think it was about the runtime.  It's just that it wasn't a showy performance like Emma Stone's

 

 

Also, Nicole Kidman and Anthony Hopkins was in the movie that under 2 hours but Lily was in a 3 hours half hour long movie, which naturally give her "more" screentime absolute term. So Lily "absence" was more felt in KOTFM.

[Ozymandias]

Oppenheimer winning makes the #OscarsSoWhite !

 

But for real, I thought Killers of the Flower Moon was gonna get it(which I would've been fine with tbh) or one of the other 8 movies nominated(that I don't even know the names of because that's how little I care lol) but I guess maybe the Academy voters are realizing their industry is in a shrinking spiral(thanks to the quality/nature of their output + competition from video games, youtube, etc) and needed to award a smash hit more than 12 people saw and won't be totally forgotten about in 3 months.

Edited March 12 by Ozymandias

[lorddemaxus]

1 minute ago, Ozymandias said:

Oppenheimer winning makes the #OscarsSoWhite !

 

But for real, I thought Killers of the Flower Moon was gonna get it(which I would've been fine with tbh) or one of the other 8 movies nominated(that I don't even know the names of because that's how little I care lol) but I guess maybe the Academy voters are realizing their industry is in shrinking spiral(thanks to the quality/ of their output + competition from video games, youtube, etc) and needed to award a smash hit more than 12 people saw and won't be totally forgotten about in 3 months.

Why are you bragging about being ignorant lol? Oppenheimer was a frontrunner to win for months. They didn't just award it because it was popular, espescially when one of the other nominees was the highest grossing movie of the year. Kinda feels hypocritical to blame the quality of output in film when you didn't even bother knowing the names of the other (mostly pretty good) nominees. 

[cannastop]

 

[Ozymandias]

1 minute ago, lorddemaxus said:

Why are you bragging about being ignorant lol? Oppenheimer was a frontrunner to win for months. They didn't just award it because it was popular, espescially when one of the other nominees was the highest grossing movie of the year. Kinda feels hypocritical to blame the quality of output in film when you didn't even bother knowing the names of the other (mostly pretty good) nominees. 

 

 

[lorddemaxus]

2 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

 

 

Please sir, continue to comment like this on this wonderful public forum

[Eric is Quiet]

3 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Why are you bragging about being ignorant lol? Oppenheimer was a frontrunner to win for months. They didn't just award it because it was popular, espescially when one of the other nominees was the highest grossing movie of the year. Kinda feels hypocritical to blame the quality of output in film when you didn't even bother knowing the names of the other (mostly pretty good) nominees. 

Oh this is just him doing his old and tired "lololol the Oscars are out of touch because they award artsy movies" schtick. Not sure why he finds this anti-art, anti-intellectual, blatantly trollish bit still amusing, but it is what it is.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

1 hour ago, titanic2187 said:

This expectation for the boost doesn't make sense since last year we had two even bigger movies in the mix, in fact Elvis will still be the third biggest film for 2023 line up.  

 

I feel like the one hour earlier and shorter runtime probably help the older demo to turn in more.

If it's obvious a blockbuster won't win Best Picture or anything "important" (because it hasn't won those things at any of the earlier shows), just being nominated by the Academy wouldn't juice the ratings that much. You weren't getting flocks of Avatar 2 fans watching the entire Oscars just to see it win for VFX.

 

However, if it seems like a coronation is in the works for a very popular movie, then more fans of it might tune in to see that. Hyped musical performances are another way to bring in viewers. Back when they changed up hosts, there were ratings boosts for Ellen DeGeneres and Seth MacFarlane.

 

Anyway, I think the real reason the ratings didn't go up more is because Sunday was the first day of Daylight Savings Time, which has historically hurt live TV viewership (here are articles about this phenomenon from 2010, 2013, and 2017, for starters). Another reason that the Oscars should have happened last week, or even earlier.

 

 

1 hour ago, Spidey Freak said:

 

They threw away an almost certain Lead win for Gladstone by not giving her character more screentime and POV scenes. KotFM wouldn't have gained all the goodwill and clout if it was more honest about decentralizing the Osage in their own story so ofc they couldn't put Lily in Supporting.

It's true that actors have won in lead without dominant screentime. But it wouldn't have been an issue if they'd just given Gladstone more to do onscreen. There have been other Best Actress nominations from movies where the woman slowly comes to realize her man is shady (or worse), and the actress is actually onscreen the most of anyone in the cast. I wasn't displeased about KotFM missing a Screenplay nomination because the biggest criticisms of it (too long, sidelines Mollie) stem from the script.

Edited March 12 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[ChipDerby]

1 hour ago, Maggie said:

I don't think it was about the runtime.  It's just that it wasn't a showy performance like Emma Stone's

 

 

 

To be fair to the runtime argument, Lily was in 26% of Flower Moon, which would have put her in the bottom 5 of best actress winners in percentage of screen time. I haven't seen every best actress winning performance, but I'd imagine if you have that little screentime, your role would have needed to be "showier" to win. 

[filmlover]

2 hours ago, grim22 said:

Speaking of Diane Warren

 

 

She also has a documentary coming out called "Relentless." Never has there been a more fitting title for a subject lmao.

[WittyUsername]

Looks like the Lilly Gladstone situation has inspired some debates after all. 

[filmlover]

Honestly Gladstone would've lost in Supporting because DJR would've still been difficult to overcome. The passion to reward Killers anything, like Maestro, simply wasn't there.

[ChipDerby]

3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Honestly Gladstone would've lost in Supporting because DJR would've still been difficult to overcome. The passion to reward Killers anything, like Maestro, simply wasn't there.

 

Yep, that's mostly it. If Killers would've been this otherworldly movie, she walks away with it.

[WittyUsername]

You think the Academy has it out for Marty at this point? 

[filmlover]

17 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

You think the Academy has it out for Marty at this point? 

Dude is an Oscar-winning legend with nothing left to prove at this stage. Why would they have it out for him? Every new movie we get from him is a gift itself at this point, especially when nobody knows how much longer he'll be with us.

 

The Irishman and Killers were just movies that people had more admiration for than genuine passion to reward them anything.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

49 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Honestly Gladstone would've lost in Supporting because DJR would've still been difficult to overcome. The passion to reward Killers anything, like Maestro, simply wasn't there.

OTOH, Gladstone could've been another Ariana DeBose, Yuh-jung Youn situation where Supporting Actress was the only win for their movies. I feel anyone who did win precursors as a Lead would have been even stronger with the same performance in a Supporting category

 

The year that Benicio del Toro won the Supporting Actor Oscar, he was submitted as a Lead at SAG and won there (over Russell Crowe in Gladiator). The next year, Jennifer Connolly won the Supporting Actress Oscar but was nominated as a Lead at SAG. And Alicia Vikander with The Danish Girl, she won the Supporting Actress Oscar but other awards nominated her in Lead, where she didn't win.

 

Oscar junkies are going to argue about Lily's category for years.

[WittyUsername]

1 hour ago, filmlover said:

Dude is an Oscar-winning legend with nothing left to prove at this stage. Why would they have it out for him? Every new movie we get from him is a gift itself at this point, especially when nobody knows how much longer he'll be with us.

 

The Irishman and Killers were just movies that people had more admiration for than genuine passion to reward them anything.

I don’t know. I’m not in the Academy, so I have no clue what they think one way or the other. Maybe they’re just annoyed at having to watch three and a half hour movies. 

[excel1]

Killers was an obnoxiously self indulgent film. Not surprised in the slightest that it was an awards flop.

[redfirebird2008]

3 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

You think the Academy has it out for Marty at this point? 

Definitely not the case. Pretty big respect to give so many nominations to his films. A lot of great movies through the years don’t even get nominated in major categories.