Academy Thinking Of Moving Up 2014 Oscars to January
As early as January 12th.
I think I like this idea. I think it would make the studios release Oscar bait films earlier in the year instead of creating logjam in mid to late December.
It also doesn't drag the whole awards season hoopla into late February where who wins almost becomes a foregone conclusion because there's been a thousand other awards shows between the Golden Globes and the Oscars.
And in a last ditch bid for relevancy, Best Picture will be decided by viewers calling in on the night of the ceremony!
The Academy needs a full rehaul. They need to get someone who truly loves the Oscars and its history. Bring in someone to cut down membership, regulate campaigns, regulate invitees, someone who can help the Acadamy gets its glamorous reputation back. Mary, I know but shit the Oscars are horrible now. They pull this 'changing the date' almost every year. Its not helping.
They need to go back to 5 films for Best Picture the way it was for most of the last century. It had a certain simplicity and elegance to it and people could remember most of the 5 that were nominated that year.
Now there is no rhyme or reason to which number gets chosen and it has cheapened the entire process.
The Academy wants to get the jump on the other awards shows. The way it is now, the SAG, Golden Globes, etc. are all held beforehand so by the time the Oscars roll around everybody knows who's going to win. The January date will make the Oscars the first awards ceremony, so there will be an element of suprise. I think it's a good idea.
It was fine when it was back in March. Moving it up to January is stupid.
R5 It won't work. The Globes, SAG will all wind up moving theirs back too. The excuse will be that no one will watch their shows because the oscar has already been handed out.
You'll be having the Globes in November at this point.
Horrible. It will make the wins more dependent on buzz and PR than they already are. For instance, I'd bet Kate Hudson would have beat Marcia Gay Harden if people hadn't had enough time to actually see "Pollock". The Oscars need to be FURTHER into the new year, not earlier.
The problem is awards show fatigue and unfortunately the AMPAS can't control the other shows.
Cuts off the power base of the BS 'Hollywood Foreign Press'
They are making the nominee announcements Thursday, (the 8th) I seriously doubt the awards will be 4 days later. They love to be the big climax of award season and advertise it to death.
Why not just combine it with the MTV Movie Awards and make Rebel Wilson the permanent co-host? They seem to be veering towards the same market anyway.
Remember the big thing Miss America once was?
Then it wasn't.
The nominations come out this Thursday, R9?
[quote]They are making the nominee announcements Thursday, (the 8th) I seriously doubt the awards will be 4 days later. They love to be the big climax of award season and advertise it to death.
Read carefully. They are talking about NEXT year's awards, not THIS year's. So then if the Oscars are in January of 2014 then of course the nominations would be in December.
The 10 best picture nominations are absurd. I can hardly think of 5 good films in a year, let alone 10.
I wonder if the academy opened up voting, for at least best picture, to all the locals that work in the industry if that would stop the campaigning? Any union member could cast their vote at their union for best picture. I would love to see that.
I kind of like the ten best picture nominations. I thought it was nice that "District 9" got one. Seriously.
[quote]It was fine when it was back in March. Moving it up to January is stupid.
Totally agree. I remember when it used to be in March and thought it was a much better month for it than January.
Why do these award shows keep trying to push back their award shows? Remember when the American Music Awards used to be in January? Now it's in October (not that I watch the shit anymore).
Local 44 here too r15!
I remember when it was early April, then it moved to late March.
They should go back to late March - gets it away from the crush of awards in January.
I like the 10 nominations as a fall-back. I don't think they necessarily should fill all the slots, but it's nice to have the option.
I also think they should have a stunt award. Even in these days of CG, I still think it's a shame they don't.
r18, what profession are you?
Set Dresser (art dept.) r20
Well, all the other shows are pre-cursors so they have to be before the Oscars.
The problem is SAG. Who needs another award show for actors? Nobody watches it but it still sucks up air. They should just get rid of it.
Shout out to my Set Dec brothers.
I'm guessing that the SAG awards is a way for the acting community to have some control over having a say in who THEY think deserves recognition instead of the Academy. Particularly now that there is so much campaigning and influence from people like fucking Harvey Weinstein.
Harvey poisoned the well.
[quote]I'm guessing that the SAG awards is a way for the acting community to have some control over having a say in who THEY think deserves recognition instead of the Academy.
But the Academy has a lot of actors. Including a whole bunch who have no business being in the Academy (like Russell Brand).
r7 is absolutely right.
I actually was planning on voting for Kate Hudson that year, but then went and saw "Pollock" the day before I voted and changed my mind. Not sure if that would have happened if the show hadn't been in March, because too many films are released at the last minute, and time is precious. I didn't think Marcia Gay Harden had a chance, but I wanted my vote to go where it should, and her victory was a fantastic surprise.
The Oscars have not had many big surprises since then. Last year, the biggest surprise by far was the editing award, which went to "Dragon Tattoo". But who remembers that?
r27, what branch of the Academy do you belong to?
Also, Tilda Swinton's win was a big surprise, and that came a couple of years afer Gay Harden had won.
Oh, and are you going to vote for Emmanuelle Riva this year, should she be nominated?
R5, you're seriously missing the point. The Oscars are the pinnacle of the awards season. It ends with the Oscars, period. No one will give a shit about the Golden Globes or any other award if the Oscars have already been handed out.
How would this not undermine the point of the stupid exercise, I.e., getting people to go to the theaters to see the nominated movies?
I appreciate R11's perspective.
[quote]I wonder if the academy opened up voting, for at least best picture, to all the locals that work in the industry if that would stop the campaigning?
Wouldn't people just vote for the film they worked on, or their friends worked on, or they know someone who knows the director, or...? How objective would their votes be, anyway? And would they go against the frontrunners "just because"? You can't really vote on what is best in art. It will never be anything but a flawed system. It's not like sports, where you can measure achievement in some way. Oscars is the best we'll ever get in this country.
Dear r33 the most critical people about films are the people that work on them. I know, I used to work on them back when films were still made in Hollywood but you bring up a good point. Something I had not considered. I don't know how these new crew members in places like Louisiana, Atlanta, North Carolina etc. view film. In Hollywood I know the crews to actually have a critical opinion and none were afraid to call bullshit when they saw it.
No one would vote on a film just because their friend worked on it. Among the friends I have who work in the same department I do (Set Dec) we tease each other about who has worked on films that have won Oscars, or been nominated, and who has not (or we used to). But again, that was in the past when films were made in town (meaning Hollywood).
If the Academy moves up the date, the pre-Oscar awards -- such as the Golden Globes -- will likewise move up their calendars. So there's no point.
r26 BINGO. That's one of the things that needs to go. Time to cut down on membership. Dakota Fucking Fanning gets to vote? Hell no.
[quote]the SAG awards is a way for the acting community to have some control over having a say in who THEY think deserves recognition instead of the Academy.
But they already have that with the Academy. For the nominations, only actors can vote for who will be nominated in the acting categories. Everyone nominates for Best Picture, and then you only vote in your own category for nominations.
[quote]But they already have that with the Academy. For the nominations, only actors can vote
Academy actors, like Dakota Fanning and Russell Brand.
SAG gives real actors a crack at deciding.
I think they should ask Anne Hathaway first
[quote]But they already have that with the Academy. For the nominations, only actors can vote for who will be nominated in the acting categories. Everyone nominates for Best Picture, and then you only vote in your own category for nominations.
Only Academy members, and the percentage of SAG members who are Academy Members is like 2%.
The SAGs give even the smallest actor a chance to have a say.
Uh ... r38, do you really not realize that Dakota Fanning and Russell Brand are members of SAG, and vote for those awards? Along with all the other hacks who manage to get their SAG cards.
R37 The SAG awards have a much larger pool actor voters so you get a more diverse selection of nominees. The Producer's Guild, the WGA and the DGA also have there own awards.
It is also a very bad idea because there is a whole economy in LA and in NYC based on awards season which culminates with the Oscars. This is not the best time to cut an extra month of income for a lot of people.
The best thing would be to have a jury, like in Cannes, berlin, or Venice, and have people who actually did something in their careers approaching artistic heights vote, instead of people like Adam Sandler.
Pay attention to what everyone else is posting r41. People are explaining it.
Nobody really gives a flying fuck about the Oscars, OP.
I don't give a shit. A bunch of rich idiots spend an evening praising each other. Big fucking deal.
The Oscars were over the year they had presenters stand in the audience to give the awards.
Or maybe it was 1995, a strange year where we first felt the ugly effect of Pluto in Sagittarius.
BFD, R40, they're like lemmings who vote for the same people as all the other awards shows and critics awards.
I'm a member of the writer's branch.
And I voted for Tilda Swinton too. Though I expected her to win for some reason, so that wasn't a big surprise for me...
I've not seen "Amour" yet. My 92-year-old grandmother died a few weeks ago after a long descent and many diminishing returns, so I'm not sure I can watch it with an objective eye yet. But I promise to see it if Ms. Riva is nominated.
Went to "The Impossible" last night. Naomi Watts is very good, but the part isn't expansive enough to let her be competitive with the other women in her category. We'll see if she gets nominated.
Yes, you shouldn't see 'Amour' just yet if your grandmother has just died. It is a fantastic film, though. And well written, so it should interest you.
Riva is amazing, it's not a showy performance, just incredibly real, and nuanced, and soulful.
JLT is fantastic as well. Too bad he hasn't received that much award recognition. It's his last screen performance.
I mean, should Academy members even vote if they don't watch all the nominated films and the work of the nominees involved?
I agree with R43. Let a few people who have achieved something of value in their profession vote via a jury.
[quote]But again, that was in the past when films were made in town (meaning Hollywood).
I heard on NPR that California lost 60% of film production (film, not television) in the last couple of years. That is a huge number.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Academy expands the four acting categories to 10 nominees in the next few years. ratings are dropping and few younger people give two shits about "old school glamour" in the Twitter era. They need eyeballs for ratings. Don't be shocked in a few years if you see names like Jennifer Aniston, Will Ferrel and Kristen Stewart up for awards that aren't Razzies.
r53, the Oscars still have a reach far beyond twitter youth, especially via the old-school glamour factor.
And young people gave no two shits about the Oscars in the 80s or 60s either. The Oscars have never had 'young people' as their target audience to begin with.
Hausfrauen, casual film fans, anyone reading People Magazine or watching E!/The View/ET, young women who read blogs like Lainey, gays, etc. etc. -- those are Oscar's core audience.
The market is huge, and images from the red carpet are fed into all media outlets, everywhere. Plus, people still go to the movies, or watch films online. They pay attention to who wins, even if by next year they can't remember who it was.
The fact that fewer people tune in to see the telecast doesn't mean they've stopped caring about the show. They'll just watch a portion of it on youtube, or read about it online.
Why do you think studios throw millions of dollars into Oscar bait films and garish campaigns such as Anne Hathaway's this year?
Because it pays off. That's why.
I eat shit.
The Streep troll (tm)
And I never stop eating shit. Chomp.
Oldster here. I think the Academy Awards were just fine when they were in April. I've been watching (albeit from a very young age) since 1968. I'm a film buff; I love all(most) of the award shows, and I think Hollywood is just panicking to keep moving the show back and back. I don't remember the GGs seeming to be such a threat; maybe the SAG awards on top of the GGs made it all a bit much, BUT I like the SAG awards, too. Maybe the Oscars should be more realistic about the size of the viewing audience. I really don't know...
Movies are becoming even more the dinosaur.
The Oscars are so OV-ah now. Too many awards shows diluted the value of them all.
You're more jealous than Blair was, the time the new girl beat her out for student president.