Details of the February 24th Presentation

[FilmFan720]

OK, I just did some YouTube snooping.

Last year, the entirety of the Cinematography prize was 3:00 (i.e. that's how long the YouTube clip from the Academy is). The winner spoke for :53 of that.

Last year, the entirety of the Film Editing prize was 3:03. The winner spoke for 1:05 seconds.

Last year, the entirety of the Live Action Short prize was 3:07. The winners spoke for 1:20 (they were played off after 1:10).

Last year, the entirety of the Make-up prize was 2:25. The speech was :47.

So...by eliminating those four, you would be trimming 11:35 off last year's show. BUT, if they are showing the four speeches in their entirety (and not 10 second clips like the Tonys do), then there will be 4:05 of speeches. So, they took 7 and a half minutes off the show. Big f***ing deal.

Also note that, in the effort to put BIG STARS back in the show, eliminating those four categories last year would have meant no appearance from Sandra Bullock, Matthew Mcconaughey, Tiffany Haddish, Maya Rudolph, Gal Gadot, and Armie Hammer.

[FilmFan720]

The four categories not aired live will be cinematography, film editing, live action short, and make-up hairstyling. They will be streamed live on the website, and the speeches (or abbreviated versions) will be shown later in the broadcast.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... m=referral

[Big Magilla]

It raises some points about shunting below the line awards to commercial breaks. I didn't think of like the circus atmosphere of people running to the rest rooms during the breaks making walks to the stage longer and the noise during the breaks making it difficult if not impossible to hear the speeches. That, and winners scrambling to call their loved ones to tell them they won before they read it on social media.

[Precious Doll]

Interesting article from Vanity Fair: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/20 ... ommercials

This years Oscar presentation feels like a possible disaster in the making and so unfair to those nominated and receiving Oscars during 'commercial breaks'.

[Big Magilla]

I think they've done all they can do to attract younger the younger crowd with Lady Gaga and endless stars of action movies older audiences are unfamiliar with. It's time for some balance.

[mlrg]

Those are all nice ideas for cinephiles like us but if they want to attract audiences I doubt they will achieve that by having 90 year olds performing nominated songs.

[Big Magilla]

I doubt they would pair two major categories like that.

The only way this makes any sense is if they bring out some heavy hitters you don't see often to do the major presentations. For example, there is a certain 91-year-old actress, which makes her older than the Oscars, who has been seen recently on Hollywood Boulevard snapping pictures of her newly installed star. She would be quite a coup to mollify the older members who feel pushed aside by all this nonsense.

In the same vein, I've been wondering who the "surprise" is who will be stepping in for Emily Blunt singing "The Place Where Lost Things Go". Perhaps 83-year-old Julie Andrews has regained enough of her singing voice to be able to do it. If not, maybe Angela Lansbury, who is in the film and can still carry a tune at 93 will do it.

[mlrg]

So, latest word seems to be that last year's four acting winners WILL be presenters -- but not of their own (gender-reversed) categories. Supposedly Oldman/Janney will present "something" and McDormand/Rockwell will present another "something”

An idea would one pair to present actor/actress and the other one supporting actor/supporting actress

[anonymous1980]

They may get it in under three hours, but it seems poised to be the most boring three hours in Oscar history.

What's also frustrating is that they've been given a gift with these nominees: Black Panther, Bohemian Rhapsody and Lady Gaga will all be featured and will be a near-guarantee spike to the ratings. They have no host so they will shave off five to ten minutes off the telecast for the traditional opening comedy monologue. Those SHOULD have been enough.

They seem desperate to wanna reach an audience that doesn't really exist or doesn't exist in large numbers. Who's going to sit through a 3-hour awards show to see their favorite celebrity present when they can just watch them in anywhere else?

[Mister Tee]

So, latest word seems to be that last year's four acting winners WILL be presenters -- but not of their own (gender-reversed) categories. Supposedly Oldman/Janney will present "something" and McDormand/Rockwell will present another "something".

Which reeks of, they were given holy hell (by important enough people) for the initial decision, but they're only halfway backing off -- which will probably have the result of pleasing no one.

This regime keeps competing with the Trump administration for Clown of the Week. You'd think making Rick Perry designated survivor was sure to win this week, but the competition continues.

[Big Magilla]

What is really stupid about all these changes, proposed and otherwise, is that they're going after the wrong the demographic.

They seem to want to attract the 18-24 year-olds who have the least interest in watching traditional TV, whether it's the Super Bowl, the Oscars or anything else. They don't seem to want to book anyone to appear on the show much older than them. It's not going to help.

There doesn't seem to be any interest at all in acknowledging old pros either as presenters or winners. They seem to be saying give the old geezers in the crafts categories their Oscars, but do it so we don't have to watch them take their long walks from the back of the auditorium to the stage. They seem to equate inviting the previous year's winners to wearing last year's fashions to a fancy dress ball.

They may get it in under three hours, but it seems poised to be the most boring three hours in Oscar history.

[Mister Tee]

This whole "We must get it under 3 hours" thing reminds me of a story Buck Henry told about reactions to a preview screening of To Die For. The studio assembled a focus group, and one of the things the group claimed was the movie was too long. The filmmakers pressed: what parts needed to be cut? The participants hemmed and hawed, and it finally emerged there was nothing specific they'd felt deserved cutting; it was just that they'd hated the movie and wished there'd been less of it.

This whole Oscar season has consisted of ABC/the producers listening to that group who hates the Oscars and wants there to be less of it. It's not going to help one bit in the goal of turning back the clock to the golden ratings years.

It hasn't got enough notice, but the other night's Super Bowl was the lowest-rated in 11 years. Yet, as Mark Harris snarked, no one suggested moving all field goals to a commercial break, or adding another game with popular teams (though that might have helped, as, outside New England, I don't think there's much enthusiasm for watching Brady do his thing yet again).

[MaxWilder]

These changes are all so wrong and dumb.

If you descend into the comment sections on sites like Deadline, Variety and the Hollywood Reporter, you'll find countless comments from people who think movie critics are out-of-touch snobs and that award shows mean nothing to 'real,' 'hard-working Americans.' If the box office is in a slump, they rejoice and pin the failure on the industry's liberal politics. (One wonders why they're on movie sites to begin with.) The Academy is debasing itself to win over people who hate the entire enterprise.

At what point do we begin to worry about the integrity of the results? Should we? It's safe to assume that, to the board of governors and the abc brass, a Roma victory would be an unmitigated catastrophe.

[Reza]

I wasn't planning on watching the show this year because I already know that the people I am passionate about winning (Olivia Colman, Spike Lee, Richard E. Grant, Shoplifters) are not going to win so I'll pass but I would not be impressed if one of the categories that I was interesting in watching was presenting during the commercial break.

Spike could very well win for his screenplay.

And deservedly so.

[Greg]

I wasn't planning on watching the show this year because I already know that the people I am passionate about winning (Olivia Colman, Spike Lee, Richard E. Grant, Shoplifters) are not going to win so I'll pass but I would not be impressed if one of the categories that I was interesting in watching was presenting during the commercial break.

Spike could very well win for his screenplay.