92nd Oscars: Ceremony

For the films of 2019
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by Big Magilla »

Add Dorothy McGuire, the Marmee of the 1978 TV mini-series, to the list of Oscar nominees.

It's Aunt March among the Little Women characters, though, who has attracted the most Oscar nominees - Edna May Oliver (1933), Lucile Watson (1949), Greer Garson (1978), Angela Lansbury (2017), Meryl Streep (2019). Only Mary Wickes in the 1994 version was not an Oscar nominee at some point.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by Mister Tee »

Okri wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:
Factoid about this nomination: in the years of the last two Hollywood versions of Little Women, the actress playing Marmee ended up nominated for a different film.
Almost the same thing with the 1933 version (Spring Byington) - but I also forgot that Sarandon was nominated for The Client so I thought "down the road" nominations counted!
You could extend that to note that 1949's Marmee is Mary Astor -- meaning every single talking motion picture version has a Marmee who was at some point an Oscar nominee. (Three of them winners!)
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by Okri »

Mister Tee wrote:
Factoid about this nomination: in the years of the last two Hollywood versions of Little Women, the actress playing Marmee ended up nominated for a different film.
Almost the same thing with the 1933 version (Spring Byington) - but I also forgot that Sarandon was nominated for The Client so I thought "down the road" nominations counted!
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by Reza »

I was surprised to see Sigourney Weaver still looking the same she did 30 years ago. She has aged very well with no apparent cosmetic re-structuring on her face. Wish she would make more movies.
danfrank
Assistant
Posts: 908
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Fair Play, CA

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by danfrank »

Teesian (adj.): thoughtful, thorough, well-informed, and well-argued.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by Mister Tee »

Okri wrote: I think we differ on basically every facet of this discussion, but a more complete response requires a Teesian post.
Than you for (I think) putting me into the language.
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by Precious Doll »

An amusing article from The Guardian with some suggestions for the Academy that would ruffle a lot of feathers:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/f ... point-plan
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by Okri »

taki15 wrote:
Okri wrote:
taki15 wrote:As a matter of fact, Academy members don't just ignore commercially successful films, they seem to resent them. Just see what happened with Scorsese and his attack on comic book movies. Frankly, I'm doubtful that something like "Titanic" or "Lord of the Rings" would've been nominated nowadays, let alone win.
Mad Max. Avatar. Black Panther. The Martian. Gravity. These films got nominated in part because of their outsized commercial success. The idea that AMPAS resents commercial success is certainly not corroborated by my observations.
The members of the Academy seem to disagree with you. Otherwise there wouldn't be all that (silly) talk about creating a separate Popular Film category.
I think we differ on basically every facet of this discussion, but a more complete response requires a Teesian post.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by OscarGuy »

Besides, with few exceptions, the Oscars are within the top 10 most watched events every year on American television. So, clearly, they are still doing something right.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
danfrank
Assistant
Posts: 908
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Fair Play, CA

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by danfrank »

I agree with the takes of FilmFan and Anonymous on this. Personally I'm not invested in whether the Academy Awards ceremony gets huge ratings, as if that somehow enhances their validity. The Oscars seem to have found the sweet spot along the spectrum of super-populist and elitist. Works well enough for the bulk of folks who appreciate quality filmmaking, like the people on this board.
taki15
Assistant
Posts: 541
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:29 am

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by taki15 »

Okri wrote:
taki15 wrote:As a matter of fact, Academy members don't just ignore commercially successful films, they seem to resent them. Just see what happened with Scorsese and his attack on comic book movies. Frankly, I'm doubtful that something like "Titanic" or "Lord of the Rings" would've been nominated nowadays, let alone win.
Mad Max. Avatar. Black Panther. The Martian. Gravity. These films got nominated in part because of their outsized commercial success. The idea that AMPAS resents commercial success is certainly not corroborated by my observations.
The members of the Academy seem to disagree with you. Otherwise there wouldn't be all that (silly) talk about creating a separate Popular Film category.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by Okri »

taki15 wrote:As a matter of fact, Academy members don't just ignore commercially successful films, they seem to resent them. Just see what happened with Scorsese and his attack on comic book movies. Frankly, I'm doubtful that something like "Titanic" or "Lord of the Rings" would've been nominated nowadays, let alone win.
Mad Max. Avatar. Black Panther. The Martian. Gravity. These films got nominated in part because of their outsized commercial success. The idea that AMPAS resents commercial success is certainly not corroborated by my observations.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by Big Magilla »

OscarGuy wrote:Get some major names to show up at the Oscars and do more than just present an award.
It might be enough just to have more of them show up even if it's "just" to present. For years now, It's been rare for a "star" to bother any more unless they're nominated or have a film coming out the week of the Oscars. This year's list of advertised presenters, with few exceptions, was a list of second tier performers. I even had to look a few of the names up.

Two years ago they missed an opportunity to invite past winners for a picture taking get-together in honor of the 90th awards. The best they could do was Rita Moreno and Eva Marie Saint, both of whom it was great to see, but neither of whom were ever big names. With a little arm-twisting they could have gotten Glenda Jackson then making her Broadway comeback along with Maggie Smith, Judi Dench and other notorious no-shows. One big name draws another, then another and another.

Taking the honorary awards out of the show left a big hole that has never been filled.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by OscarGuy »

I think the big difference here is that while the Superbowl advertises the events that will take place on it, the Academy doesn't. If Eminem was an attempt to get younger viewers to tune in, then why the hell didn't they advertise the shit out of that? So, no, I don't think they are trying to appeal to younger viewers with that kind of stunt. If they are, then the are utterly inept at it.

As Anonymous mentioned, six films this year made more than $100 million at the box office. The movies nominated were seen and one of them was even forecast to be the big winner. The biggest problem is that there is no big event at the Oscars that will draw audiences. The songs were terrible and most people hadn't heard of them, so there was no one to draw a global audience. If the Academy really wants to get people to tune in, they need to do more unique and well-advertised events. Take away the commercials and the half-time show and the Superbowl wouldn't be as popular as it is, I don't think.

What if the Academy asked an Oscar-winning performer to show up and do a special performance? Then they advertised the fuck out of it. Making it the event of the year might help. Do what the Grammys do, limit the performers and presenters to not working for or showing up on any other televised broadcast so that they are a unique experience. Get some major names to show up at the Oscars and do more than just present an award.

The Academy isn't going to appeal to younger audiences unless they start doing more to mark them as the single most important event of the year.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: 92nd Oscars: Ceremony

Post by FilmFan720 »

You also have the fact that the novelty of seeing celebrities on the awards show is diminished. It used to be that the Oscars were one of the few places where you could see major movie stars on TV being themselves -- besides maybe a couple of talk shows and such. Today, celebrities are everywhere. We know what is going to be said because they have said all of these on hundreds of TV appearances and social media before. The "mystique" of the movie star has faded and with it the novelty of the Oscars.

Plus, if I don't watch the show, the really great moments will be all over the internet instantly. I can watch the 15 minutes of the good stuff and be done...
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Post Reply

Return to “92nd Academy Awards”