Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Sonic, I'm pretty sure you just described James Cameron's utopia.

But yeah, I doubt the oscars are happening. And if they never happen again, Parasite was an amazing note to go out on.

anonymous1980 wrote:

Sabin wrote: The industry has *NO* idea how to film right now.

They could film actors individually in front of a green screen and with the use of CGI and editing tricks make it seem they're in the same room and in the same shot. They did it for the later seasons of The Good Wife when Archie Panjabi and Julianna Margulies couldn't stand each other so when their characters had to be in the same scene, they did some editing and CGI trickery.

Maybe, but who would want to? I'm sure filmmakers could make some disposable entertainment this way, but they're not going to waste any pet projects on this method.

Sabin wrote: The industry has *NO* idea how to film right now.

They could film actors individually in front of a green screen and with the use of CGI and editing tricks make it seem they're in the same room and in the same shot. They did it for the later seasons of The Good Wife when Archie Panjabi and Julianna Margulies couldn't stand each other so when their characters had to be in the same scene, they did some editing and CGI trickery.

Big Magilla wrote
It could be 2028 before people feel comfortable enough to go out to theatres in numbers that will be profitable enough for the people who make them, by which time movie theaters may well have gone the way of bookstores, record stores and video stores. The times, they are a-changin', and the old ways, they ain't-a-comin' back.

It won't be until 2028 -- but it will feel like that.

On the whole, I certainly agree to your points. The industry has *NO* idea how to film right now. We're about to see a huge wave of Damien's Goddamn Cartoons.

It could be 2028 before people feel comfortable enough to go out to theatres in numbers that will be profitable enough for the people who make them, by which time movie theaters may well have gone the way of bookstores, record stores and video stores. The times, they are a-changin', and the old ways, they ain't-a-comin' back.

Sabin wrote:Also, I disagree with your categorization that "The only films that wouldn't be in play under current circumstances would be those vying for Special Effects and nothing else." Look at last year's slate: I doubt that the teams behind Ford v. Ferrari, Joker, 1917, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood would be willing to skip theatrical altogether. That's half the slate right there.

This is the point I've been trying to make. Current films rely on the combo of theatrical-plus-streaming revenue to achieve profit. Thinking that studios, large or small, would ever forgo the substantial amount of money they make in theatres thinking they'd make it all back (or enough of it) through streaming alone is taking a huge leap.

And it's not even just movies like those you mentioned, which did in excess of $100 million in theatres. A movie like Lady Bird I assume has done reasonably well in steaming, but take away the $45 million it made in theatres and the studio is way less happy about its performance. That's even assuming Lady Bird could have made the mark it did without the launch it got from excited reaction at film festivals. There aren't going to be such festivals this year. If they just dropped this little-heralded movie on a streaming platform, it could drop like a stone.

Big Magilla wrote
Huh?

Films like Moonlight and Parasite play perfectly well to streaming and large screen TV viewing. The only films that wouldn't be in play under current circumstances would be those vying for Special Effects and nothing else.

I'm not arguing that. The only questions I have is whether or not enough films will be ready for the Oscars (movies take years to finish production and post-production) and whether or not studios want to torch their relationships with movie theaters to go the VOD route. Also, I disagree with your categorization that "The only films that wouldn't be in play under current circumstances would be those vying for Special Effects and nothing else." Look at last year's slate: I doubt that the teams behind Ford v. Ferrari, Joker, 1917, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood would be willing to skip theatrical altogether. That's half the slate right there.

Sabin wrote: If the Academy just came out and said "The Oscars will be back and we will continue our mission of elevating voices like Moonlight and Parasite," who wouldn't understand? Over the past five years, the Oscars have clearly courted a left-leaning audience that views the virus with caution (ie, fine with waiting until a movie theater isn't a death trap) but also supports elevating diverse voices, which is to say the typical Oscar voter does not instantly demand the Academy "Re-open the Oscar economy." Not to be too hyperbolic, but if anything our moment is catching up with the Oscar's mission statement. Why ruin it with an unimpressive slate of films?

Huh?

Films like Moonlight and Parasite play perfectly well to streaming and large screen TV viewing. The only films that wouldn't be in play under current circumstances would be those vying for Special Effects and nothing else.

No one is advocating for an in-person Oscar ceremony. Zoom or something similar would work just fine, especially if it brought out big name stars who no longer like to "go to" the Oscars. Having it come to them would be perfect. A representative of White-Waterhouse-Cooper could open the envelope for them and whisper it in their headphone or whatever.

Throw in Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep and Whoopi Goldberg strolling the museum live for good measure.

Big Magilla wrote
They could keep moving the goalposts, but at some point they'll have to face reality.

Or they don't. They can just continue to make overly-optimistic projections. That's pretty much the default for any industry at this point. They're just desperately trying to reinstate confidence in a moment of historic uncertainty and historic interconnectedness.

That said, I do think it's foolish of them to assume that audiences will care in a time where going to a movie theater sounds like a death trap. Like any confidence projection, it's purely speculative. If the Academy just came out and said "The Oscars will be back and we will continue our mission of elevating voices like Moonlight and Parasite," who wouldn't understand? Over the past five years, the Oscars have clearly courted a left-leaning audience that views the virus with caution (ie, fine with waiting until a movie theater isn't a death trap) but also supports elevating diverse voices, which is to say the typical Oscar voter does not instantly demand the Academy "Re-open the Oscar economy." Not to be too hyperbolic, but if anything our moment is catching up with the Oscar's mission statement. Why ruin it with an unimpressive slate of films?

They could keep moving the goalposts, but at some point they'll have to face reality.

Sporting events, theatrical shows and concerts are things that either have to happen or not. Movies, already in the can, can and are being shown via streaming and other ways. There is no reason to cancel the Oscars for 2020. 2021 and beyond, if there is no new product is another story.

The Academy should postpone the Oscars indefinitely.

I can't see how something like this can be planned with a pandemic raging away killing hundreds of thousands of people. The right thing to do would be to wait until such times as the pandemic is over and simply make the eligibility date from 1 January 2020 until whenever.

They'll have plenty of warning to plan for their next presentation because basically one of two things will have to happen:

1) A vaccine (though this is more unlikely than likely but still within the realms of possibility);

2) The virus weakens and becomes another relatively harmless annoying cold.

Until one of those two things happen cinema as we know it is not possible and frankly reckless. They don't need to and shouldn't set a date as this point in time.

Mister Tee wrote:What's the point of giving out awards for a movie year that never happened?

Is there any co-relation between the public watching films in a cinema and awards handed out to any of those films?

Films ready for release in 2020 could all be made available by studios to Academy members through some viewing medium and they could still vote for the best. As it is most members don't view eligible films at the cinema. It could be the first time members vote without bias as surely many vote based on reading reviews by critics or hearing about a performance through word of mouth without actually seeing the film itself.

Sabin wrote:It'll get pushed back again.

They just keep moving goalposts. Tenet will open in mid-July...make that end of July...when that date gets closer, they'll move it again. Same with the Oscars.

People continue in denial. Normal life --especially the part related to people congregating in large groups for leisure activity -- is not coming back in a few weeks, or months. It's coming back when people feel comfortable -- i.e., when there's a vaccine.

What's the point of giving out awards for a movie year that never happened?

40 days between nominations and awards. When was the last time we had that long a stretch between the two?

Oh, and it's tied into the opening of the Academy museum five days later on April 30th.

It'll get pushed back again.