Those of us who watch the BAFTAs know that their top honorary prize - the BAFTA Fellowship - is awarded last, AFTER best film.

Here's a possible ABC idea - show middle America the Oscars are red state friendly by having Elizabeth Hassebeck roam the floor chatting with people.

Well, this is a stupid idea.

Yes, let's honor Hollywood legends not in front of the whole world, but at a very small, non-televised dinner party.

Uh-huh.

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
Here's a possible ABC idea - show middle America the Oscars are red state friendly by having Elizabeth Hassebeck roam the floor chatting with people.

I'm sure that idea is running through ABC's head right now.

I am very mad. They are changing the great things about the Academy Awards. As long as i get to watch the honorary winner speech i am okay. I really hope this year it's Angela Lansbury!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh my, Seanflynn, bite your tongue about changing the time of broadcast. I would be absolutely furious if the Oscars were tape delayed on the West Coast. I already rarely watch the Grammys or Emmys because of the tape delay. I just come here and see who won everything.

Anyway, I think this change is terrible. Any type of honorary or lifetime achievement Oscar should be handed out on the broadcast. I think it is incredibly disrespectful to shunt them to some dinner held for 100 or so people months before the Oscars. Ridiculous.

Why don't they cut the inevitably terrible montages that are nearly universally hated? Or, you know, not have 10 Best Picture nominees?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: LadyHathor25,

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
Like it said yesterday - the hits just keep on coming.

I expected the same thing. Better hold on to your hat, more ch-ch-changes are a coming.

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
Those of us who watch the BAFTAs know that their top honorary prize - the BAFTA Fellowship - is awarded last, AFTER best film.

Here's a possible ABC idea - show middle America the Oscars are red state friendly by having Elizabeth Hassebeck roam the floor chatting with people.

Perhaps she could do a gay exorcism of Tom Cruise while she's at it!

When I was in Hawaii two years ago, my Oscar broadcast was delayed an hour. I don't know if that's how it normally is there, but to wait an hour for the show, while knowing that some awards had been handed out, was an an absolutely annoying feeling.

As most know, I've been pretty upset at all things Oscar the last three days.

But I just saw a legacy related thing, the first time I ever have, and it cheered up a bit.

As most of you know, the first year of the Oscars had two categories for top achievement in film - one for best production (won by Wings) and one for artistic quality of production (won by Sunrise) - but since the two awards became best production alone the following year, eventually becoming best picture, and some lobbying by Paramount in the mid30s for a rerelease caused the Academy to designate win the sole winner for year 1, and Sunrise was relegated to the defunct category list.

But historians and people who have researched the first year usually conclude that there were 2 winners that time, and Sunrise should be considered Wings' co-equal (for me no small thing, because I regard it as the greatest film ever to win the award.

Anyway, Fox has never really cared, going back to the 30s, because as a silent film without easy adaptation to sound effects and some added dialogue, and with its director tragically dead, so they never made an issue.

Flash forward - just now on Fox Legacy, the between movie section of the Fox Movie Channel, Tom Rothman is talking, and he starts talking about all the Oscars, and as he is mentioning the best picture wins, there shown first is - Sunrise.

Now if they could only go to the Academy and ask them to go back and change their records. If they can double the number of best picture winners, you'd think they can adjust their history to make it more accurate.

I don't like this move at all. Like what Sean already has stated, it does deprive of the Honorary winners their due, their time to actually be recognized at the Oscars ceremony. That's actually the part of the Oscars that I actually looked forward to because it pays homage to those that really deserve our respect.

Yes, by having a separate ceremony, it's a more relaxing and less stressful event however, the mass public will not be able to fully honor these honorees.

This is really a shameful move on The Academys part.

To whoever is selected as an honorary award winner this year - please refuse it & make it clear that the reason is because it has been dumped into a meaningless ceremony - how many other lifetime achievement awards are given out during the year!!

Ganis is an idiot, there wasn't too much wrong with the Oscars and he has made them look like a joke (like the Emmys & Grammys) anymore of his ideas and you may as well just cancel them. Charlie Chaplin's honoary award is probably the most memorable Oscar moment in history - all this because The Dark Knight didn't get nominated.

My guess is that ABC went out and did extensive polling and focus groups and they found that the honorary awards ranked low on importance to the 18-34 age group they polled. And that was all that mattered, not tradition, the dignity, not what matters to Academy members.

The last part is what might get them in trouble.

They will argue that this will be a bigger deal to the winners, and that there will be more winners, but in any event, for one year, this is what is going to happen.

What happens when they have an overseas winner? Or will they have fewer because they won't be able to bring in a bunch of friends to buy tables at the dinner? And will people of their countries even ever seen any of the dinner even if it is (later) broadcast here? And would that person (they are frequently old) return later just to wave at the crowd at the Oscars?

I wonder if the reluctant Peter O'Toole would have accepted under these circumstances.

Here's another way this hurts - I've seen DVD stores (not sure if Blockbuster ever does this) add the honorary winner to their special Oscar related shelves, at least the year of the award. Robert Altman wins - here are some of his films; Ennio Morricone - see if you want to hear what he won for. And with the presentation on the show, there inevitably are people who seek these films out after. Oops, no more.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

G'Day,
as someone whom personally dosn't usually look forward to the honory awards (puerly because that late in the night I am so excited to see who wins the big awards) this is a terrible decision for all the reasons listed above and yet another troubling sign for the academy.

Regarding the song change, I like it. This is probably the only category (other than animnated feature) that is in some way unnecasary but I would not be in favour of completly eliminating it. A way so that no or 2 noms will be there is weak years is great and years they have a strong song it can still win. Then again in reality I'm not sure how much will actually change. Oh, and does anyone know why for song they score from 6-10 in incriments of .5 rather than just making it from 1-10? Sounds incredibly silly.

The LATimes this morning - which highlighted and celebrated the best picture change, including an above-the-fold front page story, has a tiny item in the movie section today about the changes revealed yesterday - and the headline is about the song category change.

So, this placement and it being Saturday means that a lot of members are going to miss this.

Supposedly, Sid Ganis was going to have another press conference Monday about these two changes. But a press release "leaked" yesterday and the story got out. I wonder if the Academy decided to leak this (it's called late Friday news dump, ensuring lack of coverage) after realizing that whatever the press reaction, member response to the BP change wasn't good, and maybe they had to be more careful/less public.

I can hope at least.

Nikki Finke got around to this story, and, apart from calling it "shameful," says the dinner will be just another black tie Hollywood event, one of many throughout the year, rather than being part of the biggest event of the year in the industry.

She of course is right.

She also says, as I thought, that apart from time considerations in the show, that the pressure from producers to award the Thalberg regularly, even annually, has been intense. Not that many really deserve it, but this apparently was a contributing factor. So expect maybe three or even four honorary awards a year - just don't expect to be a part of the excitement.

quote:

Originally posted by MissyGal:

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
Here's a possible ABC idea - show middle America the Oscars are red state friendly by having Elizabeth Hassebeck roam the floor chatting with people.

I'm sure that idea is running through ABC's head right now.

I would laugh, but I think it's scarily true. If they could have the likes of Billy Bush embarrassing poor Keisha Castle Hughes right before the ceremony inside the theater, I bet that they've thought about interviewing celebrities during the ceremony if it didn't eat up so much time.

quote:

Supposedly, Sid Ganis was going to have another press conference Monday about these two changes. But a press release "leaked" yesterday and the story got out. I wonder if the Academy decided to leak this (it's called late Friday news dump, ensuring lack of coverage) after realizing that whatever the press reaction, member response to the BP change wasn't good, and maybe they had to be more careful/less public.

Yes, plus right after Michael Jackson's death, I was thinking that Mark Sanford must have been pretty relieved to have something that big take the spotlight off of him, and that for other celebrities, if they had any scandals, they should have released the news of them Thursday night or Friday because the media would barely mention them. I don't know if that was another aspect of Ganis's decision to leak the news, but it certainly benefitted him.

quote:

Why don't they cut the inevitably terrible montages that are nearly universally hated? Or, you know, not have 10 Best Picture nominees?

Yes, there are so many other ways that they could cut the ceremony down without having to cut down the amount of awards. The montages with the same clips that are seen every year would be a good start. Another good start would be cutting all any musical number since it's not the Tonys or Grammys, and they never seem to please anyone. Also, I like seanflynn's suggestion about only having three pairs of presenters for 2/3's of the awards that way they don't have to introduce a new person or people everytime they have a new category. Plus, if it's similar to what they were going for this year with certain categories being lumped together and announced by the same presenter/s to make it more streamlined, it makes sense to me.

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
Like it said yesterday - the hits just keep on coming.

A special dinner of course in some ways makes the honorees have more time, but this now deprives what made the honors valid - the tribute, the clips, and audience ovation and reaction - mostly absent from tens of million of people.

These often were the most special moments of the show.

I told you two days ago - once they make one awful move, they are going to make many, many more.

I am even angrier about this than I was about the 10 BP nominees.

(The one and sole redeeming aspect is that they likely will now give more honorary awards - but that in turn of course could cheapen that by expanding what qualifies for one. Also there is no word as to whether this is going to be broadcast, but even if it were, it would be edited down).

This is totally an ABC inspired move. It has nothing to do with the integrity of the Academy.

I frankly expect more members are going to be outraged about this.

10s of millions of people who really don't care. If you asked 10 random persons who won an honorary Oscar in the last 5 years, I bet less than half could name someone.

I think this is a great move by the Academy.

quote:

Originally posted by True Tenor:

10s of millions of people who really don't care. If you asked 10 random persons who won an honorary Oscar in the last 5 years, I bet less than half could name someone.

And there's a term for catering to such people. It's called "dumbing down".

80% of the American people don't watch the Oscars, and the majority of them couldn't name any of the winners in any category. So that standard means nothing.

Remembering who the honorary winners are and reacting during the program to what the emotional moments are (and many of them have come from the honorary awards) are different things anyway.

And if you don't care, well, it's a long show, take a break, walk the dog, go to the bathroom, whatever.

I do note less passion about this decision than about the 10 BP nominations. I guess it's because so many people here are under 30 and don't recognize many or most of the honorary members. But what I am hearing from my contacts is even more anger about this than the BP expansion - they think that is stupid, but this decision is, as Nikki Finke wrote, shameful.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
I wonder if the Academy decided to leak this (it's called late Friday news dump, ensuring lack of coverage)

This reminds me of the west wing episode "take out the trash day"

quote:

I do note less passion about this decision than about the 10 BP nominations. I guess it's because so many people here are under 30 and don't recognize many or most of the honorary members. But what I am hearing from my contacts is even more anger about this than the BP expansion - they think that is stupid, but this decision is, as Nikki Finke wrote, shameful.

I am more angry about the top 10 change because it is the biggest academy award and it has a signifgant impact on what it means to be a best pisture nominiee.

I think regardless of what one thinks of these changes (I'm against both), for the board of governers to make such huge decisions that have a profound impact on the academy's legacy so hastily wothout imput from the academy at large is nothing short of dispicable. I hope the members rise up.