Skip to main content

Oscars: My Response to the Newly Announced Academy Award Changes

See the source image
The Oscars are losing relevance or so says the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, which announced Wednesday a batch of changes to its annual telecast. The changes, designed to reverse a ratings dip in recent years, are the kind of desperate attempt to stay relevant that threatens the integrity of the whole affair. 

The first change, consistent with the Academy's desire to create a three-hour telecast, is that some awards will be presented during commercial breaks, with edited (meaning condensed) versions of the acceptance speeches airing later in the broadcast. It has not been determined which categories will be bumped, but I'll tell you right now it ain't gonna be Best Actress. The categories where celebrities are nominated will be shown live, and the tech categories won't be. This move is flat-out disrespectful to the men and women nominated in the below-the-line categories who deserve recognition for their vital contributions to movies. The Tony Awards follow the same strategy the Academy is suggesting, and while that too is inexcusable, it is more understandable because it is the norm for every nominated show to do a performance during the Tonys telecast. The Oscars have no equivalent set number of performances, so this move becomes blatantly about audiences being bored by the tech categories. While that may be true of a portion of the audience, if the Oscars want to continue distinguishing themselves from all the other award shows out there, they must commit to presenting all categories live. 

Moreso than any other factor, the ratings for the Oscars appear to depend on the movies nominated, meaning more people watch when a huge movie like Titanic or Avatar is up for a bunch of awards. The second change is an attempt to ensure popular movies get nominated every year, by instituting a new category called "Best Popular Film". The stupidity of this idea is almost too much to handle. It not only implies that movies that get nominated for the regular Best Picture category are unpopular but also that they are fundamentally different from the movies that have come to dominate the box office. In decades past, the top ten highest grossing movies of the year nearly always included at least a couple of Best Picture nominees. But since the Era of the Blockbuster has continued on, there has been a growing divide between the big-budget action spectacles that occupy the top ten slots, and the indie or arthouse fare that has been favored by the Academy. The Academy is right to assume this divide is a big part of their ratings woes. In 2009, the Academy came up with a solution to this problem when it doubled the number of Best Picture nominees from five to ten. In the two following years, blockbusters such as Avatar, District 9, Up, and Toy Story 3 earned nominations. But after the 2011 ceremony, the rules were changed once again, and the number of Best Picture nominees became variable, anywhere from five to ten, based on a needlessly complicated voting process. Since that change, extremely few blockbusters have been nominated for the top prize. If they want more blockbusters nominated, they should go back to having ten nominees and ditch the current voting system. They absolutely should not create a new category that ensures junk like Avengers: Infinity War would be nominated just to get more eyeballs watching the show. That is selling out. And talk about a strange year for this new category, since Black Panther is a blockbuster that's sure to be in the Best Picture race. 

Perhaps what bothers me the most is the implication that the Academy should take into consideration what the general public is interested in watching when filling out their ballots. Could it be that the actors, directors, writers, producers, and craftsmen that spend their lives making movies and thinking about movies could actually have informed, intelligent opinions about which movies should be held up as the best examples of the artform? No, that's crazy! As long as regular people flock to the multiplex on opening weekend, that's as sure a sign of quality as anything, right? *eye roll emoji*

The third change, and the only one that I actually like, is the decision to move the Oscars up from late February to early February, beginning with the 2020 show. This move will shorten awards season, reducing the strain it puts on people in the industry and giving less time for people watching from the outside to second guess their predictions

Aside from moving the ceremony date, the Academy's changes reflect a startling lack of foresight within the group and, if implemented, will begin the Oscars down a path that will make this award indistinguishable from the People's Choice Awards and the MTV Movie Awards. Good luck with that. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oscar 2020: Who Will Win?

2020 Oscars Predictions and Preview
I was not planning on making Oscar predictions this year because I'm in London for the semester and I have better things to do. But I'm doing laundry and have some time to kill, so I figured I'd give it a shot. While I have not been following awards season as closely this year as in past ones, I did get the closest to it than I've ever been before when I had the opportunity to be in the red carpet viewing area for the BAFTAs last weekend. What a thrill it was seeing all of this year's big players maneuver through the crowded carpet and pose for photos. Renee Zellweger was there, as was Charlize Theron, Margot Robbie, Bong Joon Ho, Quentin Tarantino, Scarlett Johansson, Adam Driver, Saorise Ronan, Florence Pugh, Greta Gerwig & Noah Baumbach, Laura Dern, Al Pacino and Joaquin Phoenix, all of whom are also Oscar nominees. 

As for what's going to happen this Sunday, I'm not anticipating many surprises. For instance, the ac…

HBO Max: Full Breakdown (Plus Five Recommendations You Can Stream Right Now)

At launch, HBO Max, the brand new streaming service from WarnerMedia, is offering 10,000 hours of content. That's an eye-catching number, even if it's not a third of what Netflix offers. But unlike the steady stream of total junk that Netflix spits out every week, HBO Max has many shows and movies that are actually worth watching. 
From popular recent movies to a vast classic film library, from Friends to every show regular old HBO has produced (Sex and the City, the Sopranos, Game of Thrones, Succession, etc.), the number of options is kind of staggering. If you aren't already signed up (if you have HBO, you probably have this too), definitely check it out. 
The website's infrastructure has been largely carried over from HBO Now, HBO's existing standalone streaming service, so it's pretty smooth and easy to use. The organization of all the content is solid, if not spectacular. Emphasized are what are called "HBO Max Hubs," which are dedicated pages for…

Scoob! Review: Scooby Doo's Big Screen Reboot is a Dud

The new film, premiering in people's homes because movie theaters are closed, is an attempt to launch a new shared cinematic universe based on old Hanna-Barbera cartoons. The result is characters from other old shows getting awkardly interpolated in the story of the Mystery Inc gang. Dynomutt and the Blue Falcon (Dynomutt, Dog Wonder) show up, as does DeeDee (Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels, whatever that is). The main villain is Dick Dastardly (Wacky Races), who comes complete with some Minions ripoff robot sidekicks and a plan that involves opening a portal to the underworld or something. It's all very incongruous with the classic Scooby formula, in which the supernatural was almost always revealed to be smoke and mirrors. 
The humor is aggressively topical, referencing smartphones and Tinder and Hemsworths. None of it is very funny, least of all a cameo by Simon Cowell. Is he still relevant? 
Like the recent Charlie's Angles reboot, Scoob! drags its source material in…