Comics Creators

Oscars and Other Movie Awards


I wouldn’t object to that. I agree it’s all too long and very stuffy and old fashioned.

I think the categories do help, so as many products as possible can shove the statuette on the cover of the DVD. Which makes it unlikely they’ll vote to change.


There have been “Oscar parties” going on since January. Really? Yup. All kinds of tech and backstage stuff. One for Wardrobe. One for hairdressers. One for large props. One for small props, Sound people. Music people. (Do NOT put Sound and Music people in the same room with booze.) Lots and lots of awards.

So I’ve heard.


Last night’s rating were at an all time low. Studio heads must know this isn’t working for them. The US is typically fairly willing to change when things are going in the wrong direction (you see it alot in sports, another type of entertainment media that knows the only real measure is audience size).

For me a 2 hour ceremony and 12 awards is the start (Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Production, Special Effects, Sound, Score, Documentary would be my list). They need to get away form this habit of celebrating small indie movies and learn to embrace the movies that pay the bills. It needs more Star Wars and Marvel and Pirates. It should have commercials full of sneak peaks and new trailers. All studios should be using it as one of their primary marketing vehicles for their upcoming big hits. A movie that makes over $200 million should have a serious chance to win Best Picture. An actor who plays a superhero should have a better chance that an actor who did an impersonation of some famous politician. The Oscars should be exciting, must watch TV. As it stands it feels like the richest country club in the world.


I think it says something when the first headline I saw about the Oscars this morning was about the politics, not about who won. The winning part seems like a bit of an afterthought.


The UK has something along these lines for the music industry in the shape of the Brit Awards. It tends to reward big sellers and popular artists rather than smaller unsung artists.

As a result, it doesn’t have much serious credibility, but it works well to give nominated and winning artists a nice sales bump.

I would guess that the Oscars don’t want to trade off credibility in chasing a more populist approach - the one thing it really seems to have going for it is that it’s still seen as the most prestigious awards ceremony in the industry (whether deservedly or not). But there are definitely other models it could pursue.


I have a hard time believing people would tune in more if it was Star Wars vs Beauty and the Beast.

Low ratings are a function of ratings being down for everything and also there aren’t the movie stars there used to be. Also Jimmy Kimmel is a stuffed suit. You’ve got to do better than that with a host.


Despite the declines, it still has a shit load of viewers.

Isn’t that essentially the MTV Movie & TV Awards?

Considering old white men are the majority of the voting body, that won’t be happening soon.

I do agree with regards to commercial advertising. This is the movie equivalent of the Superbowl. There should be brand new trailers being shown. This should begin the march to the summer blockbusters and other big releases.


If they don’t make the trade they’ll become utterly irrelevant. They need to modernize.

You can’t host well if you have a 4 hour ceremony with 2 hours of mind numbing tedium covering awards for disciplines no-one cares about. And rating aren’t down for everything at all. Sports continues to grow each year. Oscar is at an all time low. Not much is at that level.

You can also make stars. RDJ and Sam Jackson and Tom Cruise are all stars. The Rock is as big as Arnie was, and Arnie was the biggest star in a generation. That’s like saying we don’t have musicians like we used to.


Old white men run everything. The hippest, most modern, most progressive entertainment available today? Old white men were behind it.


The problem is once they do that, they lose credibility and at that point, they are irrelevant.


Technically, there are more old white women on the Board than old white men. From what I know about how the Oscars function it’s a whole lot too much like the Electoral College. The nominees are selected by folks in that specialty category, and to say there is some in-fighting is an understatement. They caucus out the nominees which the whole Academy body then votes on. The problem is locking out uppity young filmmakers and voting for cronies. This is beginning to break down as power structure shifts.

All the re-makes are gonna kill the ratings next year, for sure.


I’m of two minds on the Oscars.

Part of me feels that success is its own reward and Oscars should seek out other merits to highlight smaller works.

However, this isn’t the way it’s done in any other industry. The Emmy’s, Grammy’s and Tony’s reward success in their industry. There are some indie categories but generally the most successful are the most awarded.

I also think there’s a lot of truth in the saying that, “The Oscars are the night that Hollywood gets together to congratulate itself.” There is a ton of self-celebration and a lot of egos that have to be stroked in the room.

Even the New Yorker sees a bit of this.

This quote at the end of that article may be the crux of it.

Increasingly, for Hollywood, the most frightening foe is Netflix.


Yes, the MTV Movie Awards. That is what I was thinking of. It was as populist as can be and nobody watched.


The Oscar’s has nothing to do with credibility. It’s just a marketing tool. You can market credibility and still be more commercial.


The Grammys seems like it strikes a good balance between featuring popular material and also having some degree of perceived credibility. Is that the kind of model the Oscars should look to?


Want to start a fight with a musician? Ask them what they think about the Grammys.


Well it’s marketed to tweens. So tweens watch and adults don’t give a shit.

There’s only three options here, and I don’t know why anyone thinks the third is impossible:

  1. Lose more ratings, become irrelevant.
  2. Become some sellout no-credibility award show that is irrelevant.
  3. Modernize the show so it’s shorter and features more commercial hits.

Most other entertainment industries seem to make an all-star night work. And the things being measured as utterly objective. Does anyone think Gary Oldman was the very best actor last year? By what measure? He did a good impression of Churchill? Everything to do with these awards is objective, no measure exists. But in music, TV, video games, sports and so on they’ve managed to celebrate the hits. In Oscar world if a film is a commercial hit it’s suddenly selling out if it wins? It wasn’t always like this. Over the last few years the winners have increasingly become more obscure (Argo, 12 years a slave, Birdman, Spotlight, Moonlight, fucking The Artist). Used to be commercial movies won - Gladiator, The Departed, Return of the King, Titanic, Braveheart). For the last 10+ years the winners have increasingly become more obtuse. Even the nominees have become obtuse, and we’re thinking this is normal. It’s not. I’m talking about moving to a model less than 20 years ago here.


People hate the Grammies. I think it’s trying to make too many people happy and thus makes nobody happy.


What about the Tony’s? I know it is a bit more niche to begin with but the show that is the most successful is generally the show that will bring home the most awards. It’s also incredibly well respected within its own industry.

The Tony’s are also incredibly important commercially. If a show is not nominated, it’s generally a death knell for it’s run.


That’s hard to do when all of the most popular movies are remakes or part 8 in never-ending franchises. The top three movies (domestic) that don’t fit either of those categories are Coco, Get Out, and Dunkirk, and they got lots of awards and/or nominations.