Jaws_Victim: phalamir: Jaws_Victim: A popular film category? Why I never! *Monocle drops*

The Best Picture used to be the Popular Picture category.  Until someone figured out there was a series of elements that increased your share of the votes for Best Picture because the Academy is hilariously Old, White, Male, and Criminally Sentimental.  So, studios vying for that award build a schlocky schmaltz-fest tailor-made to trip those endorphin centers in a very specific demographic.  And could care less for anything else in their catalog doing that.  Even in the late 70s and early 80s, virtually all 5 nominees would be in the top 15 grossing films of the year, if not the top 10 - and the winner was almost always in the top 5.  Now, the nominees are often essentially unheard of before the nominations are released, and their combined revenues are dwarfed by student film coffee budgets, because the studios neither want nor expect people to watch what are essentially boring performance art pieces in Pavlovian theory.

I remember this from the last thread we had on it. I was making a joke.

AgtSmithReloaded: Thong_of_Zardoz: Drop the politics: you're a bunch of overpaid actors. I don't give two shiats about your "opinion" on things.

A thousand times THIS.

Celebrities are allowed to have political views, opinions, and causes they support as much as the next person...but the Oscars (or any other awards show, for that matter) are not the time or place to get on a soapbox and preach about them.  I don't care if the cause or issue is directly relevant to Hollywood.  Save that stuff for Instagram or another media format that isn't on a time and content budget.

You wanna wear a certain color of clothing, pin, or something else that promotes a cause or movement?  Have at it.  But when it comes time for you to speak/accept your award, say your thank yous and move along.

AgtSmithReloaded: BizarreMan: Here's how to help it attract more viewers.

1)  End it on time.  Most other awards and live shows are able to end it withing a minute or two of the anticipated end time.  Yet if the Oscars are able to bring it in only 30 minutes long that's a win?

2)  Cut out the extraneous crap.  Do we really need a 20 minute homage to a classic movie that was released 50 years ago?

3)  Take a look at the bits that are added to make the host or presenters appear funny and are they really funny, or needed?  If not, cut them.  Even if they may be funny, keep an eye on the running time and if you're going to be long because somebody gave an extra long acceptance speech, cut them out.

4)  Let the winners give a decent acceptance speech.  If you've gotta cut time, cut it from the filler that is just that, filler.

Agreed on all counts.

All of those "tributes" and "salutes" and what not are nothing but filler to distract viewers and attendees so the backstage people can prep the next presenters or usher the last winners back to their seats or to press areas or whatever it is they do.  They can keep the "In Memoriam" feature, because I think that's important, but they need to do better research on those who were lost in the past year so they don't leave people out, which they've been frequently doing over the past few years.

They also need to ditch the gimmicky hosts.  We don't need comedians or whatever doing their schtick on-stage.  If they want to do that, there are comedy clubs or other venues for that.  Get someone charismatic and charming enough to do the job they're there to do, without all of the side commentary that no one needs to hear...especially since it's rarely funny anyway.

And they've got to do something about acceptance speeches.  Some of these poor souls get cut off way too soon on what is often their first time getting such a prestigious award.   Look, you don't need to cut someone off in the middle of their heartfelt speech just so you can get Matt ...

phalamir: She comes in colors everywhere: Jaws_Victim: phalamir: Jaws_Victim: A popular film category? Why I never! *Monocle drops*

The Best Picture used to be the Popular Picture category.  Until someone figured out there was a series of elements that increased your share of the votes for Best Picture because the Academy is hilariously Old, White, Male, and Criminally Sentimental.  So, studios vying for that award build a schlocky schmaltz-fest tailor-made to trip those endorphin centers in a very specific demographic.  And could care less for anything else in their catalog doing that.  Even in the late 70s and early 80s, virtually all 5 nominees would be in the top 15 grossing films of the year, if not the top 10 - and the winner was almost always in the top 5.  Now, the nominees are often essentially unheard of before the nominations are released, and their combined revenues are dwarfed by student film coffee budgets, because the studios neither want nor expect people to watch what are essentially boring performance art pieces in Pavlovian theory.

I remember this from the last thread we had on it. I was making a joke.

in the 1970s and 1980s, people had taste.

1970Patton
1971The French Connection
1972The Godfather
1973The Sting
1974The Godfather Part II
1975One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
1976Rocky
1977Annie Hall
1978The Deer Hunter
1979Kramer vs. Kramer
1980Ordinary People
1981Chariots of Fire
1982Gandhi
1983Terms of Endearment
1984Amadeus
1985Out of Africa
1986Platoon
1987The Last Emperor
1988Rain Man
1989Driving Miss Daisy

Several of those are what would be considered "art films" today and not have a chance at a budget, even if they were made.

There's not a action-adventure-blow-things-up movie in the lot.

And they were all very popular high-grossing films.  Because people would pay to watch Ordinary People.

Hell, The Godfather would struggle to find an audience today.

The Godfather has never struggled to have an audience at any time.  And there was amazing amou ...