93rd Annual Academy Awards

[Drizzle]

Aside from the best actor fiasco, the biggest snub for me was Mank winning over The Father for best editing. I didn't feel Mank was worthy of any awards honestly.

In a weaker year, I think Oldman could have won for it.

To noone's surprise...

Oscars Ratings Plummet by 58 Percent Compared to 2020's Show - Variety

The lack of clips really killed this thing.

It didn't really have a chance from the start. The more lowkey ceremony combined with the lack of any kind of big name films nominated for Best Picture due to COVID really pitted the odds against it. They really could have done this remotely back in February and it wouldn't have made a difference.

 

[Kane52630]

Streaming killed the video star.

 

[samsnee]

Better start nominating some Marvel movies

 

[Kane52630]

Better start nominating some Marvel movies

I'm guessing 2019 went up in viewership instead of down because Black Panther was nominated for BP and a bunch of other awards.

 

[Hannibal75]

I tend to agree with James Berardinelli's take on the declining ratings from last year:

I can’t argue with the statement that Parasite deserved Best Picture. I would have said the same about 1917, The Irishman, Once Upon a Time, or Joker. But the “Best Picture” category has never been fully about merit. It’s about celebrating cinema and, on that level, Parasite falls short. Why? Because hardly anyone has seen it. For 2019, it ended up at #70 on the box office chart with a domestic gross of $35M. To be fair, that’s an incredible haul for a subtitled movie and indicates it had some penetration into multiplexes. Nevertheless, Joe Mainstream or Jane Mainstream probably didn’t see it. And that’s where the Oscars’ continuing problem lies. Think back to the ‘90s and titles like Dances with Wolves, The Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, Schindler’s List, Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Titanic. Those were excellent movies that everyone saw. They were worthy of the Best Picture designation. In the 2010s, however, there have been The King’s Speech, The Artist, Birdman, Spotlight, Moonlight, The Shape of Water, and now Parasite. It’s not a matter of quality, it’s a matter of perception. And the perception is that the Oscars have become elitist, losing touch with “regular” movie-goers.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Bring back a host! Humor at these things is imperative!

 

[Boom]

They have to decide what's more important, I suppose. Voting for what they genuinely believe is the best, or voting for ratings.

 

[Kane52630]

The 'Best Popular Movie' Oscar is sounding better every year.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

Get Ricky Gervais to host, add some Marvel movies to the categories and you’ll have a winning combo.

 

[CaptainWagner]

I tend to agree with James Berardinelli's take on the declining ratings from last year:

I can’t argue with the statement that Parasite deserved Best Picture. I would have said the same about 1917, The Irishman, Once Upon a Time, or Joker. But the “Best Picture” category has never been fully about merit. It’s about celebrating cinema and, on that level, Parasite falls short. Why? Because hardly anyone has seen it. For 2019, it ended up at #70 on the box office chart with a domestic gross of $35M. To be fair, that’s an incredible haul for a subtitled movie and indicates it had some penetration into multiplexes. Nevertheless, Joe Mainstream or Jane Mainstream probably didn’t see it. And that’s where the Oscars’ continuing problem lies. Think back to the ‘90s and titles like Dances with Wolves, The Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, Schindler’s List, Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Titanic. Those were excellent movies that everyone saw. They were worthy of the Best Picture designation. In the 2010s, however, there have been The King’s Speech, The Artist, Birdman, Spotlight, Moonlight, The Shape of Water, and now Parasite. It’s not a matter of quality, it’s a matter of perception. And the perception is that the Oscars have become elitist, losing touch with “regular” movie-goers.

This is, IMO, one of the absolute worst takes around. The general public's movie-going taste going to **** isn't an excuse to lower the standards of the Oscars. Do you really think any of those 90's movies would have been big money makers today? This shouldn't be about ratings, and continuing to chase them is only going to result in more embarrassing mistakes.

As for the Best Actor fiasco... It's rough because in a normal situation (from what I've heard, still haven't seen The Father) Hopkins would have beat Boseman and most all would agree. But it's just extremely bad optics knowing how inclined the Academy is to give "consolatory" awards to white talent (sometimes explicitly at the expense of Black artists - see Pacino winning over Denzel) but they were unwilling to take their final chance at awarding Boseman his Oscar.

And for a host - Hire Aubrey Plaza and spare me any more of Gervais and his performatory edgelord scolding.

 

[NotNickFury]

Oof. Those ratings aren't gonna get any better.

So when Regina King said that people want to reach for their remote when it feels like Hollywood is lecturing them...yeah, she was right on the money! Ricky Gervais pretty much predicted this.

 

[samsnee]

I tend to agree with James Berardinelli's take on the declining ratings from last year:

I can’t argue with the statement that Parasite deserved Best Picture. I would have said the same about 1917, The Irishman, Once Upon a Time, or Joker. But the “Best Picture” category has never been fully about merit. It’s about celebrating cinema and, on that level, Parasite falls short. Why? Because hardly anyone has seen it. For 2019, it ended up at #70 on the box office chart with a domestic gross of $35M. To be fair, that’s an incredible haul for a subtitled movie and indicates it had some penetration into multiplexes. Nevertheless, Joe Mainstream or Jane Mainstream probably didn’t see it. And that’s where the Oscars’ continuing problem lies. Think back to the ‘90s and titles like Dances with Wolves, The Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, Schindler’s List, Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Titanic. Those were excellent movies that everyone saw. They were worthy of the Best Picture designation. In the 2010s, however, there have been The King’s Speech, The Artist, Birdman, Spotlight, Moonlight, The Shape of Water, and now Parasite. It’s not a matter of quality, it’s a matter of perception. And the perception is that the Oscars have become elitist, losing touch with “regular” movie-goers.

It’s chicken and egg though. Studios don’t want to take those kind of risks anymore. They just want franchise and sequels because there’s a better chance of making their money back. If the major studios actually tried making a crowd pleaser that was actually engaging like a Forrest Gump or Dances with Wolves, then have a better chance of being nominated.

 

[jmc]

If you win an Oscar but no-one at home watches it happen, have you actually won anything?

 

[Drizzle]

I tend to agree with James Berardinelli's take on the declining ratings from last year:

I can’t argue with the statement that Parasite deserved Best Picture. I would have said the same about 1917, The Irishman, Once Upon a Time, or Joker. But the “Best Picture” category has never been fully about merit. It’s about celebrating cinema and, on that level, Parasite falls short. Why? Because hardly anyone has seen it. For 2019, it ended up at #70 on the box office chart with a domestic gross of $35M. To be fair, that’s an incredible haul for a subtitled movie and indicates it had some penetration into multiplexes. Nevertheless, Joe Mainstream or Jane Mainstream probably didn’t see it. And that’s where the Oscars’ continuing problem lies. Think back to the ‘90s and titles like Dances with Wolves, The Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, Schindler’s List, Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Titanic. Those were excellent movies that everyone saw. They were worthy of the Best Picture designation. In the 2010s, however, there have been The King’s Speech, The Artist, Birdman, Spotlight, Moonlight, The Shape of Water, and now Parasite. It’s not a matter of quality, it’s a matter of perception. And the perception is that the Oscars have become elitist, losing touch with “regular” movie-goers.

This is true. The 2010s had some pretty obscure Best Picture winners for the most part. Not that they weren't great and deserving films but they haven't captured the cultural zeitgeist like Forrest Gump or Titanic did back in the '90s.

 

[Donner]

People who ask these sort of stupid questions should never be allowed to ask anyone anything ever again.

 

[Hannibal75]

It’s chicken and egg though. Studios don’t want to take those kind of risks anymore. They just want franchise and sequels because there’s a better chance of making their money back. If the major studios actually tried making a crowd pleaser that was actually engaging like a Forrest Gump or Dances with Wolves, then have a better chance of being nominated.

That's true. But I'm not so sure that if Titanic or Lord of the Rings came out today it would even be nominated for Best Picture, let alone win. I think that the 2009 snub of the Dark Knight was in retrospect an inflection point for the Academy which signaled a movement away from popular cinema and towards more artsy, elitist stuff that was usually confined to art houses and film festivals.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

I honestly did not know there would be Oscars this year considering 2020 was pretty much a s*** show regarding major movie releases thanks to the pandemic

It wasn’t until late last night that I saw all these Oscar articles popping up on my feed

But anyway, I think it’s total BS how certain outlets have been crapping on Anthony Hopkins just because Chadwick didn’t win. Show the man some respect, Hopkins is a damn legend

 

[NotNickFury]

I honestly did not know there would be Oscars this year considering 2020 was pretty much a s*** show regarding major movie releases thanks to the pandemic

It wasn’t until late last night that I saw all these Oscar articles popping up on my feed

But anyway, I think it’s total BS how certain outlets have been crapping on Anthony Hopkins just because Chadwick didn’t win. Show the man some respect, Hopkins is a damn legend

After all, it's not Hopkins' fault that the Academy rearranged things to end with Best Actor in the hopes that they could pat themselves on the back by ending with a Boseman win.

 

[Frodo]

I gotta say, I haven't seen alot of outlets crapping on Hopkins himself, it's been about the Academy's decisions. There's a difference.

It's the Academy that's come under fire the most, not Hopkins.

Perhaps in the twitter-verse there are people actually bashing Hopkins ,but I haven't seen this great hate against Hopkins himself outside of some trolls .

 

[metaphysician]

Wow it’s only been three years since the Moonlight/LaLa Land fiasco. It seriously feels like 20 years ago.

That was the Before Time. During the plague, time has no meaning. *ahem*

 

[Drizzle]

I gotta say, I haven't seen alot of outlets crapping on Hopkins himself, it's been about the Academy's decisions. There's a difference.

It's the Academy that's come under fire the most, not Hopkins.

Perhaps in the twitter-verse there are people actually bashing Hopkins ,but I haven't seen this great hate against Hopkins himself outside of some trolls .

I've seen much of the same. Nobody's really blaming Hopkins, as they shouldn't. It's the show's producers that are getting all the heat for this.

 

[antsman41]

Just have Mads Mikkelson hangout in a classy bar... re-enacting the nominations, and casually revealing the winners. He can also do all of the musical performances.

It'll be the most entertaining Oscars of all time.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

CNBC - Golden Globes viewership sinks to 13-year low, as awards show loses two-thirds of audience
The Washington Post - The Grammys are the latest award show to see a drastic drop in TV ratings
The Week - American Music Awards ratings dive 50 percent, hitting a new low
The Wrap - 2020 Billboard Music Awards on NBC Fall 62% From Last Year to New Record Low in Ratings
The Wrap - SAG Awards Halve Last Year's Viewers, Fall to New Record Low
Oscars Ratings Plummet by 58 Percent Compared to 2020's Show - Variety

Lower awards show viewership is not just an Oscars thing. Shows without mass gatherings is not enticing to people on top of the usual attrition issues.

 

[metaphysician]

I tend to agree with James Berardinelli's take on the declining ratings from last year:

I can’t argue with the statement that Parasite deserved Best Picture. I would have said the same about 1917, The Irishman, Once Upon a Time, or Joker. But the “Best Picture” category has never been fully about merit. It’s about celebrating cinema and, on that level, Parasite falls short. Why? Because hardly anyone has seen it. For 2019, it ended up at #70 on the box office chart with a domestic gross of $35M. To be fair, that’s an incredible haul for a subtitled movie and indicates it had some penetration into multiplexes. Nevertheless, Joe Mainstream or Jane Mainstream probably didn’t see it. And that’s where the Oscars’ continuing problem lies. Think back to the ‘90s and titles like Dances with Wolves, The Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, Schindler’s List, Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Titanic. Those were excellent movies that everyone saw. They were worthy of the Best Picture designation. In the 2010s, however, there have been The King’s Speech, The Artist, Birdman, Spotlight, Moonlight, The Shape of Water, and now Parasite. It’s not a matter of quality, it’s a matter of perception. And the perception is that the Oscars have become elitist, losing touch with “regular” movie-goers.

I'd say that's not just a *perception*, given the facts on the ground.

My own "it will never happen" suggestion would be that the Oscars for year X should be held in year X+5 or X+10. Movies should have to demonstrate that people continue to care about them after they aren't new anymore, before they can get any awards.

 

[metaphysician]

It’s chicken and egg though. Studios don’t want to take those kind of risks anymore. They just want franchise and sequels because there’s a better chance of making their money back. If the major studios actually tried making a crowd pleaser that was actually engaging like a Forrest Gump or Dances with Wolves, then have a better chance of being nominated.

I would argue that, if the Academy were actually as willing as you claim, then we wouldn't be having this debate, because movies like Winter Soldier and Deadpool would have been contenders. Instead, they weren't, not because of some mythical decline in audience taste, but because the Academy voters are biased against "genre movies" or "franchises". Despite movies like Forest Gump and Dances with Wolves *absolutely* being on the same artistic level of "pop culture creations", they got far more respect because. . . well, I'd say mostly because of 70s New Hollywood reverence for auteur directors as the font of all that is good and true.