George and others call for reverse of Academy's decision to shorten their presentation

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The Hollywood Reporter

MOVIES TV BUSINESS STYLE POLITICS TECH CULTURE AWARDS VIDEO SITESSubscribeNewslettersSITE TOOLS

CinemaCon SIGGRAPH SMPTE AFCI Global Directory

 

FEBRUARY 14, 2019 9:01am PT by Carolyn Giardina

Alfonso Cuaron, George Clooney and Brad Pitt Join Call for Academy to Reverse Its Oscar Decision

Paul Drinkwater/NBC

Alfonso Cuaron

IN THIS STORY

The OscarsThe Oscars

The revolt stems from the decision to present four Oscar categories during commercial breaks.

A group of actors — as well as more directors, cinematographers and other filmmakers — have added their names to the open letter sent to the Film Academy and the producers of the Oscars. The letter urges the Academy to reverse its decision to present four categories during commercial breaks during the ABC broadcast of the 91st Academy Awards, which is now just 10 days away.

Those who have joined the growing revolt include helmers Alfonso Cuaron, Christopher Nolan, Michael Mann, Alejandro G. Inarritu and Guillermo del Toro, as well as actors George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Robert De Niro, Elizabeth Banks, Peter Dinklage and Kerry Washington.

The letter calls the Academy's decision "nothing less than an insult to those of us who have devoted our lives and passions to our chosen profession. … The vocal response from our peers and the immediate backlash from industry leaders over the Academy’s decision makes it clear that it’s not too late to have this decision reversed."

In an email to the Academy membership on Monday, Academy president John Bailey, who belongs to the cinematographers branch, laid out the plan for this year's show, including the presentation of four Oscar categories — cinematography, film editing, live-action shorts and makeup and hairstyling — during commercial breaks, with the winners' speeches set to air later in the broadcast. The plan calls for there to be a rotation each year, meaning that at least four different categories would use this format in 2020 and that the four mentioned would be exempt. (This was first announced last year but without details and specific categories.)

READ MOREAcademy Leaders Defend Oscars Plan Amid Growing Revolt

Bailey emphasized that the Academy is "still honoring the achievements of all 24 awards on the Oscars” while addressing pressure to shorten the broadcast (which a year ago ran 3 hours and 53 minutes).

The Academy quickly responded to the open letter on Wednesday with its own letter to members, assuring them that “no award category at the 91st Oscars ceremony will be presented in a manner that depicts the achievements of its nominees and winners as less than any others.”

The Academy also asserted that the branches of the affected categories had “volunteered” to go first this year. According to several sources, a video demonstration of what this new format will look like was shown to the various branches. It was generally described as “respectful" and included most of the presentation, minus the winner's walk to the stage.

The open letter urging a reversal of this decision was first released Wednesday and was backed by such filmmakers as Spike Lee, Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino. The letter with new names can be found here.

The Academy has enough issues with this year's ceremony, without adding this to the mix. Stop trying to make people who aren't funny funny, and ditch the hokey song-and-dance numbers.

Or - hey, here's an idea - don't let the network milk the show for gazillions in ad revenue, and have fewer commercials and more show.

Great suggestion! Too bad they'll never do it. The network's sole reason for airing the show is to get ad revenue.

I'm confused about how this will work in the future. Each year four different categories will get this treatment? Does that mean that "best actor" or "best picture" could get the same treatment? Why don't they just cut out all the winners' walks to the stage and save time that way?

Do you get the feeling that somebody didn't think this all the way through?

Can you imagine Meryl Streep winning her umpteenth Oscar during a commercial break for medicine for irritable bowel syndrome? Or the end of the show being the award for Best Supporting Actor because Best Picture came during the promo for local news?

LOL! Somebody needs to sit down and actually think about how this will play out. Right now it seems more like something drumpf would think up than an actual plan by intelligent adults,

Well someone wised up.  The Academy has changed their tune and going back to their traditional format as of today.  

I think the Academy is struggling to hold on to their audience and trying to appeal to a younger demographic.  
They attempted to add a ‘Best’ popular movie category and they were raked over the coals for that move.  So they nixed that idea.  This latest move to try to cut the length of the show obviously didn’t go over well so back to the drawing board ....

Whatever they decide to do, they'd better do it quick. They haven't got much time left.

Mm, agree with everybody and I gather those affected agreed to be off-screen for one year, and then it's somebody else's turn! Crazy given these are the people who make the films!

This might sound really naive - but why can't all the adverts be in two big features at either end of the awards??

That's nice to hear.

PAN - To answer your question: If they put all the ads in one or two big blocs at the beginning or end, nobody would watch them.

Maybe they should play up the commercials like they do for the Superbowl - present new ads that haven't been seen before - or maybe make a category for best Oscars show commercial, to give advertisers an incentive to air really creative ads during the show. They need to do something to get more viewers.

Of course they'd get more viewers if more people could afford to see more movies. People used to go to the movies multiple times a week. Now ticket prices are so high seeing a movie in a theater is a special occasion. Many wait to see films until they're online, on dvd or on tv - which is usually after the Oscars. Why watch awards given to films you haven't seen?

I think about the huge number of commercials that run during the Super Bowl and yet it still gets a strong viewership every year.   The hype over the Super Bowl commercials definitely helps to turn out a bigger audience.  But I think there are a few reasons why the Oscars have lost viewership.  Many of the films nominated are not necessarily the most popular films (Black Panther an exception this year).  Many are considered arthouse films that appeal to smaller audiences.   And as Lizzy said many people wait to see nominated movies when they are released on dvd so there is less personal investment  by viewers to see if their favorite film wins because they haven’t seen it yet.

And nowadays there are so many film award shows (Screen Actors Awards, Golden Globes, Critics Choice) viewed before the Oscar ceremony that I feel people’s interest is exhausted by then.  

The Oscars has gotten more political over the years and that turns off a number of viewers.  Many people think the Oscar winners are predictable, the Academy plays it too safe, and there is less spontaneity.  Audience attention spans (especially younger audiences) have waned over the years too and the idea of sitting through what many consider is an overly long affair of predictable speeches and scores of commercials is just too much to commit to.  

But I will be watching.  I’ve always loved the Oscars. 
For me it’s a tradition.  Even if I’ve only seen one movie that’s up for an award I almost always find it entertaining on some level.  Just watched the Spike Lee directed ‘Blackkklansman’ last night.  Terrific, entertaining, and the message is of-the-moment when it comes to racism and immigration in the U.S.

Not seen that, but have seen Can You Ever Forgive Me, The Favourite and Vice - all brilliant and must-sees for different reasons.

The Oscars is such an iconic event I can't understand the fall in viewers really. Maybe it has something to do with concentration span - there's proof now that the more ads you see the more reduced concentration your brain has apparently.

I thought Jimmy Kimmel did a great job and it was really inventive last year - the British equivalent the BAFTAS is on the BBC so no ads at all! And some people find it quite long becos there's no interval.

Maybe they need Fey and Poehler?

I don't know what, but they need something. I know I'll watch, but I also know I'll probably think it goes on too long and not be as entertaining as I hope.

Hindsight is always 20/20, so maybe the Academy members who put the show together will sit down the next day and see where they got it right and where it went wrong - and use what they learn when they plan next year's show.

'Roma' just might win Best Picture. I don't know anybody who's seen it, and I hang out with people who do movies.

A strong contender is 'The Favourite.' Ditto.

What these two films have in common is pedigree. Not saying they're not deserving movies - I'm seeing both on Thursday - but certain directors will get their pictures and their talent nominated, almost no matter what. And maybe that's not all bad. They've gained their reputations for a reason.

But there is an actual, if unofficial, genre called 'prestige drama,' which certain directors are known to specialize in, and the Academy leans much too heavily on, IMO. The problem is, the viewing public couldn't give half a crap about prestige dramas, and they're not going to show up for a four-hour ceremony that celebrates them.

I've seen most of the Best Picture noms. None of them were great, IMO. 'Black Panther' is beautiful and a breakthrough, but it did not turn me into a fan of the genre. 'Green Book' has elevated performances, but the script, again only my opinion, is more melodrama than organic conflict. And so on.

But, for instance, there is a little-known movie titled 'Hearts Beat Loud' that stayed with me far longer than any of these nominated films did. And there was nothing in the performances or direction that is any less stellar than what Oscar has for us this year. But movies like that don't make the cut. No pedigree.

If I were choosing hosts, I'd take Samantha Bee and Trevor Noah in a heartbeat.

Totally agree with your host choices Way2 - who's off from their normal gigs this week to prep?

Roma might just do it for Netflix - saw an interesting article on someone called Lisa Taback who is seriously invested in that outcome in the NYT

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It's too bad all the late-night hosts are so left-leaning liberal. The network wouldn't want to scare off half the shrinking audience they've got. If I had my druthers - just people who would make me laugh: Jeff Foxworthy and his crew, Wanda Sykes and "Fluffy"  Iglesias(whose real name escapes me -   senior moment).

Having worked for a movie company and a theater chain I know how interrelated all the business aspects of "show business" are. Often penny-wise and pound foolish, it all boils down to money. The more it costs to create a project, the more it costs to promote it and the theaters to screen it - so fewer theaters can afford to show a lot of the films that are in contention and fewer people will see them. It's a vicious cycle.

Maybe they should take some of the money from the publicity budget and lower the amount they charge theaters to show the movies. If they could get a wider release in theaters, word-of-mouth would get them free publicity if the movie was good. If it wasn't, it could die an early death and save them the publicity money. Just my humble opinion.

Lizzy, you're certainly right, to a degree. But the people who don't want to watch "liberal" late night hosts already think 'Hollywood' is a cesspool of liberalism, so they don't care about the Oscars anyway. The Academy is afraid of scaring off advertising dollars for the network, and that's it.

I personally think that no amount of money is going to meaningfully increase the audience for a movie like 'The Favourite.' Nobody is going looking for royal period dramas except the people who already like them. Promotion money is not going to, for the most part, get more people in the seats. What that money is meant to do, IMO, is hype the movie for awards. The director, producer/production company, and studio get "Oscar nominated" or "Oscar winning" after their names forever and ever, and it's a money magnet. They get to make more movies that not too many people will see. Yet another vicious cycle.

Way2Old - You're probably right about the studios using promotion money to hype for awards that they feel will bring them more production money in the future. They can make more licensing their product to streaming services, cable, dvd and whatever else comes along than showing in theaters. Some day that's all we'll have, and they won't need to spend so much on promotion.

Still, I'm old fashioned enough to enjoy films more with an audience in a theater on a huge screen than sitting alone somewhere watching on a tv, computer or phone. I just wish it was affordable enough for people to go as often as they used to. When movie-going was a weekly (or more) event the theaters were full and people saw all kinds of movies. - and they didn't have to be award winners, either! They were inexpensive enough to see even the not-so-great ones and not feel cheated. Fridays with friends, Saturdays with dates - but every week at least one night at the movies. I remember one night going to see 2 movies in separate theaters. Never gonna happen now - too expensive.

I also had two
In a row

Sigh... No more