Seth Rogen on the Oscars: “Maybe people just don’t care”
The actor discussed the Academy Awards during an interview about the Super Bowl commercial he has with Paul Rudd
Aux News Seth Rogen
Now, stoners are known for their apathy at times (and sure, he’s not known for his decorum at awards ceremonies to begin with), but we sense Seth Rogen is not high when he suggests that most people simply “just don’t care” too much about the Oscars.
While discussing a commercial he made with Paul Rudd for an event that gets much higher ratings than the Oscars (the Super Bowl), Rogen boldly states that maybe “people just don’t care” to see a bunch of elite industry people awarding other elites in the industry.
“I don’t get why movie people care so much if other people care what awards we give ourselves,” Rogen tells Insider. “To me, maybe people just don’t care. I don’t care who wins the automobile awards. No other industry expects everyone to care about what awards they shower upon themselves. Maybe people just don’t care. Maybe they did for a while and they stopped caring. And why should they?”
And well, people over the last few years have shown less interest in the Oscars, as seen in the consistent decline in ratings. Last year’s ceremony was the lowest in the event’s history. Last year’s Oscars garnered only 9.23 million viewers, which was a 51% drop from the 18.69 million who watched the Academy Awards in 2020. This is even lower than the year prior, as the 2019 Academy Awards were viewed in 29.6 million households. So to Rogen’s point, yes people did care at one point, but it seems the interest has been fading.
For the last three years, The Academy switched things up by not having a host, but this time around it is bringing the emcee position back, with the mysterious host-to-be still not revealed. Only time will tell if this change will bring in viewers once more.
The 2022 Oscars are set to take place Sunday, March 27 at the Dolby Theatre.
269 Comments
He has a point.
I mean, his comparison to Automotive Awards doesn’t make a lot of sense because the Academy Awards is about celebrity and visuals/stories about the human condition/escapism that resonate with us in ways cars don’t. And for better or worse, people care about celebrities more than cars.But he’s not wrong.
The fact that people care about celebrities is the reason the Academy Awards are broadcast in the first place. But there are always people that act like these awards should reflect popular opinion, for some reason. And I’m not saying the Academy is blameless in this; the “Nominated for X number of Academy Awards” is a time-honored marketing tactic that suggests audiences SHOULD care what does and doesn’t win an academy award. But my feeling is, it’s 2022, and people know the game. They’re industry awards. Quit getting your panties in a bunch because the latest MCU movie wasn’t nominated for an Oscar, Mr. Strawman.
Not to mention that we’ve spent the last 2 years watching any number of movies on multiple different platforms at different times.I don’t really pay attention to movies and I usually had still heard of most of what got nominated. But this year? The fuck is “Power of the Dog?” There was a movie about Lucille Ball? That sounds familiar…
People weren’t going to theaters, and the factured nature of streaming meant some of this stuff debuted on platforms many of us simply don’t have or even want.Prime, Netflix, Hulu, D+ etc etc etc, hell…by nature of not going to theaters or using streaming services we don’t even see trailers or ads for movies and thus aren’t even aware of what’s coming out aside from what pops up in front of us when we open a service (or through word of mouth).
Just wait until the MCU and Marvel invent “Hollywoodproducerman,” and the entire film is about how the movie industry is saving the world. Thing will be nominated for a record 18 awards.
I certainly see a lot more movies in a year than I buy cars.
In total fairness to him, the “automotive awards” was almost certainly just an off-the-cuff ‘here’s an industry that just hands out awards to those involved without expecting or demanding that the entire world go out of their way to give a shit about it’ example that popped into his head when he was being asked about it and fishing for examples to support his point, and likely wasn’t intended to be an exact parallel. After all, the point about celebrity arguably just supports what he’s saying; that’s tuning in because someone wants to see beautiful people wearing stylish clothes, not because they give a shit about the awards themselves.
Or he was so stoned, it was the best he could come up with at the moment?? But yeah…he’s got a point.
The awards are. The ceremonies are about patting each other on the back for 4 hours, when all anyone really wants to see are the ones they give away in the last 20 minutes.
And the award for best rounded rectangle vaguely shaped like a car goes to……that car that looks like all the other cars! I knew you could do it. Come get a vaguely car shaped trophy.
People care about celebrities, but in a social media world with tons of content, there are much better ways to access them now.
I think people care more about movie awards partially because it’s celebrities but I think it’s mostly because they want to see if their opinions on movies was “right.”
Not a sister-site Jalopnik reader, I see…
Reader but in the greys…sad trombone sound.
That people don’t care about awards shows? If that was the case there wouldn’t be awards shows.Though is it really any surprise that people stopped watching when there wasn’t a host? That’s when ratings started to tank. Or maybe it started with the one hosted by the rapist and the ponzi scheme victim.They should just let Conan O’Brien host from now on and get it over with.
You don’t think Hollywood wouldn’t dress up in expensive clothes and take the opportunity to pat themselves on the back if nobody cared? Because I kinda think they’d totally do that anyhow.
He’s saying that maybe people don’t care about award shows anymore, and the tanking ratings certainly suggest that. Award shows themselves have been around for decades when the media and celebrity landscape was a lot different than it is now, and people would tune in to watch beautiful, famous people crowd into a room.I admit I misread his comments though. I thought he didn’t understand why non-movie people care about what awards they give themselves. He actually said he doesn’t “get why movie people care so much if other people care what awards we give ourselves.” Which, Seth, c’mon:Money.But I don’t think non-movie people should care. The Academy Awards aren’t supposed to represent anyone other than the voting body of the Academy. Other pointless award ceremonies exist to award whatever popular thing grossed a billion dollars that year.
Or maybe it started with the one hosted by the rapist and the ponzi scheme victim.Are we… cancelling ponzi scheme victims now?
We’re cancelling everyone now. It just saves time.
That people don’t care about awards shows? If that was the case there wouldn’t be awards shows.
They certainly don’t care like they used to, is the thing. It’s why the Oscars have been scrambling to shake up the format for years to try and draw interest.
I feel like you got two things there that don’t really compare?
“ If that was the case there wouldn’t be awards shows.”
There are far fewer award shows now than 25 years ago.
“Or maybe it started with the one hosted by the rapist”.This is the entertainment industry. You’ll have to be a lot more specific than “the rapist”.
Sadly, yes. I had forgotten about Hathaway’s issue.
That people don’t care about awards shows? If that was the case there wouldn’t be awards shows.Or… that one of the by-products of the continuous encouragement of the public’s obsession with celebrities is that people assume that that many celebrities getting together must be interesting, and thus even the most minor faux pas get amplified to an absurd degree. When said celebrities realized that becoming grist for hack stand-up comedians wasn’t doing their careers any favors, they went on their best behavior at these things, which in turn resulted in various people complaining that the Oscars were boring because nobody was making a fool of themselves. (Cintra Wilson, whose work used to be great, got on that train, and if she ever disembarked from it, it was after I’d stopped caring.) Thus, the falling ratings for something that wasn’t inherently interesting in the first place; if it was, Bruce Vilanch wouldn’t have had a career. Rogen is right: it really is like any other industry awards show. The awards tend to go to the showboaters rather than the people who do the real work.
And yet, in the other thread about the oscars not requiring proof of vaccine, you’d think the people in the comments were all formally invited from how much they seem to care.
Yes, the commentariat of this entertainment website is representative of the broader public.
Shyamalan Twist: My name is Russell Crowe, and I’m an actor.
I think audiences don’t care as much anymore, but Hollywood insiders sure do because there’s still capital you can accumulate if you win, or even if you’re nominated. Even if viewership is down, I think there’s still some weight placed on the titles of “Oscar Winner” or “Oscar Nominee”. In normal times, you’d see a box office bump following an Oscars win, maybe even result in a theatrical re-release. Oscar winners also (probably) get to command higher salaries and better paying projects. Plenty of monetary reasons to keep it going.
I suspect the more cynical reason is that if nobody but celebrities/etc cared about the Academy Awards, none of them would show up unless they were one of the nominees (and even then possibly not).
“He has a point.”
Does he? The lowest-rated Oscars had slightly lower viewership than The Walking Dead did in its prime, when it was the most-watched show on TV.
So yes, please, tell me how people don’t care again.
I can confirm that I don’t give a shit about millionaires patting themselves on the back with trophies of small men. Ill watch whatever I want to and awards don’t affect that whatsoever.
Oh yeah that’s absolutely true.
it’s not that people don’t care, it’s that they only care so much. if it’s there and easy to watch, people are gonna watch it.the problem is that the media landscape is so splintered that there isn’t an easy way to watch it aside from on tv. fewer people own tvs, fewer people with tvs pay for tv or have an HD antenna, and the oscars have been too slow to adapt to streaming, period. now, that probably has to do with long-term contracts, etc, but the fact remains that broadcast television is not as easy to watch as it once was. it’s just not the standard anymore.like, i’m gonna watch the oscars, but i’m gonna type ‘reddit + abc stream’ into google and figure it out. the only thing that can save the oscars is an easy streaming solution, period.if netflix wants to be a serious media contender, they should consider picking up the broadcast rights. youtube also. ultimately, i bet people care as much as they ever did, it’s just not as easy for people to watch.
I feel like they’ve been livestreamed for free on the network’s website for the past few years? No?
Kill yourself
You only need a fancy antenna to convert the digital broadcast signal for an older TV; if you have a newer TV, then a cheap pair of rabbit ears does the trick just fine.
well noone i know has either haha. any it’s possible it’s easy to watch on abcs website (not in canada, admittedly) but…the average person isn’t going to do that.
I saw something interesting the other day. I was looking at the review aggregates for a new film called Redeeming Love. It’s your run of the mill faith-based film, about which I have no particularly feeling one way or another. Most don’t strike me as terribly good, because they’re not well crafted or acted, but intended to preach. I have seen some faith based films that are really terrific (Babette’s Feast, for one, or anything by Cecil B Demillle). Anyways, this film on Rotten Tomatoes seemed to typify this real disconnect: critical reviews sat at 14% rating. Very rotten. But the audience score was 95%. Now it’s possible that what we’re seeing is review bombing to bring up the scores. But then I started reading the comments, and they seemed in earnest, and far from spam. This highlights a real problem the Academy faces. I think the ratings have dropped because the viewers feel like the Academy has left them. That their choices don’t reflect the films they prefer. I don’t know whether this is true or not. Accurate or not. But it highlights a choice the Academy must make: does it want to boost ratings? If so it’s going to have to make inroads in terms of the films that are recognized, and evaluate just how it determines what makes a film meritorious. Or they should own their procedures and methods, and accept that in the the future the Oscar may be less of a marketing gimmick and ratings bonanza, than it is an award that reflects whom they choose to honor, and not whom the viewers want to see honored.
well it’s also like, the very existence of rotten tomatoes is bad for the academy. if everyone is a movie critic then who cares what movie critics think?
Everyone has always been a movie critic. Now you’re just seeing everyone’s opinion.If we have data, that’s great, but if all we have are opinions, let’s go with mine.
The Academy isn’t movie critics, it’s industry professionals — actors, writers, directors, and other people who work in film production. Hence “I don’t get why movie people care so much if other people care what awards we give ourselves.”
I was a movie critic for several years on a popular website when the Internet was first taking off, and I began to feel that shift in real time. What I was doing became damn-near pointless because the web had a zillion reviews of the same movie, regardless of whether or not the person could write or had any insight into the film or filmmaking process itself. I had a group of loyal readers who enjoyed what I was doing, but generally speaking, negative reviews generated reams of hate mail and positive reviews generated reams of hate mail. It was a very strange position to be in.
These days everybody on the Internet has opinions on everything. But maybe it’s worth listening to actual professionals? Movie criticism may not be neurosurgery, but it still takes a fair amount of knowledge of filmmaking and film history to do well.
i personally love film criticism and i genuinely consider it an artform in and of itself. BUT, the overall feelings i see from people in my real life and online is that critics are all awful people with agendas. nevermind the fact that one would think that in order to want to be a film critic you probably love movies more than anything…but these people aren’t operating on logic either.
people who like the writing of critics they enjoy reading?
I barely consider “critic” a real career anymore. Just a dude with an opinion who gets lucky.
the faith movie mill doesn’t make movies, they make content directly marketed towards people to for the purpose of affirmationthere should be no surprise people love it, it’s like wondering why movies that are made for and marketed almost exclusively to apple lovers get real good reviews from people who love apples .. they’re not going to “review” the movie, they’re responding positively to the message that apples fuckin’ rule
I don’t care what you say, ‘Crisp: The Golden Delicious Story’ is a great film by anyone’s metrics.
Crisp was a bought-out propaganda fest, backed by Big Produce and a lot of under-the-fruit-stand payoffs. “My First, My Last, My Everything Fuji-Love” was THE one to see.
Oh, come on. ‘Fuji-Love’ is just a retread of the director’s ‘Pink Ladies Who Crunch’. Change the record, man.
Whoa! Pretty big talk from a film riding the coattails of Michael Bay’s Fruitaggedon spectacular “Red Delicious—Red or Dead” two years prior.
Pink Lady or GTFO
Granny. Goddam. Smith.
Yep yep yep. We don’t even know for sure that any of the people who upvoted it even saw the movie–it could have been one pastor at one megachurch who told his congregation to upvote it, even if they hadn’t seen it. Reading some of the reviews on RT was fun, though; Katie Walsh calls it “tradwife fan fiction”, and I now have the word Godsploitation in my vocabulary.
A faith based film is a bad example for the reasons you cite, but the disconnect between audiences and the academy has been there for a long time if you look at other popular genres.
Having just eaten a honeycrisp, I can confirm.
It’s basically like if you polled a bunch of critics, and then a bunch of five year olds, about their opinion on The Boss Baby.
This gets to the core of the issue.
The simple answer is that people watching a movie like that are already within a self-selecting group (yes, it’s possible they may also be more motivated to leave positive reviews because of some feeling of being aggrieved by being ‘left out’ or whatever) but that doesn’t make the reviewers wrong. If a neutral sampling of Americans watched and reviewed that movie you’d end up with an audience score also around 14%.
When you get right down to it, each reviewer is “right” because they’re telling you what they think. There is no right or wrong, just as there isn’t really a “best” picture. If you think about it, the concept of best picture or best anything else at the Oscars is nonsensical.
I won’t comment on the public FT scores for faith-based films. But as for the Oscars, I think you’re onto something with the leaving viewers part. Just not in the way you suggest – there are still plenty of popular favorites that get the nod. I’m thinking more about the show itself, where we have been getting the same political lectures from winners for at least the last five years. I cannot for the life of me understand why actors think the viewing public wants that from a show that is supposed to highlight excellence in escapism.
Who gives a fuck what the audience wants? The winners of Oscars are not the ones who put on the show. They don’t care about the ratings.Also: I wish EVERY asshole who won an award talked for as long as they wanted about whatever sociopolitical topic strikes them. Sure, we might have to endure a conspiracy theory hour from Voight or Eastwood or whatever other aging GOP ballsack happens to be good at their craft. But then we could get a couple of hours of progressives making you escapism crybabies mad.
K
I wonder why you think the political messages at the Oscars is a recent phenomenon. You can go back to at least 1973 when Brando refused his Oscar as a political statement. Perhaps the real reason for the lack of interest in Movies is … the lack of people going to movies? In 2019, 26 movies made more than 100 million, in 2020, 6 did, and in 2021 12 did.
Yeah I feel like people who are gonna comment on a Rotten Tomatoes page about a Christian film are probably not representative of the general moviegoing public.Would Jacob’s Ladder be considered a faith-based film?
No, but it’s a fantastic Rush song…
We shouldn’t indulge in snobbery and act like critics are the be-all-end-all in tastemaking, but just like them, sometimes the “general public” is just wrong about a movie.
Things are too polarized now for most people to tune into the Oscars just because of a movie, especially when only a handful of films even do well at the box office.
the viewers feel like the Academy has left them
Wait, why should the Academy be ‘with’ them in the first place?
I don’t know if faith-based movies are the best examples, but the Academy does seem to occupy this weird middlebrow spot that isn’t a great reflection of either mainstream taste or serious critical love.
Like it’s understandable why they didn’t nominate the Spider-Man movie, far and away the biggest thing to come out this year, but they also didn’t nominate the top critics choice here, at the New Yorker, Esquire, Rolling Stone, CBS News, USA Today, or Paste. Even outlets whose top critic’s choice did make the list, like the Guardian, still had three of their top five not make the cut. So if the Oscars are out of sync with both general audiences and people who evaluate movies professionally, it doesn’t seem like there’s much of a natural constituency for their process outside of the industry itself.
The sorting is getting more obvious, but we’ve been this way for years.The conservative religious holding their kids out of mainstream schools. Listening to entirely news and opinion (I happened to be driving from FL to Texas on election night 2008; the AM radio in Mississippi/Louisiana was nonstop callers tearfully urging everyone to vote — for McCain, obviously, so obvious that it didn’t need to be stated — so they could end abortion). I think the movies might be one of the newer elements, but the whole thing is far from new.Different world, same country.
It’s been decades since any of the Oscar “must sees” have qualified as that in my book.I’ve just come to the realization that what I consider a “good movie” and what Oscar voters consider one? Just aren’t the same. It’s not even a situation where I like trashy movies (which I do like them, just not exclusively) and can’t appreciate what else is out there.Big example is Titanic. I saw at least two or three films that year that were more engaging, better produced, better acted etc. that would easily have qualified for “Best Picture” a thousand times more than the bloated mess that won. I’m still pretty convinced that the entire reason Titanic was the unstoppable Oscar monster it turned into revolved around the industry realizing if they DIDN’T vote it up, THEIR billion dollar vanity project might not get greenlit.
that’s because the only people GOING to those movies are people who know they want to see that shit. Obviously Kirk Cameron is going to go and give it a good review. Everyone else knows to stay away — except for the critics who are forced to.
Seth Rogen touches on this in his comments, but the problem is really a misunderstanding of what the Academy awards are. You say that the Academy’s choices don’t reflect what films the people prefer, but that’s not the point of the Oscars. Academy Award categories are nominated and voted on by members of the Academy, not the public. Seth says that these are awards “we give ourselves”, which is exactly right. These aren’t the People’s Choice awards. People who complain that the Academy Awards are out-of-touch just don’t understand what the Academy Awards are. So if the Academy actually cares about viewership ratings, then they need to change that fundamental aspect of their nomination and voting process so that popular choices get considered. But if the Academy wants to stay true to the reason they were founded in the first place, then they should just make the whole thing a private affair and stop broadcasting it. But Seth again hits the nail on the head when he says, “No other industry expects everyone to care about what awards they shower upon themselves.” 3 hours of actors/producers/directors walking a red carpet in whatever stupid outlandish outfit they could find from some shitty designer while giving brain-dead commentary to brain-dead interviewers, followed by 17 hours of minor technical awards, when all people really care about are Best Actress/Actor/Director/Picture. Other than the people winning those awards, does anyone in the public actually care about the Best Hairstylist In A Foreign Documentary About Third-World Animation Techniques award? This entire award show is the Academy members all circle-jerking themselves, and the public just doesn’t give a crap.
You said it well. The Academy somewhere along the way forgot, I think, what these awards were in the beginning. They were a marketing device, in the days when movies rolled out slowly, and depending on where you lived, you might wait a year before a movie reached your town. It was not unusual in early days for a film to win its Oscars before it even went into wide release. The Oscar was meant to drive up interest and ticket sales. You’ll even see trailers that tout a film’s Oscar wins. But then this method lost importance as films came out wide more rapidly, and in some cases were available on video before the Oscars, and as a result, the award became less of a tool to kick off a film’s run, than a climax to it. And I’m with you on the structure of the awards show. Its too bloated, and while I personally love the technical categories, I agree most don’t want to see it, and I personally hate seeing how the technical recipients get short shrift, because more time must be allocated to the Actors thanking their agents and first grade teachers. Personally, I make non-fiction films, and I shoot as well, and if I were so lucky as to win an Oscar for Documentary, or Cinematography, I wouldn’t even want to get it at that big ceremony. I’d rather receive my award from my peers, in a venue where I would be free to speak for more than 30 seconds. I’d be find with a separate ceremony for the technical recipients, and then you could have a primetime ceremony for the major awards that most want to see, and make it a simple, hour long affair.
Part of the problem with this argument, as much as I agree with it, is that the Oscars are a useful marketing tool. The Academy cares about eyes on the awards because the Academy cares about eyes on their projects.
It’s the same with science. Why should scientists, doctors or other experts in their field have any authority to tell us what’s best for us? Shouldn’t our feelings be more important than their informed opinions and conclusions?I’m not saying it’s totally apples to apples, because while there is a good deal of subjectivity in film criticism, it’s still an objectively oriented analysis. STILL, we’ve reached a point as a society where the voice of the uninformed is as valid as the voice of the expert within the public sphere, and there’s way more uninformed people than experts.
I dunno, a faith film is always going to have a huge disconnect though. The typical viewer is going to be the proverbial choir, thrilled to be preached to, while the few reviewers willing to review a faith film are likely going into it in bad faith.It’s a bit like asking Yankees fans and Red Sox fans to review a Yankees game, and then comparing the output.
The thing is, it shouldn’t be about what the people want, we already know the answer and it’s called Box Office Mojo – and people want pictures of Spider-Man. The value of the Oscars has been, and should be, a collection of films which an organization with a degree of respectability thinks hey, maybe you should give a chance. That’s the marketing angle – whether in the technical categories (watch this because it looks cool) or the best picture race (watch this because we think you might enjoy it). The goal shouldn’t be “confirm the audience is correct” but instead “give the audience something to watch.”Of course, in the internet era we can just find a critic we like and listen to them or find alternative awards shows, and the Oscars do often get it aggressively wrong (hola Green Book) but the idea of a universally recognized entity giving out awards is a good way to highlight different work. Should it be a bloated 4+ hour monstrosity that is a chore to sit through? Of course not. But I really hate the narrative that they should only push popular entertainment.
ironically the bloated monstrosities are usually the superhero epics.
I think the Golden Globes model works better but unfortunately is torpedoed by the HFP’s insular, homogeneous bullshit. Because what film is “best” of the year is very subjective- most meaningful? most artful? most technically remarkable? most entertaining? most thought- or feeling-provoking?I think it’s less a situation of Hollywood being removed from the public and more that we have so many movies come out every year now. Far more movies than there were 40, 50, 60 or 70 years ago. And that selection is increasingly, blessedly diverse with something for every type and taste. With that glut of content, how do we choose just 5 or 10 or 20 that were the “best”? It used to just be a popularity contest but that’s been rendered moot by blockbusters diverging from what’s considered “real cinema.” The market is evolving in a direction where awards are going to be either much more niche or entirely obsolete.
I think the Academy absolutely needs awards that speak to the priorities of audiences. I think an award for stunt work is long over due, as well as recognition for performances that are motion capture derived (Andy Serkis having absolutely given award worthy performances). It would just take some thought and consideration, so it doesn’t come off like they’re trying to do the “separate but equal” approach that that aborted idea for a “popular picture” category intended as a sop to those angered by Black Panther’s exclusion.
The thing that’s the most frustrating is that you could do categories like “action” “comedy” “sci-fi” but, as we’ve seen in the Golden Globes, even the genre lines are so blurry that it’s tough to decide which category a film fits in. I agree that “stunt” is a perfect category to have, and I would say “motion capture” is a good one but I also have thought that there has needed to be a category for just straight up “voice acting” for years.
Why not color grading? Best Trailer? Best Punch-Up Dialogue. Best Catering.A lot of those fields have their own awards, too.
I don’t disagree but I think you’re so ridiculously subjective about what “speaks to the priorities of the audience”. So because YOU like stunt work and mocap performance, those should be categories? YOUR priorities are those of the general public? Come on, dude.
The Oscars was interesting to me 20-30 years ago. But now…eh. I mean, the next day, I’ll look those who won the main awards. But that’s about the extent of my interest now.
I think there’s a lot of nostalgia for old Hollywood glamour that the Oscars used to showcase, and by “old Hollywood”, I’m thinking of as recently as the 1990s. People want big couples and people like Jack Nicholson and Julia Roberts posing on the red carpet. I feel like there’s less of that, and maybe that’s not a bad sign because it makes room for films that in the old days would have been overlooked (like Parasite or Drive My Car while would not bring much star power…Song Kang-ho doesn’t count).I listen to The Ringer’s The Big Picture podcast, and it can be annoying because all I’ve been hearing are Sean Fennessey and Amanda Dobbins yelling about how the Oscars should nominate Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck so the Oscars can have some glamour. Maybe they’re only joking (I don’t think they are), but if there are more deserving nominees, too bad for JLo and Ben Affleck. I’d rather have recognition for good work minimally swayed by who’s pretty.
I’ll watch when the Oscars fulfills the promise of ‘Futurama’ and gives us Jack Nicholson’s DNA reconstituted in a gorilla body:
deleted
I can remember watching the Oscars as a kid and really believing that it was important for this film to be judged more worthy than that one. I think most people figure out eventually that it can all be pretty arbitrary, and that’s when the air starts to leak out of the balloon.
This is a good point and I think also 20-30 years ago I was a kid, didn’t have kids or responsibilities, so I had a lot more time to see and care about movies. I don’t see shit anymore because I’m always too tired. 🙁
They care because the organization doing it has an obvious interest in continuing its purpose, and because it’s become a way to give non-tentpole movies a boost in rentals and theater revenue (Crash pioneered that in the early 2000s). But other than that, they don’t matter. They exist because the industry needed to make itself seem more respectable in the 1920s and 1930s, and have continued since then.
I wish they would stop trying to “modernize” the Oscars or whatever it is they’ve been doing the past few years to try to bring in new viewers. It’s never going to happen. Seth Rogen is right in the sense that you’re not going to make people who don’t care about the Oscars care. But for the people who do care — or at least, the people who enjoy watching the ceremony once a year — all you need is a traditional ceremony with a host telling corny jokes, musical performances, and clips from the nominees. You’ll never have a big ratings event again, but at least you’ll make Oscars fans happy.
right? like i’m a rare breed in that i genuinely like awards shows. i like the spectacle, the weird combinations of creatives, etc…but as an award show fan they’ve genuinely gotten worse, so i can only imagine how bad it looks to someone who doesn’t like them to begin with.
Oldenize them as much as possible, says I. I’d even support moving back to a radio broadcast of the awards.
Telegraph is where it’s at. OLIVIA COLMAN BEST ACTRESS STOP
Aldis lamp, maybe? Report the winners from a ship anchored in the disputed zone; audiences on shore respond with wild applause-like flashing of their own lamps.
I posted something similar above. Clips, fun host, a little music. They showed so few clips last year I wasn’t even sure what movies or actors they were talking about.
Yep. My dad attends or hosts an Oscar party every year. He loves movies, middle brow to high brow (well middle to high-brow). He’s the audience. Old school movie and celebrity fans are the Oscar audience. People who watch ET and read celebrity magazines, people who actually go to the theater. Not people who prefer to consume their celeb content on Instagram or TikTok or Reddit, who mostly watch Netflix and Hulu.
As an Oscar fan, which means a film buff, I remember the exact year I stopped watching the Academy Awards —2009. The theme was supposed to be “horror films” but in practice that meant having Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattison present an award because Twilight did well at the box office. Roger Corman won an Honorary Award that year; a man who exemplified the theme and who was full of fascinating anecdotes. He was not allowed to give a speech “for time”.The Tonys are geared to theater fans, the Grammys are geared to music fans, but the Oscars seem to resist being geared to movie fans.
Yeah, they keep trying to chase people who are not interested in watching the ceremony anyway, and the result is a telecast that appeals to no one.I also think the producers have progressively started taking the awards more seriously, to the point that last year’s ceremony felt actively hostile to the idea of entertaining the audience at home. As if telling a few jokes and doing a little song and dance was beneath the dignity of The Academy Awards.
I care deeply about the watching only good movies and the overall quality of movies that are produced and are popular and I believe in the Oscars for promoting good movies. Watching Siskel & Ebert and growing up poor and having to carefully choose which movie to see and believing “in garbage in garbage out” as a personal value, man I don’t know where Seth Rogan is coming from. Who would argue that quality or Quality isn’t the most important thing?
He’s not arguing that quality movies aren’t a good thing; he’s arguing that by and large the general public doesn’t seem to overly care that much about watching a ceremony in which the movie industry pats itself on the back for four hours at a stretch, nor does he get why the movie industry seems obsessed with ensuring that the general public does care when countless other industries across the world are able to recognise and award excellence and quality without televising it. Plus, well, the argument can be made that the Oscars haven’t been about quality for a long time if ever they were. The trope of the mediocre Oscar Bait film that scoops up the awards by cynically playing on a handful of “worthy” themes only to be practically forgotten within a couple of years is practically cliche by this point.
I’m mildly interested in who wins – in the same way that its nice to see talent recognized and see good things happen to good people (Olivia Colman, Bong Joon-Ho, etc). I’ll read the results the next morning (on this website). I have ZERO interest however in sitting through the live broadcast. 4+ hours that are mostly loud car commercials and thudding “comedy” bits? I’d rather play with my dog, catch up on piano practice, watch one of the nominated movies I haven’t seen yet, and go to bed early.
Mostly this.
Cut the show down to an hour and a half. Two hours, tops. Maybe consider handing out the award to Best Live Action Short some other time because most people don’t give a shit. Consider actually having an award for best ensemble or stunts.
Get rid of the “writers”, and just hire funny people to host. As worthless as the Globes are, they get that part. Maybe consider getting rid of the speeches beyond a couple of quick thank yous.
It could be a fun, short event. As it is it’s a slog.
I love that you’re like “nobody gives a shit about Best Live Action Short” and then suggest a whole new category.I love stunts and stunt teams and second units deserve more recognition. But fuck you if you think your niche passion is more relevant than those who appreciate short film.
“I love that you’re like “nobody gives a shit about Best Live Action Short” and then suggest a whole new category.”…Huh? What’s the contradiction?
The reason he brought up that “nobody gives a shit about Best Live Action Short” was to suggest that it be cut for brevity. He then suggested adding a new category. I don’t believe in getting rid of Best Live Action Short, but IF you’re going to suggest cutting it for time, don’t also suggest adding something else on.
I think it was pretty easy to follow: “Few people care about this category and here’s one that more might think is pretty cool.”
“Fuck you for having an opinion that’s different from mine.”
Sure, bud.
You’re 100% right. The problem is the Academy hasn’t figured out what Rogen has; that we don’t give a shit about who wins Best Live Action Short. No offense to the nominees because I know it’s not easy and they probably all deserve the recognition. But accounts receivable ain’t easy either and I don’t expect anyone to want to hear about it. The same applies to the speeches. to the academy this is all terribly Important, because these are Artists and they need to express themselves. If you cut this stuff out you can toss the forced comedy bits and awkward pre-written banter because you don’t need to liven it up periodically.
2 hours?? 30 minutes, max. Skip the speeches. Get your award and gtfo.
JFC, why have an awards ceremony at all? This stance is so f’ing baffling. Either there *should* be a ceremony, complete with speeches, or no ceremony at all. Argue for one or the other.
Um, no? I’m gonna go ahead and argue for the way I think it should be, which is a ceremony with no speeches. I hate to be a buzzkill but you don’t get to be in charge of what I argue for.
What would be the point of the ceremony *without* the speeches? Without the speeches, it might as well BE just a list of the winners on some pop culture website. Unless you’re arguing for a show that celebrates the industry in general? With musical numbers or clips?Like…. What is your conception of that ceremony?
The point would be to allow the audience to see the winners announced. To give the winners the chance to be on TV when their name is read. To see the dresses. To see the performances for the music nominees. Plus without the speeches they could include more winners and won’t have to relegate some to the non-televised portion. And clips would be fine as well. They could do everything but the speeches. Even the lame host patter. The speeches are easily the worst part of the entire thing.Or they could not do the ceremony at all. That would be fine with me too.
Even 90 minutes is too long.
Then you remember the point of the Oscars is not to entertain, but to keep you watching so they can play more commercials. In the before times, there were only a few channels, and no one bothered to show anything worth watching opposite the ceremony, so, go figure, everyone watched.That’s no longer the case, and more people every year are figuring out they have other options.
I’ll go so far as to say I mildly care who wins even, but as you say, why would I watch it live, especially when I have a backlog of hundreds of TV shows and movies across multiple streaming services, not to mention books, video games, or activities that involve leaving the house. The Oscars are doomed, there’s just too much better content that is continuously being produced.
Right? Would you rather watch a great movie or watch people talk about how great a movie is? In-home streaming will be the death of awards ceremonies.
For several years now, the most interesting part of the Oscars for me has been the next-day “who was snubbed in this year’s Oscars” articles. I’ll read every last one of those pieces, but the latest winner of “The Award Most Likely To Be Completely Re-Evaluated and Judged To Be a Travesty A Few Years Later” isn’t nearly as engaging.
“Next-day” as in the day after the ceremony? Because we already know who was snubbed the instant the nominees are announced. A nomination that doesn’t win isn’t a snub.
I enjoyed it when it was mostly clips of the nominated films or performances. That is most likely to catch my eye and generate interest in seeing something I haven’t. Throw in the best original song candidates if you like. Keep it simple and crisp with a fun host and people will watch again.I also think part of the apathy is no one went to see movies for two years and have no rooting interest in the nominees.
I think it’s definitely the last part, plus the fact that most studios delayed release of a big chunk of their slate so the first half of the year was kind of a dead zone. It’d be like if the NFL went on strike and games were no longer televised, so the superbowl this year was being played between Ball State and the third best high school team in Nebraska.
I much rather watch video of you playing with your dog
He’s a sweetie – 6 month old Australian Shepherd puppy. Smart, willful, affectionate, would gladly play catch for twelve consecutive hours if we let him 😀
so that’s set , we’re all watching a live stream of you and your lovely pupper playing catch for 4 hours instead. Can’t wait!
I used to watch the whole ceremony because I was interested in what kind of moments you might get (like speeches and reactions), but have lost most of my interest. I think it started for me when I got one too many patronizing George Clooney speeches.
I agree completely. I make a mild effort to watch previous best picture winners (if they show up on a streaming service I subscribe to). But I have little interest in watching a 3+ hour telecast of the event itself, even when the host is someone I enjoy.
They used to get good ratings back in the day because they were a novel break in the usual programming back when there was only 3 – 50ish channels. Now everyone basically has unlimited channels and there is more to watch than humanly possible.
Yes, this. I love movies and watch a lot of Oscar stuff, but there’s a thousand other things I’d rather do than watch the actual show.
Maybe I’m closer to my favorite Gay Oscar Nerds Joe Reid and Chris V. Feil than I first thought, but I don’t think a short show that cuts out the Technical Awards (which is what would get cut because — Starfucking!) is the right direction for the Oscars to go in.
They’ve suggested, and I concur, that turning the Oscars into an all-day extravaganza on a streaming service with a global reach (they specifically said “Netflix”, but Amazon Prime, Disney+ or HBO Max would do as well) that audiences could drop in and out of (and rewind if they wanted to watch something they missed later), and that wasn’t contingent on a ratings pop to sell advertising, might be a better direction for televised Oscars.
I’d rather watch my dog practice piano.
Same. I’ll look forward to reading the winners the next day, but there’s no way I’m sitting through those self-fellating speeches. For all I care the Oscars could be 30 seconds of the categories and nominees with the winner highlighted running across the screen.
You can also watch clips online the next day, if something interesting should happen. Win-win-win. The show was always kind of terrible.
Whatever last year’s Oscars were trying to be it did not work. It was humorless, emotionally draining, and weird.
humorless, emotionally draining, and weirdThe AV Club
I treat the Oscars the way I treat the NFL Draft. I’m interested enough to look up what happened the next morning, but I can’t believe people watch the endless telecast.
Is it at least worth wondering whether some people might come back if they pared back the sanctimonious, self-important speeches that parrot the exact same three messages? To quote Paddy Chayefsky: “Winning the Academy Award is not a pivotal moment in history, does not require a proclamation, and a simple ‘thank you’ would have sufficed.” I’m not saying keep it at two words, but, to quote Ricky Gervais this time, “Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.”
“Worth considering” is an understatement. I know these people live encased in a bubble of self-involvement and -satisfaction but SOMEONE should tell nominees that the public does not look to them for political commentary and certainly not for lectures.
There was a moment early in last year’s ceremony where I thought, maybe because it took place in a train station and had most of the formality forcibly stripped away, that this just might be an excuse for the actors to take it easy for a year and not treat every speech like a public call to action. Of course, this was immediately proved wrong. They instead saw this as an opportunity to double down on the virtue-signaling, adding in a thing where presenters individually lavish praise on every nominee for some unfathomable reason, and played a vital role in making it potentially the worst Oscars ever.
If I see one more actress get so emotional about whatever it is she’s railing against that she almost starts crying I’m going to bitch about it tomorrow on the Internet. At length.
Me too. Doing the real work.
Ah, there it is. “Virtue signaling”. They’re actors and artists, they couldn’t possibly actually *mean* what they say. It’s just “signaling”.[Exaggerated jerkoff motion]
I think you can technically mean it, while still going out of your way to show the public that you’re on the “right” side of an issue in an unnecessary way. Like the NFL’s “End Racism” message in the end zone.
I’m not ignorant to the fact that a certain amount of what these celebrity activists get up to is performative, but I think it’s ridiculous to accuse them of pure performance for… what? PR? I can’t look into everyone’s heart or mind and there’s enough cynicism in me to believe that yes, *a few* of those people play up their progressiveness for image. But I also think it’s annoyingly cynical and trollish to just casually toss that accusation onto EVERY celebrity activist. It’s completely ignoring the fact that AS a celebrity part of their everyday life is having to play to the public. As long as that’s the case, why not use that opportunity to make a statement that’s important to them? If I had the same kind of exposure that they do, you can fucking BET I would be running my mouth the same way.I think it says as much or more about you and people like you when you bristle at celebrity activism. There’s a certain level of “You think you’re better than me?”
Well…they certainly seem to think that their views on various issues about which they don’t necessarily know anything are worth being listened to based on nothing more than celebrity status. Whether “better” is the right word is up to whomever, but there’s certainly a lack of self-awareness in thinking that, because you won a trophy for acting, the world wants to and should hear your opinions on Syria.
So…I agree with you that Oscar speeches are insufferable completely. All of them. Political or not political, they are all terrible. But this thread has gone of on a different tangent that I can’t agree with. The point of using your Oscar moment to talk about Syria is because you are on a big stage in front of millions of people. Syrian refugees never get that exposure to help themselves, so why shouldn’t someone who has that exposure use the exposure to help them? Does it matter that “nobody wants to hear it”? The point is that whether or not you want to hear it you’re gonna hear about it because it’s important. I don’t want to hear a million thank-yous to the key grip and the third grade teacher either, so if “nobody wants to hear it” is the yardstick we’re going by let’s apply it to everything.
That assumes — not that there’s any way to know, I guess — that mentioning it in an Oscar speech is going to have a positive impact on said refugees. Maybe it does, but a) I’m skeptical of that, and b) what we have a lot more evidence for is that it indicates a total lack of self-awareness on the part of the actors and turns a lot of people off.
I think it just assumes that they’re giving it a shot, and who does that hurt? I’m not following where self-awareness comes into play here. What do they have to know about themselves before they’re allowed to share an opinion on Syria?
idk. What does it hurt for the NFL to put “end racism” in the endzone? It’s a good thing to pick a side. Putzing about in the middle is shitty.
I’ve never understood why “virtue signaling” was supposed to be a bad thing. What’s wrong with signaling virtue?
It stems from a certain type of scum who find any sort of empathy or caring for our fellow man to be weakness. Only a SIMP or a CUCK would say something passionate about someone or something other than themselves.
The use of that phrase really is a catch-all public service, in that I can safely stop reading anything that person ever says again.
That’s pretty much why I stopped watching and caring about the ceremony about 20 years ago. It dawned on me that this was basically just a bunch of people who are always told how wonderful they are being told who among them was slightly more wonderful. And that knowing who was now the most wonderful changed my life not one iota.
“It dawned on me that this was basically just a bunch of people who are always told how wonderful they are being told who among them was slightly more wonderful.”
Oh, did it dawn on you that an AWARDS SHOW is an AWARDS SHOW?
Yeah, cuz a five minute speech is a “lecture”.Tell my department chair that. Maybe I can cut down on class time!
Oh no, you folks summoned the commenter who seems to really enjoy extended, drawn out speeches, despite the fact that they can get their message across with a single sentence in just the same fashion— hell maybe they can mention 2 things they’re passionate about if they limit it to a single sentence each!If only there was some medium where Hollywood insiders could really hammer home a message in some sort of extended format— not necessarily quite literally, but it could be more metaphorical. Maybe they could tell a fictional story, and illustrate their points more thoroughly through example and more memorable and quotable sound bites. They could hire popular and well-known people to appear in this format. If only such a medium existed though…
“but SOMEONE should tell nominees that the public does not look to them for political commentary and certainly not for lectures.”
Yeah, the public has proven time and time again that they don’t care what celebrities think of p0litics.Most recent evidence? Donald Trump not winning the presidency, ever.
You. Fucking. Moron.
It’s not even the political commentary for me (and to be frank actually tons of people look to celebrities for political commentary, for better or worse, and regardless the whole “shut up and dribble” thing is pretty played out). It’s just that no one wants to listen to your long speech regardless of the content. I don’t want to hear them stand up there and talk about how they’ve dreamed about this since they were a little kid, or to listen to them list and say thank you to literally every person who worked on the film or wiped their nose or helped them along the way. I just. Don’t. Give. A. Shit.
It is definitely the lectures. The general public doesn’t give a shit. The speeches are pure virtue signaling. Ricky Gervais was the best host I can remember. He was skewered by people pretending to be outraged, because of just how much truth he spoke in that monologue.
Gervais is such an oily creep. “Derek” – ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Yeah, leave it to Gervais to not get the irony of his own bullshit. Or do I have to listen to him scream about veganism or atheism or whatever pet subject he thinks HE can faff on about?The nerve of a fucking AV Club reader bitching about someone being “sanctimonious” or “self-important”…
Don’t get this. The idea is that as a reader of this site I’m not important enough to question celebrities? Or that the AV Club is sanctimonious, so therefore I’m acting hypocritically. If it’s the latter, I’ve certainly taken issue with this place before for what it’s turned into.
“The nerve of a fucking AV Club reader bitching about someone being ‘sanctimonious’ or ‘self-important’…”– The AV Club
You know how “shut up and dribble” has become shorthand for every right-wing asshole who thinks athletes should never use their public platform to talk about things that make right-wing assholes uncomfortable? Well this is that, but for movies.
The athletes in question were commenting on things that they had a good argument for understanding or experiencing personally—race relations, police brutality. I’m talking about things like Patricia Arquette, who I believe did not finish high school, winning an award for playing pretend and using that occasion to talk about what was going on in Iran, as if her opinion on this was valuable based on nothing more than the fact that she was famous.
So you think Patricia Arquette is too stupid to comment on the bombing of civilians, and so needs to keep her mouth shut. OK then.
“winning an award for playing pretend”Jesus. You have a really low opinion of artists, then, in general. Just say that!
“Is it at least worth wondering whether some people might come back if they pared back the sanctimonious, self-important speeches that parrot the exact same three messages?”
Do you remember there not being those speeches three years ago when 30 million people watched? Is that what has changed in the last two years to drive the audience away?IS IT????
YES. The speeches are insufferable. “Thanks, y’all” is fine. We get it. No one’s Oscar speech is going to change the world.
I mean it’s pretty simple. Award shows USED to be popular because it was a genuine live event viewing(pre-interenet and cable era) experience and competitors used to counter program against it. Today, with social media, anything worth tuning in for you can see mere seconds after it happened, while you’re watching what you rather prefer to be watching or doing.
By now, everyone knows what a slog they are to sit through, so of course they aren’t as popular anymore.
Of course he doesn’t care when he doesn’t have a chance of winning one. If he was even nominated, he’d be shrieking with joy.
He’s not saying he doesn’t care. He’s saying he gets why the general public has had dwindling interest in the awards ceremony.
And further, he doesn’t understand why his peers care about whether or not the public cares.
I mean that part is obvious – a lot of celebrities (really a lot of people in general) are vain and want attention.
Mostly fair, although I suspect a lot more of Rogen’s peers feel like he does and this is more an issue for the people who produce the Oscars than the people who receive them.
I guess my way of thinking is “if 9 million people want to watch something, shouldn’t that be enough?” TV events that bring everybody together are super rare these days. Of the top 50 rated individual broadcasts last year, it was all sports except for the Super Bowl lead out episode of the Equalizer, 2 episodes of 60 Minutes, and 3 episodes of NCIS (none of which I tuned in for, but I did see some of the sports).Surely it should be possible to run an awards show that pleases the people who are into that sort of thing, which is budgeted around “only ~10m people are going to watch this.” There’s enough stuff out there that people are going to find something they want to watch instead of watching something they just don’t care about.
he’s not wrong, and I look forward with great amusement to seeing a bunch of arrogant, egotistical millionaires flail and debase themselves to make people care about them again LOL
The core of the issue is that there is simply so much good media that there is almost no common base of viewed experiences anymore. I won’t make a value judgment if that is good or bad, but there just did not used to be that many choices with how to spend your entertainment time. So when the Oscars rolled around 20-30 years ago, everyone had seen at least some of the movies and a large part of the adult US population had seen almost all of them. It was a shared experience so viewing it was interesting. Now, there are several hundred (a few thousand?) excellent hours of entertainment generated a year (and that’s not even counting games – which is a HUGE competitor to traditional entertainment), there simply isn’t a set of films, tv shows, anime… that a large portion of the country has seen. And most importantly, a lot of that isn’t because people are watching garbage – there is simply too much good stuff now.
Yes, and if everyone has a micro-culture to experience that gives them what they want, why would they care about some overarching pseudo-objective determination of “the best” anything?
Yeah, that’s exactly my point.
Well, perhaps I misunderstood or wasn’t clear enough. I meant it as a corollary, but distinct observation related to yours.
I’m not usually one to grumble about elitism, but I permanently checked out the year Beauty and the Beast was nominated for Best Picture, and viewers were subjected to celebrity presenter after celebrity presenter making digs about how we were here to reward REAL actors in REAL movies, not that animated tripe.Then of course they created the Best Animated Feature award so they could quarantine any future animated contenders from sullying their Best Picture category, with the unfortunate but predictable result of having to select from such a limited yearly pool that movies like Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius and Boss Baby are now an Academy Award Nominated Films.Sorry, but haven’t watched the Oscars since!
In addition to the good points others have made about “These shows are a slog to get through in a modern world,” it feels like yet another side-effect of the homogenization of the industry as a whole. The same accusations being leveled at big-budget PG-13 action franchises can be directed at Hollywood’s prestige releases. For ten weeks at the end of every year they push out a torrent of by-the-books award contenders: mawkish biopics, treacly period dramas and self-serious “message” films (Many of which typically overlap with everybody’s favorite genre: movies that are directly or tangentially related to showbiz and/or The Magic of Cinema) that all scream “FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION!” Then the stuff that had the biggest promotional budget behind it – or that can simply be seen by the most Academy voters closest to when they fill out their ballots – walk away with the lion’s share of the nominations.Hollywood doesn’t take risks on small/mid-budget films for adult audiences anymore (Those projects get stretched out to 4 times their optimal runtime and becomes a TV show,) and independent features have a nearly impossible time penetrating the bubble of exclusivity that the major studios/production labels have built around voters. So the same kind of tired stuff gets lauded, year after year, whether they deserve the accolades or not. Audiences have caught on to the game, and they’re bored as hell by it.
Seth Rogen had better now be announced as host of the Oscars this year.
The monoculture is dying and it shows up for everyone differently. Isn’t that it? I don’t give AF about the Olympics anymore or any world sport. But I have a soft spot for movies so I watch this. Most don’t. I’ll never ever watch the Grammys – I once did.
I think the issue is that most of these “shows” aren’t good shows. Except maybe the Tonys, there’s little to keep us watching.
I think the real problem is the Academy doesn’t care. It’s clear from the new Academy Museum – they have no interest in movies, they just have an interest in themselves. It has become about perpetuating the Academy, not about being stewards of film as a medium. It’s nuts the films of the past they choose to highlight and the films they gloss over, simply because they were (or were not) nominated.That said, I think people overrate to an extent declining Oscar ratings. Ratings for basically all of TV have declined so you have to compare it to the average broadcast, and doing that I’d imagine the value of having it as a live event has either stayed constant or even gone up. Few other events guarantee a certain number of eyeballs. Of course, if it keeps plummeting, even that won’t matter in a few years.
There’s an interesting (to some) phenomenon in pro wrestling. Some of the old guard get really shitty about the newer “style” of wrestling on TV and will look at old ratings vs new as proof that the new stuff is “worse”. But no, man. The Monday Night Wars would not get the same ratings now as they did in the mid 90s. It’s a wholly new media landscape.
Same thing happened among right wing media types when the NBA went “woke” in 2020. They pointed to the steep decline in ratings to show that if you go woke, you go broke, or some shit. This neglected the fact that basically every other major sport in 2020, including NASCAR, faced similarly declining ratings – which of course is because TV as a whole is declining. But again, I’d argue that makes live sports that much more valuable!
It’s sort of like something happened on a global scale in 2020 that may have divided people’s attentions away from sports or that sports took an extended hiatus or something and people realized that maybe they don’t have to revolve their entire personalities or dedicate all of their time to them, but I can’t quite put my finger on what it could bffff— sorry, finger got caught in my mask.ETA: I am agreeing with you, in case that wasn’t clear, that the folks saying it’s because “they became woke” are full of shit and it’s mostly for more obvious reasons
The problem with the Oscars is that people have realised its mostly just Hollywood clapping itself on the back and smelling its own farts , for three hours plus.
I mean Billy Crystal’s far from perfect and I still cringe at his Sammy Davis Jr. blackface bits, but watching those old clips of him interacting with old movie footage, you can see how much work went into them. If the Academy wants people to watch the Oscars, just…try making a fun, entertaining show? As opposed to hiring whoever some algorithm or marketing team tells you would make a hip host and calling it a day. Movies are a great subject and should be easy to make an interesting program about. People like movies. They like talking about movies, they like making jokes about movies, they like learning about movies. Some weirdoes even like analyzing them. It can’t be too hard for the Academy to find some creative people who can use the giant archive they have at their disposal to find a way to entertain people on the subject of movies for at least 2 hours out of a 4-hour telecast. At least so it’ll be fun enough to hang on through the boring parts.
nominate more genuinely popular films. The era of all art-house white people stuff that when the nomination is announced people in my house say “what the heck is that and when did it come out?” needs to be kicked out the window.
I’m not too much of an artsy fartsy film autere type but I will say that there are just fewer “really popular” films that seem like they are trying to also be singularly great pieces of filmmaking as an art anymore. An original story, filmed evocatively and well acted but with a plot that is simple, big and sweeping enough to command a broad audience is a risky thing nowadays. Like the 3 that spring to mind immediately are Titanic, Gladiator and Saving Private Ryan (I know Ryan didn’t win Best Picture but it was in the convo and Spielberg won best director). Box Office juggernauts that had big nights at the awards show.Where are those kinds of movies today? I think they are riskier movies to make today.
Go watch the Teen Choice Awards, then.
I only really ‘care’ about the Oscars when I’ve actually seen a significant amount of the movies nominated.
I did make sure to tune in live for the best animated film pronouncement a few years back… simply because ‘Spider-Verse’ was nominated. I, like the audience in attendance, went nuts when it won.
It has to do with not widely seen movies getting nominated. I know COVID messed up the box office the past few years, but even before that, the movies that made less than $20 million at the box office were getting nominated. When Titanic was up for all those Oscars, the ratings were huge.
It’s nice to see my favorite performers get a boost, and it leads to shit like Beerfest having three Academy Award winners in it (Cloris Leachman, Mo’Nique, Nat Faxon).Other than that? I don’t give a shit.
I like the Oscars. I think they’re a fun event and a good reason to pick up some food, complete a sample ballot, and see who does the best. But the decision to not have a host was just so fucking stupid. I don’t even get what point they were trying to make or what they were trying to accomplish, other than torch the Oscars as entertainment value in itself. Now, I’d also prefer someone like a Ricky Gervais brutally putting them in their place….but I’ll take what I can get.
Do we really need to give Gervais more reason to be smug and condescending?I’ve greatly enjoyed the man’s early comic works but he’s gotten older, less funny, and more self-satisfied.
He rode (real? fake? Doesn’t matter) Karl Pilkington’s coat-tails into an ok TV show — the Office — traded it for a slightly better TV show — Extras — and has gone downhill ever since. He may or may not be a dickhead in real life but he sure seems like one. Meanspirited and unfunny. And, speaking as a sardonic dickhead who tends to ruin family get-togethers with petulant sarcasm, I know what I’m talking about.
hey! rick also road stephen merchant’s coattails.ricky’s problem is that he was a broken down loser and wrote about it to great success, but that tricked him into thinking he was a cool success all along, so now he’s quadrupled down. at the same time his ego got huge so when people say stuff like ‘hey man you’re kind of not doing good work anymore’ he acts like he’s being canceled instead of fairly criticized.also i’m not sure what kind of deal netflix gave him but he’s produced like 100 hours of content for them.
Having watched projects from each of them separately, I would venture to guess that what I liked *most* about The Office and Extras was largely down to Merchant’s sensibility more than Gervais. The social awkwardness and “third wheel” stuff feels more like him. Which isn’t to say that Ricky’s meaner streak is UNfunny to me. Just that I think it loses some appeal when divorced from Merchant’s influence. I feel very similarly about Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson. I think Anderson’s co-written work with Wilson is his best. For some of the same reasons. (I think Merchant and Wilson are both gentler creatures with a better understanding of human nature.)(Baumbach is no substitute, unfortunately. He’s got a better grasp of character than Anderson but he’s incredibly wrapped up in daddy issues in a way that’s too similar to Anderson. I believe The Life Aquatic to be Anderson’s worst written film.)
Agreed totally. He’s kind of a dick now. But if he’s directing that attitude toward other celebrities and knocking them down a peg, I think that’s the best use of his skills.
He’s not wrong. Way before the pandemic made going to a theater risky, I’ve felt alienated from the Oscars and from “Oscar season.”The fact there’s an “Oscar season” at all is a big part of the issue: every Oct-Dec, smaller studios back-load the movies they’ve predetermined to be “Oscar-worthy,” and it’s cynical as hell. They know before the movies come out, “here’s a suitably auteur-looking drama with the right roster of actors exploring the right kinds of themes.” It feels like a science because it basically is, as much as any massive tentpole franchise or Netflix algorithm cross-product.Frances McDormand gets an Oscar for 3 Billboards. So, Chloe Zhao makes a small poverty-porn indie through Searchlight, casts McDormand, both get more Oscars for it, then Zhao makes a Marvel movie. It’s like a Minor League feeder system for MLB, and as rote and mechanical as that sounds. So, of course the average person doesn’t care. Why should they? Why celebrate an industry for cynically doing its job? Why celebrate the same small handful of creators for making shades of the same movies on a regular schedule every year?
I feel so much more for this
Breaking: Man who will never win award thinks the award is stupid anyways
Who wouldn’t want to watch 4 hours of sexy emotion puppets reassuring each other of their outsized importance?
People care (a little) about best actors and best movie winners but the Oscars has many categories (editing, sound mixing, vfx) that, while important for films themselves, aren’t interesting to the casual fan. So, Rogen is right: the ceremony is made for the industry, not for a general audience.
He’s got a valid point. I can’t speak for everyone, but I personally haven’t watched any of the big awards shows in at least 15 years. AFAIK, no one in my friends group watches them either. If there’s a moment that goes viral, I’ll just watch it on youtube.An actor with an Oscar doesn’t suddenly make them interesting, and certainly has zero bearing on if I enjoy a movie or performance. Why should I care?
At work they give awards that they post in the break room. I only care if I get something extra in return. I won some Bluetooth headphones at work but I think that had to do with the recent death of my brother from Covid. They wanted to cheer me up.
we sense Seth Rogen is not high when he suggests that most people simply “just don’t care” too much about the Oscars.
IDK. I feel like he probably could have made this observation while high.
Really, the Oscars just needs to be a quick roundup. Announce the winners in each category, then a quick recap of who’s a lifetime achiever, who’s died in the last year, and who’s been credibly accused of horrific sexual violence.
I like the way this Mr Negor thinks!
I’ve said it before; give me fifty bucks and as many sandwiches as I can carry out, I’ll have everyone in and out in an hour, an hour fifteen tops.
I’ve seen to notice that as I’ve gotten older, the Oscars seem to be awarding more niche films over the mainstream. When I was younger, I remember hearing so much about most nominees. Now I seem to have to go on a deep dive to find out what they even are. The awards are no longer for general audiences, but more for the film elite.
But that’s in no small part because audiences tastes changed more than the Academy; they in the past award many movies that were #1 or #2 biggest BO hit of the year: West Side Story (whose remake by Spielberg no less bombed), Bridge Over The River Kwai, The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, One Flew Over Cuckoo’s Nest, Forrest Gump, etc. The problem is today none of these movies would have a chance of even making the top 10, if not outright bomb.
100% agree
It’s also about access/availability. Academy screeners were not always a thing. The nominees have to be films that are available for the voting academy to see.
While that is true, the audiences tastes changed a lot more than the Academy’s.
But have they? Have they actually? Or is this again about accessibility? People will see what is available for them to see without a lot of hassle. Really great “arthouse” films are not going to get seen by an audience if they have to drive an hour to the arthouse theater. Unless they’re cinephiles, in which case they’re already outside of that category of “everyday viewer”.An argument could be made that the rise of streaming and the shrinking of the theatrical window is a boon to the Academy ceremony. Because there’s actually a chance people are able to see the films that are nominated.
Maybe stop giving out awards on the live telecast for things people have zero reference for. Like they already have a separate Oscar science and tech awards dinner. Give all the technical awards there (like sound, editing, cinematography, costumes). And give out the short film categories either during a commercial or at that night too. Because unless other studios are going to copy Pixar and bring back animated shorts, it’s usually stuff people haven’t seen. And the live action shorts seem even less relevant. It always seemed like those would be like a film school project getting an award the same night as big Hollywood movies. It would be like if they gave a Nobel prize for best high school science project.
Your metaphors are terrible. Short films are not some stepping stone on the way to features. That does happen often, yes, but that’s not inherent to the format. Which is perfectly relevant on its own merits.
Short films are absolutely a stepping stone to features, 95% of the time
“That does happen often, yes”Unless you’ve got a different language than me, we’re only really disagreeing about the percentage of the time.And even then, there’s a difference between what happens pragmatically and the nature of the format. My point is that short films and feature films are equal in artistic merit. Whereas a high school science project, with EXCEEDINGLY rare exception, is not equal to a “Nobel prize” scientific breakthrough/discovery/whatever.As I say to Kel Varnsen below, the primary reason filmmakers move on from shorts to features is because there’s *no money* in shorts. It’s not because of artistic maturity, like some people imply. You just can’t make a career out of shorts. (Again, with rare exception.)
That’s interesting. So is there some secret group of awesome short filmmakers with enough talent but too much integrity to “sell out” by making features? Where do you find those?
Art galleries. Local film festivals. Niche video websites. Teaching at colleges or arts non-profits.It’s not a “secret group”, though. It’s just filmmakers who didn’t go on to make features as a career. For any number of reasons. *Sometimes* because features are a different format and they weren’t suited to it.To your point, not many feature folks go into shorts after.To my point, PLENTY go to TV. Which is pretty similar as formats go. And they’re not all suited to it.
That’s where the pretentious student film-y ones are. I’m talking about the good ones
You’re looking for an answer only you can provide for yourself. Because you have some stupid troll point to make. Go on, gurl.
If they are something that is relevant on their own why isn’t there more cross over between directors doing features and shorts? Why isn’t Spielberg or Fincher or Tarantino o Katheryn Bigelow making shorts that win best short film? Is it because even in Hollywood they are seen as not as important? I’m fine if they want to give out the award but it doesn’t seem important enough to be on the live telecast.
Because there’s no money in shorts. And all those filmmakers want to have careers.
Now take it one step further and explain why there is no money in shorts. Is it because people don’t care about them? Plus I am pretty sure Steven Spielberg would still have a career and would still be a billionaire if he directed a short every once and awhile.
I don’t have to “take it one step further”. Where did I say that people, generally, care about shorts? When has that been my argument? It hasn’t. I KNOW people don’t care. That’s fine. People don’t care about a LOT of things that are worthwhile. (Including a whole host of technical fields in film, which is why I don’t like but can support an argument for lumping shorts in with the technical awards off-broadcast. As long as we aren’t being idiots and suggesting replacing them with some OTHER niche interest. Like stunts.)(Also, I suggest you look into the number of “big time” directors who take the occasional side gig in commercial directing. It’s almost like those are… short films… for money…)
it’s funny though that the era we live in (basically the era of everyone producing short films all the time, constantly) we don’t see more love for short film as a medum.
It’s because the movies are boring as shit. Remember 1994 when it was Pulp Fiction vs. Forrest Gump vs. Shawshank Redemption? You didn’t need to be a film twat to be invested in that
Well now I really hope the mystery host is Seth Rogen.
Good rant from Kimmel which I agree with:https://variety.com/2022/film/news/jimmy-kimmel-slams-oscars-dont-look-up-spider-man-1235175759/
“How did [‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’] not get one of the 10 nominations for best picture?” Kimmel asked viewers. “Forget the fact that the movie made $750 million [in the U.S.] and is still going. This was a great movie. It wasn’t in the top 10 best movies of the year? There were three Spider-Men in it. You’re telling me ‘Don’t Look Up’ was better than ‘Spider-Man?’ It most certainly was not.”“Even if you go by the critics reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, ‘Don’t Look Up’ got a 46% and ‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’ has 90%. For god’s sake, ‘Jackass Forever’ has an 89%,” Kimmel added. “Why do best picture nominees have to be serious? When did that become a prerequisite for getting nominated for an Academy Award? You wanna know what happened? Voters looked at the list and saw the names Leonardo DiCaprio and Meryl Streep and they checked the box and then they put their kids in the car and went to see the movie ‘Spider-Man.’ And they loved it! But they didn’t vote for it.”
This is just “blah blah populism blah”.
“The Academy is 94% white, 77% male, 86% age 50 or older,
and has a median age of 62.”
Looking over the nominees:
—I’ve seen 6 of them, all of which are in either the Animated Feature or Visual Effects categories.
—There’s 3-4 more that I do actually want to see (most prominently Tick Tick Boom).
—There’s 3-4 more that I actively don’t want to see (most prominently Cruella).
—And most of the rest, I’ve never even heard of, because they didn’t get any promotion until they were nominated; they were just snuck into an LA theater for a week to qualify for the award.
Obvious unentertaining thing is obviously unentertaining.
News at 11… If the Oscars don’t run overlong.
People care a lot about celebrities, and like watching them live. Celebrities like winning awards.The ceremony will never not be broadcast
I’ve friends working in the industry, and unless they’re remarkably good at long term lying they don’t really care. The one I’ve asked put it more or less that he’s never going to be in a position to win one, he’s never going to see any real benefit to working an “Oscar winner” versus simply staying employed – it’s just not part of his world.I mean, I would hope there’s a glow of pride when the guy who runs your shop gets told in some satellite side ceremony in a basement that he won for your combined effort. Beyond that?
All I care about is the In Memorium.Only half kidding.
It’s not only that people don’t care about award shows anymore. It’s also that no one under 40 is sitting down to watch broadcast tv no matter what the offering (except for that sports stuff they can’t get anywhere else.) The audience will dwindle every year.
The only way I’m watching is if Ricky Gervais is hosting. And we know that isn’t happening again.
Award ceremonies don’t exist to celebrate and reward achievement in a field. They exist to make that field seem important and legitimate.
I was one of those captivated ‘back in the day’ and would watch every telecast. But over time, I knew less and less of the Best pic noms. Decided not to watch the year Dark Knight was’nt nominated, and have’nt watched one since, and realised quickly that I was’nt missing anything.I truly believe that the Academy of the past 15 years would not have nominated Star Wars, Raiders, LOTR, Jaws, Exorcist, ET or even The Sting for Best Pic.The comment from Kimmell posted earlier is spot on. Unless it’s a “serious”, “long”, “drama”, then it’s not gonna win or in most cases not even be nominated (like those I listed above that were nominated). Spider-Man was excellent movie-making, period – not to mention that it’s the movie that has saved their damn industry.
Ditto for the Olympics. Let those who love them, watch. Stop worrying about the ratings. (You’ll have to downsize for this, I know)
Cut the ceremony to one hour. One person (or a couple) stands at podium and announces award nominees and winner in every category. Winner comes up, gets trophy. Only Best Actor, Actress, Director, Movie get to speak. The other get their trophy and leave stage to applause and then raise their rate for future movies.Every year, Mrs. F. watches the red carpet stuff and then something else once the ceremony starts. So we already get plenty of the fluffy stuff.
Yeah, I kinda dig what Seth Rogen is saying here; but now I’m going to get back to not giving a shit about what Seth Rogen says.
If you look at movies that make a lot of money with bodies in theater seats. not often oscar winners. at one time before the internet and cable tv the movies were important pop culture. not so much now. The oscars mean a lot to want-to-be film D-bags. The real film d-bags are into obscure independent stuff no body hares about . the want-to -be film d-bags talk about the boring navel gazing oscar bait stuff. then the other end of spectrum film d-bags just want car chases, disaster porn and explosion movies.
I think we care less about movies right now, too. I think we like franchises, but not “the movies” per se. It’s not “let’s go to the movies”; it’s “lets go see this specific movie.” We don’t browse at Blockbuster anymore. We don’t channel surf anymore (funny enough, streaming has had the opposite effect on music, which is more like how TV used to operate, but I digress). And, most of us don’t go to the movies every week to see whatever is out anymore. Not to mention the cost of going now, which…the experience maybe isn’t worth?You know what I think would get good ratings? If Disney/Marvel/Star Wars had its own awards show. Just the franchises people care about. Everything else has gone niche so why not that too? Then, in a few years, we can get everyone back together again and it will be fresh and exciting. And I’m saying this as someone who hasn’t followed any of the Disney/Marvel/Star Wars franchises—it’s just that those are the movies people actually talk about. Dune was pretty rad, though.
Given how he’s a bafflingly famous Hollywood hack, I’m surprised at how right he is.
To the extent that people care about the Oscars they care about best film, best director, best actor/actress, best supporting actor/actress, maybe people care about best screenplay/adapted screenplay, maybe some people care about best score/best song. But that’s it. There is not an audience of 10 million people who give a shit about the best short, or the best documentary, or about any editing category, to say nothing of sound, makeup, costumes, etc. And that’s not to say that those categories are not important – they are extremely important to a movie’s success and the people who are good at them deserve to be recognized! But it speaks to the inherent tension in the Academy wanting the Oscars to be a meaningful recognition of all of the work that goes into making the year’s best movies instead of just showering praise on actors and directors while also wanting the Oscars to be a pop culture event that draws a large TV audience. At a certain point you probably have to choose between those two things.
Do what the Tony Awards do…give out all the technical awards in an earlier ceremony, and make the ceremony itself about entertainment. Perform all the songs, show better clips for the awards being given out, and keep it reasonably short.
The Oscars aren’t doing anything wrong, it’s just that the format hasn’t really changed much in many decades, while the media landscape and the way people consume content has. Traditional award shows probably warrant a live stream and a focus on digital access, but Oscar hasn’t really made that jump yet.
I’m on the East Coast that show runs too long. Either start it earlier or do it on a Saturday.
I think the ceremony would be better in Doubly.
If the Academy was smart, they would cut costs and focus on the people who still actually watch the awards. It’s just a different time now – more entertainment options, more diverse movies, celebrities as people rather than gods whose lives you can only glimpse through these events… but the Academy still believes its the 1930s. Some people still like the awards and there is a certain, I suppose cache, to having Oscar winners/noms on a staff so there is still some purpose. But making it a spectacle is antiquated.
Yes. Do get rid of them. People don’t care.
Oh, look… the one-trick pony who thinks smoking pot is a lifestyle has an opinion. Again. People care about the Oscars about as much as they care what you have to say, Seth
Social media is eroding the fan base for the Oscars.A lot of the interest in the Oscars historically has been that it is an opportunity to see The Stars™ all in one place. Now, if you want to see your favourite stars, you go to Instagram. Not only can you interact with them directly, there’s less time spent on best foreign short and the different forms of editing.Also, anything worth seeing on the show will be clipped and posted to Twitter two minutes later.
There’s a lot of factors involved in the lack of interest in the Oscars, but nobody has yet mentioned that the kind of biopics that win actors Oscars are generally terrible and cliched. This is true of the recent films Bohemian Rhapsody and Judy, which are forgettable bland films made to showcase one really good performance. But they are not classic films. Walk Hard killed this kind of film’s traction the same way Airplane! killed disaster movies, but the academy still rewards them.
It’s like when reporters go on and on about who won the Pulitzer or when New Yorkers go on and on about how great New York is. The rest of us don’t give a shit. I try not to bore you with my self congratulations, please do me the same curtesy. /rant
The deification of Jack Nicholson was the beginning of the end. That’s when it just became an overinflated fest of old hipsters jacking each other off. Nicholson looking like a clown trying to hit on Jennifer Lawrence was his tombstone. I really wished she had just taken him down. Maybe Rogan should be allowed to produce the Oscars. Now that, I’d watch.
The year Hugh Jackman hosted was an entertaining show. After that, blah.
James Franco and Anne Hatheway as co-hosts tho…. wtf was that? Just because someone is a celebrity doesn’t automatically mean they are a proficient public speaker / MC.
Get a comedian or a showman proper.