Xixax Film Forum

Film Discussion => News and Theory => Topic started by: life_boy on January 15, 2003, 12:32:44 AM

Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: life_boy on January 15, 2003, 12:32:44 AM
Does anyone here give a damn about the Oscars?  I like trying to predict the nominations and the winners but I still feel the whole show is a crock.  What does anyone else think?

PS:  I still think there should be a 'best acting ensamble' catagory.  I can't believe there isn't one yet.
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: sphinx on January 15, 2003, 12:38:55 AM
nominees and results are obviously geared towards mainstream audiences.  i'm tired of hearing 'the oscars are an outrage' stuff, they're just pieces of paper in envelopes that have opinions on them---or perhaps it's the amount of attention and respect that the oscars get because of these opinions.  i just don't know anymore :\
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Duck Sauce on January 15, 2003, 12:42:15 AM
Quote from: life_boyDoes anyone here give a damn about the Oscars?  I like trying to predict the nominations and the winners but I still feel the whole show is a crock.  What does anyone else think?

I agree. It kind of irritates me at first when somebody gets screwed, but then I take a moment and remember that its the Oscars. Its fun to guess who will win and all, but when it comes to accurate awards, I dont think so.
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 15, 2003, 12:59:46 PM
Quote from: sphinxjust pieces of paper in envelopes that have opinions on them

Yeah, but... you can't say they're not influential. I think anyone who cares about the future of movies has a right to be frustrated with the Oscars and care about the result, no matter how meaningless it really should be.

:bad-words:
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Satcho9 on January 15, 2003, 03:42:51 PM
I love movies and all, but when you look at it objectively...Its an event where actors and filmmakers get together and reward themselves for insignificant achievements. Funny when you think about it. Western culture is fucked up.
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: life_boy on January 15, 2003, 04:08:50 PM
It's also all for money.  The studios put up money for parties and promotion for their films.  This, in turn, will generate "Oscar buzz" which will, in turn, make the general public anxious to see these 'award winning' movies.  No Best Picture winner in the past 15 years has been a box-office flop.  The question is do the awards make the box office or the box office make the awards?  A little of both I think.
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Victor on January 16, 2003, 05:05:20 PM
fuck the oscars
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: xerxes on January 16, 2003, 07:07:16 PM
every one of you would love to get one
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Redlum on January 17, 2003, 03:46:11 AM
I enjoy watching the show. Sometimes there will be a catergory where I think somebody 'has' to win but apart from that Im not bothered about the awards. Last year they had that really great sketch by Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson for the costume design award, where they dressed stiller up like a "frickin ZZ top troll boy" . Its the nominations that count.
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: budgie on January 18, 2003, 08:30:19 AM
I loved watching the Oscars last year (the first time I had been able to). Tom C. coming on like royalty and like no one else could. The shots of Lynch and Altman like a pair of old queens looking cynical and bitching away when they announced the Director award! Taken for what it is, I think it's great entertainment, and put it this way, if PDL gets nominations then it will make more money. What was great last time was watching our BAFTA ceremony and comparing it to the Oscar one. We just try to get things over and done with as quickly as possible, and the overall embarrassment is painful to see, whereas if nothing else you Americans know how to put on a show and enjoy it. Good shots of Baz Luhrmann looking extremely pissed off though.
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Redlum on January 18, 2003, 09:42:11 AM
If PDL gets nominated it will become like cheering for a side in a football game.

Poor Baz.
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: NEON MERCURY on December 18, 2003, 10:54:29 PM
..i ennjoy the telecast ...ffor the most part i agree w/their nnnominatioons and i think they choose/nominate  non-mainstream sh*t also(i.e. burnnstyn for requiem).....which is cool.....

its the grammy's that suck.....
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Kal on December 18, 2003, 11:05:51 PM
I really like the Oscars... the whole voting process and nominees and all that always sucks because many of the voters lack of good judgement and have other interests involved in their decisions... but the overall feeling of the Oscar nominations and then the show and all that is really cool...
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: nix on December 18, 2003, 11:13:34 PM
I bitch about who got snubbed for eleven months out of the year, but when March (Febuary this year) rolls around I always get excited.

I do feel like the best picture oscar has gone to undeserving movies for the past three years in a row, and many, many years prior. The last movie that I think totally deserved it was American Beauty. Then again, there were about ten other deserving movies that year as well.
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Kal on December 19, 2003, 12:33:09 AM
as long as no dumb fuck like michael moore starts bitching around it should be a great show this year... and i hope LOTR wins a lot of awards...

too bad The Matrix will get shit :(
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Pubrick on December 19, 2003, 01:53:16 AM
as long as i win, i'm happy.
Title: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: nix on December 20, 2003, 09:54:17 PM
I'd love it if Micheal Moore Crashed the party, and I'm glad that the Matrix won't get shit. It doesn't deserve shit.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Reel on March 04, 2018, 07:01:41 PM
I predict that 'Get Out' will win best original screenplay tonight
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on March 04, 2018, 10:03:53 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVmuTIQBoio
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: samsong on March 04, 2018, 10:12:05 PM
knew greenwood wasnt going to win but when i saw who was presenting, i had a bit of hope.  what i wouldve given to see chris walken awkwardly hand an award to the equally emaciated weirdo.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Drenk on March 04, 2018, 11:02:23 PM
Awful Oscars this year. Awful.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: ono on March 04, 2018, 11:15:29 PM
Glad I missed it.  The Shape of Water is so badly written but so well made... For what it is.  Not the best picture of the year.  I would be okay with Phantom Thread not winning if they at least picked something as subversive as Get Out.  And this coming from someone who hasn't even seen it but has heard enough to know enough about it.  That's the only thing that makes it okay that it bested Phantom Thread for original screenplay.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on March 05, 2018, 01:45:10 AM
Tiffany Haddish and Maya Rudolph Ask Are the Oscars Too Black Now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8hpFbW1gUY
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Sleepless on March 05, 2018, 08:47:38 AM
^ That was the highlight of the night for sure :D
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Fuzzy Dunlop on March 05, 2018, 03:14:59 PM
Guys, the night ended with Mark Bridges on a goddamn jetski. I have no complaints.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on March 05, 2018, 03:33:09 PM
And the way things work, that's what he'll be famous for the rest of his life...
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilder on March 06, 2018, 02:37:04 AM


Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Sleepless on March 06, 2018, 10:36:38 AM
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on March 06, 2018, 01:58:34 PM
i got into those
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Sleepless on March 07, 2018, 03:40:51 PM
decent read: Progress in Moderation: A Night of Conflict and Compromise at the Oscars (https://www.theringer.com/oscars/2018/3/5/17081462/2018-oscars-academy-awards-ceremony)
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Fuzzy Dunlop on March 12, 2018, 09:28:33 PM
Mark Bridges is giving away his jetski :(

https://www.avclub.com/phantom-threads-costume-designer-is-giving-away-his-jet-1823717139 (https://www.avclub.com/phantom-threads-costume-designer-is-giving-away-his-jet-1823717139)
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on August 28, 2018, 12:57:33 PM
Bret Easton Ellis on The Oscars and probably my favorite documentary so far this year (Scotty and the Secret History of Hollywood).   And then some other stuff.


From his podcast (https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/patreon-posts/k0miarO4E7zElhZSXX8yTSeNv8tJvl--vE8TjCtjk1b3pNgXltdIYgS_chNSypK2.mp3).


I found it fascinating--but maybe that's just because I mostly agree with him.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Alethia on August 28, 2018, 03:59:34 PM
I love his podcast, been hooked on it since it started. I find myself agreeing with him more often than not, and still appreciate his point of view and candor when our, hm, general values, shall we say, don't exactly align.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Sleepless on August 29, 2018, 08:50:41 AM
What does he say that you (mostly) agree with?
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on August 29, 2018, 03:37:50 PM
One thing he said that really struck me was that movies used to be the center of the culture.  That really rang true for me, having come of cinematic age in the 70s.  I hadn't really considered that movies really aren't that anymore.   He also shared my contempt of the latest "Best Popular Picture" addition to the awards, and how the voting rule changes following the 'snubbing' of "Dark Knight" have resulted in very "safe", but often mediocre choices for Best Picture winners.   
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Sleepless on August 29, 2018, 03:59:03 PM
Fair points all. Last week's Indiewire podcast had a few nice lines about it all. Basically that the Popular Film Oscar isn't the right way forward (and it may not come to pass - at least not yet) but that something does need to be done to make the Oscars more relevant to a bigger audience again. The Academy is supposed to highlight the best filmmaking... and that's the films coming from speciality labels and indies, not the studios, which is kinda sorta the problem. Also, we all want the Academy to survive, so hope they figure this all out.

I've also heard some repeated arguments (from Indiewire and elsewhere) that the current slump began when they shifted from 5 BP nominees to up to 10, and the shift to preferential voting. Incidentally, both symptoms of Dark Knight missing out on a BP nomination.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on August 29, 2018, 04:14:28 PM
Quote from: Sleepless on August 29, 2018, 03:59:03 PM
I've also heard some repeated arguments (from Indiewire and elsewhere) that the current slump began when they shifted from 5 BP nominees to up to 10, and the shift to preferential voting. Incidentally, both symptoms of Dark Knight missing out on a BP nomination.


This was the example Ellis cited, exactly.  He also offered some interesting history on the origin of the Oscars, specifically how Louis B. Mayer started them as a P.R. game to counteract the outrage by the bluenoses and others that Hollywood was a cesspool of immorality.  He wanted to start an organization that would let the world believe that Hollywood was a noble and virtuous business that was high-minded and socially conscious. 

And I need to keep reminding myself that all of the modifications by the Academy are really just about retaining or increasing viewership of the Oscar ceremony (and it's attendant ad revenue).   Given cinemas displacement at the center of the cultural solar system, I think they've got a real battle on their hands.   Whatever changes they feel compelled to make for more eyeballs I can't help think will only dilute the "credibility" of the awards in the process.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Alethia on August 29, 2018, 04:37:26 PM
I only really start disagreeing with him on political points. He's generally liberal (he claims) but increasingly derisive of what he deems "left wing hysteria" and "Trump Derangement Syndrome" etc. I mean I get his basic thesis, but also find it over the top, and very curious considering he rarely if ever speaks similarly about the Right.

His thoughts on film and the broader cultural spectrum make generally good bedfellows with my own. Except he liked A Quiet Place and hated Eighth Grade, so....no one is perfect.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Sleepless on August 30, 2018, 09:03:21 AM
Quote from: wilberfan on August 29, 2018, 04:14:28 PM
Whatever changes they feel compelled to make for more eyeballs I can't help think will only dilute the "credibility" of the awards in the process.

It's a difficult and unenvious balancing act to be sure. But the Oscars ceremony is how they make their money. So it's not a problem they can shy away form confronting.

A more welcome question, though no less knotty, is how does cinema become closer to the "center of culture" that it once was? There seem to be so many odds against it - the absolute glut of content that is produced, the studio's tunnel strategy of four-quadrant established IP, even preconceived notions of Hollywood elites across all political/social segments...
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on August 30, 2018, 04:03:58 PM
Maybe this falls under your "four-quadrant IP" comment (one I'm not familiar with, to be honest), but I also think Hollywood's penchant for making films that will appeal to literally as many people as possible (ie, world-wide distribution) is also diluting the aesthetics of artful filmmaking.   And where's the cultural center when you're dealing with multitudes of cultures?
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: ono on August 30, 2018, 06:04:40 PM
Quote from: wilberfan on August 29, 2018, 03:37:50 PM
One thing he said that really struck me was that movies used to be the center of the culture.
What would you say is?  I'm trying to pinpoint that, but I can't because let's face it, after 35, we're kind of out of touch.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on August 30, 2018, 08:57:39 PM
That's an excellent question.  And I'm pretty sure I'm not the guy to answer that one.   I'm the guy that's baffled by an article about some YouTube Influencer that I've never come CLOSE to hearing of.   (And the guy that often fast-forwards thru the musical guest on SNL every week.) 


But here's a thought: I wonder if the center of the culture these days might be the Politics of Outrage, or identity, etc.  Or maybe even the Culture War itself is the center of the culture?   It certainly garners a whole lot of brain cycles every day from from every part of the human intelligence spectrum.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Sleepless on August 31, 2018, 09:45:45 AM
TV is closer to center of culture than film these days, I feel. But there's still such a glut of TV being produced right now, even that doesn't seem like a decent answer. I think you've come close to hitting the nail on the head by suggesting the ADD daily cycle of outrage/backlash as one of the best possibilities. But that's not really culture, is it? Not in the traditional sense of culture as art in any form. Maybe we have a vacuous centre of culture right now.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on August 31, 2018, 07:04:44 PM
it's the internet of course it is. it affects culture in the way the center does: how we think, what we do, what we talk about, what we wear, etc. i can easily find people who don't watch tv, but good luck finding those who avoid the internet ("the new rebellion")

earlier i had a lengthier thing about this, it was a pretty good post tbh, i shittalked BEE as well, but i wrote it following ono's post and i deleted it because i didn't want ono to feel uncomfortable

BEE is ridiculous
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: ono on August 31, 2018, 10:44:18 PM
Lol wut.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on August 31, 2018, 10:47:58 PM
BEE's useless anger tires me, but that's unrelated to you people
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Alethia on August 31, 2018, 11:12:04 PM
Could you elaborate? Which aspects of said anger specifically, and how/why useless?
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on August 31, 2018, 11:29:13 PM
lamenting the loss of film as the center of culture is romantic i guess, being pissed off about it is useless energy. in my previous post that i deleted i asked if film being lost is any worse than opera or plays or books. i mentioned how a caveperson didn't think "i need something to read now." that's not what cavepeople were thinking about. they didn't see books coming back then, like we can't see what's coming after the internet now. it won't be vr (i can't fucking wait for hologram chambers). it won't be tv because that already happened. tv and vr are niche markets, and the market place is now niche. that's because the cultural platform is the internet. BEE is on it, that's why people are talking about what he's talking about, they wouldn't be talking about that if they weren't hearing him from the internet. his show being popular is actually an excellent example of the power of the internet. but he's pissed about movie shit: so human. i also had this thing about how i don't think the internet has altered the general character of being human, so in some ways the internet is overrated as well, i want the next thing too, i'm ready for us to be over the internet. but still here i am.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: BB on September 03, 2018, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: jenkins on August 31, 2018, 07:04:44 PM
it's the internet of course it is. it affects culture in the way the center does: how we think, what we do, what we talk about, what we wear, etc. i can easily find people who don't watch tv, but good luck finding those who avoid the internet ("the new rebellion")

Of interest, too, is that probably THE central sub-medium of the internet is web video, which is film. The internet ate everything, but its heart and lifeblood remains film. People are constantly watching short form content, they're just not the type of content we who grew up with capital-F Film culture hold dear (ie. feature-length, well-produced, etc.). But they could be if this is what people wanted. This is the true democratization of the form, the thing Coppola talks about at the end of Hearts of Darkness (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tx9PRj2SYs). We've now seen what the little fat girl in Ohio makes ... and it's Musical.lys and vlogs and the Shiggy challenge. Whether or not we like it, this is filmmaking -- sans professionalism.

I'm not sure, however, that Coppola's closing remark, that this is when film will finally become an art form, has been realized. Certainly, I don't think there's been much in the way of web video that compares with the best of cinema on the basis of artistic merit. At least I haven't seen it if it's out there. But this is not so much an internet/film problem as a democracy problem.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on February 15, 2019, 11:27:13 PM

Quote
From: The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

To: Membership

Re: Addendum

The academy has heard the feedback from its membership regarding the plan to present four Oscar awards — Cinematography, Film Editing, Live Action Short and Makeup and Hairstyling — during commercial breaks in the telecast. We take these concerns seriously. All Academy Awards will now be presented without edits, in our traditional format. We look forward to Oscar Sunday, Feb. 24.

And while we're at it, we would like to formally apologize for "The Greatest Show on Earth" winning best picture over "High Noon," "Going My Way" over "Double Indemnity," "Shakespeare in Love" over "Saving Private Ryan," "Crash" over "Brokeback Mountain" and for "Dances With Wolves" ever being made.

We would also like to retroactively nominate Barbra Streisand in the best director category for "Yentl," which we were too mean to admit is a very good movie. We would also like to give Bill Murray the best actor Oscar for "Lost in Translation," because, honestly, he deserved it.

Marisa Tomei gets to keep her Oscar, though, because that was not a mistake — she was terrific in "My Cousin Vinny."

We cannot change but deeply regret the following: encouraging James Franco to convince Anne Hathaway that hosting together was a great idea, giving James Cameron a platform on which he could announce he was king of the world, telling Seth MacFarlane that "We Saw Your Boobs" was a go, and not insisting that David Letterman just stop with the Uma/Oprah thing already.

We are currently rewriting the show's script to include separate categories for best picture, drama, and best picture, comedy, because we believe every movie craft should be honored equally.

In that same spirit, we are re-instituting the juvenile Oscar and the awards for best assistant director, best title writing and best dance direction.

Also there will be new categories, for best script supervisor, because without those folks, movies would never get made, and for best depiction of a British royal and/or Winston Churchill because, well, it just keeps coming up.

We are currently rebuilding the stage so there are no steps to imperil the lives of women, or men, in high heels and we have asked the Los Angeles Philharmonic to perform the entire score for each and every nominated film, twice for "Bohemian Rhapsody."

And finally, no winners will ever again be played off — we heard you and we want to hear you, even if you are just rattling off a random list of names and saying "Oh God, I can't believe this" 820 times.

If the television audience doesn't like it, well, we're meeting with their reps Tuesday.

Source (https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-a-few-more-academy-take-backs-20190215-story.html)
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on June 15, 2020, 10:54:37 PM
The eligibility period for the Oscars will be extended to February 28, 2021
- Nominations will be announced on March 15, 2021
- AcademyMuseum  will open on April 30, 2021
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Drenk on June 15, 2020, 11:39:24 PM
Hilarious and pointless delay. They're gonna give everything to Nolan, right? Just because. The respectable Hollywood whose movie was released in theaters.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: putneyswipe on June 15, 2020, 11:46:36 PM
Better a Nolan than a Green book. Spike is overdue
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on June 16, 2020, 03:28:27 AM
it's genuinely exactly the same to me if it's nolan or the green book. like whyever in the hell the name nolan is being mentioned is nonsense in the first place, from my personal perspective, related to movies that move me. and you're not experiencing a dawning epiphany you're remembering how much you like the dark knight or whatever. it's not horrible it's hilarious and i just want the museum
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: putneyswipe on June 16, 2020, 04:05:13 AM
I forgot spike actually won last year. Who cares
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on April 17, 2021, 12:10:48 AM
The 2021 Oscars Will Shake Up the Awards Show Format and "Feel Like a Movie," According to Steven Soderbergh (https://www.slashfilm.com/2021-oscars-ceremony-changes-will-make-awards-feel-like-a-movie/)

Quote"...producer Steven Soderbergh says viewers will quickly see that he's taking this opportunity to significantly shake up the awards show format. The Ocean's 11 director said, "Right out of the gate, people are going to know: 'We've got to put our seatbelt on.'"

QuoteThat means we're not going to see any acceptance speeches on Zoom or winners wearing pajamas. But perhaps the most intriguing approach to the 2021 Oscars ceremony is that Soderbergh wants it to feel like a movie. The filmmaker vaguely explained what he means by that:

"It's going to feel like a movie in that there's an overarching theme that's articulated in different ways throughout the show. So the presenters are essentially the storytellers for each chapter. We want you to feel like it wasn't a show made by an institution. We want you to feel like you're watching a show that was made by a small group of people that really attacked everything that feels generic or unnecessary or insincere. That's the kind of intention when I watch shows like this that is missing for me. A voice. It needs to have a specific voice."

QuoteRather than treating the stars as presenters, they're referring to them as cast members, further adding to the idea that this will be more like a movie. Does that mean that we'll be getting performances from these cast members as they hand out the awards? Again, we're not entirely sure. But since the base of the 2021 Oscars will be Union Station in Los Angeles rather than the typical Dolby Theatre (which is still being used in some capacity for the show), at least the location will feel a little more cinematic. The awards will also have a "more widescreen look," not to mention having Ahmir "Questlove" Thompson serving as music director.

I'm still not going to watch.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Alma on April 17, 2021, 12:06:39 PM
Honestly reading the full interview it sounds pretty intriguing. I would be watching if it wasn't the middle of the night where I am.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on April 18, 2021, 10:47:11 PM
The Oscars Are a Week Away, but How Many Will Watch? (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/18/business/media/academy-awards-tv-ratings-audience.html)

[some emphasis mine]

LOS ANGELES — Neither intimate looks into stars' living rooms nor scantily clad pop stars performing provocative hits have been able to stop audiences from tuning out award shows this year. The ratings for the Grammys were down by 53 percent. The Golden Globes plummeted by more than 60.

Now, as Hollywood prepares for a coronavirus-delayed Academy Awards telecast on April 25 on ABC, it is faced with the ultimate doomsday scenario: that the viewing public is ready to toss its premier showcase into the entertainment dustbin, plopped next to variety shows. Oscar, meet Lawrence Welk and his bubbles.

At a time when the traditional film industry is fighting for its primacy at the center of American culture — with at-home entertainment soaring in popularity and pandemic-battered theater chains closing — a collective shrug for the Oscars would send Hollywood deeper into an identity crisis. And a shrug certainly could happen. Guts + Data, a research firm that focuses on entertainment, said last month that only 18 percent of active film watchers (in theaters or at home) had heard of "Mank," the Netflix film leading the Oscar race with 10 nominations.

"When even I find myself having a hard time caring, that's a problem," said Jeanine Basinger, the founder of Wesleyan University's film studies department and author of Hollywood histories like "The Star Machine."

Some people in the entertainment industry, whether out of optimism or denial or both, believe that award shows are simply going through a temporary downturn because of the unique circumstances of the pandemic.

But Nielsen ratings for the Oscars were already in free fall before the pandemic, plunging 44 percent between 2014 and last year, when 23.6 million people watched the South Korean dramatic thriller "Parasite" win the top prize. An additional drop on a par with the Globes show in February would put the Oscars audience in the catastrophic single-digit millions.

Much more than vanity is at stake. The Academy Awards have long been an economy unto themselves, with companies like Netflix spending $30 million or more to campaign for a single film and Disney, which owns ABC, committed to paying more than $900 million for the worldwide broadcast rights through 2028.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is not conceding defeat. The organization, which generates about $90 million a year in after-expenses income from the Oscars telecast, has handed the show to one of Hollywood's most celebrated directors, Steven Soderbergh. He and his fellow producers, Stacey Sher and Jesse Collins, have been asked to shake up the telecast while also sticking to tradition (awarding statuettes in 24 categories, including the "boring" technical ones) and complying with pandemic safety restrictions.

If that wasn't difficult enough, the three have the additional challenge of attempting to jump-start theatergoing when most of the world is more than a year out of the habit.

"If we can get out at three hours and deliver a show that we see on paper right now, we feel like we will have had a cultural moment where the nation, the world, will say, 'Yes, I love movies!'" said Mr. Collins, a veteran live-events producer who oversaw both this year's Super Bowl and the Grammys. "That will get us another step back to theaters."

The three are trying to reinvent the show, yet are hamstrung by the Covid-19 safety costs, which alone are taking up a third of the production budget. The group is also adamant that the show will not take place over Zoom. Mr. Soderbergh, who directed the 2011 virus thriller "Contagion" and headed up the Directors Guild return-to-work task force, had that provision written into his contract when he signed on to the project.

"I made it clear that that has to be the absolute worst-case scenario," Mr. Soderbergh said of the ubiquitous pandemic technology. "It's the Academy Awards. We all want it to be special, and that doesn't feel special. It just doesn't. It reminds us of the pain of the last 14, 15 months. Not the joy of cinema or going to the movies."

In an attempt to make the show like an exclusive gathering, the producers are stepping into a logistical morass that will aim to get every nominee in front of a television camera at a designated location, whether at two in Los Angeles — the downtown Union Station and the usual Oscars location, the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood — or to one of 20 satellite spots around the world. (The largest hub will be in London.)

For Mr. Soderbergh, the decision to take the job at such a fraught time stems from his own long history of complaining about the show. Whether he was in the room as a nominee or at home watching it on television, "the lack of intimacy" always bothered him.

"I didn't find it a very pleasant experience to be in the audience," he said of his two visits, one in 1990 as the screenwriter of "Sex, Lies and Videotape" and again in 2001, when he won best director for "Traffic."

Ms. Sher, who has attended the Academy Awards four times, remembers being awed at first in 1995, when she was an executive producer of "Pulp Fiction" and the movie was nominated for seven Oscars.

"When I got out of the car and saw those giant Oscars, it was one of the most mind-blowing moments in my life," she said. "And it completely went downhill from there."

This year, the producers want to focus less on winning and instead make sure the notably diverse group of nominees has a better-than-average time by making the event more communal and intimate. They also intend to create a mask-free telecast that reminds audiences at home why they like going to the movies.

Not helping the producers' cause is the slate of films they are celebrating. Even though the majority of the best picture contenders are available on streaming services, they remain relatively obscure. According to the Guts + Data survey, conducted the week of March 21, the best-known contender was "Judas and the Black Messiah," with 46 percent awareness. The front-runner, "Nomadland," registered only 35 percent.

Mr. Soderbergh did acknowledge that there is only so much the producers can do.

"People's decision-making process on whether to watch or not doesn't seem to be connected to whether or not the show is fantastic or not," he said, pointing to the strong critical response for this year's Grammys, which notably featured a risqué performance by Megan Thee Stallion and Cardi B.

The Oscars telecast, on the other hand, saw its ratings peak in 1998, when 57.2 million people tuned in to see the box office juggernaut "Titanic" sweep to best-picture victory. Since the turn of the century, the most highly rated year was 2004, when the academy honored another box office behemoth, "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King."

Analysts point to a litany of challenges propelling the decline. Old broadcast networks like ABC are not as relevant, especially to young people. The ceremonies, even if kept to a relatively brisk three hours, are too long for contemporary attention spans. Last year's Oscars ran three hours and 36 minutes (the equivalent of 864 videos on TikTok).

Why slog through the show when you can just watch snippets on Twitter and Instagram?

Moreover, the Oscars have become overly polished and predictable. "The Oscars used to be the only time when you got to see movie stars in your living room, and very frequently it was a hoot," Ms. Basinger, the Hollywood historian, said. "Some seemed a little drunk. Some wore weird clothes. A few had hair hanging in their face."

Increasingly, the ceremonies are less about entertainment honors and more about progressive politics, which inevitably annoys those in the audience who disagree. One recent producer of the Oscars, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential metrics, said minute-by-minute post-show ratings analysis indicated that "vast swaths" of people turned off their televisions when celebrities started to opine on politics.

And there is simply awards show fatigue. There are at least 18 televised ceremonies each year, including the MTV Video Music Awards, BET Awards, Teen Choice Awards, Academy of Country Music Awards, Billboard Music Awards, CMT Music Awards, Tony Awards, People's Choice Awards, Kids' Choice Awards and Independent Spirit Awards.

With ratings expected to tumble for the coming telecast, ABC has been asking for $2 million for 30 seconds of advertising time, down about 13 percent from last year's starting price. Some loyal advertisers (Verizon) are returning, but others (Ferrero chocolates) are not.

"We're really not getting much advertiser interest," said Michelle Chong, planning director at Atlanta-based agency Fitzco, "and it's not something we've been pushing."
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on April 18, 2021, 11:10:53 PM
it would've been West Side Story year, if you've forgotten. the fact is there isn't a big name and this will be the only time ever that a Fincher movie leads the Oscar nominations.  it's not a sadfuck of a year it's the year of the plague, and whatever Soderbergh accomplishes is a transitional step. he likes the heat so he's fine for the job. in fact he's better for the job than others. he's still just Soderbergh but someone needs to break the ice
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: WorldForgot on April 19, 2021, 12:23:32 PM
I'd like to think Mank leads the pack, but most peeps I know that get screeners either skipped it or didn't finish.
Nomadland, Minari, or Sound of Metal might have a better shot at Best Pictuture -- and out of these three probably mostly the first two
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on April 24, 2021, 12:10:00 AM
Smile! A Complete History of the Oscar Class Photo Since we couldn't delight in a new group shot this year, we looked back at 36 years of classics. (https://www.vulture.com/article/oscars-luncheon-class-photo.html)

QuoteThis was a year of firsts for Paul Thomas Anderson (second row, tenth from right) and Julianne Moore (second row, ninth from right), whose nominations for Boogie Nights in Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress, respectively, kicked off many more.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on April 24, 2021, 12:34:06 AM
The 10 Longest Oscar Dry Spells (https://www.gq.com/story/10-longest-oscar-dry-spells)


Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Reel on April 24, 2021, 10:33:27 AM
Richie Burton is the biggest shocker on there to me

Edit: I turned on the TV and went to TCM and "The Sand Piper" is on
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: PinkTeeth on April 24, 2021, 05:26:20 PM
The 'chard.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Reel on April 25, 2021, 07:44:57 AM
We go way back
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on April 25, 2021, 10:23:58 AM
Quote from: wilberfan on April 24, 2021, 12:34:06 AM
The 10 Longest Oscar Dry Spells (https://www.gq.com/story/10-longest-oscar-dry-spells)



  • 10. Deborah Kerr, 0/6.
  • 9. Amy Adams, 0/6.
  • 8. Thelma Ritter, 0/6.
  • 7. Robert Altman, 0/7
  • 6. Richard Burton, 0/7
  • 5. Mike Leigh, 0/7
  • 4. Wes Anderson, 0/7
  • 3. Glenn Close, 0/7
  • 2. Peter O'Toole, 0/8
  • 1. Paul Thomas Anderson, 0/8

Just read that Kubrick was 1/13.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on April 25, 2021, 01:40:06 PM
QuoteWho is hosting the Oscars?

The Oscars haven't had a host since 2018. This year will continue that new practice — the academy has enlisted a number of Hollywood stars to present awards and other segments during the show: Angela Bassett, Halle Berry, Bong Joon Ho, Don Cheadle, Bryan Cranston, Laura Dern, Harrison Ford, Regina King, Marlee Matlin, Rita Moreno, Joaquin Phoenix, Brad Pitt, Reese Witherspoon, Renée Zellweger and Zendaya.

So, you know, what with the awards show as a movie concept, that's the cast. this is Full Frontal as the Oscars and I don't have current plans to watch it but I do think it sounds like something, which is different than other oscar ceremonies indeed. Best original music pre-show I'll be
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on April 25, 2021, 05:42:51 PM
A personal essay on the Oscars.

I think I've ranted about this around these parts before, but for decades the Oscars were (literally) the most sacred event of the year on my religious calendar.   Both parents were film-lovers.  Both parents worked at Disney.  Dad eventually became a voting member of the Academy.  I got to attend in person one year, for fucks sake.

So, the annual awards were beyond important.  I went to movies all the time as a kid (often with my Dad), but probably began to achieve Cinema Puberty in 1967 with Cool Hand Luke and Bonnie & Clyde.  My cinematic voice would have deepened with "2001" in 1968 (a landmark moment in my movie life).  (It's also my first sign of film nerdery when I couldn't get enough of Kubrick--on screen and in print.  It represented the first genius that I felt like I discovered myself.)

I remember the Glorious 70s with tremendous fondness--I really cut my eye teeth on those films and those filmmakers. I studied film history, went to movies 3 times a week.  Rep houses were my 2nd home....

Smash cut to the year 2011 when "The Artist" is nominated for 10 Oscars, and wins 5--including Best Picture.   Barf.  The first sign (well, maybe not the first--but one that sticks in my mind) that something is starting to go wrong with AMPAS.  Or Hollywood.  Or both.  Or maybe something's changed in me...?

Things continue to degrade (in the opinion of this narrator) until the present day.  I think the last Oscar cast I paid much attention to was whenever Phantom Thread was nominated.   I didn't watch at all last year--and couldn't tell you who won today.

It's all rather heartbreaking for me.  First-world problem, of course--but I still mourn the loss deeply.

Having said all of that, I was rather touched this morning when my sister (innocently) texted me to ask if I was going to watch tonight.   It afforded yet another opportunity to rush outside and shake my fist at the Oscar-shaped clouds.  But then she responded with these words, and made me--perhaps, maybe--just a tiny bit ashamed about the Grumpy Old Man I've (apparently) become. 

QuoteIt's too much of an effort for me to even put into words why the Oscars are still important to me. I understand how you and many people feel. For me it's more wrapped up in the memory and legacy of our family and the love of storytelling, good or bad. That love was passed on to us and then to our girls, so much so that both of them are passionate about expressing themselves through storytelling in some form or another.

I'm just going to watch without judgement and know that mom and dad will be there with me. Movies and any form of art will always change and evolve to reflect the society that creates it. It's all a dance and to me a beautiful expression of a human's ability to create.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on April 25, 2021, 05:56:38 PM
I appreciate those thoughts.

Unlike something like the Golden Globes, the Academy Awards' voting pool makes it difficult to completely ignore. Which is I assume why an Oscar means so much to filmmakers — it's validation & appreciation from their actual peers.

The fact that something like Green Book can win Best Picture exposes how strange and political much of the process is, and the outsized effect an Oscar campaign can have. But I think it's still valid to look for some meaning in many of the smaller awards.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on April 25, 2021, 06:14:12 PM
Quote from: wilberfan on April 25, 2021, 05:42:51 PM
Smash cut to the year 2011 when "The Artist" is nominated for 10 Oscars, and wins 5--including Best Picture.   Barf.  The first sign (well, maybe not the first--but one that sticks in my mind) that something is starting to go wrong with AMPAS.  Or Hollywood.  Or both.

The Artist pissed me off too

as your sister mentions, the Oscars are a healthy concept. jb is right that the people feel happy to be there. I like them in theory and watch their highlights

it's always good when someone likes something. people should like things. Nomadland might win and it's the only nominee I've seen so that's hella convenient for me. It's um the human spirit as cinematic poetry so it's a solid best picture winner
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on April 25, 2021, 07:33:02 PM
I'm following the guardian coverage and it's opening as a diss track

https://www.theguardian.com/film/live/2021/apr/25/oscars-2021-the-dresses-the-winners-the-weird-semi-masked-ceremony-in-a-train-station-live

QuoteAnd now we're back with King, introducing the best adapted screenplay nominees. And it's the same format. It's like being a party, being introduced to other people because the person you're currently talking to has grown bored of you. I sort of hate it.

QuoteAnd we're up to our first commercial break. I think, so far, that the best we can hope for tonight is brevity. There is somehow even less atmosphere than the remotely-conducted Baftas tonight, and it might be a mercy for everyone to get this wrapped up in an hour or so.

QuoteNow it's best supporting actor. And OH NO Laura Dern is introducing the nominees one by one like she's doing a bunch of wedding vows. This is 100% going to be the least-watched Oscars ever. This format means that I'm toying with the idea of bailing, and I'm being paid to watch it.

I'm watching Blood ceremony (https://www.mondo-macabro.com/mondo-macabro-blu-ray-limited-edition/blood-ceremony-limited-edition.html) btw
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on April 25, 2021, 07:42:41 PM
QuoteDaniel Kaluuya wins best supporting actor For Judas and the Black Messiah. He can't be funny here, because he's literally standing in a train station. Instead, he just thanks loads of people.

I will note, though, that the cutaways to other nominees are particularly brutal this year. There's no audience to hide behind, so you just get their full-blast simmering resentment. Leslie Odom Jr in particular seems like he's going to storm off.

Kaluuya is being long-winded, but did at least end his speech by mortifying his entire family by explaining how his parents had sex and created him.

Don Cheadle is here now. Maybe he has a train to catch.

Oh, wait, he's presenting best hair and makeup. Easy mistake to make.

Ouch.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on April 25, 2021, 09:11:50 PM
in terms of trying a new thing I think there's going to be lasting heat about the lack of clips, based on conversations outside the awards, in other words that isn't going well with the audience

it feels a bit like every kid gets a trophy because Tenet won then Minari then Mank. there is something special about each of you
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on April 25, 2021, 10:00:30 PM
QuoteA weird moment now. Usually Best Picture is the culmination of the night. But now it's being quietly chucked out third from last. That's a strange choice, isn't it? What's going on?
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on April 25, 2021, 10:13:02 PM
is it Boseman for the end? ooooooh. okay, okay. that's very academy awards 2021
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on April 25, 2021, 10:18:00 PM
oh never mind it wasn't even heightened emotions. not sure what Hopkins was in
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on April 25, 2021, 10:21:53 PM
Quote[Joaquin] Phoenix is flat-out refusing to do the introductions. He's just readin' names and runnin' away. What a guy.

My man.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Drenk on April 25, 2021, 10:28:05 PM
Hahahahaha. Why did they expect Boseman to win? Soderbergh loves gambling, I guess. Biggest L of the night.

This was mostly a No Bullshit ceremony, reading names and giving Oscars. Not sure I'll keep watching in the future, I've missed two in the last years, and only watched this one in order to eat during the night since it's ramadan.

I don't have much attachment to the Thing, but I understand why it must particularly suck for you, wilberfan.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on April 25, 2021, 10:31:15 PM
Thanks, man.

I really hope I have a reason to be excited to watch the ceremony next year--if you know what I mean. 
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on April 25, 2021, 10:40:42 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJO77w4sC44 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJO77w4sC44)

sure
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on April 27, 2021, 11:24:58 AM
Quote from: wilberfan on April 17, 2021, 12:10:48 AM
The 2021 Oscars Will Shake Up the Awards Show Format and "Feel Like a Movie," According to Steven Soderbergh (https://www.slashfilm.com/2021-oscars-ceremony-changes-will-make-awards-feel-like-a-movie/)

QuoteBut perhaps the most intriguing approach to the 2021 Oscars ceremony is that Soderbergh wants it to feel like a movie. The filmmaker vaguely explained what he means by that:

"It's going to feel like a movie in that there's an overarching theme that's articulated in different ways throughout the show. So the presenters are essentially the storytellers for each chapter. We want you to feel like it wasn't a show made by an institution. We want you to feel like you're watching a show that was made by a small group of people that really attacked everything that feels generic or unnecessary or insincere. That's the kind of intention when I watch shows like this that is missing for me. A voice. It needs to have a specific voice."


From a post-Oscar analysis yesterday at the Hollywood Reporter:

QuoteWhat, by the way, was all the hoopla about the telecast being like a movie? Yes, it was shot with high-def cameras, but other than that? It feels like that was something the producers felt they had to say in order for the telecast to receive the classification of a film/TV production, which, in turn, allowed them to have attendees go maskless while on-camera

If that's accurate, that's some bullshit right there, Soderbergh...
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on April 27, 2021, 06:55:32 PM
I didn't watch, but I thought it was also 24fps and used a wide aspect ratio.

Ask a mask-vigilant person, that doesn't really bother me. I'm just assuming they were all tested and probably the vast majority vaccinated.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: WorldForgot on April 28, 2021, 08:47:34 AM
Personally I thought some of the aesthetic choices kept the night afloat, the wide aspect ratio and steadicam work, Questlove's mix.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: jenkins on May 05, 2021, 08:24:11 PM
Soderbergh says everything you would expect him to say (https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2021-05-04/steven-soderbergh-oscars-ending-chadwick-boseman-anthony-hopkins)
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on February 26, 2022, 06:46:22 PM
What would happen if AMPAS released the actual vote tallies, say, a week following the Oscars?   :ponder:

Would it work for them--against them?  Who would have the biggest meltdown--or be the most in favor?

Discuss.
Title: Re: Oscars....Yes or No?
Post by: wilberfan on July 21, 2022, 03:24:26 PM
As we watch AMPAS (apparently) circling the drain (at least in it's century old form)...

The Oscars legacy of film academy chief Dawn Hudson
Josh Rottenberg, Glenn Whipp

Did departing academy chief Dawn Hudson ruin the Oscars — or save them?

Dawn Hudson, who just stepped down as chief executive of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, photographed on the rooftop terrace of the organization's new museum.
(Mel Melcon/Los Angeles Times)
Dawn Hudson led the film academy through the most transformational — and tumultuous — period in its history, leaving insiders to fiercely debate her legacy.
When Dawn Hudson stood before the board of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in spring 2011 to make her pitch for the newly created job of chief executive, the organization appeared to be operating on cruise control.

Ratings for the Oscars remained robust, with the previous year's telecast watched by more than 40 million viewers. The academy's TV deal with ABC guaranteed that a billion dollars in revenue would pump into the group's already ample coffers over the next decade. The closest thing to recent Oscar controversies centered on taste — the much-maligned "Crash" winning best picture over "Brokeback Mountain" in 2006 — and whether James Franco was stoned when he co-hosted the show with Anne Hathaway in 2011.

Feeling secure in the group's status as the prestigious, enduring face of Hollywood, some on the 43-member board believed the academy simply needed a caretaker to maintain the course set by retiring Executive Director Bruce Davis, who had held the position for 30 years.

Hudson — an academy outsider, originally from Hot Springs, Ark., who had spent the previous two decades running the far smaller nonprofit Film Independent — saw things differently, and she told the board so in plain terms. It would take two presentations to persuade the academy's governors to hire her.

"There wasn't an obvious crisis that said, 'You're heading for the iceberg,' but I felt we were," Hudson, 65, says over Zoom from her Los Angeles home, just days after officially ending her tenure as the academy's leader on July 1. "We couldn't continue being this exclusionary kind of ivory-tower academy and be successful, be relevant, be the leaders we wanted to be. I perceived a crisis in the making, and so did a majority of the board, which is why I was hired. Not everyone had that same perception."

Eleven years later, not everyone has the same perception of Hudson or her transformative and often tumultuous tenure as chief executive. And as the academy begins a new chapter under Chief Executive Bill Kramer and a soon-to-be elected new president, the organization's leaders and members are left to argue over Hudson's complicated legacy.

Under Hudson's leadership, the academy remade itself inside and out to become more inclusive and diverse, expanded its membership around the world and celebrated the long-dreamed-of opening of a film museum in Los Angeles. At the same time, the academy also suffered through an unprecedented string of controversies and crises that at times bitterly divided the group's members and damaged the Oscars brand.

Through it all, Hudson remained a lightning rod, drawing fire internally and externally for every perceived misstep and polarizing initiative. Academy members contacted for this story mostly declined to comment, echoing a refrain offered by veteran marketing exec Terry Press via email: "My mother always taught me that if I have nothing nice to say, better to say nothing."

"What surprised me wasn't how Dawn, or anyone in a leadership role with that organization, would be blamed for myriad issues," says Laura Dern, a former academy governor, an Academy Museum trustee and a longtime friend of Hudson. "What surprised me, from 2011 to 2022, was the level of discord, scrutiny and challenge that someone would come up against for backing positive change in an organization. I guess I was really naive."

Hudson's detractors point to the public-relations fiascos the group suffered under her watch, from #OscarsSoWhite to the "Moonlight"/"La La Land" envelope snafu to the Will Smith Slap. They argue that she allowed the museum project to bog down in budget overruns and delays and let the academy's crown jewel, the Oscars, become increasingly irrelevant. Decisions to create a new Oscar to honor blockbusters — a ratings-seeking gambit that was reversed after a backlash — and to remove some categories from the live ceremony drew protests from members angry as much over the lack of consultation and communication as the moves themselves.

"With Dawn and the academy leadership, there have been a lot of good intentions, but the decisions weren't thought through and were often poorly executed," says producer and former studio exec Bill Mechanic, who resigned from the academy's board in 2018 and issued a blistering letter calling for the remaining members to "change the leadership" of the institution.

"I came to realize the board didn't give a s— about what its membership wants," Mechanic adds. "You don't have to do what everybody wants, but you should at least listen and not run it as an elitist organization."

In the eyes of Hudson's allies, however, she was exactly the sort of bold leader the organization needed to bring it fully into the 21st century, opening up a white-male-dominated membership to more women and people of color, bringing the museum to life after decades of failure and shaking up outdated Oscar traditions.

"Dawn has been extremely successful in getting an organization that has been around for almost 100 years to think differently about many things," says Kramer, who served as the Academy Museum's director before succeeding Hudson. "We are now an institution that's much more open to new ideas."

"For an organization that was founded in the 1920s, change can be painful, but it was time," adds outgoing academy President David Rubin. "The bright spotlight is inevitable. And for the press, it's incredibly entertaining to write about. To withstand that kind of scrutiny takes a particular strength. I credit Dawn for being able to weather it all."

Hudson was embattled from the start. Within a few months of taking charge in June 2011, she faced stiff internal criticism for launching new initiatives and making key staff changes with what some deemed to be insufficient input from other academy leaders. That fall, the academy endured the first in a string of public-relations nightmares to come during Hudson's tenure when director Brett Ratner, who had been hired to produce the next year's Oscars, was quoted making an antigay slur, leaving the organization scrambling to replace him and his hand-picked host, Eddie Murphy.

In a closed-door meeting of the academy's board in December 2011, some lobbied to buy out the remainder of Hudson's three-year contract and throw her overboard.

"Dawn was taking some hits," says former academy President Sid Ganis, who helped recruit Hudson for the job. "She came to the academy when it was this kind of wealthy, club-like organization that was used to doing things a certain way and reluctant to change much, and she dug in and grabbed the bull by the horns. And when you do that, there are people who can't handle it — or don't wish to handle it."

"She should have been fired then when we had the chance," says a former governor, who requested anonymity to protect current working relationships. "She was clearly in over her head."

Hudson not only kept her job but also won new three-year contracts in 2014, 2017 and 2020.

"She's a survivor," says a former academy official. "She knew how to form alliances on the board that pretty much made her bulletproof, even with all the criticism."

Asked about her critics, Hudson, who has been described more than once as a "steel magnolia" for her blend of Southern charm and grit, says that throughout her tenure, she was guided by a drive to do whatever she believed was necessary to safeguard the future of film and the academy.

"I'm motivated by a mission for this art form that I love," Hudson says. "When you have that in the forefront of your mind, I think it's easier to take chances or move forward and take criticism."

The quest for inclusion
One of Hudson's top priorities was to make the academy more inclusive. She saw diversifying the organization that was supposed to represent Hollywood's best and brightest as not only the right thing to do but also critical to the academy's survival. Hudson immediately launched an internal survey of the demographics of the academy's staff, committees and membership, something that the organization had never undertaken.

Not everyone on the board at the time shared Hudson's sense of urgency.

"Everybody called us a bunch of old white guys ... well, it wasn't true, but it was pretty close to true," says Ganis. "And Dawn came in and Day 1 she said 'diversity' — and she did it in every direction.... There were board members who said, 'We have to change,' and I must say I was one of them. But I don't think the board was looking for somebody to remake the organization."

Six days after starting the job, Hudson and then-academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs convened an unpublicized meeting with Spike Lee and other academy members and leaders to discuss how the organization could be made more welcoming to underrepresented communities.

As a woman taking the reins of a group that was, according to a 2012 Times study, more than three-quarters male, Hudson personally felt the organization's skewed demographics. "When I first came, there were very few women on the board," she says. "I felt acutely that I was one of the few female voices in that room. It was sort of a boys club."

Elected to the board in July 2016, Dern says she was surprised at how resistant some in the group were to Hudson's efforts to modernize the institution and how entrenched some of its leaders were in "an old-school ritual of how certain things were considered."

"Literally every meeting where Dawn would bring up something that sounded, you know, 50 years behind its time — not cutting-edge, just catching up with a lot of other organizations throughout the world that were attempting the same goals — that there would be any resistance did always shock me," Dern says.

In 2016, after incremental efforts to boost the organization's diversity, the academy's inequities exploded into public view. Two consecutive years of all-white acting nominees sparked the #OscarsSoWhite controversy with outrage on social media and within the industry.

At an event honoring Boone Isaacs that January, amid growing talk of a potential Oscar boycott, "Selma" star David Oyelowo became one of the first prominent figures in Hollywood to publicly blast the academy, telling the crowd, "I am an academy member, and it doesn't reflect me, and it doesn't reflect this nation." After he spoke, Hudson and Boone Isaacs pulled the actor aside to discuss their response to the crisis.

"I remember the three of us huddling while people were chomping on their rubber chicken, trying to figure out how we could address what was becoming a bit of an outcry," Oyelowo says. "Here were these two women who were caring about the likes of myself and other marginalized voices, saying: 'What can we say to show that we want to change?' I watched them both navigate that, and I thought Dawn's thoughtfulness, her ability to listen and her desire to put in place things that were actionable despite the political nature of the academy, was really exemplary."

Hoping to quell the firestorm, the academy announced a plan, dubbed A2020, to double the number of women and minorities in the group within five years. With thousands of new members from around the world, membership grew by nearly 80% to more than 10,000, and the goals were achieved in 2020. Today, the academy says 34% of its members identify as female, while 19% are from underrepresented ethnic/racial communities.

Many cheered the aggressive effort to diversify the organization, but some older academy members balked at the notion that its ranks needed a radical overhaul, arguing that they were being unfairly scapegoated for industry- and society-wide problems and that the bar for membership was being lowered.

"The academy may not have been a complete hall of fame, but it used to take some artistic achievement to become a member," Mechanic says. "Now all you have to do is buy a movie ticket."

Looking back, Hudson wishes she had done more to convey the importance of taking such dramatic steps.

"It's hard to change what you have for breakfast, much less change a 90-year-old institution," she says. "People want it in theory, but in practice it creates a sense of loss. I feel more compassion now, I guess, toward that kind of resistance. If I were doing this all over again, I would communicate even more what the academy must do to stay relevant, how the academy must reflect our filmgoing audience and our film industry talent that we had unintentionally but in our complacency not included before. I feel like we're a much stronger academy now."

During Hudson's tenure, the academy also significantly diversified its leadership. For the first time in the group's history, the board, which has expanded to 54 governors, now includes more women than men. In the most recent board elections, the number of members from underrepresented racial/ethnic communities rose to 15 from 12. In 2020, the academy announced a new initiative, Aperture 2025, geared at further increasing representation in the organization's governance, membership and workplace culture as well as instituting new inclusion standards for Oscars eligibility.

Even as the group was giving its membership a makeover, Hudson was engaged in another ambitious and high-stakes project: building a major movie museum in the heart of Los Angeles. Announced in 2012 with an initial budget of $250 million, the project was soon beset by delays and construction snags.

As the budget swelled, eventually nearly doubling, and fundraising slowed, tensions among board members rose and Hudson's leadership again came into question. Despite the setbacks and hand-wringing, Hudson insists she maintained a firm grasp on the museum project.

"Yes, of course, there were challenges," Hudson says. "But once we started demolition, I thought, 'There's no going back now.' We had Tom Hanks, Bob Iger and Annette Bening leading our capital campaign. We weren't going to lose."

The stakes of the museum project, in terms of both the nonprofit organization's brand and its bottom line, are enormous. During Hudson's tenure, the academy's net assets grew from $289 million in 2011 to $894 million in 2021, according to the group's most recent financial report. But in a potentially worrying sign for its long-term health, awards revenue, after rising for decades, has leveled off in recent years, declining more than 10% in the fiscal year ending July 2021. The academy's current contract with ABC ends in 2028. Beyond that, the broadcast — or streaming — future of the Oscars is an open question.

In September, after a reconsideration of the exhibitions to showcase underrepresented voices in Hollywood history, the $480-million museum finally opened. Though the fanfare was muted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the museum sold more than 550,000 tickets in its first nine months, according to the academy.

"We would not have a museum if it wasn't for Dawn and her vision and her commitment to the civic and cultural life of the city and the industry," Kramer says. "She saw the need for this."

An awards empire in decline
Even within the academy, however, excitement over the museum's opening has been dampened by deep anxiety over the state of the film industry. And for a large segment of the public, the Oscars appear to have lost some of their luster. Viewership for this year's Oscars rebounded from the disastrous 2021 pandemic ceremony held at Union Station. But at 16.6 million viewers, it was still the second-lowest-rated Oscars in history, a precipitous decline from a decade ago, when the telecast — from which the academy derives the bulk of its revenue — routinely pulled in around 40 million viewers.

Changes in the way people consume media explain much of the collapse. But critics say the academy's response — announcing (and then immediately dropping) the "best popular film" Oscar, removing categories from the live broadcast (a move revived this year after bitter protests squashed a plan in 2019), adding two unofficial "fan favorite" awards — have been ill-considered and demeaning to the Oscars' reputation.

For many academy members and viewers alike, this year's Oscars telecast proved a particularly low point.

Already marred by controversy over the academy's decision to move eight below-the-line and short film categories out of the live televised ceremony, the evening went off the rails when Smith struck Chris Rock onstage over a joke about Smith's wife, Jada Pinkett Smith. In the aftermath of the shocking incident, Hudson and Rubin acknowledged in a letter to members that they "did not adequately address" it in the moment.

Producer Michael Shamberg, who sued the academy in 2020, claiming the group violated its bylaws by not allowing members to vote on his proposal for a revised social media strategy, believes the organization's leadership has failed to live up to the academy's mission.

"I have praise for what Dawn did accomplish, but ... the academy dropped the ball on defining and promoting cinema as an art form to the younger audience growing up in the streaming era," Shamberg says. "As a result, the Oscars aren't relevant to kids growing up today and they've lost their status as the pinnacle of pop culture."

Davis, Hudson's predecessor as academy leader, attributes the ratings slide to the academy "hurting itself by doing its job: honoring the best movies each year." As studios have abdicated making serious commercial films in favor of IP-oriented popcorn fare, Oscar voters have been rewarding increasingly smaller-scale indie movies, including "Nomadland" and the Apple TV+ release "CODA."

"That huge audience that used to turn out every year for the Oscars doesn't know these movies as well," Davis says, "so the show's appeal has become more limited." He adds that it's easy to imagine a future in which the Oscars become something akin to the National Book Awards, only with "way more glamorous presenters."

Others, however, argue that as the academy's membership has grown more diverse and expansive under Hudson, the types of films that can be honored have expanded as well. "The possibility of 'Parasite' winning best picture ... that didn't happen without Dawn Hudson," says Dern. "That would have never happened on an international level, on a diversity level, on an independent film level."

Hudson says she isn't surprised that changes to the Oscar ceremony have received fierce pushback, attributing it to an "attachment to this brand" and a "sign of the importance of the institution."

The challenge, she says, is in staying connected to the core audience of movie lovers. While praising the board's willingness to try new ideas, including the audience award, she acknowledges that "some things work better than others. It's not a simple formula."

For the first time in a decade, cracking that elusive formula won't be on Hudson to solve.

"I feel very confident in the academy's future," she says. "I set out to do the things that were most important to me. We really modernized this academy and its position in the world, and I feel so excited about the museum and about our leadership in inclusion and diversity. And for me, I'm excited to take a breath, look around and see how else I can grow and contribute."