The Oscars . . . should there be a delay before voting?

[The Burgomaster]

I was just thinking that it might make sense to have a delay period before awarding Oscars.  About 5 years would be good.  That way, the Oscars would be less likely to be awarded based on "hype," and more likely to be awarded based on the quality of the movie.  It would give the voters a long time to reflect on whether a movie, a performance or a technical achievement was actually Oscar-worthy.

Take Hall of Fame voting for example.  In the world of sports, you usually aren't eligible for the Hall of Fame immediately upon retiring.  You have to be out of the sport for a period of years.  That allows the voters to have a "cooling off" period to really assess whether you should be enshrined with the all-time greats.

I think the Oscars could benefit from this.  How many Oscars do you think TITANIC would win if they voted on it this year?  (I'm not slamming TITANIC . . . I actually enjoy that movie . . . but I'm willing to bet that it wouldn't be as hot in today's voting as it was the year after it was released).

[raj]

Interesting idea, but Hollywoood is all about now.  I don't think many actors (at least the ones who'll be around in five years) will remember those movies, heck I don't remember what I saw five years ago.  It seems to me that the Oscars are more like MVP awards, based on that year's performance, not lifetime achievement.  


Still, it would be kind of nice to go back and yank that statuette out of Cameron's hands "You're no longer king of the world; you're just the court jester of the world." Mwahahahahahaha.

Er, ignore that last paragraph, don't know where it came from.

[Eirik]

That's an interesting idea... with the following impediments:

1) It would require the Academy and the Networks to completely forego the next five years' worth of Oscar-generated revenue.  And it would force the actors to go five years without a huge self-congratulatory "we're important" party.

2)  It would force the studios to have to wait five years to be able to tout their movies as Oscar-nominated/Oscar-winning.  While I couldn't care less, this advertising angle must sway some consumers as they keep using it.

3)  People (I should say some people, myself included) generally enjoy Oscar night as a competition where they can enjoy rooting for their favorite movies from the year while those movies are fresh in their heads.  I remember being furious that Glory lost to Driving Miss Daisy...  which was part of the fun of it.  Five years later, who cares?

I like your point about hype, though.  How about this: to be nominated, a movie must be released before September.  Any movie that is re-released or advertised in trade magazines or newspapars before the Oscars is automatically disqualified.

Of course this would cause Hollywood to truck out the one part of the Constitution any of them actually know or care about: The First Ammendment.  And frankly, they'd probably have a point in doing so.

[FearlessFreep]

As a lover of B- Movies, who cares about the Oscars anyway?

When Lance Henrickson, Tim Thomerson, or the latest release by U.F.O. or Full Moon get nominated... when Steven Spielberg is competing against Albert Pyun, then I might start paying attention

[raj]

Eirik wrote:

 
> I like your point about hype, though.  How about this: to be
> nominated, a movie must be released before September.  Any
> movie that is re-released or advertised in trade magazines or
> newspapars before the Oscars is automatically disqualified.
>
> Of course this would cause Hollywood to truck out the one part
> of the Constitution any of them actually know or care about:
> The First Ammendment.  And frankly, they'd probably have a
> point in doing so.

No, they wouldn't. The Academy (of motion pictures & whatnot) is a private organization and can set any rules it wants to, for its awards.  1A only applies to government action.

Your point about forgoing 5 years of awards is more to the point.  Hollywood's not going to give up the mutual admiration society for that long.

[eeeee5]

.  .  .  .  Sorry, what I meant to say was that I think b-movies should be anti-establishment.  That they are here to not be recognized by the Oscars.  The Oscars are the critics choice.  Leave the Oscars be, don't let them mess with LotR and others, they are not Oscars movies, the Oscars are the Industies self-congratulatory indulgence.  I think they should get even more lame and have given 20 Oscars to Titanic.  I don't like them acting like they care for the genres that don't even have their own category, and I don't want them to ever get their own category, at the Academy.  (I really don't mean this to sound too negative on the Academy).

"lk wins award" deleted scene from "Citizen Toxie" (Lloyd Kaufman as himself and Taylor Meade as Award Presenter):
AP:  "We award the Academy's highest award, the Lifetime Acheivement Award to Lloyd Kaufman of Troma Entertainment."
lk:  "You like me, you really like me.  I would like to thank god, jesus christ, and the mpaa rating board for making this historic occassion possible.  And now, if we could take this opportunity to bow are heads, for a moment of silence, in honor of all the alcholic, crack-addicted, crippled, ugly, Native American, unmarried women whom Hollywood has blacklisted and banned, who's property has been totally f----ed over!  Whu... why this award... f--- this award, I don't, uhh, you take it, you take it!  You can take that f---in award and shove it up my sweet pooper!  Yeah Hollywood, we don't need you f---in' awards, we're the Troma Team, f--- you!"



Post Edited (03-02-04 23:51)

[Lee]

FearlessFreep wrote:

> As a lover of B- Movies, who cares about the Oscars anyway?
>
> When Lance Henrickson, Tim Thomerson, or the latest release by
> U.F.O. or Full Moon get nominated... when Steven Spielberg is
> competing against Albert Pyun, then I might start paying
> attention
>

Amen cubed!