Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 88th Academy Awards Results (2016)

This is topic 88th Academy Awards Results (2016) in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007383

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-29-2016, 04:05 AM:

This is the full list of awards, nominees and results. Nominees are listed per award, the winner is indicated in bold.

Best Picture

Spotlight – Michael Sugar, Steve Golin, Nicole Rocklin, and Blye Pagon Faust
The Big Short – Brad Pitt, Dede Gardner, and Jeremy Kleiner
Bridge of Spies – Steven Spielberg, Marc Platt, and Kristie Macosko Krieger
Brooklyn – Finola Dwyer and Amanda Posey
Mad Max: Fury Road – Doug Mitchell and George Miller
The Martian – Simon Kinberg, Ridley Scott, Michael Schaefer, and Mark Huffam
The Revenant – Arnon Milchan, Steve Golin, Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Mary Parent, and Keith Redmon
Room – Ed Guiney

Best Director

Alejandro G. Iñárritu – The Revenant
Adam McKay – The Big Short
George Miller – Mad Max: Fury Road
Lenny Abrahamson – Room
Tom McCarthy – Spotlight

Best Actor

Leonardo DiCaprio – The Revenant as Hugh Glass
Bryan Cranston – Trumbo as Dalton Trumbo
Matt Damon – The Martian as Mark Watney
Michael Fassbender – Steve Jobs as Steve Jobs
Eddie Redmayne – The Danish Girl as Lili Elbe

Best Actress

Brie Larson – Room as Joy "Ma" Newsome
Cate Blanchett – Carol as Carol Aird
Jennifer Lawrence – Joy as Joy Mangano
Charlotte Rampling – 45 Years as Kate Mercer
Saoirse Ronan – Brooklyn as Eilis Lacey

Best Supporting Actor

Mark Rylance – Bridge of Spies as Rudolf Abel
Christian Bale – The Big Short as Michael Burry
Tom Hardy – The Revenant as John Fitzgerald
Mark Ruffalo – Spotlight as Michael Rezendes
Sylvester Stallone – Creed as Rocky Balboa

Best Supporting Actress

Alicia Vikander – The Danish Girl as Gerda Wegener
Jennifer Jason Leigh – The Hateful Eight as Daisy Domergue
Rooney Mara – Carol as Therese Belivet
Rachel McAdams – Spotlight as Sacha Pfeiffer
Kate Winslet – Steve Jobs as Joanna Hoffman

Best Original Screenplay

Spotlight – Tom McCarthy and Josh Singer
Bridge of Spies – Matt Charman, Ethan Coen, and Joel Coen
Ex Machina – Alex Garland
Inside Out – Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve, Josh Cooley, and Ronnie del Carmen
Straight Outta Compton – Jonathan Herman, Andrea Berloff, S. Leigh Savidge, and Alan Wenkus

Best Adapted Screenplay

The Big Short – Adam McKay and Charles Randolph from The Big Short by Michael Lewis
Brooklyn – Nick Hornby from Brooklyn by Colm Tóibín
Carol – Phyllis Nagy from The Price of Salt by Patricia Highsmith
The Martian – Drew Goddard from The Martian by Andy Weir
Room – Emma Donoghue from Room by Emma Donoghue

Best Animated Feature Film

Inside Out – Pete Docter and Jonas Rivera
Anomalisa – Charlie Kaufman, Duke Johnson, and Rosa Tran
Boy & the World – Alê Abreu
Shaun the Sheep Movie – Mark Burton and Richard Starzak
When Marnie Was There – Hiromasa Yonebayashi and Yoshiaki Nishimura

Best Foreign Language Film

Son of Saul (Hungary) in Hungarian – László Nemesdouble-dagger
Embrace of the Serpent (Colombia) in Spanish – Ciro Guerra
Mustang (France) in Turkish – Deniz Gamze Ergüven
Theeb (Jordan) in Arabic – Naji Abu Nowar
A War (Denmark) in Danish – Tobias Lindholm

Best Documentary – Feature

Amy – Asif Kapadia and James Gay-Reesdouble-dagger
Cartel Land – Matthew Heineman and Tom Yellin
The Look of Silence – Joshua Oppenheimer and Signe Byrge Sørensen
What Happened, Miss Simone? – Liz Garbus, Amy Hobby, and Justin Wilkes
Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom – Evgeny Afineevsky and Den Tolmor

Best Documentary – Short Subject

A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness – Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy
Body Team 12 – David Darg and Bryn Mooser
Chau, Beyond the Lines – Courtney Marsh and Jerry Franck
Claude Lanzmann: Spectres of the Shoah – Adam Benzine
Last Day of Freedom – Dee Hibbert-Jones and Nomi Talisman

Best Live Action Short Film

Stutterer – Benjamin Cleary and Serena Armitage
Ave Maria – Eric Dupont and Basil Khalil
Day One – Henry Hughes
Everything Will Be Okay – Patrick Vollrath
Shok – Jamie Donoughue

Best Animated Short Film

Bear Story – Pato Escala Pierart and Gabriel Osorio Vargas
Prologue – Imogen Sutton and Richard Williams
Sanjay's Super Team – Nicole Paradis Grindle and Sanjay Patel
We Can't Live Without Cosmos – Konstantin Bronzit
World of Tomorrow – Don Hertzfeldt

Best Original Score

The Hateful Eight – Ennio Morriconedouble-dagger
Bridge of Spies – Thomas Newman
Carol – Carter Burwell
Sicario – Jóhann Jóhannsson
Star Wars: The Force Awakens – John Williams

Best Original Song

"Writing's on the Wall" from Spectre – Music and Lyric by Jimmy Napes and Sam Smith
"Earned It" from Fifty Shades of Grey – Music and Lyric by Ahamad Balshe (Belly), and others
"Manta Ray" from Racing Extinction – Music by J. Ralph, Lyric by Antony Hegarty
"Simple Song #3" from Youth – Music and Lyric by David Lang
"Til It Happens to You" from The Hunting Ground – Music and Lyric by Lady Gaga and Diane Warren

Best Sound Editing

Mad Max: Fury Road – Mark A. Mangini and David White
The Martian – Oliver Tarney
The Revenant – Martin Hernández and Lon Bender
Sicario – Alan Robert Murray
Star Wars: The Force Awakens – Matthew Wood and David Acord

Best Sound Mixing

Mad Max: Fury Road – Chris Jenkins, Gregg Rudloff, and Ben Osmo
Bridge of Spies – Andy Nelson, Gary Rydstrom, and Drew Kunin
The Martian – Paul Massey, Mark Taylor, and Mac Ruth
The Revenant – Jon Taylor, Frank A. Montaño, Randy Thom, and Chris Duesterdiek
Star Wars: The Force Awakens – Andy Nelson, Christopher Scarabosio, and Stuart Wilson

Best Production Design

Mad Max: Fury Road – Colin Gibson and Lisa Thompson
Bridge of Spies – Rena DeAngelo, Bernhard Henrich, and Adam Stockhausen
The Danish Girl – Michael Standish and Eve Stewart
The Martian – Celia Bobak and Arthur Max
The Revenant – Jack Fisk and Hamish Purdy

Best Cinematography

The Revenant – Emmanuel Lubezki
Carol – Ed Lachman
The Hateful Eight – Robert Richardson
Mad Max: Fury Road – John Seale
Sicario – Roger Deakins

Best Makeup and Hairstyling

Mad Max: Fury Road – Lesley Vanderwalt, Elka Wardega, and Damian Martin
The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared – Love Larson and Eva von Bahr
The Revenant – Siân Grigg, Duncan Jarman, and Robert Pandini

Best Costume Design

Mad Max: Fury Road – Jenny Beavan
Carol – Sandy Powell
Cinderella – Sandy Powell
The Danish Girl – Paco Delgado
The Revenant – Jacqueline West

Best Film Editing

Mad Max: Fury Road – Margaret Sixel
The Big Short – Hank Corwin
The Revenant – Stephen Mirrione
Spotlight – Tom McArdle
Star Wars: The Force Awakens – Maryann Brandon and Mary Jo Markey

Best Visual Effects

Ex Machina – Mark Williams Ardington, Sara Bennett, Paul Norris, and Andrew Whitehurst
Mad Max: Fury Road – Andrew Jackson, Dan Oliver, Andy Williams, and Tom Wood
The Martian – Anders Langlands, Chris Lawrence, Richard Stammers, and Steven Warner
The Revenant – Richard McBride, Matt Shumway, Jason Smith, and Cameron Waldbauer
Star Wars: The Force Awakens – Chris Corbould, Roger Guyett, Paul Kavanagh, and Neal Scanlan

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 02-29-2016, 10:50 AM:

yawn....

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 02-29-2016, 11:35 AM:

They cut way back on the big production numbers this year. Only two bad word edits during the live show. The host spent to much time on one subject. They needed to put him in a light blue jacket and change the colors every time he came on stage, not the over bright white thing he had on. The stereo surround was mixed very nice for live TV. Many actors did not show up this year for the protest. Someone needs to put a little live comedy in the stage show like a big bear going after the hosts pant legs, bring It on as a surprise to him.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-29-2016, 12:15 PM:

quote: List
Best Foreign Language Film

Son of Saul (Hungary) in Hungarian – László Nemes

I wonder when the last feature that was shot in, and intended for presentation in, 35mm 1.37 won an Oscar? The early 1950s would be my guess, unless any of the Dogma 95 movies also won a foreign language Oscar (but most of them weren't actually shot on 35mm).

As for Mad Max sweeping the technical categories, I'm guessing that all the AMPAS voters are fed up with early c20 costume dramas.

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 02-29-2016, 12:52 PM:

Leave us not forget "The Artist", produced and originally released in late 2011 (to get the Oscars buzz for it) but primarily shown during 2012 -- black & white, and in a 1.37:1 aspect ratio. "The Artist" got 5 Oscars, if IMDB is correct. I believe it was principally photographed on 35mm film, a move I applaud. There were both DCP and film copies of it; Michel Hazanavicius wasn't as strident in his "anti-digital" position as Tarantino, and the film process was uniquely suited to the production of that particular movie, since it was set in the late '20s anyway, and largely a "silent" movie. But prior to that, yes it was MANY years ago that a show in 1.37 got such attention and awards.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-29-2016, 01:17 PM:

The award I was most excited to see was Ex Machina for Visual Effects. It shows the Academy appreciated the subtlety of the visual effects over the traditional effects driven movie.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-29-2016, 02:08 PM:

It was a typical Oscars show, but I thought Rock went overboard on the black/white jokes. After about the first half hour or so I was like, "OK, we get it, more black people should be nominated, blah blah." After the monologue they should have just got down to business and been done with it.

I just think it's hilarious that a black comedian can make so many racist (with occasional bits of hate thrown in) jokes and everybody thinks that's crazy funny, but if a white guy made even one racist joke his career would be over.

I wasn't impressed with Lady Gaga, although I never have been; I seem to be the only person in the world who thinks she is an overhyped windbag (although she does have a good singing voice).

I was quite surprised that "The Revenant" didn't win Best Picture. I'll bet there was a LOT of money lost in Vegas on that one.

I thought the show looked nice. The Dolby Theatre is an impressive venue. Can't comment on the sound mix because I watched it in SD mono at home.

I like how they put the endless lists of thank-yous onscreen. It didn't help the speeches though, they were still just as boring as usual. What's with thanking the wife and kids? They didn't make the movie.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-29-2016, 02:10 PM:

quote: Paul H. Rayton
Leave us not forget "The Artist", produced and originally released in late 2011 (to get the Oscars buzz for it) but primarily shown during 2012 -- black & white, and in a 1.37:1 aspect ratio.

Given that it was silent and with a recorded orchestral soundtrack in the late 1920s, Hugo Riesenfeld style, it should have been in 1.19 / Movietone, for total authenticity!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-29-2016, 03:51 PM:

quote:
The Martian – Simon Kinberg, Ridley Scott, Michael Schaefer, and Mark Huffam

Did you really have to list all of the names? Nobody knows or cares who these people are... except for the one in bold who is/was on this forum. No two people can share the same name, it's against both the law of the land and the law of physics so it MUST be him.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Best Actor

Leonardo DiCaprio

Good. Now people can shut up about him. And I really wish people would stop calling him "Leo".

quote:
László Nemesdouble-dagger
James Gay-Reesdouble-dagger
Ennio Morriconedouble-dagger

The hell?

Also, these categories need to be eliminated forever. More people will watch the show guaranteed:

-Best Animated Feature Film (why does it matter if it's animated or not?)
-Best Foreign Language Film (other languages do not count)
-Best Documentary – Feature
-Best Documentary – Short Subject
-Best Live Action Short Film (Midgets can have their own award ceremonies)
-Best Animated Short Film
-Best Original Song
-Best Makeup and Hairstyling
-Best Costume Design
-Best Adapted Screenplay (can't even think of original material, how pathetic)
-Best Supporting Actor (Not even good enough to be the MAIN actor? No thanks)
-Best Supporting Actress (This is like an award for being a little sister)

Also is it fair that Actor is listed ABOVE Actress? How sexist. Check your male privilege you pig.

Signed,
Joe Rediferdouble-dagger

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-29-2016, 05:02 PM:

quote:
Given that it was silent and with a recorded orchestral soundtrack in the late 1920s, Hugo Riesenfeld style, it should have been in 1.19 / Movietone, for total authenticity!

For optimum authenticity it should also have shipped as a nitrate film. [Wink]

quote: Joe Redifer
Did you really have to list all of the names? Nobody knows or cares who these people are... except for the one in bold who is/was on this forum. No two people can share the same name, it's against both the law of the land and the law of physics so it MUST be him.

So, if he who is/was on this forum and the one in bold would ever meet on this forum, this will happen?

quote: Joe Redifer
Good. Now people can shut up about him. And I really wish people would stop calling him "Leo".

I agree, I like 'Nardo better.

quote:
-Best Animated Feature Film (why does it matter if it's animated or not?)

You don't get it, do you?
Animated: For little Joes only
Non-animated: For big Joes only

quote:
-Best Foreign Language Film (other languages do not count)

That better not be a question, or else it would look bad on your reputation as an American.

quote: Joe Redifer
Also is it fair that Actor is listed ABOVE Actress? How sexist. Check your male privilege you pig.

They were listed randomly, using importance as a weighting factor?

quote: Joe Redifer
Joe Rediferdouble-dagger

In line with Wikipedia, from which I copy/pasted/stole those results, double-daggers are only awarded to winners. So, do you feel like a winner?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-29-2016, 07:27 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
For optimum authenticity it should also have shipped as a nitrate film.

You might joke about it, but someone gave a presentation at an AMIA conference about 10 years ago arguing for a limited return to production of nitrate film base for small numbers of prestige showprints. He pointed out that nitrocellulose is still in production for various niche applications (e.g. for coating onto phonograph discs in lacquer form to cut masters and dubplates), and that therefore film base casting using it could be restarted at relatively little cost. He further pointed out that new nitrate prints made from preservation elements would be less volatile and safer in projection than survivors from the 1940s or earlier, as they wouldn't be as decomposed.

I'm kinda relieved that nothing came of that suggestion, though!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-29-2016, 09:07 PM:

I did like it that Ennio Morricone FINALLY won a Best Music Score Oscar. Yes, I do believe his score for The Hateful Eight was deserving of the award.

It's about damned time too. The Oscars™ have shown in the past they're willing to consider the past career work of a nominee into the process, hence awards like John Wayne winning Best Actor for True Grit or Paul Newman winning the same award for The Color of Money. Even "Leo's" award last night might fall into the same category. The real outrage is Leo's moustache booger, as seen in the last shot of The Revenant didn't win an Oscar™ too.

Morricone was Oscar™ nominated 5 previous times, but did not win for Malèna, Bugsy, The Untouchables (you Academy assholes!), The Mission and Days of Heaven. The guy has over 500 freaking scoring credits to his name. Holy shit. I feel like a lazy sloth now.

Morricone received no nominations, no awards, no nothing other than his paycheck for The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Same goes for movies like Once Upon a Time in America or Once Upon a Time in the West. He originally didn't get to use his own name for his credit on A Fistful of Dollars.

While I am kind of pissed The Hateful Eight didn't bring home a Best Cinematography Oscar™ I also think QT shouldn't have filmed 90% of his movie in a freaking dark log cabin with a whole bunch of talking. If you're going to shoot something in 70mm you better offer up some visual spectacle with it!

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-01-2016, 06:43 AM:

quote:
You might joke about it, but someone gave a presentation at an AMIA conference about 10 years ago arguing for a limited return to production of nitrate film base for small numbers of prestige showprints. He pointed out that nitrocellulose is still in production for various niche applications (e.g. for coating onto phonograph discs in lacquer form to cut masters and dubplates), and that therefore film base casting using it could be restarted at relatively little cost. He further pointed out that new nitrate prints made from preservation elements would be less volatile and safer in projection than survivors from the 1940s or earlier, as they wouldn't be as decomposed.

I'm kinda relieved that nothing came of that suggestion, though!

Well, he should have developped an ultra-fast self-decomposing version and sold it to Hollywood as some newfangled form of DRM and it surely would've been a hit. [Wink]

quote: Bobby Henderson
It's about damned time too. The Oscars™ have shown in the past they're willing to consider the past career work of a nominee into the process, hence awards like John Wayne winning Best Actor for True Grit or Paul Newman winning the same award for The Color of Money. Even "Leo's" award last night might fall into the same category. The real outrage is Leo's moustache booger, as seen in the last shot of The Revenant didn't win an Oscar™ too.

Isn't this what the "Academy Honorary Award" was introduced for? Considering past career work for the yearly Oscars™ isn't really fair for the contenders in the same category. If someone is unfortunate enough to always be outclassed by the competition du jour (at least, according to the jury), but has consistently been producing work at the highest levels, he or she should be awarded a special award, covering his or her oeuvre.

PS: Is the Plural form of Oscar™ Oscar™s or Oscars™? Maybe we should call it the OS©/\®S™?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-01-2016, 02:25 PM:

I didn't watch the Oscars this year and I don't feel like I missed anything.

My girlfriend's father is a retired producer who made many of the TV shows and movies we all think of as classics and even he wasn't interested in the Oscars. He is a member of the Academy and he gets all the screeners. His comment to me was something along the lines that there are one or two worthwhile movies but 95% of them are crap.

I saw the some of the usual 90 second clips from the Oscars that you see on news and talk shows, the day after. I wasn't impressed.

Chris Rock telling racial jokes was a total turn-off!
I would laugh at the occasional Chris Rock joke in another setting, such as a comedy club or TV appearance but the Oscars is supposed to be a formal occasion. Observational comedy about societal quirks of behavior can be funny but they are not appropriate for the decorum of the Academy Awards.

quote:
You might joke about it, but someone gave a presentation at an AMIA conference about 10 years ago arguing for a limited return to production of nitrate film base for small numbers of prestige showprints. He pointed out that nitrocellulose is still in production for various niche applications (e.g. for coating onto phonograph discs in lacquer form to cut masters and dubplates), and that therefore film base casting using it could be restarted at relatively little cost. He further pointed out that new nitrate prints made from preservation elements would be less volatile and safer in projection than survivors from the 1940s or earlier, as they wouldn't be as decomposed.

I'm kinda relieved that nothing came of that suggestion, though!

With all the technology we have, today, versus the early 1900's you would think that it would be almost a trivial matter to project nitrate film safely.

Electronically controlled projectors. Speed sensors. Heat sensors. Solenoid operated shutters. Servo motors. Dichroic heat reflectors.

I think that we have the technology that a trained operator could safely project nitrate film.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-01-2016, 06:17 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
I think that we have the technology that a trained operator could safely project nitrate film.

I ran nitrate back in the early 70's a my drive-in.

Towards the end of each season where we weren't receiving any trailers from NSS, we ran a B/W 10min clock reel, printed on nitrate stock, between shows.

Did that for three seasons. Just kept the fire trap rollers in the magazines and film contact areas super clean when running that reel - with extinguisher nearby.

Motio AA and Ashcraft Corelites with 11mm rotators is what my booth contained.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-01-2016, 07:07 PM:

The danger today is not so much in the technology, but the safety culture.

When nitrate was in mainstream use, the precautions needed to keep the risk of a fire to within acceptable limits was second nature. Projectionists, lab technicians and everyone else who routinely handled it were trained to handle it properly, knew the risks, did what was needed, and as a result, nitrate fires in the '30s and '40s only happened very, very rarely.

That knowledge and culture isn't there now, and so if you started making new nitrate prints and they got into circulation, the danger is that they'd eventually get into the hands of someone who didn't know what they were dealing with, or even worse, thought it would be cool to live dangerously.

As things are, there are only a tiny handful of showable nitrate prints remaining, and the archives that have them set very high barriers and due diligence checks before allowing them to be projected. I'll probably be flamed and accused of elitism for this, but that's how I'd like it to stay.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-01-2016, 10:23 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
His comment to me was something along the lines that there are one or two worthwhile movies but 95% of them are crap.

This underlines why people who are no longer active in the industry shouldn't be allowed to vote. The majority of "old people" (not just people in the business) tend to think that most "modern" entertainment is crap, compared to what they enjoyed in the good old days. So why bother having them participate when they may have an automatic negative view of the proceedings and the stuff they're voting on?

I also hate screeners and wish they would require the voters to see all the movies in real theaters but I guess THAT genie is totally out of the bottle now.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-02-2016, 12:08 AM:

I understand what you are saying and there is probably some truth to that but I don't perceive him as being one of those "back in my day" types. He gets screeners because he's pretty much of a home body. He just doesn't have the stamina to go out for very long. He watches a lot of movies from Netflix. He may be a little bit old fashioned but he is by no means provincial.

I spent a couple of days, hanging out and talking with him. His main complaints are pretty much in line with what I hear a lot of people here saying. In one sentence, the main problems with movies, today, is that they are too superficial and emphasize looks and special effects over plot, story and characters.

I agree that there are many old timers in the movie industry who have provincial attitudes. I wish that people weren't like that, so much. I'd like to see people looked upon as elders and mentors but I'd also like to see them act more like mentors, as well.

quote: Leo Enticknap
As things are, there are only a tiny handful of showable nitrate prints remaining, and the archives that have them set very high barriers and due diligence checks before allowing them to be projected. I'll probably be flamed and accused of elitism for this, but that's how I'd like it to stay.

It's probably going to be like that for ALL film, pretty soon.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-02-2016, 12:36 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
As things are, there are only a tiny handful of showable nitrate prints remaining, and the archives that have them set very high barriers and due diligence checks before allowing them to be projected. I'll probably be flamed and accused of elitism for this, but that's how I'd like it to stay.

Besides some nostalgia, is there any real reason left to use nitrate films for projection at all? Nitrocellulose might be somewhat more transparent than polyester and cellulose acetate, but nowadays we have more powerful light sources to compensate.

quote: Mike Blakesley
This underlines why people who are no longer active in the industry shouldn't be allowed to vote. The majority of "old people" (not just people in the business) tend to think that most "modern" entertainment is crap, compared to what they enjoyed in the good old days. So why bother having them participate when they may have an automatic negative view of the proceedings and the stuff they're voting on?

I guess ideally, the voters should be composed of a sound mix between "young-" and "old-minded" folks, since the focus group is the whole industry. But people no longer active in the industry just shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. The question is how you monitor the latter. Still, how can somebody who has lost the affection with the industry make an educated judgement?

quote: Mike Blakesley
I also hate screeners and wish they would require the voters to see all the movies in real theaters but I guess THAT genie is totally out of the bottle now.

They should at least see it in a correctly setup and well maintained screening room. How else could you otherwise judge stuff like the sound mix or special effects?

Also, as a bonus, if they would require voters to see movies at those kind of venues, it would probably also stop those screeners leaking out to pirate sites...

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-02-2016, 03:40 AM:

I forget where I heard it, but one of the proposed "fixes" I've heard was that Academy members who had not been active in their field for some number of years would be ineligible to vote for the Awards. I believe an exception was made for past award winners.

I think this is a great idea. Baseball just made a similar change when it comes to who gets to vote for the Hall of Fame.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 03-02-2016, 10:01 AM:

As far as nitrate goes, I tend to agree with both Leo and Marcel. I don't think younger projectionists are reckless, but they were never trained with that kind of mind set, and most of the equipment and booths are not equipped to contain a fire.

Back in the 1980's I was at a private screening of a collector's nitrate print of Alfred Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent at a local theatre. Against my advice, they ran the print on a platter. I remember sitting next to an auditorium emergency exit as a result. Fortunately, nothing went wrong.

About 12 years ago, I ran Edison's 1910 version of Frankenstein at the Landmark Loews Jersey. The collector who owned it has a safety print struck from his nitrate original, and did a tour of the country with it. He brought along the original nitrate print which he has on display in the lobby. He also brought along a "trip to the moon" (not Melies) short to run before Frankenstein. I took it up to the booth and wound thru it. It was hand tinted and looked really interesting, but it was nitrate and I was not willing to run it on a open Kinoton FP20. Back down to the lobby it went.

As to the Academy Awards, I have mixed feelings about excluding non currently active members from voting. A work of art may say something different to different generations, but a good film is a good film, regardless of when it was made. Other than maybe a few technical categories, the skill that went into a given craft is timeless. Should someone who spent their entire life working in the industry be considered incompetent to vote just because they are retired. Are they saying that an actor who retired in 1990 can not judge good acting? I don't think so. On the other hand, I do think that in order to vote, a person should be required to actually see the film, and see it in a properly setup theatre or screening room. In fact, I really think they should be required to see the film in a commercial theatre with the public. Far too many in the industry are out of touch with the general public. Their friends are in the industry, they watch films with people in the industry, and have no idea what public want. Reading marketing surveys is no substitute for experiencing it yourself.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-02-2016, 12:38 PM:

It's going to be hard to make the following point without getting overly political, but here goes for an attempt.

As I understand it, the CEO of AMPAS wants to kick retirees out of the voting pool in order to encourage "diversity," i.e. bring more members of ethnic and other minorities into it.

The issue for her is going to be that if the Oscars are going to remain a prestigious event, that generates huge TV ratings and pulls in the money needed for AMPAS to do all its other stuff (Herrick Library, Academy Film Archive, etc.), the movies that win the high profile categories have to reflect popular taste. If they stop doing so, then those ratings will plummet and the Oscars will become just another one of many awards shows.

However worthy a four-hour long, micro budget movie, shot on a D-SLR and mostly in someone's kitchen, in which a Latino lesbian disabled, drug-addicted single mother complains about how life has been so awful to her and then takes an overdose in the final scene (this movie does exist, and I've shown it!), it's never going to pack out the Imax screen in a megamall AMC. If films like this start to win best picture, best director, etc., with Star Wars and Mad Max being totally passed over, that will be the beginning of the end of the Oscars as the premiere awards show, against which all others are judged.

Throughout its history, the Oscars has done a pretty good job of balancing the celebration of commercially successful films with artistically worthy ones, as demonstrated by both Star Wars and Son of Saul being recognized this time around. If the Academy is serious about trying to change that balance fundamentally, it'll be a potentially risky experiment.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-02-2016, 01:28 PM:

I guess what bothers me about the whole diversity issue is, apparently good acting isn't going to be the only criteria anymore; in the future, "not being white" will in itself be a qualification to get you an Oscar nomination. People's actual opinions won't carry 100% of the weight anymore. It seems wrong somehow.

But I don't know what the solution is; you can't order people to like something, but that's what the academy is pushing.

Posted by John Eickhof (Member # 323) on 03-02-2016, 01:30 PM:

Leo's comments are very relevant, Mike too, I still feel that if the academy wants diversity, they need to find a quality of artist that will earn the nomination, not just nominated by race, creed, or color! It's bad enough that the Hollywood community still operates on a 'who you know' mentality and not 'what you know'! I also think they need to segregate the features with more than 50% EFX (as now it seems difficult to discern what's real or not in the newer features)and ones with predominantly real live acting as it is acting that makes a feature successful. (note, I don't use the term film anymore, its kinda like 'dial this phone number'!) AS for nitrate prints, I agree with the richness of color and sharpness of the stock ( I possess and have run quite a bit in my early years) however one must not forget that outfitting a booth and theatre to meet the fire regulations and shipping of such "hazardous" materials would not only be expensive, but probably very impractical. Of course the shipping cost would be the exhibitor's responsibility and expense too! The last pair of projectors I equipped for nitrate went into the Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA where they still operate with carbon arc lamps. (And, If I remember they had one fire in the booth years ago Sam, don't you have some pix after the fire??)

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-02-2016, 01:42 PM:

quote:
(note, I don;t use the term film anymore)

The Academy uses the term "achievement." As in (and I quote):

quote:
The alteration of an achievement by changing a picture from the version shown in Los Angeles County, upon which eligibility is based, shall subject such achievement to the risk of being declared ineligible by the Board of Governors.

(ok they mostly use Motion Picture because, why not, it's in their name. Still, the rules talk funny)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-02-2016, 01:58 PM:

I agree with the idea anyone voting in the Oscars should be actively working in the specific field the Oscar category is covering (with the exception of Best Picture, whose vote is open to all Academy members). I don't have a problem with previous Oscar winners voting, no matter how long since they've last worked, since such people, particularly those in technical categories, have achieved a widely respected level of expertise.

One of the problems with getting older is newer forms of entertainment (movies, music, books, etc.) don't seem as good as the stuff from decades ago. All those things were experienced with young eyes/ears that hadn't seen/heard anything like it before -even if the "new" piece of entertainment being experienced is actually recycled garbage. Popular culture is always slanted toward youth, leaving new movies and music not so relatable to middle aged and older people.

Then there's the "been there, seen that" factor. That definitely can throw in a bit of bias in Oscar voting. There's not as much of the magic or wonder in experiencing the product. When you get old enough and/or have seen enough movies you'll really start to see the artifice and mechanics of it. This factor is compounded greatly for anyone working in the movie industry. Hence the attitude that there's only a couple worthwhile movies made per year and the rest are crap.

This doesn't mean the Academy needs an age cut-off for Oscar voters. They do need a broad mix of ages voting on these categories. The older, more experienced voters do have an advantage of knowing quite a bit more history. Good movie critics really have to know their stuff regarding film history. They need to be able to know the difference between a movie that is indeed brand new, ground-breaking, etc. versus something that is really a regurgitation of some old idea.

If anything needs to be done to "clean up" Oscar voting, it's by making sure the actual Academy members are the ones voting rather than some douche's secretary.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I also hate screeners and wish they would require the voters to see all the movies in real theaters but I guess THAT genie is totally out of the bottle now.

I think the movie studios should require voters to see the movies in a real movie theater or screening room. They need to get rid of the damned screener discs, downloads, etc. The movie industry will continue to have no credibility at all when whining about piracy, not as long as they keep distributing those damned screeners. Movies like The Revenant get leaked online to torrent sites as much as a month before hitting theaters. Yet the movie theaters continue to shoulder all the blame for piracy.

quote:
Chris Rock telling racial jokes was a total turn-off!

Yeah, not much of that stuff was funny at all. I wasn't very impressed with the Oscars telecast basically embracing the "Oscars So White" thing either, as if "owning" it would make the situation any better. It would have been worse if they had said nothing about the controversy, but going in the other extreme reeked of hypocrisy.

quote: Leo Enticknap
As I understand it, the CEO of AMPAS wants to kick retirees out of the voting pool in order to encourage "diversity," i.e. bring more members of ethnic and other minorities into it.

That's kind of a chicken vs. egg scenario. In order to get more non-whites into the Oscar voting pool a greater mix of non-white actors and crew members have to already be getting hired in the first place. Nationwide, non-Hispanic Whites make up 60% of the United States' population. I think anyone would have a very difficult time finding many big studio movies where at least 40% of the cast and crew were non-white.

Our world, overall, is still a very prejudiced, bigoted place. Global media giants definitely consider this fact when casting movies. When producing a movie they want to appeal to particular demographics here in the United States and across the rest of the world. I don't think it's any accident White actors had all the acting Oscar nominations this year and last year.

If Hollywood wants more diversity in Oscar nominations it has do one simple thing: cast more non-White actors in serious, high-brow movie roles. They're not doing that now. When a Black actor is cast in a serious movie, or even an Oscar-winning movie, it almost always has something to do with race, such as 12 Years A Slave, Training Day, etc.

If the acting part is ambiguous on who could play it the studio will almost always stick a White actor in that role. It's the safe choice. Look at all the bitching that flared online when a Black storm trooper showed up in Star Wars. Studios usually only cast a minority actor in a role specifically written as a non-White part. In some cases the studio may still stick White actors in those roles. A couple weeks ago John Oliver's Last Week Tonight show aired a hilarious segment on Hollywood Whitewashing in its "Why Is This Still A Thing" series that highlights that tradition.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 03-02-2016, 02:59 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
non-Hispanic Whites make up 60% of the United States' population

What's a non hispanic white? There may be Hispanics who consider themselves white (New Mexico for sure where they all think they're Spaniards) but they're not.

As for the Black storm trooper, that's a pretty Disneyesque black guy if I may use the term.

Now back your regularly scheduled program.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-02-2016, 04:04 PM:

Anthropologically speaking, the Caucasian race includes people whose origins are in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Hispanics and Arabs are included in that group. That's how some figures can show Whites make up 77.7% of the population in the United States. The figure for Whites drops to 62.6% when Latinos are not counted. FYI, Blacks make up 14% of the US population.

The US Census Bureau is facing an ever more complicated task in trying to track racial & ethic demographics. More Americans are marrying across racial & ethnic lines. My girlfriend is Black. Her daughters are half Black and half Puerto Rican, but they consider themselves Black. Most of America's population growth is taking place in minority groups and through immigration. Population growth rates among Whites and Blacks is slowing and may fall into a regressive rate, like what's happening in Europe.

quote: Sam D. Chavez
As for the Black storm trooper, that's a pretty Disneyesque black guy if I may use the term.

That's a huge part of the problem right there: the Black guy has to fit into some sort of pre-defined mold, like all the tired tropes we see in "Black" Hollywood movies. He can't just be some actor who incidentally happens to be Black.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-02-2016, 04:37 PM:

When the OscarSoWhite thing first started after the nominations, I went through the nominations for the past 15 years and found the number of black actors nominated for Best Actor was about 11%. Meaning it was more or less in line with their share of the general population.

If you take each category on it's own, a population group which makes up less than 20% of the whole should not actually expect to be represented every year in a category which has only 5 nominations. If you take all 20 of the acting nominations as a whole, then the expectation would be 2-3 nominations per year.

The thing that was left unsaid during the telecast is that lack of opportunity is probably the biggest reason there are not more minority nominees. While Chris Rock did talk about wanting more opportunity, he failed to make the connection.

When you think about it, opportunity really is the key for minorities, as well as women, and other groups. Most years when I'm thinking about the nominations I can easily come up with a list of 10-15 actors who might be nominated for the Best Actor and Supporting Actor categories. But it is often difficult to find 10 actresses to fill the 2 categories.

This lack of opportunity was pretty obvious when you look at 2015 movies. I only counted 3 performances which I would consider worthy of consideration for nominations: Will Smith in Concussion, Michael B Jordan in Creed, and Jason Mitchell in Straight Outta Compton. After his SAG win, I realize Idris Elba should have been considered for Beasts of No Nation. However that film only made $90,000 in theatres and did not seem to be widely known.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-02-2016, 04:52 PM:

Were there sufficient homosexuals nominated? Were the liberals and conservatives equally represented? What about the left handed? And why are there so few red haired girls nominated for an Oscar? I demand redheads to be more represented!

You know what it's called if you favor a so called minority only because they might think they're being ignored? I think it's called discrimination...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-02-2016, 09:12 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
You know what it's called if you favor a so called minority only because they might think they're being ignored? I think it's called discrimination...

They might think they're being ignored? Let's take a look at the actual numbers of nominations and wins by Black actors and crew members:

Best Actor Oscar
87 Years of awards X 5 for Total Nominations: 435
19 Black Actor nominations,
4 Black Best Actor winners,
4.36% of total nominations of category.
6.6% of total nominations since 1958,
when Noah Cullen was the first Black Best Actor nominee.
10 Black Best Actor nominees in past 15 years.
13.3% of total nominations since then.

Best Actress Oscar
10 Black Best Actress nominations,
1 Black Best Actress winner,
2.29% of total nominations in Oscar history,
3.27% of total nominations since 1954,
when Dorothy Dandridge was the first Black Best Actress nominee.
4 Black Actress nominees in past 15 years: 5.33% of nominations.

Best Supporting Actor
17 Black Actors nominated in category since 1969,
when Rupert Crosse was first Black actor nominated in category,
3.9% of total nominations in category in Oscar history.
6 nominations in past 15 years, 8% of nominations.

Best Supporting Actress
18 Black Actresses nominated in category since 1939,
when Hattie McDaniel was nominated (and won) for Gone With the Wind,
6 Black Best Supporting Actress winners.
4.13% of total nominations in Oscar history.
9 nominations in past 15 years, 12% of nominations.

Best Director: 3 Black nominees ('91, '09, '13), no winners.
Best Picture (Producer): 6 Black nominees, 1 winner ('13).
Best Original Screenplay: 3 Black nominees, no wins.
Best Adapted Screenplay: 4 Black nominees, 2 winners ('09, '13)
Best Cinematography: 1 Black nominee ('98), didn't win.
Best Film Editing: 1 Black nominee ('69), didn't win.
Best Costume Design: 4 Black nominees, no wins.
Best Sound Mixing: 9 Black nominees, 4 wins.
Best Music Score: 11 Black nominees (3 for 1 film), 2 wins.
Best Song: 21 songs nominated from Black songwriters, 6 wins.

The Best Song category can be argued as a statistical anomaly since it's equally related to the pop genre of the music industry, an area where Black performers and songwriters show some dominance.

While a lot of attention is being paid to African American actors in the "Oscars So White" controversy, actors in other minority groups, like Asian and Latino, have even fewer nominations and wins.

Like it or not, non-Hispanic Whites overwhelmingly dominate Oscar nominations in all categories.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-02-2016, 09:55 PM:

How come the Academy didn't trot those statistics out six weeks ago and let it go at that, instead of rolling over and causing a big shitstorm?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-02-2016, 10:24 PM:

I don't know why they didn't post those numbers or why next to no one in the press did either. If the Academy posted the stats the numbers could have been taken any number of ways, but mostly negative. If the press posted the numbers it would show at least some progress has been made, thus watering down the spin that only White people get Oscar nominations and awards.

The stats do show the movie industry has made progress in recent years at supporting minority talent, but it still has a long way to go in supporting minority opportunities in the movie industry.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-03-2016, 03:50 AM:

THIS IS BULLSHIT!!!! Black people should have 50% of the nominations and 50% of the wins. And, yes, 50% of the acting roles. Otherwise it's racist. Other non-whites don't matter. Let's ignore all of those. This is only about black people vs white people. There are no other races. Actually that's probably racist. So the nominations need to be 50% black, 50% Hispanic, 50% Asian, 50% Indian or middle-eastern, 50% Icelandic, 50% Italian, 50% Spanish, 50% Eskimo and maybe 50% white.

Also it is sexist that females cannot be nominated for Best Actor. They have to settle for "actress", a term which is sexist itself. How dare they! That is insensitive to people who identify as multiple genders or non-gendered objects. There needs to be 10 best actors nominated and not separated by sex. Bernie 2016 swag 420 blaze it yolo.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-03-2016, 09:03 AM:

How about two new catagories: Best use of a British accent and best gratuitous British accent. Also, best use of a Scottish accent where it is not required. (Craig Ferguson exempted.)

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-03-2016, 12:47 PM:

There are so many British accents and dialects that you could have an entire awards show to celebrate them! Some possible categories:

- Best use of a cockney accent when not playing a gangster or villain
- Best use of a Scottish accent while playing a character who remains sober throughout the movie
- Best Welsh language feature in which no farm animals are molested
- Best use of a Yorkshire accent other than in a beer commerical
- Best south-western accent (native of Wiltshire, Avon, Dorset, Devon or Cornwall to qualify) belonging to a character who is not the product of an incestuous liaison and who refrains from gang-raping the pretty female lead actress throughout the movie.
- Best use of a cut-glass BBC accent by an actor or actress who has never appeared in Downton Abbey or any TV Jane Austen adaptation.
- Best use of a Midlands, Liverpool/Manchester or Geordie accent other than in a Ken Loach film about urban decay and unemployment or documentary about The Beatles.
- Best Gaelic language movie that was seen by more than 7 paying customers, and the production of which received no grants or subsidies.

The possibilities are endless!

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-03-2016, 12:53 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
How about two new catagories: Best use of a British accent and best gratuitous British accent.

Ah... yes. "Men In Tights"!

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-06-2016, 01:43 AM:

quote:
There are so many British accents and dialects that you could have an entire awards show to celebrate them!

Let's call it the Marginal People's Choice Awards. [Wink]