How can the Oscars get their Ratings back.

[LordMikel]

The Oscars aren't and shouldn't be about which film is seen the most. They have an award for that, it's called the box office. So lets keep the art with the Oscars and the box-office with the action films, slasher movies and romantic comedies.

This was the point of my first snarky answer to the thread. The Oscar's should be an insiders club focused on excellence in filmmaking, and not some kind of weird amalgamation of what's good and what's popular. The event loses credibility in both categories.

And to which I say, then they need to stop caring about ratings as ratings will continue to plummet.

And I think the answer is that it is impossible for the Oscars to get their ratings back without lowering the quality of the movies they nominate.

The first movie I saw on the big screen after the pandemic was Judas and the Black Messiah, which was nominated for Best Picture. Nomadland didnt' get a theater release in my area, but it was one of my most anticipated movies this year. I likely would have had that on my list of first films to see in a theater, so I don't know what to tell you.

Which I also hate the limited release films that get nominated and win Oscars.
"This movie was released in New York and Los Angeles only for one weekend in December and made $50,000 but it is nominated for best movie of the year." (Ok, maybe an exaggeration, but it is close.)

My personal feeling, Covid aside of course, but any movie needs a full theatrical release. Which let's say is over 2000 screens domestically. It also needs to make 20 million in the first month of release. I'm throwing those numbers out as starting points, we can argue nuances. This concept of making money after we get nominated seems pandering.

[Zauriel]

This was the point of my first snarky answer to the thread. The Oscar's should be an insiders club focused on excellence in filmmaking, and not some kind of weird amalgamation of what's good and what's popular. The event loses credibility in both categories.

The excellence in film making must be recognized by the oscars. Forget what is popular and focus on what is good.

Anyways, Oscars should get their ratings back.

[Vakanai]

The excellence in film making must be recognized by the oscars. Forget what is popular and focus on what is good.

Anyways, Oscars should get their ratings back.

...but the Oscars can't get their ratings back, because they don't focus on what's popular. It's kind of one or the other, they can't both expect their ratings to go up and continue ignoring popular movies.

[Lady Midnight]

I'm not interested in depressing movies/subjects.

[Castle]

I'm not interested in depressing movies/subjects.

Sadly depressing movie subjects is the best way writers test their boundaries. Billy Wilder won like 7 Oscars for doing just that.

.

It is part of the art package.

[Mister Mets]

And to which I say, then they need to stop caring about ratings as ratings will continue to plummet.



Which I also hate the limited release films that get nominated and win Oscars.
"This movie was released in New York and Los Angeles only for one weekend in December and made $50,000 but it is nominated for best movie of the year." (Ok, maybe an exaggeration, but it is close.)

My personal feeling, Covid aside of course, but any movie needs a full theatrical release. Which let's say is over 2000 screens domestically. It also needs to make 20 million in the first month of release. I'm throwing those numbers out as starting points, we can argue nuances. This concept of making money after we get nominated seems pandering.

It wouldn't be best film if it's only limited to movies that make 20 million in the first month.

Best film would come with a major asterisk, if things are excluded for reasons that have noting to do with artistry.

[thwhtGuardian]

It wouldn't be best film if it's only limited to movies that make 20 million in the first month.

Best film would come with a major asterisk, if things are excluded for reasons that have noting to do with artistry.

I agree, putting a price tag definitely would infringe artistically but I don't think asking that all nominees for best picture have a full theatrical release is asking for too much.

[Totoro Man]

I agree, putting a price tag definitely would infringe artistically but I don't think asking that all nominees for best picture have a full theatrical release is asking for too much.

when films get nominated isn't there a tendency to re-release the film on a larger set of theaters? to pick one example: "Get Out" was put back in theaters in January after it got nominated.

with COVID-19 protocols in place that option just wasn't available this year. additionally, with streaming services, there was arguably even fewer obstacles for people being able to see these films at home. given that most theaters were closed down last year... I'm not sure that we should hold limited release status against a movie. certainly not this year - and probably not on general principle, either.

if a full theatrical release were required they might as well obliterate the Best Foreign Film category right now. I certainly don't want that happening.

[Immortal Weapon]

They can't get them back. The Oscars might as well regulate itself to being a niche for film enthusiasts. Streaming the ceremony wouldn't hurt to get viewership up. I do most of my viewing on YouTube, twitch and whatever streaming service I'm subbed to.

[Totoro Man]

I never really watched the Oscars to begin with. the ceremony just takes too much time. it's far easier for me to simply read about the results after the fact.

I've also disagreed with a number of decisions in the past... I was quite annoyed that "Slumdog Millionaire" beat out "WALL-E" for best soundtrack. I'm not saying that "Slumdog Millionaire" was a bad movie - it's just as a musician and a composer I believe that "WALL-E" had the superior soundtrack.

I believe people got caught up in the wave effect of the film and just piled on the awards while they were in 'the moment'. the same sort of thing happened with "Shakespeare in Love".... where people just decide to bury it in awards when there are lots of other more compelling candidates for specific categories. to pick just one example: I would have picked Blanchett over Paltrow.

honestly, it wouldn't hurt the Academy to bend a little and add some more categories. if they added categories like Best Choreography (amazed that this STILL doesn't exist).

Best Voice Actor Performance (because voice actors are essentially denied the right to be treated as legitimate actors) that could help liven things up. the added bonus of best voice actor performance is that it would open things up for some consistently great voice actors on animated films. with the large-scale use of CGI, this category seems long overdue.

I'm sure that there are others... but those are two I can think of off the top of my head.

[Derek Metaltron]

I think it's telling the only Oscars I can remember decently is the one where the big huge end of the trilogy movie everyone and their mother had seen won practically everything.

They should honestly at this stage drop best actor and actress and have best actor (male or female) for a range of genres. Let genres like comedy and horror that barely get a look in have representation. And maybe consider doing the same with best movie. If nothing else it will convince Hollywood to stop turning September and October into mopey depressing 'look at me' crap and have some more variety. If they want more attention, that in my opinion is what they should do.

[CosmiComic]

Personally, I think there is value in nominating and awarding smaller and less popular films with artistic merit. Not all these films have the backing of big corporations to reach wide audiences.

[Derek Metaltron]

Personally, I think there is value in nominating and awarding smaller and less popular films with artistic merit. Not all these films have the backing of big corporations to reach wide audiences.

Yeah, I wonder if there should be levels of budget Oscars or awards for new talent in front of or behind the camera. Really I think it requires a reshuffling of thinking what can be nominated both with stuff people know and what they should try and see. I think the principle of how they have awards for foreign and animated movies should be expanded into a greater range of categories.

[BeastieRunner]

After reading, responding to, and following this thread I think the best idea is to only make one change.

Have the Muppets host it.

Their brand of humor can work with both the blue collar and bourgeois crowd.

Imagine the movie parodies they could pull off? It would be amazing.

Kudos to whomever's amazing idea that was.

[titanfan]

Personally, I think there is value in nominating and awarding smaller and less popular films with artistic merit. Not all these films have the backing of big corporations to reach wide audiences.

There is actually is a growing amount of smaller/independent film makers who are saying that as the Big Studios have gotten involved, it has never been harder to get your movie noticed for an Oscar.

There's pre-nomination marketing, it's easier for bigger budgeted films (like in the low millions) to be seen at the higher profile film festivals, a lot of big studios basically have an "Oscar Movie" division set up for their studio to win Oscars.

They're kinda getting hammered both ways.