Could Heath Ledger really win an Oscar?

[Aman619]

its July. Oscar talk now is all a long range dream. You guys have not even heard of the films that will get all the Oscar attention next November. Only if and when all those performances suck, will there's a chance Ledger and even Downey would survive on the 5 finalists list. It happens, but the game is back loaded so that 90% of the contenders are set for Thanksgiving to New Years releases to stay fresh in voters and Top Ten list minds....

 

But subject matter alone I think there's a small chance he'd get a Nomination. The film will either gross too much or too little to make a serious run at the "serious" films the Academy considers "worthy."

 

but, since the ratings were so bad recent years, there was talk that the whole show and the choices it makes might need to get younger and more box-office related to get people watching again. People tend to tune in when they have heard of and better, SEEN the nominated movies and performances! And not just a list of the films critics TELL US are great.

[joe_collector]

What in the world would Downey get nominated for - Tropic Thunder maybe?

 

but, since the ratings were so bad recent years, there was talk that the whole show and the choices it makes might need to get younger and more box-office related to get people watching again.

 

The real problem is that most big-budget movies are G and PG tripe made expressly for 12-year olds, not that the critics and Academy are "out of touch". They just don't make big budget movies that are even remotely high quality - sad but true.

 

And I really don't foresee a future where Iron Man faces off against Indy 4 and Wanted for the Best Picture (that's what the MTV Awards are for) - otherwise the Oscars would be a complete joke.

[Mr.Diggler]

By time voting comes around the sentiment will have been forgotten

 

If he absolutely blows away the competition, sure, but don't expect any sympathy votes for OD'ing.

 

OD'ing in Holloywood's eyes is not as bad a way to die as it is to the rest of the world. He was misunderstood, the weight of is star was overwhelming him and he had no privacy.

 

 

 

:cry:Another misunderstood millionaire adored by millions died of an overdose No awards for for that behavior

 

[FlyingDonut]

If his performance is judged the best by the Academy, yes. Since nobody has seen the movie yet, it might be a little premature to speculate.

[Aman619]

Ill answer this one.

 

The Academy is a multi million dollar business venture, and to date they make their money as a "high end" "high quality" brand. But as soon as they cant make their millions (for their new building and foundation) they will, as the movies say., " follow the money". Academy is sensitive to criticisms that it is "out of touch" with "real" moviegoers. But that hasnt really cost them any dough... not yet. But watch the ratings keep slipping cause there's nobody to tune in to see. and few people care about the nominated movies, and the show is way too long and boring, and we will see how they change it.

 

They will not watch it fall apart due to a snobbish adherence to "quality" films since they ALL make their millions selling the films you look down on.

[Aman619]

I'm not making this up!

hers the article I saw a few months ago:

sorry its so long and unedited, but it covers a lot of ground.

 

 

Is Oscar showing his age?

H'wood grumbles that show needs overhaul

 

By CYNTHIA LITTLETON, MICHAEL SCHNEIDER, Variety

 

 

For years, the brahmins of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences have viewed the Oscarcast as a sacred tradition.

However, with viewership of the kudocast hitting an all-time low last week, it's clear that Oscar, now 80, is showing his age. Many members of the Academy -- even conservative types that aren't your typical squawkers -- are grumbling that it's time for a change.

 

But how? Should the ceremony segue to an "American Idol"-style vote by the public? Should nominees have to endure a series of "Survivor" style challenges to prove how much they want that statuette?

 

Of course, the Oscarcast would never stoop to adopting the conventions of reality television. And that's part of its problem. As the granddaddy of awards shows, and the most prestigious honor Hollywood has to bestow, Oscar seemingly has the obligation of maintaining its dignity, even a little pomposity. But it's also feeling pressure to reinvent itself for the YouTube generation.

 

After the Feb. 24 telecast, many Acad members had specific ideas on changing the show: Give out more trophies before the telecast starts, limit the broadcast to two hours, offer lengthier clips that demonstrate the actor's prowess, the director's technique, the writer's way with words, etc.

 

Others have suggested that an interesting twist would be to announce the vote tallies -- finding out not only who won, but who was runner-up, and how many votes made the difference for the winner.

 

One of the fundamental quandaries for the Academy Awards is that the event is designed to be a celebration of cinema -- but it has to work first and foremost as a TV program.

 

TV producers surveyed say the Oscar telecasts feature too many dry craft categories that non-pros don't give a hoot about. "If you're seriously interested in prosthetic makeup, go to the Web and watch" a separate ceremony, "American Idol" exec producer Nigel Lythgoe suggests.

 

Broadcaster ABC has a lot to say about some of these mandates, such as running time and another proposal for a change in dates. But many in the biz think that the organization itself is a bit stodgy.

 

Even though the Academy hosts a Sci-Tech ceremony earlier in the month to honor technical contributions, members of various tech-craft branches would hate to see their members relegated there.

 

But the televised ceremony started in 1953 and many of the show's traditions stem from that date, including the categories. (Though Oscar is about the film biz, when was the last time you saw a short subject -- docu, animated or live action -- in theaters?)

 

Critics think the Academy approach is outdated, but many in the org like the sense of tradition. Bruce Davis, who has served as AMPAS' exec director since 1989, has always sought to maintain the prestige of the award, and decorum in the hoopla that envelopes the competition and the ceremony. Davis told Entertainment Weekly last week that "the audience is there for the aspects of the show that we're a little embarrassed by," including the red carpet.

 

Some have suggested that the industry should throw its weight behind a competing awards show that would have more fan-friendly award categories, like separate races for comedy, drama and action films.

 

But the growth of the awards circuit is part of the problem. Oscar has been a victim of its own success in many ways, observes multi-hyphenate Judd Apatow, who adds that he likes the Oscars just fine the way they are.

 

"Because there are so many awards shows, the winners (of the Oscars) are rarely a mystery, so the fun of 'who will win' is kind of gone," Apatow observes. "I don't know how you change that, unless they move the awards to early September and try to beat everyone to the punch -- but the Democratic Party can tell you how that creates all sorts of other problems."

 

The format for the telecast was set on March 19, 1953, when Bob Hope and Conrad Nagel handled hosting duties and Cecil B. DeMille's "The Greatest Show on Earth" was crowned best pic.

 

That show, which aired on NBC from 10:30 p.m.-midnight EST on a Thursday, drew 82% of the viewing audience. ABC's Feb. 24 telecast, which saw "No Country for Old Men" take the top prize, drew 29%.

 

With an average of 32 million viewers, the kudocast only barely topped the regular Tuesday airing of "American Idol," which reeled in 29 million. (Oscar's ratings are likely to inch up some next week when delayed viewing via DVRs is factored in by Nielsen.) In the demographic that matters most to advertisers, adults 18-49, "Idol" had the edge with an average of 14.7 million to Oscar's 14 million.

 

A decade ago, the Academy Awards hit its modern-era peak when 55 million swooning fans watched "Titanic" sail off with the top prize.

 

But in the past five years, Oscar has struggled to pull in greater than 40% of the available audience.

 

So what to do? For starters, there seems to be unanimity among top TV producers that the show needs fewer award presentations overall. The Grammys hand out no fewer than 100 awards every year, but only 10 of them are presented on-air. The rest of the show is all about entertainment.

 

"American Idol's" Lythgoe knows more about producing live TV than virtually anyone else these days, delivering four-plus hours a week of the smash Fox competish series. Lythgoe agrees that the Oscars are in desperate need of a revamp.

 

"You need to keep the pomp and circumstance, but still make it feel young and fresh," he says.

 

Lythgoe's had time to think about these issues. Last year, he and fellow "Idol" exec producer Ken Warwick were initially tapped to produce the Primetime Emmy Awards telecast. But their day jobs wound up overwhelming them, and they had to bow out.

 

Lythgoe says he and Warwick faced a daunting dilemma when looking to revamp that kudocast. They couldn't figure out how to work around the sheer number of categories awarded on the show. (Emmy hands out even more awards on air than Oscar, with 28 last year.) There was no room for anything else.

 

"I'm not wanting to knock anybody, but we've got to go back to the drawing board," he says. "We've grown up around it and we're wedded to these formats. We keep adding more awards to these shows too."

 

Mark Burnett, the producer who upended the TV landscape with "Survivor's" elimination-style format, also says he'd take out the scissors if he had control.

 

"The Oscars are about the stars," he says. "I'd make it two hours long and I would have the televised portion be the big awards. ... It was three and a half hours, and maybe 10% involved big stars."

 

Burnett speaks from experience. When he took over the MTV Movie Awards telecast last year, he made it a live event for the first time, and more importantly, he shortened it. The ratings shot up.

 

For the Oscars, Burnett suggest making the awards more relevant to mainstream auds by introducing a few genre-specific categories, such as best comedy or action film.

 

"I loved 'No Country for Old Men,' and would watch it again. The performance of Daniel Day-Lewis (in 'There Will Be Blood') was incredible," he says. "But these weren't the most relevant movies to the audience of today. I don't know that a young audience went in droves to see 'La Vie en rose.' It's great to acknowledge those, but there's also nothing wrong with awarding hugely successful franchises."

 

Lythgoe concurs.

 

"Personally, I was excited to see Marion Cotillard win," Lythgoe says. "But how many people even know her? That's the difficulty of the Oscars, they're asking their peers to vote, and everyone tries to be classy and sensible. But it isn't relevant to people going to the movies these days."

 

Lythgoe says he'd focus on showing "decent clips" that are more representative of a movie or actor's strength.

 

"I want to see why they won it," he says. "That's important, showing the audience a movie they may not have seen."

 

Lythgoe notes that the Oscarcast also must now entertain an audience that is just as enthralled with celebrity as it is with big-screen stardom (think Paris, Britney, Anna Nicole, TMZ.com, etc.). For the Oscars to feel extra-special, the telecast has showcase only the brightest of Hollywood's marquee names.

 

"We create celebrities nowadays," he says. "The Web has given every single person the opportunity to be a celebrity. As a result, you're going to have to give them the absolute best."

 

[joe_collector]

I do think that giving out an award to Best Comedy, Best Action Movie, Best Thriller, etc. would be a GREAT idea, but there is no way to dumb it down any further than that.

 

Once a tripe PG13 movie like Transformers, Iron Man, Hulk, Wanted, etc. artificially wins Best Pic, then the Oscars automatically become irrelevant.

 

Have you ever watched the MTV Movie Awards? That's exactly what it is, pure and utter stupidity for teeny-booper blockbusters.

 

Would you really like to see an Oscar for "Best Kiss? Or to have Will Smith in I Am Legend take Best Actor, or Transformers winning Best Movie - like in 2008?

 

Is there anyone alive who thinks Transformers was the best movie of the year?

[Mr. Zipper]

Is there anyone alive who thinks Transformers was the best movie of the year?

 

I couldn't even sit through it.

 

A constant CGI blur of whirring, spinning and flying machines. after the first 2 minutes of "action"... all starts looking the same.

 

No story. zzz

[Aman619]

I liked Transformers. Much more than the rest of the similar films. It felt fresher and was surprisingly clever given the stale premise (old cheap toys I never played with)

[Aman619]

there's nothing sacred about the Oscars, or "best" about any of the winners. Its just like a High School election. A small crowd of people voting their self-interests. There IS no way to determine "best". The "best" is merely the one that gets more votes than the others. But those votes are cast for very personal reasons, and rarely for the "best" performance. There are more votes AGAINST nominees as FOR them in a dog eat dog environment... as in "if that ahole gets an oscar before me Ill kill myself. fack him!"

[CJ]

By time voting comes around the sentiment will have been forgotten

 

If he absolutely blows away the competition, sure, but don't expect any sympathy votes for OD'ing.

 

OD'ing in Holloywood's eyes is not as bad a way to die as it is to the rest of the world. He was misunderstood, the weight of is star was overwhelming him and he had no privacy.

 

 

 

:cry:Another misunderstood millionaire adored by millions died of an overdose No awards for for that behavior

 

I too was making fun of hollywood....but after reading my post and your reply it made mine seem like I was making an excuse why he OD'ed.

Just wanted to set the record staright I HAVE NO SYMPOTHY FOR ANY DRUG USERS. NONE TO MANY OF THEM IN MY LIFE.

 

[FlyingDonut]

Is there anyone alive who thinks Transformers was the best movie of the year?

 

I couldn't even sit through it.

 

A constant CGI blur of whirring, spinning and flying machines. after the first 2 minutes of "action"... all starts looking the same.

 

No story. zzz

 

There was a story? I was focusing on this:

 

[joe_collector]

there's nothing sacred about the Oscars, or "best" about any of the winners.

 

Gimme a break - anyone who would think that Transformers is the Best Movie of 2007 is on serious crack. By any viable measure of quality, -script, acting, directing, etc., it's a complete joke.

 

When you talk about something like Godfather vs. Taxi Driver vs. Shawshank, sure there is no way to tell which is best, but could anyone with an IQ above 2 really judge them inferior to Transformers?

 

I saw it in the theater, mildly enjoyed it as a brainless action flick, but that's about it.