Oh, cool, I didn't even know they had an animated series of the character.
The four acting awards are some of the only ones casual viewers actually care about, though. The Oscars would probably get rid of less popular ones like short films and animated shorts before they get rid of "important" awards like the acting ones.
No, what they need to do is stop doing video montages that add nothing (except "In Memoriam," of course) and those silly skits like Jimmy Kimmel leading a group of celebrities to crash a nearby theater.
I don't think he meant get rid of the awards, he just meant give awards to be men and women together, instead of separating them like they do now.
To what end? Writing and composing and other categories don't differentiate by gender, because it's got nothing to do with those awards, but acting has everything to do with gender: with virtually no exceptions outside of the occasional animation oddity (as in, a woman voicing Bart Simpson), male actors aren't hired to play females and female actors aren't hired to play males. Moreover, women are under-represented in film as is, so combining the acting categories would almost certain result in few female nominees and wins.
Now that I can agree with. I'd probably still keep the performances of the nominated Best Original Songs, though. It's still supposed to be entertainment, and it makes sense to me to show off the songs. But outside of the opening, I'd love for the little skits and video montages (minus In Memoriam, as you said) to go away.
Yeah, I agree with all of that. The song performances may add a lot of time but they're one of the few things that makes the ceremony special. Really, they need to cut down the commercials and commercial breaks, but that will never happen.
Putting aside opinions on the quality of the film itself (which I think you're selling it short, but I'm willing to admit I might be praising it too much, time will only tell), I think the cultural touchstone should be enough. Granted the Academy has certainly missed the boat in some instances, particularly Brokeback Mountain, but in other cases, it's swept up by them like Titanic and Lord of the Rings.
Did you even read my post? While sober? And awake?
Yes. Yes. and er, No.Did you even read my post? While sober? And awake?
Being asleep while posting would certainly explain how you could have failed to understand that men and women compete for the same directorial and screenwriting jobs, but do not compete for each others' acting roles, thereby making the awards separation entirely rational.
Return of the King didn't deserve Best Picture either, that was one of the more obvious examples of the Academy giving awards to whoever's "turn it was" rather than to the most deserving nominee. (All the more argument for special awards to recognize the advancements of the form as with LotR and Star Wars) Titanic, on the other hand, earned its place at the podium from a an overall film-making standpoint, even if the writing didn't break any new ground.
Errr... the whole massacre at the museum..?
Ok, serious question. Do you guys have any inflation? The Avengers was released in the 2012. Was the ticket price the same? Why do people never mention the number of tickets sold?
Number of tickets sold should be the barometer used when trying to judge a films success.
As someone who loves the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I agree. I recognize the fact that it won all of those awards as recognition for the whole trilogy and that it's probably unfair for all of the other films that were in competition that year, particularly Master and Commander. But that's also my point: The Academy was recognizing a touchstone. As for Titanic, I agree it was a technical achievement, but as a film, I was unengaged beyond the visuals. I haven't seen the film since it was in theaters and I have no interest in seeing it again, simply out of lack of interest and feeling like I would gain anything from the experience.