Instead, Cates said they will receive their awards from a presenter parked in the audience.

In other cases, all the nominees in a single category will be invited up on stage and the winner then announced.

And, finally, some nominees will get their Oscars the old-fashioned way, walking down the aisle to the stage after the envelope is opened and the name announced.

-----------

Overall, they seem stupid.

- #1 and 2 above seem to cancel each other out.

- How are they going to decide which categories to do # 2 and 3.

- #2 will probably be either sad or funny watching the losers not win and then being on stage. Will they leave the stage or stay in the background and listen to the speech.

- I bet you they do #2 with the supporting actor / actress categories. As they are the first ones presented and will leave people wondering if it will happen again

Ugh, just when I thought the show couldn't get tackier, they find new ways.

Agreed, horrible choices - especially on the ones that are getting the award in the audience - if they aren't going to the stage - let them have it at the Oscar lucheon a week earlier with the other early notified winners.

Ugh.

Such a horrible idea.

1. The people that aren't Best Actress or Best Director, this is a MUCH bigger deal to them, Short Film, Sound, etc. than it could be to any overexposed actor or actress. This cheats them out of having THEIR moment on stage in front of billions (or this year, probably millions or thousands )

2. Bringing people on stage is such a HUGE mistake. It's a big deal, this award, people are always usually gracious, but if I was a loser, I wouldn't want to be on that stage cheering someone on, I'd rather be in my seat with a smile, clapping, and lean back and ride it out as soon as my name wasn't called.

When I read this yesterday at Oscarwatch, I couldn't believe it.

I'm sure this has a lot to do with ratings and there being no real box office sensation this year amoung the nominees.

Trying to spice things up a bit with Rock hosting is one thing but this is overkill. :???:

thats nice .. tell the art director now that his work is not as special as that of the special effects guy .. if they call one up and not the other.

*shakes head*

Stupid, stupid rules. They really make it seem as if some nominees are more important than others and that's not the purpose of the whole thing, is it?

](*,) [-(

those are horrible ideas, it seems a bit unfair

The idea is horrible in two fronts. One is that it makes certain categories less important than the others. The stars are on TV all the time. It's the hard-working people doing art direction, CGI effects, and documentary shorts who need to be recognized. This is the one chance that they can be viewed by billions of people worldwide for 30 seconds, and more of their joys are genuine and memorable. The other is that it's just an aweful to have all nominees for a certain category to be on stage and then announce the winner. This is not American Idols or Miss Universe contest. That's borderline humiliation for those on the stage who didn't win. You think Benning will congratulate Hilary Swank if she wins again? How will Scorsese feel? He alreadys looked quite uncomfortable in the audience when GONY was ignored completely. Bill Murray looked quite disappointed when he lost last year, so you want to see him tackling Sean Penn on stage? The rating may be increasing due to people wanting to see their painful reactions, but this has become much more about dramatic factors than to celebrate a year of cinema.

People complaint that they couldnt see Bill Murrays pissed of face last year. Now they will see that, the loosers standing in front of the Cameras. Hail to the show and the seeling of emotions [-o<
Sell the people that are loved (Director Actors) And forget the "Rest".
I say so not [-X =;

Well, Gil Cates is an absolute moron. What kind of awards show will it be if all nominees have to go up to the stage or awards are presented IN the audiences? What is that?? That's horrible. Xiayun pretty much summed everything up. I'm almost in denial. I can't believe that these horrible ideas are being implimented. I'm hoping someone reasonable will step in and prevent this from happening.

You want to speed up the awards show? ANNOUNCE THE AWARDS QUICKER! Simple as that. I hope the shows ratings are bad just so Cates' moronic ideas are dumped.

Is there a petition anywhere against this? I'll sign it.

PEACE, Mike

That actually would be entertaining.

Some of the funniest moments over the past years have been winners from the smaller categories. Being a faceless unknown art designer or short form filmmaker and having seconds to address the entire globe, that's something that shouldn't be thrown away.

But again, it's a ratings game. They've been on a decline since Titanic. Last year gave it a big boost however the prospects for this year aren't good.

*looks at calendar and sees that it's not April 1st*

okay then...


WHAT IN THE FUCK :down: :swear: !!!!



Cut some of Rock's jokes, cut the musical numbers, shorten those bloody honourary awards, but for the love of God, do not fuck with the format to appeal to those who don't really give two shits about the Oscars.

Jesus Christ

Mike,

I read recently that the Emmy awards will probably change as well. They are looking to get rid of the miniseries and tv movie categories for the broadcast to make time for reality tv awards.

http://www.realitytvworld.com/index/art ... ?s=1001394

Emmy Awards academy considering boosting reality show coverage

UPI News Service, 01/19/2005

The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences is considering overhauling the prime time Emmy Awards telecast, Daily Variety reported Wednesday.

Academy officials are considering a plan that would remove most TV movie and miniseries from the prime time telecast, which would reduce the number of awards presented on the air and might allow for a greater focus on reality show awards.

The academy has established a committee of TV executives to study the situation. Academy President Todd Leavitt said a change is necessary because of declining ratings for the show, but he said it is too early to know how the Emmy telecast should be changed.

"There are many issues to be dealt with," Leavitt said.

Variety said cable TV executives were already expressing concern that the categories in which they dominate -- movies and miniseries -- will lose their place of prominence on the prime time Emmys telecast.

Last year's telecast attracted the second smallest audience on record for an Emmy Awards show, Variety said.

Seems the Oscars will have company.

Terrible, terrible, terrible idea. I can't believe they would even consider something so retarded. God, I'm speechless right now.

Omg. It's a joke? Right? Or the guy's on crack?




Seriously? It seems like he was totally bored or something and had nothing better to do than this. It's stupid. Pointless. Nonesense (the camera always has shots of the 5 nominees as they're announced anyway).

*sigh*

wow.

I hoep the stars refuse to do it. If I was a nominee I definitely I'd boycott the awards by not attending or not going onstage with the other nominees (i mean its ne thing to be a good loser, but this pushes it). See how they like it when none of the winners show up for the awards. So I hope some stars voice their opinion on it, it's probaly gonna be the best way to tell Cates guy how mornic his "ideas" are.



Wasn't last year's the telecast the lowest rated since like...forever?

Not even close.

Taken from different sources:

ABC pulled in $1.5 million on average for a 30-second television advertisement during the more than three-hour telecast. More than 43 million viewers tuned in to watch fantasy "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" win 11 Oscars, including best movie.

"The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” posted a 31 percent jump in average audience from last year’s record low of 33.1 million viewers, according to preliminary figures from Nielsen Media Research.

It also notched a 22 percent gain in ratings for the highly coveted audience of adults aged 18 to 49, the demographic most networks use as their chief benchmark for success.

The average-viewer tally of 43.5 million Sunday night made it the most watched Oscars show since 46.3 million saw the awards in 2000 — the year “Gladiator” won for best picture. The number of American viewers who tuned in for some portion of Sunday night’s event, 73.4 million, also was up by more than 10 million from last year.

I read a similar article in the LA Times this morning during school and couldn't wait to come home and post about it...

Like are they KIDDING????

This is the stupidest thing they can do.
They are even changing the design of the awards and the stage to be more interactive with audience and more "hip-loose" apparently because it's "fitting" for Chris Rock and it's not for other hosts.

Having all the nominees up on stage is one of the worst ideas they have ever come up with. It's like a beauty pageant, except there is no 3rd or runner up position!


AGHHH. in the past few days I actually was thinking the Oscars wouldn't be as bad as I have been thinking. There could be a few great surprises and Chris Rock will defintely liven it up. But this just killed it, dragged it all over the dirty Hollywood streets and then jammed it down into the ground!

Hmm it's 2003 I must have been thinking of.

I thought this year could have had really high ratings just becausen the race in a few categories (picture, director, actress) are actually intereting. Plus diversity int he nominees (Freeman, Foxx, Okenodo, Cheadle, Moreno) could have meant an equally more diverse audience.

I'm not sure if this will affect tha ratings in any way.

Maybe they should do away with the regular setup and just use tables like the Globes and get the booze flowing. rink:

Well, I think it's really disrespectful to the movie industry. There are a lot of reasons that movies are what they are, and the behind the scenes guys are very important in the scheme of things.

It's partly our own fault that it came to this. As viewers, nobody wants to see the person who designed the costumes talking onstage, they want to see Tom Hanks. I know I would. It's partly the fault of the winners of those types of awards as well. There is always a team of them, and when each one feels that they have to talk, and it really slows down the show.

I think there was a much better solution than this disrespectful one, though.

The show is supposed to be long though.

But the ENDLESS "history of Hollywood" garbage every year has got to go.

I see the bringing up of every nominee on stage as a logistical nightmare for the producer of the show. It seems as though they would likely do this for the lesser categories and leave the traditional from the seat to the stage acceptance for the acting and directing awards. But for these lesser categories there are often more than just one person, so the question is exactly how would they choreograph this? Would the nominees be asked to come up on stage before the presenters walk out or after? It would seem pretty ridiculous to come back from a commercial and see a bunch of nominees on stage and equally ridiculous to have the presenters call them all up and have to wait.