I was listening to a bill simmons podcast last night and he brought up an interesting point. He was saying he had a theory that we should wait a year before voting for best picture. and im assuming the same could be said for best actor etc. This makes alot of sense

Its obviously not practical to vote on performances that were seen 200 movies ago, but isnt that the way we should view "best" categories. Films and roles that stand repeat viewings and the reconsiderations of time? And obviously prevent the timed release of films to ride waves of hype into voting season

Thoughts

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by FairhopeTider

Fairhope, Alabama

Member since May 2012

20762 posts

Posted on 3/30/15 at 1:04 pm to Chef Leppard

I think its a great idea but it would never happen. The Hollywood hype/marketing machine would never go for it.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bench McElroy

Member since Nov 2009

33939 posts

Posted on 3/30/15 at 1:09 pm to Chef Leppard

The point of the Oscars is to give great, critically acclaimed movies a boost at the box office and help studios make more money. That's why most Oscar bait movies come out in the fall and winter. So it can still play in theaters after the Oscar ceremonies are over. It would be pointless having the Oscars a year after the movies come out when interest in those films have died down.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Chef Leppard

Member since Sep 2011

11739 posts

Posted on 3/30/15 at 1:14 pm to Bench McElroy

I dont know another relevant award or metric to use in place of academy awards. Maybe I should just frame it as "best" voting so as not to politicize the point. I know theres contentions about the Oscars

It applies the same really with any film awards given near the time of release

Page 1