Talk:78th Academy Awards

Nominations annoucement

 * All nominees for the awards will be announced on Tuesday, 31 January, 2006, at 5:30 AM PST in the Samuel Goldwyn Theater.

This seems suspicious to me. Can someone check. I mean why schedule it for 5:30 in the morning in a theatre? I mean in the evening in a theatre as a big event sure, or released over the wire services at the crack of dawn, again I see the logic, but makes little sense to me. – Mr Weeble  Talk Brit tv 16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is because at that hour it comes in the middle of the American morning chat shows, e.g. Today and Good Morning America on the East Coast and in the Midwest, but late enough there will be people on the West Coast up to see it. Announcements have been made at 8:35 or thereabouts for some years now.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing songs
Does anyone else find it strange that "Wunderkind" from The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is not on the longlist for the Best Original Song nominations? I'm also surprised that "Wonka's Welcome Song" from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is not on the list, but that's not as big a surprise as "Wunderkind". By the way, I'm also glad that "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy made it. --QQQ (1-19-06)

Also, to add to the suspicion in the conversation above, "Wunderkind" was nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Original Song this year. "A Love that Will Never Grow Old," from Brokeback Mountain, won the Golden Globe, and is also not on the longlist. "Christmas in Love" from Christmas in Love was also nominated and is missing from the longlist. What does the song have to accomplish to win the Oscar, be nominated, or even get on the longlist? --QQQ (1-29-06)


 * The Oscars have much stricter rules about what songs can be nominated. As I understand, Wunderkind was rendered ineligible because it does not appear during the movie and is not the first song played during the credits.  Golden Globes don't have that restriction.  --DDG 17:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nominations in two different places?
Why do we have the nominations here and in a seperate article? There's no need to list them in two places. -- MisterHand 16:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If we merge them, then what should be done with 76th Academy Awards nominees and 77th Academy Awards nominees? Also merge them to 76th Academy Awards and 77th Academy Awards, respectively? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be my vote, those articles aren't very long, and nominations are the second most important part of these awards (after the winner). It doesn't make sense to have a huge list of stations that broadcast the awards, but relegate the nominees to a seperate article. Or, we can leave those articles as is, and when and if this article gets to big, branch off the nominees at that time. -- MisterHand 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I had considered that too. But perhaps it's more a question of how to best use each article.  This particular article seems to change as the events progress.  We might want to have an article that is more about the event in general, and maybe list just the winners here, and have the longer list with all the five nominees for each category listed in a separate article.  In fact, this has already been done, although the wrong way, as I see it: this article used to feature the longlist for some of the categories.  When the nominees were announced, the longlists were removed and replaced with the nominees.  Now why would we delete this information?  I was considering bringing it back, but haven't gotten around to it.  If it was making the article too long, and plus it's another list, then perhaps we should have it at the same article with the five nominees, but only link the listings here.  We need to be consistent with our actions.  Regards, Redux 23:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe not for now, since the awards have not even started yet. Maybe we should merge now, then after 31 March, and we will have the nominees page again. Currently, the article is far too short without the nominees, and a split off after that will be better. Looks really useless now, since its not the Oscars yet. I'm quite surprised that the blockbusters didn't get a Best Picture nominee for two consecutive years. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 12:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge is done. If this article gets too big, we can just copy the information back. -- MisterHand 21:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
Someone should note that Jon Stewart is the host for the show.
 * Already noted, in the very first paragraph of the article. -- MisterHand 13:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Names
I started adding names of who was actually nominated. Remember people not movies actually win the award. I realised this might be contreversial so I thought I'd post here. It could mean a very long page, but I think it's worth it. Flying Canuck 02:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. When they announce the award at the ceremony, they announce the names before the Movie usually. --DDG 18:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Closing credits
I think it's a little funny they're ending the whole thing with (a variation on) the music "Also Sprach Zarathustra." An odd choice if you ask me. Fbv65edel 04:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really as it is an iconic piece of music best known for its use in an iconic film. 23skidoo 14:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very true, but the pop-modernization of it disturbed me. I suppose because I know it more as any old piece of music it was stranger. Never mind. -Fbv65edel 16:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It could be worse. They could have closed with the so-called "Best Song". Wahkeenah 17:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Video clips
That was Ed Helms who narrated the comedic video clips, right? Or was it Stephen Colbert? Kudzu1 05:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It was Stephen Colbert.

It sounded like Rob Corddry to me. Vash The Stampede 06:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy
Well, we already have movie critic Louis B. Hobson of the Sun Media chain in Canada calling the Academy "spineless cowards" for not going with Brokeback. Should we start a section on the inevitable controversy over the Best Picture decision? 23skidoo 14:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Crash speaks to the question of bigotry, which is a far more universal issue than gay cowboys. Roger Ebert had previously said Crash was the best picture of the year. Looks like the Academy agreed. However, it seemed like the result took Jack Nicholson by surprise, based on his expression when he opened the envelope. And I never will be able to figure out how the Best Picture and Best Director could go to different films, as has happened several times in the past. Wahkeenah 15:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Even the Crash producers seemed surprised. But that's neither here nor there. No matter who wins each year, there's always somebody who gripes about it. -- MisterHand 15:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. Like the year that "Call Me Irresponsible" won for best song instead of "More". Yuch. Wahkeenah 16:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A Best Picture should also have a universal theme with broad appeal. I have heard a number of comments along the lines of what Bill Mahre said to Bill O'Reilly: "I'm not married nor currently dating, so I don't have to go to 'Chick Flicks'!" Wahkeenah 16:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Bah, you're supposed to sound surprised when you accept your award. It makes you appear "humble".  --DDG 16:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, I've removed "Trivia" from the page about this being the first time since 2003 that director and picture have gone to different movies. Two years isn't exactly a streak... --DDG 18:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good move, I was thinking the same thing. -- MisterHand 19:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess a lot depends on the aftermath. If all we get is griping from critics (and need I point out that Hobson would have been rooting for the "home team" since he's from Calgary and Brokeback was filmed in the area), then I don't see it being an issue worth sectioning. If GLAAD starts marching on the Academy offices, that's a different story. 23skidoo 22:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I also read someplace that the hard reality is that the producers of Brokeback Mountain did not make the kind of lobbying effort that the producers of Crash did. Keep in mind that it's primarily about money and marketing. Wahkeenah 17:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there might be cause for including a section about the so-called "Crash-lash" the media is currently hyping. Apparently the webmaster of Fennec Awards Databse was so morally upset that Brokeback didn't win, that he shut down his website (or at least the movie side of it) claiming his love of movies "irreparably damaged" by the decision to give the Best Picture to Crash. GMAFB. 23skidoo 01:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to reword the section on controversy that was added by an anon. Though the anon provided a source in which the LA times states that the selection of Crash was "disappointing", the anon has added their own editorializing without sources.  --DDG 18:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Template at the bottom
Something is wrong with the linking for the template. It has these as the 2004 academy awards. And clicking on the 2005 academy awards goes to the 2007 ones, which is Prod nominated. Sorry if my clarity is essentially non-existent, i am very tired and about to go to bed, but take a look at the template and you will see what i mean. Jdcooper 14:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ** thans for the edits by people, its fixed now.Vivek 07:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I've fixed it a little bit, but there are still problems. If anybody else wants to take a crack at it, it's Template:Academy Awards Chron. --MisterHand 14:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

New infobox at top?
The infobox at the top of the article is pretty ugly, shouldn't we get a more Wikipedia like infobox like the one at Langt fra Las Vegas and similar pages. It needs at least a border around and some tables. -- Snailwalker | talk 17:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will work on a infobox template. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Was Three Six really the first hip hop act to win an Academy Award?
Eminem won in 2002 for his song, "Lose Yourself." Unless I'm not understanding what is being said here, Three Six is not the first.Jogabbeyjr 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe they are the first hip hop group to win an academy award. They are also- i believe - the first hip hop act to ever perform at the Academy Awards.  All worth noting - i have not made the alterations. 128.195.94.157 04:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They are certainly notable as the first hip hop act to perform at the oscars (Eminem did not attend in 2002). As for being the first hip hop group rather than hip hop artist to win, the distinction seems pretty paltry to me, as it is a writing award rather than a performance award. --DDG 20:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They are not the first to win an award: Eminem won for "Lose Yourself". They are the first group to win, but that's hardly a notable distinction.  They are the first to hip hop act to perform at the Oscars.  That's notable.&mdash;thames 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Previous Academy Awards articles written in different ways
I checked Previous Academy Awards articles and i noticed that every article is written in a different way. Dy yol 16:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to bring that up with WikiProject Films. --DDG 17:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There use to be a Wikiproject called WikiProject Academy Awards that was previously working on the Academy Awards articles. However, it is currently inactive, and it seems they never got around to complete all of the articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the common section is each of the Awards is a bit on the In Memoriam, with who presented and how died. Does anyone have that info to include into the article? -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|25px| ]] 23:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

News section Transwiki
I'm not familiar with the guidelines of WikiNews, but the section about News, commentary etc surrounding the Oscars seems to me that most of it belongs in WikiNews rather than here and then linked. At lot of it content is sourced commentaries of Film Critics and articles relating positively/negatively about the Oscars. While I do appreciate that some inclusion regarding the controversies surrounding the 78th Academy Awards needs to be included, it defintitely seems like most of this info seems unbeneficial in actually providing factual information regarding this years oscars. Comments? CHANLORD [T]/[C] 02:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not presenting a personal theory or an argument; I'm simply including the factual evidence which you agree is needed. (If by factual evidence you mean actual evidence of how people voted, or the actual motives of individual voters, I don't believe that's in any way possible due to it being a secret ballot.) I'm not promoting either side of the issue, but the fact that no film set in Los Angeles had won Best Picture until last year is a piece of factual evidence which tends to disprove the idea that Academy members prefer films set there, and should be included. If you don't include the factual material, then it's a disservice to readers to include the quote, since the natural reaction to reading it is to wonder what the Academy's track record is in that regard. As for your suggestion that the entire section doesn't belong in the article, I would think that if it hadn't been titles "news" (a poor choice, I agree) there wouldn't be an issue (perhaps "Voting trends and reaction" would be better). Some discussion of the reaction to an event, in addition to basic facts, is a thoroughly legitimate feature of an encyclopedic article. I'd hate to see these articles become nothing more than tables of winners and nominees, and lists of show participants; that's all available in countless places. MisfitToys 19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Eqully benefiting though, if people are going to read this article with all seriousness and believe everything that is put forward, then a source needs to be provided with that statement. You say that no other films has one Best Picture and been set in LA, but how does the reader know that? The only conclusion which I can come to is that you either looked it up yourself and included it (unlikely although it violates WP:NOR) or you read it somewhere (which is probably more likely). If so, I think a link to that article that states this isn't going a stray. I'm not saying it shouldn't be included, I'm saying it should be sourced. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|25px| ]] 22:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the NOR guidelines: "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." That's the case here; I've seen all of the winners (except Broadway Melody, which is set in NYC), and the plots are easily accessible online in places like IMDb for others to check if they choose. Original research doesn't mean everything that hasn't yet been published. MisfitToys 00:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then it should be suitably referenced. You should include a link to the plot summaries and IMDB if need be. Include it as a footnote, you can't just say that and then expect people to just believe it. You need to provide the sources as well. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|25px| ]] 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that I should link to 78 plot summaries from IMDb? I think you're miunderstanding the NOR guidelines, especially regarding references to extant dramatic works. I suppose I could start an article listing the settings of all 78 Best Picture winners, with 78 IMDb links, but I think that would be somewhat unnecessary (and probably far less in keeping with Wikipedia's goals than the current material). As I noted, the NOR guidelines not only permit but encourage precisely this kind of material; the films themselves certainly qualify as "primary sources", and the item I included resulted from my organizing and collecting factual data from them. I'm not advancing a theory in regard to these facts (i.e. I'm not arguing either that Academy voters have tended to dislike films set in Los Angeles, or that they are becoming more favorable toward them; I simply noted that until 2005 they had never given Best Picture to a film set there). Anyway, here's a blog item and a TIME article containing some of the pertinent items from the "news" section of the page:  I'll also add that if a reader goes to the article Academy Award for Best Picture, and continues to the articles for the various winners, they will generally find summaries of the plots, including the films' settings. MisfitToys 01:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All I'm suggesting that you insert a footnote and in that footnote say, for example

According to IMDB, prior to 2004, no previous Best Picture winner was predominately set in Los Angeles.
 * I'm sure it could be phrased better but you get the idea. Or even including this which gives a link to readers of every Best Picture oscar winner. All I'm saying is that if someone was going to come read this page, they probably find that phrase highly dubious unless some actual links or references were provided to show it was correct. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|25px| ]] 02:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The article currently links to the article listing Best Picture winners, each of which has its own article which in turn links to the IMDb page for the film. Users can still get to the same place you suggest in just as many clicks. I'll also note, from Wikipedia's NOR guidelines: "where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources." (And again, the NOR guidelines specifically include films among primary sources; the statement in the article is easily verifiable by anyone who wants to spend an hour or so checking plot summaries.) MisfitToys 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

TV Ratings?
The section says, at least at first reading, that only 38.94 people watched the ceremony. That certainly doesn't sound right. -Fbv 65 edel (discuss 16:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotes
We need memorable quotes from the cerimoney. Most Oscar pages have memeorable quotes. We need John Stuart and the other winners and nominees. --ShortShadow 23:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect link to french version of the page.
This page, 78th, refers to awards for 2005 films. The french version pointed to refers to 2006 films or 79th. --Stavr0 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Academy Awards which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)