Talk:Academy Awards/Archive 2

Could someone explain
In the criticism section, there's a paragraph that doesn't make any sense. It starts "Many suggested that many hosts are more reliable on their jokes instead of the awards." I'd correct it if I had a clue what this was supposed to mean.
 * Sounds alot like gibberish. Lets just remove it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering how some of these shows go, it sounds strangely accurate. Probably not wiki-worthy, though. Wahkeenah 03:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
It says Charlies chaplin film Limelite didnt open until 1971, is that right -Madrone
 * Limelight was produced in the 1950's but was banned in the USA until 1971. Therefor it didn't open in Los Angelas until then, and was not eligable for an Oscar until that year (the rule was subsequently changed to prevent any more old films from winning oscars). The film played in Europe and Canada in the 1950's, but not in the USA.  hope that clears in up Dowew 20:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

End Question
EDIT...most prominent film awards in the world or United States ==

Edit "...The Oscars, are the most prominent film awards in the world", originally stated "...in the United States." It is one of the few areas in the film world that is universally considered beyond reproach. Can you imagine or argue a more prestigious film award? I can not. King of the Dogs 04-13-2005
 * I am afraid Academy awards is not the most prominent film awards. Cannes Film Festival is the most prominent. Films made around the world compete in Cannes Film festival. Golden Palm award is the most highly recognized award for a movie. It is also alleged to be less politically motivated than Academy Awards. --coolmallu 20:17, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
 * He's right. Not only is the Palm d'Or considered to be the single most important (and yes, most prominent) award in cinema, many others such as Berlin's Golden Bear and Venice's Golden Lion could be argued to be of greater significance than the Oscar. --Qwayfe 16:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So, I am not a fan of hyperbolic language in general (saying anything is the most prominant anything is usually a mistake) but I still must disagree here. Just because the Cannes festival sees more international films doesn't make it more prominant on the world stage.  Also keep in mind that only a handful of films are in competition at Cannes each year, as opposed to the hundreds that are theoretically up for the Oscars (including every single foreign film screened in America that year); also remember that the Palm d'Or is voted on by a small jury of film personalities as opposed to the thousands of members of the Academy.  But rather than argue, perhaps someone could find empirical data or a scholarly source of some kind to argue which is "more prominant"?
 * I certainly see the points made about other film awards, particularly Cannes, but I would still argue that the "Oscars" are beyond reproach when considering 'prominence' (or in other words 'famous' or 'recognized') in film awards. Again, this is not to say the merit of such award decisions are not arguable - or for that matter can art or opinion ever be universally agreed upon - it is referring to the event itself.  Nevertheless, it stands as fairly strong fact that it garners the most press and media coverage of any film awards show - of course only a single factor in determining 'prominence', but a good starting point.  I agree with the above suggestion, referenced research would be helpful in this case.  I will see if I can find some more media coverage statistics on such events.
 * Here's one Awards press release indicating large international coverage: "news conference attended by over 400 international media."  It is from the Academy's own institution, but I doubt the media would disagree.
 * How about keeping it to "arguably the most prominent" until someone find a good source. Still, I think if prominence means 'famous' which means more number of people know about it, then it would be extremely biased to countries with relatively more population like in China or India, and I think it will not be the Oscars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.81.120.217 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I would like to see the phrase "...are the most prominent film awards in the world..." returned.King of the Dogs 10-21-2005
 * I think the fact that the Oscars are televised all over the world make them the most famous of the two. The Cannes ceremony as far as I know has never been shown outsied of a few cable networks. 201.128.153.47
 * the cannes festival is more well regarded but the oscars are unquestionably more prominent and known. Jinnspirit 02:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is wrong
WIKIPEDIA IS WRONG...HOW WAS THE FIRST AWARDS GIVEN OUT IN 1929 WHEN THIS YEARS WAS THE 77TH...IN 2009 IT WILL BE THE 81TH...MEANING THAT IT WAS FIRST GIVEN OUT IN 1928 NOT 1929!!!! FIX IT NOW...BECAUSE ITS WORNG AND IT MAKES YOU PEOPLE LOOK BAD!!! 216.209.153.82 (unisgned, added by cburnett)
 * shows that it happened on May 16, 1929. Excellent people skills, by the way, and it makes you look 10 times worse because you were wrong. The 2nd and 3rd awards ceremonies were both held in 1930. Maybe next time you'll click on the link to the official site of the AMPAS and look for yourself before spouting off insults when you're too lazy to seek an alternate source. Cburnett 17:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Better yet, look at the wikipedia article List of Academy Awards ceremonies and you'll find the same answer as if you went to oscar.org. Again, I'd like to extend my congratulations on your most excellent people skills. Cburnett 17:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wikipedia is wrong. Welcome. Come on in and help make it right. And of course, you can define "right' as you wish, so long as you are not the first person to define it that way (i.e. you should have a citation to a like-minded published source, which need not be "right" in any absolute sense). However, if someone else has a different published source (or just a different feeling about what is right) and if they got there first, they and their feeling are right and you and your published source are not. You may begin editing any time, Mr. Kafka. RUReady2Testify 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk Archive Something I'd like to float by everybody: has there been any consideration of awards by year? Details of the ceremony could be included (location/host/exceptional details), as well as the winners (at least in the big categories). A lot of work, I'm sure, but something to consider? Radagast
 * Yes! I think would be a valuable addition to the pedia, to wit: WikiProject Academy Awards. I would love your suggestions, tips and design ideas. I suck at design. Thanks!

-- On Marlon Brando's I noticed he didn't want to receive the Oscar. Anyone know what's the deal behind that decision?
 * He probably realized that the Oscars is nothing more than a bunch of rich people celebrating themselves. After all, who really cares about Oscars other than the actors themselves? If you like a movie, does it matter if it wins an Oscar? I can't believe that anyone could be so bored that they would want to watch this pointless event. --Jawed 00:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In 1973 after winning the best actor award for "The Godfather"; Marlon Brando sent a woman on stage in his place. She was representing Native-Americans to protest the USA Motion Picture Industry treatment of them. Presenters Liv Ullman and Roger Moore held on to the statue until the Academy figured out what to do with it. Mr. Brando had shown up in person to accept his previous award for "On the Waterfront". In 1971, George C. Scott had refused to accept his best actor award for "Patton", because he thought the award ceremony was worthless.204.80.61.10 19:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Best Original Musical
According to the Oscars website, there is a category for Best Original Musical (for a collection of songs, not a score), but it's only triggered if there are enough submissions in a year. I can't see any reference to it ever having been awarded, but it could do with a mention on this page nonetheless. sjorford (talk)  23:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is in fact a category, and I just added it to the list of current categories. I also got rid of the "Academy Award for Best" before each category, because it seemd redundant. Also the official names for the sound categories are "Sound Mixing" and "Sound Editing," not "Sound" and "Sound Effects Editing."

68.14.23.152 02:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

jg 13:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Looks like "Original Musical" is missing again.

BEST ORIGINAL MUSICAL IS A LEGITAMATE CATEGORY!!

Is anyone out there willing to write an article about the Best Original Musical award? Because it is the only red link in this article, it sticks out like a sore thumb ... and, thus, readers often assume that the award does not exist. Many other editors, and I myself, are constantly reverting the erroneous edits that remove mention of this award from this article. (JosephASpadaro 03:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC))


 * A new article has recently been created for Best Original Musical. See: Academy Award for Best Original Musical.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

Best Original Musical Category according to AMPAS
According to AMPAS: "Since the 2000 (73rd) awards, there has been a separate music category called "Original Musical", however there have never been enough films eligible in any given year to activate the category (see the current music rules at http://www.oscars.org/79academyawards/rules/index.html)."

Such rules state:

III. Original Musical:

An original musical consists of not fewer than five original songs (as defined in A. II above) by the same writer or team of writers either used as voice-overs or visually performed. Each of these songs must be substantively rendered, clearly audible, intelligible, and must further the storyline. What is simply an arbitrary group of songs unessential to the storyline of the film will not be considered eligible. The adapter (if any) or the composer of the instrumental score may be considered eligible — in this category only — if his or her contribution is deemed relevant and substantial.

...

5. The category of Original Musical (III) may be activated only by special request of the Music Branch Executive Committee to the Board of Governors in a year when the field of eligible submissions is determined to be of sufficient quantity and quality to justify award competition.

(JosephASpadaro 01:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Oscar for Sale?
I remember a story where someone tried to sell an Oscar Trophy and the seller was sued. I think it's ridiculous, since the owner should be entitled to do what they please with there property -- Eddie 07:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When you receive an Oscar you must sign a form agreeing to offer the statue to the Academy for $1 before you dispose of it. This has been the rule for over fifty years.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess the Trophy isn't the winner's property. -- Eddie 18:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is the winner's property, subject to the legal constraints they agree to when they sign the contract. (64.252.67.48 05:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Joe S.)

UK Broadcast?
I'm not sure whereabouts the best place is to ask this question, so I'll stick it here, if that's ok. Does anyone know if the 2006 Oscars are going to be broadcast live in the UK on BBC (i.e. terrestrial and not satelite/cable TV) on March 5th? I can't seem to find this information anywhere.
 * Well I emailed the BBC and they said that they do not have the rights to broadcast the Oscars live; however Sky Movies 1 is broadcasting it live at 1am on March 5th.

Stop Changing the Categories!!
I deleted all the "Academy Award for Best" before each category because if was redundant. I don't mind having just the "Best" before the categories, but now some categories have it and some don't.

That's a minor problem, but the bigger one is that Best Orignial Musical is deleted from the list of categories. It's a category just like all the others, it just wasn't activated this year. Also, the category is "Original Score" not "Original Music Score" (what other kind of score is there?). The Sound categories were changed a couple of years ago. They are now named Sound Mixing and Sound Editing. The acting categories were also renamed recently to "Actor/Actress in a Leading Role" and "Actor/Actress in a Supporting Role."

The Scientific and Technical Award should be placed in the Honorary Awards section because they are not awarded to an individual film, like all the other categories, but rather to honor those that have invented something to help filmmakers. Most of them that are handed out aren't even Oscar statuettes.

Comedy Direction isn't really a retired category, the Best Director category was just split into Drama/Comedy. It seems as though there was a category honoring any type of direction (including comedy), and then one just for comdedy. Also, my description of how the Best Original Score category used to be split into Drama/Comedy categories was deleted too. 68.14.23.152 02:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

image by anon
Image was added by an anon. Image quotes "fair use". Are we using fair use images, or should I have remved the image? ThanksDlohcierekim 02:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC), RCPatrol

Neutrality?
The first two sentences of "Criticism" seem to be a defence of award shows, with their claim that " [i] t is simply not possible" to please everyone. It is entirely possible; the Academy just has several built-in biases that could be eliminated with some reorganization. This article has no right to claim that it is not possible when the simple fact is that noone ever seems to try. elvenscout742 00:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well as the initial author of the article, I'll defend myself. The thing is its not right to type out that the Academy was wrong because it gave so-and-so the award instead of something else. It sounds childish and churlish. The rest of my article actually does stress out the basic points for which people have gripes with the Oscars. Many best Picture awards do not age very well. How many remember Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas, or Shakespeare In Love over Saving Private Ryan, or for that matter Ordinary People which won over Raging Bull. Artihcus.

Why the rename?
On February 27, 2006, Rdsmith4 moved this page from Academy Award to Academy Awards with the reason, "more sensible name." I'm pretty sure that if it were left to a vote, it wouldn't have changed. Since this huge of an article rename should usually be discussed, lets talk about it now.

I would have opposed the rename because, while the article may be partially about the ceremony itself, if one wants to talk about the awards in general, we have List of Academy Awards ceremonies and could probably split off a section of this to List of Academy Awards. Like all other articles here, you singularize them so that when you're writing about them, you know you can link to the Academy Award for blah blah, or The Academy Awards, but now, it's harder to type Academy Award for blah blah, and it takes more space. See WP:NC. While there are exceptions to the 'singular' rule, it just doesn't seem that much more sensible to me. —Fitch 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated (but interesting) rumor.
In one of those "fun facts" rumors, I read the line "Because metal was scarce, the Oscars given out during World War II were made of wood."

Shawshank Redemption
What is the proof that Shawshank redemption have maximum number of votes in IMDB?

Race/Ethnicity and the Oscars
I think there should be a portion about this in the "criticism" portion of the Oscars, seeing that that vast, vast, VAST majority of Oscar winners (in ANY category, acting or otherwise) are white and American. I know, I know, "be bold", but I'm not that good of a writer. 172.145.45.138 13:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the awards are American and largely focus on American films it makes a degree of sense to focus on American actors, however there has been a massive degree of controversy about race/ethnicity in the Oscar, especially around the time of Hallie Berry's Oscar nomination, and that deserves to be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"The advertising revenues realized by the event is the sole source of the Academy's yearly budget."
Whilst this statement could well be true, and if so could probably be verified by reference to published accounts or tax returns, it was tagged with a "fact" template. The fact that someone decided that it needed a citation (and I agree, it does) should be enough to merit the removal of the statement until it is sourced.

Please do not use the "fact" template when a significant statement such as this one is in doubt. It is better to pull it and note it on this talk page, as I have done here.--Tony Sidaway 15:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Voting members
The acutal ~6000 voting members are always an issue of wild speculation and of particular interest apparently, therefore I propose to create a sub-article (rather a sub-list) with the names of all known voting members. -- Sloan21 01:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * they do not release the list of the members. Jinnspirit 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

worldview/oscar
i asked around at foreign wikis, it seems this is referred to as "oscar" around the world(academy is a very generic term). i also noticed the website is called "oscar.com" and has "oscar" plastered all over it. the last show had "oscar" written in huge gold letters. its time to rename this article "oscars" to conform to a worldwide view

Justforasecond 18:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The name of the ceremony is Academy Awards. Understand that AMPAS (aka "The  Academy  of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences") has run with the term Oscars as a pointer in their print literature, website, and broadcast graphics because the term is a highly recognizable symbol and brand name, which most people are aware of worldwide. However, the ceremony's official name is Academy Awards® (note the register mark). This is not an opinion, but a fact. Simply go to Oscar.com and look at the title bar for the official name of the ceremony. Note also that Oscar® carries a register mark, as the AMPAS controls both names. Benedictine 22:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * are you saying go to "OSCAR.COM" to verify that this article should be called "Academy Awards"?  Not a real strong argument there.  Oscar is the worldwide name.  Billions know it by Oscar.  They haven't even heard of the "Academy Awards".   Wiki policy is to have a worldwide view and to use the commonly accepted name.   In this case -- Oscar.  Justforasecond 23:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The job of Wikipedia is to report verifiable fact. It is a fact that the AMPAS officially calls their ceremony Academy Awards, and has done so for quite some time. In any case, your argument regarding "Billions know it by 'Oscar'; they haven't even heard of the 'Adademy Awards'" is, in fact, completely POV, and unverifiable. Benedictine 01:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Polls have shown otherwise -- wikis around the world call it "oscar".  The US is out of step.   And have you noticed how it is OSCAR.COM?   And the HUGE gold "OSCAR" above the stage?   Justforasecond 01:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Polls have shown otherwise" is again completely unverifiable POV. Have you noticed that http://www.academyawards.com/ goes to, you guessed it, the official Academy Awards/Oscar page? Do you also notice that the ceremony is officially called Academy Awards' at every turn on the page? Benedictine 02:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No -- it says OSCARS all over the place.  The official website is OSCARS.com.   Other countries know of this as the Oscars.   Take a look around -- this is not a worldwide view.   And, stop removing the tags until this is settled.  Justforasecond 02:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You must have some broswer problems, or something. The ceremony is called Academy Awards at every turn. What exactly is unclear about the title "The 78th Annual Academy Awards"? It's not "The 78th Annual Oscars". Benedictine 02:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Around the world and on OSCAR.COM this is known as Oscar. This page does not present a worldwide view.   Removal of the tag is not permitted.   Justforasecond 02:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (de-indent)Well, Oscar awards would be the less ambiguous name, since other countries have film awards handed out by their respective academies (eg. Japanese Academy Awards). Having this article at this title with no qualifiers, such as "Academy Awards (United States)" is US-centric. However, since the majority of people searching for just academy awards would probably want to go to this page, it's not a big issue either way. - Bobet 07:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Brokeback under "criticism"
I deleted Brokeback Mountain from the short list of films that are revered as classics but did not win best picture, alongside Citizen Kane, Apocalypse Now, and A Clockwork Orange. While it's a very good film, and made my top 5 of 2005, it's only been six months since the Oscars and it's impossible to tell whether it will stand the test of time. Same with Crash (which I think won't).

Article moved from "Academy Award" to Academy Awards
Because the article subject is clearly the ceremony itself, as opposed to the award given, I did not foresee any conflict in moving this, so I've been bold and moved the article name from "Academy Award" to the plural form. --Czj 11:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion-Page Listing Complaints
Is it worth it to have a seperate page, (or paragraph) that lists the mistakes committed by the Academy that have lasted the test of time? "Citizen Kane" not winning best picture; "Hoop Dreams" being snubbed; no song from any Elvis Presley movie was ever nominated, ("Jailhouse Rock" for example); none of the songs from "Saturday Night Fever" were nominated; the standing applause given to Roman Polanski, a convicted child rapist. It would probably be a very long page. I know it not possible to make everybody happy, but, some errors are bigger than others. 204.80.61.10 16:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk
 * Seems that a lot of what you've said is strictly 100% POV or fan trivia, and one person's "snub" or "error" or "mistake" is another person's hard vote and there are probably many people who would argue that none of the things you've listed are worthy of re-consideration. An encyclopedia article on the Academy Awards is not a place for debate about the things which have won or not won. There are fan pages and other websites for that kind of subjective discussion. Note that I do not 100% disagree with your citations but they are not really relevant to the article and they really are 100% subjective POV.


 * I disagree with the above statement that the Academy's "errors" are POV, and I disagree with the assertion that they should be left out. And I am absolutely STUNNED that this person could say that isuch facts are not relevant to this article! They are not POV, they are--by definition--widely accepted. The "errors" list would indeed be long: So what? If you are short on time or space, go home or got to bed or whatever and someone else will do the work. The fact--yes, fact--that the Academy's "Best Picture" is rarely in agreement with posterity is highly relevant, important, can be factually substantiated (Citizen Kane, for example, overlooked by the Academy, is now perpetually voted the all-time best movie by the same people who make up the Academy' it won again this year). Such errors show--as this Wikipedia article has a moral, ethical, and professional RESPONSIBILITY to show--that like everyone else, the Academy's impression at the time of an event does not always remain constant after years of reflection, and that even at the time of the award, the Academy's statement is not the last word on thhe topic. YOU might be cynical enough to magically intuit the fallability of the Academy Awards, but not everyone in the world is as savvy and street-wise as you are. There are some who are old enough to read, and yet still innocent enough to derive information and enjoyment out of an encyclopedia article that presents just a teeny, tiny bit of the other side of the story. After all, reading enjoyment--not facts--is the number one reason anyone, yes anyone, reads an encyclopedia article. YOU are not the only one who reads for fun, so do not condescend to think that the rest of the world only reads when they have to, and they only scan an entry for the fact they need and would never read beyond their immediate needs. So, whoever wrote the above comment can take the rest of the day off, and indeed take the rest of your life off, and leave editing, if it is too much work for you, to the rest of us. Take care, now. RUReady2Testify 18:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Omitted trivia about John C. Reilly in 2002
I omitted the trivia stating that John C. Reilly is the only actor to appear in three best picture nominees in the same year (2002, Chicago, Gangs of New York, and The Hours). He was actually the third actor to accomplish this.

The two that came before him are Claudette Colbert in 1934 (It Happened One Night, Cleopatra, and Imitation of Life) and Thomas Mitchell in 1939 (Gone With the Wind, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and Stagecoach). TheLastAmigo 05:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes
A user recently added a section dealing with people who won awards for comedies. I would argue that this section is not relevant to the article at hand, which is not a collection of statistics, and may constitute original research. The same user also removed an unreferenced tag from the trivia section, which I am going to put back because, well, there are no references.--Dmz5 01:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, rather than risk tendentious editing, I will put it forward here - what is the source of all that trivia? Is it copyvio from one of the linked pages?--Dmz5 01:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
The blanket removal of an entire section that's been part of the article for probably a year or more is simply vandalism, and smells suspicious to me. At the most, the section needs to be hit with Fact tags and action taken to source the material. Unless you know absolutely nothing about these awards and the movie business in general, all this information is common knowledge and would not be that difficult to source. Removing the entire section is not a solution and this is not what happens on Wikipedia, generally speaking. What does happen here all too often is people taking matters into their own hands under the badge of "policy". Armed with policy interpretations, they force their personal will onto a given article. I believe this is what is going on here. In the meantime, this section needs to remain as is. Instead of being lazy and simply removing content, participate in the research, if necessary, and stop vandalising the page. The "Criticism" section has weathered countless edits, by editors more experienced than either of us. If there was this grave policy issue as you represent, it seems these senior editors would have discovered it by now and taken action. Thank you. Cleaningdepartment 19:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would caution you first to assume good faith and not accuse me of vandalising the page because I am removing text that blatantly violates wikipedia policy. That it is "common knowledge" is not good enough, and not every user has the sort of familiarity with the "movie business" that you cite.  The onus is on the user who wishes to add unsourced material.  Furthermore, rather than calling me lazy, perhaps consider that putting up content that smacks of personal opinion without references is also a quite lazy course of action.  I would also like to know where all this previous controversy can be found on the discussion page - as far as I know this is the first mention of it.  I'll put up a request for comment or some such thing on one of the boards frequented by "more experienced" editors and we can see where the discussion leads, but in the meantime please refrain from taking such apparent offense to my edits.--Dmz5 20:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm responding to Dmz5's request for third party comment, although I'm not at all sure I'm more experienced than either of you: First, I hope everybody would tone down the language and have a care for the other side's sensibilities. I get just as offended in my disputes as you two have, and I do know how hard it is to restrain one's language (and I wish I'd done a better job of it myself in the past), but it's still a very good idea to be more restrained. I think both sides have acted in good faith here, and I wish you would both acknowledge that. On the issue, it seems to me that both sides agree that sourced material is better than unsourced. It might actually be less difficult (and certainly less emotionally draining) for both of you to agree to take a whack at a search engine for "Academy Awards" and "criticism" &mdash; and I'll tell you what, if you both agree to help, I'll help too. I have to agree with Dmz5 that unsourced sections are intolerable, but I have to agree with Cleaningdepartment that Fact tags are a better solution. I mean, there's a reason why those tags exist, right? If we can't easily find some things on the Web to back up these statements, then certainly it will come around by Academy Awards night, right? Rather than delete now, I suggest waiting until at least a couple of weeks after that night. If the statements in that section can't be found by then, after someone tries searching for them, then it's unlikely we'll ever find them. Anyone with books on the subject could really help out the effort, too. Sound reasonable? Best, Noroton 22:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just added four footnotes. If one of you will find a citation for the Judi Dench statement and the other will footnote something else in that section, I think the problem is pretty much solved and the citation notice can even be removed. Sound reasonable? Noroton 00:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the "unreferenced" tag at the top of the criticisms section since it looks like we've done all we're going to do there and it's the most referenced part of the whole article.Noroton 18:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Directors who havnt won
I see people constantly adding to this list, really if allowed to just go on the list could get huge and rather silly. If people cant keep it to a breif list of examples perhaps a new article should be started where people can just have at it and ad every director under the sun. This can easily turn into an edit war and this article is no place to discuss POV of which director is more prominent then another, lets try to keep the list reasonable and readable. Russeasby 00:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:POV and WP:OR tags have just been added to that paragraph. The criticism about missing directors must be identified from a source outside Wikipedia e.g. who has determined which directors are "prominent" or "lesser"? Dl2000 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just removed the section... would really be nice to have citations when criticising an organization that's connected to every media outlet in the western world. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
I cleaned out parts of the Criticism section and added some fact tags. The whole section is very weaselly. It would be nice to be able to cite some notable critics instead of "some random people who I can't specify." Anyway... hmmm yeah. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Main or Assistant?
The section titled "Main or Assistant" seems to make no sense. I can sort of understand the point the author is trying to make, but its very badly written and confusing. I would change it myself but don't know enough about the topic and can't really follow what's being said well enough.TSMonk 01:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well someone changed it to "Main or Supporting" which makes more sense, the whole section is still very poor though and I am tempted to just delete it. Hopefully someone will rewrite it. Russeasby 12:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the "supporting" award was supposed to be given with a mind to movies that have ensamble casts with no real lead. Like "Little Miss Sunshine".  However, I don't thing the Acadamy has ever really defined what it means.

Odd time....
The article says that the nominations will come out at something like 5:38 am. Is there a rationale behind such a strange time? Can we mention it? Of course, it's a little over seven hours away, so it might not matter by the time someone reads this. Also, I agree with the above poster. I came to this article to see if there was any codified difference between Leading and Supporting Actors, and all I found was that mess. &mdash; Music Maker  05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The nominations are announced at 5:38 am, Pacific coast time zone, so that the morning talk shows in the east, ("Today", "Good Morning America"), will cover them live. The east coast is 3 hours ahead of the west coast. 5:38am pt equals 8:38 am et. They are not announced at 5:30 am in case there is a more important News story to be covered on the half-hour. Also, the difference between lead actor and supporting actor can cause arguments.  Meryl Streep is the supporting actress in "The Devil Wears Prada (film)". Anne Hathaway is the lead actress.  Ms. Steep should have been nominated for supporting actress.204.80.61.10 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk


 * It’s actually 5:38:30 (i.e. 30 seconds after 5:38) according to a press release. --Citefixer1965 15:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Voting system for selecting the nominees
It would be good to have some detail on the voting system that is used to select the nominees. It is a form of preferential balloting. I have researched this but the descriptions of the system which I have found online are not entirely consistent: The question I have is, after a film gets enough votes to be a nominee, do they stop counting that film's votes immediately, and just count the second choice on further ballots selecting that film as their first choice? If that is the way they do it it would be odd because the order in which the votes are counted could make the difference in who the nominees are. --Citefixer1965 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Eight things every voter (and fan) should know about Oscar’s decidedly unique nomination process.
 * Oscar crunches the numbers
 * Oscar insight: Proportional voting system makes for wide-open nomination picks
 * The Oscar Formula

Stunt work
The following section seems like original research, is not sourced and reads as highly subjective, so I cut it so it could be debated here. RoyBatty42 18:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC) A notable missing category is that of stunt players, who in some action films spend more time on the screen than the actors they represent. This is a reflection on the greater industry's desire to uphold box office draw by maintaining the illusion of cinema and the skills of the actors. Many actors who claim to do their own stunts aren't being fully honest as Hollywood's Insurance Agencies have strict rules about stunts actors can and can't perform. Linda Blair's stunt player in the Exorcist filed a lawsuit which possibly cost Blair an Oscar nod, though the lawsuit did not carry in court.
 * I agree... unsourced and OR. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Judy Dench
This is a rather poor, obscure choice of an example for this bit of conventional wisdom. Much stronger candidates would be Paul Newman winning for The Color of Money when he should have gotten it for The Verdict and Denzel Washington winning for Training Day after losing it for The Hurricane and Malcolm X. Of course, if Martin Scorsese wins for The Departed then that will be example everyone will cite from now on RoyBatty42 18:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have to disagree on this point. Judy Dench is, in fact, the classic case.  From what I understand, her performance (at about 8 minutes of screen time) is the shortest-ever Oscar winning performance.  (Dench runs neck and neck with Anthony Hopkin's 17 minutes of screen time in Silence of the Lambs for which he won Best Actor.)  It is widely believed that Dench's winning the Oscar for a mere 8 minutes of screen time is, in fact, testament to her prior body of work at large, as opposed to the actual specific winning performance. (JosephASpadaro 08:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Re: shortest Oscar-winning performance. I stand corrected; it was not Judy Dench's 8 minutes.  Rather, as per this article: The shortest performance ever to win an acting Oscar was Beatrice Straight's performance, which lasted 5 minutes and 40 seconds, in Network (1976). Straight was awarded Best Supporting Actress for her role. (JosephASpadaro 13:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

Dead people montage
Wondering if the criticism that I hear annually about hearing the Academy clap during the dead people montage (and thus hearing loud cheers for the more famous people, but often times silence during some of the less famous people) would merit inclusion in this section? Dunno where you could find a source, though. I'll look around. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cristicism of conservatism of awards
I have removed the paragraph:

Awards have also often been criticised for being too conservative. Critics have noted that many Best Picture Academy Award winners in the past have not stood the test of time. Several of these films, such as Around the World in 80 Days and Cecil B. DeMille's The Greatest Show on Earth are often considered to have aged poorly and have little of the impact they did on their initial release.

For 2 reasons, needs citation and it does not render properly (and I don't know how to fix it)

If it gets a citation it is here to be placed back onto the page

Trivia has too much info
Do we really need all that information in the Trivia section? I think that information that can easily be found in Academy Awards statistics pages should be omitted.

Also, who cares about the Aaliyah or Beyonce trivia? It just seems -- well -- trivial to me. Same goes for that quote by Jack Valenti and that stuff underneath it about Titanic and Crash. Who cares?

Here's what I would keep:

1. George Bernard Shaw

2. Walt Disney, John Williams, and Alfred Newman

3. The ages of the Oscar winners/nominees

4. Katherine Hepburn/James Dean

5. Clean sweeps

6. They Shoot Horses Don't They?

7. Charlie Chaplin's standing ovation

8. Ronald Reagan

I could also see a point in keeping the info about the actors who have appeared in 3 or more Best Picture winners, but there is now a statistics page devoted to that, and there are way more actors than what is listed here.

--TheLastAmigo 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply:Actually this trivia lacks factuality. The Aaliyah and Beyonce trivia entries may be unfounded.  As long as these are factual and significant I think it's ok to include them. For now I'll tag them as needing citation. Daimengrui 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The trivia just needs to be at least factual. There was a statement about the movie with the most nominations without being nominated for best picture (They Shoot Horses, Don't They? with 9 nominations). Listed right underneath this item of trivia was a statement claiming Dreamgirls held that dubious honor with its 8 nominations. I erased that completely; it doesn't make sense!!


 * I was stumped for a moment, too, and (at first blush), it doesn't seem to make any sense. But actually, it DOES, in fact, make sense.  See the section entitled "Suggested Adding 'Dreamgirls' Trivia" (below).  In the year 1969, one film (Anne of the Thousand Days) was nominated for 10 awards, including Best Picture.  And another film (They Shoot Horses) was nominated for 9 awards, NOT including Best Picture.  In the year 2006, Dreamgirls was nominated for 8 awards, NOT including Best Picture.  The catch is this: Dreamgirls had the most nominations of the year 2006 (albeit "only" 8).  They Shoot Horses (at 9 nom's) did NOT have the most nominations of the year 1969, as it was bested by Anne of the Thousand Days (at 10 nom's).  So, even though Horses had a higher number of total nominations than Dreamgirls (9 versus 8), Horses was NOT the most nominated film of 1969 (since it was beaten by Anne of the Thousand Days) (10 versus 9) -- yet, Dreamgirls WAS the most nominated film in 2006.  In other words: in "absolute" number of nominations, Horses was the film that received the most nominations (9) that did not include Best Picture.  But, in "relative" number of nominations (relative to other films of the same year), Dreamgirls was the most nominated film of 2006 (at 8) that did not include Best Picture.  Even though Dreamgirls had only 8 nom's, it was still the highest number of nominations relative to all other films in 2006.  While Horses had more than 8 absolute nominations (at 9), it was NOT the most-nominated film of 1969, due to Anne of the Thousand Days (10 nom's).  I hope this clears it up.  Does this make sense now? (JosephASpadaro 07:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the clarification on where you were coming from with the Dreamgirls trivia. I understand your point, but the trivia does not reflect this information.  All it says it that They Shoot Horses had the most nominations without best picture . . . which it did in that year.  Even though Anne of the 1000 Days had 10 nominations, one of those was for best picture, therefore it can not be part of the category "most nominations without best picture."  It is out of the running simply by being nominated for best picture!  The film with the most nominations without a best picture nomination can only belong to a picture not nominated for best picture. This title belongs to They Shoot Horses.  If the trivia were combined to state the the picture in a single Oscar year that both received the most nominations AND did not receive the best picture nomination, Dreamgirls would be it.  Otherwise, the language as it is points to They Shoot Horses.


 * You're welcome. I believe that you and I are saying the same thing.  The TRIVIA Section (as it now reads) states:  The film with the most nominations without a Best Picture nomination is: They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969) with 9 nominations.  The TRIVIA Section also states: Dreamgirls (2006) was nominated for 8 awards, but not Best Picture. Thus, it was the first film ever to receive the most nominations in a given year, without being nominated for Best Picture.  All that being said -- do you still see an error?  Or does the wording seem correct to you?  Please let me know.  Thanks a lot. (JosephASpadaro 08:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

"The longest standing ovation was given to Charlie Chaplin in 1972 after receiving his award." Can this be verified?
 * I don't know how, although I do recall that he was given a huge ovation. He had been essentially blacklisted and had left America with an embittered attitude. When he finally came back, with many years having mellowed the situation, and got that ovation, he told the audience, "You are all sweet people, and I thank you," or words to that effect. I recall the big ovation and the "sweet people" phrase, anyway. But unless someone has bothered to time the ovations over 80 years, it would be hard to prove that assertion. Wahkeenah 09:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Has Too Much Info
This whole article has too much info. WAY too much. Nobody will ever have time to read it all, especially if they read slow and have at least a part time job or a yard that needs to be mowed or raked. I propose that we cut it down to "There is a phenomenon that is commonly referred to as 'the Academy Awards'. For more info, look on the Internet." That is it. Absolutely it. Anything beyond this is sure to result in controversy and would ultimately, I fear, require editing--which as some of you may know from experience elsewhere is an experience tantamount to work, requiring knowlege, judgment, and patience, and even an expenditure of time. Just give the basics, and END IT, for goodness sake! Actualy to eliminate what I now see as a glaring POV violation in my above suggestion, I think it should say, "There seems to some obververs, who claim to possess sensory powers able to detect not only the presence of a "reality" but to determine its characteristics, that there is a phenomenon (purportedly a "thing" or "event" existing in "time" and "space" in this so-called "reality" that is perceptible to those (and curiously, only those) who claim the ability to perceive such things) that is commonly referred to as 'the Academy Awards'. For obvious reasons, no further information will be provided." I think this should satisfy most, but not all, POV objectors. What do you guys think? RUReady2Testify 19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Under Nominations:
"with a native resolution no lower than 1280x720." The footnote links to a page of rules that claims 1280x1024. Is there another place that claims a lower vertical pixel requirement?Dkkicks 00:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Color Purple and other trivia
A couple of things that might be worth adding to the trivia section. I'm not 100% sure I'm correct about these or I'd add them myself. I believe The Color Purple (1985) holds the record for the most nominations without winning any. I've also heard that Beauty and the Beast (1991) was the first animated film to be nominated for Best Picture (if so, is it still the only one?).


 * You are partially correct here. In 1977, The Turning Point received 11 nominations, with zero wins.  And in 1985, The Color Purple matched that record (11 nominations, zero wins).  By the way, next in line was 2002's Gangs of New York (10 nominations, zero wins).  As far as Beauty and the Beast (1991), what you say sounds correct.  I believe it was the first AND the only.  In fact, it is likely -- also -- to be the last.  I thought that I heard, somewhere along the way, that there was an added category of Best Animated Film (subsequent to 1991).  With this new category added, it is not likely that an animated film will unseat Beauty and the Beast's claim to fame (as the first and only animated Best Picture nominee).  (JosephASpadaro 07:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

Finally, the practice of releasing a film in December so it is still in its run as a current film (or at least a very recent one) at the time of the voting and the awards ceremony is probably worth mentioning somewhere in the article, possibly in the Criticism section. It has been speculated, for instance, that Titanic might not have won as many Oscars as it did if it hadn't still been at the height of its theatrical run. --Mwalimu59 02:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Selling an Oscar
The idea that a winner can't sell his or her trophy is ridiculous. If you win something it's yours to keep and you should be free to do whatever you please with it. Axiomm 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The winners voluntarily agree to this stipulation by signing a contract. (64.252.67.48 05:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)  Joe S.)


 * How is this voluntary if they have to sign it to get it? Tempshill 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it completely voluntary for winners to accept the trophy under the Academy's restrictions. The winners are not required to agree with the restrictions, nor are they required to accept the trophy.  If they so choose, they may elect NOT to receive the trophy (if, for example, they disagree with the Academy's restrictions).  Nonetheless, the winner retains the title (e.g., Best Actor for 1965), regardless of whether or not he accepts the trophy. (JosephASpadaro 07:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Remember, the winner "wins" the title (not the trophy). In winning the title, the winner voluntarily may (or may not) elect to accept the trophy, subject to the Academy's restrictions on the trophy.  (JosephASpadaro 07:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

Suggested Adding "Dreamgirls" Trivia
In 1969, Anne of the Thousand Days was nominated for 10 awards including best picture, while They Shoot Horses, Don't They? was nominated for 9 awards, but not best picture, (a record for the most nominations without being nominated for best picture). In 2006, Dreamgirls (film) was nominated for 8 awards, but not best picture. "Dreamgirls" was the first movie to recieve the most nominations in a year, without being nominated for best picture. I know a lot of trivia was just removed, but I think this fact should be added.204.80.61.10 21:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk


 * Reply:theres just too many trivia added day by day lets just put the entire section in another page and name it Oscar Trivias so we can concentrate more on the main article please? Daimengrui 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Who says this sort of stuff is trivia? When it comes to the Oscars, there's no such thing as trivia.  Like it or not, it's the lifeblood of entertainment/current affairs/popular culture/gossip shows and magazines all over the world - and they'd never stoop so low as to dabble in trivia, now would they?  JackofOz 03:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do the voters actually watch the movies?
An important topic to discuss, probably under "Criticism", and if anyone can find a good verifiable source, would be what estimated percentage of the voters actually watch the movies that they've voted on. Tempshill 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actors as directors having an advantage
Another 'criticism' point: I read one article claiming that films directed by a popular actor (e.g. Clint Eastwood, Ron Howard) have enjoyed a definite edge in the Best Picture category, allegedly because the majority of the people who get to vote for Best Picture are actors. Don't remember the source. If anyone can cite it, I think it's worth mentioning under Criticism as a way that the system is gamed. Tempshill 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Article under attack by Vandals
Please lock it for a day or two.Lamabillybob 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

- I concur, note the following insertation: "The most suprising winner of an Oscar ever to be announced was that of Admiral Piett, who won the Lifetime Achievement Award because throughout his lifetime, all he did was awesome stuff. Things that Piett did included fighting the Rebel Alliance for the Galactic Empire, kissing Darth Vader's ass, and just being awesome." --58.107.241.62 12:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

-- I must have missed that awesome segment. Maybe that was the one where the presenter spoke in Klingon. Meanwhile, the vandal hordes should already be swarming elsewhere, now that the show is over. Wahkeenah 13:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in Academy Award Winners
In your listing of Academy Award winning motion pictures, you erroneously listed the winner of Best Picture, 1991, as ''Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze." The actual winner was "The Silence of the Lambs."  Was this a joke? (24.90.243.95 06:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Well, take a wild guess. :) Wahkeenah 06:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been fixed. Vandalism happens all the time. This being Oscar night, I expect they were particularly active. Things should cool down soon. Wahkeenah 06:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

New Awards
I added a section for new awards. I'm particularly interested in the Best Stunt Coordination Award. They've been campaigning for years. They are among the few artists in the world who risk their lives for their art, and I hope they get an Oscar category someday very soon. It's a pretty thin section right now, but I hope other contributors will find this as interesting as I do. -ErinHowarth 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh. I don't know how you did this! But when I just tried to remove the sprotected template from the Academy Awards page, it wouldn't let me, saying there was an external link to a blacklisted site in the article. I had a poke, and it turns out that suite101.com is blacklisted. Would it trouble you terribly to find different references for your info? Once again, I have no idea how the spam filter caught me, but not you :) – riana_dzasta 08:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was such a thing as a blacklisted site. I guess I ahaven't been around here long enough. Would it be appropriate to leave the reference and just remove the link? -ErinHowarth 08:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess so, until a better source can be found. – riana_dzasta 08:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A Billion Viewers? Unlikely
Seems that again this year the host claimed that a billion viewers watched the show, yet only a few years ago a reporter decided to do the math and realized that not only can AMPAS not provide any documentation as to where they get that number, but a simple logic test shows how improbably it is. For example, here in the US, where interest could be assumed to be the highest, only 40 million people watch even a PART of the show. That means, the other 960 million viewers came from elsewhere.

Perhaps there have been more than report about this others can help track down. RoyBatty42 19:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I came to the article to check if this very dubious figure was actually in our article, and I'm really surprised that it has gone by without being scrutinized properly. No way in Hell does 1/6th of the world's population watch the Oscars every year. Along with Roy's pointers above, the fact that the award show is on in the wee hours of the morning in all of Europe and Africa and isn't exactly taking up prime time in most of Asia is reason enough to reject the statement as obvious corporate propaganda.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Most in other countries it is shown RECORDED and during prime time. In other countries it is shown twice, one LIVE and another one repeated on Prime time. I would know because I live in another country before. Nielsen said that at least 78 million Americans watch the show partly. So maybe they are basing their argument there plus of course in other countries. It is quite popular in India and China, that alone could rake up at least 300 million people combined. So it is very possible to have a 1 billion viewers watched the show PARTLY. You underestimated the Hollywood influence around the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.41.32 (talk • contribs).


 * I live in Sweden, a country that is extremely Americanized and very US-oriented, and I can assure that I've never seen the award show itself cited as being especially popular in terms of ratings. That it would be hugely popular in China and India seems very unlikely and the idea that the Oscars are watched by about as many people as the FIFA World Cup Finals is just silly. If the Academy can't produce reliable figures for those figures, they shouldn't be taken seriously. The fact that they have every interest in inflating the figures is reason enough to be skeptical.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again you are assuming it is watched by people simultaneously like the world cup finals. 1 billion is possible bec. many, if not some, countries showed it twice (one live, one recorded for primetime) some other counries even shows the show many days after. The 1 billion also only includes people who watch just PARTS of the show. Nielsen said, In US 40 million people watch the show from beginning to end. When they consider people who watch it at least 6 minutes it will balloon to 78 million. Make it at least one minute then you will have an estimated almost 90 million watch the show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.41.32 (talk • contribs).


 * What's the point of this warping and bending of figures? If we included all the people who watched just one minute of the World Cup Finals, live or not, we could probably be in the billions, which makes the comparison completely pointless. Either we find some credible ratings to account for those 900 million non-American viewers, based on the same standard of what a "viewer" actually means, or draw the conclusion that the Academy is bloating its own popularity. The Oscars are ridiculously Anglo-centric and if you think people outside of North America really care that much about the likes of Billy Crystal, I'd advise you to travel abroad more often. The awards are well-known by many, but that doesn't mean people watch the award show.
 * Just to illustrate how little interest there is for the award show in a country like Sweden, there have been years when the show hasn't aired even on regular cable channels, either live or recorded. And their ratings hardly ever exceed 500,000 (except for major sports events), which is little over 5% of the population.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are having the impression that I am trying to make a competition between the Oscars and World Cup, which I am not. More people watches the world cup finals than the Oscars, thats a given. All i am saying that the 1 billion or near that which they claim is not impossible. Because they include everything. It is not really all about the "Awards" or "Billy Crystal" many factors come into play. Like the glamour, the stars and the "movies" itself. That is why many people are interested in it. Like what I said it reflects on how American Movies fare in the worldwide market. If you look at Box Office Mojo you would noctice that majority of the top films there made most of their money overseas. I think Sweden is too small to even be considered as a barometer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.41.32 (talk)


 * I'm not irked about any "competition" between the Oscars and the World Cup Finals, but that one needs to stretch the definition of "viewer" beyond any usefulness to accommodate that seemingly bloated figure figure.
 * Sweden is one of the most US-oriented countries in Europe. Only the Dutch rival the Swedes when it comes to second language English skills and a considerable percentage of all programming and entertainment comes from the US. And still the Oscars aren't popular enough to be shown on any of the major channels. There's interest in the awards and the gossip surrounding it, but not really that much about the award show itself. And Sweden is about 9 million people strong, which is more than enough to serve as a rough measurement, if not outright proof, of how popular American culture is outside of North America. I can assure you that Swedes know a lot more about American culture than Americans will ever know about Swedish culture.
 * And are you really surprised that a lot of Hollywood films make more money in the rest of the world than in the US (and Canada)? We're talking a well-off middle class that is on the order of twice the entire US population.
 * But this discussion is mostly just rhetoric, because the burden of proof still lies with those claiming that the Academy is a reliable source for ratings of its own show, not those criticizing it. If someone wants to keep the current wording, they should provide citations of ratings that confirm a whopping 900 million viewers outside of the US.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't UK the most "Americanized" European country? UK and US are pretty much sister countries. But still Sweden is too small to even be considered as a barometer. Whether your claim about sweden is true or not it does not matter because there is a huge world out there that It is hard to even comprehend. It does not matter whether the show is popular in one country or it is only being shown in cable TV, the fact is it is shown in as many as 150 countries around the world. The accumulation that it will get is more than enough to satisfy the claimed viewers.

Nevertheless, Yes the discussion is just mostly rhetoric as both of us can not provide an outside source whether our claim is true or not. I can not provide that there are 900 Million more people around the world watches the Oscars, you can not proved as well your claim that they don't. We are just both speculating at this point. But "Officially" the Academy of Motion Pictures of Arts and Sciences stated that it is shown in as many as 150 countries in the world and being viewed by 1 billion people. That is the only source we can take right now since no one really other than the Academy measures the Award shows. The only thing we can do right now is to write to AMPAS and ask for the following supporting evidences on their claim. Which I am pretty sure many people (press or its kind) have done so before. Which that is why it is universally believed that indeed roughly 1 billion people watches the show every year. As every host reiterate it every year on the show. I am pretty sure this has been scrutinized well before, as they have been saying this "much publicized" figures for years now.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.41.32 (talk)

Are you serious? I mean, you do realize you can't prove a negative, right? What happened to proposal that wikipedia teach basic logic to all posters? RoyBatty42 01:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your point though.


 * Anon, note the us of "one of the" concerning how Americanized Sweden is. And it's interesting that you brought the UK up, because it'd be interesting to see their ratings for the Oscars.
 * But Roy is right. We don't need to prove that there appears to be no reliable ratings concerning the non-American world. If I'm not mistaken, Citing sources is quite applicable here: AMPAS can't reasonably be considered a reliable source about their own ratings since they're obviously partial and, above all, not in the business of measuring ratings.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That is the best we can do here. Cite AMPAS, since no one really does the measuring but them. The right wordings would be "The Academy of Motion Pictures of Arts and Sciences "CLAIMS" that 1 billion people in more than 100 countries around the world watch the show every year". You can not simply ignore what they say or the information simply because you do not beleive them. That is being bias and not very encyclopedic or journalistic. Bec, the information is coming from a very high profile organization, although dubious to some, it is important to note this. But it was not meant to suggest to the readers that they have to believe it or this is the abosolute truth, we are just presenting information the best we can do. Of course if we can find a "very credible" outside source that can proved AMPAS is lying then that should also be presented.


 * "Dubious to some"? Patent nonsense. I'm rewording the section to say that the Academy claims that its own ratings are sky high, but with a rather harsh qualifier. Any organization that is obviously trying to inflate its own importance is not to be considered a reliable source unless they're supported by independent sources.
 * Peter Isotalo 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if they are double-counting the ones who tape the show and then watch it later? >:) Wahkeenah 11:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Animation Category
The category of animation was created in 2001, not 1999.

Controversies and Other noted telecast events
I have to assume there was once a section for controversies and such, but was deleted by over zealous Zionist hoodlums (kidding).

But seriously, I am surprised that the streaker (now thought to be a "plant"), Marlon Brando's fake indian, Redgrave's "Zionist hoodlums" speech, Tim Robbins & Susan Sarandon's speech, Jack Palance's push-ups, Rob Lowe & Snow White (esp the lawsuit) and the myth of Marisa Tomei's Oscar being a mistake (see wrong oscar at snopes.com for that one) are not within a section about such things. It seems a major oversight. The thing about the "billion viewers" could also be included here. RoyBatty42 17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations Format
Why does this article have the citation "(Levy 2003)" sprinkled throughout? I assume that that is some type of citation to an author Levy in the year 2003? But -- is that the proper way to cite within a Wikipedia article? It seems out of place and incorrect. Any comments? (JosephASpadaro 07:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC))


 * "Any Comments" - yes, did you happen to notice the section at the bottom that says "References"? Have you written a term paper? RoyBatty42 08:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you are right that that's the way to do it in term papers, but the usual way here in on wikipedia is to put in a, isn't it? That way, you would get a nice clickable number... SilentGuy 16:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I recognized the citation as a term paper citation.  But, it did not look "correct" in a Wikipedia article.  I have read many Wikipedia articles, and never ran across citations in the "(Levy 2003)" format before.  So, all this being said ... should the "(Levy 2003)" citations stay or go?  I was tempted to erase them, but I am hoping that someone knows how to translate them into proper Wikipedia referencing format.  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Okay, just saw that WP:REF says Harvard referencing is okay as well, so I guess I won't change it right now. SilentGuy 00:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Harvard referencing style is OK, shouldn't an article have consistency within itself? (In other words, all of the citations within a given article should be in either one style or the other style, provided that both styles are acceptable in Wikipedia.)  I think that the style which allows one to click on the footnote number / link is more user-friendly, as opposed to the term-paper (Levy 2003) style.  If I knew how to change them, I would.  Your thoughts?  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC))


 * You are certainly free to change them to that, but you cannot simply take them out because you need consistency in the article to the detriment of the article. I'm guessing you took a look at the instructions for listing references with footnotes and threw up your hands in frustration trying to follow the Rube Goldberg plans, much like I did. RoyBatty42 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your comment 100%. I am not suggesting to remove the cites completely.  Just changing them to consistent format.  Which -- of course -- I have no idea how to do.  I am sure that someone out here in Wikipedia Land can rise to the challenge.  (JosephASpadaro 02:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Overly conservative?
What's that supposed to mean? Conservative is too broad a term, and definitely doen't make sense here because I can't think of any place more liberal than Hollywood, spare France. I see what point they're trying to make, but conservative just isn't the right term to use. The Person Who Is Strange 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It means cautious, non-innovative. And don't assume all actors are liberals. Maybe "conservative" is the wrong word. Maybe "old-fashioned" is better. Although it doesn't explain how "American Beauty" won. Wahkeenah 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Proper names for awards?
Has it already been discussed that the proper names for these awards generally do not show up in this article? For example, "Best Cinematography" is actually "Achievement in Cinematography". I understand that the names in the article are the vulgate version, but this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite.

&mdash;  Jim Dunning  talk  : 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Record Holders Section / Titanic "Success"
I propose eliminating this section. At first, I removed the section (citing my reasons), but the original poster added it back in (citing his/her reasons). So, I figured it would be best to discuss it here on this page, rather than to have the original poster and I go back and forth with repeatedly adding/subtracting the section. Here are my arguments. There is no need to have a separate Record Holders Section, since that "type" of information is already covered in the Trivia Section. Every single fact in this Record Holders Section is already contained in the current Trivia Section. Thus, this Record Holders Section is, in essence, redundant. It is redundant both generally (to the type of information it contains) and specifically (to the actual information it contains). More importantly, there is no official way to gauge what is the Most Successful Film in Oscar History. We can cite the most-nominated film, or the film with the most awards, etc. (which is all covered in the Trivia Section). But who is to say that a film (such as Titanic) with an 11 for 14 record is the "most successful"? One can easily argue that Lord of the Rings: Return of the King is more successful, since it won 11 for 11 (100% of its nominations). Titanic won "only" 79% (11 for 14) of its nominations. My point is: who is to say which is "more successful" -- a film with less nominations but more awards? or a film with a greater batting average of nominations to awards? In this case, Titanic and LOTR have equal awards; Titanic from more nominations, and LOTR from less nominations. So, it can be easily argued that the LOTR higher batting average is "more successful" than the Titanic batting average. In the end, there is NO formula for -- and no one can rightly deem -- which film is the "most successful" in Oscar history. Furthermore, the original poster claims (in his/her edit summary) that "I clarrified with wikipedia first whether I could add this section legitamely." I would question: did the Wikipedia editor look at the specific content of the proposed addition, in light of the entire article? Or did the Wikipedia editor simply make a general statement along the lines of "yes, that is the type of information that can be added to an article in Wikipedia"? Also, the original poster claims (in the article itself) that "when asked, the AMPAS President Sid Ganis clarrified this and said that nominations should count towards a films considered sucsess at the Oscars." Yes, of course, a film's nominations should count as part of its "success" at the Oscars. By definition, a film with 14 nominations would be considered more succesful at the Oscars than a film with 11 nominations. But, the original poster is comparing apples and oranges (i.e., total number of wins; total number of nominations; batting averages). It is a FAR LEAP to jump to the conclusion that Titanic is the "most successful" film in Oscar history, from Sid Ganis' statement that "nominations should count towards a films considered sucsess at the Oscars." If the President of AMPAS (Sid Ganis) makes the statement that "Titanic is the most successful film in Oscar history," then I am comfortable adding it (sourced and referenced) into the article. Otherwise, I am not. In my opinion, the original poster cannot unilaterally make the broad and sweeping claim that Titanic is the "most successful" film in Oscar history. Does anyone have any thoughts about this topic? Any feedback or input will be appreciated. Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 14:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC))
 * My take on this is a sort of comprimise. I think the record section should be kept, and all records in the trivia section moved there, it helps reduce the size of the trivia section and make things a bit more orderly.  As for the "most successful" garbage, I added a citation needed tag to it and think if it cannot be sourced it should be removed entirely and simply the records listed.  The record information shoul just be presented in a factual manner and the reader can decide what they think is most "successful".  And if the Sid Ganis quote can be cited, it can be added as a quote by him as it is relevent to the record and made by someone who is relevent. Russeasby 17:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. You bring up a good point, and I would like to clarify my original posting.  As far as the "most successful film" debate, my opinion is clearly stated in my original posting above.  As far as retaining the Record Holders Section, I don't have a problem with that.  But, it would probably have to be in lieu of -- not in addition to -- the current Trivia Section.  Otherwise, to have both is redundant.  Essentially, every single item in the Trivia Section is a "record holder" in some form or another.  I counted 20 out of the 21 current Trivia Section items that can be re-phrased as "the film that holds the record for ..." or "the actor who holds the record for ...", etc.  In essence, the current Trivia Section is itself a section about Record Holders.  Thus, the real question is one of semantics: do we want the heading label to read "Trivia" or "Record Holders"?  In practicality, they are one and the same.  (The only item from the current list of 21 Trivia items that arguably cannot be considered a "Record Holder" is the one about the ceremony being postponed a day due to President Reagan's assassination attempt.  And even that statement can probably be craftily re-worded to indicate a record holder.)  That was why I suggested in my original posting that the proposed Record Holders Section is redundant both generally (in nature) and specifically (in content), in light of the current Trivia Section.  Any other feedback or input from others is welcome. (JosephASpadaro 19:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Okay, I didnt bother counting the current items in the trivia section for how many were record holders, indeed with the points you make here, I support getting rid of the record holder section and agree its redundant. I would just delete the whole section for now, since the Sid Ganis quote is uncited anyways and all the titantic stats (wins and nominations) are already listed in trivia. Russeasby 20:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Joseph on this one. It is original research to state which film has been most successful because the guidelines of "successful" have not been outline by the Academy or any other notable source. Additionally, the much-followed guideline (though not policy) WP:TRIVIA suggests the removal of most trivia sections, instead incorporating the information into the article using more encyclopedic ways. Regardless, it is not up to us to say what film is most successful. Don't forget WP:A. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello I seem to be the person who has offended everyone by added this section, In 2006 Sid Ganis was asked how would you judge a films sucsess at the Oscars, he of course said that being nominated was sucsess when asked what was more important wins or nominations he said that they both are important. Titanic is the only film to hold jointly both records ie: Nominations and Wins, therefore I would say that the film is currently the most sucsessful film at the Academy Awards.  I also think it is important to expand the section to include record holders, such as Meryl Streep (Most Nominations by an Actor/Actress), Most Wins in the Leading Catagory = Katherine Hepburn, etc etc.  I think this would be more clear for users rather than small items of triva, in regards to the sid ganis comment I am trying to find a record of it on the internet --Duncanbruce 17:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

DuncanBruce -- Believe me, I do not think that anyone is offended. At least, not by your contribution to the article. (If anything, offense would be taken by your arguably inappropriate behavior: over and over, you simply keep re-inserting the same material that others deem inapproriate for the article. More appropriate behavior -- and less offensive to others on Wikipedia -- would consist of joining in on the discussion and the debate.  Which, I am glad to see, that you now have done. And, which is why Wikipedia even has these talk/discussion pages.)  We all need to be open-minded. Have you read the above comments and postings? They are quite intricate and detailed and they lay out exactly why at least three individuals feel that your contribution is inappropritae for this article. No one is offended. More likely, we are all people who have some inherent interest in the Academy Awards topic, and want to see the best article possible about that topic. If you have any questions or want these points clarified, please ask. But, for the moment, I will reply to your post as follows. Sid Ganis may have said that "both wins and nominations are indicators of a film's success at the Oscars; both are important." I doubt very much that anyone would dispute or argue with that assertion. Of course, wins and nominations are indicators of a film's Oscar success. That's obvious. The problem (in my view) is that you are taking Ganis' factually true statement and twisting it around to say "Therefore, Titanic is the most successful film in Oscar history." We can ALL agree on how many nominations Titanic (or any other film) has. We can ALL agree on how many wins Titanic (or any other film) has. But, we cannot ALL agree that (due to your formula) -- which is yours alone and no one else's -- Titanic is the "most successful film at the Oscars." That is a subjective belief or opinion. Everyone has different opinions on what would constitute the "most successful film" in Oscar history. I can see that Sid Ganis might state: "both wins and nominations are indicators of a film's success." I can see that Sid Ganis would make the factual statement that "the film Titanic has 14 nominations and 11 wins." But, I doubt very much that -- aside from personal, subjective opinion -- Sid Ganis would take the official AMPAS position that "the most successful film in Oscar history is Titanic."  Now, IF he were to do that, fine -- just source it and include it. But, let's NOT make the broad amd sweeping leap from his first statement ("both nominations and wins are indicators of a film's Oscar success") to the statemnet that "the film Titanic is the most successful film in Oscar history." It's simply untrue and it's simply faulty logic. As far as Record Holders, I am all for that type of information being included -- and much of it already is -- in the Trivia Section. Again, please read the above comments for further details, but the Trivia Section essentially IS a Record Holders Section as it now stands. Please feel free to add more Record Holders information if you have any. I believe that the Katharine Hepburn (most wins) is already there, and I will add the Meryl Streep (most nominations) in a moment. Thanks. Please fell free to join in the discussion and ask questions or for clarification, if you'd like. We are all here to make the Academy Awards article a good one -- and a factually accurate one, free from personal bias and opinion. Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 18:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Since the number of categories has not remained constant over the years, then you should also consider the nomination and win percentages relative to the total possible rather than just comparing the actual numbers and batting averages. For example, by rough estimation, Gone With the Wind won 10 awards in 1939, 50% of the total available. Titanic, however, won only 11 of the 24 available, or less than 46%. Mmmmm . . . just how do you determine the best? Plus, I dislike Trivia sections.


 * Also, Duncanbruce, you didn't offend anyone. But it is a good idea to open a topic up for discussion when it appears there are very different opinions on it.


 * &mdash;  Jim Dunning  talk  : 18:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well perhaps it would be good to create the records section and state that there is no clear way of establishing what film was most sucsessful at the academy awards, say that Titanic could be considered to be, however then quote and list other theorys which would change the status of that, Lord of the Rings with 100% wins, Gone with the wind with the higher percentage--Duncanbruce 18:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I sincerely do not think it has any encyclopedic value to state that "Some people think that Film A is the most successful, but other people think that Film B is." Let's remember that this is an encyclopedia. What would be the value of adding a lot of hypothetical scenarios which may (or may not) formulate what some people do (or do not) agree constitutes the most successful film (an assessment, by definition, with which some will agree with and others will not)? What value is that? By the way, your strong persistence in naming Titanic as the "most successful film ever" leads me to believe that you have some agenda or ulterior motive -- and that you are less interested in providing encyclopedic information to Wikipedia readers. For some (unknown and unexplained) reason, you really want to get this information in there, huh? Examine your bias(es) and ask yourself why are you trying so hard to get non-encyclopedic information published in this encyclopedia? (JosephASpadaro 19:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Isn't the record-holder issue already handled by the Statistics section? This leaves interpretation of who's best to the reader and avoids the whole WP:OR issue for contributors. In looking at the stats lists I can easily see which films and people did the best vis-a-vis noms and wins and assess the "best" in my own way. Maybe those lists could have their presentation reformatted to facilitate this.


 * &mdash;  Jim Dunning  talk  : 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Jim. Readers can read the facts presented (noms, wins, etc.) and make their own assessment according to their own subjective definition of "success." (JosephASpadaro 19:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Poll
Who here endorese the idea of being oblegated to offer the acedemy to bay the trophy one dollar before selling to anyone else? After all, owning one of them is not a sign of authority. Nor is the oscar a weapon that could be disaster if it falling into the wrong hands. The Technodrome&#39;s Toilet 22:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As much as this is a controversial topic, I can certainly understand the Academy's perspective. They want -- I assume -- the awards ceremony to be a dignified affair and the trophies to have some meaning.  They don't want the trophies recklessly being hawked, bought and sold, bid and outbid, etc., thereby reducing the ceremony to a fiasco and the "award" to a farce.  (JosephASpadaro 02:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC))


 * What we think doesn't really matter, so there is no poll to be taken. The Academy's position, apparently, is that the trophy belongs to them, and that they are merely allowing the recipient to display it on his/her property... Vaguely like the fact that the Stanley Cup is said to be "in" the city of the most recent winner, but is owned by the NHL. Wahkeenah 03:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem
The article states:
 * The film with the most nominations without a Best Picture nomination is They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969) with 9 nominations. (That same year, Anne of the Thousand Days (1969) received the highest amount of nominations [at 10], including Best Picture.)
 * Dreamgirls (2006) was nominated for 8 awards, but not Best Picture. Thus, it was the first film ever to receive the most nominations in a given year, without being nominated for Best Picture.

How is this possible? If They Shoot Horses, Don't They? received 9 nominations without a Best Picture nom, how in the world would Dreamgirls with only 8 nominations be the first film ever to receive the most nominations in a given year, without being nominated for Best Picture? Am I missing something? IrishGuy talk 00:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, in fact, both statements are correct. See the detailed explanations up above, in the section entitled "Trivia Has Too Much Info" (presently # 36 in Table of Contents).  It does seem like a contradiction on its face, so perhaps someone can offer better phrasing / wording to clarify this issue?  The long and short of it is this:  Horses received 9 nom's, but in that particular year, it did NOT receive the most nom's (since Anne received one more than Horses).  However, in 2007, Dreamgirls DID receive the most nom's of the year (even though it was less than Horses amount of nom's from a different year).  Make sense?  (JosephASpadaro 05:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

Just curious...
When did the Oscars become this overblown extravaganza? I know it's been like this for decades, but I've seen such old footage (notably of Judy Garland winning her 1940 award) and it seemed like a much simpler and intimate affair. When did it become so swell-headed and grandiose? PatrickJ83 02:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a gradual process. But it seems like it has run long (3-4 hours) for decades. Wahkeenah 03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oscars redirect
Could someone more knowledgeable in the ways of wikipedia put on of those links that says "Oscars redirects here, for the fish see Oscar(fish)"

-thanks.


 * That is already listed on the disambiguation page for "Oscar." That dismbiguation page has many, many (ambiguous) entries for "Oscar," so it would not be appropriate to distinguish the fish entry here on the Academy Awards page. (JosephASpadaro 06:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

Future National Special Security Event status
From the Awards night section:
 * The awards event itself is now designated a National Special Security Event by the United States Department of Homeland Security.

I took a look at the list of past NSSEs, and there were no other award shows listed except for the 2007 Academy Awards. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that this designation was solely because of Al Gore's attendance, and that future ceremonies would not be NSSEs? The above line from the article seems to indicate otherwise. --Billdorr 00:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I reworded the sentence to address the concerns. It is not known yet if the 2007 ceremony was designated a NSSE solely because of Al Gore; however, the fact that it first occurred in 2007 raises enough doubt to rewrite the sentence.  Of course, it's entirely possible that it could be named a NSSE in future years; Osama bin Laden might not be in any condition to attack the Oscars now, but bin Laden wannabes would certainly relish the opportunity to wipe out the "evil" of Hollywood (not to mention its economic impact) in a single blow, so it's definitely up there with the Super Bowl (now a NSSE every year) with or without Al Gore.  --RBBrittain 21:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Winners for acting debut
I thought everyone should know that a Wikipedian caught an error in the Academy's own database. In researching the part I added about actors winning Oscars for their screen debuts, I found that the Academy listed Song of the South as James Baskett's screen debut, even though IMDb listed seven other prior films by Baskett. I emailed the Academy; today I got a response that they removed Baskett from the list, so I deleted Baskett from that section. As I originally noted (but was deleted in a rewrite), Jennifer Hudson is indeed the only African American actor to receive an Oscar for his or her screen debut. --RBBrittain 20:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Great catch! (JosephASpadaro 23:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

YYYY Academy Awards
There are lots of orphan YYYY Academy Awards articles - from 1934 Academy Awards to 1984 Academy Awards. Should these be linked from some article? Or are they pure disambiguation pages? - Nabla 21:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Italian winners and nominees
It would be nice if someone could add * List of Italian Academy Award winners and nominees * there in the SEE ALSO section. There is already a BLACK and ASIAN link and it would be nice to also have ITALIAN. I don't know how to do it so if someone here is interested in adding it, then it would be appreciated. Thanks.

69.151.36.255 19:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA
This article fails because of a huge laundry list. Is there any need of a section full of records? That reads like paper encyclopedic trivia. Vikrant Phadkay 15:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Academy Awards Records Section
This section is becoming quite long -- it is virually half of the entire article. Also, it is difficult to determine what records "belong" or "don't belong" in this section (i.e., which records deserve mention versus which do not). But let's also remember -- this section started out as a "Trivia" section and subsequently evolved into a Records section (when it was proposed to eliminate the Trivia section altogether). All that being said ... does it make more sense to keep the Records section here in this article ... or to extract it out as its own separate article? If the latter, would an article of such nature survive a deletion proposal? Any thoughts out there? Thanks. Personally, I think (1) it is all good and worthwhile information; (2) it is becoming too long of a section for this main article; (3) it should have its own separate article; and (4) I would fear that a new, separate article would be proposed for deletion. Any input on this? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 23:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC))


 * I thought I would be bold and I have split it off to List of Academy Award records‎. -- Alan Liefting- talk - 04:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 04:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC))

Al Gore
Academy Award records/Miscellaneous records: "George Bernard Shaw is the only person to have been awarded both an Oscar (Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for Pygmalion in 1938) and a Nobel Prize" - Now Al Gore has won both prizes, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.84.69.20 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. I moved your question and comment to the end (bottom) of this Talk Page.  That is the usual way of adding new material to a Talk Page, to keep things in chronological order.  As far as Al Gore and the Nobel / Oscar distinctions ... this information was in fact added to the Misc. Records section a few days ago, but I deleted it.  Al Gore did recently win the Nobel, but he did not win an Oscar.  The film An Inconvenient Truth did win an Oscar -- but that award was presented to the film's producer (Davis Guggenheim), and not to Al Gore.  It is a mistaken belief that Al Gore won an Oscar, because Gore was a prominent figure in the film and in the Oscar ceremony.  Nonetheless, he did not actually win the Oscar ... and, so, George Bernard Shaw's record still remains intact.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Letters From Iwo Jima as sequel
Letters From Iwo Jima is a companion piece, rather than a proper sequel, to Flags of Our Fathers. I've edited it out of the sequels listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.28.242 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Shawshank is a fine example -- great movie with no Oscars"
I think that whoever wrote that comment should read WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Citizen Kane is the movie used as an example of a film with tonnes of cultural importance but little Oscar love and including a film on that list just because it is ranked high on a fan list is against WP:NPOV. Besides, what about Pulp Fiction, The Good the Bad and The ugly, The Seven Samurai and Rear Window? They are all high on IMDB's list and won few to no Oscars. As well, large portions of the Criticism section have no sources and I removed a lot of unsourced stuff and 95% of the records section is also uncited. The page is in desperate need of clean up. -- Scorpion0422 19:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why no list of nominees?
I find it surprising that neither here, nor on the pages for the individual years is there a list of nominees. For that one must look up each individual award category. Seems very strange that someone can't simply easily find a master list for each year. SteveCoppock (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that what you mention is actually a work in progress. See, for example, 79th Academy Awards nominees and winners.  It seems that some years / ceremonies have similar Wikipedia pages, and some do not (as of yet).  In fact, at the very bottom of that page (79th Academy Awards nominees and winners), there is a box entitled "Academy Award Nominees and Winners by Year".  This box indicates that Wikipedia pages exist for 1927/28 through 1931/32 ... and for 1994 through 2006.  All of the years / ceremonies from 1932/33 through 1993 are still missing Wikipedia pages (with the exception of 1985).  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC))


 * Yet the individual years already have their own articles, yet for some bizarre reason only the winners are listed. Why start another series of articles when it would be much easier to simply expand those articles to include the information. You have to assume the vast majority of those who look up individual years are doing so to find both the winners and nominees. I wrote this after just such has happened to me 3 times in the last year. I finally gave up the other times and simply went to the Academy's website. SteveCoppock (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? Are we in any way communicating here about the same thing?  I just checked literally each and every one of the 18 articles that I mentioned in the post above.  Every single one of them lists both the winners and the nominees for the given year's ceremony.  In fact, the very names of the articles in question are 79th (or whichever number) Academy Awards nominees and winners.  So, are you sure that you are checking the correct pages?  I am stumped by your question.  Please clarify.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

Oscar (1934 origin & Sidney Skolsky's explanation)
I (Barry Popik) found and submitted the first citation of "Oscar" to the Oxford English Dictionary. People should know what Sidney Skolsky wrote. I just put a new "Oscar" entry up on my site (http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/oscar_academy_award/) after I learned that my work isn't widely known. (See www.firstmention.com on "Oscar.") I don't directly write for Wikipedia anymore, but Skolsky's detailed info should be added, or at least referenced. Barry (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Again:
 * Another claimed origin is that of the Academy’s Executive Secretary, Margaret Herrick, who first saw the award in 1931 and made reference of the statuette reminding her of her Uncle Oscar. Columnist Sidney Skolsky was present during Herrick’s naming and seized the name in his byline, "Employees have affectionately dubbed their famous statuette 'Oscar'" (Levy 2003).

This "Oscar" info is all wrong. Skolsky's first Academy Awards report was in 1934, not 1931. The "Employees have affectionately dubbed their famous statuette 'Oscar'" can be found in NewspaperArchive, Hammond (Indiana) Times, November 14, 1963. It was not written by Skolsky in 1931, as implied here, or even in 1934. Barry (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism regarding actors in comedic roles
The article says that actors in comedic roles are at a disadvantage when it comes to winning Oscars ... and that few ever win. The article then immediately goes on to cite a very long list (20 or so) of those actors who did indeed win, despite the comedic nature of their roles. This is rather self-contradictory. We need to remove the criticism (that "few ever win") or to pare the list of 20 down to the most notable few (3, 4, 5, or so). Granted that 20 or so Oscar awards in a field of 300+ total (for acting categories) is indeed small ... but listing so many here basically defeats the whole point of the criticism. In fact, it bolsters the counter-point. The "criticism" (as it were) may as well read: "Despite actors in comedic roles being at a perceived disadvatage ... many have indeed overcome this supposed obstacle ... and here is the list of 20 actors who have done so." Which is the same thing as saying that comedic roles are not, in fact, an obstacle to winning an Oscar. Any thoughts / input / feedback ... before I selectively delete a good chunk of that self-defeating and self-contradicting long list? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Also, Ghost is listed as a comedy; I don't think that it is recognized as such (nor is Goldberg's role in the film even primarily comedic.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.42.145 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and streamlined this section on criticism for comedy roles. It was getting way too big, with way too many examples.  Which -- as stated above -- is a counterpoint to the supposed notion that few comedy roles win Oscars.  Which, in turn, is the basis for the criticism to begin with.  All that being said ... I left two examples for each acting category (Best Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, and Supporting Actress).  And, within those four categories, I listed the oldest as well as the most recent comedic performance.  So, that list now shows a broad range of eight different examples: all four awards, both leading and supporting roles, both males and females, and both old and new films.  Thanks.    (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Trivia - Hybrid vehicle arrival
Why is the comment "Since 2002, celebrities have been seen arriving at the Academy Awards in hybrid vehicles;[25] during the telecast of the 79th Academy Awards in 2007, Leonardo DiCaprio and former vice president Al Gore announced that ecologically intelligent practices had been integrated into the planning and execution of the Oscar presentation and several related events." in this article? Pure fluff.

Archive
Time to set up an archive of this page? Stepshep (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Page title
There should be a section for criticism of the awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.23.72 (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that this page is an exception to WP:NAME - it isn't about a specific award, but rather about the show, which is not called "The Academy Award", I'm going to move it over;-- daniel  folsom  05:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thought I'll wait for some discussion due to the history - but really, again, this is an article about the awards show - and thus it's an exception to WP:NAME, I mean, really the argument that a previous mover said ("one wins an 'academy award' not 'academy awards'") is really foolish given the subject of this article.-- daniel  folsom  05:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes you say that this is an article about the show? i love reading about sex. so lets do that instead of talking about awards. okay? It certainly mentions the show ... but the bulk of the article deals with the award itself, in all of its variations.  At this point, I am not advocating for the title either way (Academy Award versus Academy Awards).  I am simply saying that the article is more about the award / trophy / honor, than it is about the television broadcast show.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC))
 * It's not one award with variations really - it's a bunch of different awards, which is why they're called, the "Academy Awards". I mean, look at the first sentence - what's bolded?-- daniel  folsom  05:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My question was, why are you saying that this article is about the show and not about the awards? Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I would say there's no real distinction - I think it's about both - we talk about the ceremony and we talk about the awards - but that's not the question - the question is where should this page be. I think that primarily because the key first term is Academy Awards and the show itself is the Academy Awards, this article should be titled accordingly.-- daniel  folsom  02:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact tagging
Please explain exactly how simply stating that several actors in comedic roles have won Oscars needs a citation. It's a simple statement of uncontroversial fact. Bellwether B  C  08:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No it's not, there are dozens of roles that could be considered comedic roles, and we only list a few, so that counts as POV, so we should find an article that mentions comedy roles and use it as a source. Otherwise, people will keep expanding/changing the list. -- Scorpion0422 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oy vez. Whatever dude. If you really believe that, tag away. Bellwether B  C  17:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will weigh in by asking a question of Scorpion. If we are listing a few examples (out of a population of many more examples), why are you calling that POV?  We are not saying that these are the only ones ... but, rather, that they are merely some examples taken from a larger set.  No?  Consider this statement.  "The ABC network has broadcast many sitcoms over the years.  Some examples are Happy Days and Three's Company."  Is that a POV statement?  It does seem an uncontroversial fact, whereby only two examples are listed from a field of 100 other examples (not listed).  So, I am not sure what you are saying is POV?  The fact that we only list a few examples out of a field of many examples?  Or is it POV to call a specific role ("x") a comedic role?  Are you saying that to call Kevin Kline's role a comedy role is POV?  Please clarify.  Thanks.  Your post, as it now stands, suggests that picking eight examples from a list of 100 examples is POV.  And I am wondering if you are really saying that to call a specific performance a comedic performance is what is POV?  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC))


 * After thought. Or are you saying that for us to claim "few comedy roles ever win Oscars" is the POV issue?  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Two interesting articles on the topic of the Academy snubbing comedy: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb1437/is_199801/ai_n5950165 and http://movies.go.com/variety/feature?featureid=869860   Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Some history left out of the story of the creation of the oscar statue
Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me can fill in what appears to be a gap in the history of the making of the oscar statue. I was reading about Ray Edgar Dodge, who started Dodge, Inc. a company that made trophies, and he appeared on Whats My Line as the maker of the oscar statue. And according to the alumni Association of Oregon State U. he was part of the design and manufacture of the oscar statue.

Therefore, if there is anyone out there who is intimate with the history of the statue, could they fill this part in.

Trucker11 (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the "Awards" Section - Were the groups made-up?
The "Current Awards" section is subdivided into groups such as Production, Acting, etc. Are these grouping categories official in any sense? I don't see them anywhere on the Web, including the MPAA website. If these were just made-up by a wiki editor solely for the sake of a cleaner looking article, I think it should be removed. The most problematic seems to be the "Technical Production." Calling those fields technical, not creative, is a controversial subject. Particularly Cinematography. I don't have a source off-hand (hence why I'm not changing it myself) but I speak from first-hand knowledge as someone who works in the film industry in Los Angeles. Many members of the tabloid press often call these technical awards (in addition to sound and visual effects) to distinguish them from the more glamourous categories like acting and directing. However, those in the fields of editing, sound design, and cinematography generally consider the term "technical award" a prerogative. It has been pointed out that these awards are given based on creative merit, not technical, and that there is separate MPAA award ceremony for technical achievements called The Science & Technical Awards.Lifterus (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * These were indeed "made up". Some one (I forget who) admitted to doing so, in order to make sense of an otherwise long list.  I, too, am not 100% happy with the present "made up" categories ... and I think there has to be a better way of organizing the list.  I haven't gotten around to this, yet.  Feel free, however.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Films produced outside the USA
Can films produced outside the USA qualify for any other award than "best foreign language film"? J I P | Talk 19:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes ... they do all the time. Hamlet (United Kingdom) won Best Picture in 1948.  I also notice a lot of films from other countries in the Shorts and in the Documentary categories.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Posthumous nominees and winners
I'm fairly sure the only posthumous nominees in acting categories were Jeanne Eagels, James Dean, Spencer Tracy, Peter Finch and Sir Ralph Richardson. Finch was the only winner. Heath Ledger looks like becoming the next posthumous nominee, but we'll have to wait and see. I'm interested in posthumous nominees (and winners, if there were any) in other Oscar categories. Is there a handy list anywhere? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Many sites confirm the only posthumous acting nominees are those shown above. However, there have been others in other categories. This tells us the first successful posthumous Oscar nomination was for Sidney Howard, for his screenwriting on Gone With the Wind (1939). --  JackofOz (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. As far as posthumous nominations/awards in acting categories, the only nominee that you missed was Massimo Troisi.  As far as posthumous nominations/awards in other categories, there are well over 50 or 60.  The Academy does indeed maintain a list.  Go  to the following site: www.oscars.org.  (It is dot ORG, not dot COM.)  Click "Academy Awards Database".  Click "Advanced Search".  In this search box, simply put a check mark in the "posthumous" category ... and the database will return all posthumous nominations and awards (about 50-60 people, many with numerous nominations/awards apiece).  You can also limit the search by any criteria you wish (for example, by award category, by year, by actor, by film, etc.) ... and the database will return only what satisfies your limited search criteria.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Thanks, Joseph. Yes, I missed Signor Troisi.  That was exactly the resource I was looking for .  I'd done a search on IMDB which produced quite a few names, but not as many as AMPAS. I've got all the names now (although in the case of multiple nominees the AMPAS list doesn't say which person died, so we'll need to do some work to whittle it down) and I'm starting to think how best to include them.  Maybe a separate article on "Posthumous Oscar Nominations and Wins" would be the way to go rather than cluttering up the existing articles.   This could include extra detail such as their dates of death; whether they died during the shooting of the movie in question - or later; any special circumstances of their death, etc.  This would actually be a much more useful resource for researchers than what AMPAS provides.  And it could also include some extra names, of people who were alive at the time of nomination (who would not be classified by AMPAS as posthumous nominations) but died before the awards ceremony, etc.  Quite how we'd go about collecting that extra detail ... ?  Any ideas.  --  JackofOz (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I was all set to post the following three people, but then I noticed the links in the last two posts. I might as well list them anyway, eh? ;)  Sidney Howard won posthumously in 1939 for screenwriting Gone With the Wind.  Edward G. Robinson was slated to be given an honorary Oscar in 1973 but died two months before the ceremony -- it was awarded posthumously.  In 1993, only 15 years ago, Dalton Trumbo received a belated, posthumous award for screenwriting Roman Holiday back in 1953, so Peter Finch isn't the only posthumous winner.  Dalton had been blacklisted from screenwriting and published several scripts through various "fronts" -- Ian McLellan Hunter receiving the credit originally for Roman Holiday.  Dalton also won an Oscar (not posthumously) for The Brave One.  The posthumous Oscar information is already in the Wikipedia bios of those three people. ;) Banaticus (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was talking about posthumous winners in (competitive) acting categories (although I agree the header wasn't specific enough). However, you'll be pleased to know we now have a great article with all these details - List of posthumous Academy Award winners and nominees, thanks to Joseph A. Spadaro.  Sidney Howard and Edward G Robinson are mentioned there, although Trumbo isn't, so I must check that out.  Thanks for the info.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On reflection, Dalton Trumbo was retrospectively awarded a 1953 Oscar in 1996, and it counts exactly as if he'd been awarded it in 1953. He wasn't dead in 1953, so it wasn't a posthumous award as far as the Academy is concerned, even though when he was actually credited with the award he'd been dead for 17 years.  Does that make sense?  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations
The above little project has got me doing some research on the nomination process. This suggests that at least until 1929 there were no nominations at all, but the board "considered" various films and participants, and when they announced the winners they also revealed the other names they had "considered". Hence people like Jeanne Eagels and Mary Pickford in 1929 were not official nominations. However, all our lists and many similar ones make no mention of this distinction. It seems that "considered" is generally regarded as being equivalent to "nominated", and I can see value in that approach. But should we at least say something about the lack of officialness of the names we show as "nominations" in those early years, or would that just be considered irrelevant detail these days?

Also, if they considered 5 films, 5 actors, 6 actresses, 6 directors etc etc in 1929, they must have initially considered a lot more than just those 5 or 6 in order to get to a short list; so where does the cut-off point come between initial consideration and final consideration? I guess all we know about are the names on the short lists they publicly released, so we can't say any more than that. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering, this has relevance when we come to saying who was the first posthumously nominated actor (here I use the word "actor" to include both sexes). In 1956 James Dean was the first actor to be officially nominated posthumously, but Jeanne Eagels had been posthumously "considered" for Best Actress in 1929. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You bring up many good points. For the moment, here is my quick reaction and my two cents on the matter.  I think it goes without saying that both the Academy and the Academy Awards have undergone significant transformation and evolution in the past 80 years (as has the rest of the world).  In this evolutionary process, much of the substantive change ("progress") has today been reduced to mere semantics.  Example 1:  In the early days, there was no Best Picture ... but there was a Best Production.  This has been reduced to insignificant semantics nowadays ... probably moreso for convenience than anything else.  But, if you think about it, there is a real significant and substantive difference between a film being the Best "Picture" versus a film being the Best "Production".  Today, we think of Wings as the best movie in 1927/1928 no differently than we think of No Country for Old Men as the best movie in 2007 ... despite the actual semantic titles bestowed upon them.   Example 2:  In the early days, there was no Best Leading Actor ... but there was (merely) a Best Actor.  This encompassed all actors, whether leads or supports.  Today, due to semantics and sake of ease/convenience, we simply collectively "think of" the (old days) Best Actor category as being analogous to the (current day) Best Leading Actor category.  There is, however, a significant and substantive difference.  Example 3:  In the old days, the Best Actor was considered the "best individual at acting in that year" as opposed to (today's concept) "the best work done by an actor in a film in that year".  Hence, in the old days, actors were nominated for all of their films in the given year ... whereas, today, an actor is nominated for only one performance in one film in the given year.  This is quite a significant difference.  But, it has been lost in translation.  Today, we think of Emil Jannings as the best actor in 1927/1928 no differently than we think of Daniel Day Lewis as the best actor in 2007 ... despite the actual semantic titles bestowed upon them.  Similarly, we have Example 4, that which you mention ... in the old days, there were no official nominations, yet there were individuals who were considered.  As with the other three examples, it is through ease, convenience, and a desire for standardization that nowadays we collectively consider the (old day) considerations to be the analogy of the (current day) nominations.  Thus, with all its flaws, I can see the philosophy and rationale underlying these discrepancies.  In the modern day, we are retrospectively reviewing what they did in the 1920s ... and we are (for standardization, ease, and convenience) trying to make the old way "fit" into how we do things today through the current way.  So, yes, a lot gets lost in translation.  But, overall, there is solid purpose, reason, and rationale in doing so.  Otherwise, we could never generate any type of organized data ... but, rather, we'd have a collective list of asterisks, notes, and explanations detailing every subtle nuance and distinction from Academy life in the 1920s to Academy life today.  These (overall) minor discrepancies are a relatively small price to pay for the orderly and organized information (from days of yore) that we like to present and make fit into our current perspective.  That's my two cents.  The subtle semantic distinctions are simply the small price we pay of trying to standardize and organize "different" things (1928 awards versus 2008 awards).  It is, overall, our collective attempts to process and filter what transpired in 1928 through our 2008 perspective.  These semantic distinctions are not necessarily 100% accurate nor reflective.  Nonetheless, their underlying purpose and the advantages of employing them override these drawbacks.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Thanks for that very well reasoned and comprehensive reply, Joseph. Having a swag of annotations, asteriks and explanations might be to some people's taste, but for the general reader it would serve little positive purpose and may even serve to make our lists less readable than they are now.  I guess my primary concern is not to mislead anyone.  I know we do talk a little about the evolution of the awards over time, but do you see any value in making some general comments about the rationales you describe above, so that readers might be aware that, for example, being nominated in 2008 doesn't necessarily mean exactly the same thing as "nominated" in 1929? or that Best Picture in 2008 doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "Best Picture" in 1927/28?  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Todo list
This is just a simple list for spotlight members to work on. Feel free to mark that you are doing a task, and of course to join spotlight!


 * Section 'Award categories' to be less listy. Perhaps remove the section alltogather if it is not adding to the encyclopedia article.
 * What does "AMPAS" stand for. In the article its told to be "professional honorary organization", but above in the lead its told to "recognize excellence" is it both?
 * Fix the citation needed tags. Thanks goes to who took the time to identify those statements to start with.
 * Note that American units of measurements (imperial system) is in use on the article.
 * Dates appear to be in american format, not wikilinked. ie, use MM DD, YYYY
 * US$368 should have a space between US and $, make it US $.
 * Be sure to fix up problems with WP:AVOID and similar policies. Things like "Critics have noted that" should not exist. (at least not with the word "noted".
 * See also section may need pruning. At the very least make sure it is in alphabetical order.
 * Historically, the "Oscarcast" - "Oscarcast" is not well defined. What does this mean?
 * Academy section needs to be considered for potential rewrite/modifications. "Academy" is in the title, and most of the content there may not belong in the article per WP:SUMMARY. (it should probably be in its own article as far as the inner workings of the academy. At the very least, be sure all that is well sourced with secondary sources.
 * "Rules 2 and 3" and further down "Rule 2" is used to start a sentence, consider using better words to explain the context.

——  nix eagle 19:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Todo list - A. M. P. A. S.
In the "Voters" section, A. M. P. A. S. should be changed to AMPAS. Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

run time
The first run time on the chart says 2 hrs 67 minutes. This isn't as clear as 3hrs 7 minutes. you can say its arbitrary, but it's more correct to say 3 hrs, and since we're trying to make wikipedia the most correct, it should reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.65.122 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and lack of objective purpose (overstatement)
On the History section, I removed a portion that stated something like the following: : "Everybody hates the Oscars because they never give the best pictures the Best Picture award" - Of course, it was an act of vandalism, a lack of objective criteria and not a common view... (ask those who love The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, ask those who love Braveheart and Forrest Gump, ask those who love Rocky, The Silence of the Lambs, Titanic or Gladiator and they will certainly disagree with the one implying that those winners didn't deserved the award. Some of these films are steady as cultural symbols or ingrained in our minds somehow ( for example, people in new films or shows may still allude to Rain Man, and they doesn't even explain it- the comment or joke's central point seem obvious to the listener because... well... the listener has seen Rain Man; Based on common voters and professional voters, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes websites show The Godfather as a wonderful picture- it won the Oscar for best picture that year. The same happens with films like Schindler's List and The Deer Hunter- two past winners of Best Pictures; The list can continue, with Platoon, Dance with the Wolf, The Departed, etc. The point is... one may disagree with a particular selection for a given year best film award, but overall, one can't state that the choice for the Oscar's ceremony Best Picture award is always (or almost always) the objectionable one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.106.175 (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

a link to 81st Academy Awards
The article should have at the top. Many people are searching for oscars wikipedia and are being redirected here. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section
The criticism section is incorrect in stating that George C. Scott was the first person to refuse his Academy Award. See ... which states: "Only three people have ever openly refused the Academy Award. In 1936, when Dudley Nichols won Best Screenplay for The Informer, he boycotted the Academy Awards ceremony because of conflicts between the Academy and the Writer's Guild. In 1971 George C. Scott won Best Actor for Patton and refused the award, declaring the award ceremony to be "a two-hour meat parade". In 1973 Marlon Brando refused his award for Best Actor for The Godfather, because of the U.S. discrimination and mistreatment of Native Americans." Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Name
Shouldn't this be located at Academy Awards, plural? Cirt (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That issue comes up every now and again. In fact, above on this very page, it is discussed under the section labeled "Page title".  It has also been discussed prior to that ... so I assume it can be found in the old archive pages.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I agree with, above, and I have moved the page to "Academy Awards". This page primarily deals with the ceremony and is larger in scope than any single "Award". Also, the lede has it bolded already as Academy Awards. Cirt (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I checked and also Encyclopedia Britannica uses the singular as the title of their article. I moved it back. Cirt (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Year Category
Just noticed that the annual articles are not in the "by year" category. As it is for films of the previous year the 82nd in 2010 could be in Category:2009 in film as it is for for films of 2009 and Category:2010 in the United States for the event (?) Which though - Category:2009 film awards or Category:2010 film awards Hugo999 (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Tarantino
"Best Female Foot Shot; suggested by Quentin Tarantino from 1997 to 2009, all rejected."

Uhhh, is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.88.24 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

picture
Is that really the best picture you can find for this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.182.34 (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would think a picture of simply the award itself would be preferable. -Lewzer99 (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well... i dont care if someone ends up changing it but it needed to be done so i put a red carpet pic in for the main picture because the other one was no good. Wasn't there just a picture of the statues in a case? what happend to it?
 * Then please go take one. The picture you put up is barely discernable as to what is in it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true... but it was FAR BETTER than that picture of some random guy holding an oscar.. that said it wasn't even his.

Annoying name?
Does anyone find it annoying that the article is called "Academy Award" and not "Academy Awards"? I mean, the article is about the ceremony, not the actual award. I think the article should be changed to "Academy Awards". Does anyone agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimac93 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not just about the ceremony. I'm not the least bit annoyed about it, but I would still agree with you that "Academy Awards" would be preferable.  --  JackofOz (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was page not moved. @harej 01:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Academy Award → Academy Awards — Like Minimac93 above, I find it quite disjointing that this page be titled "Academy Award" given that the topic is not an award, but a set of awards and the process/occasion of awarding them ("The Academy Awards"/Oscars" ceremony). Per the naming conventions, this topic is more akin to scissors than horse, and should be titled accordingly. For previous discussions, see Talk:Academy_Award/Archive_2 and Talk:Academy_Award/Archive_2. I'd like broader input on this one. Skomorokh,  barbarian  09:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment how about Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Award or Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Awards instead? I will note, that this should be at some variant of Oscar since that's the WP:COMMONNAME 76.66.194.183 (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The titles of the major award articles, including Nobel Prize, Pulitzer Prize, Peabody Award, Emmy Award, Grammy Award, Tony Award, Golden Globe Award, etc. have historically been singular. Yes its true that in all of the articles I mentioned, a number of these awards are given each year, and each page explains the process/occasion of awarding them. But essentially, these pages are the general articles about a specific award, as per Summary style. And thus, you do have to mention the general process, the annual ceremonies, etc. in those page. Since this is the general article about the Academy Award, I therefore disagree with your interpretation of WP:SINGULAR. Such awards are not always in a plural form in English. It is grammatically incorrect to say: "I have an Academy Awards". And such awards are not really names of classes of objects – you're talking about one award or prize. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Oscar
To sculpt the design for the Oscar statuette the Academy gave George Stanley (an unemployed art school graduate) $500. Stanley sculpted the design in clay, from Cedric Gibbons design, and Alex Smith cast the 13.5 inch high statuette in tin and copper. Gibbons sketched his design at a meeting of the Academy board who were talking about the five branches of the movie industry. The sword in the Oscar statuette is plunging into a reel of film with five holes, the holes representing the five Academy branches. The Oscar is supposed to have a layer of nickel, then silver under its gold coat, the statuette is supposed to weigh about 6.75 pounds and is supposed to have actual production costs of just a few hundred dollars apiece so that an entire run of original statuettes for an Academy Awards show might run under $10,000 to manufacture. They are still made from the original mold. Originally the Academy debated over what kind of award to have, whether it was to be a plaque, a scroll, a trophy, etc. (from "Inside Oscar", Wiley and Bona, Ballantine Books, 1996).69.104.55.55 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is List of Winners?
This article links to a list of Asian winners, English winners, and numerous other winners, but where the hell is a link to the COMPLETE LIST OF ALL WINNERS, ALL CATEGORIES???

As a matter of fact, it should be right here in the main article. It shoUld obviously be here in the main article. Very, completely obviously.

An incredible omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NCDane (talk • contribs) 23:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Eligibility
Are all writers, directors and actors elegible to win an Oscar or do they have to members of the appropriate guild or union? -ErinHowarth (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Design
Who is Golnaz Rahimi? i cannot find any evidence of this: "casting the molds for the Vince Lombardi Trophy and Emmy Awards statuettes for Golnaz Rahimi"  --Ksaraf (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ownership
Are we sure that there aren't any traded post-1950 Oscars? It seems to me that if a recipient were to gift or donate it to a non-heir, that heir could then sell it (and, in the case of a bankruptcy, might be forced to). What's the exact agreement? Calbaer (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Photos of Oscars
The photo of an Oscar statuette that illustrates this article has all sorts of disclaimers implying that no other photo of an Oscar is acceptable on Wikipedia. Is this true? I have photos I've taken at the Walt Disney Family Museum in San Francisco showing a whole showcase full of Oscars that Disney won. The museum allows photography in its lobby. I have a closeup of the special Oscar for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) that has a full sized statuette and seven miniature Oscars down a staircase. The Disney Museum allows photography of these Oscars. Would using such images on Wikipedia be considered fair use? Cullen328 (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Top honors at the Oscars
i am looking for the 4 movies that have won the 4 top honors at the oscars. we have 2 which are silence of the lambs and rear window but cant figure out the other 2. any help would be greatly appreciated! 99.147.66.187 (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)evie


 * See List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees. There have been only three films that have won all five of the "Big Five" awards.  They are It Happened One Night (1934), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975), and Silence of the Lambs (1991).  The "Big Five" awards are Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Writing.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

Rules/warning
Violence and not a story from real fathers, build up by a devot dull! She bang line as usual; no hype!--Danaide (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The german representatives  in 2010 are nominated now and the HV measure is over a seroius level. Green cardA story from out of kurdistan as a german theme represents what?! How infecteds are glorified?! ((TAE ))

Last Oscars on Page
Seems to be some form of mistake. Changed.

Quidom (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What year was it where?
Currently, the Venues section reads "From 1930–1943, the awards were presented first at the Ambassador Hotel in Hollywood, and later the Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles from 1930 to 1943". The wording makes no sense - were the awards awarded twice each year (in different hotels)? Or is this a mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.149.215 (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

pages from the mid 60s to the mid 70s
Okay I am looking at them, and they are hard to read unlike the other years. They are in seperate sections instead of one nice spreadsheet. Also in the lesser cats not all the noms are there. (I believe these are the years 65 to 76? I'm not 100% sure) Anyway, can someone please fix these? Thank you very much

Kamkek (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit a few minutes later, just checked they are indeed from 1965 to 1976

Kamkek (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Cinematagrophy/Costumes at the 26th Oscars Fixed!
That cat is missing that year on Wikipedia. can someone add it back? Thanks.

Kamkek (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Okay as it turns out, cinematagrophy is there, but is under costumes so costumes is missing there!

Kamkek (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay I fixed it!

Kamkek (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Voting
I was a little surprised that there are not more details on how Oscar voting actually takes place. As I understand it, the method is referred to as "first-past-the-post" ... thus the nominee named first on the most ballots is not necessarily the winner. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are more knowledgeable about this, and could source it. I think this is a very encyclopedic aspect of the Oscar process that is not included here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what details you are looking for. So feel free to be bold, read the official Oscars rule book, and add whatever you need to this article yourself. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Academy Awards
It should be discussed that earning a academy award means a pay scale raise. Actor especially get salaries in the high 7 figures but what I think the Acedemy Awards lacks all the people behind the film sets making minimum wages or jobs that pay under $15.00 an hour or other jobs. There are so many people behind the film sets that don't get any cr credit nor most of them don't get royalities on movies for the years they been employeed but the actors they get everything, directors, produces and so on. This is an unfair business when the talk of the fight on Union workers saving their jobs and salaries but look at Hollywood, you have $10.00 hour jobs and you have $5000.00 an hour jobs or even more. The Acedemy Awards doesn't specifically credit the low scale wage people who have more credit in making scenes on films or done things to make a picture or other things that Acedemy doesn't know or discuss about. I think the film industry is unfair completely to the under paid and grants the rich for their work instead. Actors are the product of the movie but they don't make the movie they just star in it. I wish the Acedemy would do something about these classes of people in the industry but they do nothing but award the rich in most cases.--64.134.230.190 (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Academy Awards
It should be discussed that earning a academy award means a pay scale raise. Actor especially get salaries in the high 7 and 8 figures but what I think the Acedemy Awards lacks is mentioning all the people behind the film sets making minimum wages or jobs that pay under $15.00 an hour or other jobs; there not credit for the people behind the set giving any credit at all. There are so many people behind the film sets that don't get any cr credit nor most of them don't get royalities on movies for the years they been employeed but the actors they get everything, directors, produces and so on. This is an unfair business when the talk of the fight on Union workers saving their jobs and salaries but look at Hollywood, you have $10.00 hour jobs and you have $5000.00 an hour jobs or even more. The Acedemy Awards doesn't specifically credit the low scale wage people who have more credit in making scenes on films or done things to make a picture or other things that Acedemy doesn't know or discuss about. I think the film industry is unfair completely to the under paid and grants the rich for their work instead. Actors are the product of the movie but they don't make the movie they just star in it. I wish the Acedemy would do something about these classes of people in the industry but they do nothing but award the rich in most cases.--Globalstatus (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Year added to template title
I have added year ranges to many award template titles. Please comment at the centralized location if there are issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Academy Scientific and Technical Award
Should there be a list of venues and hosts for the Academy Scientific and Technical Award?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mary Pickford
Mary Pickford said at the 1942 Academy Awards: "No one person could arrange anything so boring". She then resigned from the Academy. 71.130.236.139 (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Dolores del Rio
A friend of mine who is a Dolores del Rio biographer pointed out that she was not married to Gibbons before 1930, a fact reported as well in the corresponding article at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolores_del_R%C3%ADo

Given that, shouldn't the line "In need of a model for his statuette Gibbons was introduced by his then wife Dolores del Río to Mexican film director and actor Emilio "El Indio" Fernández." be edited or even removed?

Changed to read "future wife". Ozzieboy (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

 * From 1930–1943, the awards were presented first at the Ambassador Hotel in Hollywood. Then the Oscar ceremonies were held at the Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles from 1930 to 1943.

Which one is it? Easily ruined (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * According to this article ... List of Academy Awards ceremonies ... between 1930 and 1943, the awards ceremonies alternated between The Ambassador Hotel and the Biltmore Hotel.  Hope that helps!  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC))
 * I think you should edit the article Wikishagnik (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Telecast or radio broadcast?
The true-story movie Changeling (the one with Angelina Jolie) has the Oscar ceremony broadcast over the radio, as I recall, but no mention is made of this in the article. Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Any nominations lost in the mail?
Was there an incident where some nominations weren't considered, and then turned up too late in the mail? By the time they were found, that year's awards had already been given out, and the Academy could only make a public apology to the omitted nominees. I recall reading something about that years ago, but cannot now place it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently, some ballots were lost in the mail in 2004 (in the UK). See this article: Oscar ballot papers lost in post.  Thanks!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC))

Bizarre wording
I'm assuming good faith but there are strong indications that someone without a command of English has edited this article, putting in some nonsensical statements like "the first broadcast was not televised" (in the context of TV broadcasting) and "winners had been announced three months earlier of their triumphs." Huh? I fixed these two but I think the article needs to be policed for other potential oddities. 68.146.72.113 (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Faulty actor lists
I tried fixing some of the bogus actors listed along the right side after I was unable to find the last edit which had the correct names, but it would be a 2-3 hour job at least. Just want to notify the regulars here of the problem. -- User:John DiFool2 12:50, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

Why a second hand source?
Why is the go.com redirect used rather than the truer source that exists at http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards ? — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane hosting 85th Academy Awards?
I want to draw attention to this because, while this article has a citation to ABC, I first saw it on The Onion's Facebook page, and that obviously makes me suspicious. 74.14.129.189 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Google News Search shows headlines confirming him as host. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate introduction
The introduction creates the impression that the Academy Award is an international award. -- BriscX (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity and professionalism
I'm getting a little tired of the unprofessional and biased edits that have been made to the "Criticism" section of this article lately. Look, I understand that we all have our little beefs with the Academy's choices, but rants, uncited speculation and unecessary additions to this section are inappropriate and should be deleted immediately. Personally, I'm okay with the section as it is now, but I won't discourage someone from editing or adding something to change it, as long as it actually contributes something and doesn't make Wikipedia look like a fanboy forum. -- metafact (talk) 5:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)