Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2015 February 19

= February 19 =

Can people purchase tickets to attend the Academy Awards (Oscars) ceremony?
I just read the following headline in The Daily Mail website: EXCLUSIVE: He won the world's hearts playing the young Forrest Gump but Michael Humphreys' parents were too poor to buy Oscars tickets - and he chose career in uniform, just like character he played. I was surprised at the part about buying Oscar tickets. How does that work? Any member of the public can purchase a ticket and enter the ceremony? I never gave it much thought. But I had always assumed it was just an "invitation only" event, with invitations to whomever the Academy wanted to invite. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And wouldn't you think the cast of an Oscar-nominated film would get free tickets ? StuRat (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that. It's probably a very slippery slope for the Academy.  Remember that we, in the public, usually think only of the famous actors in front of the camera.  The Academy thinks of everyone involved in the film, including the "behind-the-scenes" folks: hairstylists, make-up, sound, lighting, cinematography; writers; wardrobe; etc., etc., etc.   So, your question would then also have to take the form of And wouldn't you think all of the cinematographers of an Oscar-nominated film would get free tickets? and And wouldn't you think all of the sound crew of an Oscar-nominated film would get free tickets? and so on and so on.  The list would be endless.  Remember, also, there are dozens of Oscar-nominated films, not just the ten in Best Picture category.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's my understanding that the "technical awards" are given away at another venue, so the technicians (cameramen, boom operators, best boys and such) wouldn't need to go to the main venue. StuRat (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I am not talking about the "technical awards", which is a whole different ceremony. I am talking about the "main" awards ceremony.  There are many, many categories of awards (for example, cinematography, wardrobe, effects, sound, music, etc.).  See 87th Academy Awards.  So, if all of the cast (i.e., actors) were allowed free tickets, why not all of the cinematographers, wardrobe staff, sound staff, musicians, etc.?  That would be the problem.  The Academy cannot "prefer" one branch over another or discriminate against branches.  Acting is only one branch of the Academy.  They have several other branches, 17 in total.  (See AMPAS.)  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems they already have shown a preference for actors and directors, since they give all those awards at the main ceremony, while only the top awards for things like cinematography get the main ceremony, with all the "supporting characters" I listed given their awards at the alternate ceremony. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, allow me to play the devil's advocate. Actors only receive two awards (leading and supporting); actresses, the same; and directors receive only one award.  Now, those technical people receive several awards.  The actors, actresses, and directors have only one ceremony to honor them.  Those other technical people are honored at two separate award ceremonies: the "main" one and one designed just for them.  So, if anything, the preference is for those technical people, and not the actors and directors.  Just the opposite of your premise.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There isn't a separate ceremony for "technical awards" for cameramen, boom operators etc. You may be thinking of the Academy Scientific and Technical Awards which are for those who invent and improve movie-making technology. The senior "technicians" such as cinematographers, editors, sound editors, visual effects people etc. get their awards at the "main" ceremony. AMPAS doesn't give an award for best boom operator etc. Valiantis (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. That "other" ceremony (the technical one that you just described) always seems to be a minor footnote or afterthought.  So I, like most others, don't pay much attention to it.  So, back to the original discussion point, then:  it seems, then, that the Academy does treat everyone (all the "artists" within all the branches) equally. Which, of course, makes sense.  Since the Academy members themselves must come up with their own rules and regulations, etc.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems that there are no public tickets available for sale, but the ceremony requires some seat fillers . There are actually many more members of the Academy than seats available in the theater where the ceremony is held. I expect that Forrest Gump had a block of seats for those who worked on the film, but that the parents of the actor who played the young Gump would be pretty low on the pecking list to get those. Even if they could get tickets, the parents would likely have had to pay for their own transportation to Los Angeles if not already in the area, so that may be where the "too poor to buy Oscar tickets" come from. Plus, there's a strict dress code, and that's also expensive. --Xuxl (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, the headline is misleading? And nobody really ever "purchases" Oscar tickets at all?  The claim of "poverty" was really about the surrounding expenses (transportation, hotel, wardrobe, etc.) and not the expense of the "purchasing price" of a ticket, proper?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, that seems not to be the case. That article states: "His parents were offered the chance to buy tickets for the most important night of their son's life but, unable to find the cash, eight-year-old Michael and his family watched the show at home on TV.  In an exclusive interview with Daily Mail Online, just days before this year's Academy Awards, Michael recalls: 'I was eight when this all went down, but my parents were asked if they wanted to buy an Oscar ticket and they couldn't afford it. The tickets were going to cost a lot of money, so we decided to just watch it on TV like everyone else.'"  How very strange.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's easy to believe that he would misremember something that happened when he was eight years old, twenty years later, and the Mail doesn't seem like the kind of publication that would spoil a good story by fact-checking it. Unless an older member of his family has said something, I think this belongs in the who-knows-what-really-happened file. -- BenRG (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good points about: (A) his being only 8-years-old at the time; and (B) the elapse of twenty years clouding his memory (what little accurate memory he had as an eight-year-old to begin with). Maybe, at the time, the parents simply said "We can't afford to go", referring to the transportation, lodging, wardrobe expenses, etc. (without explaining the financial details to the child).   And the child just interpreted that (erroneously) as "We can't afford the tickets."  I could also see how an eight-year-old would simply assume that to enter a theatre venue, one always needs a ticket (like being allowed to enter the movies at the cinema).  And there may have been discussion of "tickets" (which are free), but the child just made the connection to any other sort of "normal" tickets (like, for example, a ticket to a baseball game), where they must be purchased.  Despite all that, he is now 30 years old.  One would think he'd "know better".  Also, one would think that this topic of discussion has come up between him and his parents, at some point in his adulthood.  Like now, for example, when reporters are interviewing him at Oscar time at the 20th anniversary of the film.  Oh, well.  Who knows?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for this one Scooby Doo episode...
It's the one where they start their own TV show or station, i don't know. I have it stuck in my head and i wanted to know the name of it. If it'll help, i think it was one of the older ones. RocketMaster (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably Don't Fool With a Phantom, Season 3, Episode 25, first broadcast October 31, 1970. See List of Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! episodes. Tevildo (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Scoobypedia, that station was managed, embezzled from and haunted by a Mr. Stevens, not the gang.
 * There was a special called Scooby Goes Hollywood, where the cast figure Saturday morning is beneath them and try to move to prime time. Sort of meta. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)