21. I'd like to see more nominees for each of the major categories. 8-10 nominees per category would make things a lot more interesting.

Posted at 9:08PM on Feb 25th 2008 by Wayne

22. I like your idea. There are usually more than five outstanding performances in each category for any one year, and having more nominees would pretty much eliminate the problem of deserving actors being left out. For example, in the "best actor" category this year, I thought Denzel Washington ("American Gangster" or "The Great Debaters") and Tom Hanks ("Charlie Wilson's War") should have been recognized. Philip Seymour Hoffman was also excellent in "The Savages." But I would not have omitted any of the five contenders, either, because they were all great. So allowing more nominees would have been terrific. Great idea!

Posted at 9:38PM on Feb 25th 2008 by Mary

23. The show is too long. I would eliminate, all together, the inane comments and jokes of the MC and instead have him/her simply introduce presenters. Also it would be nice to have a category for best newcomer. That way, very young actors, such as Saoirse Ronan and Ellen Page, could receive the recognition they deserve without having to compete against veterans who will probably feel slighted, and understandably so, if the young "upstarts" walk away with the prize.

Posted at 9:26PM on Feb 25th 2008 by Mary

24. The Chicago Tribune had a good article on how to shorten the ceremony. They got it down to about 2 hr 30 min by eliminating a lot of the banter or "times when people get up to go to the bathroom".

Frankly I think they need a best comedy category, as all too often we get some very well-done comedies that won't ever get nominated, such as Superbad.

Posted at 10:47PM on Feb 25th 2008 by Dan Parmelee

25. Mary has the right idea in that there should be an award for achievement in their first feature. BAFTA's have something like this which is open to directors/screenwriters/actors etc..

She's wrong though it's the banter from the MC which also makes it worth watching, and Jon Stewart was excellent this year.

Posted at 5:33AM on Feb 26th 2008 by Billy

26. Jon Stewart was "excellent" this year? I'm sorry, but I think you may have a different definition of "excellent" than what I am familiar with....

Posted at 12:45AM on Feb 27th 2008 by JJGemini

27. I like the best stunt coordination and the best title design ideas, as well as best comedy..

I really think that it would be unfortunate to drop the sound awards, but for the sake of viewers at home I would think it a necessity. It makes people feel disconnected in a way. Outside of the industry people dont realize what the difference between great and ok sound mixing is..

And ditching the performances I think would be worthwhile. Or maybe only the one that wins performs at the end. Seriously, the biggest drag of the whole event.

And not to extend it by any means, but maybe show the nominated shorts before the actual ceremony? Somehow on another channel? That would get me watching for sure. Nothing make you feel more disconnected than seeing an award go to some movie you haven't seen.

I also agree that they should have a wide release for the features that are nominated when the nominations are announced. Why not? It would only make money, even if the DVD is already out.

Posted at 9:36AM on Feb 26th 2008 by James

28. Some additional thoughts:

Move up the date. The Oscars start to feel more and more like a follow-on to the other ceremonies, especially the Golden Globes each year.

Go with up to 8 nominees for each of the major categories. Include at least 5 in all of the technical categories (not simply three).

Eliminate the song performances. Include a 30-60 second clip of the movie where the song is used.

Show a 5-10 minute clip of the best picture nominees.

Include 2 - 5 minute featurettes with the best actor, actress, supporting actor, and supporting actress nominees that discuss the roles and preparing for the roles.

Eliminate most of the witty banter from the MC. This would not only speed up the pacing, but would allow not comedic talents to host the ceremony.

Posted at 9:57AM on Feb 26th 2008 by Wayne

29. Frankly, if they turned the voting over to fans, the awards would lose all interest for me and I wouldn't watch. It's not that I'm being elitist, but I already know what fans like because I see the box office numbers. I'm interested in what the industry is thinking - I'm particularly interested in what's nominated for the minor awards because the nominations are by category, and we almost never hear from the techies, do we?

Considering what I just said, I wouldn't drop the "minor" awards, since those are some of the ones that hold the most interest for me. I guess you could move those to an off-screen event (as the Emmys do); I'd look them up. I wouldn't mind if the two sound awards (mixing & editing) were combined; the general industry can't tell them apart and the same entry generally wins both - plus there's often overlap in names. You could have a "best sound" & include everyone (of course, I'm sure there would be gripes from the sound dept).

As far as adding awards? That would tend to add bloat, so you'd have to make sure they'd be popular. They've been lobbying for Stunt coordination for years & that could bring in some entertaining clips (but also eat up time). However, it's an important contribution & neglected by most awards bodies. If we add additional awards just to hand them out (Best couple? Best villain? Best cast?) the Academy Awards will begin to look like the Grammys, with a host of competing awards that it's difficult to unravel the meaning of. (But, then, I don't follow the Grammys.)

It would help the ratings if "bigger" movies competed for top prizes, to be sure, but shouldn't that tell the industry that it should build more quality into its big movies? Heck, if Silence of the Lambs and Lord of the Rings can be nominated (and win!), then it can be done! Back in the 70s, I would have never believed that I'd have seen both those "genre" movies win best picture by now. Films can combine great writing, great acting, and great entertainment ... I'm sure people at this site know this; perhaps Hollywood should get the message.

The problem is that this show isn't just here to entertain, it's here to do the job of handing out awards. And the awards aren't to be given out to the most popular movies, they're to be given to the movies, performers, & crew that the industry deems to be the best of the year. So, is it more important to the Academy that it have integrity or high ratings? If it is more important that it have ratings, it will have to adjust its nomination process accordingly.

Posted at 11:13AM on Feb 26th 2008 by ML

30. Fan favourites are voted for at the MTV Awards.

Posted at 12:45AM on Feb 27th 2008 by JJGemini

31. Someone above mentioned the Sunday night timeslot. Might not be a bad idea to move it to Saturday. (After all, the networks are just showing reruns of the previous week's shows.) They have tried to move the night before -- it was on Mondays for years and years and they tried once to create a new tradition: "See you on Oscar Wednesday!"

I don't know about five-minute clips, but I definitely missed scenes from the Best Picture nominees this year (I vividly remember the year "Chinatown" was up, and they actually ran the "she's my daughter" clip). And for pete's sake, run actual clips and not the trailers, like they do for the Golden Globes.

And maybe they do have to aim towards a younger demographic for the broadcast, even if the nominated pictures don't. A couple of years ago Will Ferrell and Jack Black did a great routine at the ceremony, and I'll bet you'd get a much bigger television audience if you went that route.

Posted at 11:55AM on Feb 26th 2008 by David

32. I never mind the length but do think some of the excessive baggage like needless montages and that whole thing with "the voting process" is a bore. I think some youth would help. John Stewart was fine but Will Ferrell or Jack Black would be just as good.

As for other categories: I don't see that as an issue. I agree with ML, I'm not watching to be entertained. I'm watching to see the actors and filmmakers that I usually only see in their respective movies. It's cool to see them all together. I watch to root for the movies I'm passionate about and maybe learn about other films I knew little about (Shorts, docs & foreign films). I watch to hear the escited speeches and see if anything improvised happens (it is live, after all). And watching it on Saturday night would be VERY nice. I remember when it used to be Monday. Ugh.

I know most people gloss over it all due to the length and how boring the show can tend to be but it just doesn't effect me. Sure, some years the show lacks and soem years it surprises. Overall, you know what you're getting. I

A few friends of mine who are fervent viewers had no or little interest this year due to the nominees. They just had either no interest in almost all of the movies nominated or were disheartened to see that there were no mainstream movies included.

Personally, I felt it was a great year for movies and I could care less if any mainstream movies are included. What IS a mainstream movie anyway? I dunno what the Oscars need to help the shows ratings. People are very particualr and finicky but they are also quite cyclical.

Posted at 12:45PM on Feb 26th 2008 by DAVID F

33. I want to add my support for the tech/design awards. I LOVE those awards and find them truly interesting; I always learn something or at least become interested enough to look into it further. The Oscars are the only time the technicians and designers who do so much work to get the look of the film get honored -- I would *really* hate to see those awards go. Ditto for docs, short films, etc. Those folks deserve their recognition; it's way more exciting to me to see people get truly excited because they can't even believe they're there than to watch actors pretend that they didn't already think they were the best. :-)

I realize they have to worry about viewership, but I sort of hate that too. Instead of worrying about what would make more people watch the show, why not just focus on your fans? I love movies, I love the Oscars (even though I rarely agree with their choices, except for this year). I don't like the idea of dumbing it down or trying to pander to an imagined audience that doesn't care anyway. (Though I have to say, one of my favorite moments in Oscar history was when Chris Rock hosted and interviewed audience members who were going to see blockbuster movies. It was a great way to poke fun at the awards and movie geeks like me who really care about them.)

Posted at 5:55PM on Feb 26th 2008 by Veronica

34. I think the tech awards are essential as well (I'm an editor, so I'm biased), but I think it would be nice (and interesting) if one year the "8 decades of film" montages were replaced by little featurettes that actually attempted to explain what the judges are looking for when they vote for a tech award. Why does "The Bourne Ultimatum" win over "Transformers" if, to the layperson, it's one kind of noise over another? Do the judges use headphones? What specifically do they listen for that might be interesting for the viewer next time THEY watch a movie? Does a period film ALWAYS have the advantage for Costume Design? Let's have some previous Oscar winners who are now voting for the awards share some of the criteria, in two-minute, entertaining shorts. (Get Errol Morris or Michel Gondry or Wes Anderson to do it.) Maybe then the audience will understand how important those "boring" tech awards are.

Posted at 6:42PM on Feb 26th 2008 by David

35. I agree with those who believe that comedies have been ignored for far too long at the Oscars. The last straight comedy to win an Oscar was "Annie Hall', and that was 30 years ago. Maybe comedy looks too easy to the typical Academy voter, but there have been far too many funny films over the years that have gone unrecognized and have been just as good as those that have received recognition.

I also think the reason for the low ratings this year might have been the lack of unrecognizable films and performers among the nominees. This is not to suggest that the winners were undeserving, or that more popular films and performers should have been nominated, but when the masses aren't familiar with the nominees, they're less inclined to watch.

Finally, for those who think the show is too long, cut the production numbers, get rid of the performances of the nominated songs, and knock off the film montages. But at the same time, for God's sake, let the winners finish their speeches. The nicest moment at this year's awards was when Jon Stewart (who was terrific) brought out the second best song winner to give her speech after she was played off, and it was worth it. And can anyone imagine how disappointing it would have been to have Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, Jamie Foxx, Cuba Gooding, Jr. or Forrest Whittaker, among others, played off during their brilliant remarks? Acceptance speeches like those are the main reason I watch, so give the winners their moments in the sun!

Posted at 3:17AM on Feb 27th 2008 by Jim Dougherty

36. This of course is just my opinion, and no I don't want "Transformers" and "Alvin And The Chipmunks" to start winning Oscars for Best Picture. But this year's nominated films were dreadful films in and of themselves. "No Country For Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood" were seriously the best movies of the year? I can think of ten other films that weren't even nominated in any category that were better than those life-sucking films.

Danny Day Lewis did an Al "Scent Of A Woman" Pacino parody and wins an Oscar? "Hoo-Ha!" George Clooney and Tommy Lee Jones play, well, themselves and get a nomination? Ruby Dee and Hal Holbrook get nominations for what? Being old? Ellen Page playing a snot-nosed punk kid is criteria now for an Oscar nomination? Of course people are disappointed.

"Gone, Baby Gone" gets barely a mention, despite being the best scripted, directed, and acted movie of the year. "The Hoax", "The Lookout", "Talk To Me", "Zodiac", "The Kite Runner", .... Where were these movies? All great movies, and much better than "The Assassination Of Jesse James" or "Atonement". And where was "Moliere" and "4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days" for best foreign film?

And just to close my rant... what the heck is the difference between Sound Editing and Sound Mixing?!

I'm not saying it's rocket science... but of course no one wanted to watch the Academy Awards this year.

Posted at 6:27AM on Feb 27th 2008 by JJGemini

37. HOW ABOUT A CATEGORY FOR PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED AND WERE NOT?

Posted at 11:24AM on Mar 2nd 2008 by bd

38. I think it's vulger to propose they remove the craft awards simply because some viewers don't care. If these movie-going fans had any true passion for film, they would be interested in all the categories. Those who aren't shouldn't be watching the Oscars in the first place. From its very beginnning, the Academy Awards were never intended to cater to the masses and their celebrity lust. They were intended to honour the year's best achievements in film, and that includes the craft awards.

That being said, I do like the idea of an ensemble award (perhaps the statuette could go to the casting directors, who don't get nearly enough recognition). But having something like a people's choice award at the Oscars is proposterous. There's already an entire awards show for the People's Choice. This is the show that people who criticize the Oscars should be watching. Those of us who are actually really intersted in all of the Academy's categories are getting sick of hearing complaints from people who shouldn't be watching in the first place.

Posted at 12:14AM on Mar 3rd 2008 by N8