Talk:83rd Academy Awards

Sandbox

Before the 83rd Academy Awards page here was set up, I did some work to set it up here. I don't know if some of the "waiting" format with "na"s ("not available"s), there, would be useful to incorporate into this article now, but I decided maybe so, so did save my sandbox page there. I'm open to comments or having someone pick up and run with the ideas/work there or here. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have set up a good basic template ... I assume from copying and pasting last year's page. But, needless to say, much of the substantive information is irrelevant. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC))

Nominees for Best Picture

In the Table, is there any reason why the nominee's names (i.e., the producers) are not listed with the name of the film? I believe that listing the names of the nominees (i.e., the producers for each film title) makes the Table in this article more consistent across entries. It also makes this article more consistent with the Academy Award for Best Picture article. Thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

I mean ... the whole point of the Nominee's Table is to list the nominees ... correct? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Well, do you remember if during the announcements, they listed the producers? I do remember a listing of producers being noted somewhere, but I'm afraid my computer will crash if I start looking for videos. If they did there, I would be very much in support of including. I really think the official nominations need to include the producers in order for us to follow suit. BOVINEBOY2008 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I did not watch the actual video of the announcements. But, whether or not they actually voiced the names of the producers during the live announcement is irrelevant, I think. It is the producers who get nominated, not the films per se. Plus, as I mentioned above, the Academy Award for Best Picture article lists the producers (nominees) alongside the film titles. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict) I'm not necessarily saying we need the video. I'm saying if the Academy doesn't accredit the awards to the producers, then we shouldn't either. And also the Academy Award for Best Picture article also lists the director and a cast list, and with no real reason that I can ascertain other than to beef up the table. BOVINEBOY2008 22:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, previous years do not list producers. BOVINEBOY2008 22:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I just watched the video on You Tube ... they did indeed list the names of the producers along with the names of each film. I will start to add the names here ... someone else can finish up. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

I can finish it when I wake up. BOVINEBOY2008 22:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added them all in ... thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Glad there in, on another topic simular to this, most of the nominees are missing in the Oscars from 1965 to 1976. The tables are gone as well, I belive someone should bring those back.Kamkek (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that they're "gone". I think that they were never put in, in the first place. The articles for those older ceremonies oftentimes receive less attention than the articles for the newer, current ceremonies. So, at some point, people will go back in and bring those older articles up to speed. For now, many of them are just "bare bones" until someone devotes some time and attention to updating and filling them out completely. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

Eli Wallach

Saw that they are finally giving him a honarary Oscar. So correct me if I'm wrong, but would this make him the 2nd oldest to get it behind the art director who won a few years ago? (I do know he is the oldest actor still working with Borgnine behind him) Kamkek (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Eli Wallach is currently age 95. Robert F. Boyle was age 98 when he won the award in 2008. Hal Roach was age 92 when he won the award in 1984. I'd also scan the article at Academy Honorary Award just to see if you notice other "old timers" listed there. Although, don't forget, there are several other "honorary" Academy Awards ... not just this one particular award that Wallach received. For examples, see the various awards listed at Academy Award#Special Academy Awards. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

Yep I know about that list. and the age list, but the age just had acting not anything else. Further proof they give you honarary when your close to your deathbed ;) (Bad joke) I just hope Harrison Ford will get one someday. Glad Jerry Lewis got the humantiarian a few years ago. Kamkek (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Helena Bonham Carter

There seems to be a lot of edits/changes to the character name for Helena Bonham Carter (Best Supporting Actress nominee) in The King's Speech. It has routinely been changed, back and forth, between variations such as: Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon; Queen Elizabeth; and Elizabeth, the Queen Mother (and probably others). IMDb lists the role as "Queen Elizabeth". I have not seen the film (which, significantly, is set in 1925). But, I suspect that Helena Bonham Carter portrayed the woman named Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. At the time of the period within the film (1925), Bowes-Lyon was known as "Queen Elizabeth"; but by contemporary standards and convention (2011), Bowes-Lyon is known as "the Queen Mother" (so as to distinguish her from her daughter, Queen Elizabeth). As I said, I have not seen the film ... so this is just my best guess. If indeed my guess is correct, I propose that she be listed with the character name of "Queen Elizabeth" such that the name is linked to "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" (and not to the present-day Queen Elizabeth). In other words, we should use this piped link: Queen Elizabeth. In any event, let's reach a consensus here as to how the character name/role should be listed in the article ... so that it is not constantly being changed. Can anyone offer any insights? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

Firth and Carter here are only in their respective monarchic roles for about 30% of the film's duration (near the end). Every thing prior to that is at a time when they have not been anointed as king and queen yet. So, best solution: Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon / Queen Elizabeth. Ditto for Firth: Prince Albert / King George VI. And an absolute no to "Queen Mother", which is a title referring to her widowhood years. Lhw1 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ... that was very helpful! I made your suggested changes. Thanks again! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

How about a protection lock for this?

I was just thinking about this, maybe a protection lock on this article could be a good idea to avoid vandelism. Since it is going to be very popular in the upcomming weeks. Kamkek (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Toy Story 3 statement

One of the opening sentences of the article states:

"Toy Story 3, the highest-grossing film of 2010,..."

I beleive that the statement "highest-grosing film of 2010" should be removed, as it really dosen't seem noatble as a main detail for the page besides being trivial, or as possible promotion for the film and is therefore irrelevent. at the 81st Academy Awards "The Dark Knight" was nominated for 8 Oscars (winning two), yet the opening sentence does not state it as "The Dark Knight, the highest grossing film of 2008...". Similarly, at last year's Oscars, "Avatar" broke the record for top-grossing film of all time, and was nominated for 9 Oscars including Best Picture (winning 3), but the opening paragraph does not state it as "Avatar", the highest-grossing film of 2009 and of all time worldwide,...". If "The Dark Knight" and "Avatar" aren't credited as "top-grossing film of the year" in the opening paragraphs for the 81st and 82nd Oscars articles, then neither should "Toy Story 3".--Snowman Guy (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, that information is vital for Toy Story 3 not the Oscars. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd tend to disagree. The Oscars honor the best films of the year. The highest-grossing film of the year is indeed relevant (not trivial). It is at least arguable that the definition of "best films" includes not only artistic elements, but also popular appeal (i.e., ticket sales). In other words, a film is considered "good" (or, best) if a lot of people think that it is good. Perhaps the statement of highest-gross does not belong in the lead, but I do believe that it belongs at least somewhere within the article. As for the 81st and 82nd Awards ceremonies that offer no similar mention of The Dark Knight and Avatar gross receipts ... I think that such mention should indeed be added into those articles about the highest-grossing films in those years. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

Important article

This story from Yahoo! reports several important details for the awards this year, such as the retirement of having 5 actors introduce the leading Best Actor and Actress nominees. Should it be referenced in the article?--Snowman Guy (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

These "traditions" change from year to year, at the drop of a hat. I don't find them particularly important or significant. But, neither would I object to their inclusion within the article. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

Really, that is not a tradition since it only happened in 2008 and 2009. Kamkek (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Which is why I placed the word traditions in quotation marks. These formalities and Oscar protocol all change at the drop of a hat (e.g., at the whim of some new producer; whatever ploy it takes to get higher ratings; etc.). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC))

Exactly, if someone who has not watched the Oscars in 10 years turned it on tonight they would never even know that it ever happened. Kamkek (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable events and quotes

Yahoo! Movies has posted a listing of the show's notable events and quotes, if someone wants to reference them and create sections on the article;

Notable events: http://oscars.movies.yahoo.com/news/2562-moments-well-remember-from-the-2011-oscars-ap?nc

Notable quotes: http://oscars.movies.yahoo.com/news/2583-notable-quotes-from-the-83rd-annual-academy-awards-ap?nc

--Snowman Guy (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Feedback feature

Please someone remove this feedback form, or at least make it possible to hide it. Like most visitors here, I just want to read the article, and the feedback box covers most of the space at the top of the article (using "Classic skin"). It very much degrades the reader's experience. Thank you. olivier (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Link for Coming Home.

Since the Song itself doesn't have a page, should the section on the soundtrack on the movie's page (Country_Strong#Music) or the movie soundtrack page (Country Strong (soundtrack)) be used? Naraht (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ceremony information

I'm not sure what information the following line in the Ceremony information adds: "For the first time in ten years there was not a single African-American nominated in the four acting categories." To me, it just came across as being unnecessarily provocative. Plus, I'm sure we could come up with similar statistics related to other races. Thanks. 24.126.49.9 (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a minor public controversy about the issue (Whoopi Goldberg, among others, commented on it), so I'd support including some cited references to the subject. MisfitToys (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In Memoriam

A. Should there be a section listing all the people in the "In Memoriam" tribute, especially noting the tribute to Lena Horne?
B. Someone I know mentioned they were surprised that Corey Haim was not in the "In Memoriam" tribute. Having thought Haim died over a year ago, I checked his death date, which turned out to be March 10, 2010, three days after the 82nd Academy Awards ceremony was held; I suppose since there hasn't been any word from either the Academy or anyone representing Corey Haim, there's nothing to say about it yet except that his name was obviously absent from the tribute, but it could be worth noting once there is sufficient information about it. Keep your eyes peeled.
Deep treble (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ehh I think Peter Graves was more snubbed last night then Haim.

Kamkek (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Bob Hope

What technology did they use for the digital projection of Bob Hope? It'd be interesting to link to the relevant article so people can learn more about that. --Waldir ^talk 22:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Kinescope? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

International Broadcasters

There should be a list of international broadcasters for the event.The link is here [1]. Also please do not include information that is unreliable. And also no random trivia.Birdienest81 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How is the list of international broadcasters not trivia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy regarding The King's Speech and the Best Original Screenplay award

During Tom Hooper's speech after winning Best Director, he revealed that The King's Speech is based on a play of the same name. I noticed quite a few tweets after this questioning how the screenplay could have been nominated for Best "Original" instead of Adapted, though I haven't seen any real coverage in the media. Can somebody look into this? 70.112.7.146 (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think since it was unpublished it went original. Though more controversial could of been how Gangs of New York went under original when apparently it even said it was adapted in the credits. Kamkek (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, in some TV discussion from awhile back, the play had been written, and the question was whether to make it a stage play, a TV-movie, or a regular movie. They opted for making a movie. You might google the author's name, and I expect you'll find lots of good information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In his speech, Hooper specifically referred to his mother attending a reading of the unproduced play and telling him that she'd found his next film. I suppose it was easy to miss the details as he talked. MisfitToys (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Line on period films

I'd recommend deleting the following sentences: "The King's Speech was the first period film since Chicago to win Best Picture, which is interesting since the past has usually gone to period films. Yet in the 2000s it went to films taking place in the present usually, although No Country for Old Men did take place in the 1980's yet would not be considered one." Apart from the subjective argument that a film set in the 1980s wouldn't be considered a period piece (I think you'd need a citation to support that argument), there's the fact that The Return of the King won the year after Chicago, and you could make a solid argument that that film is set in a mythical ancient past. On top of this, by my count there have been 38 winners (out of 83) which were primarily set more than 20 years before the film's release, and 9 more set between 10 and 20 years before, which at best only weakly supports the argument that "the past has usually gone to period films". Either way, I don't see any point to keeping the paragraph. MisfitToys (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it was more due to the fact about how in the 90s it usually went to period films. Also the fact is that it seems that 20 years ago in 2011 is not quite like having a film 20 years before 1940, it seemed like a diffrent era then where as the past 20 years have been not that much diffrent. I think it still is intresting. Kamkek (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Oscar nominees

I was wondering whether the photographs of Rick Baker, Aaron Sorkin and Randy Newman should not be removed from the section 1.1 ("Awards") of the article. According to the Academy Award rules, most awards go to movies (for example, AMPAS members voted for The Social Network, not for Aaron Sorkin), and directing and acting awards are the five exceptions. Even Wikipedia usually mentions the films before the people responsible for the achievements. Or, if anyone thinks they should be kept, why not add pictures of the other recipients as well? Any thoughts on that? 86.74.163.163 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 83rd Academy Awards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402104406/http://web.utsandiego.com/news/2011/Jan/25/kings-speech-rules-with-12-oscar-nominations/2/ to http://web.utsandiego.com/news/2011/Jan/25/kings-speech-rules-with-12-oscar-nominations/2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 83rd Academy Awards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402165456/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&tkr=DIS%2A%3AMM&sid=af9zSXvQRHZw to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&tkr=DIS%2A%3AMM&sid=af9zSXvQRHZw

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)