,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
yeah that’s the problem with the Oscars
The problem with the Oscars is that it takes more than two months after a year ends before you can accurately judge a year’s art.
And they’re never going to change that, because the Oscars are big money.
And they’re never going to change that, because the Oscars are big money.
I think if you had even a one-year cooling off period the Oscars would avoid most of their more embarrassing mistakes. Five would be perfect.
By Feb 1992, I really doubt you'd have many people who still favored DANCES WITH WOLVES over GOODFELLAS. By 1996, there'd be no question.
By Feb 1992, I really doubt you'd have many people who still favored DANCES WITH WOLVES over GOODFELLAS. By 1996, there'd be no question.
Art plants a seed. Some seeds plant deep roots and grow slowly into something immense and lasting. Some seeds grow quickly but the plant that sprouts lasts only for a season.
And a weed can have a pretty flower for a day.
Anyway, I haven't seen GREEN BOOK yet.
And a weed can have a pretty flower for a day.
Anyway, I haven't seen GREEN BOOK yet.
I think we're all pretty well-aware of this.
But also, every complaint about the Oscars boils down to how it is exactly this.
My suggestion would be a way to fix that problem, is all I'm saying.
But also, every complaint about the Oscars boils down to how it is exactly this.
My suggestion would be a way to fix that problem, is all I'm saying.
I mean, I guess the Hollywood promo money machine could pump tens of millions to try to post-facto litigate their 5-year old movie into unearned respectability, but it seems less likely, and it would be harder to do.
