Jump to content

Talk:89th Academy Awards/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

La La Land is the first musical to be nominated for sound editing

Not sure how to put that as a record-but it is interesting given the fact that no other live action musical has been nominated in this category-not even Chicago was. (To be fair during the age of musicals the category didn't exist or was just one or 2 films) Wgolf (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually come to think of it-not even sure why I'm bringing this up. (Stuff you think of at the middle of the night probably) Wgolf (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Pages needed to be added

Okay maybe I'll start this tomorrow-but someone like last year can put a list of pages needed to be added for categories. (As well for other years-I tried doing that back in 2015 but I eventually got worn out from it). As a note-don't use ABC's or Oscar.com front page for refs as they disapear. For an example-check out how to put links for this person who is nominated this year: Dan Lemmon (which he needs to have his additional nominees added in-just picked a random page). Wgolf (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I can do that again. For the moment a list of persons I couldn't find yesterday:

--Jobu0101 (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And here comes the complete list:

nominees without a Wikidata item

tt5467670 tt6460636 nm0798930 nm2652108 nm4568172 nm6844518 nm0078183 nm2890617 nm4009159 nm1479564 nm1700023 nm2589786 nm8543912 nm2855383 nm3210583 nm1230132 nm0054659 nm1054871 nm4497243 nm1942413
Original post. --Jobu0101 (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Update. --Jobu0101 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Update. --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Julie Yorn Angie Fielder Lauren Beck Kimberly Steward Rémi Grellety Hébert Peck Caroline Waterlow Spencer Averick Alessandro Bertolazzi Volker Bertelmann Andrew Coats Lou Hamou-Lhadj Cara Speller Alan Barillaro Ennemis intérieurs Selim Azzazi Timo von Gunten Giacun Caduff Silent Nights Stephen Ellis
By name. --Jobu0101 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Update. --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

nominees with a Wikidata item but no article

Pear Cider and Cigarettes (Q26831124) Carla Hacken (Q28656724) Emile Sherman (Q15808023) Kevin J. Walsh (Q28536252) David Wasco (Q3018955) Sandy Reynolds-Wasco (Q28843195) Benj Pasek (Q27660156) Peter Grace (Q28555557) Kahane Cooperman (Q27038285) Robert Valley (Q26831127)
Original post. --Jobu0101 (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Update. --Jobu0101 (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Update. --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

not linked to Wikidata

Carla Hacken, Emile Sherman, Kahane Cooperman, Stephen Ellis, Sélim Azzazi, Giacun Caduff, Andrew Coats (director), Peter Grace (sound engineer)
Original post. --Jobu0101 (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Update. --Jobu0101 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Update. --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Update. --Jobu0101 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

As a note also link them to other pages as well to make it easier (like if they are nominated for best production design link it to that page as well as the film they are nominated for) Wgolf (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I added the film editor of Moonlight and the producer of La La Land that you added already (there is another producer without a page though) to the best picture and best editing page. However I'm having trouble adding Fred Berger (producer) to List of accolades received by La La Land (film) due to the format of the page! Wgolf (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this guy has been linked or not Mohen Leo. But be sure to link any pages you made to the categories they are nominated for! Wgolf (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

When you visit an article then on the left you see in most cases a link "Wikidata item". If you don't see that it isn't linked to Wikidata. In this case there might be no Wikidata item for that subject so far. So using [1] you can create it. But first try to search for it in Wikidata to make sure that it doesn't exist. Once you created or found an item you can easily link it using the edit link in the Wikipedia section of the Wikidata item. I access Wikidata items of persons and films using IMDb ID (P345). So once this id is entered to Wikidata I can keep track of those items. So make sure all items you create get an IMDb id. --Jobu0101 (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I just linked Mohen Leo to Mohen Leo (Q28031341). See [2]. --Jobu0101 (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Remember when you create pages to also link them to the nominated categories-it makes it easier then to have someone else do it or someone create a page not realizing they exist due to them never being linked. For example, most of the pages on Academy Award for Best Visual Effects for this year are not linked to the pages. Just simply link them if you made them! Thanks! Wgolf (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Much information missing on Wikidata

Those Wikidata items are basically useless, because nothing but the sitelink was added. You should add at least instance of (P31) and IMDb ID (P345) if it applies. Even the label is often wrong.

Alessandro Bertolazzi (Q28530518), Bentley Dean (Q28547450), Lauren Beck (Q28839923), Timo von Gunten (Q28674691), Julie Yorn (Q23633914), Spencer Averick (Q28839596), Alan Barillaro (Q28839585), Caroline Waterlow (Q28839597), Rémi Grellety (Q28839599), Martin Butler (Q28546919), Kimberly Steward (Q28528570), Hébert Peck (Q28824651), Robert Valley (Q28203656), Cara Speller (Q28839577), Lou Hamou-Lhadj (Q28839583), Kevin J. Walsh (Q28811955), Angie Fielder (Q28839907).
Original post. --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Update. --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Nominations trivia removed

I removed the following items from the trivia section. These were all unsourced, but that is not the only reason I removed them. In general this should be a list of interesting "firsts" (not "first since" and certainly not 69th, 17th, or even 2nd). My comments in small, bold text:

Mathew5000 (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Notable Events Sections Removal

This section is more of a trivia then it is actually related to this ceremony. Where there is no question about such notable events integrity it is equally important that they should be listed in a proper way and, listing all the facts are bogus and not at all the usual way of Academy Awards articles. Previously, in 2014's ceremony many individuals including actors, were also nominated in multiple categories and a table was introduced to state such facts but it was removed because not every detail is a requirement of a standard article. Having said this, I agree that this year's nominations and nominees are a breakthrough in Academy's history and they have to be included in this article but in a way that everyone could read. Current format and way of describing such events are not of tone or doesn't match the style of writing. Either they should be written in prose or trimmed to omit unnecessary details. Furthermore, it would be better to state those facts in diversity section then to be separately written. I have stated this concern on editors talk pages two days ago, and I am requesting a temporary lock on a page from edit warring. And above of none of those facts has citations except few. I thought of removing the entire section, but then I decided to start a discussion for mutual consensus. Nauriya (Rendezvous)17:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a lot of unsourced content there, and it doesn't fit well into the flow of the article. Also agreed with merging the diversity trivia into the 'Diversity Praise' section. A lot of this section reads like it belongs in each film's article rather than here. MidnightObservation (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

O.J. Made in America is not the longest film ever nominated for an Oscar

Noce i dnie (1975) (nominated at the 49th Academy Awards) is longer. Shouldn't this fact be removed from the Notable Events section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.80.234 (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The television series had 12 episodes which were longer in total. The film version had two parts and was only a little over 4 hours in total.[3][4] The Oscars are for films so I assume the film version was submitted. I see you already removed it a minute after posting. It had a reliable source and I have reverted you. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay so I did link all the visual effects artists, makeup artist and sound cats to the pages. But other ones still need to be linked to as well. One thing is on Academy Award for Best Production Design where it looks like only half the nominees from this year are even listed! Also be sure to look elsewhere for the pages as well as misprints, one of the nominees for Deepwater Horizon had his name spelled wrong on the list of nominations! And of course for pages that might go to DAB or hatnotes look out for that as well! (Which I found a few so far). Wgolf (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wgolf:, I need your cooperation in Notable Events Section, too much details are there! what should we do, should we list them in Diversity section in a prose form ? create an separate section in prose form? Nauriya (Rendezvous) 10:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Box Office Gross table isn't sorting correctly

When I sort the financial columns in the Box Office Gross table, they don't sort correctly. (I'm using IE 11 if that matters.) Takebackyourmink (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed by removing junk data-sort-value.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

best picture

Listed before announced. I'm watching at 12;03am. They are still talking. Just started nominations. Does someone edit and then correct or did someone know. We will see who wins. Eschoryii (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

winner is: la la land 12:09am

Or maybe Moonlight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.82 (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


Winner is la la la not going to get it. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually it lost.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hence my not going to get it. Entire thing was a PR stunt. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems unlikely to me since neither film needed this. La La Land already had coverage and Moonlight would have gained attention for winning Best Picture without this screw up happening. --64.229.167.158 (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Doubtful it was planned, rather it came off like several oversights/mistakes colliding at once. Section still stands. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Note

The "note" at the bottom (about revoking a nominee's nomination) states that it was done through the MPAA. Is that correct? I don't even know what MPAA is? Should it correctly be AMPAS? It states: "The MPAA revoked Russell's nomination after discovering that he had contacted voters for the award by telephone in violation of campaigning regulations." Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

MPAA is the Motion Picture Association of America but the source [6] says "the Academy" (AMPAS) which makes more sense so I changed it.[7] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I believe that the MPAA is the body that issues film ratings (Rated G, PG, R, X, etc.). I doubt that they have anything to do with the Academy Awards. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The Motion Picture Association of America does a lot more than just issue ratings.. they are the industry trade organization. Spanneraol (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The mistaken "Best Picture" ballot and envelope

Hopefully a source will show up to tell us what happened to the ballot and envelope that Beatty was carrying and puzzling over. I hope someone kept those, they belong in the Smithsonian. Randy Kryn 20:20, 27 2017 (UTC)

best picture presenters

It really is not appropriate to say that Horowitz presented the best picture winner... there were multiple people on that stage and Warren actually made the final announcement of it. The table is for the official presenters and this doesn't really count as that. The controversy has it's own section. Spanneraol (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Entirely appropriate and accurate. Horowitz announced the winner's name into the microphone and to both the gathered audience and the viewing audience. He showed the audience the card with the winner's name on it, and then presented the Oscar to the winner. Beatty and Dunaway are of course listed as the presenters, but neither of them announced the winner or presented the Oscars. A mention of Horowitz in the descriptor part of the chart is both accurate and historically correct. Randy Kryn 13:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
That's not entirely true.. Beatty did announce the winner right before the Moonlight people started speaking.. sure Horowitz had said it first, but Beatty was the official presenter not Horowitz and the table is about the official presenters in any event. 16:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The table is marked 'Presenters', not 'Official presenters'. Beatty and Dunaway are the official presenters, had their chance and muffed it, and Horowitz stepped up to make the announcement and then showed the card to show where his announcement was authenticated. Making the announcement, showing the card, and then handing over the Oscar all fall under the definition of Academy Awards presenter, although not 'official' presenter. I didn't know Beatty said the name as well, but he did not make it official, just repeated what had already been announced and proven. And the sequence is in the descriptor box, not the list of presenters, and leaving the descriptor as saying that Beatty and Dunaway presented the award is itself inaccurate. Randy Kryn 16:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: I believe that Spanneraol is right. By design, only the official presenters should be listed. The heading for this list is Presenters, not Presenters and Those Who Accidentally Became Known for Correcting the Mistakes of Those Who Opened the Envelopes. After all, on the article page for the 46th Academy Awards (1974), we don't list the streaker who crashed David Niven's speech near the end simply because said streaker happened to be on stage "contributing" to the ceremony. Greggens (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
That would be purposely giving misinformation to the readers. Beatty and Dunaway did not present the award, and the sections are named 'Presenters'. If the 1974 streaker had walked up the microphone with both the award and the winner's envelope in his hand, then read off the winner's name and handed them the Oscar, of course we would have listed him as the presenter. All the streaker did, however, was run across the stage, while Horowitz read the winner's name, showed the Best Picture winner's card to the camera and the Academy's in-theater audience, and presented the award. Doesn't seem like a similar situation. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of listing the presenters is not to tell readers who made the "correct" announcements for each Oscar award. Rather, the purpose of listing the presenters is to show readers which celebrities actively participated in the ceremony in a hired capacity, regardless of whether or not they did their job right. Since there is already a separate section in the article explaining who was involved in the Best Picture announcement error and how they were involved, there is no need to list anyone other than Beatty and Dunaway as Best Picture presenters in the Presenters table.
It was not Jordan Horowitz's job to announce the real winners; therefore, he was not a presenter. He wasn't even the first one to publicly point out the error; his co-producer Fred Berger was. But at any rate, Horowitz and Berger did not get paid by Oscar producers for being the ones to point out the error, and neither do Beatty and Dunaway lose their credits on the Oscars telecast simply because of the error that they made. Even the 89th Academy Awards/Archive 1 at IMDb still list Beatty and Dunaway in the credits as Best Picture Presenters, while Horowitz and Berger are not listed as any kind of Presenters.
Bottom line: Semantics doesn't dictate who gets listed in the Presenters table. Greggens (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Please stop changing the correct information. The section is introduced with the sentence "The following individuals presented awards or performed musical numbers". Beatty and Dunaway did not present the award. Horowitz did. This isn't a semantic difference, it is reality. If you want to do a full-scale Rfc on this, please do so, but leave the correct information on the page until a consensus is reached to remove it (which would actually make it inaccurate and definitely not encyclopedic). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not about whether or not the information in the table is technically correct. It's about whether or not people involved in unplanned moments should even be listed as officially-designated presenters of the Oscars ceremony. The fact is, Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway did present the award. They may have presented it to the wrong people, but it still counts as a presentation. Jordan Horowitz did not "present" anything. All he did was correct the actual presenters by pointing out their mistake.
What Horowitz did certainly was noble, but it was nonetheless unplanned. If we were to start listing people who made unplanned contributions to an Oscars ceremony, we'd have to list Robert Opel as a performer in 1974, since he streaked at the 46th Academy Awards. We'd also have to list that guy who delivered pizza to Ellen DeGeneres as a "performer" at the 87th Academy Awards. Then we'd also have to list the tourists that Jimmy Kimmel brought in during the 89th Academy Awards as "performers" as well. Where does it end? At what point do we draw the line?
It should also be noted that after the ceremony ended, the original Presenters table in the article merely listed Beatty and Dunaway as "Presenters of the award for Best Picture" without any reference to the error, which was mentioned elsewhere in the article. Thus, restoring it to that state, or something similar, is actually the correct and encyclopedic thing to do. Adding information to the table about unplanned occurrences is superfluous and unnecessary. Now if the announcement error had been a planned moment (i.e. for comic effect), it would be a different story. Greggens (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
None of the people you mentioned took on the role that Jordan Horowitz did, that of announcing the winner of the Best Picture of the year Oscar and then presenting the Oscar to the winner. If you haven't seen the video lately, here it is, and as you can see this was not a simple and quick event. Dunaway 'presented' the award to Horowitz and his crew for La La Land, and they came up and spoke for nearly two-and-a-half minutes. When the correct information was being passed around among the entire group it was not Beatty or Dunaway who moved quickly and decisively to correct this mistake, but Jordan Horowitz. He announced the winner, assured them it was true, literally grabbed the correct card from out of a stunned Warren Beatty's hand and showed it to the audience and camera, and then handed the award to the winner. The section is for people, not performers, who presented the award. Horowitz did that, and to say that Beatty and Dunaway presented the award without including the name and link of the real presenter in the same sentence misleads the readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not misleading, since the announcement error is mentioned later on in the article. Besides, other than you, NO ONE CARES that Horowitz technically was the one who made the correct presentation, as far as the Presenters table is concerned. That's not the purpose of the list, nor is the purpose of the list to show who presented things correctly and who presented things incorrectly. The purpose is to show which celebrities were hired to participate in the ceremony. Beatty and Dunaway weren't replaced as presenters. They did their job as scheduled, and if it wasn't for being handed the incorrect card, they would have done the job correctly.
So far, Randy, you're the only one on Wikipedia convinced of your own rightness in this matter. Just let it go, man. Greggens (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure why this table is considered relevant to Wikipedia at all. Which celebrity gave out which award in a specific year is trivia. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
    It provides historical continuality. Most presenters are past winners or figure prominently in some combination that film buffs and their peers recognize. So including presenters gives historical context to interested readers who wish to explore the patterns and subtle trends involved in the selections. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

3O Response: The line about Horowitz should not be included. It's implicit that the table is about official presenters as it's an official role in an official ceremony. Cjhard (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Winners

Not sure if this has already been adjudicated, but do there really need to be three indicators of who won each category (first, boldface, double dagger)? Wouldn't first listing and boldface do the job sufficiently? Nevermore27 (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:89th_Academy_Awards/Archive_1&oldid=1080690323"