You're gonna be bothered by how cool I am.

There are all kinds of articles this time of year about the Oscars - some interesting, some rehashes of age-old award show discussions, and some dithering whines about how loooooooong the show is or some such. But I thought this list of "20 Ways to Improve the Oscars," compiled by Fandango.com from the responses of some 7000 film fans, was worth a look.

And a bit of my own opinion thrown in. :P

1. NO POLITICAL SPEECHES EVER!
When asked about which elements they'd like to see dropped from the Oscar telecast, 51% of Fandango survey respondents picked the political acceptance speeches, making it Fandango moviegoers' top pet peeve.

Hehe, the picture for this one is of Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon. While I'm all for unplanned moments at the Oscars and love Tim and Susan to bits, I have to agree that people going up to the Oscar stage and using their moment of triumph - or worse, as presenters, horning in on someone else's moment of triumph - to let everyone know how they feel about a particular issue is almost always in bad taste. General statements - like George Clooney's acceptance speech a few years ago - are a different matter, I suppose because that speech in particular was more in the spirit of honoring the movies, which is what the Oscars are all about anyway. But your stance on the Iraq war - Michael Moore, I'm looking at you - is not what we need to hear on a night like that. Nobody addressed this better than my favorite screenwriter, Paddy Chayefsky, who at the 1977 Oscars (the Annie Hall year) took a moment before presenting one of the screenwriting Oscars that year to comment on Vanessa Redgrave's infamous "Zionist hodlums" comments:

"I would like to say, personal opinion of course, that I'm sick and tired of people exploiting the occasion of the Academy Awards for the propagation of their own political propaganda. I would like to suggest to Ms. Redgrave that her winning an Academy Award is not a pivotal moment in history, does not require a proclamation, and a simple 'thank-you' would have sufficed."

Pwnage. If you want to make a statement, record it on your iSight camera and put it on YouTube, dude.

2. SEND IN THE CLOWNS
The majority of film fans say they are more interested in watching the Oscars with Hugh Jackman as this year's host, but not every agrees.

Comments for this one included demands to keep Billy Crystal on standby, as well as bringing back Ellen Degeneres, Steve Martin, and even the much-maligned Oscar stylings of Chris Rock.

Billy Crystal is, in my humble opinion, the best Oscar host there has been in my lifetime. He was to the 1990s was Bob Hope was to the '40s - '70s: a tradition that audiences looked forward to. I wish he could be brought back every year, but I definitely understand if he doesn't want the Oscars to be his main legacy (and why would he, after all?). And I like seeing what other people bring to it. As long as they're people who genuinely love movies.

But I agree with what seems to be the consensus of responses in this area - that comedians seem to make the best hosts. I don't like to think what the telecast would be like without that first 10 minutes of just the host loosening everyone up. I mean, without an open bar, how else are you going to do that? :P

3. HAIL TO THE CHIEF -- BUT OFF-CAMERA, PLEASE...
Not everyone wants to see a presentation from the Academy president -- in fact, 39% of respondents said they'd like to see that bit dropped from the telecast. The introduction of Academy accountants PriceWaterhouseCoopers is also something fans would like to eradicte.

Hmmmm, I agree that the introductions of the president and the accountants is a drag on the show, but I don't see how you can do without them. The accountants have a very important job (in the context of the show, at least), and I think they've earned their couple of seconds on national television. As for the Academy president ... well, his intro is usually accompanied by a (usually) cool montage clip that makes me cry and remember why I love movies so much. So it's hard to hate that. Plus, seriously, these people don't take up that much of the telecast. If you're watching on TiVo, just ba-doop through it; if not ... well, you've got to go to the bathroom sometime. :P

4. BOTTOMS UP
Fans would rather see the stars mingling at a dinner like the one held for the Golden Globes and SAG Awards, rather than a four-hour evening with stars patiently sitting in their seats and mugging for the camera.

AGREED! Get 'em boozed up like the old days and make things less predictable. Though I'm fine with the four hours.

5. YOU CAN STOP THE MUSIC...
While it's unlikely that the show's new producers (the guys who brought you Dreamgirls) will drop the musical numbers, several film fans would love to see that happen.

Disagree. Musical numbers are something that actually punch up the telecast for me. Just ... please don't stick Amy Adams out there by herself ever again without so much as a cardboard deer on stage to keep her company while someone who wasn't even in her movie gets her big Central Park showstopper. And, you know, steer clear of anything that reeks of that Rob Lowe and Snow White number.

6. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE ANYWAY?
Film fans were fierce in their comments about getting rid of the lesser-known awards on the main show. They suggested that the minor awards be handed out at a separate ceremony (as is done with the "scientific awards"), with brief highlights presented on the telecast by comedians (like Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill, pictured here).

Could not disagree more. I know that this is where a lot of people start to tune out, but these "nobodies" are HUGELY important to every single film that is honored that night. You could argue that so are the winners of the scientific and technical awards, but I think that's a different thing altogether, because those people's accomplishments are more general technological achievements that aren't usually limited to a specific film. The editors and visual effects people and costumers and set designers play very, very important roles in the honored films, and I for one think they've earned their moment to get on that stage - boo to the 2005 ceremony that forced them to accept their awards from their friggin' seats - and let their friends and family go berserk as they go up there, probably getting to shake hands with the stars of the film they worked on along the way (at the very least being enthusiastically applauded by them).

Plus, where do you draw the line? Should we only present the acting, directing and picture awards and leave the other "nobody" awards for the other, non-televised ceremony? People who have watched and really cared about the Oscars will know who some of these people are - the Ann Roths and the Gary Rydstroms and the Rick Bakers and Sandy Powells, who we've seen win before. At least I do, and I love seeing them get their moment in the spotlight.

Plus, in recent years, the producers of the show have found ways of making these presentations interesting, most significantly when they attempt to explain what exactly these categories are and how these jobs affect the finished product. Give the "nobodies" their 30 seconds, I say - and, for God's sake, it's ONLY 30 SECONDS - they're the reason the "somebodies" look so brilliant and beautiful.

7. HIT THE ROAD, JACK!
While it was always a welcome sight to see a smiling Jack Nicholson at the Oscars, it seems that the fans have tired of him on the telecast.

This doesn't really bother me, other than wondering why he gets to go every year, even when he's not involved in any of the nominated films. He does seem more and more out of place, though.

8. AGE IS UNNCESSARY
Some fans are tired of the tribute to the older stars.

Has there been one of these since the Titanic year? I don't remember there being one since then. Or do they mean the Honorary Oscars? Seems like the next one is kind of similar, so I'll share my thoughts after that one.

9. AN ACHIEVEMENT AWARD THAT GOES ON FOR A LIFETIME
Other fans felt that the Lifetime Achievement Awards felt like a film school lesson. One filmgoer wrote:
”Do away with those stupid "lifetime achievement" Oscars. They seem to exist for the sole purpose of ensuring that every actor and filmmaker in existence will get an Oscar if they only live long enough.”

In my personal opinion, the above moviegoer does not need to be watching the Oscars to begin with. With all of the drama and heartbreak that goes with someone deserving not getting an award, I'm exceedingly glad that the Academy has found a way to honor excellent work that was either not appreciated in its time or overshadowed in the cultural context by another work. I for one think it's absolutely cruel that Peter O'Toole's performance in Lawrence of Arabia - possibly his greatest performance ever and best chance at an Oscar - had to compete against Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird - possibly his greatest performance ever. In a show where there can (usually) only be one winner, it's very sad to see a deserving nominee overlooked, even when the winner is also deserving.

And there are some types of artists who do work that is rarely recognized by the Oscars - people like Blake Edwards and Stanley Donen - who have contributed immeasurably to the enjoyment of moviegoing over the past several decades and just haven't happened to make a lot of Oscar-bait pictures.

10. LET THEM SPEAK
Many fans hate the orchestra music that cues the recipients of Oscars to get off-stage, and felt there shouldn't be such a stringent time-limit on the acceptance speeches.

Agreed that they shouldn't be played off - that is SO embarrassing. But it's hard to argue both for less strict time-limits on speeches and a shorter ceremony. :P

11. MORE DIVERSITY
Some fans feel that the nominations do not appropriately represent the diversity of the American scene.

*sigh* The comments to this one particularly tick me off, and of course the photo linked with it is from Brokeback Mountain, a movie which I wholeheartedly love but did not feel was the "Best" Picture in the year it was nominated. This is a sensitive area, obviously, but I think it's hard enough to sort through the better and best of a given year without also having to think about what political message it sends to nominate a film starring a white actor over a film starring a minority actor. Or a film about straight people over a film about gay people.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The Academy is not nine guys in a room somewhere, doling out kudos the way Supreme Court Justices dispense their interpretation of the Constitution. They are 6000 members of the filmmaking industry who are asked their opinions on what they feel are the best achievements of the year, and yes, there's a certain amount of favoritism. That's Hollywood, and that's why most people - including myself - have a healthy amount of skepticism about just how seriously to take these award shows.

To the author of the second comment ... the Oscars are not about people who "work just as hard." There are filmmakers and actors and crew members who work very, very hard on what turn out to be very bad movies. Good movies are, to a certain extent, the product of very good luck as much as very hard work. Great movies usually take more than hard work and talent. Just about all of them are only allowed to become Great because some miracle happened or the planets aligned a certain way or something. There is nothing fair about moviemaking, much less the awards bestowed on these endeavors. I will add, though, that - while I do think that racial minorities are horribly undervalued by awards shows - they are also still horribly undervalued by movies in general. I do wish there were more good roles for minorities - I'm not going to single out African-Americans - but I also don't want to see artists bound by the pressures of political correctness to play equalizers when they create roles.

12. MAKE IT RELEVANT TO YOUNGER MOVIEGOERS
Some moviegoers feel like the show appeals to an older crowd:
- "Their target audience is OLD. Any attempt of watching the Oscars would feel like a Friday night at my grammas nursing home...boring."
- "Make it more relevant and embrace the younger generation and cater to what we like to see. Like younger actors, edgier films that represent our lifestyles."

GRRRRRRR! Screw this item and the picture of the stars of Twilight that goes with it. There are NO WORDS for my hatred of this whinge. Oh wait, yes there are.

I'm so, so sorry that there is not an Oscar category for Outstanding Achievement in Youth Pandering, but there isn't. Allow me to let you in on a little secret. The Oscars are not about you. They are about the film industry. The members of the Academy all work in the industry in some aspect - writers, directors, editors, composers, costume designers, sound technicians, etc.. Most of them have forgotten more about what it takes to actually put a film together than you have any idea about.

I agree that the show itself could do better at appealing to a younger demographic, and they've tried - although not that hard, in my opinion - to include people that younger viewers will appreciate, by having folks like Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill present, for example. But the idea that there should be an Oscar campaign for Kristen Stewart just to appease the Twilight demographic is ludicrous.

13. WHY IS SHE SINGING MY SONG?
If the category of "Best Original Song" must stay on the show, then fans want to see the original singers of the film's nominated songs.

SERIOUSLY! I could not agree more. I understand it's not unprecedented for one person to perform all the nominated songs, but that don't make it right. If you can't get all the original artists together by a certain time, it's time to scrap the performances and just play clips of the songs, like you do in the acting categories. That saves time and "what the crap?" reactions from the audience.

14. WE WANT TINA
Tina Fey would be a popular host for future Oscars.

Word.

15. THE FAMILY HOUR
Many filmgoers would prefer to see family movies get a nomination -- and not just for Best Animated Feature.

To the first commenter, um, I'm pretty sure that they DO honor films like WALL-E. It's called the Animated Feature category.

Having said that, I agree that there should be a category for family films. I think I'd rather this be a category than the Animated Film category. That way Pixar films could be considered for Best Picture and stop utterly dominating the Animated Film category. :P Especially since Pixar films are getting more esoteric and geared less exclusively to children and families. Not that they're not family-oriented; just that they seem to have a larger artistic scope than your average animated/family film.

16. SUNDAY IS A SCHOOL-NIGHT; MOVE IT TO SATURDAY
Although Saturday night is known as a dead-zone for TV ratings, many viewers would prefer the show in that time-slot.

Nope. I miss when it used to be on Monday night, actually. Good Morning America used to devote two days - the day of and the day following - to the awards. On Monday they'd focus on the preparation and talk to people like chef Wolfgang Puck and give us a sneak peek at the Governor's Ball and all that. Then on Tuesday, they did what they do now, which is focus on the winners and the memorable moments.

I definitely veto the Saturday night option. Part of the fun of the Oscars is the water cooler conversation they inspire the next day. If you overdid it at an Oscar party the night before, you deal with it at work the next day, just like your grandpa did. It's a tradition, dammit.

17. ERADICATE CELEBIRTY BANTER
The fans apparently dislike the forced banter between mismatched celebrities, even if they're co-starring in a film together like Get Smart's Anne Hathaway and Steve Carell.

This one is a matter of planning. Here's a rule of thumb for the Oscar writers (yes, there are writers): take a look at the two people you're thinking about putting up on stage together. If you feel like you need to write banter for them, don't write banter for them. Write them something straight and boring - even if one or both of them is a comic actor - or just don't ask them to present (or at least don't ask them to present together). If it's someone that any idiot knows could write their own stuff and make Oscar gold - see Jack Black and Will Ferrell (the "Boring" song), or Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson (trying on costumes for Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings) - let them write their own stuff. But ask them to present their idea in advance, and reserve the right to veto if it seems inappropriate. Goodness knows, I don't want to hear a crack like Seth Rogen's cocaine joke about Mickey Rourke or Sacha Baron Cohen's gag about Guy Ritchie. It's the Oscars, folks - spontaneity is great, but show some respect.

18. NOMINATE FILMS THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY SEEN
The nominations for lesser-known films appears to be a big beef among Fandango fans.

GRRRRRRR, Part 2: Electric Boogaloo.

I vividly recall the morning after the Schindler's List Oscars in 1994. I was listening to the radio and they were having people call in to talk about the Oscars. This chick called in, complaining about how they never give the award to "good" movies. "They always give the award to boring movies, like that Schindler's List." The DJ was flabbergasted, especially as the girl had not even seen Schindler's List ("it just sounds like some boring movie I'd see at school or something.") Just ... dude.

The Oscars are not about the movies that are the most popular. If you want that, watch the People's Choice awards. To Mr. "don't give movies like No Country the award for Best Picture" ... um, so we should not give the Best Picture award to the best picture of the year? Look, I know some people are still pissed about Star Wars losing to Annie Hall, and E.T. losing to Gandhi, and any number of contested wins (don't get me started on the Marisa Tomei urban legend). I appeal again to the fact that the people who actually vote on these awards know a heck of a lot more about filmmaking than most of us do. Are they prone to hype and indie-lust? Sure. But just because no one has gone to see The English Patient doesn't mean it's not an incredible movie. It is, and if you haven't seen it, and a group of over 6000 people who work in the film industry decide that it's the best thing their industry has produced that year, then maybe - just maybe - YOU SHOULD CHECK IT OUT, YOU PHILISTINE!

Sorry, that just grinds my gears. Return of the King won Best Picture because it was an awesome movie, not because a lot of people went to see it. See more films, people. Netflix, if necessary, but just ... see them, man.

19. MORE IN MEMORIAM
Although Fandango received disparaging comments about aging stars and filmmakers trotted out live on the show, fans seem to be comfortable with the tribute to the deceased. When asked about the "In Memoriam" film clip tribute, 57% say it's an element that works well for the show.

Yes. Yes. Yes. There's obviously not time to do this for everyone that dies in a given year, but sometimes, if the deceased is particularly iconic and died some time in the past year, the show will give someone their own, individualized memorial clip. Back in 1999 (the Shakespeare in Love Oscars), there were three of these special segments - one for Frank Sinatra, one for Stanley Kubrick, and one for Roy Rogers and Gene Autry. And, if I remember correctly, none of those four individuals appeared in the regular In Memoriam segment. Host Whoopi Goldberg also gave a fairly lengthy shout-out (and symbolic "thumbs-up") that year to critic Gene Siskel.

If I were producing this year's show, I'd plan special segments for Charlton Heston, Sydney Pollock, and Paul Newman. I'd also want to find a way to memorialize Don LaFontaine, since a picture of him would not be as recognizable as his voice.

20. GET THE FANS INVOLVED:
One of the most common comments was that there's not enough fan interactivity with the show. Some ideas include:
- "Make it interactive so we can get more excited about the whole thing. Pull in LIVE video comments from viewers. Allow the viewing audience to participate or introduce a recipient."
- "Allow those who are throwing Oscar viewing parties to post notes about their parties on the Oscar website. Then people can see what's going on in our own town."
- "Telecast from another city outside of Los Angeles, especially when awarding the humanitarian awards to an actor -- you can focus on where they grew up."
- "More fan reaction to why they liked a winning film. Critiques by us, the people who buy the tickets. Who wouldn't want to be on the red carpet and meet all of the celebs - a Cinderella dream night?

I like all of the above ideas. Very much. Especially the first and last one. One of the biggest complaints - perhaps the biggest - about the ceremony every year is that it's so self-congratulatory. It would be AWESOME to try and figure out a way to involve what is undoubtedly the most important part of any movie - the people who show up to see it - in the Oscar ceremony.

I don't know how they'd orchestrate getting a regular audience member to present an award, but wouldn't that be awesome? Maybe have a contest - not a drawing, where any shmoe could win, but a submission process of some sort, where someone with an obvious love for movies could win - and give the winner the opportunity to present an award. And do the whole shebang - fly them out to LA, give them a sweet hotel room, get Vera Wang or someone to design a dress, and get them a ticket to the Governor's Ball and some of the after-parties. And don't pawn them off with presenting some technical award. Seriously. I think Mr. or Ms. Audience Member should get to present the biggie - Best Picture. Either with something written for them or something they wrote (preferably the latter). That could be such a great tonic to such a self-absorbed evening and remind the people who are being honored just how lucky they are to do what they do.


But of course, all these points will be moot if the Screen Actors Guild decides to boycott the Oscars this year. :P