Talk:85th Academy Awards

The Oscars

hello mai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.45.27 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Is it worth mentioning that this is the first time the organizers of the Academy Awards have actually referred to it as "The Oscars", all of the branding at Dolby Theatre said "The Oscars". Until now, they never officially been called anything other than the Academy Awards. Jedi.jesse (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Some branches vote in stages

for example the films listed in the makeup and short doc and visual effects have been voted finalists. Not all categories do this so best actor and best actress should not be in this section but in the different nominee section that will be posted the day of the nominations. Not now and not in the prelimary nomination section. Qwerty786 (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. --2nyte (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

some branches vote in stages and the academy releases the films that are voted finalists. There is no finalists in actor or actress like there are in Visial effects for example. Out of the finalists a certain number will be nominated.Qwerty786 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

But when are the names available? 20:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.75.217 (talk)

Sorry, those were only finalists for nominations. My bad. 82.141.75.217 (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

The nominees should be listed in alphabetical order. It looks like there are several nominees that are listed incorrectly, particularly in the Best Animated Feature category and in the Best Foreign Language Film Category. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

they were finalists not nominees Qwerty786 (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Your point is indeed correct. My mistake. But, my point still holds. Whether finalists or nominees, they still should have been listed in alphabetical order. The point is now moot, however, as the lists have since been rewritten with nominees only (no finalists). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Best Picture

Someone will need to add in the actual names of the nominees (i.e., the producers) of the films. I believe that the award (and the nominations) "technically" go to the producers, not to the films themselves. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I added them in. If someone can look it over and check for any mistakes, that would be great. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Photo

One editor feels that the photo of nominee Ang Lee should be removed. I feel that it should stay. Any consensus on this matter? You can review the edit summaries involving this issue. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel it should be removed, there is no reason why he is the only person out of more than fifty nominees that deserves a picture. Consider you are edit warring over something that is in fact recent (the addition of pictures to Academy Awards pages). This started at the 82nd ceremony, and has been applied since then after the winners are given, never before. The reason is as simple as there are multiple people nominated every year. And again, why Lee is the only picture used out of 5 nominees, and why we don't have actors, actreeses, musicians, editors, etc., images? Is this your opinion on Lee or Life of Pi, or a real reason? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I did not add the photo (some other editor did). Your premise is that we cannot add only one photo of one nominee, since there are many other nominees. Under your theory, when we have winners, we must post photos of all winners or no winners at all. Otherwise, it would imply that one person's award is more important than another person's award. Please address this inconsistency in your logic. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Example: In the 84th Academy Awards article, there are (at quick count) 39 award winners. Why are there only 7 photos posted? Are those 7 winners more important than the other 32 winners? According to your theory/logic, in the 84th Academy Awards article, we need to publish all 39 photos, or publish none at all. Correct? Or, if not, why is this page any different, with nominee photos? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I did not add the photo." but you still readding it, don't be ridiculous, please. And in fact, from last ceremony:

• The Artist – Thomas Langmann Y
• Michel Hazanavicius – The Artist Y
• Meryl Streep – The Iron Lady Y
• Jean Dujardin – The Artist Y
• Christopher Plummer – Beginners Y
• Octavia Spencer – The Help Y
• The Descendants – Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash from The Descendants by Kaui Hart Hemmings
• Midnight in Paris – Woody Allen
• A Separation (Iran) in Persian – Asghar Farhadi Y
• Undefeated – TJ Martin, Dan Lindsay, and Richard Middlemas
• Saving Face – Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy and Daniel Junge
• The Shore – Terry George and Oorlagh George
• The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore – William Joyce and Brandon Oldenburg
• The Artist – Ludovic Bource
• "Man or Muppet" from The Muppets – Bret McKenzie Y
• Hugo – Philip Stockton and Eugene Gearty
• Hugo – Tom Fleischman and John Midgley
• Hugo – Dante Ferretti and Francesca Lo Schiavo
• The Iron Lady – Mark Coulier and J. Roy Helland
• The Artist – Mark Bridges
• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter
• Hugo – Rob Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossmann, and Alex Henning

So according to you "my illogical" logic is wrong because you say so, and we should include 35 images to a short article to denote that all categories are as important as Best Picture. Also, we should include the images of Nat Faxon, Jim Rash, Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy and Robert Richardson, all of them people who won that year, becau... oh wait, we don't have images of them, but we should upload non-free ones to denote they are important as the eight persons who have them.

And of course, the inclusion of Ang Lee, one nominee out of more than 130 persons--that as now are included in the article, which is incomplete in the Best Picture, Best Documentary – Feature and Best Foreign Language Film--which seems to be much more neutral than in the last ceremonies. Or the comparison to a TBD ceremony v. past ceremonies, past v. future, so logical as well. Let me kill myself because I failed my logic exam this year. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Your reply does not address my issues, questions, or concerns. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither your anwser. Give a reason why Lee is more important than Michael Haneke, David O. Russell, Steven Spielberg or Benh Zeitlin, because your inclusion of Lee, and the exclusion of he other people gives this article that value. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a photo, for crying out loud. It was not added as a way of diminishing other nominees. That is something you are reading into it. --SubSeven (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If "[i]t's a photo, for crying out loud" is not your business then to comment about it. Also read Spadero comment at "Why are there only 7 photos posted [at 84th Academy Awards]? Are those 7 winners more important than the other 32 winners?" I am not implying things (can you prove it, otherwise it is a BLP violation to my persona), I am using his words to answer his questions. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• As a compromise, I have modified the picture caption for Ang Lee to mention the 11 total nominations of Life of Pi. I then added a picture of Spielberg, so now the images represent people who worked on the films getting the most nominations, not the Best Director nominees. Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course this is a fine thing to do regardless, but I don't think any compromise was necessary here. --SubSeven (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem are not the images per se. The problem was Spadero claiming impartiality by the exclusion of Lee image. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have a reason to believe he's not impartial, then out with it. The fact that he restored a photo of Ang Lee that someone else posted does not fit the bill. Lee is of course one of the most prominent people in this set of nominations (a former winner, and his film nominated 11 times). In addition, the nominations were only announced Thursday, so this article is clearly not in a finished state; things are being added all the time. If there is a photo of Lee, it doesn't mean another photo can't be added sometime as well. You are acting extremely irrationally. --SubSeven (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If there's a photo of a nominee for Best Director, then it's best to have not one, but at least two photos of nominees, because only one photo would kinda show favouritism, because Spielberg alone is a substantial presence anywhere. -Mardus (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Silver Linings Playbook

It's the first movie since 1981's Reds to get a nomination in every single acting category. Please mention this on the page. 207.255.135.158 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Added. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering this, perhaps the four actors should be the selection of photos used in the article rather than the two from Les Mis? Sorry if this is only adding the shit-storm above, I just thought it might be more agreeable with more people considering it's an achievement not seen for 22 years. Mc8755 (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction ... it's an achievement not seen for 32 years! (Well, actually, 31.) But, still ... quite a long time! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2013

Under the Best Animated Short Film section, Timothy Reckart's article is not linked (director of Head Over Heels) Timothy Reckart Rhondallama (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Longest Daycare

Does anyone know why this film (The Longest Daycare) is listed on the official AMPAS web site as Maggie Simpson in "The Longest Daycare"? See here: The Nominees – Recognizing the year's best films. As a result of this discrepancy, which title should we use here, for this article? Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleting the finalists

Because some branches vote in stages the article should reflect that. Qwerty786 (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Best Supporting Actor category

As far as I can tell, this is the first time that ALL five nominees in an acting category are previous Oscar winners (Arkin BSA 2006, de Niro BSA 1974/BA 1980, Hoffman BA 2005, Jones BSA 1993, Waltz BSA 2010). I haven't seen this reported anywhere however, but I thought it was interesting. Manning (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed listed in this article, in the "Achievements" section. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

First place tie in sound editing

I do not remember the last time there was a first place tie in an Oscar category before, but my last edit used the formatting that is used on the Emmy articles, such as 38th Daytime Emmy Awards#Hosting: A message saying "A first place tie was recorded in this category" is placed in italics, and both winners are listed in bold on separate bullet lines.[1] I notice that this formatting has been changed at least twice since then.[2][3] Any suggestions or consensus on how to format this is welcome, if this keeps on changing. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I found the other examples on the previous Oscars articles: Looks like on the current version of 41st Academy Awards#Winners, both Katharine Hepburn and Barbra Streisand are in bold, on two separate lines, without any footnote or explicitly message saying they tied for best actress. Likewise on 5th Academy Awards when Fredric March and Wallace Beery tied for best actor. I do not really care what formatting we use as long as there are no edit wars here. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this website, there are a couple more ties not mentioned. Not to say that this history is important to tonight's fine coverage.

http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/statistics/Gen-Ties.pdf

Wanderer57 (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Photos of the winners inside the table

Mardus (talk · contribs)moved pictures to the top of the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor and Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress sections and it looked goofy. HBKTimHBK (talk · contribs) undid this. I put them in right aligned like we do with main page sections, HBKTimHBK (talk · contribs) undid that with this edit. Why not include them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The pictures should go on the side, not inside the text. It looks silly otherwise, and not uniform for the rest of the Academy Awards. Keep it uniform. --HBKTimHBK —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I meant to improve the layout for smaller screen resolutions (1024x768, 800x600 and the like), because there's lots of white space below the photos and the table becomes rather tall with the photos to its right. I still prefer this option. -Mardus (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Mardus. It is better for lower res if we nest them inside the tables. The second way does not really look silly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

HBKT, why don't we put them inside the table and see if anyone other than you objects while we still have high viewership to this page. I am going to try putting the four major acting awards in and a few others. It is the same format as the main page so it can't be that silly looking.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It does look kinda silly. (Sorry.) But then again, I'm running at extremely high-res, so grain of salt. However, it doesn't match the 84 previous Oscar pages, which is a more relevant objection insofar as this page is part of a portal. Consistency is important. JFMorse (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep it uniform through all 85 years the Academy Awards have been going, unless you're in the mood to go back and make it uniform. I just removed them again, it looks better on the side or not at all. --HBKTimHBK 6:45 25 February 2013

Possible record

This may be the first time the top six awards have gone to six different films. I'm digging back to see, but if someone can confirm or deny that would save me some time. Manning (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, the same thing happened in 2006 Manning (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you referring to as the "top six" awards? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd assume Picture, Director, and the four acting awards. JFMorse (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had assumed that, too. But that would not be accurate. If indeed there were a "top six", surely the Writing awards would supersede the Supporting Acting awards. In other words, the Writing awards are "more important" (i.e., more of a "top" award) than are the supporting acting awards. So, if there were indeed a designation of "top six" (which there likely is not), they would encompass Best Picture, Director, Lead Actor, Lead Actress, Writing (Original), and Writing (Adapted). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Those six are actually very commonly known as the "Big Five" -- note that it is impossible for a single film to be nominated for both Writing (Original) and Writing (Adapted), whereas it is possible to be nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, and all four acting awards. JFMorse (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I understand both of your points. I know that there is a "Big Five" designation (in fact, I contributed heavily to that article in the past). And I also know that a single film cannot receive both Original and Adapted Writing awards. My point is that the "designation" of "top six" does not exist anywhere, at least that I know of. And, if indeed it did, writing awards are surely more of a "top" award than are supporting acting awards. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean "top six" in any formal sense (like the "Big Five") - I literally meant "the top six" as we have them listed in this article. Manning (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Presenters

The presenters list is now complete with one group exception. Witherspoon, Neeson, and Kidman (in that order) presented the Best Picture Nominees in sets of three at different points throughout the show, and I'm not altogether sure of the best way to present that, so if someone wants to take a stab at it... JFMorse (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No performance

Why is Aerosmith listed as performing. They weren't at the Oscars and didn't perform. I watched the whole show! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.139.3 (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

List and image order

Actors are historically listed on the left and actresses are listed on the right. Image order historically matches the list order. Let's please agree to keep the order the same and the images to match. Thanks! Mr.Atoz (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, there is no rulebook that states that the actors need to be listed on the left and the actress on the right. My primary concern was the images of the actors appearing before the actresses (Historically, yes. Is that sexist?, yes). My only intention is to keep them at par. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 06:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Historically and alphabetically, actor has been on the left and actress on the right. Males and females are on the same level. There is nothing sexist about the titles being in alphabetical order. Please wait for others to comment before reverting to your order preference. Mr.Atoz (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not unsympathetic to your position here, but the reality is that the very fact that you're taking a position of this nature makes this entire edit war a giant WP:NPOV tangle. You are making edits for the sole purpose of advancing an opinion about sexism, and the good intentions of that agenda aren't relevant to Wikipedia guidelines. An edit war is not the appropriate method of making the point. I might suggest that, in the interest of fairness, whichever gender is "first" in the list should come second in the images, but it needs to be discussed rather than incessantly reverted. JFMorse (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my original intention was to keep the listing table as is, and put the picture of the winning actress before the actor, which were reverted several times by Mr. Atoz. So according to your suggestion, I will change that. Mr. Atoz, please confirm that you won't revert it again. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 07:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That... is not exactly what I said. I said it needs to be discussed, and three people don't really constitute enough involved parties to reach a consensus on a project of this scale. At present, the appropriate thing to do is to follow prior art and leave it as is. If there's agreement that changing the method is appropriate -- which is a motion on which I'd lend you my support -- then for consistency and to establish precedent it really needs to be implemented across the board for all awards with separate awards for gender, not just applied to this page. JFMorse (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, right. Thank you. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 07:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the images inside the boxes. Thanks. Mr.Atoz (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Presenters list: order issues and a suggestion

Why on earth is the presenters list done in alphabetical order?? Aside from the issue that I think the show order is preferable, this isn't really alphabetical order and I don't see an easy way for it to be. The majority of presenters don't present alone, and so the list is ordered alphabetically by the earliest last name of each pairing or group. What the hell? The list doesn't have to be in the show order, but the current order is just a massive mess and we need something else. Anything else.

Also, can we add an extra column for notes on why, at least why when there is some significance attached? Best Actor is presented by the Best Actress winner the year before and vice versa. Special awards are often presented by someone significant in the life or career of the person getting the award and so on. Presenters are also often chosen based on their careers, so someone who has recently or most prominently done voice work may present the Best Animated Feature for example. Unless noted, this sort of significance gets lost as time passes and the presenters become known for other things.

I know that some of this information is available on other pages, but I think it should be available here as well. These sorts of traditions and significances change from year to year, particularly as the show uses who is presenting to shake up the show and make it more appealing to younger audiences, or to give it more gravitas. 76.171.22.113 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversy?

Resolved

 – OP:74.60.29.141 (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're going open a 'controversy' section for the "widely rumoured" [sic] James Bond tribute controversy, then a variety of other perceived "controversies" should be included (potentially, there are plenty). — Btw, please stick to US spelling, especially since the lead redundantly emphasizes: "...in the United States".  ~Thanks, ~E  17:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[modified:~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)]

Why is the background on the bond tribute in controversy? While it may have indeed been controversial, the article does not speak on this topic at all. Whatever controversy there was, I know nothing about when coming to the page and nothing about when leaving it. That is NOT good. The "Controversy" heading is the only thing that informs me that there was any controversy at all. The text does not explain what was controversial, why, when, among whom--nada. 76.171.22.113 (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: 007 (citation needed)

"...it was widely rumored... that Oscar producers would reunite the six actors who portrayed the legendary character."

-- Here's an excerpt from a credible media source, if someone cares to cite it in the article:

"Not even the highly anticipated James Bond film franchise tribute lived up to the hype. Shirley Bassey sure sold the theme from Goldfinger, but it was a far cry from the stage full of 007s we were initially promised until Pierce Brosnan turned down the reunion and the plan was reportedly scrapped last week."

www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/2013/02/24/oscars_2013_seth_macfarlane_underwhelms_as_host.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.23.78 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the point the original question was getting at was this: how is this in any way a "controversy"? That word has a meaning, and "gosh, we're disappointed that they couldn't pull together a reunion" doesn't quite apply. JFMorse (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the section header 'Controversy', and for the corrected spelling.  The only remaining problem from my perspective is the non-matter-of-fact presentation of this information; i.e.: "widely rumored" doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article (outside of a directly cited quote).  ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I gather that the so-called controversy was Pierce supposedly being the spoilsport whose hold-out decision singularly nixed this "promised" reunion (*007 fans wave angry fists at Brosnan*). I would have assumed that an entertainment reporter for a major newspaper was privy to backstage media information or a press release as her source -- contacting the reporter by email might clarify whether her statement was based on something more than hearsay or internet buzz. Not that I particularly care that the section has now been excised from the page, but the article quoted above does not use the phrase "widely rumored", so it's somewhat presumptuous for the page editor to declaratively assert that the event "was never going to happen" (tu quo, acknowledging that the burden of proof nonetheless rests upon the claimant who originally added that section to the page). ~ 172.162.109.212 (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

White space

Currently, there is a large amount of white-space (nearly 1/2 screen's worth on high-rez monitor) in the Films with multiple nominations and awards section.  This is due to the vertically stacked photos (see discussion above) and use of {{clear}}.  One possible solution would be to have some photos be horizontal; perhaps have photos relating to the "main" categories stacked to the right, with remainder in a gallery (or visa-versa).  Also, for some reason there are 3 blank spaces in the In Memoriam section before the bullet-list. ~Regards, ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps using {{multicol}} + {{multicol-break}} instead of {{Col-begin}} + {{Col-1-of-2}}, (etc.) would fix the 2nd problem (?) 74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that its unlocked, I attempted fix:  gallery for secondary award winners (unsuccessful).  Suggestions?  Am I the only one who sees about 30 lines of white-space?  ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Protection

Is it possible for semi-protection to be lifted early now that the awards are over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.251.152 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Every oscars deserves a big Criticism section

It gives oscars to mediocre films like Anna Karenina (I literally slept twice in the movie with plenty of sleep beforehand in the middle of the day) and it leaves out huge successes like The Hobbit just because they consider it it kitsch with their pretentious stance of "glamour".

I'm not saying to manufacture news, but be responsible and use logic and use the available respectable news sources that criticise it properly. --89.210.188.182 (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you use your own blog to vent out your feelings? Wikipedia is not a place for that. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 09:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A single article on the subject would be more than sufficient, because every year the criticisms are the same: The show is too long, the host sucks, so-and-so or such-and-such should or shouldn't have won, so-and-so's dress is inappropriate, the recipients exploit their mike time by making controversial and/or stupid comments, etc., etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, controversy is nothing new. Like for example, how did "Call Me Irresponsible" manage to win at the 36th Academy Awards rather than "More"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Add images of Heslov, Clooney, and Affleck?

They have free images of the producers of Argo. Why not adding them? --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Addition required

Under Achievement it is listed : Christoph Waltz became only the second actor to win two Oscars in the same category where the films were directed by the same person. The first was Dianne Wiest.

However , Walter Brennan won Best Supporting Actor three times - twice under the direction of William Wyler (Come and Get It | The Westerner) - thank you. Rhett B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.236.135 (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

First Lady "controversy"

I'm a bit puzzled by the section on Michelle Obama... Didn't Laura Bush also appear on the Oscars a few years back? Manning (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, during the 74th Academy Awards, Laura Bush appeared in a pre-recorded montage with among about 100 others, made by director Errol Morris, discussing the movies (see 74th Academy Awards#Special events). It did not have the same impact and significance as presenting a major Academy Award like Best Picture. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems like politically motivated nonsense to me, but then I'm not an American. Oh well, whatever. Manning (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Basically, the 'controversy' is that somebody in the entertainment or film industry should be the one to present this major award, not a political figure who has little or no experience in the entertainment field. A lot of Americans still like to keep politics separate from entertainment. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Zzyzx11 that sounds like your opinion... having such an opinion doesn't create a "controversy".... Bill Clinton presented at the Golden Globes... They can have whomever they want present an award.. no rules insist it be someone in the film industry. There really is no controversy other than that made up by right wing websites. 13:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanneraol (talk • contribs)

Why do you think I have the word "controversy" in quotes? It would probably be no different if Rush Limbaugh came on an ESPN show to inject his opinions on sports. Even though it may be the best intention of the show or production's producers, some Americans like to keep politics separate from entertainment, and make a big deal out of it -- especially if it is someone who is from the opposite party. After all, we live now in an age of American politics where the right wing gets crazy seeing someone from the left, and the left wing gets crazy seeing someone from the right. That is why some feel it is a "controversy". Had it been Ann Romney, do you seriously think left wing commentators would have stayed quiet? Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, the difference at the 70th Golden Globe Awards is that Clinton introduced Lincoln as one of the nominees for Best Picture -- a former president introducing a film about a former president. He was not a current political figure announcing the winner. Plus, the Golden Globes does not nearly get the amount of viewers as the Oscars does (or the publicity, especially when the Golden Globes are usually held on the same day as a January NFL playoff game, while the Oscars usually have the night all to themselves), so that is probably why the right wing did not make a fuss about it back then. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I had controversy in quotes cause this is one of those many things that are spun into made up controversies by the right-wing blososphere... Does ending with a Michelle Malkin quote really meet NPOV? Malkin is hardly a credible reporter and that quote is idiotic. And the left wing types would not have made as big a deal out of Ann Romney, they arent as good as making up "outrage" as the right is. Spanneraol (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Malkin is not a reporter, but instead a prominent right-wing conservative commentator, who presents an example of an opposing view, no matter how you or I think it is "idiotic". As per WP:NPOV, all significant views should be included. That should also include a prominent member of the right wing, who has been frequently written about, appeared on various TV shows, written books, and has been criticized also. So that makes her a notable voice, even if you disagree with her. I would prefer that we do not censor those comments, but instead leave it out in the open for all the world to see and have her comments, as one of the notable representatives of their 'different' way of thinking, speak for themselves, and have the readers make that judgement on their own. But it is quite obvious that we disagree on that, and with the view that left wing liberal commentators would not had been just as angry had Ann Romney been there instead. I also detect a heavy strong bias on your part, especially with the userboxes you currently have on your page. Therefore, (unless other people chime in to break this two-person, no consensus, conversation) I'm going to end my comments on this issue now before it spews into another politically, heated argument that I've seen on numerous talk page and WP:RD/H discussions elsewhere. In any case, all of this is probably recentism anyway. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As for the current version of the article, "controversy" has been replaced with "criticism" in the prose. However, the level 2 section header currently remains as "Controversies". This is consistent with the current format used on the Academy Award ceremony articles, so if it is changed, it may later get changed back unless there is consensus otherwise. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry...did Michelle Obama "inject her opinions" on politics during her presentation, Zzyzx? No, she didn't, and you know it. This was not a "controversy," except in the minds of the right wing fever swamp. Malkin and Rubin hate the president and the First Lady, and it shows in every word they write and say. 96.39.198.231 (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Brave won Best Animated feature.

Why is everyone reacting over Brave winning the Oscar? Was that of Wreck-it Ralph lost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.181.152 (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Additions to Performers list

Added Theron, Lawrence and Watts to the listing for We Saw Your Boobs as they recorded reactions to the song (clearly before broadcast: Lawrence is wearing a different outfit and Theron actually appears in stage only a minute or so later with a different hairstyle to dance with Channing Tatum). 68.146.52.234 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding AccessibilityDispute template

The list of nominees appears to be using a table for layout purposes, a violation of Wikipedia table inappropriate use guidelines for page layout. This would better be done as a list, similar to my edit to the 87th Academy Awards page. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Shatner and Sally Field

The performers list is missing William Shatner, despite his appearance throughout the opening segment (as Kirk, yet) and Sally Field who also participated. Technically we should include Jennifer Lawrence Naomi Watts and Charlize Theron on the "We Saw Your Boobs" segment, too, as they filmed pre-recorded reaction shots for the spoof, but they're only on screen for a few moments, as opposed to the substantial screen time Shatner and Field have. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2015 (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)

Mistake

Sorry I made a mistake including **When I Saw You in Arabic – Annemarie Jacir - it was not actually nominated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.194.41 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 85th 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/20130927212214/http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/25/tp-argo-takes-top-prize-in-closely-fought-race/ to http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/25/tp-argo-takes-top-prize-in-closely-fought-race/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515152338/http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Academy_Awards.pdf to http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Academy_Awards.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023131511/http://www.peoplestylewatch.com/people/stylewatch/package/redcarpet/0%2C%2C20658247%2C00.html to http://www.peoplestylewatch.com/people/stylewatch/package/redcarpet/0%2C%2C20658247%2C00.html

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)

Related awards ceremonies

@Birdienest81 & @Young English Actor: Would a template be helpful? We could quite easily throw together a navbox that lists “major award ceremonies in (music,) theater and film of YEAR”. That would ensure consistency, save crowded see also sections, and I’m pretty sure I could make it autofill each ceremony, so to put it on an article, you’d have to fill out nothing but the year (fingers crossed). — HTGS (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The Indian film which was nominated for 85th Academy Awards in Feb,2013

Which Indian film was nominated for 85th Academy awards in February 2013 first Devdas Second Life of Pi Si Three Idiots and forth Rowdy Rathore 2401:4900:4195:820E:0:1E:208A:9801 (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)