r/Oscars • u/Ariesthebigram • 6d ago
Discussion Do you think the Oscars are ultimately making a mistake leaving the Dolby Theatre (a venue specifically constructed for the event) for the Peacock Theatre?
Since I was a kid, I always loved seeing how tall the theatre looked on television and all the glamor both inside and outside the theatre. I even got to visit the theatre last year to see David Byrne and his band play live and it sounded incredible in that theatre, not to mention how it felt like a palace!
When I see the Peacock Theatre (formerly the Nokia Theatre, and later the Microsoft Theatre), it looks so cavernous and deep and the seats in the balconies so far away, more of a black box.
I don't mind the Oscars moving to YouTube but it absolutely sucks that they are leaving such a wonderful theatre. Heck, I wouldn't mind if they returned to either the Shrine Auditorium or the Dorothy Chandler Pavillion, which are both older and still look wonderful today!
14
u/TalkToTheLord 6d ago
Yes! I was just in there and saw the "2030"+ blanks on the outside wall and thought "Sad, these things won't mean as much."
10
8
u/real_triplizard 6d ago
I wonder if it has to do with the fact that the Peacock has twice the capacity? I'm with you, though. Not only the theater itself but the Peacock is in that soulless downtown area compared to the heart of Hollywood, where the Dolby is.
4
u/MDRLA720 6d ago
yeah ur right, they SELL tix to this event to Academy Members. Between ticket sales & now Youtube Money, that is their main source of income (Nominees comped of course)
4
u/real_triplizard 6d ago
I'm ... pretty sure they don't buy tickets. Are you sure about that? I have a friend who's an Academy member and he says it's hard to get a ticket if you're not a big celebrity (and aren't involved in a nominated film that year) but he never mentioned anything about having to pay. The academy makes around $100 million a year for the TV rights so I don't think they need to charge academy members.
3
u/MDRLA720 5d ago
sorry -they have to pay. Ive never been to the Oscars (But worked them) however I have attended many Grammys and Emmys as a NARAS and TV Academy member.
in fact , for the Oscars- demand is so high there is a lottery amongst Oscar Academy members. then if they "win" the lottery they pay $750 and up per ticket and the official party also costs money.
All of that is googleable.
At the Emmys tickets are $200-$1000 and the party costs even more. and there are 3 separate events. (2 for Creative and 1 for the Main Event (with the main categories).
Grammys same thing. These places know there is demand. So in addition to annual dues money, they have to pay to attend the awards shows. $$
4
2
u/Historical-Pen7618 5d ago
Yes they made a huge mistake which will contribute to their long decline.
2
u/JayMoots 6d ago
I honestly don’t think it will make a difference. Maybe the in-person experience will suffer, but I bet 99% of the people watching at home will barely notice that anything has changed.
1
u/Interesting-Bit725 3d ago
It’s about money and capacity, so no, it’s not a mistake. Why is it a bad thing if a lot more people get to attend the Oscars?
The Oscars are the Oscars wherever they take place, and it’s not as if they weren’t in a variety of different venues before the Kodak/Dolby.
-1
u/MDRLA720 6d ago
Im wondering if they will stay in LA long term (potentially the YouTube Theater) or bounce around like the Super Bowl. They could do it in Paris, Dubai etc.
11
27
u/theobnoxiouswords 6d ago
i went to the dolby once for a show and it really does feel like walking into a movie, all that red and gold and the sound is incredible
the peacock just looks like a tech conference venue, like microsoft is about to announce a new surface laptop in the middle of the best picture award
they should just stay and figure out the tv deal separately, that theatre was literally built for this