Jump to content
A Star Is Born
question

Should no-shows win at award ceremonies?

Should no-shows win at awards ceremonies?  

55 members have voted

  1. 1. Should no-shows win at awards ceremonies?

    • Yes
      29
    • No
      6
    • Depends
      20


Featured Posts

StrawberryBlond

I've been wondering this after seeing Ed fail to turn up at the Grammys for no reason other than he didn't want to (but still winning both awards he was nominated for). And then I found out that Oscar winners like Katharine Hepburn and Glenda Jackson didn't show up on the years that they won Best Actress and Woody Allen only showed up once (the year he wasn't even nominated) despite 24 nominations over the years and 4 wins. He claims he likes playing clarinet as part of a Monday night ensemble which would clash and once said that the whole concept of winning awards is silly. Then, on the other side of the coin, you've got low-brow ceremonies like the People's Choice Awards, which are rumored to refuse to give the award to the public-voted winner if they don't turn up, instead giving it to the nearest runner-up who did attend.

So, what do you think? Personally, I think it's ok for them to win as long as their reason for not attending is acceptable. If you're ill, that's 100% acceptable, as well as if you're going through bereavement, a tough break-up, or some kind of family troubles. Or, in Gaga's case, performing a concert date on the same night. But if you don't attend because you can't be bothered travelling to the ceremony or because you think the ceremony is meaningless, then no, I don't think you deserve wins. Maybe a nomination at the most as good art deserves to be recognised regardless of what the artist thinks of your institution. But allowing a person to win who not only refuses to show up for no good reason but in some cases, because they don't respect the notion of the ceremony just doesn't seem right to me. Not to mention, pointless. What I hate is when they don't even have the good grace to leave a thank you clip that gets televised, they just let a representative go up to collect it who doesn't even make a speech on their behalf. It's so impersonal and makes the moment really forgettable.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
BROSEIDON

I think it depends. If it’s for a good reason such as the artist being on tour, or the actor/director being in the middle of filming, then by all means let them be excused. They have a job to do and sometimes can’t work their schedule around all these different award ceremonies. But in the case of someone like Ed Sheeran who just didn’t feel like going, no, you shouldn’t get the award. There are plenty of people who take the time and go to these events and leave empty handed. But they’re going to award the douchebag who’d rather sit on the couch at home? Not ok in my book.

  • Like 1
  • YAAAS 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Future Lover

Yes, I even though it feels wrong they should still get the award. I wouldn't want to win an award knowing I only got it because somebody else wasn't there.

  • Like 3

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrazyMonster

They shouldn’t. In Ed’s case he shouldn’t have even won honestly.

Edited by CrazyMonster
‘If religion be the cause of disunity, then irreligion is surely to be preferred.’ ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jewels n Drugs

Im not sure how long they have the winners chosen before the ceremony but if i just decide to not go last minute then that shouldn't change who wins since the winners are already set in stone

oh look when you werent looking my motorcycle turned into a piano

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry

Yes. Denying an artist an award just because they didn't come on the night is completely superficial and surely completely defeats the purpose of having awards in the first place. Awards should be based on the quality of the work, plain and simple. How grateful somebody is shouldn't be taken into consideration. There's no credibility in that at all.

  • Like 8

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAMROD

Yes.

A no show shouldn't be how people are accounted for an award. Besides, many of these awarding show winners are only receiving dummy on stage and only receive their actual awards weeks later by courier. So that is not even a huge issue.

 

 

(ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ✧*:・゚ ♥ call me, beep me, if you wanna reach me ♥
  • Like 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
androiduser

Yes

The winner is selected prior to the award show and they can't just change the votes just because somebody didn't show up.

Some artists just aren't primarily interested in award shows, that's totally fine.

  • Like 3

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
androiduser
33 minutes ago, CrazyMonster said:

They shouldn’t. In Ed’s case he shouldn’t have even won honestly.

So what do you suggest they do? Open the envelope, check if the artist is present, and if not - what? Hand the award to Lady Gaga? :blink:

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pablo

Of course they should still receive it. It's the performance, music, talent, etc that earns the award, not physically being at the award shows.

 

It doesn't make good television to have big awards given to no shows, but that shouldn't be a factor  at all. 

Don't visit my profile

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
James Gibson

Of Course!

If the person won the voting or whatever method used to award, it's their prize. Choosing the nearest one because it'll attend it's dumb and breaks the whole concept of awarding the best or the most popular (according to each institution rules). Katharine Hepburn hated the concept of award shows and snubbed them, but that doesn't exclude the fact she was an extraordinary actress who deserved to be recognized by her work.

The thing with Ed Sheeran isn't because he didn't attend the ceremony and got pissed at Grammys because they didn't nominate him in the big categories he wanted. That was just a stuborn spoiled act of him. It was simply because his nominated songs seemed generic and bland in comparison to the other nominees. The artists' presence at the show doesn't have weight in their deservingness (which Ed didn't have).

Also, many people like to say bad things about the People's Choice Awards, but I believe they truly award the people who won the popular vote, but they only invite the winners to the ceremony and don't bother to invite the other ones since their ceremony aren't that hip anymore.

  • Like 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
TimisaMonster

Attendance shouldn't increase or decrease your chances of winning if you truly are giving awards based on earned value not ratings...some people have tours, emergencies, previous engagements, etc that doesn't allow them to be there live but I still enjoy when they send a "thank you vid" instead of the announcer just accepting on the person's behalf

 

  • Like 3

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ECORONA

Winning an award should be the result of hard work and talent, not wether you show up or not :excuseu:

I'm a soldier to my own emptyness, I am a winner.
  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
StrawberryBlond
17 hours ago, BROSEIDON said:

But in the case of someone like Ed Sheeran who just didn’t feel like going, no, you shouldn’t get the award. There are plenty of people who take the time and go to these events and leave empty handed. But they’re going to award the douchebag who’d rather sit on the couch at home? Not ok in my book.

Amen. If you've taken the time and effort to get the ceremony and genuinely want to win an award because you think it's an honour, you deserve the chance to win. If someone can't be bothered to go and doesn't give 2 hoots about the ceremony, then it's totally pointless to allow them to win as they won't care anyway. Thus, the award loses its meaning if it's not given to someone who appreciates it. It kinda boils down to: "If you don't give a s**t about us, we won't give a s**t about you." But once again, only in cases where there is no good reason for not showing up.

17 hours ago, Future Lover said:

Yes, I even though it feels wrong they should still get the award. I wouldn't want to win an award knowing I only got it because somebody else wasn't there.

I get what you're saying but wouldn't it annoy you even more if you kept losing out to someone who never even bothered showing up because they thought the ceremony was stupid, for example? If it keeps happening, no one's going to want to turn up if they have to go to all that effort of glamming up and travelling only to have it all thrown back in their face. That'll become the new things to do - when awards season comes around, stay at home because you'll probably have a better chance of winning that way!

17 hours ago, Jewels n Drugs said:

Im not sure how long they have the winners chosen before the ceremony but if i just decide to not go last minute then that shouldn't change who wins since the winners are already set in stone

That is a very good point. Replying to your invite is done very much in advance in many cases, though, sometimes even before voting begins, so we will have an idea in some cases. I wouldn't have as big a problem if it were a last minute thing. But the only reason why they should be allowed to win if they do cancel last minute is if they had to miss it because of a genuinely reason, not "can't be bothered."

17 hours ago, Harry said:

Yes. Denying an artist an award just because they didn't come on the night is completely superficial and surely completely defeats the purpose of having awards in the first place. Awards should be based on the quality of the work, plain and simple. How grateful somebody is shouldn't be taken into consideration. There's no credibility in that at all.

But the whole purpose of awards shows is to watch the winner's reaction when they win (or lose), see them walking up to the stage, accept their award and give a speech. This 4 step plan is what has given us memorable moments like Taylor and her team's reaction to thinking Red had won AOTY, Jennifer Lawrence tripping up the stairs and Gwyneth Paltrow's toe-curlingly cringey acceptance speech. It's what gives the awards character, humanity and makes them remembered for years to come. We won't remember the year that a no-show won with their static image on the screen and a representative went up and said "They couldn't be here tonight, so I accept this award on their behalf." That's boring as hell and would make me want to switch off if it becomes all too common and the absentee wins more than one award that night. As I said before, a nomination is fine, that in itself is an acknowledgement that you're good enough out of all the other talent out there, hence the phrase: "It's an honour to even be nominated against all this amazing competition." But to win when you don't respect the ceremony just doesn't seem right.

17 hours ago, RAMROD said:

Besides, many of these awarding show winners are only receiving dummy on stage and only receive their actual awards weeks later by courier. So that is not even a huge issue.

True, but we know they'll be getting the real award later on, so it makes no difference to me. It looks like the real thing and we don't even think about it being a blank statuette.

17 hours ago, androiduser said:

So what do you suggest they do? Open the envelope, check if the artist is present, and if not - what? Hand the award to Lady Gaga? :blink:

No, that they would know who was and wasn't attending beforehand and dish out the awards accordingly. If someone cancels at the last minute for a good reason, they should be allowed to win. But if they decide they just can't be bothered, give it to the second most popular nominee (you can find this stuff out at the click of a button, it's not like finding it out will take days or weeks, they can find out on the night). I'd really like to know who was the second most popular in the categories that Ed won. It'll also be interesting to see if he ever gets nominated again and if it results in a win, whether he attends or not.

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry
1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

But the whole purpose of awards shows is to watch the winner's reaction when they win (or lose), see them walking up to the stage, accept their award and give a speech. This 4 step plan is what has given us memorable moments like Taylor and her team's reaction to thinking Red had won AOTY, Jennifer Lawrence tripping up the stairs and Gwyneth Paltrow's toe-curlingly cringey acceptance speech. It's what gives the awards character, humanity and makes them remembered for years to come. We won't remember the year that a no-show won with their static image on the screen and a representative went up and said "They couldn't be here tonight, so I accept this award on their behalf." That's boring as hell and would make me want to switch off if it becomes all too common and the absentee wins more than one award that night. As I said before, a nomination is fine, that in itself is an acknowledgement that you're good enough out of all the other talent out there, hence the phrase: "It's an honour to even be nominated against all this amazing competition." But to win when you don't respect the ceremony just doesn't seem right.

So you don't think recipients of accolades and acclaim should be decided based solely on the merit of the work alone? You think it should be down to superficial reasons and potential for "moments"? I find it bizarre that you deem yourself a music critic that takes music seriously but then claim you'd rather the criteria for awards be based on who will provide the most buzzworthy moment. I think that maybe speaks volumes on your willingness to be objective when it comes to giving critiques, no?

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×