The status of the biggest night in cinema, the Oscars, is being questioned amidst the chaos created by the Los Angeles wildfires.
The fires, which started on the evening of January 7, 2025 in Pacific Palisades, have devastated the area, displacing tens of thousands of Southern California residents.
In response to the fires, Hollywood has canceled and postponed numerous events, from film premieres to awards ceremonies. Most recently, it was announced that voting for the Oscar nominations would be extended and the announcement delayed to a further date. In addition, the annual Oscar Nominee Luncheon has been canceled.
Given recent events in the state of Los Angeles, many are questioning the status of the Oscars telecast, which is currently set for March 2, 2025. Conversation around this topic gained traction online when U.K. tabloid newspaper The Sun published a story on their website this week. The story, which was labeled as an "Exclusive," claimed that the Oscars ceremony was on the verge of being canceled and that major stars Tom Hanks, Emma Stone, Meryl Streep and Steven Spielberg were aware of the situation. The piece went on to claim that the telecast would focus on support and fundraising.
This claim was refuted later on Tuesday by The Hollywood Reporter, which said it spoke with senior figures at the Academy, as well as individuals close to the stars who were listed, and can confirm that there are currently no plans to cancel the ceremony.
While the Oscars are still set to continue as usual, a debate has begun among some in the industry about whether the ceremony should commence. Horror author Stephen King took to Bluesky Wednesday to announce that he will not be voting this year and that the show should be canceled, citing that there should be "no glitz with Los Angeles on fire."
Hacks actress Jean Smart echoed a similar sentiment on her Instagram account. Smart asked that television networks should "seriously consider NOT televising" any awards ceremonies and instead donate the revenue they would have made to the victims of the fire and firefighters.
Marc Malkin, Senior Editor at Variety, provided another way to look at it. Malkin, during an appearance on KTLA 5, describes Hollywood as a "gig economy," and while the celebrities and television executives will not miss the money, others will. "Makeup artists, hairstylists, drivers, waiters," Malkin said. "They're all going to lose work."
Other entertainment journalists chimed in such as Erik Anderson, founder of AwardsWatch, who noted that awards shows do not generate revenue unless they air. This brought up the possibility of continuing to air the show and turning it into a fundraiser.
With the Oscars still around a month and a half away, there's still time for developments to continue. However, as of now, the 97th Academy Awards are still set to air on March 2, 2025. ~Ryan Donahue
Air the Oscar's, pay the staff donate remainder to fire victims, firefighters
How about that old saying among entertainers: "The show must go on." That means NO MATTER WHAT. I think making the show a fund raiser is fine, but the awards ceremony might also be a healing experience for stressed citizens of L.A. who might enjoy an opportunity for a little escapism.
It would seem like a conflict of interest in a way. If they do or do not show the Oscars and do some sort of fundraiser, wouldn't some of the money go to themselves? Weren't a lot of them victims of the disaster too? Then it becomes an ethical situation, should the celebs and other "rich" people request some of the funds to rebuild their mansions? Would the celebs pump in money for a fundraiser they are hosting which may also go to themselves? Should they donate when they too have lost so much? Imagine the fallout if "regular" people hear this because they will say that rich people shouldn't be entitled to receive financial assistance. Honestly, there's more than just wealthy celebs who live there, are they entitled to receive any benefits to rebuild? Everyone lost everything. Whether they are wealthy and have a 2nd home elsewhere or not, they still lost a lot. A LOT to think about.
Ethics? When have celebrities ever been troubled by conscience?