Why wasn’t Joan Rivers included in the In Memoriam segment at the Oscars?

Joan Rivers
Joan Rivers was noticeably absent from the In Memoriam Powerpoint reel at Sunday’s Academy Awards, as was fellow comedian and Broadway actress Elaine Stritch. Rivers seemed like a particularly egregious snub, because she originated and popularized red carpet fashion commentary, and was a staple on the Oscars carpet for nearly two decades.

There have been many theories as to why Rivers wasn’t included while so many other lesser-known people working behind the scenes were. I tend to think that Joan’s “bitchy outsider” status followed her in death and that she was somewhat deliberately, pointedly ignored. Time Magazine says it’s political, of course, but they claim it’s not just about Joan not being a member of the Academy or daring to criticize people in power. Time points us to the NY Times article from a few years ago that describes how hard it is to advocate that a deceased family member or friend be honored at the Oscars. It involves actual campaigning, and there’s no way to know who decides or what the process is for deciding, because it’s all clouded in secrecy. They make it sound like a secret society. Here’s Time explaining this:

An Academy spokesperson told The Hollywood Reporter that yes, Rivers was one of the many people who must be left out in any given year, but that she was included in a remembrance gallery on the Oscars website. However, Rivers (like Elaine Stritch, another comedian who was missed by many viewers) is also absent from the official Academy list of members who died in 2014. Though Rivers, who was better known for her TV work than for film roles, had plenty of big-screen credits, from Space Balls to The Smurfs, Academy membership is not automatic, so it’s entirely possible that she was not part of the group; there is no official, public list of members.

Still, an in-depth 2013 investigation by the New York Times into what goes into the making of the Oscars memorial reel — which has been a feature of the telecast since 1994 — revealed that inclusion or exclusion from the montage is not so simple as “members in, non-members out.”

For one thing, non-members are eligible for inclusion, though positive involvement with the organization always helps. (Some conspiracy theorists guessed that Rivers’ acid tongue on the red carpet might have tipped the scales against her.) For another, it’s clear that, though the committee that makes the calls is anonymous, even death isn’t the end of the Hollywood publicity race. Attempting to get a client onto that list can be the last act of PR goodwill for many a publicist.

In fact, that publicity race suggests one possible reason for the exclusion of a major name like Rivers or Stritch. The family and friends of a lesser-known Academy member may push hard to get their loved one on the memorial list, but those who speak for the most famous of the dead are less likely to think a campaign is necessary. It’s only on Oscars night that they learn the extra push might have helped.

[From Time]

This is yet another example of how insular and out of touch the Academy Awards are. The broadcast runs an hour and half to two hours too long, the jokes are tired and stale, and it’s a very white, old, privileged, insider club. If they don’t care about the ratings for the Oscars they can continue to produce this tired sh*t in which the politics overshadow the show, the nominees and the films. They’ve shown for years that they’re unwilling to change much other than switch out the hosts every year, to mixed success. (Billy Crystal hosted as recently as 2012 for God’s sake.) Less and less people are watching every year and this year had the lowest ratings in six years. That’s not due to Neil Patrick Harris by any stretch, it’s just the nature of the Oscars. They can’t even spare 3 seconds to honor the death of a comedian who brought them years of free publicity. If this wasn’t my job I would have watched the show the next day and fast forwarded through 3/4 of it. I absolutely love movies and celebrities, but even I find the Oscars tedious.

Joan’s daughter, Melissa, is reportedly hurt by the omission of her mom, but she issued a nice statement anyway. She wrote “It would have been nice, especially considering the impact she had on the awards season, but Cooperand I have been overwhelmed with support and love over my mom’s passing and we choose to focus on that.” Melissa also made a video tribute to her mom, which aired on E! before their red carpet coverage. You can see it here, it’s touching.

RIP Joan, we all remember you. Those stuffy a*holes tried to snub you, but we noticed. We won’t forget you.

Joan Rivers

2014 NBCUniversal Upfronts

Photo credit: WENN.com and Mashable

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

98 Responses to “Why wasn’t Joan Rivers included in the In Memoriam segment at the Oscars?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Christin says:

    I am still questioning why Andy Griffith was omitted the year after his death. He was best known for TV, but did stage and some memorable movie roles.

    Sounds like they just do as they wish with no accountability. And having to lobby for inclusion? Ridiculous.

    • Kiddo says:

      He was PHENOMENAL in Elia Kazan’s A face in the Crowd:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Face_in_the_Crowd_%28film%29
      Definitely not your nice guy role and the premise still rings true today. If you haven’t seen it, you should. I saw it within the last year or so and was astonished by his acting.

      • Christin says:

        Probably one of the most underrated performances in film, IMO.

      • Kiddo says:

        I agree. I had never heard of it before. But he took you on a ride, drawing you in with that charisma and wide smile, and then boom…He owned that character.

      • Christin says:

        Kiddo, I need to watch it again. I have seen all but a few minutes of it.

        Patricia Neal did theatre just up the road from my hometown, along with Ernie Borgnine and a slew of others who later made it big. And, she helped fund a stroke rehabilitation center in her hometown that serves the region and beyond.

        Andy’s hometown is just a couple of hours away, so both lead actors are people for whom I feel a soft spot. Loved seeing them act so well, together.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Accountability? Accountability to who? They aren’t a public service. They aren’t responsible for the public good. This is an organization that hosts an awards show to honor their members. The public can agree or disagree with their choices, but ultimately they are putting this show on for themselves. If it was just about the public, there would be no technical awards, even though that is a big part of movie making.

      • Christin says:

        Then why televise it, seek sponsors, change up hosts based on public feedback, etc.? I’m no fan or blind believer in how they operate, which is why I don’t tune in.

        But to have to lobby to get a person into the in memorium portion is OTT ridiculous to me.

  2. paola says:

    I don’t think the Academy was a big fan of Joan Rivers. She used to make fun of the same people that the Academy idolizes.
    And as much as wrong this is, I think she belonged more to the tv category. She’ll probably be mentioned during the Emmys.

    • denisemich says:

      +1. She didn’t make a significant contribution to the world of motion pictures. She was on TV and did the Red Carpet at Events.

      They hated her contribution to Red Carpet so much they waited until she died to start a campaign against “what are you wearing”.

      • bette says:

        She directed “Rabbit Test” a comedy from the 1970s with Billy Crystal. She was in enough film to warrant a memorium tribute. I agree that she probably put out a lot of celebrities

        They should make the memorium longer and cut out the songs or make a song montage. They give more time to the songs of the movies and only show a 30 second movie clip of the actual nominated movie–this always irked me, it’s not the grammys.

      • denisemich says:

        Joan had two motion pictures. IMO that is not significant. However, I do think Elaine Stritch should have been honored.

        Also, i think they feel the Emmy’s montage Joan and Tony’s for Elaine. This is where each made significant contributions.

      • Kay V says:

        I thought the phrase was “who are you wearing?”… Either way, the oscars are such a colossal bore, they should kiss the ground Joan Rivers walked on. She saved that show from oblivion & gave folks something to look forward too. “The Academy” is so politically motivated, it takes away from the intention of the ceremony.

    • Maria A. says:

      Yep, considering that they didn’t salute Andy Griffith even though he was in Face in the Crowd, a truly important satirical film, I don’t understand all the fuss over Joan Rivers. Cinema was not her field of main endeavor, more like television was, and that is where they made the call not to include her. If she had done more than two films and in significant films, she might have been included, but let’s face it: she wouldn’t have belonged in the Oscar montage, not the way Andy Griffith did.

  3. LadyMTL says:

    It is really shit*ty of them, because not only was she a pioneer in terms of red-carpet “season” but she also was an actress and even directed a movie in the late 1970’s. It does smack of politics, and that makes me angry. Joan Rivers might not have been everyone’s cup of tea but she at least deserved to be included in the segment.

  4. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    That’s really inexcusable. Melissa’s response was perfect. I admire her for focusing on the positive and truly honoring her mother.

  5. Amy says:

    So basically all of Hollywood is nothing but campaining and ass-kissing. Got it.

    Silly me, I thought they actually just honored those that passed away. Didn’t realize each missing name was someone not failing to leave a satisfactory offering to the Academy gods.

  6. NewWester says:

    Hopefully, on the site can correct me if I am wrong. But the Oscars after Farrah Fawcett and Micheal Jackson died wasn’t there some uproar about Micheal Jackson being in the in memoriam segment and leaving Farrah Fawcett out? The Oscars can make time for a host to make lame jokes but not spare a minute to post a pic of a loved celebrity? Weird

    • Kiki04 says:

      I agree! They could have done without Jennifer Hudson singing AFTER the montage and use that time to include more people like Joan. Or good heavens, take time away from that stupid lock box.

      Joan meant so much to the Oscars, leaving out the fact that she actually was in movies, that I think it’s really sad they left her out. But it’s the Oscars, nothing they do makes sense.

      • jane16 says:

        “Joan meant so much to the Oscars…” I honestly do not understand this at all. The Oscars are supposed to be about excellence in movie making. I agree they should make the memoriam section longer, and cut out a song or something, but they don’t usually include the names of everyone who had small roles in a movie. She was known as a tv comedienne and covered the oscars for her snarky show on E. I think it would be more fitting for the Emmy’s to mention her.

        As for the wretched Oscars, this is the first year in years that my husband & I chose to not be bothered with them. We usually have to go to a viewing party, or give one, but we took the year off (so did a lot of other people we know) and it was wonderful! Were they as bad as I’ve heard?

    • lucy2 says:

      This happens with at least 1 celebrity every year, and the Oscars always respond that there “just wasn’t time” to honor everyone. Bull. The show is like 4 hours long, they always have time for stupid bits, some presenters take FOREVER (Sean Penn) to read the winner’s name, and they can’t add a few more seconds to the tribute to include people?

  7. Insomniac says:

    People have to campaign for that too? FFS, it really doesn’t ever stop, does it?

  8. Louise177 says:

    I know I’m in the minority but I don’t think Joan deserved to be in the In Memoriam. She had a couple of movie roles but she’s primarily a tv person. True she made the redcarpet but I don’t think that’s enough. A lot of people are angry that less famous people are in but a cinematographer or costume designer usually have been in the business for years and did amazing work in their field.

    • jen2 says:

      I have to agree. She does the same for all entertainment, not just movies, so it is not specific to one area. So, in essence, she would be in all the in memoriaum segments, but I think she belongs in the TV one more appropriately than the one for films as it is a TV show and her work was primarily in TV. But they do need better criteria if they included Michael Jackson. It seems rather arbitrary.

    • Pandy says:

      I would agree with you BUT – and there is a BUT – I saw one of the memorials listed a gentlemen (no name recognition) with the profession of “marketing executive”. So, not in front of a camera AT ALL. How was HE included???

      • Diana B says:

        Pandy, there were several marketing excutives. If they do marketing for movies it is still the business of movies so that makes sense.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Just because a person isn’t on camera doesn’t mean they didn’t contribute greatly to the film industry or aren’t a member of the Academy!!!

    • Dawn says:

      I agree that Joan should have been left out as she worked in television and stand up and I really don’t recall Joan having anything more than a cameo in a movie and those were far and in-between. The Academy does include those who worked behind the scenes in movies, the cameraman, the sound engineers, makeup artists, writers, producers and so forth and I too often feel they leave some very important people out that the public new and loved such as Andy Griffin and now Joan. Now if the Emmys would leave her out, that I would be pissed at but not the Academy Awards.

    • jane16 says:

      Agree with you Louise 100%. The Oscars are supposed to be about acknowledging excellence in film. Of course a wonderful cinematographer or costume designer would be there.

      • UncleBob says:

        The Oscars are nothing more than platform for additional marketing. They have nothing to do with excellence, it’s all about who has the best publicity base and can get the most votes out of the 6000 academy members. It is all about the politics of the Motion picture business not about the art of Cinema. Even the SAG and Globes are about the most popular trends not about excellence or art.

      • jane16 says:

        Uncle Bob, if what you’re saying is true, then why aren’t all the nominees the big blockbuster films, the ones that make all the money, and have the big names and big studios to ram their movies down our throats? By far, the greatest percentage of movies honored with Oscar noms are the little small budget art films. They clearly don’t have the “best publicity base” as the average person has never even heard of most of them.

    • tracking says:

      Yes, I also agree with you, Louise. Her contributions were primarily to tv. If she were an AMPAS member I’d feel differently.

    • lisa says:

      ita, i dont see it as a snub at all

  9. Ally8 says:

    NPH sure reduced my interest in watching. Guy is stiff and charmless with an unpleasant voice. That and a good Downton Abbey episode over on PBS.

    If the Academy doesn’t see fit to celebrate Joan Rivers, the fashion world certainly should. She generated a whole industry (including extra money and swag for actresses/actors shilling on the red carpet).

  10. Luca76 says:

    Well I remember they deliberately kept ‘A Piece of Work’ from being nominated on some technicality when everyone thought it was one of the best documentaries of the year so I don’t find that surprising.

    • Tulip Garden says:

      Great documentary!

    • Luca76 says:

      I also just remembered (because it’s way before my time) Johnny Carson was the perennial Oscar host for years. I wonder if anyone in his inner circle is still around at the Academy and keeping that grudge going? It took decades for her to be allowed back on NBC after all.

      • Ally8 says:

        That whole Johnny Carson grudge thing makes me so angry. Like if the situation was reversed, and he had been subbing and was then offered his own show, he wouldn’t have taken it? But the little woman should always be grateful, subservient and shelve her ambitions to serve a dude. What a petty jerk. It’s my favorite thing about Jimmy Fallon that he buried that dumb hatchet before she died; I think it meant a lot to her.

        Here’s Joan Rivers’ quote about the extent of the double standard:
        “Everybody left the show to go to do their own shows. Bill Cosby. David Brenner. George Carlin. Everybody. I stuck around for 18 years. And they finally offered me my own late-night show. The first person I called was Johnny, and he hung up on me — and never, ever spoke to me again.”

  11. LAK says:

    I think it will be more egregious if she’s left off the Emmys because she was primarily TV person and only dipped a toe in films.

    I think they shouldn’t have left off Elaine Stitch since she was an established acting career to go with her comedy career.

    On a different note, I was looking out for Bob Hoskins because he was left off the BAFTAS list which is incredibly egregious and stupid, but I guess he wasn’t popular so no one raised merry hell for it.

  12. msd says:

    Meh. Emmys, sure but she didn’t do anything much film-wise. Constantly fat shaming and slut shaming actresses doesn’t count. They’ve left out far more deserving people than her in past years.

  13. Jessica says:

    Meh, she didn’t create the spectacle of red carpet fashion, she just popularized the unfortunate trend of tearing into actress’s looks like it was sport. Red carpets were much more enjoyable before she came on the scene, there were commentators before her, but they were people who actually knew fashion and enjoyed it. Now we’ve just got a bunch of loud-mouths who make a living calling beautiful celebrities ugly and fat.

    I quite enjoyed her stand-up, but she brought nothing but relentless negativity and meanness to the Oscars. She wasn’t an Academy member, so they were under no obligation to feature her (it’s not a tribute to famous people who died, it’s a tribute to Academy members who died). Given she said some awful things about most celebrities who’ve walked a red carpet, of course they weren’t going to go out of their way to feature her, especially with the whole #askhermore thing happening. Joan was a big part of the reason red carpet interviews got dumber and more and more seeped with judgement every year.

    • vauvert says:

      I agree. I know most gossip sites liked her but I never did, it’s one thing for us private folks to comment on a celeb blog that only the “regulars” will read and quite another to say mean, rude, nasty things about the celebs on tv, quite often in their face, while desperately trying to belong to the A list club. And the way she dragged her daughter into the business… I mean sure nepotism works in every industry, but she couldn’t be happy with introducing Melissa to any kind of job, no, she had to make her a tv host? Most of the women walking that red carpet had earned the right (not talking about SOs) to be there through hard work. Making fun of their gowns and hair and weight – sorry but I don’t find that admirable or worthy of an inclusion in the Oscars.

    • Judy says:

      @Jessica, so true. Red carpets and ogling the Oscar attendees for fashion existed decades before Joan came on the scene. She popularized the mean spirited attacks though. I don’t think she deserved to be there at all. Elaine Stritch was an actress with credentials however, I wonder if she was a member. That said, the Oscars are so over. It’s propensity for elevating crap over substance is what’s doing it in.

  14. maeliz says:

    ! don’t watch award shows anymore, but I still watched Joan Rivers on the red carpet and Fashion Police. She deserved being in the Memoriam. She was a part of the shows that people enjoyed. Her death was tragic, and she’ll be remembered

  15. Tippy says:

    This is just another example of the Academy’s seedy underbelly.

    Once you scratch through their “Everything is Awesome…” facade they’re really quite corrupt and ruthless.

  16. tifzlan says:

    Honestly, she wasn’t that great of a person. She was mean spirited and always negative, and it wasn’t even just her red carpet commentary.

    • Tulip Garden says:

      …well, that’s not a requirement for the Academy, I bet😜

      • tifzlan says:

        Well, i’m not referring to that. Just referring to all the comments i’ve seen since she passed, talking about what a great person she is. I understand pioneering female comedians but let’s be honest. She was a terrible person, E! Fashion Police or not. She made a lot of terrible “jokes” including racist jokes and even a rape joke once. I just don’t understand how/why people stan for her so much.

    • paola says:

      Oh no. That’s not true. I’ve heard many people say how much her ‘meanness’ was just a shtick in front of the camera and behind it she was the most loving, generous and selfless person they ever met.
      She was honest and upfront. Sometimes too much yes but she made friends with the 99% of the people she made fun of. She was incredibly self conscious and used to make fun of herself too. And if I’m honest every time she said something nasty about celebrities i found myself agreeing with her. She always made fun of clothes, surgical enhancements or life style choices and never about color or body shape of the celebrities.
      Her daughter Melissa is the trure testament of her legacy. She raised a daughter with a head well adjusted on her shoulders and even now that Joan has died, Melissa is not in any way a famew-ore. I’d be raging if my mother wasn’t mentioned in the Oscars memorial tribute.. but Melissa kept it classy focusing on the positive.
      They both are people to admire.

      • tifzlan says:

        Um, she’s made plenty of racist jokes and jokes at the expense of women that go beyond the cut of their dress or its color. Some weren’t even jokes, i don’t think. Just general remarks she gave to paparazzi, etc. So.

      • Ginger says:

        I’ve heard from people on the inside how much they loved Joan and how generous she was. I unfortunately have NOT heard good things about Melissa. But this is heresay. I cannot attest to it myself. On the outside at least, she seems to have been very gracious during all of this after her mothers death.

      • lucy2 says:

        I always heard she was very generous to the people in her life, but I agree her comedy was often mean spirited. After watching her documentary I have respect for what she had to fight through for her career, but I wouldn’t say that I always enjoyed her work.

        I only ever watched Fashion Police after big award shows, but more than a few times I saw her comment on a woman’s size in a negative way.

    • Luca76 says:

      @Tifzlan you are right about her mean spiritless but think of Don Rickles he is just as mean and he has gotten so much less heat over the years. Mostly because he is a man also because Joan pissed off Johnny Carson.

      • tifzlan says:

        I don’t know who Don Rickles is, sorry, so i can’t really comment on that. Like i said, i understand that she’s a pioneer of female comedians but she never gets called out for the crazy stuff she says. People stan so hard for her.

      • Div says:

        I respect that Joan was a charitable, pioneering woman in comedy, but she crossed the line many times even for a comedian…especially in the 2000s. People give her a pass because other comedians were offensive, but often those comedians did it 30 years ago when people were less conscious of how wrong certain things are. There’s a difference between being mean and being racist, and because she’s passed we gloss over the latter. Her comments about Michelle Obama and President Obama were not only incredibly racist but homophobic. Not to mention her appalling comments on Palestine. I also distinctly remember some horrid comment on Jolie’s children. Don Rickles was offensive, but not nearly as bad as calling the First Lady a man and tranny like Joan did. As a WOC, there are big racial implications to calling us “men” and tranny is an awful term. I’m sure at her age she knew the racial implications, too, and this wasn’t a case of some person accidentally saying something they didn’t know was racist as she had a long history of doing it.

        I am way more appalled at Elaine Strict being omitted. Also, Joan was a figure on TV so it makes more sense for her to be honored at the Emmys than the Oscars which are for cinematographers, etc.

      • Luca76 says:

        Don Rickles is a comedian of the same generation as Joan that is infamous for his borderline racist jokes and who trashed everyone.
        He’s pretty much considered a legend and when he dies I’m positive it will be big news and he will almost certainly get a mention by the Academy.
        As a note I don’t adore her comedy, she rightly got out for her racist and sexist jokes but I have respect for what she did. She is a pioneer and there wouldn’t be a Tina Fey or an Amy Poehler without Joan Rivers.

        Seriously watch A Piece of Work and you will have a different appreciation for what reason Joan Rivers is important.

      • Tulip Garden says:

        @Luca,
        I agree that a Piece of Work really can impact how Rivers is viewed. I came away with a newfound respect for how hard she worked to get where she was. While I definately found her offensive at times, I believe that was more of a shtick than anything else.

    • Pandy says:

      That’s not fair. She did a lot of charitable work. She was no meaner than Don Rickles (I also adored his comedy), who was known as the King of Mean. And he was. That was her stage persona, how she made her living. And she was hilarious.

    • jwoolman says:

      Joan was a risk-taker, not a safe comedian like Bob Hope and Johnny Carson. The risk-takers can have brilliant moments but also grand flops. I liked her even though I didn’t laugh at everything she said. But it was like missing a bus – just wait, and another one will come along.

  17. MrsBPitt says:

    This was the first year that I didn’t watch the Oscars…It had nothing to do with NPH…I ususally love him (although, I’ve read reviews saying he was a pretty bad host). No, I didn’t watch because, it seems every year, the academy chooses movies that are more and more obscure. I bought Birdman, but haven’t watched it yet. I bought it, BECAUSE IT WASN’T PLAYING IN ANY MOVIE THEATERS NEAR ME…Neither were most of the best picture nominees. I hadn’t even heard of Boyhood, until close to Oscar time, and I’m pretty on top of movies (at least, I thought so). The Imitation Game looked boring as hell (and again,not in many theaters). I did see The Grand Budapest Hotel. I thought it was ok, nothing special, and not in many theaters. I saw American Sniper, because my husband wanted to see it. Nothing special, in my opinion (Clint Eastwood needs to retire). I had no interest in The Theory of Everything and don’t know one person who actuallly saw it. Never heard Whiplash until Oscars season, and again, don’t know one person who saw it…anyway…I could go on, but I won’t.

    If the Academy wants to choose these rather obscure movies, that are hardly playing in any theaters and that none of the movie AUDIENCES have seen, then perhaps, they shouldn’t televise their ass-kissing event to the public…have a private awards dinner and just announce the winners later.

    Oh, and Joan should def been included in the memoriam….she did the red carpet event AT THE OSCARS every year…most of the time, Joan was one of the best parts of that self-indulgent, aren’t we the most important and beautiful people in the world show!!!

    • Ginger says:

      I only saw one of the films this year as well. (The Grand Budapest Hotel because I love Wes Anderson films) My friend and I were talking about the movies yesterday and she hasn’t seen any of the films that were nominated. I think we are probably in the majority. This definitely makes it seem more and more like an exclusive club.

    • lucy2 says:

      I only saw the Grand Budapest Hotel (loved it) and recently Birdman, right before it left the theaters. This year there were a lot of smaller films, but in both 2013 and 2014, there were several larger budget, mainstream hits. I think it’s always going to vary year to year, and a lot of it depends on timing – if something is released before awards season, it won’t benefit much from the nominations, but if it’s released at the right time, it can get a good sized bump at the box office once the awards publicity starts.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I think an award show dedicated to commercial success over quality of film making may have a place…but a ceremony focusing on the quality of filmmaking over commercial success also has value.

      The Grammys frequently honor commercial success over quality, and as a result their award means little. Milli Vanilli got a grammy, you know? I don’t think it is a bad thing that the Oscars strive for more than that.

  18. Ginger says:

    As quite a few people said on Twitter on Oscar night, we will remember Joan in our own way since the Academy chose not to do so. RIP Joan. I agree that the Oscars telecast needs a complete and total overhaul. I found myself muting a lot of the performances and playing games on my tablet. And since I’m now living in Eastern time zone, I fell asleep before all of the major awards were announced at the end. I only just found out that I could have watched the whole thing on Hulu the next day and as you said, fast forwarded through the junk. Perhaps next year I will do that. I did replay the Lady GaGa performance the following day as I missed that too. I still enjoy watching the red carpet but not the ceremony (and that I will credit Joan for) As for the Oscars awards process, it would be nice to see that change too but I’m not holding my breath.

  19. angie says:

    To me, the perfect Oscars red carpet broadcast would be to have Enty from the “Crazy Days and Nights” website standing there with a bag over his head revealing blind items about the passing stars to the TV audience. Of course that would mean the end of the red carpet, and what would E! do?

  20. Chinoiserie says:

    The in memoriam segment is meant for people who truly contributed to the film industry and not for celebrities who had some film credits. There is no reason she should have been there, Emmy’s is different.

  21. OriginalTessa says:

    No, she wasn’t a great film actress, but she was as much a part of the Academy Awards as anyone. She was the voice of the public, looking at the parade, and telling the people up on their pedestals that their hair didn’t match their shoes.

  22. original kay says:

    Joan will forever be a favourite of mine, simply because of her response to a reporter asking her opinion on what Selena Gomez had to say about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

    “Selena Gomez? That college graduate?”

    bingo.

  23. Div says:

    Argh, my auto correct is wonky on Elaine Stritch’s last name. I also thought Bob Hoskins should have been included

  24. M.J. says:

    While Joan may not have had huge roles, etc. in the film industry, her name became synonymous with the Oscars, due to her covering the red carpet for 2 decades. It’s completely inexcusable to me that they omitted her. It sounds to me like a lot of the “academy” can’t handle any jokes about themselves or what they’re wearing. Joan always had their numbers, looks like she was right.

    • Jill J says:

      She relentlessly mocked their fashion and appearances. How is that benefiting film? Say her comedy was intelligent and hilarious and about the movies, or made fun of the silly pompousness of the ceremony…and that she wasn’t just a fat-shaming, cheap shot harpy. I’d still say she didn’t belong because she wasn’t an Academy member and had nothing to do with films. She was a fashion critic comedian on TV. She didn’t invent the red carpet or fashion commentary.

      • Joh says:

        She made people laugh and said the things people wanted to say.
        She made fun of the pompous and herself.
        In fact, she was one of the biggest stars in the whole field of entertainment.
        She brought in a crowd and ratings too.
        I find the whole patting themselves on the back thing tedious and read a book with the show on as background noise.
        I never liked Melissa, but she has earned my respect for the way she handled a shocking death and even this slight snub.
        She obviously adored her mom, and she continues to show it in the way she conducts herself now.

  25. HoustonGrl says:

    For YEARS, Joan was the only reason I took any interest in the Oscars. RIP fairy godmother.

  26. kri says:

    You know what I get from all of this? Hollywood is full of assholes who excel in assholery, grandiose indulgence of ego, and wallow in vast vats of emptiness. Joan saw it all, and called it out. I won’t forget her. They can suck it.

  27. joy says:

    For everyone who says oh well she was only in a couple of movies, note they had freaking casting directors included in there. So it’s not about how long you were on screen, but your contribution to the craft and the academy. The whole circus that surrounds the awards would not exist without Joan Rivers. Period. The preshow and all the fashion coverage is what people talk about, and that’s all her.

    • jane16 says:

      Really? Not for me, but I’m old enough to remember the Academy Awards from back in the 70s, and frankly, they seemed more elegant and exciting back in the old days than they do now. Joan’s schtick may have added something to television history (especially her Tonight Show appearances when she was younger), but I don’t think she has added anything of importance to the Academy Awards, she made a lot of money off of ripping the actors and actresses. The show was popular long before Joan’s show on E, and will no doubt carry on. I love to look at the red carpet fashions, but I don’t need anyone to tell me what to think about it. Everything about the E channel seems shrill and unattractive to me. You may be right that Joan created a circus around the red carpet arrivals, but I don’t see that as a good thing, and especially not as a contribution to the creating of fine movies.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      You think Joan had more of an impact on the movie industry than casting directors???? What?! Casting is of HUGE importance to film making!

      • jane16 says:

        Tiffany, so true! My son is a film student, and his two favorite jobs in filmmaking are directing and casting. Casting is an art of its own.

  28. The Original Mia says:

    She wasn’t a member of the Academy and contributing to red carpet coverage is not a reason to be included in the memoriam. She was a TV person and that’s where she should be honored.

  29. anne_000 says:

    Joan Rivers wasn’t really involved in film-making. She was more of a tv personality. I can understand why the Oscars wasn’t the right arena to give her a memoriam. Did they do one for her at an Emmys ceremony?

    • Ice Queen says:

      Joan was in several movies and directed Rabbit test. The Academy should be ashamed.

      • anne_000 says:

        I know she was in films, but she wasn’t a notable part in the industry altogether. She played in some B-Movies in mostly bit character parts, not really as a supporting or lead actress.

        In the Rabbit Test (1978), though she was writer & director, she played yet another bit character part. Should the Oscars honor someone who’s ever been in any film no matter what?

        I looked at her filmography on Wikipedia, not IMDB though. Not much there that has any significance in the film industry.

        There have been plenty of other actors and people behind the cameras who’ve been in more films, with bigger parts and/or more involvement in making films who also have not been in the Oscars’ memoriam segment. I think they reserve inclusion to those with far more collaboration in the film industry than than someone who has a scant involvement like Joan Rivers.

        So again, she’s not really a ‘film person’ but made her fame through TV. I can understand if the Emmys has her in their memoriam but the Oscars? Nope.

  30. Veritas says:

    Screw the academy. Just cus she made fun of all the people in the industry and didn’t care about the BS. I hope when I’m old I will be just like JR. She was smart and witty and never was acted like a SC.

    • Joh says:

      I think she might not have been included because she would have gotten thunderous applause.
      Egos, even of the dead and has – Beens, are very fragile in
      Hollywood.