Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:08 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change" 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3146
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
Click here to read topic.


Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
"Shopping List" of thank yous. Haha, I've never quite heard it phrased like this but it's very true. The one person a thank you makes sense - chances are if you make it up on that stage a second long shout out doesn't justify how much someone you're mentioning up there means to you.

Quote:
Everything a movie has to say is on screen. Does it matter what an actor or director offers in an interview? Does it matter if it wins an award? Not really. Nothing that happened last night changed the way I feel about any of the movies featured (or not featured) in the telecast. The Oscars are a big self-congratulatory party. It's masturbation for billions to see. I don't conduct interviews. I don't read celebrity gossip. And I don't really care about the Oscars. So it's useless to pretend otherwise.


Your opening line is absolutely correct, however, the big issue with many is that they for one reason or another don't get to see what's on the screen. Considering Slumdog's limited release to many of the viewers this film will be unknown, including to my parents for that matter. Many are selective or have a limited schedule to see what's out there. The oscars are supposed to function as a gauge of quality and basis for recommendation, although the degree of their effectiveness can be debated, I will stand that when a movie picks up an oscar it is more likely to be brought to a larger audience. When a "bad" movie wins this can be unfortunate, but the other way around it also means opportunity.

I believe most people don't really care about the 'oscars' either, but they watch because they care about the movies. Slumdog's live victories speak very highly to the foundation of what was offered by the film. Watching Danny Boyle throughout the night one could see that he cared deeply about his film, and we all know behind every great film is a passionate director who believed in it. Having the whole cast go up for the big win was really cool as well. Thing like this make a person more likely to invest their time to watching the film and that gives this '3 1/2-hour hour circle jerk' some value I believe.


Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:02 pm
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
I was pretty disappointed with how the Oscars went this year. I was hoping for a quick, streamlined show and instead it was one of the longest is history. I was going watch them live and follow James' commentary, but I decided there was no way I could sit though that many commercials and all the pointless singing and dancing. Instead I recorded them and went to the theatre and watched Doubt I came home just as they were over. Here are some thoughts I had while watching the telecast:

-I wasn't surprised with the dancing numbers, it played to Jackman's strenghts. I just wonder if some people turned on the TV and thought the Oscars were replaced by the Tony's?
-Having five presenters for the acting awards was different, but it was still boring and added 20-30 extra minutes to the show.
-The look back at the different genres of 2008 was completely useless. If I want to see what was released in 2008, I'll Google it.
-I was hoping for at least ONE memorable speech, but there was nothing. The Heath Ledger tribute by his family was OK, the Penn speech was predictible, and Winslet and Cruz were forgettable.
-I still can't believe the whole thing was 3:30 long. I feel sympathy for the people who watched it live(Thanks for toughing it out for us, James).
-The previews for 2009 excluded both Star Trek and Transformers 2


Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:17 pm
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
I am disappointed that you didn't include the other guys who posted in the thread...we said cool things too!


Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:25 am
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
Quote:
And didn't anyone think Paul Newman deserved more than just an extended clip in the video obituary section? How about ditching some of the bad dinner theater song-and-dance numbers in favor of a nice tribute offered by, say Robert Redford or Joanne Woodward. Newman was one of the last of the true Hollywood legends and to let his passing go so quietly is almost criminal.


Absolutely. Newman was one of my favorite actors; he was in so many great films. And he was the last celebrity who had that certain glamour, that indefinable charisma that movie stars of the past had before the era of tabloid overexposure. I’m glad they paid tribute to Ledger. His premature death was tragic, and it’s natural for people to react to that. But Newman was important, and he deserved better.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:30 am
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
I think it's becoming too fashionable among critics to diss the Oscar ceremony. I don't doubt that it was boring to watch for James, and that is too bad. But at this point it is almost a running joke among film critics that the Oscars are too long and boring.

Fine, you just want to hear who the winners are, that's fine. I, however, love the event of it. I love the excitement of it all. Despite the commonly accepted "truth" that the Oscars are way too long, I actually wished they would have gone on longer this time.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:41 am
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
Quote:
Does it matter what an actor or director offers in an interview?


i was just thinking about this. in some cases, i think it does. cuz i had just seen funny games. and what the director had said, i think it did make a difference. i saw it prior to any interview watching, and my initial thoughts were, it was an average movie. yeah, it played by no rules, even highlighting this fact with the rewind, and had some good uncomfortable shots, plus awesome acting, but all in all, it played by the rules, because they were substantially part of the production. i felt they were too bent up on defying the rules than actually making an independent movie. but once i read that it was intended as a criticism of consumerism of violence(and i started to get that view), i grew into thinking that this guy knew nothing about movies. or i should say, about audiences. he seemed to think a man would only watch a movie like funny games because he enjoys watching suffering(or something along those lines). we dont watch psychopath killer movies because of the killings. we watch em because of the psychopaths. we watch because these movies have extremities in them. its like if someone says that romance is just porn.
so that was a movie where i think what the director said changed the whole movie for me, so i think, rarely, it does matter.




Patrick wrote:
I am disappointed that you didn't include the other guys who posted in the thread...we were said cool things too!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
although it is true, a lot of em did say a lot of cool things. i didn't, i was just venting about carlin.
Quote:
I almost wished that Oscars showed balls and picked someone else but then Heath's mom is kinda MILFy...

how could you not include THAT??


Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:29 am
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
I can't believe I put a gratuitous were in my post, thanks aamens for pointing that out


Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:09 am
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
Patrick wrote:
I can't believe I put a gratuitous were in my post, thanks aamens for pointing that out


"aamens" hahaha!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
that make me sound like a breath mint.or a perfume.
patrick, you're easily becoming my favorite poster here.
cool blog too.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:27 am
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
aameen wrote:
Patrick wrote:
I can't believe I put a gratuitous were in my post, thanks aamens for pointing that out


"aamens" hahaha!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
that make me sound like a breath mint.or a perfume.
patrick, you're easily becoming my favorite poster here.
cool blog too.


Next time I'll spell that perfume brand's name right :D


Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:56 pm
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
Quote:
Time for the dead people... My grandfather died this past year and he meant more to me than any of these faces or names.


Gee, that's nice, but maybe you could spare a thought for those to whom these names were meaningful. Me, I was very moved by the deaths of Charles Schneer (producer of so many Harryhausen classics) and especially Stan Winston (a true god among special effects artists). I know you like to present yourself as cranky, but surely you could show a little more sensitivity in matters such as these.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:06 pm
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
Trevor wrote:
Fine, you just want to hear who the winners are, that's fine. I, however, love the event of it. I love the excitement of it all. Despite the commonly accepted "truth" that the Oscars are way too long, I actually wished they would have gone on longer this time.


Good, I'm not the only one. :lol:

The Oscar ceremony is more than an award show, it's a celebration of film as an art form. It's reliving the great experiences we've all had in theaters over the last year and seeing the ceators of those experiences praised by their peers. Is that wrong? Is it wrong for the winners to take the time to thank the people that have made perhaps the proudest moment of their respective careers possible? Would it be better for them to just take the award and go? Or maybe they should all have been like Philippe Petit and replace their acceptance speech with a magic trick? The Oscars are, first and foremost, a celebration. A show. If it wasn't, the Academy would do what the HFP did during the writer's strike and simply announce the names and leave.

There are plenty of people who don't enjoy/care about the Oscar ceremony, and they are of course entitled to their opinion. But why do they then watch the ceremony they don't enjoy? IMDb has a very handy live-updating list of winners every year. You don't even have to turn on a TV to find out the winners anymore, so why bother?


Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:40 pm
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
Joe Pesci and Alfred Hitchcock know how to give acceptance speeches; merely "I am humbled. Thank you." and " Thank you very much," respectively.

Note: Hitchcock's was not competitive, but the Irving G. Thalberg Award, which comes from AMPAS.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:32 pm
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
BrianB wrote:
Joe Pesci and Alfred Hitchcock know how to give acceptance speeches; merely "I am humbled. Thank you." and " Thank you very much," respectively.

Note: Hitchcock's was not competitive, but the Irving G. Thalberg Award, which comes from AMPAS.


I hate be a jerk but you got both quotes wrong BrianB.

Joe Pesci - It's an honor and a privilege to get this award. Thank you.
Hitchcock - Thanks.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:36 pm
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
Patrick wrote:
BrianB wrote:
Joe Pesci and Alfred Hitchcock know how to give acceptance speeches; merely "I am humbled. Thank you." and " Thank you very much," respectively.

Note: Hitchcock's was not competitive, but the Irving G. Thalberg Award, which comes from AMPAS.


I hate be a jerk but you got both quotes wrong BrianB.

Joe Pesci - It's an honor and a privilege to get this award. Thank you.
Hitchcock - Thanks.


Ha, that's even better. Instead of two sentences and one sentence, it's two sentences and one word.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:45 pm
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
GunBehindTheToilet wrote:
Trevor wrote:
Fine, you just want to hear who the winners are, that's fine. I, however, love the event of it. I love the excitement of it all. Despite the commonly accepted "truth" that the Oscars are way too long, I actually wished they would have gone on longer this time.


Good, I'm not the only one. :lol:

The Oscar ceremony is more than an award show, it's a celebration of film as an art form. It's reliving the great experiences we've all had in theaters over the last year and seeing the ceators of those experiences praised by their peers. Is that wrong? Is it wrong for the winners to take the time to thank the people that have made perhaps the proudest moment of their respective careers possible? Would it be better for them to just take the award and go? Or maybe they should all have been like Philippe Petit and replace their acceptance speech with a magic trick? The Oscars are, first and foremost, a celebration. A show. If it wasn't, the Academy would do what the HFP did during the writer's strike and simply announce the names and leave.

There are plenty of people who don't enjoy/care about the Oscar ceremony, and they are of course entitled to their opinion. But why do they then watch the ceremony they don't enjoy? IMDb has a very handy live-updating list of winners every year. You don't even have to turn on a TV to find out the winners anymore, so why bother?


Yeah, I'm pretty much the same way. It's way too hard to have award shows when everyone has a different opinion. The Oscars might be flawed, and while I can't say they're all we have, they're probably the best televised award show. The Golden Globes, Independent Spirit Awards, and BAFTAs all have their own flaws.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:46 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3146
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
Patrick wrote:
Joe Pesci - It's an honor and a privilege to get this award. Thank you.
Hitchcock - Thanks.


Hitchcock later said that he set out to give the shortest Oscar speech ever, and he still holds the record. Pretty tough to see how he could be beaten unless someone elected not to say anything. (Perhaps just hold the Oscar aloft, smile, and bow to the audience, then leave.)


Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:59 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
James Berardinelli wrote:
Patrick wrote:
Joe Pesci - It's an honor and a privilege to get this award. Thank you.
Hitchcock - Thanks.


Hitchcock later said that he set out to give the shortest Oscar speech ever, and he still holds the record. Pretty tough to see how he could be beaten unless someone elected not to say anything. (Perhaps just hold the Oscar aloft, smile, and bow to the audience, then leave.)


Didn't one guy just smiled and bow for his acceptance speech cause he played a mute?


Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:47 pm
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
I didn't really like the Oscars that much either. I thought the whole having 5 former winners for each acting category talk about a current nominee was a waste of time. They should of just stuck with the clips like in past years. It would have saved time.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:36 pm
Post Re: February 23, 2009: "The More Things Change"
Rob wrote:
I didn't really like the Oscars that much either. I thought the whole having 5 former winners for each acting category talk about a current nominee was a waste of time. They should of just stuck with the clips like in past years. It would have saved time.


Not to mention how incredibly awkward the five previous winners thing is. The nominees are probably already nervous and in the spotlight enough, but to kiss their asses so directly from the stage and have their reactions in close-up just makes me uncomfortable watching it.

"You're great!"
"No, you are!" *blows kiss to stage*

I know that these actors and actresses are all used to attention and the camera, but give me a break.


Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:46 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr