Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:37 am




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
a look back 
Author Message
Post a look back
well after the live thread closed, thought id start a post academy awards discussion, cuz i dont see one. lets take a look back at the award season.
how its a wonderful platform for discovering films for some and a completely unjust corporate(lets face it) suck fest for others.

discuss.

PS- anybody else think that musicals are in fact, not back??


Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:53 am
Post Re: a look back
aameen wrote:
well after the live thread closed, thought id start a post academy awards discussion, cuz i dont see one. lets take a look back at the award season.
how its a wonderful platform for discovering films for some and a completely unjust corporate(lets face it) suck fest for others.

discuss.

PS- anybody else think that musicals are in fact, not back??

Absolutely. I thought this was a really strange claim to make. Why, 'cause of Mama Mia? Why does that make them any more back than Chicago, or anything else? I didn't get that.

Also, who saw Departures coming at all? I'll be interested to see if it gets a U.S. release now.


Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:04 am
Post Re: a look back
back from my soccer game and having just caught up on the Tivo and not read through the live thread

I always sink into a funk after the Oscar show because I'm stupid enough after many years of disappointment to still hope that it can be great

Here's what I learned this year:

Great night for Europe :-)
I did not see Jack Nicholson once - a record?
The host is a waste of time - Hugh Jackman was an interesting choice who tried hard but ultimately was irrelevant
I liked the old winners coming on and conferring the award - nice touch
I moan it's too long - but as a film fan I don't really care
Musicals are back? No they are not.
The red carpet is as embarrassing as always because the interviewers suck - why does US TV need this junk?

Ultimately - do I really care who wins - NO - I'm sad to type that :-(

Rob


Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:59 am
Post Re: a look back
Trevor wrote:
Also, who saw Departures coming at all? I'll be interested to see if it gets a U.S. release now.


nobody saw that. the class won in france and bashir had all the momentum. the only thing i can think of is that they split the vote. and even then i would have backed it to be a tie.

Robert Holloway wrote:
back from my soccer game and having just caught up on the Tivo and not read through the live thread

I always sink into a funk after the Oscar show because I'm stupid enough after many years of disappointment to still hope that it can be great

Here's what I learned this year:

Great night for Europe :-)
I did not see Jack Nicholson once - a record?
The host is a waste of time - Hugh Jackman was an interesting choice who tried hard but ultimately was irrelevant
I liked the old winners coming on and conferring the award - nice touch
I moan it's too long - but as a film fan I don't really care
Musicals are back? No they are not.
The red carpet is as embarrassing as always because the interviewers suck - why does US TV need this junk?

Ultimately - do I really care who wins - NO - I'm sad to type that :-(

Rob


why oh why are you calling it soccer. you're british. its called football and everybody knows that.

thinking the same about jack. how was he not in the front row. maybe its his health? he IS old.

red carpet - biggest source of lulz. the guy with the glasses, what planet did they get him from? he was like a parody of every E! reporter/design shit i can think of. i think its a case of its so bad, its good.

i dont know why, but this did not feel like the oscars. maybe it was the stage, the whole thing was too small and way too dark. you know? screw the crystals, where's the big oscar statuette? a semi circular stage. it just felt too small.

still, ben stiller and the winslet whistle kinda subdue the pain. those are the only things i wanna remember. that and maybe hathaway's peace signs.
forget how jai ho!!! is nothing compared to rahman's earlier work.

another thing.. if i really think about it, wasn't wall-e's performance the best in a leading role. when are we going to see an animated character get recognized as acting. gollum was closest wasn't he. but only worth an mtv award.


Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:29 am
Post Re: a look back
COMPLAINTS
1. The show was too long, but I like how they got rid of the post-production technical awards so quickly. Use one presenter (Will Smith) and do you see how many awards they can reward all at once? Also, Smith would probably make a good host.
2. Hugh Jackman was terrible. End of story. He was TERRIBLE.
3. I'm glad Slumdog Millionaire won so many awards, but usually I know the Academy never really likes to give away more than five awards to one film. So they must have really really taken to Slumdog Millionaire.
4. The In Memoriam section was terrible. Why did we need to see Queen Latifah for this? Couldn't we have focussed on the memorial itself. Also the first fifteen seconds or so, we didn't even SEE the memorial, but Latifah.
5. I hated that presenting of the acting categories. It was messed up terribly. Revert to the old way where last year's male would present this year's female. What was wrong with that method? And you shave about 15 minutes off from the program.
6. Well, as usual the show's ending was anticlimactic. I never know what to do when the show ends so abruptly.
7. Is it just me or were there many technical issues with the show?

WHAT I LIKED
1. The acceptance speeches of all the actors (Winslet, Penn, Cruz and Ledger's family) were nice and respectable. A.R. Rahman's acceptance speeches were good. It looked like no one wanted their speech cut short by the orchestra, so everyone kept it short, but I don't think there is this time limit for actors right?
2. Tina Fey and Steve Martin were a nice welcome to the dreary early part of the show.
3. Judd Apatow's short with Franco and Rogen was genius and actually the MOST enjoyable thing of the show.
4. I figured if those montages didn't feature Coldplay, they would be crap.


Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:18 am
Post Re: a look back
I thought it was a shame that Rourke didn't win. I caught "Milk" the other day, and whilst I enjoyed it, and I thought Penn did deliver an impressive performance, I don't think it was as deserving as Rourke's effort.


Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:29 am
Post Re: a look back
What are the Oscars? Are they the American BAFTAs?

:P

As far as I know, the show was not broadcast live on any UK channels. Highlights are on SKY1 tonight at 10pm.


Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:47 am
Post Re: a look back
I really wish my laptop hadn't broke so I could be involved in the live chat. My thoughts on the proceedings.

I have to say when Hugh Jackman walked out I felt nervously uncomfortable thinking he'll screw up big. After all, he's not a comedian, which is what we've all gotten used to. I won't harp on the dance numbers as much, they were spontaneous in COMPARISON to everything we've had in previous years and one thing that Jackman does have to showcase is raw talent, he can sing (and I bet the Mamma Mia producers were all scratching their heads during the song montage all simultaneously converging on the all too obvious fact that Pierce Brosnan was miscast) and he can dance. Talent is the groundwork for most actors and to see one of 'their own' representing up there (versus a plain comedian) was a breath of fresh air for me. It would be easy to denounce this all to ‘terrible’, but I won't be sadistic.

Oscar had a concern with interactivity that cost valuable ratings last year. They knew that they had to build a better connection to the nominees and what they did with the acting award nominees worked well I think. For the most part, the prepared dedications former recipients gave the individual nominees felt.. sincere.. and the link between them for those few seconds of the exchange showed how the greatest are really made of the same mold. The extra few minutes it may have added to the running time was surely worth it. I liked it and I hope they build on it in future years.

Montages were cool, I liked their structure, it blended well and I felt a consistency towards their medium of presentation that wasn't as evident before. Very impressed lengthwise.
I thought Jennifer Aniston was the weakest presenter.
The bit with Seth Rogen was priceless.
Ben Stiller randomly wandering about during the nominee announcement was a jab at McCain during the 2nd debate I suspect :p clever.
Daniel Craig was way too uptight. Maybe he was supposed to be in character (Bond).
I also understand the flair for the musicals. They may be ‘crap’ film but they're damn good entertainment for those who watch. Last year proved that There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men doesn't generate the same balance of appeal. "Does this city need a hug". Honestly, some fun isn't criminal.
Everyone knew Heath was getting the Oscar but c’mon you rating scavengers, let’s make it really obvious shall we, three times with “.. And we’ll be back for the Supporting Actor Award” really starts to make you wonder.
A.R Rahman has a great voice! I think the blend with the Wall-E theme song towards the end was “sketch”.

As for award recipients:

My first notice has to go out towards Brangelina. They enjoyed a front row seating but you could see in their faces they weren't there seriously hoping for anything. Being the royalty of Hollywood, they really magnified the contrast between actor and celebrity. Tonight they were in attendance as the latter, carelessly I might add.

Meryl Streep is a great actor. I don't think she'll be running over anyone with her car in the parking lot. 15 times people! She's there for the art and I don't really think winning/losing means much to her at this point.

Kate Winslet gave the best speech of the night IMO. Sean Pean was okay at best, I wonder to myself if the exchange he had with Rourke at the end was real, given their words about each other's performances over the last few weeks.

I noticed from the first three acting wins that the award would go to the nominee who the presenter with holding envelope had described. When Michael Douglas started talking to Langela I froze :p

My love for TDK goes a long way, but Wall-E deserved those Sound mix/edit wins. I don't understand what happened there.

Producers (not directors) accepting the award for best picture!?! This is the first time they've done this, correct me if I'm wrong!

The pride in Danny Boyle's face throughout the night really stirred me up. It's great to see a director who cares so intensely for his work - and having the whole cast up for the final win really showed how powerful and close of an ensemble they were. I don't recall ever seeing that before at the Oscars and it made me smile.

I am curious to hear the rest of your thoughts, and also (James especially) regarding how the Academy could better produce this show. Reading the comments on the live thread and a few here it seems a lot of our expectations seem impossible (either that or we just really like to rant). I’m curious as to how you would YOU do it if you were in charge?

Cheerio


Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:32 am
Post Re: a look back
gkanchan wrote:
4. The In Memoriam section was terrible. Why did we need to see Queen Latifah for this? Couldn't we have focussed on the memorial itself. Also the first fifteen seconds or so, we didn't even SEE the memorial, but Latifah.
7. Is it just me or were there many technical issues with the show?


you got that right. am i the only one noticing this, that they did not even show george carlin?? that to me is just so infuriating, i could choke the director for that.

techical issues - yeah. sometimes it was like they were actually pressing the pause button on themontages as they ended. i mean let em fade out. for socks sake.

gkanchan wrote:
4. I figured if those montages didn't feature Coldplay, they would be crap.


dude, they were crap. compared to here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=76


euphoric_daedalus wrote:
Producers (not directors) accepting the award for best picture!?! This is the first time they've done this, correct me if I'm wrong!


dude, they've done that for as long as i can remember. you may have missed it cuz sometimes the directors are also producers.

hell, note from wikipedia, "During the annual Academy Awards ceremony, Best Picture is reserved as the final award presented and, since 1951, is collected at the podium by the film's producers."

euphoric_daedalus wrote:
I am curious to hear the rest of your thoughts, and also (James especially) regarding how the Academy could better produce this show. Reading the comments on the live thread and a few here it seems a lot of our expectations seem impossible (either that or we just really like to rant). I’m curious as to how you would YOU do it if you were in charge?
Cheerio


last year's was better to be honest. disregarding the speeches - everything from glan hansard to the montage about binoculars.
better that beyonce and genre specific montages.
id also go back to where we can actually see the stage. you know, light it up.

well, id also refrain from declaring that a dead genre is back(just cuz streep happened to be in one of em and people in england liked it), and if i do do such a thing id actually mention the one film that was easily the best of the genre in over a decade. (hint, hint - once).

jackman - although i sat through his beginning 'number' (hathaway i actually liked) it just went downhill from there. hire any of the following as host next year: seinfeld, ricky gervais, tina fey, dylan moran, jeremy irons.

they wanted class - jeremy irons will give you some class, man. and he wont be wearing a hat from a century ago doing it, either.

totally agreed on jolie and pitt - their faces showed they were just here to show their faces. and winslet too. easily the best speech. the whistle had me.
----


Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:05 pm
Post Re: a look back
Perhaps the most disappointing part of the whole night for me was that they did not even acknowledge Patrick McGoohan and Harvey Korman during that awful "In Memorium" segment. Whoever thought having Queen Latifah sing should be banned from Oscar planning forever.

Also, having five people present those acting awards was kind of weird. I agree with the other post on the Live Commentary thread when they said that they probably did it because Daniel Day-Lewis wasn't going to show up? (Was Marion Cotillard there? I wasn't paying close enough attention?)

On a final note, nobody should have to endure the sight of Goldie Hawn anymore. Nobody......


Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:30 pm
Post Re: a look back
Blonde Almond wrote:
Perhaps the most disappointing part of the whole night for me was that they did not even acknowledge Patrick McGoohan and Harvey Korman during that awful "In Memorium" segment. Whoever thought having Queen Latifah sing should be banned from Oscar planning forever.

Also, having five people present those acting awards was kind of weird. I agree with the other post on the Live Commentary thread when they said that they probably did it because Daniel Day-Lewis wasn't going to show up? (Was Marion Cotillard there? I wasn't paying close enough attention?)

On a final note, nobody should have to endure the sight of Goldie Hawn anymore. Nobody......


Yeah, Marion Cotillard was there. And I think that Korman and McGoohan missed the cut-off point to be included in the memorial segment.


Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:25 pm
Post Re: a look back
Quote:
dude, they've done that for as long as i can remember. you may have missed it cuz sometimes the directors are also producers.

hell, note from wikipedia, "During the annual Academy Awards ceremony, Best Picture is reserved as the final award presented and, since 1951, is collected at the podium by the film's producers."


True. I think it was the snippet from Wag The Dog that popped into my head, Dustin Hoffman's character ranting on how producers aren't eligible to win an Oscar and get no credit.. except I guess they do :? so much for that, haha.

Time just published an interesting online post piece. They have some good inisights on how the future of the show can be improved:
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1881142-2,00.html


Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:32 pm
Post Re: a look back
euphoric_daedalus wrote:

Time just published an interesting online post piece. They have some good inisights on how the future of the show can be improved:
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1881142-2,00.html



its a good idea from that point of view, the drama and all that. but i think it would be a bit disrespectful for the other nominees.
suppose they did it this time with best actor - wouldn't it have been disrespectful to langella or jenkins. suppose someone wins by a landslide. 60%. what about the guy who got 4%. he got dressed in a tux for that??


Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:46 pm
Post Re: a look back
aameen wrote:
euphoric_daedalus wrote:

Time just published an interesting online post piece. They have some good inisights on how the future of the show can be improved:
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1881142-2,00.html



its a good idea from that point of view, the drama and all that. but i think it would be a bit disrespectful for the other nominees.
suppose they did it this time with best actor - wouldn't it have been disrespectful to langella or jenkins. suppose someone wins by a landslide. 60%. what about the guy who got 4%. he got dressed in a tux for that??


Maybe the 4% guy will step his game up next time


Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:49 pm
Post Re: a look back
Patrick wrote:
aameen wrote:
euphoric_daedalus wrote:

Time just published an interesting online post piece. They have some good inisights on how the future of the show can be improved:
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1881142-2,00.html



its a good idea from that point of view, the drama and all that. but i think it would be a bit disrespectful for the other nominees.
suppose they did it this time with best actor - wouldn't it have been disrespectful to langella or jenkins. suppose someone wins by a landslide. 60%. what about the guy who got 4%. he got dressed in a tux for that??


Maybe the 4% guy will step his game up next time


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
ok, seriously though, he already got nominated for an oscar, thats good enough, but what can he do, he was competing against ledger. :lol:


Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:57 pm
Post Re: a look back
I guess I'm in the minority when I thought Jackman did a credible job as a dancer and singer. While that is clearly not his area of expertise, I believe he had talent. He certainly brought energy to the performance and his duo with Ann Hathaway was excellent.

I did not like the idea of past Oscar recipients standing in a semi-circle and making laudatory comments about the nominees. They seemed awkward, more like statues than performers. The cross cutting to the stars made for strained results.

I agree the memorial segment was too rushed. In the past, this important segment has been well presented, often with clips from the deceased performers. Omitting Harvey Korman and George Carlin and was inexcusable. Both died in May, June of 2008. I think new ground was broken when they flashed the name (and face) of a film critic who had expired. I wonder how Jim feels about that?

I prefer that each of the nominated songs gets performed in a single segment, as has been the custom for many years. I'm not sure what the point was in displaying the orchestra onstage vs keeping it out of sight in the pit. I prefer the 75 second limit on acceptance speeches, a rule previously used, but often relaxed when the importance of the speaker overwhelms the conductor and his orchestra.

I have a theory regarding the length of the telecast. The show was slightly under 3 1/2 hours. What we viewers have to endure are the endless commercials which pays the bills. The Academy makes big bucks from these telecasts and they have no incentive to shorten the show which would mean fewer commercials...less income. It all comes down to dollars and cnets. Reminds me of the Super Bowl .


Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:50 pm
Post Re: a look back
Jinjur wrote:
I guess I'm in the minority when I thought Jackman did a credible job as a dancer and singer. While that is clearly not his area of expertise, I believe he had talent. He certainly brought energy to the performance and his duo with Ann Hathaway was excellent.

I did not like the idea of past Oscar recipients standing in a semi-circle and making laudatory comments about the nominees. They seemed awkward, more like statues than performers. The cross cutting to the stars made for strained results.

I agree the memorial segment was too rushed. In the past, this important segment has been well presented, often with clips from the deceased performers. Omitting Harvey Korman and George Carlin and was inexcusable. Both died in May, June of 2008. I think new ground was broken when they flashed the name (and face) of a film critic who had expired. I wonder how Jim feels about that?

I prefer that each of the nominated songs gets performed in a single segment, as has been the custom for many years. I'm not sure what the point was in displaying the orchestra onstage vs keeping it out of sight in the pit. I prefer the 75 second limit on acceptance speeches, a rule previously used, but often relaxed when the importance of the speaker overwhelms the conductor and his orchestra.

I have a theory regarding the length of the telecast. The show was slightly under 3 1/2 hours. What we viewers have to endure are the endless commercials which pays the bills. The Academy makes big bucks from these telecasts and they have no incentive to shorten the show which would mean fewer commercials...less income. It all comes down to dollars and cnets. Reminds me of the Super Bowl .


yeah..agree with you on most points, so i will say, hathaway and jackman was good. maybe even memorable because of her in the peace sign pose. jackman alone or with beyonce, thats just painful. he gave it a good run, but the composing was just horrid.

Quote:
I did not like the idea of past Oscar recipients standing in a semi-circle and making laudatory comments about the nominees.


yeah, i dont know why but it just seemed, insulting?? as though they were an exclusive group, oh so higher than the ones below, here to declare one of em as being worthy enough to join them.


Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:18 pm
Post Re: a look back
Jinjur wrote:
I did not like the idea of past Oscar recipients standing in a semi-circle and making laudatory comments about the nominees. They seemed awkward, more like statues than performers. The cross cutting to the stars made for strained results.

I disagree. That was one of my favorite parts of the ceremony this year--having legends of acting each complement the nominees on their performances. I hope they continue this format--it's definitely more meaningful that having best actress winners award best actor and vice versa.


Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:29 pm
Post Re: a look back
I think having the five previous Oscar winners talking to the nominees was wonderful, and one of the best innovations the ceremony has had in years. For one thing, it's great to see the variety and scope of the past winners in one place. It gives some real recognition and awareness to all the nominees (finally, it's actually presented as an honor just to be nominated!). And it has potential for all sorts of interesting combinations. (Anne Hathaway tearing up when Shirley MacLaine complimented her singing was one such sweet moment from this year, as was Deniro's ribbing of Sean Penn).

Nicely done, Academy! I hope the practice continues.


Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:47 pm
Post Re: a look back
euphoric_daedalus wrote:
Producers (not directors) accepting the award for best picture!?! This is the first time they've done this, correct me if I'm wrong!

Cheerio


Dude...the more painful one of these for me was when Scorsese finally won the Best Director award for The Departed.

When they announced The Departed for Best Movie, the producer took the award, did all his thanks, while Scorsese was standing stage right, just behind live audience view...producer didn't even have him out or anything.


Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:02 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 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