Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:21 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts" 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3121
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
Click here to read topic.

Trying to keep the negativity in check...


Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:01 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
Once again, you've managed to pinpoint several of the key problems with the Oscar telecast. As always, the host is the biggest problem. I thought Hathaway and Franco gave it a game try (and at least they are both pleasant to look at), but even the better hosts over the last few years haven't convinced me that the job is necessary. Nobody, however, should get their hopes up that the host will ever be cut from the program. As much as I love movies and the actors in them, Hollywood looks to congratulate itself, so it's only fitting that the community would think so much of itself that we at home would want to see as much as possible. But let me not slip into a huge barrel of negativity and become one of those rambling internet nerds. I like to keep things respectful.
Acceptance speeches are fine for the most part. I don't mind a thank you list of reasonable length, although I doubt the actors, who are in the spotlight all the time already, need more time to be on camera. If anything I think the technical award winners deserve a little more time at the podium. When do we ever get to see their faces? We admire the work they do but for most of the movie going public, they remain names read during the credits.
The one thing that must end is the political speeches and comments. I'm sorry folks, but an award show is not time for that sort of thing. Charles Ferguson's comments I found to be particularly ill advised. I'm sorry but capitalism and the ability to make money is not a crime. When you're the CEO of a huge company, however you got there, you've earned the right to lay off a thousand people so you can keep your job and house. Perhaps if the so called "victims" of all this "fraud" had worked a little harder, they could have been the ones laying people off. A lesson for all the kids out there- work harder. And isn't a filmmaker (a profession that usually pays pretty well) criticizing other rich people a little like the pot calling the kettle black? But here I've become as bad as the guy on stage trying to share his opinion with the rest of the world. See how annoying that is?
So, the length- drop the hosts, drop the musical numbers and I'm sorry to say that Kirk Douglas, who I know many loved last night, was the biggest time waster because (no offense) when it takes a guy five minutes to finish a sentence (not to mention walk on stage), he may not be the best guy to have out there speeding things along. But once again I forgot, Hollywood just loves itself too much. I remember a time when the Oscars were about the movies. Now it's about the glam and the politics of campaigning.
As for the winners- I'm glad they spread everything out, but I would've changed a few things in a few of the major categories. For Supporting Actress, if they were going to give the award to The Fighter, they should have given it to Amy Adams. What a little firecracker she was. As for Director and Picture, they should have given them to David Fincher and The Social Network. Don't get me wrong. I though The King's Speech was just as good as Fincher's film, but in the end I think The Social Network was the most relevant and timely piece of work of the year. Which film do you think will still be around in 20 years?


Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:09 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
Mr. B wrote:
I found it odd that the "speech" from The King's Speech was used as "voiceover narration" during the Best Picture clips montage. Considering the result, it was appropriate, but it would have struck a dissonant chord if The Social Network had won. (I'm assuming, by the way, that the people assembling the show did not have prior knowledge of the winner - that would violate secrecy rules.)


I know...right? I thought to myself, is this foreshadowing or straight out, "Here is your winner!" What does that have the other filmmakers thinking?

Dark Lord wrote:
There's no need for a host. The last few years have proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt, and it's better to have no host than the wrong one (or ones).


Blame Bob Hope for this. I had my wife's parents over last night and that was about the only segment in last night's award ceremony where they paid attention. They said something to the likes of, "Homeboy was a classy and funny mother fucker. Wish we could have those folks back." Seriously, though, time has squeezed those celebrities out, sad to say.

All in all, it was a good time. Whether it was to join the winners in their glory, enjoy or belittle the hosts work or to make fun of the masturbatory evening, it was a good time. Eff it...


Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:14 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
Porcis wrote:
Once again, you've managed to pinpoint several of the key problems with the Oscar telecast. As always, the host is the biggest problem. I thought Hathaway and Franco gave it a game try (and at least they are both pleasant to look at), but even the better hosts over the last few years haven't convinced me that the job is necessary. Nobody, however, should get their hopes up that the host will ever be cut from the program. As much as I love movies and the actors in them, Hollywood looks to congratulate itself, so it's only fitting that the community would think so much of itself that we at home would want to see as much as possible. But let me not slip into a huge barrel of negativity and become one of those rambling internet nerds. I like to keep things respectful.
Acceptance speeches are fine for the most part. I don't mind a thank you list of reasonable length, although I doubt the actors, who are in the spotlight all the time already, need more time to be on camera. If anything I think the technical award winners deserve a little more time at the podium. When do we ever get to see their faces? We admire the work they do but for most of the movie going public, they remain names read during the credits.
The one thing that must end is the political speeches and comments. I'm sorry folks, but an award show is not time for that sort of thing. Charles Ferguson's comments I found to be particularly ill advised. I'm sorry but capitalism and the ability to make money is not a crime. When you're the CEO of a huge company, however you got there, you've earned the right to lay off a thousand people so you can keep your job and house. Perhaps if the so called "victims" of all this "fraud" had worked a little harder, they could have been the ones laying people off. A lesson for all the kids out there- work harder. And isn't a filmmaker (a profession that usually pays pretty well) criticizing other rich people a little like the pot calling the kettle black? But here I've become as bad as the guy on stage trying to share his opinion with the rest of the world. See how annoying that is?
So, the length- drop the hosts, drop the musical numbers and I'm sorry to say that Kirk Douglas, who I know many loved last night, was the biggest time waster because (no offense) when it takes a guy five minutes to finish a sentence (not to mention walk on stage), he may not be the best guy to have out there speeding things along. But once again I forgot, Hollywood just loves itself too much. I remember a time when the Oscars were about the movies. Now it's about the glam and the politics of campaigning.
As for the winners- I'm glad they spread everything out, but I would've changed a few things in a few of the major categories. For Supporting Actress, if they were going to give the award to The Fighter, they should have given it to Amy Adams. What a little firecracker she was. As for Director and Picture, they should have given them to David Fincher and The Social Network. Don't get me wrong. I though The King's Speech was just as good as Fincher's film, but in the end I think The Social Network was the most relevant and timely piece of work of the year. Which film do you think will still be around in 20 years?

i'm sorry, but I have ZERO sympathy for CEOs, and your "work harder" comments are extremely ignorant-there's plenty of people who DO work hard every day and they STILL get laid off. As for the Oscars, well my dad was watching the telecast but I didn't bother watching it myself, i've never once had the urge to watch the Oscars and probably never will as there's FAR better things I could be doing in those 3 and a half hours. The host will probably never be eliminated, but what they could do is get someone more "polarizing" to host, like say Charlie Sheen or Lindsay Lohan, that would certianly liven things up! :lol:


Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:54 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
They may one day get rid of a "Host", but they will never get rid of acceptance speeches. I mean, if I poured my heart and soul into a roll to win the highest honor in my business, I would want a minute to say something. I really think the winners should say thank you to that one person who helped them out or pushed them the most, and then have a witty and honorable anecdote, and leave with grace.

Tom Hooper is the only one that came close to that last night. His felt the most poignant, sincere, and he seemed very gracious and honorable at the same time.


Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:05 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
I agree that acceptance speeches now completely suck and are simply a boring laundry list of thank-you's. Could Michael Moore's acceptance speech been essentially the Oscars' version of The Wardrobe Malfunction?

But all someone needs to do is be funny, be creative, be emotional, be insightful, or something other than boring. We just need one actor to stand up and try something different and maybe a copycat effect will result.


Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:31 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
I'm surprised James didn't rip more into Hathaway and especially Franco considering a lot of the other film critics out there have done so. Franco looked disinterested, nervous, and stiff while Hathaway tried her best despite being overexcited and had to overcompensate for Franco. I'm sure the Oscars will try to woo Billy Crystal back after the declining ratings and lackluster performance of the previous hosts.

I thought Kirk Douglas was fine even though maybe that whole schtick lasted a little too long. But still, he was in good spirits given his age and condition.

The acceptance speeches should really be more about what you're thinking and feeling as you're on the stage than just a list of "Thank You's". If you start listing people to thank you'll quickly lose your audience. People like it more when you show honest, heartfelt emotion and genuine surprise and enthusiasm.

At least the show did good by cutting the gratuitous montages. However, they still should cut the tedious musical numbers and other silly stuff like the autotune in the movies bit. It shows where the Oscar's priorities are when they give the autotune segment more time than a tribute to Francis Ford Coppola and Eli Wallach.


Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:32 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
I thought the Oscar cast was relatively 'meh', not excessively long, although James Franco did seem like he was stoned half the time (and was disinterested the other half of the time). I'm still not sure what the point of Anne Hathaway's solo song was about either. I honestly think it would have been far better to have someone like Ricky Gervais host the show. He might have been mildly polarizing, but good hell, the Oscars need to be a little more colorful than they have become. Hell, the winner of Best Picture turned out to the be the blandest, harmless, most non-descript of the 10 that were nominated.

I enjoy the speeches, but I think they should cut out the performances of the songs (pointless time-filler), combine Sound Editing and Sound Mixing into one category (if we're going that far in detail, why not visual effects CGI vs. modeling vs. compositing, etc?), and if you are going to nominate Rick Baker for makeup, show clips of makeup, not of CGI visual effects. Just a suggestion.

Make the show more of a gaudy outrageous spectacle. It's Hollywood, not church. I realize the nominees were probably nervous, but when major actors are upstaged by Luke Matheny and his short feature film award, something's wrong. Way too many "I'd like to thank my agent, and the studio, and my publicist, and my PR firm, and my image consultant, and my fluffer..." speeches going on.


Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:50 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
FargoUT wrote:
Hell, the winner of Best Picture turned out to the be the blandest, harmless, most non-descript of the 10 that were nominated.


Do you mean the person who accepted the award, or the movie itself? If its the former, I understand. Usually, by that time, it's like "hurry up and accept the award so we can end this thing."

But I hear an AWFUL LOT of people who haven't seen The King's Speech taking one look at it and saying something like "go figure, seems tailor made for the Oscars" or "seems like the most boring movie of the bunch." If you feel that way after having seen it, that's fine. I strongly disagree with it, but it's a legit opinion.

But if not, you're talking out of your ass.


Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:08 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
KRoss wrote:
...I hear an AWFUL LOT of people who haven't seen The King's Speech taking one look at it and saying something like "go figure, seems tailor made for the Oscars" or "seems like the most boring movie of the bunch." If you feel that way after having seen it, that's fine. I strongly disagree with it, but it's a legit opinion.

But if not, you're talking out of your ass.



If alot of people (a good number of them fairly intelligent) have said that 'The King's Speech' was a vanilla, 'tailor-made' choice for Best Picture, who's to argue? It is the exact kind of conventional, predictable offering the academy always seemed to honor in the awards ghetto of the 90's/early 00's. They had shown life during the last half of the past decade, but this closes that era rather harshly. The bottom line for me is that, while 'The Kings Speech' is very good, it is still a weaker film than 'The Social Network' (which has detractors stumbling over themselves to decry it's worth), and it will be seen as a weak choice from a weak year many years down the road, quickly forgotten other than for the fact that it netted Firth's first - and quite possibly only - Best Actor win, which should have been it's only award - period.

In my opinion, mediocrity may have won out last night, but the future will overturn that. Opinions are opinions, and I acknowledge that many an intelligent film viewer will have preferred 'The Kings Speech'; I am not the least bit derisive about that choice, even if I disagree wholeheartedly. However, if you think 'The Kings Speech' will be remembered years down the road, you are being naive. Additionally, denying Best Picture to 'Social Network' but awarding Fincher (who has the kind of cultish following by film fans that the Coens brought to their 2007 Oscar win) for Best Director at the least would have been something notable, and entirely justifiable (I am, for the record, stating that Tom Hooper did not deserve the directing award, which was almost insulting - how was his touch distinct?). Instead, they gave an unreasonable sweep to an average film and basically denied the night of any relevance years down the road. That utter ignorance of timeliness or discretion is something that people have accused the academy of for years, and something that they had seemed to stopped doing altogether as of late. Odd that some now embrace it.

I call it going back to feudalism.


Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:30 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1527
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
Quote:
I though The King's Speech was just as good as Fincher's film, but in the end I think The Social Network was the most relevant and timely piece of work of the year. Which film do you think will still be around in 20 years?


Quote:
Hell, the winner of Best Picture turned out to the be the blandest, harmless, most non-descript of the 10 that were nominated.


I tend to agree more with the first quote over the second one. I would've chosen Social Network or Inception over The King's Speech. Don't get me wrong. The King's Speech was a very good movie. But I thought Inception had a more original story and The Social Network was edgier.

I suspect that the relevance issue may have something to do with why King's Speech won over The Social Netowrk. I strong suspect that some members of the academy may have simply looked at Social Netowrk as being "that Facebook movie" and thought it may not stand up that well 15-20 years from now, while The King's Speech is a historical drama and those tend to do well at the Oscars. I like The King's Speech way better than I did previous historic dramas that won Best Picture (The English Patient).

I'm not upset that it won. But if I were to rank it on a list with the 8 nominees I did see, it would come third (after the two I previously mentioned).

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:58 am
Profile
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
The problem with King's Speech winning over Social Network was that The Social Network was a film that tied together an entire generation- it made something that the older generation didn't necessarily understand accessible, and made it easier for the younger generation to close that gap. The King's Speech, while I'm sure being wonderful (I haven't seen it yet, I'll be watching it next week [will I be watching it next week, Phil?]) isn't nearly as timely, and I doubt that another film like Social Network will come along for a while. It was one of those rare occurrences where a film entirely about pop culture actually works.


Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:03 am
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
I honestly thought The King’s Speech was a better movie overall than The Social Network, which felt really clumsy at times. I didn’t have any issue with it winning, although I still haven’t seen a few of the nominees.

I don’t think that Hooper should have won best director though.


Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:26 am
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
KRoss wrote:
Do you mean the person who accepted the award, or the movie itself? If its the former, I understand. Usually, by that time, it's like "hurry up and accept the award so we can end this thing."

But I hear an AWFUL LOT of people who haven't seen The King's Speech taking one look at it and saying something like "go figure, seems tailor made for the Oscars" or "seems like the most boring movie of the bunch." If you feel that way after having seen it, that's fine. I strongly disagree with it, but it's a legit opinion.

But if not, you're talking out of your ass.


I have seen The King's Speech and thought it was an excellent movie (it ended up #7 on my list of Best Films of 2010). But above it was Inception, Black Swan, 127 Hours, and The Social Network (also Restrepo which lost the Best Documentary Feature award and I'm very sad about that). Honestly, I thought Black Swan was the best film of 2010, but I like edgier, darker films. I felt The Social Network should have won at least Best Director, as Tom Hooper's directing was extremely plain. He basically filmed a play, and I dislike it when a director does that. The story never called for anything in the way of stylistic flourishes, and Hooper's handling of his actors was good (although I thought Guy Pearce was sorely miscast). But Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, and Darren Aronofsky commanded the art of cinema far better than Hooper did, which makes his award for Best Director disappointing. (Sidenote: I have yet to see True Grit however...)

I enjoyed The King's Speech, but it was pure Oscar-bait. I'm surprised it wasn't just an HBO movie. That it got a theatrical release is simply due to the Weinsteins' efforts. They knew they had an Oscar contender and their push for it eventually turned the tide away from Fincher's film.


Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:02 am
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
Didn't even bother to watch - a sad state of affairs.
Rob


Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:44 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
FargoUT wrote:
I enjoyed The King's Speech, but it was pure Oscar-bait. I'm surprised it wasn't just an HBO movie. That it got a theatrical release is simply due to the Weinsteins' efforts. They knew they had an Oscar contender and their push for it eventually turned the tide away from Fincher's film.


Gotta love the term "Oscar bait." I'm sorry, since when is it a bad thing for a filmmaker to dream big and push for the most prestigious award in Hollywood? Personally, I would much rather watch something like that, that aspires to tell a good story and succeeds, 10 times out of 10, than any of the dozens of formulaic sequels/remakes/vampire-lite crap that get pumped out every year simply to make a box office killing from teenagers. Think about the intentions here.


Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:36 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
KRoss wrote:
FargoUT wrote:
I enjoyed The King's Speech, but it was pure Oscar-bait. I'm surprised it wasn't just an HBO movie. That it got a theatrical release is simply due to the Weinsteins' efforts. They knew they had an Oscar contender and their push for it eventually turned the tide away from Fincher's film.


Gotta love the term "Oscar bait." I'm sorry, since when is it a bad thing for a filmmaker to dream big and push for the most prestigious award in Hollywood? Personally, I would much rather watch something like that, that aspires to tell a good story and succeeds, 10 times out of 10, than any of the dozens of formulaic sequels/remakes/vampire-lite crap that get pumped out every year simply to make a box office killing from teenagers. Think about the intentions here.


This is simply not proper. A film made with the intention of winning an award usually lacks edge, or pulls some punches, in order to salvage and project prestige. The only mandate that the filmmakers of 'The Social Network' were given were to make the final film an amazing product. They succeeded at this. 'The King's Speech' may not have been conceived for Oscar glory originally, but it was immediately singled out for prestige attention because, unlike 'The Social Network', the morals of the film are positive, the characters are conflicted (yet by no means complex) but ultimately likable, and the film's almost sterile surface (its surfeit of 'fuck's be damned) ensured it vitality in the awards season. What chance does a highly original film which has the unpretentious gall to show Jesse Eisenberg getting blown in a urinal stand against an awards-packaged film that was marketed with no other intention but to win awards from 'respected' bodies of film? Very little, even in film's more enlightened years.

Upon re-reading, I sincerely hope you were kidding with the Weinstein toast, James. That would otherwise be the film critic version of Darth Anakin in Episode 3.

My call: In the future, Weinstein will have proven to be a cancer to film history. If only the worm fell harder.


Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:56 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3121
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
Jeff Wilder wrote:
I would've chosen Social Network or Inception over The King's Speech. Don't get me wrong. The King's Speech was a very good movie. But I thought Inception had a more original story and The Social Network was edgier.

I suspect that the relevance issue may have something to do with why King's Speech won over The Social Netowrk. I strong suspect that some members of the academy may have simply looked at Social Netowrk as being "that Facebook movie" and thought it may not stand up that well 15-20 years from now, while The King's Speech is a historical drama and those tend to do well at the Oscars. I like The King's Speech way better than I did previous historic dramas that won Best Picture (The English Patient).

I'm not upset that it won. But if I were to rank it on a list with the 8 nominees I did see, it would come third (after the two I previously mentioned).


My gut tells me that 15 years from now, neither THE KING'S SPEECH nor THE SOCIAL NETWORK is going to be strongly remembered. INCEPTION, however, might be. Look at the movies we tend to remember over time. INCEPTION is that kind of movie.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK made my Top 10; in an ordinary year, it would have gotten an Honorable Mention. I think it's a lot more conventional that many people are indicating. It's not really about Facebook; it's a traditional story of two friends falling out when one is seduced by the Dark Side.

THE KING'S SPEECH was my #1 film; in an ordinary year, it would have come in around 3-4-5. It made me remember what I like best about movies.

My pick, for what it's worth, would have been to give the Best Picture Oscar to THE KING'S SPEECH and the Best Director to The Guy Who Didn't Get Nominated. Failing that, to Fincher.


Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:11 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
Yup, my top film didn't even get nominated for the doc section

Sweet Grass

and yes Social Network is not a great movie

Rob


Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Post Re: February 28, 2011: "Abbreviated Day-After Thoughts"
Porcis wrote:
The one thing that must end is the political speeches and comments. I'm sorry folks, but an award show is not time for that sort of thing. Charles Ferguson's comments I found to be particularly ill advised. I'm sorry but capitalism and the ability to make money is not a crime. When you're the CEO of a huge company, however you got there, you've earned the right to lay off a thousand people so you can keep your job and house. Perhaps if the so called "victims" of all this "fraud" had worked a little harder, they could have been the ones laying people off. A lesson for all the kids out there- work harder. And isn't a filmmaker (a profession that usually pays pretty well) criticizing other rich people a little like the pot calling the kettle black? But here I've become as bad as the guy on stage trying to share his opinion with the rest of the world. See how annoying that is?


This may be one of the dumbest paragraphs I have EVER wasted my time reading. Get a grip, and maybe go back to school. You were obviously drinking too much during social studies.

PS. After this debacle, I am going to try to swear off the Oscars for good. There wasn't single one thing worth watching, EXCEPT maybe waiting to see what Charles Ferguson's comment would be after making such an incredibly powerful movie.


Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:07 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 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