Oscar Weirdness

[livius drusus]

So just in case it wasn't clear by the casting of Chris Rock as the host of the Oscars this year, they're trying to sass up the traditional boring old ceremony: Oscar hopes to shake up show, reputation (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/movieawards/oscars/2005-02-08-oscar-changes_x.htm).

The first-time host will enjoy a stage that juts out into the audience to better suit his walk-and-talk style, organizers say. And they're planning other shake-ups to the Feb. 27 telecast, including bringing all nominees on stage for some awards and presenting some statuettes to winners in the audience.

I don't know how this'll pan out, but I'm pessimistic, frankly. People are still going to make shitty, long, repetitive acceptance speeches and they're still going to get cut off by the orchestra. Also, I think the idea of herding all the nominees onto the stage for the announcement just reeks. It's sooooo Miss USA pageant: instead of hugging their loved ones the winners will have to smooch all over the losers, and the people who lose are going to look stupid nomatter what they do.

Twenty bucks says they'll still have bad dance numbers too. Oh well... I can't remember the last time I stayed up to watch the Academy Awards anyway. This year will likely be no different.

[Ymir's blood]

Maybe someone will have a 'wardrobe malfunction?' :weirdtv:

[Dingfod]

I haven't really given a rat's patootie about the Oscars since Annie Hall was named Best Picture of 1977. What about Julia (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076245/)?

[livius drusus]

Maybe someone will have a 'wardrobe malfunction?' :weirdtv:

Here's hoping something unexpected peeks out. :crossed:

[Seven of Nine]

I lost interest in the Oscars when I saw that films could win Best Picture while their male or female leads were passed over for Best Actor and Actress.
That makes no sense to me.

[Crumb]

I lost interest in the Oscars when I saw that films could win Best Picture while their male or female leads were passed over for Best Actor and Actress.
That makes no sense to me.

Hmm, that's makes perfect sense to me. It seems possible (maybe even likely) that the movie that is overall the best picture may not contain the best performance of a single individual. Does the leading actor or actress make a film? No, there is much more substance to a best picture than that.

That being said, the problem is that the right picture, actor, or actress is rarely the one to get the reward. That's why I don't put any stock in them. I mean Titanic won 11 or so of them! :rubeyes: That's crazy. Not to mention the moronic way they handled the LOTR trilogy.

[maddog]

. . . the problem is that the right picture, actor, or actress is rarely the one to get the reward. That's why I don't put any stock in them. I mean Titanic won 11 or so of them! :rubeyes: That's crazy. Not to mention the moronic way they handled the LOTR trilogy.I agree totally about Titanic. what a Titanic disaster THAT silly movie was! But I don't remember about the LOTR trilogy. What are you referring to?
#300

[lady cop]

every year i say i am NOT watching that damn thing, and i always get suckered in. :oscarwin: it's the clothes. i have to see the clothes. all the $5000. dresses i will NEVER wear to go to publix. :popcorn:

[Dingfod]

. . . the problem is that the right picture, actor, or actress is rarely the one to get the reward. That's why I don't put any stock in them. I mean Titanic won 11 or so of them! :rubeyes: That's crazy. Not to mention the moronic way they handled the LOTR trilogy.I agree totally about Titanic. what a Titanic disaster THAT silly movie was! But I don't remember about the LOTR trilogy. What are you referring to?
#300Titanic deserved to win at least one Oscar, "Best Use of Water in a Motion Picture". The rising water and tilting sets were more fascinating than anything actors were doing in the movie.

[Crumb]

But I don't remember about the LOTR trilogy. What are you referring to?

They didn't nominate Fellowship or Two Towers for anything and instead nominated ROTK for a bunch of awards all in the same year. If they wanted to treat the trilogy like a single movie that is one thing, but they gave the awards to ROTK not the whole trilogy. As if the first two movies were not worth their attention, but the third was suddenly a masterpiece. Very odd.

[maddog]

But I don't remember about the LOTR trilogy. What are you referring to?

They didn't nominate Fellowship or Two Towers for anything and instead nominated ROTK for a bunch of awards all in the same year. If they wanted to treat the trilogy like a single movie that is one thing, but they gave the awards to ROTK not the whole trilogy. As if the first two movies were not worth their attention, but the third was suddenly a masterpiece. Very odd.
Wow, I didn't remember that. If I had had to guess, I would've said I remember each of the three LOTR movies being nominated in its year, but, hey, my memory is really faulty about stuff like that. I also tend to project positive thoughts about things I like!
#301

[livius drusus]

Titanic deserved to win at least one Oscar, "Best Use of Water in a Motion Picture". The rising water and tilting sets were more fascinating than anything actors were doing in the movie.
I could not agree more. I didn't even see it in theaters and I still wanted to walk out. Oh, and how fucking fake did that damn boat look?

[Crumb]

Wow, I didn't remember that. If I had had to guess, I would've said I remember each of the three LOTR movies being nominated in its year

Hmm...well...I THOUGHT that is what happened... :sweaty:

[wei yau]

As if the first two movies were not worth their attention, but the third was suddenly a masterpiece. Very odd.

It's like Al Pacino getting an Oscar for "Scent of a Woman". The Academy had ignored him for so long, that they finally had to give him one because they owed him.

I watch the Oscars for the MC and the fashion, I don't actually put any faith in the nominees or winners. Sometimes it seems that too much of it is political.

[livius drusus]

Or Paul Newman for The Color of Money, of all stupidities.

[Dingfod]

It's like Al Pacino getting an Oscar for "Scent of a Woman". The Academy had ignored him for so long, that they finally had to give him one because they owed him.Hooaah!

[Crumb]

Hmm...well I got ot go watch Kill Bill, Vol. 2

Miss me

[livius drusus]

:qbye:
:wave:

[Ensign Steve]

They didn't nominate Fellowship or Two Towers for anything and instead nominated ROTK for a bunch of awards all in the same year. If they wanted to treat the trilogy like a single movie that is one thing, but they gave the awards to ROTK not the whole trilogy. As if the first two movies were not worth their attention, but the third was suddenly a masterpiece. Very odd.

I can't say from having watched them, but I heard tell the third one was the best. :shrug:

[pescifish]

I just watched the movie The Hours and gotta say it was worth the Oscar attention it received.

Lost in Translation kicks ass too.

I don't even know what's nominated this year, though.

[Seven of Nine]

I lost interest in the Oscars when I saw that films could win Best Picture while their male or female leads were passed over for Best Actor and Actress.
That makes no sense to me.

Hmm, that's makes perfect sense to me. It seems possible (maybe even likely) that the movie that is overall the best picture may not contain the best performance of a single individual. Does the leading actor or actress make a film? No, there is much more substance to a best picture than that.

erm..I wasn't asserting that fine lead performances automatically result in a fine film, but that a fine film must have fine lead performances.
Provide examples of fine films with poor lead performances and change my mind. :D

That being said, the problem is that the right picture, actor, or actress is rarely the one to get the reward. That's why I don't put any stock in them. I mean Titanic won 11 or so of them! :rubeyes: That's crazy.

Yes, Titanic won Best Picture and 10 other awards, but not Best Actor/Actress.
Titianic struck me as primarily being a remake of West Side Story. The emphasis was on the story of two "star crossed lovers", rather than the Titanic disaster itself, so how could Leo and Kate be passed over?

Not to mention the moronic way they handled the LOTR trilogy.

Yes, indeed. The first two were thrown the usual genre movie bones, and then the third was inexplicably lionized...with the male lead in all three never being shown the courtesy of being nominated for Best Actor.
My guess was that the Academy members could no longer ignore how popular the film was; they've always been snobbish about genre films.

[livius drusus]

Yes, Titanic won Best Picture and 10 other awards, but not Best Actor/Actress.
Titianic struck me as primarily being a remake of West Side Story. The emphasis was on the story of two "star crossed lovers", rather than the Titanic disaster itself, so how could Leo and Kate be passed over?

Here's my theory: Cameron's screenplay was so hideously atrocious that even the nutless Academy shills couldn't bring themselves to nominate it, nevermind give it the award for best original screenplay.

Given the stilted horror it produced in lieu of dialogue, even the finest actors sounded like they were in a junior high school production of Man of La Mancha, and therefore, those same nutless Academy shills couldn't bring themselves to give any of those actors performance Oscars. Nominating the lovely and talented Kate Winslet was the furthest they could go in that direction and still call themselves professionals.

[maddog]

erm..I wasn't asserting that fine lead performances automatically result in a fine film, but that a fine film must have fine lead performances.
Provide examples of fine films with poor lead performances and change my mind. :D
I guess it might just depend on the kind of film it is. Sometimes it's hard to tell just who the "lead" actor is, if an ensemble cast shares important roles. Then again, it depends on what other performances are available out there: it needn't be a poor lead performance in a fine film -- in fact, that's kind of oxymoronic to me -- but that other individual performances that year were better, although they didn't result in the best film.
#304

[viscousmemories]

I'm with maddog on this. It's not difficult for me to imagine decent performances adding up to a great film (all things considered), while much better performances are found in otherwise unimpressive films.

That said (I've been saying that a lot lately... :?) I've never really paid any attention to the Academy Awards. I'll watch the show if I'm flipping through channels and land on it, but I couldn't name a single film that won last year and I only know The Aviator is nominated for something this year 'cause it came up in a thread.

[beyelzu]

As if the first two movies were not worth their attention, but the third was suddenly a masterpiece. Very odd.

It's like Al Pacino getting an Oscar for "Scent of a Woman". The Academy had ignored him for so long, that they finally had to give him one because they owed him.

I watch the Oscars for the MC and the fashion, I don't actually put any faith in the nominees or winners. Sometimes it seems that too much of it is political.
great movie, and pacino deserved the oscar for it.