LornaHansonForbes

Anyone else get the feeling that Oscars 2019 in particular is headed for a spectacular train wreck?

368 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

The train wreck just keeps coming. Seems like 3 out of the 5 songs nominated for best Song might be barred from the telecast. Rob Lowe and Snow White are now inching closer to that vindication.....

https://variety.com/2019/film/awards/oscars-lady-gaga-kendrick-lamar-best-song-performers-cut-1203117143/

LOL. They have to make room for more production numbers and time wasting stunts.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CinemaInternational said:

The train wreck just keeps coming. Seems like 3 out of the 5 songs nominated for best Song might be barred from the telecast. Rob Lowe and Snow White are now inching closer to that vindication.....

https://variety.com/2019/film/awards/oscars-lady-gaga-kendrick-lamar-best-song-performers-cut-1203117143/

I still stand by my previous statements in other threads on the topic that I would rather they cut the dumb gags, dance numbers unrelated to the Best Song nominees, the Best Picture recaps spread throughout, and even most of the random clip packages ("Action Movies through the Years", "A Salute to the Movie Musical", etc.).

Keep the Best Song performances, keep all of the awards televised, and keep the In Memorium (but ditch the live singer during it).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember old (by "old" I mean 90s, because that's when I really watched all the award shows, when Billy Crystal was still hosting) Oscar shows never seemed to have all these time problems.  All the categories are the same, there were even more awards! Why is it now an issue?  Crystal even had time for a fun opening number and kidding with Jack Nicholson.

Eliminate the stupid audience stunts.  Eliminate the separate introductions for each of the 500 best picture nominees.  Bring back the honorary awards.  Eliminate the lame banter between presenters.  

I know it would be sacrilege, but maybe a few less commercials.  That would make the show go faster.  I also wish that each winner wouldn't use their acceptance speech as the time to get up on their soapbox.  Maybe allow them to preach backstage and post THAT online so that people who care about that person's opinion can watch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

I seem to remember old (by "old" I mean 90s, because that's when I really watched all the award shows, when Billy Crystal was still hosting) Oscar shows never seemed to have all these time problems.  All the categories are the same, there were even more awards! Why is it now an issue?  Crystal even had time for a fun opening number and kidding with Jack Nicholson.

Since Rob Lowe & Snow White had been long gone by the time Billy Crystal was embedded in the 90's, the historical cutoff point at where The Audience Started to Hate the Ceremonies can be pinpointed to one moment in the 1999 ceremony:
Debbie Allen choreographs a dance tribute to "Saving Private Ryan".  (Well, that's the legend--In fact, it was a "Dance tribute" to all that year's Picture nominees, including "Life is Beautiful", but one moment stuck forever in our collective memories.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFA2BbuImyc

That was something the audience thought they could never un-see:
After that, for the next twenty years, every single bit of miscellaneous variety was symbolically punished for the crime of its predecessor.  Anything...ANYTHING...that didn't shut up and give the awards and keep things moving--including the speeches--were subconsciously considered the Antichrist on a Harley whipping puppies.  Best Song, Life-Achievement, In Memoriam, explanatory Best Picture excerpts, and yes, even the Chuck Workman classic-clip montages were considered "wastes" of the audience's valuable time.  And faced with grumbling imaginary lynch-mobs, the ceremony kept bending over farther and farther backwards to placate them, until they snapped a spine.

(The second year Jon Stewart hosted in '08, they tried experimenting with cutting out ALL extraneous entertainment, and the resulting graduation-line was one of the dullest Oscar disasters of the 00's.)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

I still stand by my previous statements in other threads on the topic that I would rather they cut the dumb gags, dance numbers unrelated to the Best Song nominees, the Best Picture recaps spread throughout, and even most of the random clip packages ("Action Movies through the Years", "A Salute to the Movie Musical", etc.).

Keep the Best Song performances, keep all of the awards televised, and keep the In Memorium (but ditch the live singer during it).

AGREE. And bring back the honorary awards to the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, EricJ said:

the historical cutoff point at where The Audience Started to Hate the Ceremonies can be pinpointed to one moment in the 1999 ceremony:
Debbie Allen choreographs a dance tribute to "Saving Private Ryan".  (Well, that's the legend--In fact, it was a "Dance tribute" to all that year's Picture nominees, including "Life is Beautiful", but one moment stuck forever in our collective memories.)

I still stand by my previous statements in other threads on the topic that I would rather they cut the dumb gags, dance numbers unrelated to the Best Song nominees, the Best Picture recaps spread throughout, and even most of the random clip packages ("Action Movies through the Years", "A Salute to the Movie Musical", etc.).

(The prosecution rests.) 😓

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

I know it would be sacrilege, but maybe a few less commercials. 

 

 

Uh, some execs from ABC would like a word with you...

giphy.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

 

 

Uh, some execs from ABC would like a word with you...

giphy.gif

Lol.  She floats! She's a witch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

Lol.  She floats! She's a witch!

If you haven't had a crowd chanting "BURN THE WITCH" outside your window at least four times a year, you're just not living right.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

ps- guess I was wrong about GAGA (ooh LaLA) getting robbed (rum-pa-pa-pa) of un nominaccione.

 

I am rooting for Glenn Close.  I think Gaga will get the Best Original Song award.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually got pretty fed up with last year's show to the point that I may not even watch the program this year. And I've seen every Oscar telecast since about 1969/70. I really don't care who wins anymore, it's not about cinematic art {never was, I guess}and most of the films nominated I couldn't give two shakes about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2019 at 6:36 PM, Dargo said:

...otherwise known as either the "Lee Atwater or Karl Rove Method",

You might wish to read up on the presidential elections of 1912 and 1800.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fedya said:

You might wish to read up on the presidential elections of 1912 and 1800.

The 1912 Democratic Convention as depicted in the film Wilson (1944) is one of the great politics-related scenes in movies, and certainly the best depiction of an old-fashioned convention. I loved Paul Everton as Judge Westcott, who nominated Woodrow Wilson, in the typical oratorial style that one would expect from a convention speech in those days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hibi said:

Just a disgrace. Cut one pointless number or salute and they'd have the time.

Especially since there will be no host monologue, which always counts for at least 15 to 20 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Pretty Interesting, in-depth and slightly savage article from BuzzFeed-

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alisonwillmore/bohemian-rhapsody-green-book-bryan-singer-oscars-2019

The funniest line was when it compared Bohemian Rhapsody to Walk Hard. That's a fair criticism, as so many of these rock biopics hit the same notes, and the Queen film is no exception. I can't agree about the editing being bad. It never jumped out at me as being a problem while watching it. I was surprised to see that it's been nominated for the editing Oscar, though.

I have to disagree strongly with the notion that the film and all of the other people involved should be "punished" or exiled because of Bryan Singer's past actions. The article repeatedly laments that both "Singer and his film" are escaping unscathed from the public ostracism that they "deserve". None of the people in the cast and crew are accused of any sexual misconduct, so why should they and their work be summarily dismissed due to Singer's crimes? Singer himself has not been nominated for anything, as far as I can tell, and his name is noticeably absent from the Thank-You speeches that I've heard at previous awards gigs.

The article writer also mentions how much money Singer is making off of the film due to his contractual profit participation. What is the writer asking for, exactly? For "someone" to not pay the money that they're contractually, and thus legally, required to? To sue him in civil court to stop or even try to rescind payment? On what grounds? All of these allegations were known when he was hired. These stories have been around for over 20 years. The only people with shadier reputations in Hollywood were Weinstein and Cosby, and perhaps Singer's old pal Kevin Spacey.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

The funniest line was when it compared Bohemian Rhapsody to Walk Hard. That's a fair criticism, as so many of these rock biopics hit the same notes, and the Queen film is no exception. I can't agree about the editing being bad. It never jumped out at me as being a problem while watching it. I was surprised to see that it's been nominated for the editing Oscar, though.

I have to disagree strongly with the notion that the film and all of the other people involved should be "punished" or exiled because of Bryan Singer's past actions. The article repeatedly laments that both "Singer and his film" are escaping unscathed from the public ostracism that they "deserve". None of the people in the cast and crew are accused of any sexual misconduct, so why should they and their work be summarily dismissed due to Singer's crimes? Singer himself has not been nominated for anything, as far as I can tell, and his name is noticeably absent from the Thank-You speeches that I've heard at previous awards gigs.

The article writer also mentions how much money Singer is making off of the film due to his contractual profit participation. What is the writer asking for, exactly? For "someone" to not pay the money that they're contractually, and thus legally, required to? To sue him in civil court to stop or even try to rescind payment? On what grounds? All of these allegations were known when he was hired. These stories have been around for over 20 years. The only people with shadier reputations in Hollywood were Weinstein and Cosby, and perhaps Singer's old pal Kevin Spacey.

You know, it’s funny that you bring this up, because I thought about tacking on the following piece of information to that post I made above with The Buzzfeed article attached but did not.

However I will now: When I lived in Los Angeles I dated a very close friend of Singers For a while and I met him several times, maybe 8 to 10 times I don’t know. He was always very nice and very quiet and the boyfriend he had with him every single time was always somebody who was at least in his early 20s.

He also Never acted in any wildly inappropriate ways ever once, and I actually was at a couple of parties that he was at.

Now, just because I had this experience and this somewhat shallow acquaintance  with him, it doesn’t really mean anything about the allegations being true or not.

But every time I hear about him being some kind of drugged out whack job Caligula, I just remember the odd nerd who didn’t speak much That I knew back in 2003.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Especially since there will be no host monologue, which always counts for at least 15 to 20 minutes.

H-LL YES! I forgot about that. No host this year!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually record it and ff through it post mortum, but sometimes I dont even bother with that and erase it. I have some interest this year, as I've seen a few of the nominated films......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us