Sign in to follow this  
WhyaDuck

To My Surprise, I Liked The Oscars...

144 posts in this topic

Okay, finished watching the Oscars.

 

All in all a good night, especially in re-watching some segments, Seth was not bad; I guess this is a vote for "Seth didn't suck". I learned the "I Saw Your Boobs" number was pre-produced, right down to random reactions by the stars --that were taken in earlier awards shows! So it wasn't an egg-laying but by design, which is the way Seth lays a joke. Once you see that, it is easier to take. Seth's banter otherwise stayed pretty much close to others before him, Yeah, he learned 150 years is still too soon to joke about actor's and a beloved President.

 

Each show is unique, and I enjoyed this one overall. It did seem interesting that Argo would capture the Best Picture (I liked it too) and now Ben Affleck better direct something good next year-- Hollywood is ready to kiss and make up. That's how the Academy rolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who would you say is the best actor of Day's generation. He was born in 1957, and thus I would say actors like De Niro are from a prior generation. I only mention De Niro since his name often comes up related to this topic.

 

Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Feb 25, 2013 8:56 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=lavenderblue19 wrote:

> }{quote}I said it before, bring back Billy Crystal. No one can replace Bob and Johnny, but at at least Billy is just good, clean fun.

>

They've probably asked him every year for the last 20 years but they can't force him now, can they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To you have anything to back that up?

 

I would hope they had asked someone like Crystal and he just didn't feel like doing it, but my assumption is (since I have no other info on this topic), is that they want someone they feel is a more younger hipper host. I assume this since, their 20 - 40 (or so), viewer rating has been on the decline for sometime now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did hear him say in an interview that this is basically a commitment of several months & that it's harder the older he gets. But other than that, no. Nothing to back it up. Which you kinda made my point. We don't know what goes on behind the scenes. Maybe this Seth guy was the best guy they could get. I don't see why anyone would want to host it. Cause it seems no matter who it is, people bellyache about how terrible they were. Zzzzzz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the Oscars. I was iffy about Seth Mcfarland hosting but he made it fun. I thought his jokes racey but not too over the top or inappropriate. I was glad Anne Hathaway took home the Oscar for Actress in a supporting role, I didn't however think Jennifer Lawrence should have beat out Jessica Chastain for Best Actress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote} So who would you say is the best actor of Day's generation. ? ...

Well, you know, I have to be honest here, even though I know I'm probably the only person who feels this way: An actor has to be really terrible for me to notice their acting at all. When I watch a movie, I hardly ever think about the acting one way or the other. I suppose that means the acting is usually pretty good. Or maybe it means I am not aware enough, or critical enough, about acting. So I'm not a good person to talk about "today's best actors".

 

But, "if push comes to shove" (an alarmingly violent expression, if I do say so) just off the top of my head, I"d cite the following as pretty darn good:

 

Tommy Lee Jones

 

 

Sean Penn

 

 

Colin Firth

 

 

Philip Seymour Hoffman

 

 

Clive Owen

 

 

Alan Rickman

 

 

 

Samuel Jackson (well, he may not be particularly versatile, but ya gotta love the guy)

 

 

William H. Macey

 

 

Paul Giametti

 

 

These guys are all good. I haven't seen anything Day Lewis has done that, good though it may be, was any better than performances I've seen from the actors on that list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billy Crystal hosted last year's Oscar ceremony and the reviews weren't all supportive. Many of the reviews talked about Billy's tired schtick and weren't afraid to opine that Crystal should retire gracefully from hosting duties.

 

One thing we might all want to keep in mind is that we tend to look back with rose colored glasses and that colors how we remember not only history but pop culture events like the Oscars.

 

Some of the longest ceremonies happened while Billy, Whoopi, Ellen, etc hosted the event but we don't remember that, we remember the moments that resonated with us, made us laugh, made us cry, made us smile in agreement with choices made or surprised us with us an upset.

 

It's human nature to think that Bob Hope and Johnny Carson never had a bad Oscar show but a walk through various archives reveals that they did have some off shows but we don't remember those because our memories tend to remember the stuff we liked or surprised us.

 

Hosting the modern Oscar ceremony is a very thankless job these days. No matter how good a job is done, the host will get raked over the coals because with our internet culture, everyone has an opinion and people aren't shy to voice those opinions, sometimes the more outlandish, the better because it's all about getting people to share your opinion with others, even if it isn't particularly well written.

 

Just a caveat, this is not written in response to the opinions here at TCM City but just an observation after more than a few hours perusing the internet to see what people were saying about last night's show. (Which I liked for the most part, but like all Oscar shows, had some great moments, some very slow moments - the whole modern musical tribute could have been done in a montage and saved about 15 minutes in running time-some emotional moments, all the things that go into making the Oscars so talk worthy.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I wrote a number of times on this and the other Oscar threads on this board, for the most part I liked the show. My comments about Johnny and Bob and Billy have more to do with the type of jokes at the ceremony. I happen to prefer cleaner material. Seth McFarlane's off color jokes although maybe somewhat humorous is not my cup of tea, but I still found the show while not the best, not to be the worst Oscar presentation either. My biggest objection as I've stated before was the sloppy job done with the In Memoriam segment. I also have to say that the show is just too long. I watched the entire show and thought that as far as Oscar shows went it was fine. I posted that opinion from the first. I have to say, that what others have to say on the internet really does not sway my opinion. People always love to find the negative and no matter how good an Oscar show might be, there will always be negative posts about it. I agree that hosting the Oscar's ceremony is a thankless job. We may remember past shows with rose colored glasses and maybe that's part of the reason we are so tough on the more contemporary hosts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there does: In your opinion.

 

Unless one were a Professor of Filmology, and came here to share their Nobel Prize winning paper on why they were a genius and knew everything there is to know about television and movies, what else are these posts on this message board, if not 'our opinions', which need not be stated with each and every post?

h1. N'est-ce pas?

 

Oh and this:

 

 

Worst show ever. Worst host ever. Nothing more needs to be said.

 

 

is the absolute truth. Here's hoping McWorst is not coming back next year.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree they should go back to 5 Best Pic Nominees. They did that to try to beef up ratings (hoping some big blockbusters would be included, but it hasnt turned out that way so far) If 10 Best Pics, why not 10 Best Actor/Actresses? Those categories always leave people out! They have since amended the rule so a film has to get a certain percentage now to make it (dont ask me how they figure it) There CAN be 10, but not necessarily 10. (Leave it to the Academy to further muddy the waters)....I dont think there were 10 this year?

 

 

 

 

 

As for Foreign films. That has always been a confusing issue. In order for a foreign film to get a nomination in that category it has to be CHOSEN/SUBMITTED by the country that made it. More often that not the film hasnt even played in the U.S. yet. But a foreign film CAN get a best picture nomination if it has played in LA for a week in that year. So on rare occasions a foreign film will get nominations in both categories, but it is pretty rare as it has to be a film that is very popular with audiences (at least in LA)..........(and has been submitted by the country of origin as its choice in the foreign film category).....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add me to the list: that hosting the Oscars is a thankless job, why few people want to do it. Or if they do, don't do it again. You get blamed for the whole show (when often it's the producers who are at fault) Part of the problem is they want it to be an entertainment extravaganza which only bloats the show and makes it an endurance test. Most East Coast Watchers go to bed before the major awards are given. I, for one, prefer a minimum of entertainment and let's give out the awards approach, but I dont think that will ever fly. The Academy keeps chasing the youth market, but I think that's a losing game. They dont really care that much (partly due to the glut of award shows). The Oscars have become less relevant. To me as well............

 

Edited by: Hibi on Feb 26, 2013 12:36 PM

 

Edited by: Hibi on Feb 26, 2013 12:37 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the whole, I agree with lavenderblue, I've seen worse, but a lot better. Seth just was not funny. The Memoriam was lacking at least Ann Rutherford, Andy Griffith, and Larry Hagman and was disappointing. They may argue that Hagman and Griffith were stars more in a tv way, than film way, but how long does it take show their picture, and how much does it cost to get a picture or clip of them? The highlight was Bassey singing, and while I like Adele's music generally, the Skyfall number wasn't that great. It was passable and I had a generally good time, helped by the winners good speeches. And while I was surprised that Seth could actually sing, his musical numbers were lacking in taste. I too am surprised they asked him. On a constructive note, they should stick to giving out the awards without trying to be funny all the time, or at all. We all want a good time, but not at others' expense. Maybe next year will be better.

 

On another note, (I thought of this last night) they said some time in the past few years on the Oscars, that the awards were started to celebrate (the best of the) movies (or something to that effect), but in fact I read somewhere they were started due to poor movie theater attendance and to picque peoples' interest in the winning performances and films.

 

Maybe next year's Oscars will be better.

 

Edited by: allaboutlana on Feb 26, 2013 10:43 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed most of the program, got home during the "In Memoriam" segment. So I don't know if they included Joyce Redman, of the eating scene in Tom Jones -- I doubt it. The Guardian reported that the Brits were offended because Michael Winner wasn't included. And I have to say this -- is there something wrong with me? -- I don't like Barbra Streisand anymore. Funny Girl was the second Broadway show I ever saw, I loved her in that, and I loved her early recordings. But she's taken to playing stereotypes on film and has become far too self-reverential. And I think the "In Memoriam" segment should not feature any one of the departed more than any other -- and that includes Marvin Hamlisch. And in the awards in general, I think the obsession with comedy should go. It's very seldom funny, and I actually prefer the awards -- even the small ones -- over the banter. I guess the magic has gone, or I've become too jaded.

 

Joyce-Redman-008.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Someone said in another thread (or maybe here?) that Barbra Streisand should have sung DURING the montage and I agree with that. I like her devotion to her friend Marvin, but her song should have served everyone. She could have still said her personal tribute before the montage began, then sung. As for the self-reverential part, I'm finding out myself that age is a great leveler and it seemed that maybe she's a little less focused on that grande dame persona now. I loved the quality of her voice in old age. It seemed to me like she was embracing her new limitations in the same way Joni Mitchell has and, rather than flailing to hold onto what that voice once was, she's focused on what she can realistically still do with it. At least I hope so. I too long for the old Barbra to reemerge, the one who was free enough to play with her image the way she did in "The Owl and The Pussycat".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good idea, but I'm sure Barbra would not have gone for it. She wouldnt want competition if she was singing (clips of the departed)........The whole idea was for ratings and was not a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just read an online article about the memorial "omissions", and discovered that family members of the departed, as do the award nominees, have to campaign to get some of the departed mentioned. THAT'S just wrong!

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*I agree they should go back to 5 Best Pic Nominees. They did that to try to beef up ratings (hoping some big blockbusters would be included, but it hasnt turned out that way so far) If 10 Best Pics, why not 10 Best Actor/Actresses? Those categories always leave people out! They have since amended the rule so a film has to get a certain percentage now to make it (dont ask me how they figure it) There CAN be 10, but not necessarily 10. (Leave it to the Academy to further muddy the waters)....I dont think there were 10 this year?*

 

There were nine Best Movie nominations this year. Thanks for the explanation; now I have an idea why. I've always liked the Golden Globes' idea, where they have separate categories for Best Comedy/Musical, and Best Dramatic Movie. Also Best Actor/Actress in a Comedy/Musical, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I've said somewhere earlier, they could shorten this show by relegating certain awards to those earlier ceremonies. Like "Sound Editing". If the idea is to up the ratings and entertain the television audience, most of who might not have as yet seen any of the movies in contention, then shoving some categories to another ceremony makes sense. Name me ONE "Oscar pool" that has the nominees for sound editing on it. Yeah, I know it's a vital part of the completion of a motion picture, but WHO really goes to SEE a movie because "so-and-so" did the SOUND?

 

 

DROP some of the "nobody knows WHO the F*** they are" tech categories, and stick to the actors, actresses, and film score wins.

 

 

STOP obsessing on the needless "red carpet" crap.

 

 

Let performances of the nominees for "Best Song" be the ONLY musical numbers on the show.

 

 

Just let the FAMILY of some dead film critic do the mourning.

 

 

Whoever in this forum that asked "WHY do the Oscars need a THEME?" is absolutely correct!

 

 

Insist that those who win needn't thank everybody down to their elementary school CROSSING guard in their acceptance speech.

 

 

These ideas MIGHT make the whole evening move along at an acceptable pace.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was me (NO THEME! LOL) I'd be fine if they dumped all the technical awards to a pre-show and brought back the Honorary Awards. At least those have some links to the past and emotional connection. Couldnt agree more about salutes/production numbers. BORING. I think one year they dropped the song performances entirely (I didnt miss it!) They cant write good songs anymore anyway.........

 

Edited by: Hibi on Feb 26, 2013 12:51 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the primary reason for increasing the number of nominees was to increase the ratings for the Oscar telecast. I think the primary reason was to help the film industry market product.

 

e.g. 4 more films could promote their movie as a best picture nominee. As you know all ads for a picture highly promote any nominations.

 

So the more nominees, the more promoting, and hopefully more revenue for the film industry. Based on this paradigm, why nominate a blockbuster. They don't need an Oscar nomination to promote their film. So called 'adult' films (serious pictures), typically need something "extra" to lure in viewers.

 

 

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
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us