General Show Discussion

For the films of 2013
Okri
Professor
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Okri » Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:09 am

Since, according to all reports, Garfield ended up having a party with the kid and took him to Disneyland, I expect the kid had more fun anyway. And AMPAS really shouldn't have had the segment done anyway - it would've been completely out of place.

I'm also glad, somewhat selfishly, that Garfield wasn't being a "cunty diva" as described by flipp, as I really llike him and that goes against how he acts in the media (uber-gawky nerd more than anything else).

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3798
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby ITALIANO » Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:34 am

Big Magilla wrote:You two are incredible.

Maybe the idea of a sick 5 year-old at the Oscars isn't such a good idea but you don't tease a child like that. Have him rehearse his segment, say "great job, see you tomorrow" or whatever bullshit they throw at these things, then send an e-mail the next morning, the day of the show, to his segment co-star and his mother, saying "thanks, but no thanks. We decided the segment isn't right for us." It's cruel.


I don't have anything against the little boy. It's the way he would have been used that I find repulsive.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14931
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Big Magilla » Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:15 pm

You two are incredible.

Maybe the idea of a sick 5 year-old at the Oscars isn't such a good idea but you don't tease a child like that. Have him rehearse his segment, say "great job, see you tomorrow" or whatever bullshit they throw at these things, then send an e-mail the next morning, the day of the show, to his segment co-star and his mother, saying "thanks, but no thanks. We decided the segment isn't right for us." It's cruel.

Mickey Rooney isn't retired. He's got thee films in production including the latest version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" and he would show up at the opening of a supermarket if they asked him. Of course he hasn't seen Deanna Durbin in decades. Few had seen her since her retirement in 1948 and there are few, if any, left who actually worked with her. Jennifer Lawrence, whose rise has been almost as meteoric, would be a good substitute although they'd probably have to give her a quick course in who Durbin was if there's anyone connected with the Oscars who even knows or cares.

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5584
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby flipp525 » Fri Mar 07, 2014 1:03 pm

ITALIANO wrote:As for the In Memoriam segment, maybe that should be canceled, too. I don't find it especially offensive, but every year there are so many discussions about the included and the omitted, and these discussions always leave a bitter taste. As for the idea of forcing a poor 93-year-old out of well-deserved retirement, and having him on stage honoring a person that he probably hasn't seen in the last 70 years (and by doing so seriously risking of having the first name for next year's In Memoriam segment, live, on natonal television)... well, this is true Big Magilla-land.

Ha! The older they are, the more they're likely to pop up on his radar. I'm surprised Olivia de Havilland wasn't suggested for something.

Why don't they get whoever is responsible over at TCM to do the In Memoriam segment for the next Oscar telecast? Theirs' is always such a class act.

No one has really said this, but I thought the In Memoriam at this Oscar's was very shitty. A big picture of the person with a teeny, tiny snippet of some scene and one title credit listed under their name. It was just bad.

Every time I see "Batkid" it looks like "Barkad" to me.
Last edited by flipp525 on Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3798
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby ITALIANO » Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:58 pm

I only heard about Batkid because of his exclusion from the Oscars - but let me say it, thank God his segment was canceled - for him first of all, and also for us. It's true that the Oscars have seen everything, including that singing Snow White and those fake deaf kids, but really, this could have been a moment of almost as embarassing proportions (and it wouldn't have had anything to do with movies - though at least now we know what those hero montages were all about).

As for the In Memoriam segment, maybe that should be canceled, too. I don't find it especially offensive, but every year there are so many discussions about the included and the omitted, and these discussions always leave a bitter taste. As for the idea of forcing a poor 93-year-old out of well-deserved retirement, and having him on stage honoring a person that he probably hasn't seen in the last 70 years (and by doing so seriously risking of having the first name for next year's In Memoriam segment, live, on natonal television)... well, this is true Big Magilla-land.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14931
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Big Magilla » Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:02 am

Initially I thought the show was OK, not great, but OK, but something gnawed at me all week. I finally figured out what it was.

The Oscars should be about the movies, not the producers; not the host; the movies. Producers Neil Merron and Craig Zadan love the thereafter, they love musicals as do many of us, but the movies are not musical theatre. A novelty song like Billy Crystal used to do; a show biz anthem like "There's No Business Like Show Business" or "Hooray for Hollywood" to open the show would be fine, but Pink singing "Over the Rainboiw" and Bette Midler singing "The Wind Beneath My Wings" especially within the context they were shown are just "huh?" moments. So are the singing staging and singing of the Best Song nominees when the nominees are dull as dishwater.

There is nothing wrong with Ellen as a TV host, but the Oscars should have a movie star host, not the parade of TV personalities we have gotten lately. The selection of the host is made too early. Tom Hanks or Emma Thompson would have made a wonderful host but would not have been an appropriate one when they were considered probably nominees a la James Franco a couple of years ago. Glenn Close would be another good choice but they seem to think she's only good enough to introduce dead people. How many times has she introduced the "In Memoriam" segment now?

Speaking of "In Memoriam", although part of me thinks it a bit gauche to single out a handful of the recently departed for special tribute, another part of me thinks that the truly special should be afforded their own tribute. This year there were four.

Shirley Temple was not just the brightest child star of all time, she was the number one box office star from the death of Marie Dressler in 1934 to the emergence of Mickey Rooney as the number one box office star in 1939. Instead of using Bette Midler to sing one of her own songs they could have used her to pay tribute to Shirley and maybe sing a stanza of one or two of Shirley's irrepressible songs.

Rooney, who is still acting at 93 and always an Oscar attendee when asked, could have done a segment on Deanna Durbin with whom he shared the 1938 Juvenile Award. Durbin, whose films still hold up, literally saved Universal from bankruptcy and was their top attraction between horror films until she walked away from Hollywood and her own career in 1948.

Maximilian Schell was a true renaissance man, as adept a producer, director and documentarian as he was an actor. One of his former co-stars and co-Oscar nominees, Jane Fonda was in attendance. She could easily and I presume happily been given the task of paying him tribute.

No actor in the history of the Academy has been nominating more times without winning than Peter O'Toole. Yes, they gave him an honorary Oscar, but still a few words from a former co-star such as Anthony Hopkins would have been nice.

And finally, they should do more to involve the public. Maybe every year introducing a John or Jane Doe who buys the tickets and the DVDs that support the industry. Batkid could have been the first. Talk about missed opportunities!

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5584
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby flipp525 » Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:46 am

I actually thought the pizza guy stunt and the selfie worked and think they'll both be two of the most remembered moments from the show. Another hero montage (that theme was ridiculous) or the coronation of BatKid (whose 15 minutes, I’m sorry, need to end)? No.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."



-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14931
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Big Magilla » Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:04 am

OscarGuy wrote:Sorry, that story seemed fishy to me from the beginning. I was going to post something about it on Facebook before the E! Online story came out, but didn't get the chance. Garfield has never been cited as someone particularly selfish or greedy and the Academy has plenty of options as to how it could have presented it (especially when you had so many potential actors available).

Part of me is also glad they didn't go the way they did. First of all, Spider-Man is a Marvel Universe character. Batman is a DC Universe character. I know it may not mean much to a lot of you, but that seems like a slap in the face to DC because they haven't been nearly as popular as Marvel. It's not like Ben Affleck (who has Gone Girl coming out this year) wouldn't have been a terrific choice to do it, earn some good will for his upcoming job as Batman. Or, they could have dug out any of the past Batmen (Christian Bale was already at the ceremony). Those are quibbles about how it was presented. I think, in the scope of the show's tribute to heroes, it would have been a perfect fit and might have made the theme all the more reasonable and understandable.

I had the same initial reaction. If the problem was Garfield, they could have gotten Affleck or Bale who was going to be there anyway. They did get Chris Evans, who would have been as fitting a presenter as Garfield. Could be the producers feared the kid would be the emotional highlight of the evening detracting from the sappy half-hearted tribute to The Wizard of Oz and Bette Midler's totally unnecessary addendum to the In Memoriam segment. More likely, though, they saw the $ signs emanating from Samsung if they had Ellen promote the Galaxy S4 with those instantly popular selfies and thought that would be a better use of time between the awards presentations. That or the pizza guy stunt.

User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2721
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Eric » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:32 am

OscarGuy wrote:Spider-Man is a Marvel Universe character. Batman is a DC Universe character. I know it may not mean much to a lot of you

Now there's an understatement.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12255
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby OscarGuy » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:15 am

Sorry, that story seemed fishy to me from the beginning. I was going to post something about it on Facebook before the E! Online story came out, but didn't get the chance. Garfield has never been cited as someone particularly selfish or greedy and the Academy has plenty of options as to how it could have presented it (especially when you had so many potential actors available).

Part of me is also glad they didn't go the way they did. First of all, Spider-Man is a Marvel Universe character. Batman is a DC Universe character. I know it may not mean much to a lot of you, but that seems like a slap in the face to DC because they haven't been nearly as popular as Marvel. It's not like Ben Affleck (who has Gone Girl coming out this year) wouldn't have been a terrific choice to do it, earn some good will for his upcoming job as Batman. Or, they could have dug out any of the past Batmen (Christian Bale was already at the ceremony). Those are quibbles about how it was presented. I think, in the scope of the show's tribute to heroes, it would have been a perfect fit and might have made the theme all the more reasonable and understandable.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Heksagon » Fri Mar 07, 2014 1:14 am

jack wrote:I'd just like to add a point to Norbet situation. I don't remember this being brought up at the time, but did anyone ask the question why DreamWorks, who produced both Norbet and Dreamgirls, would release an embarrament like Norbet while they were also pushing Murphy for the Oscar for the other? I know Paramoint were involved in Dreamgirls, but it seems a bit backwards on DW part.


This is just a guess, but I figure that DreamWorks was hoping that the added publicity Eddie Murphy was bound to receive from Dreamgirls would work as "free" advertisement for Norbit. I don’t think that the DreamWorks execs anticipated quite how poorly Norbit would be received when they scheduled its release.

(And for the record, I don’t believe Norbit was the reason why Murphy lost)

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14931
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Big Magilla » Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:58 am


Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5876
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Mister Tee » Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:45 pm

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of evidence Page Six is full of shit. (As shocking as that new may be)

http://www.eonline.com/news/518479/andr ... topstories

Aceisgreat
Temp
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 7:56 am

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Aceisgreat » Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:04 pm

flipp525 wrote:Andrew Garfield sounds like a cunty little diva.

http://pagesix.com/2014/03/05/andrew-ga ... at-oscars/


Different story coming from E! News...

http://www.eonline.com/news/518143/andr ... vrit=79438
"I can't stand a naked light bulb any more than I can a rude remark or a vulgar action." -- Blanche DuBois

jack
Assistant
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby jack » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:24 pm

I'd just like to add a point to Norbet situation. I don't remember this being brought up at the time, but did anyone ask the question why DreamWorks, who produced both Norbet and Dreamgirls, would release an embarrament like Norbet while they were also pushing Murphy for the Oscar for the other? I know Paramoint were involved in Dreamgirls, but it seems a bit backwards on DW part.


Return to “86th Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest