Your favourite Oscar shows
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
I have to laugh every time I see this wackadoodle nonsense about people here being predisposed to like everything associated with Bill Condon and not only being afraid to say anything negative about his efforts after the fact for fear of offending Damien but putting up a false front of liking something we actually didn't.
I joined the original board in 1998 before Damien and long before I knew anything of his connection to Bill Condon.
The film I most anticipated seeing in 1998 was The Thin Red Line which I was ultimately disappointed in. In the meantime Gods and Monsters came out of nowhere to capture the top spot on my ten best list. I didn't even know who Bill Condon was. I had him mixed up with Carl Franklin or someone. I thought he was black. It was only after I made a comment about him possibly becoming the second African-American director to be nominated for a best director Oscar that someone on the board pointed out that he wasn't black.
There was a lot of support on the board at the time for The Thin Red Line, which as I said I didn't like, Rushmore, Out of Sight and two films that I considered Twilight Zone lite, The Truman Show and Pleasantville. I was one of the few who liked Saving Private Ryan and Life Is Beautiful, but I liked Gods and Monsters more.
Bill Condon wasn't nominated for best director and Gods and Monsters wasn't nominated for best picture but he was nominated and won for best screenplay. We all looked forward to his next project, which was rumored to be a film about Bess Meyerson, who was someone I knew briefly in the 1970s and did not have a very good opinion of. Nevertheless I was fascinated by the idea of a film about her rise from beauty queen to game show panelist to consumer advocate (which is how I met her) and mayoral confidante to disgraced gangster's moll.
Instead Condon's next project was Chicago, the 2001 Oscar winner which he wrote but which was directed by Rob Marshall. Condon's next film as a director was to be Kinsey, a film we all pretty much looked forward to but which came and went without a lot of discussion.
Then came Dreamgirls which Damien fanned the flames of from the initial announcement through post-production and previews, but so did a lot of the press. Finally it came out to generally favorable but far from ecstatic reviews. If some here, who were disappointed in the film, held back their negativity for fear of offending Damien, so what? Not saying you didn't like something is a far cry from heaping undue praise on it, which no one here did.
Now we come to this year's Oscars, which was a collaborative effort but one for which Condon deserves the lion's share of the credit. He did a wonderful job. If I thought otherwise I might not say so, but I certainly wouldn't heap praise where it wasn't earned and I don't think anyone else here would, either, certainly not in an anonymous poll where the vote stands at 44-2 who rated the show favorably with 1 on the fence, 22 of the 44 deeming the show "one of the best ever".
Edited By Big Magilla on 1235843525
I joined the original board in 1998 before Damien and long before I knew anything of his connection to Bill Condon.
The film I most anticipated seeing in 1998 was The Thin Red Line which I was ultimately disappointed in. In the meantime Gods and Monsters came out of nowhere to capture the top spot on my ten best list. I didn't even know who Bill Condon was. I had him mixed up with Carl Franklin or someone. I thought he was black. It was only after I made a comment about him possibly becoming the second African-American director to be nominated for a best director Oscar that someone on the board pointed out that he wasn't black.
There was a lot of support on the board at the time for The Thin Red Line, which as I said I didn't like, Rushmore, Out of Sight and two films that I considered Twilight Zone lite, The Truman Show and Pleasantville. I was one of the few who liked Saving Private Ryan and Life Is Beautiful, but I liked Gods and Monsters more.
Bill Condon wasn't nominated for best director and Gods and Monsters wasn't nominated for best picture but he was nominated and won for best screenplay. We all looked forward to his next project, which was rumored to be a film about Bess Meyerson, who was someone I knew briefly in the 1970s and did not have a very good opinion of. Nevertheless I was fascinated by the idea of a film about her rise from beauty queen to game show panelist to consumer advocate (which is how I met her) and mayoral confidante to disgraced gangster's moll.
Instead Condon's next project was Chicago, the 2001 Oscar winner which he wrote but which was directed by Rob Marshall. Condon's next film as a director was to be Kinsey, a film we all pretty much looked forward to but which came and went without a lot of discussion.
Then came Dreamgirls which Damien fanned the flames of from the initial announcement through post-production and previews, but so did a lot of the press. Finally it came out to generally favorable but far from ecstatic reviews. If some here, who were disappointed in the film, held back their negativity for fear of offending Damien, so what? Not saying you didn't like something is a far cry from heaping undue praise on it, which no one here did.
Now we come to this year's Oscars, which was a collaborative effort but one for which Condon deserves the lion's share of the credit. He did a wonderful job. If I thought otherwise I might not say so, but I certainly wouldn't heap praise where it wasn't earned and I don't think anyone else here would, either, certainly not in an anonymous poll where the vote stands at 44-2 who rated the show favorably with 1 on the fence, 22 of the 44 deeming the show "one of the best ever".
Edited By Big Magilla on 1235843525
I'm not sure what my favorite Oscar show would be. I've only seen the shows from the 68th Awards (year of Braveheart) forward, and about half of the year before.
Worst would have to be the 74th Awards. A four and a half hour trudge through meaningless montages, meaningless honorary awards (to former winners Redford and Poitier, and to former Academy bigshot Arthur Hiller), a terrible host (of the three times I saw her host, Goldberg got progressively worse each time), and possibly the worst list of winners of my lifetime. Black Hawk Down's two wins and Gosford Park's screenplay were only wins I could support. Pretty much everything else was fourth or fifth in its category for me.
(How Laura Ziskin was invited back for the 79th Awards, I'll never know. Her second show was better, but Ellen is the dullest, lamest comedian going, and the whole Jack Black and Will Ferrell bit was a bad idea. Still, it wasn't very painful to sit through. It was good to see Scorsese finally win, and for a halfway decent movie, even though it wasn't my pick. Glad to see Morricone get some long overdue recognition. )
My second worse show ever would be the 71st Awards. It was exactly the kind of show that people talk about when they decry the Oscars for being boring and self-important.
Special mention goes to the 76th Awards. The Lord of the Rings sweep was as boring as could be expected for any non-fan of the trilogy, and there was no "moment" that stood out as memorable. And worst of all, I failed a Calculus III test because I watched the Oscars instead of studying.
Edited By dws1982 on 1235771450
Worst would have to be the 74th Awards. A four and a half hour trudge through meaningless montages, meaningless honorary awards (to former winners Redford and Poitier, and to former Academy bigshot Arthur Hiller), a terrible host (of the three times I saw her host, Goldberg got progressively worse each time), and possibly the worst list of winners of my lifetime. Black Hawk Down's two wins and Gosford Park's screenplay were only wins I could support. Pretty much everything else was fourth or fifth in its category for me.
(How Laura Ziskin was invited back for the 79th Awards, I'll never know. Her second show was better, but Ellen is the dullest, lamest comedian going, and the whole Jack Black and Will Ferrell bit was a bad idea. Still, it wasn't very painful to sit through. It was good to see Scorsese finally win, and for a halfway decent movie, even though it wasn't my pick. Glad to see Morricone get some long overdue recognition. )
My second worse show ever would be the 71st Awards. It was exactly the kind of show that people talk about when they decry the Oscars for being boring and self-important.
Special mention goes to the 76th Awards. The Lord of the Rings sweep was as boring as could be expected for any non-fan of the trilogy, and there was no "moment" that stood out as memorable. And worst of all, I failed a Calculus III test because I watched the Oscars instead of studying.
Edited By dws1982 on 1235771450
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Yes Magilla and cam have BOTH seen more Oscar telecasts than you have, but their opinions are invalid because they don't agree with your own. It's all aesthetics. I could have seen every Oscar telecast ever done and I could like one you hated and just because you hated it, it must be for some other ludicrous reason because it doesn't mesh with your opinions.
And when people post articles and capsules from various people around the internet who probably don't know Damien from the next man on the street, you ignore that entirely and continue on your lazy, poorly reasoned idea that it must be some other reason that people felt different about it than you did. Your opinions aren't worth the pixels used to display them if you keep reverting to straw man arguments.
And when people post articles and capsules from various people around the internet who probably don't know Damien from the next man on the street, you ignore that entirely and continue on your lazy, poorly reasoned idea that it must be some other reason that people felt different about it than you did. Your opinions aren't worth the pixels used to display them if you keep reverting to straw man arguments.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Jesus, children...
If I had to pick one, I'd say 1996's telecast in which Braveheart won because I completely loved Braveheart when I was 14. I remember it being a fast paced, funny show with good winners. I look back now and it's riddled with travesties. Mira Sorvino over Joan Allen. "Colors of the Wind" over "You've Got a Friend in Me". Braveheart over everything. But were I to watch again today, it'd still probably be a pretty excellent watch. Christopher Reeve is still a great moment. And Whoopi Goldberg is tolerable which is pretty astonishing.
1997 had the makings of an outstanding show but The English Patient won everything and the winners were rather bland presences. Geoffrey Rush, Anthony Minghella, The Coen Brothers...but the opening was fantastic and it was by far the most enjoyable Billy Crystal showcase of my Oscar-viewing lifetime. His opening was completely inspired AND served to sell these films to the public, something that almost every single subsequent Oscarcast has forgotten. These movies are good. Make the public understand this.
1998 was more of the same and quite dull. Titanic won everything. You can only see people thank a guy who they fear so many times. I remember the show being quite long.
1999 was horrible. Just a horrible show. Winners ranging from boring to embarrassing. Terrible host. Lousy songs. Normally I wouldn't mind seeing three films divide up the awards but in this case it just annoyed me. Like SHUT THE FUCK UP! THERE ARE BETTER MOVIES THIS YEAR! Basically by the end of the show, I was glad to have seen Bill Condon win and that's about it. I wanted to be happy for James Coburn but I could barely muster that. The most annoying show of my life.
2000 was better but how could it not be? I remember Billy Crystal being somewhat unbearable. His opening montage was incredibly self-serving even by his standards. Some great moments (Caine, Swank) and some either strange or embarrassing ones (Jolie, Phil Collins, Conrad Hall identifying a little too much with teenage voyeurism), and I remember the show being long for some reason. In 1999, I went to college and fell in love with American Beauty along with many other radical films that year that for one reason or another connected but not entirely enough. At the time, it seemed like change was coming (how little we knew...) and that American Beauty was a "hip" winner. Now, it looks like not only the least hip winner we've had but the film most responsible for cinematic evils. The Cider House Rules and The Green Mile were taking up space that should've gone to Being John Malkovich among ten or so other daring movies. Really, was there a more disappointing lineup considering what it could have been? Regardless, to me the show felt gratifying for American Beauty's victory, some outstanding song performances that lost to Phil Collins, and Pedro.
2001 on the other hand, this show was a complete delight from beginning until...right before the end. Wonderful acceptance speeches (Harden, Crowe, Crowe, MR. BOB DYLAN!), deserving winners (Soderbergh, Del Toro, MR. BOB DYLAN!), and probably the most diverse group of musical performances I've seen ranging from embarrassing (Crouching Tiger), forgettable (Meet the Parents, Emperor's New Groove), astonishing (Dancer in the Dark), and MR. BOB DYLAN! Then Gladiator wins Best Picture and you realize what this whole evening has been about: a celebration of mediocrity. With a couple of exceptions, none of these films invoke any degree of passion. Steve Martin is the best host of my Oscar viewing lifetime.
I don't remember a lot about 2002's show. It was clearly a somber event. I remember being sick and tired of the Crowe vs. Washington "fued" and insulted by the Spacek vs. Berry one (like race had anything to do with that? That award was Talent versus Hype). Randy Newman won and that was wonderful. Whoopi Goldberg was tolerable. Tom Cruise was weird at the beginning. Then HISTORY was made!...by which I mean, Ron Howard defeated four real directors for the award. One of the most indelible moments in Oscar history: David Lynch consoling Robert Altman. I remember the Oscars being something close to a non-event, which is fairly remarkable considering how much history was allegedly made that night. Mainly, I remember it for Randy Newman. No recollection of Whoopi Goldberg that night.
I remember that Steve Martin seemed very timid in 2003. I remember that there were ZERO clips which was the oddest thing I had seen in some time. I remember NOT hearing Eminem and trying not to hear the other nominees. I remember Kathy Bates tastelessly kissing Oscar's ass. I remember Pedro! I remember great wins and speeches by Chris Cooper, Adrien Brody, and Ronald Hardwood (rooting for Kaufman though, of course), and the shock of Roman Polanski. I remember Nicole Kidman's win annoying me a lot. And then the great schtick between Michael and Kirk Douglas as they announced Chicago. But mainly it was for me one of the lamest shows of my life.
2004 bored the ever-loving shit out of me. Very underwhelming winners. Robbins, Theron, Zellweger, and especially Penn were bores on-stage. Literally the only gem of a moment was between Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara performing "A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow". Just a boring show. Good for Peter Jackson. Bad for America.
I thought Chris Rock got a bad rap. There were two African American winners that year and it was STILL the whitest Oscarcast in history! That's how white these winners were. Puffy introduced "Believe" for fuck's sake. In 2005, I was more aware than every of the schism between populism and industry darling and how populism wasn't looking so bad. What was Rock going to joke about in The Aviator? Horrible songs. Dull winners. A pissy Penn. I got to see Charlie Kaufman win the Oscar and that was outstanding. Boring show. Not Chris Rock's fault. The Academy's.
I loved Jon Stewart in 2006. The show was incredibly boring save for wins by 3-6 Mafia and Crash and the winners were fairly boring as well on-stage, but I laughed more during Stewart's routine and bits ("Reese Witherspoon is sprinkled with God Dust!") than any show since Martin '01. Between 2006...
...and 2007, there is a single great show. I found Ellen DeGeneres impossibly boring but the show was among the best produced I'd ever seen. LOVED the tumblers. LOVED the montages. LOVED most of the winners. Several surprises and tight races. Had Jon Stewart hosted in 2007, we'd be talking about one of the all-time best shows. There seemed a mild boredom in the room when The Departed beat Little Miss Sunshine (which I think didn't deserve to get anywhere near the podium but would have invoked a lot of enthusiasm upon winning; in retrospect, I would still have predicted it), but a very entertaining night with a host I'd rather never seen again.
The year the Oscars broke...whose fault was this, really? Let's be honest: the Golden Globes should have aired and the Oscars should have just been read from a list. This show was lethal. I thought Jon Stewart did a fine job all things considered. The issue was that nobody cared about these movies except people who like good movies!
Edited By Sabin on 1235769884
If I had to pick one, I'd say 1996's telecast in which Braveheart won because I completely loved Braveheart when I was 14. I remember it being a fast paced, funny show with good winners. I look back now and it's riddled with travesties. Mira Sorvino over Joan Allen. "Colors of the Wind" over "You've Got a Friend in Me". Braveheart over everything. But were I to watch again today, it'd still probably be a pretty excellent watch. Christopher Reeve is still a great moment. And Whoopi Goldberg is tolerable which is pretty astonishing.
1997 had the makings of an outstanding show but The English Patient won everything and the winners were rather bland presences. Geoffrey Rush, Anthony Minghella, The Coen Brothers...but the opening was fantastic and it was by far the most enjoyable Billy Crystal showcase of my Oscar-viewing lifetime. His opening was completely inspired AND served to sell these films to the public, something that almost every single subsequent Oscarcast has forgotten. These movies are good. Make the public understand this.
1998 was more of the same and quite dull. Titanic won everything. You can only see people thank a guy who they fear so many times. I remember the show being quite long.
1999 was horrible. Just a horrible show. Winners ranging from boring to embarrassing. Terrible host. Lousy songs. Normally I wouldn't mind seeing three films divide up the awards but in this case it just annoyed me. Like SHUT THE FUCK UP! THERE ARE BETTER MOVIES THIS YEAR! Basically by the end of the show, I was glad to have seen Bill Condon win and that's about it. I wanted to be happy for James Coburn but I could barely muster that. The most annoying show of my life.
2000 was better but how could it not be? I remember Billy Crystal being somewhat unbearable. His opening montage was incredibly self-serving even by his standards. Some great moments (Caine, Swank) and some either strange or embarrassing ones (Jolie, Phil Collins, Conrad Hall identifying a little too much with teenage voyeurism), and I remember the show being long for some reason. In 1999, I went to college and fell in love with American Beauty along with many other radical films that year that for one reason or another connected but not entirely enough. At the time, it seemed like change was coming (how little we knew...) and that American Beauty was a "hip" winner. Now, it looks like not only the least hip winner we've had but the film most responsible for cinematic evils. The Cider House Rules and The Green Mile were taking up space that should've gone to Being John Malkovich among ten or so other daring movies. Really, was there a more disappointing lineup considering what it could have been? Regardless, to me the show felt gratifying for American Beauty's victory, some outstanding song performances that lost to Phil Collins, and Pedro.
2001 on the other hand, this show was a complete delight from beginning until...right before the end. Wonderful acceptance speeches (Harden, Crowe, Crowe, MR. BOB DYLAN!), deserving winners (Soderbergh, Del Toro, MR. BOB DYLAN!), and probably the most diverse group of musical performances I've seen ranging from embarrassing (Crouching Tiger), forgettable (Meet the Parents, Emperor's New Groove), astonishing (Dancer in the Dark), and MR. BOB DYLAN! Then Gladiator wins Best Picture and you realize what this whole evening has been about: a celebration of mediocrity. With a couple of exceptions, none of these films invoke any degree of passion. Steve Martin is the best host of my Oscar viewing lifetime.
I don't remember a lot about 2002's show. It was clearly a somber event. I remember being sick and tired of the Crowe vs. Washington "fued" and insulted by the Spacek vs. Berry one (like race had anything to do with that? That award was Talent versus Hype). Randy Newman won and that was wonderful. Whoopi Goldberg was tolerable. Tom Cruise was weird at the beginning. Then HISTORY was made!...by which I mean, Ron Howard defeated four real directors for the award. One of the most indelible moments in Oscar history: David Lynch consoling Robert Altman. I remember the Oscars being something close to a non-event, which is fairly remarkable considering how much history was allegedly made that night. Mainly, I remember it for Randy Newman. No recollection of Whoopi Goldberg that night.
I remember that Steve Martin seemed very timid in 2003. I remember that there were ZERO clips which was the oddest thing I had seen in some time. I remember NOT hearing Eminem and trying not to hear the other nominees. I remember Kathy Bates tastelessly kissing Oscar's ass. I remember Pedro! I remember great wins and speeches by Chris Cooper, Adrien Brody, and Ronald Hardwood (rooting for Kaufman though, of course), and the shock of Roman Polanski. I remember Nicole Kidman's win annoying me a lot. And then the great schtick between Michael and Kirk Douglas as they announced Chicago. But mainly it was for me one of the lamest shows of my life.
2004 bored the ever-loving shit out of me. Very underwhelming winners. Robbins, Theron, Zellweger, and especially Penn were bores on-stage. Literally the only gem of a moment was between Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara performing "A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow". Just a boring show. Good for Peter Jackson. Bad for America.
I thought Chris Rock got a bad rap. There were two African American winners that year and it was STILL the whitest Oscarcast in history! That's how white these winners were. Puffy introduced "Believe" for fuck's sake. In 2005, I was more aware than every of the schism between populism and industry darling and how populism wasn't looking so bad. What was Rock going to joke about in The Aviator? Horrible songs. Dull winners. A pissy Penn. I got to see Charlie Kaufman win the Oscar and that was outstanding. Boring show. Not Chris Rock's fault. The Academy's.
I loved Jon Stewart in 2006. The show was incredibly boring save for wins by 3-6 Mafia and Crash and the winners were fairly boring as well on-stage, but I laughed more during Stewart's routine and bits ("Reese Witherspoon is sprinkled with God Dust!") than any show since Martin '01. Between 2006...
...and 2007, there is a single great show. I found Ellen DeGeneres impossibly boring but the show was among the best produced I'd ever seen. LOVED the tumblers. LOVED the montages. LOVED most of the winners. Several surprises and tight races. Had Jon Stewart hosted in 2007, we'd be talking about one of the all-time best shows. There seemed a mild boredom in the room when The Departed beat Little Miss Sunshine (which I think didn't deserve to get anywhere near the podium but would have invoked a lot of enthusiasm upon winning; in retrospect, I would still have predicted it), but a very entertaining night with a host I'd rather never seen again.
The year the Oscars broke...whose fault was this, really? Let's be honest: the Golden Globes should have aired and the Oscars should have just been read from a list. This show was lethal. I thought Jon Stewart did a fine job all things considered. The issue was that nobody cared about these movies except people who like good movies!
Edited By Sabin on 1235769884
"How's the despair?"
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
OPINION, ITALIANO. That's your OPINION! Learn to distinguish between fact and opinion. That's what's so irritating. You have no concept. You probably think it's fact that Life Is Beautiful is a masterpiece, yet many disagree because that's OUR OPINION and it's your OPINION that it is.
Accept it and move on.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1235767167
Accept it and move on.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1235767167
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I will ignore the insults.OscarGuy wrote:Shut the fuck up, Italiano. You have never been more wrong. I can't believe how ignorant you show yourself to be on a daily basis. You harp on this misguided belief that based on our like of Damien as a person that his love of Bill Condon somehow translates to the rest of us loving Bill Condon. Yet, it makes no sense that our like of Damien translates to love of Bill Condon. If that were the case, then we would all hate goddamn cartoons, we would consider Ethan Hawke the bestest, most fuckable star on the planet, consider Uma Thurman as the whore slut of Bablyon, detest Sidney Lumet and love Hilary Swank.
And yet, there isn't a single one of us on this board who believes 100% of those things. You've been wrong about that ever since you propped it up as some truism and I'm sick of it. We all have our own opinions and we'll all state them candidly and with great fervor regardless of who disagrees with us. If you can't see that, then you are the most blind and closed minded person this board has ever seen...and that's saying quite a lot. So, once and for all, stop dragging out that line of defense every time you post. It's tiresome, irritating and egotistical, not to mention categorically false.
I could point out that Ethan Hawke and Hilary Swank aren't personal friends of Damien's - while Bill Condon is. Because this isn't about Damien's ideas and opinions, it's more about his personal connections. And this is why I've come to understand and even appreciate it: I find it endearing, a sign of affection, of kindness, with more than a bit of Six Degrees of Separation about it - and as such I can't condemn it. I think it's not even intentional - to some people, such things come natural.
But as we all know even too well, come on, it's "categorically false", to use your words, that this Oscar show was the best ever. I don't even need to say it - it's clear. Now, seriously, I am interested, which was the best Oscar show you all have ever seen? But the real one.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Shut the fuck up, Italiano. You have never been more wrong. I can't believe how ignorant you show yourself to be on a daily basis. You harp on this misguided belief that based on our like of Damien as a person that his love of Bill Condon somehow translates to the rest of us loving Bill Condon. Yet, it makes no sense that our like of Damien translates to love of Bill Condon. If that were the case, then we would all hate goddamn cartoons, we would consider Ethan Hawke the bestest, most fuckable star on the planet, consider Uma Thurman as the whore slut of Bablyon, detest Sidney Lumet and love Hilary Swank.
And yet, there isn't a single one of us on this board who believes 100% of those things. You've been wrong about that ever since you propped it up as some truism and I'm sick of it. We all have our own opinions and we'll all state them candidly and with great fervor regardless of who disagrees with us. If you can't see that, then you are the most blind and closed minded person this board has ever seen...and that's saying quite a lot. So, once and for all, stop dragging out that line of defense every time you post. It's tiresome, irritating and egotistical, not to mention categorically false.
And yet, there isn't a single one of us on this board who believes 100% of those things. You've been wrong about that ever since you propped it up as some truism and I'm sick of it. We all have our own opinions and we'll all state them candidly and with great fervor regardless of who disagrees with us. If you can't see that, then you are the most blind and closed minded person this board has ever seen...and that's saying quite a lot. So, once and for all, stop dragging out that line of defense every time you post. It's tiresome, irritating and egotistical, not to mention categorically false.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Not really. If 2008 - a good, but far from great show - is considered to be the best ever here, it is for reasons that we all know and that don't have anything to do with real quality (the same reason why next year suddenly Eddie Murphy will be considered, here, deserving of a Best Actor Oscar - you will see). I've come to accept this, and maybe even to appreciate it - it has to do with friendship, and personal admiration, which aren't necessarily bad feelings of course. But, as deep inside we all know, they don't have anything with truth.Bog wrote:Italiano and Uri just died a little on the inside.
The best show I've ever seen as an adult was the 1993 one. Objectively very, very good, well written, well performed, intelligent. And then of course the one I loved most is 1979 (I think - the Kramer vs Kramer year). But it was my first Oscar telecast, I was a child, and it all looked wonderful back then.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
1958 was my first Oscar show. The things stand out in my memory. One was Rosalind Russell presenting a career achievement award to Maurice Chevalier and his saying "Thank you, Auntie Mame". The other was Ingrid Bergman opening the last envelope of the evening, flinging her arm into the air and shouting "Gigi!" Admittedly not much, but as I said this was my first Oscar show and I adored Auntie Mame and Ingrid Bergman.mlrg wrote:Big Magilla wrote:Easy - 2008, 1968, 1967, 1964, 1958.
Magilla,
What was so great about the 60's shows?
1964 featured the mostly press driven rivalry between Audrey Hepburn and Julie Andrews. I was fascinated by the camera's placement on Andrews whenever My Fair Lady was mentioned and Hepburn when Andrews won. There was also what I deemed to be a very telling moment when Gladys Cooper ran up to the stage to accept the costume design award on behalf of Cecil Beaton from Greer Garson. Looking over the stage full of Oscars as Garson handed her one for Beaton, Cooper quipped "which one is mine?" inferring that she might win for supporting actress. Garson's raised eyebrow response was a clear indication that she voted for someone else - probably Agnes Moorehead who co-starred with Garson and Cooper in Mrs. Parkington which I had just seen on the Late Show.
1967 was the fortieth anniversary show in which many stars from the past including the first best actress winner Janet Gaynor participated. The most fascinating part of teh show, though, may have been the clips of all forty previous best picture winners narrated by four legendary actresses, all of whom had won an Oscar in the decade they were representing. Katharine Hepburn, who would surprisingly win best actress for Guess Who's Coming to Dinner introduced the first segment from the set of The Lion in Winter.
1968 has been discussed in other threads in some detail, but it was the loosest Oscar presentation as ten friends of Oscar - Rosalind Russell, Ingrid Bergman, Burt Lancaster, Sidney Poitier, Frank Sinatra, Tony Curtis, Natalie Wood, Walter Matthau, Diahann Carroll and Jane Fonda - handed out all the awards and even sang the nominated songs, most of them pretty badly. It was great fun.