The Telecast

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2517
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Postby Greg » Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:11 pm

Big Magilla wrote:Maybe they should do away with the host(s) altogether like the SAG awards and just have a disembodied voice announce the presenters.

Actually, I think that would be a good idea.
“Over time, whoever controls the money system,
controls the nation.”

Stephen Zarlenga

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2517
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Postby Greg » Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:08 pm

The part of the ceremony I hate the most, and, in fact is the single thing I hate the most of any Oscar show I have ever seen, is the elimination of individual clips for the Best Picture nominees and instead just showing a mash of soundless clips from the nominess with the The King's Speech speech heard in the background. Also, when Speilberg read the names of the films, he either neglected to read or was rold not to read the names of the films' producers, who are the individuals nominated to receive the Best Picture award. It came across incredibly disrespectful for the films other than The Kings Speech. It also came across that they were trying to save time by eliminating the individual Best Picture clips. If you want to save time, cut down on things like lame attempts at humor form the host/s. The last thing you cut down on is the Best Picture category.
“Over time, whoever controls the money system,
controls the nation.”

Stephen Zarlenga

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14624
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:21 pm

What do people want? Bob Hope to rise from the dead once a year so he can come back and host the damn thing annually? Maybe they should do away with the host(s) altogether like the SAG awards and just have a disembodied voice announce the presenters.

As for the awards themselves being anti-climactic, maybe they should do a deal with SAG, the DGA and PGA that allows their entire membership to vote for the Oscars in exchange for eliminating their own awards so that the show can be as fresh as possible.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12175
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:38 am

And King's Speech has made more at the box office than Social Network.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Okri
Professor
Posts: 2449
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Postby Okri » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:21 am

nor is 127 Hours a blockbuster.

anonymous1980
Emeritus
Posts: 4842
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Postby anonymous1980 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:10 am

Speaking of which: Bale and Portman are both former child actors who are now Oscar winners.

...and Screenplay is NOT a minor Oscar, whoever wrote that article down there.




Edited By anonymous on 1298909581

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7233
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Postby Sonic Youth » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:10 am

'Youth-friendly' Oscars show gets thumbs down
AFP


Oscars organizers had touted this year's show as more youth-friendly, aiming to draw younger funkier movie-goers into the time-worn Academy Award experience -- but initial reaction was skeptical.

Sunday's co-presenters James Franco and Anne Hathaway made joke reference to the youth-chasing aim within minutes of the start: Franco called her hip, to which she replied: "You look very appealing to a younger demographic as well."

But critics were scathing in early online comments after the show awarded top honors to British historical drama "The King's Speech", which some noted is a finely-made film but hardly cutting edge.

"Despite the many worthy nominated films, the Oscar (tele)cast was painfully dull, slow, witless, and hosted by the ill-matched James Franco and Anne Hathaway," wrote Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert.

Tellingly, one of the highlights was when Billy Crystal -- who hosted the Oscars in the 1990s and early 2000s -- came on stage.

"Incredibly, when former host Billy Crystal came onstage about two hours into the show, he got the first laughs all evening," said Ebert. "This was the worst Oscarcast I've ever endured.

"It's time for the (Oscars) Board of Governors to have a long, sad talk with itself."

A Los Angeles Times online discussion immediately after the show made equally grim reading.

"Billy Crystal's appearance was the highlight of the show," wrote one contributor, to which another added: "It was almost as if the old timer was there to teach the kids a few things."

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences likes to contrast itself with the Golden Globes, the other high-profile ceremony in Hollywood's annual awards season.

While the Golden Globes are voted on by a relatively small number of members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), the Oscars are the result of balloting by some 5,700 members of the illustrious Academy.

The Globes last month gave their main prizes to blockbuster Facebook movie "The Social Network", leaving "The King's Speech" with only one, best actor for Firth.

According to industry daily The Hollywood Reporter, the average age of Academy voters is 57, and some say that explains why there is an Oscars "type" of movie, of which "The King's Speech" was a perfect example.

Granted, the Academy has made efforts to broaden its appeal: Sunday was the second Oscars show with a shortlist of 10 films for best picture, rather than five nominees as in most categories.

The idea was to widen the selection of films up for the top Oscars prize -- so this year's shortlist include blockbuster movies like "The Social Network" of hi-tech thriller "Inception.

But critics were not convinced, citing the relatively paltry three minor Oscars won by "The Social Network," while other blockbusters including classic Western "True Grit" and Danny Boyle's "127 Hours" went home empty-handed.

Ironically, one of the edgiest moments on Sunday was by best supporting actress winner Melissa Leo -- not a spring chicken, at 50 -- who had to apologize after saying the F word during her acceptance speech.

The offending word was bleeped out of the time-delayed broadcast relayed to television viewers around the world.

"The youth movement in this year's choice of Oscar hosts didn't alter the show's dynamics," commented a reviewer from the Variety daily.

"While Melissa Leo dropped an "F-bomb" early on, the "F" words best describing the proceedings would be "flat," "fumbling" and "familiar" -- proving it takes more than a new coat of paint to invigorate a ceremony that easily flummoxes innovation."
"What the hell?"
Win Butler

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12175
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:52 am

It doesn't matter to me when ovations SHOULD be used, but when they generally ARE used and both Bale and Portman, and to a lesser extent Finch and Sorkin, were times when I thought an ovation would have been likely.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Snick's Guy
Temp
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Postby Snick's Guy » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:31 am

The winners were all predictible, so there were no surprising "wow" moments, but at least give us a knockout show.

Very dissapointed. Show was boring. Franco is no Oscar host. Need to return to comics and A-list writers.

Also, needed a better mix of young, hip hollywood, as well as the "old guard". Would have loved to seen more Hollywood Royalty on stage (Nicholson, Keaton, Pacino, Lange, Eastwood, Fonda, Redford, Sarandon, etc.)




Edited By Snick's Guy on 1298907153

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 2735
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Postby dws1982 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:29 am

I didn't hate the telecast, but I also watched it in a very different context than I usually do. I've never been less interested in the Oscars than I was this year, and I watched it with a big group of people this year. (I usually watch it with just a few people.) So I didn't really watch the show the way I usually do. Under those circumstances, I may have hated it. I may go back and watch on DVR and end up hating it.

For me, no discussion of "worst Oscars" is complete without the 1999 (year of Shakespeare in Love), 2000 (American Beauty), and 2002 ([i]A Beautiful Mind[i]; the four-and-a-half hour dirge with awful winners) telecasts.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14624
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:24 am

OscarGuy wrote:For two actors with immense respect in the industry who've had vocal supporters for years, you would expect something of an ovation for them. Didn't Sandra Bullock get one last year? And it's not like Bale is a neophyte, he's been acting for more than 20 years...that's not a drop in the bucket. They just seemed like the two most LIKELY ovations. That neither of them got one and that even The King's Speech, which was supposedly so well loved, didn't get one suggests the Academy was as bored with these results as we were.

Ovations are generally reserved for veteran performers or those who have overcome some big obstacle in their lives.

Bullock is beloved within the industry. Firth and Bale are respected. Portman is young and Leo is, well enough about her. The ovations were properly reserved for Douglas and Crystal, and the honorary winners.

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7233
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Postby Sonic Youth » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:23 am

mlrg wrote:Just 5 minutes above the 3hours line, I think this one was one of the shortest in memory

And yet it felt like three weeks.
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14624
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:20 am

I don't get all the antagonism either. Last year's show was the worst ever. This year was an attempt to restore some dignity and class. It may not have been completely successful but it was eons better than last year.

No tacky retro "and the winner is..."

No introduction of co-stars of forthcoming films as such.

No cutesy banter between presenters. It was all about film.

Having the honorary winners come out on stage was so much more elegant than having them stand and wave from their seats.

Franco's laid back charm and Hathaway's gushing perfectly completed each other. They were much more refreshing than Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin's tired middle-aged dude schtick.

Having two presenters present two awards, for the most part, was a smart move, helping considerably with the timing.

I have become so sick of seeing the same clips for the same nominated films, mostly their trailers anyway, that having them all bundled together at the end made a lot of sense. I wasn't offended by Colin Firth's monologue being used over all of them. It would have been quite amusing, as well as deserving, if The Social Network had won in spite of that.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12175
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:17 am

For two actors with immense respect in the industry who've had vocal supporters for years, you would expect something of an ovation for them. Didn't Sandra Bullock get one last year? And it's not like Bale is a neophyte, he's been acting for more than 20 years...that's not a drop in the bucket. They just seemed like the two most LIKELY ovations. That neither of them got one and that even The King's Speech, which was supposedly so well loved, didn't get one suggests the Academy was as bored with these results as we were.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

mlrg
Assistant
Posts: 981
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Postby mlrg » Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:27 am

Just 5 minutes above the 3hours line, I think this one was one of the shortest in memory


Return to “83rd Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest