Screen Actor's Guild Awards
The New York Times doesn't seem to think the race is boring. Or over:
King’s Speech’: The Film to Beat and to Bad-Mouth
By MICHAEL CIEPLY
LOS ANGELES — It is the king’s to lose.
Dual victories by “The King’s Speech” at a pair of closely watched awards ceremonies over the weekend have put the film on track to win a best picture Oscar, unless the vagaries of a new Hollywood math or simmering questions about the movie’s chief subject, King George VI, get in the way.
On Sunday night the movie, about a stammering King George and his rhetorical struggle with the Nazis, won the ensemble cast award from the Screen Actors Guild, as well as an individual award for its star, Colin Firth. The night before, the film picked up a prize for its director, Tom Hooper, from the Directors Guild of America.
The movie had already been named the year’s outstanding film by the Producers Guild of America, and picked up 12 Oscar nominations last week, to lead a field that includes “True Grit,” “The Fighter” and “The Social Network,” among others.
Within Hollywood, the alignment of guild awards points to enormous good will for “The King’s Speech,” a British-made film that is distributed in the United States by the Weinstein Company.
While the film is small, with a budget estimated at only about $15 million, and its performance at the box office is still relatively modest — it reached $72 million over the weekend, after more than two months in theaters — it has so far gone down like a plateful of comfort food.
Its themes are familiar (friendship and the overcoming of personal demons). Its story is uplifting. (All turns out well.) And its anti-Nazi stance is a draw. (Oscar voters have been perennially attracted to films like “Hope and Glory,” “The English Patient,” “Saving Private Ryan,” “Schindler’s List” and “The Reader.”)
But the Oscar ballots are not in the mail yet. Those will be dispatched to the 5,755 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences with camera-ready publicity flourish at the academy’s Beverly Hills headquarters at 10 a.m. on Wednesday.
And before those ballots come due on Feb. 22, an army of competing Oscar strategists will be probing for any sign that “The King’s Speech” can be beaten.
In the last week or two a flurry of news reports and Internet banter have chewed over questions about the real King George, particularly whether he was actually less than stalwart in his opposition to the Third Reich.
On Jan. 24, for instance, Christopher Hitchens wrote on Slate.com that the king was devoted to Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement, and “even after the Nazi armies had struck deep north into Scandinavia and clear across the low countries to France, did not wish to accept Chamberlain’s resignation.”
So far, there has been no sign that any stain on the real George has tainted the more heroic portrayal by Mr. Firth, who on Sunday night was received royally.
Nor is it clear that any competitor has circulated such reports, in possible violation of an academy rule that forbids “casting a negative or derogatory light on a competing film.” A year ago something like that happened when Nicolas Chartier, a producer of “The Hurt Locker,” sent academy voters an e-mail urging votes for his movie over “Avatar,” then seen as its main competitor. Mr. Chartier was banned from the awards ceremony as punishment, but his film won the best picture Oscar anyway.
That doesn’t mean that there haven’t been some not-so-subtle jabs thrown around. On Friday the cover of Daily Variety carried an advertisement boldly proclaiming Paramount’s “True Grit,” with its 10 Oscar nominations, to be the “most honored American movie” of the year — lest anyone forget that a vote for “The King’s Speech” is a vote to send the top Oscar offshore.
The Weinstein Company has had a battery of publicists poised to respond to any negativity with countermeasures that point to the film’s authenticity and the king’s integrity. And it is lost on few here that a primary competitor, “The Social Network,” has also faced questions about the veracity of its portrayal of the Facebook entrepreneur Mark Zuckerberg, so any showdown between that film and “The King’s Speech” over matters of fact and fiction might end in a draw.
(The news media and some Oscar voters are almost certain to be on hand at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles on Feb. 9, when the university’s film school sponsors a discussion with Todd Lieberman, a producer of the fact-based movie “The Fighter,” and others, over artistic license and the process of telling a true story on screen.)
Early in the awards season “The Social Network,” which was released on Oct. 1, ran strong with the critics and picked up a string of awards, including a top prize from the National Board of Review and a Golden Globe for best drama. But none of those honors came from groups heavy with Oscar voters, as are the Hollywood guilds, which are clearly leaning toward “The King’s Speech.”
In recent history no film has swept the top awards from the directors guild, the producers guild and the actors guild and then failed to win the best picture Oscar. “No Country for Old Men” (2008) and “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” (2004) each won the top prize on Oscar night after winning at all three guilds.
Still, a possible threat may come from a relatively new Oscar voting system in the best picture category. Publicists who represent films other than “The King’s Speech” — speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid conflict with the rules — point out that preferential balloting that was put in place in 2009, when the academy doubled its field of best picture nominees to 10, means that the movie with the largest number of first-place votes, at least in theory, can lose to a film with a strong second-place showing.
That would happen if the first place votes were actually spread among a relatively large number of favorites, as may happen this year, which finds at least four films running just behind “The King’s Speech,” with a strong cluster of nominations in major categories. One such film, “The Fighter,” has three nominations in the supporting actor categories, for instance, along with its best director and best picture nominations.
So the key to winning this year may lie in being everybody’s second choice. Or so goes the theory among those who are not backing “The King’s Speech,” which, so far, is a clear No. 1.
Edited By Damien on 1296510767
King’s Speech’: The Film to Beat and to Bad-Mouth
By MICHAEL CIEPLY
LOS ANGELES — It is the king’s to lose.
Dual victories by “The King’s Speech” at a pair of closely watched awards ceremonies over the weekend have put the film on track to win a best picture Oscar, unless the vagaries of a new Hollywood math or simmering questions about the movie’s chief subject, King George VI, get in the way.
On Sunday night the movie, about a stammering King George and his rhetorical struggle with the Nazis, won the ensemble cast award from the Screen Actors Guild, as well as an individual award for its star, Colin Firth. The night before, the film picked up a prize for its director, Tom Hooper, from the Directors Guild of America.
The movie had already been named the year’s outstanding film by the Producers Guild of America, and picked up 12 Oscar nominations last week, to lead a field that includes “True Grit,” “The Fighter” and “The Social Network,” among others.
Within Hollywood, the alignment of guild awards points to enormous good will for “The King’s Speech,” a British-made film that is distributed in the United States by the Weinstein Company.
While the film is small, with a budget estimated at only about $15 million, and its performance at the box office is still relatively modest — it reached $72 million over the weekend, after more than two months in theaters — it has so far gone down like a plateful of comfort food.
Its themes are familiar (friendship and the overcoming of personal demons). Its story is uplifting. (All turns out well.) And its anti-Nazi stance is a draw. (Oscar voters have been perennially attracted to films like “Hope and Glory,” “The English Patient,” “Saving Private Ryan,” “Schindler’s List” and “The Reader.”)
But the Oscar ballots are not in the mail yet. Those will be dispatched to the 5,755 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences with camera-ready publicity flourish at the academy’s Beverly Hills headquarters at 10 a.m. on Wednesday.
And before those ballots come due on Feb. 22, an army of competing Oscar strategists will be probing for any sign that “The King’s Speech” can be beaten.
In the last week or two a flurry of news reports and Internet banter have chewed over questions about the real King George, particularly whether he was actually less than stalwart in his opposition to the Third Reich.
On Jan. 24, for instance, Christopher Hitchens wrote on Slate.com that the king was devoted to Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement, and “even after the Nazi armies had struck deep north into Scandinavia and clear across the low countries to France, did not wish to accept Chamberlain’s resignation.”
So far, there has been no sign that any stain on the real George has tainted the more heroic portrayal by Mr. Firth, who on Sunday night was received royally.
Nor is it clear that any competitor has circulated such reports, in possible violation of an academy rule that forbids “casting a negative or derogatory light on a competing film.” A year ago something like that happened when Nicolas Chartier, a producer of “The Hurt Locker,” sent academy voters an e-mail urging votes for his movie over “Avatar,” then seen as its main competitor. Mr. Chartier was banned from the awards ceremony as punishment, but his film won the best picture Oscar anyway.
That doesn’t mean that there haven’t been some not-so-subtle jabs thrown around. On Friday the cover of Daily Variety carried an advertisement boldly proclaiming Paramount’s “True Grit,” with its 10 Oscar nominations, to be the “most honored American movie” of the year — lest anyone forget that a vote for “The King’s Speech” is a vote to send the top Oscar offshore.
The Weinstein Company has had a battery of publicists poised to respond to any negativity with countermeasures that point to the film’s authenticity and the king’s integrity. And it is lost on few here that a primary competitor, “The Social Network,” has also faced questions about the veracity of its portrayal of the Facebook entrepreneur Mark Zuckerberg, so any showdown between that film and “The King’s Speech” over matters of fact and fiction might end in a draw.
(The news media and some Oscar voters are almost certain to be on hand at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles on Feb. 9, when the university’s film school sponsors a discussion with Todd Lieberman, a producer of the fact-based movie “The Fighter,” and others, over artistic license and the process of telling a true story on screen.)
Early in the awards season “The Social Network,” which was released on Oct. 1, ran strong with the critics and picked up a string of awards, including a top prize from the National Board of Review and a Golden Globe for best drama. But none of those honors came from groups heavy with Oscar voters, as are the Hollywood guilds, which are clearly leaning toward “The King’s Speech.”
In recent history no film has swept the top awards from the directors guild, the producers guild and the actors guild and then failed to win the best picture Oscar. “No Country for Old Men” (2008) and “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” (2004) each won the top prize on Oscar night after winning at all three guilds.
Still, a possible threat may come from a relatively new Oscar voting system in the best picture category. Publicists who represent films other than “The King’s Speech” — speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid conflict with the rules — point out that preferential balloting that was put in place in 2009, when the academy doubled its field of best picture nominees to 10, means that the movie with the largest number of first-place votes, at least in theory, can lose to a film with a strong second-place showing.
That would happen if the first place votes were actually spread among a relatively large number of favorites, as may happen this year, which finds at least four films running just behind “The King’s Speech,” with a strong cluster of nominations in major categories. One such film, “The Fighter,” has three nominations in the supporting actor categories, for instance, along with its best director and best picture nominations.
So the key to winning this year may lie in being everybody’s second choice. Or so goes the theory among those who are not backing “The King’s Speech,” which, so far, is a clear No. 1.
Edited By Damien on 1296510767
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
- Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
LOL! Careful. It's also the name of one of Obama's daughters.ITALIANO wrote:run by a woman with a man's name,
As much as I'd like to join in the mockery, I remember how I felt in 2002 when A Beautiful Mind was all set to win. I was so disgusted I refused to even watch the Oscars that year. In protest, I went to the movies instead.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
I'm friendly with Sasha -- we haven't met but we've talked on the phone, and were hoping to meet up the last time I was in LA but it didn't work out -- and I don't think she's strange at all. Admittedly, she is a little overwrought right now because she sees her beloved Social Network as being in freefall, but she's a good egg, and a smart, funny woman. (I occasionally contribute to her Awards Daily site as an "Oscar expert.")ITALIANO wrote:Yes, Sasha. VERY strange woman. Now she's on the verge of suicide because The King's Speech is going to win a few Oscars. Weird.Big Magilla wrote:Without checking, it must be Sasha. I don't know why you would find her strange, but she is certainly one-note.ITALIANO wrote:I've found today a site on the Oscars and awards in general - much less interesting than this one - run by a woman with a man's name, a strange person. Like you, she was complaining that now it's so boring, that we know that The King's Speech will win everything in sight, etc. But did this same woman complain when The Social Network WAS winning everything in sight, and seemed like it could do the same at the Oscars? Did she found THAT boring?
Like several other bloggers, it's her way or the highway. Not only does she display open hostility toward anyone who doesn't think The Social Network is movie nirvana, she is an absolute lioness in defense of Natalie Portman and Black Swan, which is why I wondered if she and her male counterpart, Jeff Wells, would jump out the window if both Social Network and Portman fail to win Oscars.
This place is the best.
But the discussions here are much more well-informed, intelligent and rewarding. The people who post on Awards Daily can get hysterical at times. (I was very amused at the dozens of posts there excoriating me for suggesting that the Academy should do away with the Animated Feature category.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
For the record, Sasha is at least as much a woman's name in the US as it is a man's (at least, in the circles I travel).
Sasha has always seemed to me a nice lady, but, perhaps under the pressure of generating content daily, she tends to be obsessive/compulsive on certain Oscar issues. (She must have written 50 early-season articles in '08 on why The Dark Knight was a sure nominee) I've mentioned here several imes how ludicrous I thought both she and Jeff Wells were on the subject of Social Network. I can fully imagine many, like Magilla, being so embarrassed to have them on his side that he'd almost consider switching. As much as I see The King's Speech as perfectly stroking every traditional Oscar erogenous zone, I will also always believe the bullying aspect of both the unanimous critics' and certain bloggers' support of Social Network has played a role in setting up this result.
I did indeed see The Fighter as a potential SAG Ensemble winner, based on both the juicy roles for its relatively well-known actors and the breadth of the cast. This did not, though, mean I viewed it as seriously in best picture contention. I put it in the class of Gosford Park or Inglourious Basterds (maybe even Sideways)...actors' showcases whose SAG wins primarily prevented other films from running the table and making the Oscar race a more foregone conclusion.
I actually saw Geoffrey Rush as more an upset threat prior to last night. I trust standing ovations at these affairs, and Bale's seemed the most vociferous of the night.
Edited By Mister Tee on 1296505977
Sasha has always seemed to me a nice lady, but, perhaps under the pressure of generating content daily, she tends to be obsessive/compulsive on certain Oscar issues. (She must have written 50 early-season articles in '08 on why The Dark Knight was a sure nominee) I've mentioned here several imes how ludicrous I thought both she and Jeff Wells were on the subject of Social Network. I can fully imagine many, like Magilla, being so embarrassed to have them on his side that he'd almost consider switching. As much as I see The King's Speech as perfectly stroking every traditional Oscar erogenous zone, I will also always believe the bullying aspect of both the unanimous critics' and certain bloggers' support of Social Network has played a role in setting up this result.
I did indeed see The Fighter as a potential SAG Ensemble winner, based on both the juicy roles for its relatively well-known actors and the breadth of the cast. This did not, though, mean I viewed it as seriously in best picture contention. I put it in the class of Gosford Park or Inglourious Basterds (maybe even Sideways)...actors' showcases whose SAG wins primarily prevented other films from running the table and making the Oscar race a more foregone conclusion.
I actually saw Geoffrey Rush as more an upset threat prior to last night. I trust standing ovations at these affairs, and Bale's seemed the most vociferous of the night.
Edited By Mister Tee on 1296505977
Yes, Sasha. VERY strange woman. Now she's on the verge of suicide because The King's Speech is going to win a few Oscars. Weird.Big Magilla wrote:Without checking, it must be Sasha. I don't know why you would find her strange, but she is certainly one-note.ITALIANO wrote:I've found today a site on the Oscars and awards in general - much less interesting than this one - run by a woman with a man's name, a strange person. Like you, she was complaining that now it's so boring, that we know that The King's Speech will win everything in sight, etc. But did this same woman complain when The Social Network WAS winning everything in sight, and seemed like it could do the same at the Oscars? Did she found THAT boring?
Like several other bloggers, it's her way or the highway. Not only does she display open hostility toward anyone who doesn't think The Social Network is movie nirvana, she is an absolute lioness in defense of Natalie Portman and Black Swan, which is why I wondered if she and her male counterpart, Jeff Wells, would jump out the window if both Social Network and Portman fail to win Oscars.
This place is the best.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19338
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Without checking, it must be Sasha. I don't know why you would find her strange, but she is certainly one-note.ITALIANO wrote:I've found today a site on the Oscars and awards in general - much less interesting than this one - run by a woman with a man's name, a strange person. Like you, she was complaining that now it's so boring, that we know that The King's Speech will win everything in sight, etc. But did this same woman complain when The Social Network WAS winning everything in sight, and seemed like it could do the same at the Oscars? Did she found THAT boring?
Like several other bloggers, it's her way or the highway. Not only does she display open hostility toward anyone who doesn't think The Social Network is movie nirvana, she is an absolute lioness in defense of Natalie Portman and Black Swan, which is why I wondered if she and her male counterpart, Jeff Wells, would jump out the window if both Social Network and Portman fail to win Oscars.
Yes, but you see Mister Tee, then the only solution is to do like Sonic Youth has done this year - ignoring the precursors completely, refusing to know anything about them. Because the Oscars as we - even I - knew them don't exist anymore; rather than just one night it's a matter of months now, and following "the season", while it certainly makes that night much more predictable than it used to be, can be interesting in its own way.
Plus, the sudden emergence of the only possible alternative to The Social Network - yes, you mention The Fighter, but did you really think it could have won the SAG for Best Ensemble? - not only is an unexpected, and thus surprising, change, but while it probably gives a clear indication on the Best Picture Oscar, makes other races potentially interesting - otherwise you wouldn't have thought of Geoffrey Rush as a possible surprise winner last night.
I've found today a site on the Oscars and awards in general - much less interesting than this one - run by a woman with a man's name, a strange person. Like you, she was complaining that now it's so boring, that we know that The King's Speech will win everything in sight, etc. But did this same woman complain when The Social Network WAS winning everything in sight, and seemed like it could do the same at the Oscars? Did she found THAT boring?
Plus, the sudden emergence of the only possible alternative to The Social Network - yes, you mention The Fighter, but did you really think it could have won the SAG for Best Ensemble? - not only is an unexpected, and thus surprising, change, but while it probably gives a clear indication on the Best Picture Oscar, makes other races potentially interesting - otherwise you wouldn't have thought of Geoffrey Rush as a possible surprise winner last night.
I've found today a site on the Oscars and awards in general - much less interesting than this one - run by a woman with a man's name, a strange person. Like you, she was complaining that now it's so boring, that we know that The King's Speech will win everything in sight, etc. But did this same woman complain when The Social Network WAS winning everything in sight, and seemed like it could do the same at the Oscars? Did she found THAT boring?
-
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
See, here's the thing: I don't give a damn about "the season". I'm interested in the Oscars. And the Oscars this year are shaping up as dull beyond belief.FilmFan720 wrote:A year ago, if we told you we would have a critic's sweep, followed by a PGA upset and a complete surprise from the DGA, you would have been very thankful for this Oscar season!
Maybe because my formative years didn't include this endless list of prelims, my fondest wish would be to do away with all of them. But, if they must exist, my attitude is, scatter them around so the Oscars become more competitive. I've on more than one occasion rooted for my favorites not to win in these earlier rounds, for purposes of creating uncertainty. I rooted for (as well as predicted) King's Speech to win the Globe, and I was fine with it taking the PGA. Had that been combined with a Fincher DGA and Fighter SAG, we'd have a genuinely interesting contest. But that of course is not what's happened. We've jumped from, Ho-hum, Social Network winnning in a romp to, Ho-hum, King's Speech winning in a romp. That we switched boring models doesn't make it interesting to me...just boring in a different way. Give me a year like 2006, where all the best picture nominees beside The Queen won significant precursors, making it a wide-open best picture race. Or '04, where Sideways, The Aviator and Million Dollar Baby all had equal claim on the top prize.
And, yeah, the fact that I'm one of the people here who actually like/admire Social Network makes me more bitter about this -- especially for Fincher, a director I've long admired who seemed he'd finally get his due; he doesn't deserve this set-up to disappointment. (Yes, he could still win the crumb of best director -- though it's a long shot. But it'd be like Warren Beatty in '81, Spielberg in '98 or Ang Lee in '05: a victory viewed as a humiliating defeat by history)
And, move what's happened to another context, one where I had less emotional attachment. Last year, I was as lukewarm on The Hurt Locker as many here are on Social Network. Suppose Bigelow's film had, in addition to taking the critics' prizes, won the Globe -- and then the more-sentimental Precious had pulled the PGA/DGA/SAG sweep King's Speech has. Would people truly be gleeful about how exciting the year had become? I think I'd be saying about the same thing: we'd gone from one predetermined outcome to another, and in general a more retro one. Sorry...my definition of interesting doesn't fit that circumstance.
- rolotomasi99
- Professor
- Posts: 2108
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
- Location: n/a
- Contact:
Big Magilla wrote:By that age Bale had already made several films and was starring in Spielberg's Empire of the Sun.
Still the greatest child performance I have ever seen. Pisses me off he was not nominated for an Oscar that year. The lead male actors category has always been more prejudice against young performers than the lead female category.
Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1296493332
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
The first thing I did today at work (before anything on a long to-do list) was to look up pics of Julianna Marguiles' mega-hot husband. Thanks, SAG Awards!
I went to bed at 9PM last night after a very epic weekend, so I'm only about a quarter of the way through the actual show (which I half-watched while getting ready this morning).
God, Melissa Leo always comes off so frickin' trailer in her speeches. It's starting to make me root against her. And I am a huge Black Swan fan, but I'm pulling for an Annette Benning upset in Best Actress come Oscar night. Or, a Jennifer Lawrence shocker. I just think their performances were better (and I know Benning's acceptance speech would be, too).
Betty White was hilarious. Her comic timing—even at 89—really is kind of impeccable.
Also, I love the hot mess that is Paz de la Huerta.
Edited By flipp525 on 1296495499
I went to bed at 9PM last night after a very epic weekend, so I'm only about a quarter of the way through the actual show (which I half-watched while getting ready this morning).
God, Melissa Leo always comes off so frickin' trailer in her speeches. It's starting to make me root against her. And I am a huge Black Swan fan, but I'm pulling for an Annette Benning upset in Best Actress come Oscar night. Or, a Jennifer Lawrence shocker. I just think their performances were better (and I know Benning's acceptance speech would be, too).
Betty White was hilarious. Her comic timing—even at 89—really is kind of impeccable.
Also, I love the hot mess that is Paz de la Huerta.
Edited By flipp525 on 1296495499
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19338
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Yes, it was terrible, although Borgnine himself was classy unlike Robert De Niro at the Globes who made a mockery of his own tribute. Maybe the Academy had the right idea after all in doing these things off-camera.FilmFan720 wrote:And did anyone else find that montage for Ernest Borgnine horrible? Really, we need to list all the "famous" actors who he worked with? How insulting is that? Plus the ilne, "they don't make them like Ernest Borgnine anymore!"
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19338
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Yes, and it was his birthday, too.Damien wrote:My favorite bit of SAG trivia, which I didn't realize til Claire Danes herself mentioned it. Danes's competition in her TV Movie category were two co-stars from Temple Grandin (Catherine O'Hara amd Julia Ormand) and two co-stars from Little Women (Susan Sarandon and Winona Ryder -- I have no idea what that Ryder movie is). And then later Sarandon presented Supporting Actor to Christian Bale who was so wonderful in Little Women.
Natalie Portman has made a point now in at least two of her acceptance speeches that she's been a working actress since the age of 11. That's all very nice, but she made her first on-screen appearance in a short when was 13. By that age Bale had already made several films and was starring in Spielberg's Empire of the Sun.
-
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
And did anyone else find that montage for Ernest Borgnine horrible? Really, we need to list all the "famous" actors who he worked with? How insulting is that? Plus the ilne, "they don't make them like Ernest Borgnine anymore!"
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.