Page 3 of 4
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:13 am
by FilmFan720
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!
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:01 am
by mlrg
ITALIANO wrote:Mister Tee wrote:Would Italiano like to explain again how un-boring this Oscar season has now become?
Sure, no problem.
If by Oscar season you mean, well, the SEASON (and not just the big night) this is one of the least boring in recent memory - what's happening now is such an unexpected (by me and, let's be honest, by you) turn of events that I can't see how you can find it boring. It has never happened before - not in such a complete way, as you admitted; the alternative would have been The Social Network keeping on winning everything in sight, as most thought would happen. Now, that's what I would have called boring.
As for Oscar night itself, at this point of the year - ANY year - it always becomes kind of predictable. The fun, nowadays, is more in following the turns of the season, award by award, and in that sense this is the most surprising of the last few years. Plus, this time there's always the possibility of one or two surprises...
Unless, of course, you are mostly disapponted about The Social Network's fall from grace. It's not a good movie, and what's happening to it is, I feel, not wrong. If only a better movie profited from all this...
I agree 100% with you.
It's the least boring season for quite some time
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:49 am
by ITALIANO
Mister Tee wrote:Would Italiano like to explain again how un-boring this Oscar season has now become?
Sure, no problem.
If by Oscar season you mean, well, the SEASON (and not just the big night) this is one of the least boring in recent memory - what's happening now is such an unexpected (by me and, let's be honest, by you) turn of events that I can't see how you can find it boring. It has never happened before - not in such a complete way, as you admitted; the alternative would have been The Social Network keeping on winning everything in sight, as most thought would happen. Now, that's what I would have called boring.
As for Oscar night itself, at this point of the year - ANY year - it always becomes kind of predictable. The fun, nowadays, is more in following the turns of the season, award by award, and in that sense this is the most surprising of the last few years. Plus, this time there's always the possibility of one or two surprises...
Unless, of course, you are mostly disapponted about The Social Network's fall from grace. It's not a good movie, and what's happening to it is, I feel, not wrong. If only a better movie profited from all this...
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:21 am
by Damien
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.
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:10 am
by Damien
Big Magilla wrote:She was a semi-regular on
Homicide: Life on the Streets, not one of the
Law & Order franchises. Paul Attanasio, which Paul Attanasio created, not Dick Wolf, but Richard Beltzer's character on
Law & Order: SVU is a carry-over from that show, so I guess you could say it's all in the family.
Well, you can tell I hardly watch any television. All those shows blend together for me.
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:06 am
by Big Magilla
She was a semi-regular on Homicide: Life on the Streets, not one of the Law & Order franchises. Paul Attanasio, which Paul Attanasio created, not Dick Wolf, but Richard Beltzer's character on Law & Order: SVU is a carry-over from that show, so I guess you could say it's all in the family.
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:45 am
by Damien
I agree with you on Rush's speech, Big. That was lovely of him to mention the children, who undoubtedly were thrilled that their names were spoken on national (international?) television.
I didn't watch it so I didn't know that Melissa Leo was a semi-regular on one of the Law & Order franchises. Someone who knows told me that Dick Wolff ordered his writers to give her the most minimum screen time possible becuase if she had even a one minute scene with two lines of dialogue she'd be holed up in her dressing room for hours trying to nail her character's essence for that brief scene.
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:29 pm
by Big Magilla
I liked Melissa Leo in Frozen River and to an extent in The Fighter, although I liked Amy Adams more.
At least her character in The Fighter is supposed to be larger than life, but when she overwhelms smaller roles such as the vindictive policewoman in Conviction she's a bit much, and she does come across as a self-important ACTRESS. Her acceptance speech was atrocious.
Just as bad, I thought, were the young actors from The Social Network acting like a bunch of unruly kids introducing the clip from their film. At least the actors from The King's Speech are classy. Maybe the voters actually expected Claire Bloom and the rest of the no-shows to be there. In any event, Geoffrey Rush's acceptance speech on behalf of the cast was the best speech of the evening. Which isn't to say that I've changed my mind and and am now rooting for the film to win the Oscar. I'm not.
Remember the first SAG cast award went to Apollo 13 the same year it won the PGA and the DGA, but guess what? It didn't win the Oscar! So here's hoping, though The Social Network's chances are beginning to look a lot like Vanessa Redgrave's and Kristin Scott Thomas' this year - pretty much non-existent.
I do hope, though, with James Franco and Anne Hathaway as hosts, the Oscar show itself will be a vast improvement over last year and maybe even as interesting and surprising as the one two years ago.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1296455818
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:25 pm
by Okri
Mister Tee wrote:Would Italiano like to explain again how un-boring this Oscar season has now become?
In the space of one week, we've gone from Social Network in a landslide to King's Speech in a landslide. I don't view that as upgrade.
1. I'm not convinced it's a landslide. I don't think Hooper is winning director (your head vs heart analogy)
2. We could conceivably see an upset by Rush, which makes best supporting actor more entertaining.
3. Two sharp shocks (PGA and the DGA) itself are rather exciting.
4. When the opening of the season was so homogeneous, including your beloved critical trifecta going for the same film, the rubber-stamping of Colin Firth from NY and LA, this complete boomerang is fun.
5. Like dws, I don't have much invested.
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:10 pm
by OscarGuy
dws1982 wrote:I'm really glad to not be invested in this year's Oscar race. I'm not completely sure that I'll even watch the ceremony this year. Probably will, but I know I won't be obsessing over it for weeks leading up to the ceremony like I did just a few years ago.
Yeah. Trying to participate actively in a season that I don't care about it really rough. And since it's been awhile since I felt any connection to the winners that I've started losing my interest in the Oscars themselves. It's getting really hard to feign interest.
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:08 pm
by Mister Tee
Would Italiano like to explain again how un-boring this Oscar season has now become?
In the space of one week, we've gone from Social Network in a landslide to King's Speech in a landslide. I don't view that as upgrade.
Last year's repeat of Waltz/Mo'Nique at every TV awards show was explicable -- their performances truly stood out, a fact borne out by critics' prizes. But this year critics were decently split, yet we still got the same people on every show. One has to conclude, these shows are LOOKING to match (and thus Predict the Oscar).
So, we're reduced to hoping for a shocking surprise or two in four weeks time. Even if that happens (and, hey, it did to Jason Reitman last year), a shock doesn't provide the pleasure of suspense. Like Hitchock's axiom about the bomb: if you set a bomb off unexpectedly in a scene, it shocks the audience for a moment; but if you tell them a bomb will go off in a few minutes, you create tension for that entire time period.
The Oscars have started to lose that tension every damn year. I don't think the show can survive as a high-intensity event without at least a dose of it, and these pre-shows are taking it away.
Edited By Mister Tee on 1296443429
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:08 pm
by OscarGuy
I had expected King's Speech to win tonight anyway, so this is not the least bit of a shock. It had the largest cast and sometimes that's all you need to win the SAG award. It also helps to be a widely-seen crowd-pleaser.
I just posted an article on my site about the Guild Hat Trick. Feel free to take a look if you wish.
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:07 pm
by dws1982
I'm really glad to not be invested in this year's Oscar race. I'm not completely sure that I'll even watch the ceremony this year. Probably will, but I know I won't be obsessing over it for weeks leading up to the ceremony like I did just a few years ago.
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:01 pm
by Sonic Youth
Facebook is so powerful it can topple several Middle Eastern oligarchies. But not all networking in the world could organize an effective campaign to help Social Network win a single award this week.
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:00 pm
by Sabin
So lame.