Reviewers call Oscars retro unfunny disaster

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Jasonic

No, if you don't love the Oscars then don't watch is what I'm saying. If you complain year after year that they are boring, then why are you watching?

So that they can say how much they hated it!

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Jasonic

No, if you don't love the Oscars then don't watch is what I'm saying. If you complain year after year that they are boring, then why are you watching?

I think you're asking a general question, and I think someone's answer might be: because I love movies and like seeing them celebrated, and hope that maybe the Oscars will strive to improve and make an entertaining show.

If you're taking the stance that the Oscars are "for the art" and not for ratings and entertainment, I think you're only 1/2 right.

{I do agree with you though that it doesn't make sense for people who hate the Oscars, movies, Billy Crystal, etc., to continuously watch and then complain about it. I bet no one in this forum fits that description though. Similarly, I doubt there's anyone here who can genuinely say everything about it was 100% perfect}

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

So that they can say how much they hated it!

I watch because I love movies and hope that someday they will actually reward the best movies with the oscars instead of movies that catch fire for a month and are never heard from again. They do it every year. Why don't they learn? Artist, Crash, No Country for Old Men, Hurt Locker, etc. etc. These are good movies but MOST people don't have them as movies that leave a lasting impression.

[Jasonic]

Originally Posted by Chordata

I think you're asking a general question, and I think someone's answer might be: because I love movies and like seeing them celebrated, and hope that maybe the Oscars will strive to improve and make an entertaining show.

If you're taking the stance that the Oscars are "for the art" and not for ratings and entertainment, I think you're only 1/2 right.

{I do agree with you though that it doesn't make sense for people who hate the Oscars, movies, Billy Crystal, etc., to continuously watch and then complain about it. I bet no one in this forum fits that description though. Similarly, I doubt there's anyone here who can genuinely say everything about it was 100% perfect}

But if thats your reason for watching, then why can't you just enjoy it for that? Because it always does a good job at that. Why the need to be entertained outside of that, with hosts and jokes? Yes, the show is 3 hours, but beside circus soliel or whatever, there really wasn't that much fill in between the awards. Play with your phone, or skip to another channel for a second.

I know people want to be entertained always. I am just tired of the constant criticisms, and everyone making the show out to be more about being a show rather than the awards.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Jasonic

But if thats your reason for watching, then why can't you just enjoy it for that? Because it always does a good job at that. Why the need to be entertained outside of that, with hosts and jokes? Yes, the show is 3 hours, but beside circus soliel or whatever, there really wasn't that much fill in between the awards. Play with your phone, or skip to another channel for a second.

I know people want to be entertained always. I am just tired of the constant criticisms, and everyone making the show out to be more about being a show rather than the awards.

But why does it bother you so much what other people think about a silly award show that you have nothing to do with? You're just a viewer like the rest of us.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

I watch because I love movies and hope that someday they will actually reward the best movies with the oscars instead of movies that catch fire for a month and are never heard from again. They do it every year. Why don't they learn? Artist, Crash, No Country for Old Men, Hurt Locker, etc. etc. These are good movies but MOST people don't have them as movies that leave a lasting impression.

I think there is now today a missunderstanding with most people about what the Oscars are about. The last 35 or so years we have entered into the age of the BLOCKBUSTERS. These are the movies that not only make tons of money but in the end leave the impression on people. The public expect these movies to now be nominated (which Hollywood is trying to satisfy by increasing the number of nomines to 10) but want them to win. The main problem is while movies like Avatar, The Dark Knight, Transformers, Harry Potter....offer great entertainement value, are fun to watch and in certain cases are well made movies, they don't fall into the category of movies that are "the best". None of these movies are made to challenge the actors in them (and please don't bring up Heath ledger in The Dark Knight ). None of these movies challenge us either as an audiences. They are made from a mold, easy to manufacture, design to bring in the cash. Once upon a time, you could have big movies that won lot's of Oscars and with serious performances in them (Ben Hur, Laurence Of Arabia, Gone With The Win) but that was in the time when Hollywood are more talent and took the craft much more seriously. Look at the actors of today, pretty boys and pretty girls for the most part. Sure some have talents but the talents is not there in enough numbers and in general they want to be in the BLOCKBUSTERS for an easy paycheck.

The Oscars should go to the best crafted movies, not the ones the leave an impression.

[Jasonic]

Originally Posted by Chordata

But why does it bother you so much what other people think about a silly award show that you have nothing to do with? You're just a viewer like the rest of us.

Because us stupid humans care what other people think, but fair point.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Jasonic

Because us stupid humans care what other people think, but fair point.

Not if you look at the "What Movie Are You Embarrassed To Tell People You Own" thread where you have people trying to convince themselves they don't care what other people think...

[willbfree]

The show does not need a host!

Deleting the host would mean seamlessly going from presenter to recipient to a new presenter to recipient. It would probably cut almost an hour from the show.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by willbfree

The show does not need a host!

Deleting the host would mean seamlessly going from presenter to recipient to a new presenter to recipient. It would probably cut almost an hour from the show.

Interesting...didn't this show or another award show try this not long ago? Seems like they did but maybe I'm wrong.

[Adam_ME]

I thought it was bad. But it's unfair to just blame it on Billy Crystal. There were many reasons:

1) The acting awards took too long to be handed out. Seriously? 45 minutes for Best Supporting Actress? Another 45 minutes for Best Supporting Actor? I get why they do this. So people can't tune in for the first half hour and last hour to see the "important" awards. But the end result now is people just tune out altogether and catch the highlights online later.

2) No one cared about the nominated films. Did anyone even see the flick Plummer won for? The Iron Lady tanked. Hugo really tanked. And while The Artist did well, it's not a runaway box office smash. There was just no enthusiasm over these nominees. Maybe next year if The Dark Knight Rises lives up to its predecessors and the Academy doesn't thumb its nose at the superhero genre, we can have an awards show that generates some buzz again.

3) Billy Crystal sucked. He's not solely to blame, but he can't escape at least some of the heat. He's been a terrific host in years past, but you could tell his heart wasn't in this. I don't know if he's getting too old for this sh-t or if he was dragged kicking and screaming into this as a last minute replacement(or maybe he needed another kiss from Clooney), but he was almost as lifeless as Franco a year ago. I keep hoping they give Conan a shot one of these years, but maybe someday they'll listen.

4) The mood of the country. I don't necessarily mean from a political standpoint, although that's always a factor when it comes to Hollywood. But I'm a fairly conservative guy and I still dig the Oscars. I think it's more that the economy isn't good, people are hurting right now(especially at the pump), and I just don't know if folks are in the mood for this sort of spectacle and that includes people in showbiz. I know Billy Crystal was kidding, but he may have hit a nerve when he made that crack about a bunch of millionaires handing out golden statues to each other. Maybe that general vibe spread to the people in the auditorium last night, because they seemed just as lifeless as the host.

[retablo]

I didn't have a problem with the show itself, just most of the undeserving winners. But that's Oscar tradition.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

I thought it was bad. But it's unfair to just blame it on Billy Crystal. There were many reasons:

1) The acting awards took too long to be handed out. Seriously? 45 minutes for Best Supporting Actress? Another 45 minutes for Best Supporting Actor? I get why they do this. So people can't tune in for the first half hour and last hour to see the "important" awards. But the end result now is people just tune out altogether and catch the highlights online later.

2) No one cared about the nominated films. Did anyone even see the flick Plummer won for? The Iron Lady tanked. Hugo really tanked. And while The Artist did well, it's not a runaway box office smash. There was just no enthusiasm over these nominees. Maybe next year if The Dark Knight Rises lives up to its predecessors and the Academy doesn't thumb its nose at the superhero genre, we can have an awards show that generates some buzz again.

3) Billy Crystal sucked. He's not solely to blame, but he can't escape at least some of the heat. He's been a terrific host in years past, but you could tell his heart wasn't in this. I don't know if he's getting too old for this sh-t or if he was dragged kicking and screaming into this as a last minute replacement(or maybe he needed another kiss from Clooney), but he was almost as lifeless as Franco a year ago. I keep hoping they give Conan a shot one of these years, but maybe someday they'll listen.

4) The mood of the country. I don't necessarily mean from a political standpoint, although that's always a factor when it comes to Hollywood. But I'm a fairly conservative guy and I still dig the Oscars. I think it's more that the economy isn't good, people are hurting right now(especially at the pump), and I just don't know if folks are in the mood for this sort of spectacle and that includes people in showbiz. I know Billy Crystal was kidding, but he may have hit a nerve when he made that crack about a bunch of millionaires handing out golden statues to each other. Maybe that general vibe spread to the people in the auditorium last night, because they seemed just as lifeless as the host.

Good points though I'm not sure if #4 is that big of a factor. Personally I think the mood of the country is the very reason we tune in in the first place. I know that's why I watch. I can't GO to the Oscars and rub shoulders with Tom Hanks but I can damn well feel like I'm there watching it on my 60" HDTV. As far as the "millionaires handing out golden statues" comment." I think it's kind of an unspoken understanding that the audience has in regards to the Hollywood elite and what the Oscars are all about. I don't think Billy Crystal saying that created some sudden global awareness that wasn't there before.

The bottom line is that this year's Oscars just wasn't very entertaining. The skits weren't funny. The jokes weren't funny. You could tell that Billy Crystal was "phoning it in" so to speak. I don't think that necessarily has anything to do with age but that his heart wasn't in it. There was no spark, no energy.

My first suggestion is to shorten the event. This does not have to be a 3-1/2 hour presentation. Maximum this should be a 2 hour program. Most, if not all of the technical categories that are televised can be done off camera. I don't care to see who wins for best costume designer or sound mixing or editing or cinematography. Keep the televised categories list short and sweet...

Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor in a Leading Role
Best Actress in a Leading Role
Best Actor in a Supporting Role
Best Actress in a Supporting Role
Best Foreign Language Film
Best Animated Film
Best Original Song
Best Original Screenplay
Best Adapted Screenplay


...these are all the ones you really need.

My next suggestion would be to hire better writers for the show. You can only be as funny as the material you are given to work with. Whoever were the writers for this year's Oscars totally missed the mark.

My next suggestion is to move this show forward into the modern age. They are trying too damn hard to preserve "old Hollywood" when what they should be doing IMO is figuring out how to be new and fresh. Embrace modern technology. Why not have text and twitter features incorporated into the Oscars? Make it a little more interactive with the TV viewer.

[Evra]

There are people who care about the technical awards and would like it to remain status quo.

[Tony208]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I think there is now today a missunderstanding with most people about what the Oscars are about. The last 35 or so years we have entered into the age of the BLOCKBUSTERS. These are the movies that not only make tons of money but in the end leave the impression on people. The public expect these movies to now be nominated (which Hollywood is trying to satisfy by increasing the number of nomines to 10) but want them to win. The main problem is while movies like Avatar, The Dark Knight, Transformers, Harry Potter....offer great entertainement value, are fun to watch and in certain cases are well made movies, they don't fall into the category of movies that are "the best". None of these movies are made to challenge the actors in them (and please don't bring up Heath ledger in The Dark Knight ). None of these movies challenge us either as an audiences. They are made from a mold, easy to manufacture, design to bring in the cash. Once upon a time, you could have big movies that won lot's of Oscars and with serious performances in them (Ben Hur, Laurence Of Arabia, Gone With The Win) but that was in the time when Hollywood are more talent and took the craft much more seriously. Look at the actors of today, pretty boys and pretty girls for the most part. Sure some have talents but the talents is not there in enough numbers and in general they want to be in the BLOCKBUSTERS for an easy paycheck.

The Oscars should go to the best crafted movies, not the ones the leave an impression.

The Artist is the "blockbuster" film for Academy voters
You can't honestly say it's groundbreaking film making LOL
Can anyone say nostalgia?

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Tony208

The Artist is the "blockbuster" film for Academy voters
You can't honestly say it's groundbreaking film making LOL
Can anyone say nostalgia?

The reason it won was that most of the oscar voters are old enough to be around when the Silent Films started. They saw them in theaters and thought it was nice to see another one.

[Battra92]

My wife wanted to watch the Oscars and we turned it off after about an hour. She was more interested in the dresses and stuff.

The only thing I really thought was kind of cool was Brad Pitt's shoutout to Ishiro Honda's War of the Gargantuas. My respect for BP went up a little there. I still haven't seen him in a movie I like but hey, he at least watches cool Japanese films.

What I was hoping for with The Artist, Hugo and Morris Lessmore would be a tribute to silent pictures. Perhaps a plea to fund Film Preservation or to encourage the public to check out the works of Buster Keaton, D.W. Griffith, Douglas Fairbanks, F. W. Murnau, Mary Pickford, Harold Lloyd, Lilian Gish, Victor Sjordstrom, Colleen Moore, Clara Bow etc.

I think Hollywood (and most of us) seem to only be focused on the now or at least the span of our own lives. I was hoping for at least a montage similar to the first few minutes of this:

100 Years At The Movies - YouTube

[thedarkangel1975]

Originally Posted by Chordata

I thought it was unfunny and unentertaining as well.

I felt the same way. Thank God the Walking Dead was on. I don't think the Oscars need a new host, better writers. Plus the Oscars have 24 categories. The General Public does not care for all those categories. Show 10 awards (Best actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supoorting Actress, Director, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Best Animated Movie, Best picture, and a lifetime achievement).
Also if they want the general public to know half of the films in best picture category give them a wide release!

[thedarkangel1975]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

The reason it won was that most of the oscar voters are old enough to be around when the Silent Films started. They saw them in theaters and thought it was nice to see another one.

If that is the case how did Hugo beat out The Artist in all the categories that piece the film together but Hugo is not "The Best" film?

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by thedarkangel1975

If that is the case how did Hugo beat out The Artist in all the categories that piece the film together but Hugo is not "The Best" film?

Because the Oscar voters are throwing darts at a dart board to pick winners. They really have no idea what they are doing.