Reviewers call Oscars retro unfunny disaster

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Strafer

If they had kept Eddie Murphy.

...They'd be trying for Chris Rock, Pt. 2. Saints preserve us.

Instead, they got Billy, and were SO last-minte intent on steering away from the cliff and doing the Anti-James Franco, I don't think we even got one Bruce Vilanch joke in the whole thing.
No, really. And after that Franco disaster (ahh, the singing Twilight, oh my sides!), believe me, I KNOW a gay self-referential celeb-absorbed Vilanch joke when I hear one.
(I was worried for a second when we got the lame Wizard of Oz sketch apropos of nothing, but turned out it was just Billy giving old Princess Bride buddy Christopher Guest a crony job doing his "mockumentary" shtick...Fred Willard should have been the tipoff.)

In a way, we dodged a bullet:
Call them "old fogeys" all you like, but if they had tried to do one more "Hip, young" ceremony, the problem would just keep continuing till doomsday.

[Spearmint701]

it wasn't a great show, but neither have the last 5 or 6, maybe more.

Eddie Murphy wouldn't have been any better.

I actually liked those montages with the actors giving their thoughts on movies, it's good to see them talk about their passion.


Billy Crystal's done, he won't do it again. Face it, just give the gig to Ricky Gervais.

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Spearmint701

it wasn't a great show, but neither have the last 5 or 6, maybe more.

Eddie Murphy wouldn't have been any better.

I actually liked those montages with the actors giving their thoughts on movies, it's good to see them talk about their passion.


Billy Crystal's done, he won't do it again. Face it, just give the gig to Ricky Gervais.

It will never be a truly great show again until most people really care about the awards themselves. Most people don't have a reason to root for the movies or care about the results. That is one of the main reasons why I was flicking back and forth between the allstar game and Celebrity Apprentice. I went back to the Oscars during commercials. I don't care about the categories because they were filled with movies I didn't care for and most people agree.

[P@t_Mtl]

So in order for the show to work and people to care they have to nominate and give awards to movies that really don't deserve them?

Then again that's what they already do for the Grammys to please the great masses

[Trekkie313]

I didn't find it funny, but it wasn't bad like the last two years were. Although I did yell at the Twilight movies being spliced into some of the higlight segments and at Hugo for winning visual effects.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

I didn't find it funny, but it wasn't bad like the last two years were. Although I did yell at the Twilight movies being spliced into some of the higlight segments and at Hugo for winning visual effects.

That was one of the few bets I won on our pool:
I assumed that the technicians would be forced into the definition question of "What IS 3-D?" (is it cinematography? Directorial choice? The "third" category of film vs. Color and B/W?), and deciding that native 3D in a movie was....special camera/visual effects created to augment the shot film.
If Hugo itself couldn't win Best Picture as a 3D movie, it could at least be recognized for having the best 3D effects of the year, which, indeed, it did.

(And if you're rushing to Andy Serkis's defense in Apes, that was a performance in mo-cap--The actual CGI itself wasn't really that good.)

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by EricJ

(And if you're rushing to Andy Serkis's defense in Apes, that was a performance in mo-cap--The actual CGI itself wasn't really that good.)

I would never... I was worrying that they might try to get him nominated for Best Supporting Actor for awhile though, he said so himself that he doesn't do anything more than what any other dedicated actor would do for mo-cap.

[Blu-Velvet]

And back to the Cinematography award, while I was hoping TREE OF LIFE would win, or possibly the great black-and-white of THE ARTIST to be part of its sweep, I can actually understand possible reasoning for giving it to HUGO. The award is actually labeled, as I recall, "Best ACHIEVEMENT in Cinematography" rather than simply "BEST Cinematography." Looking at it that way, at one of the few live-action films actually designed and photographed in 3-D (and very effective 3-D at that), HUGO actually deserves an award for overall Best Achievement in Cinematography, while TREE OF LIFE was prettiest and most spectacular camera composition and THE ARTIST was the most artful use of light and shadows. It would have been nice for an all-black-and-white film to win Best Cinematography for the first time since the 1960s had separate categories for black-and-white and color. (SCHINDLER'S LIST was of course shot in B&W but still used color dramatically).

[kernel_thai]

I only watched the last hour. I thought it was greatly improved over the previous year's last hour. Crystal was ok. Ur not gonna get edgy no matter who they get and it least Crystal seemed comfortable doing it. Im not really sure the show needs a host any more. The Oscar's being patterned on the variety show format is kinda showing it's age. After all there r no more variety shows.

I did like more use of video in the nominations. Didnt really care for the stars reflecting pieces tho. The best thing was they seemed to have addressed the detestable Best Actor/Actress shpiel where the previous winner pretends to say personal stuff about the nominees. The past few years were horrendous with Jeff Bridges attempt razzie material. This year both Portman and Firth handled it beautifully.

Overall I think the time of the show has passed. It's just not the big event it used to be. People see these stars every night now on E! or ET as well as the internet. People wont tune in to see them and since more and more people seem to feel the winners dont reflect popular opinion, it's hard to justify the time.

[ssjmichael]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

And back to the Cinematography award, while I was hoping TREE OF LIFE would win, or possibly the great black-and-white of THE ARTIST to be part of its sweep, I can actually understand possible reasoning for giving it to HUGO. The award is actually labeled, as I recall, "Best ACHIEVEMENT in Cinematography" rather than simply "BEST Cinematography." Looking at it that way, at one of the few live-action films actually designed and photographed in 3-D (and very effective 3-D at that), HUGO actually deserves an award for overall Best Achievement in Cinematography, while TREE OF LIFE was prettiest and most spectacular camera composition and THE ARTIST was the most artful use of light and shadows. It would have been nice for an all-black-and-white film to win Best Cinematography for the first time since the 1960s had separate categories for black-and-white and color. (SCHINDLER'S LIST was of course shot in B&W but still used color dramatically).

That's kind of stretching it. It's not like Tree of Life didn't have amazing camera work. It's not even close, Tree of Life's cinematography is by far one of the greatest achievements in the last 5 years or longer. It is an amazing visual treat, and some of the compositions used are masterpieces and unlike anything I've seen before. 3D really has nothing to do with this, that would be the Visual effects category if anything, and Hugo did win for that as well (also questionable imo).


This trailer alone shows enough reasons why it was robbed. Honestly we're all going to look back on Tree of Life as one of the best filmed movies in the last 20 years:

The Tree of Life - Trailer - YouTube

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by ssjmichael

This trailer alone shows enough reasons why it was robbed. Honestly we're all going to look back on Tree of Life as one of the best filmed movies in the last 20 years:

Or, like Malick's other movies, just thinking "Wait, 'New World' wasn't the one with the dinosaurs, was it? "

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by ssjmichael

This trailer alone shows enough reasons why it was robbed.

I love that trailer, gives me goosebumps every time I watch it

Originally Posted by ssjmichael

Honestly we're all going to look back on Tree of Life as one of the best filmed movies in the last 20 years:

For sure. It did win the ACS award (along with just about every other prize) so at least it was recognized by people who actually know something about cinematography.

[Trekkie313]

I found Tree Of Life much too pretentious to win any awards. Now Days Of Heaven and Thin Red Line were movies!

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

And back to the Cinematography award, while I was hoping TREE OF LIFE would win, or possibly the great black-and-white of THE ARTIST to be part of its sweep, I can actually understand possible reasoning for giving it to HUGO. The award is actually labeled, as I recall, "Best ACHIEVEMENT in Cinematography" rather than simply "BEST Cinematography." Looking at it that way, at one of the few live-action films actually designed and photographed in 3-D (and very effective 3-D at that), HUGO actually deserves an award for overall Best Achievement in Cinematography, while TREE OF LIFE was prettiest and most spectacular camera composition and THE ARTIST was the most artful use of light and shadows. It would have been nice for an all-black-and-white film to win Best Cinematography for the first time since the 1960s had separate categories for black-and-white and color. (SCHINDLER'S LIST was of course shot in B&W but still used color dramatically).

Good points there, man. This is one of the few posts I've seen on this issue that wasn't just a bunch of "@Tree of Life got robbed!?#" drivel, as if that film not winning this award is against some cosmic law.

Originally Posted by kernel_thai

I only watched the last hour. I thought it was greatly improved over the previous year's last hour. Crystal was ok. Ur not gonna get edgy no matter who they get and it least Crystal seemed comfortable doing it. Im not really sure the show needs a host any more. The Oscar's being patterned on the variety show format is kinda showing it's age. After all there r no more variety shows.

I did like more use of video in the nominations. Didnt really care for the stars reflecting pieces tho. The best thing was they seemed to have addressed the detestable Best Actor/Actress shpiel where the previous winner pretends to say personal stuff about the nominees. The past few years were horrendous with Jeff Bridges attempt razzie material. This year both Portman and Firth handled it beautifully.

Overall I think the time of the show has passed. It's just not the big event it used to be. People see these stars every night now on E! or ET as well as the internet. People wont tune in to see them and since more and more people seem to feel the winners dont reflect popular opinion, it's hard to justify the time.

Bolded points:

A) Exactly. There are enough 'edgy' shows. This is not a roast or MTV-award, and I'm not denigrating those when I say that. I for one am glad that this attempts to be a 'classy' affair that is about the movies, and if that's old-fashioned well so be it.

And Crystal was very comfortable with the event, he had a great feel for the audience and a reverence for the proceedings that is appreciated.

B) That was the weakest part of the show to me. I see what they were trying to do, as the theme of the show was 'The Movies In All Of Us' or something like that, but the execution was off and it grew especially tedious as the show went on.

And off-the-cuff, some of the choices were baffling: Adam Sandler? Jennifer Anniston??

C) I liked that too. I can see that maybe being 'awkward'-ized by someone as time goes on/if this trend continues...but both Portman and Firth as you said handled it beautifully. It added that touch of 'class' that makes the Oscars The Oscars.

---

I do disagree with the 'time' of the show having passed, though. Especially for the reasoning that it's not as big as it used to be; nothing is as big as it 'used to be'. That's what happens when we literally have millions of avenues to entertain ourselves with, compared to the three channels/no internet era/etc. of times past. Save the Super Bowl, which many people don't even watch for the game but for ancillaries, not much really brings everyone together.

[TheForce8686]

They need to review the voting process and pick better movies that more people care about. Movies were originally created as entertainment. Some people view them as art which is fine as well but either way what makes "great" art or entertainment varies from person to person. That is why limited release movies only seen by a few people should not be rewarded for that.

When I was 5 I showed my parents a finger painting I made at school. They said it was the best thing they had ever seen. If I would have expanded the judging to my neighbors, my city, or my state the results and opinions would have probably been a lot different. If 100,000,000 people see Avatar and 85% think it is amazing. And 1000 people see Hurt Locker and 90% think its amazing the movie that pleased so many more deserves more praise.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Cinemach

Good points there, man. This is one of the few posts I've seen on this issue that wasn't just a bunch of "@Tree of Life got robbed!?#" drivel, as if that film not winning this award is against some cosmic law.

Given the gushing Roger Ebert made over it on his blogsite, I kidded him with it the same as I kidded any Tree-nut: Face it guys, you're FANBOYS:

Maybe you think you're on a higher intellectual plane because Malick's rumination on Life, The Universe, the Delivery Room and Dad Making You Learn Boxing Lessons made you feel like you'd gotten the Wizards' Degree of Thinkology (oh joy, rapture!)--
But at the end of the day, you're still saying "____ was robbed because the Academy should have known that _____ was the best movie ever made, and we'll be having the last laugh twenty years from now when we call ____ the greatest director ever made in the whole thousand year history of Stuff! "

...To which you could insert "Transformers 3", in other posters' conversations.
(The ol' Truthful Mirror hurts, don't it? )

Bolded points:
A) Exactly. There are enough 'edgy' shows. This is not a roast or MTV-award, and I'm not denigrating those when I say that. I for one am glad that this attempts to be a 'classy' affair that is about the movies, and if that's old-fashioned well so be it.

One point that everyone seems to miss:
Unlike--ahem, UNLIKE --the MTV awards, there's no studio underwriting, and the rules actually forbid letting an actor plug his upcoming spring and summer movies. They can hint, but the rules forbid mentioning any titles.
We can have, for example, Chris Rock going onstage to give Best Animated and joke about having to do his Zebra voice, and that's meant to put us in mind of "Madagascar 3", but a classy show is not allowed to mention the title. If it was the MTV awards, he'd be plastered with movie logos like a NASCAR suit.

(As it turned out, Sasha Cohen was only banned from the ceremony for wanting to wear his "Dictator" suit for soulless self-promotion, not for acting like a jerk.
Darn, and here we'd read the headline and thought he'd been banned for life, like Andy Kaufman on SNL. )

[Moviefan1203]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

They need to review the voting process and pick better movies that more people care about. Movies were originally created as entertainment. Some people view them as art which is fine as well but either way what makes "great" art or entertainment varies from person to person. That is why limited release movies only seen by a few people should not be rewarded for that.

When I was 5 I showed my parents a finger painting I made at school. They said it was the best thing they had ever seen. If I would have expanded the judging to my neighbors, my city, or my state the results and opinions would have probably been a lot different. If 100,000,000 people see Avatar and 85% think it is amazing. And 1000 people see Hurt Locker and 90% think its amazing the movie that pleased so many more deserves more praise.

It shouldn't be a popularity contest though. It should be the Best Film of the year, and it shouldn't be a random film that made a ton of money. For example Avatar, was a decent movie but nothing special in my eyes. It shouldn't have won. There's no way in hell The Artist should have won Best Picture either. But then films like The Departed, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Ring, Gladiator, etc. that were deserving winners. Sometimes the Academy gets it right, and sometimes they don't. But I still love watching the Golden Globes and Academy Awards!

[TheForce8686]

Originally Posted by Moviefan1203

It shouldn't be a popularity contest though. It should be the Best Film of the year, and it shouldn't be a random film that made a ton of money. For example Avatar, was a decent movie but nothing special in my eyes. It shouldn't have won. There's no way in hell The Artist should have won Best Picture either. But then films like The Departed, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Ring, Gladiator, etc. that were deserving winners. Sometimes the Academy gets it right, and sometimes they don't. But I still love watching the Golden Globes and Academy Awards!

I'm not saying strictly a popularity contest but overall opinion says Avatar is better then Hurt Locker. Saving Private Ryan was better the Shakespeare in Love. A hundred films were better then Crash. It is harder to make a movie like Transformers then it is the Artist. Director's and films should be rewarded for taking a risk or putting more work in.

Plus money made shouldn't be the determining factor but when movies have legs and make a decent ammount over a continued time that shows that they are good because word of mouth spreads. If a movie makes no money it does so for a reason and usually that reason is it is not that good and most people don't enjoy it.

[Moviefan1203]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

I'm not saying strictly a popularity contest but overall opinion says Avatar is better then Hurt Locker. Saving Private Ryan was better the Shakespeare in Love. A hundred films were better then Crash. It is harder to make a movie like Transformers then it is the Artist. Director's and films should be rewarded for taking a risk or putting more work in.

Plus money made shouldn't be the determining factor but when movies have legs and make a decent ammount over a continued time that shows that they are good because word of mouth spreads. If a movie makes no money it does so for a reason and usually that reason is it is not that good and most people don't enjoy it.

I'm not sure where you are getting that overall opinion says that Avatar is better than The Hurt Locker, the latter has a 15% better percentage on Rotten Tomatoes. I would have to agree, I found The Hurt Locker to be a sensational film. Now you bring up a very valid point in Saving Private Ryan losing out to Shakespeare In Love, I still scratch my head over that one. I personally loved Crash, but can see how it rubbed some people the wrong way. Having said that, I still think Brokeback Mountain should have won Best Picture that year. The problem is that some truly great films have performed very poorly at the box office, and some terrible films have done very well. I don't think box office revenue should be factored in at all when it comes to prestigious awards like the Golden Globes and Academy Awards.

[Atreyu]

Originally Posted by Moviefan1203

It shouldn't be a popularity contest though. It should be the Best Film of the year, and it shouldn't be a random film that made a ton of money. For example Avatar, was a decent movie but nothing special in my eyes. It shouldn't have won. There's no way in hell The Artist should have won Best Picture either. But then films like The Departed, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Ring, Gladiator, etc. that were deserving winners. Sometimes the Academy gets it right, and sometimes they don't. But I still love watching the Golden Globes and Academy Awards!

Why shouldn't The Artist have won? In my eyes it was a fantastic picture. What makes you such an expert on deciding what films deserve or do not deserve to win?
Even though I love Avatar I wil agree with you and I can fully understand why it didn't win, even though I was rooting for it.