All Purpose 83rd Academy Awards Thread

[Vic Sage]

congrats on your clean sweep, but that night was hardly "perfect".
It was just about the worst Oscar show ever.

[Ceetar]

Vic Sage wrote: congrats on your clean sweep, but that night was hardly "perfect". It was just about the worst Oscar show ever.

Seemed fine to me. But I dunno how to judge these things. Maybe I just don't expect much.

[TransMonk]

Vic Sage wrote: It was just about the worst Oscar show ever.

Yup. I'm always amazed that it takes 3+ hours to do what could easily be done in one.

Hathaway + Franco = horrible. It was a night of hosts and presenters constantly upstaging one another.

[metirish]

TransMonk wrote: Vic Sage wrote: It was just about the worst Oscar show ever. Yup. I'm always amazed that it takes 3+ hours to do what could easily be done in one. Hathaway + Franco = horrible. It was a night of hosts and presenters constantly upstaging one another.

It was so bad it's hard to imagine it been worse. A few bright spots, David Seidler's acceptance speech was the highlight for me, the kid that won for the short? and thanked his Mom who did the catering on the set, Christian Bale calling out Micky Ward and his brother Dickey, that was about it.

[Ceetar]

TransMonk wrote: It was just about the worst Oscar show ever. Yup. I'm always amazed that it takes 3+ hours to do what could easily be done in one. Hathaway + Franco = horrible. It was a night of hosts and presenters constantly upstaging one another.

I like/liked Hathaway. I guess they weren't great or anything,but I wouldn't say horrible.

(the 3+ hour thing is another story, plus why'd it start at 8:30..usually 8 right?)

Isn't the hosts and presenters upstaging each other just how things are done these days? Not saying it's "as good" as previous shows (And certainly could be generational, I'm not exactly old enough to have a read standard of judgement), but I didn't think it was bad. Kanye West certainly wasn't unusual, he was just just extreme.


Maybe I just don't have high expectations, I haven't, won't, and don't really want to see most of the movies nominated. (What I took away from the show/party i was at was that i should see the Fighter and the Social Network wasn't as boring as I expect it to be) So the 'best' awards don't really reflect what I'm looking for in a movie anyway.


What was it that was so bad about the hosts/show? just the oneupmanship? o

[Guest themetfairy]

The show was nondescript. At least it only ran 15 minutes late - there have been way later shows than that.

[TransMonk]

IMO, Franco and Hathaway were making jokes between themselves. The overall writing was stiff. Hathaway flubbed several lines and ad-libbed her goofs. Franco seemed like he really didn't care if he was there or not. The exchanges between Timberlake and Kunis made several references to one of the documentary nominees that no one got. Kirk Douglas went on WAY to long. Hathaway gushed over to many of the presenters and blew too many kisses. The whole production seemed unprofessional.

[Ceetar]

TransMonk wrote: IMO, Franco and Hathaway were making jokes between themselves. The overall writing was stiff. Hathaway flubbed several lines and ad-libbed her goofs. Franco seemed like he really didn't care if he was there or not. The exchanges between Timberlake and Kunis made several references to one of the documentary nominees that no one got. Kirk Douglas went on WAY to long. Hathaway gushed over to many of the presenters and blew too many kisses. The whole production seemed unprofessional.

I enjoyed the opening scenes and I liked the way the screen was set up. There were a couple of audience-at-home jokes that got a laugh. Whoever it was that read the short-films nominees made a reference to at-home ballots and Hathaway joked about a/the drinking game. The auto-tune thing may have been a little too MTVish, but everyone at the party i was at laughed. I thought the Charlie Scheen joke was topical.

I think what passed as 'professional' is changing. Maybe it was a little bland/nondescript but I didn't get 'horrible'. (although I did find it annoying that every other person in my Twitter feed felt it necessary to mock and/or joke about how they weren't watching it. )

[TransMonk]

I'm just of the opinion that now that we have so many awards shows that we have a season named after it, the Academy Awards should be held to a higher standard. They are the pinnacle of all of the award shows. They don't need to be yound and hip - there are a dozen other awards that can have that distinction. The Oscars should be glamorous and classy.

Overall, I don't care one way or the other. I had no dogs in this race and was just looking for some Sunday night entertainment.

But, Bob Hope is rolling in his fucking grave.

[Edgy MD]

That's how rich Bob Hope was. He has his regular grave and his fucking grave.

[Ceetar]

TransMonk wrote: I'm just of the opinion that now that we have so many awards shows that we have a season named after it, the Academy Awards should be held to a higher standard. They are the pinnacle of all of the award shows. They don't need to be yound and hip - there are a dozen other awards that can have that distinction. The Oscars should be glamorous and classy. Overall, I don't care one way or the other. I had no dogs in this race and was just looking for some Sunday night entertainment. But, Bob Hope is rolling in his fucking grave.

If they're not young and hip, don't they become old and stuffy? ala the Rolling Stones at the Super Bowl type thing? I'm not sure there is an easy answer. I'm not sure what the 'high standard' is without being prim proper and boring. But again, I'm probably the target demographic that it's trying to more appeal to.

There are definitely too many awards shows though.

[TransMonk]

Ceetar wrote: If they're not young and hip, don't they become old and stuffy? ala the Rolling Stones at the Super Bowl type thing?

I'd watch the Stones perform at the Super Bowl in wheelchairs as long as I don't have to watch the Black Eyed Peas.

Maybe I'm the problem.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I own almost every Rolling Stone recording and saw them in concert a few times. But you couldn't pay me to see them today. Rock and Roll lead singing is a young man's game and Mick Jagger looks like a clown vamping on stage. His moves are dated and there's something comical and false about a guy pushing 70 singing about killing kings and palace revolutions.

The Academy Awards are a big effin circle jerk to me, the main goal being, it seems to me, that everybody tell everybody else how effin great they are. You woulda thought that these people cured cancer they way they gush about what brilliant geniuses they all are. Geniuses! Why don't they just drop the pretense and get James Lipton to host the thing every year? If I wanna know about any movie, I've got Vic Sage right here on this forum.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: congrats on your clean sweep, but that night was hardly "perfect". It was just about the worst Oscar show ever. Seemed fine to me. But I dunno how to judge these things. Maybe I just don't expect much.

This is pretty much where I'm at too.
I only occasionally watch these things so when I do it's not like I'm expecting some boffo life-affirming show. And, let's face it, on the awards you actually (might) care about you generally know in advance who's winning at least 3/4 of them. In a bad year I guess 6 of the big 8 correctly and that's usually without seeing any of the movies.
So I half pay attention while doing the crossword puzzle and if there's the occasional laugh, meaningful speech, or stunning cleavage it's OK with me.

As for last night:
Hathaway was fine. Franco looked/sounded detached.
If they want to go back to a more 'big name' veteran hosts I'm fine with that but I'm not going to man any protest lines over it.
Melissa Leo pretending she had nothing prepared (after winning every award for the last few months) then 'accidentally' dropping the F-Bomb was neither real nor funny.
And Kirk can stay on stage as long as he wants for all I care.