PDA

View Full Version : Your reaction to the Oscars.


Ferg
Mar 8th, 2010, 05:07 PM
I goddamn liked them. Bigelow was looking fine.

Barrie_Dude
Mar 8th, 2010, 05:11 PM
Where is the "I Don't Really Give A Shit About This Self Serving Pile Of Crap" option?

Super Dave
Mar 8th, 2010, 05:17 PM
I forgot they were on.

Ferg
Mar 8th, 2010, 05:27 PM
Where is the "I Don't Really Give A Shit About This Self Serving Pile Of Crap" option?

I didnt make it cus we dont need that sort here!

Barrie_Dude
Mar 8th, 2010, 05:28 PM
I didnt make it cus we dont need that sort here!
It may be thw #1 option! :lol:

Ferg
Mar 8th, 2010, 05:34 PM
It may be thw #1 option! :lol:

Dont be silly, everyone loves the Oscars! :hearts:

Barrie_Dude
Mar 8th, 2010, 05:36 PM
Dont be silly, everyone loves the Oscars! :hearts:
:happy: :haha:

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Mar 8th, 2010, 05:43 PM
Fixed as usual

Drake1980
Mar 8th, 2010, 05:44 PM
So happy for Jeff Bridges! :hearts: :bounce:
Michelle Pfeffiers speach for him was so incredible and touching!

miffedmax
Mar 8th, 2010, 05:54 PM
I forgot they were on.

I knew they were on. I just don't give a shit.

NyCPsU
Mar 8th, 2010, 05:57 PM
I knew they were on. I just don't give a shit.

This. :worship:

miffedmax
Mar 8th, 2010, 05:58 PM
Where is the "I Don't Really Give A Shit About This Self Serving Pile Of Crap" option?

This.

P.S. Lotus all the way. They're back, albeit not in black.

Ferg
Mar 8th, 2010, 06:05 PM
I knew they were on. I just don't give a shit.

The day Lena wins Best Supporting Actress for some Bolshevik revolution epic will be a very sad day for you. :sad: You are right though, not enough tall athletic blonde winners. Bigelow is tall and athletic but not blond unfortunatly.

miffedmax
Mar 8th, 2010, 06:07 PM
I didn't watch the year Uma Thurman got nominated either, and she's as close to being Lenalicious as any actress gets.

I like movies. I just don't get excited about the Oscars, so trust me, I'll have seen that Boshevik Revolution Epic and own the DVD.;)

Valanga
Mar 8th, 2010, 06:53 PM
Sandra Bullock winning an Oscars makes me wish the world would end before 2012

Effy
Mar 8th, 2010, 06:59 PM
shit as usual
^shrug^

Ellery
Mar 8th, 2010, 07:00 PM
Used to really care about this but not anymore :o

hurricanejeanne
Mar 8th, 2010, 07:06 PM
In general, I thought they were definitely better this year than in years past.
I'm happy Avatar lost out big time. I'm not entirely convinced about Sandra's win, but I do believe it was her best performance in her career.

barboza
Mar 8th, 2010, 07:18 PM
Sandra bullock suckssssssss

LeRoy.
Mar 8th, 2010, 07:47 PM
I am sooooooooooooooooooooooooo happy Sandra Bullock won and her speech was the best ever. Funny yet touching and just great ! :worship :bowdown:

RFSTB
Mar 8th, 2010, 07:49 PM
I quite enjoyed it, even if I'm not a big fan of Sandra Bullock's and can't see her deserving of an Oscar(though I haven't seen the movie). Meryl should've had a double nomination - a 2nd one for "It's Complicated". Steve Martin & Alec Baldwin were great as co-hosts, had me in stitches everytime they came on. Ben Stiller was funny, though in a creepy way. I've never heard of "Precious" until last night. The clip of Monique's acting was really amazing:worship:. She deserved an Oscar just for that scene.

The stage wasn't the most beautiful they've ever had. The dancing wasn't all that great and was too long.

The 5 actors/actresses introducing the 5 best actor/actress nominee was a bit over-the-top, too long and even a bit corny.

Lack of Brangelina makes it feel like something's missing. They are without a doubt the most glamorous Hollywood couple today.

Ratings wise, this year's Oscars is the highest rated since 2005. It scored a 22.3/35 rating from 8:30-11:00pm, with 41 million viewers, much higher than last year's 18.1. I guess this year's front runner Avatar is a much bigger movie than last year's, though I liked Slumdog Millionaire.

jefrilibra
Mar 8th, 2010, 07:57 PM
:spit: :tape:

(Reuters) - More than 41 million U.S. viewers tuned in to watch Sunday night's Oscar broadcast, the biggest audience for the Academy Awards in five years, Nielsen Media reported on Monday.

Entertainment | Television

The average viewership tally for the 3 1/2-hour-plus live broadcast on ABC, a unit of the Walt Disney Co, also marked the second straight year of Nielsen gains for the film industry's annual celebration.

The larger numbers appeared to reflect a bid by Oscar organizers to broaden the show's appeal by increasing the number of films nominated for best picture from the usual five to 10, thus recognizing more films seen by mass audiences.

In the end, a low-budget Iraq war drama that was mainly an arthouse favorite, "The Hurt Locker," was the evening's biggest winner, picking up six prizes in all, including Oscars for best film and best director.

The total audience was 41.3 million.

By comparison, 2009's Academy Awards telecast, which crowned "Slumdog Millionaire" best picture, averaged 36.3 million U.S. viewers, up from the record low audience the year before, when the grim crime drama "No Country for Old Men" won and only 32 million viewers tuned in to watch.

Midnight_Robber
Mar 8th, 2010, 08:53 PM
Hmmm. So it's already come and gone, huh? :shrug:
My own reaction is that people like myself who genuinely think very little of the Oscars (boring ceremonies, bad speeches, mediocre or dreadful films, and the sense of an exclusive club), end up having to go out of our way to avoid them - which is a 'reaction'. It's too bad that you have to work to really try to side-step them because of the excess hype, media bombardment and the assumption that you're supposed to care or find it exciting. I'm pleased though because this is the first year I can say that I really missed it every way, so I can't even complain that it was 'over-rated crap' or note that it wasn't as bad as I expected. :lol: I honestly couldn't say either way. (Haven't even read an article on it.)

So my reaction is one of mild relief. And now that's it's over I don't mind taking a passing interest over the aftermath. Which is kind of the way that I like it.

mckyle.
Mar 8th, 2010, 08:55 PM
I hate that they went over by 30 minutes and I lost precious sleeping time :mad:

hankqq
Mar 8th, 2010, 10:08 PM
Where is the "I Don't Really Give A Shit About This Self Serving Pile Of Crap" option?

I forgot they were on.

It may be thw #1 option! :lol:

I knew they were on. I just don't give a shit.

This. :worship:

Hmmm. So it's already come and gone, huh? :shrug:
My own reaction is that people like myself who genuinely think very little of the Oscars (boring ceremonies, bad speeches, mediocre or dreadful films, and the sense of an exclusive club), end up having to go out of our way to avoid them - which is a 'reaction'. It's too bad that you have to work to really try to side-step them because of the excess hype, media bombardment and the assumption that you're supposed to care or find it exciting. I'm pleased though because this is the first year I can say that I really missed it every way, so I can't even complain that it was 'over-rated crap' or note that it wasn't as bad as I expected. :lol: I honestly couldn't say either way. (Haven't even read an article on it.)

So my reaction is one of mild relief. And now that's it's over I don't mind taking a passing interest over the aftermath. Which is kind of the way that I like it.


:worship: :yeah: :hatoff:

I don't understand the appeal of these awards shows :shrug: :zzz: :yawn: Nothing more boring or useless.

slamchamp
Mar 8th, 2010, 10:09 PM
I quite enjoyed it, even if I'm not a big fan of Sandra Bullock's and can't see her deserving of an Oscar(though I haven't seen the movie). Meryl should've had a double nomination - a 2nd one for "It's Complicated". Steve Martin & Alec Baldwin were great as co-hosts, had me in stitches everytime they came on. Ben Stiller was funny, though in a creepy way. I've never heard of "Precious" until last night. The clip of Monique's acting was really amazing:worship:. She deserved an Oscar just for that scene.

The stage wasn't the most beautiful they've ever had. The dancing wasn't all that great and was too long.

The 5 actors/actresses introducing the 5 best actor/actress nominee was a bit over-the-top, too long and even a bit corny.

Lack of Brangelina makes it feel like something's missing. They are without a doubt the most glamorous Hollywood couple today.

Ratings wise, this year's Oscars is the highest rated since 2005. It scored a 22.3/35 rating from 8:30-11:00pm, with 41 million viewers, much higher than last year's 18.1. I guess this year's front runner Avatar is a much bigger movie than last year's, though I liked Slumdog Millionaire.
Don't you think you have to see her performance before having an opinion about her oscar?:weirdo:

Ferg
Mar 8th, 2010, 10:09 PM
Haters need not apply! :wavey:

slamchamp
Mar 8th, 2010, 10:14 PM
Haters need not apply! :wavey:are you talking about me?

Ferg
Mar 8th, 2010, 10:15 PM
are you talking about me?

No, to all the haters of the Oscars!

slamchamp
Mar 8th, 2010, 10:16 PM
No, to all the haters of the Oscars!ah ok cause you replied just after me:lol:

PlayByPlay
Mar 8th, 2010, 10:36 PM
It was ok I really liked Ms Bullock.

Mrs. Berasetegui
Mar 8th, 2010, 11:29 PM
I watched but talked and drank a lot with 2 friends. It was OK but to me the red carpet is the best part because you can trash everybody's dress. :angel:

Helen Lawson
Mar 9th, 2010, 12:09 AM
Didn't care enough to watch!

Huntress55
Mar 9th, 2010, 12:45 AM
THey were okay. I liked Steve Martin, a few of the people I wanted to win actually won.
Plus some of the guys in a tux :drool:.... Sam Worthington :hearts:

miffedmax
Mar 9th, 2010, 12:51 AM
Didn't care enough to watch!

You're always that way when you're not nominated.

(of course, so am I).

jefrilibra
Mar 9th, 2010, 12:58 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_en_mo/us_oscar_why

Oscar's big question: How did David slay Goliath?

NEW YORK – For Hollywood pundits, industry folk and Oscar fans still paying attention on Monday, a major question remained: How did David slay Goliath?

For as much as "The Hurt Locker" was the critics' darling, it had three major strikes against it in its battle against the mighty James Cameron's "Avatar."

First, the box office was paltry — it's taken in just $14.7 million domestically, compared to an amazing $720.6 million for "Avatar." That makes "The Hurt Locker" the lowest-grossing best picture winner since accurate records have been kept.

Second, it had no big acting names, usually an important factor in Oscar victory.

And third, it was about the Iraq war, a subject moviegoers traditionally just don't want to deal with. "Iraq is usually the kiss of death at the Oscars," says Tom O'Neil, blogger for the Los Angeles Times' Envelope, an awards site.

But even with 10 nominees in the running for this year's best picture Oscar, the two films — whose directors were once married — were quickly pitted against each other in the race for Hollywood's highest honor.

How did "The Hurt Locker" win out? Theories abound:

FINALLY A NON-POLITICAL FILM ABOUT IRAQ:

Many films about the Iraq war have fallen into a trap of appearing preachy or at least having a strong point of view. Viewers may or may not agree with that view — that still doesn't mean they want to get it at the movies.

But "The Hurt Locker," a story of three technicians on a bomb-defusing team in Baghdad, is at heart an action movie — a documentary-style close-up of the men, their relationships, their missteps and the almost unbearable tension inherent in their exhausting, terrifying, tedious work.

"This isn't that kind of muckraking film aiming to show torture or violation of rules of war," says Robert Sklar, film professor at New York University. "This is a film about men trying to save lives rather than take them. It's also a buddy story. It has classic war-movie themes."

OSCAR LIKES FILMS WITH AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE:

Often the Academy honors big, sweeping films, which "The Hurt Locker" is certainly not. But it also looks for films with a substantial message. "Oscar likes films of importance, with a capital I," says film historian Leonard Maltin. "Often they're big films, but this is a small film that dealt with a really important subject."

OSCAR VOTERS DON'T CARE ABOUT BOX OFFICE:

Who says Oscar cares about box office? "The Oscars don't pay attention to that at all, and nor should they," Maltin says. In fact, he adds, they've often been accused of being too elitist, favoring independent movies over big films favored by the broader public.

YES, THEY DO!:

Nonsense, says O'Neil, of The Envelope: "The Academy wants their movies to do well. Then they anoint them." Even last year's "Slumdog Millionaire," which originally almost went straight to DVD, had made $40 million before the nominations, then rode to $70 million by the time of the awards, he says.

IT'S ABOUT THE CAMPAIGNING:

All of "Hurt Locker's" technical merit aside, "it would be naive to think Oscar campaigning had nothing to do with it," says O'Neil.

He credits Cynthia Swartz, whose public relations firm was given the Oscar campaigning job by Summit, the film's distributor, which was looking for industry respect and had plenty of money to fund the campaign, having already cashed in with the "Twilight" vampire movies.

"It was a very savvy campaign," says O'Neil. "Full force, and highly aggressive."

THE WOMAN FACTOR:

As compelling as her movie was, director Kathryn Bigelow had a compelling story of her own. This director who specializes not in female-oriented films but in big action thrillers had a real shot at becoming the first woman in Oscar history to win the best director prize, with her film winning best picture, too.

Yet Bigelow tried to downplay that element of her story, saying in interviews that she just wanted to be seen as a filmmaker, not a female one.

"Bigelow refused to capitalize on the woman factor, and to her credit," says Maltin. Everyone else wanted to make it a story but her. Still, you can't deny it had some impact."

THE EX FACTOR:

Nor did Bigelow have any desire to capitalize on the "Ex Factor" — in case you're way behind on your Oscar gossip, she was married to Cameron from 1989-91. Were there some voters who were secretly rooting for her to leave him in the dust? No way of knowing, and the two seemed amicable through the awards season, with him standing and cheering as she won her Oscar. Still, there's no doubt that the "battle of the exes" (ok, we're done with the puns) added to the hype.

THE VOTING SYSTEM:

Then there was the new system for choosing best picture, with 10 nominees this year instead of the usual five. In previous years, a voter would simply make one choice for best picture. But this year's ballots had a preferential system, meaning voters ranked their choices. The lowest choices were then eliminated. That meant it was a system that favored consensus choices, some hypothesized.

"'Avatar' is polarizing," postulated Hendrik Hertzberg in The New Yorker magazine last month. "So is James Cameron ... these factors could push 'Avatar' to the bottom of a choice-ranked ballot.'"

AND SPEAKING OF "AVATAR"...

Was "Avatar" ever really going to win? Blogger O'Neil doesn't think so, even though it won the Golden Globe and seemed to be at the top of many prediction lists.

"I think we pundits convinced ourselves that 'Avatar' might win, but in reality there's a science-fiction bias in the Academy, and it's pretty unbudgeable," he says.

We'll never know how close the vote was — the Academy doesn't release that information and it doesn't do exit polls. But informal exit polls done privately by industry insiders, and his own conversations, lead O'Neil to think that Quentin Tarantino's wild "Inglourious Basterds" was actually the film that almost won, not "Avatar."

HOW ABOUT ... IT'S JUST A REALLY GOOD MOVIE:

"Look at all the awards this film won — screenplay, sound, editing," notes Sklar, the NYU film professor and author of "Movie-Made America."

"The sheer quality of the work must have influenced a lot of the professionals in the industry who were voting. It's just such a well-made movie from aesthetic and technical point of view, it overcomes all those other concerns."

And so maybe it's this simple: In the end, good writing, superb acting and just plain excellent filmmaking do win out in Hollywood.

Direwolf
Mar 9th, 2010, 01:54 AM
how the hell do they choose the best picture category??

did the judges just view Avatar as a "Kid" show??

RFSTB
Mar 9th, 2010, 03:49 AM
Don't you think you have to see her performance before having an opinion about her oscar?:weirdo:

I'm a so-so fan of Sandra's. Some of her movies are better than others. But somehow the idea of her as a blonde with a Southern twang just pushes it over the top for me. Plus I know even though this is supposed to be based on a true story Hollywood will find a way to turn it into another cheesy corny predictable bore. Gag. I'd rather watch Precious.

Several papers are questioning why Farrah Fawcett was omitted in the "In Memoriam" tribute, guess I wasn't imagining it. That was a bad omission. She was even a member of the academy, Michael Jackson was not. Massive fail for whoever's responsible for that piece.

Steve Martin + Alec Baldwin is a million times better than Hugh Jackman, who was a complete bore. Next year, please let Queen Latifa host it.

Caralenko
Mar 9th, 2010, 04:08 AM
how the hell do they choose the best picture category??

did the judges just view Avatar as a "Kid" show??

Did you read the above article at all? :weirdo: It's a preferential system.

skanky~skanketta
Mar 9th, 2010, 05:06 AM
Well, I normally only care about the best actor/actress and supporting actor/actress categories. Best movie, director and the rest I don't really care. And also, I am only ever interested if there's an actor/actress I like being nominated. Other than that, I only watch to see what the ladies are wearing. And quite honestly while I was thrilled that Mo'nique, Sandra, Jeff and Christoph won, I was terribly underwhelmed by te outfits last night! J-LO IMO stole the show.

Sam L
Mar 9th, 2010, 08:31 AM
I thought the show was all right. Nothing that special.

Now that The Hurt Locker has won, I guess I'll have to watch it one day to make sure I've seen all the Best Picture winners. But I have no interest in it. :help:

Anyway, the most exciting win for me for the night was The Cove. :lol: And Mo'nique.

LucyFromLondon
Mar 9th, 2010, 06:29 PM
I love film and books but they are subjective I think. Some people say a film is fantastic, others don't like it. Which is why I like sports - the winner is the winner. Even if you don't like who won, the fastest is the fastest and the team that scored the most goals scored the most goals. The Oscars can't really say what is the best film, and the Booker can't say which is the best book - it's all down to taste! I read once that Alfred Hitchcock and other great names of film never won Oscars while people who are forgotten and whose contribution was minimal did!

I also think that sometimes the Oscars rewards films in fashion or people that they like at the time.

I guess my love of clarity says a lot about me!