Lycaon Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Gotta love the Onion. Smart Aleck Ruins Academy AwardsMarch 6, 2006 | Issue 42•09 VINCENNES, IN—Viewers of the 78th Academy Awards report that the event was ruined by the unknown smart aleck who served as the master of ceremonies. "I’m disappointed they couldn’t get a name," said 68-year-old retiree Louise Bloedorn, who said her enjoyment of the Oscars was marred by confusion and a vague feeling that the host was somehow mocking the event. "That new fellow will not go far in show business—or any business—if he doesn’t learn to show respect for the stars." A Bloomington Herald-Times poll of viewers showed a strong preference for bringing back "the guy from City Slickers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicManiac Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Just read my post above Ly's Jax... thats all, seriously...ALL you missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Lindsay Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 the daily show-esque mudslinging campaigns for best actress narrated by steven colbert were so fucking good. the cheney joke was awesome too. and i really liked will farell and steve carell's presentation for best make up. but serioiusly, the speeches were boring (except for maybe clooney's). so so booooooooooring. no one even seemed that excited. at least when crash won, everyone had a "wtf?" reaction (jack nicholson was awesome mouthing "wow" after he read it), including the people involved in the movie. and then a crazy orgy broke out in their section. people had to be tasered and hosed down. it was insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 Did Memoirs of a Geisha win everything it was nominateed for? Dunno but it shoulda lost cinematography to Brokeback if you ask me. All in all, no real surprises for me. I was really hoping Giamatti would get supporting actor but I'm glad Clooney did anyway - thought it was funny that even he acknowledged that it was probably a consolation prize for not getting Best Director. I'm not terribly fond of Reese Witherspoon and though he performance in Walk the Line was really good, I'm not sure if it was Best Actress good but oh well, I knew she'd probably get it. I really didn't think It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp could beat Kathleen York's haunting In the Deep but that's just me. Either way, I don't think either song really needed the "re-enactments" that were going on during the performance. Itzhak Perlman had the best performance in the show. Yeah, most of the speaches were a bore. Clooney, as always, did a great job. That guy was born to be a movie star, he's the Cary Grant of our time. It's just a shame he went first. Some of the others were interesting. I found it kind of endearing that after years of accolades and being in the business, Philip Seymour Hoffman was still so nervous in his acceptance speech. Poor Lauren Bacall seemed to be having teleprompter problems. Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin were valiant about their adlibbing but they really could have benefitted from Robert Altman saying "cut" at some point. Jon Stewart did a great job. There were a few awkward silences but he had better jokes than most of the recent hosts (I still think Crystal is the best host of the generation, though, no wonder they keep asking him to come back). The Stephen Colbert narrated bits were gold even if it did seem in danger of being The Oscars as performed by The Daily Show. And whose idea was it to sit the, what, 21 year old Keira Knightley next to Jack Nicholson? There's a tabloid story waiting to happen. Go Crash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicManiac Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Dunno but it shoulda lost cinematography to Brokeback if you ask me. And whose idea was it to sit the, what, 21 year old Keira Knightley next to Jack Nicholson? There's a tabloid story waiting to happen. Go Crash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristyandJake Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 The woman Jamie Foxx brought with him was his sister, not his date haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicManiac Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 She was still ugly as sin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristyandJake Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 thats true, haha she had a tiny head, they must have different fathers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 Apparently, Annie Proulx, author of the short story Brokeback Mountain, is furious that Brokeback lost to Crash for the Best Picture award. Seems she thinks racism in America is an out-of-touch and out-of-date topic for a movie to discuss. Brokeback Mountain author Annie Proulx has slated the Academy Awards for giving the Best Picture Oscar to Crash at this year's presentation ceremony. In an essay published by British newspaper The Guardian, Proulx describes voters as "out of touch" and "segregated" from current issues, and insists they were easily influenced by Crash's production company Lions Gate Entertainment. She writes, "Roughly 6,000 film industry voters, most in the Los Angeles area, many living cloistered lives behind wrought-iron gates or in deluxe rest homes, out of touch not only with the shifting larger culture and the yeasty ferment that is America these days, but also out of touch with their own segregated city, decide which films are good. And rumor has it that Lions Gate inundated the academy voters with DVD copies of 'Trash' - excuse me, Crash - a few weeks before the ballot deadline. Next year we can look to the awards for controversial themes on the punishment of adulterers with a branding iron in the shape of the letter A, runaway slaves, and the debate over free silver." I know Crash had plenty of people who weren't fans, but geez... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 If we could make wine out of those sour grapes we could stay pissed for the rest of our lives. Whatever happened to "It's an honor just to be nominateed." This ain't Pulp-Fiction-losing bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 See, this is what I don't understand about Hollywood. The movies that scored the highest awards were the LOWEST GROSSING MOVIES in History. Why? Because they sucked. The only original movie nominated was a movie about Gay Cowboys. Think about that for a second. Cowboys...that are....gay. As if "Paint my Wagon" wasn't bad enough. It was a complete and total waste of time, and I think they realized it when the ratings came in, and the 'billions of people watching' ended up being '45 people who's television set simultaneously malfunctioned and stayed tuned to the Oscars". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 to be fair, highest-grossing film should not even be a factor for such decisions, or wed have shit like American Pie: Ernest goes to camp or some shit winning. I'm not gonna judge gay cowboys till i sees the film finally, but Paint your Wagon was a classic for the ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycaon Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Hey, yeah. Back on off "Paint Your Wagon." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Perhaps. But more often than not you get classics....like LotR. But at the very least, the winners should be good movies, not movies that are only there because they have a political agenda being pushed by a. the media and b. hollywood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 So...you don't think Crash, Brokeback Mountain, Good Night and Good Luck, Capote or Munich were good movies? Personally, I'm glad that movies with ideas behind them got nominated this year, instead of the usual period piece, emotionally-scored, soft-lighting, melodramatic, big-budget, unoriginal, Hollywood Oscar bait (ie: Memoirs of a Geisha, Cinderella Man or past winners like Gladiator, Chicago, and yes Return of the King) that generally takes the prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Perhaps. But more often than not you get classics....like LotR. But at the very least, the winners should be good movies, not movies that are only there because they have a political agenda being pushed by a. the media and b. hollywood. youre reading bi-partisanship into this like coulter did. syriana was about oil companies, but its not farenheit. what's liberal to the point of propoganda here - crash's look on racism, brokeback's unrequited love thing, munich's look on past terrorist, etc? i just dont follow; if a movie was about what happend to be a conservative agenda was, i dont think that'd ruin the experience for me if it, again, was pure propoganda. im failing to see the injustice here. be honest: 1) which movies do you think got snubbed last year? 2) of the contestants, how many of these did you actually see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Return of the King, Titanic, and Forrest Gump are the only three films in history to win best picture and be the highest grossing fo the year. Lemme take 1999 for example. 1999 saw the films American Beauty, Fight Club, The Matrix, Being John Malkovich, The Sixth Sense, Toy Story 2, just to name a few. If highest gross had been a factor, George Lucas would have a best picture oscar on his shelf for Star Wars Episode I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I'm not saying that the movies should be epic grossing like LotR or Star Wars....but when the only people who have actually watched the movies are the people who made it, 1000 civilians, and the Academy...there's something terribly, terribly wrong with that. Most previous Oscar winners were at least on the charts, and were seen by many, many people. These movies this year were depressingly mediocre. SB: different tastes there man. i disagree with you, but I respect your position. People forget that the movie industry is an industry. They're number 1 priority is to sell. If no one watches your movie, it's a flop. So why are awarding terrible movies, which no one saw, top awards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 As IC pointed out, ticket sales do not a good movie make. Big Momma's House 2 was a box office hit, The Shawshank Redemption was a box office bomb. The Academy is not intended to award those films that make money, that's ridiculous. Filmmaking is an industry, yes, but it's also an art form and not every filmmaker is out there looking for the almighty dollar. Just ask Spike Jonze, or the Coens, or Wes Anderson, or hell even Robert Rodriguez. Despite the Hollywood money-making machine, many directors still use film as a viable means of artistic expression, and saying a movie is a failure just because it didn't get to the top ten is missing the point. I mean it's like...I dunno...calling a Rembrandt a terrible painting just because he didn't sell it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jont Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 People forget that the movie industry is an industry. They're number 1 priority is to sell. If no one watches your movie, it's a flop. So why are awarding terrible movies, which no one saw, top awards? Well the Academy Awards are a promotional tool, and you can be assured to see little gold men appearing on any new DVD covers for Crash. There's not much point in promoting successful movies. That said Crash wasn't a bad movie, it brought up subjects that aren't being talked about much in mainstream movies, and even if it is a bit simplistic, it's more truthful than let's say, Forest Gump. I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, and unless by some bizarre accident I probably never will, but Annie Proulx should step off her high gay horse, it was the same thing when Martin Landau won best supporting actor over Samuel L Jackson, people were putting it down to race, ignoring Landau's performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Arch, trust me, people who pay to have these movie made have not forgetten that they are in it for the money, but why is it so hard to understadn that these awards aren't tryign to weight the grosses as a factor. They are tryin to judge the artistic merit. Sometimes that very artistic credibility translates into box office jackpot, sometiems it doesn't. In 2003, the highest grossing movie was Return of the King adn it won Best Picture. In 2000, The Jim Carrey/Ron Howard How The Grinch Stole Christmas was the highest grossing. Why did the Academy overlook the Grinch in 2000 when it was clearly the highest grossing movie of the year (ergo, objectively the best). Furthermore, why did they give his followup movie, A Beautiful Mind, the Oscar when it didn't make the Top Ten highest grossers that year? Joel, not ALL the talking points off anncoulter.com are argumentative gold. Try them on a stuffed animal first. If your Tickle Me Elmo can tear your argument apart (and believe me, a Tickle Me Elmo could tear this argument apart) then maybe you shouldn't use that particular point in your discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicManiac Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Lucas hates the Academy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 These movies this year were depressingly mediocre....So why are awarding terrible movies, which no one saw, top awards? 1) which movies do you think got snubbed last year?2) of the contestants, how many of these did you actually see? ...or, did you mean, movies you didnt see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted March 17, 2006 Author Share Posted March 17, 2006 Yes, arch, just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean nobody has. I actually saw three of the five this year, and all three were great flicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 1) which movies do you think got snubbed last year? Munich didn't get nearly as much credit as it deserved. Neither did Narnia. Nor did Memoirs of a Geisha. of the contestants, how many of these did you actually see? All but Brokeback. They are tryin to judge the artistic merit. Sure. Artistic Merit. Not political ideology. Nope, not that. Honestly, the Oscars have sunk to a low, low standard. You simply cannot compare any of these movies (except, maybe, Munich, and even then, it isn't comperable to past performances) to movies like A Beautiful Mind, or Shawshank Redmption. The movies are just really, really bad. And people seem to think that artistic expression is only artistic if a majority of people think it's crap. People forget that something can be artistic and likeable. It's become so that the only movies that make it anywhere are the ones that appeal to some select few schmucks in some Ivory Tower over in Hollywood, who have absolutely no idea what the average person likes, and who judge 'artistic expression' based soley on their narrowminded views. But that's just my oppinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.