The Annual Academy Awards - General Discussion

[truthaboutluv]

And now some of the heavy hitters are coming out with an open letter calling out the decision - George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Robert DeNiro, among a few. Honestly, this is just embarrassing at this point. Is the producer of this year's show entirely new? Because this feels like someone wanting so much to make some big splash and put their own stamp on things and instead just falling flat on their face over and over. 

First it was the "we're going to have a Popular Movie category" as if to say, "well we don't think you were good enough for our real nomination but hey, you made a lot of money". Naturally film makers and studios were offended and people pretty much went, "who asked for this". And so that got scrapped. 

Then they decided that only two Original Song nominees were worthy of performing their nominated song. And one of those was Kendrick Lamar, despite the fact that per insider reports, while the Academy desperately wants him to perform, he's been pretty much whatever and hasn't given them a yes. But they decide only he and Gaga should perform their songs until of course they got trashed for that decision and had to come around and go, "okay sorry, our bad, every nominated song will be performed". 

Then they decided, last year's acting winners weren't "famous" enough and so they were going to do away with the tradition of the previous winner awarding this year's winner. And naturally they got shit for that and so once again had to turn around and go, "our bad, yes, last year's winners will award this year's winners".

And now this. These people just need to stop. They already don't have a host, which I think will go a long way in keeping the time under control. As others said, we don't need a million montages and I say that as a person who loves a good montage. Eliminate the unnecessary stuff and finally officially extend the show to 3 1/2 hours and give everyone their damn award on air and move along.

[Nordly Beaumont]

6 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

Then they decided that only two Original Song nominees were worthy of performing their nominated song.

Not the first time. In 2016 Sam Smith, Lady Gaga, and the Weeknd were asked to perform. Anohni (the first transgender performer to be nominated) and Sumi Jo (an opera singer) were not invited to perform. Only commercial successes are wanted/invited. I used to work with Anohni's sister in law and I'm still bitter about that happening to two performers who were every bit as nominated and worthy as Sam Smith, Lady Gaga and the Weeknd.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Nordly Beaumont

[Simon Boccanegra]

9 hours ago, blackwing said:

It's one thing if you are a renowned talent like Viola Davis.  But if you're a (relative) no-namer, I just want to hear you give some brief words of thanks and then move on.  I don't need to hear you go on and on for over 60 seconds about your wife the love of your life and hi Bobby and Sally at home if you're watching this it's past your bedtime.

Well...one of the categories up for marginalization this year was Cinematography. I'm not sure by what standard Viola would be more of a renowned talent than, say, Roger Deakins, Emmanuel Lubezki, or Bruno Delbonnel. There are great cinematographers throughout history just as there are great actors, writers, and directors. Some are still among us.

But anyway, I've already gone on record as disputing the notion that the speeches are the problem with the telecast. The moments when awards (any awards) are given out are when the bloated thing is actually doing what it's supposed to do. It's all the fat in between (up to and including leaden, scripted presenter banter) that sinks it.  

Edited February 15, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[truthaboutluv]

10 hours ago, Nordly Beaumont said:

Not the first time. In 2016 Sam Smith, Lady Gaga, and the Weeknd were asked to perform. Anohni (the first transgender performer to be nominated) and Sumi Jo (an opera singer) were not invited to perform. Only commercial successes are wanted/invited

I actually do remember this and I remember it did get some criticism but I think unfortunately because the two artists weren't "mainstream" enough, it didn't get nearly the attention and blow back it should have. That and this was the year of the #OscarsSoWhite controversy and I believe that this situation got lost amidst all that.

I think this year's decision got so much heat because one of the nominated songs featured Lin Manuel Miranda who called them out publicly and of course that gained traction and another is a Diane Warren song and is featured in a documentary about RBG, being sung by an Oscar winner. 

[Kel Varnsen]

On 2/14/2019 at 4:51 AM, ruby24 said:

That explanation changes nothing. We know that's what they're doing and NO ONE LIKES THAT IDEA. This whole revolving categories thing is bullshit. Yeah, I'm sure one of these years they're going to announce Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Costumes and Best Visual Effects in the commercial breaks because they just happen to be the ones on the chopping block. Nope! That will NEVER HAPPEN.

The whole point is to allow everyone to have their moment and not let any category be shortchanged. I mean for god's sake, this is saving them what, seven minutes? It's absurd.

If everyone deserves their moment then why aren't the science and tech awards included in the oscar telecast?  I just don't think the short categories are worth being on TV and I don't think it is correct to say no one likes the idea. Plus it is not like they are cancelling the awards. How hard is it to throw the presentation of them on youtube so the people who do care can see them.

Plus if it was about giving everyone recognition they should give out awards for best stunt performance or best voice actor performance or best trailer. To me those would be a hell of a lot more interesting than best live action short.

[blackwing]

2 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

If everyone deserves their moment then why aren't the science and tech awards included in the oscar telecast?  I just don't think the short categories are worth being on TV and I don't think it is correct to say no one likes the idea. Plus it is not like they are cancelling the awards. How hard is it to throw the presentation of them on youtube so the people who do care can see them.

Plus if it was about giving everyone recognition they should give out awards for best stunt performance or best voice actor performance or best trailer. To me those would be a hell of a lot more interesting than best live action short.

I'm right there with you.  I wonder how many people who are saying that everyone should get their moment in the sun also actually seek out and watch the science and tech awards.  Do all these celebrities who are "taking a stand" for the sake of taking a stand and getting their name in the paper also actually take time out from their schedule to attend the science and tech awards?  I understand that there are viewers who love watching everyone get an award but I think those viewers are in the minority.  I would imagine a large portion of mainstream America truly really only cares about the top 6 awards, and everything else in between is filler.

Several years ago they made the winners of the "lesser awards" accept the awards from their seat.  Many on the predecessor forum hated that.  Not sure why... I guess people were decrying the fact that the winners "lost out" on the experience of walking down the aisle in the theater and climbing on stage and getting their award.  But I thought it was a good compromise.  Isn't that pretty much what they are doing here?  The award is given out during the commercial but when it comes back from commercial, they announce the award and then show a clip of the speech.  The producers stated they are trying to eliminate some of the deadtime it takes for the winners to make their way to the stage.

I want to see if they are truly going to enforce this 90 second rule from the time your name is announced to the time you are cut off.  I still think they should just turn off the mike when time elapses.  The Grammys just did that to Drake and it was all in the papers.  Nobody wants to be known as the person that got played off the stage so maybe winners will get the memo if the producers actually enforce the rule.

[truthaboutluv]

50 minutes ago, blackwing said:

Do all these celebrities who are "taking a stand" for the sake of taking a stand and getting their name in the paper also actually take time out from their schedule to attend the science and tech awards?

Actually many do because that's also when they hand out the Honorary Oscars. 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

I think they should show a condensed version of the science and tech awards before the red carpet coverage starts. Let people who want to watch it all make more of a day of it, like the pre-Super Bowl stuff.

1 minute ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

Edited February 15, 2019 by ItCouldBeWorse

[MVFrostsMyPie]

I'd rather see who wins cinematographer or live-action short than listen to speeches, whether they're from Oprah accepting a lifetime achievement award or Joe Schmoe. It's a given that you'd thank whoever your god is (or thank Satan, if you're Christian Bale) if you have one, your family, friends, agent, the cast and crew, and I don't need to listen to Nicole Kidman speak for 10 minutes while average-looking behind-the-scenes Joe Schmoe gets played off after 30 seconds even if he worked just as hard, if not harder, perhaps. Just cut all of that out. They can give their thank you when they go backstage and if people really want to hear those speeches, they can view those online or something during commercials or later at their choosing.

I guess I don't mind watching the lesser known folks because I like watching "average" folks get their time to shine. I'd honestly rather watch some random yoohoo who they sat way in the back, who couldn't get a designer to give them a free dress or suit, getting their time to shine (and perhaps get more recognition and become a big star later on), than watch one more second of Meryl Streep and everyone fawning over her. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by MVFrostsMyPie

[ProudMary]

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/all-oscar-categories-to-air-live-after-hollywood-protest-1203141496/

Quote

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has reversed its controversial decision to hand out four Oscars during the telecast’s commercial breaks, individuals close to the group told Variety.

Following a Thursday night meeting with top cinematographers, Academy leadership including President John Bailey and CEO Dawn Hudson have pledged to air every awards category on the live show a week from Sunday.

[truthaboutluv]

1 hour ago, ProudMary said:

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/all-oscar-categories-to-air-live-after-hollywood-protest-1203141496/

And right on cue... Again, they really need to stop. 

[wonderwoman]

got rid of cable a while back, but really miss watching the baftas and independent spirit awards. wish the oscars would take a peek.

[ShadowHunter]

It is good they will air all the Awards. That got a negative reaction so I am stunned they listened to the people.  Naturally people are still complaining because the show will be over 3 hours long. If you live on the east coast the show will end around midnight. That is still an issue. 

[ProudMary]

Interesting article from The Hollywood Reporter on how ASIB went from an Oscar frontrunner in late summer, 2018 to where it now stands with its only sure thing Oscar seeming to be for Best Original Song.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/oscars-can-a-star-is-born-still-pull-a-best-picture-win-1185329

[Kel Varnsen]

5 hours ago, ShadowHunter said:

It is good they will air all the Awards. That got a negative reaction so I am stunned they listened to the people.  

Except the people they listened to seemed to have been the Hollywood types who attend the ceremony not necessarily the general public. It seems to me that the ceremony itself should be for the Hollywood types in the theatre to congratulate themselves but the telecast should be for the people watching. The ceremony and the telecast are two different things.

Also if you want to save time don't introduce the accountants. If that is a problem give the accounting firm a commercial slot during the broadcast.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Kel Varnsen

[blackwing]

See, they complain about the length of the show and now I see that the producers are adding a performance by Queen with Adam Lambert to the show.  Why?  Yes, I know "Bohemian Rhapsody" is nominated, and Rami Malek may win Best Actor.  But none of the songs are nominated.  Just because there is a movie about a singer or band doesn't necessarily mean they need to appear.  I don't recall if Tina Turner got to sing when Angela Bassett was nominated for "What's Love Got To Do With It" but I'm guessing she did not.  The weird thing to me is that the movie is about Freddie Mercury (and his band), and while it's kind of cool to have the band there, it's odd to me that they have Adam Lambert there in Freddie Mercury's part to spotlight a movie that was about Freddie Mercury.  I know that he has been Queen's lead singer for a while now but it just seems a little strange to me.

Queen with Freddie Mercury is legendary but it was because of Freddie Mercury.  Queen with Adam Lambert just seems like another performance.  I just am not sure if the Oscars is the place for it.

[Shannon L.]

12 minutes ago, blackwing said:

See, they complain about the length of the show and now I see that the producers are adding a performance by Queen with Adam Lambert to the show.  Why?  Yes, I know "Bohemian Rhapsody" is nominated, and Rami Malek may win Best Actor.  But none of the songs are nominated.  Just because there is a movie about a singer or band doesn't necessarily mean they need to appear.  I don't recall if Tina Turner got to sing when Angela Bassett was nominated for "What's Love Got To Do With It" but I'm guessing she did not.  The weird thing to me is that the movie is about Freddie Mercury (and his band), and while it's kind of cool to have the band there, it's odd to me that they have Adam Lambert there in Freddie Mercury's part to spotlight a movie that was about Freddie Mercury.  I know that he has been Queen's lead singer for a while now but it just seems a little strange to me.

Queen with Freddie Mercury is legendary but it was because of Freddie Mercury.  Queen with Adam Lambert just seems like another performance.  I just am not sure if the Oscars is the place for it.

I thought they turned down the offer?  Did they change their mind?

[truthaboutluv]

6 minutes ago, blackwing said:

The weird thing to me is that the movie is about Freddie Mercury (and his band), and while it's kind of cool to have the band there, it's odd to me that they have Adam Lambert there in Freddie Mercury's part to spotlight a movie that was about Freddie Mercury.

Well I mean it's not like Freddie can do it. I get what you're saying and yes, you're right, Queen was iconic because of Freddie Mercury and the other three band members. But, well he's dead. 

I've seen some making comments on social media about this and relating it to the producers wanting to cut some categories for time. But I don't think one has anything to do with the other. 

I think this performance is happening because there's no host. Because time constraints or not, the Oscars always have a big dramatic opening. But that usually involves the host and well there isn't one this year. Many people online were actually throwing out this suggestion of Queen opening the show and I think that's probably where the producers got the idea from. Some felt that it would be a cool way to open the show, with band singing We Are The Champions and sort of celebrating all the nominees in that way. 

And YMMV but it works and makes sense for me. The fact is Bohemian Rhapsody, against all odds, was one of the biggest films of the year and Queen really is an iconic band. 

Quote

I thought they turned down the offer?  Did they change their mind?

Brian denied that they turned it down. He said that was a rumor and they were never performing but would be attending the show. My guess is they either hadn't been asked yet or were still working out the details and so it wasn't confirmed.

Edited February 18, 2019 by truthaboutluv

[Simon Boccanegra]

The truth is, every Oscar producer probably starts out with good intentions to address the telecast bloat, but if there is something that could get the show higher television ratings, the scales tip toward that. A performance by Queen, even if it's Queen in its current nostalgia-band incarnation with a different lead singer, fits the bill.

On the subject of the length of the telecast generally, I found the below quote from a Hollywood-dot-com article interesting. This article followed an Oscar ceremony that was middle of the road in duration, neither an eon like the notorious 2002 show (4 hours 23 minutes) nor especially brisk. It was around the modern average of 3 hours 30 minutes.  

Quoting:  

So who was drawing out the 2013 Oscars ceremony? Turns out the biggest culprit of the night wasn’t [host Seth MacFarlane]. Instead, the night’s presenters accounted for a total of 59 minutes and 10 seconds of the Oscar ceremony, taking up 34 percent of the telecast. (Speeches, on the other hand, took up just 23 percent of the evening, while MacFarlane sat at 22 percent.)

That’s right — we could have enjoyed a much-shorter telecast had the Oscars cut off the banter that curiously remained in the script after Sunday’s show began to run over. In fact, two of the longest presenters of the evening, Jack Nicholson and Michelle Obama — who took three minutes and 49 seconds to present Argo with Best Picture — even closed out the awards. But the Oscar for longest presenters of the evening belongs to the reunited Chicago cast, who, between two categories, spoke at the podium for five minutes and 12 seconds. (The shortest presenters? Melissa McCarthy and Paul Rudd, whose banter was so painful, it felt like it lasted far longer than just 40 seconds.)

***

Now, I ask people who have been more attentive in recent years. Amidst all the "We're going to give some people their awards in their seats" and "We're going to cut four categories" and "We're only going to have some of the nominated songs performed" and "We're going to play winners off after 90 seconds," has any producer ever announced, "We're going to do away with spiels, bits, and banter for all presenters, unless it's a lifetime-achievement award and the recipient's career has to be described, and just have them get right down to 'The nominees for [X] are...'"? 

No? Mm-hmm.  

Susan Sarandon hasn't been my favorite celebrity in recent years, but she'll always have a sliver of my gratitude for her no-bullshit move here. It seems the crowd is with her too.  

Edited February 18, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[Shannon L.]

I would love to see Queen open the show.  Despite the fact that "I Can't Stop This Feeling" was hated among many, when Justin Timberlake came in from the back of the studio singing the song and everyone stood up and danced, clapped and sang, it made me happy.  It was exactly what I needed to get into the mood for the show.  As for Freddie not being there, they could always do what they do in the concert:  have a video of him playing the beginning of "Bohemian Rhapsody", then have the band either continue, or start a new song (which is shorter than "6 minutes long!" :)  They may not be nominated for a song, but they are still popular, even with a younger crowd, and, like @truthaboutluv said, it did become a really popular movie.  It was #14 worldwide and #12 domestically.  

Thanks for posting that @Simon Boccanegra.  Too bad they can't buy a clue and stop with the forced banter.

[truthaboutluv]

1 hour ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

Now, I ask people who have been more attentive in recent years. Amidst all the "We're going to give some people their awards in their seats" and "We're going to cut four categories" and "We're only going to have some of the nominated songs performed" and "We're going to play winners off after 90 seconds," has any producer ever announced, "We're going to do away with spiels, bits, and banter for all presenters, unless it's a lifetime-achievement award and the recipient's career has to be described, and just have them get right down to 'The nominees for [X] are...'"? 

I'm completely with you. They really could save a lot of time cutting out the forced banter between presenters that 9 out of 10 times is always awkward, the million montages (I think they had something like ten during last year's ceremony), comedy bits that many times fall flat, etc. 

[Irlandesa]

5 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

But the Oscar for longest presenters of the evening belongs to the reunited Chicago cast, who, between two categories, spoke at the podium for five minutes and 12 seconds.

Oh yes, in addition to ranting about the montages, I was thinking about the year the Oscars paid tribute to Chicago. So much tribute. Coincidentally, the producers of the Oscars that year were also the producers of Chicago.  I like Zadan/Meron but they should not have been asked back after that. 

I do think they have to do something entertaining because 3 hours of pure award giving might start to drag--in the theater if not at home.  Queen is a good choice.  Their music is very well known and catchy.  Plus, a nervous audience, who is hard to make laugh, won't have to pretend to laugh.  But I do think cutting the banter between presenters is smart. Pepper legitimate comedians throughout the the ceremony.  Have them do a funny introduction.  Have the rest do the basics.

[Browncoat]

But if it were pure award, it wouldn’t last three hours.  Have the Death Montage, show a trailer/montage from each of the films nominated for Best Picture, have live performances of all the nominated songs, sprinkle the actual awards among those things (and show all the awards), and I believe you’d come in under time.  Or at least on time.  

[galaxygirl76]

On 2/16/2019 at 12:08 PM, ProudMary said:

Interesting article from The Hollywood Reporter on how ASIB went from an Oscar frontrunner in late summer, 2018 to where it now stands with its only sure thing Oscar seeming to be for Best Original Song.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/oscars-can-a-star-is-born-still-pull-a-best-picture-win-1185329

I like the article but disagree with their comparison with Affleck and Argo. Affleck, unlike Cooper, won best director at the Globes and the DGA. It was a legit shock that he didn't even got nominated. Argo itself had been winning best picture prizes(globes, bafta, sag, PGA) before it won best picture at the Oscars, and while it may have garnered some sympathy votes for the non nomination for Affleck, it wasn't a surprise it won best picture. 

[Simon Boccanegra]

I've complained about montages lately, but they do have their time and place. Here's a very nicely done one covering the history of the Cinematography category, ending with this year's nominees. It makes me want to see some of these films, and see again some of the ones I've already seen.  

[blackwing]

I know the lifetime achievement awards (Governors Award and Irving B Thalberg) are given out at some other ceremony late last year.  But do they do any kind of presentation at the Oscars?  Three people got the Governors Award, including the fantastic Cicely Tyson.  Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall got the Thalberg award.  I get the awards shows confused but unless I am really interested in the lifetime achievement honoree, I usually find these segments snoozetastic.

I'm hoping the Glenn Close can hang on and pull off the win.  She seems to be the front runner right now.  Gaga has seemed to have dropped completely out of contention but it seems Olivia Colman could be picking up some steam.  My issue with Colman is that she doesn't carry her movie in the sense that Close carried hers.  Colman was really one of three equal leads, but someone had to go for Best Actress and someone had to go for Supporting and it seemed she was bumped to Lead because she played the queen.  I do think that Yalitza Aparicio could be a dark horse.  I want Close to win not just for what I thought was a deserving performance but because of her fantastic career.  She was terrifying in "Fatal Attraction" but my favourite performance of hers was in "Dangerous Liaisons".  I thought she was so deserving of a win.  Hard to compete against Jodie Foster in "The Accused", but I thought she was worthy.

I know some will criticise Close's award if she wins as a Lifetime Achievement award in the vein of Jessica Tandy or a Makeup award in the vein of Al Pacino for "Scent of a Woman" ("Godfather Part 2"), Dame Judi Dench for "Shakespeare in Love" ("Mrs. Brown") or Denzel Washington for "Training Day" ("The Hurricane").  But I think she is deserving.  And not just because she is old and has less years in front of her than behind.  Sentiment didn't get Peter O'Toole or Lauren Bacall what was perceived as their "last chance" awards.  I am hoping Close has many more years in acting left in her, but this award would be a great capstone to it.

[truthaboutluv]

5 hours ago, galaxygirl76 said:

I like the article but disagree with their comparison with Affleck and Argo. Affleck, unlike Cooper, won best director at the Globes and the DGA. It was a legit shock that he didn't even got nominated. Argo itself had been winning best picture prizes(globes, bafta, sag, PGA) before it won best picture at the Oscars, and while it may have garnered some sympathy votes for the non nomination for Affleck, it wasn't a surprise it won best picture. 

All of this. Ben Affleck's snub in the Best Director category was huge because he'd won everything. This wasn't just a case of his name was out there as a potential nominee. He was considered the flat out favorite to win. Affleck's snub would be equivalent to if Alfonso Cuaron had not been nominated this year. On the flip side, Bradley Cooper never had a shot of winning Best Director. 

I do agree with some of the movie pundits, that his snub, as well as Affleck's, has to do with the changes in The Academy in recent years, where only the Directors body vote for the nominees and that body now includes directors from all over the world. And the thinking is that these guys don't want to reward some actor "playing" director and essentially potentially screw up their future opportunities. So they don't even include them because voting for the winner is open to everyone. Seems very shitty and shady as well but oh well..

Quote

I know the lifetime achievement awards (Governors Award and Irving B Thalberg) are given out at some other ceremony late last year.  But do they do any kind of presentation at the Oscars?  Three people got the Governors Award, including the fantastic Cicely Tyson.  Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall got the Thalberg award.  I get the awards shows confused but unless I am really interested in the lifetime achievement honoree, I usually find these segments snoozetastic.

Yes they always devote a small segment of the Oscars telecast to talk about the Technical Awards ceremony that happened days before and highlight the people who got special honorary Oscars. 

Regarding A Star Is Born, I do think it's a reminder that as much as many talk about all the campaigning and politics that go into these awards, sometimes all the studio campaigning doesn't always go as planned. That and I do think the film's momentum began way too early. 

This is actually reminding me of a few years ago when all the early buzz was on The Social Network and then towards the end, The King's Speech just shot ahead. Same with Boyhood vs. Birdman. Boyhood was all the talk at the start of Award season and by the end Birdman just came in and swept everything. 

I do think things like A Star is Born losing steam and Bohemian Rhapsody being in the mix when so many critics bashed it, is what has made this Award season pretty interesting for me. Like I said, lovely as these people may be, last year's Awards didn't excite me in the least because we all knew 90 percent of the winners going into Sunday night. 

This year, we started Awards season with A Star is Born considered the front-runner that would truly make Gaga a serious actress complete with Oscar wins and Bradley would win his Best Actor award. Yet somewhere along the way, voters were like, "yeah, no..." Now things are looking so unlikely that annoying ass Sean Penn is writing op-eds practically begging voters to award the movie. 

Edited February 19, 2019 by truthaboutluv

[BetterButter]

[cpcathy]

I thought Glenn Close should have won for supporting for The World According to Garp. If she had won then, Olivia Colman could win this year, because she was great in The Favourite and because she's so darn likable.

[Simon Boccanegra]

A Star Is Born had the trajectory of a popular song itself, didn't it? Inescapable for a month or two, and then people got sick of it, and some of them didn't even want to admit they'd liked it so much.  

I think it was just favorably timed to have its moment. Whatever had been released in the summer months had critics and industry people ready to embrace a glossy, technically very good prestige picture about adult concerns, one that, in some ways, exceeded expectations. (Gaga can act competently! Bradley can sing and direct competently!) The overall package was a satisfying blend of the familiar and the pleasantly surprising, for many. Then a lot of other movies opened in the last couple months of the year, and it started looking more "midpack."

When I saw it in November (and felt it didn't live up to its promising first half hour or 45), I was steeling myself for it to win everything in sight over the winter.  

Sean Penn may be blinded by friendship. No one has ever accused him of being unemotional. In my opinion, he has himself made better films than ASIB as an actor-turned-director, not even getting into ones he's starred in for others. The fulsome praise in that op-ed was a bit much.  

But as much fun as awards are to talk about and watch, the vote that really counts is that of posterity. People who love films, both the scholars and the rank-and-film moviegoers, are the ones who shape the enduring canon. It's a story that unfolds over time, as we've seen so often.   

On career achievement awards: I like that those are given at a separate ceremony, with the presentations online for anyone who wants to see them. I was just watching the one for Gena Rowlands from a few years ago. She gets eloquent tributes from Laura Linney, Cate Blanchett, and son Nick Cassavetes, and then makes a long speech herself, with a story about working with Bette Davis. This would really have weighed the telecast down, but it's nice that someone like Rowlands (or Tyson, et cetera) could experience her moment to the fullest without broadcast concerns being on anyone's mind.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[ruby24]

I saw a rumor bubbling up about the ceremony on twitter that I can see happening, so I'll bring it up here. Apparently, Whoopi Goldberg has been absent from The View ever since the day after they announced her as a presenter on the show (they claim she's sick). She's the only former host who's been announced as a presenter.

She said back in December she'd be willing to host again if they asked her to. She already works for ABC.

So....what do you guys think? Is it possible they're going to spring a surprise host on the audience after all, and they don't want to announce it just in case of any possible backlash whatsoever? I could see this happening. Especially with Whoopi, since she's a former what, four time host? 

I can buy it.

[BW Manilowe]

42 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I saw a rumor bubbling up about the ceremony on twitter that I can see happening, so I'll bring it up here. Apparently, Whoopi Goldberg has been absent from The View ever since the day after they announced her as a presenter on the show (they claim she's sick). She's the only former host who's been announced as a presenter.

She said back in December she'd be willing to host again if they asked her to. She already works for ABC.

So....what do you guys think? Is it possible they're going to spring a surprise host on the audience after all, and they don't want to announce it just in case of any possible backlash whatsoever? I could see this happening. Especially with Whoopi, since she's a former what, four time host? 

I can buy it.

It’s possible. Back when the Olympics were in Canada last (I think in Calgary?), singer Anne Murray told her Twitter followers, before the games opened, that she was going to be away for a few days, doing a certain thing, & the next thing we knew, she was singing in the Opening Ceremonies. What she had said she’d be doing—which I can’t remember now—was totally different than being in the Olympics Opening Ceremonies because, as I remember, Anne Tweeted afterwards her appearance was supposed to have been a surprise.

So, yeah, it’s entirely possible (more possible than the Jussie Smollett attack NOT being a hoax at this point, unfortunately) Whoopi could be in LA or NYC right now prepping for the host gig. I noticed the other day Joy Behar, who takes over as host moderator when Whoopi’s off, seemed to be struggling with her explanation for Whoopi’s continued, now rather lengthy, absence. Like you could feel she wanted to roll her eyes over it & she was thinking this better be over soon because it’s getting to where Whoopi’s been off so long nobody’s gonna believe the excuse & start thinking Whoopi either quit & they’re trying, not yet successfully, to convince her to come back or she got fired.

If Whoopi’s not secretly rehearsing to host the Oscars right now, the only other excuses I have are she’s legitimately sick—like hospitalized sick—or she’s had major plastic surgery & is still recovering. Or she’s quit & they’re trying to get her to come back & she won’t; or they’ve either suspended or fired her over something she’s said or done on air regarding the government.

The only problems with those excuses are: Nobody’s reported seeing Whoopi in LA recently, which you’d think would get out so close to the ceremony. And if she wasn’t on The View anymore, for whatever reason, you’d think that would’ve made the news too (it certainly did both times Rosie O’Donnell left the show).

Edited February 20, 2019 by BW Manilowe
To add needed capital letters.

[blackwing]

1 hour ago, ruby24 said:

So....what do you guys think? Is it possible they're going to spring a surprise host on the audience after all, and they don't want to announce it just in case of any possible backlash whatsoever? I could see this happening. Especially with Whoopi, since she's a former what, four time host? 

And an Oscar winner herself.  “I KNOW you don’t think I’m giving no four million dollars to a bunch of nuns!   She can’t even buy underwear with it!”

I’d love for Whoopi to host.  I love the time she said she was an “equal opportunity offender”.   Loved when she came out from commercial breaks in the nominated costumes (I think the year of Elizabeth and Shakespeare in Love) and intoned “I AM the African Queen”.  Loved when she showed up on the trapeze a la Satine in Moulin Rouge and said “come and get me boys”.

I think she is hilarious, and would be a great host.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Another Honest Oscar Ballot, this one from that renowned auteur A. Director, whose choices (and comments) are actually pretty good. Probably a young director, based on both the general "hipness" of the choices and the comment about being a newer member of the Academy.   

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/02/anonymous-oscar-ballot-director-richard-e-grant-rachel-weisz-1202044997/

[scarynikki12]

That's one of the best anonymous voters articles I've read.  Now I really want to know who this is so I can support their work.

[truthaboutluv]

1 hour ago, scarynikki12 said:

That's one of the best anonymous voters articles I've read.  Now I really want to know who this is so I can support their work.

What I liked the most about it is that the person wasn't an asshole about the nominees, just to be an asshole. That's been my problem with a lot of these Anonymous ballots over the years. The voter spends the time snarking and hating on most of the nominees and just being jerks. This one just told why he loved or liked one performance or movie over another and that was it.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Oscar nominees talk about the last movie to make them cry. It starts with a funny misunderstanding of Cuarón's pick. 

[BW Manilowe]

It looks like Whoopi Goldberg’s NOT gonna be a surprise Oscar Host after all. Darn it... ET Online reported yesterday that Joy Behar said on The View, also apparently yesterday, that Whoopi’s been at home recovering from pneumonia. She visited her at home what’s now the night before last (if I figured right); that would make it Tuesday night, I think, since it’s VERY early on Thursday morning, Eastern time, as I type & post this. 

[Stenbeck]

From The Hollywood Reporter, Brutally Oscar Ballot #2

I feel we may have a possible upset in the Supporting Actor category, with Richard E. Grant (Can You Ever Forgive Me?) besting Mahershala Ali. 

[truthaboutluv]

1 hour ago, Stenbeck said:

From The Hollywood Reporter, Brutally Oscar Ballot #2

I feel we may have a possible upset in the Supporting Actor category, with Richard E. Grant (Can You Ever Forgive Me?) besting Mahershala Ali. 

That would certainly be the upset of the night if it were to happen. I don't think an upset like that has happened since Alan Arkin won for Little Miss Sunshine, beating Eddie Murphy for Dream Girls, after the latter had swept the entire season. I still don't see it happening though. 

Reading this ballot, I now see that it's The Hollywood Reporter that has the bitchy anonymous ballots and not IndieWire. I just have to laugh at this member's issue with Rami's performance is that he was too short. Okay then. Also, I swear I feel like I'm in a twilight zone every time I read someone going on about the white washing of Freddie's sexuality in the film. Like did I see the same film as others?

I'm sorry but are we so juvenile that we all need copious amounts of gay sex and debauchery to get that a character's gay?

[ruby24]

21 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

Okay then. Also, I swear I feel like I'm in a twilight zone every time I read someone going on about the white washing of Freddie's sexuality in the film. Like did I see the same film as others?

I'm sorry but are we so juvenile that we all need copious amounts of gay sex and debauchery to get that a character's gay?

I've also heard this criticism and I didn't think the movie white-washed it. I think maybe you can make an argument that the movie is kinda portraying his homosexuality as being his downfall, like it's a negative thing and this is why he got AIDS, etc. His "bad behavior," so to speak.

I think maybe that's what's bothering these people about it, that the movie didn't treat his sexuality sensitively enough, or explore it enough or something. I do think the guy he ends up with at the end was thrown in at the last second, he's not much of a character. If they had spent more time on that relationship instead of the one with Mary, some of these critics would have been placated I think.

The thing is though, that he did leave everything to Mary when he died, right? So the relationship with Mary WAS important to him.

[Pallida]

25 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

Reading this ballot, I now see that it's The Hollywood Reporter that has the bitchy anonymous ballots and not IndieWire. I just have to laugh at this member's issue with Rami's performance is that he was too short. Okay then. 

Rami is all of one inch shorter than Freddie. I looked into after rolling my eyes at that justification. It’s not hard to find pictures of Freddie Mercury standing next to the much taller Brian May and see that Freddie was far from “so tall.”

[truthaboutluv]

12 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

The thing is though, that he did leave everything to Mary when he died, right? So the relationship with Mary WAS important to him.

He left half his estate to her, his London mansion, was the godfather of her son and entrusted her with his ashes and his final resting place. So yes, Mary was very important to him. 

12 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I've also heard this criticism and I didn't think the movie white-washed it. I think maybe you can make an argument that the movie is kinda portraying his homosexuality as being his downfall, like it's a negative thing and this is why he got AIDS, etc. His "bad behavior," so to speak.

But that's just it, they didn't even show the bad behavior, which is exactly what some critics were complaining about. That the film felt too sanitized and PG-13. There were really only suggestions and hints of the wild drugs and sex life Freddie was leading but nothing overt. So I can't agree that the movie portrayed his homosexuality as his downfall.

And I mean, let's face it. The fact is, Freddie Mercury likely did contract AIDS like many gay men of that time through unprotected sex. That's not an indictment on his sexuality or anyone else's. It's just the reality of the times they were living in back then. 

12 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

think maybe that's what's bothering these people about it, that the movie didn't treat his sexuality sensitively enough, or explore it enough or something. I do think the guy he ends up with at the end was thrown in at the last second, he's not much of a character. If they had spent more time on that relationship instead of the one with Mary, some of these critics would have been placated I think.

Except the movie followed a specific time period and I think during that time, the two most significant relationships in his life were with Mary and Paul. I have read the comments that people think the movie treated his sexuality badly because of how awful they made Paul versus the relationship with Mary and so it was like saying gay = bad.

Except based on interviews and documentaries about the band, pretty much everyone who was in their life all agreed that Paul was awful, was a manipulator and a horrible influence in Freddie's life at the time. So it makes no sense to me that people expected what, that they rewrite that history simply because it was a gay relationship? Gay relationships can be just as toxic as straight relationships. 

10 minutes ago, Pallida said:

Rami is all of one inch shorter than Freddie. I looked into after rolling my eyes at that justification. It’s not hard to find pictures of Freddie Mercury standing next to the much taller Brian May and see that Freddie was far from “so tall.”

I think some believe he was a lot taller than he was because his legs were very long. Because I do remember a few people commenting on the height issue when the first trailers came out and truly believing that Rami was way too short to play Freddie.

Edited February 22, 2019 by truthaboutluv

[Shannon L.]

17 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

I've also heard this criticism and I didn't think the movie white-washed it. I think maybe you can make an argument that the movie is kinda portraying his homosexuality as being his downfall, like it's a negative thing and this is why he got AIDS, etc. His "bad behavior," so to speak.

I think maybe that's what's bothering these people about it, that the movie didn't treat his sexuality sensitively enough, or explore it enough or something. I do think the guy he ends up with at the end was thrown in at the last second, he's not much of a character. If they had spent more time on that relationship instead of the one with Mary, some of these critics would have been placated I think.

The thing is though, that he did leave everything to Mary when he died, right? So the relationship with Mary WAS important to him.

I don't know if he left everything to Mary, but he left a large part of it to her.  From what I understand, he really did consider her the love of his life. They were life long friends. 

As for the homosexuality, I think they were mostly hindered by 1. the PG-13 rating.  But, that made sense financially.  Even now, Queen has a lot of younger fans who would have wanted to see the movie and 2.  The band said that they got involved because they wanted to be sure that they didn't focus on just his personal life.  They said that he was a genius as a  musician and they wanted to make sure that that was included.

ETA:  What @truthaboutluv said  😉

Edited February 22, 2019 by Shannon L.

[scarynikki12]

I haven't seen Bohemian Rhapsody so I'm not going to wade too deep into that part of the discussion but I do know that Mary absolutely needed to be included.  She was an important person in Freddie's life, they loved each other very much (first sexually/romantically and then as family), and I know that he described her as his common-law wife on at least one occasion.  Plus he was her son's godfather and put her in his will before he died.  The only reason to leave Mary out of a Queen movie is if they only had focused on one concert, or one recording session, or any specific event and left out the personal lives completely.  As far as looks go, I never thought Rami looked too short (though I agree that Freddie's legs give the illusion of great height) but I did think he looked too skinny.  Not saying he was, as he could have been the exact same weight as Freddie at Live Aid, but it just seems that way. 

On to the latest anonymous Oscar voter:

This isn't as bad as some, in that you can tell this person has put some thought into the actual movies (and I agree that Spider-verse should have been nominated for Best Picture because it was flat out fantastic), and she's touches on some of the obvious things we'll see on Sunday like Glenn Close primarily winning for her body of work, but she also does the thing that drive me nuts as she admits that she hasn't watched all the nominated movies.  YOU GET SCREENERS!  Why do they act like it's such a hardship to do their jobs and watch these movies?  If they don't want to be members of the Academy and vote on the best in the categories, then don't accept the invitation to join. I don't care how boring you found Vice, watch the entire movie before you cast your vote.  Maybe the second half will blow you away and change your mind about the quality but you won't know if you don't watch.  Maybe you'll still hate it but at least you'll be fully informed when you cast the ballot.  And she didn't even bother trying to watch the shorts, though I guess I should give her a bit of credit for not voting at all since she didn't watch them.  Lots of other anonymous voters would say they didn't watch them but then pick winners because of the descriptions which I feel is worse because you can have someone write a great description for a crappy movie and vice versa.  But, again, YOU GET SCREENERS.  You can watch them in the evening while you eat dinner, or work out, or just relax before bed.  It won't take up a lot of your time. 

I swear they seek out the laziest, least interested Oscar voters they can find rather than the enthusiastic participants (like in the article from the other day) who love being Academy members and getting to choose the best of the best. 

[truthaboutluv]

Variety's predictions. 

A couple of things. I'm very baffled by this sudden narrative that there will be a Richard E. Grant upset in Supporting Actor. Just because in my opinion, I felt like that was the only acting category that's been a lock all season.

I can see an upset in any of the other three acting categories (though I'm rooting hard for Rami to win and its nice that they seem to think he's a lock) but felt certain that Mahershala was a done deal. Yet all of a sudden there's all this talk that Richard E. Grant will pull up the upset. Not that I'd be mad about it but just really surprised. 

I have a very, very real problem with this guy saying that Rami Malek, should he win, should take his moment on stage to send a message to Singer's alleged victims. So Rami Malek should make an apology to victims he didn't victimize? And far as I'm aware, these are still just allegations as opposed to Singer being convicted of a crime.

And this is what I have an issue with in this current climate where people start being witch-hunty. Some have been trying since the Globes and especially once it started looking a lot more likely that this was going Rami's way, to essentially align him to Singer's alleged crimes. And that is some absolute bullshit in my opinion. Rami Malek doesn't owe a statement to victims that HE didn't victimize. 

Also, I am very tired of this snide little comments that Bradley did his own singing in the movie while Rami didn't. Yes, because you know anyone can just sing like Freddie Mercury who had a four octave range. Adam Lambert who is an amazing vocalist himself, who has been fronting Queen for the last few years, cannot sing like Freddie Mercury. Bradley Cooper was playing a fictional singer. There was nothing to compare him to. 

Which is actually my main feeling regarding this debate about the performances. I am not denying that Bradley's performance in ASIB was great. Frankly in my opinion, he alone and not Gaga was deserving of his Actor nomination. But I came away from the film feeling like another talented actor could have pulled off that performance. He played an emotionally broken addict. Sorry but that's not exactly new and different in movies. On the flip side, I don't think just any other actor could have done what Rami did in Bohemian Rhapsody. 

Meanwhile, it really surprises and baffles me that no one is talking about The Favourite pulling off the Best Picture upset. I actually think the whole preferential ballot issue could end up benefiting that film. 

Quote

But, again, YOU GET SCREENERS.  You can watch them in the evening while you eat dinner, or work out, or just relax before bed.  It won't take up a lot of your time. 

Especially since Award season is like half a year, sometimes longer depending on when some films debut. Particularly if they do so at some of the film festivals. So it's not like they have two weeks or so to cram a bunch of movies in. They have months to watch all of these films. 

Edited February 23, 2019 by truthaboutluv

[Simon Boccanegra]

2 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

This isn't as bad as some, in that you can tell this person has put some thought into the actual movies (and I agree that Spider-verse should have been nominated for Best Picture because it was flat out fantastic), and she's touches on some of the obvious things we'll see on Sunday like Glenn Close primarily winning for her body of work, but she also does the thing that drive me nuts as she admits that she hasn't watched all the nominated movies.  YOU GET SCREENERS!  Why do they act like it's such a hardship to do their jobs and watch these movies?  If they don't want to be members of the Academy and vote on the best in the categories, then don't accept the invitation to join. I don't care how boring you found Vice, watch the entire movie before you cast your vote.  Maybe the second half will blow you away and change your mind about the quality but you won't know if you don't watch.  Maybe you'll still hate it but at least you'll be fully informed when you cast the ballot.  And she didn't even bother trying to watch the shorts, though I guess I should give her a bit of credit for not voting at all since she didn't watch them.  Lots of other anonymous voters would say they didn't watch them but then pick winners because of the descriptions which I feel is worse because you can have someone write a great description for a crappy movie and vice versa.  But, again, YOU GET SCREENERS.  You can watch them in the evening while you eat dinner, or work out, or just relax before bed.  It won't take up a lot of your time. 

I swear they seek out the laziest, least interested Oscar voters they can find rather than the enthusiastic participants (like in the article from the other day) who love being Academy members and getting to choose the best of the best. 

Totally. She didn't watch First Reformed at all, because she wasn't interested, especially at the holidays? What the f---? Yeah, it's a tough, bleak film, but it's brilliantly written, acted, and directed, and nothing else released last year is more relevant to the world today. I can't think of a better time than the holidays to see a film that's largely about faith-related struggles, and signs of grace and hope in worrying times.   

Some of her other comments (e.g., the Buzz Aldrin hookup) make me think she's older and conservative. Not politically, but artistically. Her rejection of Roma because it isn't classically structured and doesn't deliver the melodramatic goods she waited 135 minutes to see.  

But I actually do enjoy these honest Oscar ballots, even when they annoy me. Much like the telecast itself.    

I fervently hope Richard E. Grant pulls off an upset. I like Mahershala Ali, and I liked his performance in Green Book, but Grant had a better script and film to work with in Can You Ever Forgive Me? and he didn't just win the same award two years ago. I don't expect I'll ever forget his last scene with Melissa McCarthy. It would be a nice moment if his name were called.  

[scarynikki12]

I still think Mahershala will win but, if I'm wrong and Grant takes it, at least it will still be a nice moment.  Grant is certainly deserving, Mahershala already has one, and he's the type of man who'd be delighted for him if the upset does happen.  If they send out Streisand to present the award then we'll know the upset is happening.

[Simon Boccanegra]

EW's mega-composite Honest Oscar Ballot makes nothing clearer, other than that "Shallow" is a slam-dunk in the Song category.    

https://ew.com/oscars/2019/02/21/oscars-anonymous-voters-reveal-picks/

I do wonder which actress "known for supporting roles in Oscar-nominated projects," who identifies as black in her remarks, made the nasty comment about being sick of "all these damn Brits" coming over and winning Oscars. 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[2727]

6 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

I do wonder which actress "known for supporting roles in Oscar-nominated projects," who identifies as black in her remarks, made the nasty comment about being sick of "all these damn Brits" coming over and winning Oscars. 

Alfre Woodard?

I took that comment as half joking, though.