The Annual Academy Awards - General Discussion

[blackwing]

48 minutes ago, Lady Iris said:

In my world of make believe, I'd sure like to think that too. I just caught Parenthood yesterday morning and even back then Joaquin then Leaf was so damn good. I'm thrilled that Joaquin won last night and loved him talking about River whose death really broke my heart.

I dvr'd the show last night and plan on zipping through it tonight. Was there popularity clapping during the In Memoriam because I just can't with that. TIA.

I purposely watched on a delay so I could FF through blowhardy speeches like Joaquin and Squinty.  Joaquin gets up there and instead of thanking the people that helped him to win the award, he starts rambling incoherently about something? And that’s then I hit the FF.

I guess I never understand the mentality of the soapbox speech.  Yes, he won the Oscar and it’s clear that whatever the hell he was talking about has a very deep meaning to him.  But I don’t understand the thinking... “I won the Oscar, hundreds of millions of people are watching me, now is my chance to tell people about a meaningful issue to me and hope that I can convert many people’s way of thinking?”  Honestly at post 11 pm my thinking is, I’m tired please just STFU and move it along so I can go to bed.   Now I’m hearing here that it was about cows and I’m laughing.  You’d think that he would have talked about River before the cows.  He was more concerned with getting  his soapbox issue across than with rememberIng his late brother?

In Memoriam... there was slight clapping in the beginning but then I believe they muted all noise from the audience, seems like this is how it is often done.  Too bad they couldn’t mute Billie Eilish as well.   The camera kept panning back to her as well, because I guess the producers really thought we’d want to see this woman sitting and singing with her eyes squeezed closed while apparently constipated.

 

[CherryMalotte]

8 hours ago, LennieBriscoe said:

I just bought one of his best, IMO, but most likely forgotten films: "Strangers When We Meet," a realistic look at the faux glamor of an adulterous affair in suburbia. And he was not only Spartacus; he was Van Gogh!

Holy shit yes, such a great film - a must see.  One of my fave Kirk as well.  

 

Quote

One of the main criticisms I've seen of Joker and a lot of the other nominees was these were just more movies about white male rage and I guess with Parasite you take the white part out of the equation but - I don't want to give too much away here - but male rage plays a big part in it.

There's a lot of female rage going on in The Nightingale, which was my favorite of the year, but it's brutal to sit though.  I suspect it's why there are no noms, even though it's brilliant and has an outstanding performance by Aisling Franciosi - also it skirted the 2018/2019 release date line.

Worst best picture winner?  Probably Cavalcade for me...ohhhh it's awful.  And Around the World in 80 Days, with The Greatest Show On Earth.  Don't even get me started on Mary Pickford and her win for Coquette, no thank you.  Now that was an Oscar that was handed over for the wrong role wrong actress.  
 

[Milburn Stone]

Just out of sheer curiosity...Who was the leading actor in the Mr. Rogers movie if it wasn't Tom Hanks?

[truthaboutluv]

Quote

Im 100% here the the audience singing along to Lose Yourself. How did they keep that secret?

Per Oscar producers, the theater was on complete lock-down when he rehearsed and he had the option to skip if it leaked to the media. 

Quote

I wish I could like Will Farrell. I just...can’t. Never have.

Same and I don't even try. At this point I just press mute whenever he shows up at these awards. 

Quote

The editing made that movie so it's a well deserved award.  I mean, the acting is good too, but the editing of the races is absolutely key to making the movie exciting.

This. And that's exactly why I ignored all the prognosticators and picked it to win. 

Quote

So basically Bombshell won for the job they did on Charlize.

Pretty much

Quote

I was going to snark on Joaquin's speech but dammit he mentioned his brother at the end so I won't.

It started strong and then yeah, got really weird there in the middle with the cow insemination but he brought it home with the tribute to River. 

Quote

If I was asked, I would have sworn that he did ??

Nope. He lost to Philip Seymour Hoffman for Capote. To be fair, that was a tough year. Because it was also when Heath Ledger was nominated for Brokeback Mountain. 

Quote

The Oscars need a host.  They really do.  They need a comedian who can be funny and keep the show moving. Tiffany Haddish!!!

The year that happens is when I will decidedly not watch. There is funny and plain loud and obnoxious. Haddish is the latter. I would also have no desire to see her mangle the nominees' name like she doesn't have above a fifth grade reading level, as she did two years ago when announcing the nominees. 

Quote

but either you have a problem with speech length or you don't.

I don't think the issue for most was the length of Joaquin and Renee's speeches but that they were kind of rambly at times. I have no problems with an eloquent and amazing speech, even if it's a bit long. But when it starts veering off into "okay they're kind of being incoherent right now", then it just becomes cringey.

Quote

What is it about the movie that everyone in the industry was so hugely passionate about. There wasn't even this kind of response to Roma and the director of that movie has worked on Hollywood films before.

I posted this is another thread but I think the difference between Roma and Parasite is that the industry and Academy voters seemed to genuinely enjoy and like Parasite. As I said in another post, I knew Roma wasn't going to win last year, despite the late season buzz around it.

Because when you read all the anonymous ballots and industry discussions about it, etc. it was clear that the general sentiment was that it was an amazing artistic achievement, which is why Cuaron was a lock for Director. But in general, most thought the film as a whole was kind of boring. I remember reading so many comments of, "oh come on, no one actually watched the whole thing", etc. Not so with Parasite. Voters seemed to truly love and enjoy the film. 

Edited February 10, 2020 by truthaboutluv

[formerlyfreedom]

Regular rules continue to apply - be respectful to your fellow posters. This includes respecting differing opinions. Not doing so may result in  your post being removed, notes, and warnings, which may include additional sanctions. Thank you.

[Irlandesa]

9 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

Just out of sheer curiosity...Who was the leading actor in the Mr. Rogers movie if it wasn't Tom Hanks?

Matthew Rhys

[Ohwell]

1 hour ago, ProudMary said:

In your original post you wondered why Cynthia Erivo was playing Aretha when Aretha had wanted Jennifer Hudson to play her. It didn't sound as if you were aware that there was a scheduled project where J-Hud would be doing just that.

Yes, I didn't make myself clear, but I do think you got my point that I didn't think Erivo should be playing Aretha in any capacity. 

That's all I'm saying.

[Robert Lynch]

It looks like it would be young Areta Franklin's life, judging from the previews.

[truthaboutluv]

6 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

Just out of sheer curiosity...Who was the leading actor in the Mr. Rogers movie if it wasn't Tom Hanks?

Mathew Rhys' character. The film is essentially about this journalist who's working on a profile of Mr. Rogers and how in doing the profile and meeting the latter, his life and worldview is affected. 

Quote

I think what movie resonates the most is so individual.  For every movie that is raved about, there will be people for whom it felt just okay. I've been that person. 

This so much. And why I don't get up in arms about Award Shows. Because best is so subjective. Perfect example, saw a discussion in another thread, a day before the awards about The King's Speech winning Best Picture. Honestly, I didn't have an issue with that win.

I also enjoyed The Social Network for what it was, but I never felt it was this amazing film that it's touted as. A more unpopular opinion, I didn't get the hype of Slumdog Millionaire all those years ago. Good film, sure. Did I have any desire to see it again after I watched it once, no. 

[Inquisitionist]

12 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

Just out of sheer curiosity...Who was the leading actor in the Mr. Rogers movie if it wasn't Tom Hanks?

Apparently it's more about Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), the journalist who wrote about Mr. Rogers.  But Meryl Streep was nominated for Best Actress for The Devil Wears Prada, when I would have called her supporting in that movie (Anne Hathaway was the lead).

[GHScorpiosRule]

9 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

I didn't get the hype of Slumdog Millionaire all those years ago.

And it starred the most screechiest Bollywood actor who thinks yelling is emoting in Anil Kapoor. Blech.

[ProudMary]

17 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

Yes, I didn't make myself clear, but I do think you got my point that I didn't think Erivo should be playing Aretha in any capacity. 

That's all I'm saying.

A point with which I vehemently disagree.

[slowpoked]

9 hours ago, LennieBriscoe said:

14 hours ago, mightysparrow said:

And I'm very disappointed that they didn't do more for Kirk Douglas.  He was one of the last of Hollywood's 'Golden Age'.  He deserved better.

Kirk Douglas deserved an entire segment.

I wonder if it was discussed, and ultimately scrapped. During the past few years, there's been more chatter re: Kirk and his alleged assault of Natalie Wood. And with his death, it's all coming to the surface again, not helped by the fact that there is a new documentary about Wood. And in this age of #MeToo, it would make for a very awkward moment having a special honor for him when there are a lot of vocal #MeToo warriors in the audience. 

[Poohbear617]

To add to the discussion of 2nd generation oscar winners...how about 3 generations for the Huston family..Walter, John and Angelica.

One thing did bug me about director nominations. While I agree that there is a lack of diversity here...all I kept hearing about was Greta Gurwig being left out.  There were 9 films competing for best picture and only 5 directors.  Ford v Ferrari, marriage story, jo jo rabbit and little women were all good enough to be nominated for best film but not the director, but only Greta's snab wan mentioned repeatedly. Personally I thing Jo JO rabbits director snub was bigger than little women.

 

 

[TattleTeeny]

14 hours ago, iwasish said:

But cow insemination?

I think that if one is going to bring up animal cruelty in a setting like this, he may as well bring attention to an example that often flies right under people's radar. Surprisingly (but sort of not surprisingly too, in a way), many people seem to believe that no harm comes to dairy cows, that they just walk around eating grass until it's time for the kindly old farmhand to express their udders (and once, I saw someone say on another thread here that cows produce milk nonstop, with or without pregnancies and births, and need us to help them get it out). Making a statement about meat itself wouldn't be the same; people know all of that already. In fact, maybe he should have included what happens to male baby chicks.
 

Edited February 10, 2020 by TattleTeeny

[paramitch]

2 minutes ago, slowpoked said:

I wonder if it was discussed, and ultimately scrapped. During the past few years, there's been more chatter re: Kirk and his alleged assault of Natalie Wood. And with his death, it's all coming to the surface again, not helped by the fact that there is a new documentary about Wood. And in this age of #MeToo, it would make for a very awkward moment having a special honor for him when there are a lot of vocal #MeToo warriors in the audience. 

This was my point (coyly) as well. But even beyond the Wood rumors he was widely known to be misogynistic and (potentially) abusive.

Then he's old and it's all so "adorable" and I can't even.

No, it's not fully substantiated (although rumors last forever), but even in his autobiography he is cringeworthy on women with zero awareness or accountability.

Ultimately, I can believe KD thought he was a good man (AGHGH). But I also think he was a terrible person (and actor, on occasion), and while yes, I'm sorry he died, I am not sorry he stopped his misogynistic bullshit about the industry. 

The problem is, Michael is so hero-worshipping of his father he will never admit to any of this, ever, and just thinks the sun shone out of his father's ass. And he's used his considerable clout since to hide the negative aspects for dad (and himself). And I say this as a publicist who knows someone MD possibly had a longtime affair with and who disclosed details, memories and even jewelry. So... Sigh.

[Poohbear617]

32 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

1 hour ago, ProudMary said:

your original post you wondered why Cynthia Erivo was playing Aretha when Aretha had wanted Jennifer Hudson to play her. It didn't sound as if you were aware that there was a scheduled project where J-Hud would be doing just that.

Yes, I didn't make myself clear, but I do think you got my point that I didn't think Erivo should be playing Aretha in any capacity. 

 

Cynthia Erivo is playing Aretha Franklin in a made for tv special on the national geographic channel  ad part of their genius series. Jennifer Hudson is playing Aretha in a theatrical release film with Aretha's blessing. 

 I saw cynthia on Colberts show and she sang a small part of one of Arethas songs to Stephen and brought him to tears. 

[ChicksDigScars]

3 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

 

What? Bernie Taupin spoke first, got to say everything he wanted to, and only after he was done did Elton John say anything. I think he was very aware that this was Bernie's first chance at an Academy Award speech whereas he'd had the opportunity before, and thus gave his writing partner first crack at the mic.

I got that impression, too. Bernie talked much longer than Elton did, and Elton let him go first and actually stood behind him. I actually laughed that Bernie's "I'll be brief," was decidedly NOT.

If ever there was a time for an Olivia Coleman-esque upset, I was hoping it was in the Lead Actress and Actor. I'm okay with Joaquin Phoenix, but not in this role. I was all in on him winning for Walk The Line, which didn't happen. I just can't with Judy or Joker. I was pulling for the Adam Driver upset, and I wouldn't have been too mad if any of the other ladies had won. 

And yeah. Not feeling Mumbles Eilish. Get off my lawn. 

  

Edited February 10, 2020 by ChicksDigScars

[Ohwell]

10 minutes ago, Poohbear617 said:

 

Cynthia Erivo is playing Aretha Franklin in a made for tv special on the national geographic channel  ad part of their genius series. Jennifer Hudson is playing Aretha in a theatrical release film with Aretha's blessing. 

 I saw cynthia on Colberts show and she sang a small part of one of Arethas songs to Stephen and brought him to tears. 

I know she's playing Aretha on the NatGeo series.  It's fine if others think Erivo is a good choice to play Aretha Franklin.  I just happen to disagree.  Now can we just agree to disagree, and move on from this?  Thanks.

[mariah23]

14 minutes ago, paramitch said:

This was my point (coyly) as well. But even beyond the Wood rumors he was widely known to be misogynistic and (potentially) abusive.

Then he's old and it's all so "adorable" and I can't even.

No, it's not fully substantiated (although rumors last forever), but even in his autobiography he is cringeworthy on women with zero awareness or accountability.

Ultimately, I can believe KD thought he was a good man (AGHGH). But I also think he was a terrible person (and actor, on occasion), and while yes, I'm sorry he died, I am not sorry he stopped his misogynistic bullshit about the industry. 

The problem is, Michael is so hero-worshipping of his father he will never admit to any of this, ever, and just thinks the sun shone out of his father's ass. And he's used his considerable clout since to hide the negative aspects for dad (and himself). And I say this as a publicist who knows someone MD possibly had a longtime affair with and who disclosed details, memories and even jewelry. So... Sigh.

I was watching the 2005 documentary on Kirk and Michael when I found myself wishing they had focused on the relationship on Kirk and Michael's younger brother Joel.

[ChicksDigScars]

16 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

So a hat trick is three wins. What’s four? 

A home run? Better yet, a Grand Slam. Four runs scored. 

[Robert Lynch]

It looked like Hustlers was not on the Oscars' radar as well. Not just The Irishman or A Marriage Story.

[FilmTVGeek80]

12 hours ago, NUguy514 said:

 

I would like to eat a bacon double cheeseburger in front of Joaquin Phoenix.  Just for kicks.  And someone needs to save Rooney Mara from him immediately.

Seems like an odd way to get your kicks, but ok. And, as much as he's a vegan and against that stuff, I'm sure he's been around people who have eaten meat around him. And someone needs to save Rooney? Why? She's been to the same protests and been arrested along side him because she shares a lot of the same beliefs. 

6 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

 

It wasn't the length which was the problem - it was the rambling bat-shit craziness, and not in an entertaining way.  He's why there's a mute button on my remote.

It's all anyone will remember about it.  And in his honor, I put milk on my cereal and in my coffee this morning.  Cheers!

 

What was bat-shit about? Because he mentioned cruelty to animals with a specific mention of cow insemination?  Which was just one part of the speech?

And, no, it's not the only thing anyone will remember about it. Granted, I haven't checked other forums but I've read reviews of the night in major outlets and most of what has been talked about was his reference to his brother. I know it's what I'll remember the most about it. I had milk this morning as well, though not because I wanted to stick it to an actor who won't even know about it.

1 hour ago, blackwing said:

I purposely watched on a delay so I could FF through blowhardy speeches like Joaquin and Squinty.  Joaquin gets up there and instead of thanking the people that helped him to win the award, he starts rambling incoherently about something? And that’s then I hit the FF.

I guess I never understand the mentality of the soapbox speech.  Yes, he won the Oscar and it’s clear that whatever the hell he was talking about has a very deep meaning to him.  But I don’t understand the thinking... “I won the Oscar, hundreds of millions of people are watching me, now is my chance to tell people about a meaningful issue to me and hope that I can convert many people’s way of thinking?”  Honestly at post 11 pm my thinking is, I’m tired please just STFU and move it along so I can go to bed.   Now I’m hearing here that it was about cows and I’m laughing.  You’d think that he would have talked about River before the cows.  He was more concerned with getting  his soapbox issue across than with rememberIng his late brother?

 

He's won about a thousand awards this season. He's thanked other people before but doesn't need to in every single speech. “I won the Oscar, hundreds of millions of people are watching me, now is my chance to tell people about a meaningful issue to me and hope that I can convert many people’s way of thinking?” Partially, yeah. It's his moment to talk about what matters and for someone like him, who actually walks the walk when comes to caring about these things, if he can reach one person it's worth it. Sure, there are people like you who won't care and just want to be entertained and that's fine. But, you're not the person he's trying to reach. He doesn't have to calibrate his speech, his moment, to entertain.

The speech wasn't all about cows. Not that caring about animal cruelty is something to be ashamed of. He wanted to close out with a reference to his brother. It wasn't about cows being more important to him than his brother. He was able to do both - say two things at once that meant something to him. 

38 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

I also enjoyed The Social Network for what it was, but I never felt it was this amazing film that it's touted as. A more unpopular opinion, I didn't get the hype of Slumdog Millionaire all those years ago. Good film, sure. Did I have any desire to see it again after I watched it once, no. 

At the time, I was happy with The King's Speech beating The Social Network but I've really come around on TSN and enjoyed that movie more over the years. I never got the hype over Slumdog Millionaire either.

14 minutes ago, Poohbear617 said:

 

One thing did bug me about director nominations. While I agree that there is a lack of diversity here...all I kept hearing about was Greta Gurwig being left out.  There were 9 films competing for best picture and only 5 directors.  Ford v Ferrari, marriage story, jo jo rabbit and little women were all good enough to be nominated for best film but not the director, but only Greta's snab wan mentioned repeatedly. Personally I thing Jo JO rabbits director snub was bigger than little women.

 

 

Yeah, I agree especially after seeing both Little Women and Jojo Rabbit. I haven't read all opinions about this but most of what I've heard from people complaining about GG not getting a nomination was just about her being a woman, nothing about why she actually would have deserved it over the other nominees. Some of what I've heard from people like Trevor Noah is "LW had all these nominations and no directing nom. Did the movie direct itself?" which is a weird argument to make considering all the nominees for best director came from movies with lots of nominations.

[Minneapple]

1 hour ago, blackwing said:

I guess I never understand the mentality of the soapbox speech.  Yes, he won the Oscar and it’s clear that whatever the hell he was talking about has a very deep meaning to him.  But I don’t understand the thinking... “I won the Oscar, hundreds of millions of people are watching me, now is my chance to tell people about a meaningful issue to me and hope that I can convert many people’s way of thinking?”  Honestly at post 11 pm my thinking is, I’m tired please just STFU and move it along so I can go to bed.   Now I’m hearing here that it was about cows and I’m laughing.  You’d think that he would have talked about River before the cows.  He was more concerned with getting his soapbox issue across than with rememberIng his late brother?

Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes said it best. Hollywood actors work in an industry that features companies like Amazon and Disney. They have no moral ground on which to lecture anybody. 

[proserpina65]

19 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

What was bat-shit about? Because he mentioned cruelty to animals with a specific mention of cow insemination?  Which was just one part of the speech?

And, no, it's not the only thing anyone will remember about it. Granted, I haven't checked other forums but I've read reviews of the night in major outlets and most of what has been talked about was his reference to his brother. I know it's what I'll remember the most about it. I had milk this morning as well, though not because I wanted to stick it to an actor who won't even know about it.

It was bat-shit because it was all rambly and wasn't coherent enough to get his point across in a logical way.  And it is what people will remember years from now.

The milk thing was a joke - I have milk on my cereal and in my coffee every day.

[meep.meep]

It was completely bat shit and rambling.  Makes you appreciate someone like Patricia Arquette who can talk about a serious issue coherently.  He's getting a big award for "acting" and can't memorize his lines and deliver them in a compelling way.  I walked out of the room half way through.

[Silver Raven]

Nobody commenting on how incoherent Renee Zellwegger's speech was?

 

[TattleTeeny]

What was incoherent about Joaquin's--was it how he said it? I didn't watch the show last night but I read the transcription, and the words/sentences themselves made sense to me. 

Edited February 10, 2020 by TattleTeeny

[GHScorpiosRule]

14 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

Nobody commenting on how incoherent Renee Zellwegger's speech was?

 

People have also commented on her rambling up thread.

4 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

What was incoherent about Joaquin's--was it how he said it? I didn't watch the show last night but I read the transcription, and the words/sentences themselves made sense to me. 

Well, yes. Even in transcription, the most warbling, incoherent mess will make sense.

[PepSinger]

1 hour ago, Ohwell said:

I know she's playing Aretha on the NatGeo series.  It's fine if others think Erivo is a good choice to play Aretha Franklin.  I just happen to disagree.  Now can we just agree to disagree, and move on from this?  Thanks.

For what it’s worth, I agree with you. 🙂

[TattleTeeny]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Well, yes. Even in transcription, the most warbling, incoherent mess will make sense.

I wish that were true. But it isn't. (On the other hand, if it were, my job would be obsolete.) By "mess" do you mean person or the sentences? Was he literally warbling?

Sorry for asking, I guess? 

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by TattleTeeny

[wonderwoman]

saw a few thoughts online that maya rudolph and kristin whig host next year’s oscars. please jesus no!  but if they do please tighten up the writing. the concept was cute enough, but it went on way too long.

and the bit with julia louis dreyfuss and will ferrell was just plain stupid. 

it was particularly annoying that each set of presenters was presenting two awards, which extended the stupidity beyond my tolerance.

the ‘in memoriam’ has always been one of my favorites parts of the oscars. always blown away by how many film people pass in a given year. 

but this year, the segment really got shafted — in several ways: doubling up on the screen presentation and no clips suggests that the producers intended it to be shorter than usual. as for kirk douglas, as someone pointed out upthread, the man was 103, the academy would have had something in the can. whether did they just used the photograph because no one was getting clips, or fallout from #metoo is anybody's guess. the music was an abomination, and its placement, just before the final awards was just plain odd.  

[meep.meep]

19 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

 

Well, yes. Even in transcription, the most warbling, incoherent mess will make sense.

In transcription they leave out all the ums and long pauses and weird timing of phrases.  He came across as insincere, like someone seizing his one chance to get his big cause out in front of a captive audience.   And, as I said before, like he didn't prepare for it very well.

[Thumper]

My gripe with the “In Memoriam” segment is that they often put two people on at once, making it hard to read in time (admitting we had a smallish TV).  Plus, I just think each person should get the respect of being recognized individually.

Billie Eilish is the current flavor of the month.  I didn’t pay much attention to her singing.  Her music is not my taste (I am old) but I do think she and her brother seem like nice, genuine people.  I hope they are enjoying their current success.

Liked Steve Martin and Chris Rock.  I haven’t seen all the nominated movies.  I liked “Judy” and Renee’s performance.  It was a little twitchy, but I figured Judy must have been twitchy! 😄  It was a sad story.

 

[Ohwell]

I wonder if Bong and the Parasite folks are awake yet? 😂

[slowpoked]

17 hours ago, FoundTime said:

I think Roma's real obstacle last year was its association with Netflix, about which the Academy is still putting its fingers in its ears "lalalalalala I can't hear you" over.

I find the Academy's love and hate affair with Netflix interesting. I think the Academy should like it that Netflix is participating, because they're so willing to drop the BIG bucks during awards campaigning. And having huge money spent can only eventually benefit the Academy itself. 

I read a secret ballot, and I would think this is a popular sentiment across the voters, that The Irishman loses its power when a viewer know they can re-watch/watch it later, because it's on Netflix. When you watch it one seating, like in a theater, he claims it's a powerful movie (maybe I have to take him up on his claim - it took me three viewings at home to finish it). 

But is that really all there is to it though? I highly doubt these voters watch the movies nominated in theaters when they come out. I would venture a great portion of them only watch the screeners that they get from the studios, and you can also hit pause, replay, rewind, FF on those screeners, very much just like watching it on Netflix. 

I think until the Academy eventually turns over its membership and have voting members who think of streaming devices as a non-issue, there will still be a huge bias against Netflix in the years to come.

6 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

I wonder if Bong and the Parasite folks are awake yet? 😂

Ugh, apparently they had to cancel the Karaoke party! Boo! 

[chitowngirl]

27 minutes ago, wonderwoman said:

and its placement, just before the final awards was just plain odd.  

The In Memoriam is always just before the big awards at the end. That’s how I know we are finally wrapping it up!

[blackwing]

8 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

Nobody commenting on how incoherent Renee Zellwegger's speech was?

 

I believe people did upthread.  She’s always like that.  I wonder if that’s her schtick, to play the overly excited ingenue who can’t think straight (even though she’s 50 years old, it doesn’t really work anymore).  Either that or she’s just always drunk.

 

3 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

What was incoherent about Joaquin's--was it how he said it? I didn't watch the show last night but I read the transcription and the words/sentences themselves made sense to me. 

It was just very stream of consciousness, like he didn’t think of anything in advance, just opened his mouth, and garbage started flowing out.  
 

I’m curious about when the decision to have these young, mostly minority, actors introduce themselves and the presenters was made.  The cynic in me says it was after the nominations were announced and there was backlash about the almost entirely white acting nominees.  “See we do care about young minority actors!”   Eh.  I thought it seemed a bit too obvious.  Like they were checking off boxes.  “We need an Asian... Kelly Marie Tran!  We need a Hispanic... Anthony Ramos!  We need a black person... Zazie Beetz!”

Just seemed really tacked on.  At least when the announcer announced presenters, he would say what they were known for.  I had no idea who most of these people were, and in some cases they said their name so quickly I didn’t even catch it so couldn’t even Wikipedia them if I wanted to.

Did they consider inviting Awkwafina to present?  I’m still salty about her snub for Best Actress.  She would have been a great choice to present.  Was her slot taken by Sandra Oh?  I have no idea why Sandra Oh was tapped to present... she’s mostly known as a TV actress even though she’s been in movies as well.  

[Ms Blue Jay]

1 hour ago, Minneapple said:

Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes said it best. Hollywood actors work in an industry that features companies like Amazon and Disney. They have no moral ground on which to lecture anybody. 

I'm sure a lot of us shop using Amazon or Walmart, etc. I'm sure a lot of people enjoy and pay for movies that are owned by Disney. It doesn't mean we don't have our own set of morals.   I think anyone can have moral ground if they're a good person. 

[Racj82]

2 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

It looked like Hustlers was not on the Oscars' radar as well. Not just The Irishman or A Marriage Story.

Makes sense because nothing about that movie Jennifer Lopez's performance deserved a nomination. If there is anything making me feel like I'm crazy pills it's that pretty good movie being brought up as a legit snub or contender.

[wonderwoman]

14 minutes ago, chitowngirl said:

The In Memoriam is always just before the big awards at the end. That’s how I know we are finally wrapping it up!

true — but usually before the dest director award. after it ran (at almost 11 est) just best actor, actress, and picture remained. i just don’t remember it coming quite so close to the end in previous years.

[slowpoked]

14 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I’m curious about when the decision to have these young, mostly minority, actors introduce themselves and the presenters was made.  The cynic in me says it was after the nominations were announced and there was backlash about the almost entirely white acting nominees.  “See we do care about young minority actors!”   Eh.  I thought it seemed a bit too obvious.  Like they were checking off boxes.  “We need an Asian... Kelly Marie Tran!  We need a Hispanic... Anthony Ramos!  We need a black person... Zazie Beetz!”

Just seemed really tacked on.  At least when the announcer announced presenters, he would say what they were known for.

I thought that was an odd choice too. I don't see what's wrong with the backstage announcer just announcing who the next presenters are, like at the SAG Awards. That show flowed smoothly even though there was no host. Granted, it's a much tighter show with fewer awards, but it can be done right if you have the right people at the helm.

I think the no-host Oscars has ran its course. It's just too big of a show and spectacle to let it flail for 3.5 hours like that. I understand how it worked last year. But this year, it just didn't. I mean, if you're going to put Steve Martin and Chris Rock to do the opening monologue, and then nothing else, why not let them actually host?! At least last year, when Tina/Amy/Maya did a small monologue at the beginning, they went on to present an award, so the sequence wasn't too jarring. It's a case of the Oscars wanting their cake and eating it too. 

Edited February 10, 2020 by slowpoked

[dmeets]

21 minutes ago, slowpoked said:

I find the Academy's love and hate affair with Netflix interesting. I think the Academy should like it that Netflix is participating, because they're so willing to drop the BIG bucks during awards campaigning. And having huge money spent can only eventually benefit the Academy itself. 

I read a secret ballot, and I would think this is a popular sentiment across the voters, that The Irishman loses its power when a viewer know they can re-watch/watch it later, because it's on Netflix. When you watch it one seating, like in a theater, he claims it's a powerful movie (maybe I have to take him up on his claim - it took me three viewings at home to finish it). 

But is that really all there is to it though? I highly doubt these voters watch the movies nominated in theaters when they come out. I would venture a great portion of them only watch the screeners that they get from the studios, and you can also hit pause, replay, rewind, FF on those screeners, very much just like watching it on Netflix. 

I think until the Academy eventually turns over its membership and have voting members who think of streaming devices as a non-issue, there will still be a huge bias against Netflix in the years to come.

I'm not sure that the Academy has an issue with Netflix. 2 of 9 best picture nominees is pretty impressive, and I can't think of a single award I'd have given to The Irishman so to me it wasn't snubbed. And JMO but I thought Roma was slow as hell so I'm fine with it not winning last year, though I disliked Green Book as well.

To me the big grievance is between the theaters and Netflix. I'm not sure if it's because AMC, Regal, etc. refuse to show Netflix films at all or if it's because Netflix insists on having their movies available on the app at the same time as any theatrical runs, but IMO if a movie's going to be tossed in a couple of ArcLight screens for a week but only available to 95% of the population at home, then I'd rather see them in the Emmys in the made for TV category. Quality aside, not exactly sure why Birdbox is an "Emmy movie" but Marriage Story is an "Oscar movie" since I was only ever able to see either one from home. If Netflix is insisting that their films be available the day they are released in theaters, then I kind of think it's BS to campaign for the Oscars over the Emmys unless the latter eliminates the movie category altogether. It's different to me than the standard trick studios do of sneaking into a few LA/NYC screens in December but holding back on wider release, because at least they make their way into theaters eventually.

Unless the theaters have been showing Irishman and Marriage Story and I've just been oblivious? I know AMC refused to include them in the Best Picture Showcase, just as they did with Roma last year.

[rmontro]

18 hours ago, TVFan17 said:

Personally, I love "Yesterday."  I can't speak for anyone else.  But I thought that it was not a good song choice for Billie Eilish.  

Yesterday is a song about lost love, so I thought it was appropriate.  As for Eilish, the first time I saw her, I thought why is she singing like that?  She doesn't project, it's almost a whisper.  But once you get used to the way she sings, then... you get used to the style, I guess.  It fits her emo image, or whatever it is.  At least it's not the same as everyone else.

 

18 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

Why not? It's his win and it's his time to say what matters to him. If that's political, so be it.

It certainly is his time to say what he wants.  Doesn't mean I have to enjoy it, or approve.  I've seen his speech here and at the Golden Globes.  Neither time did he mention his role or the movie he was in that I can recall, which would be more on topic.  I just find the idea of actors needing to educate us on world issues, and using their award time as a political platform to indicate an inflated sense of self importance.  YMMV, obviously.

[scarynikki12]

23 minutes ago, dmeets said:

Unless the theaters have been showing Irishman and Marriage Story and I've just been oblivious?

I can only speak to my own experience but my independent theater shows a lot of the Netflix movies when they do their run. I saw The Irishman two weeks before it started streaming and I believe they did the same timing with Marriage Story and Roma. The Regal that I go to didn't have either movie until this past weekend when they did their annual marathon of all the Best Picture nominees.

In order to be viable for Oscars the movies have to have a theatrical run and Netflix and Amazon aren't exempt. As I understand it, the run has to be at least two or three weeks so a lot of time it ends up being a blink and you'll miss it situation. I think Regal, AMC, etc., just want to make as much money as possible so they don't want to deal with intentionally showing a movie for only a couple weeks.

[KaveDweller]

4 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

Apparently it's more about Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), the journalist who wrote about Mr. Rogers.  But Meryl Streep was nominated for Best Actress for The Devil Wears Prada, when I would have called her supporting in that movie (Anne Hathaway was the lead).

I think the actors can decide which category based on which they think they have a better shot of winning. That's probably not what they are supposed to do, but the rules seem flexible enough that they can when they want to. Meryl was definitely supporting in The Devil Wears Prada, but I kind of feel like Meryl doesn't do supporting.

Similarly, I wouldn't have called Brad Pitt supporting in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I thought he and Leo were co leads.

2 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

 

Yeah, I agree especially after seeing both Little Women and Jojo Rabbit. I haven't read all opinions about this but most of what I've heard from people complaining about GG not getting a nomination was just about her being a woman, nothing about why she actually would have deserved it over the other nominees. Some of what I've heard from people like Trevor Noah is "LW had all these nominations and no directing nom. Did the movie direct itself?" which is a weird argument to make considering all the nominees for best director came from movies with lots of nominations.

I think all the nominees came from best picture nominations too. Since there are more best picture nominations than director nominations, they can't nominate all the directors. Greta wasn't the only one left out. It seems like people are focusing on Greta Gerwig because they want to make it a gender issue, but honestly, maybe people just didn't think Little Women was as impressive? I saw all the best picture nominations and thought it was kind of weak. I agree JoJo Robbit would have been more deserving of best director.

It saddens me to say that though. We need more female directors so that multiple best picture nominations can be directed by females.

[Juneau Gal]

1 hour ago, TattleTeeny said:

What was incoherent about Joaquin's--was it how he said it? I didn't watch the show last night but I read the transcription, and the words/sentences themselves made sense to me. 

Thank you! I was going to write the same exact thing. Did not watch but read the transcript. It made sense. 

[TVFan17]

25 minutes ago, rmontro said:

Yesterday is a song about lost love, so I thought it was appropriate.  As for Eilish, the first time I saw her, I thought why is she singing like that?  She doesn't project, it's almost a whisper.  But once you get used to the way she sings, then... you get used to the style, I guess.  It fits her emo image, or whatever it is.  At least it's not the same as everyone else.

 

 

I'm familiar with the way Billie sings.  This wasn't my first time hearing her.  I just did not like that song choice for her, nor did I like her for it.  I didn't like that performance.  I would have preferred Billie singing a different song, or someone else singing "Yesterday."

Edited February 11, 2020 by TVFan17

[slowpoked]

21 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

I think the actors can decide which category based on which they think they have a better shot of winning. That's probably not what they are supposed to do, but the rules seem flexible enough that they can when they want to. Meryl was definitely supporting in The Devil Wears Prada, but I kind of feel like Meryl doesn't do supporting.

Similarly, I wouldn't have called Brad Pitt supporting in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I thought he and Leo were co leads.

I think category fraud is a real thing and it's been going on for awhile. Yes, I believe the actors AND studios decide what category to submit nominations for, but on some of them it was just egregious. Like the Devil Wear Prada for Meryl. Although Meryl does do Supporting category - she was nominated in that for Into The Woods. 

I think over-the-top category fraud may turn off some voters, so there's a delicate line to play there.

One of the category frauds that stood out to me in recent times was Jamie Foxx in Collateral. He is basically a co-lead with Tom Cruise in the movie. But because they want to ensure that he wins Best Actor for Ray, they put him in the supporting role for that movie.

I think you could argue that there is category fraud with Brad Pitt being a co-lead with LDC more than supporting. I'm sure the studio did not want to split votes between the two of them and with Brad in a different category, paves for a surer win for him.

I don't think there's category fraud with Tom Hanks and - had she been nominated - I didn't think JLo would be one either. They're the biggest stars of their respective movies, but they were clearly in supporting roles.

 

[Neurochick]

4 hours ago, Ohwell said:

Yes, I didn't make myself clear, but I do think you got my point that I didn't think Erivo should be playing Aretha in any capacity. 

That's all I'm saying.

I don't think Erivo should have played Harriet either.  I always thought that part should have been played by an African American actress.  How would British people feel if an American actor played someone like James Bond?  It just seems to me that directors feel any black person will do, no one will know the difference.