Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
thuganomics85

The Annual Academy Awards Topic

Recommended Posts

Hopkins winning was not “an egregious mistake” (I’d argue neither were several others in that list!) and it’s really annoying and disrespectful that certain people are also now claiming “racism!!”

🙄🤦‍♀️

  • Like 11
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just now, Cotypubby said:

Hopkins winning was not “an egregious mistake” (I’d argue neither were several others in that list!) and it’s really annoying and disrespectful that certain people are also now claiming “racism!!”

🙄🤦‍♀️

I;m not saying it was. Actually I don't think A Hopkins winning for anything ever is an egregious mistake because he brings a certain quality to everything he does.

I'm just saying Best Actor is the category where IMO they've let the most legendary performances go without winning.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Cotypubby said:

it’s really annoying and disrespectful that certain people are also now claiming “racism!!”

People have the right to their beliefs, and believing that there was not a shot in hell that the Academy was going to let all four acting categories be won by actors of color is not an unreasonable or unfounded belief. #OscarsSoWhite was only, what, six years ago? Hardly ancient history. I have nothing against Anthony Hopkins. I think he's a great actor and was great in The Father. However, I'm not going to pretend as if I'm not annoyed that the Academy picked the "safe" choice, IMO. That doesn't make my opinion annoying or disrespectful. The Academy is hardly a shining beacon of diversity, and it's more than earned that reputation. If they wanted to be thought of as better, then they should've acted better in their 93 year history.

Edited by PepSinger
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I prefer the Oscars when it's hostless. No opening number, no monologue. If they go back to using hosts those should remain banned. Absolute waste of 10 minutes in an always bloated telecast.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, PepSinger said:

People have the right to their beliefs, and believing that there was not a shot in hell that the Academy was going to let all four acting categories be won by actors of color is not an unreasonable or unfounded belief. 

Not only did people on this forum call that it wouldn't happen, it actually ended up not happening.  So the race bias is just a fact.  

5 minutes ago, Vermicious Knid said:

I prefer the Oscars when it's hostless. No opening number, no monologue. If they go back to using hosts those should remain banned. Absolute waste of 10 minutes in an always bloated telecast.

I don't need the host either.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

9 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

So the race bias is just a fact.  

It’s not a fact for these winners. Anthony Hopkins won because he gave the better performance, not because he’s white. 

  • Like 5
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Anthony won because he got the most votes.  It's not an objective science.  Voters are not even required to watch the movies.

Edited by Ms Blue Jay
  • Like 7
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, bosawks said:

If they really did change the format on the expectation that something COULD happen as opposed to something they KNEW would happen then that is so staggeringly ridiculous it belongs in a Coen brothers movie.

I think I'd watch that.  Or a David Lynch production...now that would be trippy.

Still don't think it was horrible - the year with Snow White and Rob Lowe, that was truly awful.  Anne Hathaway and that Franco idiot...ugh.  I give them a B+ for effort, I loved that it was smaller and intimate but they flunked out with my I Love Dead People montage, and they sorely needed to limit the yammering and sorely needed the clips for ALL the nominees.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Since the diverse nominees were really talked up I think a lot of ppl were hoping that history would be made with 4 POC winning the acting awards.  No disrespect to Anthony and Frances because they are very good but the rearrangement of categories was clearly set up for a Chad win.

My biggest issue was arrangement the whole night.  My memory has both screenplay awards preceding the Four. It was normally the Final Six: OG/AD Screenplay, Lead Actor/Actress, Director, Picture. I know the Supporting awards are always near the beginning to draw in viewers and Director has been placed before the Leads in recent years. 

My main gripe is Best Director being in the beginning.  It's the second most important award of the night and only the second time a woman has won and it's in the first few awards? NOT COOL!  Chloe should have had prime screen time.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, kittykat said:

My main gripe is Best Director being in the beginning.

I agree, it was such a bizarre choice to move it up so early in the program. Even though there have been more frequent Picture/Director splits since the introduction of the preferential ballot to BP, giving away the Director award in the first hour makes the next couple of hours a little anticlimactic in terms of wondering what will take home Picture.  Although, having said that, I didn't follow this year's race at all so I don't know how much "heat" the other BP nominees had or whether it was really much of a race.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, kittykat said:

My main gripe is Best Director being in the beginning.  It's the second most important award of the night and only the second time a woman has won and it's in the first few awards? NOT COOL!  Chloe should have had prime screen time.

Very good point.  And anybody directing the Oscars is obviously a director by definition, but Soderbergh should have been especially sympathetic to this.  Sad.  

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Cotypubby said:

It’s not a fact for these winners. Anthony Hopkins won because he gave the better performance, not because he’s white. 

Wow, can I borrow your powers?  Because if you can know it to be a fact that in an inherently subjective evaluation, race played no role in voting for this award - despite the Academy being a group with a highly problematic history with respect to racial bias (and, of course, existing within a racist society) - you obviously have knowledge us mere mortals would love to have; think of what we could do.

Do I think those voting in the Best Actor category each sat there and said, "Fuck the dead black dude, I'm voting for the old white guy?"  Of course not; that would be absurd.  But do I think the nominees' races played no role, conscious or subconscious, in how some voters evaluated the performances?  Of course not again; that would be equally absurd.

Was race the deciding factor?  We'll never know.  All that's factual is that Hopkins got the most votes of all the nominees.  And this wasn't some shit like Crash winning over Brokeback Mountain; this was one superb performance winning over another superb performance, and my - having seen both films - congratulations to Anthony Hopkins.  But dismissing the role race inevitably played as one of several factors in how this upset came to be is disingenuous at best, because the conversation is about why Hopkins got the most votes.

There are several readily-identifiable reasons, including that it was a fantastic performance and that eligible Academy members are on the whole more likely to vote for a fantastic performance of an old white man battling dementia than of a young black man battling the white-owned music industry that exploited Black music while denying ownership to its creators.

If Boseman was still alive, this wouldn't sting so much, because he'd have plenty of career ahead of him to win the next tight race for the ultimate acting prize.  That this was his last chance and it didn't, and thus will never, happen isn't Hopkins' fault, nor is his win undeserved, and the tiny percentage of social media users attacking him are out of bounds.  But they are an irrelevant distraction, and dismissing those honestly talking about the role race continues to play in membership and voting as themselves being out of bounds is disingenuous at best.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I'm just saying Best Actor is the category where IMO they've let the most legendary performances go without winning.

Some of those you listed, yeah. Some of them the Academy got right, I believe. In a couple of cases neither should have won.

Quote

People have the right to their beliefs, and believing that there was not a shot in hell that the Academy was going to let all four acting categories be won by actors of color is not an unreasonable or unfounded belief

That does go both ways.

And had all all four acting categories be won by actors of color this year would have meant not all were won by the most deserving actor.

Quote

Anthony won because he got the most votes.  It's not an objective science.  Voters are not even required to watch the movies.

True, but that logic could then apply to all nominees...even those who are non-white.

Quote

Anthony Hopkins won because he gave the better performance

Yes he did.

Edited by Hiyo
  • Like 3
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

At the end of the day, anyone or any picture nominated should be able to win without controversy. They all deserved to win.

My issue is the structure. Making best actor go on last, which sets up the perfect go home moment of Chadwick winning, only for someone else to win is just all time bad logic.

Chadwick didn't deserve to win any more than Anthony did. They both gave great performances. The execution was really shitty.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Making best actor go on last, which sets up the perfect go home moment of Chadwick winning, only for someone else to win is just all time bad logic.

Well, at least we now know for sure without a doubt that the results are kept secret until the last moment.

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

And had all all four acting categories be won by actors of color this year would have meant not all were won by the most deserving actor.

😲. That's not what it would necessarily mean whatsoever.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

40 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

True, but that logic could then apply to all nominees...even those who are non-white.

Yes, my post stated that racial bias exists.  No matter who wins or loses, it exists.  Everyone is biased.  It's humans voting, and humans are biased.  

Edited by Ms Blue Jay
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Humans might be biased, sure, but sometimes they get it right. Which they did this year.

Edited by Hiyo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Hiyo said:

And had all all four acting categories be won by actors of color this year would have meant not all were won by the most deserving actor

And that’s *your* opinion. I think differently.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

And that’s *your* opinion. I think differently.

Obviously. Aren't we all allowed to express our opinions on here, even if they differ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

7 hours ago, Bastet said:

Wow, can I borrow your powers?  Because if you can know it to be a fact that in an inherently subjective evaluation, race played no role in voting for this award - despite the Academy being a group with a highly problematic history with respect to racial bias (and, of course, existing within a racist society) - you obviously have knowledge us mere mortals would love to have; think of what we could do.

Do I think those voting in the Best Actor category each sat there and said, "Fuck the dead black dude, I'm voting for the old white guy?"  Of course not; that would be absurd.  But do I think the nominees' races played no role, conscious or subconscious, in how some voters evaluated the performances?  Of course not again; that would be equally absurd.

Was race the deciding factor?  We'll never know.  All that's factual is that Hopkins got the most votes of all the nominees.  And this wasn't some shit like Crash winning over Brokeback Mountain; this was one superb performance winning over another superb performance, and my - having seen both films - congratulations to Anthony Hopkins.  But dismissing the role race inevitably played as one of several factors in how this upset came to be is disingenuous at best, because the conversation is about why Hopkins got the most votes.

There are several readily-identifiable reasons, including that it was a fantastic performance and that eligible Academy members are on the whole more likely to vote for a fantastic performance of an old white man battling dementia than of a young black man battling the white-owned music industry that exploited Black music while denying ownership to its creators.

If Boseman was still alive, this wouldn't sting so much, because he'd have plenty of career ahead of him to win the next tight race for the ultimate acting prize.  That this was his last chance and it didn't, and thus will never, happen isn't Hopkins' fault, nor is his win undeserved, and the tiny percentage of social media users attacking him are out of bounds.  But they are an irrelevant distraction, and dismissing those honestly talking about the role race continues to play in membership and voting as themselves being out of bounds is disingenuous at best.

This post is perfect, particularly the last sentence. To say that there’s absolutely no way race could’ve played a part in voting is textbook gaslighting when there’s PLENTY of evidence that the academy has engaged in racist behavior in the past. It’s the definition of “don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.”

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I'm looking at Best Actor and this is the category that has IMO the most egregious mistakes.

1999 - Kevin Spacey instead of Matt Damon who wasn't even nominated for Talented Mr. Ripley

Totally agree here, at least on the winner.  All Spacey did was recreate his role from The Ref, which was a better performance (and movie, actually).

Probably in the minority here, but the best acting I saw in 1988 was Michael Keaton in Clean And Sober, and he wasn't even nominated.  Hoffman's Rain Man was convincing, but pretty one-note. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/25/2021 at 10:58 PM, AimingforYoko said:

One of my favorite songs off one of my favorite albums.

Mine too. I hope they make this acoustic version available.

Share this post


Link to post

I would have loved to have seen Chadwick win - I was rooting for him. However, I will say that as an autistic person, I am happy to see a fellow autistic take the win (Anthony Hopkins was diagnosed in his 70s). Diversity comes in many forms, and the list of disabled Oscar winners is super short. While I doubt the Academy voters were actively paying attention to that when they cast their vote, it does have a ripple effect - I saw many happy posts from folks in the autistic and disability communities the next day. 

That being said, I can completely understand why some are upset by the result. 

The producers should never have rearranged the order to bank on Chadwick's win, and it was a cascade of errors there. I do think what they did was manipulative, and it backfired spectacularly. If they had run the show in the typical order, it would have still stung, but it wouldn't have had the same abrupt gut-punch effect it did ending the entire evening. 

  • Like 7
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tachi Rocinante said:

Hoffman's Rain Man was convincing, but pretty one-note. 

Which continued the theory that for a male to win best actor, he needs to be able-bodied but portray someone with a disability, and for a woman to win best actress, she needs to be willing to go without makeup.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I do miss hosts that know how to snark. As I said, last night felt like a bunch of TED talks.

Agreed... it was just endless talking.  Endless blathering by the presenters, endless blathering by the winners.  Nothing that really celebrated the movies or performances themselves.

As I mentioned above, I really would have gladly replaced 3 minutes of some random accepting their award with a three minute clip on the life of Olivia de Havilland and her memorable roles.  And I would have replaced 3 minutes of some other blathering random with a three minute clip on the life of Sean Connery and his roles.

If there had to be a lot of talking, I think they at least could have explained more about the movie industry and how it has weathered the pandemic.  How are movies being made?  On TV soap operas, it's really obvious when the characters who are supposed to be husband and wife are talking at each other from across the room or when they bring in stand-ins (real life husbands/wives/sig others) for close contact scenes.  Are movies doing the same?  Why not have someone take us through a typical shooting scene and whether any adjustments are being made?  The most I know is when Tom Cruise had his angry unhinged screaming rant at two set people on Mission Impossible 7.

How about something to inspire people to go back to the movie theaters?  A segment on the magic of the theater experience?  Mention how Arclight and Pacific have shuttered operations permanently.  Talk about how AMC lets you rent out the whole theater and this is an option for those that want the movie experience but don't feel comfortable yet.  Explain some of the things theaters are doing to attract people back to the theaters while keeping people safe.  Instead, we get Frances preaching at us to go see every single movie and sit shoulder to shoulder with others and fill every seat.  Whatever.  I'm not going to listen to some kooky lady just because she said so.

10 hours ago, kittykat said:

My main gripe is Best Director being in the beginning.  It's the second most important award of the night and only the second time a woman has won and it's in the first few awards? NOT COOL!  Chloe should have had prime screen time.

I think it's because of reasons similar to why Soderbergh put Best Actor last.  Everyone knew Chloe Zhao was going to win, it was anticlimactic, so I feel like he switched things up just for the sake of being "edgy" and get everyone saying "wow, this is different, what an inspired choice, this guy is changing it up this year!  So fresh!"

Except not.  You know how they give out an Emmy for "Best Variety Special" and the Oscar telecast always seems to get nominated?  If there is a Razzie equivalent for the Emmys, then Stephen Soderbergh should be running unopposed this year in that category.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I saw The Father and Anthony Hopkins gave a career best performance in it, he was really great. So I can't fault his win, there've been some undeserving ones but this wasn't one IMO. Honestly I thought the whole film was really good and if it hadn't been released so late it would have had more momentum for the big prices too.

it was idiotic of the producers to move Best Actor to the end because they thought Chadwick would win it. Chloe Zhao's big moment really got shafted because of this, and she was only the second woman and first WOC to win best director. This should have been bigger. If they had paid attention they could have realised that Anthony had a lot of momentum too - The Father came out late but people were talking about a possible upset in the Best Actor category weeks ago. So many dumb decisions - though I guess it got people talking.

Speaking of which, another baffling choice to just have people speak the whole time. The one thing I always look forward to are the movie clips and the design pictures etc. Give me a nice montage already.

  • Like 8
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Sarah 103 said:

This article explains so much. I still don't agree with many of thier decisions, but at least this gives some insight into what they were thinking. 

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/oscars-order-da-butt-glenn-close-in-memoriam-1234960635/

 

Well it confirmed that Glenn Close was not THAT well versed in Da Butt, but Spike Lee gave her a shout out on Instagram.

I had a feeling that once the Best Song category was moved to the pre show (which I didn't know about until I landed on the pre show by accident so I didn't see all of them) they were letting the speeches go long.  But they should have still set a time limit because that along with the lack of clips dragged the energy way down.  

In a year where award shows had to swing for the fences, a lot of them missed entirely.  I think the Grammys did put on the best telecast this award season. 

 

Meanwhile it seems Hopkins was willing to accept his award via Zoom as he didn't to travel to one of the satellite hubs or L.A. but the producers said no.  So he went to bed instead. 

https://www.indiewire.com/2021/04/oscars-2021-oscar-wins-hollywood-1234632017/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, mtlchick said:

Well it confirmed that Glenn Close was not THAT well versed in Da Butt, but Spike Lee gave her a shout out on Instagram.

I had a feeling that once the Best Song category was moved to the pre show (which I didn't know about until I landed on the pre show by accident so I didn't see all of them) they were letting the speeches go long.  But they should have still set a time limit because that along with the lack of clips dragged the energy way down.  

In a year where award shows had to swing for the fences, a lot of them missed entirely.  I think the Grammys did put on the best telecast this award season. 

 

Meanwhile it seems Hopkins was willing to accept his award via Zoom as he didn't to travel to one of the satellite hubs or L.A. but the producers said no.  So he went to bed instead. 

https://www.indiewire.com/2021/04/oscars-2021-oscar-wins-hollywood-1234632017/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Thanks for the link to this article.  Wow, this guy certainly has a very skewed view of the ceremony, one that is probably not shared by 99% of people who watched.

In a year that has had a lot of challenges, I think people would have been comforted by the familiarity of an Oscar telecast that was as normal as possible.  His response confirm to me that the producers did in fact think they were being "edgy" and "fresh" when they changed around the order of the categories.

Quote

 

The producers eliminated clips from almost every category — except best picture, international film and animated film — in order to move the telecast faster.

“When you look at the award show length and you look at the previous award shows, that’s one place where time really adds up,” Mills said. “It’s in clips. The producers really wanted to tell exactly what somebody does, what an art director does or what sound design is, as opposed to playing another clip for movies.”

 

This was probably the biggest fail.  In a year when probably many viewers had not seen many of these movies, why NOT take the opportunity to show clips to get people interested?  Frances McDormand howling like a wolf.... she acts like a wolf in her movie?   (I am aware of what it meant but it was a particularly strange occurence with no explanation.)  Why not show a clip of her actual performance?

I definitely would have appreciated clips from each nominated actor.  And instead of TALKING about what an art director does and how he got his start by fetching water for Dame Stuffypants, why not do the traditional thing and SHOW us drawings and sketches of their set designs and then the actual depictions of the sets from the movies?  That's what I like about the Production Design award... seeing these concepts come to life.  Not hearing someone blathering about it.

Clips for the costumes and the hair/makeup showing these people actually performing their craft would also have been nice.

Would have been nice to have actually looked at the process of making movies instead of just hearing people talking about them.  These producers should be banned from ever producing an Oscar show ever again.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I'm just saying Best Actor is the category where IMO they've let the most legendary performances go without winning.

Boseman's performance in Ma Rainey was not legendary. I would describe it as highly capable. The only thing that elevates it to legendary status is that it was his last.

Hopkins' performance in The Father was perhaps not legendary either, but it was mind-blowing. No one deserved the prize more.

  • Like 12
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Crs97 said:

Which continued the theory that for a male to win best actor, he needs to be able-bodied but portray someone with a disability, and for a woman to win best actress, she needs to be willing to go without makeup.

Or, as Ricky Gervais told Kate Winslet, be in a Holocaust movie. Which she was in The Reader, and she won for that role after being nominated 5 or 6 times and losing.

For me the biggest Oscar-winning mistake was for Best Supporting Actor in 1997. Cuba Gooding, Jr. won for Jerry Maguire and beat out Edward Norton in Primal Fear. I'm still bitter for Norton.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, PepSinger said:

This post is perfect, particularly the last sentence. To say that there’s absolutely no way race could’ve played a part in voting is textbook gaslighting when there’s PLENTY of evidence that the academy has engaged in racist behavior in the past. It’s the definition of “don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.”

It has to go both ways though. If you think that race played a role in Anthony Hopkins winning (it might have, but probably didn't), then you have to acknowledge that race would've played a bigger role had Chadwick won (arguably bigger than it was with how it actually played out.

@Racj82 said it best; 

12 hours ago, Racj82 said:

anyone or any picture nominated should be able to win without controversy.

It's a shame that certain people are making a deserving win by Anthony Hopkins a race controversy (and a further subset are attacking Hopkins directly).

(And to answer an earlier question you posed @PepSinger, yes, you're an idiot if you believe that the Academy deliberately chose the white actor over the black one; just be grateful that a deserving performance won in the end.)

  • Like 6
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

  

17 hours ago, ProudMary said:

McKellen's two years younger than last night's Best Actor winner. I think it could still happen.

I agree with you on Sigourney Weaver. If she didn't win her Oscar the year she was nominated for two, I don't think it's happening. 

Hopkins still seems pretty hale and hearty though. McKellen looked worryingly frail the last time I saw him on the Graham Norton Show, and way less energetic and vital than he appeared just a couple of years ago in The Good Liar. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

Edited by Bruinsfan
  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Please take down the tone in here.  It's okay to discuss the winners and losers and what factors may have led to their selection including performances and societal factors.  

It's not okay to get snarky with your fellow posters with whom you disagree.  Giving into those impulses is a good way to make an otherwise fine post get zapped. 

  • Like 6
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Book Junkie said:

For me the biggest Oscar-winning mistake was for Best Supporting Actor in 1997. Cuba Gooding, Jr. won for Jerry Maguire and beat out Edward Norton in Primal Fear. I'm still bitter for Norton.

Although I would have been fine with either one winning, I think Cuba Gooding's "show me the money!" line gave him a big boost.   

Share this post


Link to post

If not Anthony Hopkins, I'd have given it to Riz Ahmed.

  • Like 5
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, dmeets said:

If not Anthony Hopkins, I'd have given it to Riz Ahmed.

That's who I was pulling for. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bruinsfan said:

  

Hopkins still seems pretty hale and hearty though. McKellen looked worryingly frail the last time I saw him on the Graham Norton Show, and way less energetic and vital than he appeared just a couple of years ago in The Good Liar. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

I tend to agree, I do think McKellen looks every bit ancient, while Hopkins still seems like he has a lot left in him.  That said, Harrison Ford looked really frail too.  I missed the intro and wasn't even sure if it was him.  Wonder if he will dye his hair for Indy 5.

43 minutes ago, Crashcourse said:

Although I would have been fine with either one winning, I think Cuba Gooding's "show me the money!" line gave him a big boost.   

I agree, that line won him the Oscar.  But what a travesty, Edward Norton in "Primal Fear" was amazing and more deserving.  Norton has been mostly quiet the past several years but I think he is well respected, whereas I think Gooding has become a punchline.

  • Like 3
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

31 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

That's who I was pulling for. 

Riz Ahmed was great. I think he would have been a strong contender if not for Boseman and Hopkins this year. In my mind it was between those three.

Edited by KatWay

Share this post


Link to post

My only comment on the Dead People montage is that they DID get one thing right. They eliminated the applause during the speedy roll call.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I wish the academy would just swallow their pride and in the future ask TCM for permission to show their "in memoriam" montage instead every year.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/25/2021 at 6:49 PM, ShadowHunter said:

Christ Laura Dern. What the hell are you thinking? I just don't understand lol

I liked Dern's dress better than the half-gown/half-bikini outfits that some of the other women wore.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, blackwing said:

think it's because of reasons similar to why Soderbergh put Best Actor last.  Everyone knew Chloe Zhao was going to win, it was anticlimactic, so I feel like he switched things up just for the sake of being "edgy" and get everyone saying "wow, this is different, what an inspired choice, this guy is changing it up this year!  So fresh!"

Yes. I think it was last year or so that Best Director was presented before Best Actor & Actress. I think part of the reason for that is that aside from wanting to shake things up a little, over the past few years, the Academy has been willing to split the Best Director and Best Picture awards. So it's no longer necessary to have the Best Director winner hovering backstage to be awarded the Best Picture Oscar within minutes of being rewarded for something else.

But either way, not having Best Picture as last makes no sense.

It does vaguely remind me as one of the few good things about David Letterman's hosting--suggesting that they simply read off the the categories, the name of the nominees, then the winners, make everyone line up to get their awards, and everyone can be out of there in roughly an hour.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/26/2021 at 8:51 PM, Cotypubby said:

Hopkins winning was not “an egregious mistake” (I’d argue neither were several others in that list!) and it’s really annoying and disrespectful that certain people are also now claiming “racism!!”

🙄🤦‍♀️

The way I see it (and I'm going to risk sounding massively egotistical saying I think most reasonable people would feel the same) is that Hopkins winning isn't racist, but there's the general unavoidable fact that Oscar voters tend to be old white guys and tend to vote for other old white guys.  It's more racial inertia linked to the systemic power and over-representation they have than any kind of active racism.  It's RACIAL, not racism. And that's really mostly the over-representation I'm speaking of, rather than Hopkins' win. I didn't see his movie, but know him enough to not debate it's likely he turned in an award worthy performance. 

FAR worse was how the Oscars exploited Chadwick Boseman just on the chance he might win.  I suppose it's reassuring they didn't actually know he would, but horrible they'd do it either way. Changing the award order was exploitative horrible bullshit. I hope they continue to be raked over the coals for it for years. 

Edited by Kromm
  • Like 10
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Kromm said:

 

FAR worse was how the Oscars exploited Chadwick Boseman just on the chance he might win.  I suppose it's reassuring they didn't actually know he would, but horrible they'd do it either way. Changing the award order was exploitative horrible bullshit. I hope they continue to be raked over the coals for it for years. 

I hope whoever was behind that decision is fired. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size