# 81st Academy Awards 2/22/09 SPOILERS!



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Discuss.


I'm watching the red carpet show on E! strictly to see the hot actresses in the slinky gowns. So far...

Amy Adams -- good.
Marisei Tomei -- good.
Melissa Leo -- bad. HUGE hair.
Heidi Klum -- bad hair, seems to be wearing her kids' seashell collection for earrings and bracelets.
Anne Hathaway -- meh.
Freida Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire) -- yowza!
Taraji P. Henson -- also yowzah!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Edit the title so that it says spoilers, otherwise we'll hear endless whining and complaining.


Oh, and to keep with the theme of the OP... 


Natalie Portman. So damn gorgeous.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Hey, now we *can* edit thread titles after the thread's created. Nice!

I agree -- Natalie is lovely.

Mickey Roarke is in a white tux with black vest, but no tie. Casual elegance.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Ah, my favorite, Diane Lane, is on the carpet. So lovely. Too bad she has to spoil it by being on Josh Brolin's arm.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I've changed my mind about Anne Hathaway's dress -- it's wondrously slinky from the waist down. Yummy.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Gray, you're right about Diane Lane. She ALWAYS looks great. Even with Brolin on her arm.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Robert Downey Jr. looks all cleaned up. Shaved and everything.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Jessica Biel's dress is horrendous, with the huge flap of fabric over her breasts. What designer thought that was a good idea?!


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Philip Seymour Hoffman is wearing a watch cap. Good Lord.

Angelina Jolie looks fabulous in a slinky gown, as always. Not digging Brad's facial scruff.

Penelope Cruz -- nice.

Kate Winslet -- VERY nice.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

If Kate Winslet wins will she still tell friends of Ricky Gervaise how to talk dirty?


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Just switched over ABC's coverage to see them all in HD glory!


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Matthew Broderick looks less then thrilled to be here tonight! Just don't get the appeal of SJP?


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

What the heck is Mylie Cyrus wearing? Too much for such a young girl!


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Angelina looks very alluring in her gown. Brad forgot to shave.

I can't watch the Oscars in HD and chat at the same time, so I'll forgo the HD pleasure. Damn you, Comcast, for illegally encrypting ABC's HD feed!


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

flyers088 said:


> Matthew Broderick looks less then thrilled to be here tonight! Just don't get the appeal of SJP?


I seem to recall hearing some discussion that SJP (also don't really get the appeal of her myself) and Matthew Broderick were going through a rocky patch if not headed for a total break-up. I don't recall where I heard that story, but I was a little surprised to see both together there...


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

terpfan1980 said:


> I seem to recall hearing some discussion that SJP (also don't really get the appeal of her myself) and Matthew Broderick were going through a rocky patch if not headed for a total break-up. I don't recall where I heard that story, but I was a little surprised to see both together there...


I remember hearing something about it, but could care less about SJP so never really cared to hear the follow up.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> Angelina looks very alluring in her gown. Brad forgot to shave.
> 
> I can't watch the Oscars in HD and chat at the same time, so I'll forgo the HD pleasure. Damn you, Comcast, for illegally encrypting ABC's HD feed!


I was wondering where you were seeing the red carpet stuff as early as you were. TV stations in my area hadn't started until after 8pm eastern...


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Matthew's starting to put on some weight in his face. He's going to wind up looking like his dad.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> I was wondering where you were seeing the red carpet stuff as early as you were. TV stations in my area hadn't started until after 8pm eastern...


E! had red carpet coverage from 2 p.m. until 8 p.m. I started watching around 6:30 p.m., when the biggest stars were Miley Cyrus and Vanessa Hudgens. That probably was too early.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Aww, the whole Slumdoggy crew is adorable. And Freida Pinto is stunning.

I actually like Mickey Rourke's outfit. The epitome of scruffy elegance.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Sarah Jessica Parker Leaves Matthew Broderick Over Infidelity Reports

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00021045.html

Why they are there together is beyond me?


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Good job by the reporter not know Robert Downey was married!


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I thought I had heard somewhere that Robert had gotten married. He looks all cleaned up. Good for Mrs. Downey!

If Miley didn't have that butterfly ornament on her waistline, that dress would almost work.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Anne Hathaway needs to visit a tan booth.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Anne's always been pale like that. It's her thing. Amy Adams is the same way.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Marisa Tomei has gone very minimalist with the jewelry -- all I can see is one simple metal bracelet.

I like that. Nothing to distract from the lovely curves.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

At least Merrill Streep is wearing a dress that is appropriate for the occasion tonight.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I've only seen 2 films this year that have nominations - The Wrestler and Frost/Nixon. I liked them both, and I think The Wrestler should be one of the five up for best picture. Oh well.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Who was the actress that Hugh brought up on stage for the Frost/Nixon parody?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

OK, I thoroughly enjoyed Hugh's opening medley. Who knew Wolverine could dance and sing that well?


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Anne Hathaway.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

That was Anne? She must've changed her dress.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Yeah, the opening was great. I don't think they'll have Letterman hosting again anytime soon.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Anne Hathaway was awesome, and I loved Jackman's "I am Wolverine!"

Yay for unnecessary montages!

And holy hell, Tilda Swinton looks _terrible_.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Are they going to have five former winners of each award present the award to this year's winner?


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Who does Mickey Rourke think he is? Jack Nichcolson?


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Okay, I'm sorry, but they've usually given out at least one award by now. How were they going to keep this under three hours, again?


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Neenahboy said:


> Anne Hathaway was awesome, and I loved Jackman's "I am Wolverine!"
> 
> Yay for unnecessary montages!
> 
> And holy hell, Tilda Swinton looks _terrible_.


For as bad as Swinton looks, Whoopie Goldberg's outfit looks pretty hideous too. I'm sitting here wondering if she's with child because of the the seeming bump in front.

Eva Marie Saint is showing her age too, but at least she did better with her choice of attire.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

This is going to be a really long night if they give tributes to every single nominee (even if it's just the major category nominees).


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

And Best Supporting Actress goes to...

Penelope Cruz!


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Wow, I'm pleasantly stunned. Penelope! :up: :up:


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

All my tuners are busy, why is there not a live feed? Idiots.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> And Best Supporting Actress goes to...
> 
> Penelope Cruz!


I know a lot of dudes really dig her, but she just doesn't do it for me.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

I love how they try to add some suspense to the Animated Feature race as they go to break.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Howie said:


> Yeah, the opening was great. I don't think they'll have Letterman hosting again anytime soon.


I like Dave. "Uma, Oprah. Oprah, Uma" That's comedy gold right there.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I was hoping for Marisa Tomei. She made a fine stripper.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> All my tuners are busy, why is there not a live feed? Idiots.


http://www.justin.tv/el_parcero_


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Neenahboy said:


> Okay, I'm sorry, but they've usually given out at least one award by now. How were they going to keep this under three hours, again?


Perhaps by having cut out a lot of the musical numbers, or reducing it all to a montage (which they have for this broadcast, at least reportedly).

I was discussing with my wife earlier how I still think they overdo the overdo'ing on this show. I think the idea of a montage of the nominated songs is ok, though I think they coulda/shoulda solved part of the problem by having the musical nominations played through the commercial breaks with home viewers catching part on the way into the commercials and part on the way back from the commercials. Doing that would save several minutes of broadcast time at the cost of having home viewers miss a lot of the music and dancing that would be going on for those in attendance in the Kodak Theatre.

Beyond that, despite enjoying the opening number that Hugh Jackman did, they still waste too much time showing presenters walking up to give their own intros, and they waste time in ways like Jackman did with his introductions to the vip's in the front row.

I'd still rather see and hear a lot more of the speeches from the winners and still feel they deserve their chance to shine, as well as their chance to say thanks to as many people as they'd like to.

Back to the stupid stuff that they waste time with... Steve Martin and Tina Fey introducing the award for writing. Just walk up, intro the award and nominees and move on. Nope, waste a bunch of time to get lame laughter and kill about 2 minutes of time that could have gone to the winner.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> I know a lot of dudes really dig her, but she just doesn't do it for me.


I'm right there with you. Not enough meat on the bones for me.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Original Screenplay: Dustin Lance Black for Milk

Really hoped for an In Bruges upset there, but I was realistic and called this.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Best Original Screenplay goes to...

Milk!



Two awards -- count 'em, two -- in the first half hour. Time to pick up the pace.


----------



## jpwoof (May 19, 2004)

this is gonna ba a one emotional award show!


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire.

One of many this evening.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Best Adapted Screenplay goes to...

Slumdog Millionaire!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> Back to the stupid stuff that they waste time with... Steve Martin and Tina Fey introducing the award for writing. Just walk up, intro the award and nominees and move on. Nope, waste a bunch of time to get lame laughter and kill about 2 minutes of time that could have gone to the winner.


I think they like to sort of "show off" what various people in the industry do. Even if we, the people not in the biz, have seen it over and over, they seem to want to remind us of what great stuff everyone does.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

The Aniston/Black thing just didn't work.

And still more unnecessary montages. Though I must say, Wall-E with the Oscar was cute.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Animated Feature: Andrew Stanton for Wall-E

Most obvious win ever.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I kinda liked Jack's line about betting all of his Dreamworks pay on Pixar winning the Oscar.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> I think they like to sort of "show off" what various people in the industry do. Even if we, the people not in the biz, have seen it over and over, they seem to want to remind us of what great stuff everyone does.


I didn't mind the typing animation of the writing and them reading the written words, and I'm not asking for a totally emotionless intros for the awards, but I still don't care much for the lame jokes and blathering that the presenters do.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

OK, there's our first truly obscure winner of the night.

_La Maison de Petite Cubes_?


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Animated Short: La Maison En Petit Cubes. Presto gets upset.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> Best Animated Short: La Maison En Petit Cubes. Presto gets upset.


Like how he worked in a "domo arigato Mr Roboto" reference in there.


----------



## Legion (Aug 24, 2005)

Domo arigato Mr. Roboto.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Art Direction: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Costume Design: The Duchess


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Best Makeup: Benjamin Button


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Makeup: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

They couldn't have picked two people with less chemistry to do three consecutive awards. :/


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Sarah's about to bust out of that dress of hers.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Oscars were made for Tivo. I'll start watching about 10:30. Way to much crap before the good stuff.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Like how they're rifling through some of the awards that no one cares about. I prefer they just sent these guys their trophies via FedEx, but oh well.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Wake me up when we get to "Sex in Cinema: 2008."


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Man, these yearbooks are worse than the traditional montages. At least last year's were somewhat engaging. :down:


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Ben Stiller as Joaquin Phoenix.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Oh, for the luvva Pete, not a Joaquin Phoenix parody.

This is horrendous. Even the lovely Natalie can't save this.


----------



## jpwoof (May 19, 2004)

audio problem anyone?


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Cinematography: Anthony Dod Mantle for Slumdog Millionaire

That's two...


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

things are looking good for "Slumdog"


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

jpwoof said:


> audio problem anyone?


yup. getting some clipping/drop outs. Must be at the source.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Why can't I fast forward the TV in my hotel room?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

OK, I have to admit it -- I still love the Badger the Lost Dog Mastercard commercial.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Snap! Moved to TV Talk!

Oh, Jessica Biel == yummy


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

What was the point of that Jessica Biel bit? It if was just to look at Jessica Biel, I could've rented I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry - I saw a lot more of the goods.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Jessica Biel is yummy, despite that huge puffed-out swath of fabric on her gown.

But yes, there was more of her to love in I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry. The only problem with that movie was the roughly 1 hour and 45 minutes without her in it.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Jessica needs to lose that big ribbon deal on the front of her dress. Maybe she's trying to hide a pregnancy or something.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Howie said:


> Sarah's about to bust out of that dress of hers.


Ain't it awful....


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Totally not seeing the point of this Judd Apatow thing. :down:


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I see the point. It's just not very funny.

But I think someone turned off my humor meter for the evening.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Live Action Short: Toyland


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Re Coke commercial -- I knew it! They're reusing those bottles and cans! I hope they wash them out first.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

when are the "big" awards? towards the end?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I'm sorry, but I can't watch top-hatted gents dance down stairs without thinking of "Blazing Saddles"

Is that Beyonce?


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Meh on this latest musical number.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Time for another time wasting fancy musical number. There's another 10 minutes (give or take) that could be used to get the show moving and/or let the winners say a few more thank you's.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

If they keep pulling this crap, no way in hell do they finish in three hours.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

bryhamm said:


> when are the "big" awards? towards the end?


yup... as always, throw a bone with the best supporting actress winner right away, then run a bunch of lesser known awards, along with a batch of musical numbers and other content to drag it all out, then start looking at the watches as the time has been passing by and none of the big awards have been given out.

Finally, in the last 90 minutes (seemingly), most specifically the last 30 minutes (give or take), they get around to announcing the awards that most people have been waiting for.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Call me an old fogey, but I loves me some musical numbers.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Neenahboy said:


> If they keep pulling this crap, no way in hell do they finish in three hours.


You type that as if you bet on the under   

To borrow a bit from Wesley Snipes: always bet on the over (when it comes to the Oscars broadcast).


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

terpfan1980 said:


> You type that as if you bet on the under
> 
> To borrow a bit from Wesley Snipes: always bet on the over (when it comes to the Oscars broadcast).


Oh, absolutely not. I'm betting at least 3:45.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

So we've had the great moments in romance, great moments in musicals...when do we get a montage in unadulterated violence?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

And we're back with five winners to present the Best Supporting Actor award


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

I see they'll be pulling this useless previous winners stuff with each of the acting awards, huh? :down:


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I thought the musical medley was pretty good. But I'm on the West Coast and I can watch the whole thing and still be in bed by 9:30, easily. I can see where you Easterners can get annoyed.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Sparty99 said:


> So we've had the great moments in romance, great moments in musicals...when do we get a montage in unadulterated violence?


For that you need to watch the Academy of Videogames award show.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> So we've had the great moments in romance, great moments in musicals...when do we get a montage in unadulterated violence?


You'll have to rent Wanted, Hitman, Shoot 'em Up or a similar film for that


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Just keep that camera focused on Diane Lane, thankyouverymuch.

And I did think Cuba's bit on Robert Downey Jr. was amusing.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Someone had Heath Ledger at 1-20 odds to win this one. Since he can't give the speech can we have Diane Lane just go up on stage and look gorgeous?


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

I'd donate $50 to charity if Walken says 'more cowbell'


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> You'll have to rent Wanted, Hitman, Shoot 'em Up or a similar film for that


Seen 'em all. If The Love Guru and Forgetting Sarah Marshall can get some mention from the Academy, I don't see why Shoot 'Em Up can't.

Sadly, I'm not sure if I'm kidding.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Sparty99 said:


> Someone had Heath Ledger at 1-20 odds to win this one. Since he can't give the speech can we have Diane Lane just go up on stage and look gorgeous?


Yes, please!


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

not surprising for supporting actor


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Aw, Heath's parents and sister are accepting on his behalf.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

Neenahboy said:


> Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger


:up:


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

They'd have needed commissioner Gordon to investigate if that hadn't been the result. Ledger's performance was as good as it gets.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> I see they'll be pulling this useless previous winners stuff with each of the acting awards, huh? :down:


You're really not easily impressed are you? I think it's a new and different touch. I guess we could just go to a presser like they did for the Golden Globes during the writer's strike.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Aw, everybody's sad-eyed. Except Mickey Rourke.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> Yes, please!


Never mind. Heath's sister will do the trick nicely.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> Aw, everybody's sad-eyed. Except Mickey Rourke.


Rourke is too, he's just so botoxed that you don't know.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

Sparty99 said:


> Rourke is too, he's just so botoxed that you don't know.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Man, that brought a tear to my eye. I just thank God that the orchestra wasn't stupid enough to play them off.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Sparty99 said:


> You're really not easily impressed are you? I think it's a new and different touch. I guess we could just go to a presser like they did for the Golden Globes during the writer's strike.


I'm impressed as easily as the next guy. But when Hugh Jackman states publicly that he's aiming for a three hour show and then they bring this type of stuff to the table, you better believe I'm gonna talk about how stupid and useless it is.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Neenahboy said:


> I see they'll be pulling this useless previous winners stuff with each of the acting awards, huh? :down:





Sparty99 said:


> You're really not easily impressed are you? I think it's a new and different touch. I guess we could just go to a presser like they did for the Golden Globes during the writer's strike.


I wouldn't mind the previous winners stuff if they didn't go overboard on it. Even having the 5 actresses/actors wouldn't bother me so much but they have to remind us of the performances of those folks first, allow them to walk up and make the big entrance, and then finally start announcing the nominees.

Move along, move along, etc. Get the nominations announced for the audience, and get to the winner please.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Documentary: Man on Wire

Well deserved. :up:


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Bill Maher is an incredible D.B. If you're going to present an award, don't complain about why your movie didn't get nominated and then bring a religious discussion up. Ass.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> Rourke is too, he's just so botoxed that you don't know.


The question is did his come from a needle in the face or a needle in the arm? or perhaps via a bottle of some sort?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> I wouldn't mind the previous winners stuff if they didn't go overboard on it. Even having the 5 actresses/actors wouldn't bother me so much but they have to remind us of the performances of those folks first, allow them to walk up and make the big entrance, and then finally start announcing the nominees.
> 
> Move along, move along, etc. Get the nominations announced for the audience, and get to the winner please.


yeah.

I mean, bring 'em out quickly and have them each do a SHORT intro for each nominee. Then announce the winner. The same concept can be executed much more quickly.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

bryhamm said:


> when are the "big" awards? towards the end?


Always. Director and picture are always the last two. Actor and Actress the two before them


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Documentary Short: Smile Pinki


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Like the dress...not on her, but I like the dress.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Here's your Violence 2008 montage.

Damn, that's... _visceral._


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

So we're almost two hours in, and they still have to do all major awards, some lesser awards, Sid Ganis' speech, the accountants, the humanitarian award, the lifetime achievement award, and the In Memoriams.

Yeah, don't think that can be done in an hour.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Visual Effects: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

No real surprise here...it's been doing well in the technicals all night.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Sound Editing: The Dark Knight

If it doesn't win both editing and mixing, I'll be shocked.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Sound Mixing: Slumdog Millionaire

Wow. 

That's three, and things are REALLY looking up for Slumdog after that.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

It's a SOUND AWARD dude. Not history being handed to you.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Film Editing: Slumdog Millionaire

Four.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Did Christopher Nolan or Christian Bale sh*t in someone's cereal? I can understand the lack of love in the prestige categories, but you mean to tell me it didn't deserve the awards for Visual Effects and Sound Mixing? Come on.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Sparty99 said:


> Did Christopher Nolan or Christian Bale sh*t in someone's cereal? I can understand the lack of love in the prestige categories, but you mean to tell me it didn't deserve the awards for Visual Effects and Sound Mixing? Come on.


Visual Effects? Not in my opinion. Button's were remarkable and totally worthy.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> Visual Effects? Not in my opinion. Button's were remarkable and totally worthy.


What was remarkable about them? Honestly. They made Brad Pitt look old. Fine...give them the makeup award. The visual effects in Button were nowhere near as impressive as Dark Knight (or even Iron Man for that matter).

I'm very serious when I ask what was so impressive about the visual effects in Button.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> Bill Maher is an incredible D.B. If you're going to present an award, don't complain about why your movie didn't get nominated and then bring a religious discussion up. Ass.


In a rubber suit no less.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Sparty99 said:


> What was remarkable about them? Honestly. They made Brad Pitt look old. Fine...give them the makeup award. The visual effects in Button were nowhere near as impressive as Dark Knight (or even Iron Man for that matter).
> 
> I'm very serious when I ask what was so impressive about the visual effects in Button.


Pitt's aging was accomplished through advanced CGI techniques.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> What was remarkable about them? Honestly. They made Brad Pitt look old. Fine...give them the makeup award. The visual effects in Button were nowhere near as impressive as Dark Knight (or even Iron Man for that matter).
> 
> I'm very serious when I ask what was so impressive about the visual effects in Button.


It wasn't just make-up that made Brad Pitt look old, difficult effects went into it. More effects than it took to make Christian Bale look like Batman or Heath Ledger look like the Joker.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

/props to Eddie Murphy for his intro for the award for Jerry Lewis. That was what I wish most of intros and awards would be like. Nice, simple, sincere and yet also to the point.

If the rest of the intros followed that pattern the show would be nearly over and yet we'd be just as entertained and just as impressed, if not more so.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> Pitt's aging was accomplished through advanced CGI techniques.


And yet they won for makeup. So was he made to look older through CGI or makeup? I'm sorry, the visual effects were decent, not remarkable, and nowhere near as impressive as The Dark Knight's were.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

What intros were more lengthy than Eddy Murphy's? I've been pretty entertained by some of the intros.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Original Score: Slumdog Millionaire.

Five.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> It wasn't just make-up that made Brad Pitt look old, difficult effects went into it. More effects than it took to make Christian Bale look like Batman or Heath Ledger look like the Joker.


I wasn't arguing for Dark Knight on account of how Heath Ledger was made into the Joker, I was arguing for it on the sheer scope of the movies. The Dark Knight was 10 times more demanding in its scope than making Brad Pitt look older. I'm truly baffled by the award and I haven't seen anything that tells me what was so remarkable about Benjamin Button.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> What intros were more lengthy than Eddy Murphy's? I've been pretty entertained by some of the intros.


Steve Martin and Tina Fey's intros for an example. Somewhat entertaining, but unnecessary. Come out, announce the nominees and move along rather than crack stupid jokes.

See also comments above about self-promotion for idiots such as Bill Maher (uncalled for) and Jack Black (entertaining, but silly and not really needed).


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Original Song: "Jai Ho" from Slumdog Millionaire

Six.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Best Song goes to Slumdog!

That's what, six Oscars now?

Is Slumdog going to be the film that opens up the U.S. audience for Bollywood movies?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> I wasn't arguing for Dark Knight on account of how Heath Ledger was made into the Joker, I was arguing for it on the sheer scope of the movies. The Dark Knight was 10 times more demanding in its scope than making Brad Pitt look older. I'm truly baffled by the award and I haven't seen anything that tells me what was so remarkable about Benjamin Button.


Just because BB was not an action movie, didn't make the effects in it any less demanding than Batman. A majority of the special effects aren't even seen in any movie; it's making the shot look realistic within the context of the scene. If they're nominated, it's a good chance the people working on them deserved the award.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Have all of you guys seen Slumdog? I haven't. Is it Best Picture worthy in your opinions?


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> Best Song goes to Slumdog!
> 
> That's what, six Oscars now?
> 
> Is Slumdog going to be the film that opens up the U.S. audience for Bollywood movies?


Was Slumdog really a Bollywood movie? It was produced within the American studio system, wasn't it? I would think that just because it takes place in India doesn't make it an Indian movie (I realize that doesn't make complete sense).


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

With two big musical numbers, Slumdog has some definite Bollywood roots. Of course, if there's kissing, then it's totally NOT Bollywood. 

But even if it isn't a Bollywood movie, will it encourage U.S. audiences to sample more traditional Bollywood fare?


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

1st they take our jobs, now our Oscars.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Sparty99 said:


> The Dark Knight was 10 times more demanding in its scope than making Brad Pitt look older.


And that's your opinion, which you're perfectly entitled to. I, and apparently many others, happen to vehemently disagree. The combination of superior makeup and visual effects in Button produced some of the most advanced character aging ever put to film. But again, that's my opinion.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> I wasn't arguing for Dark Knight on account of how Heath Ledger was made into the Joker, I was arguing for it on the sheer scope of the movies. The Dark Knight was 10 times more demanding in its scope than making Brad Pitt look older. I'm truly baffled by the award and I haven't seen anything that tells me what was so remarkable about Benjamin Button.


I'd say you're carrying on an old argument that I would have had with the Academy, going way, way back.

For whatever reason techy films and big blockbluster type films typically don't get any love from the Academy (with the very notable exception of Titanic). Big box-office smashes feed Hollywood and pay for the artsy films that they want to make in much the same way that mens sports in college generate revenue that is used to pay for a bunch of other sports that aren't nearly as well supported. Hollywood wants the box-office smashes, but they don't want to reward those big Lucas or Spielberg type flicks, or the comic book films, etc. Those aren't serious enough and aren't good enough to really deserve the awards in the Academy's eyes, or... perhaps it's just that the Academy figures the best awards for those type of films is ticket sales, plain and simply.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Foreign Film: Departures (Japan)

Wow, that's a huge surprise. Thought for sure it would be Waltz with Bashir.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

terpfan1980 said:


> Steve Martin and Tina Fey's intros for an example. Somewhat entertaining, but unnecessary. Come out, announce the nominees and move along rather than crack stupid jokes.
> 
> See also comments above about self-promotion for idiots such as Bill Maher (uncalled for) and Jack Black (entertaining, but silly and not really needed).


I agree the self promotion wasn't necessary, but it didn't go on and on and add much time to the show.

And FWIW I love the Fey/Martin intro.  And the Ben Stiller riff on Phoenix.

My big complaint is the broken English from some of the winners. Spend the bucks and have translators on hand for them!


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> Just because BB was not an action movie, didn't make the effects in it any less demanding than Batman. A majority of the special effects aren't even seen in any movie; it's making the shot look realistic within the context of the scene. If they're nominated, it's a good chance the people working on them deserved the award.


I'm still not seeing the argument about what was so remarkable about it. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I truly don't get it. What was so difficult or demanding about Benjamin Button? There were several major action sequences in The Dark Knight that they pulled off masterfully. If the major selling point of Benjamin Button's special effects was that they made Brad Pitt look old, I'm sorry, but that's not remarkable and it's certainly not Oscar worthy.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Waltz with Bashir didn't win Foreign Film? Phooey!


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Well, the Japanese guy certainly didn't speak English very well, but at least he made it short and sweet.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Geez, could you at least cut to full screen for the In Memoriams, guys? This is just disrespectful. :down:


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> I agree the self promotion wasn't necessary, but it didn't go on and on and add much time to the show.
> 
> And FWIW I love the Fey/Martin intro.  And the Ben Stiller riff on Phoenix.
> 
> My big complaint is the broken English from some of the winners. Spend the bucks and have translators on hand for them!


I disagree completely on that last comment ^^ Even if the winner doesn't speak 'our' language, let the winner speak. Why do we have to be ignorant Americans and demand the world to speak English? Much of the world speaks other languages... while I appreciate that the winners try to speak our language, I'm not going to demand that they do just so they can say thank you more clearly.

Let the winners speak. That's my point with the comments above, etc.

And while Stiller mocking/imating Phoenix is entertaining, I'd rather see that on Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O'Brien, The Daily Show or somewhere else. There's no need for it on the Academy Awards show, or at least not on the televised portion of same.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

The ad for Wynn's new Encore resort in Vegas was funny: "Next time, we do this in the lobby."


----------



## jpwoof (May 19, 2004)

Sparty99 said:


> Was Slumdog really a Bollywood movie? It was produced within the American studio system, wasn't it? I would think that just because it takes place in India doesn't make it an Indian movie (I realize that doesn't make complete sense).


it is a european movie that pertains to an indian life.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> I'd say you're carrying on an old argument that I would have had with the Academy, going way, way back.
> 
> For whatever reason techy films and big blockbluster type films typically don't get any love from the Academy (with the very notable exception of Titanic). Big box-office smashes feed Hollywood and pay for the artsy films that they want to make in much the same way that mens sports in college generate revenue that is used to pay for a bunch of other sports that aren't nearly as well supported. Hollywood wants the box-office smashes, but they don't want to reward those big Lucas or Spielberg type flicks, or the comic book films, etc. Those aren't serious enough and aren't good enough to really deserve the awards in the Academy's eyes, or... perhaps it's just that the Academy figures the best awards for those type of films is ticket sales, plain and simply.


Look at the list of Visual Effects winners. Spider-Man 2. King Kong. Pirates of the Caribbean 2. The Matrix. Independence Day. Jurassic Park. Terminator 2. It's a category that's practically created for the big budget blockbusters. I'm not standing on a soap box wondering why The Dark Knight didn't get a Best Picture nomination, but this one really baffles me.


----------



## jpwoof (May 19, 2004)

Howie said:


> Have all of you guys seen Slumdog? I haven't. Is it Best Picture worthy in your opinions?


i've seen it. it was entertaining and a really good movie, but not really best picture worthy.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

There's some dust in my eye.


----------



## jpwoof (May 19, 2004)

are all the singing live?


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Screwing around with camera angles during the In Memoriams was totally classless. You could barely see anything! Bill Condon should be ashamed of himself for letting that happen.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> And that's your opinion, which you're perfectly entitled to. I, and apparently many others, happen to vehemently disagree. The combination of superior makeup and visual effects in Button produced some of the most advanced character aging ever put to film. But again, that's my opinion.


But my question is why is character aging more impressive than the sequences required of a major action movie? The fact that there's a combination of makeup (for which there's already an award) and visual effects when the action movie is going to require much more special effect wizardry leads me to believe that the action movie is far more deserving.

Obviously I'm the nutcase on this one, but I really don't get it.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I always forget who all had died during the year. Paul Newman was certainly one of the biggest stars in my lifetime.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

jpwoof said:


> are all the singing live?


I doubt it very much.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> I'm still not seeing the argument about what was so remarkable about it. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I truly don't get it. What was so difficult or demanding about Benjamin Button? There were several major action sequences in The Dark Knight that they pulled off masterfully. If the major selling point of Benjamin Button's special effects was that they made Brad Pitt look old, I'm sorry, but that's not remarkable and it's certainly not Oscar worthy.


For one they didn't merely make Brad Pitt "look old." They put his face on a whole different body convincingly. That is very difficult to do. And innovative. Much more difficult than any particular shot done in TDK that's been done a hundred other times in a dozen other action films.

And action scenes don't necessarily mean special effects. What makes an action scene masterful is the editing more than the SFX.

I'm not saying The Dark Knight wasn't good or deserving it it's own way, but BB certainly deserved it's win.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

That's seven for Slumdog.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Director: Danny Boyle

Seven.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> Geez, could you at least cut to full screen for the In Memoriams, guys? This is just disrespectful. :down:


that bugged me a bit, too. There were times when it was hard to make out some of the titles. I guess it's less of an issue if you have a big HDTV.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

jpwoof said:


> are all the singing live?


It sound like it to me.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> I doubt it very much.


I hope it is cause Jackman sounds like ass, check that, Ethel Merman's ass.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> Best Director: Danny Boyle
> 
> Seven.


don't they usually give Director our right before Picture?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> don't they usually give Director our right before Picture?


Maybe it's been Director, Actress, Actor, and Movie?

Now it sounds like they're going to do Movie, Actress, and Actor. Huh?

Never mind, I didn't hear the announcer correctly.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> don't they usually give Director our right before Picture?


It's usually Director, Actress, Actor, Picture, roll credits.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> I guess it's less of an issue if you have a big HDTV.


Nope, it really wasn't.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> It's usually Director, Actress, Actor, Picture, roll credits.


Hmm OK

I always thought Actor and Actress came before director and picture.

Not sure why I thought that.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Nicole Kidman looks mahvelous.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Come on, Anne Hathaway upset, come on...


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> Come on, Anne Hathaway upset, come on...


That would be an upset, indeed. I don't see it.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

This drags on so long the way they do this.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Winslet is gonna win it. (My bet)


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

They need the American Idol judges to announce the nominees. Let that Simon ****** do a critique of one of them.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> Nicole Kidman looks mahvelous.


Sophia Loren does not.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I wouldn't have minded if they had cut some other numbers and banter to make time for these tributes to the nominees.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

BTW, my own preference is anyone but Streep. Enough of giving her accolades.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Sparty99 said:


> Sophia Loren does not.


She's almost 74 years old. I'd cut her a break. Because when she was young she was really something.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> Nicole Kidman looks mahvelous.





Sparty99 said:


> Sophia Loren does not.


In some ways Loren looks decent, but in other ways, definitely not so much. Given her age, not bad, but definitely showing age.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

The fawning over the actors during the acting categories is ridiculous. Just get on with it.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Actress: Kate Winslet

Saw that coming, and I know the Academy was focusing on her performances in both The Reader and Rev. Road since she couldn't be nominated for both, but Hathaway's performance was by far superior.

Still, mega congrats to Kate on breaking her Oscar winless streak. I find it incredibly ironic that she once said she wouldn't win an Oscar until she did a Holocaust film, and here we are.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

No surprise there at all.

I wouldn't worry about Hathaway. I'm sure she'll be back.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

I nailed that pick (probably the one and only I could get right). Congrats to Kate Winslet. That said, I'd still highly recommend *Frozen River* to anyone. Excellent flick and Melissa Leo did a great job in it.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

OK, Kate, you're adorable, but stop waving at Dad. 

My favorite Kate Winslet movie? _The Holiday._


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Neenahboy said:


> Best Actress: Kate Winslet
> 
> Saw that coming, and I know the Academy was focusing on her performances in both The Reader and Rev. Road since she couldn't be nominated for both, but Hathaway's performance was by far superior.
> 
> Still, mega congrats to Kate on breaking her Oscar winless streak. *I find it incredibly ironic that she once said she wouldn't win an Oscar until she did a Holocaust film, and here we are.*


See comment way back in the thread  I loved that episode of *Extras* and agree, totally prophetic.

I haven't seen Rachel Getting Married yet, nor seen more than a clips of Winslet's performance(s) this season, but I figured this one was going to Winslet almost as an achievement award.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Saw Changleling this weekend. Jolie is absolutely brilliant in it. Highly recommended.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> BTW, my own preference is anyone but Streep. Enough of giving her accolades.


You realize she hasn't won an Oscar for 27 years, right?


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

And we're on to Best Actor. Hoping against hope that Mickey Rourke doesn't win this...


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> You realize she hasn't won an Oscar for 27 years, right?


Yes, but she's been nominated how many times in that span? And won how many other awards in that time frame?


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> She's almost 74 years old. I'd cut her a break. Because when she was young she was really something.


Oh, I know. But it seems she went downhill really fast. Like from still being a stunner in her late 60s to now...not good.

Aging sucks I guess.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Sparty99 said:


> Oh, I know. But it seems she went downhill really fast. Like from still being a stunner in her late 60s to now...not good.
> 
> Aging sucks I guess.


Aging isn't a steady gradual process. Sometimes bad stuff happens practically overnight.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Yes, please DO mention Sean Penn's greatest role as Spicoli!


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> Yes, but she's been nominated how many times in that span?


I count 11 (basically not even every other year). How many times out of those 11 times has she been unjustifiably nominated though.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> Aging isn't a steady gradual process. Sometimes bad stuff happens practically overnight.


Well that pretty much guarantees that I'm karmically screwed.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> Yes, please DO mention Sean Penn's greatest role as Spicoli!


Indeed. That was nice. I understand Sean Penn hates people bringing it up, but I am glad Robert DiNero did it any way. Seann seemed to be OK with it.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Ph, please not Mickey Rourke.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Robert Pattinson, sitting behind Mickey, looks grumpy!


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> You realize she hasn't won an Oscar for 27 years, right?


Back to Streep for a minute, from the IMDB page on her: Won 2 Oscars. Another 71 wins & 81 nominations (not just Oscars, but other awards).

Enough nominations to make me tired of seeing her nominated.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Holy Spicoli, it's Sean Penn!


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Best Actor: Sean Penn

And major props to Richard Jenkins for finally being recognized for a lifetime of great work.

Thank goodness Rourke got passed up.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Oh, GOOD one there, Sean!


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

All right, a Marin County guy is best actor.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Spicoli has 2 Oscars.

Wouldn't the current day version of this 1983 improbability be if Stiffler or Jack Black wound up winning 2 Oscars?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

All Academy Award-winning actors have at least one Spicoli role early in their career.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Called it here.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=6739728#post6739728


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> Back to Streep for a minute, from the IMDB page on her: Won 2 Oscars. Another 71 wins & 81 nominations.
> 
> Enough nominations to make me tired of seeing her nominated.


You're talking all those awards/nominations over the course of 15-20 movies. Hell, Sean Penn probably won 5 awards and 10 nominations just for Milk. Do you really feel like he didn't deserve to get nominated for all those awards?


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> All Academy Award-winning actors have at least one Spicoli role early in their career.


Sort of like Tom Hanks in Bosom Buddies


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I was thinking more of Tom Hanks in Bachelor Party.

If Will Ferrell wins a Best Actor Oscar someday... but I'll be dead by then.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

It's weird that they intersperse other movies in with the clips of the nominated movies.


----------



## mtm150 (Oct 19, 2003)

I need to know who the woman is sitting next to Meryl Streep that isn't Amy Adams. I swear I recognize her but I have no idea why. On Meryl's left.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I believe that is Meryl's daughter.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Why in the blazes do they have to mix old films and new films as they hype up best picture? If they want to show some montages of past winners, fine, but why mix up old and new?! Just show me snippets of each nominated film on their own. Much more simple, and much more classy.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

And the 2008 Best Picture is...

Slumdog Millionaire! That's eight!

In your face, Weinstein.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Annnnd... that's eight for the Slumdog Millionaires!


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> Why in the blazes do they have to mix old films and new films as they hype up best picture? If they want to show some montages of past winners, fine, but why mix up old and new?! Just show me snippets of each nominated film on their own. Much more simple, and much more classy.


I kind of liked it. Show some clips of classic WWII clips during The Reader. It shows how much of the theme of their movies run through time.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> Annnnd... that's eight for the Slumdog Millionaires!


"And now we're going to ship the kids back to their slums and never deal with them again."


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> Why in the blazes do they have to mix old films and new films as they hype up best picture? If they want to show some montages of past winners, fine, but why mix up old and new?! Just show me snippets of each nominated film on their own. Much more simple, and much more classy.


It was done as a way to show the theme of each nominated picture.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

That show ran 3.5 hours. Not the longest ever, right?


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> You're talking all those awards/nominations over the course of 15-20 movies. Hell, Sean Penn probably won 5 awards and 10 nominations just for Milk. Do you really feel like he didn't deserve to get nominated for all those awards?


You ask that as if you think I'd respect Penn 

My problem with Streep, and Penn too, to some extent, is that it seems that each year there is a wave of nominations for SAG awards, Golden Globes, and other awards along with the requisite Academy Award that is supposed to be a stone cold lock because of the other awards and nominations that have been garnered. In the end I get tired of hearing about these people as if they are all that, and it makes me want to support someone, anyone else instead.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> It was done as a way to show the theme of each nominated picture.


I understood why it was done, but don't think it was needed at all and wound up being disrespectful of the films instead (at least to my tastes).


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

They're remaking Fame?? Why for god's sake??


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> That show ran 3.5 hours. Not the longest ever, right?


Not by my memory... last year was definitely longer.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> They're remaking Fame?? Why for god's sake??


Why remake Pelham either... It's not like the original wasn't really, really good. But that same question could be asked of a bunch of movies each year.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

It didn't seem to drag for me. I enjoyed it for the most part.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> They're remaking Fame?? Why for god's sake??


Why not? Every other film in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s will be remade at some point.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

I must have watched 200 films last year yet I saw none of the major nominees for Best picture, actor, etc, not one. ummm...except DK


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

And it's over. Final verdict: definitely worse than last year. IMO, the Hugh Jackman experiment didn't work.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> Why not? Every other film in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s will be remade at some point.


Except Die Hard. You can't remake perfection.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Sparty99 said:


> Except Die Hard. You can't remake perfection.


Not this decade. Probably sometime between 2015 and 2025.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

Neenahboy said:


> And it's over. Final verdict: definitely worse than last year. IMO, the Hugh Jackman experiment didn't work.


The opening certainly did, maybe you missed it. It broke the stuffy, uncomfortable tension and got everyone engaged enough to give him a standing ovation. And Anne Hathaway can sing and then some.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I liked the opening number and the medley with Beyonce. But I'm old school. I like musicals.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

hughmcjr said:


> I must have watched 200 films last year yet I saw none of the major nominees for Best picture, actor, etc, not one. ummm...except DK


My wife and I were running down the list of nominees and films that involved nominations in some way and we actually did fairly well this year. For each of the bigger categories we had seen 1 or 2 of the nominees. For example, we had watched *The Visitor* ages ago. (Excellent flick). Recently watched *Frozen River*. Had seen *The Dark Knight*, have *Tropic Thunder* sitting here on Blu-ray to watch. Had seen *Wall-E* and *Kung Fu Panda*, etc.

I was actually a little surprised that we had seen as much as we had, though there were still many nominees that we haven't yet seen.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Neenahboy said:


> And it's over. Final verdict: definitely worse than last year. IMO, the Hugh Jackman experiment didn't work.


I liked Hugh. I expected it to be really bad, but was pleasantly surprised. Though it was unbearably cheesy at points.

I don't even remember last year.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

2002: 4 Hours 17 Minutes.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

The best Academy Awards show ever. And I've been watching them for over (a lot of) years.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Neenahboy said:


> And it's over. Final verdict: definitely worse than last year. IMO, the Hugh Jackman experiment didn't work.


I didn't mind Hugh Jackman really. What I really didn't like is those intros where they brought up 5 previous winners and wasted so much time in doing it.

It wasn't so bad for the best actress and best actor awards, but for supporting actress and supporting actor I think they're better to stick to one presenter and keep it shorter and simpler.

For my tastes, sticking to a single presenter for just about all of the awards would be a good idea. Having just one person involved seems to flow quicker and smoother and stick to the task at hand rather than trying to entertain so much that it winds up wasting time.


----------



## jpwoof (May 19, 2004)

i enjoyed the oscrars. definitely memorable.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

hughmcjr said:


> The opening certainly did, maybe you missed it. It broke the stuffy, uncomfortable tension and got everyone engaged enough to give him a standing ovation. And Anne Hathaway can sing and then some.


The opening number was awesome, but it all went downhill from there.

It's like they're trying to find a happy medium between no host and the Billy Crystal days, and it just didn't work. And to be perfectly honest, I think they could get by with no host rather easily.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

I liked the nominees being recognized beyond simply mentioning their names.

Having the orchestra out of the pit was nice, too.

And thank God somebody nixd the music cue to get the winners off the stage.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

wendiness1 said:


> I liked the nominees being recognized beyond simply mentioning their names.
> 
> Having the orchestra out of the pit was nice, too.
> 
> And thank God somebody nixd the music cue to get the winners off the stage.


I missed the performance clips, though. I care more what I think than what Shirley Maclaine thinks about most things, and would have preferred to see clips of the performances that I didn't see.

Of course, I have long been a proponent of eliminating the pointless production number and giving more time to the nominees...


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

terpfan1980 said:


> BTW, my own preference is anyone but Streep. Enough of giving her accolades.


I don't care about how many accolades she's gotten. I just wanted anyone but her to win because she's not that great an actress.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

scooterboy said:


> I don't care about how many accolades she's gotten. I just wanted anyone but her to win because she's not that great an actress.


Well, there's that too :up:


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

scooterboy said:


> I don't care about how many accolades she's gotten. I just wanted anyone but her to win because she's not that great an actress.


I think that she *can be* a phenomenal actress, but she has picked some really terrible films, which do not show her off to her best effect.

Prairie Home Companion? Mamma Mia? Music of the Heart?

Blech.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> And it's over. Final verdict: definitely worse than last year. IMO, the Hugh Jackman experiment didn't work.


I think you are a little cranky tonight. Becca and I loved every minute of hugh. In fact we were wondering why they didn't have more of him.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Oh, how could I forget to mention my candidate for line of the night?

Will Smith murdering "Sound Editing" multiple times, followed by, "Boom goes the dynamite!"


----------



## EVizzle (Feb 13, 2005)

Peter Gabriel was robbed and insulted. Give the man the chance to sing his entire nominated song for chrissakes!!! And then have it turn into some sort of hideous medley, followed by getting beat. Lame.

I was also rooting for Rourke, because both he and The Ram deserved another chance.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Graymalkin said:


> Anne's always been pale like that. It's her thing. Amy Adams is the same way.


Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I hate the "tan" look.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Neenahboy said:


> Thank goodness Rourke got passed up.


Why?

I thought he was excellent in _The Wrestler_.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

FilmCritic3000 said:


> Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> I hate the "tan" look.


+1, I hate the California Barbie look. Thankfully there's a crop of good young actresses; Anne Hathaway, Amy Adams, Evan Rachel Wood, Scarlett Johansson etc that don't cater to the LA ethos.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Ment said:


> +1, I hate the California Barbie look. Thankfully there's a crop of good young actresses; Anne Hathaway, Amy Adams, Evan Rachel Wood, Scarlett Johansson etc that don't cater to the LA ethos.


Exactly. And that's one of the reasons I find them immensely attractive.


----------



## rrrobinsonjr (Nov 26, 2004)

Someone should torture and kill the person who put Jessica Biel in that dress.

I though Beyonce looked hot.

I didn't hate Hugh Jackman, but I don't like this trend. It's only memorable when you get a comedian who might say something at least a little edgy.

Heath Ledger's win was a really genuine, emotional moment.

I fast-forwarded as soon a Penn started doing his political speech.

Highlights:
Martin and Fey
Philippe Petit doing a magic trick and balancing the Oscar on his chin
Ben Stiller
Seth Rogen and James Franco

Kudos to the director for cutting to Jolie and Pitt while Aniston was on stage. There were agents and publicist burning up the phones after that happened. Guaranteed it'll be the last time we see anything like that for awhile. 

Other than that the direction was actually kind of below par this year.

Charles H. Joffe and Claude Berry are dead?!?


----------



## brebeans (Sep 5, 2003)

scooterboy said:


> I don't care about how many accolades she's gotten. I just wanted anyone but her to win because she's not that great an actress.


What??? Given her 15 nominatioins, and performances in Sophie's Choice, Kramer vs. Kramer, Mama Mia, and dozens more, well, I'll defer to actors, Academy and box office as judges.

She is awesome.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Sparty99 said:


> Bill Maher is an incredible D.B. If you're going to present an award, don't complain about why your movie didn't get nominated and then bring a religious discussion up. Ass.


And water is wet.


----------



## kdelande (Dec 17, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> Geez, could you at least cut to full screen for the In Memoriams, guys? This is just disrespectful. :down:


I didn't follow this in real time last night but this was my biggest gripe of the night. You couldn't even make out who the hell was on the screen sometimes b/c they were so far out trying to get a wide shot of the screen plus Queen Latifa.

Majorly bad production with in memoriam this year. :down::down::down:

KD


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Sparty99 said:


> You realize she hasn't won an Oscar for 27 years, right?


She hasn't deserved one for 26 years. And she didn't deserve this one either. Several performance this year were better.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> And it's over. Final verdict: definitely worse than last year. IMO, the Hugh Jackman experiment didn't work.


And this is why there are many movies. Hugh was way better than the last 10 hosts.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

EVizzle said:


> Peter Gabriel was robbed and insulted. Give the man the chance to sing his entire nominated song for chrissakes!!! And then have it turn into some sort of hideous medley, followed by getting beat. Lame.


He was invited to sing it but turned it down. He complained that the other two songs were going to be given 90 seconds each but he was only offered about 60 seconds to sing his. He didn't think 60 seconds was enough to "do the song justice" (i think that's how I remember reading he put it).

I suppose I can see his point. But then letting somebody else sing the song did it even *less* justice.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

My favorite part of the oscars? Seeing Natalie Portman and Diane Lane. Both are gorgeous.

Did anyone catch Jimmy's show after the Oscars? It was very entertaining.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Where was Jack? He is usually in the front row. And Lakers were not even in town.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> Where was Jack? He is usually in the front row. And Lakers were not even in town.


Mickey Rourke was pretending to be Jack.


----------



## cl8855 (Jan 2, 2009)

rrrobinsonjr said:


> Someone should torture and kill the person who put Jessica Biel in that dress.
> 
> Heath Ledger's win was a really genuine, emotional moment.
> 
> ...


Agree with all these -- but don't forget the cinematographer guy with Rogen and Franco telling the current winning guy to "eat it" or whatever he said

And if you haven't seen "Man on Wire" the documentary about Phillipe walking a wire between the twin towers, it's a must-see. Insane insane to think about what and how they did...


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

brebeans said:


> What??? Given her 15 nominatioins, and performances in Sophie's Choice, Kramer vs. Kramer, Mama Mia, and dozens more, well, I'll defer to actors, Academy and box office as judges.


That's fine. I'll defer to my own judgment of her acting skills. She doesn't make me believe she's the character she's playing, which is my primary criteria of a great actor. I never see just the character - I always see "Meryl Streep playing the character". She's good at accents, but that's not enough to draw me into her portrayals.

Same thing with Jack Nicholson. He's always Jack, just playing someone different each time.


----------



## harrinpj (Oct 29, 2004)

scooterboy said:


> I never see just the character - I always see "Meryl Streep playing the character". She's good at accents, but that's not enough to draw me into her portrayals.


Now I feel the exact opposite, especially about her role in "Doubt." I thought she disappeared into that character.


----------



## pex (Oct 21, 2002)

I just watched it--it was one of the Better Academy Awards I've seen. It still could be shorter, but it seemed to drag less than previous years. I thought Hugh Jackman worked out better than east coast comedians who could never resist snarking about Hollywood.

In sort of a human moment, Dev Patel, who is generally cocky, precocious, and charismatic (check out the Letterman and Daily Show youtubes), seems to be in the grips of a full scale anxiety attack when Best Picture is announced. It's difficult to tell if he's just confused, or ready to throw up. He hides behind everyone when they go on stage, but finally seems to loosen up at the end.



Neenahboy said:


> And the 2008 Best Picture is...
> Slumdog Millionaire! That's eight!


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

rrrobinsonjr said:


> Highlights:
> Martin and Fey


Best segment of a pretty lame year.

I nominate these two to co-host next year's show. If Martin doesn't want to do it again, I'll take Tina Fey by herself as host. :up:



pex said:


> I thought Hugh Jackman worked out better than east coast comedians who could never resist snarking about Hollywood.


Definitely prefer snark to vanilla, which is what Jackman gave us.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> OK, I thoroughly enjoyed Hugh's opening medley. Who knew Wolverine could dance and sing that well?


Anyone who knows that, even before the first X-Men movie, he was Curly in the London stage production of _Oklahoma!_ (the only reason he didn't do the Broadway version is, Actors Equity (the stage version of SAG) threw a fit about hiring "non-American" actors; they compromised and let one non-American from the London cast perform in the Broadway version, but it wasn't Jackman).


Graymalkin said:


> E! had red carpet coverage from 2 p.m. until 8 p.m. I started watching around 6:30 p.m., when the biggest stars were Miley Cyrus and Vanessa Hudgens. That probably was too early.


6:30 Eastern is usually when the big names start arriving, as that's when the KABC (Los Angeles's ABC station) red-carpet show begins. (It doesn't get much coverage out east because the Barbara Walters special always starts at 7 - out west, it airs after the ceremony.)

-- Don


----------



## aintnosin (Jun 25, 2003)

DUDE_NJX said:


> Did anyone catch Jimmy's show after the Oscars? It was very entertaining.


I loved the "preview" of Mel Gibson's "next" movie, _The Colonel_.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Neenahboy said:


> Best Animated Short: La Maison En Petit Cubes. Presto gets upset.


Remember that only people who saw all five of the films - and I think they have to be at Academy-sponsored screenings, so they have a record of who saw all five - can vote in this category.



Sparty99 said:


> Like how they're rifling through some of the awards that no one cares about. I prefer they just sent these guys their trophies via FedEx, but oh well.


The one thing I like about the Academy Awards over other awards shows (well, besides the fact that they're shown live to the west coast) is, they don't have any awards they consider "too minor to show on TV". Then again, the Emmys and Grammys don't do it because nobody wants to watch a seven-hour awards show, and the only reason the Tonys stopped doing it is because CBS threatened to pull the plug on the show after two hours even if they were opening the envelope for Best Musical when it happened.



Peter000 said:


> They're remaking Fame?? Why for god's sake??


To give the finalists of _So You Think You Can Dance?_ jobs. I know Kherington Payne (of "Twitchington") has been cast.

-- Don


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> I liked the opening number and the medley with Beyonce. But I'm old school. I like musicals.


I agree.

These were the highlights of the show for me.

Z


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

That Don Guy said:


> The one thing I like about the Academy Awards over other awards shows (well, besides the fact that they're shown live to the west coast) is, they don't have any awards they consider "too minor to show on TV".


Of course they do -- the technical awards (see Biel, Jessica).


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

The one thing I like about the Academy Awards over other awards shows (well said:


> Well except for the science and technical awards which are given their own show.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

And the Oscar for best smeeking goes to...

{rip}

wedgecon!

{clap clap clap clap...}


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

scooterboy said:


> And the Oscar for best smeeking goes to...


You pipe down there, you Streep-hater, you.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

wedgecon said:


> Well except for the science and technical awards which are given their own show.


Actually, very few scientific and technical award winners get an Oscar (they usually get a plaque or a certificate) - and the ones that do, like the one for the "pioneer of CGI" this year, get mentioned on the Oscar telecast.

-- Don


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

Why was Heath Ledger not listed in the actors lost last year?


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> They're remaking Fame?? Why for god's sake??





That Don Guy said:


> To give the finalists of _So You Think You Can Dance?_ jobs. I know Kherington Payne (of "Twitchington") has been cast.


I'd say that with the crazy polularity and success of the High School Musical movies, that the market is primed and ready for a Fame remake.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Fleegle said:


> Why was Heath Ledger not listed in the actors lost last year?


Ledger died January 22, 2008, and the 80th Academy Awards were on February 24. He was mentioned last year.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Sorry, late to the thread. But I wanted to comment on the following:



terpfan1980 said:


> Steve Martin and Tina Fey's intros for an example. Somewhat entertaining, but unnecessary. Come out, announce the nominees and move along rather than crack stupid jokes.
> 
> See also comments above about self-promotion for idiots such as Bill Maher (uncalled for) and Jack Black (entertaining, but silly and not really needed).


Personally, I think the best part about these awards shows are when the presenters are well matched and have some funny lines. I'd much prefer some good comedy from Steve Martin and Tina Fey than some random winner thanking everyone and their dog. At our house, the presenters get watched and the speeches get FF'd.


Neenahboy said:


> Geez, could you at least cut to full screen for the In Memoriams, guys? This is just disrespectful. :down:


Totally agree. Why did they think they needed to get fancy with the camera work during the "In Memoriam" segment? That was disgraceful. Couldn't even read many of the names because they simply refused to keep the camera still. :down: :down: :down:


Graymalkin said:


> The ad for Wynn's new Encore resort in Vegas was funny: "Next time, we do this in the lobby."


It was funny the first time. But after seeing it constantly for many, many months, I don't think it's funny anymore.


Lori said:


> I missed the performance clips, though. I care more what I think than what Shirley Maclaine thinks about most things, and would have preferred to see clips of the performances that I didn't see.
> 
> Of course, I have long been a proponent of eliminating the pointless production number and giving more time to the nominees...


I agree with your first point. I would have preferred to see clips from the nominated performances. Many of them I know absolutely nothing about and would like some background.

However, I can't agree with your second point. The production number at the beginning is always one of the highlights of the show. (Unless you're talking about the part in the middle where they do a montage of the nominated songs, in which case I agree.)


Neenahboy said:


> Oh, how could I forget to mention my candidate for line of the night?
> 
> Will Smith murdering "Sound Editing" multiple times, followed by, "Boom goes the dynamite!"


I loved when he said something like: "I like action movies. They have big budgets, car chases, explosions, and one other thing. Fans." That was a great dig at the fact that most nominated movies have been seen by about 200 people.


aintnosin said:


> I loved the "preview" of Mel Gibson's "next" movie, _The Colonel_.


Yes, that was funny. I'm glad Gibson was willing to make fun of himself and that ridiculous facial hair.

Overall, I thought Jackman did a pretty good job. The opening musical number was excellent. The tributes to the actor nominees was a nice thought, but overdone, and I missed seeing performance clips. Keep the camera still for the "In Memoriam" segment.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

rrrobinsonjr said:


> Kudos to the director for cutting to Jolie and Pitt while Aniston was on stage. There were agents and publicist burning up the phones after that happened. Guaranteed it'll be the last time we see anything like that for awhile.


I guess I'm curious why the director deserved a kudos for that move. I thought it was rather classless. Aniston's had to deal with enough crap in her live because Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie destroyed her marriage, and then the director decides to remind everyone on Earth of that. Brad and Angelina don't get called out enough for that.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Sparty99 said:


> I guess I'm curious why the director deserved a kudos for that move. I thought it was rather classless. Aniston's had to deal with enough crap in her live because Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie destroyed her marriage, and then the director decides to remind everyone on Earth of that. Brad and Angelina don't get called out enough for that.


We don't agree on much, but I'm totally with you here.


----------



## rrrobinsonjr (Nov 26, 2004)

Sparty99 said:


> I guess I'm curious why the director deserved a kudos for that move. I thought it was rather classless.


I guess you're a better person than most of us.

I promise you that 98% of the audience was preoccupied by the fact that Jolie and Pitt were only a few feet away when Aniston was on stage and wanted to see how they were reacting.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

scooterboy said:


> That's fine. I'll defer to my own judgment of her acting skills. She doesn't make me believe she's the character she's playing, which is my primary criteria of a great actor. I never see just the character - I always see "Meryl Streep playing the character". She's good at accents, but that's not enough to draw me into her portrayals.
> 
> Same thing with Jack Nicholson. He's always Jack, just playing someone different each time.


Jack's joker was the exact opposite of Ledger's joker. There was 0% Heath Ledger in Dark Knight.

-smak-


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

rrrobinsonjr said:


> I guess you're a better person than most of us.
> 
> I promise you that 98% of the audience was preoccupied by the fact that Jolie and Pitt were only a few feet away when Aniston was on stage and wanted to see how they were reacting.


Actually, I'm guessing they were either thinking (a) this joke is really lame and they need to get on with the show or (b) this is actually moderately funny although I really don't like Jack Black. And believe me, I don't think I'm better than anyone. But I thought it was really classless.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

flyers088 said:


> Anne Hathaway needs to visit a tan booth.


Tan looks very unhealthy these days.. pale is the new healthy look.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

marksman said:


> Tan looks very unhealthy these days.. pale is the new healthy look.


I prefer my women with alabaster skin to the overly tan ones whose skin will be leather on 20 years.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> OK, I thoroughly enjoyed Hugh's opening medley. Who knew Wolverine could dance and sing that well?


Well he can dance, sing? Not so much.

Let's hear it for the hot chick from Big Love though! Mamma Mia indeed!


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Figaro said:


> Well he can dance, sing? Not so much.
> 
> Let's hear it for the hot chick from Big Love though! Mamma Mia indeed!


The hot chick from Veronica Mars you mean? 

She was dead so even sexier 

-smak-


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Fleegle said:


> I prefer my women with alabaster skin to the overly tan ones whose skin will be leather on 20 years.


As do I.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> The production number at the beginning is always one of the highlights of the show. (Unless you're talking about the part in the middle where they do a montage of the nominated songs, in which case I agree.)


I'm not talking about either of those, actually. 

I love the opening song, and I think that the nominated songs medley is fine. I object to the pointless production number about 3/4 through the show...the one where they celebrate cinematography, or dance, or foreign films or something not related at all to the show.

This year's version of that seemed to involve Hugh Jackman and Beyonce singing something from Grease.  Get rid of that little waste of my time, and you bring the show in on time. Simple.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I DVR'd it and caught the Ledger win I wanted to see and the rest was pretty much FF material for me...


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

EVizzle said:


> Peter Gabriel was robbed and insulted.


+1



Jeeters said:


> He was invited to sing it but turned it down. He complained that the other two songs were going to be given 90 seconds each but he was only offered about 60 seconds to sing his.


He objected to the entire medley concept.
Which, I don't blame him - sticking it in the middle of 2 songs by the same composer from the same movie?

I saw an interview he did and all 3 songs were getting an equal 85 seconds.

The single version of Down to Earth runs 5:58. Musically, if you are a Gabriel fan, 85 seconds is usually an intro 

Personally, I would have preferred an abridged version live performance with Peter Gabriel than most of the montages or most of the Beyonce musical number...


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Lori said:


> This year's version of that seemed to involve Hugh Jackman and Beyonce singing something from Grease.  Get rid of that little waste of my time, and you bring the show in on time. Simple.


Funny, I don't remember that segment being 25 minutes long. Which is how long the show went over by.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Did anyone else think Beyonce was lip syncing? I could hear Hugh breathing in his mic, but Beyonce sounded almost too perfect...


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Did anyone else think Beyonce was lip syncing? I could hear Hugh breathing in his mic, but Beyonce sounded almost too perfect...


There is some stuff on the news wire today that seems to indicate that Beyonce was the sole lip syncer at the Oscars. All the rest went live.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Did anyone else think Beyonce was lip syncing? I could hear Hugh breathing in his mic, but Beyonce sounded almost too perfect...


Yeah she was not singing for real.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

scooterboy said:


> That's fine. I'll defer to my own judgment of her acting skills. She doesn't make me believe she's the character she's playing, which is my primary criteria of a great actor. I never see just the character - I always see "Meryl Streep playing the character". She's good at accents, but that's not enough to draw me into her portrayals.
> 
> Same thing with Jack Nicholson. He's always Jack, just playing someone different each time.


I could not disagree more regarding Meryl Streep. I can't think of any film actor, of either gender, living or dead, who has anywhere close to her range. It's far more than just her uncanny ability with accents that makes her great.

When I watch Sophie (of _Sophie's Choice_), Karen Silkwood, and Lindy Chamberlain (_A Cry in the Dark_), it's hard for me to even believe it's the same person each time. They couldn't be more different from one another. (Have you seen _A Cry in the Dark_? That one gets overlooked a lot, but she is fantastic playing a woman who can be fairly unsympathetic at times).

I completely agree wrt Jack, though. Same voice, same accent, similar mannerisms. Always Jack, just variations on a theme.



Lori said:


> I think that she *can be* a phenomenal actress, but she has picked some really terrible films, which do not show her off to her best effect.
> 
> Prairie Home Companion? Mamma Mia? Music of the Heart?
> 
> Blech.


_Mamma Mia_ was a huge hit and was probably a blast to film. I thought it was silly too, but a lot of people loved it. I can't imagine many actresses who would have turned it down.

_Prairie Home Companion_, while not my fave either, was a chance to work with Robert Altman on what turned out to be his last film. Again, not a role many actresses would have turned down.

Given how many movies Meryl Streep has made over her career, I'd say there were very few dogs in the bunch. The only one I can remember really disliking is the one with Roseanne (She-Devil?), and even in that one, Meryl was pretty funny even though the movie was not.

Having said all that, I'm really glad Kate Winslet won this year and it's long overdue. :up: I thought she deserved to win for _Sense and Sensibility_ way back in 1995, but she lost to Mira Sorvino (who apparently won for doing a squeaky voice). 

The only real upset this year seemed to be the foreign language film. I'm astonished that _Waltz with Bashir_ didn't win. I thought maybe _The Class_ would pull an upset, but I haven't even heard of the film that won.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Magnolia88 said:


> I could not disagree more regarding Meryl Streep. I can't think of any film actor, of either gender, living or dead, who has anywhere close to her range. It's far more than just her uncanny ability with accents that makes her great.


This is why people think she can act but the true fact is her accents are god awful. Any one with a decent ear for language can hear the difference. There are so many actors who can do an accent that is completely natural that seeing Meryl strangle the language makes me cringe.

The problem is most actors have a tin ear and when they hear someone even slightly better they think "wow, she is a great actor" and vote for it. I'd love to see the statistics on people with accents winning vice actors who did the role without noticeable accent.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> This is why people think she can act but the true fact is her accents are god awful.


I disagree on both of those points. I think she does a good job with accents, but that's only a very tiny part of why she is so revered as an actress.

First, her ability with accents is not "why people think she can act." Examples of her acclaimed roles that required no unusual accent: _The Devil Wears Prada, Kramer vs. Kramer, Deer Hunter, The Hours, Adaptation, Silkwood, Postcards from the Edge, Marvin's Room, Mamma Mia_ . . . it's a long list. Including _Doubt_, iirc (which I've only seen clips of, but she sounds American to me).

She won an Oscar for _Kramer_ and she's not doing any accent other than her own natural one, afaik.

And I also disagree that her accents are "god awful." I'm not Australian, but I've been told by some Australians that they were impressed by her accent as Lindy Chamberlain in _A Cry in the Dark_ (who was once the most hated woman in Australia, according to the same Australians).

The only "accent" roles that stand out in my memory are Sophie, Lindy Chamberlain, and Karen Blixen in _Out of Africa_. And _Bridges of Madison County_, she had a very slight Italian accent. Most of her roles are Americans.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

I have not read the whole thread, but JUST finished watching the whole show (with some FF-ing). That montage of upcoming films over the ending credits....was there anything in there that even remotely you are looking forward to?
I thought it ironic that most of those films will most likely not be near contention come next year's Oscars.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Magnolia88 said:


> I disagree on both of those points. I think she does a good job with accents, but that's only a very tiny part of why she is so revered as an actress.
> 
> First, her ability with accents is not "why people think she can act." Examples of her acclaimed roles that required no unusual accent: _The Devil Wears Prada, Kramer vs. Kramer, Deer Hunter, The Hours, Adaptation, Silkwood, Postcards from the Edge, Marvin's Room, Mamma Mia_ . . . it's a long list. Including _Doubt_, iirc (which I've only seen clips of, but she sounds American to me).
> 
> ...


We're gonna have to agree to disagree. But, there is a reason why she only one 2 of the times she was nominated. Each time someone was better. It has been 25 years since she won..... Largely bad luck but interesting anyway.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

jilter said:


> I have not read the whole thread, but JUST finished watching the whole show (with some FF-ing). That montage of upcoming films over the ending credits....was there anything in there that even remotely you are looking forward to?
> I thought it ironic that most of those films will most likely not be near contention come next year's Oscars.


One is probably a lock already - _Up_ for Animated Feature.

(Maybe I blinked and missed it, but I was surprised the list included _Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince_ but not the upcoming _Hannah Montana_ movie. And was the new _Star Trek_ movie included?

And what about the continued threat of a SAG strike - especially as SAG voted about 3-1 to reject what they call the producers' "last, best, and final offer"?)

-- Don


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

jilter said:


> That montage of upcoming films over the ending credits....was there anything in there that even remotely you are looking forward to?


_500 Days of Summer_ with Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It got great buzz at Sundance this year. Zooey was outstanding as the female lead in _All the Real Girls_ about 5-6 years ago. She was oscar-caliber in that movie; completely different than the sidekick roles and light fluff she usually does. _500 Days_ looks to be putting her back into a great leading lady role. :up:

I had high hopes for Tarantino's _Inglorious Bastards_. The footage they showed during the credits was the first I'd seen; it looked rather corny.  :down:


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

terpfan1980 said:


> Why remake Pelham either... It's not like the original wasn't really, really good. But that same question could be asked of a bunch of movies each year.


I just saw this and really enjoyed Travolta's performance. I hope he gets some recognition for it.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

timckelley said:


> I just saw this and really enjoyed Travolta's performance. I hope he gets some recognition for it.


Too bad he didn't feel up to supporting the movie as he was contractually obligated.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

I'm sorry. I won;t see any movies with Travla, Cruise or any other Scientologists in it.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Too bad he didn't feel up to supporting the movie as he was contractually obligated.


Are you saying he was supposed to promote the movie to get people to come see it, and he refused to do so?


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Well, his kid did die between wrapping the movie and release. I think we could cut him some slack for not wanting to pretend to want to promote the movie.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Royster said:


> I'm sorry. I won;t see any movies with Travla, Cruise or any other Scientologists in it.


Not even Kelly Preston?


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Apparently not. I haven't seen anything she was in since Jerry Maguire (1995). But she's not exactly a headliner.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Royster said:


> I'm sorry. I won;t see any movies with Travla, Cruise or any other Scientologists in it.


So I assume you've never seen _The Simpsons Movie_?

-- Don


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Royster said:


> I'm sorry. I won;t see any movies with Travla, Cruise or any other Scientologists in it.


While you might not believe in Scientology (and I don't, for the record), this is equivalent to not seeing a movie that has an African-American in it, or someone who's Jewish, or Muslim, or Christian). And how do you know, out of say 100 actors in a movie, that ONE of them isn't a Scientologist? Your choice of course, it's a free country. But it is somewhat of a prejudicial remark.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> While you might not believe in Scientology (and I don't, for the record), this is equivalent to not seeing a movie that has an African-American in it, or someone who's Jewish, or Muslim, or Christian). And how do you know, out of say 100 actors in a movie, that ONE of them isn't a Scientologist? Your choice of course, it's a free country. But it is somewhat of a prejudicial remark.


Not to mention virtually impossible without forgoing movies altogether. There are so many Scientologists in Hollywood that it would be very difficult to find a movie where none were involved. And the amount of time involved to determine whether there are any Scientologists involved in any given movie would not be worth the point you're trying to make.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

That Don Guy said:


> So I assume you've never seen _The Simpsons Movie_?


Nope.



Steveknj said:


> While you might not believe in Scientology (and I don't, for the record), this is equivalent to not seeing a movie that has an African-American in it, or someone who's Jewish, or Muslim, or Christian). And how do you know, out of say 100 actors in a movie, that ONE of them isn't a Scientologist? Your choice of course, it's a free country. But it is somewhat of a prejudicial remark.


It's my money. I have my reasons which I don't have to go into here.

Perhaps I should have said "headliner" instead of "actor".

I used to like an author. I later learned he was a Mormon and a lot of his books were ruined for me because I suddenly saw Mormon themes all through them. I don't read him anymore either.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Royster said:


> Well, his kid did die between wrapping the movie and release. I think we could cut him some slack for not wanting to pretend to want to promote the movie.


With all due respect ( or lack thereoff in truth), the entire world gets by on a max of 3 days of bereavement leave. I think what happened is awful, but Jett died in Jan, it has been five months. If everyone else can go back to work in 3 days, certainly, he can make it back in 150?


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> With all due respect ( or lack thereoff in truth), the entire world gets by on a max of 3 days of bereavement leave. I think what happened is awful, but Jett died in Jan, it has been five months. If everyone else can go back to work in 3 days, certainly, he can make it back in 150?


I won't pretend to understand what they have been through. I'm pretty sure, though, that I wouldn't be up to the emotional demands of a promotional tour for a movie even 150 days after losing one of my children. No way in hell could I go on Letterman, Conan, etc. to smile, tell jokes and talk about a meaningless movie when I felt like my whole world had collapsed.

I'll be the first to admit that our famous actors have it pretty easy. For whatever reason our society treats them way too well and really puts them on a (undeserved, IMO) pedestal. They get paid an insane amount of money to play pretend while a camera rolls for God's sake. However, I have to give the Travoltas a break here. They've lost their son.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

DougF said:


> I won't pretend to understand what they have been through. I'm pretty sure, though, that I wouldn't be up to the emotional demands of a promotional tour for a movie even 150 days after losing one of my children. No way in hell could I go on Letterman, Conan, etc. to smile, tell jokes and talk about a meaningless movie when I felt like my whole world had collapsed.
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that our famous actors have it pretty easy. For whatever reason our society treats them way too well and really puts them on a (undeserved, IMO) pedestal. They get paid an insane amount of money to play pretend while a camera rolls for God's sake. However, I have to give the Travoltas a break here. They've lost their son.


I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's not that he isn't dealing with his son's death. It's that by going on the promotional tour, he'll have to do one of two things: 1) Answer a ton of questions about how he's coping with the loss, which will make him relive the pain in every single interview, and will give every interview a sour note, or 2) ask the interviewers not to bring it up, and therefore pretend like it didn't happen so he can give an upbeat interview extolling the virtues of the movie. Neither option sounds very appealing to me, and if I'm the studio that's promoting the movie, I probably wouldn't want him out there either, given those two scenarios.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Yep, that's the other point I intended to make. There will either be questions about losing his son (awkward) or no questions about losing his son (also awkward). It's a lose-lose. He might as well stay home with his family and continue to recover.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

I also think that losing your son is worse than losing your parent, and probably worse than losing your spouse.


----------

