the 89th Annual Academy Awards - Part 1

[Reek]

yea one 8-10 minute mix of them all. why not? and whoever writes the presenters little back and forth "jokes" needs to be shot in the face cause they never work.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

yea one 8-10 minute mix of them all. why not? and whoever writes the presenters little back and forth "jokes" needs to be shot in the face cause they never work.

I want to know who has that job. It must be the most boring thing to write.

I wonder what causes the shows to vary so much in terms of time. Is it the intro, the "joke" segments, speeches, performances?

 

[dude stannis]

Once Youtube took off it was doom for awards ceremonies.

Maybe next year do another Keaton/Stallone fanboy favourite comeback tale, but this time don't pull the ****ing rug out from under everyone and actually award them, then people might be inclined to tune in.

 

[Mysteryman]

Maybe the slip in the ratings have to do with the show being too damn long?

I am sure that contributed to it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Keaton should have definitely won imo. Like Sly, but I still don't get why he was nominated. Well outside of the bait and switch.

 

[dude stannis]

Folk hero getting cancer, plus action man stepping outside his comfort zone I guess. He was certainly more memorable than Rylance.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Rylance is a damned good actor, but just out of the nominees that year he was pretty low on the list as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Octoberist]

Yes. Rylance could've acted in his sleep in that role because he's that talented. But while he was great, but not a performance where people will talk about for years to come.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I would have given it to Bale, Hardy or Ruffalo. But I also found Rylance deserving. I thought last year was packed in terms of best supporting actor, which is why I found Sly winning odd. He is good in Creed, but I also don't see it is anything exceptional outside of it being a very sentimental situation. And it definitely got me.

 

[Asr]

Or better yet dont show the Oscars live. Record them and edit out all the BS, the food bits and unimportant ****, and broadcast the edited tighter paced version of the Awards on tv. They could stream the unedited live version on the internet.

If you think about it, there's actually not that much point to broadcasting the Oscars to begin with, because how much of it actually interests the average moviegoer? Some of the other awards shows make sense to broadcast, like the Grammys, because of the musical performances, but at the Oscars, there's no "movie" performance. So why don't they just have a "private" ceremony like those guild awards do?

Watching egoistic actors walk to the stage and say "thank you" to a bunch of other people that I don't know isn't really all that interesting, but I actually would be way more inclined to watch a broadcast that was created to be like a movie itself and left out all of the self-righteous egoistic speeches that usually end up degrading my opinion of the actor giving that speech (way to go Viola Davis on that front btw, now I know she's just as egoistic as the rest of them).

An edited, movie-ified broadcast with music & sound effects, and heck even some CGI-style overproduction, would be way cooler and something I'd actually look forward to every year. If they want to honor the movies, IMO the best way to do that is actually show the damn movies they're honoring by showing longer montages and clips (and they should totally start the Oscars with a montage of the past year's movies anyway, I totally don't get why that wasn't done this year).

I feel like probably the best solution is if they want to broadcast the Oscars, they need to drastically rethink the formula and reduce the runtime to 2 hours at most for network TV, or run it exclusively online if they want to keep it to 3+ hours.

Or I'd watch a movie-ified broadcast which would be way more awesome (pipe dream I know).

 

[Octoberist]

Ah that's a double edged sword isn't it? I agree that I don't think the public can give a crap about the Oscars anymore; more on the gossip and fashion.

And the thing with today's Awards season is most films pre-90's, a lot of the movies nominated were considered mainstream with big stars.

What we call indie movies today were the norm in the 70's. So things have changed.

At the same time, it wouldn't hurt to showcase a movie like Moonlight to the general public. My mom wants to see it now, along with La La Land and Kubo.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The Oscars are still one of the biggest ratings nights of the year, and probably the highest non-sports event. It has a huge social media presence as well. So the public gives some sort of crap.

 

[Reek]

Kimmel's episode tonight started with Guillermo on security tapes getting **** faced and changing the envelopes

 

[Asr]

Ah that's a double edged sword isn't it? I agree that I don't think the public can give a crap about the Oscars anymore; more on the gossip and fashion.

And the thing with today's Awards season is most films pre-90's, a lot of the movies nominated were considered mainstream with big stars.

What we call indie movies today were the norm in the 70's. So things have changed.

At the same time, it wouldn't hurt to showcase a movie like Moonlight to the general public. My mom wants to see it now, along with La La Land and Kubo.

As a fan of movies in general, even the artsy "Oscar-bait" types, I'm one of the people who appreciates finding out about movies as well, so I like that the Oscars give attention to that. But at the same time, I'd vastly prefer if the format of the proceedings would just cut out all of the speeches, as I find them useless (and as I said, they invariably degrade my opinion of the actor or filmmaker, especially for the top awards). More montages & clips and fewer speeches would make me much happier.

And I'm honestly wondering why there wasn't an opening montage this year. Last year's had a great one, I just re-watched it on my computer.

 

[jokesonm3]

 

[titansupes]

yea one 8-10 minute mix of them all. why not? and whoever writes the presenters little back and forth "jokes" needs to be shot in the face cause they never work.

You mean you didn't love last nights thoughtfully written and not-at-all awkwardly delivered Dakota Johnson/Jamie Dornan classic--

"You look familiar..."
"I'm sure I do..."

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I need to watch the whole ceremony. Sounds hilarious.

 

[Mask&Cape]

Are you and Ruth related?

Ruth who?

 

[Mask&Cape]

And we wonder why the world is in the state it's in?

Care to explain?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

The past couple of pages where everyone explains how un-reflective of reality your opinion is really should be enough. And overreaction to non-existent issues is pretty much how we are where we are politically in the world. You do you. But it sounds obtuse and silly to characterize the ending of the Oscars the way you and Ruth have.

 

[Mask&Cape]

The past couple of pages where everyone explains how un-reflective of reality your opinion is really should be enough. And overreaction to non-existent issues is pretty much how we are where we are politically in the world. You do you. But it sounds obtuse and silly to characterize the ending of the Oscars the way you and Ruth have.

In what way has my opinion been an "over reaction"?

I simply set my opinion down and asked what he did that deserved praise on twitter, etc. I haven't been out on the street with a sandwich board hailing the end of days or windy ranting on social media. I wasn't calling for his crucifixion.

As to being "a non-existent issue"? It happened, therefore it exists.

Is is important? No. The two are totally different.

And it has been 18 pages of discussions on the Oscars themselves in this thread, that is a lot of discussion for a similarly unimportant topic.

To say my comment that that a Hollywood producer behaved like a bully is a reflection on the state of the world today is *closer to* actual over reaction.

 

[Mask&Cape]

Once Youtube took off it was doom for awards ceremonies.

How so?

 

[Octoberist]

In what way has my opinion been an "over reaction"?

I simply set my opinion down and asked what he did that deserved praise on twitter, etc. I haven't been out on the street with a sandwich board hailing the end of days or windy ranting on social media. I wasn't calling for his crucifixion.

As to being "a non-existent issue"? It happened, therefore it exists.

Is is important? No. The two are totally different.

And it has been 18 pages of discussions on the Oscars themselves in this thread, that is a lot of discussion for a similarly unimportant topic.

To say my comment that that a Hollywood producer behaved like a bully is a reflection on the state of the world today is *closer to* actual over reaction.

No.

That 'bully' hugged Barry, and Barry HIMSELF thanked him on CBS Monday morning for being so respectful and understanding, and his efforts to to clear the air on live TV. Both parties talked in the backstage area and everyone's fine because they're adults, and they knew there was just a monster mistake.

Also, it feels like we all are putting too much stock on the gif. When you're watching the entire thing, that 'card pulling' thing happened so fast that I'm sure Warren didn't care. The producer was trying to communicate with the 'Moonlight' team to head up to the stage, while ensuring the audience that it wasn't all a joke.

And I'm sure Warren was more concerned about the confusion with the cards. And he's Warren "Dick Tracy Beeping Clyde" Beatty.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I'm surprised Russian hackers weren't mentioned after the confuse with envelopes.

 

[Octoberist]

It was the Russians.