The Real Deal Oscar Predictions - Part 3

you mean the effects award for the matrix?
 
Doctor Jones said:
I hope so. I would love to see Jackman and Hathaway host.

His reaction to her singing about him got a big laugh out of me. That surprised look he gave her when she shouted. :funny:
Click to expand...
Totally agree with u, i think they would do well together.

Indeed, when they put the camera on him i couldnt stop laughing :woot:
 
I liked this guy's analysis of why "The King's Speech" was mediocre and undeserving of Best Picture
http://tinyurl.com/5szqofx
I’ll try not to linger on this point for too long, but I want to bring it up since this is also my Oscars post: it does bug me that so much lavish praise gets thrown on safe, middle of the road movies like this. They’re like the centrist democrats of movies, they try so hard to please everybody that they get very little done.


They have a broad, mainstream appeal but are British-y and histrory-y enough to seem a little more highbrow and grown up than more technically proficient and more intelligently made popcorn movies. I would argue that other best picture nominees like TOY STORY 3, THE FIGHTER and INCEPTION have the same kind of broad mainstream appeal while also being very distinctive movies, often with something more to say, and in at least 2 of those 3 have much more emotional weight. And one of ‘em’s about dolls.


KING’S SPEECH is fine but I don’t think it’s as good as those movies because it doesn’t challenge you in any way or make you think or do anything you haven’t seen before in a movie or do a better job of anything you have seen before in a movie. It clearly explains its themes in dialogue just to be safe. And it has jokes a little kid can understand.


It doesn’t go as broad as it could with the humor but come on dude, you can’t get much more obvious than ha ha ha, the King is saying “f--k” a whole bunch of times! And in this type of movie since it’s not a comedy and there’s no rule that says it has to be funny then anything that is very mildly somewhat funny-ish will make Seattle audiences laugh a little too hard. So at the “f--k f--k f--k” part they act like it’s 1980 and they’re watching AIRPLANE for the first time.


And there’s even a part where Geoffrey Rush tells the bishop that he’ll have to clear out Westminster Abbey for him to prepare with the King. The bishop looks like steam is about to come out of his ears, and you’re obviously supposed to think “ha ha ha, he’s really sticking it to that uptight clergyman, I’d like to take the starch out of his collar.” I only regret that the bishop doesn’t loosen up and go streaking at the end, or judge a wet t-shirt contest.


The Weinsteins, who you would sense were the producers of this movie even if it had no credits, are apparently re-releasing a PG-13 cut to get more money, so it’s not gonna have the scene where he says **** a bunch of times. I don’t know if they plan to add in some farting or something to make up for it, but at least they’ll still have the part where Geoffrey Rush sits on the throne just to **** with him! Can you believe it? He’s turning the whole system upside down. Next thing you know there’s gonna be teachers standing on their desks throwing text books. The Man has gotta be shakin’ in his boots after the way that King and his buddy stuck it to him. In fact I have a feeling this movie played a big part in what’s gone on recently in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.
* * *
The standard-def wisdom says it’s gonna be THE KING’S SPEECH for best picture with the dark horse outside chance going to THE SOCIAL NETWORK. So it basically comes down to whether more people are willing to vote for a movie about British royalty or one about college kids – I don’t think either one has won a best picture before. But let’s compare the two I guess.


Both are about a priveleged but socially awkward weiner who works hard to achieve something. With THE KING it’s through lessons, with SOCIAL it takes more smarts. Both sort of end up being about the importance of friendship, but in THE KING it’s “and they remained friends afterwards, isn’t that great?”, with SOCIAL NETWORK it’s “and he ruined his friendship, doesn’t that suck?” So they’re coming at it from different angles.
Both are sort of about technology creating a major change in culture, but THE KING is just going with the flow, SOCIAL is getting out in front of it and turning it to his advantage. But THE KING’s goal is to unite the nation going into WWII, SOCIAL’s is just to be the biggest to impress girls. But it’s not like the movie portrays that as a good thing.


Both movies are meant to be non-judgmental about their protagonists, but I think SOCIAL comes across more as a cautionary tale and KING’S as a triumphant underdog. I think both kind of have small, unimportant things to say about the way changes in technology affect our culture, neither is real deep. But SOCIAL is a far better piece of filmatism as far as photography, editing and music, a far more layered and interesting script about a more difficult to dramatize subject. And as good as Colin Firth is I think plenty of fine British actors could’ve pulled off that role, but very few if any twentysomething nerds could’ve handled the personality and mouthsful of dialogue that Jesse Eisenberg did in his. So I’d give the Oscar to the kid. Don’t think they will, but they should.
Click to expand...
 
byte19 said:
it took me a minute... but someone here said Inception's co-leading 4 wins will not be remembered.... like that Reeves movie where he's falling backwards in slo-motion? you know, that gun and karate flick... what was it? -_-
Click to expand...

Point Break.
 
Matt said:
I love Tosh, but he will never be allowed to do it. :( Knowing the Academy, they will probably think the best way to appeal to younger crowds without pissing off the Hollywood establishment is to hire Dane Cook. :(
Click to expand...

Of course Tosh wouldn't be allowed to do it. It would be the most awesome Oscars ever, but he probably wouldn't make it halfway through the show due to either producers pulling him or him getting into fights with hollywood celebrities.

And please don't give them that idea of Dane Cook. Few people would watch.
 
eh all stars hate each other :ninja:

But seriously even if Franco was doing the whole "lazy uncaring un-energetic" thing as an act/good it was a stupid decision and didnt pan out very well

I like Franco as an actor and look forward to his next projects, but I pray he doesnt host again
 
Yeah. To be honest, I really liked Hathaway as host. She was really enthusiastic and you can tell she wanted to be there.
 
EH I didnt find her funny but yeah at least she brought alot of energy and postiveness (not a word) which I liked
 
I found her funny in some scenes but I give her a lot more credit for her enthusiasm and energy. Just pair her with a comedian and that would be great.
 
I was convinced that Franco knew he had bad material to work with, so he didn't try (high or not) while Hathaway came off as trying too hard.

I thought these were interesting reads...

http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2011/02/oscar-2011-dont-blame-james-franco-and.html

Monday, February 28, 2011

Oscar 2011: Don't blame James Franco and Anne Hathaway, blame the writers.



Last year, I wrote a post-Oscar essay that got me quoted in Time Magazine. This year I have no such profundities to offer. But let me simply say that while this truly was the worst Oscar telecast in at least as long as I've been watching (since I was just short of 12-years old in 1992), the blame lies not with the hosts, but with the material. Many have commented that James Franco all-but started the show with a stunning display of apathy and disinterest. While we can all joke about whether he was stoned, or whether he was thinking about one of the 6,000 other activities he is currently involved in, the truth may be much simpler: Franco probably saw the material that had been written for him and Ms. Hathaway, and he damn-well knew he was in for a rough ride. So while Franco seemingly tuned out, Hathaway did the opposite, going absolutely for-broke, refusing to go down without a fight. But while Anne Hathaway and James Franco are excellent actors (and their hosting last night does not change that), not everyone can make lemonade out of lemons.

For whatever reason, the writers of last night's events seemed to think that everyone's favorite part of an awards show is the part where two mismatched presenters ramble through poorly-scripted banter and make painful attempts to appear charming and flirtatious. Because, with few exceptions, the entire show was one piece of awkward banter after another. The whole show reeked of older writers attempting to appeal to younger viewers, with little-to-no idea how to do that. Because if there is anything that young kids love, it's being pandered or condescended to. No, awkward references to smart-phone aps, Auto-Tunes, Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, and 'the Internet' are not going to appear hip/cool to the young kids. And bringing Halle Berry onstage to memorialize Lena Horne is only to make it that much more noticeable that not a single minority was nominated for a major award last night. And spoiling the finales of several nominated films (True Grit, Toy Story 3, The King's Speech) doesn't inspire viewers to check those films out later. You want to try appealing to the young kids, first of all, try not leaving Corey Haim off your 'In Memoriam' tribute. Second of all, and this gets me back to my original point, try giving the kids an entertaining show with jokes that were actually clever and rewarded those who actually followed the movie business with any amount of verve.

download.jpg


The opening monologue seemed to resemble two hosts whose teleprompters broke and left them to fend for themselves. Much of the written material indeed seemed like some older writer writing jokes that he/she knew didn't work, but was sure that 'the kids will think that's funny'. Out-of-left field references to Back to the Future are not funny (I bet they paid Crispin Glover for that clip just to be on the safe side). Implying that the Andy's mother in Toy Story 3 was a lesbian just because she's a single mother isn't funny. Having James Franco arbitrarily show up in drag isn't funny, especially as a caper to an otherwise amusing musical number. Having James Franco and Anne Hathaway's family members stand up and then not say anything funny... also not funny. That you or I could arguably write better material than what was delivered last night is almost without question. What is most shocking is how little genuine material appeared to be written in the first place. Franco and Hathaway are, at heart, not stage comedians. They aren't trained to ad-lib when the material stinks. They don't have a working relationship with each other that they can play off of when the jokes turn stale. And, unlike in their respective Saturday Night Live hosting sessions, they didn't have a stable of reliable improv artists who could salvage a weak skit or know when to go off-page. It's easier to maintain your dignity during a weak piece of comedy when you have Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig watching your back.

These two would-be hosts were chosen as hosts because someone at the top thought they represented 'exciting new stars', never-mind that both of them have been in the industry for ten years. But they are first-and-foremost actors, trained to perform characters and dialogue that was written by someone else on a film set. And not every actor can be an Oscar host. As was painfully evident, not everyone can be Billy Crystal. And in the realm of sketch comedy or improvisation, there is a world of difference between Christopher Walken and Robert De Niro. Anne Hathaway and James Franco trusted their writers to provide them a life raft as they dove headfirst into the water. Little did they realize, until it was too late, that they were diving into an empty pool. In the end, Franco and Hathaway were victims of a misguided strategy that genuinely believed that bringing aboard two bright and vivacious young movie stars would be entertainment in-and-of-itself. Hathaway certainly won a good-sportsmanship award. Franco probably has material for another documentary or short play or PhD thesis or interpretive dance. But the only people laughing last night were David Letterman and Ricky Gervais.

Scott Mendelson
Click to expand...
http://www.badassdigest.com/2011/02...-performance-art-deconstruction-of-the-oscars

James Franco’s Brilliant Performance Art Deconstruction Of The Oscars
By Devin Faraci | February 28, 2011 | Reviews | 44 Comments


While tonight’s Oscar ceremony was all about honoring work done last year, some of the most exciting acting of the new century was taking place on the stage at the Kodak Theater. Co-host James Franco, in a stunning act of bravura and sustained performance art, masterfully and completely deconstructed the ceremony and telecast.

It puzzled many why a young, interesting actor like Franco would take a lame job like hosting the Oscars, but tonight answered that question. For a little more than three hours the immortally talented actor took us on a journey; he began the night game and filled with possibility during the opening skit, but as the hours wore on his enthusiasm dampened and waned. Halfway through he tested the very boundaries of our concepts of humiliation by coming out on stage in Marilyn Monroe drag for a piece that was anti-comedy in the finest Andy Kaufman tradition. Finally by the end Franco was apathy personified, lazily reading his lines from the teleprompter, seemingly unclear that The King’s Speech had just won Best Picture, and even rolling his eyes in the final moments of the show. It was breathtaking, and the commitment that he showed to his performance piece was astonishing. In just over three hours Franco had taken us through the entire awards season, starting with the excitement of Telluride and Toronto, stopping at the ****ing of the guild and critic awards (the Diamonds Are A Girl’s Best Friend dress!) and ending with the sheer hateful exhaustion at the Kodak – complete with the prediction of us all eventually forgetting who even won this year.

Of course Franco couldn’t do it alone. Anne Hathaway, who had not been previously known to have an interest in avant-garde performance, played opposite the actor and sketched the arc of a person slowly becoming unhinged, throwing herself into all of the stupidest moments and unfunniest jokes of the night with daring aplomb. Her ability to project a desperate desire to keep this sinking ship of an awards show afloat with only the sheer force of her flop-sweated will was the exact perfect counterpoint to Franco’s performance as a guy just giving up and essentially tanking the jokes on purpose.

Bravo, James, for daring to use the Oscar telecast as an opportunity to examine our own fatigue with awards season. Kudos, Anne, for throwing yourself totally into the part of a performer dying on stage for three excruciating hours. Your skill, your talent and your sheer artistry at tonight’s Oscars should be a glorious high water mark for acting as a craft, as an art and as a form of communication.
Click to expand...
 
Against my better judgement I watched the oscars and it was terrible as usual but this time it was especially terrible. I love Anne Hathaway but she was a little too excited and James Franco didn't even try, he was beyond terrible. And there was not one surprise win.

As for the awards: The Oscars are useless and all about politics and friends patting eachother on the back. 85% of the time the least interesting movie wins as it did last night. I'm going to always remember Incpetion and The Social Network because they are great films all around to me and I will forget the mostly boring and totally unimportant The King's Speech like I forgot Crash and everyother "okay to bad" movie that they have made win.

P.S

I'm sure he's a nice guy and it's nothing personal but I doubt that anybody going to filmschool will be inspired by Tom Hooper and his "Royals aren't usless like we really know that they are" movie.

The best picture winner wasn't even the worst of the night, it was Tom Hoopers win for doing absolutely nothing great or interesting direction wise. He was easily the worst nominee of the night...and he won!

Anyway, I won't be looking forward to next year when the Wiensteins buy another best picture award for yet another uninteresting period peice. I'm going to finally start looking at the Oscars as the joke that they are. And thats not because my two favorites of the year didn't win, it's because they made the least ambitious film win. I mean, I like Black Swan the least out of the nominees but atleast it was more interesting than The King's Speech.
 
I SEE SPIDEY said:
Against my better judgement I watched the oscars and it was terrible as usual but this time it was especially terrible. I love Anne Hathaway but she was a little too excited and James Franco didn't even try, he was beyond terrible. And there was not one surprise win.

As for the awards: The Oscars are useless and all about politics and friends patting eachother on the back. 85% of the time the least interesting movie wins as it did last night. I'm going to always remember Incpetion and The Social Network because they are great films all around to me and I will forget the mostly boring and totally unimportant The King's Speech like I forgot Crash and everyother "okay to bad" movie that they have made win.

P.S

I'm sure he's a nice guy and it's nothing personal but I doubt that anybody going to filmschool will be inspired by Tom Hooper and his "Royals aren't usless like we really know that they are" movie.

The best picture winner wasn't even the worst of the night, it was Tom Hoopers win for doing absolutely nothing great or interesting direction wise. He was easily the worst nominee of the night...and he won!

Anyway, I won't be looking forward to next year when the Wiensteins buy another best picture award for yet another uninteresting period peice. I'm going to finally start looking at the Oscars as the joke that they are. And thats not because my two favorites of the year didn't win, it's because they made the least ambitious film win. I mean, I like Black Swan the least out of the nominees but atleast it was more interesting than The King's Speech.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
i agree i hate that it won

but..

this is the academy and that film had tons of academy checks marked off

British
period piece
character with a disorder
British
British
British

LOL
 
I SEE SPIDEY said:
I'm sure he's a nice guy and it's nothing personal but I doubt that anybody going to filmschool will be inspired by Tom Hooper and his "Royals aren't usless like we really know that they are" movie.

The best picture winner wasn't even the worst of the night, it was Tom Hoopers win for doing absolutely nothing great or interesting direction wise. He was easily the worst nominee of the night...and he won!
Click to expand...

Actually direction wise he was very good. The cinetography and the camera work for The King's Speech was top notch and I found myself amazed by the framing, positioning, and composition of each scene to create very dynamic camera angles. In fact, I was most impressive with the camera work in The King's Speech than any of the other nominees.

With that said, I didn't think he was the best of the nominees. Fincher should've gotten the award, but to say he did nothing great or interesting direction wise is definitely an overexaggeration from a technical point of view. I just have to stand up for Hooper.
 
Yeah, Hathaway's enthusiasum was great.

Franco, yeah, some people got it (a very small percentage) and liked it, but that won't cut it for something like this.

Get a charismatic showman like Jackman and Hathaway's enthusiasum and female aspect and they would work quite well off eachother.

Or get Tom Hanks to do it, then it would be fine. Even better RDJ, but do it in the right way with him.
 
From what I've seen so far, yes it is. Fincher is the best working director today.
 
i may watch the kings speech one day but in no hurry the trailers even bored me LOL
 
Here are some interesting facts...

http://www.slashfilm.com/infographics-analyzing-2011-academy-awards/

Infographics: Analyzing the 2011 Academy Awards
Posted on Tuesday, March 1st, 2011 by Peter Sciretta

A couple different websites have put together infographics analyzing different aspects of the 2011 AcademyAwards: From visualizations of the Twitter response to the Oscar telecast, to graphed out charts showing the various lengths of all the acceptance speeches throughout the night, and Oscar Twitter Worldwide Trending Topics list.


From Techcrunch:
ZZ54867180.jpg


From What the Trend:


From Mashable:
ZZ2AFB121A.jpg


From

The National Post:
Click to expand...
 
I liked the King's Speech, love Colin Firth and I think Facebook itself is a waste of time, but even I have to give it to TSN this year. As a film it was a near perfect composition, whereas the 1st act of TKS was lit and shot like a Japanese horror movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
The Real Deal Oscar Predictions
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
56K
Thread Manager
T
lime
  • Locked
The Real Deal Oscar Predictions
43 44 45
Replies
1K
Views
81K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
The Real Deal Oscar Predictions - Part 2
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
40K
Thread Manager
T
T
Summer 2011 box office predictions - Part 3
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
Hurm...
Hurm...
T
  • Locked
2012: A Monster Year? (box office predictions) - Part 3
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
28K
Thread Manager
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 4,142 (members: 15, guests: 4,127)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,382
Messages
22,094,879
Members
45,889
Latest member
Starman68

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"