The Real Deal Oscar Predictions - Part 3

[scifiwolf]

I watched a few wins, but skipped most of the ceremony. Really annoyed that Inception lost best score to TSN. That score seemed more like background noise to me rather than actual music. Of all the nominees, Inception was the only score which I could remember months after seeing the film, and the only one that did more than just supplement the movie. It f**king elevated it, and was a huge part of driving the tension and supplying the emotional core of the film. For the most part, though, I thought this year the Oscars actually were deserved in each category. Best score and director I thought were bulls**t, but everything else seemed right on. Oh, I thought editing was bulls**t as well. That should have gone to Inception, and it didn't even get the nom.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

James Franco didn't give a s*** which I thought was awesome.

Haha, thought it was awesome too.

 

[byte19]

I've already said it wolf... Reznor/Atticus made a score with Logic, pianos, and Loops and Drones Sounds I use... suddenly the music I make is better than Hans Zimmer's? I'm trying to BE Zimmer!!

 

[scifiwolf]

Forgot to comment on Christian Bale's speech. Very cool, very touching. I kinda chuckled when he crossed that line from thanking/honoring Dickie to plugging his services and website, especially as people started booing. Oh well. There are far more annoying causes actors have plugged when using the thank you podium as a bully pulpit.

 

[Spider-Fan]

LOL! Franco seemed high and not to care about anything, LOL!

Hathaway wasn't half bad hosting, but wasn't great. Jackman was a better host.

Very predictable award winners.

 

[lime]

I predicted 16 ouf of 20 winners. The only one I missed were:

Art Direction (was going with King's Speech)
Cinematography (was going with Deakins)
Score (was going with King's Speech)

and as every year I missed Foreign Language Film.

PS:

I don't give a damn that Roager Deakins lost 8 times. The award must go for the best in the category not for the one that lost the most. Deakins is an amazing cinematographer but he was more deserving for he's work on Jesse James and The Village (where he didn't even get nominated).

Wally Pfister is a rare cinematographer. Most cinematographers can make the cinematography on True Grit. Classic landscapes, sunsets etc, but not that many can do an modern cinematography that relies so mutch on the movement of the camera.

My opinion here is proffecional as I myself am a cinematographer.

This was the best Oscars I have seen since 2004. I liked all the winners, and thaught they deserved they're awards.

The only one I don't agree is Directing. Fincher was the better man, but Hooper is very promising talent, and I'm still happy for him.

 

[MadVillainy]

The only award Im particularly upset about is King's Speech for Best Picture.

But hey I know the others were good films.

The ceremony as a whole wasnt that good. Kinda boring and too manny people were awkward. I hope next year they get better people to present or to host. As I said before I wouldnt mind Chris Rock returning

 

[Laderlappen]

I watched a few wins, but skipped most of the ceremony. Really annoyed that Inception lost best score to TSN. That score seemed more like background noise to me rather than actual music. Of all the nominees, Inception was the only score which I could remember months after seeing the film, and the only one that did more than just supplement the movie. It f**king elevated it, and was a huge part of driving the tension and supplying the emotional core of the film. For the most part, though, I thought this year the Oscars actually were deserved in each category. Best score and director I thought were bulls**t, but everything else seemed right on. Oh, I thought editing was bulls**t as well. That should have gone to Inception, and it didn't even get the nom.

I really disagree. Zimmer's score was very good, but Reznor's score was just perfect. Amazing score and he really, really deserved to win.

 

[Kane52630]

they were both great so I wouldn't say one was "snubbed". Like I said before, there was no one last night who was "snubbed" It was expected.

However I thought it was a boring night, even the montages. If only they used this clip, it would at least make things interesting lol

 

[kane9321]

Im so upset about hailee steinfield not winning best supporting actress. That girl stole true grit..she owned the part. The only reason why melissa leo won the oscar was because she lost it to kate winslet back in 09..period. The oscars are a joke

 

[MadVillainy]

Im so upset about hailee steinfield not winning best supporting actress. That girl stole true grit..she owned the part. The only reason why melissa leo won the oscar was because she lost it to kate winslet back in 09..period

not at all

 

[Kane52630]

Im so upset about hailee steinfield not winning best supporting actress. That girl stole true grit..she owned the part. The only reason why melissa leo won the oscar was because she lost it to kate winslet back in 09..period

She earned it though, look at how many films she's been in since that lost. I was rooting for Hailee too but hey she has time to be in the oscars again, where as Leo doesnt have that time anymore.

 

[kane9321]

not at all

very much so

 

[CaptainCanada]

Im so upset about hailee steinfield not winning best supporting actress. That girl stole true grit..she owned the part.

She was a Lead.

very much so

Leo wasn't anything close to a major contender when she was first nominated. The acclaim for her performance is due to people loving her performance (and the Academy loved The Fighter, generally).

Anyway, a few bits of trivia:

- With Bale and Leo's wins, The Fighter is the first film to win two acting Oscars since fellow boxing drama Million Dollar Baby in 2004, and the first film to win both of the supporting acting Oscars since Hannah and Her Sisters (Michael Caine and Dianne Wiest) in 1985.

- True Grit went 0 for 10 nominations, making it one of the biggest losers in Oscar history (the record is held by The Turning Point and The Color Purple, which both went 0 for 11).

 

[Matt]

Well, you know the Academy has run out of causes to put on their yearly pedestal when they are resorting to making stuttering and British snobbery their cause of the year (I'm not really sure which issue The King's Speech pushed more).

Fairly predictable year. Its funny, the Academy reached out to Franco and Hathaway as a means of appealing to a younger demographic. Franco did just that. I am quite positive that his lack of caring and seemingly high demeanor will create some good viral buzz and gather something of a cult following. Yet producers are already basically apologizing for this year's show and already talking about bringing back Billy Crystal to host next year. In appealing to the crowd that they reached out to, they basically turned off everyone else. Hathaway, who was there to reign Franco in and appeal to the more traditional crowd, did a servicable, albeit uninspiring job. She seemed too nervous at times and was overshadowed by Franco's intentionally understated antics.

All around, mediocre year, IMO. Predictable awards with good hosting but at the wrong venue for that type of hosting, which made it seem out of context. I urge ABC to not turn its back on the young demographic but instead bring in someone who can appeal to that demographic while also keeping their normal audience happy. Conan should host next year.

By the way, having seen The King's Speech recently, I have to say, it really wasn't deserving. Having seen all the nominees for best picture aside from Winter's Bone and The Kids Are All Right, I believe that Toy Story 3 deserved the best picture award. But an animated film winning best picture is a pipe dream. The King's Speech is good, but forgettable. Throughout the film, it just tries too hard to be a piece of Collin Firth driven Oscar bait and that pretentiousness shines through (if that makes sense). The only award that it deserved, IMO, it did not get. And that was Rush for best supporting actor. His performance was amazing and trumped Bale's. IMO, Bale's was a make-up Oscar for past snubbings.

 

[Harry_Lime02]

It's a shame Winter's Bone didn't win any awards, even though I knew it wouldn't. That was a good film.

 

[Harry_Lime02]

I don't give a damn that Roager Deakins lost 8 times. The award must go for the best in the category not for the one that lost the most. Deakins is an amazing cinematographer but he was more deserving for he's work on Jesse James and The Village (where he didn't even get nominated).

I hear ya but that's the way it goes, though. Katherine Hepburn once said "The right people win Oscars, but for the wrong films".

Martin Scorsese is one of the biggest examples, of course.

 

[kvz5]

I doubt it. Jack Nicholson was already a two-time Oscar winner when he did Batman and none of the ads mentioned that. Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman were Oscar winners when they did Superman and the ads didn't mention that. When it comes to blockbusters, the Oscars don't really matter.

I figured they didn't add the "Academy Award Winner" label because it is not the lead so it's kinda tacky to add those labels when the lead didn't have it. But I see your point though that for blockbuster movies, the general public rarely cares if the actors are award winners. Nolan's films give the impression though of having serious actors in its ensemble so I can see them using the fact that their lead just won an Oscar to their advantage. I guess my point is, it can go either way.

 

[mclay18]

the most undeserved oscar win was without a doubt The Wolfman..... it literally won by default.. the other two films nominated had only slight aging and scar make-up

the wolfman make-up was absolutely horrible... so horrible they didnt even show it when the oscars had their montage of wolfman.. it was all the CG tranformation scenes from the movie lmao.

The parts of Wolfman that didn't feature CGI transformation and CGI gore looked pretty impressive (not as impressive as the set designs and cinematography though). And Rick Baker deserved some attention, especially the controversy with him not being consulted on the CGI.

 

[Raiden]

LOL! Franco seemed high and not to care about anything, LOL!

Hathaway wasn't half bad hosting, but wasn't great. Jackman was a better host.

Very predictable award winners.

I think Franco and Hathaway were on the different side of a spectrum: Franco doesn't give a s**t about hosting, while Hathaway was excited about the gig and really gave the perception that she wants to impress the crowd. I doubt Franco will ever be asked to host anything, now that the world sees what kind of train wreck he can become. He'll just be stuck to acting for now on, although he made the mistake of showing his bad side to the Hollywood elite and who knows if it will have a reprecussion later on.

 

[dark_b]

I think Franco and Hathaway were on the different side of a spectrum: Franco doesn't give a s**t about hosting, while Hathaway was excited about the gig and really gave the perception that she wants to impress the crowd. I doubt Franco will ever be asked to host anything, now that the world sees what kind of train wreck he can become. He'll just be stuck to acting for now on, although he made the mistake of showing his bad side to the Hollywood elite and who knows if it will have a reprecussion later on.

but wasnt it Franco's idea to call Hathaway?

what he did makes no sense.

 

[Matt]

but wasnt it Franco's idea to call Hathaway?

what he did makes no sense.

Franco did what Franco was hired to do. Provide humor that would appeal to a younger demographic. What people don't get is that Franco didn't phone it in. He did exactly what he was supposed to do. His half stoned demeanor is his comedy. His not giving a **** attitude is his humor. The problem is, the producers completely misinterpreted what appealing to a younger audience means and hired someone whose sense of humor is entirely inappropriate for the venue and just doesn't mesh with it.

 

[kvz5]

but wasnt it Franco's idea to call Hathaway?

what he did makes no sense.

Anne was offered the gig first and she said that was hesitant to accept it and then when they offered it too to Franco, then she accepeted.

 

[Raiden]

Franco did what Franco was hired to do. Provide humor that would appeal to a younger demographic. What people don't get is that Franco didn't phone it in. He did exactly what he was supposed to do. His half stoned demeanor is his comedy. His not giving a **** attitude is his humor. The problem is, the producers completely misinterpreted what appealing to a younger audience means and hired someone whose sense of humor is entirely inappropriate for the venue and just doesn't mesh with it.

Well, just before Oscar begins Franco was given a short interview in front of the camera about how he feels about hosting, and his answer was "It's going to be bad". And after the show ended he didn't even go to his own party, and chose to fly back to Yale on a red-eye. If his performance was intended from the beginning, I doubt he'd be so pessimistic about it, nor would the Oscar producers be apologizing (from what I've heard) about the whole thing.

 

[Matt]

Well, just before Oscar begins Franco was given a short interview in front of the camera about how he feels about hosting, and his answer was "It's going to be bad". And after the show ended he didn't even go to his own party, and chose to fly back to Yale on a red-eye. If his performance was intended from the beginning, I doubt he'd be so pessimistic about it, nor would the Oscar producers be apologizing (from what I've heard) about the whole thing.

You can find countless Oscar hosts who have said similiar things in pre-show interviews. And again, its in tune with Franco's humor. As for him taking a red-eye back to Yale, that's really no suprise. He's been doing it every week in the lead up to the Oscars (flying to L.A. for rehersals, promo shoots, etc on Friday and then taking the red-eye back on Sunday night). Franco is, and I know this is strange considering he is a multi-millionaire, very enthusiastic and serious about his education.

I think the producers should apologize, because they did not understand who they hired. Franco was brought on to get a younger audience. They didn't really research who Franco is as a comedian. And that bit them right in the ass. Franco was not right for the show. His sense of humor was not right for the show. But the blame for that is not on Franco, its on the producers for hiring him. Franco is being scapegoated by producers trying to save face. He did exactly what he was asked to do, be James Franco the comedian. But James Franco's humor just does not mesh with the Oscars.