|
Post by Eric on Mar 8, 2010 1:04:18 GMT -5
I think James Cameron was actually really happy that Kathryn won. He literally jumped to his feet when her name was called for Best Director. It was nice to see. I didn't notice that. I guess I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but I still wouldn't be surprised to find out he's angry considering his notorious temper.
|
|
|
Post by Wyndam on Mar 8, 2010 1:47:10 GMT -5
Everyone that was predicted to win, did, this year. So the rest of the nominees had like 3 months to prepare for losing.
|
|
drusillacakes
Ensouled Vampire
Teacup Humans
Fond memories[Mo0:19]
Posts: 1,680
|
Post by drusillacakes on Mar 8, 2010 2:05:57 GMT -5
Sandra Bullock-- best speech ever. Probably my favorite moment of this (long) evening. Kathryn Bigelow-- Not so much. But it seemed to me that she didn't expect to win so I won't hold it against her. Plus, Strange Days, one of my favorite movies. So I'm really happy these two people won.
Fashion wise-- Nay-- I have to agree with Executrix, Zoe Saldana does look like she's lost at the prom. It was kind of a hot mess. SJP's spray on tan and Chanel dress was pretty lackluster. And Jennifer Lopez... sigh. I think I had a Barbie who had a dress similar to hers.
Yay--Kate Winslet looked awesome, as did Sandra Bullock, Cameron Diaz, and Elizabeth Banks. Carey Mulligan is adorable.
Also, did you guys know that the dance sequence featured the cast of So You Think You Can Dance, and the guy who plays Mike Chang on Glee? My sister told me that. She's all hip with the knowing stuff about stuff.
*Yawn* Gotta say, pretty boring overall.
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Mar 8, 2010 10:25:28 GMT -5
I just read online that they forgot Farrah Fawcett in the "In Memoriam" (or whatever it's called) at the Oscars last night. Thinking back, it's true! WTF!? That's terrible.
|
|
Randi Giles
Wise-cracking Sidekick
I Want to Believe
Moon Eyes in disguise.[Mo0:34]
Posts: 2,616
|
Post by Randi Giles on Mar 8, 2010 10:38:57 GMT -5
Did they really forget about her. Well what do expect that whole thing was pretty much a mess or a bore. The best part for me was probably Robert Downey Jr. and Tina Fey, Sandra's speech and that's about it.
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Mar 8, 2010 11:52:14 GMT -5
What I don't understand is how the biggest night of Hollywood got so fraked up. I mean, they've been doing these for decades now. I also really hate that stupid thing they introduced last year, where the nominees for Best Actor/Actress get a little spiel from a fellow actor/actress. It takes too much time, and really, unless the person doing the introduction has hilarious comic timing (e.g. Stanley Tucci), it's just annoying. And truth be told, I diverted my attention for something like 5 seconds, and I totally missed the "Best Picture" award announcement... was only clued in when I saw Kathryn Bigelow head back out. I mean, the biggest award of the night, and they allowed it to just get rushed through? Seriously?!
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Mar 8, 2010 11:58:17 GMT -5
What I don't understand is how the biggest night of Hollywood got so fraked up. I mean, they've been doing these for decades now. I also really hate that stupid thing they introduced last year, where the nominees for Best Actor/Actress get a little spiel from a fellow actor/actress. It takes too much time, and really, unless the person doing the introduction has hilarious comic timing (e.g. Stanley Tucci), it's just annoying. And truth be told, I diverted my attention for something like 5 seconds, and I totally missed the "Best Picture" award announcement... was only clued in when I saw Kathryn Bigelow head back out. I mean, the biggest award of the night, and they allowed it to just get rushed through? Seriously?! The same thing happened to me during the best picture announcement! For the acting awards they spend ten minutes with five different people telling all five nominees' life stories, only to have the presenter come out and go over the nominees again! When it comes to the best picture, they just have Forrest Gump come out and announce it just like that? WTF?
|
|
Jezebel Jinx
Descendant of a Toaster Oven
[Mo0:15]
Posts: 640
|
Post by Jezebel Jinx on Mar 8, 2010 12:05:25 GMT -5
I just read online that they forgot Farrah Fawcett in the "In Memoriam" (or whatever it's called) at the Oscars last night. Thinking back, it's true! WTF!? That's terrible. I don't know if they forgot about her, I think they just left her off. I recall reading something a couple hours ago that the Oscar head people said they didn't include her (or a few other celeb's who died this year) because they didn't have the room or they couldn't have everyone in the tribute because it would have taken too much time or something along those lines. Either way it sucks.
|
|
Hellbound Hyperion
Bad Ass Wicca
$20 per soul, no refunds[/B]
Dude, you just rescued a puppy![Mo0:18]
Posts: 2,268
|
Post by Hellbound Hyperion on Mar 8, 2010 12:13:28 GMT -5
What I don't understand is how the biggest night of Hollywood got so fraked up. I mean, they've been doing these for decades now. I also really hate that stupid thing they introduced last year, where the nominees for Best Actor/Actress get a little spiel from a fellow actor/actress. It takes too much time, and really, unless the person doing the introduction has hilarious comic timing (e.g. Stanley Tucci), it's just annoying. And truth be told, I diverted my attention for something like 5 seconds, and I totally missed the "Best Picture" award announcement... was only clued in when I saw Kathryn Bigelow head back out. I mean, the biggest award of the night, and they allowed it to just get rushed through? Seriously?! The same thing happened to me during the best picture announcement! For the acting awards they spend ten minutes with five different people telling all five nominees' life stories, only to have the presenter come out and go over the nominees again! When it comes to the best picture, they just have Forrest Gump come out and announce it just like that? WTF? Well, if you think about it, the night is kinda structured to be like that. They introduce and show clips from the Best Picture films throughout the night so that all that needs to be done at the very end is pop out the envelope and say "ta-da!" It did go by unnaturally fast despite the set-up, but it wasn't like they were going to painstakingly cover the ten films all over again.
|
|
drusillacakes
Ensouled Vampire
Teacup Humans
Fond memories[Mo0:19]
Posts: 1,680
|
Post by drusillacakes on Mar 8, 2010 12:15:41 GMT -5
What I don't understand is how the biggest night of Hollywood got so fraked up. I mean, they've been doing these for decades now. I also really hate that stupid thing they introduced last year, where the nominees for Best Actor/Actress get a little spiel from a fellow actor/actress. It takes too much time, and really, unless the person doing the introduction has hilarious comic timing (e.g. Stanley Tucci), it's just annoying. And truth be told, I diverted my attention for something like 5 seconds, and I totally missed the "Best Picture" award announcement... was only clued in when I saw Kathryn Bigelow head back out. I mean, the biggest award of the night, and they allowed it to just get rushed through? Seriously?! The same thing happened to me during the best picture announcement! For the acting awards they spend ten minutes with five different people telling all five nominees' life stories, only to have the presenter come out and go over the nominees again! When it comes to the best picture, they just have Forrest Gump come out and announce it just like that? WTF? Forest Gump... Well, they did have presenters throughout the night talk about the films and show clips, but they do that every year, no? I guess the people running the show thought it would be too much work to list the 10 films that are nominated again since it's been a long time that this many were nom'd for the Best Picture award, and they were going over their time limit. They wouldn't go over their time limit if they didn't draw out Best Actress/Actor. I mean, that's why we watch Oscar specials-- to hear about their life stories. I don't need to see it again. It irked me too, but by then, I really just wanted it to be over. I'm also hearing on the news that there was a 14% increase in viewership. I think it's because of the James Cameron/Katheryn Bigelow hype. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Mar 8, 2010 12:18:13 GMT -5
I just read online that they forgot Farrah Fawcett in the "In Memoriam" (or whatever it's called) at the Oscars last night. Thinking back, it's true! WTF!? That's terrible. I don't know if they forgot about her, I think they just left her off. I recall reading something a couple hours ago that the Oscar head people said they didn't include her (or a few other celeb's who died this year) because they didn't have the room or they couldn't have everyone in the tribute because it would have taken too much time or something along those lines. Either way it sucks. They should be ashamed of themselves. They waste all that time on a gazillion presenters, but can't find twenty seconds to honor a woman who courageously battled cancer for three years? Again, shame. EDIT: Well, if you think about it, the night is kinda structured to be like that. They introduce and show clips from the Best Picture films throughout the night so that all that needs to be done at the very end is pop out the envelope and say "ta-da!" It did go by unnaturally fast despite the set-up, but it wasn't like they were going to painstakingly cover the ten films all over again. I understand, but of all the awards to take their time on, the best picture was it... And they didn't. I'm not saying the solution was to go over the ten nominees again, but that the whole set up was irritating. Forest Gump... Well, they did have presenters throughout the night talk about the films and show clips, but they do that every year, no? I guess the people running the show thought it would be too much work to list the 10 films that are nominated again since it's been a long time that this many were nom'd for the Best Picture award, and they were going over their time limit. They wouldn't go over their time limit if they didn't draw out Best Actress/Actor. I mean, that's why we watch Oscar specials-- to hear about their life stories. I don't need to see it again. It irked me too, but by then, I really just wanted it to be over. I'm also hearing on the news that there was a 14% increase in viewership. I think it's because of the James Cameron/Katheryn Bigelow hype. What do you think? Well my point was they wasted tons of time over all of the lesser awards, but when it comes to the whole reason people watch it was literally "blink and you miss it". Also, I don't really think the James Cameron / Katheryn Bigelow think had much to do with it. I think that having a bigger selection of best picture nominees let them nominate movies that appeal to a bigger audience.
|
|
Hellbound Hyperion
Bad Ass Wicca
$20 per soul, no refunds[/B]
Dude, you just rescued a puppy![Mo0:18]
Posts: 2,268
|
Post by Hellbound Hyperion on Mar 8, 2010 12:23:49 GMT -5
I don't know if they forgot about her, I think they just left her off. I recall reading something a couple hours ago that the Oscar head people said they didn't include her (or a few other celeb's who died this year) because they didn't have the room or they couldn't have everyone in the tribute because it would have taken too much time or something along those lines. Either way it sucks. They should be ashamed of themselves. They waste all that time on a gazillion presenters, but can't find twenty seconds to honor a woman who courageously battled cancer for three years? Again, shame. And they mentioned Michael Jackson, who, while influential, did not make a huge impact on Hollywood (let's be honest here). I get that his death was huge, but that's why the Jackson family had a whole big parade show thingy at the Grammys. Sometimes the Academy just confuses me.
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Mar 8, 2010 12:27:21 GMT -5
Well, if you think about it, the night is kinda structured to be like that. They introduce and show clips from the Best Picture films throughout the night so that all that needs to be done at the very end is pop out the envelope and say "ta-da!" It did go by unnaturally fast despite the set-up, but it wasn't like they were going to painstakingly cover the ten films all over again. Usually, there's a recap of the films honored. Not just a pull out the envelope and read deal. Over the course of the night, there's the longer introduction, usually an oversimplified plot synopsis, and a brief rundown on why it's brilliant. But at the end of the night, all the nominees at least get another mention, before the announcement. Last night's production just missed the mark on so many things. The things they threw out shouldn't have been, and the things they added were total time wasters. And what about the backstage speech cam they were supposed to have, so that people could ramble off names? Promptly, and appropriately forgotten. So why even have it?
|
|
Jezebel Jinx
Descendant of a Toaster Oven
[Mo0:15]
Posts: 640
|
Post by Jezebel Jinx on Mar 8, 2010 13:16:12 GMT -5
I don't know if they forgot about her, I think they just left her off. I recall reading something a couple hours ago that the Oscar head people said they didn't include her (or a few other celeb's who died this year) because they didn't have the room or they couldn't have everyone in the tribute because it would have taken too much time or something along those lines. Either way it sucks. They should be ashamed of themselves. They waste all that time on a gazillion presenters, but can't find twenty seconds to honor a woman who courageously battled cancer for three years? Again, shame. Completely agree. Exactly. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Academy Awards/Oscars for people who are/were actress/actors/directors? If that's the case then why was Michael Jackson a part of that? He was more influential in music, Farrah Fawcett being put in that tribute would make more sense to me because she was (obviously) an actress in movies/tv, than Michael Jackson being a part of it.
|
|
Hellbound Hyperion
Bad Ass Wicca
$20 per soul, no refunds[/B]
Dude, you just rescued a puppy![Mo0:18]
Posts: 2,268
|
Post by Hellbound Hyperion on Mar 8, 2010 16:26:20 GMT -5
Well, to be fair, he did act. In one movie. :eyeroll: After some reflection, I gotta side with Xi on this - this year's show missed the mark on way too many fundamental levels. It was just embarrassing. I will say that Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin made me laugh more than a few times (the Christoph Waltz joke about hunting Jews cracked me up), but overall it was just bad. And while I am glad that Avatar won the awards it was supposed to, I'm also sorta glad it didn't win Best Picture. I dunno if I completely agree with The Hurt Locker, but Avatar was an equal competitor in the field and shouldn't have won on the technical elements alone. That said, it was a tough field this year. For once, I was kinda surprised by the winners. And yay Star Trek for winning an award and Michael Giacchino winning for Best Score!
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Mar 8, 2010 16:42:10 GMT -5
|
|
The Girl In Question
Ensouled Vampire
Lumpy Space Princess
"It eats you starting with your bottom."[Mo0:33]
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by The Girl In Question on Mar 8, 2010 18:21:52 GMT -5
My teacher just yelled at the entire class for not watching the Oscars:
"Why didn't you watch the Oscars!?!? Do you even know what happened? Who won? What directors won? Their names? HOW CAN YOU BE IN THE ANIMATION INDUSTRY AND NOT WATCH THIS? I watched the whole thing! You should have done that, too. I fart and like to poop my pants all day long! You should be doing that too!"
Okay, so I made up that last part, but you get the jist.
|
|
Randi Giles
Wise-cracking Sidekick
I Want to Believe
Moon Eyes in disguise.[Mo0:34]
Posts: 2,616
|
Post by Randi Giles on Mar 8, 2010 22:58:12 GMT -5
I don't know if they forgot about her, I think they just left her off. I recall reading something a couple hours ago that the Oscar head people said they didn't include her (or a few other celeb's who died this year) because they didn't have the room or they couldn't have everyone in the tribute because it would have taken too much time or something along those lines. Either way it sucks. Okay if that's true, then it's a load of garbage. Their just trying to backpedal and use some lame@$$ excuse for being stupid enough to forget about Farrah. There is no way that they manage to add Michael Jackson whose probably done 1 or 2 movies and couldn't even squeezed a couple of seconds for Farrah.
|
|
Executrix
Initiative Soldier
[Mo0:25]
Posts: 323
|
Post by Executrix on Mar 9, 2010 1:01:32 GMT -5
Yeah. People are saying they are definitely covering their asses on Farrah. Not enough room? HA. Shame on them. That's another huge fail on the production this year.
Also talk show hosts were complaining how long it took for each category to be announced. WAY too long if any of you guys saw the times listed.
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Mar 9, 2010 18:42:27 GMT -5
More BS about Farrah, if you're interested. Oh, and I find it relatively appropriate to call it BS considering the link contains a poll where 93% of voters agree that that's what the Academy's excuse is.
|
|