nottocreative
Landed Gentry
Posts: 924
Mar 7, 2005 11:35:20 GMT -4
|
Post by nottocreative on Feb 26, 2008 13:25:05 GMT -4
I am so glad Marion won. I was really rooting for her. I was also pleasantly surprised with Tilda's win. I thought she was good in 'Michael Clayton'. I was kind of pulling for Viggo, but I thought DDL was also good in his role. So, I'm okay with him taking the Oscar.
|
|
johnboysmole
Guest
Sept 23, 2024 18:23:52 GMT -4
|
Post by johnboysmole on Feb 26, 2008 15:07:29 GMT -4
I thought I was the only one rooting for Viggo. Yeah. He didn't stand a chance.
|
|
wilbert
Blueblood
Posts: 1,653
Jul 4, 2006 14:33:43 GMT -4
|
Post by wilbert on Feb 26, 2008 16:58:54 GMT -4
Well, I have to say every time I stumble across pictures of her (Which tickles me to no end), that it's because she's incredibly photogenic, she's beautiful and well just lovely to look at and obviously talented to boot, so Hollywood being how it is, of course they want to look at her. They wanted to look at Damon and Affleck too. I'm sure if She had a long face and a hook nose with a hairy wart on it, we wouldn't be seeing so much of her. Congrats Diablo! It is late, but I'd like to send congrats to Diablo as well. I watched the Oscars with my sister and explained that Diablo Cody posts at a message board I post at. She had never seen or heard of her but as Diablo walked up to get her award my sister said, "she's beautiful". So there you go. I don't have tv (yep, I'm that 1%) and only know about Diablo Cody from here. When I linked to an interview she gave promoting Juno, my first thought was also "Wow what a pretty and articulate woman. So, there you go for what its worth.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 23, 2024 18:23:52 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2008 17:32:13 GMT -4
I was totally pulling for Viggo. I mean, I love DDL, but I just feel that Viggo's been doing some great work for a long time and it's only since LOTR that he's been getting really noticed. However, I also think he may be up for an Oscar in the future too. His work with Cronenberg really seems to bring out some great performances AND get noticed.
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Feb 26, 2008 17:48:27 GMT -4
Count me in with the Viggo supporters who knew he didn't have a chance. He was so good in Eastern Promises.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 23, 2024 18:23:52 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2008 19:13:54 GMT -4
Apparently the rating in the US were really bad so I'm trying to think like the Oscar producers/the Academy and believe that this will happen next year: no foreign winners; shorter speeches (15 seconds, not longer); more montages; only blockbusters get nominated; nominate Nicholson and Streep. Yeah that will help. ;-)
One thing I missed were the Best Picture clips. It's your biggest catgory and you don't show any clips? Especially in a year when the BP line-up included only one big hit (Juno).
|
|
heyalice
Blueblood
Posts: 1,963
Mar 9, 2005 17:39:24 GMT -4
|
Post by heyalice on Feb 26, 2008 21:30:51 GMT -4
Congrats to Diablo. Good on you girly. I'm so tickled about Best Song. I really loved ONCE. And I'm quite pleased that BOURNE ULTIMATUM was recognized. The Oscars are best watched recorded. What they need to do is lose the bloody montages and if folks want to get up there and ramble, LET 'EM! It's a once a lifetime moment man.
|
|
|
Post by Mugsy on Feb 27, 2008 10:47:48 GMT -4
Seriously. How many awards do they give out on the show? 20? So let each winner have one minute; that's probably enough time. Take away the pointless montages (which I actually enjoy, but why are they there?), play the nominated songs by showing them onscreen within their movies so viewers understand the context, maybe eliminate a couple of tech awards, and you have your 20 minutes.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 23, 2024 18:23:52 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2008 11:26:18 GMT -4
Seriously. How many awards do they give out on the show? 20? So let each winner have one minute; that's probably enough time. Take away the pointless montages (which I actually enjoy, but why are they there?), play the nominated songs by showing them onscreen within their movies so viewers understand the context, maybe eliminate a couple of tech awards, and you have your 20 minutes. No, not the tech awards! I hate the idea that the above-the-line talent is somehow more important to the film making process than the technical work that goes on. I remember a few years ago, when they wanted to cut the time, they decided to either have people give speeches in the audience, or have all the nominees on stage so they didn't have to walk up and take, what? Twenty precious seconds? (If I remember right, that was Gil Cates directing that year. Bah.) Yeah, most people don't know who is nominated in those categories. They're not glamorous, they're not famous. But they make movies, too, and they're just as deserving of recognition as an actor or a director. Seriously, cut the song performances and the presenting banter and you've done plenty to streamline the show, but honestly? I like it being three hours long or more. It's the OSCARS, it shouldn't be wham-bam fast.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 23, 2024 18:23:52 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2008 11:41:56 GMT -4
I'm also against getting rid of the tech awards but on the other hand - they have a whole extra show for the tech people so why don't they shove the visual effects/sound editing/mixing categories into that other show if they take up so much time in the big one?
|
|