Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 23, 2024 20:22:19 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2008 12:18:35 GMT -4
Because nerds like me actually care about those awards and want to see their acceptance speeches, which are often far more interesting and entertaining than the actors and actresses speeches. I love seeing the little clips of them doing the make-up and the costuming and whatnot.
And if Kevin O'Connell ever does finally win I want to be able to see it, because it'll be the most emotional acceptance speech for sound work ever.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 23, 2024 20:22:19 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2008 12:24:04 GMT -4
Because nerds like me actually care about those awards and want to see their acceptance speeches, which are often far more interesting and entertaining than the actors and actresses speeches. I love seeing the little clips of them doing the make-up and the costuming and whatnot. And if Kevin O'Connell ever does finally win I want to be able to see it, because it'll be the most emotional acceptance speech for sound work ever. Oh I agree, it's not that I want them to get thrown into the other show. I hate that the Academy seems to deem these sort of awards less worthy and if that's what they think of the tech awards at the big show then they should get rid of them. I find them interesting too and I love that these people who work so hard at making films look actually good, get their big moment on a night like the Oscars. Let's just hope that they don't go back to their 2005 crap of handing out the Oscars in the audience because that was just insulting to everybody, nominees, presenters, viewers and especially the winners. And lining the nominees up on stage like in a beauty contest sucked too but the fact that they only did this with the "smaller" (=less important ) awards was the worst about it IMO.
|
|
berrybearie
Guest
Sept 23, 2024 20:22:19 GMT -4
|
Post by berrybearie on Feb 27, 2008 12:30:13 GMT -4
Because nerds like me actually care about those awards and want to see their acceptance speeches, which are often far more interesting and entertaining than the actors and actresses speeches. I love seeing the little clips of them doing the make-up and the costuming and whatnot. And if Kevin O'Connell ever does finally win I want to be able to see it, because it'll be the most emotional acceptance speech for sound work ever. I agree. The behind-the-scenes awards that have been part of the ceremony should stay in. It should be about the whole process of film-making. I heard Kevin O'Connell interviewed on NPR - I think last year - he will probably make Cuba Gooding's or Julia Roberts' acceptances look dull and monotone after losing a record number of times. He's totally the pre-Emmy-win Susan Lucci of the Oscars.
|
|
diablocody
Guest
Sept 23, 2024 20:22:19 GMT -4
|
Post by diablocody on Feb 27, 2008 12:53:02 GMT -4
I sat with Kevin O'Connell at the nominee luncheon. He and his wife are super cool-- they told me all about what it's like to sit through 20 + Oscar ceremonies with no win! I think his wife said she'd been to 14 of them with him. I really, really wanted him to win. Him and Ronald Harwood, even though I love the Coens.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 23, 2024 20:22:19 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2008 17:40:34 GMT -4
I think the Academy should just embrace its long-windedness and go with it. Let people ramble if they want to, show clips from all the movies and let show drag on, but then, serve drinks and food to the audience too. Would loosen the whole show up a bit I think. (Oh, but if it's an open bar, it's probably better if some people, like, say, Gary Busey aren't invited... )
|
|
|
Post by forever1267 on Feb 27, 2008 21:53:53 GMT -4
Kevin O'Connell does have a lot of loud and fun movies up for nominations. That's an impressive list. I don't think they should change any of the awards shown either, and I like the montages. It's just a long show. What's needed are more talent who can be more improvisational at the podium. And also, congratulations to Diablo. One of my co-workers said she thought you were beautiful, and others have loved the dress.
|
|
Karrit
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,295
Mar 15, 2005 14:32:04 GMT -4
|
Post by Karrit on Feb 28, 2008 7:30:42 GMT -4
In the Marion Cotilliard thread they were discussing the Oscars, and how they were inconsistently awarded...sometimes for a single performance, and sometimes for a body of work.
Let's suppose from here on out, they forget anyone was ever shafted, and they never give out another "we know you got shafted, so here is your Oscar" Oscar.
If the Oscar is given for a particular performance, and without being familiar with an actor's body of work, how do you judge that a particular performance is really great acting? Maybe it is just a case of a brilliant casting director matching the actor to a very specific role that showcases limited talent? Did Marion C. give a great performance? She could be the biggest ham of all time, but because I don't speak French I can't really tell. Or Jennifer Hudson. Did she have a great acting performance, or was she just cast in a role that highlighted her strengths in Dreamgirls? I don't mean to pick on the women here, (as was mentioned in the Marion C. thread) but the women's Oscars seem to be given more consistently for single performances and it seems the Oscar is awarded to men who have been around a bit longer.
Do they give Oscars to casting directors?
|
|
nottocreative
Landed Gentry
Posts: 924
Mar 7, 2005 11:35:20 GMT -4
|
Post by nottocreative on Feb 28, 2008 11:33:43 GMT -4
I think it would be a bad idea to start handing out for overall body of work instead of actual performance. For one, it would make for a very boring and predictable Oscars. Also, how many good performances would someone have to give in order to win? Plus, I think it's unfair to the actors. Especially those that have just started out.
As I said in Marion's thread. I really don't care if the winner goes on to make a string of crappy movies. Your previous (or later) work shouldn't influence whether you're worthy of an Oscar during the year you're nominated. The award is for best performance, so it should be given to the best performer. The Oscars would be pretty boring if it was only given to those whose body of work is deemed worthy.
I guess at the end of the day I don't really care whether it was the casting director or a fluke. Just as long as the actor has given a great performance.
I do think the academy should be more consistent though. They seem to be giving awards for the wrong performance, in order to make up for the performance that should have won. Denzel and his win for 'Training Day' is a perfect example of that.
|
|
|
Post by Mugsy on Feb 28, 2008 19:13:19 GMT -4
I think the Academy has a long history of that. It's almost an apology-Oscar.
One Oscar I would like to see added is ensemble cast. Many great movies don't have a single star to highlight, but the group together did great work. Yeah, I know, we're talking about how to reduce Oscar's running time and I'm adding awards now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 23, 2024 20:22:19 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2008 19:31:06 GMT -4
Very late here, but I want to say - Heartiest Congratulations to Diablo Cody!
|
|