• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Academy Awards discussion thread

I think you'll enjoy it once you see it. It's a very expansive, interesting tale with a very upbeat, feel-good and highly energetic ending. :)

I'm looking forward to it.

I certainly don't mean to diss Wall-E in anyway, though. I loved Wall-E. When they showed the romance montage, I was trying to think of which romance touched me more between Slumdog and Wall-E, and I have to say, Wall-E and Eve's story wins out. I never thought I could root for a couple of robots as much as I did for them. When Wall-E was rebooted to "default" settings... I'm glad the theater was dark. ;)

Oh, same here. I finished the movie and I caught myself crying, and I thought "What the hell?" Somehow, the brilliant minds at Pixar, along with Ben Burtt and Thomas Newman, managed to make me care about two CG robots in a deep and meaningful way. Absolutely fantastic.

J.
 
it's entertaining fluff that's been elevated due to locales unfamiliar to American audiences, it aesthetics poverty, it's not as good as scores of actual Indian films...)

That is my perception of it without seeing it. That its a novelty for Americans to see a unfamiliar culture. If it was about a contestant of the American Millionaire show it would be a TV movie. The type of thing shown on Lifetime! It would likely not be that different either.
 
Look at Hellboy. So many intracit make-up effects, and an aging effect wins? Hellboy should've taken that category.

Reminds me of the year that Salma Hayak film won for makeup because they gave her a monobrow(yeah, I know, what a stretch! :rolleyes:). Shoulda just hired Jennifer Connelly and forgo the cost of makeup!!!
 
The man makes 28 Days Later and can't admit it's a zombie film.

But it isn't a zombie film. Sure, it's highly influenced by zombie films, but the antagonists in it aren't zombies cause they're not re-animated corpses. Just like I Am Legend isn't a zombie film, even though many of its ideas and conventions influenced the daddy of all zombie films - Night of the Living Dead, which went on to set the standard for all modern zombie films.

OT, glad Ledger won for The Joker. Thoroughly deserved it as he totally nailed the performance. Wasn't really bothered about anything else, but I'll watch the highlights just for Ledger's family's acceptance speech.
 
Last edited:
Much of the reviews and news about The Wrestler focused on the comparisons to Mickey's own life. He said so as well.

That is what cost him the Oscar. The sense that as impressive as he was on screen he was just being himself. As result the false perception that he was not really acting. While Sean Penn was far from his own personality as Harvey Milk.

That is why he was convinced to back out of Wrestlemaina. It just added to the perception that this was really not acting role but an extension of his real life. Even just considering appearing was a mistake.

You nailed it right on the head. Having seen both films, I can honestly say Sean Penn gave a transformative performance that was so far removed from his previous work and real life persona. Whereas Mickey Rourke's performance -- while raw, gritty and enduring -- just felt like an extension of Mickey Rourke. Sean Penn absolutely deserved that Oscar.
 
Well, Sophia Loren is still a goddess...all is well in the universe.
She's looked great for her age previous years but this year she just looked...stoned and ruffled to be honest :lol: Goldie Hawn is still fnatasically hot though.
It also took away undeserved Best Picture and Best Director wins, too. I can't see myself honestly awarding Danny Boyle for anything. The man makes 28 Days Later and can't admit it's a zombie film. The man makes Slumdog Millionaire and won't admit it's influenced by Bollywood. I've already aired my grievences towards the film elsewhere ( it's entertaining fluff that's been elevated due to locales unfamiliar to American audiences, it aestheticizes poverty, it's not as good as scores of actual Indian films...).
Boyle got the directing Oscar for the sheer logisitcal hcallenge of shootin a movie in the actuall city of Mumbai, and for what I've heard it's quite deserved in that respect.
 
This was the worst Oscars in living memory. I don't care who was nominated, who won, or who lost.

The show itself was just terrible.
 
I didn't like how oddly spaced things were

First we get Penelope Cruz :drool: and her best supporting actress Oscar. Then we go into a two hour long tutorial on how a film is made.

Last half hour is when all the big stuff happens. It's formatted like a Smallville episode
 
The "In Memoriam" segment was botched. Not only did we not need a live performance from Queen Latifah (that song was awful by itself), but the camera failed to zoom in on the image of the first person memorialized.

I liked the idea of five past winners taking the stage to present Oscars for acting. Firstly, it's nice to bring back some previous honorees; members of the audience had probably forgotten about some of them. On the other hand, the presenters' speeches tended to be embarrassingly unctuous. Perhaps they should dial it down a bit next year.
 
I definitely need to see Milk. Of the various films nominated in different categories it is the one I have yet to see that I a real interest in. I am not sure if it ever even play up her in "Whitetrash, Wisconsin"!
 
I definitely need to see Milk. Of the various films nominated in different categories it is the one I have yet to see that I a real interest in. I am not sure if it ever even play up her in "Whitetrash, Wisconsin"!

Milk is released on dvd in two weeks so you don't have to wait too long if you really want to check it out.
 
It's always been my opinion that the In Memoriam segment should be played with just the music, with the viewers unable to hear the audience's applause. It's awful to hear one guy get barely any applause because he was just a cameraman or something, and then Paul Newman comes up and the crowd goes crazy.
 
It's always been my opinion that the In Memoriam segment should be played with just the music, with the viewers unable to hear the audience's applause. It's awful to hear one guy get barely any applause because he was just a cameraman or something, and then Paul Newman comes up and the crowd goes crazy.

There was next to no applause for Charlton Heston. It's sad how little respect he gets. In his earlier years, he contributed a lot to cinema and to civil rights...who gives a fuck about his later politics. I also think they should do it by alphabetical order, instead of ranking people in relative "importance". And I'm a big fan of Paul Newman saying this.
 
It's always been my opinion that the In Memoriam segment should be played with just the music, with the viewers unable to hear the audience's applause. It's awful to hear one guy get barely any applause because he was just a cameraman or something, and then Paul Newman comes up and the crowd goes crazy.

There was next to no applause for Charlton Heston. It's sad how little respect he gets. In his earlier years, he contributed a lot to cinema and to civil rights...who gives a fuck about his later politics. I also think they should do it by alphabetical order, instead of ranking people in relative "importance". And I'm a big fan of Paul Newman saying this.

That was interesting. I guess some people associated Mr. Heston more with the NRA than with Hollywood. I admired him for his earlier works.

On a side note, I thought Jackman did a fine job hosting the Oscars. He wasn't boring or terrible, though he could've been more charismatic. Also, I liked how the former Oscar winners presented the nominees for each acting category.
 
A lot of the applause was also drowned out by the stupid song. I heard people applaud Heston, but yeah, Newman definitely got the most (as the final member usually does).

I thought Jackman did a really good job, and I hope he comes back next year. His opening was awesome.

I also hope they do away with the former winners presenting the nominees, because I just found it really lame, slow, and annoying. Maybe they should just change it to the previous winner presenting the current nominees.
 
The "In Memoriam" segment was botched. Not only did we not need a live performance from Queen Latifah (that song was awful by itself), but the camera failed to zoom in on the image of the first person memorialized.

I liked the idea of five past winners taking the stage to present Oscars for acting. Firstly, it's nice to bring back some previous honorees; members of the audience had probably forgotten about some of them. On the other hand, the presenters' speeches tended to be embarrassingly unctuous. Perhaps they should dial it down a bit next year.

Did they leave anyone out in that segment I missed it?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top