Seth Macfarlane tapped to host this years Academy Awards!

[Tom Servo]

You'd think Ang Lee would give a shout out to Rhythm and Hues, also known as the VFX that practically made his movie. Oh and it's also the company that had to declare bankruptcy and lay off 250 artists and workers in between the release of Life of Pi, and tonight.

However, just like how the VFX award winners were pushed off the stage when they tried to bring to light the current business model of VFX being extremely exploitative to the artist, his lack of mention just shows how much respect the VFX industry really gets in Hollywood.

Get it through your head Hollywood. Ang Lee didn't bring Life of Pi to life. The hundreds of artists and technicians at R&H and other studios did, and while you get to go up there accept your big award, THEY got sent home with no paycheck, and no job.

 

[IndyJones]

And half the audience is now pissed off lol.

Well, not really.

I'd imagine many Americans are able to view her life story admiringly, and that a good number of Americans - and an even larger percentage of foreigners watching the broadcast - are able to handle seeing the First Lady without falling into fits of rage. After all, her approval rating wouldn't be this high if it weren't for GOP supporting Romney voters on her side too.

 

[DigificWriter]

I don't like Seth Macfarlane (I don't watch his movies and can't stand Family Guy or any of his other TV series), but he genuinely made me laugh - sometimes uproariously - with his hosting gig tonight.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Argo is a bullshit win. No remarkable performances, an unearned ending, and a perfect example of giving into the CIA fetish while giving other countries the shaft. I get that the film was made with the best of intentions but it's nowhere near as thought provoking as Zero Dark Thirty or, and it wasn't even nominated, The Master.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of the film. While I agree it's more of an ensemble piece, I think Arkin gave a standout supporting performance and was nominated as a result. But all of the actors did a fine job of showing the fear and desperation and ingenuity of those involved.

Not sure what you mean by "unearned ending," though. Do you mean how they embellished events to make the ending more cinematic by making things seem more in danger of falling apart as they were going through airport security than they actually were and introducing a runway chase that never happened? If so, welcome to Hollywood. I don't think that really takes away from the quality of the movie and the overall tense feeling, unease, and then sense of relief it gives you despite knowing the outcome in advance.

As far as the CIA fetish goes, while I would have preferred that they gave the Canadians the greater recognition they deserved (though they do get a large share of the praise in the film, as well), it's not like the CIA's involvement was made up out of whole cloth (they were equally responsible for the operation), and the storytelling reasons why they would play up that angle make sense. A story focusing on a spy going in to hostile territory is more dramatic (and true), and allows you to focus on a central character (Affleck's Tony Mendez) rather than the numerous people actually involved. It's not like they only omitted some of the Canadians involved; Mendez's longtime CIA exfiltration partner who went in with him and left with the group was also left out to streamline the story.

And it seems odd to comment on a CIA fetish while praising Zero Dark Thirty, a film which implies that CIA torture of terror suspects led to actionable intelligence that resulted in the killing of bin Laden, when there's no proof of that being the case (I know you won't argue the torture point Sid, but just FYI for anyone else; I don't want to get into a torture argument in the Oscar thread, so anyone who doesn't like my comment, I'll be happy to discuss it in TNZ or Miscellaneous if you like). Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic movie as well and I'd be fine with it winning, but it seems strange to criticize Argo's CIA focus while praising ZDT. At least in Argo it was a wholly nonviolent operation that resulted in rescuing everyone intended without any lives lost on either side, so it's worthy of praise in that respect. And there's plenty of criticism in the film of the CIA's and the US's prior involvement with propping up the Shah's brutal regime, so it's not like they skate away clean.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wQNj-gF9bfE[/yt]

Jennifer Lawrence is awesome. She's so funny and humble and genuine, and I love the blunt and self-deprecating way she handles the moronic questions from the reporters.

You'd think Ang Lee would give a shout out to Rhythm and Hues, also known as the VFX that practically made his movie. Oh and it's also the company that had to declare bankruptcy and lay off 250 artists and workers in between the release of Life of Pi, and tonight.

However, just like how the VFX award winners were pushed off the stage when they tried to bring to light the current business model of VFX being extremely exploitative to the artist, his lack of mention just shows how much respect the VFX industry really gets in Hollywood.

Get it through your head Hollywood. Ang Lee didn't bring Life of Pi to life. The hundreds of artists and technicians at R&H and other studios did, and while you get to go up there accept your big award, THEY got sent home with no paycheck, and no job.

I was irritated by the bolded part as well, and said as much during the live commentary on the show. That was completely disrespectful to the speaker, who was not doing the usual longwinded thank you speech but was appealing to the Hollywood elite in the room to support a dying VFX company/industry.

 

[the G-man]

I really didn't find it all that funny and frankly, I wish they had cut the opening numbers (although the actors were great), the salute to Chicago, the long montage to Bond music, and Streisand (ugh). That would've shaved about an hour off of an already too long show.

I did not understand the salute to Chicago at all....

Apparently the oscar show's producer also produced that movie.

Seems a little self indulgent, if not crassly self promotional.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I like how Ben Affleck thanked Canada during his acceptance speech.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Glad to see Life of Pi having won as many awards as it did. Maybe now people will pay attention to it.

 

[Amaris]

I was just waiting for it to show up on DVD.

Anyway, I was a bit too busy watching the Oscars to come in here and participate in the thread during it's run, but loved the show. I like Seth McFarlane, and I think he did a terrific job. The Shatner/Kirk scene just about made me plotz, it was hilarious! I always look forward to the Oscars, and I have been disappointed in the past, but this year was a lot of fun, and Argo won for best picture, which was great.

Now I just can't wait for next year!

 

[Danny99]

Argo is a bullshit win. No remarkable performances, an unearned ending, and a perfect example of giving into the CIA fetish while giving other countries the shaft.

I'm glad an American said this before I did. "CIA fetish" is a great way to describe it. I feel insulted that Canada's involvement has been minimized and Affleck's character (who in reality was in Iran for maybe 48 hour) is basically given all the limelight.

All of McFarlane's humor could have been inserted into a Family Guy episode. He was a poor choice and a poor host.

 

[the G-man]

I thought MacFarlane was great, as noted above, but the reviews of him seem to be more negative than not. Not Franco or letterman level bad but not overly positive. I'm surprised

 

[Amaris]

I thought MacFarlane was great, as noted above, but the reviews of him seem to be more negative than not. Not Franco or letterman level bad but not overly positive. I'm surprised

Oh, many columnists think he's juvenile, or at least they say that's what it is. Most of them tend to feed off of gossip and newsfeed buzz, so it's not like they have a leg to stand on there. USA Today said he was self indulgent, which is funny, because the reason many people watch the Oscars is to see what the host is going to do to entertain everyone. You can't really count on what they say, since they get eyes on their page when they're critical. People like to slice and dissect someone into ribbons, even if they laughed the whole night.

So I just enjoyed the show and ignore them.

 

[Spot's Meow]

Well, the verdict is in! I work in an office with many older ladies who I like to think of as a barometer of public opinion. None of them knew who Seth MacFarlane was, one of them even said "I thought it was going to be Seth Meyers from Saturday Night Live, but then this guy walked out and I was like, who IS that?" Another co-worker says, "I think he wrote Family Guy before it got cancelled." "Oh, I never saw that show."

And then they went on to discuss how he was too tasteless and off-color. They said, "this just wasn't the right venue for those sorts of jokes. Did you hear that Lincoln joke? That was very tasteless to joke about a President like that. Some things should be sacred." "And that boobs song - where were they going with that? It was just crass and didn't make sense."

Personally, I don't like Seth MacFarlane either, but not because he's off-color and crass, it's just because he annoys the shit out of me. He's one of those guys that is funny but thinks he's hilarious, there's just a smug feeling about him.

But anyway, there's the perspective from my co-workers. Interesting.

 

[OdoWanKenobi]

The whole joke of the boob song was that it was crass and inapproriate and would destroy the show if done seriously. The joke sailed right over their heads.

 

[sidious618]

I don't think that's a fair assessment of the film. While I agree it's more of an ensemble piece, I think Arkin gave a standout supporting performance and was nominated as a result. But all of the actors did a fine job of showing the fear and desperation and ingenuity of those involved.

I'm not sure what Arkin did that was different from what he usually does. Yes, all the performances were good but I didn't leave the theater thinking, "Wow, so and so's performance was amazing." It was well acted but not remarkably so.

Not sure what you mean by "unearned ending," though.

I'm referring to him going back to his ex-wife in the last scene. We have no vested interest in that relationship as the movie has done next to nothing with it. The film tries to sell him going home as this important point at the end of the movie but it's not important at all. It also makes the film decidedly about his character while up to then it was about the whole situation.

As far as the CIA fetish goes, while I would have preferred that they gave the Canadians the greater recognition they deserved (though they do get a large share of the praise in the film, as well), it's not like the CIA's involvement was made up out of whole cloth (they were equally responsible for the operation), and the storytelling reasons why they would play up that angle make sense. A story focusing on a spy going in to hostile territory is more dramatic (and true), and allows you to focus on a central character (Affleck's Tony Mendez) rather than the numerous people actually involved. It's not like they only omitted some of the Canadians involved; Mendez's longtime CIA exfiltration partner who went in with him and left with the group was also left out to streamline the story.

They did cut out some of the Canadians involved. A fellow called Shearman harbored half of the runaways while the ambassador had the other half.

And it seems odd to comment on a CIA fetish while praising Zero Dark Thirty, a film which implies that CIA torture of terror suspects led to actionable intelligence that resulted in the killing of bin Laden, when there's no proof of that being the case (I know you won't argue the torture point Sid, but just FYI for anyone else; I don't want to get into a torture argument in the Oscar thread, so anyone who doesn't like my comment, I'll be happy to discuss it in TNZ or Miscellaneous if you like). Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic movie as well and I'd be fine with it winning, but it seems strange to criticize Argo's CIA focus while praising ZDT. At least in Argo it was a wholly nonviolent operation that resulted in rescuing everyone intended without any lives lost on either side, so it's worthy of praise in that respect. And there's plenty of criticism in the film of the CIA's and the US's prior involvement with propping up the Shah's brutal regime, so it's not like they skate away clean.

I saw Zero Dark Thirty as a decidedly anti-torture and anti-CIA film. Bigelow has been a vocal pacifist for a while so I'm not sure why people think the film is pro-torture. In the film they only get one piece of useable information from the torture and it turns out later on that they already had that information given to them right after 9/11 but were too lazy to look into it. There's a scene where a new intern gives the document to Maya, remarking that they'd had it since right after 9/11.

 

[davejames]

MacFarlane was a lot better than I expected. I'm a huge Family Guy fan, but always found him kind of smug and off-putting in person. But I thought he actually came across really well last night, and the stuff with Shatner, the boob song, the sock puppets, and flying nun had me rolling on the floor.

Other aspects of the show seemed a bit strange though. Like the heavy emphasis on musicals (I loved the Chicago movie, but.... what was that about?), the Bond stuff, and the incredibly awkward way they introduced the Best Picture nominees in groups of three.

And Argo as Best Picture? Really? It was a great, well-executed thriller, but nothing we haven't seen before. Especially in the 1970s, when movies like The French Connection, Three Days of the Condor, etc were kind of the norm.

To me, Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty and even Beasts of the Southern Wild were MUCH more interesting and original.

 

[wissaboo]

I found him a little boring. Too many jokes about him doing inapropriate jokes without any innapropriate jokes.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I found him a little boring. Too many jokes about him doing inapropriate jokes without any innapropriate jokes.

YES! That's a great way of describing it. And sorta always going, "See, I didn't go there... yuk yuk yuk."

Made me wish they had gotten Ricky Gervais. At least he's ACTUALLY edgy.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

As far as the CIA fetish goes, while I would have preferred that they gave the Canadians the greater recognition they deserved (though they do get a large share of the praise in the film, as well), it's not like the CIA's involvement was made up out of whole cloth (they were equally responsible for the operation), and the storytelling reasons why they would play up that angle make sense. A story focusing on a spy going in to hostile territory is more dramatic (and true), and allows you to focus on a central character (Affleck's Tony Mendez) rather than the numerous people actually involved. It's not like they only omitted some of the Canadians involved; Mendez's longtime CIA exfiltration partner who went in with him and left with the group was also left out to streamline the story.

They did cut out some of the Canadians involved. A fellow called Shearman harbored half of the runaways while the ambassador had the other half.

I know they cut some of the Canadians involved, I said as much above. My point was that they didn't only exclude some of the Canadians, and that the reasoning behind it likely wasn't some malicious snub against Canadians but rather an attempt at streamlining the story and making it more cinematic. A couple of figures the audience can focus on symbolizing the actions of many. Putting them all together to interact instead of housing them separately. That happens all the time in "based on a true story" historical films, and I just don't understand why Argo is getting special criticism for it, since they made sure to acknowledge the major Canadian role extensively both during and after the film came out. As mentioned by Alidar, Affleck thanked the Canadians during his acceptance speech.

And it seems odd to comment on a CIA fetish while praising Zero Dark Thirty, a film which implies that CIA torture of terror suspects led to actionable intelligence that resulted in the killing of bin Laden, when there's no proof of that being the case (I know you won't argue the torture point Sid, but just FYI for anyone else; I don't want to get into a torture argument in the Oscar thread, so anyone who doesn't like my comment, I'll be happy to discuss it in TNZ or Miscellaneous if you like). Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic movie as well and I'd be fine with it winning, but it seems strange to criticize Argo's CIA focus while praising ZDT. At least in Argo it was a wholly nonviolent operation that resulted in rescuing everyone intended without any lives lost on either side, so it's worthy of praise in that respect. And there's plenty of criticism in the film of the CIA's and the US's prior involvement with propping up the Shah's brutal regime, so it's not like they skate away clean.

I saw Zero Dark Thirty as a decidedly anti-torture and anti-CIA film. Bigelow has been a vocal pacifist for a while so I'm not sure why people think the film is pro-torture. In the film they only get one piece of useable information from the torture and it turns out later on that they already had that information given to them right after 9/11 but were too lazy to look into it. There's a scene where a new intern gives the document to Maya, remarking that they'd had it since right after 9/11.

I didn't say the movie was "pro-torture" as in actively saying it was a good thing in the film (Maya is silent on it with her colleague but clearly repulsed by it - though she does later complain about the discontinuation of the detainee interrogation program - though that wasn't exclusively about torture, so it's a wash on what she's referring to), I said it gives the impression that torture led to actionable intelligence resulting in the death of bin Laden, which there is no proof of. The caveat that they already had the intelligence in hand if they hadn't been sloppy doesn't erase the first 45-minute fixation on torture or the fact that that was what set them on the path to finding bin Laden for years until the post-9/11 document was revealed later in the film.

I know Bigelow herself is opposed to torture, which is why I didn't criticize her in any way or let it take away from my appreciation of the film, which I think was a fantastic achievement and also Best Picture-worthy along with Argo. I don't begrudge your dislike of Argo, I just felt some of the criticisms were a little unfair, especially for doing things which are pretty standard practice in Hollywood films, including previous Best Picture nominees.

 

[warriorsfan]

And half the audience is now pissed off lol.

In Hollywood?

Oh I'm sure there was a big Tea Party audience turning in for the Oscars, as there is every year. Just as I'm sure half the Fox News audience gets pissed off whenever Ann Coulter is interviewed because obviously their viewing audience mirrors that of the general population.

 

[propita]

I don't watch Seth MacFarlane shows, just not interested. But I liked him as host. Yeah, people missed the point of the boob song. And Jennifer Lawrence's reaction, that she has NOT shown hers, was good. Coulda done with A LOT less Chicago. Who cares about that movie? It wasn't groundbreaking or anything.

Bassey can still get volume though I miss her enunciation/pronunciation. Streisand toned it down. Adele? What happened? I thought she'd outdo the other two? Nope.

Still trying to figure out why Shatner was there. There was a credit for his uniform in the rolling credits, but I didn't see who supplied it.

Overall, MacFarlane did a good job.