Main      Site Guide    
Message Forum
Re: Thoughts on the Oscars
Posted By: Trip, on host 70.146.98.233
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2005, at 09:51:01
In Reply To: Thoughts on the Oscars posted by Sam on Monday, February 28, 2005, at 14:40:17:

Random thoughts.

1. 16 right, 8 wrong. I made a lot of totally wild guesses this year (e.g. "The Story of the Weeping Camel" almost solely because I thought it was a cool title). I did well with my near-random docu-short-and-techinical picking last year, not so well this year.

2. That being said, the Colon Rule (to wit: in the docu categories, if only one title includes a colon, it will win) did work for "Mighty Times: The Something Something". Not for "Tupac: Resurrection" though, because ... well, it's "Tupac: Resurrection."

3. Having nominees onstage was nearly as demeaning as I figured it would be, but the acceptances in the aisles were far, far worse. One of Gil Cates's worst ideas ever, and that is really saying something.

4. Chris Rock was not a good host at all; I would say that he was perhaps the worst I can ever recall, behind even Whoopi and Letterman. I laughed very rarely. Mind you, I am not offended by him at all; I just don't think he's that funny. (His first words to the crowd upon entering consisted of yelling "Thank you" and "All right" interminably, followed by a "Sit your a**** down!"; contrast that with, say, Carson, who would let the applause die down eventually and would then get off a perfectly timed zinger.) Part of this is personal taste, of course; I prefer comedians who make it look easy, like Carson or Steve Martin, rather than those who have to yell and look like they're straining to be funny. For that reason, I'm against the Robin Williams idea, who's been on going downhill for years now.

My idea of the perfect Oscar host, who has proven herself at other hosting gigs and has perhaps the best sense of timing of any current comedian: Ellen DeGeneres.

5. That clip of Cate Blanchett's performance just sent shivers up my spine again. That was really a love-it-or-hate-it performance (which was why I picked the slight upset of Madsen in that category, going against the pundits). I hated it.

6. But Morgan Freeman. FINALLY. What a great actor and what a class act. For me, the best part of the show was that he finally got an Oscar.

7. This was the first year since 2001 that I saw all 5 Picture nominees before the ceremony. My ranking, top to bottom: Ray (my favorite movie of 2004 that I've seen to this point); MDB (only slightly behind; excellent); Sideways (good but overrated); Aviator (has some serious flaws, not just Cate's bad performance); Neverland (good movie, just not Best Picture caliber).

8. Gil Cates. I've said it before and I'll say it until he gets fired: Talentless Hack. He's so desperate to make it under 3 hours (which he fails to do) that he'll demean a lot of the winners to save precious seconds of walking time, but he'll leave in a long, pointless and boring start to the show with the usual "Here's Why We Go To The Movies, Accompanied By Random Clips!" montage. Aside from that, he made a lot of strange choices. Starting the show with that audience favorite category ... Art Direction? He admitted in interviews that he made a lot of changes just for the sake of making changes, and it showed. Hack!

9. First Puff Daddy invades Broadway, and now this? And why the constant reaction shots to Jay-Z?

10. Beyonce, lay off the eyeliner. And stop hogging all the freaking songs.

-- Trip

Post a Reply

RinkChat Username:
Password:
Email: (optional)
Subject:
Message:
Link URL: (optional)
Link Title: (optional)

Make sure you read our message forum policy before posting.