The Hot Blog

"World Targets in Megadeaths"

umm.... maybe Brangelina can still "save" the show, after all Angelina Jolie is nominated.

The only way Brangelina could save the show is if somebody like Michael Cieply leaks the fact that they're going to present one of the awards onstage by shooting each other in the head before characters from "Kung Fu Panda" pop out of the bloody gaping wounds to do a happy dance on their corpses while announcing the winner for Best Animated Short.

Okay, this'll get me in trouble, but why do half the postings these days seem to contain one of these two themes - either "I told you so" or "I could have told you so but I didn't feel like it"?

David: Weren't you telling us just a few days ago that the ratings for the Super Bowl would be down this year? Well....

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/sports/6244885.html

I wish it were all that unusual that just one of the five comments so far speak to the actual issue offered in any real way.

Speaking to the issue, I think...

Does anyone watching the Oscars expect surprises other than who will win? Maybe some of us. But in general?

David, since you know somewhat but don't want to spoil, can you just say if, based on what you know, the show will be pretty good or not?

Here's the thing about spoilers -
Increasingly, we all know they're out there. So it becomes an active choice to seek them out or not. And if the Academy _really_ wanted to keep this under wraps, they would. Maybe it's too late for this year, but next year, if they want 'surprises', they can do it if they want to.

But really, what kind of 'surprises' are we talking about? A shocking walk-on from some megastar? A hilarious montage? A lavish production number?

Let's get real.

And as for 'cutting awards and moving the whole thing to January' - sounds like a bad idea to me. I'd much rather see Thelma Schoonmaker or Robert Elswit get their moment in the Oscar sun than see another gimmicky 'Oscar through the ages' montage about how great the Oscars are.

And questioning the premise of your writing is just as valid (if not more so) than going along with it and playing ball.

The ratings would have gone up with the Bat. You keep living in your goofy fucking dreamworld David, and I will gladly keep taking a hammer to it.

That aside; the best Oscars were the 2000 Oscars with MC KEYS aka PETER COYOTE and musical director DON WAS. Every year has sucked compared to that one.

GIVE IT BACK TO THE KEYS! GIVE IT BACK TO THE KEYS! GIVE IT BACK TO THE KEYS!

It's kind of a Catch-22. They want to tease us and whet our curiosity with the notion of surprises, but they don't want anything to leak. Pretty much like any other show, actually. But I admit I don't understand the spoiler-mania that rules now. God forbid we have a fresh experience of anything. I couldn't give a crap who's presenting or what Jackman will do. This gives me a fighting chance of being pleasantly surprised by something. What's the thrill of sitting there saying, "Oh yeah, I heard they were gonna do this. And they're doing it. Yep. How about that? Pass the popcorn."

The way they brought up at the luncheon, that the technical folks are going to get something special... scares me. It scares me because there's nothing as bad to sit through, then the Oscars where EVERYONE STOOD ON STAGE! Good lord that was fucking horrible. It was dreadful. Here's to them workin it out, and not throwing the technical folks under the bus.

Some people can be bored by those awards, but they are my fave. I enjoy knowing who make the films that I watch. It would not kill the Academy to highlight these people more because film is... a team effort.

For me, it isn't the obscure awards that need cutting. I actually like seeing things like the sound editing announcements. God knows why, but the actual, here we go, we're doing an award RIGHT NOW has buzz to it, even if it's only Pavlovian. Seeing winners equals progress. It means we're getting closer to the big awards. Seeing any kind of production number means you're trapped in a plane on the tarmac waiting until god knows when to finally get a move on.

What drags the show down is the hopeless filler. It's the packaged tributes to amorphous things like "New York in the movies!" or whatever it is that gets chosen out of the blue with almost zero relevance to the year in film (god help us if the producers try going after something relevent to the Obama election). It's the self-congratulatory looks back at 100-and-whatever years in movie history that aren't in depth enough to matter, or short enough to give a pass for not adding up to much of anything.

More to the topic at hand, I don't want the press to tell me what the show has planned, not because it'll ruin the surprise, but because I'm dreading the number of dead zones that will be guaranteeing.

All I want from the montage is this: AN EPIC FUCKING MONTAGE! I want 10 fucking minutes of EPICNESS! I want the montage to end all montages! I want a montage so epic, that small children will remember it on their deathbeds. I want a montage so epic. It induces fucking labour in women all over the globe. I want a montage that is so moving, that people of all ages start speaking in tongues as they cry. THAT'S THE MONTAGE THAT I WANT! I WANT THAT! If they cannot provide me a montage on that level. No more montages.

Does anyone know if K-STEW is going to be a presenter? They should've at least asked her since she is *THE* star of the moment and just had a HUGE hit.

Ratings would definitely spike if they had Kristen Stewart present an award.

It would especially rule if K-STEW presented with either Evan Rachel Wood or Jessica Alba.

Somebody out there, make it happen.

Well, if one additional viewer can be considered a spike, then yes, you are right.

The ratings wouldn't be the only thing spiking in my house.

ZING.

The tech and short film award winners sometimes give memorable, beautiful speeches. It's an awards show. Deal!

I don't mind the tech awards, but I'd get rid of the shorts.

Why only give awards to the directors of those? Don't the actors matter?

Of course they do. But more to the point, this is a holdover category from the times when shorts commonly ran before features. Have a separate ceremony for shorts now like they do most of the tech ones.

I'll be saying this every year till it changes.

That's an alright idea, but much like they couldn't do a Best Voice Acting Oscar, it'd just end up going to famous people who would suddenly start wanting to appear in short films.

If Kristen Stewart is such a buzz-worthy actress, how come Lex is just about the only person I hear talking about her?

I agree that the producers must feel like they're in a catch-22 this year. They realize that if they don't release any hype that nobody will watch based on the suckage of the previous year's shows. Their only recourse is to spoil the "surprises" in the hopes of attracting more viewers this year. They've got an uphill climb though -- the past shows being so bland + the ho-hum roster of movies makes even this fan leery of wasting 3-4 hours sitting through it.

After reading the NY Times article, I've got a question, but first (can't believe I'm doing this)

SPOILER WARNING

How are the producers going to give the show its own narrative line if they don't know who the winners are going to be until the envelopes are opened? Then again, how do you make a narrative out of a frigging awards ceremony in the first place?

Then again redux, how do you make a narrative out of an awards show when the entirety of Hollywood can barely scrape together a coherent narrative in the actual films they make?

The ideas hinted at in the Times piece, as a whole, suggest that the producers still don't know what to do with the Oscars. Keeping the presenters secret, possibly to the point of sneaking them around the red carpet? Who on planet earth gives a MERCY fuck about the identity of a presenter? Unless you have the wherewithall to pull J.D. Salinger, Osama Bin Laden, and the ghost of Kathryn Hepburn out of nowhere to hand out your trophies, dude, get over yourself!

"If Kristen Stewart is such a buzz-worthy actress, how come Lex is just about the only person I hear talking about her?"

For the same reason people don't look in a mirror and say "Candyman" five times in a row. For then you will summon something horrid and monstrous; and it will utter the words "K-STEW" and "squack".

A. Thank you for voicing your opinions about the show.

B. Halick, think you made an unintentional reference to the co-producer of this year's show, the director of Candyman 2.

C. The way to build a narrative feel is to understand that it is not the winners who matter to a narrative, it is the arc of the show itself. Of course, they will add special moments and the race is a big part of why people tune in. But if you see past the detail, the forest for the tres, there are ways to change things... and in particular, to change the deadly dull experience of the show for the people in the actual theater.

To ask a dumb question, instead of all the long montages of past films and Oscar moments (which were first fun years ago but are now boring), why not just show much longer clips of the movies and performances in question? Like, a whole scene maybe. Isn't the whole point of the Oscars to serve as an advertisement for the movies? What would be a better advertisement, especially for those nominated movies athat re semi-obscure?

"B. Halick, think you made an unintentional reference to the co-producer of this year's show, the director of Candyman 2."

You think correctly!

"C. The way to build a narrative feel is to understand that it is not the winners who matter to a narrative, it is the arc of the show itself."

I get that for any proceeding of this kind you have to plan a certain flow and rhythm to the event, and give it an arc, in order for it to be a successful production; but I'm a little stymied by (SPOILER SPACE) what exactly it is they mean by having a "narrative line" and a story laid out by the presenters as well as the nominees. If they do have a "storyline" of some sort connecting the evening, are they going to be able to make it flexible enough so that they can compress portions of their plot instead of compressing the winners' moments on stage at a point where the show might be running too long, and the need to pick up the pace necessitates one or the other getting reined in? If this idea is too involved, I'm afraid the awards will wind up serving its needs instead of the reverse.

I don't say any of this as an opponent of what they'll be doing per se. You obviously know more regarding the details of how this idea is going to be brought to life, so I'll have to defer to your judgement for now on that one. I just get an uneasy feeling from that NYT article that makes me think they still aren't getting at what's been going wrong with the ceremony.

"But if you see past the detail, the forest for the tres, there are ways to change things... and in particular, to change the deadly dull experience of the show for the people in the actual theater."

If that can be accomplished, bully for the theater audience and more power to them; but their importance is dwarfed by the need to satisfy the home viewing audience first and foremost. The notion in the air that the red carpet arrivals could be cutback doesn't indicate the greatest of understanding in this regard.

"To ask a dumb question, instead of all the long montages of past films and Oscar moments (which were first fun years ago but are now boring), why not just show much longer clips of the movies and performances in question?"

Agreed. And why not also show the best clips from movies and performances of the past year that maybe weren't even nominated, but still had moments and images and lines worth remembering and recognizing? For instance, Kristen Scott Thomas wasn't nominated for Best Actress this year, but I'd feel better seeing a clip of her anyway, if only to say, "hey, we didn't completely forget you!".

If the Academy focused more on what happened at the movies in 2008 instead of trying to capture the entire cavalcade of film since the invention of the camera, they'd be a step closer to tightening things up.

"C. The way to build a narrative feel is to understand that it is not the winners who matter to a narrative, it is the arc of the show itself."

Whuh? Why does the show need to have a 'narrative' at all? Why can't it just be an occasion for honoring the Academy's version of the year's best achievements?

This is the same reason why every goddamn comedy show and cooking show and news show out there is a reality competition show nowadays - because peoples' attention spans have dwindled to the point of needing a narrative thread to return to instead of simply enjoying the moment-by-moment pleasures. It's retarded.

Brangelina can save Oscar Night? Why not Bennifer?

"Brangelina can save Oscar Night? Why not Bennifer?"

Just not first tier enough. Maybe they can go save Hockey Night.

Thing is, Halick, the experience of the audience at a live show can translate in a big way to the home audience. Of course, they are concerned first and foremost with the TV show they are producing. But as people have been saying about The Globes for year, a part of what makes that show work is not the gravity of 88 semi-employed foreigners deciding on the best, but the looseness of the room.

As far as the red carpet, that isn't the show... that is the pre-show. And when people turn in for the outfits, isn't it better that they not get EVERYTHING in a red carpet blur? Isn't it a good idea for the show to be more than another look at that same dress?

"Thing is, Halick, the experience of the audience at a live show can translate in a big way to the home audience. Of course, they are concerned first and foremost with the TV show they are producing. But as people have been saying about The Globes for year, a part of what makes that show work is not the gravity of 88 semi-employed foreigners deciding on the best, but the looseness of the room."

I agree with you for the most part, but then the problem becomes the fact that "looseness" and "Oscars" just never seem to mesh outside of a couple comedic actors handing out the best animated short film prize once in a while.

There's a self-imposed weight of the cinematic universe pressing down on so much of the Oscars production, stemming from feeling like it has to represent 100 plus years of filmmaking for billions of viewers around the globe again and again and again. Adding a narrative line to the proceedings would seem to ratchet up the stiffness in the room more than contribute to a free-floating good vibe.

The show's a victim of it's own self-perceived importance to the world. The Golden Globes, what's it got hanging over it's own head? The gravity of 88 semi-employed foreigners? There's your looseness for you. It's easy to let it all hang out at a function you don't really have any cause to respect. It's all about playing along and goofing on the facade of a make believe awards ceremony.

"As far as the red carpet, that isn't the show... that is the pre-show. And when people turn in for the outfits, isn't it better that they not get EVERYTHING in a red carpet blur? Isn't it a good idea for the show to be more than another look at that same dress?"

The red carpet stuff is the tailgating event of the show; and and little more than a blur in this day and age when E!, the TV Guide Channel, and ABC are simultaneously dissecting every thread of fabric draped over the arrivals. The advantage it has over the awards show itself is the fact that you would only see a smaller percentage of the dresses on stage otherwise. You can't get all of those women in front of the camera like that come showtime.

Then again, this is where keeping the identity of the presenters a secret would actually mean something, since, at that point, audience members who cared would be wondering when an actress would be taking the stage, who she was, and what she'd be wearing.

Hal: you got to watch more wrestling. If you watched more wrestling. You would get in spades how a "HOT" crowd can make an already awesome even, that much better. Okay. You probably understand that, but the Oscar audience does usually cease giving a shit around 8:28 central time. After the audience is lost, that's it for the night. Go back and watch previous Oscar telecast. It's like ANH. After the 48 minute mark and Obi-Wan's jedi hoodu. Those damn Stormtroopers could not shoot the broad side of a Bantha to save their lives.

That aside; the crowd needs to be hot. How to do you keep that crowd hot, when many of them do not seem interested in the technical awards? How do you create a narrative out of that situation? Unless Peter Coyote is involved. I see another night of failed concepts. Which is good that they try, but the Academy needs to realize what Eric Bischoff realized too late. The third hour has to go.

If they did a lean and mean two hour show, with every star imaginable at their disposable to present, trailers for the Summer movies (and possible next year Oscar contenders), and one host who could move the show along. That would be something. It would not be the OSCARS, but maybe we need a DIFFERENT OSCARS?

It sure seems the Oscar people think so. Here's hoping they found something good this year. If not... BRING... BACK... THE KEYS!

I'm opposed to the idea of trailers for any movies embedded within the Oscar show, Oscar-contenders or not. Talk about a never-ending, self-perpetuating cycle.

Jeff: I understand that reasoning, but it's cinema's BIGGEST NIGHT! They might as well hype some films coming out this Summer during the broadcast. It may be a self-perpetuating cycle, but the Summer makes the money. Why not use that night to get people interested in their biggest season? It just seems silly to me to not do this.

Because then the show becomes even more meaningless and more of just a big commercial with multiple sponsors.

Jeff: I may be beating the same drum again, but the nominations the last few years have already made the show meaningless. They might as well try something to lure in those male audience, that could give two shits about this award ceremony.

Here's another fucking reason as to why the nomination of the Reader is the stupidest nomination in the history of the Academy: DUDES! The biggest DUDE movie ever, and the Academy IGNORES IT! Absolute epic level stupidity on the part of the Academy members to ignore their biggest audience: YOUNG ADULT MALES!

So this is why they need movie ads. This is why they are going to use some movie ads this year. They need to give their biggest audience a reason to watch. It sure as heck will not be the Reader or that other movie that anger the entire city it was filmed in.

The nominations a year ago and the year before that were fine by me.

Somehow I don't think the Transformers crowd is interested in seeing what Nicole Kidman is going to be wearing and a montage of D.W. Griffith movies.

Deep breathing, IOI. The Oscars don't need to matter as much as they seem to for you.

No Country and Departed were "dude" movies. So was There Will Be Blood. In fact, the last couple years seemed like the least "wimpy" Oscars in terms of nominated films since the early '90s heyday of things like JFK, Silence of the Lambs, Bugsy, Godfather III, GoodFellas and Unforgiven being on the ticket.

It's not like we're talking about that mid-80s stretch where the major films in contention were Out of Africa, Trip to Bountiful, Passage to India, Gandhi, Terms of Endeartment, etc.

And I like a lot of those movies just fine-- Just mildkly disagreeing with IO that the Oscars are somehow douchier of late than they used to be.

Jeff: this is what annoys me. THEY ARE IMPORTANT. Columbia did not put out a boxset of all of their best picture nominated films that lost. They put out a box about the ones that ONE. Winners write the history of film.

Why do you think the 70s is written about so much? The awards that those great films garnered is a part of it. That award -- rather Poland (Who let me call him out right now is a FUCKING HYPOCRITE for stating this means too much to me. No David; I am just a fan of film, that gets how much that award means. I am not a guy who needs the awards advertising to help keep my lights on, and to pay my employees. I am also not a guy who writes a 20 weeks to Oscar column, then spends each subsequent week writing a column about the Oscars.) likes to admit it or not, is important. It holds some importance to the films, to everyone who wins, and to everyone who loses. You think that guy who has lost 15 times isnt pissed about it in some way?

Jeff; I am also fucking insulted by you stating that I have to take a deep breathe, then you insult Transformers. Hey Jeff: I am a fan of almost every type of cinema, and that includes Transformers: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN! COMING SOON! Seriously; if you have a snotty attitude about people and film. You need to realize that not everyone is as passive as you, and not everyone is as limited in their taste of film. Seriously man, that's a disturbing response to me man. Really disturbing.

Lex: they are DUDE movies, for older dudes.

WON not ONE. Again, really, this fucking forum needs an edit function. AN EDIT FUNCTION! AN EDIT FUNCTION! THEO RATLIFF'S EXPIRING CONTRACT FOR AN EDIT FUNCTION!

i'll second that edit thing, but isn't what the oscars telecast really needs is to be less than 6 hrs long? trim it down to 2 hrs and bob's yer uncle, more viewers, so it's like sitting down to watch a movie instead of a boring telethon for pampered pooches

IOI, you're a liar.

leah: I agree. It's all the pomp and circumstance that drags the thing out. Like Gene Kelly says in Singin' in the Rain: "Dignity! Always dignity!" While we all sit there rolling our eyes.

All the horn tooting about making a difference and telling stories that enlighten -- which only about 1% of Hollywood films even try to do -- is just self-important blather. Let the films speak for themselves in clips, and the filmmakers can pontificate for a minute if they happen to win. The rest should be fast-paced fun.

At this point even some of the bygone train-wreck stuff like Rob Lowe and Snow White looks good compared to the usual bore-fest. And that's something that wouldn't be fixed by a Best Picture nod for the Bat.

Allow me to rephrase my above posting:

IOI, you are intellectually dishonest; as in, the pretext of 99% of your posts are based on things that are fundamentally untrue or shaky.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: