|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Announcing the 81st Oscar Nominations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-22-2009 09:30 PM
"Who IS hosting, Jon Stewart again?"
Nope. It's...
...the Wolverine---
err, I mean Hugh Jackman! Who did an awesome job hosting the Tony's for 3 years running (youtube clip). In fact he won an Emmy for his hosting.
quote: AMPAS/Beverly Hills, CA (December 12, 2008)
Hugh Jackman will host the 81st Academy Awards® telecast, producer Laurence Mark and executive producer Bill Condon announced today. This will be Jackman’s first time center stage at the Oscar show, although he has previously been a presenter.
“Hugh Jackman is a consummate entertainer and an internationally renowned movie star,” said Mark and Condon in a joint statement. “He also has style, elegance and a sense of occasion. Hugh is the ideal choice to host a celebration of the year’s movies – and to have fun doing it.”
Jackman stars in the current release “Australia,” directed by Baz Luhrmann. He will next be seen in “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” having portrayed the title character in the previous three smash-hit “X-Men” movies. His other film credits include “The Prestige,” “Flushed Away,” “The Fountain,” “Happy Feet,” “Van Helsing,” “Kate & Leopold” and “Swordfish.”
--jhawk
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sally Ann Burgess
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 120
From: Queenstown, New Zealand
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 01-23-2009 02:14 AM
Five married couples have earned acting nominations in the same year (three times, a husband-and-wife team have been nominated for the same picture):
* Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne, Best Actor and Best Actress nominations for The Guardsman (1932) - both lost
* Charles Laughton and Elsa Lanchester, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress nominations for Witness for the Prosecution (1957) - both lost
* Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor (win), Best Actor and Best Actress nominations for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
* Frank Sinatra, Best Supporting Actor nomination (and win) for From Here to Eternity (1953), and Ava Gardner, Best Actress nomination for Mogambo (1953)
* Rex Harrison, Best Actor nomination for Cleopatra (1963), and Rachel Roberts, Best Actress nomination for This Sporting Life (1963)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-24-2009 10:09 AM
Here's an article from IMDB.com:
Is AMPAS Out Of Touch?
23 January 2009 1:38 AM, PST
Members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences may have shot themselves in the foot with their selection of top Oscar nominees on Thursday, the Chicago Tribune suggested today (Friday). The newspaper observed that by selecting so many relatively obscure movies, the Academy seems to have guaranteed another low-rated Oscars ceremony. Entertainment writer Marc Caro noted that The Dark Knight, which took in $531 million at the domestic box office last year also garnered 94 positive reviews on the Rotten Tomatoes website, compared with 60 percent for The Reader, which has grossed only $7.9 million. "Yet The Reader is a best picture (and director) nominee, and The Dark Knight is not," Caro observed. Mediaweek analyst Marc Berman added: "The problem with the films this year is none of them are huge, mass-appeal hits." Caro concluded that by denying recognition to films like Knight and Wall-e, the movie academy "risks confirming the suspicions of those who think it has grown out of touch with mainstream tastes."
-------------------------------------------------------------
While I agree that "The Dark Knight" was a really good movie and should have been on the BP list, it looks like the Tribune misses the point of the Academy. They are supposed to pick movies that are really good, not really popular. It's not all about the telecast ratings.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-24-2009 10:56 AM
Generally speaking, I like Rotten Tomatoes' "tomato meter" system, although it could use some improvement. It's certainly a powerful enough and popular enough gauge for movie quality that it absolutely does embarrass the AMPAS membership for choosing a couple of Best Picture nominees that don't have great or even good tomato meter scores.
I think Rotten Tomatoes needs to make its tomato meter gauge a little more precise rather than giving a single critic's review and up or down vote. If they measured according to star ratings or numerical ratings and got the critics to play along with this a much more accurate average could be tabulated. Then you would have an even more accurate reading on which films were the best of the year.
Still, after reading the Rotten Tomatoes' site for a few years now, I have to say that it is usually pretty difficult for a mainstream movie to score well into 90's percentile. The Dark Knight managed that. So did Wall•E.
Time ultimately judges which movies are truly great and get lifted to "classic" status. There's lots of movies that endure as true greats of film that never won a Best Picture Oscar.
Star Wars lost out to Annie Hall. Both are good movies, but which one still endures? I saw Annie Hall again not long ago on some HD channel (HD Net Movies, I think). I won't deny that it is a great movie, but its humor and observations are only relevant for the 1970s. It doesn't play well today.
Raging Bull didn't win a Best Picture Oscar. If memory serves correct, I don't think classics like The Searchers or 2001 were even nominated for Best Picture Oscars at all.
Some of the same "important" best picture nominees may suffer the fate or simply be forgotten years from now while movies like The Dark Knight may be more likely to play well to audiences a couple decades from now.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-24-2009 11:39 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley
. . . it looks like the Tribune misses the point of the Academy. They are supposed to pick movies that are really good, not really popular. It's not all about the telecast ratings.
Absolutely right, Mike. There are already alternative award shows for popularity's sake, The People's Choice Awards and the MTV Movie Awards come to mind. The Oscars are members of the Motion Picture Academy deciding amongst themselves what is the best they saw in a given year, TV ratings be dammed. Thank God, too, or else a lot of fine films and performances would go unrecognized because of their lack of mainstream appeal. How many average film-goers do you thing even heard of Melissa Leo before the other morning (or for that matter, Marion Cotillard, last year's winner), and how many do you think saw Frozen River? It's a great movie and a terrific acting job, and deserves to recognized as such . . . but it sure isn't going to be by the People's Choice Awards.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic