This is topic Academy presentation Speeches (no political comments) in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001930

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 03-23-2003, 09:32 PM:
 
Did anyone else damn near GAG when Michael Moore {No clue where I got Donovan) (Bowling for Colombine) spewed on about his own Antiwar agenda? Did ABC kill the mic as they promised? HEll no... Hey ABC.. I'll be the first to offer a big you heads. It's no wonder I watch so much TLC and TDC anymore...

Why can't these glorified FAKES get their shit together and simply do what they were asked to do????????? NOT SPEW THEIR OWN POLITICAL AGENDA ON STAGE?????

[ 03-24-2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Jason Black ]
 

---

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 03-23-2003, 09:36 PM:
 
It was Michael Moore not Donovan. Instead of killing the mic they cued the music...a little too late.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-23-2003, 09:38 PM:
 
A winner gets a certain amount of time to say whatever they want. It would have been wrong to cut him off early just because people disagreed with what he was saying (and there were plenty who agreed). Certainly more interesting than hearing someone thank his agent's girlfriend's hairdresser. Moore saying something about the war was absolutely 100% expected.
 

---

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 03-23-2003, 09:42 PM:
 
I did like how he had all the nominees on stage with him, I thought that was well shared.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 03-23-2003, 09:53 PM:
 
What I loved about his speech is that he showed his absolute contempt for the Constitution of the United States, and his deep dark desire for people to not read it anymore.

Remember that the president is not chosen by popular vote, but the far left is constant on thier attack of the constitution that prevents it. Actually they spend thier time pretending that it doesn't exist.

I never once heard Micheal Moore speak out against Bill Clinton when he invaded Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, or even yes... Iraq. Funny how intellecually devoid people like him are. They only speak out when it is thier party NOT in power. Otherwise they shut thier traps.

I noticed that MOST people were Booing, not cheering Mr. Moore.

And I loved Steve Martins reply to the idiot moore, about stuffing him into the trunk of his limo.

Is this the most BOOOOORING show ever or what? Is it that the most boring movies of all time are the ones up for awards?

Yeah, thats it.

Dave

PS... Once again I am back from the dead, at least for a short while. Well as long as the medication holds out anyway.

Ciao.


 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-23-2003, 10:00 PM:
 
Michael Moore, you should shut your big, fat mouth and go eat a sandwich!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-23-2003, 10:04 PM:
 
They may be free to say whatever they want, even if it is their own personal agenda, but do they actually think they'll change the world by doing so? Is Bush gonna stop the war because Michael Moore doesn't like it? Is he gonna fight harder because some other actor/director/whoever supports it? Nah.

I don't really wanna hear it, so I'm not watching the Oscars. I'll look up the results online later. I'm sure there will be a thread somewhere here on Film-Tech with all of the results.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-23-2003, 10:06 PM:
 
No further discussion on Michael Moore or Adrian Brody's political/war comments on this thread.

Any further comments regarding Michael Moore's speech in this forum will be deleted and if necessary the member removed from posting for a few days.

Feel free to discuss any other non-political Academy speeches here.

I am starting a new thread in the Political forum for the discussion of those two and any other people who made comments about the war here.

That being said, they should have cut off Adrian Brody sooner than they did. They let him talk a LONG time before they started the music, then when he told them to stop playing...THEY DID! Meanwhile they cut off other recipients when they probably needed a few more seconds to finish up. The Academy needs to get their shit together, give these guys more time to talk and rid the broadcast of all that useless garbage.

Question to the Adademy...why do you have each nominated song performed in it's entirity, yet you only show a minute's worth of a movie? Next year, just sing the main verse of each song and give the recipients more time to talk! We can also do without much of the other fluff clip montages.

[ 03-24-2003, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-23-2003, 10:36 PM:
 
Well, as a general observation, with the top awards they will let them go on longer and will usually back off if the winner insists on talking. How long did Halle Berry blubber last year? It does produce some memorable moments such as Sally Field gushing "You like me! You really like me!"
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-23-2003, 10:40 PM:
 
I've noticed that too, it's just that I strongly feel they should give everyone an equal amount of time. Sure the general public would rather listen to the recipient of the "best actor" vs. "best sound editing", but all awards are just as important as each other.

What did I just miss anyway? They went on and on and on showing old recipients of the awards which seemed to have no point. What did they kill, 10-15 minutes there???
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-23-2003, 10:51 PM:
 
I kinda liked that. Sort of like playing "Dead or Canadian".
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-23-2003, 11:15 PM:
 
Okay... How many people who have made controversial statements during speeches (not necessarily Oscars) have found themselves quietly "black listed" in upcoming years?

Thank you L. Ron Hubbard!
Free Tibet!

I don't think Geere or Cruise will see an Oscar any time soon, do you?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-23-2003, 11:29 PM:
 
Would any of you expect anything less from Michael Moore???? I was actually expecting him to crash the Oscars.....
Mark
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-23-2003, 11:30 PM:
 
Hello all. Thought the show was very suprising and entertaining. Steve Martin did a great job and I'd like to see him back again. Of course, I'll never be totally happy because no Best Pic for Minority Report...oh well.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-23-2003, 11:39 PM:
 
Steve Martin was a GREAT host!
 

---

Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 03-24-2003, 12:10 AM:
 
I don't think they did EVERY song this year. Where was Emenem's song? I guess if they couldn't get him/didn't want him to sing his own song it would seem strange to have someone else sing it. And that was the song that won.

A lot of the awards went to people who didn't show up, and they made up time on those awards. I heard that the goal was to end the awards by midnight Eastern, 9:00 Pacific, and they only went four minutes long.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 03-24-2003, 01:03 AM:
 
*Sigh* I was working during the oscars this year.

I guess I will have to catch the endless endless highlights on those Entertainment shows. Did I miss anything "exciting"?

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Elena N. Solovyova (Member # 1636) on 03-24-2003, 01:36 AM:
 
Michael Moore was probably selected to play the "certified clown" role by the ceremony organizers.

Yes, nothing can justify any war, but his speech was just ridiculous.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-24-2003, 02:30 AM:
 
Much as I like her, I still think Julia Roberts was insulting and unfunny when she referred to the conductor as "stick man" about 2 years ago when she won for "Erin Brockovich."

Steve Martin's joke about "they didn't change one word...and that word was on page 89" was funny.

"Meryl Streep made me think...and, for that, I shall never forgive her!"

A great host, indeed.
 

---

Posted by Dennis Atkinson (Member # 345) on 03-24-2003, 05:27 AM:
 
Steve Martin was very funny.
When he said something like "Now, that Lord of the Rings was a great download....I mean theater experience."
I could almost hear Jack Valenti screaming
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 03-24-2003, 06:22 AM:
 
I thought Steve Martin was funny, but I'm not sure he was endearing to his audience. He might have been making too much fun at them than with them. With the war and all, there was a lot of tension in the room. We'll see if he gets asked back.

Example, did you think the mug shot of Nick Nolte was maybe a little too much? (Not for Saturday Night Live, but for the Oscars.)
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-24-2003, 09:28 AM:
 
If it wasn't for Steve Martin it would hae been nothing!! The Kodak Theatre is nice though....
Mark
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-24-2003, 12:14 PM:
 
Is it just me or did the ladies' dresses seem WAY more conservative this year? Many of them were very attractive, but it seems like every year there is at least one HOLY SHIT!! moment, but this year there was none (except perhaps Catherine Zeta-Jones' almost spilling over the top of her dress).

(Apologies in advance for not starting a new thread for this...I realize it has nothing to do with the speeches, but I didn't feel it warranted starting a whole 'nother thread.)
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-24-2003, 03:35 PM:
 
Was Vin Diesel at the awards, or was he just the butt of a funny joke?
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-24-2003, 03:41 PM:
 
Mike



-Claude
 

---

Posted by Geoffrey Weiss (Member # 882) on 03-24-2003, 04:27 PM:
 
I just woke up from the Oscars. Booooring.

I don't watch the show to see showbiz-types prattling on about their art. I want to see them embarass themselves!! Or at least to see a streaker or some bizarre Snow White dance number that makes you wonder what the producer was thinking.

Instead because, as Steve Martin so aptly put it, "The profits from tonight's show go to a few very large corporations," everything's homogenized. Too bad.

What a stroke of genius having Jack Valenti come on right after Michael Moore. It probably prevented Valenti from killing Moore backstage. And did anyone else think that the Robert Blake joke was a bit over the top?

I say bring back Letterman. Wanna buy a monkey?
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-24-2003, 04:28 PM:
 
Claude? Which Mike are you referring to? And what are you smiling about?

What was the Vin Diesel joke? I missed that.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-24-2003, 04:30 PM:
 
I think Claude's referring to me. And I was referring to Steve Martin's joke, about how they couldn't find Mickey Rooney a better seat (he was way in the back), because Vin Diesel was there. They didn't show Vin, so I assume he wasn't there, but it was funny nonetheless
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-24-2003, 04:47 PM:
 
Yes, Mike

I was referring to you and my smiles were to the Vin Diesel joke because it was very funny.

Claude
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-24-2003, 06:29 PM:
 
I guess I'm in the minority here. I thought this year was the worst Oscar show I've seen. While I am normally a huge fan of Steve Martin, his opening 10 minutes was just downright rude. Instead of poking fun at the stars like past hosts, he flat out was insulting to them.

After the show was over I played it back and actually paid attention to it. (I rarely *really* watch it live, but it is usually on in the background.) I felt like I was scanning through more montages than there were commercials!!! Really now, I understand that this is the 75th year of these awards, but enough already! They could have had a "75 years of bloated awards ceremonies" pre-show montage from hell and cut an hour+ off of the actual ceremony.

And what was with that huge waste of time where they got as many of the past winners (oh excuse me, I meant "recipients") up on stage and named them off for 15 minutes???

I have already made my argument in another thread regarding playing an ENTIRE song, but only showing a minute or less of clips from a movie. What's up with that? Let's be fair next year and give them a maximum of 20 seconds to hear the main verse and put us out of our misery. Take that time to let the winners (oh my there I go again, excuse me, I meant "recipients") of the awards actually talk for a few minutes. I clocked the Adrian Brody speech at 4 minutes and 5 seconds...and they didn't even bother trying to cut him off until a full 2 minutes had passed.

And are the technical awards just not deserving of more than a minute? Without the techie nerds and their inventions, these movie stars would not exist! Give the guys behind the scenes a shot in the limelight for a few minutes already.

Bring back Letterman! That was by far the best awards show of all time. And let's have Chris Elliott accept EVERY award with a bs speech whenever the winner isn't present.

(Damn, I said winner again. Awww screw it! That's a stupid change anyway.)
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-24-2003, 06:40 PM:
 
Steve Martin was fine. But it was a pretty boring show. I know I said I wasn't going to watch it, but I did. However, as luck would have it, I missed Michael Moore's [oops - editorial comment deleted]. Probably the only interesting moment of the evening.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-24-2003, 06:53 PM:
 
Brad wrote:

quote:

---

(Damn, I said winner again. Awww screw it! That's a stupid change anyway.)

---

quote:

---

Bring back Letterman! That was by far the best awards show of all time. And let's have Chris Elliott accept EVERY award with a bs speech whenever the winner isn't present.

---

The Chris Elliot idea is great!

The Letterman idea is not.

I know. I know.
You're thinking this is a matter of opinion.
Alas, it isn't.
It is a fact that Letterman was the worst host of all time.
Uma...Oprah...Oprah...Uma.
Doesn't matter if he did anything else worthy of remembering;
That's all I remember.
Uma...Oprah.
God!
And I had such high hopes that night.
I say bring back Johnny Carson.
Whatever happened to him, anyway?
Is he still alive and well and working in Hollywood?
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-25-2003, 11:20 AM:
 
Heeeeeere's Johnny ---

http://www.johnnycarson.com/carson/

(His production company's website).

P.S. I recall that Phil Hill helped at Hollywood charities devoted to "street kids" too. Are they the same ones that Johnny Carson helps?:

http://www.johnnycarson.com/carson/dear_johnny/charities/
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-25-2003, 11:41 AM:
 
I'm a Letterman fan, but he's all wrong for the Academy Awards.

Having Chris Elliott accept awards on behalf of non-attendees is a GREAT idea though!!!
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-25-2003, 11:58 AM:
 
I still think Bob Hope was the best!!!

Happy 100th Birthday, Mr. Hope!

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-25-2003, 02:25 PM:
 
Awwwww, Letterman was great. I guess you just have to have his sense of humor. The Uma Oprah thing is just his style. If a joke bombs, he keeps repeating it until it does get funny.

I don't like sitting through the entire songs because it is just more fluff. The show is too damn long as it is. This year instead of all the musical dances and bs, they just replaced all of that time with montages. I'm not sure which is worse. If I was in charge of the Oscars, it would be done in 90 minutes, two hours tops.

It looks like we are all in agreement about Chris Elliott though. Someone call the Academy!
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 03-25-2003, 02:40 PM:
 
FINALLY a place where Chris Elliot is appreciated!
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 03-25-2003, 02:49 PM:
 
What I liked most about the awards show is that I missed the whole thing and spent an enjoyable evening with my wife and son. The Oscars no longer have anything to do with which really is the best picture or who is the best actor. It's just Hollywood trying to convince us that what or who they slect is best and has become a forum for their own agendas (whatever those may be).
 

---

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 03-25-2003, 03:22 PM:
 
Well, I watched about the first half hour of the Oscars, as I needed a break from playing Ocarina of Time on the N64, but then at 9, my tv priority went to HBO, to watch Six Feet Under ... then out of morbid curiosity, I flipped the tv back to ABC...
I was glad that I didn't miss U2 playing, as I dig live music.
Yes, some acceptance speeches were far from interesting, and many far from being thought-provoking. *shrug* Obviously one does not have to be a genius to be a gifted actor.
I daresay that the two people that seemed the most astonished to be awarded golden statuettes were Chris Cooper and Adrien Brody. And that is something that I think is cool - lack of snootiness!
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-25-2003, 05:03 PM:
 
Playing each entire song is alright by me, so long as they play each entire movie. You know they're just trying to find ways to make it even longer anyway.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-25-2003, 05:16 PM:
 

quote:

---

The Oscars no longer have anything to do with which really is the best picture or who is the best actor.

---