Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Oscars

This is topic Oscars - February 27 2005 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=003921

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-27-2005, 07:54 PM:

OK The Oscars have not started yet, but I have a couple of predictions:

1 - Chris Rock will do some jokes about being black.
2 - The show will be boring.
3 - All of the movies nominated are boring (wait... that's not a prediction)
4 - Everybody will care "who" the stars are wearing. Well not me. Fashion sucks. I cannot think of a more retarded industry.
5 - The show will be boring.

I will tune in and watch until I get bored.

Hmmm.. they started an hour ago! Shows how much I follow the scene.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-27-2005, 08:03 PM:

Wow, I'm already bored and tuning out. But in those few minutes I've been proven right on points #1, 2, 3, and 5!

Posted by Andrew Shingleton (Member # 2257) on 02-27-2005, 09:38 PM:

The oscars website has pretty much proven point 4 as well.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-27-2005, 09:38 PM:

And the award goes to The Aviator......And the award goes to The Aviator.........and the award goes to The Aviator.......and the award gos to The Avia....oh wait The Incredibles.....

Oh and by the way Renee Zelwegger or what ever should have never been let out of the house without her make-up and her funked ass hair doo or poo.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-27-2005, 09:48 PM:

As John Pytlak can attest, Renee is incredibly ugly and smells. Does anyone have a picture of how awful she looked tonight? I missed it. But I want to join in the ridicule.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 02-27-2005, 10:08 PM:

Is the "fish" look in this year?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-27-2005, 10:20 PM:

I walked out of the room within the first few minutes specifically because of Chris Rock.

Chris Rock SUCKS!

My wife kept watching for a short time after I left but SHE finally turned it off and went to bed...

Because Chris Rock SUCKS!

Now, I've finished my work on the computer and I can go to bed. I guess I can thank him for making it possible for me to get to bed early tonight.

Because Chris Rock SUCKS!

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 02-27-2005, 10:37 PM:

Chris Rock is actually a pretty funny and talented guy if you take the time to listen to a LOT of what he says...

I've always found him funny, altho he could be a bit funnier is he'd clean up his mouth...

And I guess I'm sort of biased because he's from this area... Georgetown, SC... about 40 minutes from my house, directly south.
He was at our sister theatre a few years ago at Thanksgiving watching a flick with his family. Why they were there and not at my place (much newer and closer) I'll never know.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-27-2005, 10:40 PM:

Yeah, Chris Rock didn't go over very well. He puts together some hilarious material, but was "miscast" for this one. Not quite as bad as David Letterman's hosting job.

The show is still running as I post this, but I'll tell you what really really sucked: delivering a number of the "lesser" awards out in the audience or having the nominees of other "lesser" categories already on stage behind the presenter. Obviously this was meant to cut down on the walk-to-the-stage time. But it comes off condescending as hell. One of the few laughs I had was when Chris Rock busted on the practice, saying, "next year we'll be giving some of the awards in the parking lot."

Oh --another thing that, well, it didn't suck, but it seemed pretty strange anyway: the theme song for "The Terminator" was the theme for this year's Oscars. Wierd.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-27-2005, 10:43 PM:

I love surprise endings.......Clint Eastwood and Million Dollar Baby.......I am just glad The Aviator stopped flying.......

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 02-27-2005, 10:50 PM:

All done, and in only 3 hr and 10 minutes. No time wasters this year, and I'm glad for that.

No real surprises. A couple of awards especially pleased me: Brad Bird and the Incredibles and that wonderful song from Motorcycle Diaries. The performance of that by Antonio Banderas and Carlos Santana was surprisingly good.

Nothing weird in the dress department. Most people looked pretty good. But then, its hard for Charlize Theron or Halle Berry to look bad. Zellweger is a bit too "squinty" for my taste.

Chris Rock was OK. Nothing embarrassing, as I expected. I don't understand why Matt Drudge was so against him.

Most amazing thing was the Clint Eastwood's mother was there! Looked pretty good for 96!!!

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 02-27-2005, 10:56 PM:

I worked, so I didn't get to see the awards. Then again, I don't feel like I missed much anyway.. [Smile]

I did hear that in several of the balcony shots, many seats were empty. I wonder why????

Coudl it be predictability? The sheer boredom of it all?

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 02-27-2005, 10:56 PM:

Gweneth Paltrow reenforced the ole cliche

"Wrap her in a flag and do her for GLORY!" [puke]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-27-2005, 11:08 PM:

Huh?

I was told that Hillary Stank acted like a crack whore when she won just like Julia Roberts does when she wins... they can't shut the hell up. There was a reason she was cast in "Boys don't Cry" and a boxing movie, and that's because she looks like a man! I hope she dies in a car wreck. Also, was Sean Penn on drugs or was he having an "autistic moment"? He refused to look at the camera and looked like he was having a seizure. I hope he loses a nut to testicular cancer.

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 02-27-2005, 11:16 PM:

Ok, I like Renee with the dark hair damnit! The makeup on the other hand...

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-27-2005, 11:29 PM:

I don't think anyone there will ever out class Clint Eastwood! Other than him the High Definition signal was great!

Mark

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-28-2005, 04:43 AM:

Are you saying Clint looks bad in High Defintion?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-28-2005, 05:48 AM:

Joe Redifer said: "Renee is incredibly ugly and smells. Does anyone have a picture of how awful she looked tonight? I missed it. But I want to join in the ridicule."

Renee looked great when she presented my Academy Technical Achievement Award (and she smelled nice too). [Smile]

It was really nice to see Tak Miyagishima of Panavision win the Gordon E. Sawyer award -- he's a good friend:

quote:
Takuo Miyagishima, one of the most notable design engineers in the motion picture industry, has worked at Panavision for nearly fifty years, Miyagishima has been influential in developing and designing new technologies that are unique and innovative advancements in the field of cinematography.

"Tak has been and continues to be a leading design engineer," said Richard Edlund, chair of the Scientific and Technical Awards Committee. "His work with Panavision, in particular the technologies he has created, revolutionized the industry."

Miyagishima began his award-winning career with Panavision in 1955. Under his guidance, Panavision received two Oscars®, first in 1978 for the Panaflex Motion Picture Camera System and again in 1993 for the Auto Panatar anamorphic photographic lens. In 1991, Miyagishima was honored with the Fuji Gold Medal, an award recognizing his design of the single autofocusing anamorphic camera lens. He received both a Technical Achievement Award and a Scientific and Engineering Award from the Academy in 1998 (with Albert Saiki) for the design and development of the Eyepiece Leveler and the mechanical design of the Primo Lens Series, respectively. He also won an Emmy Award for the Lens Series in 2001. In 1999, Miyagishima received the Academy's John A. Bonner Medal of Commendation, awarded for Òoutstanding service and dedication in upholding the high standards of the Academy.Ó That same year the American Society of Cinematographers gave him (and Albert Mayer) its President's Award honoring his contributions to the industry.

A longtime member of both the Academy and the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), Miyagishima has served on numerous film technology committees for both organizations including the Academy's new Science and Technology Council.

* Scientific and Engineering Award (Plaque) 1990: For the optical design, mechanical design and concept and development of the Primo Series of spherical prime lenses for 35mm photography. (w. Iain Neil & Panavision, Inc.)
* Scientific and Engineering Award (Plaque) 1998: For the optical design (Iain Neil), the mechanical design (Miyagishima) and the concept and development (Panavision) of the Primo Series of spherical prime lenses for 35mm cinematography.
* Technical Achievement Award (Certificate) 1998: For the design and development of the Eyepiece Leveler. (w. Albert K. Saiki, both of Panavision, Inc.)
* Honorary and Other Awards 1999: John A. Bonner Medal of Commendation
* Honorary and Other Awards 2004: Gordon E. Sawyer Award

3 Scientific/Technical Awards, 2 Honorary Awards

Also good to see Ed DiGiulio of Cinema Products remembered by the Academy in the 2004 Memorial, along with many others who spent their lives working "behind the scenes". [Cool]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-28-2005, 06:42 AM:

Tak is a great guy. But the true credit for Panavision's incredible optics goes to the genius of George Cramer...the guy who invented the f 0.9 hi-rez lens and no-distortion/no-dipping zoom lenses and countless other impossible optical designs.

The Mechanical design goes to Al Mayer...especially for the Panaflex and countless other 35 and 65mm camera designs... not to mention (I forgot his name) the guy who was a genius in camera movement design.

And to make it all work and run reliably with all the bells & whistles in environments from subzero to the high deserts, the electronic designs go to Oliver Conway, Neil McCurdy...and myself... for ALL the stuff.

All these people are now retired, moved on to other things, or dead.

Actually, old man Gottschalk is the one that REALLY deserves all the credit for his drive and being a true visionary!

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 02-28-2005, 10:50 AM:

I liked Chris Rock.

Annette Bening should have won for Best Actress. The only reason Swank won is because 'she's so hot right now.'

I didn't think Million Dollar Baby was all that good of a movie...

Beyonce was HOT!

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 02-28-2005, 12:25 PM:

I'm glad "Sideways" got nothing. I think it's one of the biggest pieces of garbage to come out of Hollywood in decades. It should be sent over to the porno industry awards.

I saw more breasts on the tube than I've seen in a long time. My wife paid the price (can I say that?). Maybe next year they won't bother to cover ANY part of them.

Those of us here in the Evergreen State were glad to see Swank win. She was raised in a trailer park in Bellingham.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-28-2005, 12:32 PM:

Chris Rock was less abrasive than I expected but he wasn't all that funny either.

Renee Zellweger looked terrible. Her face reminded me of Michael Jackson with that lipstick. [scream]

Clint Eastwood was a class act all the way. I'm glad he won. Having his mom there was way cool.

Hilary Swank was indeed just like Julia Roberts. She thanked a few dozen people nobody cares about, the orchestra tried to play her off, but she yelled "You can't do that, I haven't gotten to Clint yet!" Then AFTER she raved about Clint, she decided to thank a few more nobodies including her lawyers. She turned what should have been a nice moment into a train wreck. Nice job, Hil.

Jamie Foxx's speech was the best of all.

Overall I thought the awards were pretty good. No major stupid upsets, the winners were deserving and even the nominations were well distributed this year. The show, itself, probably sucked about the same as usual but that's hard to say because I fast-forwarded through a lot of it.

And Bob: Sideways didn't "get nothing." It won for best adapted screenplay. And it's not exactly porn -- there are two sex scenes in it, both used for comic effect -- there's probably only about 20 seconds of nudity in the whole movie.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 02-28-2005, 01:31 PM:

OOPS! You're right Mike. I forgot about the screenplay thing. But, what the heck, any fourteen year old with raging hormones could have written that.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-28-2005, 01:46 PM:

I'm still upset that Sky Captain (my favorite film of 2004) didn't even get nominated.

Oh, well. At least I enjoyed Million Dollar Baby and the Aviator. I thought that the "Best Foreign Film" category was particularly weak this year (not sure why), which was somewhat disappointing in general. Did Hotel Rwanda win anything? If not, it should have. I'm glad that the Incredibles won "Best Animated Feature"--not that it had much competition.

Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 02-28-2005, 01:57 PM:

quote: Robert E. Allen
any fourteen year old with raging hormones could have written that.

Let's see you write a script that is half as intelligent as Sideways. I hate it when people bitch about a movie over and over again (and in multiple threads). You weren't forced to watch the damn movie, were you?

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 02-28-2005, 02:44 PM:

I didn't see most of the movies nominated (I still want to see The Aviator and Million Dollar Baby though), so I can't pass judgement on any of the decisions.
I'm glad Jamie Foxx won though.
He had to go through a lot just to play the character and he pulled it off really well.

Side note:
Did anyone else notice during the Sidney Lumet montage the clip of his new film that is currently in production titled "Find Me Guilty"?
I couldn't believe it myself, but it showed Vin Diesel in what looks to be a REAL MOVIE and WITH HAIR.
I wonder how that will turn out.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 02-28-2005, 04:56 PM:

_________________________________________________________________

"Let's see you write a script that is half as intelligent as Sideways. I hate it when people bitch about a movie over and over again (and in multiple threads). You weren't forced to watch the damn movie, were you?"
_________________________________________________________________

Part of my job is previewing a film after it is built to make certain it was done correctly. The fact that this film didn't get the "Best Picture" nod leaves in tact what little faith I have left in the Academy.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 02-28-2005, 05:19 PM:

Robert Allen, your rants on Sideways puzzle me. If the nudity in Sideways troubled you, how do you watch most R movies? English Patient had more sex scenes. Halle Berry won for what was a pretty explicit R rated sex scene. PG rated Titanic had Winslet's tits on full display and that was a movie watched by mostly kids.

I feel Sideways is overrated because the premise is still not such a memorable one, but it is still one of my top movies of the year with excellent direction by Payne. Paul Giamatti was the most deserving nominee but he didnt get nominated.

Rock was disappointingly a little bland, but for me, he was still an improvment over any recent host not named Crystal. He was on par with Steve Martin whose presentation was smoother than Rock;s but his jokes were more boring. Whoopi and Letterman were awful. And Chris Rock's MTV hosting gigs are some of the best MTV ever had. And let's give Chris Rock some credit. He got Sean penn to make a fool of himself. Chris should have said "Hey Sean, even Mr. Hand(the FastTimesAtRidgemontHigh teacher) didn't take himself so seriously."

Future suggestions: Conan O Brien.

Glad to see Benning didn't win the sympathy for the hollywood insider sweetheart oscar. Oscars don't need another win from an unspectacular no name film to bore the audiences.

Technical awards were fun for me even as a kid because they actually had the fun movies and clips. I disagree these nods are boring to the masses.

The Adam sandler song from 50 First Dates in it addresssed to Lucy (drew Barrymore) was better than all the nominated songs this year. What an awful bunch. I guess the only semi decent one was the Motorcycles Diaries one and Banderas ruined it to the level of the other songs. Either the academy needs to include adapted songs(as long as they werent used in other movies and were used in a way crucial to a scene in the movie) or pare down the list of nominees if they can't find enough decent songs.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-28-2005, 05:40 PM:

quote:
Titanic ...was a movie watched by mostly kids.

Uhhh, no. "Pooh's Heffalump" was watched mostly by kids. "Titanic" was probably the most wide-appeal movie to come out in the entire second half of the 20th century.

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 02-28-2005, 06:48 PM:

I did enjoy the White Chicks bit though.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 02-28-2005, 06:59 PM:

Titanic was PG-13.

Posted by Don Cross (Member # 2980) on 02-28-2005, 07:03 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
and looked like he was having a seizure.

Due to vcr failure or possible operator error I believe that particular part is missing from my footage. Would you happen to recall what part of the broadcast that occured in?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-28-2005, 07:31 PM:

Chris Rock's opening monolog made me laugh. He was OK. Basically he was doing a standup routine that he tried out on an audience the night before at some club.

What the hell was Sean Penn getting at with his comment about Chris Rock saying that Jude Law isn't a "star". Hey Sean! It was a freakin' JOKE!!!

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 02-28-2005, 07:48 PM:

This year I was rooting for only two things to happen ... that Eternal Sunshine won for original screenplay, and that the Polar Express song LOST. I'm pleased on both counts!

And except for the red fish on page one of this thread (thanks, Jen), I managed to make it this year without seeing a single image or clip from, about, or related to the broadcast.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-28-2005, 09:46 PM:

Hey, Joe! Don't go 'round callin' her Hillary STANK! That's only two letters different than MY name! OK, I might not be the world's most upstanding citizen but even *I* think Hillary is a lowlife crack ho'. She DOES admit she grew up in a trailer park!

I propose "Hillary SKANK" or "Hillary WANK".

Chris Rock is definately a "Type B" person. I didn't care for him one bit!
I didn't like Jamie Foxx in the past but I upgrade him from a "Type B" to a "Type A". He's matured a lot, lately.
Morgan Freeman... "Type A" all the way! High class!
Hillary SKANK... "Type B". No doubt!

What does "Type A" person and "Type B" person mean?

A "Type B" person is sombebody with disagreeable character who will accuse you of racial or class discrimination as a defense for their lack of social graces. Their lack of class, low breeding or stereotypically negative racial characteristics are appearent from the moment you meet them. They are people you wouldn't want to be around.

A "Type A" person is somebody with impeccable character who you wouldn't mind being around regardless of class or race. In fact, they are such nice people you probably won't NOTICE any race or class distinctions. They are people you would almost always want to be around.

My typical examples of "Type A" people are James Earl Jones and Bill Cosby. Both are top notch people. I'd want to be in the same room with them any time.

For "Type B" examples, I use Dennis Rodman and Woody Harrelson. Most Gangsta' Rappers qualify for "Type B" status, including psuedo-rappers like the Beasty Boys. I would leave the room if they walked in.

Now you know why I turned off the Oscars on TV last night. It's because of Chris Rock's "Type B" status. In fact, he couldn't help throwing in a racial joke just to confirm his Type B-ness.

Just to round this out... If they couldn't get Denzel Washington, why DID they settle for Chris Rock?!

(Denzel = "Type A")

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 02-28-2005, 10:46 PM:

Randy, obviously you don't have any more clue about Chris Rock than Matt Drudge. He is an equal opportunity basher who admires the work ethic his dad had. He had a horrendous racist classmates despite growing up in the north and instead of gunning down his classmates like some suburban clowns, he uses his anger in his comedy. Race is part of life and has been a part of movies for a long time. It took a long time for blacks to even get recognized decently at the oscars. Blacks win two oscars and there is all this buzz about pandering, yet no one blinks an eye when whites like Depp get nominations for what is less than their best work. But he has frequently worked with white entertainers and is never afraid of admitting that some white comedians could be better than he is. And I don't even know how you go about clubbing Chris ROck together with Rodman. You are getting so worked about race in a thread about oscars just talking about Chris Rock, yet you want him to lay off the jokes despite his entire childhood being defined by race. He has poked jokes about blacks and himself a lot in his acts.

As a director(head of state), obviously he has ways to go. And as a presenter, he is no Billy Crystal when it comes to the oscars, but how many are. I am sure we can disagree, but it's ironic you have so much hate for a guy you accuse of dealing in negativity.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-28-2005, 10:50 PM:

I don't mean to join in the "Sideways Is Porn" argument. But hearing the description makes me more likely to rent it when it hits DVD, heh heh.

To get to the point, It bugs the hell out of me these days how a great deal of people can do their moral hand-wringing over a love scene or an exposed body part in movie or TV show. People bitch about Jackson Jackson's exposed breast, but don't seem to have a problem with 1,378,493,646,757 Viagara commercials. That number is an estimate, but I'm sure I can't be far off the mark.

To be quite honest, there's not very many feature films being made these days with any nudity. Back in the 1970's if the show was Rated R you were bound to see some skin. Today, most R-rated films earn the rating with lots of violence. Little if anything is said about the much greater prevalence of violence and cruelty in our entertainment. I think the violence thing is more harmful than a love scene.

It's just my opinion, but I have a bigger problem with reality TV shows from "Survivor" to "American Idol" promoting cruel and selfish behavior and humiliating regular people in front on an audience of millions. I think that stuff sends a more harmful message than hardcore porn (well, most hardcore porn). There's a lot more kids being exposed to reality TV filth than any screening of "Sideways" or any other rare indie film with some skin.

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 03-01-2005, 12:15 AM:

I liked Sideways, I liked it alot! The nudity scenes didn't bother me, actually I saw it with a regular paying audience as a regular paying customer and it seemed as if the whole crowd was roaring with laughter during that scene, including myself.

Did I think it deserved Best Picture, no. But I do agree with Adapted Screenplay. And I also agree that Paul Giamatti should have gotten a nomination for Best Actor, he was great in that film.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-01-2005, 01:14 AM:

I thought Chris Rock did a great job except for his usual Black touts and his political "non-political" comments. When he started that crap, I went and took a crap... HA!

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 03-01-2005, 01:36 AM:

quote: Phil Hill
But the true credit for Panavision's incredible optics goes to the genius of George Cramer...the guy who invented the f 0.9 hi-rez lens and no-distortion/no-dipping zoom lenses

Big hairy deal, the Kodak XL series of Super 8 cameras had f 1.2 zoom lenses AND a little switch on the side that dropped an 85C filter in front of the tungsten-balanced film for shooting outdoors.

Oh, the color temperature is wrong here, gel the lamps, gel the lens, gel the windows, bring in some HMI's, bring in a generator! Hey, George bought us 1/3 of a stop, give him a prize! If George was on the ball, he would have put a little switch on the side of the camera & they could light all the movies with a bunch of clamp lights from Home Depot.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-01-2005, 03:37 AM:

But William, they weren't anamorphic...

OBTW: Many times the 85C is too pale for correcting the light when ya really need an 85 or 85B. [Wink]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-01-2005, 07:07 AM:

quote: Robert E. Allen
OOPS! You're right Mike. I forgot about the screenplay thing. But, what the heck, any fourteen year old with raging hormones could have written that.

quote: Randy Stankey
Hey, Joe! Don't go 'round callin' her Hillary STANK! That's only two letters different than MY name! OK, I might not be the world's most upstanding citizen but even *I* think Hillary is a lowlife crack ho'. She DOES admit she grew up in a trailer park!

I propose "Hillary SKANK" or "Hillary WANK".

Chris Rock is definately a "Type B" person.

Where does all that anger and intolerance come from? That is definitely (please note it's definitely, not definately) very "Type C".

BTW if all you see of a complex, multi-layered 2h+ movie is a few seconds of nudity, then the problem lies with your intelligence and maturity, not with the movie.

I agree 100% with Mr Henderson's observations.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 03-01-2005, 04:01 PM:

_________________________________________________________________

"Robert Allen, your rants on Sideways puzzle me. If the nudity in Sideways troubled you, how do you watch most R movies?"
_________________________________________________________________

I don't. And I have no problem with nudity if it is important to the story. The "Sideways" sex scenes and the naked dude flopping down the street, IMO, were disgusting and could have been left out without having any effect on the story line. The nudity in "Titanic" had nothing to do with sex. And if you remember the sex scene in that film consisted of a hand, sound effects and condensation on the car windows - very tastefully done. But we're getting off-topic here. I think the Academy was wise in not awarding it "Best Pic". They would have probably gotten a lot of flack (which would trinkle down to the theatres) from people who still believe sex is a private thing.

Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 03-01-2005, 06:09 PM:

quote: Pravin Ratnam
tits

What a great word. Let's all say it!

TITS!

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 03-01-2005, 06:18 PM:

TITS!

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-01-2005, 06:49 PM:

quote: Robert E. Allen
They would have probably gotten a lot of flack (which would trinkle down to the theatres) from people who still believe sex is a private thing.

I don't think so....Remember that the accademy awarded best picture to Midnight Cowboy in 1969 and it still had the X rating and was later re-rated to an R. It's just hard for a comedy to win over the accademy with a Best Picture award. It probably wouldn't have even gotten a nod if it hadn't been for it winning a golden globe for best comedy

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-01-2005, 08:19 PM:

I wish the Academy had a category for comedy. Trouble is most years there wouldn't be enough good films to fill it. (They could expand the animation category to "animated or comedy" since animated films are almost always comedies and they're the most intelligent comedies, most years.)

I finally got to see "Sideways" (well most of it) last night. I found it to be really well written, and well deserving of the screenplay award. But definitely not Best Picture material.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-01-2005, 08:29 PM:

quote:
TITS!

To paraphrase George Carlin, "tits" shouldn't even be a dirty word. It sounds cute, or even like a snack. Hey, everyone, try new Nabisco Tits!

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-01-2005, 09:06 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I wish the Academy had a category for comedy. Trouble is most years there wouldn't be enough good films to fill it. (They could expand the animation category to "animated or comedy" since animated films are almost always comedies and they're the most intelligent comedies, most years.)

I finally got to see "Sideways" (well most of it) last night. I found it to be really well written, and well deserving of the screenplay award. But definitely not Best Picture material.

I agree there should generally be more comedies. But they are probably among the most difficult screenplays to write.
On the other hand, according to another poster, "every fourteen year old with raging hormones" could have written a script such as "Sideways". So I wonder why we don't have more good comedies. Theoretically, there should be millions of good scripts out there.

I don't think it would be a good idea to combine comedy and animated films into one category. While indeed a lot of animated films are comedies, a lot of them are also for children, which again a lot of comedies aren't, and I think the craftsmanship side of the animation work should also be taken into account.

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 03-01-2005, 10:14 PM:

I was expecting the Passion to win for best musical score. I really thought the movie had a good soundtrack.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 03-02-2005, 12:33 AM:

quote: Phil Hill
OBTW: Many times the 85C is too pale for correcting the light when ya really need an 85 or 85B.

85B? Do you think the world is MADE of light?
You just burned up that 1/3 stop that your boy George bought you!

Phil's got to have a filter that's less & less blue! Where does it end?
Do you have some kind of pathological fear of making blue movies?

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-02-2005, 01:21 AM:

William! You're cracking me up here! LOL!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-02-2005, 07:15 AM:

William Hoopster is right... Boy George kicks ass!!!

Well, do you really want to hurt him? DO YOU?

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 03-02-2005, 11:42 AM:

I thought that Sideways was a good movie, and it was no where CLOSE to porn. And as far as 'tastefull' and all that, why would you make a comedy tasteful? It's a comedy, just relax and don't watch it if it's so full of filth and disgust. I also believe that when your comment was up in the Feature Info, or wherever it was, you said you walked out and didn't watch the whole movie...so how can you really judge it?

I thought Chris Rock did a decent job, and he made me laugh a bit. I know his comedy routines do this a lot, but the whole black vs. white thing got a little old pretty quick. And why did Beyonce sing everything? Minnie Driver and other should have been singing.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-02-2005, 07:11 PM:

quote: John Pytlak
It was really nice to see Tak Miyagishima of Panavision win the Gordon E. Sawyer award

I agree that Tak deserved it, and Ed's mention waqs a nice touch. I was unhappy that they called him an inventor(understatement!) when he was actually responsable for the design of many of Mitchell's cameras and movements and getting the Steadicam to where it is today. Ed was a really nice guy thet would take time to talk film with anyone. I met him in the USL suite years ago at Showest. He was presenting a seminar and demoing 30 fps vs 24. Some of you may remember that seminar.

Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-03-2005, 05:59 PM:

There are some small details that bother me:

1. The presenter's names are announced over the PA system, but they were not mixed into the TV signal, and as many actors like to wear awful beards, haircuts or glasses at the Oscar show, it was always nice to have the names announced or superimposed on the screen for a few seconds.

2. In the categories Best Animated Short and Best Short Feature, this year they did not show even a few shots from every nominated film (except on the stage floor displays, which is no way to see film images).
I like to get at least a glimpse of each short film, and if the category is important enough to keep it inside the main show, show some respect for the filmmakers by presenting a few seconds of their work.

3. The host is most important to the spirit of an Oscar show. While I do not like Billy Cristal as an actor, I found him an excellent host. Chris Rock was not bad, only decent. Much better than the terrible show in which Steve Martin did his mean and foul-mouthed presentation. [Roll Eyes]

Unfortunately, he is really hard to understand for people who are not native speakers of English, but I realize of course the Oscar show is a national event. But I enjoyed every second of Robin Williams onstage, his impersonation of Jack Nicholson dubbing Bugs Bunny and Marlon Brando dubbing Elmer Fudd was great!
[thumbsup]

I'd like to see again Whoopie Goldberg or Billy Crystal as a host next year.

In the IN MEMORIAM clips, it was nice to see Russ Meyer mentioned. He would have liked some of the most impressive cleavages in the audience.
[Smile]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-03-2005, 11:24 PM:

quote: Christian Appelt
...it was nice to see Russ Meyer mentioned...

Yeah I agree Christian! He did a lot of great films and has been overlooked WAY too long!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-04-2005, 08:15 PM:

Russ may have been overlooked. But there's no way one could overlook the hooters in his films! Real hooters too, not those silicone balloon toy thingies you see everywhere now.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 03-04-2005, 10:44 PM:

Yeah, I would have loved to have seen the shorts. At first I idly wondered if we should complain to Gil Cates about it, but the reality is that shorts have to compete with songs for time, and songs seem to have won that battle (since they play every one), probably because there is real money there.

I suppose we could still ask Gil Cates to at least play a few clips from, or at least stills of, the shorts nominees. Opinions? Anyone want to write a letter (probably also addressed to Jon Bloom)?

--jhawk

p.s.: They showed the shorts publically in New York and LA in December/January. I had a prior engagement opposite the New York showing and couldn't make it...