Award archives...

Post by **Josh** » February 28th, 2005, 2:00 pm

What did you guys think of the new way they presented some of the "technical" awards. To be honest, I didn't like the winners receiving their awards from the audience. It's like Chris Rock joked, "Next year, they're going to give out Oscars in the parking lot. There will be a drive-through Oscar lane."

Post by **Ben** » February 28th, 2005, 2:01 pm

I agree it seemed "awkward"...

Post by **macontosh2000** » February 28th, 2005, 2:40 pm

Mickey A wrote:What did you guys think of the new way they presented some of the "technical" awards. To be honest, I didn't like the winners receiving their awards from the audience. It's like Chris Rock joked, "Next year, they're going to give out Oscars in the parking lot. There will be a drive-through Oscar lane."

I dont like it, if the actors get to go on stage to accept their awards so should the technical award winners.

Post by **AniMan** » February 28th, 2005, 3:08 pm

CaptainJasHook wrote: I have lost all respect I had for Beyonce - but she is a fighter, I will give her that much. She wanted to sing everything this year. She wants buzz to star in the upcoming DREAMGIRLS film, so she publicly shows off her vocal talents. "See - I can do it! Cast me!" Honey, if you're that good, you will be in the film. Don't beg like a baby. If you're it, you're it. If not, suck it up. You weren't good enough. They know you want the role, now simmer down.

Chris Rock sucked as host. He had a few good jokes, but disgraced the honor of being a host. No class. I don't expect his humor to be classy, but certainly his job as host. Awful! Bring back Billy Crystal!

I'm going to have to put you on the spot for this one: what do you mean "Beyonce wanted to sing everything this year"? How do you know that? Did she say this in an interview? I ask because, last I checked, she was not the producer of the Academy Awards show. In fact, she's not the director either. So, how, pray tell, could she control how many songs and which songs she sings? They ask her, she either accepts or rejects. Simple. There was no "begging" here, and the songs she sang, she sang beautifully. Just admit you just don't like her or something because the grandiose claims you make are just silly.

Another question I have: how did Chris Rock disgrace "the honor of being a host"? What did he do that was so disgraceful? He was actually rather tame last night (much to my chagrin: I was hoping for a little controversy

) and at the worst was just okay. But awful? That's a stretch. But I will agree, Billy Crystal does the hosting better than anyone!

Post by **Kaszubas** » February 28th, 2005, 3:15 pm

it's really kind of strange to name less exposed but very important for final reception of the film cathegories like editing, sound editing, cinematography as technical cathegories. It's unfair and simply wrong. Every cathegory needs some level of technical skills. But like someone awarded during ceremony said- oscar is for artistic decissions not only for technical skills.

And not only so called "technical cathegories" were awarded in that new "faster" way. What about feature document and short animated film?

The real technical oscars (sci-tech) were those presented by Scarlet Johansson up there in box/balcony. Awards for new technological achievments (for example new 3d software, new fillmmaking solutions - new models od cranes, lenses, cameras, film tape, etc. etc.)

cheers

Post by **Josh** » February 28th, 2005, 3:26 pm

Kaszubas wrote:And not only so called "technical cathegories" were awarded in that new "faster" way. What about feature document and short animated film?

Oh, I forgot about those categories receiving their awards in the audience. That shocked me, considering they were receiving Oscars for best films.

Post by **CaptainJasHook** » February 28th, 2005, 5:05 pm

AniMan wrote:
CaptainJasHook wrote: I have lost all respect I had for Beyonce - but she is a fighter, I will give her that much. She wanted to sing everything this year. She wants buzz to star in the upcoming DREAMGIRLS film, so she publicly shows off her vocal talents. "See - I can do it! Cast me!" Honey, if you're that good, you will be in the film. Don't beg like a baby. If you're it, you're it. If not, suck it up. You weren't good enough. They know you want the role, now simmer down.

Chris Rock sucked as host. He had a few good jokes, but disgraced the honor of being a host. No class. I don't expect his humor to be classy, but certainly his job as host. Awful! Bring back Billy Crystal!
I'm going to have to put you on the spot for this one: what do you mean "Beyonce wanted to sing everything this year"? How do you know that? Did she say this in an interview? I ask because, last I checked, she was not the producer of the Academy Awards show. In fact, she's not the director either. So, how, pray tell, could she control how many songs and which songs she sings? They ask her, she either accepts or rejects. Simple. There was no "begging" here, and the songs she sang, she sang beautifully. Just admit you just don't like her or something because the grandiose claims you make are just silly.
Another question I have: how did Chris Rock disgrace "the honor of being a host"? What did he do that was so disgraceful? He was actually rather tame last night (much to my chagrin: I was hoping for a little controversy ) and at the worst was just okay. But awful? That's a stretch. But I will agree, Billy Crystal does the hosting better than anyone!

"Just admit you just don't like her or something because the grandiose claims you make are just silly."

I know because a good friend of mine is working with Bill Condon (director/writer) on the DREAMGIRLS film. I know because she had a meeting with Bill Condon (that she requested) so she could pitch herself to be in the film. I know because she fought to sing as much as she could on the Oscars. Yes, the director makes the final decisions, but did she say "one song is enough"? No! She is creating buzz.

And never did I say she was a bad singer - she does have the vocals! However, I have seen her act, and I was not impressed. I have seen DREAMGIRLS - and I cannot imagine her in the film. At least not the main three female leads. Perhaps a cameo, but nothing more.

As for Chris Rock, he is funny, but I do not care for his humor. That comes down to personal taste. As for disgracing the honor of being host - you said it yourself. He was tame. He didn't DO anything. He was allowed to be the master of ceremonies for this classy event, and what happened? He didn't do anything. No controversy, no big production. He read the prompter and told a few jokes. His personality is too unformal and his attitude is careless (which is why some find him funny). I do not associate Chris Rock with good acting. With good films.

I associate Billy Crystal, Whoopi Goldberg, Steve Martin, and Robin Williams. They were terriffic. Steve Martin is so elegant and classy! Billy Crystal is formal, loose, and always carries and "funny" manner to himself. Whoopi is loud and proud, and still a goddess (at least when she hosted). Robin Williams (IF THEY WOULD OFFER IT TO HIM) I would imagine to go down in history as the funniest Oscar host. His jokes are hilarious, and he is so fun to watch. Perhaps he would go over-board, but I have seen him do very serious acting, and have very serious discussions.

And then there is Chris Rock....UGH!

Post by **Mike Ventrella** » February 28th, 2005, 8:14 pm

Wolf Tooth wrote:Wow... I'm not surprised that something shipy like MDB won for best picture.
"And the Oscar gose to Million Dollar Baby. Shure it's depressing and unrealistic, but's still the best picture of the year , right?"
I wish movies like Passion of Christ( I still can't beleived those people can be so narow minded athiests not to NOMINATE IT ATLEAST?), Finding Neverland, or Spider Man 2(I know, films like that don't get nominated, but it's still a meaningful film).
Gawd, I would love to give those people a cold splash of commen sence and reality.

Not everyone who disliked Passion of the Christ was an atheist. It got low ratings from critics across the country. Sometimes people don't like movies for reasons having nothing to do with whether they agree with the film or not.

Post by **ShyViolet** » February 28th, 2005, 8:44 pm

I enjoyed the "Oscar Chat." Will there be any more chats??

Post by **AniMan** » March 1st, 2005, 12:42 am

[quote="CaptainJasHook"]
" Yes, the director makes the final decisions, but did she say "one song is enough"? No! She is creating buzz."

Uh, huh. So she should say one song is enough. Why? That makes no sense. If that's what the director or producer wants then..

"As for disgracing the honor of being host - you said it yourself. He was tame. He didn't DO anything. He was allowed to be the master of ceremonies for this classy event, and what happened? He didn't do anything. No controversy, no big production. He read the prompter and told a few jokes. His personality is too unformal and his attitude is careless (which is why some find him funny). I do not associate Chris Rock with good acting. With good films.

I associate Billy Crystal, Whoopi Goldberg, Steve Martin, and Robin Williams. They were terriffic. Steve Martin is so elegant and classy! Billy Crystal is formal, loose, and always carries and "funny" manner to himself."

How can you be "formal" and "loose" at the same time"? Or formal and controversial? Can't do it. That's contradictory.

Please excuse me for being nitpicky

Post by **Phil** » March 1st, 2005, 9:17 am

I'm not a big fan of Chris Rock either. I have long thought that his popularity is due more to his ability to shock and offend than to his comic talents.

I was pleased that Rock showed some restraint and didn't degrade the Academy Awards, but his performance supports my theory that he's not really that funny.

Post by **Special_Ed** » March 1st, 2005, 1:45 pm

" I meant supervising like, sarcastically. "

you jump to too many conclusions

"Yeah...and a lot of people liked Kazenberg. (see bottom of the page.) "

but A LOT of people hate him too.

" O.K., I guess all critics, moviegoers and Academy Voters are morans"

No, just the ones who go see films like Shrek

" (Both Shrek I and II broke records.) "

So did Howard the Duck.

" But you couldn't do movies like that at Disney."

Pocahontas, Hunchback, Hercules, New Groove, Tarzan, Mulan ....

"Not a Bible movie, anyway. Or a Woody Allen film. "

PROVE it. Disnrey does new things all the time. They've made "Bible movies" before and they could hire any voice they wanted. Having Woody Allen in your film (WHO IS A SICK BASTARD) does NOT make your film a "woody Allen film".

" O.K., like I said, it's just my opinion. Don't get upset"

no, you like to spout fake statements as fact.

" Fine...that's all I was trying to say. He may be motivated somewhat by revenge but he LOVES animation and that was why he started DW. "

No, you're trying to say Katzenberg loves Eisner and all of his films are an allegory of their relationship. Yeah right!

" Yeah but people don't always pay attention to that....How many people thought Shrek was Disney? "

I know very few people who think Shrek is Disney. If anyone thought the first Disney made Shrek could be understandable because what would Dreamworks say? "From the studio of Antz" LOL!

I notice you don't argue with Ben even though he repeated material I said.

Post by **CaptainJasHook** » March 1st, 2005, 2:54 pm

AniMan wrote:Uh, huh. So she should say one song is enough. Why? That makes no sense. If that's what the director or producer wants then..

How can you be "formal" and "loose" at the same time"? Or formal and controversial? Can't do it. That's contradictory.

Please excuse me for being nitpicky

The director thought it best for ratings. LOOK HOW GOOD THAT TURNED OUT! Beyonce, Chris Rock, less acceptance speech time, and the ratings STILL DROPPED!

DUH!

Too many award shows! There's Golden Globes, People's Choice, People's Second Coice, Oscars, AFI Film Awards, Saturn Awards, BAFTA, etc. etc. etc. STOP TELEVISING ALL OF THEM! Then on top of that, there's fashion pre-shows for each one!

Yes, it is possible to be formal and and controversial at the same time. Example: Robin Williams. Formal + loose = Whoopi Goldberg.

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 1st, 2005, 7:00 pm

I notice you don't argue with Ben even though he repeated material I said.

That was only because I thought I'd let the thread go...I didn't see your reply so I thought the discussion was over. You don't have to take it so personally.

Anyway I was considering replying to Ben that originally F:2000 was Roy's idea, and that Katzenberg hated it. (This is all in DisneyWar). He mainly conceded to it in an attempt to get along with Roy. (Not showing interest in Fantasia was one of Roy's chief complaints about JK.)

you jump to too many conclusions

It's not just me...Jim Hill has said that same thing and I've read in articles that Roy liked to spend more time with his yachts than with the films.

but A LOT of people hate him too.

I'm not disputing that, but like you said everyone likes and hates the guy in charge. I'm sure there's people who hate John Lassetter and Brad Bird. That doesn't make them any less talented, though.

No, just the ones who go see films like Shrek

Uh...not sure what to say about this....

So did Howard the Duck.

I doubt Howard the Duck grossed better than Finding Nemo and Lion King.

PROVE it. Disnrey does new things all the time. They've made "Bible movies" before and they could hire any voice they wanted. Having Woody Allen in your film (WHO IS A SICK BASTARD) does NOT make your film a "woody Allen film".

I dunno...I don't think a Disney film about the Ten Commandments would really go over. You're right that it shares attributes with Pocahontas and Hunchback but that film (POE) had very little in the way of the traditional Disney-esque trimmings--no animal sidekicks, slapstick, "simple" happy ending. There was a lot of complex stuff there--I mean, the Killing of the First Born! How can you have that in a Disney film?
And yeah having Woody Allen didn't make it a Woody Allen film, but his themes of self-esteem and societal angst were present, both not traditionally Disney fare. (Plus I don't like Woody Allen much either, I was just trying to make a point.)

no, you like to spout fake statements as fact.

It's just a discussion and I'm not trying to put anyone down. I have a lot of respect for you and your knowledge.

No, you're trying to say Katzenberg loves Eisner and all of his films are an allegory of their relationship. Yeah right!

I didn't mean that, but I think unless you ask him straight out you have no way of knowing what he's really thinking. A lot of articles (and I mean a lot) have commented on the whole Rameses/Moses thing and how it parallels his relationship with Eisner. (Plus if you've seen Joseph: King of Dreams, there seems to be a definete parallel with Joseph's relationship with Potiphar to Katzenberg's early relationship with Eisner)
But it's true it's all speculation, so let's just leave it at that.

Post by **Special_Ed** » March 2nd, 2005, 12:33 am

" That was only because I thought I'd let the thread go...I didn't see your reply so I thought the discussion was over. You don't have to take it so personally. "

No, I was just busy.

"It's not just me...Jim Hill has said that same thing and I've read in articles that Roy liked to spend more time with his yachts than with the films. "

And Jim is never wrong

" I'm not disputing that, but like you said everyone likes and hates the guy in charge. I'm sure there's people who hate John Lassetter and Brad Bird. That doesn't make them any less talented, though. "

You sure sounded like you were disputting it. I bet a lot less people hate Lasseter than Katzenberg.

"There was a lot of complex stuff there--I mean, the Killing of the First Born! How can you have that in a Disney film? "

You mean like Bambi's mom dying? Mufasa's murder? Frollo killing Quasimodo's mom?

" It's just a discussion and I'm not trying to put anyone down. I have a lot of respect for you and your knowledge. "

Well thank you. I respect yor stubborness and admire passionate heart.

" I didn't mean that, but I think unless you ask him straight out you have no way of knowing what he's really thinking. A lot of articles (and I mean a lot) have commented on the whole Rameses/Moses thing and how it parallels his relationship with Eisner. (Plus if you've seen Joseph: King of Dreams, there seems to be a definete parallel with Joseph's relationship with Potiphar to Katzenberg's early relationship with Eisner)
But it's true it's all speculation, so let's just leave it at that. Smile"

I bet that when the Bible was written they were thinking of Katzenberg and Eisner...especially when those events were taking place. lol.