2015 Oscars

[James]

Too soon?

http://moviecitynews.com/2014/10/gurus- ... -new-york/

[EricJ]

Any article that mentions Boyhood is WAY too soon. Any article that mentions Into the Woods before seeing it is even sooner. And any article that mentions Wes Anderson's latest movie is just plain darn sad.
(Remember, it was Octobers just like this thirteen years ago, that got a certain Disney movie nominated for BP, just because we couldn't think of anything and the good ones hadn't come out yet...)
The NBOR is still snooty, and the Golden Globes are still insultingly trivial and buzz-bought, but now that the voters don't have time to think up their own nominees anymore, we won't know until those other two nomination lists come out. And not one micro-second before.

One good sign on the horizon is that they've already picked the host:
Usually it goes in cycles--"Hip new" host who becomes all-time legendary disaster, "rescued" the next year by old favorite host who drops the ball the second time, and then good, entertaining, experienced host the third year, who knows how to play to the seats and not the TV.
We've had Seth, we've had Ellen, and now, like clockwork, we have Neil Patrick Harris, fresh from the Tonys.

[Ben]

Oscar has already been talked about since this year's Cannes, especially in terms of performances.

[Bill1978]

OK Eric I bite. What damn movie are you talking about 13 years ago,

[EricJ]

OK Eric I bite. What damn movie are you talking about 13 years ago,

Okay, twenty-three years ago. Sheesh. I've been discussing it for ten years anyway.

(...It was the Into the Woods and Les Miserables of its day.)

[Ben]

Rocketeer?

Or, rather, Beauty And The Beast, which wouldn't have gotten nominated "if the good ones" had really been good enough to wipe it from memory. You do talk such mixed-up trash some(most)times!

[Dacey]

You know, I'm just gonna say it: The so-called "analysis" of the host of the Oscars each year has to be one of the most unfair things ever as far as so-called "critics" are concerned. As Seth MacFarlane said on The Daily Show to fellow Oscar host Jon Stewart earlier this year, it's like the Kobayashi Maru test: There is no way you can win.

Yeah, yeah, these guys are very famous and make millions, but it still takes a ton of gutts to stand on that stage in front of millions and millions of people knowing that every single joke you make is going to be picked apart not just by the internet, but by the "professional" press as well. And it's always the same story. "Look, new host! Perfect choice! Going to be so much better than last year!" Then after the ceremony, they're like, "How disappointing! Was clear from the beginning that they weren't a good choice! So unfunny! They should've known better!" On and on it goes. It's just brutal.

Really, at the end of the day, the role of the Oscar host only matters but so much. They joke around for fifteen minutes, and then they step aside for most of the remainder of the show. There's no need to act like they "ruin" the ceremony, or even like they make or break it. They're just there to tell jokes. If they make you laugh, then wonderful. If they don't, try doing a better job yourself.

The best hosts are the ones who play to their strengths, and I love how people "complained" about how MacFarlane hosted the show when he did exactly what was expected of him, only on a much tamer level (seriously, if any other host had done "We Saw Your Boobs," no one would've claimed to be "offended" by it). In fact, apart from Billy Crystal, I'd say he was the best host in recent memory. He seemed to be placing real joy and passion into what he was doing. Ellen did "alright" last year, but she played it safe to a fault. I get that people enjoy when the host "interacts" with the actors and such, but I prefer it when they're telling actual jokes and performing musical numbers instead of just handing slices of pizza out to the audience. But by not taking any risks, she didn't get the savage response that some hosts get. Which is nice in a way, but also kinda sad, too.

But really, it's time to get over this. There are people who are still complaining about how Anne Hathaway and James Franco hosted the ceremony five years ago, and acting like Franco especially is somehow less talented as a result. And mark my words. Everyone's "agreeing" that Neil Patrick Host is a great choice now, and the day after the ceremony, the press will probably be like "yeah, he was wonderful!". But then a few days later, they'll be like, "Man, he sure was a letdown!"

[EricJ]

The best hosts are the ones who play to their strengths, and I love how people "complained" about how MacFarlane hosted the show when he did exactly what was expected of him, only on a much tamer level (seriously, if any other host had done "We Saw Your Boobs," no one would've claimed to be "offended" by it).

No, MacFarlane was only hired because of the Mystery of Ted (why did it make so much money?...He must be magic!) and it's the ones who LIKED him that defend it with the Boob song--Everyone else complains about the Lincoln joke. They don't even remember the corny Sally Field, Shatner or Sound of Music bits.

In fact, apart from Billy Crystal, I'd say he was the best host in recent memory. He seemed to be placing real joy and passion into what he was doing. Ellen did "alright" last year, but she played it safe to a fault.
But really, it's time to get over this. There are people who are still complaining about how Anne Hathaway and James Franco hosted the ceremony five years ago, and acting like Franco especially is somehow less talented as a result. And mark my words. Everyone's "agreeing" that Neil Patrick Host is a great choice now, and the day after the ceremony, the press will probably be like "yeah, he was wonderful!". But then a few days later, they'll be like, "Man, he sure was a letdown!"

There's one rule all the "bad" hosts break, and it breaks them:
Forget the cameras, you're not there to entertain the TV audience--You've nine hundred rich people sitting right there in front of you, make THEM laugh. And make them laugh with actor/industry jokes, the way you'd make insurance salesmen laugh with insurance jokes if you were opening for an insurance convention.

But no, the "Hip" hosts think they have to throw themselves on the mercy of the TV audience, make jokes about how long the ceremony is and how nobody wants to see dance numbers or clip montages, and basically come off like "Who let THIS jerk through security?" If the host doesn't seem to like what he's doing, or isn't accepted by the in-seat audience, there's going to be a little tension in the room...
Hugh Jackman also had Tony-ceremony training under his belt, and was one of the "good" hosts. (In fact, one of the reasons we got the James Franco disaster was that they wanted Jackman back again.) To host the Tonys, you have to be as chummy, huggy and in-jokey with the actor-community audience as possible, introduce as many entertaining on-stage production numbers as possible to entertain them, which ends up making a good show at home, and LET them make the tearful speeches they want to when they win, since that's what their friends sitting in the seats wanted to see...Although, granted, the Tony speeches tend to be more tearful and huggier.
It's the best training ground there is--They're both supposed to be private functions anyway, it's only been since the 50's or 60's that the rest of us have crashed as voyeurs.

(And besides, Franco & Hathaway may have officially been the LAST ceremony that corny 70's-variety Bruce Villanch, of Star Wars Holiday Special fame, worked on as gagwriter: Billy, Ellen and Seth mostly worked with their own comic material and it fit their element.
Like Rob Lowe & Snow White killed off the Opening Production Number, it may have been Franco in the Marilyn dress that officially killed off Villanch's long-running Oscar career...So no, it wasn't Franco's own personal fault.)

[Dacey]

For what it's worth, he Academy asked MacFarlane to host again almost immediately after the ceremony. So the guy must've done something right. (In the end, he turned down the offer because he was exhausted)

And I remember all of those "corny bits" and still smile when I think about them.

Anyway, just some quick and early nomination predictions (some of which involving movies that haven't technically come out yet, but most have been seen by at least some people)

Animated Feature:

The Lego Movie
How to Train Your Dragon 2
Big Hero 6

Visual Effects:

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Godzilla
Interstellar

Actor:

Jake Gyllenhaal
Michael Keaton

Picture:

Unbroken
Wild
Birdman
Nightcrawler

It's also possible that Gone Girl could see a fair share of nominations, including Best Picture, since (for better or for worse?) it's been making the kind of money/getting the kind of discussion that Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo should have. *hides*

[Ben]

For worse!

And Fincher's Dragon Tattoo is nowhere as good as the Swedish original, from the casting to the tone, although be sure to see the shorter theatrical cut and not the extended TV version, which is looser and not quite as nerve-jangling. I will say that Fincher's ending (the epilogue after the actual climax) was a little better explained, although the Swedish one was setting things up for the following two more stories to come (which are easily not as good).


Without any reason or evidence to support this, I think we'll end up seeing Interstellar on the Best Picture list too, out of the films mentioned above. And Tim Spall for Actor in Mr Turner.

[Bill1978]

Thanks Eric. I thought you were talking about your beloved BatB, but the 13 years threw me.

[Dacey]

I think Fincher's movie is better by default because of Rooney Mara, who I thought was just incredible, but oddly enough I preferred the ending to the Swedish version over the American one. The Swedish version knew when to end, but Fincher's went on for about 20 minutes after everything seemed to be wrapped up. And, having not read the books, I'm not sure which is "more faithful" to the source material.

And I would've seen Intserstellar was a bigger contender back when the Academy was actually using the ten nomination thing as a chance to give nods to more "mainstream" movies. But then they just used as a chance to nominate even more obscure indie films that most people don't get the chance to see.