Official Academy Awards Nominations 2010 Thread (Announced) - Page 10

Giacchino's music for Lost is great. It's one of about two scores that I could actually recognize if I heard it played outside of the TV show it's featured on.

Yup. Including Farrah would have added about 10 seconds to a show where people were nattering on regardless.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1257033/Why-left-Farrah-Fawcett-Oscars-chief.html

The "you can't include everyone" defense is especially lame when dealing with someone of Farrah's significance. 

A simple "we're sorry, we made a mistake"...rather than the making of excuses...is what I have tried to teach my kids over the years. 

It might be lame to say you can't show everyone but the truth of the matter is that she is a TV star and I don't think she should have been included.  She was known for being a TV star and some of her best movie roles were for TV movies.  I doubt most people could even name many movies that she was actually in.  I've seen a couple but I'd say the majority know her for television. 

Understood. 

They just seemed to have lost that as a good excuse by including Michael Jackson as part of the group.  And, strangely, those two will be forever intertwined by pop culturists because of the proximity of their deaths.

I don't think it would have hurt anything but I'm guessing it was on purpose for a good reason and not some hatred they had for her as her friend and ex are trying to say.  Both this friend and ex have been riding her coat tails for the past decade and to me this all just seems like a way to get them back in the news.  I understand they're upset she wasn't included but there are reasons behind it.  People more important to the business are left out each year as well. 

I've always said this segment turns my stomach because of the people in the crowd applauding the people they know and then going dead silent for those they don't know.  I'm sure it sucks for a family member to be watching at home and their father or son gets shown and the room goes quiet. 

I'm sure the Jackson inclusion was just the popular thing to do and I personally would have included Farrah over him.  I'm sure the producer just felt no one was going to know her from the movie work, which is probably correct.  I doubt anyone remembers THE WIZ either though.  It's a popularity contest and I think the same could be said for the special tribute to John Hughes.  Last year or the year before I said this should have been done for Paul Newman since he was one of the all-time legends but I guess the producers felt he wasn't big enough.  Explaining why Hughes was big enough for such a tribute could make some angry but I think it comes down to the majority of the viewers going to know the films Hughes made more than Newman.

They also left out Bea Arthur. I guess their same lame excuse applies for Bea?

As you say, these things are being yoked together, but the inclusion of Jackson is an entirely separate phenomenon from the exclusion of Farah Fawcett, Bea Arthur or anyone else. I would submit that the movie most responsible for his inclusion wasn't The Wiz, but a film that recently made a lot of money for Sony: This Is It. There was a commercial element associated with Jackson's death that put it in an entirely separate category. I'm not saying this is a good thing -- indeed, I found much of it questionable (and that's putting it mildly) -- but the minute he appeared in the in memoriam segment, it was clear why he was there.
Edited by Michael Reuben - 3/11/10 at 10:28am

Bea Arthur was a TV star. Looking at the IMDB, she was in a total of 6 movies (the majority of which are forgettable). I don't mean it as a slight in any way but given the sheer number of people in front of and behind the camera who die in any year, there was no reason to acknowledge such a small contribution to films.

I don't know if the Emmys do a tribute to the people who have died but if they do, she should definitely be recognized there due to her body of TV work that ran over 5 decades (including two very popular long running series).

They do, and the 2009 broadcast included tributes to both Bea Arthur and Farah Fawcett. It's available on YouTube.

I know this probably doesn't matter to most people here, but the 2009 Tony Awards included a tribute to Bea Arthur, who was a major Broadway star before she became a TV star.
Edited by Michael Reuben - 3/11/10 at 11:20am

Michael:  Much like the success of This Is It, all this discussion of exclusions is being driven by the emotions of fans.  Not altogether two different things... 

That's only true to a certain extent. The emotions of fans play a role in both the discussions and the film, This Is It, but only the latter is also driven by substantial concerns of profitability.  How did John Lennon put it? "Nobody loves you when you're down and out . . . Everyone loves you when you're six foot underground." And they really love you when you leave behind a bunch of rehearsal footage that can be cobbled together into a movie that does good box office, then released on DVD and Blu-ray on Jan. 26, 2010, less than six weeks before the Oscars, which makes it a current title still worth advertising.

Yes, I'm cynical. I'm in good company.

I agree that there must be disappointed families and friends every year concerning the Memory montage, but they did blow it by not including Farrah.  No one else has said it, but I will: had they not included MJ, there would have been at least a small to-do that it was a racist decision not to include him.

Since it was a movie industry tribute, it would  have been more appropriate to include Farrah and not MJ, IMHO.

Maybe a few people would have grumbled but since he wasn't a movie star, I don't think there would have been any problem. I think he was included because he led the way in making videos into mini-movies and, most importantly, he was one of the most famous people of the last century (which is a lot more attention grabbing than a black and white still of a 1950's makeup artist) so he got included in the tribute.

Gee. It's too bad Bea Arthur and Farrah Fawcett-Majors didn't have some new Blu-rays or DVDs that needed selling. They too could have received a tribute like that towering figure of cinematic innovation Michael Jackson. I mean, what the hell, it is not like an entertainment career that spanned 50 years (in the case of Bea Arthur) was nearly as worthy of recognition as Michael Jackson's huge contribution to the cinematic arts with such astounding innovations as "Thriller". I mean, I knew from the first time I saw it that "Thriller" would be destined to join such greats as "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Casablanca" as a beacon of great cinematic art.

Maybe they were "only" TV stars but Farrah Fawcett and Bea Arthur were still actors and their careers were largely tied to the film arts. They deserved to be in a tribute to departed film people more than Michael Jackson, who mainly made his living in music arts that weren't even film related.  

Yeah but not primarily in motion pictures which is what the Academy recognizes. I'll agree that they both should been there before Michael Jackson though.

If the tribute hadn't included MJ, I could accept the argument that Farrah shouldn't have been included.  His bizarre inclusion changed that.  Farrah wasn't a big movie star, but she did make a few semi-notable flicks and did get a Golden Globe nomination for one.

MJ didn't do squat as a film actor.  Nor did Bea Arthur - she had a more substantial film career, but she didn't make sense as someone to mention at the Oscars...

Thriller revolutionized an entire sub-genre of short films. It basically turned the music video from being concert footage or kitschy studio dress-up winks at the camera to an art form. (The Beatles notwithstanding. Outside of their feature films their "music videos" were not telling a story like Thriller does.)

His merit as an "actor" is certainly questionable, but as a contributor to film history he's pretty significant. Thriller was just added to the Library of Congress for preservation to boot.

I must say I don't get the obsession everyone seems to have with this "In Memoriam" segment and who it didn't include. Just goes over my head, I guess.

 I think all four (MJ, Farrah Fawcett, Ricardo Montalbon, and Bea Arthur) should've been in the segment.

I mean the Oscars is already bloated as is ... and they're trying to save a few seconds off this segment? Disrespectful IMO. 

Cut it out from somewhere else like those ridiculously long dance numbers that have nothing to do with the nominated movies. 

Michael Jackson deserves to be there because "Thriller" is still the quintessential movie-music video-short film hybrid, not to mention "Smooth Criminal" and other stuff he did, both of which brought Hollywood into MTV. How many filmmakers since then got their break making movies because they did music videos first? Thriller and Beat It (hello, West Side Story) were the game-changers that created a bridge between the two mediums. 

Montalban was in last years 'in memoriam'.

I wouldn't look for consistency or rules or anything; they pick who they pick. They didn't include Gene Siskel because they weren't doing critics except they included Manny Farber last year.  When George Harrison died they put him in the tribute and in the past they included Phil Hartman and John Ritter. So if someone figures out the criteria, feel free to share. 

As has been repeatedly noted in this thread, Montalban was included in last year's segment. Can you provide any prior example of someone being included more than once?

Lots but you could say the same thing about commercials.

How hard is it going to be to find you on the Blu-ray, Scott? 

It's being released tomorrow!

The only thing Tarantino's movie stars with the Italian original is the title and WWII. His original conception of the movie would have hewed much closer to the Italian film, with a who's-who of action stars playing the five surviving American POWs. As for his "homages" to other works, I guess that's left up to the viewer to weigh.

Quote:
I absolutely agree about the applause thing.  Save it for the end.

I disagree that nobody remembers The Wiz.  That was a pretty iconic film of its era.

As for John Hughes, I think there are two main reasons why he warranted a special tribute: First, he basically had his own genre, which many people consider to be the identifying genre of the '80s (talk about iconic films!).  And second, he died quite young and unexpectedly -- that doesn't make him more important, but that sort of tragedy plays big in Hollywood (for lack of a term in better taste).

I dunno, Aaron.  I saw it in the theater and had pretty much forgotten it by the time I hit the parking lot afterward...

[sarcasm]Although Nipsey Russell was mighty good.[/sarcasm]

Clearly, Mike, you need to pay a visit to Dr. Funkenstein for a funkjection of groove.

(To be honest, after 30+ years, those strange accordion-lookin' dudes still creep me out. . .)