What did you think of the 2013 Oscars? (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

I cannot understand ARGO being named Best Picture. It twists and reinvents history out of whole cloth. AFAIAC, It is the U-571 of "true life" Intelligence films. It doesn't deserve an award for BP. It deserves contempt for getting the history of an actual event wrong.

 

[Michael Elliott]

At work we ran a poll last week about the Oscars and we got around 750 replies. There was only one person who had seen all the Best Picture nominations (me) and the second most person had only seen six. The most popular person appeared to be Jennifer Lawrence but not for SILVER LININGS but instead of either THE HUNTER GAMES or "she's a cool chick." The majority of the results showed that people really don't care about who wins or is even nominated but they're interested in what the stars are wearing. --I thought Seth was pretty funny but it seems like someone told him to cut down on the jokes. I'm not sure if he lost the crowd or if they were just becoming nervous of his jokes but he came out swinging but in the second half he was pretty much just standing around announcing people. Overall I wouldn't mind having him back. --The Best Picture was a joke no matter how you stand on any issue. You've got a legend like Nicholson returning to the event so that's good enough for any winner.-- --LINCOLN complaints....I don't see why some are calling it an upset or some conspiracy. What has the film actually won anywhere? ARGO was the clear cut favorite from its first pre-release screening so the only real shock is its director being left off. I know people say Denzel lost the Oscar for THE HURRICANE due to the controversy but I really don't see the need of a film being forced to be a history lesson. There are books for that. --The JAWS theme was annoying but I would have been ok with it IF they abused some of the bigger names. If the "small" people are going to get rushed off stage then there's no point in hearing anything they have to say. If you're going to rush them then rush them all. --Clooney is nominated in six different categories which is pretty amazing. It was also cool that he stood back and let Affleck enjoy the spotlight because he did deserve it. I think both producers agreed that Affleck's direction is what got them there. --I feel so bad for Lawrence and her little slip. She handled it well but the press conference pretty much had no talk except for the fall. She was also asked if she was worried about "peeking" too early in her career. --It was cool to see history with Daniel Day-Lewis but it's funny because I didn't feel his performance here was the best of the year but I also wasn't blown away by his performance in THERE WILL BE BLOOD as I thought it was a weaker version of the same character he played in GANGS OF NEW YORK (where he should have won). I guess I need to get around to watching MY LEFT FOOT. --33 years since DeNiro has won. Ouch.

 

[TravisR]

I cannot understand ARGO being named Best Picture. It twists and reinvents history out of whole cloth.

That's why it didn't win Best Documentary.

 

[David Weicker]

I cannot understand ARGO being named Best Picture. It twists and reinvents history out of whole cloth. AFAIAC, It is the U-571 of "true life" Intelligence films. It doesn't deserve an award for BP. It deserves contempt for getting the history of an actual event wrong.

And we should return the Best Picture awards for Lawrence Of Arabia, and A Man For All Seasons, and Schindler's List, and Chariot's Of Fire, and Mutiny On The Bounty, and Titanic, and Gandhi, and Amadeus, and The Last Emperor, and The King's Speech. How dare the academy honor such falsity.

 

[Mark-P]

--33 years since DeNiro has won. Ouch.

Now, now, it's only been 32 years. Actually a bit less as he won his last Oscar on March 31, 1981.

 

[Edwin-S]

And we should return the Best Picture awards for Lawrence Of Arabia, and A Man For All Seasons, and Schindler's List, and Chariot's Of Fire, and Mutiny On The Bounty, and Titanic, and Gandhi, and Amadeus, and The Last Emperor, and The King's Speech. How dare the academy honor such falsity.

You are absolutely right I would have the same opinion of those films if Americans hijacked the story, downplayed the contributions of other major players and then wrote a lousy postscript saying, "Oh, by the way, thanks for your contribution. You are a model of international cooperation". Oh, that's right, they did do that in U-571. I guess that film deserved a Best Picture Oscar too. I don't expect a documentary level of historical accuracy in a dramatization, but I expect a historical accuracy better than the level of U571, especially in a film that has been elected the best film of 2012.

 

[Michael Elliott]

ARGO is taking some heat for not being real yet it's a movie that never claimed to be 100% true. SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN, which got my vote for the best movie of the year, is a documentary, which is supposed to tell the truth yet it covered up a lot of facts to make its "story" seem more remarkable. In the film they make you think that this man was unknown for decades when in fact he had a major tour in the late 70s and early 80s as well as releasing a live album. He might not have been known in America but he was still pretty much out there yet the documentary covered this up to tell a better story. No one seems to be bashing a documentary for covering up the truth for a better movie yet the movie is getting attacked.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Now, now, it's only been 32 years. Actually a bit less as he won his last Oscar on March 31, 1981.

I'm predicting he won't get nominated for anything this year. I actually thought he should have been nominated for BEING FLYNN but either way, this is certainly the best year he's had in a while.

 

[Edwin-S]

ARGO is taking some heat for not being real yet it's a movie that never claimed to be 100% true. SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN, which got my vote for the best movie of the year, is a documentary, which is supposed to tell the truth yet it covered up a lot of facts to make its "story" seem more remarkable. In the film they make you think that this man was unknown for decades when in fact he had a major tour in the late 70s and early 80s as well as releasing a live album. He might not have been known in America but he was still pretty much out there yet the documentary covered this up to tell a better story. No one seems to be bashing a documentary for covering up the truth for a better movie yet the movie is getting attacked.

If a documentary is covering up facts to tell a better story then it is not a documentary. It is a docudrama. It is a farce if it is being passed off as a documentary.

 

[Michael Elliott]

But it didn't cost it from becoming an Oscar winner. The same with Michael Moore. SUGAR MAN certainly isn't taking as much heat as ARGO (or LINCOLN) but I'm sure most of this is due to it not being known by many.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S
You are absolutely right I would have the same opinion of those films if Americans hijacked the story, downplayed the contributions of other major players and then wrote a lousy postscript saying, "Oh, by the way, thanks for your contribution. You are a model of international cooperation". Oh, that's right, they did do that in U-571. I guess that film deserved a Best Picture Oscar too. I don't expect a documentary level of historical accuracy in a dramatization, but I expect a historical accuracy better than the level of U571, especially in a film that has been elected the best film of 2012.

Then you're expecting too much from Hollywood as they have done few films of such historical accuracy. Frankly, Canadians need to stand in line when it comes to being shortchanged by Hollywood films. Hell, some of the most pretentious people you never want to meet work at these studios and over the years, they have shortchanged the contributions of so many people in their films including their own American minorities whether it being a specific ethnic group or even women for that matter. Such a list would stretch a country mile. IMO, one of the reasons why this film won the AA is because Hollywood likes to pat itself on the back.
Don't worry though, Hollywood will give us plenty of more chances to be upset about the historical accuracy of their future films. From my perspective, I've been over such inaccuracies since as a child in the 60s, I watched how Custer and the 7th Calvary died at the Little Big Horn in "They Died With their Boots On".
Crawdaddy

 

[Chris Will]

An irreverent cartoonist and animator, well known for his crude, random comedy style. What was the Academy Award management thinking?

They were thinking "hey, young people love the Family Guy, lets get the guy that does that show to host so more young people will love us." That was there entire line of thinking. I think the only reason the ratings were up is because the legions of Les Mis fans tuned in hoping to see there favorite movie win... I'm sure they are quite disappointed.

 

[Rick Thompson]

I'm one of those who wasn't bothered by anything in this year's production. Because I didn't watch a minute of it. Reason: I stopped taking the Oscars seriously years ago. Ditto the Emmys.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by Chris Will
They were thinking "hey, young people love the Family Guy, lets get the guy that does that show to host so more young people will love us." That was there entire line of thinking.
I think the only reason the ratings were up is because the legions of Les Mis fans tuned in hoping to see there favorite movie win... I'm sure they are quite disappointed.

Actually, I think the success of "Ted" had a lot more to do with it. If MacFarlane hadn't made a successful movie, I don't think they'd have asked him to host - other than talk show hosts, the Oscars always use "movie people" as hosts...

 

[Gary Seven]

Seth McFarlane was the only reason why I watched this Hollywood self-indulgent show. These type of shows need irreverence and I thought he did a great job. The opening was great with a mixture of irreverence and typical glamour show schtick. I loved the boobs song. Interesting to see Bassey and Streisand perform. I did not like that M.O. was a presenter. That was a big WTF moment for me as well being totally out of place. I normally don't watch award shows and probably won't watch it again, but that depends who hosts in the future.

 

[schan1269]

I finally got around to watching it. I did know who "won" the categories before I watched it. Why do I watch, every year? 1. To see what they are wearing. 2. To see Clooney's date(still Keibler...wow) 3. McConougheny's date(wasn't there...) 4. The "comedy"(this year, top notch. If anybody was offended, so what?) 5. The bits(Bond, songs sung) 6. In Memorium Everything else is who cares. Same with the Grammy's. About the only "awards show" worth watching...for the award... Kennedy Center Honors.

 

[Bob_L]

What most surprised me about McFarlane was how lightweight he seemed. You might have taken any standup comedian or singer out of a lounge here in Vegas and put them on the stage and they'd do about the same job, IMO. He just didn't have the stature/gravitas to be a proper AMPAS host, which I think is one of the factors that people miss from the Hope, Carson, and Crystal days. Every year brings the mandatory promises from the awards show producers that "this year we're going to have a really NEW kind of Oscars show." Still, they just can't get off the same old format: Opening monologue, celeb presenters awkwardly reading canned dialogue, overproduced presentations of underwhelming Oscar-nominated songs, and indulgent acceptance speeches. And, really, only the speeches are unavoidable in that formula. They could change all the rest. Until someone has the courage to rethink the format, IMO, no amount of recruiting "edgy" hosts, sidelining the "technical" awards (to "streamline" the length), or sending the orchestra off to the Capitol Records gulag will change anything. (And as one earlier poster noted, trying to reshape the Oscars into the Tony Awards is just embarrassing. Fine, Seth, you can sing. And sing about boobs. Congrats, your agent may be able to get you that Broadway audition. But--surprise!--your vocal cords are not why the world tuned into the show.)

 

[Ronald Epstein]

...everything Bob just said above. Well put!

 

[JohnS]

I wasn't impressed. I do like Seth when it comes to his cartoons. But he isn't the type for the Oscars. He's more suited for video game awards or Kids Choice Awards or something to that nature. I didn't find his gay joke or his Sound of Music joke to funny. the opening Star Trek joke was long and just wasn't great. And I really do hate when they try to incorporate animation characters ( in this case Ted) into the Oscars.

 

[Edwin-S]

They should use the technology that the Japanese use for that vocaloid singer and have cartoon characters do all of the presenting. That way only 80% of it would be completely boring instead of all of it.