*** Official 2004 Academy Awards Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Hewell]

I felt the show this year was less about pageantry than it has been in the past.

Does no one remember a singing Rob Lowe dancing with Snow White?

Thank the Lord they cut those god-awful dance numbers.

 

[Holadem]

What the hell kind of influence did Val Kilmer have on acting? Or anything for that matter? There are a couple of other head scratchers on that list, But I really want to hear about Kilmer first

--
H

 

[Haggai]

By the way, H, relative to something that came up in some other thread (at least I think it was): on an e-mail group with some friends, I'm hearing about anti-Sideways backlash from overhype. You expressed concern that it might follow in those particular footsteps of Lost in Translation (or maybe I was the one who mentioned LIT after you mentioned the possibility of backlash), and I think we might be seeing that soon when it hits DVD. I hope not, but it could happen. I tried to convince my friends (not many of them have seen it, they were mentioning what other people had said about it being disappointing) that it's worth seeing, with proper expectations.

I pointed out the weirdness of the choice of Oscar clip for Hayden Church's nom, the scene where he's crying about the possibility of losing Christine. I remember that as literally the ONLY scene in the whole movie where he isn't in goofball/smartass mode, and yet they showed it, giving the clear impression that his character is all about that (the Madsen wine speech, used in her Oscar clip, was obviously a much more accurate representation of her character). I think this is where the excessive hype has come from, injecting the good relationships of the film with some sort of cosmic significance that they really don't have.

 

[Rob Willey]

I had to laugh at Rock's hypothetical about working at The Gap and wanting to take over Banana Republic. They already own it -- Banana Republic is one of Gap Inc.'s chains. I'm surprised none of the writers caught that.

Rob

 

[Zen Butler]

Lawrence of Arabia
Napoleon
Ran
Intolerance
2001: A Space Odyssey



Here, PM me for my address, I'll pay any one of you to come shoot me in the face.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

For $100 I'll have Fluffy Pumpkin piddle on you. Is that good enough?

 

[Zen Butler]

Sonora Desert, here I come and not soon enough. Do you think 4 days on peyote in a different dimension can help erase this traumatizing event?

 

[Robert Crawford]

I just edited out one post that crossed the line with name calling. We're talking about movies and award shows here, subject matters that are not worth getting your posting privileges removed. It will be best that we all remembered that fact in the future before making a comment that you will regret later.






Crawdaddy

 

[Zen Butler]

Eidt: Weird double-half-post

 

[Zen Butler]

Dennis, that will do.

Haggai, I'm interested, if not a bit confused by your post #803. I remember a bit of backlash after the "Lost in Translation" dvd hit. Mostly, my experience anyways, was the backlash that came from people who don't bother with those types of films in the theaters and found it boring when I suggested it on dvd. Same with "Eternal Sunshine" "Habla con Ella" "Sideways".....Some of these titles are a tough sell to many I know. What kind of backlash, or from whom are you referring? Especially, with the brilliant "Sideways?"

 

[Holadem]

Zen,

Haggai is referring to this post and his response to it.

--
H

 

[Zen Butler]

Yes, that makes sense. And I wonder if this is why most I know felt Lost in Translation "overhyped" after I viewed it for them. So, I definitely see that happening with "Sideways." Put a circle in the square.

 

[Tim Glover]

Zen, reading your last few posts have made me laugh really hard. Great stuff!

 

[Lew Crippen]

Aside from the fact that ‘instant classic’ is hyperbole, I would point out that no one knows how Lord of the Rings will be viewed in 20 years.

We do know how movies like 2001 and Ran are viewed after a few decades.

You are not being pre-emptive—you are merely being hasty.

 

[Haggai]

Holadem, thanks for finding the thread I was too lazy to link to, and aiding Zen in his quest to make sense out of my post.

And Zen, you guessed right, I was generally referring to backlash from people who don't normally seek these kinds of movies (Sideways, Lost in Translation) out in the theater. So once a critical mass gets behind those movies, with almost all the critics praising them so highly, the potential for overhype kicks in with people who maybe aren't quite sure what to expect from these kinds of films.

Edit: More specifics on Lost in Translation backlash from Roger Ebert's Answer Man, he dealt with this subject a few times last year.

#1

#2--Ebert shares a reader's theory that Bill Murray's reactions might only work on the big screens, and not at home, but I'm not buying that.

#3--Video industry guy from Edmonton says it was backlash against hype, with the movie being unable to live up to expectations. Surprisingly, he recalls a similar phenomenon when Ghostbusters first came out on video!

 

[Zen Butler]

Thank you Tim, I'm here all week....(hehehe stole theted's line)

Haggai, my experience exactly, just have never put it to words. I, myself have noticed a reserve when praising these types of films to certain people.


Yeah, totally. Imagine my utter shock viewing Eat My Dust 20 years later. Some stuff just gets real whack over time.

 

[Allen Hirsch]

Excellent point. And since NONE of the nominees for BP were "blockbusters" this year, a clip of each to at least promote those films would seem to be in the industry's best interest - when else can you promote 5 movies considered the best of the craft for the year, but not that readily seen, to an audience of 40+ million??

IMO the Oscars need at least SOME level of reverence about film history, whether it's something more for the "in memorium" moment, or other clips or montages to celebrate the business. B/c let's face it, awards shows are now a dime a dozen, as this year's ratings of all of them seemed to prove in spades.

 

[teapot2001]

I also prefer a long Oscar show. The pre and post shows and the coverage the next day aren't enough for me.

The film history montage was shown at the beginning this year. Am I missing something?

My favorite Oscars of recent years was the one where the categories were explained; for instance, there was an example of a screenplay for that category.

Something I think would be great for the Oscars is to have the host recap the show for the end instead of just saying goodbye. Billy Crystal could do a musical number.



Lew, that's for directing nominations. I was referring to how many actors/actresses were Oscar nominees/winners under the director. But I would've thought that Allen would have the most.

~T

 

[Haggai]

Thi, I looked up the numbers for another forum I'm on. 19 acting noms from Scorsese films, 15 from Allen films. The all-time record for most noms in one director's career is--get ready--35, for William Wyler. This is easier to believe when you realize that Wyler directed 13 best picture nominees!

 

[Ray Chuang]

I think the reason why there was no separate memorial tribute for Marlon Brando was the fact AMPAS members--particularly older members--are still upset over what he did at the 1973 Oscar ceremonies when he sent out that "supposed" Native American to decline Brando's Best Actor win for The Godfather. If it weren't for that stunt things would have been quite different.