Oscar noms


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Oscar noms

Postby Flumpy » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:48 pm

jeremyp wrote:I agree with you on Django, not on Les Miz. I think Q.T. has decided that his base is adolescents.


He is an adolescent.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Oscar noms

Postby Flumpy » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:01 pm

Double Post.
Last edited by Flumpy on Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Oscar noms

Postby gh » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:04 pm

Marlow wrote:
scottmitchell74 wrote:I'm a people.

TAFNY!!! :D


A George Jones hit of the '60s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPYs2-yRW3o
gh
 
Posts: 46294
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Oscar noms

Postby mump boy » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:51 pm

I couldn't bring myself to see a Tarantino film, he's so objectionable it's almost unreal

'Why did you want to make a movie with slavery as a theme ?'

'I've always wanted to explore slavery in a film before but i guess the reason that made me put pen to paper was to give black american males a western hero .... that could be empowering and pay back blood for blood'

'I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT SLAVERY, IN AMERICA IN A WAY THEY HAVE NOT FOR 30 YEARS' :shock: :shock:

and that's only just the beginning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsJDy8VjZk
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Oscar noms

Postby scottmitchell74 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:00 pm

Marlow wrote:
scottmitchell74 wrote:I'm a people.

TAFNY!!! :D


Please forgive my ignorance, I don't get that reference. TAFNY?
scottmitchell74
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:49 am
Location: Abilene, TX

Re: Oscar noms

Postby Marlow » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:54 am

scottmitchell74 wrote:
Marlow wrote:
scottmitchell74 wrote:I'm a people.

TAFNY!!! :D

Please forgive my ignorance, I don't get that reference. TAFNY?

It's a good thing. In the first coupla years of this board's existence I instituted the TAFNYs: year-end awards for great posts, threads, etc.. It was discontinued when it turned out I was the only one who truly appreciated them . . . :wink: . But occasionally I (or others) will reward a post with one.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Oscar noms

Postby lonewolf » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:45 am

Does anyone have a list of TAFNYs? As I remember, they were awarded annually and categorized. I think I got one years ago but forget what it was for. :?
I guess I should have framed it and hung it alongside my CMH. :(
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8811
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Oscar noms

Postby Marlow » Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:28 am

lonewolf wrote:Does anyone have a list of TAFNYs? As I remember, they were awarded annually and categorized. I think I got one years ago but forget what it was for. :?
I guess I should have framed it and hung it alongside my CMH. :(

Here's 2006. Look at the work that tafnut guy put into them!!!!

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=23492&p=326319&hilit=tafnies#p326319

Your award is in there, lonewolf . . . cherish it! :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Oscar noms

Postby lonewolf » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:42 pm

Was all that really seven years ago? Seems like day before yesterday.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8811
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Oscar noms

Postby Flumpy » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:47 pm

Well Lincoln's a snoreathon isn't it.

I'm coming round to an Argo win.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Oscar noms

Postby jeremyp » Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:14 pm

"Argo" was no surprise, since Hollywood and the media decided that "0dark30" was too dark, and "Lincoln" too "Historical." Good body of work by Affleck now and Hollywood screwed up by not nominating he and Bigelow for best director. Spielberg got screwed again! I have yet to see "Silver Linings Playbook" as I usually hate what Hollywood does to Mental Illness ("we're crazy, but happy.") but I liked her in "Winter's Bone." I'll still wait to see the Foreign movies on Netflix before deciding about the 2012 season.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4541
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: Oscar noms

Postby KDFINE » Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:26 pm

Flumpy complains that Django is drawn out. Remember that this is an ode to spaghetti westerns which are by their very nature drawn out. By the way I hate spaghetti westerns and didn't see or plan to see Django and agree with about all the negative stuff that's been posted about Tarantino.
KDFINE
 
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Oscar noms

Postby cullman » Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:33 pm

Jimmy Carter's take on Argo:

"MORGAN: You’ve seen “Argo,” I take it? How accurate is it from your memory?
CARTER: Well, let me say, first of all, it’s a great drama. And I hope it gets the Academy Award for best film because I think it deserves it. The other thing that I would say was that ninety per cent of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian. And the movie gives almost full credit to the American C.I.A. And, with that exception, the movie is very good." :lol:


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/h ... z2Ly6COQUP
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Re: Oscar noms

Postby jeremyp » Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:49 pm

cullman wrote:Jimmy Carter's take on Argo:

"MORGAN: You’ve seen “Argo,” I take it? How accurate is it from your memory?
CARTER: Well, let me say, first of all, it’s a great drama. And I hope it gets the Academy Award for best film because I think it deserves it. The other thing that I would say was that ninety per cent of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian. And the movie gives almost full credit to the American C.I.A. And, with that exception, the movie is very good." :lol:


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/h ... z2Ly6COQUP


Yeah the CIA went from no credit to too much credit. But, for the younger set, the Canadians received all the kudos at the time, and deservedly so.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4541
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: Oscar noms

Postby gh » Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:01 pm

My local critic's summation of the awards (not the show)

<<...Before we say goodbye to Sunday night's ceremony, it really should be said that this was a sad day for the academy. Instead of giving best picture to "Lincoln," a masterpiece, or to the innovative "Zero Dark Thirty," or the audacious and inspired "Django Unchained," the academy went back to its old ways and honored something good but unremarkable, Ben Affleck's third-best film, "Argo."

Instead of awarding best actress to Emmanuelle Riva for her searing work in "Amour" or Jessica Chastain for her nuanced, pressure-cooker performance in "Zero Dark Thirty," it gave the prize to pretty, charming Jennifer Lawrence - for being pretty and charming in "Silver Linings Playbook."

And instead of giving best supporting actress to Sally Field or Helen Hunt, who gave performances in complicated roles, in which they had to interact with other actors, the academy honored Anne Hathaway, for singing a song into a camera.

These are more than you-say-potato-I-say potahto expressions of preference. As much as one can tell the day after, these are mistakes people will look at for years to come, embarrassments to history. Together they made Sunday night's Oscars one of the more interesting in recent years, but a little painful to witness.....>>


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Os ... z2LyxQLqKk
gh
 
Posts: 46294
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Oscar noms

Postby jeremyp » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:17 am

gh wrote:My local critic's summation of the awards (not the show)

<<...Before we say goodbye to Sunday night's ceremony, it really should be said that this was a sad day for the academy. Instead of giving best picture to "Lincoln," a masterpiece, or to the innovative "Zero Dark Thirty," or the audacious and inspired "Django Unchained," the academy went back to its old ways and honored something good but unremarkable, Ben Affleck's third-best film, "Argo."

Instead of awarding best actress to Emmanuelle Riva for her searing work in "Amour" or Jessica Chastain for her nuanced, pressure-cooker performance in "Zero Dark Thirty," it gave the prize to pretty, charming Jennifer Lawrence - for being pretty and charming in "Silver Linings Playbook."

And instead of giving best supporting actress to Sally Field or Helen Hunt, who gave performances in complicated roles, in which they had to interact with other actors, the academy honored Anne Hathaway, for singing a song into a camera.

These are more than you-say-potato-I-say potahto expressions of preference. As much as one can tell the day after, these are mistakes people will look at for years to come, embarrassments to history. Together they made Sunday night's Oscars one of the more interesting in recent years, but a little painful to witness.....>>


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Os ... z2LyxQLqKk

Curse these erudite critics for saying what I think but cannot put to words!
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4541
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: Oscar noms

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:24 am

That was great gh. And par for the course for the Oscars. The reason I never watch them any more.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Oscar noms

Postby kuha » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:46 am

But we could also quibble with the 3 supposedly greater films this year. Is it really true that "Lincoln" is a masterpiece? I liked it quite a bit but it was not a perfect film. I would say it was better overall than "Argo" but all of this is--literally--a popularity contest. How much quasi-scientific logic do we really expect here?
kuha
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Oscar noms

Postby Marlow » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:49 am

jeremyp wrote:
gh wrote:My local critic's summation of the awards (not the show)
nstead of giving best picture to "Lincoln," a masterpiece, or to the innovative "Zero Dark Thirty," or the audacious and inspired "Django Unchained," the academy went back to its old ways and honored something good but unremarkable, Ben Affleck's third-best film, "Argo."

Instead of awarding best actress to Emmanuelle Riva for her searing work in "Amour" or Jessica Chastain for her nuanced, pressure-cooker performance in "Zero Dark Thirty," it gave the prize to pretty, charming Jennifer Lawrence - for being pretty and charming in "Silver Linings Playbook."

And instead of giving best supporting actress to Sally Field or Helen Hunt, who gave performances in complicated roles, in which they had to interact with other actors, the academy honored Anne Hathaway, for singing a song into a camera.

these are mistakes people will look at for years to come, embarrassments to history.

What a Drama Queen (King). I find this critic to be everything the public hates in critics in general: pompous, self-important arbiters of taste.

Lincoln is far from a masterpiece; indeed its first hour is tedious and mannered.

Django Unchained is Borat arrested-development drivel (best original screenplay, ha!).

Argo engaged far beyond its source material.

Sally Field was creditable, paled in comparison to Daniel-Day-Lewis.

This above opinion is every bit as 'informed' as the SF critic's, which is to say, it's not worth taking any more or less seriously! :roll:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Oscar noms

Postby jeremyp » Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:34 pm

In the "for what it's worth" category. Metacritic had: Critics: "0Dark30" as #1 with a 9.5(out of 10) while the hoi polloi gave it a 6.5. Then "Amour" at 9.4/7.5 and "Argo" and "Lincoln" tied at 8.6, with "Argo" having a high rating with the common folk at 8.2 and "Lincoln" at 7.6.
In other words the people liked "Argo" way more than "0Dark30" but the critics preferred the latter. The Academy voters are not critics but professional movie folk, and they run the gamut from low IQ actors to high IQ Directors. In the end it means Affleck will get more $ and Bigelow will not.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4541
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: Oscar noms

Postby Dutra5 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:45 pm

jeremyp wrote:
gh wrote:My local critic's summation of the awards (not the show)

<<...Before we say goodbye to Sunday night's ceremony, it really should be said that this was a sad day for the academy. Instead of giving best picture to "Lincoln," a masterpiece, or to the innovative "Zero Dark Thirty," or the audacious and inspired "Django Unchained," the academy went back to its old ways and honored something good but unremarkable, Ben Affleck's third-best film, "Argo."

Instead of awarding best actress to Emmanuelle Riva for her searing work in "Amour" or Jessica Chastain for her nuanced, pressure-cooker performance in "Zero Dark Thirty," it gave the prize to pretty, charming Jennifer Lawrence - for being pretty and charming in "Silver Linings Playbook."

And instead of giving best supporting actress to Sally Field or Helen Hunt, who gave performances in complicated roles, in which they had to interact with other actors, the academy honored Anne Hathaway, for singing a song into a camera.

These are more than you-say-potato-I-say potahto expressions of preference. As much as one can tell the day after, these are mistakes people will look at for years to come, embarrassments to history. Together they made Sunday night's Oscars one of the more interesting in recent years, but a little painful to witness.....>>


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Os ... z2LyxQLqKk

Curse these erudite critics for saying what I think but cannot put to words!


Well....I'm really with him on Anne Hathaway who's version of one of the songs in that particular play which needs to be sung properly did so about as poorly as imaginable. She tends to get on my nerves in a general sense anyway.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: Oscar noms

Postby Master Po » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:37 pm

Nice assessment of the awards, imo. (And I would not have seen it otherwise -- thanks for posting this, gh.)
Master Po
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: north coast USA

Re: Oscar noms

Postby JRM » Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:45 pm

We just saw Argo last night (pay-per-view -- that's what happens when you have a 3-year-old...). I must say, at first I was surprised that a film could win best picture while purporting to depict a "true story", yet hardly contain any factual elements. Even the state of the Hollywood sign wasn't accurate to that year. But after thinking about it, that's probably what made this a Best Picture contender...

Personally, I thought Seth MacFarlane was the best part of the Oscars (but I'm a Family Guy fan).
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Oscar noms

Postby gh » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:51 pm

I like Family Guy a lot, but MacFarlane was a disgusting pig on this one. Felt like I'd been whisked into a '60s frat party.

to wit

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... night.html
gh
 
Posts: 46294
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Oscar noms

Postby Conor Dary » Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:24 am

Doesn't look like I missed anything not watching.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Oscar noms

Postby Marlow » Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:40 am

gh wrote:I like Family Guy a lot, but MacFarlane was a disgusting pig on this one. Felt like I'd been whisked into a '60s frat party.
to wit
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... night.html

This is pertinent:

The song was part of a larger skit whose premise was that William Shatner, as Captain Kirk, sends MacFarlane a message from the future about the dumb things he might do while hosting the Oscars. But that premise is not an excuse.


The premise WAS the excuse. Does this writer think McFarlane came up with this skit and his own jokes? There's a whole staff that works on it. This is the OSCAR PEOPLE doing this. Don't shoot the messenger!!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Oscar noms

Postby bad hammy » Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:35 am

JRM wrote:Personally, I thought Seth MacFarlane was the best part of the Oscars (but I'm a Family Guy fan).

Up until the morning of the Oscars I had never heard of Seth MacFarlane (never watched Family Guy obviously) but I agree - I thought he was (for the most part **) hilarious. Was laughing out loud regularly, as was Ms. Hammy. Would love to see him host it again. On the other hand, hammy's sister and brother in law turned the show off after 20 minutes because of him. Takes all kinds . . .



** The 'I saw your boobs' bit was not one of the hilarious bits if you ask me.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Oscar noms

Postby JRM » Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:41 am

Marlow wrote:
The New Yorker wrote:The song was part of a larger skit whose premise was that William Shatner, as Captain Kirk, sends MacFarlane a message from the future about the dumb things he might do while hosting the Oscars. But that premise is not an excuse.


The premise WAS the excuse. Does this writer think McFarlane came up with this skit and his own jokes? There's a whole staff that works on it. This is the OSCAR PEOPLE doing this. Don't shoot the messenger!!


Absolutely agree. As he first launched into his bland monologue, my wife and I both looked at each other and said "This isn't very funny." Then the Shatner/Kirk thing started, and we realized it was part of the schtick. Considering "the song" was preceded by the warning from Kirk that "you're about to sing a song that offends every woman in the audience!", I thought it would be pretty obvious to everyone what was coming. And the staged cut-aways of "offended" actresses were not to be taken seriously. At this point, even my wife said "Now this is funny!"

Seems to me the writer of that article would have preferred an Oscars hosted by Buzz Killington (look it up if you don't know the reference).

When you hire Seth MacFarlane, you know what you're getting. Articles like this remind me of the old parable of the scorpion and the frog. When the frog is shocked at getting stung, the scorpion says "But you knew it's in my nature." Of course, then they both sink to the bottom of the river.... Take the analogy what it's worth.

gh wrote:I like Family Guy a lot, but MacFarlane was a disgusting pig on this one. Felt like I'd been whisked into a '60s frat party.


I fail to see how these are dissimilar! Have you ever seen the "Family Guy Live" clips on the DVDs?
Last edited by JRM on Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:49 am, edited 4 times in total.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Oscar noms

Postby lonewolf » Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:45 am

I too was not familiar with Seth MacFarlane or Family Guy prior to The Oscars and only watched snippits while surfing for something better (or maybe it was competing with a basketball game in which I was more interested.)
I thought MacFarlane was refreshingly crude and sophomoric ... and infinitely more entertaining than his predecessors.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8811
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Oscar noms

Postby mcgato » Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:47 am

I am familiar with Seth and I like Family Guy, but I thought that he was inappropriate for the telecast. I only watched the early part of the show, and I muted it during the "I Saw Your Boobs" song. I kept it muted for the rest of his opening act. And what the hell was Shatner doing there?

And note that I:
--like Family Guy, as I said
--like boobs (a lot)
--like the original Star Trek, as well as a couple of the Star Trek movies

I think that this schtick would have worked better at a Golden Globes, where most people are drunk, or for the Emmy's which is about TV.

I should also note that I don't usually watch the Oscars, except for the red carpet and the very beginning of the show.

Oh, and I'll also add that I loved Jennifer Lawrence's press conference after her win.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLKZb1wLmAY
mcgato
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Hoboken

Re: Oscar noms

Postby batonless relay » Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:56 am

gh wrote:I like Family Guy a lot, but MacFarlane was a disgusting pig on this one. Felt like I'd been whisked into a '60s frat party.

to wit

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... night.html

just read the newyorker article and i completely agree that McFarlane was a pig (but shouldn't the academy have known?). It doesn't matter how many "token non-offended's" you plant to get the joke, sometimes even comedy and/or satire can go too far. Something The Onion hopefully learned with the Wallis tweet.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Oscar noms

Postby Dutra5 » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:39 pm

I thought McFarlane a mixed bag, the opening too long and I couldn't for the life of me figure out what William Shatner was doing there but.....

....I also thought the show in its entirety was as entertaining an Oscar show as there's been.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: Oscar noms

Postby jeremyp » Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:26 pm

JRM wrote:We just saw Argo last night (pay-per-view -- that's what happens when you have a 3-year-old...). I must say, at first I was surprised that a film could win best picture while purporting to depict a "true story", yet hardly contain any factual elements. Even the state of the Hollywood sign wasn't accurate to that year. But after thinking about it, that's probably what made this a Best Picture contender...

Didn't: "The King's Speech"; "A Beautiful Mind"; "Braveheart"; Schindler's List"; "Patton"; Lawrence Of Arabia"; "The Ten Commandments" also win?
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4541
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: Oscar noms

Postby JRM » Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:10 pm

Dutra5 wrote:I thought McFarlane a mixed bag, the opening too long and I couldn't for the life of me figure out what William Shatner was doing there but.....


MacFarlane is a huge Trekkie. I thought it was well-played -- except Shatner has seen better days...
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Oscar noms

Postby Marlow » Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:31 pm

mcgato wrote: what the hell was Shatner doing there?

Dutra5 wrote:I couldn't for the life of me figure out what William Shatner was doing there but.....

The gag was that Capt Kirk, who regularly resides in the 23rd Century, came back in time to warn McFarlane that he was about to become "worst Oscars host EVER" for his tasteless skits, which he then 'replayed'. Get it?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests