Con: We didn't get to see them receiving their long awaited trophies. Stupid Academy, dissing your legends by denying them air time. [No, I'm not going to get over this. I plan to be mad about it until I die, or until they reverse their dumb decision.]
*
Posts
17 comments:
Hooray for the deconstruction of recognizing cinematic achievements for the sake of ratings!
Yeah Nat,
If I were to get an Honorary Award I would much rather go to a gala like the one held last night than be at the telecast.
They spent 3 hours at the dinner talking about everyone's work rather than giving them 7 minutes.
I think it is great there is a special event for those people who have contributed so much to the industry.
Oh, and Nine Press Junket Pictures:
http://www.rexfeatures.com/search/?
kw=nine+waldorf&search_newest.x=0&search_newest
.y=0&search_newest=search_newest&iso=GBR&viah=
Y&lkw=&stk=N&sft=&search_oldest.x=-1
Kidman looks amazing. It's definitely the hair!
Agree with you Michael! On both posts.
But Daniel Day Lewis is looking waaaayyyyy to old. Remember when you could get lost into looking at just a picture of him? I miss the 90s! FML
You can watch most of the ceremony here: http://www.oscars.org/awards/governors/index.html
Michael makes a good point... but, as an avid follower of the Oscars (hey, shouldn't they be more concerned about losing us than winning new viewers?), I still feel cheated that we won't get to see Lauren Bacall take her Oscar live.
It sounded way more fun. Its like there birthday party as opposed to your much cooler friends who are young and getting laid. Plus, Warren Beatty showed up! Maybe he had the Benning on his arm...Now your interested.
Congrats to all of them. but it's really a pity we couldn't watch these three great personalities receiving their dues during the Academy Award ceremony!
mirko
well whatever you feel about why Oscars are given, not broadcasting the older generations receiving their rewards is detrimental to popular film culture. It devalues experience, it disregards history and it's discriminatory (as if we should only value the younger and the RIGHTNOW)
boo.
I agree with Nat-this needs to be televised.
Part of the reason for televising the Oscars is that it's a way not only for the film-making community to celebrate together once a year, but also for the cinema-going public to celebrate with them. Bacall, Corman, and Willis, I'm sorry to say (oh wait, I'm not) will still be discussed 10, 20, 50 years from now, long after some of today's flash-in-the-pan presenters (cough, Miley Cyrus) have become Disney's historical footnotes. And yet the Academy panders to that crowd, even if they have no sort of respect for the "film preservation and celebration of excellence" that the Academy has championed (if not always successfully) for over 80 years? It's convoluted, it's discriminatory, and most of all, it's unfortunate.
Ms. Bacall looked stunning that night! So happy for her, an Oscar at last!I can't believe that Roger Corman is actually 83.
The only (but very important) good think about new rules is that now they can present up to 4-5 Honorary Oscars instead of one, or none like they did last year, when only Jerry Lewis got his Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. That was a real disgrace!
Hoping for Angela Lansbury, Dede Allen and Jeanne Moreau next year.
But Nathaniel...
They're trying to make this next ceremony "fun"! How many people would get fun out of seeing these Honorary Oscar recipients get their due?
Oh wait. Breaking news. I have the answer: ALL THE PEOPLE THAT CARE ABOUT THE AWARDS!!!
By the way, I'm completely in agreement with you in respect to this decision being a detriment to film culture
Not only is this not a part of the telecast; IT ISN'T TELEVISED AT ALL!!! It's totally ridiculous that this next ceremony is supposed to be "fun"
What does that mean? A fan-voted "coolest movie moment" category?! A sneak-peek of Transformers 3?! Not fun for the rest of us who care about the actual awards!
They can't air these! How else would they have time for a montage of films about coming of age? Or surfing? For what is an Oscar ceremony without endless montages.
Can't we just forget those idiotic academy executives (or whoever they are) and concentrate on the great Lauren finally getting her due? I was sooooooo happy for her... She looked stunning and gave a wonderful and funny acceptance speech!!
How ridiculous, sad, pathetic and insulting is the fact that Miley Cyrus, Robert Pattison, Jessica Whatever (Biel, Alba), Katherine Heighl and their fellow nobodies get to attend the Oscars, treated as stars, maybe even present an award, have all the attention, and Lauren Bacall is stuck on some side-cerimony?
I'm glad that they got their own ceremony. I'd say that they deserved their own celebration as opposed to a rushed segment at the Oscars where the montages would be overdone and the orchestra would be sure to run them off the stage for rambling acceptance speeches. But why couldn't this have been televised on its own, like on PBS or one of the cable outlets (maybe TNT like the SAGs, or A&E, Bravo, USA, etc.)? I would have even taken seeing this on the CW (like that would ever happen -- old people, bad!). I tried and tried to see the clips of Lauren Bacall on Sunday, but it wouldn't load on the Oscars home page. I'll try again tonight, but slow-buffering video clips just aren't the same as seeing in happen on live television.
I'd have less of a problem with this new format IF they didn't also have Miley Cyrus presenting at the Oscars two years in a row. It does send a very discriminatory message regarding age. It's almost like the Academy is giving in to pop culture terrorism.
Post a Comment