Stupid stupid

Oprah to host 2012 Oscars

C-O-M-E-D-I-A-N ! What's up with these idiots. Why don't they hire a comedian? In between the heartfelt acceptance speeches which are long lists of names, there are some jokes.

Quote: pacomartin

Oprah to host 2012 Oscars

C-O-M-E-D-I-A-N ! What's up with these idiots. Why don't they hire a comedian? In between the heartfelt acceptance speeches which are long lists of names, there are some jokes.

Best awards show host ever, Neil Patrick Harris

Does anyone really watch the darned thing anymore?
I mean I know its a fashion show at the entrance way and teenage girls will debate forever the various gowns and hairdos and shoes and stuff but does anyone really listen to them thanking the wardrobe mistress and honeybucket driver and all that nonsense?

Quote: pacomartin

Oprah to host 2012 Oscars

So? Once you get past the red carpet there's really nothing to see ;)

Quote: FleaStiff

Does anyone really watch the darned thing anymore?
I mean I know its a fashion show at the entrance way and teenage girls will debate forever the various gowns and hairdos and shoes and stuff but does anyone really listen to them thanking the wardrobe mistress and honeybucket driver and all that nonsense?

I think you would have to pay me $100 per hour to actually watch the Oscars. Maybe $80...

" I think you would have to pay me $100 per hour to actually watch the Oscars. Maybe $80... "

Remember we are taking OPRAH. $100 seems on the low side.

I agree Oprah is not funny, but I am sure that she will draw fans for the network. That's what they care about. Maybe she can give audience members free stuff.

Quote: FleaStiff

Does anyone really watch the darned thing anymore?

The Mrs loves to watch it. It's almost equivalent to watching the superbowl for guys.

Quote: SOOPOO

I think you would have to pay me $100 per hour to actually watch the Oscars. Maybe $80...

I'd rather watch a rerun of "Pawn Stars" I have seen 10 times for free.

I haven't watched award shows in years. I don't need to watch them pat themselves on the back and I couldn't care less who is wearing what. Although I did catch part of the 'Guy Awards' or whatever Spike called their recent special.

Quote: gambler

I agree Oprah is not funny, but I am sure that she will draw fans for the network. That's what they care about. Maybe she can give audience members free stuff.

A considerable number of the audience members already get free stuff. You should see the stuff that the nominees get each year.

-- Don

Quote: slyther

[..] and I couldn't care less who is wearing what.

"Who," not "what." It's "Who's wearing who," at least according to how the question is asked. I agree it makes little sense.

I don't care whose clothes any given person is wearing. But it's fun to see the various styles, accesories, hair and makeup. I find it gratifying when I can say "Hmph! I would look better in that!" :P Later the knock-off sites come up with astonishingly similar fashions.

Quote: SOOPOO

I think you would have to pay me $100 per hour to actually watch the Oscars. Maybe $80...

I'd rather watch a rerun of "Pawn Stars" I have seen 10 times for free.

The Oscar's had the most number of people watch for the year 1997 when Billy Crystal hosted. Did you like the show better back then?

Best Picture
Titanic
Good Will Hunting
The Full Monty
L.A. Confidential
As Good as It Gets

Best Director
James Cameron – Titanic
Gus Van Sant – Good Will Hunting
Peter Cattaneo – The Full Monty
Curtis Hanson – L.A. Confidential
Atom Egoyan – The Sweet Hereafter

Best Actor
Jack Nicholson – As Good as It Gets
Matt Damon – Good Will Hunting
Dustin Hoffman – Wag the Dog
Robert Duvall – The Apostle
Peter Fonda – Ulee's Gold

Quote: pacomartin

The Oscar's had the most number of people watch for the year 1997 when Billy Crystal hosted. Did you like the show better back then?

As a matter of fact, I liked it just as much as I do now.... Which is not at all. I have found that the Academy's sense of films deserving "Best Picture" accolades rarely match my personal tastes.

Quote: SOOPOO

I think you would have to pay me $100 per hour to actually watch the Oscars. Maybe $80...

Doesn't that work out to less than minimum wage per hour?

Quote: Ayecarumba

As a matter of fact, I liked it just as much as I do now.... Which is not at all. I have found that the Academy's sense of films deserving "Best Picture" accolades rarely match my personal tastes.

Overall it's safe to say the Academy wouldn't recognize a good film if they saw one. Proof: Citizen Kane didn't win best picture. It lost to "How Green Was My Valley."

I think they have to break up the Best Picture into two categories somehow. Perhaps just breaking them up by rating would be sufficient. Make it 5 in each category.

G,PG, and PG-13	R-Rated
Toy Story 3	The King's Speech
Inception	Black Swan
True Grit	The Fighter
The Social Network	The Kids Are All Right
	127 Hours
	Winter's Bone

G,PG, and PG-13	R-Rated
Avatar	The Hurt Locker
Up	An Education
The Blind Side	A Serious Man
	Precious
	District 9
	Inglourious Basterds
	Up in the Air

Quote: pacomartin

I think they have to break up the Best Picture into two categories somehow. Perhaps just breaking them up by rating would be sufficient. Make it 5 in each category.

There are two problems with this.

First, I don't think AMPAS would be happy with MPAA deciding who is eligible for its major award - especially when MPAA refuses to explain why it makes some of the decisions that it does.

Second, ATAS (the TV academy) tried an experiment in either 1964 or 1965 where there could be multiple winners in its major awards, and when all was said and done, there were far too many people still asking, "Yes, but what was the best TV show / actor / actress?"; I don't think AMPAS wants to repeat this. Even splitting the categories up into drama and comedy categories might be a problem; people would still ask, "What was the better movie, Saving Private Ryan or Shakespeare in Love?" (The Golden Globes and even the Emmys "get away with it," but in TV, there's more of a "gap" between comedy and drama that nobody really wants to compare the two, and it's not as important for the Golden Globes to name a single winner because, for lack of a better way of putting it, they're not the Oscars.)

(Another problem: both of the "Best Picture" winners would proclaim themselves "Best Picture" (with the subcategory in much smaller print), as if that movie's category was the only one. Don't think so? This is exactly what happens with Golden Globe winners.)