Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Mad Dr Jeffe on March 05, 2006, 09:34:11 PM
-
Yay Wallace and Grommett!
-
Didn't bother watching and now that everyone on TV is talking about how bad it was, no thanks to John Stewards apparently horrible hosting job, I'm glad I didn't watch.
-
John Stewart didn't do a bad job, but he could have been a lot better. The biggest problem is just that the writing for the Oscars needs to be better. Course, that can be said about most things produced by Hollywood.
But I'm happy about Wallace and Grommett. Course, it was in the only category where any of the nominees (Howl's Moving Castle and Corpse Bride) could have won and I would have been happy.
I'm also pleased that March of the Penguins won.
Also, happy that King Kong and Chronicles of Narnia got some recognition.
I couldn't care less about the rest.
-
John Stewart was fine. It seems like everyone is willing to blame the host for the series of bad movies released this year.
-
I'm surprised by how many complaints there have been about Stewart. I thought he was great.
I was also pleased by how non-political, relatively-speaking, the night turned out to be -- the five Best Picture awards were all somewhat controversial, and the host is a political commentator, after all. But although there was a little "Hollywood is the moral compass of the nation" speaching, there wasn't any "Bush is Hitler" activism.
-
I also thought Stewart did a good job. Very funny, great ad-libs. Very well done. I'd like to see him host again. I really enjoyed the ceremonies last night, especially the fact that there was no one "landslide" winner. Spread the love.
-
I liked Stewarts comment on the Montage of movies that tackle sensative issues.
" And after these movies were made these issues were never a problem again."
-
I'm glad Reese Witherspoon won. I saw Walk The Line on Saturday, and both she and Phoenix did an amazing job.
-
Stewart wasn't fall-down hilarious like people hoped he would be, but that's a good thing--it would have turned into the Jon Stewart Show Featuring Some Incidental Awards, which is not what hosting is about. I thought he did a fine job.
-
I also thought Stewart was dead-on as a host. As a stand-up comedian it would've been a pretty lackluster job, but like Fell said, that's not what being the Oscar host is about. I'd love to see him do it again.
I was also pleased that Crash got picture. I saw it just a couple nights ago, and it's a beautiful, meditative movie about how racial issues are simple, but the people behind them are complicated.
-
I'm happy for Wallace and Grommit. As for the penguins, I'm still miffed that Grizzly Man wasn't even nominated for best documentary. This isn't to say that March of Penguins is bad but "Grizzly Man" is such a good and deep documentary. I don't know why it seems like Hollywood is shunning it.
Also, I'm happy that there was no run-away winning in this years oscars because with the number of political movies, a run-away winner could have been interepreted as if Hollywood was making a political statement.
-
The Gibbs weigh in: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1266
-
Regarding the Gibbs review, I agree that the song was a travesty -- I wouldn't be surprised if most voters voted for it simply because the name was strange. (However, I do believe that Lose Yourself deserved the Oscar. But that's just me.)
-
"let's have a separate category for Best Rap, so that actual songs can get their due."
lol. Indeed! Of course, that leads to maybe splitting up the Best Song into even more categories and getting an Oscar Grammy thing going on. I guess that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, tho. You could have genre Best Songs and then one overall Best Song. hmm. Perhaps I'm taking this too seriously. Still, I'm -not- impressed with the winning tune this year.
Anyway, I also think the Gibbs' are on to something when they suggest expanding the number of nominees in the visual effects category.
As for Crash, huh. I mean, I didn't hate the film, but although I thought the racial issues were realistic and frightening (for their subtlety as well as overtness), I also felt like much of the plot was too contrived with too many criss-crossing plot lines. Like how the cop winds up saving the woman he intimidated and molested in front of her husband. And so on. Because of this deus ex machina vibe, I had a tough time being swept away by it or impressed with it as a story rather than a scripted film. But I guess I'm definitely in the minority here. (shrug)
-
I think it's pretty silly to claim that rap songs don't count as songs, and perhaps over the top to dig on the artists just because you don't like the genre they sing in. I didn't hear this year's song, but Lose Yourself was an excellent song and a worthy winner.
-
The lack of a nomination for the final installment in the "Star Wars" saga was inexcusable,
I was hugely unimpressed with the special effects in Episode 3. Great, shiney things. I'm impressed when I see real looking CGI, not when I see shiny-obviously-fake CGI.
-
I think it's pretty silly to claim that rap songs don't count as songs
By the by, I was just being facetious about echoing the Gibbs' brothers' comments. Sure, I'm not fond of Rap, but I wouldn't seriously argue that Rap isn't a form of (whacked-out) music. ;)
-
I mostly responding to the Gibbs, but don't worry, I was casting curt glances in your direction as well. :)
-
I mostly responding to the Gibbs, but don't worry, I was casting curt glances in your direction as well. :)
Yeah, yeah. I know. I'm getting plenty of crap about my opinion on this one, and I feel the need to point out that seperate categories was not a serious suggestion -it was exaggeration for comic effect.
But I do not remotely believe that "Lose Yourself" was a great song, even by rap standards. It was kind of catchy, and got stuck in my head, but not in a good way, and I was more impressed with Will Smith's "Wild Wild West" rap.
-
Lose Yourself is an excellent rap song. The beat is hard and interesting and relatively complex. The ryhmes have a lot of rythm and are clever. He tells a story that we can relate to and is emotive in the telling. I havn't heard Wild West so I can't comment.
-
I was hugely unimpressed with the special effects in Episode 3. Great, shiney things. I'm impressed when I see real looking CGI, not when I see shiny-obviously-fake CGI.
The openning sequence of the ships going into battle in "Revenge of The Sith" was, in my opinion, one of the greatest FX sequences ever, and Yoda was awesome. I'll admit that not all of the effects were perfect, though there was nothing in the realm of those awful watermelon aardvark's that Anakin rides in "Attack of The Clones" (the single worst FX shot in the Star Wars saga.). I still think it was worthy of a nod, though again, "Kong" was obviously the choice to win.
-
The openning scene was a video game. I was expecting a HUD to appear. It didn't look real at all and was too confusing to understand why I should care. The best comparison is the battle over Endor - the ship types were very easy to differenciate, it moved fast and was exciting but I could still see the overall battle and the ships looked like real ships, that had been used. Not so for the ones in Ep 3.
Not worthy of a nod.
-
though there was nothing in the realm of those awful watermelon aardvark's that Anakin rides in "Attack of The Clones" (the single worst FX shot in the Star Wars saga.).
They were more like eggs than melons. and more like mammal fleas than aardvarks
-
I still think it was worthy of a nod, though again, "Kong" was obviously the choice to win.
I dono, you know how academy voters like to award the last movie in a series by voting for the series it self and not the movie. SW EP3, if nominated, probably would have won due to all the people voting in that category rewarding Star Wars itself and not necessarily ep3.
As for which one was better, ep3 or Kong, that's a hard one to choose. I don't think EP3 was as video gamey as Ent is saying (attack of the clones defiantly was though) since all 3 prequels have had that every thing's shiny look which I think was done on purpose. In the original 3 things are run down and give you the feel of how desperate the Rebellion is and how much the Empire has choked the Galaxy. In the Prequels you have the exact opposite to show how good things were with the Republic and Jedi.
Kong, on the other hand, had great environments and interaction with those environments. Though Kong himself was quite boring in that regard, sorry I just expect CGI characters to looke that good so there was little wow factor there, plus he only interacted with a few non-cg things.
-
I think that even had EpIII been nominated, it wouldn't have won--I just don't see the first three Star Wars movies as deserving even a collective "vote for the series" vote, and I would have been surprised if that had happened. Kong's effects blew EpIII out of the water.
-
I don't think that SW would have won for different reasons: I think that the academy is hardly unbiased, and the simple fact that it's Star Wars would have doomed it.
This is why I don't care if a movie wins or not.
-
I agree with Ent about the SFX in Ep III. Sub par, I though the old Models looked better than 90% of the CG graphics Lucas tacked on.
IMHO CG took the Human Element out of the Series.
-
I just saw on of the old stars wars movies and the old models do look a lot better than most of the CG graphics in Ep. III. The CG graphics are too clean, shiny and symetric to look real. The models had chips and dents and other things to make them look more realistic.