Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

85th academy award thread


56 replies to this topic

#31 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 25 February 2013 - 05:16 AM

Only decent film there was SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK.



#32 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 25 February 2013 - 06:11 AM

The tribute was crap! There's better on YouTube!


Haha you know what...You're right. But it was awesome seeing Dame Shirley Bassey perform Goldfinger. She is still beautiful!

As for the appearances of the actors, that was a little disappointing but I had this gut feeling that it wasn't going to happen.

#33 007jamesbond

007jamesbond

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1371 posts
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 25 February 2013 - 07:53 AM

when the last time an Best picture won without best director or any of the acting awards?? Argo only got two major awards......still wonder who is the 10th nomination and why bother with 9 and not 10. It should have stick to 5 or the debate about the mystery 10th film 



#34 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 25 February 2013 - 08:06 AM

when the last time an Best picture won without best director or any of the acting awards??

 

Crash in 2006. Ang Lee won Best Director for 'Brokeback Mountain', 'Crash' won Best Picture.



#35 007jamesbond

007jamesbond

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1371 posts
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 25 February 2013 - 08:14 AM

I hope the academy would let Daniel Craig present a Oscar for one of the technical awards in the future . If Kristein Stewart got a chance why not Daniel! 


Edited by 007jamesbond, 25 February 2013 - 08:15 AM.


#36 Blofelds Cat

Blofelds Cat

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 153 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia

Posted 25 February 2013 - 09:38 AM

still think JAvier BAdem should have been nomianted for supporting actor! 

 

Best supporting actor playing a sterotypical 'gay' in a mainstream film....



we all knew Adele was going to win no doubt........

 

You all knew her numberrrrrrrrrrr. Is she American?



First Bond film to wine 2 Oscars.

 

Is this 'insider knowledge' on how Skyfall got its nominations? Imagine how many more Oscars Skyfall would have won if Babs and Mike had dined the academy voters instead of merely wining them. Must have been some seriously rare vintages involved.



#37 thecasinoroyale

thecasinoroyale

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14358 posts
  • Location:Basingstoke, UK

Posted 25 February 2013 - 12:49 PM

Well I'm glad I stayed up through the morning for these, very proud to see 'Skyfall' get 2 Oscars.

 

A great ceremony with no big slip-ups, embarrasing moments or political activist speeches.

 

Seth MacFarlane did a fun job hosting and I'd welcome him back anyday. A little dissapointed with the "tribute" for James Bond, consiting of poorly played orchestral music over a montage even we could have edited on Windows Movie Maker. Nothing but filler.



#38 Vauxhall

Vauxhall

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10744 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 25 February 2013 - 01:05 PM


I hope the academy would let Daniel Craig present a Oscar for one of the technical awards in the future . If Kristein Stewart got a chance why not Daniel!


He presented Art Direction in 2007, plus Art Direction, Costume Design and Make-Up in 2009.

#39 thecasinoroyale

thecasinoroyale

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14358 posts
  • Location:Basingstoke, UK

Posted 25 February 2013 - 01:15 PM

Total Film UK have labelled, in their 'Best & Worst Oscar Moments'...

 

 

WORST: Bond Celebration

After all the hype - all the Bonds reunited on-stage!  - the 007 anniversary celebration turned out to be damper than a… Sean Connery scuba suit. We were expecting Adele to belt out Skyfall while Moore and Lazenby hugged each other.


What we got appeared to be a trailer for an ITV Bond season. 


Disappointing.

 

 

WORST: Roger Deakins losing out for Skyfall

Life Of Pi was an impressive film, but in terms of Cinematography, Skyfall was absolutely stunning, from that very first shot of Craig in the corridor. That makes 0 wins out of 10 nominations for Deakins.


It's a disgrace. 



#40 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:00 AM

I actually let out a cheer when SF was announced as the tie winner on sound editing.

 

The thing I don't understand about Life of Pi and the cinematorgraphy award was given the reliance on CGI, is it fair to judge it by the same standards as something like Skyfall or the other nominees? Maybe there should be a split category such as with best original and adapted screenplay or sound editing and sound mixing (which don't seem that much different from each other to begin with considering most of the nominees in one show up in the other).

 

Am I the only one who doesn't get the appeal of Seth MacFarlane? Family Guy always struck me as an attempt to one-up The Simpsons by being cruder and appealing to the fart and belch crowd, and his other series are almost the same thing with litte variation. Although I admit I want to see Ted.  



#41 Vauxhall

Vauxhall

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10744 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:05 AM

I actually let out a cheer when SF was announced as the tie winner on sound editing.

 

Haha, I feel better for doing the exact same thing now! :) 

 

I was caught off guard by fully expecting Mark Wahlberg to say "Argo".



#42 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:16 PM

Seth MacFarlane says he'll never host the Oscars again 



#43 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:51 PM

Yeah, I honestly couldn't see him coming back.

#44 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:59 PM

Thank God.



#45 Vauxhall

Vauxhall

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10744 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 27 February 2013 - 12:39 AM

Perhaps this is said as a Brit, but MacFarlane struck me as a poor man's Ricky Gervais in terms of the tone of his presentation and jokes. I wonder whether the Academy may seek out Gervais instead, or completely flip things around to go after Jennifer Lawrence or Emma Stone for next year.

#46 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 12:47 AM

I thought MacFarlane did a fine, if unspectacular, job, especially when compared to those who have preceded him over the past decade or so, who have all been (with the exception of perhaps Hugh Jackman) terrible hosts.  He at the very least kept the show going along at a decent pace.  I'm not sure what the actual running time on it was compared to previous telecasts, but it at least felt shorter.

 

They're almost surely going to go with someone who has gotten a lot of praise for hosting awards shows for the next go around.  I would expect the duo of Amy Poehler and Tina Fey or Neil Patrick Harris will be hosting the proceedings next year.  I don't see the Oscars, who couldn't be more uptight if they tried, going for someone like Gervais.  I think his style works much better at the Golden Globes.



#47 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 27 February 2013 - 12:50 AM

I thought MacFarlane did a fine, if unspectacular, job, especially when compared to those who have preceded him over the past decade or so, who have all been (with the exception of perhaps Hugh Jackman) terrible hosts.

 

Billy Crystal was an infinitely funnier host last year.



#48 Hockey Mask

Hockey Mask

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1027 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 February 2013 - 12:51 AM

Perhaps this is said as a Brit, but MacFarlane struck me as a poor man's Ricky Gervais in terms of the tone of his presentation and jokes. I wonder whether the Academy may seek out Gervais instead, or completely flip things around to go after Jennifer Lawrence or Emma Stone for next year.


As a Gervais fan I have to agree. I saw Seth on SNL and thought he did ptty good but here...not so much. The oscars deserve a bit classier.

#49 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 12:52 AM

I thought MacFarlane did a fine, if unspectacular, job, especially when compared to those who have preceded him over the past decade or so, who have all been (with the exception of perhaps Hugh Jackman) terrible hosts.

 

Billy Crystal was an infinitely funnier host last year.

 

Crystal has been a great host in his prior efforts, but last year he wasn't on top of his game.  He was better than the duo of Hathaway and Franco, but he wasn't good either.



#50 thecasinoroyale

thecasinoroyale

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14358 posts
  • Location:Basingstoke, UK

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:15 AM

What I don't get, is if they bang on about the humour, the edgy moments, the harsh jokes etc, why does the Academy hire these comedians to host the Oscars for 4 and a half hours and not expect things like this on a billion viewing platform?! Of course they're going to push the boundaries, it's their job and profession!

 

If the Academy want a harmless, if probably boring and predictable, but family friendly show, then hire a straight talking actor who can smile and ready pre-planned jokes from the auto-cue, but don't hire comedians for them to get backlash afterwards, bar the very few (Mr.Crystal).



#51 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 27 February 2013 - 12:40 PM

 

I thought MacFarlane did a fine, if unspectacular, job, especially when compared to those who have preceded him over the past decade or so, who have all been (with the exception of perhaps Hugh Jackman) terrible hosts.

 

Billy Crystal was an infinitely funnier host last year.

 

Crystal has been a great host in his prior efforts, but last year he wasn't on top of his game.  He was better than the duo of Hathaway and Franco, but he wasn't good either.

 

I agree. Crystal´s best work unfortunately lies behind him. And his strangely waxen (botoxed?) face was very sad.

 

But MacFarlane, IMO, was a missed opportunity. I was hoping for a Crystal 2.0, since MacFarlane can be sharp and still smile (like Crystal in his best years). But the material he had come up with just was dreadful. Too long opening (I liked Shatner´s appearance - but it should have been done only once for a short break), too much singing (without any humor - and the padding with the dancing Theron and Tatum... embarassing), and comedy bits that fell so flat (the "Sound of music"-moment). I don´t think that MacFarlane was forbidden to be edgier. I think he just had no real connection to the Oscars or the nominated films this year at all. It felt as if he thought: this is all about me.

 

But the whole show as ill-conceived. A tribute to "Chicago"? And "Dreamgirls"? So soon? If this was supposed to be a show with the theme "musical" why not showcase the truly legendary movie musicals?

 

Apart from that: why a show about "musicals"? Just because "Les Misérables" was nominated?

 

Cut all those numbers, edit the opening monologue to 5 minutes and use the time to celebrate the nominated movies, show the audience why these movies deserve to be nominated.

 

And please, rehearse the presenters. The first bit with Paul Rudd and Melissa McCarthy was neither working sound-wise, nor comedy-wise. It came across as if both of them did not know what they were doing and hating themselves for that at the same time.



#52 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 03:26 PM

 

 

I thought MacFarlane did a fine, if unspectacular, job, especially when compared to those who have preceded him over the past decade or so, who have all been (with the exception of perhaps Hugh Jackman) terrible hosts.

 

Billy Crystal was an infinitely funnier host last year.

 

Crystal has been a great host in his prior efforts, but last year he wasn't on top of his game.  He was better than the duo of Hathaway and Franco, but he wasn't good either.

 

I agree. Crystal´s best work unfortunately lies behind him. And his strangely waxen (botoxed?) face was very sad.

 

But MacFarlane, IMO, was a missed opportunity. I was hoping for a Crystal 2.0, since MacFarlane can be sharp and still smile (like Crystal in his best years). But the material he had come up with just was dreadful. Too long opening (I liked Shatner´s appearance - but it should have been done only once for a short break), too much singing (without any humor - and the padding with the dancing Theron and Tatum... embarassing), and comedy bits that fell so flat (the "Sound of music"-moment). I don´t think that MacFarlane was forbidden to be edgier. I think he just had no real connection to the Oscars or the nominated films this year at all. It felt as if he thought: this is all about me.

 

But the whole show as ill-conceived. A tribute to "Chicago"? And "Dreamgirls"? So soon? If this was supposed to be a show with the theme "musical" why not showcase the truly legendary movie musicals?

 

Apart from that: why a show about "musicals"? Just because "Les Misérables" was nominated?

 

Cut all those numbers, edit the opening monologue to 5 minutes and use the time to celebrate the nominated movies, show the audience why these movies deserve to be nominated.

 

And please, rehearse the presenters. The first bit with Paul Rudd and Melissa McCarthy was neither working sound-wise, nor comedy-wise. It came across as if both of them did not know what they were doing and hating themselves for that at the same time.

 

I think MacFarlane was hit and miss throughout the night.  He had some good moments.  I liked the inclusion of Shatner in the opening monologue, which I think would have gone down pretty well if he had just skipped the more traditional opening of that monologue and gone much more quickly to Shatner and built in a few more ideas off of that.  His stint as an Oscar presenter as the character Ted along with Mark Whalberg was hilarious, IMO, and one of the better moments of the evening.

 

As for the musicals, I really don't think that they did a tribute to musicals because Les Misérables was nominated.  I'm pretty sure it simply had more to do with who the producers of this year's telecast were.  They have fairly extensive backgrounds in musicals, between being on the production team of Smash as well as serving in various roles on other musicals throughout the years.



#53 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:38 PM

Absolutely. But still - why now? Only because it was an ego trip of these producers. It would have been so much better if they had tried to find out what the "theme" or "themes" of all the nominated pictures had been. They could have chosen to celebrate movies which have dealt with these themes before, thereby making it really an evening about the nominated pictures.



#54 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:13 PM

Absolutely. But still - why now? Only because it was an ego trip of these producers. It would have been so much better if they had tried to find out what the "theme" or "themes" of all the nominated pictures had been. They could have chosen to celebrate movies which have dealt with these themes before, thereby making it really an evening about the nominated pictures.

 

The only possible answer that I could give to the "why now?" question would be that, since I seem to recall that the producers of this years' show had wanted to do the Oscars for a very long time (and had stated as such to the Academy) that perhaps it was the Academy that wanted to honor musicals and decided to go with these guys this year since they have the background in that field.  Not saying that's how it went down (I obviously don't know), but that's the only reason that I can come up with.



#55 seawolfnyy

seawolfnyy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4763 posts
  • Location:La Rioja

Posted 27 February 2013 - 08:58 PM

when the last time an Best picture won without best director or any of the acting awards??

 

Crash in 2006. Ang Lee won Best Director for 'Brokeback Mountain', 'Crash' won Best Picture.

That was because Brokeback Mountain should've won for Best Picture.



#56 Vodka Martino

Vodka Martino

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 427 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:34 PM

Great to see "Skyfall" nab two Oscars.

Disappointing Bond tribute. Imagine if they had gotten Ursula Andress and Dame Judi Dench (or Berenice Marlohe) to come up on stage to say a little something about 50 Years of Bond before Dame Shirley belted out "Goldfinger"?

Woulda' been cool.



#57 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:02 AM

The Oscars can get The First Lady to announce an award but still can't get Sean Connery. Oh well it was still a good show even though the tribute wasn't that good we still had that, 2 songs performed and won 2 Oscars.