Official Oscar Discussion Thread
Discuss This In Our Forums
Oscars = Major theft of valuable oxygen
Skipper: Not to be crude, at this early hour, but in the above picture—Photoshop OUT “Oscar” and substitute:
Posted by Oink
03/04/2006 at 09:47 AM
Skipper I saw a item on the BBC that claimed the viewing figures for the Oscars are likely to be down on last years low. Not that I would sit up till 3am to watch the dross that constitutes Oscar Night. You have to wonder when will the money men wake up and realise that the stuff they are producing is not attracting an audience? Or rather it appeals to an ever smaller share. I see they have picked a host that is more likely to appeal to Democrats and a younger audience as well. It seems to me a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas.
Best Actress in a Comedy-- Hillary, “The Bush Administrations History of Corruption”
Laughing AND Puking—Lifetime Achievement—Ted Kennedy, “Deciding If Supreme Court Nominees Are of High Character”
Meteoric Disappearance Award—Cindy Sheehan and Her Mouth
Best Supporting Actor—Dick Cheney, “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World”
Posted by Oink
03/04/2006 at 10:25 AM
See my stunning answer under “FORUM”.
Posted by Oink
03/04/2006 at 10:46 AM
Skipper, you’re not an actor or member of the Academy so who are you to judge?
Bulldog, I’m not an actor but I play one in the blogosphere. Plus, I did spend the night at a Holiday Inn Express.
but you said i would say that
p s wheres my flag, i dont like this one.well its ok but,I have a hard time watching meaningless people pat themselves on the back. While I usually do take somewhat of an interest in who won best picture the next day - the AAs have been off my list of caring since they violated their own definition of documentary to give the Land Whale his award for Bowling. I watched drivel on this (The Oscars)as some moron tried to explain why these movies were chosen (without springing into a liberal diatribe - which was very hard for him not to do) and then when presented with the question of low ratings he again went into the same explanation of . . . even their defense of what they’ve done this year is drivel.
By the way, the 5 movies nominated combined have not made what The Chronicles of Narnia made. But like The Passion of the Christ - Hollyweird just can’t acknowledge that anyone would actually want to see and would actually like a movie with - - gasp - - religion in it.
All of these award shows are so meaningless to me - a lot like the crop of reality shows (where much of the performance/decision making is pre-set).
And the networks have to wonder why their numbers continue to plummet.
judging from how much money it made- after something like four weeks in some theaters- not many other people felt like spending $10 to see Brokeback either.
You know, it’s all Marlon Brando’s fault with his 1970 (?) “protest non-acceptance”. That event kicked the moonbattery ball down the hill, and it’s been gaining speed ever since.
Speaking of which, I must be the only person in the English-speaking world who doesn’t believe Brando was the greatest “ac-toor” of all time. If someone can explain in simple, non-theatrical language why Brando was better than, say, John Wayne or Charlton Heston, I’m all ears....
We’re having a dinner for our newly installed sr. Pastor at church tonight.
I’ve got better things to do than watch “Paradise Now” beat out “Sophie Scholl”
Posted by Annoying Little Twerp
03/05/2006 at 04:51 PM
GOH - actually I thought I was the only person who didn’t believe Brando or any of his movies were ‘great’. There are so many, but you know all time, close your eyes and you feel that Rhett Butler was written specifically for Clark Gable. For me, it is when I get lost in the film and forget what else is going on or you can imagine it happening.
The problem to me with this years ‘crop’ is that I knew before even seeing the movie, that it had an agenda. Why bother, I could just turn on a network news show or open a newspaper and get the same junk.
I always thought movies were to entertain, escape or occassionally teach. Not for all of them to make a political statement. One of the first movies I saw like that was a foreign film (touted to be ‘great’ - boring) and so I’ve never wasted my money since.
I’ve come to realize that while sometimes what the critics say and what the people say may be different - usually if a movie is really any good, it gets good box office. Few escape, as a dud at the box office while being good - unless it is foreign.
My daughter has tracked us onto some nice little movies that hardly see the light of day here in the US. The same for one of my fav suspense (I guess) it was canadian and came out around the same time as Star Wars (talk about taking a hit) - The Silent Partner. Oh well I guess it is the luck of the draw and this year the AAs are run by lib hollyweird types.
Just this year?
Well, this year they are really, really making their point - to drag the AAs into the hollyweird gutter.
I mean, if the people making the movies are the people funding the movies are the people watching the movies are the people who are voting on the movies are the people at the AAs - what is the point? Redundancy ad nauseam.
While Brando’s 1970 thing was one of the first - I think hollyweird slipped seriously in to moonbattery in 2001 - they just can’t admit that the USA was innocent and attacked by ‘evil doers’ who want nothing more than to kill us all.
War Stories is doing a show on Hollywood and WWII - I give kudos to celebs who go on USO tours can you imagine if anyone of them left their million dollar careers to actually be in the military. Of course with the draft long gone, too many young people haven’t a clue about service to country.
Oh well, that is a whole ‘nother topic.
1. between chores & IP CRASH—I been missing all PM:
Briefly—Skipping tedious “HALO EFFECT” details
Brando was a 100% axxhole—who could act
Heston is a decent man who could 50% act
Wayne was a 60% decent guy who could 30% act(Wayne loses points for ducking WW2)
Posted by Oink
03/05/2006 at 06:53 PM
I STILL THINK, IN THE ABOVE PHOTO, THE MAN SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING MORE PERSONAL IN HIS HANDS!
It would capture the spirit of Hollyweird and the Oskers!
Posted by Oink
03/05/2006 at 07:00 PM
Am one who has not seen any of the movies up for the awards - I rarely go to the movies as my hearing disability (even with hearing aids) prevents me from hearing the dialogue........My hearing aids do not drown out background noise...........To illustrate - last night I attended a Trivia Night’s gathering to raise money for a woman (my son’s girlfriend’s aunt) with breast cancer - had a great time but was totally unable to hear the announcers hints to the questions due to the overall noise level in the room............it’s one thing to be hearing impaired, but totally frustrating to be unable to ascertain information given in a large crowded noisy room full of people...............One of the greatest aspects of belonging to a blog is that I don’t need to HEAR in order to respond to the blogosphere!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Dottie
03/05/2006 at 08:02 PM
Dot: Don’t they have new hearing aids that filter out extraneous noise? My son is HOH, but does OK w/out one.
I’m so pathetic that I fully intended to see King Kong, but missed it. Now I wait for the DVD.
Posted by Oink
03/05/2006 at 08:15 PM
The real travesty is that Serenity wasn’t nominated for anything major. Should’ve swept the board. Hell, that $40M movie had some better effects than the Star Wars movie.
03/04/2006 at 10:21 AM
