The Oscars

Matthew Preston | February 28, 2011
Good luck tonight everyone. It should be interesting.

C'mon "Let's Pollute"!

Steve West | February 28, 2011
I've still got five minutes to make ill-advised, poorly calculated changes!!! Stop interrupting me!!

Matthew Preston | February 28, 2011
Confident on director? How about costume and art/set direction? These are the ones I'm up in the air about. I still think Geoffrey Rush stands a chance at supporting actor, but not likely.

Scott Hardie | February 28, 2011
Costume Design is the only category that I have any substantial doubt about, not counting the short films which are the same crap shoot as always. Too bad confidence rarely holds any bearing on results in this thing. :-) In my heart I still think Geoffrey Rush will win Supporting Actor, but for strategic reasons in the contest I'm backing Christian Bale.

Steve West | February 28, 2011
Director I'm pretty happy with but you hit the nail on the head with my uncertainty of art/set direction. It's still a little bit of a strech for me to understand how the Best Picture doesn't automatically garner Best Director as well. Although I voted the other way.. I still have time!!!

Steve West | February 28, 2011
No I don't. The suffering has only just begun. And loving it!!!

Scott Hardie | February 28, 2011
I'm working on deadline tonight, so I may be a few minutes behind in updating the scores whenever a category is announced. I haven't watched the actual broadcast in years, but I still love Oscar night.

Matthew Preston | February 28, 2011
Not sure of the validity, but I read somewhere that actor and supporting actor went to the same movie only once in Oscar history: In 2004 for Mystic River (Sean Penn and Tim Robbins). So, assuming Colin Firth is in the bag for lead, statistically Geoffrey Rush shouldn't win.

I'll look for the source...

Steve West | February 28, 2011
I may as well go to bed now. Irretrievable loss on the first vote. Grrr.... Sorry to whine but man I hate to lose on the first go. I'll stick around till the end. Can't help it - it's awesome.

Steve West | February 28, 2011
I've really got to work on this fatalism thing.

Scott Hardie | February 28, 2011
Director is the only category left with a variety of predictions, so that will have to settle this. I'm still confident in Tom Hooper, but I'd be thrilled to see David Fincher win after enjoying many of his films.

Steve West | February 28, 2011
Director it is... I promise not to whine if Fincher doesn't win. It's been a great night of thrills Good luck!

Matthew Preston | February 28, 2011
Scott, I completely agree with you. I'd be very happy to see Fincher take home the award.

Steve West | February 28, 2011
Wow! Well deserved. Wish I had picked that one. Congrats!

Matthew Preston | February 28, 2011
But since I picked Tom Hooper, I'm happy to see him win too. :-)

Scott Hardie | February 28, 2011
The contest is concluded. For the first time, we have a tie for first place: Both new player Brian Bedard and veteran Sarah Kyle outplayed the field with some very smart predictions, and they'll each get the top prize. John Ducarme will collect the second-place prize. Well played, everybody!

Steve West | March 2, 2011
Anyone else disappointed in the choice of Oscar hosts this year? I was reserving judgement until after the show but had a bad feeling about them heading in. Frankly, I thought they both blew dead bear. James Franco and Anne Hathaway? Why would the decision makers choose anyone other than a comedian? That concept was so underlined after Christian Bale thanked everyone during his acceptance speech including his agent and his personal trainer but forgot his wife's name. That was a moment that would not have escaped scathing hilarity with a more perceptive host with a modicum of funniness. Those two addled hosts made no mention of it at all. Franco looked stoned and Hathaway out of her element. Bring back Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin!

Erik Bates | March 2, 2011
[hidden by request]

Jon Berry | March 2, 2011
Oh god, do they need to bring back Billy Crystal. 45 seconds and he showed the world how it's done.

The man is just made for the job. Hathaway tried the best she could with no help from Franco whatsoever, but Steve's right, they need comedians. But even truly funny people have been floundering at it (Chris Rock, John Stewart), hell, either get Billy Crystal or see if Dave Chappel will come out of retirement to do it.

As always, I like Ricky's hosting work, but I doubt that's a possibility.

I don't know what happened at this year's Oscars, but I wait all year long for them and came out somewhat disappointed. Not even with the wins, all were spot on, but maybe the going through the motions of it all.

I also personally liked the thing they tried last year and the year before where different previous winners came to discuss each nominee for the major categories. Gave it a real perspective on it all, instead of having Sandra Bullock simply go on how charming they all are. I've heard people think this practice was "Too much", though, but I found it one of the more innovative things they've tried in the last few years.

Also, does anyone else feel increasing the nominees to 10 has been pointless? It still is coming down to 5 in steep competition and 5 filler. Last year was the same, District 9 had no chance of getting best picture. In fact, as long as only 5 people get nominated for best director, you KNOW who are the 5 real picks and the 5 filler.

I mean, I adored Toy Story 3, but you could tell when they cut the montage they were like "Aw hell, we gotta throw that in somewhere".

Scott Hardie | March 7, 2011
I wouldn't want the job of the Oscar producers in this day and age. The erosion of the show's cultural relevance seems irreversible and caused by a variety of factors completely beyond their control, and yet they're under incredible pressure to cast "young and hip" talent in a pointless effort to reverse the trend, leading to big mistakes like Hathaway and Franco. This analysis of the post-mortem coverage sums it up pretty well.

The fracturing of entertainment media shows no signs of stopping. Audiences are being divided and sub-divided into slivers by an overabundance of shows and websites and devices all vying for their attention. This is good news if you're a small production that can thrive with a modest audience, but bad news if you're a behemoth that will continue to fall short of lofty expectations that were set in a different era. The best thing the producers could do for their show would be to realign expectations with reality, which is a lot easier said than done, but it would untie their hands: A traditional Billy Crystal kind of show could aim for a smaller, older demographic and nail it, or another desperate Hathaway-Franco grasp at straws could aim for a wide audience and fail on all levels. While I do expect a return to funny hosts next year, I don't really expect the overall trend to reverse for the next few years until everyone is ready to accept the new reality.

The other problem keeping the show from returning to the Billy Crystal golden years is that it took time for Crystal to get so good at it. The man hosted eight times. The only recent host who approaches his level (in my opinion) is Steve Martin, who has hosted three times. The revolving door of comedians over the last decade has kept most of them from honing their skills beyond the rudimentary. Then again, some of them would never be a proper fit no matter how many chances they got - Chris Rock? Jon Stewart? Funny guys, but perennial favorite Oscar hosts they cannot be.

Critics have talked many times about cutting this part of the show or that one, from the interminable musical numbers to the lifetime achievement awards to the pointless montages of, I dunno, scenes of people eating sandwiches throughout movie history. These are all good, but the time-saving suggestion that doesn't get made nearly often enough is the elimination of certain awards from the presentation. They have a separate ceremony the night before for the technical awards; is there a reason that sound mixing and sound editing (which nobody knows the difference between) and visual effects cannot be given out then, maybe even cinematography and film editing too? Does anybody honestly give a damn who wins the three short-film categories beyond people who make short films? These categories are dead weight dragging down the show for the average viewer. I wonder why they continue to stay in a show that supposedly wants to keep up with a changing, attention-deprived audience.

Steve West | March 7, 2011
I actually anticipate the cinematography and film editing awards. I'm part of a dwindling group probably but those shorts have got to go (previous day award ok). I don't think people appreciate what some of these awards are actually given for. A pre-Oscar show, like a week in advance, that shows the films nominated and what each category means would be very welcome and entertaining. There really isn't enough time during the show itself to give the audience the proper feel for why these particular films were nominated. And 10 best pictures is a bad idea.

Samir Mehta | March 7, 2011
[hidden by request]

Jon Berry | March 7, 2011
I don't know, Scott, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I would be pretty livid if cinematography and film editing being moved off the main ceremony.

I guess I speak for a very skewed sector of the "young and hip" demographic they aim for so badly, skewed in that I don't want it. It doesn't ring true or necessary, I don't want to see Twilight at these shows, EVER. I don't want young hosts that can't truly hold the weight of the hosting gig.

If you could get me Rodney Dangerfield hosting the thing, I'd be in Heaven.

Personally, I would axe the musical number, axe the ridiculous segments (as you pointed out, people eating sandwiches in film) and focus on the awards.

Like I said before, not giving the time to see the lifetime achievement award this year, in my opinion, is indicative of what was wrong with the approach of it all.

They found time for an "Autotune the news" type musical clip montage, just not to honor some film icons.

I liked the Oscars, and hell, I can love the Oscars again. Even when the hosting has been weaker, as the fast few years I feel it has been, I've still come out excited, conflicted, and overall satisfied.

This has been the first time in a while that even though I was happy with the wins, the show left me feeling unfulfilled, as if even they didn't care.

On your note of fracturing, which I think is very valid, I chalk it up to the biggest issue of people 18-35 (or whatever that demographic is) is that a lot are refusing to accept the validity of the Oscars (a little anti-establishment) and the Oscar promoters still trying to get them to accept them. The more the Oscars try to appeal to them, the more they push away.

If they focus first on treating their honorees to a good show, then a slightly older (more sophisticated) demographic, lastly the younger demographic, I guarantee the quality of the show will increase dramatically, and the younger audience will come.

Scott Hardie | March 8, 2011
I have no quibble with cinematography and film editing, except maybe Thelma Schoonmaker's baffling dominance of the latter. But I still think they hold little interest to most viewers. This site attracts a certain cinephilia, TMR's recent anemia notwithstanding, so I doubt that our opinions are representative of the full body of potential viewers in this regard.

I don't mind popular movies like Twilight being celebrated at the Oscars as part of the presentation, like it comes up in the montage or gets joked about. The awards themselves are honorific, but the overall presentation is supposed to be in part a celebration of the year in film after all, and it wouldn't be right not to at least mention the year's most popular titles. Then again, everything is a fading franchise these days, the Xth part of the Yth sequel to something that was popular years ago, and fatigue of the topic is inevitable. Say what you want about Inception, but it was something different at the multiplex (even as it revisited a decade-old cinematic trend) and I hope it inspires studios to try a few more non-franchised, non-adapted non-sequels.

I want to like the lifetime achievement awards. In principle, I'm totally behind them. But for adding value to the televised presentation? They lost me a few years back when the recipient, whose work I'd never heard of, rambled on for fifteen minutes in a sputtering manner, half-unintelligibly. I'd be lying if I said I didn't identify with the "young, hip" philistines in the audience who don't want to watch some old nobody wheeze on all night while stars who I know and like are cued off the stage by the impatient orchestra. I can see sacrificing them for entertainment value even if I don't like the idea.

Jackie Mason | March 9, 2011
[hidden by request]