Neurox Media Network: idolforums.com | aikenforums.com | IDF Webmail  
Neurox Media's American Idol 10, 9 & 8 / So You Think You Can Dance 8, 7 & 6 / Glee / X Factor Forums & Message Boards
Neurox Advertising   The banner image below is an ad.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register - It's quick & free! | Resend Validation )    

4 Pages V « < 2 3 4   ( Goto last unread Go to first unread post )
( Star this topic Star this topic | View starred topics )    Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The 84th Annual Academy Awards
totes4totes
post Mar 1st 2012, 1:12 AM
Post #61



**********

Group: Members

Posts: 32,421
Gender: Female
Fav. SYTYCDA2: Talia Fowler
Fav. SYTYCDC2: Jayme Rae Dailey
Fav. Movie: Star Wars V



QUOTE(poopooface @ Feb 29th 2012, 8:09 PM) *

Well, I think there are better ways to make the show less monotonous than performing the nominated songs, namely more dancing. XD Depending on what songs are nominated, performing them could just as much of a drag as those generic montages. I think cutting presenter-banter time in favor of more speech time is probably a bad idea too. Most speeches are very dry and boring and whereas presenter banter is at least trying to be entertaining. But I strongly disagree that Best Song is the not the most irrelevant category. []bMany times, the nominated sons are just songs that they tack onto the end credits of the movie and aren't really a part of the movie at all.[/b] To be fair, the oscars do seem to favor songs that play a more important role in the movie. Still, as long as throw-away end credit songs are even eligible, I don't see how they are more relevant than any of the other categories, which are all essential to movie-making. As for the performances encouraging people to go see the movie, I've never heard of such a phenomenon but I'll take your word of it. I would assume the effect is much smaller than winning award and such. In other words, with or without the songs being performed, people will presumably be encouraged to watch lesser known movies after the oscars. Personally, I wouldn't think anything but a standout performance (pretty rare at the oscars) would inspire people to go see a movie, especially if people are saavy to the fact that there's a good chance that the song isn't even featured in the movie.

Also, am I missing something about Tarantino? Since when did he become an oscar darling? unsure.gif

If there is a movie that heavily features dancing then I am all for dancing. If there are dancers dancing to the score (like there was two years ago) then I am all for dancing. If it is dancers interpreting the movie then I am all for dancing. If it is f*cking Cirque du Soleil dancing about the "magic of movies" then I am 100% against it.

And the awards are about the people who win, not the presenters. It is a f*cking joke that the winners of Best Documentary were not only just played off, but had their mics cut off as well. They could have had plenty of time if we didn't have to watch RDJ make a f*cking joke about a f*cking documentary. The speeches can be as dry as they want because the show is about the winners. It should be their moment. And time constraints because of presenters of the awards permit things like Marketa Irglova not getting to speak during the live show and things like that.

And as for the bolded part, that's actually not true. I actually think that there is a rule that states that for an original song to be eligible, it has to be featured before the credits or as the first song. The first song of the end credits is often the punctuation for the tone of the movie, therefore is still incredibly important. None of the songs that even go into contention on the shortlist are throwaway songs. And I am not saying that any category is more or less irrelevant.

Any type of nomination gives a bump to ticket sales. In some cases, if the best picture still isn't in theaters it will be re-released depending on popularity. I expect that The Artist saw a marginal bump. And for smaller more "artsy" movies, the original song performance is either the first time somebody has heard of a movie or something that will convince a person to see it. The effect is probably just about the same as any award won except for Best Picture.

Again, if a song is nominated that means that the academy did see that there was importance for the song in the movie. I am literally looking through the lists to try and see if any of the songs nominated weren't either performed in the film or underscoring important moments and I can't. And songs are also important because it influences people to buy the soundtrack.

Once again, I just think that it is ridiculous that the show couldn't afford ten minutes to perform TWO original songs but we can watch like 15 minutes of Cirque du Soleil.



Tarantino isn't exactly an Oscar darling. But we saw with Ingluorious Basterds that now that the field permits 10 films, a Tarantino film (which are typically of high quality) has a very good chance of becoming a nominee. Especially if there is a huge amount of buzz surrounding it. 3 of his films have been nominated for Oscars (two of which have been nominated for Best Picture) so he definitely is somebody consistent. Especially if it grosses a lot of money or the Academy needs to have a genre film.

Also, now that we have had like half a week to digest, what would any of you have nominated for the major categories?

This post has been edited by totes4totes: Mar 1st 2012, 1:12 AM


--------------------
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NX AdBot™
post Mar 1st 2012, 1:12 AM


NX Advertisement


Group: Marketing

Posts: I've been known to spam...
Gender: Not telling :P


Subscribe to NX to remove this advertisement post. Help us pay for our servers! Click for subscriber benefits.

 
 
Go to the top of the page
poopooface
post Mar 1st 2012, 10:27 PM
Post #62



**********

Group: Members

Posts: 4,894
Gender: Male



QUOTE(totes4totes @ Mar 1st 2012, 1:12 AM) *

If there is a movie that heavily features dancing then I am all for dancing. If there are dancers dancing to the score (like there was two years ago) then I am all for dancing. If it is dancers interpreting the movie then I am all for dancing. If it is f*cking Cirque du Soleil dancing about the "magic of movies" then I am 100% against it.


I don't understand. Is the fact the it's Cirque or that it's about movies in general and not the current crop of nominated movies that you don't like about it? Paying homage to old movies is something they do every year and I don't think it's something that will ever go away. So from my view, If they're gonna do it anyway, it might as well have crazy acrobatics.

QUOTE(totes4totes @ Mar 1st 2012, 1:12 AM) *

And the awards are about the people who win, not the presenters. It is a f*cking joke that the winners of Best Documentary were not only just played off, but had their mics cut off as well. They could have had plenty of time if we didn't have to watch RDJ make a f*cking joke about a f*cking documentary. The speeches can be as dry as they want because the show is about the winners. It should be their moment. And time constraints because of presenters of the awards permit things like Marketa Irglova not getting to speak during the live show and things like that.


Well, the awards are about the people who win, but show itself is exactly that, a show. As long as it's televised, there's an understanding that it's meant for an audience. Like you say, the the show is about the winners and therefore, they should be allowed to say whatever they want to say during their acceptance speech. That means it's up to the rest of the show to provide the entertainment. Present-banter is a part of that entertainment. While, the quality of that entertainment overall can be debated, I think it's a little unfair to blame the lack of speech time for the documentary-folk on the RDJ's banter. I highly doubt that if the banter goes on longer than expected, that the winners get less speech time. Everything cuts into the speech time, including montages, banter, host-jokes, and of course, nominated song performances (not to mention in the case of the documentary and Irglova, the fellow winners going on too long and not given the last person to speak much time (although in the case of Irglova, her adorableness could not be denied so she got to say what she wanted to say anyway).).

QUOTE(totes4totes @ Mar 1st 2012, 1:12 AM) *

And as for the bolded part, that's actually not true. I actually think that there is a rule that states that for an original song to be eligible, it has to be featured before the credits or as the first song. The first song of the end credits is often the punctuation for the tone of the movie, therefore is still incredibly important. None of the songs that even go into contention on the shortlist are throwaway songs.


Well, respectfully, the bolded part is true. As you say yourself a song that is the first song of the end credits is eligible. We simply disagree on how "incredibly important" that first song in the end credits is. I don't consider a song that is first heard after the movie ends as part of the movie and hence, I consider them throwaway songs.

QUOTE(totes4totes @ Mar 1st 2012, 1:12 AM) *

And I am not saying that any category is more or less irrelevant.


yes.gif Of course! I am the one saying the song category is the least relevant!

QUOTE(totes4totes @ Mar 1st 2012, 1:12 AM) *

Any type of nomination gives a bump to ticket sales. In some cases, if the best picture still isn't in theaters it will be re-released depending on popularity. I expect that The Artist saw a marginal bump. And for smaller more "artsy" movies, the original song performance is either the first time somebody has heard of a movie or something that will convince a person to see it. The effect is probably just about the same as any award won except for Best Picture.


yes.gif Exactly. Nominations/wins themselves gives bumps to these movies. I don't see why the movies that are nominated for best song are owed an extra bump from a full performance of the nominated song. I hope we agree though that how big this song bump is pure speculation on both our parts (although in the case of this year, none of the nominated songs were from small movies anyway).

QUOTE(totes4totes @ Mar 1st 2012, 1:12 AM) *

Again, if a song is nominated that means that the academy did see that there was importance for the song in the movie. I am literally looking through the lists to try and see if any of the songs nominated weren't either performed in the film or underscoring important moments and I can't. And songs are also important because it influences people to buy the soundtrack.


Again, we are in disagreement what counts as an "important moment" in a movie. If you don't consider the beginning of the end credits as an important part of the movie then it's pretty easy to find nominated songs that aren't important to the movie. And while you can make a case that the oscar ceremony has a full list of responsibilities that it must fulfill, I don't think advertising for soundtracks is one of those responsibilities.

QUOTE(totes4totes @ Mar 1st 2012, 1:12 AM) *

Once again, I just think that it is ridiculous that the show couldn't afford ten minutes to perform TWO original songs but we can watch like 15 minutes of Cirque du Soleil.


Well, this is a little unfair. The Cirque performance was about four minutes. Even with only two songs nominated, it would have taken more time to perform them than the cirque performance. And of course, most of the time, more songs are nominated, eating up even more time. From my view, these performances, in general, provide little entertainment value while eating up time that could be better used (like more speech time, or more presenter-banter. I love them both. stuart.gif) so replacing them with epic dance numbers becomes a tradition, I'm all for it.

QUOTE(totes4totes @ Mar 1st 2012, 1:12 AM) *

Tarantino isn't exactly an Oscar darling. But we saw with Ingluorious Basterds that now that the field permits 10 films, a Tarantino film (which are typically of high quality) has a very good chance of becoming a nominee. Especially if there is a huge amount of buzz surrounding it. 3 of his films have been nominated for Oscars (two of which have been nominated for Best Picture) so he definitely is somebody consistent. Especially if it grosses a lot of money or the Academy needs to have a genre film.


Well, I'm not sure two best picture nominations over an entire career can be considered "consistent." Given that they liked his most recent movie, it wouldn't be surprising if they nominated this new one but I think "very good chance becoming a nominee" is as little too strong of a phrase, especially considering Tarantino movies are basically the antithesis of oscar bait.

QUOTE(totes4totes @ Mar 1st 2012, 1:12 AM) *

Also, now that we have had like half a week to digest, what would any of you have nominated for the major categories?


I haven't seen a lot of movies this year, but from what I saw, I'd have to go with Chimpacalypse for best picture. Not exactly an oscary movie, but believe it or not, it actually had some oscar-buzz early on!

This post has been edited by poopooface: Mar 1st 2012, 10:29 PM


--------------------
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:



-
Lo-Fi Version 83 Time is now: Jul 24th 2014, 7:22 AM




We now accept check/money order donations in addition to online donations via PayPal!  Help us pay for our servers, donate to Neurox Media!  Thanks!
Links: Reality TV Links - American Idol | SirLinksalot: American Idol

Powered by: Invision Power Board v2.1.7 © 2014  IPS, Inc.
Licensed to: Neurox Media