Oscars 2010
For the 60 seconds I spent on this subject this morning skimming the paper for the results instead of wasting 4 hours of a perfectly good evening last night...and from what I read in this thread I'm more than vindicated on my many years' streak of that stance that's never going to change:
I'm glad the Academy actually showed some sense and gave Avatar only certain technical awards and nothing else. Good for them.
Hurt Locker? I'm in no hurry to see it but I'm sure it has a little more substance going for it under the hood than Avatar as well.
Past that I'm happy with Bridges and Bullock getting awards and as for best score I just kind of shrug my shoulders since that entire list was incredibly uninspired to begin with. MG did some nice music for Up and I guess that's the best original score from last year but that's not saying much given the state of film music.
If Horner had won for Avatar they would have had to either make it a Best Compilation Album or a quasi Lifetime Achievement award since Avatar is just so blatantly recycled material from Glory and several previous and much, much better Horner scores. I kind of would have laughed if Horner would have won and I probably wouldn't have even disliked it.
Honestly, film music in such bad shape I would have shrugged my shoulders no matter who had won at this rate.
I guess I could say recycled Horner was probably the best score of last year if I had to be technical about it.
Who did MG ape on the Up score? I have to think about that...
His music just does nothing for me. His music works well in the material and it was certainly effective enough in Up but...yeah, Avatar was the best score of 09 out of that list, recycled Horner and all.
I'm glad the Academy actually showed some sense and gave Avatar only certain technical awards and nothing else. Good for them.
Hurt Locker? I'm in no hurry to see it but I'm sure it has a little more substance going for it under the hood than Avatar as well.
Past that I'm happy with Bridges and Bullock getting awards and as for best score I just kind of shrug my shoulders since that entire list was incredibly uninspired to begin with. MG did some nice music for Up and I guess that's the best original score from last year but that's not saying much given the state of film music.
If Horner had won for Avatar they would have had to either make it a Best Compilation Album or a quasi Lifetime Achievement award since Avatar is just so blatantly recycled material from Glory and several previous and much, much better Horner scores. I kind of would have laughed if Horner would have won and I probably wouldn't have even disliked it.
Honestly, film music in such bad shape I would have shrugged my shoulders no matter who had won at this rate.
I guess I could say recycled Horner was probably the best score of last year if I had to be technical about it.
Who did MG ape on the Up score? I have to think about that...
His music just does nothing for me. His music works well in the material and it was certainly effective enough in Up but...yeah, Avatar was the best score of 09 out of that list, recycled Horner and all.
- Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7535
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Well, I will grant you that the choreography was well-done (and the female dancers quite fetching!) but the whole aesthetic of the dance sequences seemed so irrelevant to me.AndyDursin wrote:Ironically one of the few parts of the show that did work for me was the dancing during the Original Score nominees. Usually that part is laughably bad but whatever that group was, they did some serious choreography and moves -- it was at least lively. More than you can say for the rest of the DOA show.
That was definitely embarrassing! I was like "Who's she?"And didn't you just love that Documentary short winner (I think that was the category) where the director starts his acceptance speech, and this woman runs up on the stage and interrupts him, paying no attention to him at all? As Joanne said it was like a "Kanye" moment! lol.
The other lead balloon was that horror movie tribute. They built it up by saying "Horror movies have been sidelined and dismissed over the years" and then proceeded to show a montage of mostly BAD movies! Ok, The Shining, Poltergeist and The Exorcist were good, but most of the clips were from dreck like Scream, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the original Little Shop of Horrors, etc. I think the montage pretty much answered the question of why horror movies have been sidelined over the years.
I also disagreed with some of the choices for the montage, because I don't really consider them horror movies (like Jaws). It was clear they were included because they couldn't find enough true horror movies that were actually good!
- AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Yeah I just thought it was pretty well done for what it was. To be fair, they are dancing to a group of original score selections. Not a whole lot that really can be done there because you're limited by the tone and tempo of a group of disparate instrumental compositions. I just think in terms of all the different things they've tried with the original score nominations, this was definitely watchable and, at least, interesting compared to, say, last year's Michael Giacchino arrangements where he made every score sound just like one of his.Well, I will grant you that the choreography was well-done (and the female dancers quite fetching!) but the whole aesthetic of the dance sequences seemed so irrelevant to me.

Is TWILIGHT a "horror" movie? Isn't more a brooding (and lame) supernatural romance? JAWS as you said Paul isn't really either, though it is grouped in at times...I don't think it belongs in the same genre as THE EXORCIST and THE SHINING though. Basically pointless, a grab to try and get "young viewers" interested.I also disagreed with some of the choices for the montage, because I don't really consider them horror movies (like Jaws). It was clear they were included because they couldn't find enough true horror movies that were actually good!
I also still don't understand why they waste time on short subject/documentary features that most of the time nobody has seen or heard of. Why not hand out those categories like the sci/tech awards at a luncheon at another time. Must take about 20 minutes or more out of the show's length and nobody but the nominees cares.
- AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Whether it was the "AVATAR effect" or not, ratings soared over a year ago...
The primetime portion (8:30-11pm) of the 82nd Academy Awards scored a 12.5 adults 18-49 rating in the fast affiliate ratings, that’s up 30% over the 9.6 adults 18-49 rating in fast affiliate primetime ratings for the 2009 show. Those results will certainly be adjusted, likely substantially, in the final ratings.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/03/07/tv ... 2009/44131
The primetime portion (8:30-11pm) of the 82nd Academy Awards scored a 12.5 adults 18-49 rating in the fast affiliate ratings, that’s up 30% over the 9.6 adults 18-49 rating in fast affiliate primetime ratings for the 2009 show. Those results will certainly be adjusted, likely substantially, in the final ratings.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/03/07/tv ... 2009/44131
- Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7535
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Another thing which struck me -- its clear Hollywood is grooming Miley Cyrus for movie stardom.
I have nothing against her, and she seems like a nice (and not untalented) kid, but I don't think she's anything really special either. If they want to promote some "tween" icon, I personally I think her rival, Selena Gomez, is the better actress.
I have nothing against her, and she seems like a nice (and not untalented) kid, but I don't think she's anything really special either. If they want to promote some "tween" icon, I personally I think her rival, Selena Gomez, is the better actress.
- AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Selena could one day turn out to have a longer acting career (honestly I wouldn't know), but Hollywood is more interested in Cyrus since her show is more popular, her movies have made a ton of money, and she's got massive record and concert sales which Gomez doesn't have. We'll soon see how she fares with this "Last Song" movie -- another Nicholas Sparks melodrama wherein someone will die of a disease (I think it's Greg Kinnear in this one because he looks so frail in the trailer).Paul MacLean wrote:Another thing which struck me -- its clear Hollywood is grooming Miley Cyrus for movie stardom.
I have nothing against her, and she seems like a nice (and not untalented) kid, but I don't think she's anything really special either. If they want to promote some "tween" icon, I personally I think her rival, Selena Gomez, is the better actress.
I don't bother with the whole tween thing myself, they can take their "Bonus Jonas" and stuff it as far as I'm concerned, lol.

- Monterey Jack
- Posts: 10550
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
- AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
You'd have thought so, especially since it's not often those movies ever do well at the Oscars and you had 2 of them, as you said MJ, nominated.Monterey Jack wrote:Wouldn't a salute to sci-fi movies have made more sense, with two sci-fi films in the running for Best Picture?
Still the most watched entertainment show on TV since 2005. Maybe the 10 nominated films got more eyeballs to the screen after all (even if it dilutes the importance of a nomination)...
- Coriolanus Quince
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:42 am
- AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
This is utterly hilarious -- the documentary recipient who got "Kanyed" on stage during the Oscars, was cut off AGAIN while giving his acceptance speech, this time on Larry King, who had him on to make amends for what happened Sunday.
In some ways this is as embarrassing (if not even more)...just priceless.
http://videos.nymag.com/video/Larry-Kin ... r%20Speech
In some ways this is as embarrassing (if not even more)...just priceless.
http://videos.nymag.com/video/Larry-Kin ... r%20Speech
- AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Apparently some woman who clued him into the subject matter of his documentary, and who felt slighted by him, ran up on the stage and interrupted his speech. Apparently she was part of his entourage, or had some way of getting in, but she wasn't supposed to do that.mkaroly wrote:Why was he interrupted at teh Oscars? Is his film that controversial, or was it what he said that was controversial?
- AndyDursin
- Posts: 35761
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
The Academy also came out this morning and defended excluding Farrah Fawcett from the obituary tribute.
Frankly I am just appalled by their elitism. Fawcett DID do many movies, as did Bea Arthur, and neither of them were shown.
On the other hand, Army Archerd -- a Variety writer and who nobody who watches films necessarily ever even knew -- was paid tribute to, as well as Garth Wigan, an executive who worked with George Lucas.
The argument that Fawcett was known mostly for TV is just ridiculous, especially seeing that NEIL PATRICK HARRIS opened the show with a production number, and he's certainly not best known for his film work!
Frankly I am just appalled by their elitism. Fawcett DID do many movies, as did Bea Arthur, and neither of them were shown.
On the other hand, Army Archerd -- a Variety writer and who nobody who watches films necessarily ever even knew -- was paid tribute to, as well as Garth Wigan, an executive who worked with George Lucas.
The argument that Fawcett was known mostly for TV is just ridiculous, especially seeing that NEIL PATRICK HARRIS opened the show with a production number, and he's certainly not best known for his film work!