Yeeeeaaaaah ... no.

[apocalypsos]

Oscar plays the guessing games

The gang at AMPAS has decided that what the Oscar ceremony needs is suspense. So their plan this year -- they're not announcing the presenters beforehand.

Now my first reactions are as follows:

1. Who gives a shit about the fucking presenters?! I never tuned in for them, have you?

2. The Oscars don't need suspense. They already have that. We don't know who the fucking winners are beforehand.

3. You know what I think the Oscars need? I think they need to get off their high horse about nominating comedy and animation. I think that while I don't think they should nominate more popular movies just 'cause, it would really be nice if they could find a way to put the nominees in wider release before the ceremony so people get a chance to see them and therefore have more involvement in the ceremony than they usually do when they've only seen a handful of the nominees. I think they need to fire Bruce Vilanch and get comedy writers who are actually funny. I think they need to start serving liquor to the nominees like the Golden Globes does. I think they need to trim the fat and cut out some of the dumb performances they throw in there that don't need to be there and the tacky bantering sessions the presenters go through. I think they need to stop being douchebags and playing people off the stage in the middle of acceptance speeches. I think they need more goddamn surprises when it comes to who'll win. Mostly what I think they should do is get everybody wasted and just boil it down to presenting the awards.

But what I think they need to do far less than any of these is not announce the fucking presenters.

... ahem.

EDIT: It's possible I feel strongly about this.

Comments

[florahart]

Maybe they ought to change the dates--the 2010 eligibles are released before ...October 15 or something. So the ones that are in slower release get to places which are not New York and LA sometime before the ceremony. Or change what "released" means. Or something. Because yeah, I *can* see Slumdog Millionaire or Milk--I think--at the local arty place, but its hours are weird, and I don't think Revolutionary Road has been here yet--and my town is not exactly the height of urban, but it does have an arty place and a couple of big multiplexes and stuff. BAH.

Also, I sort of want them to not script the presenters' banter because it is usually lame. Maybe they could just bring up comedians who are inclined toward ad-lib, pair them with hapless straight wo/men, and let them riff on whatever they want for a couple of minutes, then present a handful of awards. You know, Robin Williams and like, Miley Cyrus or something. Though that would probably pull some of the attention away from the award-getters. But, it would be more fun to watch.

Heh.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

Yeah, changing the eligibility date would work, too. It's like with the Golden Globes -- they piss and moan about screeners making it onto the internet but contraband screeners are how goofballs like me who have no other options see the movies. And seeing those movies draws you into the awards. I like watching them anyway, but I prefer knowing why they won. Sally Hawkins and Mickey Rourke's wins were a lot more fun to watch and root for knowing that they earned them.

They just really need to do something about the insipid banter somehow. I'm not sure about the ad-libbing -- I mean, okay, Robin and Miley might work because as much as I might dislike her she can take a joke. They could really do themselves a favor if they just narrowed down the presenters to the ones who can tell or take a joke, 'cause seriously, as good as some of these actors are, a lot of them have a lousy sense of humor. (God only knows when Sean Penn lost his, but ... yeah, there's one.) They need to lighten it up because there aren't a lot of people at the Oscars who go up there with a comedy routine in mind if they win. There's two kinds of winners at the Oscars for the most part, the ones who are serious and/or cry and the ones who end up making you laugh, and there aren't that many of the second kind.

Ugh. It's just ... god, people are not going to wait with bated breath to see who the presenters are, for crying out loud. I'd love to know which idiot thought that was a good idea.

[chaneen.livejournal.com]

Oh man, Sean Penn! I thought I was the only person who remembered that "Jude Law is one of the finest actors of our time" thing.

And I just can't believe how few of the likely nominated films we've gotten this year. Benjamin Button and Grand Turino, and that's it so far. I worked in movie theaters for ages, and have never seen a year like this.

I think they should cut out all of the montages except the dead people. Most of the musical performances can go too. This way if people actually want to thank anyone they can, you know?

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

Oh, Cinemark just got The Reader. I checked today just out of curiosity. And they've had Doubt for a while now. So that's ... four. Ugh.

Yeah, that Sean Penn thing stuck with me for some reason. Jesus, Sean, it's called a sense of humor.

If they ever got rid of the "In Memorium" montage I'd be pissed as hell, but a lot of the musical performances are just too much. There's a reason I don't watch the Grammy awards.

[chaneen.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah, I totally forgot about Doubt! Maybe I'll go see that this weekend. I think I didn't notice The Reader in the list of show times, since I was so irritated that we got Paul Blart Mall Cop instead of movies that might actually be worth seeing.

I think they should show a clip of the nominated song being used in the film (or a montage of scenes set to that song, whatever), a la what they do for the best picture nominees. Then we could do without the whole "which one of these songs is Beyonce going to perform" hoopla of the last couple of years.