Anyone watching the Oscars?

[Mik]

@Catseye3 yeah, I did. It sickened me. As did many of the comments.

[Copper]

[Catseye3]

@Copper

None of that means anything to people who can conceive of this kind of comment.

[Horace]

Programmed primates, expressing the culture they were indoctrinated into. The only thing it says about them is that they enjoy their socially encouraged hatreds. The same sort of socially encouraged hatreds are what institutionalized racism or anti semitism etc are based on, and the personality types that fiercely embrace those hatreds will be the same.

[Catseye3]

@Horace said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

The same sort of socially encouraged hatreds are what institutionalized racism or anti semitism etc are based on . . .

And they are so infernally successful.

[George K]

Angela Bassett fiercely defended for not applauding Jamie Lee Curtis

Angela Bassett couldn’t hide her disappointment after losing out on the best supporting actress award at this year’s Oscars to Jamie Lee Curtis.

The 64-year-old actress, who stunned in a purple Moschino gown at the prestigious ceremony, had been nominated for the gong for her role in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever alongside The Banshees of Inisherin’s Kerry Condon, Everything Everywhere All At One’s Stephanie Hsu, The Whale’s Hong Chau, and Curtis.

Sadly though, Bassett was not victorious in the category and looked incredibly dissatisfied after the winner was announced.

A camera caught the reactions of all five nominees as Curtis’s name was called out, and while the other actresses applauded despite their loss, Bassett appeared deflated.

Fans were quick to defend her reaction though, with many also applauding her for keeping it real by displaying her honest emotion.

I suppose the only other way she could have gotten more attention is if she had run up onto the stage and slapped Jamie Lee Curtis.

[89th]

[Horace]

This all but guarantees Bassett an award next time she is nominated. As for Curtis, presumably it was a lifetime achievement award, as the academy is wont to give.

[LuFins Dad]

@89th said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

@LuFins-Dad said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

I would still like to know what the dividing line is for black? 25%? Does it make a difference what the other 75% is? 75% Caucasian, no deal. 50% Caucasian, 25% black, 25% Hispanic and you're in?

Tiger Woods is 50% asian (Thai) and like 40% black, and 10% white. He's an asian golfer, but will always be known as a black golfer.

He is 25 Thai, 25% Chinese, 25% White, 12.5% Black, and 12.5% Native American... So where does that land on the privilege scale? He is twice as White as he is Black, and twice as Asian as he is White. And don't forget that Asian is considered "White-Adjacent..."

[Copper]

@LuFins-Dad said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:
? He is twice as White as he is Black, and twice as Asian as he is White. And don't forget that Asian is considered "White-Adjacent..."

That is the only reason he was granted the privilege of all those low scores.

[Catseye3]

@George-K said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

Angela Bassett couldn’t hide her disappointment after losing out on the best supporting actress award at this year’s Oscars to Jamie Lee Curtis.
Sadly though, Bassett was not victorious in the category and looked incredibly dissatisfied after the winner was announced.
A camera caught the reactions of all five nominees as Curtis’s name was called out, and while the other actresses applauded despite their loss, Bassett appeared deflated.

She couldn't just have been disappointed at having lost something she wanted and had worked hard for? Y'know, just like a regular normal person? Without having the whole thing turn into a BFD racial thing?

[Axtremus]

@Catseye3 said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

She couldn't just have been disappointed at having lost something she wanted and had worked hard for? Y'know, just like a regular normal person?

Yeap, no problem giving her the benefit of the doubt there.

I watched Wakanda Forever. As much as I enjoyed the movie, I can’t say I found her performance in it exceptional. She performed as professionally as can be reasonably expected from a seasoned actress in a big budget production, just did not stand out. There’s also not that much in the script for her role in Wakanda Forever for her to work with.

In comparison, JLC’s performance was surprisingly convincing in EEAAO, so much so that I initially thought the different personae played by JLC were played by different actresses.

[Jolly]

@Horace said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

This all but guarantees Bassett an award next time she is nominated. As for Curtis, presumably it was a lifetime achievement award, as the academy is wont to give.

Same reason JW got his for True Grit.

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls062019015/

[George K]

@Jolly said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

Same reason JW got his for True Grit.

I would guess that "True Grit" is probably a better movie than "Everything..."

Though I haven't seen "Everything..."

I might be wrong, of course.

Again.

[Jolly]

@George-K said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

@Jolly said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

Same reason JW got his for True Grit.

I would guess that "True Grit" is probably a better movie than "Everything..."

Though I haven't seen "Everything..."

I might be wrong, of course.

Again.

Nah, TG is better. But this is one of those lifetime things. Horace is right, it's common with the Academy. Considering what kind of crap they usually give awards, it doesn't bother me.

[Jolly]

If there was justice in the world, Maverick would have won best pic. After COVID, it was the one movie that put butts in the seats.

[Jolly]

Cruise...

https://www.thefp.com/p/tom-cruise-deserves-an-oscar-for

[George K]

@Jolly said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

If there was justice in the world, Maverick would have won best pic.

What's "Best"? Telling a compelling story or popcorn? Maverick was popcorn. It was DAMN GOOD popcorn and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Great production values, special effects, a pretty good (re-told) story and a ton of fun. A TON of fun. I loved it.

Is it something that tells an intimate story that is artfully crafted, something like "Birdman", which was weird AF, but I really enjoyed it?

I dunno.

I don't think I've ever seen a "popcorn" movie like "Maverick" nominated. That's not a bad thing, but just an observation.

After COVID, it was the one movie that put butts in the seats.

Indeed. And McDonalds and BK sell more burgers than anyone else. Does that make them great cuisine? Of course not.

So what's "best," as I said? Most popular? Most artsy-fartsy? Most money making?

The Oscars are a popularity contest, and every now and then, the votes veer to "being correct" for a variety or reasons (Jamie Lee Curtis?). That's not necessarily wrong, but that's what it is. The Academy needs to justify itself, and by excluding "Maverick" they accomplished that.

Is "Everything..." that good? Look at some of the other Best Pictures in history - Godfather, GWTW, Return of the King, Gladiator (perhaps the most popcorn-ey in recent history). Does "Maverick" compare?

Now look at others. Nomadland (?), Shape of Water, Argo, Shakespeare in Love. I didn't like any of them as much as Maverick. But that's me.

Gotta keep that perspective.

[Jolly]

@George-K said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

@Jolly said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

If there was justice in the world, Maverick would have won best pic. 

What's "Best"? Telling a compelling story or popcorn? Maverick was popcorn. It was DAMN GOOD popcorn and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Great production values, special effects, a pretty good (re-told) story and a ton of fun. A TON of fun. I loved it.

Is it something that tells an intimate story that is artfully crafted, something like "Birdman", which was weird AF, but I really enjoyed it?

I dunno.

I don't think I've ever seen a "popcorn" movie like "Maverick" nominated. That's not a bad thing, but just an observation.

After COVID, it was the one movie that put butts in the seats.

Indeed. And McDonalds and BK sell more burgers than anyone else. Does that make them great cuisine? Of course not.

So what's "best," as I said? Most popular? Most artsy-fartsy? Most money making?

The Oscars are a popularity contest, and every now and then, the votes veer to "being correct" for a variety or reasons (Jamie Lee Curtis?). That's not necessarily wrong, but that's what it is. The Academy needs to justify itself, and by excluding "Maverick" they accomplished that.

Is "Everything..." that good? Look at some of the other Best Pictures in history - Godfather, GWTW, Return of the King, Gladiator (perhaps the most popcorn-ey in recent history). Does "Maverick" compare?

Now look at others. Nomadland (?), Shape of Water, Argo, Shakespeare in Love. I didn't like any of them as much as Maverick. But that's me.

Gotta keep that perspective.

See the post about Cruise saving Hollywood's ass. I agree, whole-heartedly.

Face it, there's not but so many plots. 7? 10? 15? Whatever the number, the bottom line is whether or not the movie/play/book is entertaining. If all the critics think it's wonderful or the performances were sublime, if it doesn't put butts in the seats, it's forgettable at best.

Shakespeare didn't write for historic fame or awards. He wrote to put butts in the seats.

[George K]

@Jolly said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

If all the critics think it's wonderful or the performances were sublime, if it doesn't put butts in the seats, it's forgettable at best.

I tried to address that, obviously unsuccessfuly, by questioning what is "best."

Shakespeare didn't write for historic fame or awards. He wrote to put butts in the seats.

Yes. Butts in seats is the bottom (pun intended) line.

The same can be said about Dickens, I suppose. Gotta pay the bills.