|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 153 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 125 of 153:
| 
Mar 6 17:52 UTC 2006 |
I liked seeing Steve Martin with his kids.
|
edina
|
|
response 126 of 153:
|
Mar 6 20:11 UTC 2006 |
I thought Jon Stewart did a great job. The show seemed to move faster than
it normally does, and the only thing I didn't like was that they played music
while people were giving their acceptance speeches.
|
mary
|
|
response 127 of 153:
|
Mar 6 21:04 UTC 2006 |
Robin Williams. Next year. Please.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 128 of 153:
|
Mar 6 21:13 UTC 2006 |
Agreed, provided we can get a time machine and bring back the Robin
Williams from twenty years ago, and then give him plenty of cocaine.
|
richard
|
|
response 129 of 153:
|
Mar 6 21:42 UTC 2006 |
well Stewart wasn't as bad as the year David Letterman hosted. Letterman
didn't even take the awards seriously. You don't need a host who has contempt
for the whole deal.
Next year just get Ellen DeGeneres.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 130 of 153:
|
Mar 6 22:03 UTC 2006 |
The awards are meant to be taken seriously?
>I hate it when something wins best picture and not best director.
Here's a shocking notion for you: It takes more than just one guy with
a megaphone to make a good movie.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 131 of 153:
|
Mar 6 22:07 UTC 2006 |
No, but the director is the one person responsible for the movie as a
whole. Have you ever said "Boy, that was a good movie but the directing
was terrible" or "Wow, what terrific directing, but it's a pity the movie
blew chunks"?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 132 of 153:
|
Mar 6 22:27 UTC 2006 |
The first statement is rare, whether it's regarding directing, acting,
writing, or whatever, but the latter statement is fairly common
("so-and-so gave a terrific effort, but ultimately it wasn't enough to
save this stinker of a flick.").
Sometimes a director brings a movie up a level from Great to
Spectacular, and sometimes it's the actors or writer or special effects
responsible for that.
|
aruba
|
|
response 133 of 153:
|
Mar 7 17:24 UTC 2006 |
I thought Jon Stewart did a fine job. My favorite part, though, was Meryl
Streep and Lily Tomlin introducing Robert Altman. I often wonder why most
of the presenters, who are professional actors, seem so stiff when reading
their lines on stage. Can't they memorize those short intros? Those two
ladies showed everyone how it should be done.
|
tod
|
|
response 134 of 153:
|
Mar 7 17:30 UTC 2006 |
Maybe a third of the folks actually go to the pre-Oscars luncheon where
they're to learn their lines and learn about Oscar etiquette. These people
aren't being paid and would rather pump up their "could give a damn" personas
while on camera.
|
richard
|
|
response 135 of 153:
|
Mar 7 21:31 UTC 2006 |
re #133 Or maybe most presenters should spend their time before presenting
back at the bar downing drinks like Jack Nicholson. Why do you think he was
so relaxed when he came out to present best picture? Because he didnt waste
his time sitting in the audience getting nervous thinking about it :)
But he's Jack, and there's only one Jack
|
tod
|
|
response 136 of 153:
|
Mar 7 21:55 UTC 2006 |
Jack was in the front row the whole time. What're you folks yapping about?
|
remmers
|
|
response 137 of 153:
|
Mar 7 23:02 UTC 2006 |
The remarks by the president of the Academy (I think that's who it was,
can't recall the name) caught my attention. He asserted that the best
way to experience movies is in a theater, not at home watching a DVD.
The times are changing. He's a bit out of touch with some current
realities.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 138 of 153:
|
Mar 7 23:14 UTC 2006 |
...or at least trying to fight a rear-guard action, the losing side in
a culture war of sorts. We're supposed to feel bad, that if we watch
movies on DVD then we're not being supportive fans or something.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 139 of 153:
|
Mar 7 23:28 UTC 2006 |
i like going to movies, i just don't want to inflict my
kid on the other patrons. she acts like tod.
|
tod
|
|
response 140 of 153:
|
Mar 8 00:00 UTC 2006 |
<eats popcorn loudly and kicks the back of your seat>
|
happyboy
|
|
response 141 of 153:
|
Mar 8 09:00 UTC 2006 |
<loud robert mitchum guffaw!>
|
remmers
|
|
response 142 of 153:
|
Mar 8 12:50 UTC 2006 |
Re #138: By Cory Bergman at Lost Remote
<http://www.lostremote.com/archives/007663.html>:
Academy blasts DVDs (what are they thinking?)
---------------------------------------------
It started when Academy President Sid Ganis took the stage and said
the big screen -- not DVDs -- is the only way to really appreciate a
movie. Enter Jake Gyllenhall a few minutes later. "You can't properly
watch [epic films] on a television set, and good luck trying to view
them on a portable DVD," he said. Good one, guys. In front of
millions of people, tell them that they don't know how to appreciate
movies in their own homes. On their big HDTV sets. And here's a
little secret, Sid. Without skyrocketing DVD sales, movie
productions would have to cut back costs. Drastically. You know,
I can accept that old-thinker Sid would say such a thing, but young
Jake has no excuse. Unbelievable.
|
scholar
|
|
response 143 of 153:
|
Mar 8 18:44 UTC 2006 |
i enjoy watching dvds and recently too advantage of the free two week trial
from zip.ca!
|
richard
|
|
response 144 of 153:
|
Mar 8 22:46 UTC 2006 |
I agreed with Ganis's speech, particularly the part about how you can't
replace the collective experience of watching a movie with others, with
watching it on dvd at home, and have it be the same thing.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 145 of 153:
|
Mar 8 23:14 UTC 2006 |
Not only that, but you also can't replace the collective experience of
watching actual actors on a stage in front of you with watching a mere
image projected onto a screen. So what?
What I'm really unclear on is who is audience was. Whom exactly was he
addressing, and what was he hoping would be done as a result? The best
thing that could be done to enhance people going to watch movies in
theaters would be for studios to stop screwing theater owners by making
their margins so slender that they can't make money by showing movies,
so instead they have to make their money by annoying patrons with
commercials, ridiculously overpriced concessions, and the like.
|
furs
|
|
response 146 of 153:
|
Mar 9 02:00 UTC 2006 |
I think these awards are WAY better than the Acadamy Awards:
http://www.mrskin.com/Awards/2006.htm
|
glenda
|
|
response 147 of 153:
|
Mar 9 05:17 UTC 2006 |
The collective experience of screaming children, talking adults, back of seat
getting kicked, others stepping on your feet to get out of the row without
enough room for reasonable passing, seats too small/broken, coughing/sneezing
germ sharing. Along with the high price of tickets (even my student pass
doesn't bring it down to a reasonable price), overpriced, over salty, over
iced/watered down food and drinks. Yeah, real appealing.
We do go to some first run movies, maybe 2-3 a year. Since Briarwood Theater
has reopened at $1 before 6pm and $1.50 after and $0.50 all day Tuesday, we
have seen a few more on the big screen. Frankly, I prefer to watch them in
the comfort of my own home where I can eat reasonable snacks and pause for
potty breaks if needed. Sometimes I watch them alone on my computer,
sometimes I get the good collective experience of watching them with my family
on the TV. And I haven't seen a theater yet that will allow me to watch a
movie while cuddling and petting the cat(s) in my lap.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 148 of 153:
|
Mar 9 15:06 UTC 2006 |
resp:147 Ah yes... this is why I like Celebration Cinemas- comfy chairs
and do it yourself drinks (so only as much ice as you'd like).
|
slynne
|
|
response 149 of 153:
|
Mar 10 04:10 UTC 2006 |
I usually drink water at the theater so I dont have an issue with the
ice thing. I do prefer to go to theaters with comfortable seats. My
favorites around this area are Showcase and the new theaters in
Brighton.
|