Academy Awards - Feb 24, 2008

[lerxt1990]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Feb 25 2008, 02:06 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 25 2008, 02:50 PM) QUOTE (thesweetscience @ Feb 25 2008, 11:26 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 25 2008, 12:51 PM) QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Feb 25 2008, 09:31 AM) '300' wasn't nominated for best picture so I skipped 'em. I checked Rotten Tomatoes for the Best Picture nominees:   No Country For Old Men - 94% Juno - 93% There Will Be Blood - 91% Michael Clayton - 90% Atonement - 82%     300 had 60% - this movie was not appreciated by critics at a level anywhere near close enough for it to have ever been in serious contention. I think it is telling that you use a site called rotten tomatoes to decide what the "best" movies are.   Thats like saying "I buy all my beef at green meats butcher shop" No, all I'm saying is that movies that aren't highly critically acclaimed don't generally get nominations for best picture. That's all.   Anyway, I shouldn't have expected anything more. Any time I ever post about the Academy Awards on TRF, it's generaly met with seething derision. I think it's because most average folks don't care about about the Oscars.   I love movies but didn't see any of the ones that were nominated for an Oscar. Generally speaking, they just don't appeal to my tastes. I'm also still angry that 'LOTR: The Return of the King' beat 'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World'. That's just not right. Are you saying the Oscars were on last night? Huh. Who knew...

[Milton Bridge]

I thought it was strange but rather refreshing that all the main actor awards went to Europeans.

[GeddyRulz]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Feb 25 2008, 07:44 PM)

I dunno though, while I truly believe music has gone downhill in every successive decade since the 70's, I haven't noticed the same trend with movies.  It seems to me there are as many great (and as many bad) movies as there ever were coming out.  You just have to be really choosy to avoid a lot of the crap is all...

I agree. There are still the same number of good and bad movies as there ever were.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2008 by GeddyRulz

[circumstantial tree]

The Oscars are a ratings dud. Nielsen Media Research says preliminary ratings for the 80th annual Academy Awards telecast are 14 percent lower than the least-watched ceremony ever.

 

Nielsen said Monday that overnight ratings are also 21 percent lower than last year, when "The Departed" was named best picture.

 

The least-watched Oscars ceremony ever was in 2003, when there were 33 million viewers.

 

Nielsen has no estimate yet on how many people watched Sunday night, but based on ratings from the nation's biggest markets, the Oscars will be hard-pressed to avoid an ignominious record.

 

The show had a 21.9 rating and 33 share.

 

 

[Magnus]

I was sad Viggo Mortensen lost. He was fantastic in Eastern Promises. Though the upside to having Daniel Day-Lewis win was hearing, for once, an *articulate* acceptance speech. Though the Best Original Song winners were pretty good too ("Make art! Make art! Make art!")

[Stormtron]

I don't think I've watched since that year Gladiator won best picture. I still don't understand what greatness everyone else saw in that movie.

[Rushman14]

Beside's being way too self congratulatory, The Oscar's are just mind numbingly dull. Edited February 29, 2008 by manrush14

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ Feb 29 2008, 02:32 PM)

I don't think I've watched since that year Gladiator won best picture. I still don't understand what greatness everyone else saw in that movie.

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!

 

I love that movie! If you ever get a chance to see the director's expanded edition it's absolutely worth it.

 

[Stormtron]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Feb 29 2008, 02:25 PM)

QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ Feb 29 2008, 02:32 PM) I don't think I've watched since that year Gladiator won best picture. I still don't understand what greatness everyone else saw in that movie. ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!   I love that movie! If you ever get a chance to see the director's expanded edition it's absolutely worth it. Haha, it's weird.....I love Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, and I liked the beginning of the movie but not the actual gladiator stuff that much. I was only like 17 when it came out, but I don't think my tastes in movies have changed that much.....but I trust in Jack so maybe I'll give it another shot one day.   I agree with you on 300 though. It was absolutely the best film of the year, and if it wasn't for Pan's Labyrinth, I'd call it the best in at least five years. f**k Rotten Tomatoes and the snobbish critics!

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ Feb 29 2008, 04:27 PM)

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Feb 29 2008, 02:25 PM) QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ Feb 29 2008, 02:32 PM) I don't think I've watched since that year Gladiator won best picture. I still don't understand what greatness everyone else saw in that movie. ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!   I love that movie! If you ever get a chance to see the director's expanded edition it's absolutely worth it. Haha, it's weird.....I love Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, and I liked the beginning of the movie but not the actual gladiator stuff that much. I was only like 17 when it came out, but I don't think my tastes in movies have changed that much.....but I trust in Jack so maybe I'll give it another shot one day.   I agree with you on 300 though. It was absolutely the best film of the year, and if it wasn't for Pan's Labyrinth, I'd call it the best in at least five years. f**k Rotten Tomatoes and the snobbish critics! Yeah, f*ck 'em!