Oscars So Good

[PGage]

I thought they did a great job on this show. Union Station is a great space (nice to have Harrison Ford reference Blade Runner there), and would be great to retain some sense of the grouped tables even when they return to the big auditorium, which is a call back to the Oscar origins.

Mostly though, I loved that they did not place such a hard limit on the speeches. They saved time with shorter walk ups to the podiums, and moving the songs to the pre-show, and not having any opening monologue or production number (besides that long walking shot), bit still went over about 17 min, but for me very worth it. A number of the speeches were heartfelt and interesting, and the very first one would have no doubt been interrupted by playoff music just as the guy started talking about his dead daughter.

Even the cheesy “game show” had a pretty good pay off with Glen Close (I saw on the after show that they did set that up with her in advance, but did not expect her to actually do the dance). 

Nice to see our friend Jon Batiste get his Oscar moment, and he briefly shared the stage with QuestLove.

I saw on Twitter a lot of complaining about a seemingly rushed In Memoriam, and especially the decision to move Best Picture ahead of Best Actress and Actor. It did kind of seem like they were anticipating closing on an emotional note of Chadwick Bozeman winning posthumously, instead ending with a bit of an anticlimax. 

Still, overall I thought it was a good show, with mostly great nominated films and performances, even if it will inevitably be the lowest rated Oscars in history. 

--

Sent from Gmail Mobile

[Dave Sikula]

In an opinion that I'm sure will shock no one, I thought it was one of the most inept and pointless spectacles I've ever witnessed, and will, hopefully, kill the Oscarcast for the future.

There was almost nothing to recommend it. The format was dull, the speeches too long, and -- even moreso than usual -- had no reason to exist. While I certainly don't want the return of the Billy Crystal years, with lousy renditions of mediocre songs, forced banter, and skits, I also don't want a spectacle that has all the panache and verve of a presidential funeral.

Probably the most baffling part of the whole farrago was the music quiz, which would have been bad enough in any telecast, but really entered sore thumb territory because of its timing (2:40 into an interminable broadcast), and the decision to suddenly decide to do written material (And then it was -that-?).

Obviously, fate -- and the voters -- didn't play along with the intended finale, but there should have been a contingency plan. If Hopkins's presence was verboten because -- like any sensible octogenarian, he didn't want to sit in a London theatre in the middle of the night on the off chance he might win -- then there should have been a Plan B that went beyond Phoenix's more-baffled-by-life-than-usual signoff. (One of the many, many things that prove the ineptitude of the Oscars -- other than, yet again, choosing a mediocre-at-best film as the "best" -- is that Phoenix has one.)

While I did like the set design and attempt to keep things intimate, the processed video (described by Harry Shearer as looking like VHS) was pointless and ruined most of the effects.

I'm trying to somehow end this on a positive note, but I'll be damned if I can think of anything in the whole twelve hours of the telecast that worked.

--Dave Sikula

[Steve Timko]

The opening was dynamic. I loved the music. The change of location was great. But I missed the funny opening. The Oscars, for me, are escapism. Humor is a grat escapism.

So cut the walk in half and add humor.

I wonder how many tuned out after the tone of the opening.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/23c91d78-37c8-460a-b179-e962b654148fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Melissa P]

I agree with just about everything Dave said.

I tuned in at 8 pm ET, the start of the show, only to discover that the recordings of the 5 nominated songs were broadcast before 8 pm.  If I want to see that footage, I guess I'll have to search for it online.  

That was what I found most annoying.

The endless, bad, humorless speeches are a close second.  Why were the winners and others allowed to talk so long?

Everyone on camera was just plain dull.

Questlove was not the right person for the job.

Not only did the In Memoriam move too fast, the speed changed throughout the piece (Why?  Are some more worthy than others of being remembered?), and the background song, whatever it was, was a poor choice. 

My only compliment goes to the setting.  Having spent time at Union Station (train trips to Santa Barbara and to the East Coast), it made an impressive backdrop.

--

[Kevin M.]

From Marc Maron’s WTF email newsletter: 

I will say that this year’s Oscars seemed like the most honest ceremony in years. Because of the limitations and the choices that were made by the producer Stephen Soderbergh to make it intimate and sparse it came off as small. It felt like an in-house corporate awards ceremony that could be taking place at a hotel ballroom. It looked like the people who were there stopped by before they were going somewhere else. There was nothing on the tables, no real audience, no clips, no comedy, no songs, no dancing, no pomp and circumstance or big celebrity presence. It seemed egalitarian and boring but human. This year’s Oscars make the argument to never televise them again. 

 Maybe what we have learned during this last year is that some institutions need to be salvaged and saved and some no longer serve the common good or interest or they just need to be what they are. It seemed that the scope and tone of this years Oscars matched their cultural relevance. Though I was happy to see diversity on all levels was being recognized. Attempted egalitarianism. Humanity sans the pomp and song and dance. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPzsPYym7kriSG0gzbZxY%3D2boCGzihrDFOQD98%3DU4RYMYA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Steve Timko]

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 9:05 AM Melissa P <takingup...@gmail.com> wrote:

The endless, bad, humorless speeches are a close second.  Why were the winners and others allowed to talk so long?

Everyone on camera was just plain dull.

I think the aim was for more intimacy, less spectacle. To return the focus to film and the industry.

Some cheered that lesser categories got more screen time. Some booed.

The ratings are a record low. I think that means a lot of boos. Regina King was maybe not the first face viewers saw.

https://deadline.com/2021/04/2021-0scars-tv-ratings-academy-awards-low-abc-disney-1234744135/

[Bob Jersey]

ABC's Rob Mills Q&As with Variety's Michael Schneider...

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/oscars-order-da-butt-glenn-close-in-memoriam-1234960635/ (link)

B

Steve Timko, to MelissaP, April 26th:

[Bob Jersey]

Still, Variety reviewer Caroline Framke agrees with many here: https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/oscars-review-academy-awards-2021-1234960324/ (link)

B

[Paul Murray]

I only watched the first 15-20 minutes, then watched the In Memoriam reel on YouTube. Based on what I saw and read, some of the experiments paid off, and some did not (spectacularly so). 

I'm impressed that they found new ways to screw up the In Memoriam reel. Bad song choice, terrible pacing, overwrought and too long intro by Angela Bassett. It's hard to escape the feeling that somebody thought the traditional way was too much of a downer.

The music trivia sounded awful. (It reminded of me of what I thought was Letterman's fatal flaw when he hosted -- interrupting the ceremony to do stupid pet tricks. Otherwise I thought he was fine.) To do it when the show was on final approach? Terrible. And the one seemingly spontaneous moment that people talked about turned out to be preplanned. 

I will say this: If you want to take risks, you might as well do it when you're going to have low ratings anyway.

[PGage]

I am not surprised to be in the minority on this, but a little push-back against the Compact Majority:

1. Marin is repeating a complaint on Twitter that simply is not true. They did have clips for; they never have clips for all or even most categories. I guess the biggest difference was for the acting categories, which they sometimes, but not always have.

2. It’s odd to hear people criticize it for being too small; COVID restrictions are such that I would have thought the main critique would be it was too big. The comparison should be with the Zoom based award shows of the last 4 months, not the traditional shows of the past. A live band was precluded by health safeguards, for example, which did not dictate but added to the decision to move the songs to the pre-show (I think most of them pre-recorded). Again, I thin keeping in mind the many limitations, they did a fantastic job.

3. I’m surprised people seem to miss the big production numbers and lame presenter patter, since for me this is always the worst part of the show. Clearly the worst part of last night was the one comedy bit they did try.

4. Award shows are about the acceptance speeches, that’s what they are about, thats  what I like about them. If you don’t like them then yes, I can see why you don’t like the Oscars. I think Soderbergh thought it would be a good idea to have the presenters comments be a way of sharing something personal about each nominee, which does sound good in the abstract, but in principle was longish and kind of boring. I would do less of that, and bring back the style where they have 3 professional comics come out and do 3 min each through the show to add some humor.

5. I like the movies. I like in particular Oscar type movies, which is to say middle brow films that are not quite art but aim for artistic entertainment. (I also watch my share of higher brow films, but rarely enjoy them as much, and lower brow films, but rarely enjoy thinking about them after as much. I grew up in Southern California, and while not connected to the film industry I grew up with the children of lots of famous and not so famous actors, and hair stylists and editors and whatever, and I am interested in what they do, the people who do it with them, and the end result. I don’t watch the Oscars for a production that resembles is a bad movie version of itself, but to appreciate and celebrate the craft of movie making.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4CZdPr488JZJygxVN%3DEWy1wxwNWLnQc3VWGExS9Q-313Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[PGage]

 Doubt anyone really thought that was spontaneous.

I loved the song choice for the In Memoriam, much less maudlin and sentimental than usual, but still appropriate. I wonder how many people who were offended actually know the song?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/3c2dfe13-9d78-46ba-9ea6-a18faa80c140n%40googlegroups.com.

[daves...@gmail.com]

I didn't mind the size; cutting down on the bloat that has accumulated around this broadcast is something to be welcomed. Nor did I mind the lack of song and dance. To be honest, hearing the nominated songs, I could not have told you one from another even as they were playing. Now that original musicals are as dead as Arthur Freed, this is a category the Academy could easily lose.

I'll state up front (in case it wasn't obvious) that I think competitive award shows for the arts are stupid. I thought "Nomadland' was beautiful to look at, but condescending to the very people it pretended to venerate. Others found it moving and profound. Which of us is right? I thought Hopkins's performance was one-note with no evolution. (It didn't help that I'd seen Frank Langella play it on Broadway to devastating effect) Others were moved to tears. Are they wrong? Am I? It's all a matter of choice and taste, and Oscar has decades of making lousy decisions behind him.

What I objected to is that, if they're going to do a show that celebrates the art of film and entertainment, that they almost have an obligation to be Entertaining. I don't mean an evening of jokes and skits. I don't want Billy Crystal or Kevin Hart (or even the guy who did the trivia; the less of him, the better). I do want sharp, clever, and observant writing -- hell, even Sorkin could have done that better -- that talks about the place of the movies in a year like no other. What I got a self-important gasfest that looked cheap (I'm talking quality of image; not the venue itself, which mostly looked good) with too-long acceptance speeches that were mostly ill-conceived.

Maybe the one thing I did like was the way the end fell apart. There are just too many past cases of "sure" winners who crapped out at the end to take the chance of Boseman winning, so focusing the broadcast to build with that was a capital mistake I happy to see blow up in their faces. That it left a guy like Phoenix who would rather have been anywhere else on Earth to clean up the mess was the icing on the cake.

--Dave Sikula

[Mark Jeffries]

I didn't realize that the pre-show was an E!-length marathon, so I was pissed when the two Best Song nominees that I had true interest in (Diane "Susan Lucci" Warren's song and the song from "Eurovision," which would've been a pick-me-up for the main Oscarcast) didn't air in the 7 p.m. hour.  I'm even guessing they aired in the half-hour in Chicago where WLS interrupted the pre-show for a newscast.

Mark Jeffries
spotl...@gmail.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPzsPYym7kriSG0gzbZxY%3D2boCGzihrDFOQD98%3DU4RYMYA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Steve Timko]

Revised ratings; 10.4 million.

https://deadline.com/2021/04/2021-0scars-tv-ratings-academy-awards-low-abc-disney-1234744135/

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJ_uKi-29L-5vDp7QqjsbWaLgmm-zni7P8tWLQPgZ-q41ZM8Eg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kevin M.]

Yeah, but how many of those people were hate-watching the telecast?*

* I’ve long suspected that if all the liberals watching FoxNews looking for things to be offended by were to stop watching, the network’s ratings would be virtually nil. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8yzqdEmUyqXzFdaO%3D2UdqLg4Yt4dG0H%2B3HUVSvpp%2BUkkmg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)