bedsitter23 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bedsitter23) wrote2013-03-03 12:03 pm
bedsitter23) wrote2013-03-03 12:03 pm
Entry tags:
Obligatory (Late) Oscar Post
So, there was Seth McFarland hosting the Oscars.
It's like the old snake parable. You knew you were getting Seth Mcfarland when you hired him.
So, I find it hard to get too upset over Ted's anti-Semitic remarks or the Boobs song.
McFarland got the attention and the ratings, so no one can be too upset, right?
I thought he was generally good. He is funny, but he also really loves movies. he really may be the Mel Brooks of our generation. Seth was really enjoying those song-and-dance numbers.
Besides, I wouldn't have liked Tina Fey and Amy Poehler (They got a lot of good buzz out of this, but Tina says she isn't interested). I don't remember anything from the People's Choice Award except Jodie Foster got onstage and gave a speech Clint Eastwood thought was a bad idea.
So, we're likely to get something vanilla next year (a la Hathaway & Franco) and then, followed by a Chris Rock/Gervais/ Colbert 'hip' host that will be hyped, but then the media won't like; until they convince Billy Crystal to come back, as that seems to be the only host America can agree on.
As far as the Awards, it did seem to be the year that Oscar found a way to honor all of the Movies. It felt like Argo, Django, Les Miz, Zero Dark Thirty, and Lincoln all got appropriate recognition. I haven't seen Argo, but it feels like a banner year for movies. The kind of year we haven't had since the 90s. True, last year had a list of great movies that I eventually went out and see (and America did too); but 2013 was a year when the top contenders all had done fairly well at the Box Office.
Indeed, even the year's blockbuster The Avengers (As McFarland jokes, the biggest movie of the year, which is why it only got one nomination) felt a real and deserving part of the Oscar ceremony.
2013 was a good year and the ratings were up. I don't think this is something that will translate to where you can confirm 2014 will be equally as good, but it is a good sign for the industry.
It's like the old snake parable. You knew you were getting Seth Mcfarland when you hired him.
So, I find it hard to get too upset over Ted's anti-Semitic remarks or the Boobs song.
McFarland got the attention and the ratings, so no one can be too upset, right?
I thought he was generally good. He is funny, but he also really loves movies. he really may be the Mel Brooks of our generation. Seth was really enjoying those song-and-dance numbers.
Besides, I wouldn't have liked Tina Fey and Amy Poehler (They got a lot of good buzz out of this, but Tina says she isn't interested). I don't remember anything from the People's Choice Award except Jodie Foster got onstage and gave a speech Clint Eastwood thought was a bad idea.
So, we're likely to get something vanilla next year (a la Hathaway & Franco) and then, followed by a Chris Rock/Gervais/ Colbert 'hip' host that will be hyped, but then the media won't like; until they convince Billy Crystal to come back, as that seems to be the only host America can agree on.
As far as the Awards, it did seem to be the year that Oscar found a way to honor all of the Movies. It felt like Argo, Django, Les Miz, Zero Dark Thirty, and Lincoln all got appropriate recognition. I haven't seen Argo, but it feels like a banner year for movies. The kind of year we haven't had since the 90s. True, last year had a list of great movies that I eventually went out and see (and America did too); but 2013 was a year when the top contenders all had done fairly well at the Box Office.
Indeed, even the year's blockbuster The Avengers (As McFarland jokes, the biggest movie of the year, which is why it only got one nomination) felt a real and deserving part of the Oscar ceremony.
2013 was a good year and the ratings were up. I don't think this is something that will translate to where you can confirm 2014 will be equally as good, but it is a good sign for the industry.