very poor show last night.....
i'm a big chris rock fan......but i think he was out of his element last night hosting the oscars.....
also what does puff daddy & prince have to do with the oscars ? why were they on the show ?
Do the Oscar folks have rocks in their heads?
Rock: Much of his material had nothing to do with the Oscars.
By Robert Hanashiro, USA TODAY
Apparently the academy thought using hipster favorite Chris Rock as host and giving short shrift to the lower-profile awards would re-energize the Oscar show, turning it from a dowdy matron into a hot, younger-demo hit. Instead, ABC's three-hour plus broadcast of the Academy Awards Sunday seemed tailor-made to bore the young, embarrass the old and chase away even the most dedicated Oscar fan.
Yes, it moved faster ? but where exactly did it think it was going?
To be sure, Rock is one of the funniest, smartest, most talented comics in America. What he clearly wasn't, as the academy must surely now realize, was a smart choice to host the Oscars. His act may have worked in the hall (and to be fair, the crowd did seem to be with him), but it didn't work on TV.
Loud, snide and dismissive, he wasn't just a disappointment; he ranks up there with the worst hosts ever ? particularly when you factor in the expectations. When the show ran a salute to Johnny Carson's years as host, the comparison was so painful, it made you think the academy would have been better off just letting a computer-generated Carson host again.
Perhaps someone should have told Rock that he wasn't just doing a stand-up gig, he was hosting the Oscars. At the minimum, that means you're kind of expected to act as if you have some interest in the proceedings. Instead, his monologue bypassed the nominated films entirely in favor of a few mild generalized jokes about movies and movie stars ? praising Clint Eastwood, mocking Jude Law It wasn't just pointless, it was dull (and apparently offensive to Sean Penn, who came to Law's defense).
Unfortunately, what many viewers are most likely to remember ? particularly those who feel Hollywood is out of touch with many of its customers ? is Rock's lengthy attack on George Bush.
It went over big with the crowd, and if you voted for John Kerry, you probably found it amusing. But that routine had nothing to do with the Oscars, either, and it very likely sent half the audience fleeing from what was otherwise a politics-free evening.
Later, as if to verify that he thought the show was a waste of time, Rock ran a pre-taped interview with people at a movie theater, none of whom had any interest in the nominated films. The bit was hardly shocking: We all knew there was no Lord of the Rings blockbuster in this year's lineup. On another night, on another show, it might even have been funny. On this night, at this event, it was alarmingly out of place.
Doesn't anyone have a sense of occasion anymore? It's one thing to make gentle fun of the nominees, as Billy Crystal does so well, and another to imply that no one outside of the hall cares about their work. Surely someone involved with last night's broadcast should have known the difference.
Luckily, like every other host, Rock made only limited appearances after the first half-hour. In this case, less was best.
Rock, however, can't take all the blame for an evening that was well-dressed but almost ceaselessly dreary. Among a host of awful ideas, the worst was the decision to make second-class citizens out of the nominees for the technical awards ? otherwise known as those people who have the nerve to be nominated without being famous. If anyone should realize that these categories are as integral to a movie's success and as hard to pull off as a great acting performance, it should be the members of the movie academy.
Instead, they made the nominees for some of those awards, such as art direction and documentaries, stand together on stage while their names were read, like American Idol contestants at the results show. That meant the losers also had to stand there and clap, at least until the camera closed in on the winners. At that point, one assumes, the losers were whisked away, though for all we know they were dropped into a hole in the set.
Even so, they were treated like stars compared with the nominees for a few other categories, such as best action short, who had to accept their Oscars in the aisle. Wouldn't it have been even faster just to pitch the Oscars at their heads?
Does it really take that much more time to let a winner rise out of a seat and come up on stage? If being asked to give up a few extra viewing seconds so these people can have their proper due is that much of an imposition, then here's a radical idea: Every event on Earth is not about you. These people have just won the most important award in their field. For heaven's sake, let them enjoy it.
But then for years, the intent of the Oscar broadcast has seemed to be to take the focus away from the awards and put it on ... well, what, exactly? The awards don't get in the way of the show; they are the show. If the producers think the acceptance speeches are boring, then by all means encourage the nominees to limit their thanks to those people to whom they are actually grateful. (That should cut the speeches down drastically.) But it's awfully hard to persuade an audience to watch an awards show when the people presenting the awards act like they're meaningless.
Of course, those lucky few winners who did get on stage immediately found themselves upstaged by the set, which did just about everything but talk. Note to the director: When you have Sidney Lumet accepting the lifetime achievement award with one of the evening's more eloquent addresses, it's not the best idea to have some giant Oscar lazy-susan spinning behind him. Yet there it was, rotating away behind every acceptance speech like some out-of-control carnival ride. Didn't that thing have a "stop" button?
Still, if Sunday's program went too far with its innovations, that doesn't mean the Oscar format couldn't use some tweaking. For one thing, the time has probably come to make the original-song category optional. Beyonc? is a lovely woman and a fine singer, but most of those songs not only shouldn't have been performed, they shouldn't have been nominated.
Ironically enough for a show that seemed ashamed of its own awards, it was the award winners who came to the rescue.
Hilary Swank gave a touching, graceful acceptance speech, thanking her husband and scaring off the orchestra. Jamie Foxx's win gave the show a long-awaited emotional boost. And Clint Eastwood added old-school, masculine class.
Clearly, the Oscars rock. What a shame the show didn't.
i'm a big chris rock fan......but i think he was out of his element last night hosting the oscars.....
also what does puff daddy & prince have to do with the oscars ? why were they on the show ?
Do the Oscar folks have rocks in their heads?
Rock: Much of his material had nothing to do with the Oscars.
By Robert Hanashiro, USA TODAY
Apparently the academy thought using hipster favorite Chris Rock as host and giving short shrift to the lower-profile awards would re-energize the Oscar show, turning it from a dowdy matron into a hot, younger-demo hit. Instead, ABC's three-hour plus broadcast of the Academy Awards Sunday seemed tailor-made to bore the young, embarrass the old and chase away even the most dedicated Oscar fan.
Yes, it moved faster ? but where exactly did it think it was going?
To be sure, Rock is one of the funniest, smartest, most talented comics in America. What he clearly wasn't, as the academy must surely now realize, was a smart choice to host the Oscars. His act may have worked in the hall (and to be fair, the crowd did seem to be with him), but it didn't work on TV.
Loud, snide and dismissive, he wasn't just a disappointment; he ranks up there with the worst hosts ever ? particularly when you factor in the expectations. When the show ran a salute to Johnny Carson's years as host, the comparison was so painful, it made you think the academy would have been better off just letting a computer-generated Carson host again.
Perhaps someone should have told Rock that he wasn't just doing a stand-up gig, he was hosting the Oscars. At the minimum, that means you're kind of expected to act as if you have some interest in the proceedings. Instead, his monologue bypassed the nominated films entirely in favor of a few mild generalized jokes about movies and movie stars ? praising Clint Eastwood, mocking Jude Law It wasn't just pointless, it was dull (and apparently offensive to Sean Penn, who came to Law's defense).
Unfortunately, what many viewers are most likely to remember ? particularly those who feel Hollywood is out of touch with many of its customers ? is Rock's lengthy attack on George Bush.
It went over big with the crowd, and if you voted for John Kerry, you probably found it amusing. But that routine had nothing to do with the Oscars, either, and it very likely sent half the audience fleeing from what was otherwise a politics-free evening.
Later, as if to verify that he thought the show was a waste of time, Rock ran a pre-taped interview with people at a movie theater, none of whom had any interest in the nominated films. The bit was hardly shocking: We all knew there was no Lord of the Rings blockbuster in this year's lineup. On another night, on another show, it might even have been funny. On this night, at this event, it was alarmingly out of place.
Doesn't anyone have a sense of occasion anymore? It's one thing to make gentle fun of the nominees, as Billy Crystal does so well, and another to imply that no one outside of the hall cares about their work. Surely someone involved with last night's broadcast should have known the difference.
Luckily, like every other host, Rock made only limited appearances after the first half-hour. In this case, less was best.
Rock, however, can't take all the blame for an evening that was well-dressed but almost ceaselessly dreary. Among a host of awful ideas, the worst was the decision to make second-class citizens out of the nominees for the technical awards ? otherwise known as those people who have the nerve to be nominated without being famous. If anyone should realize that these categories are as integral to a movie's success and as hard to pull off as a great acting performance, it should be the members of the movie academy.
Instead, they made the nominees for some of those awards, such as art direction and documentaries, stand together on stage while their names were read, like American Idol contestants at the results show. That meant the losers also had to stand there and clap, at least until the camera closed in on the winners. At that point, one assumes, the losers were whisked away, though for all we know they were dropped into a hole in the set.
Even so, they were treated like stars compared with the nominees for a few other categories, such as best action short, who had to accept their Oscars in the aisle. Wouldn't it have been even faster just to pitch the Oscars at their heads?
Does it really take that much more time to let a winner rise out of a seat and come up on stage? If being asked to give up a few extra viewing seconds so these people can have their proper due is that much of an imposition, then here's a radical idea: Every event on Earth is not about you. These people have just won the most important award in their field. For heaven's sake, let them enjoy it.
But then for years, the intent of the Oscar broadcast has seemed to be to take the focus away from the awards and put it on ... well, what, exactly? The awards don't get in the way of the show; they are the show. If the producers think the acceptance speeches are boring, then by all means encourage the nominees to limit their thanks to those people to whom they are actually grateful. (That should cut the speeches down drastically.) But it's awfully hard to persuade an audience to watch an awards show when the people presenting the awards act like they're meaningless.
Of course, those lucky few winners who did get on stage immediately found themselves upstaged by the set, which did just about everything but talk. Note to the director: When you have Sidney Lumet accepting the lifetime achievement award with one of the evening's more eloquent addresses, it's not the best idea to have some giant Oscar lazy-susan spinning behind him. Yet there it was, rotating away behind every acceptance speech like some out-of-control carnival ride. Didn't that thing have a "stop" button?
Still, if Sunday's program went too far with its innovations, that doesn't mean the Oscar format couldn't use some tweaking. For one thing, the time has probably come to make the original-song category optional. Beyonc? is a lovely woman and a fine singer, but most of those songs not only shouldn't have been performed, they shouldn't have been nominated.
Ironically enough for a show that seemed ashamed of its own awards, it was the award winners who came to the rescue.
Hilary Swank gave a touching, graceful acceptance speech, thanking her husband and scaring off the orchestra. Jamie Foxx's win gave the show a long-awaited emotional boost. And Clint Eastwood added old-school, masculine class.
Clearly, the Oscars rock. What a shame the show didn't.
but i wouldn't know him if he knocked on my door.
