criterionforum.org

Altair wrote:Exactly, and his opening monologue was so banal, its jokes were hardly even jokes. They should have Dave Chappelle next year, if he'll take the gig.

It will be James Corden won't it? His profile in the US must be pretty big now and he's a safe pair of hands (I can't stand him so hope he stays successful stateside).

Please lord no

The awards are on ABC - it wouldn’t be an NBC or CBS talk show host. In all likelihood it will remain Kimmel, because it increases his show’s significance to do it.

mfunk9786 wrote:Marc Maron

Just what Hollywood needs to host an awards show in 2019, a cranky middle-aged white guy! Tiffany Haddish and Maya Rudolph were pretty much the only team-up to get any laughs out of the audience last night; they could be the new Tina and Amy for the Globes if not the Oscars. I mean, they couldn't be any worse than Franco and Hathaway, could they?

Anyway, watch it be Alec Baldwin. He's got an ABC talk show and game show now plus Tr*mp hates him and will be guaranteed to tweet about him (if Tr*mps's not in prison by this time next year).

Lena Dunham 2019!

Don't act like it wouldn't be like watching a car crash in slow motion.

Does anyone think Get Out's (February 2017) awards season success will convince other studios not to release all of their big titles near the end of the year?

No, because no one foresaw Get Out moving beyond its genre roots and becoming a box office and cultural phenomenon with something to say about America in 2017. It's an exception to the rule, not a rule-breaker. The end-of-year crunch is because that's when moviegoers are together with their extended families and have more free time to kill, so middle-of-the-road crowd-pleasers with pretensions that they can drag the whole gang to get more traction than they would at other times of the year.

If anything, while it didn't win much, Phantom Thread's late-year arrival on the scene got it into the very tight Best Director field and is likely going to continue to be a model for one or two films a year, to withhold public release until the very last moment and make people feel special for getting into early industry screenings and getting screeners in the lead-up

Get Out is special doubly so because it was dumped in February which is where studios usually leave films to die. Both Get Out and Black Panther have broken that mold as well. The Shape of Water like Phantom Thread also got a December release. If anything this showed me that a lot of things are fair game now.

Yeah, after last year where all the late December NY/LA releases didn't work out, this year had two Best Picture nominations with that type (didn't exactly *help* the Post, though - I maintain, all things being equal, the non-nomination for SAG ensemble (an award I don't think it should be controversial to say it probably had more than fair claim to potentially win) which was entirely due to not screening in time is really would killed its momentum after its initial raves)

Boosmahn wrote:Does anyone think Get Out's (February 2017) awards season success will convince other studios not to release all of their big titles near the end of the year?

I’d vote for Get Out to win an Oscar next year if I could...

BigMack3000 wrote:

DarkImbecile wrote:

BigMack3000 wrote:
No, only by a few thousand people in near empty Imax theaters.

It made $250 million worldwide; easily 10 million people saw it in theaters in the US alone.

Sure, but that is also, by far, the lowest gross of all the nominees.

Also 10 million people? Man, I will always be envious of people that aren't paying $20+ for tickets.

I saw Blade Runner on a week night with my brother and we were the only ones in the theater. First time that’s ever really happened.

Also, we all use MoviePass now so we’re not paying much at all.

Guys, Blade Runner 2049 has been doing great on home video, and it's also been rampant in ads for Verizon's Fios TV service, as well, so it's hardly been underseen by the general population at this point.

lacritfan wrote:Least-watched Oscars in history

I wonder if there will even be a real "ceremony" in ten years, or if it will just be a sort of televised banquet. Personally, I wouldn't mind that, as I think it would be great if they got the whole thing down to two hours with commercials.

The only people who appear to have taken this and ran with it is Fox News who took it to about as many unnecessary places as you'd expect. I was fairly certain that a lot of things were down this year ratings wise though. Was it Football? I don't keep up with sports.

I dunno. Every year I feel like I want to skip the Oscars but never do. I imagine it’s pretty easy not to bother for the vast multitudes that care less about movies than I do, although I guess on the other hand, most people care more about celebrities than I do. Still, the whole thing is such a tedious bore for the most part, and for all kinds of reasons. It’s not like there’s even an easy fix.

It’s still one of the highest rated nights on tv though, so it’s not like it’s going anywhere.

Big Ben wrote:The only people who appear to have taken this and ran with it is Fox News who took it to about as many unnecessary places as you'd expect. I was fairly certain that a lot of things were down this year ratings wise though. Was it Football? I don't keep up with sports.

And the Winter Olympics, and the Globes. I think most people anticipated a heavily political show, and just decided to tune out. I almost didn't bother, but I infamously turned the TV off as soon as Faye Dunaway said "La La Land" last year, and thus missed the entire kerfuffle regarding the mistake, so I decided to watch in case something similarly awful happened on "live" television. Of course, it didn't, and if the nominees aren't more interesting next year, I doubt I'll be tuning in.

But then, as Brian points out, recently, I seem to end up in a similar situation every year, and in the end, I always choose to watch, so, we'll see. I'm pretty sure I felt the least amount of emotion ever at the end of an Oscar ceremony, though.

Clarence wrote:Seriously, no clip for Jeanne Moreau?

At least she got a mention. Oscar winner Dorothy Malone was not included.

Television in general is down at a similar rate to the Oscars, the NFL, the Olympics, blah blah blah. People are cutting the cord and aren't keeping up with live events in the numbers they once were. This is being treated as some kind of political melee, but the more likely answer is that people are streaming the Oscars or not going to the trouble at all because they don't have cable anymore.

This was a pretty perfect prediction, and of course, has been a bugaboo of mine - rewarding the movie with the most pro-movies stuff in it.

I thought this was an interesting read about how Academy voters are perhaps hesitant to prop up films with low Rotten Tomato scores.

Does this mean Death Wish won't sweep everything in 2019?

I will never in my life understand why it bothers you so much that a movie is pro-movie

It bothers me when a bad or mediocre movie is rewarded disproportionately because it's got a pro-movie message, whether that be the primary plot thread or something almost shoehorned in, the latter being the case with The Shape of Water. If I didn't like movies I wouldn't be on this forum