So now that we've all had a chance to pour over the 2011 Academy Award nominations and digest this new information, it's time to download your official Oscar ballot and start making your picks!
Will you choose wisely or will you choose poorly? We'll have to wait until the award telecast on February 27 to find out!
Also for your entertainment, I've embedded the Oscar Nominations Announcement from earlier this morning. Enjoy!
I think everyone was left scratching their heads when The Hollywood Foreign Press nominated The Tourist, Burlesque and Red for Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical. But, for me, it was the final revelation that the Emperor TRULY wears no clothes.
I mean, the Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical category has always been a bit off a goof. Especially considering that the two genres have very little (if anything) to do with each other. And besides, how many musicals does Hollywood produce a year? One? Maybe two?
When you look at the nominees in this category, you begin to understand why comedic actors are rarely nominated for Oscars. Because, apparently, what counts as "comedy" in that town is REALLY friggin' subjective.
I missed the first hour of the Golden Globes because I was busy being a parent (or some such nonsense) and was reading Henry stories before putting him to bed. I kind of wish I had caught the first hour because I heard Trent Reznor won Best Score for his work in The Social Network, went on stage to collect his award and that would have been very surreal to see.
But I started watching in the second hour and after about :30 minutes, thought to myself, "I'd really rather be playing video games right now."
I managed to stick it out for the rest of the show. Chalk it up to exhaustion and not wanting to get up off the couch. But as I laid there, I asked myself "How do I get sucked into this every year? How does The Hollywood Foreign Press manage to convince me that this is important? That they're not plying all of these celebrities with booze so the can take pictures with them later? Why does this matter?"
I still haven't come up with a good answer for you on that one, but I'll be sure to get back to you when I do.
More than the nominees or the winners, it seems like people are talking about Ricky Gervais as the event's host. I guess his opening monologue was pretty incendiary and Robert Downey Jr. shot back at one point. I missed that stuff.
The stuff I did manage to see I thought was a little mean-spirited. Not that I'm against knocking celebrities off their high horses (obviously), but I've always kind of found Gervais to be insufferable. It's that snarky, know-it-all tone and ridiculous grin, I think.
No doubt that Gervais is devastatingly smart, but Gervais's put downs are never about getting the target to laugh at themselves. It's straight up insults - "You're a drunk! You can't get work! You're stupid!" - and it's not entertaining to watch.
As I pointed out on the Theater Hopper Facebook page, I was left with the distinct impression that Gervais was doing everything in his power NOT to be asked back as host next year. Mission accomplished, bro.
If you're curious, I've posted all of the Golden Globe winners in the new Theater Hopper blog - Bonus Materials. Be sure to check that out. I float a lot of odds and ends in there, so be sure to check back often. Or, feel free to subscribe to the Theater Hopper RSS feed. The blog posts show up there as well.
In the meantime, did you watch the Golden Globes last night? Were you as flummoxed as I was? What is your reaction to the nominees and the winners? Leave your comments below!
Yesterday the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced that it would be widening the field of nominees for Best Picture from 5 to 10.
When I first heard the news I though, "Hmm, that's interesting." But the more I think about it, the more upset I become.
This isn't the first time the Academy has nominated 10 films for Best Picture. In fact, it was par for the course when the awards show was created back in the 1930s and was a practice they continued well into the 1940s.
But the big difference these days is that there are FAR fewer studios producing movies and a much smaller number of films being released each year. Also, the Oscar's weren't broadcast until 1953. So what's the real reason behind widening the field to 10?
Follow the money.
If you ask me, this is all one huge money-making scheme. 10 films get nominated and now 10 films are "must see" in the theater. If you don't catch them in the theater, now studios can slap the "Oscar nominated" title on the DVD and claim their film is an avatar of quality. If you don't catch it on DVD, maybe you'll watch the Oscar broadcast because - hey - something is new and different! Nevermind all of the entertainment media that will now be forced to write about, speculate, categorize, rank and rate 10 Best Picture nominees.
Remember the Oscars last year when they didn't have a host and instead had actors come up and give little speeches to the nominees about how great they are. Remember that Zac Efron was one of those presenters?
Yeah... this 10 nominations thing is just another gimmick, but on a much larger scale.
My question is, if they're going to nominate 10 films for Best Picture, then why not 10 nominees for Best Director? How many films have won Best Picture without their directors winning in their categories? Why not 10 Best Actors, Best Actresses?
Some of you probably think that 10 Best Picture nominations is a good thing. Would Wall-E or The Dark Night have been nominated last year under this structure? Will this open the door to more independent movies being recognized by the Academy and a larger audience? Perhaps.
But if they're going to widen the field this far, then the Academy needs to get ride of "ghettoized" categories like "Best Foreign Language Film," "Best Animated Feature Film" and "Best Documentary Feature." All of them are ridiculous categories to begin with and treats their genre's like second class citizens. Any of the films nominated in those categories can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with films from other genres.
Well, except Bolt. Seriously, what were they thinking nominating that last year?
What the Academy fails to realize - especially when they attempt these naked gimmicks to boost their ratings - is that movie goers haven't lost interest in because they've become bored with the tradition. If anything, that's THE REASON they huddle around their television each year.
No. People have become disenfranchised from the Oscar's because their choices reflect no sincerity, originality or taste. That, coupled with the fact that a Best Picture nomination has become a political campaign among the studios to jockey for a position at the end of the year that will increase their odds of the Academy (and their narrow memories) to nominate their films.
The Reader, for example, was sent to theaters in limited release on December 10 to meet the Oscar deadline but wasn't released wide until January 9. By then, reviews were ancient, no one was talking about it and demand for the film was nil. It barely reached middle America except in a few art houses. How are we supposed to get excited for a film like this when there is no opportunity to see it?
If this change results in sincere diversity among the Best Picture nominees, then I will happily eat crow. If Up is nominated alongside The Hurt Locker, no one will be more pleased than me.
But I see no reason for the Academy's decision to remotely change how Hollywood does business. The studios have a formula and they're sticking to it. The rest of us are just along for the ride.
What is your reaction to the Academy's announcement? Are you excited for the change of pace or do you thing the Academy has an ulterior motivation. Do 10 Best Picture nominations dilute the value of the Oscars or is the trophy bragging rights and not an indicator of true quality?
Leave your comments below! Let's get a dialogue going!
Yeah! Ha, ha, ha! Take THAT People's Choice Awards! I hope you packed a lunch because I just took you to school!
Okay, so... maybe The People's Choice Awards really isn't that big of a deal. Still, it beats having to talk about another Saw movie for the fifth year in a row!
This strip is a continuation of Tom's insistence of a Best Actor nod for Robert Downey Jr.'s performance in Iron Man from Wednesday's comic. I didn't really envision more than one strip when I wrote the first one until my friend Joe asked me if there was going to be a longer storyline.
I mean, I guess I could see where the punchline for Wednesday's comic kind of set things, but I'm seriously just flying by the seat of my pants, here. I could probably do another strip on Monday. It depends what you guys think. Do you guys want to see where this goes or do you want me to do a strip about Zach and Miri Make A Porno? Halloween is next week. Should I do a Halloween strip instead? Send me an e-mail and tell me what you think!
Nothing much to talk about this weekend, movie-wise. Saw V is going dominate and that's that. *YAWN* Personally, I'm kind of interested in seeing Pride and Glory. I know I shouldn't be, though. It looks like such typical tough guy police corruption boilerplate. Like Joe said during The Triple Feature on Monday, it looks like We Own The Night: Part 2. Nevermind this movie has been on the shelf for 8 months after being completed. That's typical a bad sign.
But still, I'm almost always interested in what either Ed Norton or Colin Farrell do and I think a pairing of the two actors is long overdue. Farrell experienced some over-exposure a few years back and I guess it led him to treatment for his alcoholism. I'm interested to see how that has affected his acting and intensity. Plus, it's directed by Gavin O'Connor, which I'm sure means nothing to you. But he also directed the Kurt Russell Olympic hockey movie Miracle a few years back and I thought he did a really great job with that movie. It's one of those films I quietly appreciate because I'm not typically interested in sports movies. What can I say? That one got to me.
At any rate, I might try to sneak out and see it this weekend if I've got nothing else going on.
That's all for today. Thanks for checking the site and I hope you have a great weekend! See you here on Monday!
Nominees for the 79th Annual Academy Awards were announced this morning and I was pleased to see that I've already seen three of the five films nominated for Best Picture. That means I have less ground to cover before the ceremony on February 25.
I suppose what surprised me most is that Leonard DiCaprio was nominated for his performance in Blood Diamond and not The Departed. I was also shocked to see Alan Arkin nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Little Miss Sunshine. But that's a pleasant surprise. Marky Mark nominated in the same category for his performance in The Departed? Not sure what to make of that.
All I know is if Martin Scorsese doesn't walk away with Best Director this year, it'll be a crying shame. But I think Clint Eastwood is going to give him a run for his money.
Oscar nominations were announced this morning. There were a few surprising picks - especially in the field of Best Actor.
Visit Oscar.com for the full list of nominees. Come back tomorrow for a related comic and reactions from yours truly.
