No matter how much clout the Oscars may have in Hollywood, there are
people, even the high brow movie snobs, who
declared the Oscars as a self-congratulatory pat on the shoulder
which relishes in showing off designer clothing.
The Academy, in response, has been
looking for ways to appeal to other film fans, mostly by pandering
to them through the ceremony, and nothing seems to be working. Even
with their best attempts, they just can't seem to get high ratings
they want. Every year, the Oscars experiences a low score in the
ratings, but ABC doesn't seem to care because the advertising rates
are through the roof, and money rolls in.
So, you want to know how and why the
Oscars get no ratings? Well, we have some suggestions for you. High
ratings can be achieved without gimmicks. Who can forget the
horrible hosting job by Chris Rock whose monologue was absolutely
weak, and whose jokes were flat. Who can forget the random cuts to
many African stars whom weren't even involved in film. 50 Cent? P.
Diddy? That's odd. Who can forget the stupid skit with Rock about
how many black people don't know any of the films from the Oscars?
Big fucking whoop. It's common knowledge average movie-goers don't
know what these films are. Who can forget the odd cameo from Martin
Lawrence? Who can forget lining up the nominees for Best Documentary
and have them take the walk of shame when neither won? Stop with the
gimmicks, here's some suggestions we have for you that we think can
help improve ratings and interest.
INCLUDE GOOD
GENRE FLICKS
The Oscars are alienating, and that's just how they like it. But if
you're trying to get an audience, stop alienating them.
Stop making this a country club and lower the membership standards.
You don't complain there aren't enough members for a club when
you're not even allowing blacks or women to join. Get my drift?
Start including good genre flicks and fans will watch, it's that
simple. If people loved these films, they'd watch the ceremony to
hope they won. It's hard to set apart what's good and what isn't in
the film industry since so few genre films are actually good or
watchable, but the good genre films are there, and deserve some
recognition, too. This doesn't have to be those wretched
"Blockbuster" awards, but it can be fun and classy at the same time.
Here are some genre flicks that we
think qualify as art too, most recently:
- Sin City
I read the graphic novels, and "Sin City" the movie was amazing.
I loved it. First, "Sin City" should have been nominated for
"best adapted screenplay" in which Rodriguez was able to turn
three separate stories in to an episodic parable about the dark
corners in Sin City much like "Pulp Fiction". The story was
sleek, exciting, and riveting. Meanwhile, Rodriguez pulled of
some beautiful special effects that paid homage to the novels.
It was realistic without feeling artificial, and Rodriguez
pulled it off with flying colors. Sure about 98 percent of the
scenery was artificial, but it looked immensely realistic which
should have earned a "Best Visual Effects" nomination, and then
there was the cinematography, excellent direction by Rodriguez
as usual, and don't hold "Sharkboy and Lava Girl" against him.
This man is Oscar bait, and let's not forget the great
performance by Mickey Rourke who embodied the character of Marv.
Ever read the books? You sucker, you have no idea what you're
missing. Marv was a great character, and I can say with
knowledge that Rourke aced the character, he channeled him, he
was Marv. And that's why everyone loves Marv. Personally I
prefer Owen's character Dwight, but hey, I have that bad habit.
And Owen is just a great actor, period. In a film with many bad
performances i.e. Brittany Murphy, Michael Madsen, Rutger Hauer,
and Jessica Alba, you can't forget the good performances by
Rourke, Owen, Dawson, DelToro, and Nick Stahl. "Sin City"
could'a been a contender. And to quote DeNiro in "Cop Land": You
blew it!
- Batman Begins
What wasn't good about this new film for a new franchise?
Based on the Frank Miller "Year One" novel, "Batman Begins"
chronicles the start of Batman. Where do I begin? Christopher
Nolan's direction is excellent as he's able to capture the mood
and atmosphere Burton, and Schumacher couldn't. Yeah, that's
right, I said it. Meanwhile, there's startling cinematography, a
story that's actually exciting while focusing on
three-dimensional characters we can root for. The acting was
excellent from Liam Neeson who was great as Bruce's mentor. He
was the type of character Qui-Gonn should have been, while Tom
Wilkinson pulls in a great performance as the threatening mob
boss Falcone, Michael Caine is both engrossing, and classy as
Bruce's butler and sidekick Alfred, and Christian Bale pulls in
the quintessential performance as Bruce Wayne, the
young conflicted, and frightened man who hasn't grieved for his
parents' death and seeks vengeance against the face of danger
and possible death. But the standout? Of course, Cillian Murphy
who is scene stealing as Dr. Crane aka The Scarecrow who is the
perfect hybrid of slimy, conniving, and frightening. Then
there's the phenomenal special effects, and the wonderful script
by Al Gough.
- The Machinist
I'm simply shocked and appalled that this horrifying and truly
insightful glimpse at the face of painful guilt didn't at least
warrant consideration by the Academy. "The Machinist" was a very
sad and meaningful opus about how much damage our mind can do to
us when burdened with demons. The direction is beautiful with
bleak and almost hellish landscapes and gorgeous cinematography,
while Christian Bale literally looks like a skeleton playing a
man who can not sleep or eat and is tortured. Bale's performance
warranted an Oscar not because of the fact he drastically
changed his appearance, that trivializes it, but because he gave
such an excellent performance as he's been doing from the
beginning of his career. Original writing, cinematography,
direction and best actor are the nods this film deserved, and it
was robbed and snubbed.
- Serenity
Hey, hey, hey, don't roll your eyes. I may be a hardcore
"Firefly" fan, but I know quality and this was quality, plain
and simple. What? It's too lowbrow nominating a movie adapted
from a genre television show? Well, what about "The Fugitive",
smart ass? Yeah, you better shut up. Well, original screenplay
should have been noted seeing as how Joss Whedon, in spite of
not being a fan of his work, is a very good writer, and secondly
he was able to fit in a lot of story in only two hours without
it feeling cluttered. And then there was the excellent direction
by Whedon, the excellent special effects, some beautiful
cinematography, and excellent performances by Nathan Fillion,
the heir apparent to Han Solo, who gives a great performance as
a captain leading his team in truly desperate times, while Gina
Torres' performance is sublime as his sidekick, and Summer Glau
is sympathetic and powerful as River who is still trying to get
a sense of her origins and what she's supposed to be doing that
she can't quite understand just yet. "Serenity" is a contender, and
it should have at least been considered.
- Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge
of the Sith
Oh come on, stop looking away in annoyance. Sure, some of the
acting was bad, and the plot had holes in it, but then there
were many positives. Ewan McGregor not only paid homage to Alex
Guiness, but added a sense of distinction with his portrayal as
Obi-Wan Kenobi. The desperation of a man trying to keep his best
friend from straying to evil was something McGregor pulled off
with flying colors. He made my favorite character even better
with raw emotions and beautiful acting, he pulled in a great
performance, while Ian McDiarmid should have been given a nod
for his portrayal as the budding evil sith lord Emperor
Palpatine. Sure, it's essentially the same character from
before, but this is a man who secduced Anakin, and then revealed
his own true colors by manipulating everyone to his will. He
pulled off such a great performance here, and it's a shame. And
then there was the cinematography, and set designs which were
beautiful and well worth looking at while the drama unfolded.
And let's not forget the costumes, and visual effects which
featured some amazing battle scenes and character designs. I
know Oscar is trying to keep it low key this year, but a good
movie is a good movie. I personally loved this movie, and it's
sad it wasn't really noticed for something other than technical
aspects.
And I'm basically scratching the
surface. You can make the argument that quality overrules appeal,
but these films have quality and appeal.
NO STUNT
CATEGORY
We appreciate the hard work you guys do, and we're happy you want to
be acknowledged, but the Oscars are for direct production roles, and
not stunts. It's understandable you work hard and want to be
recognized, but after you then what? Then what will happen? Best
boom mic operator? Best sound gaffer? Best caterer? Best teamster
union? Best performance by an extra? Best trailer? Best voice over
in a trailer? There has to be a limit here, fellas. And you're
asking for too much. Sure, I know it's not easy work, and I know
it's life threatening, but there's really no need to clutter up
another ridiculously cluttered awards ceremony. It's bad enough I
have to sit through "Best Costume Design", and "Best Sound Mixing",
but I really don't want to sit through more rants from a stuntman.
You can't have everything in one show, so give me a break here.
There's no room for you. You want to set yourselves apart from
Hollywood and be original? Well, stop displaying vanity by begging
for a category and just do your job, get paid, and let it go. You
can't get everything you want, and you can't always get the credit.
Firefighters and Police Officers have life threatening jobs and they
get zero credit unless there's a death. There are writers whom are
sure they're excellent and have never been published. That's just
how it is, sometimes. You can't get a category. That's it. Stop
being so "Hollywood" by begging for credit. Instead, show your
dignity and do your damn job. Nothing wrong with that. Move on.
HORROR AND
COMEDY ARE ART TOO
Ever seen the Marx Brothers? Chaplin? "Animal House"? "Airplane!"?
"Young Frankenstein"? Ever seen "The Exorcist", "Dawn of the Dead",
or "Halloween"? This is not just comedy and horror, this is comedy
and horror that are also art. It's like that old adage from the
dying man: "Dying is easy, comedy is hard". It's much harder to make
people laugh than to make people cry, and it's a known fact that
this has been accepted as truth. Being a comedy actor is tough, and
writing a script or novel that people will find funny is grueling,
and it's about time you realize that. Very few comedies are funny
these days, that's true, but sometimes when a good comedy comes
along, you have to give it its due. Have the academy watch these
movies if you want to play it safe, and for god sake, don't leave it
up to audiences to vote on the best comedy. They'll just end up
picking some shit like "Scary Movie 2", or "Napoleon Dynamite". As
for horror, let's talk about horror. It's not a low brow genre, not
anymore. Horror never was a low brow genre. Horror films can have
incredible production qualities that should be acknowledged and it's
about time you join us in the twenty-first century here. Sure,
indies can be excellent, and dramas are nice, but throw in a horror
movie here and there. Some with production qualities like crazy. But
don't leave it to the audience. They'll just pick some shit like
"Cabin Fever", or "House of Wax". And how can anyone lose? Once
Oscar starts acknowledging horror and comedy, you know what? People
will tune in to see their favorite movies get Oscars, and then
studios will be inspired to make quality horror and comedies, and
the fans win yet again! Box office will probably go up to. You're
not the South. Get with the times, learn to evolve with the film
audience. And instead of following them, set an example.
DON'T PANDER TO
POP CULTURE CRAZES
Don't pander to pop culture crazes that we'll forget in a few
months. American audiences, especially young ones, have a short
attention span, and they won't give a crap, and you'll only make
yourself look like a fool when in three years we're seeing reality
show numbskulls parading with celebrities. No reality show
contestants. No tabloid celebrities. No music stars. No Ashton
Kutcher. No Punk'd references. Okay? Remember the American Music
Awards being hosted by those numbskulls the Osbournes? Remember Mark
McGrath hosting the Grammy's? Stop trying to appeal to the modern
audience with such ridiculous gimmicks, and most of all don't copy
MTV. Is it really wise to copy a network who has sold out and
provides incredibly dumb, mind-numbing "entertainment" based on
reality shows and bad music? Not to us. Don't talk down to audiences
by featuring stupid reality show morons, and tabloid celebrities
like Paris Hilton. No Ryan Seacrest, Simon Cowell, no Jeff Probst,
or Ashlee Simpson. You can appeal to the mainstream without becoming
lowbrow. It's possible, you just have to have the right creative
team and not just hacks trying to kiss up.
STOP...
BEING ODD
This is a short one, but one I'm still wondering about. Why, when
Scarlett Johansenn presented the winner for the
technical awards was she on an empty balcony in what looked like an
empty theater in the South Bronx? Was it a pre-filmed sequence
before the ceremony, or was she too tired so they set up a prop
balcony? Why did you line up the "Best Documentary" nominees and
then have the losers walk off like it was a fourth grade spelling
bee? Did you stop and think how embarrassing that would be to them?
They're not big stars exactly. What was Martin Lawrence doing
popping up in a skit? Why... were Donald Sutherland and Glenn Close
announcing the commercial breaks two years ago in the back alley of
the theater next to a KFC's? Seriously, that was a bit weird. I
think I saw a hooker walk by at one point. Were there no seats left
so they stuffed them there? Were they short on announcers? Did they
sneak in only to have an "I Love Lucy" moment where they beat up the
announcers and put on their clothing? Were they just humoring them?
Oscar crony: Hello, Mr.
Sutherland! How would you like to come to the Oscars this year?
Donald: Really? That would be wonderful, was I nominated?
(Long awkward silence)
Oscar crony: Uh--no, sorry.
Donald: Oh, no... no.
Oscar crony: But--you can be the commercial break moderator!
Donald: Sounds fun, what do I do?
Oscar crony (in condescending tone): Well, you sit on
a fold out chair from the stock room on a matted table, and Glenn
Close will be sitting with you and you can announce the commercial
breaks, and wear a neat headset, it will be fun!
Donald: Yay! I'll do it!
Seriously. Donny and Glenn deserve
better. And... stop being odd.
SOMEONE ELSE
BUT DISNEY... PLEASE?
Once again the animated category--which was just invented to keep
the pressure off of the Academy from including
animation in to the Best Picture noms--display their utter
short-sightedness and their knack for nepotism and politics.
Disney has put a monopoly on best animated features since the
category was invented. Sometimes I think the category was invented
solely for them. And don't pop shit saying it's because their movies
are good, because Disney hasn't made that many good films in a long
while. This year alone is once again Disney territory with "Howl's
Moving Castle". Sure, it's created by Studio Ghibli, and directed by
the master Hayao Miyazaki, but Disney bought distribution rights.
It's great that it has competition with "The Corpse Bride" and
"Wallace and Gromit" because that's surefire competition. In 2004 we
had "Finding Nemo" a good enough animated film, and "Brother Bear" a
sub-par entry, in 2003, we had "Lilo & Stitch" a really bad buddy
tale ripping from "ET" shamelessly, "Spirited Away" which is one of
Miyazaki's beautiful movies, and "Treasure Planet" a now obscure
entry from Disney! Don't pretend it's coincidence. Now, "The
Incredibles" is an excellent film, I'll give you that, but if the
Academy wants to win me over, pick the simple animated films over a
Disney film for once this year. And Disney, whom ever you're paying
off or blackmailing in the academy, quit it, your movies now suck
save for occasional quality films.
PICK YOUR HOSTS
WISELY
John Stewart? Perfect. He's funny, wry, and delivers the punch lines
like actual punches. Steve Martin? He did a great job since America
was going to war at that time. Johnny Carson? Magnificent. He's
Johnny Carson, need I say more? Bob Hope? He's Bob Hope, funny is a
prerequisite. These are examples of good hosting.
If you want viewers, pick actual good hosts, please, or else, it's
annoying. Stop giving us the wildly unfunny Whoopi Goldberg and her
outdated race jokes and gimmicky costume changes and "outrageous
humor". Stop giving us the boring and unfunny Billy Crystal. Sure,
he has a reputation and is almost synonymous with the ceremony, but
this fella doesn't like him. He's not funny, never was. No more
David Letterman. For the love of god. And, I'll tell you this now:
That had better be the last time I see Chris Rock hosting this show.
The next time I want to see him on is as a presenter, or seat
filler. Seriously, he sucks. And if you were pandering to "that
certain audience" you could have chosen someone much funnier. Rock's
hosting falls in to the "Pop Culture Craze" category as well. Chris
Rock is popular, sure, but do I want to see him host the Oscars? No.
No, I say!
STOP CUTTING
OFF THE SPEECHES!
What? I only have five sentences? Okay, I'll hurry. Firstly, stop
cutting these people off, they're happy. Secondly, there's really no
point in cutting them off when you can easily refer to the
suggestion below to cut your losses. I mean is there nothing more
annoying than hearing these people talk and suddenly get cut off?
Not even, most times they're talking and then the orchestra starts
and then they're forced to get off. Why not have that guy with the
cane from "The Apollo" come and pull them off with his giant hook
thing? I mean, seriously it's ru--
FINALLY,
ENOUGH WITH THE MONTAGES
We know what "Gone with the Wind", "Casablanca", and "Citizen Kane"
are. You don't have to tell us every freaking
year, for about twenty minutes, and then to make it worse, they'd
have the montage and then have Billy Crystal sing
about all the movies that are nominated that year, and or have been
nominated in the past! Is that over kill?
Redundancy? I think so. You want to cut down the long, long,
l-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ng run time for purposes of news? Well, cut the
montages, this not only wastes time, and basically spells out every
single great movie that's ever been on the Oscar repertoire, but
it's typical. We know these movies, we've seen these movies, again,
and again, plus it officially explains to the audience "We are
better than you. Look at the quality we have! You can sleep outside
you "Stealth" loving, Paris Hilton glorifying bastards!" No, I've
seen basically all of those movies, so do I really need another
montage? Another damn montage, blech! Stop the montages, and stop
the musical numbers, we don't want to see interpretive dance, or
ballet, or tap dancing, or clog dancing, or polka, or the hustle.
Get to the damn awards, keep our attention, and cut down on the run
time. If the "Independent Spirit Awards" can do it and not lose its
style, then so can you. Case closed.
|
