Comments on: WTF: The Most Boring Oscars EVER!

By: Kevin_Carr

Kevin_Carr — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:13:11 +0000

I think running time has to also factor in for this year. If they give a bloated 3 1/2 hour show, the ratings will be poor.

Also, I think the interest in CCBB will wane considerably in the next few weeks. And most of the stars have been nominated or won before. I mean, does anyone in the mainstream really care about Meryl Streep that much.

You make a good point about TDK getting nominations, but a Best Supporting nod for Ledger was a given at this point, and I think there's no surprise that he'll win there. I really don't think there's going to be much curiousity by the public on this one.

By: Kevin_Carr

Kevin_Carr — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:13:00 +0000

I think running time has to also factor in for this year. If they give a bloated 3 1/2 hour show, the ratings will be poor.

By: JohnO

JohnO — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:29:17 +0000

Also, I think we will be suprised when the ratings for the Oscars come in this year. I would argue that the nominations this year are more accesible, and will end up being more well-liked than last year's nominations. Most "average joe"-type people did not take to There Will Be Blood and No Country. The only nom that had any popularity amongst the pubic was Juno. This year, however, the box office will be strong for both Benjamin Button and Slumdog by the time the awards ceremony rolls by. Also, The Dark Knight was not completely snubbed. Heath's supporting nom, plus 7 technical nominations are still stellar. And having bigger movie stars – like Brad PItt, Angelina Jolie, Anne Hathaway, and Meryl Streep nominated – should cause more interest, compared to last year's run of Daniel Day-Lewis, Javier Bardem, Tilda Swinton, Marion Contillard, Julie Christie, and Ellen Page – all great actors, but not necesarily household names. All of these factors – plus Jackman's likability – could raise the ratings this year.

By: JohnO

JohnO — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:29:00 +0000

By: JohnO

JohnO — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:28:54 +0000

And here starts the annual whining about the Oscars. While I would agree it would be nice if The Dark Knight was nominated, and it would have boosted the ratings immensely, shouldn't we be happy with what is nominated? A movie like Slumdog would have gotten no exposure if it was not for these awards. And while I think The Dark Knight should not be punished for being popular, at least with its omission, people are being introduced to films they would not have originally seen.

By: JohnO

JohnO — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:28:00 +0000

By: Adam_Sweeney

Adam_Sweeney — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:02:28 +0000

I think that is a pretty poor generalization, Joe. Consider many of us write for the site and it is in our job description to see these films. Haha.

By: Adam_Sweeney

Adam_Sweeney — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:02:00 +0000

I think that is a pretty poor generalization, Joe. Consider many of us write for the site and it is in our job description to see these films. Haha.

By: 790

790 — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:39:17 +0000

Wrestler should have been nominated for best picture. And what the fuck ? Where’s Clint ??? Torino should have also been nominated for best picture.

Only reason to tune in,,, is to see if Rourke can beat Penn down for a 3 count !!!! Then Ram Jet his ass for laughs.
I’ll be so glad when the awards are over and I don’t have to read any more poop on TDK, I’m super sick of that film.

By: 790

790 — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:39:00 +0000

Wrestler should have been nominated for best picture. And what the fuck ? Where’s Clint ??? Torino should have also been nominated for best picture.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:31:28 +0000

An interesting point made even better by your name.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:31:00 +0000

An interesting point made even better by your name.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:30:14 +0000

Josh, he's Australian and he's pretending to be British?! Now I'm boycotting the show.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:30:00 +0000

Josh, he's Australian and he's pretending to be British?! Now I'm boycotting the show.

By: Josh_Radde

Josh_Radde — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:30:44 +0000

I dunno. Jury's out for me. He's a born entertainer: can dance, can sing, can be funny. Will he put it all together and deliver the goods–probably not. But I wouldn't necessarily call him boring.

By: Josh_Radde

Josh_Radde — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:30:00 +0000

I dunno. Jury's out for me. He's a born entertainer: can dance, can sing, can be funny. Will he put it all together and deliver the goods–probably not. But I wouldn't necessarily call him boring.

By: MrDeath

MrDeath — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:27:20 +0000

I still can't understand why The Wrestler hasn't had any major award consideration. Besides Mickey, the whole thing hasn't really been nominated for any of the big awards. Come on! Where's the best director nod for Darren? WHY IS IT NOT NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE YET "THE READER" AND "MILK" ARE???

Now that I'm done venting, I'll answer my own question. Because 2008 has been kinda a let down. Not movie wise, a lot of great stuff has come out. But with the economy down the tubes, nobody wants the big dark movies. Seriously, tell me all the best picture nominees aren't all inspirational in some way (Button: LIve your life to the fullest. Nixon: Don't be intimidated. Slumdog: Romance and dreams do come true. The Reader: Learn to forgive. Milk: Fight for your rights). Hell, even TDK was a little dark. It's the same reason Chicago won after 9/11. People don't wanna see depressing movies, they want to be inspired or have fun.

But come on! The Wrestler was so awesome!

By: MrDeath

MrDeath — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:27:00 +0000

But come on! The Wrestler was so awesome!

By: Tenika

Tenika — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:59:40 +0000

Ha! I meant "won" oscars

By: Tenika

Tenika — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:59:00 +0000

Ha! I meant "won" oscars