The Oscars will be the lowest rated ever

[markvid]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080221225919.gdasowaf&show_article=1

My point in posting this is...

I didn't even know either one of them were nominated and I have no idea of any of the films that got nominated for Best Picture. Can anyone ever remember a year in which the interest level for this was so low?

 

[Oggiedoggie]

1843

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080221225919.gdasowaf&show_article=1

My point in posting this is...

I didn't even know either one of them were nominated and I have no idea of any of the films that got nominated for Best Picture. Can anyone ever remember a year in which the interest level for this was so low?

I think this was a seminal year for film, so I am very enthusiastically looking forward to the show.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

1843

Oh, sure.
Show off.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

No offense to Clooney, and I agree with so much of what he articulates, but every role of his is some affectation of his Doug Ross character.

I loved his Ross and the way he is earnest and does his head tilt and dramatic pauses, but to me, it's not much different than Hugh Grant at this point (or Cary Grant back when, though Cary was THE man)... it's all facsimile of the ER original.

The thought he should win anything for Clayton is purely laughable.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Meanwhile, over at Slate:

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

No more Greek clues!

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Meanwhile, over at Slate:

Slate nails how I feel:

We can talk more about predictions later, but give me a second to explore this novel sensation of—what's it called?—caring about the Academy Awards. The very fact that bodes ill ratings for the 2008 ceremony—that this year's nominees are mostly dark and difficult movies that few Americans have seen—is a draw for those of us who really love the medium. The question of which is the greater film, There Will Be Blood or No Country for Old Men, is a debate I could see having with some of my smartest friends over dinner. Both are ambitious, disturbing works of art that seem to have sprung from an original vision rather than from a director's resolution to finally get his ******* Oscar already. (Scorsese and The Departed, anyone?) And even the less-highbrow offerings, the Michael Claytons and Ratatouilles, are terrific films.

 

[steveu]

No more Greek clues!

Ridiculous!
(Not Fenian's post. He knows what it meant.)

 

[friend of a friend]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080221225919.gdasowaf&show_article=1

My point in posting this is...

I didn't even know either one of them were nominated and I have no idea of any of the films that got nominated for Best Picture. Can anyone ever remember a year in which the interest level for this was so low?

Well, that's a 180 from how I feel.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

steve -- This is the dawning of the age of aquariums.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I think the Writers Strike is the biggest reason for this...

If the Golden Globes had happened as they usually do, it would have been an opening act for the Oscars... This way, there was much less promotion than usual...

It's the only awards show that I go out of my way to watch... The exception is if it's on during the NCAA Tournament, which it has been in a few of the last years...

 

[Football_Bat]

I might be interested if there was any movie I'd heard of before up.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

I might be interested if there was any movie I'd heard of before up.

Sorry -- Beerfest, Saw IV, Norbit, and Chuck & Larry didn't get nominated.

 

[friend of a friend]

well done, TSP

 

[cranberry]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080221225919.gdasowaf&show_article=1

My point in posting this is...

I didn't even know either one of them were nominated and I have no idea of any of the films that got nominated for Best Picture. Can anyone ever remember a year in which the interest level for this was so low?

I think this was a seminal year for film, so I am very enthusiastically looking forward to the show.

I agree. I think the Oscars will do very well because there have been great movies in the past year and because the writers' strike knocked out the Golden Globes and makes this the first chance this year for people to critique celebrity evening gowns.

 

[Oz]

Forget the films, I'm going to watch the Oscars simply for Jon Stewart.

"For those of you keeping score at home, Martin Scorsese, zero; Three 6 Mafia, one."

"You know what? I think it just got a little easier out here for a pimp."

"How come they're the most excited people out there tonight? That's how you accept an Oscar!"

"From the man who also gave us 'Schindler's List' and 'Munich.' I think I speak for all Jews when I say, 'I can't wait to see what happens to us next!' Trilogy!"

"I imagine the difficulty of making Russell Crowe look like he got into a fight. I'm going to be pummeled later this evening, aren't I?"

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

No offense to Clooney, and I agree with so much of what he articulates, but every role of his is some affectation of his Doug Ross character.

I loved his Ross and the way he is earnest and does his head tilt and dramatic pauses, but to me, it's not much different than Hugh Grant at this point (or Cary Grant back when, though Cary was THE man)... it's all facsimile of the ER original.

The thought he should win anything for Clayton is purely laughable.

Interesting take, simon. I always thought it as to Clooney's credit that he takes modest, unspectacular roles and does well with them. I thought it was interestingly non-star of him. Maybe you're right and he's overdone it.

 

[DanOregon]

I agree with the Writer's Strike theory. You get some folks up there on stage at the GGs, drunk, they say something stupid or inflamatory, it becomes a topic on Leno, Letterman et. al., boom, people suddenly care, wondering if a presumed winner will outdo themselves on the big night or wear a scandalous dress. The Oscars have never been about the movies, they've been about watching good-looking, wealthy people make total asses out of themselves when they don't have a writer giving them something eloquent to say.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

No offense to Clooney, and I agree with so much of what he articulates, but every role of his is some affectation of his Doug Ross character.

I loved his Ross and the way he is earnest and does his head tilt and dramatic pauses, but to me, it's not much different than Hugh Grant at this point (or Cary Grant back when, though Cary was THE man)... it's all facsimile of the ER original.

The thought he should win anything for Clayton is purely laughable.

Interesting take, simon. I always thought it as to Clooney's credit that he takes modest, unspectacular roles and does well with them. I thought it was interestingly non-star of him. Maybe you're right and he's overdone it.

His snappy, talking-over-each-other thing he kept doing with Pitt in the Ocean's films is a trademark. He's settled into a routine, no doubt. But it hasn't seemed to hurt him in the marketplace, whatsoever.

Leatherheads will suck beyond comprehension, but that's another story for another day.