Post All Oscar Discussion Here

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The point Diamond was making was that Catherine is an example wife for women worldwide to copy in order to keep their husbands happy. :mad:
 
fuck that...im not going to emulate anyone just to make my future guy happy.

women need to be themselves, and not cardboard copies of other 'examples'. and if the guys dont like it...they can go to hell.
 
Last edited:
mad1 said:
if anything Im really really happy for the couple!

They love each other and respect each other, I dont know why pple fuss!

Im very happy for them, and hope Catherine gives birth to a healthy baby!

Oh and how cool was it to see father and son on stage together!!!!

:happy:


I'll bet the baby will be very cute. :cute: :cute:
 
cloudimani said:




I'm so sick of all the hype surrounding Chicago, there were 4 much better films nominated for the Best Picture award. But Chicago is an obvious, easy and uncontroversial choice, showing the Academy are as predictable as ever, and displaying their biases against certain types of films.


so true :mad:

and really lame
 
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:
Adrien Brody is hot, but he went on way too long. And actors who think they're too important to get cut off at the 45 seconds annoy the hell out of me. :mad: Like, get off the stage already. :rolleyes:
i know. it wouldn't have mattered if it had been bono up there blabbering about them winning the oscar for best song, i hate it when people (especially when it's their first nomination!) suddenly think they're so important that they can control when the show will go on. he sounded so humble at the beginning of his speech it made me happy for him, that as he got seemingly cockier throughout the speech, i was hoping he'd fall as he walked away from the podium or something.

LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:
I'm really disgusted by the Eminem and Roman Polanski wins. When the academy chooses to award a known gay/women/etc. basher and a child molester, that's when I have to take a step back. :down:
yeah. i'm if anything shocked by eminem winning just because i thought he'd be the one who surely wouldn't win. i mean, after them asking him to tone it down, and then him saying he just won't come at all, i thought for sure that in addition to all the other controversy surrounding him that surely he wouldn't win. i guess i consider myself a fan, although i must admit this isn't one of my favourite songs. he's made better.

as for roman, as someone else said, it really isn't right to mix personal opinions with business. but, didn't he drug and rape her? if anything, i just think he's a fucking asshole and a coward, for doing it, and for fleeing the country. i was so hoping when he won that he would show up to accept it, so he could get arrested. i'd feel that way about anyone who did such a thing, regardless of their fame. i didn't see the movie, so i have no idea how great it is really.
 
KhanadaRhodes said:
as for roman, as someone else said, it really isn't right to mix personal opinions with business. but, didn't he drug and rape her? if anything, i just think he's a fucking asshole and a coward, for doing it, and for fleeing the country. i was so hoping when he won that he would show up to accept it, so he could get arrested. i'd feel that way about anyone who did such a thing, regardless of their fame. i didn't see the movie, so i have no idea how great it is really.

Maybe instead of mailing Polanski his Oscar they should tell him if he wants it he can come to L.A. to get it.
 
mad1 said:

I did too think U2 had it......but just because they didnt get it, doesnt mean they didnt win according to us lot here at Interland, right?

Oh so right maddie. They are winners to us.

Originally posted by cloudimani
I'm so sick of all the hype surrounding Chicago, there were 4 much better films nominated for the Best Picture award. But Chicago is an obvious, easy and uncontroversial choice, showing the Academy are as predictable as ever, and displaying their biases against certain types of films.

Likewise there were better nominees for Supporting Actress, I'm not quite sure how bad singing from a frankly mediocre actress is enough to win the award.

How is Chicago's win predictable? By honouring a musical, as opposed to a drama, the academy went against precident. Moulin Rouge, also a musical, did not win last year. The past winners have all been dramas; A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, American Beauty, Shakespeare in Love (sort of a comedy), Titanic, The English Patient, Braveheart, Schindler's List. How does Chicago follow any pattern here? Why does the best picture have to be controversial? Can a great film not just be appreciated for being a feel-good movie? In the age of Prozac and Valium can we not appreciate the value of a laugh or a song?

Granted, I believe the bias was shown toward Scorcese. However, I don't think that Chicago is really as bad as you make it sound.

As for Catherine, I haven't found any flaw with her performance. Her singing was/is phenomenal. Trust me. I've worked with dancers/singers/actresses before--Catherine's vocal performance was outstanding. Her live talents, as evidenced by last night, show that she is no 'fluke' but rather, quite a talented woman. You know of other Hoolywood stars (save Bebe Neuwirth) who really could have done better, and pulled it off with that much class?
 
To be succinct;

1) I thought Michael Moore's outburst was distasteful. It is true, you are free to say whatever you want and Lord knows I don't support the war, but there were plenty of other speakers last night who spoke their mind subtly, eloquently and rather movingly, I thought. Michael Moore's outburst was unintelligible, boorish, loud, arrogant and frenzied. Which is a terrible shame, since it compromises not only his work but his award. I did enjoy 'Bowling for Columbine', but I far from enjoyed his speech.

2) I do agree that had he not mentioned the elections, he would not have been booed.

3) Having said that, though, there were plenty of cheers when he started his speech, and a few when he mentioned the elections; but by then, of course, the Boo's were getting louder - and I actually don't blame them. He was ruining what was a perfectly decent ceremony.

4) I am glad Eminem won because 'Lose Yourself' is a far superior song to 'Hands'. Believe me, this is excruciatingly hard for me to say, as I love U2 and hate Eminem - but the truth is that Eminem wrote the better song. However, I did enjoy U2's performance of the song, and didn't denote anything that resembled a 'charade'. Sure, Bono changed the lyrics; but he's always doing that anyway.

5) Steve Martin wasn't all that funny, I felt. Whoopi Goldberg was funnier.

6) I was disappointed that the Oscars went all 'medicinal' and opted to give 'The Pianist' all the awards for Director and Actor. I liked Adrien Brody's speech (which, incidentally, was intended to be an anti-war speech - Brody is a relatively less consipicuous anti-war protester, and given the nature of the film - it was just tastefully done and unified people by saying that they all should 'pray for peace', that is the way Moore should have done it), but I thought Daniel Day Lewis should have won. And Martin Scorsese. Talk about being passed over. And again. And again...

7) 'Chicago' received too many oscars. :madspit:

8) 'Gangs of New York' didn't get any. :madspit:

9) Glad to see Nicole Kidman get the award she should have recieved ages ago. Y que viva mexico! I was so happy to see Elliot Goldenthal win for his wonderful score for 'Frida', and I was delighted when he offered it to the Mexican artistic culture. I was also very proud of Salma Hayek, who, even though she didn't win, was the first Mexican actress to get nominated for the award.

10) All in all, a very tasteful ceremony. Yes, there were anti-war sentiments running high, but they were all (with the exception of Mr. Moore's rowdiness) very tastefully and respecfully pulled off. Though I did fear at one point Dustin Hoffman was going to stop mid-speech and start a crazed rant. He was evidently moved.

Ant.
 
Last edited:
The_Sweetest_Thing said:

How is Chicago's win predictable? By honouring a musical, as opposed to a drama, the academy went against precident. Moulin Rouge, also a musical, did not win last year. The past winners have all been dramas; A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, American Beauty, Shakespeare in Love (sort of a comedy), Titanic, The English Patient, Braveheart, Schindler's List. How does Chicago follow any pattern here? Why does the best picture have to be controversial? Can a great film not just be appreciated for being a feel-good movie? In the age of Prozac and Valium can we not appreciate the value of a laugh or a song?

Granted, I believe the bias was shown toward Scorcese. However, I don't think that Chicago is really as bad as you make it sound.

As for Catherine, I haven't found any flaw with her performance. Her singing was/is phenomenal. Trust me. I've worked with dancers/singers/actresses before--Catherine's vocal performance was outstanding. Her live talents, as evidenced by last night, show that she is no 'fluke' but rather, quite a talented woman. You know of other Hoolywood stars (save Bebe Neuwirth) who really could have done better, and pulled it off with that much class?


Well said. :up: I thought Chicago was very deserving - a splendid film.
 
The_Sweetest_Thing said:

How is Chicago's win predictable? By honouring a musical, as opposed to a drama, the academy went against precident. Moulin Rouge, also a musical, did not win last year. The past winners have all been dramas; A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, American Beauty, Shakespeare in Love (sort of a comedy), Titanic, The English Patient, Braveheart, Schindler's List. How does Chicago follow any pattern here? Why does the best picture have to be controversial? Can a great film not just be appreciated for being a feel-good movie? In the age of Prozac and Valium can we not appreciate the value of a laugh or a song?

Granted, I believe the bias was shown toward Scorcese. However, I don't think that Chicago is really as bad as you make it sound.

As for Catherine, I haven't found any flaw with her performance. Her singing was/is phenomenal. Trust me. I've worked with dancers/singers/actresses before--Catherine's vocal performance was outstanding. Her live talents, as evidenced by last night, show that she is no 'fluke' but rather, quite a talented woman. You know of other Hoolywood stars (save Bebe Neuwirth) who really could have done better, and pulled it off with that much class?

Of course its predictable, I would've bet my house on it. Its exactly the sort of film the Academy will favour, not because its a musical, but because of the style in which its made, and the people involved in making it. Its glitzy, its glamourous, its feel-good, the Academy love this stuff. I'm not saying its a bad film, just that ALL of the other nominees were better films. Most real film fans would agree with me

There were only two films in the best film category that didnt have any bias against them. The Pianist was dogged by the press smear campaign, though Polanski and Brody couldnt be ignored and still received awards. Gangs also suffered press problems and ridiculously walked away empty-handed. And The Two Towers was never going to win, also it is the best film nominated, its just not the sort of film that wins the big oscars. The Academy really need to broaden their horizons a little.
 
cloudimani said:

Of course its predictable, I would've bet my house on it. Its exactly the sort of film the Academy will favour, not because its a musical, but because of the style in which its made, and the people involved in making it. Its glitzy, its glamourous, its feel-good, the Academy love this stuff. I'm not saying its a bad film, just that ALL of the other nominees were better films. Most real film fans would agree with me


Academy loves glitzy, glamourous? Look at the past winners:
A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, American Beauty, Shakespeare in Love, Titanic, The English Patient, Braveheart, Schindler's List. Granted, Gladiator, Shakespeare, Titanic, and maybe Braveheart are BIG movies, large casts, special effects, but glitz and glamour and razzle dazzle? I don't see it.

For the record, just because I enjoyed Chicago and didn't think ALL the nominees were better films (maybe some, not all) doesn't mean that 'm not a 'real' film fan. We can have varied tastes and opinions, but still be educated, intelligent, informed, critical, 'real' movie fans.
 
*buys sis a new pair of glasses

LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:
Adrien Brody is hot

:barf: Dear god how could you think that nose and those eyebrows are hot?
He looks like a cartoon :yuck:
 
capt.sge.nqj78.240303050705.photo01.default-279x384.jpg


Maybe I'm on crack rock, but wooo I think he's :combust:
 
i'm too lazy to read the whole thread, i don't know if someone answered this, a bunch of people were wearing the same pin brody has on his lapel. was there some significance to it?
 
IWasBored said:
i'm too lazy to read the whole thread, i don't know if someone answered this, a bunch of people were wearing the same pin brody has on his lapel. was there some significance to it?


I believe it was an anti-war pin... but I'm not certain.
 
He looks semi-normal in that pic but he sure didnt look like that when he was making his speech :crack:
 
Anthony said:
1) I thought Michael Moore's outburst was distasteful. It is true, you are free to say whatever you want and Lord knows I don't support the war, but there were plenty of other speakers last night who spoke their mind subtly, eloquently and rather movingly, I thought. Michael Moore's outburst was unintelligible, boorish, loud, arrogant and frenzied.

Couldn't agree with you more on this one, Anthony. He acted like a pure ass, regardless of what his stance is.



And sis, Adrien is not as hot as Larry, but those eyes.... :drool: :combust:

and did I mention Daniel Day-Lewis? :wave:
 
HelloAngel said:



I believe it was an anti-war pin... but I'm not certain.


that's what my mom thought it was. she kept pointing out people wearing a pin on their lapel...

my mom: what's on daniel day-lewis' lapel? brody has one too...(after brody's speech) i bet it's an anti-war pin, for peace or something

anyone know for sure?
 
I think that Adrian Brody is pretty cute! I had never really noticed him before last night but my eyes were glued to the TV screen! I must rush out to the Piano right away! He has that sort of angular, Edgeiness that appeals to me...... :cute: (sorry Sicy!) :p

I have not yet seen the Piano or the Hours (I am very behind on my movies this year) but I LOVED Chicago. I also loved LOTR, but I think it will sweep everything next year. Gangs was of course a very well made movie, but there was just something about the characters...none of them did it for me, and when I can't relate to anyone, I enjoy the movie less.

As for Cameron Diaz, that woman has the most enormous mouth I have ever seen! :ohmy: I swear she could stuff an entire apple in there no problem! It annoyed me that her hair was dripping over her eyes and that she was chewing gum too.....sometimes she looks beautiful, but most of the time she just bugs me.

Selma looked gorgeous. Considering how she carried that entire movie on her own, I think it's kind of sad that she didn't win.

Oh, also, I believe that was a dove (peace) pin they were all wearing.
 
Last edited:
i wouldn't go and say that i identified with bill the butcher..but i still thought it was an amazing character
 
Oh...that didn't come out quite right...I didn't mean relate/identify, I meant more "become involved with" or absorbed with the character in some way.

I also wish DDL would grow his hair back....:sigh:
 
Mrs. Edge said:
Oh...that didn't come out quite right...I didn't mean relate/identify, I meant more "become involved with" or absorbed with the character in some way.

I also wish DDL would grow his hair back....:sigh:


heh, i see what you mean now...

don't know, kinda like the shaved head look :shrug: i don't really find day-lewis all that attractive, to tell you the truth...i just really like him as an actor...
 
Okay...I personally don't think Adrian Brody is cute.

But that's just me. :shrug:.

And while I agree with a lot of what he was saying, he went on awfully long, and eventually I was like, "Uh...okay...we'd like to continue the show now..."

Michael Moore-I hadn't heard much about him until last night-I agree with his little rant on Bush, but maybe this wasn't the best place to do it, after all that had happened yesterday.

Eh. Oh, well. He said it, it's done, we should just move on.

Anywho, on to the big surprise of the night (at least for me):

I am seriously shocked that Eminem won the Oscar. I honestly did not think the people would give it to him. While I do like Eminem's music, and while I do like that song, I wish U2 had won-in my opinion, I thought their song was the best, and it would've been cool to see them win an Oscar.

Their performance was awesome-the lyric change was interesting.

Paul Simon's song made me teary-eyed last night-that song's really sweet.

I figured "Chicago" would win a good deal of awards. I have not seen that movie yet, so I can't say how it is, but my mom said, "You know, sometimes there's a lot of hype about a movie, and that movie gets awards based solely on that-and sometimes the movie really isn't as great as people make it out to be."

Maybe I'll check it out sometime when it comes to video or something. I dunno.

So, yeah...there's my commentary.

Angela
 
The_Sweetest_Thing said:


Academy loves glitzy, glamourous? Look at the past winners:
A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, American Beauty, Shakespeare in Love, Titanic, The English Patient, Braveheart, Schindler's List. Granted, Gladiator, Shakespeare, Titanic, and maybe Braveheart are BIG movies, large casts, special effects, but glitz and glamour and razzle dazzle? I don't see it.

For the record, just because I enjoyed Chicago and didn't think ALL the nominees were better films (maybe some, not all) doesn't mean that 'm not a 'real' film fan. We can have varied tastes and opinions, but still be educated, intelligent, informed, critical, 'real' movie fans.

Thank you. I actually think Chicago's win went against the Academy's general tendencies. The Academy tends to go for sort of grand, dramatic, "important" films, and not those that are seen as "entertaining" (ie musicals and comedies). Musicals have won in the past, so it's not unprecedented, but if the Academy loves musicals so much, why didn't Moulin Rouge win last year? (I actually think Moulin paved the way for Chicago's win). Chicago's win was only predictable in the sense that everyone predicted it would win and it ended up winning.

Also, while I truly do not think Chicago was the best film of the year, I still thought it was a better film than both Gangs and The Hours. I liked both of those movies and appreciated what they were trying to do, but Chicago was far-better realized. And, sorry, but nobody here has the right to say what opinions "real" film fans should have.

Note that I'm not disagreeing that the Academy needs to broaden it's horizons, but I would say this more in the sense that they need to not just vote for whatever has the most buzz surrounding it.
 
--Steve Martin is becoming the best part of the Oscars. Anyone who has heard his stand-up routine from the late-1970's knows that he's a brilliant comedian, and the Oscars proved that he's still capable of winning an audience.

--I don't agree with the winners in the main categories, nor do I care enough about the Oscars to hold any grudges against the choices. It's all about politics, and as soon as we realize this the sooner we'll turn the channel to "The Man Show" on Comedy Central :) How else can ANYONE explain why Peter O'Toole had to wait over 40 years to receive ONE, and why Martin Scorcese, Robert Altman, and Glenn Close haven't won a single statuette?

--U2's "Hands That Built America" is one of their weakest songs. That's just my opinion, so I have no qualms in saying it didn't deserved Best Song. Eminem's 'Lose Yourself" was a huge hit, one of his best offerings, and touched more people than the chamberistic, drone of U2's "...America". The Oscar usually goes to slow, promenading, ballad (Streets of Philadelphia) or a Disney pop song, so hearing a rap song win was a breath of fresh air.

--Michael Moore's speech was uplifting for anyone prone to disagree with Governor Bush. For a country so divided over the war it was odd that his remarks were met with so much hatred. Just two weeks ago the entire nation....heck....the entire WORLD was bitterly divided over whether killing Iraqis was a viable solution to the problem, and then suddenly everyone appeared to change sides just because "our boys....ie troops" were risking their lives. Are we all too stupid to realize that dissent from war is different than dissent from supporting the troops? Are we?

His speech was blunt and direct, which is exactly what it needed to be. We are at war. This isn't a skip thru the park....this is people's deaths, people's lives. This is something that SHOULD give birth to passion and directness. Michael's points were all truthful.....non-fiction to use his term, and those points cannot be denied. They CAN be booed, they CAN be silenced by sheepish conformists, but that CANNOT be denied.

Adrien Brody and several other individuals made elloquent statements, pussy-footed their way around, and appealed to the middle of the road. They're comments were vague and usually resulted in a one word summarization, "Peace". Let's have peace, bring us peace, no war is peace....blah blah blah. We all know that peace is preferable, so does it matter if we hear someone say that theory is a calm, monotose manner? NO. So why are we surprised that most people applauded that delivering?

Moore was the slap in the face that Americans needed. He was confident, he was brash, he was sure of himself. His stature, his delivery will encourage more dissent and empower people like you and me to question our leadership. Something that people today appear to have forgetten about.

Viva Moore, Viva Taco Bell, viva U2, viva Claritan (it really does work!), and viva "viva", because without Spanish words that illicit rage, what else do we have?


:)
 
I'd be less disappointed about Chicago winning if it hadn't come along so rapidly on the heels of Moulin Rouge. Its almost as if a couple of execs saw Baz Luhrmann's film and said "Hey thats a good idea, but lets take a well respected stage musical, throw millions of bucks at it and make it as Hollywood as possible...it'll win Oscars and we'll be hailed for returning the musical to prominence."
 
Hmm I dunno Betty I see it that Baz did a wonderful arty piece of work, very individually........something I enjoyed as equally as I did with Chicago, but in a whole different traffic lane.


So yes, to me they run head to head, but one leads to Hollywood success, and the other leads to Hollywood buckcess.

get me?






I dont even get myself now.........:scream:
though one is in a completely diff league to the other......Moulin was a story based on a place......Chicago was a story based on a musical




.........:eyebrow:
 
Back
Top Bottom