tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4504827047542759744.post7987601140077793274..comments2024-02-09T06:08:18.431-05:00Comments on Blam's Blog: The Bloom Is Off the Gilded LilyBlamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07342343767763035991noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4504827047542759744.post-78024928650978629092013-03-08T00:23:39.905-05:002013-03-08T00:23:39.905-05:00@Teebore: I'm trying to parse out exactly how ...<br>@Teebore: <i>I'm trying to parse out exactly how you and I differ (or differed, rather) in our approach to the Oscars up to this year.</i><br /><br />Let me know if you hit on anything... 8^)<br /><br />I worked through my issues with MacFarlane at length yet again in a comment your Oscars post. And like I said, I think that the producers are most at fault — for the choice of host as well as for the production overall. The larger point, though, I just can't explain other than that it is what it is. <br /><br />Maybe part of it is that my mother, as cool as she is, has always been a bit of a pollyanna, simply prone to enjoy stuff rather than be critical of it (not in the sense of examining details but in the sense of deeming it unworthy). Also maybe of relevance is that the Oscars felt very grown-up, watching from an early age, so if I didn't get something I wrote it off as beyond me and in general it was all simply the way public fancy Hollywood stuff was done, a feeling that was ingrained by the time I aged to a point at which I should "know better". Or something?<br /><br />I want to comment on a couple other comments of yours, but this is the first time I've had Internet all day, it's late, and I'd like to fit some other stuff in — including comments on your blog.<br /><br>Blamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342343767763035991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4504827047542759744.post-70050091336030196442013-03-05T13:08:45.397-05:002013-03-05T13:08:45.397-05:00I think that you need the respect of the room to h...<i>I think that you need the respect of the room to host the show; MacFarlane didn't even have its pulse.</i><br /><br />I agree, and here is where I think MacFarlane was doomed to fail. As I said in my post, there was no way he could be "edgy/disrespectful" enough to appeal to the <i>Family Guy</i> audience I'm sure ABC was hoping to turn in, while just by dint of being Seth MacFarlane, a crass TV comedian, there's no way he could be welcomed enough by the audience at the theater, no matter how self-deprecating or old-fashionededly crooner like he was. <br /><br /><i>The banter from the Avengers crew just laid there</i><br /><br />It was also poorly shot - if you're going to have Downey Jr. and Jackson bantering with each other, make sure they can fit inside the same frame while doing so. <br /><br />Argo <i>should not have won Best Picture. Not over </i>Lincoln<i> and </i>Zero Dark Thirty<i>, nor even, although I'd hardly have expected such a choice from the Academy, </i>Beasts of the Southern Wild.<br /><br />I didn't mind <i>Argo</i> winning. It wasn't my favorite of the nominees I saw (all but <i>Amour</i> and <i>Life of Pi</i>), but I understand why it won (independent of any perceived Affleck snub, it's the kind of movie the Academy loves to reward: a period piece that also manages to celebrate Hollywood/make Hollywood look good). <br /><br />Of the nominees, my favorite was probably <i>Zero Dark Thirty</i>, though <i>Lincoln</i> is the one I'm most likely to rewatch on DVD and, someday, when flipping channels and its on TNT or something, but the Oscars have a long history of awarding Best Picture to either a movie I can appreciate without favoring (like <i>The Artist</i> last year, which I enjoyed and intellectually appreciate, but will probably never watch again) or a movie I simply don't think is the best of any given year (<i>The King's Speech</i> was a lot of fun, but I thought <i>Social Network</i> was a superior film, and I've rewatched it, <i>Inception</i> and <i>Toy Story 3</i> from that year several times). <br /><br />So I guess for me, mildly disagreeing (always mildly - I've never found it to be worth all that much energy to get too worked up over) with some of the winners is as much an Oscar tradition as anything else. <br /><br /><i>...in a surprise appearance that I will concede to my conservative friends was entirely inappropriate</i> <br /><br />I'm genuinely curious what makes you say that (aside from your mention of how it gives the Obama haters even more ammunition). She's certainly not the first First Lady to be involved with the Oscar telecast, nor the first time some element of the White House has done so. Her husband no longer has to run for office, so there's very little room for any ulterior motive, the claim that "she should have better things to do" is patently ridiculous, and the closest she came to espousing an agenda in her appearance was one urging kids to follow their dreams, which, to paaphrase one TV critic, if you hate the Obamas enough to tell your kids not to follow their dreams because that's a liberal plot, well, that's your prerogative. <br /><br />So needless to say, the fervor over her appearance left me very confused (except, of course, from the fervor coming from, as you suggest, those segments of the population who will automatically hate anything the Obamas or any Democrat does, ever).Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4504827047542759744.post-5987163929317699022013-03-05T13:08:36.180-05:002013-03-05T13:08:36.180-05:00Hmm...I'm trying to parse out exactly how you ...Hmm...I'm trying to parse out exactly how you and I differ (or differed, rather) in our approach to the Oscars up to this year. Because the Oscars (and to a lesser extent, the Emmys, the Globes and the Tonys) were always a tradition growing up in my house as well (and continue to be one), with the family gathered to watch and, as I got older, make predictions alongside my dad and brother. <br /><br />Yet at the same time, despite that tradition, I've never felt the Oscars were above criticism. I certainly share your "If AMPAS chose the producers and the producers chose the host then we got the Oscars we were supposed to get" mentality in other areas (this is one of the reasons, as a Star Wars fan if not as a film buff, the prequels have never rankled me as much as they do so many others), but when it comes to the Oscars, I've always felt perfectly comfortable criticizing the decisions of the Academy, whether their choice of winner (when I was younger and didn't see many of the movies that would be nominated, I would be incensed when something I actually had seen lost. I have since gained a great appreciation for <i>Unforgiven</i>, but my 12-year-old self is still outraged it beat <i>A Few Good Men</i>), or choice of host or that there weren't enough montages or that the whole "bring out all the past winners" thing the year <i>Titanic</i> won was interminably long and boring. <br /><br />Certainly, I've always tended to focus on the good more than the bad (which continues to be a problem in most of my criticism of anything), and no matter how bad the host (James Franco) I can always walk away with something positive to say, and a general feeling of having enjoyed the evening (I will always enjoy an evening spent celebrating movies AND trivia). It's just matter of degree: some years I enjoy it less, some years more, and for whatever reason, that's always been the case for me.Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4504827047542759744.post-30481528527579088892013-03-01T18:50:36.376-05:002013-03-01T18:50:36.376-05:00I think I arrived at the Oscars just being a thing...I think I arrived at the Oscars just being a thing that happens earlier than you did, but I appreciate what you're saying (and how you said it). <i>Shabbat shalom!</i>Arbenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366836660775218956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4504827047542759744.post-26506770549101821242013-02-27T21:12:32.924-05:002013-02-27T21:12:32.924-05:00Okay... The pre-Oscars post and post-post-Oscars-p...<br>Okay... The pre-Oscars post and post-post-Oscars-post post are back up properly. Let's see if I can get this one fixed...<br /><br>Blamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342343767763035991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4504827047542759744.post-16580932384152110132013-02-27T16:57:17.494-05:002013-02-27T16:57:17.494-05:00I do plan to head over and comment on your blog. R...<br>I do plan to head over and comment on your blog. Right now I'm trying to figure out what the hell is going on <i>here</i>. I've been trying to get a pair of posts up properly for the past couple of days. My Internet has been slow and/or cutting out again, which at first is what I blamed for the posts not getting published. Now it seems to be weird Blogger crap again, though, just when I thought I was behind that kind of thing (for, granted, the <i>n</i>th time). I not only can't get the full version of this post to go up — there's more past the jump-break, and a different title, but it keeps reverting to my earliest draft — I can't get my <i>pre-</i>Oscars post back up, I can't get the next post after this up, and <i>I can't get this post down.</i> Every time I hit "revert to draft" it seems fine except that the post is still up and the changes don't save. I'm going to try to hit the library to see if it really is just a glitch due to things being slow at the house, because the only alternatives are putting the rest of this post in yet another one and/or republishing this post as it should be as a wholly new duplicate post (neither of which will necessarily work, either, and the latter of which won't preserve comments).<br /><br /><i>Arrghhh!!!</i><br /><br>Blamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342343767763035991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4504827047542759744.post-30234530735098459742013-02-27T11:57:36.422-05:002013-02-27T11:57:36.422-05:00You can read my more specific thoughts on the broa...You can read my more specific thoughts on the broadcast on my blog (in general I thought MacFarlane did fine, allowing that I'm both a fan of his in general and that I never get too bent out of shape over the hosts because there's only so much they can do to make or break the show, and that I thought the whole thing in general was poorly produced), but I too shared your initial desire to just not write about the show, born of both indifference and a nagging cold that had me thinking I could do better things with that energy. <br /><br />But I ultimately came around, largely to keep my streak alive, and ended up tossing out something that probably isn't as thorough as I'd like but is, at least, something...Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.com