My thoughts about the ceremony:

THE GOOD
- longer running time of the acting clips
- Martin (Baldwin not so much) (not the best presentation ever, but better than other recent ones) (next time let Martin host alone)

THE BAD
- The opening song number
- I prefer the traditional way of presenting the acting categories. This whole friend presenters thing reeks of hipocricy (we know actors can cure AIDS and cancer and deserve to be made saints and bla bla bla) and drags the show. Let last years winner present this year.

THE UGLY
- The dance for the best score nominees. Just show scenes from the movie.

THE SO-SO (could be improved)
- Stiller's sketch started good but went on for too long
- I do like montages and would have loved to see a few more. The one about horror movies (being one of my fave genres) was however only OK. They concentrated mostly on 'prestige' horror (Shining, Silence of the Lambs, Misery, Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby), classic monster movies (Dracula, Frankenstein) and horror icons (Jason, Freddy, Leatherface, Chucky) and even included choices like Edward Scissorhands, Little Shop of Horrors or Young Frankenstein. WTF?
There were a lot of horror movies that were left out and that could have provided more variety to the already known clips.
- The 10 nominees thing didn't quite work. Get back to the usual 5.

Seriously people bashing THL's win because it was so small is ridiculous. Wtach the freakin' film.

Funniest joke of the night: Oprah telling Sidibe she has a long and varied career in front of her. Unless Precious 2 or animated movies come along, I don't think so, girl.

Think about it, number of people who watched the film is already well under 3-4 million.

What it may go to what 7-8 million.

Huge waste


A great film but still shows the public thinks its nothing special

My favorite moment was when Taylor Lautner screwed up his line introducing the salute to horror and Kristen Stewart's reaction.

The only thing I though was funny from the hosts was when Martin said he wrote the speech for the guy who won for Precious. Stiller out-staged both of them.

Best speech - Bullock

As someone who isn't exactly fit, I am extremely disgusted by the comments in this thread toward Gabby Sidibe. I think she's incredibly beautiful and with that wonderful personality I think she can go far in her career.

I mean, damn, her very first movie and she gets nominated for Best Actress? Talk about an accomplishment! And like Oprah was saying, for someone with such a fun, bubbly personality, the fact that she brought out such utter despair in her performance says a lot.

I hope to see both her and Carey Mulligan nominated in the future, and here's to both of them winning!

Look like the viewership broke 40m: http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/oscar ... k-be-15040.

My thoughts exactly.

It totally was! It's probably the first time in the history of the Oscars that people cared about who the Documentary Short winner was.

The public was never given the opportunity to decide one way or the other. It played in 500 theaters at its widest point. Bad argument.

A few things, if a HL was super good, by wom it would have become a small size hit. It would have showed legs and it would expanded into many more theaters. Its not a bad argument because that is how many or most surprise hits originate from. The fact it failed at the box office should it was mostly critics and the film elite who love the film.


well see with the DVD's sales, which are good but nothing special.

Even so, most who have seen it that I know (myself included), have seen it by downloading it.

I would say this is what most people think about THL. Its a good film that has good action, but its nothing epic or anything special. Like it is a war movie, but something like Black Hawk Down was way more interesting.

Its got nothing on Avatar. The story was just as predictable and bland, the characters in avatar were better, and in every technical aspect avatar was indeed better. Though I will not deny that Bigelow out directed Cameron, the intensity of hurt locker was on No Country for Old men levels.

you fools

you're the fewl.

Seriously. What was "disappointing" about The Hurt Locker's box office, honestly? It was made for very little money and basically every movie about Iraq has flopped up to this point.

I don't know what numbers you're referring to when you say the DVD sales have only been just OK but they were very good in relation to its box office, from what I read. And the DVD rentals/sales are going to pick up substantially now that it has won Best Picture.

Also, these aren't the People's Choice Awards.

Apparently every Best Picture winner must now be comprised entirely of CGI and not cost less than $200m.

American Beauty was the last great Best Picture winner

well of course selling less than a million dvd's is good when the film has made hardly any money but most are likely people who have seen the film.

The only thing its going to dominate now, is the most downloaded film chart lol

even with epic dvd sales lets say from million to about 2 to 2.5 million, it is still the least watched oscar film ever especially of recent times.

bilge, Avatanic (cost more than 200m) and Basterds(cost ways less than 200m and had no CGI) was better than Hurt Locker.

least ever in any time. Asscars are now the most rigged awards show ever.

Anyone know why Clooney looked pissed off the entire time?

he knew the lesser film was going to win.

Those bastards should be out a job for the lack of respect they showed the other 9 nominees for BP, fuckers.

Eh, for an acclaimed (and actually rather accessible) movie like this one the box-office was not good. Then again, Summit didn't handle it well.

However, that's not the main point. What it boils down is is: Why the HOLY FUCK should the gross matter whatsoever in determining the winner?

Wut???