World of KJ
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/

RATE! RATE!
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=49467		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  snack [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:57 am ]
Post subject:  RATE! RATE!
F for Fake
Author:  Rev [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
A for JAi Ho! :D
Author:  Loyal [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
Bits that worked:

The Reader in the opening
The group of actors presenting
The running time
The stage design
Comedy contage (sort of)

Bits that didn't work:

Animation/Action/Romance montages
The rest of the opening
tribute to Musicals
Author:  O [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
loyalfromlondon wrote:
Bits that worked:

The Reader in the opening
The group of actors presenting
The running time
The stage design

Bits that didn't work:

Comedy/Animation/Action/Romance montage
The rest of the opening
tribute to Musicals


Bit that didn't work most for me was the singing during the In Memorium part. It just didn't work and was the lowpoint for the night. Otherwise overall I thought it was pretty good.
Author:  Chippy [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
The whole thing was a mess.

They need to hire people that know what the fuck they're doing
Author:  Keyser Söze [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
I would give it a B. Group of ex-winners presenting the awards was an excellent idea.
Author:  billybobwashere [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
that was a fabulous show. Not looking at the actual winners, but the ceremony and the nominations presentations and the speeches... it blew away anything that I'd seen before (but I'd say the first time I watched and was really aware of what was going on was Chicago's year).
Author:  Chippy [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
Ew.
Author:  billybobwashere [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
which recent year would you deem better, and why?

Having five winners give a personal speech to each nominee > one person reading a short description of their characters.
Having Queen Latifah sing live during In Memorium > some old sappy music playing in the background
The numerous musical numbers > the bad Best Song performances (even though we had those as well this year)
Pineapple Express stoned cast laughing at The Reader > Some dramatic actor praising The Reader's "artistry"
etc...
Author:  Shack [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
One part that really bugged me was cutting to Latifah and the moving camera during the dead montage, I couldn't read some of the names and positions.

Clips > actor descriptions. By far.
Author:  Magic Mike [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
The ceremony was alright. Not great. I miss the clips for performances. I certainly miss the way they used to do it.

On this scale I'd give it a B (my actual rating is a B-).
Author:  zennier [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
loyalfromlondon wrote:
Bits that worked:

The Reader in the opening
The group of actors presenting
The running time
The stage design

Bits that didn't work:

Comedy/Animation/Action/Romance montage
The rest of the opening
tribute to Musicals


agreed on all counts, though i thought the comedy montage was a bit more charming - certainly more than the rest! ugh!
Author:  trixster [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
The In Memorium section was a total disaster.

The show started strong but ended weakly. The new presenters were stupid. Where were DDL and Javier?
Author:  Loyal [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
zennier wrote:
loyalfromlondon wrote:
Bits that worked:

The Reader in the opening
The group of actors presenting
The running time
The stage design

Bits that didn't work:

Comedy/Animation/Action/Romance montage
The rest of the opening
tribute to Musicals


agreed on all counts, though i thought the comedy montage was a bit more charming - certainly more than the rest! ugh!


I'll actually pull back on Comedy, it was the better of the 4 and was actually produced vs thrown together.
Author:  Jim Halpert [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
i dont want actors telling me how great the performance was. I want to see clips from the movie to show me how great the performance was.
Author:  zennier [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
trixster wrote:
The In Memorium section was a total disaster.


I'd agree with this in that it was quite frustrating, the way it was filmed and all. Watching it streaming over the net, I found it quite difficult to see many of the names. Did I just miss it, or was Heath not in this? Was he in last years? I forget - do they do this by calendar year or by "year" related to when the show broadcasts?

Granted, BSA was Heath's memorial, but still.

And, to emphasize, that stage design was gorgeous. Absolutely stunning.
Author:  zennier [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
Nite Owl wrote:
i dont want actors telling me how great the performance was. I want to see clips from the movie to show me how great the performance was.


Why, so we can have an awkward, decontextualized + dragging "reminder" of their work? I much prefer the actors, if only for the spectacle of their entrance alone. Sexy!
Author:  David [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
The "In Memoriam" segment was poorly done, without a doubt. I thought most of the changes were superb and LOVED Hugh's hosting (voted A on the poll), but they should have left the "In Memoriam" presentation alone. Clips set to sentimental music. Using different cameras to film television screens showing the clips was a strange and nasty idea. I have a feeling it was done, at least in part, to incorporate Queen Latifah's presence and singing more ("See, we're not just playing music, we brought in a celebrity performer!"). Meh.
Author:  snack [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
I'm in the "speeches about the actors rather than the work we're supposedly honoring" = worst decision of life camp. It made literally no sense, no sense at all.
Author:  trixster [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
zennier wrote:
trixster wrote:
The In Memorium section was a total disaster.


I'd agree with this in that it was quite frustrating, the way it was filmed and all. Watching it streaming over the net, I found it quite difficult to see many of the names. Did I just miss it, or was Heath not in this? Was he in last years? I forget - do they do this by calendar year or by "year" related to when the show broadcasts?

Granted, BSA was Heath's memorial, but still.

And, to emphasize, that stage design was gorgeous. Absolutely stunning.

Heath was in last year's, as he died in January.

But yeah, the moving camera + multiple screens made the whole thing impossible to watch and downright ugly.
Author:  David [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
zennier wrote:
Nite Owl wrote:
i dont want actors telling me how great the performance was. I want to see clips from the movie to show me how great the performance was.


Why, so we can have an awkward, decontextualized + dragging "reminder" of their work? I much prefer the actors, if only for the spectacle of their entrance alone. Sexy!


I agree. I enjoyed the new way of presenting. Robert De Niro's introduction of Sean Penn, for example, was a lot more interesting and charming than a 10-second clip of him yelling "I'M HARVEY MILK AND I'M HERE TO RECRUIT YOU!" would have been.
Author:  Christian [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
There was something Superman-like when past winners were standing on stage presenting the nominees. Reminded me of that scene when the Krypton tribunal was sentencing General Zod, Ursa, and Non.
Author:  Loyal [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
I'm still bothered that they didn't think it was appropriate to have 5 directors on stage. Who the fuck directs the actors?
Author:  snack [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
Furthermore, the presentation of the acting awards completely decontextualized the process for the audience, especially considering most viewers haven't seen the performances being honored, and reduced it, then, to merely a masturbation to starpower and sappiness.
Author:  trixster [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RATE! RATE!
How about when Alan Arkin called PSH "Seymour Philip Hoffman"? Or Christopher Walken mumbling through his lines?

I'll take clips, please.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/