May be academy thought SS alone is good enough.

so decontextualizing goes to me, not zenni.

Hugh Jackman as a host was like Gig Young in They Shoot Horses, Don't They? and we are all Jane Fonda.

I found the Best Score presentation lacking in comparison to past years - the 2006 score awards were fantastic, as a comparison. Maybe it's because the music was lacking? Poor choices to perform (Milk didn't sound like Milk... at all)?

In any event, a usually great award.... not so much this time

hugh was a miserable host.

oh and the butchering of Down To Earth is worth a drop in letter grade alone.

Especially because Reese Witherspoon was fucking terrible.

reese has rolled so far down the hill.

Since when have the Oscars not been about masturbating to starpower and sappiness?

This was no reduction.

If anything, I feel like the clips have been there in the past out of some sense of obligation to recognize that this show is, indeed, about acting and not about the spectacle of the Celebrity Acceptance Speech.

I'd give anything to cart her off the stage. Permanently.

It was odd to see Will Smith as the weakest presenter. He just messed up far too many times!

Best show ever.

Well, really good anyway.

but poor Melissa Leo. first, no one knew who the fuck she was. now, no one knows who the fuck she is.

I liked how Halle Berry made that presentation all about herself.

I was also really really bothered by the transparency in highlighting TDK and WALL-E throughout the broadcast.

Those films combined had more nominations and wins than Frost/Nixon and The Reader, yet you didn't feel they were worthy of the big dance.

Fuck you, they're our films. The fans.

I actually really enjoyed it. It moved quickly and I didn't really start to get bored, which is often the case with Oscar ceremonies. I liked Hugh a lot.

I also really liked the 5 presenters. Let's remember who the Oscars are from and going to. The Academy (their peers) are presenting Oscars to their fellow peers. The presenters speaking about them was a reflection of that. What they could have done is a clip of all five performances before all five came out for sure, but even though say Melissa Leo's performance wasn't shown, someone like Halle Berry coming out and talking about it and her will generate a lot more interest in it, than one person otherwise just reading off names, and showing a brief clip. These were huge stars presenting to their peers, some of them up and comers who the public hadn't heard of. They are more likely to show an interest in that role if a star like Nicole Kidman or Halle Berry or Robert Deniro talk about it as big stars bring more attention. I would certainly add clips, but I would keep the five presenter format.

For the first time I've seen, the show wasn't all about the host, and the host wasn't wasting time on stage all the time. Hugh Jackman, for the most part, fell into the background and only reappeared at certain key moments. That's a good thing. The host is just there to introduce the show, close the show, and keep things running. Too many times before, the host became the focus, and it is the celebrities and the movies that I really care about.

Granted, the tribute to musicals was a bust. And what on earth made this year such a "comeback" for musicals? Mamma Mia and High School Musical 3? Come on! No musicals were even nominated this year - for anything! We've had better years recently - Chicago, Moulin Rouge. The whole tribute just seemed entirely strange and unfounded.

With that being said, Hugh Jackman was otherwise unobtrusive (I think the guy just has a big thing for musicals...). And it gave time for what I thought was the greatest change this year - the presenting of the acting categories by fellow actors (one for each nominee). I felt it was very personal, very poignant, and SO much better than a simple "and here are the nominees..." followed by a video montage. I felt the actors were actually honoured by the Academy, all of them, rather than just narrowly fitting in awards categories with mere listing off of the nominees (while the host does a bunch of filler in between the categories).

Furthermore, the introduction of the presenters was terrific in these cases, in my opinion. It began with a montage of clips of the previous winners for the award, and then the 5 presenters were introduced using sound clips of when they were themselves announced as the winner. It was very cool, nostalgic and atmospheric. It was still a very cool concept, in my opinion. Some of them were on the money, and you could tell the individual nominees being honoured were very touched by being appreciated by their peers in such a direct manner.

Moving on: Some of the video montages (in particular the one for Comedy of 2008) were terrific. Others weren't so great, but they didn't drag on too long, and ultimately they did serve to honour all film in the year, and not just those that were nominated.

And generally speaking, everything was rather snappy and well paced. Presenters were always ready nearby to be on stage, cuts to commercial and back to the show were quick and snappy.

All in all, it wasn't perfect, but it really felt like the show this year was ACTUALLY about honouring the nominees and the winners, and ACTUALLY honouring the films of 2008. Which is what I think it should be. So, I am happy with this year's effort. And if they can only keep one change that they made this year for all future broadcasts, it would be the five presenters for 5 nominees concept. I just really enjoyed the intimacy of that.

Alright, that is all for now! I hope there are others who also enjoyed the show.

Peace,
Mike

I agree O. I really think you said it far better than I ever could. It's the whole peers honouring peers idea that just really rings true for me. And basically everything else you said, that I would only be regurgitating. Hehe. Perhaps some presenters weren't well spoken enough on stage, but all in all, I really enjoyed it.

Peace,
Mike

early reaction

This is the quote of the week.

As for the rest of the comments re: the "end of the Oscars", etc. Whatever. It's like listening to clueless political and economic pundits trying to figure out what's going on with the economy on CNBC from day to day. Endless rattling and so much effort to sound knowledgeable and important. Meh, is all I can say.

I wish I had seen They Shoot Horses so I could get that one.

You haven't seen They Shoot Horses? You need to.

It's on Xbox/Netflix if you have that.

Did anyone else think the "previews" for next years "contenders" were shitty as hell?

Nothing sounded like it should have. The orchestra was lousy.