[espnfan]

#1203349035

I second the above notion, thank you for compiling this list. That is a pretty impressive list of facts and history above.

I was shocked last weekend when The Irishman was completely skunked and went 0-10. I thought they would have thrown it at least one measly award, likely one of the technical awards. I was happy for Parasite and most of the winners, but am still saddened to know the Irishman cannot be called an Oscar winner.

After reviewing the list above, it dawned on me that director Martin Scorsese has now helmed two separate films that have gone 0-10 at the Oscars. Talk about a career!

• This reply was modified 11 months ago by espnfan.
• This reply was modified 11 months ago by espnfan.

Reply

[espnfan Joined: Nov 24th, 2011 Topics: 2 Posts: 1492 View Predictions]

#1203336917

Chris Beachum wrote:

It’s now looking like both Joe Pesci (on his birthday) and Anthony Hopkins will be there tonight. That would mean all attendance by all 19 people nominated in acting categories.

I am so glad to hear this news. I know it should not matter in the big picture, but it is always nice to see the nominees actually show up and attend, especially if they actually happen to win. Unlike most other award shows, I cannot help but believe their is still a degree of prestige and class to the Oscars. And having all our nominees actually care enough and bother to show up is a testament to that. Plus it is even better when living legends like Hopkins and Pesci show up.

Oh yeah, Happy Birthday to Mr. Pesci! I did not know today was his B-Day.

Reply

[espnfan Joined: Nov 24th, 2011 Topics: 2 Posts: 1492 View Predictions]

#1203336172

WildforFilm wrote:

I’m getting so tired of Billie Eilish. I don’t care if she has a Bond song coming out, we don’t need her this year! Waste of time.

Thank you. I 100% have to agree with you. I hope she does not ruin the Oscar ceremony like she did the Grammy Awards. I cannot wait for her to fade away into obscurity.

And I am confused as to why they feel it necessary to do a Kobe Bryant tribute. I immediately cringed when I read that news. I agreed with another poster here, talk about desperate. I know he is an Oscar winner, but let’s be honest, I bet the majority of his fans were not even aware of that and I doubt the majority of people ever saw his short film.

It kills me to see the Academy Awards trying so hard. I know ratings have been tough this past decade, but it still makes me sad. Overall, this has to be one of the most lackluster list of presenters I have ever seen. Considering how horrid and awful both the Emmy Awards and Grammy Awards were this past year, I am crossing my fingers the Oscars can be a little bit better.

Reply

[espnfan Joined: Nov 24th, 2011 Topics: 2 Posts: 1492 View Predictions]

#1203336165

Chris Beachum wrote:

Joe Pesci is planning on being there, but anything can change.

I am so glad to hear that Joe Pesci is planning on being at the Oscars tonight. I am such a huge fan of his and have missed him for a long time. I know he will not be doing the red carpet, but it will be nice to see him again. It is a shame Anthony Hopkins will not be attending, but I can understand his desire to stay home.

Reply

[espnfan Joined: Nov 24th, 2011 Topics: 2 Posts: 1492 View Predictions]

#1203222599

Vicki Leekx wrote:

I have no doubt all three big names will be nominated for The Irishman, but I wouldn’t mind if Pesci missed. I thought he was good, and quietly menacing at times, but definitely not Oscar worthy. It felt like he could have done this role in his sleep. Out of the three, I think he was given the least to do and it showed. Of course he’ll be nominated, the BP nominee/Scorcese reunion/coming out of retirement narrative is too undeniable, but I just think it’s shame he’ll take the spot of a more deserving performance because of his name.

Interesting post. I absolutely adore Joe Pesci and have missed him acting something terrible, but I cannot help to agree with some of your sentiments. My issues with the Irishman aside, I thought Pesci was absolutely terrific in the Irishman. With that said, I could not help but feel I have seen this from him before. Or like you mentioned above, it felt like he could have given this performance in his sleep. I was honestly hoping for a little bit more out of him. I know it was not the same performance as those from Goodfellas or Casino, but I saw shades of those performances in his Irishman work.

Where I have to disagree with you is the notion he does not deserve to be nominated. I thought both him and Pacino were excellent and more than deserving of nominations. When it comes to the win, I would favor Pacino over Pesci. I have a hard time seeing either of them not getting nominated January 13.

[espnfan Joined: Nov 24th, 2011 Topics: 2 Posts: 1492 View Predictions]

#1203185971

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but does anyone think Joe Pesci’s chances might be hurt by the fact he is not doing any publicity or campaigning for The Irishman? I would love to see him nominated, but I wonder if the Academy might forget about him if he chooses to not do any campaigning (similar to Robert Redford a few years ago for All is Lost). Unless I am mistaken, I have not heard a peep or seen him anywhere these past two months while The Irishman ramped up for it’s debut.

And unless he all of a sudden changes his mind or has something else planned, I do not anticipate him creating much of a campaign for himself. Heck, even if he is nominated for a Golden Globe or SAG award, I wonder if he will actually show up for the ceremonies at all. I am sure Netflix may want to push him in these coming weeks/months and campaign for him, but I highly doubt he will take part in that.

So does anyone think his decision/unwillingness to campaign and promote himself and his film will hurt his chances at a nomination and/or possible win?

[espnfan]

#1203111776

That Don Guy wrote:

Any program or movie that is shown in a non-broadcast public performance such as a movie theater before it airs on television is ineligible for an Emmy. AMPAS already has a similar rule (no TV pilots or episodes of TV series are eligible for Oscars); why not the Television Academy?

If you want to stop vote splitting, change all categories to “area voting,” where each voter can vote for as many of the nominees as they want, and whoever gets the most votes wins. (However, there’s no need to include the rule that any nominee that gets at least 90% “yes” gets an Emmy.)

Here’s a rules change I can see happening: get rid of the “no more than one winner in Exceptional Merit in Documentary Filmmaking” mandated by the rules – after having two winners in that category this year, why bother with it?

Thank you for bringing this up. I was thinking the same thing when I saw Free Solo won multiple Emmy awards this year (I believe every Emmy they were nominated for actually). They achieved this despite winning the Oscar for Best Documentary Film. I believe the same thing happened when “O.J. Simpson: Made In America” won both Emmys and the Oscar.

Call me confused, but I do not understand how a program can win both an Oscar and multiple Emmy awards. Maybe someone can explain the rules to me concerning this issue, as I am not fully aware. Whatever the rules are, it seems like a crock to me that a project can so blatantly double dip like this.

I know it may be an old fashioned notion, but something that is made for the theaters should be considered a movie and potentially rewarded with an Oscar. And something that is made for television should be considered TV and properly reward through the Emmys.

I also agree about adjusting the guest acting rules concerning the number of episodes appeared in and amount of screen time required as well. Bringing back blue ribbon panels for some of the creative arts Emmys is not a bad idea either.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by espnfan.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by espnfan.

Reply

[espnfan Joined: Nov 24th, 2011 Topics: 2 Posts: 1492 View Predictions]

#1203098978

I have to agree with the many members here who have stated their displeasure with this year’s telecast. This was honestly one of the worst produced awards shows I have ever seen. Although Fox generally does a piss poor job broadcasting the Emmy’s, (see 2007 with Ryan Seacrest and the round auditorium), this year’s telecast was a whole new level of awful. I consider winning an Emmy to still be a major honor, but last night’s broadcast stripped the award of all significance, class, and gravitas.

Where the Oscar’s flourished without a host, the Emmy’s fell flat on their face. This show felt directionless, randomly going from one bit to the next category and so on. The opening was chaotic, disjointed, and completely unfunny (when are industry insiders going to acknowledge how annoying Anthony Anderson is and stop pushing him in everything?). Bryan Cranston did the best he could in a thankless role.

The randomness of sometimes showing clips and other times not, the random intro and winners music, and not showing the nominees while announcing winners was awful. And the completely asinine commentary by Thomas Lennon (who is actually pretty talented and funny) was downright painful. Another unnecessary song/dance number at the Emmys was awful as well. Although I like the idea of not having a host, maybe the show would have been better organized and flowed better with one.

The whole bit with Ken Jeong was painful. When will award show producers realize the endless banter and bits between celebrity presenters is almost always not funny and usually annoying? I will always appreciate Frances McDormand saying nothing when she presented at the Oscars earlier this year.

Although I appreciated the “in memoriam” tribute to shows which ended this year, it kind of felt a little bit like filler to me. I guess in fairness you had to acknowledge those shows after going so far out of the way to honor GoT and Veep.

I really enjoyed most of the winners this year. It is a shame the telecast was so horrendous. As someone who truly loves TV and the Emmy awards, I worry about the future of the Emmy telecast. I fear it is heading the way of the MTV VMA awards, falling into total irrelevance. With Pay, streaming, and cable networks dominating the wins, and all-time low ratings, I can see a day where the broadcast networks give up on airing the Emmy awards.

Reply

[espnfan Joined: Nov 24th, 2011 Topics: 2 Posts: 1492 View Predictions]

#1202912816

^Very True. I honestly sometimes forget she was in that (shame on me). That film is yet another example of the inherent talent and ability that lies within her. Hopefully things will continue to look up and she can find some truly great projects after BLL season 2.

Reply

[espnfan Joined: Nov 24th, 2011 Topics: 2 Posts: 1492 View Predictions]

#1202912806

Looks like I may be in the minority here, but sorry, Lena Heady did nothing to deserve an Emmy this past season on GoT. Heck, I would even argue the material given her doesn’t even warrant a nomination.

And that is a real damn shame. I do not argue that she was great in “The Bells” but the extremely limited screen time and material simply does not warrant an Emmy.

Her situation reminds me very much of Elizabeth Moss in “Meditations in an Emergency”. Not that those performances are the same, but I feel aspects of their situations are similar. They both gave great performances, but certain factors did/should get in the way of them winning.

I absolutely adore Peggy Olsen/Elisabeth Moss and consider “Meditations in an Emergency” to be some of her career best work in “Mad Men”. But I could not justify her winning for that episode or season as a whole. And sadly Lena Heady has had a vastly weaker season than Moss did in her respective season.

Lena Heady did a fantastic job as Cersi Lannister and should have already won an Emmy for her work on GoT. She often rose far above the writing given to her. What could have been a one-note villain was transformed into a complex and even empathetic character. She deserved to win, but certainly does not for this past season.

[espnfan Joined: Nov 24th, 2011 Topics: 2 Posts: 1492 View Predictions]

#1202912790

Funny you should create this thread, as I was just thinking about Shailene Woodley after recently watching “Big Little Lies”. As a huge entertainment junky, I love tracking the rise of young stars, and at one point I surely thought Shailene Woodley was on her way.

There was a point and time where I truly thought SW was going to be one of the biggest young starlets in Hollywood, headlining blockbusters and doing the occasional awards bait indie. After making the jump from TV (The Secret Life of the American Teenager), and the launch of “Divergent” and success of “The Fault In Our Stars”, mega-stardom was on its way. Or I thought she was going to have a career and profile similar to that of contemporaries like Jennifer Lawrence and Emma Stone.

I do not exactly know quite where/when, but her career has seemingly stalled out to varying degrees. My understanding is she has no desire to be a Hollywood “starlet” and lives an extremely private life, as much off the grid as a celebrity possibly can.

The above may play a factor, but there has to be more than just that. Heck, Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts have proven you can be a world wide star and still retain a private life. I do wonder how much the collapse of the “Divergent” franchise had to do with her career trajectory.

Despite everything, the talent and ability is very much still there. She was rather excellent in “Big Little Lies”. I hope BLL can help re-ignite her career and lead to some other awards worthy material.

Reply

[espnfan Joined: Nov 24th, 2011 Topics: 2 Posts: 1492 View Predictions]

#1202011428

Sorry if this has already been discussed, (and it probably is every year after the show) but it’s difficult not to feel the Grammy’s are getting way too bloated and overstuffed.  I appreciate their attempt to celebrate music and differentiate themselves from the other awards shows.  At this point many of the performances are dragging the show down and starting to make it a chore to watch.  Instead of having bloated and gratuitous acceptance speeches, the show is loaded with almost gratuitous and unnecessary performances that serve no purpose. 

I almost feel like this is the classic case of “less is more”.  I would rather see 10 truly great and memorable performances than 20 performances of wildly varying quality.  I would only consider three or four of the performances last night really worthwhile. 

Sorry but the Kelsea Ballerini and Lucas Graham mash-up was terrible.  I have no idea why someone would think those two songs were a good combination.  Not to mention Kelsea ballerina is turning out to be a pretty poor live performer as time goes on.  The Metallica performance could have been great, but once again a technical issue ruins a performance at the Grammy awards.  There really is no excuse for that. 

And oh boy, that Bee Gees tribute was painful to say the least.  I pretty much cringed through the whole thing and I am still having a hard time wrapping my mind around it.  The tribute neither captured the spirit, enjoyment, or quality or either the original artists or songs.  It felt more like bad karaoke numbers than it did a proper tribute.  Or it felt more like a segment from “Lip Sync Battle” only unfortunately they were actually singing.  I love Little Big Town, but what in the world do they have to do with The Bee Gees?

I understand the Grammys do not want to be your average awards show, but it would be nice if they could tone it down on the performances and show a couple more awards.  At this point the awards almost feel like an after thought to the performances, many of which are mediocre and forgettable to say the least.

Reply

[espnfan Joined: Nov 24th, 2011 Topics: 2 Posts: 1492 View Predictions]

#1201943274

I’m pretty sure I have mentioned this before, but I absolutely hate the pop/country mash ups they have been doing lately at the CMA’s. Sorry but Ariana Grande and Fall Out Boy have no business performing their hits at the CMA awards. I love Meghan Trainor as much as anyone, but did we really need to hear “All About that Bass” yet again? Country music is such a special and powerful genre of it’s own that the CMA’s should not need to pander to anyone else. Hopefully this year they stick to Country and only country, as it’s pretty darn amazing in it’s own right.

And while I have always felt awards shows should honor and recognize the current year’s crop of nominees first and foremost, I really hope the CMA’s take a chance to honor some of the true legends and past CMA winners this year. I know they are having a special tribute to Dolly Parton. But I hope they also have a chance to honor individuals such as Vince Gill, George Straight, Loretta Lynn, Willie Nelson, etc. Even simply having living legends like the above present an award would be a nice nod to them.

No matter what, I am super excited for the 50th Anniversary of the CMA Awards and cannot wait for the show tomorrow night.

Reply

[espnfan Joined: Nov 24th, 2011 Topics: 2 Posts: 1492 View Predictions]

#1201943249

^I’ve been wondering the same thing and I am not sure either. I am kind of hoping and thinking they may somehow pull of the ultimate collaboration and have all the artist of “Forever Country” perform the song to kick off the 50th CMA’s.

I do not know what else to call it besides historic if they can get 30-40 of the greatest country artists and legends of now, then, and forever together to perform at once. I am sure that would be one hell of a show stopper and one heck of a way to kick off their 50th anniversary.

I have no idea if Shania Twain is performing or not (if she is they are doing a great job of keeping it a secret) but no matter what I hope she is involved in the show somehow, most likely as a presenter. It would be a shame and almost wrong to have such a major anniversary and not include one of country music’s most beloved and successful artist ever as a part of it. Maybe I am biased as I am a long time fan of hers, but I’m really hoping she is there tomorrow night.

Reply

[espnfan Joined: Nov 24th, 2011 Topics: 2 Posts: 1492 View Predictions]

#1201942786

I am glad to see someone else finally bring this point up. I have been saying this for almost two years now, and I still cannot help but feel that they should lose their right to claim themselves as an “anthology” series with all the interconnecting they are doing now.

Or I started to feel that way ever since Pepper appeared in season 4 AHS:Freakshow after appearing in season 2 “Asylum”. I felt even more strongly about this point when Ryan Murphey announced a while back that all of the seasons would eventually be connected.

I never really cared for this whole Anthology classification in the first place but eventually got used to it and accepted it. But the more and more the seasons become intermingled and characters start recurring across seasons, I cannot help but feel the show is no longer an “anthology” and simply a regular drama series.

Reply