No bad writing did that.......

Honestly I think it was a little bit of both. The whole idea of this "movie star" deigning to be on their show was so arrogantly done.

So, I guess The Social Network was the film that lost the most momentum this award season, while The King's Speech was the one that gained the most momentum...

Though, really, I can't say I'm too surprised at the way things turned out...

I also wonder how much it had to do with dislike of Aaron Sorkin.

The Social Network was good, but I thought the Kings Speech blew it out of the water. I thought True Grit didn't get nearly enough praise. It was really good. I enjoyed it far more than I thought I would.

On a soap-related note, Tom Hooper directed a few episodes of EastEnders during the Mathew Robinson era (98-00), which was one of his first big breaks with the BBC.

Edited February 28, 201114 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

Honestly I think it was a little bit of both. The whole idea of this "movie star" deigning to be on their show was so arrogantly done.

Maybe but it was basically the second people heard he'd be part of something related to Jason people didn't care. He wasn't as "hot" then as he is now, if that makes sense

The LA Times/The Envelope has a great article on Oscar campaigns, dealing with how Sony/The Social Network lost a lot of momentum and probably screwed themselves over, whereas Weinstein/The King Speech played their cards right and how that film's rise was more gradual and how they let the actual film do the talking for itself.

http://theenvelope.latimes.com/news/la-et-oscar-mojo-20110228,0,5480590.story

I've always said the most interesting thing about Oscar season is the way the campaigns are handled by the studios. Many will never agree with what should have won or what should have been nominated, but it's easy to see which Oscar campaigns were strategically the best ones. I'm always glad when independent/lesser known films end up winning big as well...

That's an interesting story. It's always nice to see movies that remind people the royals are not some sort of horrible elitist figures, and I like most of the cast (although I preferred Helena-Botham Carter when she was an actress and not a walking display of dated performance art).

I was most interested in how they would handle the in memorium segment. It was much better than last year, to say the least, and I liked the idea of singing "Smile" and showing various clips of actors smiling. I also thought the tribute to Lena Horne was very moving. "Smile" is a treacly song but Celine Dion gave a very restrained performance.

The only thing I didn't like was they didn't have people speaking in the clips - I think that shows the true range of the actors we've lost.

I also wonder how much it had to do with dislike of Aaron Sorkin.

Aaron Sorkin won for Best Screenplay so they couldn't have disliked him that much.

That was ONE thing I was glad they dropped. They should have just showed the clips, but I found the whole big 10 minute presentations from the last two years so pretentious and just an ego-bloating session. Hated it.

I was just saying if they're going to do it, why not just do it with a personal touch? Otherwise, don't do it at all.

I also wonder how much it had to do with dislike of Aaron Sorkin.

There's a lot of a-holes in Hollywood and I doubt that plays in during the awards. Just look at Scott Rudin and Harvey Weinstein who are notorious for being a-holes.

I'm always glad when independent/lesser known films end up winning big as well...

Small independent films should at least make some money. The Hurt Locker grossing 17 million domestic and 47 million worldwide is just pathetic. And THL only sold 1,817,835 DVD units, ranking #32 for 2010. At least TKS is very respectable box office business with 245 million worldwide.

I thought the awards were very predictable this year, but nevertheless I was thrilled that Melissa Leo and Christian Bale won. I loved The Fighter and thought their performances were both award worthy.

I thought Anne did a better job than James with the hosting. She just seemed more relaxed and he seemed like he'd rather be anywhere on the planet other than where he was. Bring back Hugh Jackman next year!!

Fashion-wise, I don't know..I didn't think anyone was horrific, but nothing really jumped out at me as 'best dressed'. All in all a very boring night for Hollywood.

Ratings for AA's

http://www.tvline.co...r-ratings-2011/

Early indications are that Sunday’s Oscar telecast wasn’t a complete dud, ratings-wise at least.

Based on preliminary data, the critically panned James Franco/Anne Hathaway-hosted ceremony averaged a 24.6 rating and a 37 share in the metered markets. That represents a modest 7 percent decline compared to last year. More detailed numbers — including a total viewer tally and demo data — will be available later this afternoon.

A skit that was cut:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhTrlQEZbkI&feature=player_embedded

Edited February 28, 201114 yr by dragonflies

I read that James Franco was embarrassed with his performance at the Oscar's and didn't go to his after party cause he didn't want to face criticism! Instead, he left right away and caught a plane back to NY cause he had class today. Saw these pics he tweeted:

After the awards, drinking a bloody Mary

& then on the plane back to NY

I was very disappointed with his performance during the ceremony. Not surprised he was embarrased! Still LOVE him though.

He is the same everywhere he goes and everything he does - he seems to play some self-parody. Since they hired him they should have known that.

James was funny and delicious. I am a straight male but I'm not afraid to admit I have a little boycrush on James Franco.