Ryan's always been somewhat overrated to me. I also think her looking down on 'where she came from' hasn't helped her endure in the industry. I mean, seriously, what on earth has she done in like forever? She's pretty much dropped off the face of the earth. I mean, she has every right to be critical of the writing for Betsy, who seemed ... dumb? LOL

Edited February 23, 201510 yr by KMan101

Soooo happy for Julianne Moore!!!

I'm so glad many agree with my thoughts on American Sniper. It seems you aren't allowed to criticize the movie anywhere.

Carlivati called Birdman "crap" on Twitter. He wanted Boyhood. He's one to talk about "crap". Look in the mirror, you write crap. I haven't seen either film but I now want to see ALL of the nominated movies (except Sniper, saw it)

That was long, boring, lackluster, flat, uninteresting ... any other words to add? LOL All you needed to do was watch the end credits to see all the 'moments'.

Seriously what does that fool know about something good?? His soap is full of crap...

Seriously what does that fool know about something good?? His soap is full of crap...

Just another tweet of his to make me dislike him even more than I do. He just seems like such a miserable, pissy bitch of a man to be honest.

Carlivati called Birdman "crap" on Twitter. He wanted Boyhood'.

You misread his tweet. He said he wanted the BOY who was in "Boyhood."

What I've learned from tonight's telecast:

1. NPH is about as funny as a dead baby in a microwave.

2. Blacks are people, too!

3. Dreams can come true even for people who love the soaps (YAY JULIANNE!); and

4. My new boyfriend, Graham Moore, loves me because I'm weird. (I think that's what he said, anyway.)

Edited February 23, 201510 yr by Khan

Ron Carlivati @carlivatiron · 9m9 minutes ago

Birdman was not a good movie. Wake up, Academy.

Follow

Dora Martinez‏@xViDa3

@carlivatiron Hater!!!! What u write is Crap!!!!' Or maybe Racist!!!!!

0 replies6 retweets26 favorites

What I've learned from tonight's telecast:

1. NPH is about as funny as a dead baby in a microwave.
2. Blacks are people, too!
3. Dreams can come true even for people who love the soaps (YAY JULIANNE!); and
4. My new boyfriend, Graham Moore, loves me because I'm weird. (I think that's what he said, anyway.)

Wow, Vee, you and I agree -- and I haven't even seen "Birdman." I just wanted Keaton to win, because he is one of my faves.

Can you explain more why the Academy wouldn't want to honor "Boyhood"?

At a guess? Boyhood is a very long, somewhat naturalistic and experimental film from a filmmaker who often operates outside the mainstream of Hollywood. It is semi-plotless and does not follow a lot of formal structure. Birdman is also somewhat experimental and edgy but has a clearer throughline and a comeback narrative with Michael Keaton, and it gives the judges street cred while not being too 'dangerous' in the way they regard Selma, which, many have said anonymously, offended and upset them with the way its cast and crew treated the PR campaign, hence all its snubs. The Academy is often a very petty, vapid bunch. They like comeback stories (Michael Keaton) and stuff that makes them look liberal and edgy, but not too liberal - and they don't like stuff that tries to confront them, vs. their educating others.

A lot of Academy voters are older, white and old-fashioned - for example, their sensibilities were more in line to give the Oscar to Crash for its safe yet 'edgy' liberal apologia versus daring to touch Brokeback Mountain, which many of them felt was 'pretentious' and 'inappropriate.' Same thing with stuff like Selma or Boyhood, in different ways.

I think Birdman is a great film, but it is not better than Selma. It does, however, make the Academy look cooler for picking it, which is what they really care about.

The amazing thing is Ron Carlivati considers any soap that even vaguely resembles Boyhood to be boring.

Edited February 23, 201510 yr by Vee

I had forgotten about the "Brokeback Mountain" snub, Vee. And what you've said totally makes sense.

Apparently Oprah is still carrying that Logo Oscar in her hands at the after party....LOL

Apparently Oprah is still carrying that Logo Oscar in her hands at the after party....LOL

That's so...funny?

That's so...funny?

Thats the way they are tweeting it...as funny...and it was by one soap producer..wont say which one...

I'm concerned Oprah thinks she won a real #Oscar. She can't Lego!

and theres a pic of her still holding it.

Edited February 23, 201510 yr by Soapsuds

No, I mean, "What is Oprah going for, carrying around a Lego Oscar (Legoscar?) as if it's the real thing?".

All I keep hearing about is how racist the jokes were and how a number of the black actors and actresses were uncomfortable...it sounds like tone deaf Hollywood at its worst.

I will watch Julianne's speech and the memorium (?) but is there anything else worth seeing?

No, I mean, "What is Oprah going for, carrying around a Lego Oscar (Legoscar?) as if it's the real thing?".

oh dont know

All I keep hearing about is how racist the jokes were and how a number of the black actors and actresses were uncomfortable...it sounds like tone deaf Hollywood at its worst.

I will watch Julianne's speech and the memorium (?) but is there anything else worth seeing?

Just watch Julianne's win and you will be fine.

All I keep hearing about is how racist the jokes were and how a number of the black actors and actresses were uncomfortable...it sounds like tone deaf Hollywood at its worst.

I will watch Julianne's speech and the memorium (?) but is there anything else worth seeing?

That's what I'd like to know, I DVR'd it to avoid NPH's floor show

The lack of diversity criticism seems a little unfair if we assume the voting isn't rigged and the nominees got the highest votes. What should the Oscars do in that situation? I also don't think the Oscars actively seek any audience since they are traditionally the second highest rated show of the year after the super bowl. I am seeing a spanish speaking guy win best director and accepting for best picture, does he count? It just doesn't seem like there is a monolithic "they" who controls who gets nominated but they can control who gets on the program.

It is unfair and everyone knows that the Oscars is rigged to the "T". You have to campaign and play the game to win. It's a rarity [i.e. Mo'Nique] that someone's performance is outstanding that they can't deny it a win despite them not 'playing the game.'

Just because you're known to have a high telecast does not mean you don't seek to gain even more viewers. Networks have been clocking the power behind AA viewing power, a power that has always been there might I add, this past year. So they were actively seeking AA viewership; especially when nominations came out and 'Black Twitter' had a large outcry against the shutting out of Selma. Most of those posts consisted of people threatening to not watch the telecast. Don't think that the Academy and ABC didn't take notice.

So what did they do to fix the issue?

Clearly diversify the presenters, thus trying to show the viewers that they "care" for diversity when all know that's bulls**t. They even went as far as having ABC promote who the presenters were [most of them were black], asking "Are you going to be there?"

My answer is, hell no. I went to sleep and just woke up in time to see the only category I cared to see--Best Actress. And that's because of Julianne, who I adore.