Journos clash over sizing up the Oscarcast
Fans of the Oscars telecast at the L.A. Times are not only rising up in defense of Sunday's show, but they're openly clashing with their newspaper colleagues.
Immediately after the Oscars, Times writers Mary McNamara and Patrick Goldstein expressed harsh disapproval of the kudocast. McNamara suggested that host Hugh Jackman was actually worse than the worst-ever emcee in Oscars history, David Letterman. Goldstein gave him a thumbs-down too, saying, "You'd have to say that Jackman was a bust," adding, "I guess reinventing the Oscars is harder than it looks."
However, in today's paper, T.J. Simers fired back under the headline: "And the award for the most negativity goes to The Times." Kenneth Turan spoke up too: "The new-look Oscars played beautifully in my living room, and I could not have been happier to see that, despite multiple attempts by its detractors to muddy the waters," but he didn't specifically cite his print coworkers. Nor did he cite those of us on the cyber-side of the Times, who all appreciated the Oscarcast like he did, but it's clear that Turan is weary of the recent explosion in the number of Oscarologists piping in all derby season.
Brian Lowry of Variety is usually a laid-back fella, but he couldn't resist piling on from the sidelines.
Photo: Mark Bosler/ L.A. Times
RELATED POSTS:
Cheers and boos for the Oscars show
Oscars TV ratings bounce back with Hugh Jackman as host
Can Woody Allen earn 'Slumdog Millionaire' star Freida Pinto an Oscar?
'Slumdog Millionaire' looked like a strong Oscars filly right out of the gate
Will Oscar winners return to the race next year?
'Slumdog Millionaire' wins Oscars' triple crown like half of the last 20 best pix
Oscar winners were predicted by guild awards
Get Gold Derby on Twitter. Join the Gold Derby Group at Facebook. Become friends with Tom O'Neil on Facebook. Get Gold Derby RSS feed via Facebook. RSS Feedburner. RSS Atom.
Tina Fey should definitely host some time.
The thing is, yes, Hugh Jackman was better-suited for, and ultimately just plain better at, the Tonys. The song-and-dance numbers are more timely and less corny there. BUT, I loved seeing more music, and Hugh still did a terrific job opening even though the comedy was mostly missing.
The show only went over a half-hour and was never really boring even though most time was spent handing out awards to predictable winners. I would have liked 'Oscar scenes' for acting nominees, but what they did with the previous winners was absolutely wonderful in how timely and respectful to tradition it was.
I also liked how the awards were handed out in a rather rational manner. You had Will Smith, still the world's most popular star, out there for the three most technical awards. It made sense, he belonged, and it was great that we didn't have to waste time introducing new and irrelevant presenters for every single new category.
Otherwise, biggest props go to the set design for each presentation, as well as the circular seating.
Biggest criticism goes to whoever took an extra second to open the curtain in the very beginning, and whoever was manning the camera during the tribute - Queen Latifah singing would have been fine if we could just stay on the actual montage once it started playing.
Posted by: Zach | February 25, 2009 at 12:40 AM
I loved the show. I think it was the classiest Oscars ever. Yes, it does need some tweaking but in general, it was great.
Loved Hugh Jackman even though we didn't him much after that extraordinary opening (best opening in ages, by the way). One thing I loved was the acting presentations, did you see how touched Kate Winslet was by Marion Cotillard's words? Yeah, maybe Marion didn't write them but her respect and admiration for Kate showed and THAT was awesome.
I'd bring Hugh back for next year and also hire Tina Fey and Steve Martin as co-hosts :) I've heard many people suggesting that. I know, it might never happen but it'd solve the comedy problem.
Well done, Bill Condon!
Posted by: Isa | February 24, 2009 at 08:45 PM