STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Discussion in 'Entertainment, Culture, and Sports' started by lefty, Jan 10, 2013.
People always talk about artistic license, where is the artistic restraint?
It died with Barnett Newman.
Well, that was a bloody mess. McFarlane auditioning for his own variety show.
you KNOW you're gay when George Takei calls you out as being too gay...
I wasn't quite sure whether Tarantino was insulting his actors or giving backhanded compliments when he started talking about the characters he created. Then it all came together when he said how well he'd chosen the cast for the characters. Jamie Foxx looked a bit unsure of where the speech was heading when they showed him.
Seth MacFarlane: meanspirited, yet completely unfunny.
Lame jokes and even worse sense of timing...
The vaguely sociopathic vibe Ive always gotten from Family Guy becomes wholly explicit when seeing this guy in person.
This guy is the antichrist and the continuing popularity of his projects is evidence that Mike Judge's Idiocrity is closer than we think.
^ It was noticeable how off his timing was. Nerves perhaps. To me SM comes across as a smug asshole.
It's because he IS a smug asshole.
Seth MacFarlane seems so cynical that I would not expect him to have any close friends, or fall in love. That said, I enjoyed his hosting more than I thought I would because of the awkwardness.
Ben Affleck's comment about his marriage being a lot of work was strange.
As soon as the Ted skit started, I told my fiancee that the ADL would get it's panties in a bunch. Sure enough...
Mcfarlane was better than previous years hosts, but he did seem a bit awkward and I agree about the timing. Odd pauses and transitioning from one joke to the other. Capt Kirk sorta saved the opening act.
Re Ben affleck´s speech, that was one hell of a mess. He could barely get a word out and it was painfully obvious he was damn mad at the Academy for not getting a Director´s nomination.
So how do they determine best editing, sound editing and sound mixing? Its so technical that to laymen (or it could just be I'm an idiot) that they're all the same. I know they aren't...
Each branch nominates within their own category: directors nominate directors, editors nominate editors, etc. They vote for 5 in order of preference and these are used to determine the official nominations in a preferential voting system (look it up). Once that's done every member of the academy votes for a winner in each category.
So to answer your question - professionals nominate the best achievements in their technical category, say cinematography; then amateurs vote for the best cinematography based on, "I thought the colours were pretty."
this is damn well said.
id like to hope that if i ever that much money, i can hold back from being a smug asshole. -- im just glad walz won. i love that dude.
lefty, your posts here are both highly informative, and very funny. bravo.
So it is as esoteric as I thought. I can't imagine how one could find superior sound editing. And shouldn't an editor and their work NOT be noticed?
+1 on the lefty love. He's the one poster I have an sf crush on. You know its real because it didn't abate when I learned of his canadianism.
Another question. I imagine that within the academy there are like everywhere else there are factions with their own preferences and biases. Can you say roughly and generally what exists now and if one bloc has significant sway? basically give me some clues so I can make money betting on the Oscars next year.
Separate names with a comma.