Oscars - Are they worth watching?

I only ask this as the awards seem to have been given out before the ceremony even begins.

The awards as I see them given (deserved or otherwise):

Best Pic: Brokeback Mountain
Best Director: Ang Lee
Best Actor: Philip Seymour Hoffman
Best Actress : Reese Witherspoon (maybe Felicity Huffman has an oustide chance but Reese is more Hollywood Royalty)
Best Supporting Actor: Jake Gyllenhaal
Best Supporting Actress : Actually this one is up in the air but as Frances McDormand is the only real known actress I suggest she will probably get it.
Best Animated Feature : Wallace & Gromit (is that the 4th Oscar for Nick Park?)
Best Documentary : March of the Penguins
etc etc
Then its up to Memoirs of a Geisha and Brokeback Mountain to split the rest with maybe George Clooney getting a gong for screenplay!

Knowing, or thinking you know, who is gonna win, does it make it less interesting?

is the reason I'll be watching.

I am a huge Jon Stewart fan - and the nice thing is that he is using his writers from The Daily Show so the script forthe show *should* be smarter and hipper than in years past.

I agree with many of your predictions - one movie sweeping a majority of the awards has been the trend of late - but that has always made a certain amount of sense - if a movie is actually the *best* you should, naturally, expect that many of the parts making up that whole should also be the *best* of the year.

Sometimes, however, there are surprises - remember the year that Silence of the Lambs grabbed all the big awards?

I'l be watching to see if Jake and Heath swap spit if they win...

The Red Carpet Goes Rolling Along!
As does the Dumbing-down of...America?...the whole damn world!
The network has expanded the pre-game show to an hour because Inquiring minds want to know:
Will Sally Kirkland arrive first...Again!
Will I-sick Misery grab a boob & show us Reese's buttercups?
Are Oprah's boobs full length?...why she can't wear a mini.
How do you pronounce, Bamigboye? (Whatever...sounds dirty--And fun!)
Will Cher ("Hey, maybe there's something more to this show than the show!") or (73 y.o.--Who started it all--And is now relegated to four hours [Four...f'ing... Hours!] on the T.V. Guide Channel.) Joan Rivers (Is she really boy-boy porn star, Deak Rivers grandma?) say something witty?...Will their plasticized faces allow enough movement for speech?
Meanwhile publicists (Fawncy-pouncy word for, touts.) for the dress designers run about handing out cards...flogging for I-sick & other designers--And the places where one can can rent Seemore Hoffman...or is it, Fallacy...Felicity Huffman's drag as soon as it's returned, providing she doesn't puke-up one of Puck's truffles all over it--And it smells of same: like pig flatulence?

Tune in tomorrow for the answers to these and other burning questions.

I'll be doing Jello-shots and watching to see Three 6 Mafia sing, "Hard Out here for a Pimp." But I wish it was Terrence Howard in a Dago Tee--Formal* (*No bleach holes.), of course.
Who do I think will win? Who-the-hell cares?

[manfarang-old]

I'm not sure that things are quite as decided as Fatman41 has indicated, although Philip Seymour Hoffman is pretty much considered a shoe-in for best actor. I think the most interesting thing is that there are so many GOOD films up for the award. Although the Academy Awards are known as the "Gay Super Bowl," I've avoided the show for several years. Thanks to the number of good films and the hosting by Jon Stewart, I may actually watch this year.

[cottmann]

I only ask this as the awards seem to have been given out before the ceremony even begins.

The awards as I see them given (deserved or otherwise):

Best Pic: Brokeback Mountain
Best Supporting Actor: Jake Gyllenhaal

Not quite. As far as I can see, the movie won no awards, not even for music.

I only ask this as the awards seem to have been given out before the ceremony even begins.

The awards as I see them given (deserved or otherwise):

Best Pic: Brokeback Mountain
Best Supporting Actor: Jake Gyllenhaal

Not quite. As far as I can see, the movie won no awards, not even for music.

Odd, that conflicts with my info that brokeback won three awards ...

http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... hp?p=70807 (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=70807)

[cottmann]

I only ask this as the awards seem to have been given out before the ceremony even begins.

The awards as I see them given (deserved or otherwise):

Best Pic: Brokeback Mountain
Best Supporting Actor: Jake Gyllenhaal

Not quite. As far as I can see, the movie won no awards, not even for music.

Odd, that conflicts with my info that brokeback won three awards ...

http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... hp?p=70807 (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=70807)

Arnold, you are correct and I was too hasty in posting. I see that Brokeback Mountain actually won Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Music/Original Score!

I note that the Israeli lobby has successfully prevented the nominated Palestinian film "Paradise Now" from winning a deserved Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. I know what they're frightened of- that Americans find out what's going on in their client state in the Middle East. On this issue, the US is no longer the guardian of free speech but the protector of war-criminals and racist colonists.
If you can, see the film. It is a truthful portrayal of what is happening in Occupied Palestine.

[Smiles]

" ... I note that the Israeli lobby has successfully prevented the nominated Palestinian film "Paradise Now" from winning a deserved Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film ... "
Of course, of course Nelson ... the "Israeli Lobby" ... of course of course.

Tell me, how do you know "Paradise Now" deserved to win an Oscar?
Is that simply your opinion, or is there some objective judgement criteria hanging about in the ether "somewhere" which automatically gives the Big Prize out (unbeknownst to everyone else) but, after the fact ~ of course ~ is ultimately unable to stand up against the nefarious power of the "Israeli Lobby"?

Could you give us more information about this nasty plot. [/*:m:2bkabg30]
Has this "Israeli Lobby" interfered in the Oscar process before? [/*:m:2bkabg30]
Will Oliver Stone end up making a small indie movie exposing such a lobby? [/*:m:2bkabg30]
Is it possible you'd like to perhaps equate (metaphorically speaking of course) the stealing of the Oscar from "Paradise Now" with Yassar Arafat's stealing of millions of dollars from his own people over the years. ( Insert the Sawatdee 'irony" smilie here: :ky: )[/*:m:2bkabg30]
So many questions ...

Cheers ...

I only ask this as the awards seem to have been given out before the ceremony even begins.

The awards as I see them given (deserved or otherwise):

Best Pic: Brokeback Mountain
Best Supporting Actor: Jake Gyllenhaal
Best Supporting Actress : Actually this one is up in the air but as Frances McDormand is the only real known actress I suggest she will probably get it.

Then its up to Memoirs of a Geisha and Brokeback Mountain to split the rest with maybe George Clooney getting a gong for screenplay!

And this my dears is why I am a poor man, a dead cert' never pays out in the long run.

Emboldened by their success in the Oscars, the Israeli lobby (which includes AIPEC) have also managed to coerce a New York theatre into backing out of a production of "My name is Rachel", a play based on the writings of Rachel Corrie, an American killed by her Israeli allies while helping a Palestinian family.
Smiles lives in his dream world because the US public are denied access to the truth, whether it be in film, drama or news broadcasts. He apparently enjoys his ignorance. Others die for it; eleven Palestinian children in the past week alone.
Incidentally, it is revealing that John Bolton chose to make his threats against Iran at an AIPEC meeting. This, Smiles, is part- and only part- of the Israeli lobby. Standing bravely against these racists and war-crime apologists are many American Jewish groups who would share my disdain for Smiles's heavy-handed attempt to equate support for human rights with anti-Semitism. Yes, Smiles, we British understand irony, particularly when it is as unsophisticated as yours.

[Smiles]

OK, I accept being called unsophisticated ... hell my Beloved says I am as well (and I'd trust his judgement over yours any old day). :cyclopsani:
But that doesn't answer any of my questions.

So, again ... how do you know this is a fact?:

" ... I note that the Israeli lobby has successfully prevented the nominated Palestinian film "Paradise Now" from winning a deserved Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film ... "
So does "someone" voting against "Paradise Now" automatically make him/her part of the Lobby? [/*:m:1coqg3ta]
Would it not be possible to just think there was a better film ... and vote accordingly, yet NOT be a Zionist murderer?[/*:m:1coqg3ta]
Who is the Head Dude of the Lobby? [/*:m:1coqg3ta]
Can you attach specific "names" to this group? [/*:m:1coqg3ta]
How long has the Lobby been planning this cinematic coup d'etat?[/*:m:1coqg3ta]

So maybe attempt to get beyond name-calling, and help us (me?) out with some specifics which might make your theory appear less sophomoric.
(Damn ... I think I just let myself get carried away with the childish name-calling. Sorry)

Cheers ...

[Bob]

Tsk, tsk, Smiles. When you're biased in the first place, little old things called facts often get in the way of one's "truth."

Two answers for Smiles;
1)The Golden Globes which usually "get it right" on the minor awards, pronounced Paradise Now to be the Best Foreign Language Film, at which a party of Israelis were sent to Hollywood to canvass against the film. A petition was organised with the usual threats.
2)AIPEC (the ones who have been caught spying on the US Government, but still retain the support of the Neo-Cons) . It exists in order to further the interests of the Zionist state. Read its web-site. It is not a "shadowy group (I note the implication) but exists in the mainstream of US politics. Both Bolton and Cheney have addressed it this week. You should note its influence on the Iraq disaster and its sabre-rattling against Iran. Bush does.

When I was in Hebron (Palestine) in June, I stood next to the Mosque where Zionist settlers, some from the US- remember Baruch Goldstein, the Zionist who massacred thirty Palestinians at prayer, an act which led to the first ever suicide bomb, carried by one of the victim's cousin- have ethnically cleansed Palestinians from their homes and created a ghost town where once a flourishing market stood. With me were some heroic Americans from the Christian Peacemakers' Team; you have recently read about the hostages in Iraq from this group. Seeing their courage (which shamed me- I was terrified of the Israeli soldiers) I learned an important lesson; I should never make the mistake of assuming that all Americans support the policies of Bush, the Christian fundamentalists, AIPEC and all the other poisonous groups which have done so much harm to the poor and the innocent.
Sometimes, in my righteous anger, I forget this lesson and speak ill of a country when I should speak only of a government.
The same is true of Israel. I also know brave Israeli Jews in Gush Shalom and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. When I'm tired or depressed with the suffering I witness in Palestine, I return to London and Thailand. They have to live through it. I wish to speak out for them because I can do so little to help the struggle for freedom when I'm there.

[Smiles]

Two answers for Smiles;
1)The Golden Globes which usually "get it right" on the minor awards, pronounced Paradise Now to be the Best Foreign Language Film, at which a party of Israelis were sent to Hollywood to canvass against the film. A petition was organised with the usual threats.

The last time I looked the Golden Globes functioned as any other awards ... i.e. voting for any given film is by one's own opinion.
Winning a GG may, or may not, be an indication that the film may also win an Oscar. "Brokeback Mountain" (for instance) won a GG for best picture, but it lost out to another film ("Crash") at the Academy Awards just a month later. Perhaps "Brokeback ... " was just another victim of the Israeli Lobby (or as I suspect you mean, The Jewish Lobby)?: " ... a "party of" which left for Hollywood just hours after the awards were presented at the GG's in a suspicious Learjet, painted black in colour and having undeniable "stealth" characteristics ... ".

2)AIPEC (the ones who have been caught spying on the US Government, but still retain the support of the Neo-Cons) . It exists in order to further the interests of the Zionist state. Read its web-site. It is not a "shadowy group (I note the implication) but exists in the mainstream of US politics. Both Bolton and Cheney have addressed it this week. You should note its influence on the Iraq disaster and its sabre-rattling against Iran. Bush does.

I think I've read this conspicacy theory before . . . a good friend of mine (from Pattaya actually) gave me a copy of The Da Vinci Code on my last trip. AIPEC (whatever that is) sounds remarkably like Opus Dei.
Take a "shadowy group", have (Michael?) Bolton sing at one of it's fund-raisers ... hey, who wouldn't attend? Especially good for guys-in-power who've just come through a nasty episode wherein he inadvertantly shot a good friend in the head (mistaken for a small bird-in-bush!). One needs his stress-relieving diversions, wouldn't you agree?
Those AIPEC guys know how to put on a good diversion ... let me tell you.

When I was in Hebron (Palestine) in June, I stood next to the Mosque where Zionist settlers, some from the US- remember Baruch Goldstein, the Zionist who massacred thirty Palestinians at prayer, an act which led to the first ever suicide bomb, carried by one of the victim's cousin- have ethnically cleansed Palestinians from their homes and created a ghost town where once a flourishing market stood. With me were some heroic Americans from the Christian Peacemakers' Team; you have recently read about the hostages in Iraq from this group. Seeing their courage (which shamed me- I was terrified of the Israeli soldiers) I learned an important lesson; I should never make the mistake of assuming that all Americans support the policies of Bush, the Christian fundamentalists, AIPEC and all the other poisonous groups which have done so much harm to the poor and the innocent.
Sometimes, in my righteous anger, I forget this lesson and speak ill of a country when I should speak only of a government.
The same is true of Israel. I also know brave Israeli Jews in Gush Shalom and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. When I'm tired or depressed with the suffering I witness in Palestine, I return to London and Thailand. They have to live through it. I wish to speak out for them because I can do so little to help the struggle for freedom when I'm there.

You are a hopeless prisoner of your own blinkered ideology Nelson. But that is as it ever is with ideologues, there ain't no talkin' to them.

You lost me forever a few years ago when you said in a post (either on the old PattayaGay or the 1st incarnation of Sawatdee Forum. Sorry, can't remember which) that you thought it would be a good idea if the Iranian Mullahs ~ the most vicious, puritanical, and anti-democratic group in power in any country on this earth, putting Bush & Co. to complete shame ~ managed to get themselves a few armfuls of nukes.

The most dangerous folks in this dear world have always been (for centuries) the fanatical idealogues who kill (or applaud others killing) for A- Good-Idea.
From your writings alone over these years ~ for myself at least (I'm not attempting to convince others) ~ sadly you are one of those dudes.


Cheers ...

I wish I had an ideology; it would help me make sense perhaps of the willful ignorance that surrounds this issue, particularly in the US. I have none; I'm an old-fashioned social democrat, brought up as a Methodist and still sympathetic to that up-bringing. The difference between us is that I speak from experience and from what I have seen while Smiles repeats the old deceptions of the US media and has never troubled to seek out the truth. Perhaps a belief in justice and human rights is an ideology in Smiles's view; if so, then I'm profoundly guilty.
And is Smiles really serious about not having heard of AIPAC? Surely he saw the Cheney and Bolton speeches this week, delivered under its banner? And surely he read about the trial of the spies? If the answer is yes, then my rather unkind allegation of willful ignorance is more than justified.