Oscars 2012 ?

2»

Comments

  • CadivaCadiva Posts: 18,409
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yep, done, I'm heading off now though so the rest of you will need to spread the love :)
  • ianlawnianlawn Posts: 1,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Can anyone else send link, i messaged cadiva but no reply
  • StykerStyker Posts: 49,551
    Forum Member
    There will be an hour and a half's highlights shown later on tonight on either Sky one or Living, around 10pm.
  • OleSmokeyOleSmokey Posts: 172
    Forum Member
    At the moment, these are the awards that no one really cares about, let's be honest. :)
  • StykerStyker Posts: 49,551
    Forum Member
    So there is a link to see it?
  • paulbrockpaulbrock Posts: 16,632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Si_Crewe wrote: »
    I see Borat has ignored requests that he not attend the Oscars in his "Dictator" costume.

    What a total tasteless c**t that man is. :(

    Just a publicity stunt for his next movie. How is it tasteless?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,830
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Streep should play Gillard next.
  • GortGort Posts: 7,460
    Forum Member
    Si_Crewe wrote: »
    I see Borat has ignored requests that he not attend the Oscars in his "Dictator" costume.

    What a total tasteless c**t that man is. :(

    Your overreaction makes it sound as if he took out his todger and started waving it around while singing My Boy Lollipop. Get a grip...
  • paulbrockpaulbrock Posts: 16,632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Apparently there's streaming on oscars.com. Not sure of details, probably needs a us proxy
  • Si_CreweSi_Crewe Posts: 40,202
    Forum Member
    paulbrock wrote: »
    Just a publicity stunt for his next movie. How is it tasteless?

    You answered your own question there.
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,895
    Forum Member
    Has there ever been a best actor/actress oscar go to someone in such a god-awful film as The Iron Lady before? I mean, compare the quality of a film to the quality of the lead performance - Streep/Iron Lady must be at opposite ends of the scale in that regard.

    I just don't recall such adoration for a single performance in such a dog of a film before. Can anyone else?
  • Froggie72Froggie72 Posts: 5,733
    Forum Member
    petertard wrote: »
    Streep should play Gillard next.

    I could really see her doing Marie Colvin...
  • Killer GorillaKiller Gorilla Posts: 3,672
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Oscars are disappearing further up their own arse with every passing year.
  • JoLucJoLuc Posts: 1,727
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I thought the Iron Lady wasn't as good as the 1st in the series. Iron Man was much better!
  • OleSmokeyOleSmokey Posts: 172
    Forum Member
    Crystal was quite dissapointing.

    I highly enjoyed his other hostings, however.
  • CadivaCadiva Posts: 18,409
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ianlawn wrote: »
    Can anyone else send link, i messaged cadiva but no reply

    Not sure what happened there but I didn't get a PM from you, sorry :(
  • LMLM Posts: 63,326
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Too predictable this year
  • fluffedfluffed Posts: 1,791
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Oscar Academy voters must be the laziest bunch of people ever.
    Why give a picture one or two awards, when you can save time and give each one 4 or 5?
    Hugo really didn't deserve all those technical awards, (come on sound editing better than Drive?) and The Artist picked up a couple (costume design, score) that it wouldn't of done if it hand't won best picture.
  • blacksuit42blacksuit42 Posts: 820
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    fluffed wrote: »
    Oscar Academy voters must be the laziest bunch of people ever.
    Why give a picture one or two awards, when you can save time and give each one 4 or 5?
    Hugo really didn't deserve all those technical awards, (come on sound editing better than Drive?) and The Artist picked up a couple (costume design, score) that it wouldn't of done if it hand't won best picture.

    I'm baffled to, as to how the makeup in The Iron Lady was better than the makeup in Harry Potter. I mean, anyone can do normal make up, but the range of makeup required in Harry Potter was virtually flawless when put in practise!!
  • LMLM Posts: 63,326
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm baffled to, as to how the makeup in The Iron Lady was better than the makeup in Harry Potter. I mean, anyone can do normal make up, but the range of makeup required in Harry Potter was virtually flawless when put in practise!!

    That is what i thought too

    Crafting an old lady compared to the likes of Goblins and strange mystical beings is hardly unique.
  • haphashhaphash Posts: 21,448
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm baffled to, as to how the makeup in The Iron Lady was better than the makeup in Harry Potter. I mean, anyone can do normal make up, but the range of makeup required in Harry Potter was virtually flawless when put in practise!!

    Have to say I agree too. What won special effects? Its hard to beieve that the Potter films were once again passed over when the special effects/makeup/costumes/sets were all so well done.
  • paulbrockpaulbrock Posts: 16,632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm baffled to, as to how the makeup in The Iron Lady was better than the makeup in Harry Potter. I mean, anyone can do normal make up, but the range of makeup required in Harry Potter was virtually flawless when put in practise!!

    I've not seen the film, but it was more than just the usual lipstick and the like. To show Thatcher at different ages it was essentially almost a full head prosthetic at times. The fact that most people thought it was just regular makeup shows why they won the Oscar.

    More:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturevideo/filmvideo/8993474/The-Iron-Lady-Meryl-Streeps-Margaret-Thatcher-make-up-secrets.html
  • paulbrockpaulbrock Posts: 16,632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    haphash wrote: »
    Have to say I agree too. What won special effects? Its hard to beieve that the Potter films were once again passed over when the special effects/makeup/costumes/sets were all so well done.

    Hugo, which cleaned up on technical Oscars inc visual effects. Again, the trick here was that it wasn't immediately obvious which shots in Hugo *were* effects shots.

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-57386138-52/why-rango-and-hugo-won-at-the-oscars/
  • blacksuit42blacksuit42 Posts: 820
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    paulbrock wrote: »
    I've not seen the film, but it was more than just the usual lipstick and the like. To show Thatcher at different ages it was essentially almost a full head prosthetic at times. The fact that most people thought it was just regular makeup shows why they won the Oscar.

    More:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturevideo/filmvideo/8993474/The-Iron-Lady-Meryl-Streeps-Margaret-Thatcher-make-up-secrets.html

    You mean as opposed to the prosthetics used to make believable goblins, werewolves etc. in Harry Potter?
  • paulbrockpaulbrock Posts: 16,632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You mean as opposed to the prosthetics used to make believable goblins, werewolves etc. in Harry Potter?

    Exactly. Someone looks at a goblin on HP and says "nice prosthetics". Someone looks at Meryl streep in IL and says "she looks a lot like Thatcher", not "nice prosthetics" because they don't *realise* they're looking at prosthetics. That's why IL won makeup.
Sign In or Register to comment.