Are you going to watch the Oscars?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:41 am

Then you be gay...according to comedian Chris Rock:

"I never watched the Oscars. Come on, it's a fashion show," Rock recently declared.

"What straight black man sits there and watches the Oscars? Show me one!"

Rock added: "Awards for art are f---ing idiotic."

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:57 am

He rocks.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:28 am

Why would I waste x hours watching people, that don't care about me, patting themselves on the back for yet another year of tasteless, mindless garbage? Rock is right. The Oscars is retarded.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:07 am

I have to agree as well. Heck, I never even watch TV, so I wouldn't know 99% of the idiots they put up there.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:17 pm

wot testi said

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:20 pm

Considering what crap it's been putting out lately (someone please shoot what's-his-name Stiller), Hollywood should be ashamed of such vain nonsense as award shows.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:24 pm

yet he gets paid for being there. lol

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:37 pm

LOL. Does ANYONE watch that big pile of steaming dog poo? I know of no other industry that a) takes itself so seriously, b) Thinks it's sooooo good, c) celebrates itself in quite OTT fashion.

Basically, any awards show sucks. But that's hardly surprising because 99.9% of TV simply sucks.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:37 pm

I only watched them last year for one reason...or should I say eleven.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:45 pm

awarding art is fine. modern movies aren't art.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:04 pm

I might watch the first part just to see Chris Rock's monologue.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:21 pm

I sometimes watch the red carpet to see how much skin is visible but I never watch the actual show. It's just too dang boring.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:53 pm

What Will said.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:43 pm

Testiculese wrote:Why would I waste x hours watching people, that don't care about me, patting themselves on the back for yet another year of tasteless, mindless garbage? Rock is right. The Oscars is retarded.

Not to mention rigged.

bash wrote:(someone please shoot what's-his-name Stiller)

That'd be Ben Stiller.

Jon the Great · Post by **Jon the Great** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:48 pm

You're haters! All of YOU!!

THE OSCARS ARE THE BEST!!
Everyone should watch!!!!!

This thread needed a good healthy difference of opinion.

I've rarely watched more than about an hour of the oscars in the past but not because I hate it. Usually just because I thought of something better to do.

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:53 pm

Testiculese wrote:Why would I waste x hours watching people, that don't care about me, patting themselves on the back for yet another year of tasteless, mindless garbage? Rock is right. The Oscars is retarded.

WORD

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:12 pm

what is this monologue you guys are talking about?

here in OZ a popular counterculture radio station plays a hilarious "alternate live commentary" on rugby games. so whenever (!) i watch a big game i always mute the TV, put on the radio and have a big laugh.

if you guys are saying that this kindof thing also exists for the oscars, i'm GONNA WATCH IT

(and tell me howto listen to it).

or are you saying that this chris rock stuff is just a standup act that comes before/after the oscars?

all this hollywood stuff is crap, they take themselves too seriously (considering the crap they spew and call movies) and give themselves WAY too much importance. but you know what they say: "say something over and over and over and eventually people will start to believe it".

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:18 pm

chris rock is a vey talented comedian. he is a dish best served raw. you ain't gonna get that at the oscars. but he is really clever, he'll slip something in that is edgy. but you will be watching him with the full knowledge he is holding back. which is sad.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:29 pm

I don't know how anyone can say that modern movies don't classify as art. Is that what it has come to? are some of you so desensitized by it all that you don't even give credit where credit is due? Not so much to the actors, but to the people who spend much more time and effort in putting a movie together.

If that is the case some of you need to have your eyes gouged out. In the age of CG we've been able to see stuff nobody ever thought was possible. The impossible is now made possible due to talented artists who slave away behind a desk for months on end to pound out frames of animation that need to be seamlessly integrated into a live action motion picture. If that isn't art...anyways...

I personally think Chris Rock hosting the Oscars is a blatent attempt at pandering to the current MTV generation (Most of our generation made it alright). Of course, had Foxx not done Ray then I'd imagine he would have been the host instead of being one of the actors up for awards this year. It really doesn't matter, but it just kind of seems tasteless IMO (Not that celebrities honoring their own celebrity isn't

).

However, the oscars aren't just about the actors. Which is one of it's most redeeming features. The Academy awards honors all the men and women that dedicated time and effort into putting the movies we've seen over the last year out. Granted, most of these awards are given at a seperate ceremony the day before I believe, but you have more then just the actors taking home gold and for some of these people, this is their shot at being recognized for the very first time by the industry they work in.

I think a lot of us would enjoy our work a lot more if we were given the recognition that goes along with being an actor/producer/director/designer etc.. in our everyday lives (yeah, and the money would be great too). Alright well...I'll end the rant here.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:14 am

Roid, it's just a monologue before the actual show. Alternate commentary would be far better, though.

Phoenix Red · Post by **Phoenix Red** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:37 am

Beowulf wrote:awarding art is fine. modern movies aren't art.

Just because you've been pulling the enlightened card to poo-poo the regulars, "modern" movies are art, as the word "modern" refers to a particular form of expression. I beleive the word you are searching for is "contemporary" which means recent, or of the current standard.

You get what you give.

on topic: I don't watch TV and rarely movies (because I prefer other wastes of time, not some intellectual excentricity :p) so, no.

Warlock · Post by **Warlock** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:23 am

i rather watch a bad porn insted of the oscars

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm

TheCops wrote:chris rock is a vey talented comedian. he is a dish best served raw.

A prime example of this is the movie "Head of State" or his quips in "Bad Company" and "Down to Earth".

Samuel Dravis · Post by **Samuel Dravis** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:16 pm

Not watching. I don't watch TV.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:58 pm

Awards shows are generally boring. *yawn* (rolls over)

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:46 pm

"The Academy awards honors all the men and women that dedicated time and effort into putting the movies we've seen over the last year out."

BS! People who's names scroll by never get anything more than a paycheck, and probably nowhere near as large of one as they should get.

Any credit these movies would get is completely trompled by the overused, under-utilized plot that's become so glaringly predictable, I can guess the whole movie by the trailer. Who will die, in what order, who gets which girl, and the end finale. The characters portrayed are so transparent and cliched it's pathetic. The complete lack of attention to the cohesion of even fairly large details is nauseating.
When some complete piece of ★■◆● like 'Dude, where's my car' get's an award...I mean c'mon. Or Terminator 3..haha what a joke, the whole group I was with walked out before the first hour.

I really wish they would make movies longer. There are so many that are almost-good. If they'd only made it a half-hour longer. Pumping out these 90 minute travesties is lowering the national average..

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:42 am

I actually have lately watched uh... all Academy Award ceremonies for the last few years or so.

This year will be a little different though, if I can be bothered at all. Mainly because I would barely recognise anything about the stuff that came out this year... just wasn't paying attention I guess.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:48 am

you thought "dude, where's my car" was predictable testi? i thought it was refreshing (didn't know it got an award though, don't care).

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:50 am

Actually, no, I couldn't make it through the first 15-20 minutes of the movie. His character was just too stupid to be funny. However, his role in The Butterfly Effect was surprisingly good. That was the first movie in *years* that I wasn't able to hash out in a matter of minutes.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:09 pm

Last I checked movies like "Dude, where's My Car" and "Terminator 3" weren't nominated for Academy Awards

I was talking about stuff like Music, Graphics, Wardrobe...etc..etc...

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:10 am

i like movies like dude where's my car. they are stupid, like a kid's movie. but with no moral lesson (unlike a kid's movie).
i watch them while drinking heavily, and are therefore a perfect excuse to laugh my arse off with friends.