The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

For the films of 2018
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by Sabin »

Reza wrote
All these supposed nods have a strong whiff of Doctor Dolittle from way back yonder though to give it some credit at least Black Panther is far more entertaining if equally popcorn fare.
This ignores what a cultural phenomenon the film was.
"How's the despair?"
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by Reza »

Sabin wrote:
The Original BJ wrote
It's getting the PGA nod for sure. The WGA has a way more populist contingent than the Academy's writers' branch, so it's probably in there too. SAG Ensemble isn't out of the question either (Roma isn't their style, and Green Book and A Star is Born have tiny enough casts to be iffy there). It seems about as likely as any movie to get the #8 or 9 Best Picture spot at the moment. (And on Oscar morning, it would alphabetically be the first Best Picture nominee read -- you can easily imagine the room of press cheering, in a moment not dissimilar to when Beauty and Beast became the first film of its kind recognized in that category.)
On the one hand, it's going to benefit largely from a rather weak field. On the other hand, I don't think people are prepared for how well it might do.

This is a weak year for film. Black Panther is a well-liked, high-profile film that hit the zeitgeist last spring and hasn't left. People on this board are still discounting its chances. Me? I think there are three categories where it absolutely, 100% has no chance: Actor, Actress, Supporting Actress. And obviously it's not eligible for Best Original Screenplay.

Yes, I'm serious.

For the record, I think it's going to be nominated for Best Picture. Beyond that? Best Production Design and Costume Design seem like very good bets. Best Sound Mixing and Sound Editing... why not? It seems as though Best Makeup usually favors extensive prosthetics more than hairstyling, but it certainly has a shot. Its use of Visual Effects were egregiously shoddy, so even though it's a weak field, I'd say probably not. Look at Arrival.

So that's... between five and seven?

The music branch is welcoming a lot of new talent in. They're going to nominate Ludwig Goransson at some point for Best Score. Best Original Song for "All the Stars?" It's a credit song but it's better than the movie (and IMO "Shallow"). At 2:15, it's very well-paced and covers a lot of ground. Best Editing has to be a possibility. I think it's not a very well-shot film (bad green screen), but Rachel Morrison is a name cinematographer in what appears also to be an open field. So Best Cinematography is up there as well.

Let's still keep five on the low. The high just went to eleven.

So, that leaves Best Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, and Director.

Look, there's doing a rundown for all of these. And I certainly don't think that Black Panther is going to end up with fourteen nominations but I think Black Panther has done what other superhero movies never managed to do. To so many people, it's become more than a movie. And the field is weak. Sure, it could pick up a handful of nominations. But I think it's going to do better than that.
All these supposed nods have a strong whiff of Doctor Dolittle from way back yonder though to give it some credit at least Black Panther is far more entertaining if equally popcorn fare.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by Sabin »

The Original BJ wrote
It's getting the PGA nod for sure. The WGA has a way more populist contingent than the Academy's writers' branch, so it's probably in there too. SAG Ensemble isn't out of the question either (Roma isn't their style, and Green Book and A Star is Born have tiny enough casts to be iffy there). It seems about as likely as any movie to get the #8 or 9 Best Picture spot at the moment. (And on Oscar morning, it would alphabetically be the first Best Picture nominee read -- you can easily imagine the room of press cheering, in a moment not dissimilar to when Beauty and Beast became the first film of its kind recognized in that category.)
On the one hand, it's going to benefit largely from a rather weak field. On the other hand, I don't think people are prepared for how well it might do.

This is a weak year for film. Black Panther is a well-liked, high-profile film that hit the zeitgeist last spring and hasn't left. People on this board are still discounting its chances. Me? I think there are three categories where it absolutely, 100% has no chance: Actor, Actress, Supporting Actress. And obviously it's not eligible for Best Original Screenplay.

Yes, I'm serious.

For the record, I think it's going to be nominated for Best Picture. Beyond that? Best Production Design and Costume Design seem like very good bets. Best Sound Mixing and Sound Editing... why not? It seems as though Best Makeup usually favors extensive prosthetics more than hairstyling, but it certainly has a shot. Its use of Visual Effects were egregiously shoddy, so even though it's a weak field, I'd say probably not. Look at Arrival.

So that's... between five and seven?

The music branch is welcoming a lot of new talent in. They're going to nominate Ludwig Goransson at some point for Best Score. Best Original Song for "All the Stars?" It's a credit song but it's better than the movie (and IMO "Shallow"). At 2:15, it's very well-paced and covers a lot of ground. Best Editing has to be a possibility. I think it's not a very well-shot film (bad green screen), but Rachel Morrison is a name cinematographer in what appears also to be an open field. So Best Cinematography is up there as well.

Let's still keep five on the low. The high just went to eleven.

So, that leaves Best Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, and Director.

Look, there's doing a rundown for all of these. And I certainly don't think that Black Panther is going to end up with fourteen nominations but I think Black Panther has done what other superhero movies never managed to do. To so many people, it's become more than a movie. And the field is weak. Sure, it could pick up a handful of nominations. But I think it's going to do better than that.
"How's the despair?"
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by The Original BJ »

Okri wrote:
The Original BJ wrote:Black Panther is way more likely than not at this point, IMO.
Et-tu BJ?
In a five-wide field, I don't think it would make it at all. But the spots are there now. The core of the race seems to be A Star is Born, Roma, The Favourite, Vice, Green Book, and BlackKklansman -- not sure I'd say every one is a "lock," but they'd have to slip pretty far to miss completely. If Beale Street Could Talk might be iffier -- it's an artier piece, and won't ignite the box office -- but, to borrow a political metaphor, it's getting the delegates it needs to stay in the race.

So that's seven. But what comes after that? Widows is dead. First Man is going to do well down-ballot, which could still carry it along to a Best Picture nomination, but it's in a lot of trouble. Bohemian Rhapsody is a hit, but the reviews are toxic. Some indies contending for acting/writing prizes (First Reformed, Eighth Grade, Can You Ever Forgive Me?) could squeak through, but they'll have to put up a fight. The "blockbusters must be nominated" crowd will be pushing for Crazy Rich Asians and Mary Poppins Returns, both of which seem way too popcorn, but if somehow they do beat the odds, it's alongside, not INSTEAD OF, the Marvel phenomenon.

Black Panther feels like it's in a better spot than any of these. It got the Golden Globe nomination, against all precedent. It's a humongous hit in a year when a lot of other contenders are not, and where at least some folks are concerned about proving that Oscar doesn't need that silly popular film prize. It's getting the PGA nod for sure. The WGA has a way more populist contingent than the Academy's writers' branch, so it's probably in there too. SAG Ensemble isn't out of the question either (Roma isn't their style, and Green Book and A Star is Born have tiny enough casts to be iffy there). It seems about as likely as any movie to get the #8 or 9 Best Picture spot at the moment. (And on Oscar morning, it would alphabetically be the first Best Picture nominee read -- you can easily imagine the room of press cheering, in a moment not dissimilar to when Beauty and Beast became the first film of its kind recognized in that category.)
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by Sabin »

Greg wrote
Which leads to the question, just how many people will be watching the show, regardless of who is hosting, if, as seems likely, A Star Is Born will be the only Best Picture nominee to have made more than $50 million in ticket sales?
Black Panther is a Golden Globe nominee for Best Drama. It's probably getting in. Also, Bohemian Rhapsody has grossed $170 mil-ish. It certainly has a shot at a Best Picture nomination.

Contrast this to last year where, yes, Dunkirk had $188 mil and Get Out had $176 mil. The Post hadn't been released yet and none of the Oscar heavies had sleepered their way to the $50-ish mil range and this year seems substantially more populist.
"How's the despair?"
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by Okri »

The Original BJ wrote:Black Panther is way more likely than not at this point, IMO.
Et-tu BJ?
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by The Original BJ »

Greg wrote:
Greg wrote:
Sabin wrote:There is no Hollywood royalty anymore. I cannot stress this enough. At least, not as you once knew it. People go to the movies not to see their favorite stars but to see their favorite characters.
e.g. look at the top ten box-office films so far this year on boxofficemojo.com. Every single one of them falls into the comic book/action/animated franchise category.

Which leads to the question, just how many people will be watching the show, regardless of who is hosting, if, as seems likely, A Star Is Born will be the only Best Picture nominee to have made more than $50 million in ticket sales?
Black Panther is way more likely than not at this point, IMO.
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by Greg »

Greg wrote:
Sabin wrote:There is no Hollywood royalty anymore. I cannot stress this enough. At least, not as you once knew it. People go to the movies not to see their favorite stars but to see their favorite characters.
e.g. look at the top ten box-office films so far this year on boxofficemojo.com. Every single one of them falls into the comic book/action/animated franchise category.

Which leads to the question, just how many people will be watching the show, regardless of who is hosting, if, as seems likely, A Star Is Born will be the only Best Picture nominee to have made more than $50 million in ticket sales?
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by Sabin »

I actually have a modicum of sympathy for him. He may very well have been evolving as a person over the past ten years. Lord knows, he wouldn’t be alone. And as a black entertainer crossing over as successfully and as young as he did... truly impressive. These producers threw him out there without any foresight or prep. He reacted poorly and it is now likely to follow him with renewed fervor. Who wins? This certainly won’t help him evolve in his views (I don’t for a moment believe that he wrote those “good” apology tweets).

Maybe it is time ABC just produced the show.

NOTE: then again, maybe this will get him to truly rethink his beliefs.
"How's the despair?"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote:
Which means he was probably never a good fit for this awards show.
From what you write, he definitely wasn't.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by Sabin »

MaxWilder wrote
But people with their calendars set to 2018 are very aware of Kevin Hart. He's already hosted and presented at award shows, less than tastefully. A 'background check' wasn't necessary. The Academy gambled that a ratings boost would be worth some bad press in the meantime. This was so easily avoidable.
I personally think it's smug to suggest "Oh, 2012. That was a different time." But it was. Additionally, the audience watching the MTV Video Music Awards is a different audience. But I really don't think that the Academy gambled that a ratings boost would be worth some bad press. I honestly don't. I think they're a version of incompetent. Maybe out of touch is a little more kind. Definitely stuck in the past. I think they had no idea.
Italiano wrote
This must be clear. And then, again I don't know what this guy wrote, so I can't say if his remarks were actually homophobic or if he was just making fun of homophobes, which of course would be a different matter. Guess I will never know and I don't really care. But tolerance is a value which should be carefully preserved, especially these days, so even old statements should be considered and, if not carefully explained, not forgiven. Definitely not.
1) He has a comedy routine (from back in 2010) where he said, as a father, he was terrified of having a gay son. The routine goes onto detail his fears of having a gay son, but I'd argue the bit goes a little farther than simply articulating anxieties into worse territory. Even within the context of its time. But you could debate that.
2) His Twitter feed has comments where he calls people F** and F***** on a couple of occasions (maybe more if the've been deleted that have already been circulated, indicating this was more than a routine.
3) He turned down being cast in Tropic Thunder in the Alpa Chino role because he didn't want people to think he was gay.

His argument is that he already apologized for this (well, #1 and #2) back in 2015, which is why he became confrontational. It wasn't a great apology.
Italiano wrote
Still, there's something I read in this thread which I can't ignore - though, needless to say, you all did. Something which is philosophically, morally wrong and dangerous: the idea that he should have "deleted" his posts. Now, I hope you all understand that this American idea that we should DELETE something we have publicly written or expressed in the past (and which by the way has been already read and commented on by so many) is an act of hypocrisy which in my opinion would make things MUCH worse rather than better.

I am European. As a European, I know even too well that our past can't and shouldn't be deleted. We must face it, rather than conveniently edit it. We must confront our past mistakes, not hide them. We must explain them, come to terms with them, apologize for them and sometimes pay for them. This is what a civilized culture should be based on. Deleting - even just suggesting it - is coward, hypocritical, and morally wrong. Someone had to say this.
Right now, this country has no idea how to forgive.

I mean, my thinking is that before forgiveness, there must be acknowledgement. And I don't think we know how to acknowledge either. In the case of Kevin Hart, I think there's a really good reason why he wasn't forgiven when he first apologized: he says there's nothing homophobic about him... I disagree. I think he probably was. His constant refrain is that he's growing as a person. He said it back in 2015 and he said it again recently. If that was his way of acknowledging, then it wasn't clear. Or maybe it simply wasn't good enough.

Which means he was probably never a good fit for this awards show. This is going to hurt his career.
"How's the despair?"
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by MaxWilder »

Precious Doll wrote:Some of us on this site had never heard of him or were only vaguely aware of him. So really the Academy should be doing background checks on people they are considering to host their awards show.
But people with their calendars set to 2018 are very aware of Kevin Hart. He's already hosted and presented at award shows, less than tastefully. A 'background check' wasn't necessary. The Academy gambled that a ratings boost would be worth some bad press in the meantime. This was so easily avoidable.
Thank you for this.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by Big Magilla »

Of course the past shouldn't be hidden, and for public personalities, that would be difficult to do no matter what, but we're talking about social media here.

Social media is supposed to be a reflection of what the person is like today. Just as you night prominently display photos of old friends in your home, you probably wouldn't want to display photos of those you've had a falling out with. Similarly, if your social media pages are filled with past statements of feelings you once had but no longer have, you wouldn't want to leave them on display for the whole world to see. If you've changed, then yes, an explanation would be nice, but to avoid the painful reminders of the past, simply removing those reminders is a sign that either you no longer feel that way or that you don't want to be known as a person who once held those ideas. To leave them up is a slap in the face of all those you've insulted but who you now want to support you. That Hart had to be chagrined into removing them is a sign that he is either still the person who wrote those things in the first place or who thinks they were OK because the times allowed them.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by ITALIANO »

Precious Doll wrote:
Some of us on this site had never heard of him
I certainly have no idea of who this person is or what he did or said. In theory, of course I agree that anyone who expressed racist, sexist or homophobic ideas - even in the distant past - should be prevented from hosting an event which is even vaguely related to "art", unless there's a sort of explanation or even an apology (though how honest an apology can be, we can never know).

This must be clear. And then, again I don't know what this guy wrote, so I can't say if his remarks were actually homophobic or if he was just making fun of homophobes, which of course would be a different matter. Guess I will never know and I don't really care. But tolerance is a value which should be carefully preserved, especially these days, so even old statements should be considered and, if not carefully explained, not forgiven. Definitely not.

Still, there's something I read in this thread which I can't ignore - though, needless to say, you all did. Something which is philosophically, morally wrong and dangerous: the idea that he should have "deleted" his posts. Now, I hope you all understand that this American idea that we should DELETE something we have publicly written or expressed in the past (and which by the way has been already read and commented on by so many) is an act of hypocrisy which in my opinion would make things MUCH worse rather than better.

I am European. As a European, I know even too well that our past can't and shouldn't be deleted. We must face it, rather than conveniently edit it. We must confront our past mistakes, not hide them. We must explain them, come to terms with them, apologize for them and sometimes pay for them. This is what a civilized culture should be based on. Deleting - even just suggesting it - is coward, hypocritical, and morally wrong. Someone had to say this.
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: The Host of the 91st Academy Awards Is....

Post by Precious Doll »

OscarGuy wrote:
Third, and most importantly, the Academy doesn't need to background check someone. I know plenty of people who had castigated Hart in the past for his homophobic material. There was a large enough group of people that knew of his history that any customary and semi-diligent investigation could have turned up the information. They didn't need to dig through his past posts.
Some of us on this site had never heard of him or were only vaguely aware of him. So really the Academy should be doing background checks on people they are considering to host their awards show.

I had only seen Kevin Hart in Get Hard (which I only saw because Will Ferrell can be amusing and I was prepared to give a first time a director a go). I'll pass on Etan Cohen's upcoming Holmes & Watson, unless it gets stellar reviews.
Last edited by Precious Doll on Sat Dec 08, 2018 5:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Post Reply

Return to “91st Academy Awards”