Remove this Banner Ad

Oscars thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter RoosLuver
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by Scarlett Pimp
If she's mine, I wish to have her put down immediately.

What war? What world cup victory? Our **** Nicole has won some acting trophy or something. Hurrah.

No Scarlett Pimp, when she wins we all win...

This is an award for all of Australia. She is a dinky-di true-blue, Aussie girl made good. We can all go to sleep tonight feeling much more worthwhile about our miserable existences knowing that our Nic has a Gold statue.

Trust me, you'll wake up tomorrow living in a world of rainbows and kittens.
 
Originally posted by Wicked Lester
Nothing against Nicole, she was good in The House BUT.......in my view Renee was robbed.
The House?

No way Renee deserved Best Actress, her performance was not worthy enough for the highest honour.
 
Originally posted by red+black
The House?

No way Renee deserved Best Actress, her performance was not worthy enough for the highest honour.

Didn't appear to have my mind on the job there, did I?

The Hours!!

Wear a false nose and act depressed for less than a third of a film.

As I said, nothuing against our Nicole, but Renee for me.
 
Nicole was brilliant and deserved it.
She undertook an incredibly challenging role. I study acting and have been doing it since I can remember and I can really appreciate performances like that because although it may not be seen as the traditional 'gritty' role, it is the little thing's Nicole does as Virginia that blew me away. Her manourisms and her characterisation and breathtaking. It was real craft acting at it's finest.

Renee was definitely not robbed. If she won it would have been because of the shocking amount of hype that 'Chicago' has received. You should have to do more than a bit of singing and dancing to win an Oscar. She was good but not in the same field as Nicole. Same with Catherine Zeta Jones in the best supporting actress category. In my opinion Meryl Streep (Adaptation) and Julianne Moore (The Hours) was both better) Another example of how hype, politics and publicity can win you Oscars.

I was very disapointed to see the academy deprive Daniel-Day Lewis of an Oscar for Gangs Of New York. He was absolutely incredible and most people thought he was a shoe-in.

Chris Cooper (Adaptation) deserved the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. Very underrated actor that is getting some well-deserved recognition.
 
Originally posted by Pessimistic
Ever wondered what Deej is up to ? - fromthe oscars site

Here's Mike Moore's acceptance speech "Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much. " - Deej

Better add Hi-5 to that Deej - He doesn't stand a chance

Sensational speech. Whether you agree or disagree it took massive guts to say that publicly at an awards ceremony.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Nicoles speech was the biggest suck up the US arse you could ever see, did her best acting so far with that performance, when she said that Russell Crowe told her not to cry, but hey now I am crying, yes like it is real, you are an actor. :rolleyes:
 
The funny thing about Mike Moore's speech as I watched the camera pan around the audience there was some booing, a little bit of applause (1 in 20?) but the majority just sat there stony faced.

Given Hollywood's political leanings I thought this a bit odd. I could swear I saw a number of 'stars' who are openly against the war sit there unmoved.

Why?

With the war suddenly popular surely they wouldn't go silent just to protect their image and future earnings??
 
I wondered if they were probably trying to hear everything he said.

He certainly got a standing ovation when coming on - so there is huge support for the anti gun stance.

Then it struck me - could the reason for mostly 'unspirited' opposition to the war ( hopes for peace etc) have anything to do with the fact that the industry is Jew dominated - and the Iraquis aren't exactly jewish.
 
Originally posted by Pessimistic
Then it struck me - could the reason for mostly 'unspirited' opposition to the war ( hopes for peace etc) have anything to do with the fact that the industry is Jew dominated - and the Iraquis aren't exactly jewish.

Yes, I wondered that as well. But the scenes saw were of the front few rows which included many high profile stars - their lack of animation was hilarious.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Originally posted by Wicked Lester
The funny thing about Mike Moore's speech as I watched the camera pan around the audience there was some booing, a little bit of applause (1 in 20?) but the majority just sat there stony faced.

Given Hollywood's political leanings I thought this a bit odd. I could swear I saw a number of 'stars' who are openly against the war sit there unmoved.

Why?

With the war suddenly popular surely they wouldn't go silent just to protect their image and future earnings??

I don't know - maybe it was because not only did Mike Moore attack the war, he also directly attacked Bush's claims on the Presidency (and anyone who has read Stupid White Men will know there is plenty of justification for this).
 
As much as I like Michael Moore he made a bit of an ass out of himself at the Oscars last night. Making a statement of 'we are against this war' and then being booed (which it was, there were a few cheers but the boo's drowned them out and then some) really showed that the majority of the people were not with him and made him look very foolish for believing so.

The Oscars was also not the occassion to make such a statement, the organiser had asked the guests not to make political statements in their speeches and fair enough, the ceremony is to celebrate cinema not politics. So every other actor refrained from doing so (to the best of my knowledge), pro or anti. Moore though as defiant as ever had to peddle his political perspective, rather selfishly I feel, I mean if it was an open forum where every other guest had expressed their opinion on the matter in their speech then Moore would have been entitled to express his, but this was not the case.

Everyone getting a fair go is what Moore is supposed to stand for but in this case he flew against his own principles by doing what he did, probably showing the obvious strain that the 'left' is under as support for the war continues to grow in the U.S.
 
Originally posted by NICK THE PIE MAN
I was very disapointed to see the academy deprive Daniel-Day Lewis of an Oscar for Gangs Of New York. He was absolutely incredible and most people thought he was a shoe-in.

Bah, you and your Day-Lewis bias, have you seen The Pianist Nick?
 
Originally posted by Zombie
As much as I like Michael Moore he made a bit of an ass out of himself at the Oscars last night. Making a statement of 'we are against this war' and then being booed (which it was, there were a few cheers but the boo's drowned them out and then some) really showed that the majority of the people were not with him and made him look very foolish for believing so.

The Oscars was also not the occassion to make such a statement, the organiser had asked the guests not to make political statements in their speeches and fair enough, the ceremony is to celebrate cinema not politics. So every other actor refrained from doing so (to the best of my knowledge), pro or anti. Moore though as defiant as ever had to peddle his political perspective, rather selfishly I feel, I mean if it was an open forum where every other guest had expressed their opinion on the matter in their speech then Moore would have been entitled to express his, but this was not the case.

Everyone getting a fair go is what Moore is supposed to stand for but in this case he flew against his own principles by doing what he did, probably showing the obvious strain that the 'left' is under as support for the war continues to grow in the U.S.
Yes it wasn't the occasion to be pushing political points.

He should have joined all the other loud mouth anti war protesters that march through streets burning their countries flags. He would have fitted right in.

There is a time and place for everything.
It was great to see him getting booed. He probably felt that he had the crowd behind him so it was good to see it blow up in his face. Just another thug.
 
Originally posted by Zombie
As much as I like Michael Moore he made a bit of an ass out of himself at the Oscars last night. Making a statement of 'we are against this war' and then being booed (which it was, there were a few cheers but the boo's drowned them out and then some) really showed that the majority of the people were not with him and made him look very foolish for believing so.

the 'we' referred to himself and the other documentary nominees on stage with him. there is no way that the author of a book called 'stupid white men' would expect an audience filled with the very same to agree with his stance and statements.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom