It’s pointless and frustrating to bemoan the exclusion of The Hobbit: the Battle of the Five Armies from almost any recognition from The Academy Awards. There are reasons – there are reasons – we know. But last night, I got a little angry, because there was no reason that it, or more accurately, Lord of the Rings, should have been excluded from the opening musical number, which seemed to be a hodgepodge of clips and live dancing and singing by “characters” from past popular and important movies – I mean they had Star Wars, The Hulk, – they couldn’t include Middle Earth? They should have included Middle Earth and Peter Jackson’s achievements. Talk about popular movies.
And then, to make matters worse, The Hobbit became the set-up for a joke, the punchline delivered by David Oyelowo.
As to the nominees, although I didn’t see all the movies nominated for very category, after looking at the clips, it seemed to me that The Hobbit should have been included in make-up and hair, production design and a few other categories.
So basically, I was more pissed watching the actual Oscars than I was when the nominations were announced and BOTFA was only nominated for one technical award.
Read this NY Time article about how the academy sees audiences. and some critique of the Academy’s performance this year.
I think it’s wonderful that there were so many original, fantastic, smaller movies this year to get recognition, and we need even more of those. Those are actually the kind of movies I like to see. But, when determining awards, the Academy ought to be as cognizant of what audiences want and are paying money to see. Then perhaps, more people would care about the Oscars. ( Viewership was way down this year).
Armitage Agonistes 
I was disappointed with David Oyelowo reading that joke considering RA has in public said what a great guy David is and considers him a friend; not to mention that RA recently worked with David’s wife in Sleepwalker and said how great she is as well.But I cannot agree with the notion that more ‘popular’ movies should get awards…awards are for an artistic achievement of some kind IMO…otherwise we would be handing out best picture for stuff like Twilight, or The SAW movies or something…or Pulitzer prizes to 50 Shades of Grey. What sells tickets and is popular doesn’t necessarily equate to artistic recognition. Great ticket sales are reward in themselves maybe?
LikeLike
I was thinking the same thing about David Oyelowo when it happened, but then, I didn’t know whether he’d seen the actual words before. Probably yes – real rehearsals and all that. But even so I thought, what was he going to say when the the writers gave him the line? ” My friend/former colleague is in the Hobbit and I don’t want to make fun of his project?” And I also thought – pure speculation – that David would know it was alright with Richard Armitage, who would not take it personally, knowing how things work.
And then finally, The reference to the Hobbit was the set up to the joke, it wasn’t actually joked about ( I didn’t get this the minute I heard it)
But my immediate reaction was the same as yours, until I thought about it more.
LikeLike
True, that’s how things work and I guess he’d read it…why not, it’s all about ‘selling’ yourself…I know this is going to sound like..oh, RA, he’s so saintly…but I really do think RA wouldn’t have read that to billions of people; I really don’t think he would have put someone else down in that way just to be on camera. I know it may come across as naive on my part but I really do think that it would be against his personal code of ethics. And I just noticed…that’s The Rock sitting there in the audience…love The Rock!
LikeLike
The article makes an interesting point. I used to watch the Oscars but haven’t for years. This somewhat coincided with having children and seeing fewer movies, but I definitely used to be more invested in the nominated films. Picking obscure movies is the right of the Academy voters, but will not encourage lots of people to watch and that will impact the money that is made from the broadcast. But the folks that have the incentive to increase viewers and the voters may be completely different groups.
Perhaps Neil Patrick Harris was also part of the problem for low viewership? This is also implied by the article.
I didn’t find David Oyelowo’s punchline to be offensive to Hobbit (only to Annie), but I thought it fell flat.
LikeLike
NPH can’t fairly be criticized before the broadcast because he had a good track record of hosting these shows. He made at least one good joke on the spot, and maybe a comment or two that were successful, but the joke was at such an inappropriate moment, showing his really bad judgment. ( Just can’t avoid the good line if it’s there). His job is to follow the script AND kibbutz effectively. Most of the offensive, ragging, roasting stuff is written for him. So blame the writers for that. And he didn’t really come up with anything much on his own.
Even the fashion bored me this year. There were some good dresses, but no really great stand-out, in my opinion. I thought Partircia Arquette looked great ( has been looking great), but the usual fashionistas didn’t have it on.
I was amazed by how popular the more prominent female rear end is – loads of actresses who could have any body they want seem to have opted for more curvaceous.
LikeLike
I agree, but there’s little professionalism in the Oscars voting process, so I don’t think Hollywood treats it as seriously as most viewers often do. Apart from the incredible biases not related to either technical skill or performance, people who have no idea about makeup or costume or sound or visual effects, etc. still get a say on which films should win on those categories unless they willingly abstain.
LikeLike
I don’t blame NPH for the lackluster show. He put across what he was given, which is all any actor can do. Those shows are highly scripted, and I doubt he has the discretion to add or drop much (nor is he a comedian used to improvisation, like Billy Crystal). The opening number was disappointingly unfocused (Star Wars???), and yes, they could have paid tribute to the lucrative films that make it possible for studios to do prestige projects. It seems as though they are determined to snub anything that makes money.
Historically, the Oscars (and Hollywood) have never been about artistic achievement, but about the magic combination of art and popular appeal. I don’t know what has gotten into them.
As for the rear ends, LOL! I was accustomed to feeling inadequate in front, but now I seem to be under-endowed in the back as well!
LikeLike
LOL – you and me both. Let’s call it a boyish figure – but even the boys have some butt going on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sigh, NPH was slightly off, but i guess a lot of it he didn’t write, it just didn’t work and was awkward most of time I recorded it and scrolled through, not sitting through 4h of this anymore 😉 And i think there is a lot of navel gazing going on these days. But at the same time some years will be better than others, maybe there is better stuff on TV these days sometimes 😉 Not that there weren’t some good movies in there, but there is a point about some niche things being too niche.
LikeLike
I agree. I think the niche thing was the point of the Times article.
LikeLike