+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Awards Night (/thread-9208.html)
Pages:
1
2
Awards Night - Premezilla - 03-03-2004
Need more proof to the testament to the success of the Lord of the Rings movies? Look no further then the recent Oscars...Lord of the Rings won in all the categories that it was nomianted for, correct? Has that ever happened before in the Oscars? But I believe that it was well-earned for Peter Jackson and his middle-earth crew, as that series may be the most epic trilogy aside from Indiana Jones. (Star Wars if you don't count Episodes 1, 2, and soon to be 3)
On a side note, who else has been sucked into the vacuum that is American Idol? I myself find that William Hung is a very gutsy man. He's the man. And everybody,
VOTE FOR JASMINE TRIAS! VOTE VOTE VOTE!
Representing the 808,
Preme
Awards Night - WarLocke - 03-03-2004
Ugh. I cannot stand reality shows or their spinoffs (Idol, Bachelor, Who Wants to be a Millionaire).
You have to have pureed banana for brains to like that crap. :angry:
Awards Night - DeeBye - 03-03-2004
WarLocke,Mar 2 2004, 10:41 PM Wrote:Ugh. I cannot stand reality shows or their spinoffs (Idol, Bachelor, Who Wants to be a Millionaire).Same here.
WarLocke Wrote:You have to have pureed banana for brains to like that crap.My wife seems to enjoy those shows, and she's no banana brain.
It's a matter of opinion. I hate 'reality shows', and she hates hockey. If you ask 10 of my wife's closest friends, they'll all say I'm a pureed banana-head for liking hockey. If you ask 10 of my closest friends, they'll swear by the opposite.
Awards Night - --Pete - 03-03-2004
Hi,
Ugh. I cannot stand reality shows or their spinoffs (Idol, Bachelor, Who Wants to be a Millionaire).
Isn't "Millionaire" a high stakes quiz show, like the ancient "21" and "64 Thousand Dollar Question"? What makes it a "reality" show. And would that make "History IQ" or "Jeopardy" reality shows also? BTW, "Millionaire" is the only one of the shows you mentioned that I've ever seen, so perhaps it's my lack of knowledge of modern TV that has me confused.
--Pete
Awards Night - DeeBye - 03-03-2004
Pete,Mar 2 2004, 11:11 PM Wrote:Isn't "Millionaire" a high stakes quiz show, like the ancient "21" and "64 Thousand Dollar Question"?Yeah, "Millionaire" is a quiz show. That part had me stumped, so I ignored it.
edit: you should ignore it too
Awards Night - WarLocke - 03-03-2004
Okay, maybe the link between Millionaire and other reality shows is kind of thin.
But it doesn't seem (to me, at least) to be a gameshow as much as a "get some airtime to ramble about your life with Regis and maybe win some money" show. The 'contestants' spend more time spouting off about how their second-cousin's step-father's third neice said they'd never get on the show and other irrelevant crap.
Then again, maybe I just hate that show in particular. :angry:
Awards Night - DeeBye - 03-03-2004
WarLocke,Mar 2 2004, 11:21 PM Wrote:Then again, maybe I just hate that show in particular. :angry:I hate it too because as a "quiz show" it's sorely lacking in difficult questions. 2/3rds of the questions can be answered by any high school graduate that is not currently addicted to sniffing gasoline.
The $16,000+ questions can be fairly tough, but that's when the contestants fail. As a result, the viewer only sees the stupid easy questions before a new contestant is waved in.
Awards Night - --Pete - 03-03-2004
Hi,
Ah! I see.
I never (well almost never) watch anything that isn't recorded on TiVo. Thus, when watching game shows I only watch the game part, not the fifteen seconds of fame part.
--Pete
Awards Night - nobbie - 03-03-2004
I saw the complete 4 hours of the âOscar 2004â night, and really enjoyed the âlifeâ that has come back to the show after the tragedies (September 11, Iraq War) that have overshadowed the last ones. Billy Crystal's opening speech and singing, his performance in the hilarious, LOTR-based opening short as well as his funny moderation of the whole show were just great :)
Most of the 11 Oscars that LOTR got were deserved (one for each ending, as Billy Crystal said ;)), although I was not quite sure about the ones for Film Editing and Sound Mixing, or the one for Music (Song). All nominated songs, for example, were songs that support the films and not so much masterpieces on their own with a clear winner. But it's typical for the Academy to give the Oscar to the most popular film of the show if there is no clear winner at hand. Although 11 Oscars are a great success, LOTR â like James Cameron's âTitanicâ in 1998 â did not get a single Oscar in the acting categories (Actor/Actress in a Leading Role, Actor/Actress in a Supporting Role), which in my opinion, are the Oscars that distinguish the good movies from the outstanding movies. If a film gets the Best Picture, Best Directing and at least one Actor in a Leading Role Award, it's a true masterpiece. Such film were, for example, âGone with the Windâ (1940), âBen Hurâ (1959), âFrench Connectionâ (1972), âOne flew over the Cuckoo's Nestâ (1976), âAmadeusâ (1985) or âSilence of the Lambsâ (1992). So, neither LOTR nor âTitanicâ, who both got 11 Oscars like âBen Hurâ in 1959, can beat the aforementioned films let alone âBen Hurâ, which is still clearly the most outstanding movie with regard to the number of Academy Awards won AND Award Categories won, including Best Film (Sam Zimbalist), Best Directing (William Wyler), Best Actor in a Leading Role (Charlton Heston), Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Hugh Griffith) and Best Music Score (Miklos Rozsa) :)
Awards Night - [wcip]Angel - 03-03-2004
I, too, am very critical to these reality shows, but when you're sitting with a bunch of mates drinking on a friday evening and need something to talk about, "Idol" is a programme which lends itself to those types of occasions.
Sober however, the programme is bile.
Awards Night - whereagles - 03-03-2004
Return of the King is just an above average movie, nothing to be excited about. Sure, it's entretaining and a great adventure, but it doesn't get any deeper than that.
11 oscars is an exaggeration, but hey, Shakespeare in love was an a complete soap opera and still got a bunch of oscars too, lol.
Awards Night - pakman - 03-03-2004
2/3rds of the questions can be answered by any high school graduate that is not currently addicted to sniffing gasoline.
I always seem to catch millionaire when they ask all the stuff that one would read in the magazines that talk about all the Hollywood actors' lives. Seeing as I don't watch MTV, NBC, ABC, CBS, and basically ever other channel except History and Discovery, I can never answer those questions.
Awards Night - Nystul - 03-03-2004
It seems the term "reality TV" (not just for WL, but in general use) means anything that stars people who are not actors, yet if the show is older than the trend ("Late Night", "Jeopardy", Soul Train", "CBS Nightly News", "NFL Monday Night Football") it apparently doesn't qualify. I wouldn't consider "Millionaire" reality TV, nor "American Idol" (which is a variation on "Star Search"), and I haven't seen the other show mentioned.
I would consider a more strict definition of 'reality TV' to be shows where the main emphasis is on people actually living together, with the cameras following them at all hours, and the relationships between those non-actors being the main reason people watch. In other words, a living soap opera. The prototype for this genre was MTV's "The Real World" (if you have never seen it, consider yourself lucky), which was followed by MTV's "Road Rules" which also incorporated a gameshow element like the later "Survivor". I would not consider "Dog Eat Dog" or "Fear Factor" reality TV, to me they are just game shows (although they were designed to mimic the success of "Survivor"). WB has gotten closer to the original MTV idea with their show "The Surreal Life" which features a handful of washed up celebrities who agreed to live together and let the TV producers decide their daily agenda.
Most of the titles I've thrown out here aren't worth watching. "American Idol" is an exception, if you can find enjoyment in pop music. It is really a throwback to the days of talent shows and variety shows, a talent contest for college-aged pop singers, and a bit of a tribute to pop music from the last several decades.
Awards Night - --Pete - 03-03-2004
Hi,
Since I don't keep up with sports or celebrities, I usually can't answer the $100 to $1000 questions. When they get to the "harder" questions involving history, science, or literature, I do much better :)
--Pete
Awards Night - --Pete - 03-03-2004
Hi,
Since the only two shows you mention that I've ever seen are "Millionaire" and "Jeopardy", I can't really claim to understand your references. But I do get the gist, so thank you. Sounds like "reality TV" is Hollywood's final admission that they've run out of creativity and originality and all they have left is what anyone can see on a downtown street corner any night of the week.
Oh, well. Considering that Shakespeare was a one time phenomenon, and that his total lifetime output was about enough to fuel one prime time show for about two seasons, it's amazing that TV survived this long. All that's left, it seems like, are pointless athletic contests and The World Poker Tour :)
--Pete
Awards Night - WarLocke - 03-03-2004
Quote: It seems the term "reality TV" (not just for WL, but in general use)
Yay, I've been lumped in with the masses!
Okay, so maybe I shouldn't have used Millionaire as an example of a 'reality TV' show. But what do you call that genre of gameshows (Millionaire, Dog Eat Dog, etc.)? Whatever they are, I still can't stand them.
As for 'Reality TV', I can't stand the idea behind it simply because it isn't reality, and hasn't been since the first season of "The Real World" (if even then) - the 'participants' don't act normally, they pander to the cameras to get more air time or to not get voted off, or whatever is applicable for the show in question.
The closest you can come to 'reality' television is Oblivious (a gameshow that's shot in public, contestants don't know they're on television until after they've answered their questions) or Trigger Happy TV if you want to stretch the definition even more (random acts of British humor in public).
Awards Night - Nystul - 03-03-2004
But what do you call that genre of gameshows (Millionaire, Dog Eat Dog, etc.)?
I would just call them game shows. Obviously genres are influenced by the times, and game shows have been influenced by the notion that the audience may be as interested in the personality of the contestant as in the contest itself. But looking back at "Hollywood Squares", "Double Dare", etc. I don't think this is a new concept.
As for 'Reality TV', I can't stand the idea behind it simply because it isn't reality, and hasn't been since the first season of "The Real World" (if even then) - the 'participants' don't act normally, they pander to the cameras to get more air time or to not get voted off, or whatever is applicable for the show in question.
Agreed. My second criticism of "The Real World" was that it should be called "The Unreal World" because the living situation presented was so farfetched, a group of people with that personality mix would never live together, and the cameras were clearly affecting everything that was said and done. My first criticism was that it wasn't a music video, which is what MTV is (was) supposed to be all about.
Awards Night - Premezilla - 03-17-2004
I kinda meant my post to be a plug for Jasmine Trias, telling everyone to vote for her...seeing as how she's in the TOP TWELVE
....so keep voting!
....and all that stuff about LOTR, upon closer reflection I believe that I was just commenting on the wonderful job Peter Jackson did. I mean, LOTR did for screaming teenage girls what Alfred Hitchcock did for horror fans.
Awards Night - JustAGuy - 03-17-2004
I don't think anyone here would waste their time to vote for someone on something as trite as "American Idol". The first two series were very typical, and I was able to pick the winners right away. This one, on the other hand, isn't such a clear choice.
However, saying that I'm not certain as to who will win it this year doesn't mean that it isn't pointless and banal. I don't enjoy the concept of it, but yet I can't turn away... It's like a horrible car wreck; I can't help but take a look see. I'll probably watch tonight too. Sick, I tells ya, sick.
The really enjoyable part of the series is the at the start, the try-outs, where we get to see all the delusional rejects that think they can sing. After that, it just becomes karaoke night in front of America.
There's no doubt some have talent. Some deserve a break, and should be recording music for everyone to hear. Personally, I can do away with all of it, since it's stuff that I would never listen to.
Jasmine Trias is a surprising and remarkable talent; that voice from that body doesn't seem right. Cute like you wouldn't believe, too. She'll be a top finalist, maybe #2, but I don't think she'll win it. There's something missing from her voice... I think her accent and the nasal-ness of her voice comes through at points in her singing which will eventually expell her from the competition. It doesn't matter in the end, because she's such a noticable person that she'll be famous anyway, if she wants to be.
Awards Night - Nystul - 03-17-2004
I don't think anyone here would waste their time to vote for someone on something as trite as "American Idol".
Seeing that comment doesn't surprise me, but seeing it from someone who actually watches the show does ;)
There's no doubt some have talent. Some deserve a break, and should be recording music for everyone to hear.
Really, this is the whole point. The audience gets the chance to hear talented singers, and some talented singers get a shot at exposure to an audience which could possibly land them in a recording studio sometime. I think it's funny that people will watch just to hear what Simon will say, but to me they are missing the real stars of the show. When Kelly Clarkson won, it was pretty much a forgone conclusion for a large part of the season. But I wasn't tuning in to see who would get cut, I was tuning in to hear Kelly sing!
I've heard a lot of big stars with big recording contracts play live on SNL or "semi-live" on the daily late night shows, and quite a few of them sound awful in that setting. It makes me wonder when people go to their concerts, whether there is anything worth listening to. So when a twenty-something nobody can go on that American Idol stage night after night and sing an incredible rendition of a cover song each and every time, sometimes good enough live to rival the quality of the original artist on the reference recording, it's worthwhile entertainment.
It doesn't matter in the end, because she's such a noticable person that she'll be famous anyway, if she wants to be.
That may be true now, whether she wins or loses. But if the show didn't exist, would anyone who matters in the recording industry ever hear her voice? There are a lot of people in the world, and being a noticeable person usually doesn't spread your fame much further than your home town.