Random Oscar Thoughts

There was some back-channel talk about the Academy Awards this past week, in which another ScienceBlogger opined that the Oscars were stupid and that we, as Serious Intellectuals, ought to have better things to talk about than a pop-culture award show. I think that's well over on the "pompous ass" side of things, so here's an Oscar post, just for spite.

Of course, I'm somewhat hampered here by, um, not actually having seen many movies this year. In fact, I've only seen one of the Best Picture nominees, No Country for Old Men. Which you might think argued for the irrelevance of the award, but in fact, I don't think I saw five movies in the theater last year. In fact, I can't think of a third, after No Country for Old Men and The Golden Compass. Was Hot Fuzz last year? I don't remember...

That said, No Country for Old Men was a fine piece of movie-making, and I wouldn't object to it winning awards. I've liked the Coen Brothers for years, and would be happy enough to see them get some Oscars. And Javier Bardem was really creepy, so I'd be fine with him getting an acting award, too.

Beyond that, though, I have no real opinions. The only predictions I can make with any confidence are: 1) the show will run long, and 2) Jon Stewart will be more amusing than the show deserves. Other than that, I know nothing.

So, consider this an open thread. Who will win? Who should win? What was [insert starlet name] thinking when she got dressed? Will there be anything more entertaining than the Go Fug Yourself live-blog of the red carpet shows?

Tags

More like this

I got a new stereo installed in my car on Friday, so I can plug the iPod in directly rather than using one of those stupid FM transmitter gadgets, and the installation guy said it would take a few hours. So I did a little shopping, and then went to see the Coen Brothers' adaptation of Cormac…
Seed is meeting their contractual obligation as members of the American media by offering some science-based Oscars. This is a rare year in which I really don't care at all about the actual awards. I haven't seen any of the movies nominated for Best Picture, and I don't really have much interest in…
Today is the first day of classes, so I'm going to be kind of busy at work. Here's a bit of pop-culture silliness to lighten things up while I'm teaching and setting up labs. The Neil Diamond chestnut "Sweet Caroline" got brought up in a back-channel discussion, prompting much revulsion from the…
There's a comment to the most recent Open Thread at Making Light asking why there isn't more handicapping of the Hugo Awards. The commenter, Kathryn from Sunnyvale, makes reference to a comment on John Scalzi's "Please Vote" thread, that suggested there was a clear favorite in the balloting: There…

If you want pompous, does anything appear more pompous than the Nobel Prize ceremony?

By natural cynic (not verified) on 24 Feb 2008 #permalink

"... ScienceBlogger opined that the Oscars were stupid and that we, as Serious Intellectuals, ought to have better things to talk about than a pop-culture award show...."

A quaint and silly sentiment, based on a spurious dichotomy between "high" and "low" art.

It is generally agreed that Cinema became an art form no later than the work of Georges Méliès [8 December 1861 - 21 January 1938]. he also invented Science Fiction movies.

It also took a while for the novel to be accepted as Art (remember the H. G. Wells - Henry James debates). And Science Fiction. And Jazz. And Television. And Rock. And Graphic Novels. And computer games.

More subtle, philosophically, to debate whether an event in sports can rise to the level of Art. I think that you and I (Chad) agree that it can.

As one of the Sciblings who inhabits the back-channel, I'd just like to point out that no "ScienceBlogger opined that the Oscars were stupid and that we, as Serious Intellectuals, ought to have better things to talk about than a pop-culture award show". Orzel is misrepresenting what was said and he knows it.

By John Lynch (not verified) on 25 Feb 2008 #permalink