Page 3 of 44
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 1:08 am
by epilogue
Seth was leagues better than Billy's last go 'round.
I actually have zero problems with what Seth did as host of the Oscars. I thought it was all pretty fantastic.
The show was overlong (including the opening, I'll grant you). The show was self-aggrandizing. It was a big batch of billionaires applauding themselves for being billionaires. The James Bond "tribute" was a waste of time. The "tribute" to musical cinema was a joke.
Most of the gags written for presenters were lackluster. Honestly, I thought Seth was one of the best parts of the show. And I'm not necessarily a big Seth fan.
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 1:18 am
by Jorge
Save for the Sound of Music joke, which was cute, Seth was awful and horrifically, disgustingly, (and worst of all) unfunnily sexist. I roll my eyes at the social justice warriors who decry everything and everybody who is slightly less than PC, but this was absurd. The fact that he got some genuine laughs out of it says some horrible things about how we continue to value women in 2013.
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 1:26 am
by epilogue
theplatypus wrote:Save for the Sound of Music joke, which was cute, Seth was awful and horrifically, disgustingly, (and worst of all) unfunnily sexist. I roll my eyes at the social justice warriors who decry everything and everybody who is slightly less than PC, but this was absurd. The fact that he got some genuine laughs out of it says some horrible things about how we continue to value women in 2013.
That doesn't even make a little bit of sense.
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 1:39 am
by Jorge
What doesn't make sense?
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 1:40 am
by epilogue
Just surprised. I'm taken aback that that was your take away, I guess.
I just didn't find it sexist. None of the eight women (nor the seven other dudes) I was watching the telecast with found it sexist. What about it was offensive to you?
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 1:56 am
by Jorge
Seriously?!
You're standing in front of a group of actresses-- top of their class, thriving in an industry that's historically sexist, sitting there waiting to be acknowledged for their work-- and you start the show with a song-and-dance number about all the times you've seen their breasts. That's not sexist?
Making jokes about how Zero Dark Thirty is all about women's inability to let anything go. Making jokes about how no one can understand what Salma Hayek says but it doesn't matter because she's attractive. Making jokes about Chris Brown hitting Rihanna. Calling Jennifer Aniston a former stripper. Joking about women vomiting to lose weight and look pretty in their Oscar dresses. That little 9 year old girl being 16 years from being too old for George Clooney. Come on. I'm probably forgetting a bunch.
As George Carlin taught us, pretty much anything can be funny, from the silliest things to the gravest injustices and horrors can be spun to be made into a laugh. It's all about craft. The malice, that gross old-boys-club feel, the damn-near hostility and the ridiculous frequency of the jokes in the ceremony were disgusting because Macfarlane lacks the ability of someone like George Carlin, who could take anything and make it into an incisive, sharp, humorous observation on the dominant culture. Where the victim is never a punchline.
Fuck this unfunny douchebag.
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 1:59 am
by Jorge
And, for whatever reason the 8 women you watched it with didn't find it sexist, that's fine. But please don't pretend this is just me. Just Google "Seth Macfarlane sexism" and you're bound to find a plethora of articles breaking it down-- some of them will be of an angry-and-indignant-oh-God-straight-white-cisgender-males-are-the-scum-of-the-Earth tumblr social justice warrior variety, but a lot of them are very insightful looks into why we consider this sort of passive abuse okay, and the unchecked priviledge of (mostly white, mostly straight) dudes who'll die insisting
hey man it's no big deal where's your sense of humorrrrr. Here's just one of them:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... z2LwfyBRez
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 2:07 am
by Birds in Hell
theplatypus wrote:Fuck this unfunny douchebag.
Though this is an opinion I held about Macfarlane long before this year's Oscars.
What a hack.
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 2:08 am
by epilogue
I'm sure it's not just you. You've always been smart and fair, in my experience. I do think those that are in line with your thinking on this issue are perhaps being a bit over sensitive. Surely, they understand that so many of those jokes, as poorly crafted as they may have been, were satire.
To me, the "Boobs" song was a commentary on society and it's ridiculous obsessions. Also, it was framed as an "in poor taste, what the fuck are you thinking?!" way. It's poking fun at itself and those that think that way.
The Clooney joke was, to me anyway, more of a knock on Clooney than that young, super talented little girl.
The Zero Dark Thirty joke was lame. No one's been able to pull of that kind of limp relationship, stereo-type humor for a long, long time.
And please don't think I'm comparing Seth to Carlin. That would absurd. He's got a lot to learn. I'm just saying that he surprised me. I didn't expect him to be that entertaining. And I found it fresh compared to the three or four years.
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 2:13 am
by Birds in Hell
durdencommatyler wrote:To me, the "Boobs" song was a commentary on society and it's ridiculous obsessions. Also, it was framed as an "in poor taste, what the fuck are you thinking?!" way. It's poking fun at itself and those that think that way.
I absolutely loathe this kind of awful postmodern meta comedy which Macfarlane relies on so heavily.
"This joke is staggeringly broad and gross but it's actually a self-referential parody of how gross and broad this joke is! NUDGE - WINK."
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 2:17 am
by Mecca
McFarlane was just a poor choice for the Oscars. You had to know he intends to offend in his comedy and that is precisely what he set out to do and did.
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 2:17 am
by epilogue
You know what I did find misogynistic about the Oscars? And it had nothing to do with Seth, but the clips they showed for best actress. These are women at the top of their field, as you and others have pointed out, and the "best" they can show viewers of their award worthy performances?
Jessica Chastain: Melodramatic, throwing a tantrum.
Emmanuelle Rivera: Doesn't speak. Get's slapped.
Quvenzhané Wallis: Says "I'm the man!" and pounds her chest.
Naomi Watts: Beaten, bloody, defenseless being helped by and thanking a man
Jennifer Lawrence: Calling herself a slut and throwing a tantrum
I did think that was odd, and no just a little offensive or coincidental.
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 2:18 am
by Jorge
durdencommatyler wrote:I'm sure it's not just you. You've always been smart and fair, in my experience. I do think those that are in line with your thinking on this issue are perhaps being a bit over sensitive. Surely, they understand that so many of those jokes, as poorly crafted as they may have been, were satire.
To me, the "Boobs" song was a commentary on society and it's ridiculous obsessions. Also, it was framed as an "in poor taste, what the fuck are you thinking?!" way. It's poking fun at itself and those that think that way.
The Clooney joke was, to me anyway, more of a knock on Clooney than that young, super talented little girl.
The Zero Dark Thirty joke was lame. No one's been able to pull of that kind of limp relationship, stereo-type humor for a long, long time.
And please don't think I'm comparing Seth to Carlin. That would absurd. He's got a lot to learn. I'm just saying that he surprised me. I didn't expect him to be that entertaining. And I found it fresh compared to the three or four years.
Real talk: I do not believe most of those jokes were satire.
The Onion tweet that got everybody on the internet angry? That was satire. It was a direct reaction to the horribly cruel and hostile conversations we feel we are entitled to have about celebrities because they're public figures.
Seth MacFarlane isn't a satirist. He delivers yuk-yuks on a base level, and though I agree about that particular joke being more about Clooney (it was a poor example), I'm not prepared to accept that the framing of the "We Saw Your Boobs" song excuses the ugly misogynistic undertones of it.
That New Yorker article sums it up pretty well, actually.
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 2:19 am
by epilogue
Birds in Hell wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:To me, the "Boobs" song was a commentary on society and it's ridiculous obsessions. Also, it was framed as an "in poor taste, what the fuck are you thinking?!" way. It's poking fun at itself and those that think that way.
I absolutely loathe this kind of awful postmodern meta comedy which Macfarlane relies on so heavily.
"This joke is staggeringly broad and gross but it's actually a self-referential parody of how gross and broad this joke is! NUDGE - WINK."
Why doesn't South Park take the same criticism?
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 2:20 am
by Brainof23
I wasn't blown away by Seth but I think the idea of someone hosting that show and being hilarious seems like a long shot to me.
I can't see myself being offended by anyone trying to be funny. In the end, he was just joking. To me, Lincoln assassination humor isn't hilarious but I did laugh at the too soon line.
If you guys could pick the perfect host who would it be? I thought Ray Romano was really funny at the Kennedy Center Honors show and I had no idea he was funny at all. He might be good in this setting. I am surprised Seinfeld has never done it. If it were my call, I would pick Artie Lange and move the broadcast to HBO.
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 2:26 am
by epilogue
theplatypus wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:I'm sure it's not just you. You've always been smart and fair, in my experience. I do think those that are in line with your thinking on this issue are perhaps being a bit over sensitive. Surely, they understand that so many of those jokes, as poorly crafted as they may have been, were satire.
To me, the "Boobs" song was a commentary on society and it's ridiculous obsessions. Also, it was framed as an "in poor taste, what the fuck are you thinking?!" way. It's poking fun at itself and those that think that way.
The Clooney joke was, to me anyway, more of a knock on Clooney than that young, super talented little girl.
The Zero Dark Thirty joke was lame. No one's been able to pull of that kind of limp relationship, stereo-type humor for a long, long time.
And please don't think I'm comparing Seth to Carlin. That would absurd. He's got a lot to learn. I'm just saying that he surprised me. I didn't expect him to be that entertaining. And I found it fresh compared to the three or four years.
Real talk: I do not believe most of those jokes were satire.
The Onion tweet that got everybody on the internet angry? That was satire. It was a direct reaction to the horribly cruel and hostile conversations we feel we are entitled to have about celebrities because they're public figures.
Seth MacFarlane isn't a satirist. He delivers yuk-yuks on a base level, and though I agree about that particular joke being more about Clooney (it was a poor example), I'm not prepared to accept that the framing of the "We Saw Your Boobs" song excuses the ugly misogynistic undertones of it.
That New Yorker article sums it up pretty well, actually.
I consider myself a feminist. And usually I'm one of those hyper sensitive people that finds offense in every little thing. I admit that. But having now read the New Yorker article, I have to say, it reads to me like an agenda piece. It's reactionary at best, petty at worst. It's looking to pick a fight. No different than what the New York Post does daily (did you see their cover the next day with Jennifer Lawrence on her knees covering her face and the caption 'FALLEN STAR!"?)
To me, there are real issues, there are real fights, and distracting from those things while we get upset about this song is counter productive. It was stupid (and yes, funny) song about how stupid (and yes, unfunny) dudes are and the general populations narrow (and yes sexist) view of art and woman in filmmaking. It's the definition of satire. Even if it isn't especially inspired satire.
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 2:27 am
by Jorge
Brainof23 wrote:If you guys could pick the perfect host who would it be? I thought Ray Romano was really funny at the Kennedy Center Honors show and I had no idea he was funny at all. He might be good in this setting. I am surprised Seinfeld has never done it. If it were my call, I would pick Artie Lange and move the broadcast to HBO.
Based on what we saw that night, I would love for Daniel-Day Lewis to host the Oscars. He was fucking funny.
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 2:28 am
by epilogue
theplatypus wrote:Brainof23 wrote:If you guys could pick the perfect host who would it be? I thought Ray Romano was really funny at the Kennedy Center Honors show and I had no idea he was funny at all. He might be good in this setting. I am surprised Seinfeld has never done it. If it were my call, I would pick Artie Lange and move the broadcast to HBO.
Based on what we saw that night, I would love for Daniel-Day Lewis to host the Oscars. He was fucking funny.
I could get behind that.
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 2:30 am
by epilogue
I think Jon Stewart was pretty inspired, actually. He might be my favorite of the last five/six years. But honestly, Seth MacFarlane is just behind him.
The Alec Baldwin/Steve Martin combo was pretty great, too.
Re: Oscars
Posted: Thu February 28, 2013 2:30 am
by Brainof23
+2 on the DDL call. He was really funny. He absolutely killed it playing Lincoln. I didn't love the movie but his performance was incredible.