OK-- I love me my Oscars...It gives me the chance to wax ad nauseum about the un/deserving films and actors and dish on the poorly dressed (sorry--when you have that much money and support. you best do your best).
My short 2 cents (since it's late and Kimmel is coming on and will be infinitely more entertaining)...(there's your hint...) DO THE OSCARS MAKE FOR GOOD TV? (even when a Colum student is on screen...)
Well, it may depend on how you define TV. In terms of per TV event--eh? Poorly paced...when I can host a party with 2 toddlers and 2 junior high gals AND get them all off to bed and not miss a beat? That would be the epitome of slow. Hand to holy, I skipped 45 minutes and didn't miss a thing.
Seth McFarlane was top-notch--funny and charming and talented when they gave him some screen time. The front matter was great...and then it went down-hill in terms of pacing and content/order of content:
--How is playing the Bond theme over and over a "montage" of songs? When will the Academy learn to shift smaller categories--as much as I respect short docs and short live-actions--to cable like the Emmys do? Why do I need to see the cast of Chicago--an okay movie... but hardly on a par with something like The Godfather of The Graduate or hell, even ET...referenced over and over again?
Folks, learn about producing live...and I guess scripting live? The only tweets I could find during the actual show were from Britain, which means even McFarlane couldn't rescue this for the key demo they hired him for. One of you out there in Columbia TV should be able to fix this I hope.
Meantime...Semester in LA info sessions are this week...look for the SILA info page on Columbia's website and attend if you think you might be interested in the next 2 years...
(still, happy per Lawrence and her trip up the stairs, and the Argo best pic win--while not my pick--was expected and sweet--esp. if you subscribe to my J-Garner theory)