Well; for one thing Pirates of the Caribbean 3 was one of the worst films I had ever seen; Johnny Depp should be very embarrassed, they should have killed his character off so he wouldn’t be in the film. That’s also why Orlando Bloom isn’t starring in any new” art films.” The Oscars celebrate films that aren’t blockbuster hits only (very rarely); but gain much attention by critics. The film; The Departed (one of my favorite films of all time) was a box office hit and won Best Picture and so on. No Country for Old Men was not a sleeper; but could have done better comparing it to huge films like The Lord of The Rings the Return of the King which won Best Picture in 2004. Sweeny Todd should have been a Best Picture nominee; to me; that was the best film of the year. I think No Country is a little overrated in terms of being a classic film. I mean Tim Burton’s picture was a blockbuster hit; but was very artistic in my opinion; and very creepy. Of course the Oscars ignore it Best Picture wise; because it’s a horror film. But who cares what genre it is; the acting was superb unlike most horror films. Johnny needed to win; no one saw Michael Clayton; and to me the film Michael Clayton; sorry George; is boring!!! People are sick of these exhausting film noirs; unlike Blade Runner these political film noirs only attract; old people. The reason no one cares for the Oscars is because they make the most stupid mistakes in nominating films. That made me laughs when Norbit the worse film ever made was nominated for at least something!!! A film like Beowulf which was better than that of course did not get nominated for anything; zip, nothing! To mean Guber and Bart; the industry is not listening to what people want to see.

Frankly I'm getting a bit tired of this fixation on "fixing the Oscars". The question is, do you want the Oscars to be a top-rated television show, or do you want it to be a meaningful set of awards given to the top talent in the industry (that just happens to be televised)? It would seem that Guber and Bart and many other industry types are more interested in the former. I guess this is not surprising since Hollywood is only concerned about ratings, grosses, franchise potential, and international appeal.

If they want a movie awards tv show that is more entertaining, may I suggest they watch the Golden Globes or better still, the MTV Movie Awards. Guber wants a Best New Star award; MTV gave out the Breakthrough Performance award. This year it went to Jaden Smith -- how precious! I'm sure he's going to be our next DeNiro.

Sure, the Oscar *telecast* needs to be trimmed and livened up. People say the same thing year after year. But any notion that the actual awards should be given to films and people based on popularity is just idiotic. Alvin and the Chipmunks was the 9th top grossing movie of the year, beating Ratatouille at #11. Should it have won for Best Animated Feature? I guess they think the answer is yes if it would help the Oscar telecast grab more viewers.

I couldn't care less how many people watch the Oscar telecast. What I care about is that they give awards to people and films that deserve them. And this year there were some great moments, with truly deserving winners -- Marion Cottilard, Javier Bardem, Once, Tilda Swinton, Daniel Day Lewis, Diablo Cody. Those speeches were great not just because they were exuberant but because they were authentic and meaningful. Do you really want to see Toby Maguire win Best Actor for the dreck that was Spiderman 3? Perhaps, Guber, they could fill the first row of the auditorium with teenage girls who would rush the stage when he comes to the podium. How's that for audience participation! I'd rather watch Walter Cronkite read the winners off a sheet of paper in a 10 minute news conference.

@cajaygle -- In fairness to Bart and Guber, they both said that they're all for the industry recognizing its own, and if that's not clear in this story, the fault is on me. I think Bart and Guber are questioning the format in which this recognition is done because they fear lost ratings and the snooze-factor will lead the Oscars to lose importance. Bart in this story (and Guber, I believe, in an earlier one) also implied or outright said that the nominees for Best Picture (at least) did not make it there strictly on merit but for business reasons -- with studios pushing the films they think an award will help at the box office vs. those films that are already maxed out in ticket sales.

You are putting a bandaid on a bullet wound! First you need to realize that people aren't watching because hollywood has become a conduit of the liberal ,Hate America crowd. So i guess what they need to do is get their heads out of their posteriors, and realize , we the actual citizens who go to movies, want to feel GOOD about america! Most of america is not liberal. So try making us happy for a change. I doubt that will happen, because like most liberal institutions, Hollywood is not introspective.

What Holywood does not recognize is that most Americans d not feel a connection with the stars, because of their behavior, as well as, their forays into politics. Moreover, Americans don't like most of the movies that come out of Hollywood due to the graphic nature portrayed in the films. Funny, rated G movies now bring in more revenue currently than the rated PG-13 or R rated films.

In short, Americans want to be entertained by substance, not sex, not deformed mutants with chainsaws gutting people, and not by films that have completely dysfunctional families without a single positve quality. We all know their is "BAD" in the world, but what is the point of making a film that does glorify thesubject, but portrays it as the norm.

David Worsham
Belmont, CA

IMO, the average American does not watch the Oscars because of the movies nominated and all the many other award shows for Hollywood. Who has actually seen these movies? Ask the average person, I can almost bet no. The other reason is because of the political statements that the majority of Hollywood spews out, turns off more Americans than they think. Also, stop with the fake-mentarys that have been presented over the past years. Once the Hollywood cleans up their act (which won't happen) then maybe the Oscars will improve.

You really just don’t get it, do you. The reason most people don’t care much about the Oscars is they don’t much care for most of the movies being made. People like to talk about being in the mainstream. The current movie industry doesn’t even seem to be on the same river, much less in the mainstream. The most recent poll I could find in this area gave the following data on how Americans describe themselves:

Very liberal 6%
Somewhat Liberal 15%
Moderate 34%
Somewhat Conservative 27%
Very Conservative 14%
Decline to answer 4%

The most recent poll I could find on what viewpoint Americans feel most movies reflect or espouse had the following results:

Neutral 27%
Liberal 42%
Conservative 5%
No Opinion/Decline to Answer 26%

Most of those with an opinion believe the movie industry is pushing or presenting a viewpoint most of them don’t agree with. Why would you then expect the American public to care which movie, director, actor, etc. wins an Academy Award ? This is particulary true since the people choosing the winners are the same ones who created the movies that most Americans feel don’t reflect their views.

To those saying the kind of films being nominated for awards are at least in part responsible for the lower ratings--Shootout agrees with you, as the story makes clear. At the same time, to say "no one" is seeing the films is extreme. Best picture winner "No Country for Old Men" pulled 73.6 million domestic gross in '07 (according to Box Office Mojo) -- that puts it in the upper tier of movies for the year. Of course, it does not come close to the very top movies--Spider Man 3, the latest Shrek and Transformers, all over $319 million at the Box Office.

I want to echo some of the comments already made. Unfortunately, the lack of interest in the most recent Oscars has very little to do with the actually awards show and more to do with the state of Hollywood today. Today's actors are totally overexposed on TV programs like Access Hollywood, in magazines, on other awards shows and on the internet. Who needs to waste one's time seeing more of them, especially as some have noted their behavior and attitudes towards their audience leaves little to cheer for. This morning, I was a little taken aback by Ms. Theron when she stated that she thought that the movie going public was ignorant as to what is going on in the world today and only wanted feel good entertainment, when she tried to explain why people didn't turn out to see the bomb of a movie, In the Valley of Elah. I wish she would have spared me her self-righteousness. In business, the customer is always right, and for whatever reason the customer didn't want to see a semi-factual dramatization involving the Iraq war. Maybe the customer is informed enough.

I think the low box office receipts for some of these movies are not necessarily indicative of the quality of the movies nominated but rather the fact that they are not worth $30+ to view in today's megaplex theaters. The value proposition is not there anymore. Only the big budget action flicks that are able to utilize the state of the art sound and digital projection, and provide an experience that one can not get by watching the movie on dvd, are worth such a price for admission. I don't know where this leads, maybe two tiered pricing.

Guber, have you lost your mind?! Best New Star?! Best Comedy? Best Action film?! Do you want to defame the Oscars?! Do you want to turn it into the Golden Globes of the 70s and 80s which were glorified bought trophies that brought us such famed winners as Pia Zadora?! Being fun at the price of destroying the point of the awards, how it is the zenith of achievement, seems like a poor trade.

But the most infuriating thing about this discussion was how the studio bigwig mentality came out in full force. The idea of relegating craft awards to the Internet?! Are they kidding?! Hardly any of the guild ceremonies are televised at all, which means this really is the sound department's only chance to have this kind of spotlight as opposed to the fifteen chances actors have to put on fancy clothes, thank their agents, and fake cry. And now they are saying they aren't important because they are "boring"? To clean the show up and boost ratings we should dump them and give all their time to giving Hilary Duff a Best New Star award? How insulting! Hollywood runs on the backbone of the crew. Every film, whether a small independent or a big blockbuster (especially those) would absolutely suck or not exist at all were it not for these men and women who are out there when it is raining and they have to protect equipment or when they spend hours setting up a complicated shot for the Bourne trilogy while Matt Damon was in his trailer! Oh but those awards are boring so let's give Damon an action star of the year award and he can thank the crew as a group instead of any of them getting individual props, ridiculous! It disgusts me how snobby they were.

Bart talks about how it used to be a dinner, yes, and it also wasn't televised. This ceremony is about honoring films. The Oscars, unlike most recent award shows, was not created for the purpose of being on TV and garnering ratings. To change it now to get the ratings but destroy the original point of the ceremony is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It really does seem like they are complaining about ratings and the enjoyment of it and yet, when they claim it is stale, they defend the Cates, who is incredibly stale. The heck it isn't Cates fault. Let's start with the fact that the last time he tried to shake it up, he had people accept their awards with their back to parts of the audience and others were forced to be on stage like they were finalists for Miss America! What about his penchant for montage after montage after montage? There has got to be a better way to honor films than those bloated self-important time eroding two minute pieces honoring everything from "epic" pictures to musicals.

Guber and Bart were constantly mixing apples and oranges in their arguments. The fact that Enchanted's songs were nominated are not the fault of ABC or Disney, that's the fault of the academy members. To call that a commercial for ABC is to forget the Snow White debacle as an example of far worse blunders. And Bart's point about the specialty pictures being groomed for Oscar gold while other films just have to be big and colorful and no longer smart has merit, but again, has nothing to do with the show. As was Guber's point about too many award ceremonies crunched together and all being televised. The irony is of course that only the SAG awards (whose ratings were up this year) and the Broadcast Critics awards got a chance to air with the regular format and the ratings for the Oscars still took a plunge, so I'm not sure how award overload plays into it.

The Oscars have been long (one of the highest rated Oscars in fifteen years went over four hours), silly, and pointless, many many times throughout its' televised history and yet now it is reaching a ratings crisis, so it must be something different. We've all groaned at dance numbers, weird song performances, stupid opening numbers, and soapbox political speeches. You want to know what is missing now spontaneity, from all aspects. With pictures now being made to win awards and others to have big box office, the variety in nominees and possible winners dwindle. With producers constantly trying to structure the show to run on a tight schedule, unique moments are played off with the music. One of the most memorable moments of this year was the lady from Once being able to make her speech and that kind of time, no one minds being wasted. Now, the 45 second clock starts before a winner is even on stage and they feel pressure and are rushed. Palance wouldn't have had the time to do his push ups in that case. The orchestra would have played off Two Feathers the second they noticed she wasn't Brando. And the five second delay would have prevented anyone from seeing the streaker. The show has been sterilized from being eventful, fun, unrehearsed, and uncensored. Pumping the show full of plastic like a Hollywood actress isn't the way to fix it. As always, it is more important to be real.

It also must be said that the ignoring the elephant in the room, moving the awards up a month, is baffling. That is a major change that effects how many films are still in theaters, how many films have made it to DVD, how late in the year other studios release films, etc. It used to be films that came out in late summer still had a chance to be remembered. But now with the award season starting in late November and ending by mid February, you get a crunch of small "issue" films clogging the industry and very little time to notice them and no time for momentum to change. The last time the awards were held in March, a film that was released a year ago won, Crash. It makes a difference and why no one will acknowledge that moving the Oscars to a sweeps month with five billion other things on networks and cable and no break between it and other award shows, was a change for the worse, is beyond me .

The Oscars have outlived their time, much like the Miss America Pageant. Celebrities can now be viewed on-line, on the television entertainment shows (Entertainment Tonight, etc.), and all over the place. No one has to wait for the Oscars to see a celebrity if they so choose. The Oscars are long and very boring, and should be relegated to an hour, i.e., show only the highlights such as Best Actor/Actress, and so on. Forget all the little boring awards no one but those directly involved care about. Does anyone in the television audience really give a hoot about Best Art Direction? How about Best Editing? No! These are only of interest to those in the industry and should be edited out of the show that eventually airs. Like I said, an hour show with just the main winners. So many things eventually outlive their usefulness if indeed they had any int he first place), and the Oscars is definitely one of them!

@Pamela-Marie - If you agree, as you seem to, that craft awards and "ratings" are incompatible, then featuring them in a televised ceremony on prime-time, won't get them the spotlight they deserve -- it will just reduce the award ratings.

So the idea being proposed, I think, is not to eliminate "craft" awards but to take them out of prime time and award them in a manner that gives them visibility among the professional community and honors the winners respectfully.

I actually don't agree that craft awards and ratings are incompatible, quite the opposite. I believe that it is a scapegoat. It is a filmsy argument based on zero facts. The craft awards have always been there, the idea that they are a prime reason people are tuning out is ludicrous. As I said, ratings tanking is a recent trend. Whether someone cared about art direction did not stop over fifty million people from tuning in year after year until the last five years or so. And it isn't true they don't get the spotlight they deserve, 30 million people in the US, not to mention the places many live overseas is a heck of a lot more people that will see them than on the Internet.

Besides, it's not like the people in the "craft" will eagerly have an award ceremony with bad chicken while "main winners" get all glamed up and get Wolfgang Puck!.I find it highly offensive and insulting to always try to cut them from the importance of the event. Even if the show wasn't televised at all, they shouldn't be relegated to the back like Hattie McDaniel was forced to eat in the kitchen! It's wrong, it's classist, and it is greedy.

For the record, I absolutely care about art direction and the other "little boring awards". The year Crash won best picture, I was highly more offended that Memoirs of a Geisha lost best score. But even if I didn't care, you never know the most memorable Oscar moment may come from. From the honorary Oscar winner, from the winners of best song, or from a costume designer who shows up in a dress of gold American Express cards! Those that think only Julia Roberts on stage is interesting have very short memories of how there are far more memorable moments from "nobodies" than Cuba Gooding Jr. I can't think of anything more offensive than people calling the acting awards the "main winners". I understand that not all share my interest in seeing who won for best animated short, but what angers me is that people in the business (albeit producers) are being that classist as well. The crew is already treated like crap

What I was actually saying was that perverting the awards for ratings, whether by adding stupid categories or shuffling the majority of the awards to the Internet, completely ignored the point of the awards. This show is not for ABC to make money, this show isn't even for us the viewers, this show is for the industry to award each other. It's nice that we get to see it, but when did it become about pleasing us? What next, we can text message in?! Give me a break! I'd rather the Oscars remain the pinacle of rewarding excellence in film where every winner gets a chance to sit in the audience, go to the stage and make their speech, than ever see it on my TV again. A highlight show, like they used to do by putting them in movie newsreels (while the entire show could be available online) would work fine. The cute little quotes, memorable speeches, etc., would still get a forum, but everyone in that room would be an equal and not exiled because greedy producers are focused on the numbers and not the point of the Oscars.

It may be absolutely true that the audience is over "events" like the Oscars or Miss America and are now spoiled by trite things like American Idol or Survivor and no longer have the patience or respect for these competitions, but messing with them to gain an audience does nothing but ruin tradition. Miss America has completely changed things, has new owners, moved locations, and built a reality show around it ... and the ratings still stink, even for cable! But the show itself never needing "saving", it's ratings did, that's the difference. Same here. If you want to keep the Oscars relevant for viewers, that's different from "saving the Oscars". The Oscars are fine, it's the people who are bored.

@Pamela-Marie: I think our headline then is misleading, for "saving" was meant to convey the idea of keeping it relevant for viewers (success or failure measured in ratings) and, therefore, something that could maintain a prime-time broadcast slot. I could be wrong here but my read of the overall argument is also that keeping the show relevant to viewers (ratings) brings cultural relevance--meaning an awards show that people watch and talk about has cultural value beyond ratings and the cost of a commercial. Perhaps, and here I am speculating, that the decline in ratings could signify and/or contribute to a decline in Hollywood as cultural force and, if this is the right word, mystique. (If more viewers care to watch who wins a mid round of American Idol than the movie industry's Best Picture award--I think that could be saying something.) I also think you hit it dead on when you imply at the end of your comment that the viewers are changing and the cultural context in which the show exists is changing and so the same old show is not going to work, even if it once did.

The Oscars have really been boring for a good many years. I used to watch them all the time, since 1952 awards started being shown on tv. Back in those days, the winners got on and off the stage very quickly. As Susan Sarandon said at the 70th award show when she was introducing the former actor/actress winners, they are the ones people know. And for me, the ones I want to see. The 70th and 75th had former actor/actress winners and I taped them and really enjoy looking at it over and over. I taped the 80th and no such luck. I think the academy should rethink and shorten the award show. All you seem to see were presenters from tv, like who cares. I want to see the ones that have been contributing for years and years.

Also, the academy seems to treat someone like myself very badly. I called and emailed both after the 70th and 75th awards shows to see about getting a photo of all the actor/actresses who had won before. I got treated very badly and didn't get anywhere with them. We are the people who go to the movies and also the people to watch their show, so who do they think they are? I have a dvd of the 25th academy awards and the 27th awards. Fantastic. Maybe they should look at old tapes to see what a good show looks like.

Does anyone know where I might purchase the photo of the 70th and 75th former winners? Also, the gathering of the Women in Film photo. I would also like to see the 50th award show as they had a lot of former winners there.

That's my rave.....Dickson

Get rid of the old guard who have been puttin on the show for over a dozen years.

Then put Linda Burns in charge and get out of her way!

Terry Thomas
Actor and Unit Stills Photographer

website:
http://TerryThomasPhotos.GooglePages.com

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1669504/

What makes the Oscars so long and boring is the acceptance speeches. Years ago they were interesting and sometimes even funny. But some years ago one grateful winner decided to thank all of his co-workers and family members, and since then everyone has followed suit. I'm sure that all the persons being recognized in this way are well deserving, but to the audience all it is is a boring readout of people they've never heard of. To make it worse, any winner who doesn't read off a long thank you list is seen as ungrateful.

The producers should bar the phrase "Thank you" from the acceptance speeches, with the exception of just one big "thank you" for the award, so the show can once again be entertaining.

Who REALLY thought Juno was a great original screenplay? I read the script. (What 16-year-old knows who Soupy Sales is?) I watched the Oscars this year to see how Juno would be rated. Diablo Cody is from my part of the country so I'm interested. (Who says calling someone a "douche-bag" is scintillating dialog?) I'm thinking too many people had their fingers in the pot.

It would be nice to see how many votes each nominee in each category received and just how close (or not) the 2nd place nonwinner came to winning?

Unfortunalety the Oscars can not be saved. They are designed for suffering and the punishment of sin. The only deliverance for viewers is to watch the movies rather than the award shows, esp. The Acadmey Awards. The only deliverance for the Oscars is mercury poisoning or the honorable tradition of Seppuku.

I agree with the comments made earlier that Hollywood needs to remember that most of Americans that will pay their big bucks to go to a movie love America and I do not like it when they have a host that mocks America. We used to for years do a big Oscar party and take our own poll of some years up to 100 people(friends & co-workers) so we could open our envelope at the same time the show did and we would compare. It was great fun, but we quit doing it when thay start bringing America hating hosts on and having the left0wing hate America first stars spew their pathetic venom. What happened to good Hollywood American starts like Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable who used to support us in our wars? Now we get losers like Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon or George Clooney who just hate America! I refuse to watch those types and I must say we do miss watching the Oscars but we refuse to watch liberal hate America types spew! One of the greatest Americans and our GREATEST ACTOR passed last night and this AMC sight doesn't even have a note about that on here! Are you people controlled now by the left wing liberals also!
God Bless Charlton Heston and God Bless America!

Most people have better things to do than care about the Oscars. Hollywood is a bunch of lost idiots who are so out of touch is sick. I don't pay for movies in any form, I just watch the classics that my parents raised me on. The "stars" of today are a joke compared to Heston, The Duke and Cary Grant.

Here's a way to bring the Oscars into the 21st century; Give all the folks on the floor, behind the scenes, and off in the wings an iPhone. Allow them to text between themselves - and - make that chat session available for audiences at home (or perhaps even those watching on HD screens) the ability to see the silent conversations happening during the show. Hands down, today's audience would eat up the opportunity to see what their favorite [and not so favorite] stars and celebs are speaking about their peers - and the awards.

There are several things wrong with the Oscars besides being too long. First off, who do they think's watching the oscars?? I'm 38 but I don't know any 18 year olds scrambling home to watch the oscars. They're not cool and hip enough and that's the way it should be - the oscars USED to be about CLASS. Something that is lacking in the entire industry and entertainment media in general nowadays. Something's should be done just for nostalgia's sake and the oscars is one of them - to think you need to start creating new gimmicking awards like Best New Star and and podcasting them is ludicrous. How about getting back to basics with a great host who is actually an ACTOR, a FILM ACTOR, a COMEDY FILM ACTOR - someone who can entertain and truly make us laugh the way Bob Hope & Billy Crystal did. I mean, Jon Stewart's great at what he does on his show, but he's NOT someone who should be hosting the oscars. I agree with him politically, but keep the polictical jokes out of the show - THAT gets boring. Unless an award recipient unexpectedly decides to make a statement - then go ahead - that's the fun of the unexpected and a reflection fo the times but to have the host incorporate his political point of view through planned jokes - that's not cool. I love and am a huge fan of Letterman but again, he's not representative of CINEMA. And I know Johnny Carson wasn't a movie star, but that was a different time in the industry and it worked because he practically knew every star in hollywood at the time for they would appear on his show, but again, he had CLASS. I used to love the moving film tributes cut by Chuck Workman - film montages that CELEBRATED FILM. That's what's missing guys - you guys are not CELEBRATING film - there are so many aspects to filmmaking that can be celebrated each and every year - they've done in the past a few times I can remember - where the theme of the show was celebrating say THE SCREENWRITER so there was that angle to the tributes and graphics. Pay tribute to a different aspect of filmmaking each year guys - come on, you got DIRECTORS, PRODUCERS, SCREENWRITERS, EDITORS, COMPOSERS, SPFX- I don't have to name them all. The possibilities are endless - it'd be great to see each year CELEBRATE a different craft of the filmmaking process and have visual tributes to the individuals and movies of each. Many of the people I know who want to watch the oscars love FILM and could care less about seeing the new flav of the year (Miley Cyrus for example) or what new dress so and so is wearing. One exception was Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill - that was a lot of fun because it was a clever bit. But CELEBRATE THE MOVIES AND STARS OF THE PAST or they will surely be forgoetten. Your market is NOT 18 to 49, it's more like 30 to 60 - THAT'S who CARES about watching the the oscars. Your 18 to 20 somethings are too busy playing playstation and text messaging each other. Sure there will be exceptions in this age group - kids who want to be filmmakers or work in the industry, but for the most part, the kids are NOT oscar's target. This is the one time a year people in my age group (30 and up) want to see our veteran actors and living legends both as presenters AND in the audience. There's not many left as each year passes. Where's Paul Newman? And newer legends like De Niro and Pacino? I used to love seeing oscars in the 80's with stars like Jimmy Stewart, Gregory Peck in the audience. Anytime one of these old timers came on stage, the audience would give them standing ovations - it was always so nice to see the younger actors respecting the older ones and seeing the older actor receive that gratitude and respect through their applause. It can't always be about money and ratings guys - sorry. Hollywood is the one destroying hollywood AND the oscars by trying to present the newest and latest thing instead of realizing the brand that they have used to stand for class, glamour and now has more nostalgia then ever. I would like to see the oscars be like a dinner - isn't that they way they use to be? when all the stars came in beautiful evening gowns and tuxedos? That would be a nice touch one year - to pay tribute to hollywood of old and have all the stars arrive in vintage luxury cars from the 40's. It would be so cool to see some of our younger actors/actresses dress like the stars from the 40s (I've seen photos shoots that do just this - Katherine Heigl, Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson - just think of the possibilities). STYLE, CLASS. GLAMOUR AND NOSTALGIA MOST OF ALL. That's what's missing.

First, given the other postings, I am compelled to add this: Politics has and will never keep me from seeing a movie or watching the Oscars. Every American is allowed their own opinion -- and can voice it -- and that's one huge aspect of what makes America great. I may not agree with anyone but who cares? I don't actually have to, do I?

What makes the Oscars not so great imho is that the films chosen lately are dark, brutal, and bloody, and feature characters (Oscar winners) who are not warm and fuzzy but mean-spirited, violent and selfishly ignorant by choice and, gosh! If I wanted that, I'd watch the evening news and don't need to go to a theatre AND pay for it.

Movies are, I think, magical. So, um, where's the magic?

The songs this year -- Gil Cates et al -- puhleeze never do that again. They were like the lamest possible ride at Disney. Also consider NOT allowing 3 songs from the same movie to be nominated... no matter how "good" they may be, WAY OVERKILL... but, oh! hey? Was it broadcast on ABC? Hm...I wonder...

I love Shootout. Thanks for putting it on!