Peter Gabriel Refuses to Sing Butchered 'WALL-E' Song at Oscars

Good for him; that's some bullshit.

Reply

I am so grateful they are reducing the song category. It is such a chore every year to have to listen to several boring, mediocre songs that are usually only barely related to the films they appear in.

And what is Peter Gabriel complaining about? Do we get to see 65 seconds of editing from the films nominated in that category? Or hear 65 seconds of sound design? We probably don't even get to see 65 seconds of the performances nominated in the Best Actor/Actress category.

This category hasn't made sense since Hollywood stopped producing several musicals a year.

Reply

Strange they would do this after last year, when the Once/Falling Slowly section was obviously the highlight of the broadcast.

Reply

65 seconds?! Shit, I don't blame him!

Reply

How stupid of the producers. The song performances sprinkled through the show are among the things I look forward to most. They make a nice change from all the speeches. I was particularly looking forward to Peter Gabriel, but under the circumstances, I totally support his decision. And yes, I still love "In Your Eyes."

Reply

Way to go Academy, keep giving people reasons to not watch the show.

Reply

I don't blame Peter, either. What a slap in the face and that is such a cool song. I'm bummed I won't see him on there singing it, though.

And you are right, Your Eyes is a timeless classic. That song still gives me goosebumps to this day, but you are talking to a die-hard Peter Gabriel fan who has loved him since his early Genesis days.

Reply

I get that some of the song sequences in the past have been a bit lengthy, and that other categories don't get as much exposure in the ceremony, but the music portion is also a much needed break from the constant thanking of family, friends, producers, the academy, co-stars and directors - all understandable, but it gets a little tedious without some kind of break. A break that the music categories often provide, especially this year since there will only be 3 songs to perform.

Reply

When they announced that this years Oscars would be different, what they meant was: shorter, with more appeal to the growing ADD market.

Reply

While I take D's point that the category is less relevant lately ... and it doesn't help, ACADEMY, that they keep excluding some of the most deserving nominations (cough-Bruce Springsteen-cough) ... I could go on and on about yawning through multiple noms for sappy drivel from Disney movies (this doesn't include "Down to Earth" BTW), but 'nuff said.

In general, I'd rather see more about why these people were nominated than see the winners "amble up to the podium and tell us the names of their agents, lawyers, and spouses" (what, is it in lawyers' and agents' contracts or something?). And, yet, I always seem to hear from at least some people that acceptance speeches are the thing that *shouldn't* be cut. I'm always hoping that someone will take the time to cut the thanks and come up with something interesting to say, but that only happens once in a blue moon. Acceptance speeches are the boring-est part, but how do you minimize them? They're the whole point, aren't they? I guess shrugging and going back to making it a dinner party would be to give up a lot of money ... sigh.

Reply

I'm with Pete. Why bother to highlight his or the other musicians' work at all if they're just going to skim through it?

The Academy is desperately trying to improve ratings for the show, which apparently accounts for a large chunk of their annual funding, while simultaneously offending the very people that they are supposed to be honoring. What's the point?

If Hollywood wants to keep this tradition alive, I say hold a modest, un-televised banquet, funded by the Academy members and the studios, and then just let us know what happened the next morning. I'll be just as disappointed in their selections as I would if I were watching the event live.

Reply

Wow, how innovative! How daring! How stupid... once again the Academy proves it has no clue how to trim down the length of their bloated awards ceremony without pissing people off.

I expect their exciting changes for award presentation to cinematographers, sound editors, and the like will be "Okay nominees, look under your chairs. YOU GET AN OSCAR! YOU GET AN OSCAR! 1/5 OF ALL OF YOU GET AN OSCAR!"

That or the Oscar-cannon idea.

Reply

Been a huge Gabriel fan since ... well, a long time. Here's just another reason for me to respect the man.

Reply

Agreed. Why bother with 65 seconds. Just cut it out entirely, but don't butcher the songs to shorten the show. Either no songs, or perform the songs as they are meant to be. None of them are 17-minute epics, so give them there due.

As to making the awards different and shorter. Well, blame can be placed on multiple parties. First, the producers constantly prove that they are a bit out of touch with the rest of America, and listening to the president of the academy blab is consistently boring year after year. The second part of the blame lies on the winners. Even after 80 similar award ceremonies the academy has conducted, you think the winners would realize that not everyone they've ever known needs to be named, and that the most memorable speeches are often quick and with point.

So trim some of that unnecessary fat and keep things moving at a reasonable clip. Make it fun and fresh, and if you insist on letting some talentless writers whip up the introduction speeches to categories, then make them a lot shorter. No need to make the awards mindless and dumb, but use some common sense please.

Reply

I'm definitely with Peter. Total BS. I actually called their attempt to "shorten" the ceremony when I first got wind of only 3 songs (i.e. the bare minimum for an Oscar category) being nominated this year. My question is, why do they continue to add in crap no one wants to watch, and shave off from actually showing anything good? And they wonder why their ratings continue their steady decline, year after year...

This does make me sad, though. I've been a huge fan of Gabriel's for longer than I can remember, and "Down to Earth" is one of his finest tunes from the past 5+ years (which is really saying something). Butchering it like that for the sake of saving broadcast time really is a crime. He's incredible to see perform, and the Academy's really shooting themselves in the foot here.

Reply

What a shame.

Why couldn't they have done this the year Beyonce sang everything?

Reply

I totally support Peter's decision not to perform a sixty second cut up of " Down To Earth". I've been a huge fan for years and have seen all of his live tours including two with Genesis. It was great to see him at the Emmy's, but kind of typical of them to give the award to Bruce. With the amount of long winded speeches, and just plain babble that surrounds award shows, they certainly could squeeze in six minutes of real art for for one as deserving as Pete.

Reply

I love Genesis with Peter Gabriel (Supper's Ready) even more...

And yeah, that is BS because the songs should be performed at full length. It's the whole point of presenting!

Reply