"My Cousin Vinny" was good, but an Oscar for Marisa Tomei? Please. I'm not saying she wasn't good, but an Oscar means something.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Oscar Telecast Flops_May be an All Time Low!
- Thread starter umfan
- Start date
I think there are three types of Academy Awards potential viewers:
Movie freaks
Passively interested people
I don't care
The movie freaks still hold viewing parties for the program and, like the Stupid Bowl, make it a view fest with games and bets on who wins and loses. They are the people who go to 1 or 2 movies at a theater per week and tend to follow the "stars".
The Passively Interested People may attend a move a month at a theater but are not big movie watchers although they can tell you the names of the most prominent stars. They watch the AA show out of lack of anything "better" on at the time.
The I Don't Care people are not movie goers although they may watch selected movies via streaming infrequently. They get confused at all the look alike female stars and could care less what goes on in Hollywood. They don't watch the AA show (or TMZ or all the rest of the entertainment garbage).
The bottom line is that the AA's are still someone else's opinion of who rates and who doesn't and, as such, it means nothing more than a short chat at the water cooler.
Movie freaks
Passively interested people
I don't care
The movie freaks still hold viewing parties for the program and, like the Stupid Bowl, make it a view fest with games and bets on who wins and loses. They are the people who go to 1 or 2 movies at a theater per week and tend to follow the "stars".
The Passively Interested People may attend a move a month at a theater but are not big movie watchers although they can tell you the names of the most prominent stars. They watch the AA show out of lack of anything "better" on at the time.
The I Don't Care people are not movie goers although they may watch selected movies via streaming infrequently. They get confused at all the look alike female stars and could care less what goes on in Hollywood. They don't watch the AA show (or TMZ or all the rest of the entertainment garbage).
The bottom line is that the AA's are still someone else's opinion of who rates and who doesn't and, as such, it means nothing more than a short chat at the water cooler.
What's interesting is this thread has been going on for three days and very little of it has had anything to do with the winners. I've found the water cooler chat also has had nothing to do with the winners. It's all about the speeches and Jimmy Kimmel.
I found similar conversations to be the rule. When the subject got to movies themselves, the general comment was "I have not seen any of the winners" and "they never nominate the movies I like".
Of the performance-based winners, I had seen only one.
I may see one or two others on Prime; I found "maybe I'll see one or two of them if I get a chance" to be the general response.
Even in highly politicized California, I found nearly everyone to be bored by the posturing and "holier than thou" attitudes and fatigued by the length of the ceremony.
The most common comment about how to shorten the show: cut out the performance of the "best song" nominees; the songs are virtually unknown and not "hits" among the broader public. Make that part a medley of the tunes with perhaps 30" of each one in quick sequence.
One friend said they should put an airport-style moving walkway on the stage. The winners could only say whatever fit before they were conveyed off-stage.
I felt the opposite. The performances this year were stunning. Plus they give us a break from the talking. The way to shorten the show is eliminate the crafts awards. There really are only six awards that matter. Those are the ones they should give out. I know that's not what the Academy wants to hear, but it's the truth. The sad thing is the crafts awards are the ones that go to the most popular movies. The reality is they're not going to shorten the show. It's a big, long, huge elephant, so just embrace it for what it is.
That pretty much sums it up, frankly.
I can't speak for others but I find it difficult to speak about something I didn't watch. I have seen the AA's in the past and nothing seems to have changed except the budget. I could not tell you who, or what, won nor do I care. I will see a very few movies over the course of a year and look up the general opinion of moviegoers only when something tweaks my interest.
You mentioned Kimmel but it was actually our idiot president who began the verbal combat by trying to fire up his followers with the needless comment on the AA show's ratings. As someone who has earned the "Worst President In Our History" rating from a number of sources I think Mr. Trump can easily recognize a loser when he sees it.
I've been told that Buchanan and Pierce were actually worse Presidents, but then you have to go back before Lincoln (1850s) for the horribleness...so let's just say "Worst in A Century and a Half."
Personally, I think one thing that is definitely more boring than the Academy Awards is the inevitable annual bitching about how long they are. I'm 66 years old, and I have heard this same complaint every year since I first became aware of the Oscar telecast ...so about 1962. That's at least 56 years of the same damn complaint, and I'd bet that the complaint predates my birth.
Enough already! It's Hollywood's chance to celebrate itself, and it happens once a year for 4 hours. If you can't take it, watch something else. I was invited to an Oscar party this year, or I doubt I would have watched.
Fox has had reruns on Sunday's for nearly the past 2 months
I don't know if it matters but a lot of the east coast was without power over the weekend after a big nor'easter. Not sure that would effect the ratings but it can't help.
As others have said, TV ratings in general are down. People are not watching live TV or even broadcast TV anymore. This is the real problem the networks face when trying to bid on programming. How to get the eyeballs to watch when there are a million other places going after those same eyeballs.
As others have said, TV ratings in general are down. People are not watching live TV or even broadcast TV anymore. This is the real problem the networks face when trying to bid on programming. How to get the eyeballs to watch when there are a million other places going after those same eyeballs.
'Dunkirk' was quite good and I plan to see 'Darkest Hour'. Admittedly, some of the highest grossing films, including 'Star Wars', 'F&F 8' and others simply aren't of Best Picture caliber. 'Dunkirk' had a respectable gross and was nominated. I think it's less the films that are nominated, although that may be an aspect of the issue. A film that might have merited a nomination, if for nothing else it's originality was 'Split'.
Hollywood seems incapable of producing quality films that will attract audiences and could be Best Picture contenders, so the problem is still there regardless.
The power issues in the East may have had some impact, but I doubt it would've made much difference. They chose an awful host. I didn't get the moralizing anyway. Hollywood tolerated awful behavior for years, and now Hollywood is scolding who, the rest of America for their failings? No wonder people are tuning out.
Hollywood seems incapable of producing quality films that will attract audiences and could be Best Picture contenders, so the problem is still there regardless.
The power issues in the East may have had some impact, but I doubt it would've made much difference. They chose an awful host. I didn't get the moralizing anyway. Hollywood tolerated awful behavior for years, and now Hollywood is scolding who, the rest of America for their failings? No wonder people are tuning out.
IIRC, Dunkirk won for sound editing, which surprised me. Personally, I like to be able to hear the dialogue, even in films that are mostly action and explosions. Watching it in the theater was frustrating because most of the dialogue was buried under the noise of the battles. If I watch it again on TV or internet, I'll use closed-captioning, Darkest Hour was very well written and acted, and, IMO - Oldman deserved that Oscar for his acting, his alleged past domestic history, aside.
Because the major awards went to movies that no one watched.
- "The Shape of Water" (best picture, best director, best score) was #47 at the box office.
- "The Darkest Hour" (Best Actor) was #50.
- "Three Billbaords Outside Ebbling Missouri" (Best Actress, & Best Supporting Actor) was #52.
- "I, Tonya" (best supporting Actress) was #86.
I think it's great that they did't give Best Picture to Guardians of The Galaxy Part 2. But selecting relatively unpopular movies for all the awards severely limits the possible subjects of smalltalk. Unless there is a fellow movie buff at the office, the only water cooler conversation about the Oscars is to talk about the telecast.
One might say that more people watched the Academy Awards than watched the biggest winning films. How can that be? Why did anyone watch at all?
How about this. Sundance and Cannes film festivals tend to get discussed as the Oscar's version of Comic-con. If a movie went through Cannes or Sundance the chances of that movie winning an Oscar is most likely.
This has always been true - at least since the 1960s. The Oscars generally go to the critically acclaimed films. On occasion, a top box office earner will also be critically acclaimed, and it will get Best Picture, but only if the critics like it.
You don't expect the Fast & Furious films to win, do you? I just Googled the top box office films of the 1970s, by year:
1970: Love Story - 1971: Billy Jack -1972: The Godfather - 1973: The Exorcist - 1974: Blazing Saddles - Jaws - 1976: Rocky - 1977: Star Wars (original) - 1978: Grease - 1979: Kramer vs. Kramer.
Some of those, like The Godfather, were critically acclaimed, and none, with the exception of Love Story was a critical bomb, but for comparison, here are the Best Picture winners for the 1970s:
1970: Patton – 1971: The French Connection – 1972: The Godfather – 1973: The Sting – 1974: The Godfather Part II – 1975: One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest – 1976: Rocky – 1977: Annie Hall – 1978: The Deer Hunter – 1979: Kramer Vs Kramer.
So the only matches were in 1972 (Godfather), 1976 (Rocky), and 1979 (Kramer Vs Kramer). So only 3 of 10 years.
If that's what they want, that's their choice-- I still don't get why both FOX News and MSNBC equate attacking the other side with news reporting (FOX attacking liberals, MSNBC attacking conservatives).
Because everything is about politics to these two cable news outlets, and that's how they have become successful. If there is not currently a topic that the public is outraged about, Fox and MSNBC will gin something up to create controversy. A good example of this is the lame-ass "Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas" controversy. Fox News didn't invent the Fundamentalist conservative outrage on this, but they revive it every holiday...uh...sorry - Christmas season, and flog it for all it's worth. They will no doubt do the same in 2018.
I think that answers the question right there-- thanks much! I'll still never watch either FOX or MSNBC, but at least you explained their thought processes very well.
I just looked at the ratings for the week for broadcast TV and The Oscars were still no. 1.
- Status