Anyone watching the Oscars?

[LuFins Dad]

@89th said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

@LuFins-Dad said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

I would still like to know what the dividing line is for black? 25%? Does it make a difference what the other 75% is? 75% Caucasian, no deal. 50% Caucasian, 25% black, 25% Hispanic and you're in?

Tiger Woods is 50% asian (Thai) and like 40% black, and 10% white. He's an asian golfer, but will always be known as a black golfer.

He is 25 Thai, 25% Chinese, 25% White, 12.5% Black, and 12.5% Native American... So where does that land on the privilege scale? He is twice as White as he is Black, and twice as Asian as he is White. And don't forget that Asian is considered "White-Adjacent..."

[Copper]

@LuFins-Dad said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:
? He is twice as White as he is Black, and twice as Asian as he is White. And don't forget that Asian is considered "White-Adjacent..."

That is the only reason he was granted the privilege of all those low scores.

[Catseye3]

@George-K said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

Angela Bassett couldn’t hide her disappointment after losing out on the best supporting actress award at this year’s Oscars to Jamie Lee Curtis.
Sadly though, Bassett was not victorious in the category and looked incredibly dissatisfied after the winner was announced.
A camera caught the reactions of all five nominees as Curtis’s name was called out, and while the other actresses applauded despite their loss, Bassett appeared deflated.

She couldn't just have been disappointed at having lost something she wanted and had worked hard for? Y'know, just like a regular normal person? Without having the whole thing turn into a BFD racial thing?

[Axtremus]

@Catseye3 said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

She couldn't just have been disappointed at having lost something she wanted and had worked hard for? Y'know, just like a regular normal person?

Yeap, no problem giving her the benefit of the doubt there.

I watched Wakanda Forever. As much as I enjoyed the movie, I can’t say I found her performance in it exceptional. She performed as professionally as can be reasonably expected from a seasoned actress in a big budget production, just did not stand out. There’s also not that much in the script for her role in Wakanda Forever for her to work with.

In comparison, JLC’s performance was surprisingly convincing in EEAAO, so much so that I initially thought the different personae played by JLC were played by different actresses.

[Jolly]

@Horace said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

This all but guarantees Bassett an award next time she is nominated. As for Curtis, presumably it was a lifetime achievement award, as the academy is wont to give.

Same reason JW got his for True Grit.

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls062019015/

[George K]

@Jolly said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

Same reason JW got his for True Grit.

I would guess that "True Grit" is probably a better movie than "Everything..."

Though I haven't seen "Everything..."

I might be wrong, of course.

Again.

[Jolly]

@George-K said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

@Jolly said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

Same reason JW got his for True Grit.

I would guess that "True Grit" is probably a better movie than "Everything..."

Though I haven't seen "Everything..."

I might be wrong, of course.

Again.

Nah, TG is better. But this is one of those lifetime things. Horace is right, it's common with the Academy. Considering what kind of crap they usually give awards, it doesn't bother me.

[Jolly]

If there was justice in the world, Maverick would have won best pic. After COVID, it was the one movie that put butts in the seats.

[Jolly]

Cruise...

https://www.thefp.com/p/tom-cruise-deserves-an-oscar-for

[George K]

@Jolly said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

If there was justice in the world, Maverick would have won best pic.

What's "Best"? Telling a compelling story or popcorn? Maverick was popcorn. It was DAMN GOOD popcorn and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Great production values, special effects, a pretty good (re-told) story and a ton of fun. A TON of fun. I loved it.

Is it something that tells an intimate story that is artfully crafted, something like "Birdman", which was weird AF, but I really enjoyed it?

I dunno.

I don't think I've ever seen a "popcorn" movie like "Maverick" nominated. That's not a bad thing, but just an observation.

After COVID, it was the one movie that put butts in the seats.

Indeed. And McDonalds and BK sell more burgers than anyone else. Does that make them great cuisine? Of course not.

So what's "best," as I said? Most popular? Most artsy-fartsy? Most money making?

The Oscars are a popularity contest, and every now and then, the votes veer to "being correct" for a variety or reasons (Jamie Lee Curtis?). That's not necessarily wrong, but that's what it is. The Academy needs to justify itself, and by excluding "Maverick" they accomplished that.

Is "Everything..." that good? Look at some of the other Best Pictures in history - Godfather, GWTW, Return of the King, Gladiator (perhaps the most popcorn-ey in recent history). Does "Maverick" compare?

Now look at others. Nomadland (?), Shape of Water, Argo, Shakespeare in Love. I didn't like any of them as much as Maverick. But that's me.

Gotta keep that perspective.

[Jolly]

@George-K said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

@Jolly said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

If there was justice in the world, Maverick would have won best pic. 

What's "Best"? Telling a compelling story or popcorn? Maverick was popcorn. It was DAMN GOOD popcorn and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Great production values, special effects, a pretty good (re-told) story and a ton of fun. A TON of fun. I loved it.

Is it something that tells an intimate story that is artfully crafted, something like "Birdman", which was weird AF, but I really enjoyed it?

I dunno.

I don't think I've ever seen a "popcorn" movie like "Maverick" nominated. That's not a bad thing, but just an observation.

After COVID, it was the one movie that put butts in the seats.

Indeed. And McDonalds and BK sell more burgers than anyone else. Does that make them great cuisine? Of course not.

So what's "best," as I said? Most popular? Most artsy-fartsy? Most money making?

The Oscars are a popularity contest, and every now and then, the votes veer to "being correct" for a variety or reasons (Jamie Lee Curtis?). That's not necessarily wrong, but that's what it is. The Academy needs to justify itself, and by excluding "Maverick" they accomplished that.

Is "Everything..." that good? Look at some of the other Best Pictures in history - Godfather, GWTW, Return of the King, Gladiator (perhaps the most popcorn-ey in recent history). Does "Maverick" compare?

Now look at others. Nomadland (?), Shape of Water, Argo, Shakespeare in Love. I didn't like any of them as much as Maverick. But that's me.

Gotta keep that perspective.

See the post about Cruise saving Hollywood's ass. I agree, whole-heartedly.

Face it, there's not but so many plots. 7? 10? 15? Whatever the number, the bottom line is whether or not the movie/play/book is entertaining. If all the critics think it's wonderful or the performances were sublime, if it doesn't put butts in the seats, it's forgettable at best.

Shakespeare didn't write for historic fame or awards. He wrote to put butts in the seats.

[George K]

@Jolly said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

If all the critics think it's wonderful or the performances were sublime, if it doesn't put butts in the seats, it's forgettable at best.

I tried to address that, obviously unsuccessfuly, by questioning what is "best."

Shakespeare didn't write for historic fame or awards. He wrote to put butts in the seats.

Yes. Butts in seats is the bottom (pun intended) line.

The same can be said about Dickens, I suppose. Gotta pay the bills.

[Jolly]

@George-K said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

@Jolly said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

If all the critics think it's wonderful or the performances were sublime, if it doesn't put butts in the seats, it's forgettable at best.

I tried to address that, obviously unsuccessfuly, by questioning what is "best."

Shakespeare didn't write for historic fame or awards. He wrote to put butts in the seats.

Yes. Butts in seats is the bottom (pun intended) line.

The same can be said about Dickens, I suppose. Gotta pay the bills.

Absolutely. A Christmas Carol was written because Dickens needed the money.

[Doctor Phibes]

Every year I'm led to the conclusion that The Oscars are a work of marketing genius.

The movie industry gives itself a massive pat on the back, and they actually manage to persuade people to watch and discuss this self-congratulatory mass wank as though it's genuinely important. It's a bunch of fucking overpaid people telling each other how great they are.

And what happens after the Oscars? Everybody goes and watches all the nominated movies they haven't seen yet.

They're getting paid to advertise themselves.

[George K]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

Every year I'm led to the conclusion that The Oscars are a work of marketing genius.

The movie industry gives itself a massive pat on the back, and they actually manage to persuade people to watch and discuss this self-congratulatory mass wank as though it's genuinely important. It's a bunch of fucking overpaid people telling each other how great they are.

And what happens after the Oscars? Everybody goes and watches all the nominated movies they haven't seen yet.

They're getting paid to advertise themselves.

Fantastic, and not wrong.

[89th]

Indeed it’s marketing, movies that can claim to have won or be nominated for a top prize, actors the same… then again, personally I’ve enjoyed the Oscars as it helps recap and put a “close on one year” of movies and kick off the next year. Without it, in my head at least, things would get a little muddy in terms of movie releases, and so forth.

Just watched Jimmy’s opening monologue, thought it was pretty good.

[Copper]

@George-K said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

Apparently not

Oscars Sees Ratings DISASTER With Host Jimmy Kimmel As Audiences Reject Woke Hollywood

Here’s a look at the ratings over the last decade:

• 2013: 40.3 million

• 2014: 43.7 million

• 2015: 37.3 million

• 2016: 34.4 million

• 2017: 32.9 million

• 2018: 26.5 million

• 2019: 29.6 million

• 2020: 23.6 million

• 2021: 10.4 million (virus year)

• 2022: 16.6 million

• 2023: 16 million

https://dcenquirer.com/oscars-sees-ratings-disaster-with-host-jimmy-kimmel-as-audiences-reject-woke-hollywood/

[Catseye3]

So how much of it is due to Jimmy Kimmel and how much to woke?

I'd really love a deeper dive into how much of it is due to woke.

[George K]

@Catseye3 said in Anyone watching the Oscars?:

So how much of it is due to Jimmy Kimmel and how much to woke?

Just spitballing here...

If I had to guess, it's not so much the "woke" culture as it is the naked politicization of EVERYTHING. In other threads, I've mentioned how today's late-night TV monologues are less of a comedy stand-up than a political harangue railing about an unliked politician. Kimmel and Colbert are notorious in that way, and Fallon's getting there.

So, when it comes time to do the Oscars, and Kimmel is the host, people not only know what they're going to see, they expect it.

And if they don't like it, they don't tune in and read about the winners in the newspapers the next day.

[Doctor Phibes]

I'm guessing the main reason that regular TV audiences are dwindling is that there are so many commercial free alternatives.

I'd much rather stream Woke Disney Plus than be watching Woke Oscars with all the commercials interrupting the main commercial.