Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
spence

Hope the Academy is proud of itself, lowest rated in history with it's ferak show!

Recommended Posts

A[[ararently most of the country & a lot of the world were turned off & turned off the Academy awards on Sunday night getting it's worse tv ratings ever!

A 23 share

Shoulda known we were in trouble when abc's red carpet pre show started with some guy dressed in a dress with a mustache interviewing people?

Middle America doesn't want to also witness the show & a lot of the winners that occurred either, obviously

Very first Oscars on tv were in 1953 at The Pantages also on Hollywood Blvd

Before that of course the radio

Wonder if they will rethink what they did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now last year when GREEN BOOK won were the highest n almost a decade

 

see people were furious when all the acting nominees were white, except for Cynthia Erivu in Harriet, so obviously they bent over backwards the make up for it  In the middle & never mentioned was first time contender & Mexican Antonio Banderas though?

 

& liberals, including Tom 0'Neil who invented golddebery.com actually considers GREEN BOOK a white guy movie, when Mahershela Ali was the co-star & won his 2nd s. actor Oscar for it, after Moonlight?

 

They yelled on goldderby that finally the Academy is now WOKE!  unquote

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they gained almost 5,000 new voting members within the last decade as well   Close to 9,000 to date now & a preferential ballot 

Guess they figured it would go along with the monolithic & space looking new museum & library, which Hanks started to show but was cut off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, spence said:

first time contender & Mexican Antonio Banderas though?

Antonio Banderas is from Spain...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, THIS has now got me thinking if something might ALSO have to be done about the State of the Union speeches here, spence!

Seems the latest one got the lowest ratings in recent memory TOO, and even in "Middle America" where the speech giver's following is usually in greater numbers than out there in California where as you noted some guys wear dresses.

(...wait, I've got it...have the speech giver begin giving more intelligent and unifying speeches...yeah, that might work)

LOL

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Jake’s recent Parasite claims, apparently Missing Link didn’t win the Oscar because Obama had a real life Bigfoot captured and is reprogramming the creature to help Bernie Sanders win the election so that the United States can be ruled by a communist puppet government connected to lizard people, The Stonemasons and The Catholic Church.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hibi said:

What is a ferak show???

Probably a show where Spence turns Spaniards into Mexicans. 

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Det Jim McLeod said:

Probably a show where Spence turns Spaniards into Mexicans. 

ROFL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was where Mexicans suddenly become "brown".

My wife's birth certificate( of which I'm still in possession) from Webb County, Texas( she was born in Laredo),  has the box in which the doctor was supposed to fill in the "race" information of the newborn.  And that doctor wrote "white" in that box.  She went to her reward still wondering when it was that she changed color.  :wacko:  

But, we're not supposed to get too political or topical here, so I'm guessing that movie PARASITE isn't about  MIKE PENCE?   :huh:

Sepiatone

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't recall seeing any "feraks" on the Oscars.  I just saw people.  People who made films which were voted upon by another group of people and deemed worthy enough to be in contention for an award.

I'm sure the Academy is proud of itself because it bestowed the night's highest honor on a film that received the most votes and was deemed the best picture of the year.  

Why is a South Korean film winning a few film awards such a threat?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the funniest thread in a long time. Thanks everyone. 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

Why is a South Korean film winning a few film awards such a threat?

 

Um, clearly it's been long enough since one of our SPAM ATTACKS on the BOARD for SOME OF YOU TO FORGET.

#NEVERFORGET  #SPAMPOCALYPSE #jUSTkIDDINGhONEST

 

  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, it was the Oscar Nominees Lunch that was 100% plant based.

Wolfgang Puck catered the Governors Ball after awards dinner which was about 70% plant based.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Roy Cronin said:

By the way, it was the Oscar Nominees Lunch that was 100% plant based.

Wolfgang Puck catered the Governors Ball after awards dinner which was about 70% plant based.

I bet some people got EXPLOSIVE SQUIRTS afterwards.

I'm enjoying the image of BRAD PITT reenacting the JEFF DANIELS scene from DUMB AND DUMBER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

"hse's a upser ferak, upser FERAK, she's upser FERAKY"

f5dd2ea968af5335ba6154b4930dfcba.jpg

ROFL!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I think that some people were turned off by things? Definitely, as can be seen from outrage in certain quarters. But there is another elephant in the room and its bigger and more of a reason why the ratings slid so much. It's a combination of internet and streaming. Internet in that the winners can be found updating after every single award on Wikipedia, and that the clips of the wins turn up within a few days on YouTube. This is what many in my age range have done rather than to sit through a 3 and a half hour ceremony, where over an hour of it is commercials.

And streaming caught on so much that millions of people cut the cord and got rid of cable, thus lowering the chances of a bigger audience for ABC. Speaking of which, for the people who do still have cable, the major networks have shed quite a bit of their old audience due to all the other channels out there.

And finally, there was another difference between this year and last. Last year had three movies that took over $200 million up for Picture: Black Panther (the biggest hit of the year), Bohemian Rhapsody, and A Star is Born. All pretty much liked by most of their target audience, and all three picked up awards, two of them in multiples, and one even scoring an acting win. They all lost to Green Book, but Film Twitter aside, many seemed to like that film. There was also the potential draw over Glenn Close looking like she'd finally win (I'm still smarting over that hurtful loss). This year, the only hit of that size was Joker, a film that fiercely divided audiences, and your next biggest were Once upon a Time in Hollywood, Little Women, Ford Vs Ferrari, and 1917, all well loved by thoughtful, mature  audiences, but films that had trouble (unfortunately) in drawing the popcorn crowd, which is obviously what ABC wanted to tap. You could also say that another problem was that all the award shows this year were mimicking each others wins, for acting, technical prizes, and more. It was like an award ceremony for lemmings, one of the most predictable Oscars I've ever seen.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

Do I think that some people were turned off by things? Definitely, as can be seen from outrage in certain quarters. But there is another elephant in the room and its bigger and more of a reason why the ratings slid so much. It's a combination of internet and streaming. Internet in that the winners can be found updating after every single award on Wikipedia, and that the clips of the wins turn up within a few days on YouTube. This is what many in my age range have done rather than to sit through a 3 and a half hour ceremony, where over an hour of it is commercials.

And streaming caught on so much that millions of people cut the cord and got rid of cable, thus lowering the chances of a bigger audience for ABC. Speaking of which, for the people who do still have cable, the major networks have shed quite a bit of their old audience due to all the other channels out there.

And finally, there was another difference between this year and last. Last year had three movies that took over $200 million up for Picture: Black Panther (the biggest hit of the year), Bohemian Rhapsody, and A Star is Born. All pretty much liked by most of their target audience, and all three picked up awards, two of them in multiples, and one even scoring an acting win. They all lost to Green Book, but Film Twitter aside, many seemed to like that film. There was also the potential draw over Glenn Close looking like she'd finally win (I'm still smarting over that hurtful loss). This year, the only hit of that size was Joker, a film that fiercely divided audiences, and your next biggest were Once upon a Time in Hollywood, Little Women, Ford Vs Ferrari, and 1917, all well loved by thoughtful, mature  audiences, but films that had trouble (unfortunately) in drawing the popcorn crowd, which is obviously what ABC wanted to tap. You could also say that another problem was that all the award shows this year were mimicking each others wins, for acting, technical prizes, and more. It was like an award ceremony for lemmings, one of the most predictable Oscars I've ever seen.

The videos of the wins were on You Tube the same evening.  My DVR recording cut off before the last three awards of the evening.  I found Joaquin Phoenix, Renee Zellweger and Best Picture all on You Tube.  There were also tons of live streams taking place--so people without a paid television service or whatever app it was streaming on, could bootleg it.  Not sure if bootleg viewers are counted among the viewership. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people have pointed to the "woke" content in the show to explain why the ratings were low, but the ratings were low because people didn't watch it, thus they had no idea what was in it. 

Award show burnout, cable-cutting, online options, and general disinterest were the main factors. Someone mentioned the latest State of the Union address. That had 7 million fewer viewers than the Oscar telecast, and that's a combined total, it being shown on all the major networks. The days of a majority of people watching the same thing at the same time are long gone, and the numbers will only continue to drop.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave up watching the Oscars, State of the Union, etc. long, long ago.  The Oscar winners will be in the paper or somewhere on the internet in a day or so - soon enough for me.  As for the SOTU, it's fantasy and anything significant will be on the news channels or internet or in newspapers the next day or so.

But then again, I am not as interested as I used to be either.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the Oscar ceremony streamed on any streaming service?     I ask because all of my younger relatives do NOT purchase TV services that contain the 4 major networks.

Some just have Netflixs  and a few other steaming services that don't contain the standard T.V. networks.

If only standard over-the-air broadcasting,   of course ratings will continue to go down.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As one whose apartment cut the cable FOR me (no way to rearrange the furniture), I was able to stream the ceremony legally for the first time on ABC.com, with Xfinity's blessing.

This is the first year they didn't promotionally hold the stream "Exclusively!" hostage to some mobile provider or TV-app service, although they did make sure we took notice of YouTubeTV in the ads.

5 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Many people have pointed to the "woke" content in the show to explain why the ratings were low, but the ratings were low because people didn't watch it, thus they had no idea what was in it. 

A dozen failed "hip, edgy" hosts, and the Academy still hasn't figured out we tune in to watch a year of nominees we've seen...Which is why Boyhood vs. Birdman is still the lowest-rated so far.   Nobody wanted to be the guy who tuned in to see if Joker was going to get Best Picture, and even more tuned out fearing it was.   The low ratings reflect the number of people who have already seen Parasite and 1917 in actual theaters.

And remember, like our president says, if you get low TV ratings, it's shame and dishonor, and proves that the American people hate you because you deserve it.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...