When it comes to shows like the Oscars, it is imperative to have your own opinion and stay away from the conventional thinking.
You will quickly see if that conventional thinking on an event is real, or contrived. With the Oscars, it is often contrived. So, if you find yourself thinking differently than what you are hearing, do not worry. Many of the red Carpet reports are fluff and over-the-top. They praise so much you can tell they are likely not being honest in their assessment of the person or movie in which they are speaking.
And that is fine from a public relations standpoint. There is no need to complain and find fault all day and night, either. But, focus on the movies and that takes out the need to talk about the dresses, tuxedos and all the other noise. ABC needs to be positive as they are the main sponsor, so even "Good Morning America" will gush and gush.
The show was not good, no matter the spin. The no host approach hurt it this year. It did not hurt it last year. The transitions were bad and they stuffed too much music into the show. It is not the Grammys, it is the Oscars. Focus on movies. At least the songs were from movies, but still, too much music. Eminem's surprise appearance was not necessary.
It was also the lowest-rated show in history, and 6 million lower than last year. While last year was up from the previous year, it was still low. But last year stopped the slide. Well, it slid again. If you think the Academy and others in the business think the low ratings do not matter, think again. The Oscars are the single biggest marketing vehicle for movies, every year. It is not a fringe award show designed to honor small films and people nobody knows. It is for the biggest movies and stars. The Indie Spirit Awards are for the smaller films, etc. The Oscars want eyes on the show and the products.
The 92nd Oscars was also not predictable, even though I read many stories suggesting it was. Plus, listening to pundits was enough to make you feel sick. Most thought "1917" would win the top prize and its director, Sam Mendes, would win. They did not. Many had Quentin Tarantino winning Best Screenplay, but he lost too, to "Parasite." So, "Parasite" won the night, and that was not what was predicted. For surprises purposes, many also, in hindsight, said they saw this coming. Actually, not true. "Parasite" was to win International Film, but not Best Picture, or director.
Meanwhile, those who won seemed to try too hard to make a memorable and political speech. That is not necessary. Brad Pitt won many throughout this award season, and his John Bolton jab did not sound like him at all. it was as if someone thought it would be funny and timely and handed it to him.
Then there was Joaquin Phoenix's speech. It was an incoherent mess. As was Renee Zellweger's speech. Both tried too hard to make it matter and meaningful, which was noted earlier. But, when many reported on those speeches, only a small clip was used, and not much talk of the rambling nature and absurdities noted within. Phoenix's cow comments made the rounds, but the quote from his brother was the only thing I say on "GMA" the next morning and others along the way. Zellweger's commented mostly on other matters but her Judy Garland quip near the end was the only focus for "GMA." Again, "GMA" is ABC and they are the main sponsor and they air the show. Of course, only the good gets treatment.
The decline of award shows does not have to happen. Hollywood is doing it to themselves. This is happening from within, not from the American public. You give them a show that is a showcase of the best of the best and do it with class and style, then the audience will come back. Continue to lecture and hate the very audience you want to see your product and reap what you sow.
So, when dissecting an award show, note the group think. There is always a reason why everyone is for or against something. Sure, sometimes is is real. But, most times, other forces are at play. While I am glad "The Irishman" did not win any, it had 10 nominations. Why did it not win one? Perhaps Hollywood sent a message to Netflix. The star power alone could not save it. Or is was because Robert De Niro, a film icon, has insulted his audience time and time again over the last few years.
One film, "Joker," came in with 11 nominations and only won 2, while the films that got 10 nominations, got spanked. The favorite going in, "1917," won only three technical awards. "Once Upon Time...in Hollywood" got only 2. and "the Irishman" got shut out.
What is the message there? That would take up for too much time to explain that. Oh,, and the highest-grossing film of all-time, was not nominated for Best Picture. "Avengers: Endgame" could have at least been in the Best Picture category. It does not need to win to get people to tune in.
Hollywood needs to wake up and stop insulting the audience. The Oscars are or a mass audience, and it is the biggest fashion show, so stop pretending it is not. It is glitz, glamour and excess. Play into it and stop toning it down.
You will quickly see if that conventional thinking on an event is real, or contrived. With the Oscars, it is often contrived. So, if you find yourself thinking differently than what you are hearing, do not worry. Many of the red Carpet reports are fluff and over-the-top. They praise so much you can tell they are likely not being honest in their assessment of the person or movie in which they are speaking.
And that is fine from a public relations standpoint. There is no need to complain and find fault all day and night, either. But, focus on the movies and that takes out the need to talk about the dresses, tuxedos and all the other noise. ABC needs to be positive as they are the main sponsor, so even "Good Morning America" will gush and gush.
The show was not good, no matter the spin. The no host approach hurt it this year. It did not hurt it last year. The transitions were bad and they stuffed too much music into the show. It is not the Grammys, it is the Oscars. Focus on movies. At least the songs were from movies, but still, too much music. Eminem's surprise appearance was not necessary.
It was also the lowest-rated show in history, and 6 million lower than last year. While last year was up from the previous year, it was still low. But last year stopped the slide. Well, it slid again. If you think the Academy and others in the business think the low ratings do not matter, think again. The Oscars are the single biggest marketing vehicle for movies, every year. It is not a fringe award show designed to honor small films and people nobody knows. It is for the biggest movies and stars. The Indie Spirit Awards are for the smaller films, etc. The Oscars want eyes on the show and the products.
The 92nd Oscars was also not predictable, even though I read many stories suggesting it was. Plus, listening to pundits was enough to make you feel sick. Most thought "1917" would win the top prize and its director, Sam Mendes, would win. They did not. Many had Quentin Tarantino winning Best Screenplay, but he lost too, to "Parasite." So, "Parasite" won the night, and that was not what was predicted. For surprises purposes, many also, in hindsight, said they saw this coming. Actually, not true. "Parasite" was to win International Film, but not Best Picture, or director.
Meanwhile, those who won seemed to try too hard to make a memorable and political speech. That is not necessary. Brad Pitt won many throughout this award season, and his John Bolton jab did not sound like him at all. it was as if someone thought it would be funny and timely and handed it to him.
Then there was Joaquin Phoenix's speech. It was an incoherent mess. As was Renee Zellweger's speech. Both tried too hard to make it matter and meaningful, which was noted earlier. But, when many reported on those speeches, only a small clip was used, and not much talk of the rambling nature and absurdities noted within. Phoenix's cow comments made the rounds, but the quote from his brother was the only thing I say on "GMA" the next morning and others along the way. Zellweger's commented mostly on other matters but her Judy Garland quip near the end was the only focus for "GMA." Again, "GMA" is ABC and they are the main sponsor and they air the show. Of course, only the good gets treatment.
The decline of award shows does not have to happen. Hollywood is doing it to themselves. This is happening from within, not from the American public. You give them a show that is a showcase of the best of the best and do it with class and style, then the audience will come back. Continue to lecture and hate the very audience you want to see your product and reap what you sow.
So, when dissecting an award show, note the group think. There is always a reason why everyone is for or against something. Sure, sometimes is is real. But, most times, other forces are at play. While I am glad "The Irishman" did not win any, it had 10 nominations. Why did it not win one? Perhaps Hollywood sent a message to Netflix. The star power alone could not save it. Or is was because Robert De Niro, a film icon, has insulted his audience time and time again over the last few years.
One film, "Joker," came in with 11 nominations and only won 2, while the films that got 10 nominations, got spanked. The favorite going in, "1917," won only three technical awards. "Once Upon Time...in Hollywood" got only 2. and "the Irishman" got shut out.
What is the message there? That would take up for too much time to explain that. Oh,, and the highest-grossing film of all-time, was not nominated for Best Picture. "Avengers: Endgame" could have at least been in the Best Picture category. It does not need to win to get people to tune in.
Hollywood needs to wake up and stop insulting the audience. The Oscars are or a mass audience, and it is the biggest fashion show, so stop pretending it is not. It is glitz, glamour and excess. Play into it and stop toning it down.
RSS Feed
