- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Oscars ratings down double digits
Posted on 2/27/17 at 7:53 pm to GeauxColonels
Posted on 2/27/17 at 7:53 pm to GeauxColonels
Yeah honestly even if it were films I actually saw I wouldn't watch, I just don't really give a damn about award shows.
0
Posted on 2/27/17 at 7:59 pm to TigerintheNO
The simple fact is that these movies are hardly being seen by anyone. Make anything less than $250 million and your film might not even crack the Top 15 at the yearly box office. Compare that to the Best Picture winners from the 1990s:
Dances With Wolves: $184 million (#3 film of 1990)
The Silence of the Lambs: $130 million (#4 film of 1991)
Unforgiven: $101 million (#11 film of 1992)
Schindler's List: $96 million (#9 film of 1993)
Forrest Gump: $330 million (#1 film of 1994)
Braveheart: $76 million (#18 film of 1995)
The English Patient: $78 million (#19 film of 1996)
Titanic: $600 million (#1 film of 1997)
Shakespeare in Love: $100 million (#18 film of 1998)
American Beauty: $130 million (#13 film of 1999)
Seven of the 10 films finished inside the Top 15 at the domestic box office in their respective years that decade. All of them finished inside the Top 20. Two of them finished #1.
Dances With Wolves: $184 million (#3 film of 1990)
The Silence of the Lambs: $130 million (#4 film of 1991)
Unforgiven: $101 million (#11 film of 1992)
Schindler's List: $96 million (#9 film of 1993)
Forrest Gump: $330 million (#1 film of 1994)
Braveheart: $76 million (#18 film of 1995)
The English Patient: $78 million (#19 film of 1996)
Titanic: $600 million (#1 film of 1997)
Shakespeare in Love: $100 million (#18 film of 1998)
American Beauty: $130 million (#13 film of 1999)
Seven of the 10 films finished inside the Top 15 at the domestic box office in their respective years that decade. All of them finished inside the Top 20. Two of them finished #1.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 8:07 pm to GeauxColonels
quote:
Do any of you know a lot of people that get excited for the Oscars? Or even care? I've lost interest in ALL awards shows: Grammys, Emmys, Oscars...even the ESPYs (and I used to watch anything sports-related). I know of only 2 people I'm close to that make it a point to watch the show yearly and even they don't really care about it that much.
Saturation might be one of the problems. Seems like you have awards shows every other week.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 8:10 pm to TigerintheNO
Fake News
Posted on 2/27/17 at 8:18 pm to TigerintheNO
It's because the award winning movies aren't the ones that people watch 
If the box office smashes like avengers were winning awards, the average joe viewership would skyrocket
If the box office smashes like avengers were winning awards, the average joe viewership would skyrocket
Posted on 2/27/17 at 8:19 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Nobody wants to watch a bunch of pretentious assholes blow each other and talk shite about conservatives.
This right here.
ETA: or Russians
This post was edited on 2/27/17 at 8:20 pm
Posted on 2/27/17 at 8:23 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
The simple fact is that these movies are hardly being seen by anyone.
That's what I was trying to say in my previous post.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 8:48 pm to RollTide1987
On that subject, I looked up the list of all nominees and winners for Best Picture: wikipedia
I found it interesting that there are years where all of the nominees - not just the winner - were big pictures that are still in frequent rotation and considered classics. Then there are years where the academy just turned it's nose completely to popular opinion and went Hollywood insider.
I found it interesting that there are years where all of the nominees - not just the winner - were big pictures that are still in frequent rotation and considered classics. Then there are years where the academy just turned it's nose completely to popular opinion and went Hollywood insider.
This post was edited on 2/27/17 at 10:04 pm
Posted on 2/27/17 at 9:21 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Most of America looks to Hollywood for escapism, not a constant barrage of reminders of current political acrimony.
Yep. This point is sadly lost on so many people in entertainment & sports.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 9:38 pm to FairhopeTider
There seems to be this belief that last night's Oscars was one long attack on Trump. That wasn't the case. They spent way more time fricking over Matt Damon than they did Trump.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 9:42 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:
Oscars ratings down double digits
You didn't read your link. The viewership was down 4%, not double digits. It was down double digits in one demographic. That's a big difference.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 9:44 pm to Scruffy
quote:I get this, but isn't it odd that we are do interested in the theatrics of politics (not the policy aspects), arguably the only profession where narcissism is even more prevalent than the entertainment professions?
narcissist relate each other for hours.
This post was edited on 2/27/17 at 9:44 pm
Posted on 2/27/17 at 9:51 pm to TigerintheNO
Good, as I suspected it would on the poli board.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 9:56 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
The simple fact is that these movies are hardly being seen by anyone. Make anything less than $250 million and your film might not even crack the Top 15 at the yearly box office. Compare that to the Best Picture winners from the 1990s:
Most of those movies have fairly wide appeal. The last few years the academy has moved more towards niche Oscar bait films, especially ones with progressive messages. The last two best pictures are about the struggles of being gay and black and the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic church. No matter how good those movies may be, most people don't want to see them just based on content.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 9:57 pm to TigerintheNO
Four hours of over the top celebrity "virtue- signaling" just doesn't work for me . I watched the Stuxnet documentary with mrs pimp and got in a 90 minute hood stroll. It was almost a perfect night. I did catch the Justin Timberlake opening and damn that guy is talented .
Posted on 2/27/17 at 9:59 pm to TigerintheNO
Definitely a down year, imo. Didn't see any films nor performances that rally blew me away.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 11:22 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Nobody wants to watch a bunch of pretentious assholes blow each other and talk shite about conservatives.
There wasn't near as much liberal agenda talk as expected. Way less actually
Posted on 2/27/17 at 11:23 pm to Tactical1
quote:
but this was a run of bad films nominated this year.
They weren't bad films. They were just some smaller budget/lower marketing ones that unless your a big fan of movies you didn't hear much about
Posted on 2/27/17 at 11:24 pm to jg8623
quote:
There wasn't near as much liberal agenda talk as expected. Way less actually
People are assuming the worst. If anything, this was the year where they took the celebs down a bit.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 11:27 pm to jg8623
quote:
but this was a run of bad films nominated this year.
quote:
hey weren't bad films. They were just some smaller budget/lower marketing ones that unless your a big fan of movies you didn't hear much about
Seriously, I could see La La Land or Moonlight not being someone's cup of tea but they weren't bad films. Manchester, Arrival, Hidden Figures, Hell or High Water, Hacksaw Ridge... those are all great films. They're just not Star Wars or Avengers.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News