Academy "Politically Correct" Awards
#51
DVD Talk Godfather
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Originally Posted by Tay
I really do like a variety of movies. I will give Aviator a shot this weekend. Meant to see it sooner. But there were much better movies this year and I was surprised by the movies they chose.
Dear god, did you fall off the ternup truck?
Oscar winners are seldomly ever big money makers.
and it's COME ON. two fuck'n words. Come on!
Oscar awards are not People choice awards. They do not represent the majority but represent the minority that is the film makers and everyone behind the scenes.
90% of people eat at mcdonalds. Does this mean that it is good? No. it means that it is easy access for everyone and people put up with it. Much like the majority of films that are released. They are for the masses.
[flame]Passions was an awful film and deserved no awards. Much like the bible, it lacked character development, plot and any sort of entertainment. [/flame]
#52
Senior Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 746
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Oregon
Originally Posted by Tay
They need to include movies that actually do well such as the Passion of Christ
#53
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why bother? You go into his profile and you see that lots of his discs are fullscreen, and that he's got a large collection J.-C. Van Damme films... I mean, really. Let this thread die, maybe he'll go away.
#54
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Originally Posted by Playitagainsam
Why bother? You go into his profile and you see that lots of his discs are fullscreen, and that he's got a large collection J.-C. Van Damme films... I mean, really. Let this thread die, maybe he'll go away.
#55
New Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pay no attention to this thread. I am a new member and I was just perusing different forums, and this seems to be form topic created by Christians that are all crying over Passion of the Christ. I was over at a Christian forum, and they had the EXACT same topic.
However, in terms of a movie, Passion of the Christ was not a good movie. You had to have some background knowledge of the movie to even understand it. If we changed the character to just some random lead role, then the movie is just about some guy getting beaten and executed for a crime he may not be guilty of. But again, this is just a forum blitz campaign.
I say ignore this poster, don't encourage the troll.
However, in terms of a movie, Passion of the Christ was not a good movie. You had to have some background knowledge of the movie to even understand it. If we changed the character to just some random lead role, then the movie is just about some guy getting beaten and executed for a crime he may not be guilty of. But again, this is just a forum blitz campaign.
I say ignore this poster, don't encourage the troll.
#57
DVD Talk Hero
Hey, guys, leave White Chicks alone. It's this year's Goodburger.
#58
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by InnerCityBlues
Pay no attention to this thread. I am a new member and I was just perusing different forums, and this seems to be form topic created by Christians that are all crying over Passion of the Christ. I was over at a Christian forum, and they had the EXACT same topic.
However, in terms of a movie, Passion of the Christ was not a good movie. You had to have some background knowledge of the movie to even understand it. If we changed the character to just some random lead role, then the movie is just about some guy getting beaten and executed for a crime he may not be guilty of. But again, this is just a forum blitz campaign.
I say ignore this poster, don't encourage the troll.
However, in terms of a movie, Passion of the Christ was not a good movie. You had to have some background knowledge of the movie to even understand it. If we changed the character to just some random lead role, then the movie is just about some guy getting beaten and executed for a crime he may not be guilty of. But again, this is just a forum blitz campaign.
I say ignore this poster, don't encourage the troll.
"If we changed the character to just some random lead role, then the movie is just about some guy getting beaten and executed for a crime he may not be guilty of."
What exactly you're saying here I'm not sure. If you change the lead role to someone besides Jesus Christ, it would change the entire message of the film completely. That it's plot is that of an accused man being beaten and crucified is not an inherently bad thing, and removing his role as Jesus from the equation would pretty much change the intent and purpose of the film completely, to the point it'd be a different film to begin with. So how is this really a complaint? This isn't really a thread about he Passion, but this doesn't really make sense to me as a negative.
#60
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by matome
Academy Awards TV Audience Down 2 Million
NEW YORK - With comedian Chris Rock, the Academy Awards succeeded in its effort to find a younger audience — but perhaps at the expense of the country as a whole.
A total of 41.5 million viewers tuned in Sunday to watch "Million Dollar Baby" take the Oscar for best picture. That's down 2 million from last year's show, which honored "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," according to Nielsen Media Research.
ABC undoubtedly hoped for better, after preliminary figures released earlier Monday from the top 56 markets were the strongest they were in five years.
The drop in total viewership was an indication that this year's Oscar ceremony was more popular in the big cities than rural areas, more so than an average Academy Awards, said Larry Hyams, vice president of audience analysis and research for ABC.
Oscar ratings were up from last year among viewers aged 18 to 34 — a prime target for the advertisers who pay millions of dollars for time on what is traditionally the year's highest-rated program after the Super Bowl.
Hyams attributed the boost in young viewership to Rock.
"The academy made a concerted effort to go in a different direction and try to appeal to a younger audience with the Academy Awards, and it appears they have succeeded," he said.
It was the 12th time since 1990 that the Academy Awards drew an audience of between 40 and 46 million people, according to Nielsen. The peak during that stretch was the "Titanic" year of 1998 with 55.2 million, and the low point was 33 million in 2003, when "Chicago" won.
Rock said backstage after the Oscars that he hoped to do it again, although "who knows if they would want me again."
He attracted plenty of pre-Oscars publicity, including speculation about whether he would make jokes at the expense of President Bush (he did) or test ABC censors with curse words (he didn't).
"Put it this way, I don't curse in front of my mother," Rock said. "And my mother was front and center, you know, right in my view. So I could never curse in front of Rose Rock, so why would I do it on television?"
NEW YORK - With comedian Chris Rock, the Academy Awards succeeded in its effort to find a younger audience — but perhaps at the expense of the country as a whole.
A total of 41.5 million viewers tuned in Sunday to watch "Million Dollar Baby" take the Oscar for best picture. That's down 2 million from last year's show, which honored "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," according to Nielsen Media Research.
ABC undoubtedly hoped for better, after preliminary figures released earlier Monday from the top 56 markets were the strongest they were in five years.
The drop in total viewership was an indication that this year's Oscar ceremony was more popular in the big cities than rural areas, more so than an average Academy Awards, said Larry Hyams, vice president of audience analysis and research for ABC.
Oscar ratings were up from last year among viewers aged 18 to 34 — a prime target for the advertisers who pay millions of dollars for time on what is traditionally the year's highest-rated program after the Super Bowl.
Hyams attributed the boost in young viewership to Rock.
"The academy made a concerted effort to go in a different direction and try to appeal to a younger audience with the Academy Awards, and it appears they have succeeded," he said.
It was the 12th time since 1990 that the Academy Awards drew an audience of between 40 and 46 million people, according to Nielsen. The peak during that stretch was the "Titanic" year of 1998 with 55.2 million, and the low point was 33 million in 2003, when "Chicago" won.
Rock said backstage after the Oscars that he hoped to do it again, although "who knows if they would want me again."
He attracted plenty of pre-Oscars publicity, including speculation about whether he would make jokes at the expense of President Bush (he did) or test ABC censors with curse words (he didn't).
"Put it this way, I don't curse in front of my mother," Rock said. "And my mother was front and center, you know, right in my view. So I could never curse in front of Rose Rock, so why would I do it on television?"
#61
DVD Talk Godfather
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Actually, when you look at the break down.. it still remains to be a valid argument that it did draw in those that bringing chris rock was leading to bring in:
This troll is trying to point out that if the movies nominated was a bigger box office draw then it would have gotten better Oscar Ratings. WELL NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Like the article shows, Titanic was the most watched. But that is not what the awards show is about. It's about awarding the film makers for their work and not for it being a populary contest.
Oscar telecast ratings, viewers down from last year
By Cynthia Littleton
Viewership of the Academy Awards fete took a hit this year, probably because of the absence of mega hits competing in the top award categories. But the turnout for Sunday's live telecast was still well above Oscar's recent nadir set in 2003.
The ceremony that crowned Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" best picture averaged 41.5 million viewers from 8:30-11:30 p.m. ET, according to preliminary estimates from Nielsen Media Research. (Final national ratings for the Oscars won't be available until Tuesday.)
That was down by 2 million viewers from the crowd drawn last year when Peter Jackson's blockbuster "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" steamrolled to victory as best picture.
The top Oscar telecast in recent memory remains the 1998 ceremony that lavished multiple awards on James Cameron's "Titanic" and drew an average of 55.2 million viewers. The lowest ebb for the Oscars during the past 30 years came in 2003, when the period musical "Chicago" cleaned up on statuettes but the nation was distracted by the onset of the war in Iraq and dramatic combat footage that competed with the ceremony.
Sunday's Oscar stats were on par with the turnout for the 2002 affair, when "A Beautiful Mind" won the top prize and the show drew an average of 41.8 million viewers. According to ABC, about 70 million viewers watched at least six minutes or more of Sunday's three-hour telecast, a healthy showing but not exactly the spike ABC and Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences were undoubtedly hoping for with the selection of edgy comic Chris Rock as the host of the industry's most august awards ceremony.
ABC was quick to point out that this year's ceremony drew Oscar's highest marks with younger viewers since 2002. In the adults 18-49 demo, Sunday's ceremony was down ever so slightly from last year, averaging 14.9 rating compared to 15.3 rating in 2004. But viewership was up slightly over the past few years in the Rock-friendly demos of adults 18-34 (12.7) and women 18-34 (16.1).
The top local market for Oscars this year was New York, where the ceremony commanded a 39.5 household rating/55 share on the ABC flagship WABC-TV. Several other major cities topped Oscar's hometown of Los Angeles (34.4/52) on the list of top local markets, including Chicago (37.7/52), San Francisco (36.7/56), Kansas City, Mo. (36.4/48) and Detroit (36.2/50).
By Cynthia Littleton
Viewership of the Academy Awards fete took a hit this year, probably because of the absence of mega hits competing in the top award categories. But the turnout for Sunday's live telecast was still well above Oscar's recent nadir set in 2003.
The ceremony that crowned Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" best picture averaged 41.5 million viewers from 8:30-11:30 p.m. ET, according to preliminary estimates from Nielsen Media Research. (Final national ratings for the Oscars won't be available until Tuesday.)
That was down by 2 million viewers from the crowd drawn last year when Peter Jackson's blockbuster "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" steamrolled to victory as best picture.
The top Oscar telecast in recent memory remains the 1998 ceremony that lavished multiple awards on James Cameron's "Titanic" and drew an average of 55.2 million viewers. The lowest ebb for the Oscars during the past 30 years came in 2003, when the period musical "Chicago" cleaned up on statuettes but the nation was distracted by the onset of the war in Iraq and dramatic combat footage that competed with the ceremony.
Sunday's Oscar stats were on par with the turnout for the 2002 affair, when "A Beautiful Mind" won the top prize and the show drew an average of 41.8 million viewers. According to ABC, about 70 million viewers watched at least six minutes or more of Sunday's three-hour telecast, a healthy showing but not exactly the spike ABC and Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences were undoubtedly hoping for with the selection of edgy comic Chris Rock as the host of the industry's most august awards ceremony.
ABC was quick to point out that this year's ceremony drew Oscar's highest marks with younger viewers since 2002. In the adults 18-49 demo, Sunday's ceremony was down ever so slightly from last year, averaging 14.9 rating compared to 15.3 rating in 2004. But viewership was up slightly over the past few years in the Rock-friendly demos of adults 18-34 (12.7) and women 18-34 (16.1).
The top local market for Oscars this year was New York, where the ceremony commanded a 39.5 household rating/55 share on the ABC flagship WABC-TV. Several other major cities topped Oscar's hometown of Los Angeles (34.4/52) on the list of top local markets, including Chicago (37.7/52), San Francisco (36.7/56), Kansas City, Mo. (36.4/48) and Detroit (36.2/50).
#62
DVD Talk Legend
I did have something written about it not being Rock's fault for the decline, but I must have deleted it. Of course it was the lack of blockbuster movies. Even though I didn't like his selection for stylistic reasons, I think he did as well as could be expected.
#64
Senior Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 746
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Oregon
Originally Posted by InnerCityBlues
However, in terms of a movie, Passion of the Christ was not a good movie. You had to have some background knowledge of the movie to even understand it. If we changed the character to just some random lead role, then the movie is just about some guy getting beaten and executed for a crime he may not be guilty of.
#65
DVD Talk Hero - 2023 TOTY Award Winner
Originally Posted by SMB-IL
"The Oscars' 30.1 rating in Nielsen Media Research's 56 top markets was a slight 1 percent improvement over last year's comparable number, and the highest-rated Academy Awards in the metered markets since 2000. The rating is an estimate that nearly 33 million households were tuned in.
If they don't come up with some sort of gimmick for next year, the ratings will drop by several percentage points. This year's show was pretty damn boring.
#66
DVD Talk Godfather
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Originally Posted by Duder
The movie does make the assumption that its viewers are familiar with who Jesus is... and considering he's one of the most commonly written-about figures in Western culture, I think that's a decent assumption to make. Otherwise, you may as well criticize Schindler's List for not providing the full context of what caused the Holocaust, or Saving Private Ryan for not telling us why those troops were landing at Normandy.
actually, you would only be able to compare the two by having Oscar's character not developet at all through the movie. That was the problem with taking Passions as a film. Jesus gets beat. not much else happens and you are forced to "feel" for him because he's getting an ass beating. Nothing else to it.
#67
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackskeleton
actually, you would only be able to compare the two by having Oscar's character not developet at all through the movie. That was the problem with taking Passions as a film. Jesus gets beat. not much else happens and you are forced to "feel" for him because he's getting an ass beating. Nothing else to it.
#68
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Tay
...
They need to include movies that actually do well such as the Passion of Christ. That movie was historically acurate (but very politically incorrect) and was a great movie showing Christ's Crucifixion.
...
They need to include movies that actually do well such as the Passion of Christ. That movie was historically acurate (but very politically incorrect) and was a great movie showing Christ's Crucifixion.
...
While I don't think for a second that the Bible tells any accurate story of Jesus' life, many do so I'll suspend my disbelief for the moment. Probably at least half of the film is full of extrabiblical material based on the "visions" of a nun who lived two centuries ago. How is that historical, even if one accepts the Gospels as history? Why is there any reason to accept Sister Anne Emmerich's ravings as any more "historical" than anything anyone else could make up?
See:
http://www.jesus-passion.com/DOLOROU...SUS_CHRIST.htm
to read her "visions."
And see:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14097_1.html
which is a religious site and lists some of the Emmerich material used in the film.
#69
Originally Posted by wmansir
I did have something written about it not being Rock's fault for the decline, but I must have deleted it. Of course it was the lack of blockbuster movies. Even though I didn't like his selection for stylistic reasons, I think he did as well as could be expected.





