Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest.asp?I1=ID&I2=73647" target="_blank"><b>Latest: Mediaweek: ABC's Oscars Entertain More Than 41 Million</b></a> <p>Disney-owned ABC's broadcast of the Academy Awards was "the most-watched entertainment telecast on any network since Feb. 27, 2005" reports <i>Mediaweek</i>. This year's numbers are 8 percent over the 2009 broadcast.</p>
Originally Posted By Ursu La La Too bad it was also the worst broadcast of the Oscars, ever. In my opinion, it had horrible direction.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Really? I dunno, I thought, except for the required-by-law interpretive dance performance it moved along pretty well. I thought Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were very funny.
Originally Posted By Ursu La La Seriously, were we watching the same show? For the John Hughes memorial, they cut away from the stars on the stage just as they were stepping out to go to a long side-shot, thus allowing the viewing audience to NOT see anyone. I'm sorry, but I WANTED to see how they are doing. I grew up with them. In the begininng, they cut away to the stars in the audience. Unlit. One would think they would have practiced this. For the Memoriam, they cut to a wide shot just in time for the viewing audience to NOT see all of the people being honored. I'm sore on this because last year, they did the same thing and someone my colleagues know was honored and they couldn't see him. All of the previous years, they had it so that we could see the honorees. But, I did like the presenters. I hate the dance numbers, though, but that isn't direction. That's just a bad show (to me!) This isn't the Tony's.
Originally Posted By Ursu La La OH, and I left out that they played "I am Woman" when the female director won. Awful, bad, horrible taste.
Originally Posted By mawnck Was watching it "on and off" as I did other things, and 100% agree with Ursula (la). The telecast was surprisingly amateurish from a "puttin' on a live TV show" standpoint.
Originally Posted By ToonKirby >ABC's Oscars Entertain More Than 41 Million< "Watched" yes, "Entertained" ... hardly. <a href="http://moviedearest.blogspot.com/2010/03/awards-watch-oscars-post-mortem-2009.html" target="_blank">http://moviedearest.blogspot.c...009.html</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>OH, and I left out that they played "I am Woman" when the female director won.<< Yeah, that was pretty odd.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan (And it makes you wonder what song they'd have played if the African-American director would have won.)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I thought the tribute to John Hughes was good. Amazing to see how many people got their start with him. The salute to horror movies was weak and pointless. They really hate that genre, don't they?
Originally Posted By brotherdave Anyone notice that they left out Farrah Fawcett from the "In Memorium" segment? Was that intentional, or just an oversight???
Originally Posted By mawnck Bea Arthur also. There has been considerable comment about this on many websites - especially since Michael Jackson got in after being in a grand total of two movies - "This Is It" and "The Wiz."
Originally Posted By brotherdave Given that I forgot about Bea Arthur also, I can see how people can be accidentally ommitted. Was anyone else not on that list who should have been??
Originally Posted By Ursu La La <I thought the tribute to John Hughes was good. Amazing to see how many people got their start with him. > Agreed. I do wish I could have SEEN then, though.
