Are You Watching The Oscars Tonight?

[CouchCoach]

Yes, actually.

In America, Netflix streaming is responsible for more than one-third of internet traffic at peak times. People are staying in more for entertainment - it is cheaper and easier and more comfortable.



... but movies like Roma are why. Netlix is putting out quality movies and shows. Roma was directed by one of the most acclaimed directors of the 2000s, Alfonso Cuarón, director of films such as Children of Men and Gravity. It was incredibly well directed, acted, and told a unique story.

And Roma is just one of many quality pieces of entertainment to come from Netflix recently. Stranger Things, Orange is the New Black (season 1 at least), Master of None are all pretty good, with some shows such as Mindhunter (my favorite Netflix original), Bojack Horseman, and Black Mirror being arguably great.

Netflix is easily becoming the biggest name in movies and TV, and no one will stop them.

The writing is on the wall and this is what the movie theater industry has been fearing because those that actually make the films do not care, they get paid anyway. They can make all the comfy recliners they want, the movement and fight is for the home. I really dislike going to the theater because I can't pause and take a pause and I don't want to sit around a bunch of popcorn bag rattling smackers that feel designed silence in a film is an opening for them to speak in a loud whisper.

The question is why doesn't Netflix or Amazon, the two behemoths, do a Frito-Lay and set up their own competition? Why not specific genre streaming for Comedy, Drama or Horror?

Amazon, Disney, Hulu, Netflix and where is Apple and Microsoft? The pie has not even reached the baking stage yet. It's going to get huge and I can't wait.

 

[CouchCoach]

Just making an observation.

You are making an observation not really related to my post and then address my ability to understand? I was not being a smart***, I did not get the connection to the intelligence of actors, I never even implied they were a bunch of mouth breathing morons. Except maybe for Randy Quaid.

 

[Rockport]

https://apnews.com/78d308b26d7944768b03d6699c690245

 

[Reverend Conehead]

On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do I care who wins the Oscars?
0

 

[DallasEast]

https://apnews.com/78d308b26d7944768b03d6699c690245

Guess the Oscars will need another Titanic mentioned in the article to get audiences to come back in droves, lol. Ironically, Titanic is one of the few James Cameron movies of which I am not a big fan.

 

[Rockport]

Guess the Oscars will need another Titanic mentioned in the article to get audiences to come back in droves, lol. Ironically, Titanic is one of the few James Cameron movies of which I am not a big fan.

The article was about viewership being up this year.

 

[DallasEast]

The article was about viewership being up this year.

This year's viewership increase was only slightly better than the 2018 broadcast. The article mentions how viewership in 1998 was double that of 2018 or this year's show. The Academy (and ABC) would be positively giddy if it could attract those numbers from yesteryear again.

 

[Rockport]

This year's viewership increase was only slightly better than the 2018 broadcast. The article mentions how viewership in 1998 was double that of 2018 or this year's show. The Academy (and ABC) would be positively giddy if it could attract those numbers from yesteryear again.

Agreed but it wasn’t down like you were insinuating.

 

[DallasEast]

Agreed but it wasn’t down like you were insinuating.

From the article:

The Oscars ended its four-year streak of dwindling viewership, reaching 29.6 million on Sunday...

The biggest Oscars audience ever recorded came in 1998, when 55.2 million people turned out to see “Titanic” named best picture.

*************

The contemporary Oscars audience is just under 26 million less than the number of people it attracted for its largest historical audience. An increase of 86% in viewership would be necessary for the Oscars to match or exceed its previously largest audience.

From Merriam-Webster:

insinuate
transitive verb

1
a: to introduce (something, such as an idea) gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way
b: to impart or suggest in an artful or indirect way : IMPLY

in droves
idiom

: in large quantities

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insinuate
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in droves


In my opinion, describing a television program's nearly doubling of audience size to match a gold standard in its history's viewership, requiring a spike of total viewers approaching 100%, is not an insinuation.

Question. Would adding 26 million people in addition to an established base of 29 million people be considered a small or even medium quantity of people in your opinion?

 

[CouchCoach]

From the article:

The Oscars ended its four-year streak of dwindling viewership, reaching 29.6 million on Sunday...

The biggest Oscars audience ever recorded came in 1998, when 55.2 million people turned out to see “Titanic” named best picture.

*************

The contemporary Oscars audience is just under 26 million less than the number of people it attracted for its largest historical audience. An increase of 86% in viewership would be necessary for the Oscars to match or exceed its previously largest audience.

From Merriam-Webster:

insinuate
transitive verb

1
a: to introduce (something, such as an idea) gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way
b: to impart or suggest in an artful or indirect way : IMPLY

in droves
idiom

: in large quantities

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insinuate
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in droves


In my opinion, describing a television program's nearly doubling of audience size to match a gold standard in its history's viewership, requiring a spike of total viewers approaching 100%, is not an insinuation.

Question. Would adding 26 million people in addition to an established base of 29 million people be considered a small or even medium quantity of people in your opinion?

Glad it's not just me.

 

[Rockport]

From the article:

The Oscars ended its four-year streak of dwindling viewership, reaching 29.6 million on Sunday...

The biggest Oscars audience ever recorded came in 1998, when 55.2 million people turned out to see “Titanic” named best picture.

*************

The contemporary Oscars audience is just under 26 million less than the number of people it attracted for its largest historical audience. An increase of 86% in viewership would be necessary for the Oscars to match or exceed its previously largest audience.

From Merriam-Webster:

insinuate
transitive verb

1
a: to introduce (something, such as an idea) gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way
b: to impart or suggest in an artful or indirect way : IMPLY

in droves
idiom

: in large quantities

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insinuate
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in droves


In my opinion, describing a television program's nearly doubling of audience size to match a gold standard in its history's viewership, requiring a spike of total viewers approaching 100%, is not an insinuation.

Question. Would adding 26 million people in addition to an established base of 29 million people be considered a small or even medium quantity of people in your opinion?

The first sentence says what I’m trying to tell you. Nothing more or nothing less.

 

[DallasEast]

The first sentence says what I’m trying to tell you. Nothing more or nothing less.

I understand. The first sentence refers to a positive change in viewership during the last four years resulting in a small incremental increase reflected in last Sunday's telecast. My first comment that you originally replied to, which I again clarified in this comment you just replied to also, refers to a hypothetical change in viewership numbers between last Sunday's show and the 1998 telecast.

I agree with you. My 'in droves' description for the last 4-year viewership trend would have been inaccurate. Of course, I never stated the last four years. Once again, my 'in droves' description was in reference to the differential viewership numbers between the 2019 and 1998 telecasts. Thus, I did not make an insinuation but I did state a factual observation using the descriptive term 'in droves' for those two specific years.

 

[Tabascocat]

Sundays ratings was the 2nd worst in Oscar's history. It just so happened that 2018 was the worst, so yes....2019 was slightly better

 

[Ranched]

 

[Reverend Conehead]

LOL.

 

[Corso]

*snicker...