The OSCARS will NOT be televised beginning in 2029.

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Wow….this is kinda crazy.
I used to love watching The Oscars, but not anymore. I haven’t watched in over 5 years, and it’s because I don’t want to listen to all the actors using their winning moment to ram their views down everyone’s throats. Actors doing this during The Oscars is nothing new, but I do think it’s gotten worse in recent years and I just don’t need to hear their speeches - I’m good.

I don't often watch - we don't watch a lot of movies so it isn't really my thing. But when I have watched, I never had any issue with people using their platform to advocate for peace, the environment, or respecting the value and dignity of all humans, etc. In fact, I think that's kind of a more interesting and compelling acceptance speech than a just a long list of names some of them ramble off.

 

[RedAngie]

Eh. I haven’t watched in about 5 years and really haven’t been very interested for at least 15 years. No great loss.

 

[_19disnA]

I think it is fine whenever someone in the spotlight speaks their mind. Have no issue with that.

My impression is that those opposed to what celebrities have to say is more a reflection of the fact they don't agree with their opinion on whatever topic it is.

 

[AppleDumpling]

I think it is fine whenever someone in the spotlight speaks their mind. Have no issue with that.

I agree, as long as they keep it short.

 

[hardcorestitch]

I agree, as long as they keep it short.

“We now join Good Morning America, already in progress.” -Jimmy Kimmel

 

[Disneefun]

I gave up on the oscars long ago. I've rarely ever seen any of the movies chosen, and when I hear stories about how the awards can be basically bought with a good campaign directed at the academy voters, well, I just chalk it up as just as corrupt as everything else in this world. That aside, it's just gotten too long and bloated, much like the Super Bowl.

 

[Imzadi]

Ok, so will it be FREE to watch on Youtube or will you need to be subscribed to Youtube TV?

Yes, it will stream for free.

Yes, that is my big question. Just because they say the award show will be moved to YouTube does NOT necessarily mean it will be on free YouTube.

Foe the past 3 years, the SAG Awards has been moved to streaming. The first year it streamed free on YouTube via some company's YouTube channel. It was glitchy, froze a lot. And wasn't conducive for those of us who wanted to watch together and also post while watching as one had to keep switching apps.

After that, in subsequent years, it streamed on platforms I (and others) didn't get. This past year, it was Netflix. So, it was "free" for those that were subscribed to that platform, but unavailable for others. I wasn't interested in signing up for a service just to watch the one event. And I was doing other things that month, I wasn't around to binge watching other stuff on Netflix.

It was the same with the Live Red Carpet show. (The most fun part of the whole event. Many of us tune in to watch and chat about the fashions in real time. If we are just going to look at the static Getty photos, no need to get together for that. We just open the thread at any time and post.) Once the award show moved to streaming, they partnered with a DIFFERENT streaming service which separately streamed the Red Carpet. Again, I didn't have that service and wasn't going to sign up for a service just to watch the one event.

Four years is a long time for YouTube to say it will be on free YouTube. I think it will likely be streamed on YouTube TV.

 

[gmi3804]

Yes, that is my big question. Just because they say the award show will be moved to YouTube does NOT necessarily mean it will be on free YouTube.

Foe the past 3 years, the SAG Awards has been moved to streaming. The first year it streamed free on YouTube via some company's YouTube channel. It was glitchy, froze a lot. And wasn't conducive for those of us who wanted to watch together and also post while watching as one had to keep switching apps.

After that, in subsequent years, it streamed on platforms I (and others) didn't get. This past year, it was Netflix. So, it was "free" for those that were subscribed to that platform, but unavailable for others. I wasn't interested in signing up for a service just to watch the one event. And I was doing other things that month, I wasn't around to binge watching other stuff on Netflix.

It was the same with the Live Red Carpet show. (The most fun part of the whole event. Many of us tune in to watch and chat about the fashions in real time. If we are just going to look at the static Getty photos, no need to get together for that. We just open the thread at any time and post.) Once the award show moved to streaming, they partnered with a DIFFERENT streaming service which separately streamed the Red Carpet. Again, I didn't have that service and wasn't going to sign up for a service just to watch the one event.

Four years is a long time for YouTube to say it will be on free YouTube. I think it will likely be streamed on YouTube TV.

There’s no YouTubeTV “streaming” section; its line-up is made up of other channels. It will be streaming on YouTube, the site/app.

 

[hardcorestitch]

Yes, that is my big question. Just because they say the award show will be moved to YouTube does NOT necessarily mean it will be on free YouTube.

Foe the past 3 years, the SAG Awards has been moved to streaming. The first year it streamed free on YouTube via some company's YouTube channel. It was glitchy, froze a lot. And wasn't conducive for those of us who wanted to watch together and also post while watching as one had to keep switching apps.

After that, in subsequent years, it streamed on platforms I (and others) didn't get. This past year, it was Netflix. So, it was "free" for those that were subscribed to that platform, but unavailable for others. I wasn't interested in signing up for a service just to watch the one event. And I was doing other things that month, I wasn't around to binge watching other stuff on Netflix.

It was the same with the Live Red Carpet show. (The most fun part of the whole event. Many of us tune in to watch and chat about the fashions in real time. If we are just going to look at the static Getty photos, no need to get together for that. We just open the thread at any time and post.) Once the award show moved to streaming, they partnered with a DIFFERENT streaming service which separately streamed the Red Carpet. Again, I didn't have that service and wasn't going to sign up for a service just to watch the one event.

Four years is a long time for YouTube to say it will be on free YouTube. I think it will likely be streamed on YouTube TV.

There is also YouTube Red exclusivity as a possibility too…

 

[TwoMisfits]

Network tv is going the way of the newspaper.

Youtube reaches the world. It's a no brainer they'd move this show to streaming.

Sports will probably follow in full in 10-20 years - it's already taken the baby steps now.

 

[gsdweller]

so you don't appreciate the craft of acting and think computers should replace them? wow

Oh, I appreciate true talent. But most of that is found in the theater, not on screen. Most popular movies these days could be shot with cardboard cut-outs then refined with CGI. They are wildly entertaining, but there is no talent involved. Today most actor's and actress' "talent" is based on their looks, and how naked they are willing to get.

 

[ChrisFL]

Oh, I appreciate true talent. But most of that is found in the theater, not on screen. Most popular movies these days could be shot with cardboard cut-outs then refined with CGI. They are wildly entertaining, but there is no talent involved. Today most actor's and actress' "talent" is based on their looks, and how naked they are willing to get.

so if it isn't true talent in your specific opinion they don't deserve to have a job and should be replaced by a computer? amazing

 

[sam_gordon]

It's all about the money. If ABC (it was ABC, right?), or for that matter, any broadcast network, found it financially worth it to put it on broadcast, they would.

 

[gsdweller]

so if it isn't true talent in your specific opinion they don't deserve to have a job and should be replaced by a computer? amazing

I guess in that specific case, yes. If they have no talent, and are only famous for their looks, or losing their clothes, then they should not have a job in media.

 

[Imzadi]

It's all about the money. If ABC (it was ABC, right?), or for that matter, any broadcast network, found it financially worth it to put it on broadcast, they would.

Yes, I think this is the reason. I watched as the SAG Awards were originally on NBC or CBS for years. Then they moved to Bravo (I think, but definitely a cable network.) Then they moved to TNT & TBS for a few years. Each time losing more ratings & viewers. Then they moved to streaming. The first year of streaming was on free YouTube via the Entertainment Weekly channel on YouTube, along with another streaming free YouTube channel. As I mentioned earlier, it was glitchy.

If the award show could have stayed on broadcast or cable TV I think they would have. This Sag Awards are about acting for BOTH film and TV, but they aren't even shown ON TV.

The past two years, it has been on Netflix. I suspect SAG-AFTRA happily grabbed onto that platform, even though 89% of it's membership isn't acting at all in a single year -AND probably isn't affording Netflix, especially if they chose a different streaming network that month. Next year, it will again be on Netflix and the award and show will be changed to "The Actor Awards presented by SAG-AFTRA" to better reflect it's about excellence in LIVE acting.

I think if the Academy Awards could stay on ABC, they would. But, the ratings keep dwindling and sponsors are probably harder to get. It's notoriously a hard show to get a host for. It's a lot of hard work ahead of time as they are also part executive producers. The hosts don't get a lot of money for how much they and their assembled writers put into it. It's not like the days when Johnny Carson used to just host, put on a tux, read off the cue cards for his monologue, and ad lib several live jokes. No producing. Now, the host is later blamed if it turns out to be a 4 hour, long, boring show. The format of the show is long, and many of the non-famous winners are boring and hard to get off stage.

Jimmy Kimmel did it for two years and didn't want to do a third. They got Kevin Hart to do it, as he really, really wanted to do it. But he had to step down after a backlash over his past anti-gay tweets and comments in stand-up routines. He has since stated multiple times that he will not host the Oscars. NO one else wanted to host that year after that, as they didn't want cancel culture coming after them. Instead, they had a rotating group stars hosting/presenting for the next three years. The fourth year they had a trio of female comedians host. Jimmy Kimmel then came back for two more years.

Then, Conan O'Brien took on hosting last year, and will again this year, fresh from still recovering from the trauma of hosting his annual Christmas party in which Rob & Michelle Reiner got into a heated argument with their son, and it was the last time many friends got to see them before being murdered.

I don't think this will be an easy Academy Award show this year.

 

[MillauFr]

Network tv is going the way of the newspaper.

I would say Network TV is like Blockbuster Video or AOL dial up internet.

 

[gmi3804]

I would say Network TV is like Blockbuster Video or AOL dial up internet.

Or printers.

 

[SteveH]