From: moviePig <>
Subject: Re: Oscar ratings crash - maybe the lowest of all time
Full headers:
Subject: Re: Oscar ratings crash - maybe the lowest of all time
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
References: <>
From: moviePig <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <97BnC.233253$qv.231751@fx33.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 18:30:29 UTC
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 13:30:30 -0500
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3551837925
X-Received-Bytes: 2033
Print Article
Forward Article
On 3/6/2018 1:19 PM, super70s wrote:
> In article <p7mg2n$kdp$>, Obveeus<>
> wrote:
>> WONDER WOMAN didn't get nominated to pull in the popular film crowd.
>> I know my desire to even watch went from low to zero when THE BIG SICK
>> didn't get nominated for Best Picture.
> The way they've expanded the nominees list in recent years you'd think
> they would have gone "what the hell let's add them too," WW particularly
> for the women's cause de jour.
> If they thought WW was too pedestrian what about the big fuss over LOTR
> a few years back.

LOTR was a game-changer, WW was just the latest player.  Meanwhile, the 
nominee-list hasn't been expanded indiscriminately, but rather only to 
include all films receiving 5% of #1 votes -- i.e., those movies that, 
from a list shortened to 10 or fewer, could conceivably win B.P.


- - - - - - - -
   YOUR taste at work...