Three Hours a Slave


Yet again, the Academy Awards held their audience slave for three long hours that likely should probably have only lasted one. Of course, it is a common complaint about the awards show and one of the reasons why it has gotten shorter in past years, but the problem still remains. What should be done to make the middle, boring parts less boring?

The reason audiences do not care about the awards for the people behind the scenes is because they only see what is on the screen. It seems simple enough to the common viewer, but it is a wonder the Academy has continued to allow unknown nerds such worldwide attention to thank a long list of other unknown nerds.

It is possible that some people watch the DVD extras to see who did the lighting and who did the sound design, the special effects, the editing and the production design, but the typical person only has the time to watch the movies themselves (if even that). Therefore, the typical audience member probably only cares about what they do see (i.e. the actors) and they shouldn’t be held slave for a long drawn out bore-fest that lasts longer than a three hour Costner movie.

Attention Slaveholder

When you consider how many options the modern person has for their entertainment, it is a marvel that Hollywood thinks their award show will continue to find a wide audience, when they fail to consider that those awards are largely self-congratulatory. It is almost as though the powers that be in Hollywood, knowing they are beholden to the nerd-set for their outward appeal, have determined to find a way to pat them on the back. The problem is that the rest of us often could care less, because we do not know these people and they are not our co-workers.

Further, it would seem as though with all of the desktop programs available to the common person nowadays (Adobe Premiere, Photoshop and Garageband) that such “special effects” might be just a little less “special.”

Also, it seems possible that even though Oscar hosts and others still tout the show as “watched by a billion” people worldwide, it is highly likely that it is not. After all, how would you really know and what does it take to simply profess such figures? It is also highly likely that whoever watches the show may not stay on the show during the boring parts, but rather switches back and forth. Again, how do you accurately measure such statistics?

YouTube has them beat there. Everybody knows when something is a hit on the internet, because it is something we can all see in big numbers below the video. The Oscars contend that everyone waits with bated breath to see their show, but it is definitely up for discussion, especially since we now have 9 best picture nominations (clearly signs that the show is a three-hour ad for the products the town sells).

It would seem the best recipe for the show to stay as relevant worldwide as it has become would be to make the show shorter. Maybe they could award the most popular awards in an hour and a half, showcasing the actors, the writers, directors and possibly even soundtrack and cinematography. The rest of the awards are too “inside” in this fast-paced information-packed, global society we live in. It should be in Hollywood’s best interest to not hold us slave to boring things for three hours or more, when the whole reason the town became world-famous is because they relieve boredom.

Opinion by Jeff Rowe

Google News

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.