Whenever there's a major awards show, especially for film or television, there's about a 50/50 chance I'll tune in. Initially I was interested in the Oscars this year because it was clear they wanted to take it in a more relevant direction than it had been for a while... or so I thought. See, Saturday night - while watching a cheesy (yet awesome) movie on SyFy with Crysta - I saw an ad for this year's academy awards. The ad had a line in it which was "The first Oscars guys will enjoy" (or something close to that).
At that moment, I knew the award show was going to be absolute garbage, and I decided not to tune in. See, here's the thing - I have found that 90% of the time, when something is advertised as "for guys," what it really means is "for douchebags."
First off, advertisers don't mean "guys" when they use that word -- they mean "cis-gendered, straight men." Because, last I checked, there's a segment of the population that stereotypically loves the Oscars. I'm not saying that the stereotype is true, but it had to get started with at least more than one dude. And more than one dude qualifies as "guys" last I checked.
Which, apparently, these men aren't considered as such by the advertisers.
I also knew that it meant that the awards ceremony would end up littered with misogynist bull-feckle. Why? Because that's what marketers think "guys" want. And these days, being a complete douchebag is supposed to be edgy.
"Edgy" meaning "Hackish and Uncreative" in reality, but whatever.
And was I right? Was the awards ceremony full of misogynistic, sexist tripe? Oh yes it was. Very much so.. There was a friggin' joke about Roman Polanski's sexual assault of a 13 year old girl.
What. The. F***.
So reading about what happened, I'm glad I didn't tune in. I'm glad Crysta and I spent the night watching stuff on the Roku. I'm also done with Seth MacFarlane. This is one 18-49 year old cis-gendered, straight male who won't tune into any program he's involved with anymore - award show or not.
(Also, I heard there was some racism too - which makes all of this worse... but when you've already decided someone is human garbage, it's hard to have a lower opinion of them)
Oscar winners are chosen by members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (hence the "Academy Awards" - Oscars was just a nickname until this year actually) via a ballot process. The Academy is composed of over 5000 film professionals (Actors, Directors, Producers, etc).
I haven't watched an awards show of any kind pretty much ever. I don't even know which ones are for music and which ones are for movies.
Every year I hear about X scandal or Y upset with whom people expected would win certain awards, but didn't. And in the end, nearly everyone forgets who won a few years on and it just becomes a shiny trophy in a rich person's trophy case or a prop in a comedy sketch.
But all of those reasons stem from it's irrelevancy, which is more an apathetic complaint than a negative one. This is a solid negative in their column. So they didn't lose a viewer in me, but they've taken away any glimmer of hope I'd ever watch in the future.
And you know what gets me about the site you linked to? It's clear that easily half of the women in the various videos that they didn't find it funny. Some were visibly and undeniably upset by it.
And I can hear it now "well they shouldn't have taken those roles". Tell me, how is that not a rehash of the rapists' 'her clothes said yes' argument?
McFarlane has certainly done his best to ensure that fewer women will chose to do even tasteful scenes involving any kind of nudity. I'm with you. That's not what fits into my idea of what guys look for.
I'm with Trae on the "something for the guys" ad-pitch. We live in a patriarchal society, and Hollywood is a hub of patriarchal entertainment, where even the "chick flicks" are written and directed by men. EVERYTHING is designed to be something "guys can enjoy." If you're a straight male and Hollywood's usual fare isn't good enough for you, you must be indescribably high on your sense of male privilege.