I've been told I'm supposed to accept it because MacFarlane offends everyone. Being a jerk towards every type of person doesn't mean you're not a jerk. I swore off anything he's involved with when the character from Family Guy raped Marge Simpson and then had her come back on screen "satisfied" and wanting more. I still can't believe that was actually animated.
I'm hoping it will be a watershed moment for women in Hollywood, at least behind the scenes. There are a handful of women who are massive box office draws and if a few of them had a word with a few producers and studio heads, things might change there. This was the first year where, more than being dismayed, I was just dumbfounded at the disconnect this must be for the actors, sound designers, directors, costumers, etc who went to their own industry awards show only to be belittled. If that happened in my field, there'd be reasonable outrage. No reason there shouldn't be some upheavals in the Academy scene over this.
If that happened in my field - By way of contrast, most every other field deals to some degree in reality, however Hollywood's expertise is in scripted illusion. They wrote the book on public image, and they strive each day to invent new ways to push an image via media. I cannot help but believe that this controversy was intentional and manufactured with the purpose of creating buzz that is still discussed four days later. At the very least, the Academy has ensured that a huge viewership for next year's show will tune in for no more reason than to monitor for further outrage.
I guess they're afraid of the youngsters tuning out. And because of that fear they sought out somebody on the edgy-offensive spectrum.
When people react with outrage but keep on watching the studios might think they're still getting the desired results.
When people show their revulsion by turning away I think the studios will get the message very quickly.
50 % of people is a huge demographic; vote with your feet I'd say.
There seems to be a bit of an underlying assumption there, that it's an individual's responsibility to get angry about everything.
Firstly, there's just too much bad stuff out there to try to deal with everything. We have limited amounts of time and energy. It should be fine to sit out some things. It should be fine to set yourself a quota: "I'm going to stick to X tweets, Y hours or Z words of activism per week, then I'm going to get on with living my life".
Secondly, you have no obligation to be angry. Try icy resolution. Or steely determination. Or pity at the unenlightened. Or just a job to do. You don't think to yourself "oh I haven't taken the trash out, I'd better get myself all angry at the garbage". You don't need to be angry to get things done.
By way of contrast, most every other field deals to some degree in reality, however Hollywood's expertise is in scripted illusion.
Sorta, but I think the point I"m making is that this event isn't all for people on that end of the business. People in the entire backstage side, whose names we don't know, are the ones primarily being honored through this event. This doesn't do them justice. Also, Hollywood's fully capable of making terrible mistakes and profoundly misreading their audience. See almost everything they put out - most movies just hemorrhage money, and the few that end up as blockbusters carry the rest. There's no good argument that they somehow knew this would create buzz/outrage - they gambled it would create a different kind of buzz than the kind it did. And it did finally turn off a lot of people. However, some percentage of people are going to keep watching Oscars because hey, movie stars - and that doesn't depend at all on who the host is.