<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:series="http://unfoldingneurons.com/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Oscars: A Plea for Accessibility without Condescension</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.christandpopculture.com/featured/the-oscars-a-plea-for-accessibility-without-condescension/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.christandpopculture.com/featured/the-oscars-a-plea-for-accessibility-without-condescension/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-oscars-a-plea-for-accessibility-without-condescension</link>
	<description>Where The Christian Faith Meets The Common Knowledge of Our Age</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:18:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Goannatree</title>
		<link>http://www.christandpopculture.com/featured/the-oscars-a-plea-for-accessibility-without-condescension/#comment-23707</link>
		<dc:creator>Goannatree</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:50:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christandpopculture.com/?p=2269#comment-23707</guid>
		<description>Carissa, 

I agreed with your write up in general....though i really enjoyed Hugh Jackman&#039;s funny and talented hosting performance (the writing for the hosts was generally pretty ordinary though - what was Ben Stiller doing?) - and that&#039;s not just because he is a fellow countryman. 

This was admittedly the first time i had ever seen the live broadcast of the Oscars (and did so in a perfect atmosphere with dressed up friends!) and so maybe that affects my perception, but I also was disappointed by the lack of acting clips - i also used to use them in the same way (when i saw a much delayed telecast...), to judge whether or not to see certain films.

I was especially disappointed not to see clips of the documentaries or foreign language films about which i knew very little. The actors talking to actors thing had some touching moment - Anne Hathaway and Kate Winslett looked genuinely moved, but having this instead of the clips made it all a little too lovefest for the average viewer (which is to say i agree with you on that point.

Here&#039;s to the little gold man, may we remember that he really is an industry award and not a judge of aesthetic quality whatever the Academy says...

&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;Goannatrees last blog post..&lt;a href=&quot;http://goannatree.blogspot.com/2009/01/christiancollegescoms-top-100-theology_8181.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ChristianColleges.com&#039;s Top 100 Theology Blogs Part 12: Writings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Carissa, </p>
<p>I agreed with your write up in general&#8230;.though i really enjoyed Hugh Jackman&#8217;s funny and talented hosting performance (the writing for the hosts was generally pretty ordinary though &#8211; what was Ben Stiller doing?) &#8211; and that&#8217;s not just because he is a fellow countryman. </p>
<p>This was admittedly the first time i had ever seen the live broadcast of the Oscars (and did so in a perfect atmosphere with dressed up friends!) and so maybe that affects my perception, but I also was disappointed by the lack of acting clips &#8211; i also used to use them in the same way (when i saw a much delayed telecast&#8230;), to judge whether or not to see certain films.</p>
<p>I was especially disappointed not to see clips of the documentaries or foreign language films about which i knew very little. The actors talking to actors thing had some touching moment &#8211; Anne Hathaway and Kate Winslett looked genuinely moved, but having this instead of the clips made it all a little too lovefest for the average viewer (which is to say i agree with you on that point.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s to the little gold man, may we remember that he really is an industry award and not a judge of aesthetic quality whatever the Academy says&#8230;</p>
<p><abbr><em>Goannatrees last blog post..<a href="http://goannatree.blogspot.com/2009/01/christiancollegescoms-top-100-theology_8181.html" rel="nofollow">ChristianColleges.com&#8217;s Top 100 Theology Blogs Part 12: Writings</a></em></abbr></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carissa Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.christandpopculture.com/featured/the-oscars-a-plea-for-accessibility-without-condescension/#comment-23051</link>
		<dc:creator>Carissa Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:33:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christandpopculture.com/?p=2269#comment-23051</guid>
		<description>I did enjoy the singing-and-dancing Hugh, though I thought his opening number could have used some funnier lyrics. 

The ratings came out yesterday: Oscars viewership was up 13% from last year&#039;s all-time low . . . making it the third least-watched Oscars in Nielsen history. The Washington Post points out some of the hedging that goes on with these figures:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022302836.html?hpid=entnews

Interestingly, apparently some viewers loved the past winners talking to present nominees. It just goes to show that, yep, people do have different tastes--which is why it&#039;s hard to come up with a list of nominated films that everyone will agree with. I have little sympathy with the argument that, if the Academy nominated more popular films, viewership would go up. Sure, the Academy&#039;s choices are often strange and politically motivated, but there&#039;s no way they can please everyone. I&#039;m just asking that the ceremony itself show us enough of the nominated films to be able to judge whether or not we want to see them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I did enjoy the singing-and-dancing Hugh, though I thought his opening number could have used some funnier lyrics. </p>
<p>The ratings came out yesterday: Oscars viewership was up 13% from last year&#8217;s all-time low . . . making it the third least-watched Oscars in Nielsen history. The Washington Post points out some of the hedging that goes on with these figures:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022302836.html?hpid=entnews" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022302836.html?hpid=entnews</a></p>
<p>Interestingly, apparently some viewers loved the past winners talking to present nominees. It just goes to show that, yep, people do have different tastes&#8211;which is why it&#8217;s hard to come up with a list of nominated films that everyone will agree with. I have little sympathy with the argument that, if the Academy nominated more popular films, viewership would go up. Sure, the Academy&#8217;s choices are often strange and politically motivated, but there&#8217;s no way they can please everyone. I&#8217;m just asking that the ceremony itself show us enough of the nominated films to be able to judge whether or not we want to see them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mink</title>
		<link>http://www.christandpopculture.com/featured/the-oscars-a-plea-for-accessibility-without-condescension/#comment-22779</link>
		<dc:creator>Mink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:45:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christandpopculture.com/?p=2269#comment-22779</guid>
		<description>I would agree with you, had I not been distracted by Hugh Jackman singing and dancing. Hurrah!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would agree with you, had I not been distracted by Hugh Jackman singing and dancing. Hurrah!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Clark</title>
		<link>http://www.christandpopculture.com/featured/the-oscars-a-plea-for-accessibility-without-condescension/#comment-22691</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Clark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:38:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christandpopculture.com/?p=2269#comment-22691</guid>
		<description>Sounds acceptable to me! I did too!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds acceptable to me! I did too!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh</title>
		<link>http://www.christandpopculture.com/featured/the-oscars-a-plea-for-accessibility-without-condescension/#comment-22680</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:07:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christandpopculture.com/?p=2269#comment-22680</guid>
		<description>Is it acceptable to just comment on the fact that I really enjoyed this write-up? Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is it acceptable to just comment on the fact that I really enjoyed this write-up? Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Oscars: A Plea for Accessibility without Condescension &#124; Zonelance</title>
		<link>http://www.christandpopculture.com/featured/the-oscars-a-plea-for-accessibility-without-condescension/#comment-22625</link>
		<dc:creator>The Oscars: A Plea for Accessibility without Condescension &#124; Zonelance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:49:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christandpopculture.com/?p=2269#comment-22625</guid>
		<description>[...] See more here: The Oscars: A Plea for Accessibility without Condescension [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] See more here: The Oscars: A Plea for Accessibility without Condescension [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

