• Pingback: MAKERS: A Good Women's History Lesson, But Misses Younger Feminists | RH Reality Check

  • http://www.facebook.com/lesli.meekins Lesli Meekins

    Where was the antisemitism?

    • Jon

      He did a bit about jews running Hollywood, again, pointing out that antisemitic morons exist, as Mark Whalberg did, IN THE BIT, which he was a part of.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=807845190 Cheryl Hopper

    Definitely shame on the producers, for choosing that no-talent overgrown frat boy as host. What were they thinking? When I heard he was hosting, that guaranteed I wasn’t going to tune in. I’ve never been anything but utterly revolted by the so-called ‘humor’ in the shows he’s behind. Shame on the Academy!

    • nettwench14

      I totally agree! Most of his viewers are younger – which doesn’t give me hope for the future, I tell you!

  • nettwench14

    This is what i would expect from people that listen to Rush Limbaugh all day. I never liked Family Guy, never found it funny in the least. Maybe that’s why I didn’t even watch until Barbara Streisand got up to sing. Now Daniel Day-Lewis was funny. So glad I missed the rest, I would have been infuriated! Time for women to host the Oscars. Tina Fey is funnier that Seth all day long! So is Amy Poehler. Why haven’t either of them been asked?

    • Jon

      Because they just did the Golden Globes, and that would overkill.

  • Jon

    1 – you had to look up Seth MacFarlane, 2 – you think that all Family Guy is is frat boy humour, 3 – you never stopped to think that any of the humour that MacFarlane points out could possibly be a tongue cheek satire of American culture; a revulsion of what it has become.

    If you watched any of the things that MacFarlane has touched and maybe attempted to step outside of your biased cultural lens which effects only your own shock and revulsion at the things MacFarlane laughs at, perhaps you would see that.

    Truly, some of what MacFarlane does is for shock value. But as is the case for any shock value comedy or comedian that is worth their salt, there is substance; commentary. That said, some of humour simply will touch on the darker taboo of life/culture/psyche, and some of it is going to make some people uncomfortable. Others will laugh, others still won’t get it. It’s a paradox of perception and subjective reality. Enjoy your opinion – I’m enjoying mine of you at the moment, it’s only fair that you take yours, I guess).

  • http://www.facebook.com/fern.manire.porras Fern Manire Porras

    I agree with everything you said. Unfortunately, this kind of behavior is close to becoming the norm now, thanks to reality shows where men punch each other in the mouth, women pull each others’ hair and both sexes refer to women as bitches and hos. If it’s not shocking, it’s not going to sell today- and that is becoming more true every day. It doesn’t seem to matter how dignified the event is either.

  • Molly Nolan

    Maybe MacFarlane was attempting to satirize elements of American culture that sorely need it. If that was the case–epic fail. There are plenty of talented writers who could have made entertaining yet artful and biting commentary without being offensive. I have never had so much difficulty watching the Oscars. And after the first few minutes, never had less desire to do so.

    • Jon

      What the mainstream may need to counter something that is becoming the norm that is so base may be a clown to appeal closer to the lowest common denominator to illustrate the farce and translate it for those people. If you’re thinking high art, you have to realize you’re not in the majority. And the Academy Awards, Hollywood, etc. – that is, mainstream American culture isn’t exactly high art. Hollywood’s about sales, unfortunately. MacFarlane negotiates the divide pretty well, I think.

Mobile Theme