Domination in America, Starting from being a Boxing Champion Chapter 677 - 490: Link and Harvey's Win-Win Strategy

The 84th Academy Awards ca to a close smoothly, but the aftershocks from this year's Oscars could not subside for a long ti after the ceremony.

The most controversial incident was undoubtedly the 22-year-old Jennifer Lawrence upsetting the 63-year-old veteran actress ryl Streep for the Best Actress award.

Before the ceremony, 90% of the dia had predicted that ryl would receive the Best Actress award again, one because her performance in "The Iron Lady" was excellent, and considering her nurous Oscar nominations from the past, it seed it was her turn to win once more.

On the other hand, the person managing her public relations for this award was the 'Oscar Best Actor and Actress Maker' Harvey Weinstein.

The powerful duo nearly guaranteed there would be no slip-ups.

Even many entertainnt reporters had already written news pieces about ryl winning the Best Actress Oscar after 29 years, just waiting for the announcent to be made onstage so they could imdiately release their reports to capture more readership.

Yet, the result defied everyone's expectations: ryl missed out, and Jennifer Lawrence, not even 22, beca the Academy Award-winning Actress, also making history as the youngest ever.

After the news was out, the entire entertainnt circle was in an uproar, everyone baffled by Jennifer Lawrence's win.

Although Jennifer Lawrence is a talented actress and her performance is quite impressive, she has the capacity to take ho the Best Actress Oscar—but she was too young, and her competitor ryl was too formidable.

It seed she barely stood a chance to win.

But against all odds, she won the award.

Stars in the entertainnt industry kept their unfavorable comnts to themselves, fearing repercussions from Link, who was backing Jennifer Lawrence.

But the dia didn't care who Link was.

Before the award ceremony even concluded, nearly all dia outlets expressed skepticism over Jennifer Lawrence's win over ryl, with even more noise than the controversy surrounding Gwyneth Paltrow's win in 1999; the buzz was even more intense.

The dia's critical concerns centered on four points:

First, did Jennifer deserve the award?

"Los Angeles Tis" launched a poll on its official website, where 78% of netizens supported ryl for the award, and only 19% were in favor of Jennifer Lawrence, with the rest maintaining a neutral stance.

Before the ceremony, those in support of Jennifer winning the award were at 35%, only 8% less than ryl.

Secondly, why did the Academy decide to give the award to Jennifer Lawrence?

After the award ceremony ended, Nielsen officially released viewership data, showing that the average ratings for this year's Oscars reached 13.5 million viewers, up by 2.8 million from last year.

During Jennifer Lawrence's award mont, the ratings peaked at 22 million—the highest of the night.

"Hollywood Reporter" questioned whether the Academy deviated from its norms and decided to give the Best Actress award to Jennifer Lawrence in an attempt to create a sensation and revitalize the slumping ratings, whereas giving the award to ryl—a choice everyone could anticipate—would not boost the ratings.

If the Academy awarded Jennifer Lawrence because of the ratings, that would be extrely unfair to ryl Streep and it could also tarnish the century-old reputation of the Oscars.

Third, how much influence does Oscar campaigning have on the judging process?

It was understood that each year, every film nominated for the Oscars would spend at least several hundred thousand US Dollars on campaigning for various awards, with so even spending millions.

The aim is to place the Oscar label on their film, so with the Oscars' golden sticker, whether it's the dostic or overseas box office market, the DVD market, or the broadcast rights for cable television, the returns would be substantial.

According to a CNBC website report, from 2000 to 2010, the average box office inco growth for Best Picture Oscar winners after getting nominated was 22.2%, about 20.3 million US Dollars.

After winning the award, the average box office inco would further increase by 15.3%, about 14 million US Dollars.

Taking "The King's Speech," the big winner of the 2011 Oscars, as an example, its box office revenue increased by 42% after being nominated for Best Picture, and after winning, it continued to grow by 16%, totaling profits exceeding eighty million US Dollars.

The high return on investnt is the reason why film studios are willing to pay for campaigning.

During this year's Oscars, Lionsgate Films reportedly invested several million US Dollars in campaigning for various awards, and rumors suggested it could be as much as ten million US Dollars, with most of it aid at public relations for the Best Actress award.

Mainstream dia, represented by "New York Tis," believed Jennifer Lawrence's win was a complete result of Lionsgate, or rather, Link, spending money on the campaign.

Fourth, was the entire selection process fair and impartial, free from external interference?

Following the award ceremony, many dia outlets published articles questioning whether Link had bought votes, and there might be illegal activities like bribery and fraud, prompting calls for a police investigation.

In response to these allegations, Lionsgate's President Steven Biggs stated in a dia interview that nothing of the sort had occurred and assured that the campaigning was entirely by the book, with absolutely no violations, and he was ready to face all the scrutiny and investigations.

The third-party institution in charge of counting the Oscar ballots, the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, insisted that all tabulation was done in accordance with the rules. They would count the votes from the judges and then reveal the results to the Arican Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Oscars organizers, ensuring a fair and impartial process without external influence.