Originally posted by Chimera: The Academy really needs to stop being in love with those little films and show some love to at least some of the films the general audience is actually interested in.
Because clearly Tobey Maguire deserved a nomination in the Best Actor category?
You're talking as if ratings on ABC were the main goal of the Oscars. And even if final numbers are as low as suggested, this doesn't seem surprising for this type of show today.
Posts: 584 | Location: NYC | Registered: 02 November 2007
Originally posted by Ratings Junkee: Well, Pirates was not worthy of a best pic nod this year, but it still would of garnered more viewers. They should of put a movie like Ratatouille, Knocked Up, I Am Legend
I saw all three of these and only Ratatouille would even be remotely considered as a 'Best picture" by anyone that should be in control of handing out awards.
Originally posted by Chimera: The Academy really needs to stop being in love with those little films and show some love to at least some of the films the general audience is actually interested in.
Thats the problem with most awards shows. They are trying more to impress each other, within the industry, than actally pick the best. This, more than anything, is turning the average viewer off the awards shows.
Originally posted by TV-aholic: Thats the problem with most awards shows. They are trying more to impress each other, within the industry, than actally pick the best. This, more than anything, is turning the average viewer off the awards shows.
What "best" movie got ignored by the Oscars? Shrek 3? Spiderman 3?
Posts: 584 | Location: NYC | Registered: 02 November 2007
Honestly, why should it take so long to present 25 awards, perhaps half a dozen of which are actually interesting to most people?
Get rid of the musical numbers. Get rid of the clip segments from past shows. Get rid of most of the snappy forced patter--let the presenters write their own material, or just wing it. It's not as if they can get all these people to show up and rehearse very long, so why make it a rehearsed event?
If they're feting some great name from the past, get whoever does the biographical segments on TCM to put the presentation together.
Originally posted by Ratings Junkee: Don't agree. This is one of the few events that is live on both coasts. People usually want to see this live. It looks like it will get 34-37 million viewers. I know it was well above 40 million last year, and that's a huge drop, even for DVR excuses. If this was the grammy's or emmy's I'd say yeah, but not the Oscars. This is the next biggest thing to the Super Bowl and those numbers were obviously up, due to a great game. This shows people were not interested in the Oscar's this year, the strike, and maybe TV in general.
Well, even the weakest Super Bowl is double the size of the Oscars. In addition, if the Oscars get 34-37 million viewers, it is not second to the Super Bowl. In primetime the NFC championship game was much bigger than 37 million (as I belive also were a few of the other Sunday afternoon playoff games). Still, no doubt the Oscars are a huge television event.
The ratings were low because the show stunk. End of story. Questionable nominees. Who cares winners. A phoned-in hosting performance from Stewart. And some incredibly poor writing, suggesting the writers are still on strike. They must be if a whore could win for best writing. And can I just say how disgusted I was when the orchestra played off that Irish lass just as she stepped up to the mic? They let that 100-year-old corpse prattle on for what seemed like a decade (all in the name of ensuring the thing ran its usual 40 minutes over), but couldn't even let her say "thanks, bye?" The concession didn't do it for me, because they already blew it.
Her surprise upset aside, gotta say I loved what Tilda Swinton was wearing. It takes real chutzpah to show up to the Academy Awards in a Hefty bag.
And my condolences to Kevin O'Connell. I guess people really just don't like him.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Riff Rafferty,
Originally posted by TV-aholic: Thats the problem with most awards shows. They are trying more to impress each other, within the industry, than actally pick the best. This, more than anything, is turning the average viewer off the awards shows.
What "best" movie got ignored by the Oscars? Shrek 3? Spiderman 3?
Thats part of the problem. Its all a matter of opinion and taste. I've watched some pretty horrible "Best Picture" nominated films in the past.
I have not seen all the films from 2007, but I am ledgend looks like a great Will Smith Movie. The Bourne Ultimatem was a great movie. I have yet to see it, but "300" was a popular movie at the Box Office.
Totally agree. This year was a really good year for the NFL and the playoffs. Usually Oscars on average get 45 millions million viewers. I think the bar would be compared to the AI finale. If the AI finale beats the telecast of the Oscar's this year, IMO would be very deflating for the Oscars.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk-eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Ratings Junkee: Don't agree. This is one of the few events that is live on both coasts. People usually want to see this live. It looks like it will get 34-37 million viewers. I know it was well above 40 million last year, and that's a huge drop, even for DVR excuses. If this was the grammy's or emmy's I'd say yeah, but not the Oscars. This is the next biggest thing to the Super Bowl and those numbers were obviously up, due to a great game. This shows people were not interested in the Oscar's this year, the strike, and maybe TV in general.
Well, even the weakest Super Bowl is double the size of the Oscars. In addition, if the Oscars get 34-37 million viewers, it is not second to the Super Bowl. In primetime the NFC championship game was much bigger than 37 million (as I belive also were a few of the other Sunday afternoon playoff games). Still, no doubt the Oscars are a huge television event.
Originally posted by TV-aholic: I have not seen all the films from 2007, but I am ledgend looks like a great Will Smith Movie. The Bourne Ultimatem was a great movie. I have yet to see it, but "300" was a popular movie at the Box Office.
Now what would blockbusters like that gain from Oscars? They were already massively promoted, and anyone vaguely insterested had a chance to see them.
And again, the main goal of the Oscar is to be the "prestigious" movie award and promote the industry. Boosting ratings on ABC is not a primary concern if it means giving a Best Picture award to "I am Legend" over "No country for old men" or "There will be blood", both much better films by the way.
There is always the People Choice Awards for the most popular movies. And yes, getting a People Choice Award doesn't do get you on the cover of magazines or invited on talk shows, which proves the Oscar formula works best.
Posts: 584 | Location: NYC | Registered: 02 November 2007
Originally posted by TV-aholic: Thats the problem with most awards shows. They are trying more to impress each other, within the industry, than actally pick the best. This, more than anything, is turning the average viewer off the awards shows.
What "best" movie got ignored by the Oscars? Shrek 3? Spiderman 3?
Thats part of the problem. Its all a matter of opinion and taste. I've watched some pretty horrible "Best Picture" nominated films in the past.
I have not seen all the films from 2007, but I am ledgend looks like a great Will Smith Movie. The Bourne Ultimatem was a great movie. I have yet to see it, but "300" was a popular movie at the Box Office.
True, I still can't believe how much I disliked The English Patient, after all the praise and awards it got that year.
And I agree on all your alternatives, especially I Am Legend and 300.
The ratings were low because the show stunk. End of story. Questionable nominees. Who cares winners. A phoned-in hosting performance from Stewart. And some incredibly poor writing, suggesting the writers are still on strike. They must be if a whore could win for best writing. And can I just say how disgusted I was when the orchestra played off that Irish lass just as she stepped up to the mic? They let that 100-year-old corpse prattle on for what seemed like a decade (all in the name of ensuring the thing ran its usual 40 minutes over), but couldn't even let her say "thanks, bye?" The concession didn't do it for me, because they already blew it.
Her surprise upset aside, gotta say I loved what Tilda Swinton was wearing. It takes real chutzpah to show up to the Academy Awards in a Hefty bag.
And my condolences to Kevin O'Connell. I guess people really just don't like him.
I was way more entertained by Big Brother than when I tuned into the awards show afterwards. I could care less about any of those nominees. Perhaps if Hairspray, Bourne Ultimatem or even the little seen Casey Affleck movie Gone Baby Gone was up for Best Picture, I would have had a little more interest.
In the future, they should stop televising the boring awards we could care less about and the awful musical segments and instead combine the Razzie's and include segments to celebrate the worst in entertainment. I think even TV-aholic would consider tuning into see that. -
quote:
Originally posted by TV-aholic:
quote:
Originally posted by Zitrone:
quote:
Originally posted by TV-aholic: Thats the problem with most awards shows. They are trying more to impress each other, within the industry, than actally pick the best. This, more than anything, is turning the average viewer off the awards shows.
What "best" movie got ignored by the Oscars? Shrek 3? Spiderman 3?
Thats part of the problem. Its all a matter of opinion and taste. I've watched some pretty horrible "Best Picture" nominated films in the past.
I have not seen all the films from 2007, but I am ledgend looks like a great Will Smith Movie. The Bourne Ultimatem was a great movie. I have yet to see it, but "300" was a popular movie at the Box Office.
====================
Posts: 5699 | Location: Chicago, IL | Registered: 20 September 2006
A lack of pre-show promotion, coupled with a generally low-key awards season hurt by the three-month writers’ strike, apparently hobbled this year’s Oscar ceremony.
Last night’s “80th Annual Academy Awards” on ABC averaged a 21.9 household rating and 33 share in the metered markets, according to Nielsen.
That was off 21 percent from last year’s 27.7/42, though certainly ratings could adjust up or down when more numbers are released later today. Time-zone adjusted fast nationals will be out sometime after 3 p.m., which will include total viewer and adults 18-49 estimates for last night’s show, which aired from 8:30 p.m. to 11:38 p.m.
But based on the early numbers, ABC could see record or near-record low numbers for this year’s show, hosted by Jon Stewart.
This year’s metered market rating was the lowest since at least 2000, according to Media Life records. It was off 14 percent from a 25.5/37 metered market rating in 2003, when the Oscars drew their lowest audience on record, just 33 million total viewers.
Last year’s ceremony drew just over 40 million.
But this year’s ceremony had a lot to overcome. The writers’ strike that had hobbled Hollywood for nearly four months put the awards themselves in jeopardy until 13 days before the show, when the strike was finally settled.
That gave Stewart, the producers and the network very little time to prepare for the broadcast. The presenter list was noticeably light on star power, with some actors and actresses unable to make plans to attend the ceremony after weeks of doubt.
Though Stewart drew kudos for his performance, the ceremony itself lacked the usual lavish production numbers and instead had a lot of clips from past ceremonies or honorees, which would have been an even bigger part of a strike-hobbled Academy Awards.
ABC also had little time to hype the ceremony, which actors had threatened to boycott if the strike had continued. That had already severely limited the People’s Choice Awards and turned the Golden Globes into a press conference, meaning less exposure for the actors and actresses competing for top prizes during the awards season and therefore less public excitement.
It wasn’t helped by the lack of any real box office behemoth among the top contenders. The network points out that it did better the combined Big Four competition during primetime last night by 25 percent, 17.7/27 to 14.2/20 for the other three
Guys, The Oscars can't be a pure popularity contest--otherwise, why even bother to vote? Just give the Oscar to the #1 grossing film each year?
Financial success enters into it, but so does artistic talent, something Hollywood will always be hungry for (and never fully understand, or appreciate when it shows up).
The big movies this year all sucked to high heaven, so no, I'm not sorry they weren't nominated.
Ratatouille should have won for best picture, not just best animated picture.
