Originally posted by Obveeus: can I just add that I am really tired of seeing half hour sitcoms get lumped ratings just because they air back to back episodes? The Simpsons and Everybody Hates Chris deserve better.
I second the motion. I would like to see the ratings of each episode.
It would be nice to see what trends the 4 episodes L&O: CI did last night at the Oscars dropped viewers.
I must weigh in with my view of the Oscar Awards last night, which I found to be a rather mundane and tepid affair.
Maybe it was the unusual rain in Los Angeles, but there seemed to be a real damper on the entire evening. The show lacked any show biz pizzazz (musical-dance routines were limited to the best song numbers), had way to many montages (the 80th celebration, way too often were we reminded), and the writing outside of Mr. Stewarts remarks was even more pedestrian than usual.
And I was more than a little disappointed that in the extensive In Memorian montage that paid homage to obscure executives and behind-the-scenes crafticians, they could not acknowledge the recent tragic passing of Mr. Brad Renfro, who was in more than a few Academy Award nominated films.
I can't imagine a more backward way of thinking about the Oscar telecast. People can find out who won easily online.
True. Already said that, but true.
quote:
They cannot hear acceptance speeches of musical numbers that way, easily.
Not right away, no. But it'll all be on YouTube soon enough. And since the musical numbers all suck, seeing them in a smaller low-res format can only help.
quote:
they can't even see the fashuions, except in still photos 'easily'.
They can't really see them during the broadcast itself--most of the attendees are sitting down, and the ones onstage are usually shown in long shots for a moment, and then they cut to a clip.
Frankly, you get a much better look at the fashions from still photos.
There is no one reason why the ratings are declining--but people should remember that movie attendance is LIKEWISE declining, year after year.
Can't blame people for being unenthused about what Hollywood is producing lately. Rewarding the edgier lower-budget films will hopefully lead to edgier big-budget films. But the decline may be unstoppable.
I think one part of it had to do with the host. Whether you like Jon stewart or not I dont think most people over 45 know who he is. Unlike Whoopie or Billy or Steve Martin who are universally known. Secondly there were no big movies this year that were nominated and no favorites among the nominated actors and actresses ie. Julia Roberts, Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson, etc. Not only were most of the winners from other countries but the nominated stars were as well. Combine that with the fact that the strike has kept viewership on ABC down significantly. One would expect that it wouldn't make a difference, but I know myself, the oscars just felt like an afterthought this year and probably the closest I ever came to not even watching them.
I could not have said it better. This is the first year I really had no interest and obviously I was not the only one.
quote:
Originally posted by tvchtw:
quote:
Originally posted by pisher:
quote:
I can't imagine a more backward way of thinking about the Oscar telecast. People can find out who won easily online.
True. Already said that, but true.
quote:
They cannot hear acceptance speeches of musical numbers that way, easily.
Not right away, no. But it'll all be on YouTube soon enough. And since the musical numbers all suck, seeing them in a smaller low-res format can only help.
quote:
they can't even see the fashuions, except in still photos 'easily'.
They can't really see them during the broadcast itself--most of the attendees are sitting down, and the ones onstage are usually shown in long shots for a moment, and then they cut to a clip.
Frankly, you get a much better look at the fashions from still photos.
There is no one reason why the ratings are declining--but people should remember that movie attendance is LIKEWISE declining, year after year.
Can't blame people for being unenthused about what Hollywood is producing lately. Rewarding the edgier lower-budget films will hopefully lead to edgier big-budget films. But the decline may be unstoppable.
I think one part of it had to do with the host. Whether you like Jon stewart or not I dont think most people over 45 know who he is. Unlike Whoopie or Billy or Steve Martin who are universally known. Secondly there were no big movies this year that were nominated and no favorites among the nominated actors and actresses ie. Julia Roberts, Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson, etc. Not only were most of the winners from other countries but the nominated stars were as well. Combine that with the fact that the strike has kept viewership on ABC down significantly. One would expect that it wouldn't make a difference, but I know myself, the oscars just felt like an afterthought this year and probably the closest I ever came to not even watching them.
I would say BB is my 3rd favorite reality show behind AI and SYTYCD?. I just think these are bad numbers and the higher ups at CBS might think, this show is not what is used to be and not renew it. It's had less than stellar ratings this go-round and it doesn't bode well for that show. CBS didn't even renew the show after the crazy Donato season until they realized that the strike was gonna take place.
quote:
Originally posted by Marc Berman: I am just not comfortable with this winter edition of BB...it should air only in the summer.
quote:
Originally posted by A.C.:
quote:
Originally posted by xwiseguyx: BB9 had higher demo numbers than Dexter and on the East Coast, it also was up against the Oscars. So not sure how BB9 can be considered so bad that it should be "abbreviated" and Dexter as "decent".
quote:
Originally posted by Ratings Junkee: Bad numbers for BB9. If they were smart, they would abbreviate this season as not to ruin future installments. Decent numbers for Dexter against the Oscars.
NBC a no show tonight.
Yeah, I don't get people bashing on BIG BROTHER..its had to face AMERICAN IDOL and now the OSCARS. It can't really catch a break and you know what...the show is damn entertaining and thats why I watch TV for. I'm glad it came on in the winter as well.
Originally posted by tvchtw: I think one part of it had to do with the host. Whether you like Jon stewart or not I dont think most people over 45 know who he is.
WHAT???
Jon Stewart has been around on TV for almost 20 years now. People over 50, perhaps even 60 know who he is.
He had his first talk show back in '93, when thos 45+ year olds were just "Young and Hip" 30 year olds.
Here is something for CBS to ponder. Amazing Race All Stars (the underperforming cycle of the Amazing Race), delivered over 8 million viewers last year and a demo of 2.6 aghains't a much stronger Academy Awards show.
That 2nd cycle averaged right under 10 million viewers for the full cycle.
And look how smart it was not to order 2 cycles (especially with a strike approaching), IDIOTS....
Although Jon Stewart on The Daily Show is funnier than any Oscar host could hope to be, he's not at all well suited to the job of Oscar host--and he seems to know it. But they keep asking. Fact is, it's a sucky thankless job that only somebody used to flogging tired unfunny material to huge audiences could hope to do well. Hence the success of Hope, Carson, Martin, and Crystal.
(And obviously those people often had some really funny material to flog in front of large audiences as well, but not on Oscar night).
Consider the possibility that a lot of more famous people than Jon Stewart are quietly but firmly refusing the 'honor'.
And that he accepts mainly because it's a great source for his trademark self-deprecating humor back on The Daily Show.
Originally posted by mswood: Here is something for CBS to ponder. Amazing Race All Stars (the underperforming cycle of the Amazing Race), delivered over 8 million viewers last year and a demo of 2.6 aghains't a much stronger Academy Awards show.
That 2nd cycle averaged right under 10 million viewers for the full cycle.
And look how smart it was not to order 2 cycles (especially with a strike approaching), IDIOTS....
But it was because of that underperforming cycle that prompted CBS to cut the order to just 1 cycle.
Hind-sight is always 20/20, so not as dumb of a decition.
the dumb decision was putting so much stock into Viva Laughlin as a replacement in the time period.
I'm sure there are some, but I'd say most 50 year olds either dont know who he is or vaguely know who he is but dont watch his show and don't know what hes famous for. Billy Crystal, Whoopi, Steve Martin all were huge movie stars in their day. And if they do know who he is they probably don't get his humor since he clearly is a favorite of the 25-44 crowd.
quote:
Originally posted by TV-aholic:
quote:
Originally posted by tvchtw: I think one part of it had to do with the host. Whether you like Jon stewart or not I dont think most people over 45 know who he is.
WHAT???
Jon Stewart has been around on TV for almost 20 years now. People over 50, perhaps even 60 know who he is.
He had his first talk show back in '93, when thos 45+ year olds were just "Young and Hip" 30 year olds.
I'm sure there are some, but I'd say most 50 year olds either dont know who he is or vaguely know who he is but dont watch his show and don't know what hes famous for. Billy Crystal, Whoopi, Steve Martin all were huge movie stars in their day. And if they do know who he is they probably don't get his humor since he clearly is a favorite of the 25-44 crowd.
Of course, that is the very crowd some people here keep insisting is the only demographic the networks care about reaching.
Honestly, does anyone really think the ratings would have been significantly higher if Billy Crystal was the host, and Transformers and Pirates 3 were nominated for best picture?
I don't.
It was a sucky show, and changing the host and the nominees wouldn't have fixed that.
If the producers of the Oscar Awards are looking for a comedic talent to shake things up a bit, they need look no further than Mr. Bill Maher. He already has profile at the network via his Politically Incorrect series, and he has a very funny documentary coming out this spring, Religulous, that is expected to break box office records for documentary films.
Mr. Maher might bring a sense of the unexpected back to the ceremony.
I wonder if there is a way to get accurate numbers for the telecast on a worldwide basis? I realise that it was on at odd hour in much of the world. Still, I bet the telecast set, or was close to setting , Oscar ratings records in some overseas markets like Spain.
