Share

High Price for Great Films – Oscar’s Lowest Ratings in 20 Years

Ouch, the Hollywood Reporter announces that the Oscar telecast had its lowest ratings in two decades:

According to ABC’s very preliminary household metered market overnights, the awards averaged a 21.9 rating/33 share. That’s down a sharp 21% from last year and the lowest on record in at least 20 years. The more accurate fast national ratings have been delayed by Nielsen and should be available midday.

We knew it was coming. It’s all over but the Drudge Report shoutin’.

But wait, it gets worse: The AP reports, “The Oscars are a ratings dud. Nielsen Media Research says preliminary ratings for the 80th annual Academy Awards telecast are 14 percent lower than the least-watched ceremony ever.”

65 Comments on this Post

  1. Jack Martin

    Booooooooooooooooooooooooo! Screw you, those who didn’t tune in to watch what I think was one of the best Oscars in recent memory! Ah well, better luck next year, eh?

  2. i think some presenters, help for that result. the only stars presenting were: clooney, kidman, mirren, cruz, diaz, zellweger, hanks, nicholson, swank, washington, blanchett and thats it. This was the 80th, were was DeNiro, were was Pacino, Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Julia Roberts, catherine, michael, spacey, susan sarandon…i love the winners!!! but some presenters were silly for this aniversary.

  3. richard crawford

    My Opinion: I don’t think these are great movies, but BAD movies. The suits in the corporations are not MOVIE LOVERS like the studio chiefs of my day. They- the suits – have other fish to fry. They green light crap…

    Movies this year are also a reflection of the corrupt political administration too…maybe just maybe tthe tone of the country will change with an administration that brings us hope.

  4. richard crawford

    Hey Lucio, Congratulations on Marion C!!! I think YOU PUT HER OVER THE TOP!!! Cheers…richard crawford

  5. There was a serious lack of star power at this years Oscars along with BP nominees, with the exception of Juno that were not box office hits. Fortunately next years brings Revolutionary Road starring Leonardo and Kate and directed by Sam Mendes.

  6. isn’t oscar supposed to be awarded to the artistically worthy movies/actors? y suddden stress on commerical and big budget movies and stars being nominated or awarded. new york times article today was also very strange. it said taht oscars should nominated more known actors and commerically viable films if it wants to attract viewers and wants to remain cultutally relevant. what the hell?

  7. Brian Henderson

    Of course this was going to be the lowest ratings ever. There’s a reason why the highest ratings for the Academy Awards were in the years when box office hits like Braveheart, Titanic, Gladiator, The Return OF The King, and The Departed won Best Picture. And the lowest were when films the general audience didn’t see or care about like English Patient, Million Dollar Baby, Crash, and now No County For Old Men won.

  8. “The Oscars are a ratings dud. Nielsen Media Research says preliminary ratings for the 80th annual Academy Awards telecast are 14 percent lower than the least-watched ceremony ever.”

    That’s what the Academy Awards gets for trying to tell us that the movie with the worst ending is the Best Picture.

  9. and?

    it is a media tendency nowadays. There are no more across the board programs in television, and that is because people have more options to watch.
    what’s the diference if the ratings are low? people who are interested are still watching, and advertisers who want to sell products to THESE specific group won’t runaway. (see apple and nintendo last night?)
    The bottom line: thank god there are better movies being nominated! at least people get to know the nominees name and some of them will see it in theaters! where they should…

  10. blame the new media.

  11. Well the Oscars are overly long and Boring. Cut it to two hours and be done with all the clips.

  12. The key for “Revolutionary Road” is to lower expectations. If people are expecting it to be the best, it has nowhere to go but down.

    Remember “Charlie Wilson’s War”? “Sweeney Todd”?

  13. Presenters are such an idiot.Who is Miley cyrus??
    where is streep,keaton,foster,theron,berry,jolie,lange,sarandon,bassinger,roberts etc.
    God this 80th years..and heigl,dempsey.. presenter ..

  14. Yes, but the QUALITY of viewer has gone WAY up… doesn’t Nielsen have some sort of gauge to determine that?

  15. To address the above two points, Miley Cyrus is the star of Hannah Montana on the Disney Channel. ABC, being owned by mega self-promoter Disney, is of course going to promote its hit teeny bopper star.

    If only the Nielson’s had such a gauge. Alas, I think they only measure quantity. I sincerely hope with all my being that AMPAS does not begin nominate films on the basis of making people want to watch the telecast. I will lose faith in the integrity of the award real fast.

  16. I love this photo of Josh Brolin and Joel Coen. Now can we have one of James McAvoy and Brolin “dancing”?

  17. Well at least we have the great cinema in 2007 to look back on – even if the general public were not interested in this years Oscar, we all were, and the show was pretty good considering all that happened prior to the telecast (i.e. the writers strike) and the fact that at one point we all thought there wouldn’t even be a show at all. The winners were deserving, the awards were shared amongst the contenders nicely and over all, it was top notch.

    I was very surprised by this years telecast, the best in years, in my opinion.

  18. L & G: I introduce to you my oscars blog:

    http://academypicks.es.tl/

  19. Pierre de Plume

    As much as I enjoy Jon Stewart, I don’t feel he’s a good choice to host the Oscars. His presence reflects the notion that the media market has become splintered into cultural niches — and that the Oscars themselves have become a niche into which he fits comfortably but does not speak to the general audience. Problem is, Stewart doesn’t resonate with the public as did Bob Hope or Johnny Carson, for example.

    When you combine that with the films in contention this year — even if they are better artistically as a group than many aggregate nominees of the past — most people just aren’t interested.

    I think this is one reason why so many media writers have been making a big deal out of Juno’s success. That film’s sizable appeal encompasses more demographic niches than we’ve seen for quite awhile. Detractors may criticize Juno for this or that shortcoming, but a film that manages to have broad appeal — and still attracts a significant level of critical acceptance — is a cultural phenomenon that deserves attention and praise, especially from a body like the Academy, whose purview is intended to encompass filmmaking in a broad cultural context.

    Although the preliminary ABC ratings were low this year (in the USA only, I presume), I’d be interested to learn how well the Oscarcast performed in foreign TV markets.

  20. Mrazrockit

    i think it also has to do with the quality of work. if juno was nominated for more than 4 oscars, the ratings would have been higher. this has to do with cnn’s poll last week “are the oscars out of touch with the public?”… 86% said yes because they like the big, stupid action movies and don’t see brilliant piece of film making like NCFOM or TWBB.

    more recently, the oscars have been nominating smaller (better) films and that’s awesome – they shouldn’t risk quality over ratings.

  21. We can’t have it both ways. For 364 days of the year, we’re always crying about how AMPAS makes s***ty choices when it comes to who gets nominated — that it’s not bold enough or daring enough. Then, sure enough, we get a slate of nominees like we did this year, where only one of the five nominated BPs did any meaningful business. Is it any wonder this year’s telecast is the worst-rated ever? Of course it is. No one should be surprised by this.

    We’re already living in a niche world. You can’t have this slate of nominees and expect blockbuster numbers. Also, with these movies, you can’t “program” your way to success. (Just ask the producers of the Grammys.) If we could build a time machine and bring back Johnny Carson and all our favorite B.O. stars from their heydays, the final numbers would still be what they are. No getting around it.

  22. So How many of us went to Oscar parties? How many were there? 10? 20? 100? Those people do not get counted. I was at an Oscar Party with 25 people; that all get voted as 1 household. How many CSI parties do we have? or LOST parties?

  23. Pierre de Plume

    Well, there’s no going back, that’s for sure. Even though there have been some really great films from the past that performed well both critically and financially, I’m glad to see the Oscars passing over a lot of the overblown crap that once figured prominently in their choices. And I’m also glad to see more acceptance of non-American films.

  24. I wonder how long it will be before the telecast gets relegated to some cable station, the way most beauty pageants have. Or maybe it’ll just be a live streaming thing online.

    I don’t see anyway to change the trend. I don’t think the answer is just nominating more blockbusters–the People’s Choice awards have nothing but crappy crowdpleasers, and it’s not exactly tearing up the ratings. Short of having America (or the whole world!) text in their choices for the win and/or have the nominees all have a live celebrity dance-off, I don’t see much hope for the ratings.

    Of course Cengiz is right, another problem for ratings is the preponderance of Oscar parties. If everyone you know who wants to watch it gathers in a single home or bar or wherever, that’s a lot fewer individual sets on, even though the ads may in fact be reaching more people. I think more and more people are watching it in groups. It’s more fun that way, anyway. At least if you remember not to invite the loudmouths who talk through the whole thing.

  25. Ryan Adams

    Edward Douglas says:
    “Yes, but the QUALITY of viewer has gone WAY up… doesn’t Nielsen have some sort of gauge to determine that?”

    ha, Edward! You didn’t get your microchip embedded yet?

    Excellent point.

  26. Ryan Griffin

    Ugh, it’s just sad that one of the strongest years for film in a very long time, and one of the best list of nominations in a very long time isn’t enough to get people to watch it. It shows how out of touch the Academy has become with the public or, more appropriately, how out of touch the public is with great cinema. It’s sad talking to people today and hearing them say they don’t know who any of the winners are, or didn’t see the nominated films, or say it was a bad ceremony because No Country sucks and it shouldn’t have won! Makes me want to slap someone!

  27. I agree, this was a year that would make the 70’s proud, IMO Blood would’ve been the best ‘best picture’ winner since the godfather, though no country ain’t shabby either, easily the best ‘best picture’ since braveheart (IMO :-p).

    But damn, people will look back on these oscars and be like, wow — just like we look back on say ’75-’76 and see stuff like network, taxi driver, pacino, deniro, hoffman, kubrick… exciting year, great film will NEVER die so long as artists still squirm their way through the cracks.

    Who cares about ratings, it’s just an off year, these things happen and can’t necessarily be explained, collectively people probably just didn’t feel like watching — maybe next year.

  28. richard crawford

    Pierre, I like Stewart…Ellen, I suppose comes closest to Johnny C. or Hope.

    It’s the product that is NOT SELLING!
    H’WOOD is not MAKING THE MOVIES WE WANT TO LOVE.

    It’s that S I M P L E.

  29. LOW RATING FOR OLD MEN!!!

  30. I’m going to try to phrase this carefully, because I don’t want to offend anyone. Your
    voices and opionions matter and I respect that.

    I read this site because it interests me and I like to hear what you have to say. But, the choices offered this year with very few exceptions are NOT the type of movies I enjoy
    watching and paying money to see (exceptions
    Bourne Ultimatum; Rattatouile (sp?); anything
    with Johnny Depp or Viggo in it comes to mind).

    Otherwise, I don’t like to pay money to watch the stuff that was nomimated and won this year:) Nor do most of the paying population I think, hence the low viewership. The average
    John Doe movingoing public had no ownership in
    watching folks they don’t know in movies they won’t go to see get shiny statues.

    If a movie is a ‘masterpiece’ but noone or a very small subset of someones go to see it, is it really a masterpiece?

    Sue

  31. There are several reasons the ratings may have been low:

    Needed more star power (presenters).
    Needed a flashier host.
    Needed to shred the telecast by a good half hour.
    Needed more lucrative box office nominees, etc.
    Needed the Golden Globes precursor to generate more buzz.

    The list goes on and on.

    AND, I agree with what someone said. I, myself, went to an Oscar party where 15 or so people were there (that counts as 1). That has to be taken into some sort of account; if not ratings-wise, then subjectively.

    I hope this post made sense, as I feel it didn’t as I was typing it. haha

  32. richard crawford

    Sue, Virginia Woolf wrote the Waves. Very few have read it. It is not an easy book. It is a masterpiece.

    Hollywood made some small good movies like LARS.
    ONCE IS A GOOD MOVIE.
    There were some good things in “dumb” movies like Rush Hour 3.
    Juno was a lot of fun.
    the academy ignored I’M NOT THERE. It is not an easy movie.
    Bergman’s HOUR OF THE WOLF is a masterpiece.
    THE PASSION OF ANNA IS A masterpiece.
    Shame is a masterpiece.

    Yet, many have not seen these movies.

    So masterpieces can exist without people seeing them, or reading them.
    I am very sypathetic toward your post. I for one would “kill” to see a Charade or a Funny Face or a masterpiece like Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity…..a lot of us have seen THAT one.
    The product being made today is not selling. It is that simple or complex.

  33. Carly (AKA as the Authentic Serena)

    So the general public has no taste?

    Hah. *rolls eyes*

    News at 11…

  34. Sue, a masterpiece is very, very rarely a crowdpleaser, though crowdpleasers can also be very, very well done. There’s nothing wrong with big fun movies, but there were numerous creative projects this year especially that were made for the sake of furthering the art form. They aren’t going to be things that appeal to a lot of people, but they are the films that will shape film history and influence directors, actors, and filmmakers for years to come. Big fun escapist movies make big money and entertain the masses. But the less accessible films have their place, and the Oscars, at their best, recognize the talent, passion and dedication to the craft that went into making them, even when a lot of people won’t “get” them or care about them. When art and audiences overlap, fantastic.

    But please don’t think a movie has to be a “hit” to be a “masterpiece.” They have almost nothing to do with each other.

  35. netclipper

    Liberal posters are a howl. Thank God no one takes Liberals serious. Next thing you know the Liberals will blame this OSCAR failure on a “Bush Administration Conspiracy”. LOL. I don’t for a minute believe the movies nominated or the TV itself were the reason for no one watching. Actually I thought it was one of the best OSCAR shows in a long time and the show moved along rather smartly and briskly. The movies were the best of the year or at least five of the best for sure and the awards were distributed evenly to where it wasn’t a sweep for anyone film. I think the main reason for the lack of tv viewers is that people are still ticked off at the actor and writers for going on strike and depriving them of good television for three months. As is in most cases, after a strike, Unions leave a bad taste in people’s minds. This is no exception. Liberals like to Demonize Bush but as for GW Bush leaving the White House as they say sometimes you don’t know and or appreciate what you have until it is no longer there.

  36. I would hate to think that people would nominate films simply because it means higher ratings for the awards show. Great Oscar winning or nominated movies can be big boxoffice successes, too, but that’s an unpredictable thing. The fragmenting of the television audience and what seems to be shorter attention spans don’t help the cause, but this was a very unusual year, definitely a great year for film, but not necessarily precedent setting.

  37. i live in columbus and i went to an oscar party at a theater where there were over a hundred people that came to watch it. things like this make a significant blow to the ratings.

  38. richard crawford

    carly, Yes and No. Yes, the general public can have taste. No, the general public does not have taste.

    Netclipper, I am going to cry and cry and cry when Georgie Bush leaves the Whitehouse.

    CRY FOR JOY.

  39. John Edwards was right when he said there’s “Two America’s.” There’s the general movie audience and then there’s the Oscar voters.

  40. Haroldsmaude

    in an effort to be brief and keep my comments under 3 hours, let me just say: I agree with Nick Plowman.

  41. it’s true, someone in the media needs to put out the problem with the ratings systems for a big event like the oscars– everyone i know who watched it was watching it in some gathering, whether 6 people or 60 or 600.

  42. I mistrust the ratings on one level, as more of my friends watched this year than ever, and we see a lot of movies, not just blockbusters, and think of cinema as art, as opposed to “entertainment” – some limping, paltry thing between MySpace posts. (The equivalent is, the pop in pop music, say.)

    If AMPAS keeps going this way, it will only become more relevant to the rest of the world. I really enjoyed this 80th OSCARS.

  43. Tyler J. Pratt

    Im not suprised at the low ratings, if you go around any college or high school in America where the key demographic moviegoer resides, and you ask them if they ever heard of films like this years best picture nominees the only one they would no of is Juno. Let me be frank, In my oppinion what the oscars need is this:

    1. Bring back Billy Crystal as host. He’s popular,funny, a crowd pleaser, basically everything a host needs to be. And if crystal is not available, the smartest thing to do would be to bring in Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Steve Carell to all host the same night. They are popular with younger crowds, they are all great writers and they would deliver very smart observations on todays world.

    2. Hype the show up with a celebrity show director like Mike Nichols or Martin Scorsese,or even Jason Reitman, somebody who could bring a fresh originality to the show that are names. Something like this would definitely grab the publics interest.

    3. Cut many of the historical clips and shorten the show to a much more manigable 3 hours by having 3 or 4 commericial breaks that are just a little bit longer, and hype these up by premiering commercials like they do with the super bowl. Make people want to watch for the commercials.

    4. Stick with having major stars and comedians present awards. Give thetechnical awards to comedians like The Apatow gang, Jim Carrey, Ben stiller, Will Ferrel, Jack Black Give the shorts and documentaries to major stars like Kidman and Zellwegger, Zeta Jones, Penelope cruz. In memorium give to a dignified older actor like anthony hopkins , and have javier bardem and marion cottillard give out the foreign film award. And for best picture have someone major like Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino give it out with someone like Streep or Keaton.

    5. Present the honorary oscar to a more famous and popular person. Im thinking Francis Ford Coppola, or clint Eastwood, maybe Robert deNiro. Someone whose career clips would look very good on oscar night.

    6. I know it compromises quality films that are truly worthy but the academy needs to nominate any big moneymaker film that is even remotely good. The public likes seeing the movies they like being honored. Hope for a Titanic and if the academy is lucky enough to find one, they need to honor it

  44. ITS TRUE TO ITS WORD, I MEAN THERE WERE VERY LITTLE SURPRISE, BUT NOT THAT MANY MISSES, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN WAS EXPECTED TO WIN, EVEN THOUGH I DIDN’T WANT IT TO WIN, AND I THINK SOME PEOPLE GOT THE IDEA OF NOT WATCHING IT BECAUSE MAYBE THEY WERE BUSY THAT DAY AND THEY FORGOT OR MAYBE THEY DON’T CARE FOR IT, BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE DON’T REALLY READ THE ENTERTAINMENT SECTION OF THE NEWS PAPER ITS NOT REALLY IMPORTANT TO THEM, THOUGH THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO LOVE MOVIES, I FOR ONE HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE ACADEMY AWARDS SINCE THE 97 OSCARS WHEN TITANIC WON, NOW 21, THE DIFFERENCE FROM 10 YEARS AGO TO NOW IS THAT THE OSCARS HAVE GOTTEN A LOT CHEESIER AND POLITICAL. SOME OF THE HOST THEY HIRED OVER THE YEARS REALLY SUCK BESIDES BILLY CRYSTAL AND WHOOPI GOLDBERG AND STEVER MARTIN WERE OK, CHRIS ROCK AND ELLEN THOUGH SUCKED, AND JON STEWART TRYS TO HARD TO BE FUNNY, SO IN THE END THE OSCARS ARE GOING DOWN THE TOILET, AND NOT ONLY THAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE AT LEAST ONE OR TWO MOVIES NOMINATED FOR AT LEAST 10 OR MORE OSCAR NOMINATIONS AGAIN,WHO CARES ABOUT THE OTHER MOVIES THERE MORE AND LIKELY NOT GOING TO WIN, YOU KNOW THE ONES WHO GET NOMINATED FOR THREE OR LESS THAN ACADEMY AWARDS? THE GOLDEN AGE? THE COSTUMES WERE OK, BUT WHATEVER THAT WAS JUST A FREEBIE AWARD FOR ALEXANDRA BRYNE, I MEAN YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAD GIVEN IT TO HER IN 98 FOR THE FIRST ELIZABETH AND NOT SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, BUT OH I FORGOT THE WEINSTIEN BROS BASICALLY PAID EVERYONE OFF, SORRY IF I SOUND SO IGNORANT BUT CMON GIVE ME A BREAK WHY SHOULD SOMEBODY WAIT THAT FREAKING LONG, I MEAN LOOK WHAT HAPPEN TO MARTIN SCORSESE, HE FINALLY WINS AN OSCAR FOR THE DEPARTED, WHICH IS A GREAT FILM FOR THIS GENERATION, THOUGH CMON, WHAT HAPPEN TO GOODFELLAS, RAGING BULL, THE AVAITOR, GANGS OF NEW YORK, THAT DUDE SHOULD HAVE 5 OSCARS BUT HE DOESN’T BECAUSE IT DOESN’T WORK OUT THAT WAY I GUESS, BECAUSE I WOULD BE SAYING THE SAME ABOUT ROBERT ALTMAN, HE SHOULD HAVE AS MANY AS SCORSESE IF HE DID WON, BUT NOT THAT HES DEAD, GOD RESTS HIS SOUL, THE SAME GOES FOR SPIELBERG THOUGH HE’S WON IT TWICE ALREADY. I AM JUST SAYING GIVE IT TO THE MOVIE THAT REALLY DESERVES IT, LET THE ONES THAT REALLY LOVE MOVIES IN THE ACADEMY VOTE, NOT THE EXECUTIVES OR THE SECRETARIES OF THE EXECUTIVES VOTE SERIOULSLY BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THIS AWARD IS CORRUPT. OUT OF AFRICA???? WHAT THE HELL? DRIVING MISS DAISY? CHARIOTS OF FREAKING FIRE? WHAT ABOUT REDS? SERIOUSLY FOLKS FIGURE SOMETHING OUT SO THEN WE DON’T HAVE TO WAIST OUR TIMES WATCHING A THREE OR FOUR HOUR BORING AWARD SHOW AND ALREADY KNOWING WHO IS GOING TO WIN.

    AND NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN SHOULD OF HAVE NEVER WON THE OSCAR, BUT OH WELL I GUESS ITS GOING TO BE LIKE THIS FOREVER. SERIOUSLY I WOULD OF RATHER SEEN HAD THE OSCARS CANCELLED BY THE WRITERS STRIKE THEN WATCH IT, AND NOT ONLY THAT MAYBE PEOPLE THOUGHT IT GOT CANCELLED BECAUSE OF THE STRIKE, WHO KNOWS I HOPE BILLY CRYSTAL COMES BACK, OR BETTER YET WHAT ABOUT THIS GUY:

    CONAN O’BRIEN!
    OR THIS GUY:
    JAY LENO!

    THERE A LOT FUNNIER THAN JON STEWART, MAN THAT GUY NEEDS TO STICK WITH HIS DAY JOB ON THE DAILY SHOW.

  45. Gentle Benj

    It was the strike that did it. Dur. The TV viewing public found out the ceremony was happening, like, the night before. That’s an exaggeration but not a big one.

  46. 5. Present the honorary oscar to a more famous and popular person. Im thinking Francis Ford Coppola, or clint Eastwood, maybe Robert deNiro. Someone whose career clips would look very good on oscar night.

    Coppola has 5 Oscars, De Niro has 2 and Eastwood has 4. What would be the point of giving them the special award?

  47. If a movie is a ‘masterpiece’ but noone or a very small subset of someones go to see it, is it really a masterpiece?

    Yes. Something isn’t good just because lots of people have seen it.

  48. Sallyinchicago

    there are a lot of shows that would love to have 21.9 million people watching, plus they forgot the “world” was watching. Now as to why it was down — a lot of converging is happening in the movies and Americans are just now getting used to it. I wouldn’t say the movies were “bad” — certainly AG wasn’t a bad movie, it was an entertaining movie…but there were no “epic” movies…you know like Gone With the Wind-Godfather-Jaws-Star Wars ….those are timeless movies that can be watched over and over and over….not sure people are gonna watch NCFOM over and over LOL…Plus, the presenters were unknown, they have to build up their American audience…they’re mostly known in the industry and overseas…but it still counts in America.
    I loved that Marion won and I think she’s headed toward really big stardom….I don’t think Depp is a “star” because he doesn’t want to be…
    What we need are “stars”, someone for the audience to fall in love with warts & all…I think Marion has that quality if she continues to get good movies.

  49. Sallyinchicago

    To Sue S: Julia and Tom had a movie out and it almost tanked. So that kills the theory about movies with stars in them.

    To Tyler: Richard Widmark and Doris Day are still alive; why haven’t they been given an honorary award? I’m sure a lot of people would tune in to see some of these old timers.
    Several bloggers were disappointed that 3:10 to Yuma or Christian wasn’t nominated. Had that movie and/or Bale been nom’d for “anything”, you would have had a bigger audience. (just an example)

  50. Oscar parties are nothing new to this year.

  51. There were no big stars at the Oscars last night – It would have been great to see Liz Taylor, Clint Eastwood, or even Doris Day present the award for Best Picture.

  52. Stevie Wonder

    Jon Stewart was fully until he made fun of Barek Obama’s heritage. Talk radio does not need additional help from Hollywood. This show’s basic format was great, but why does the host get unlimited time for stupidity while winners have to trim their acceptance speech.

    As for the ratings, they do not reflect multiple viewership. The show did not play in my house, but was on multiple sets where I did see it.

    It would have been a good idea to have more icons from the past in this anniverary year instead of “McDreary.” Also, bring back Ellen and Whoppi; those shows were interesting.

    Stevie Wonder

  53. SeattleMoviegoer

    i agree with William, it would have been great to see more of the “classic” Hollywood stars make appearances. yes, they go for the young and beautiful, but i’m so tired of Cameron Diaz and Jessica Alba. give me Redford, Streisand, Hoffman, Newman, Liz Taylor, Gene Hackman, Ellen Burstyn, Ann Margret, etc. etc.
    and no one (i could be wrong, didn’t read every post word for word) mentioned that they left out the BEST PICTURE clips entirely. when i was a kid, it was always exciting at the end when they would present the big award and show a clip to accompany each nominee. often it was the only time you’d see footage of the movies. it created a sense of suspense.
    in past years they have shown them throughout the evening. but that was sort of lame because they’d just show a portion of the trailer. showing a key scene was fun to watch.

  54. Seattlemoviegoer, we noticed the missing clips too, If this was an attempt to save time, it was not the right way to do so.
    Can anyone tell me what is that music used in the “in memoriam sequence ? It was also used a few years ago in a montage dedicated to women in the movies.

  55. chuck harrison

    Being a film buff I can tell most of the movie going publlc doesn’t see most of the films nominated. And here’s why: most of the films are limited released not in wide release for broader appeal. Also work in the economics that close cinema houses across the country and that affects box office returns. Second descions by the distrubters that limit art houses releases to the metro markets such as New York City,Chicago and other metro areas. Medium and smaller markets are overlooked. And regions of the counrty that don’t get to see to say Juno or the Danial Day Lewis film.
    Case in point Vicksburg Ms lost its cinema over 18 months ago. But the cinema operators never catered to adult market only teens and blacks. Never new weekend releases like say over in Jacks on Metro Market. Also Cinema operators would hold a movie,even oscar nominated one for just one week. It happened in the Vicksburg market. Or scheldule it too late where audiences can’t see it. Which is a discustomer service to the audience.

  56. In the UK, you can only watch the Oscars if you have Sky. My family can’t afford that, so I didn’t see it live this year and I had to resort to downloads.

    It’s all the moneysucking big guns’ faults!

  57. I think another reason people may not be tuning in is that nowdays they wait for films to come out on DVD or pay-for-view to watch them. So, it is quite possible they have not seen the nominated films prior to the Oscars
    and are not as interested in watching the telecast. Also, there is a lot of unrest at this time with an uncertain economy in the U.S. and the war and folks are more concerned with basic survival needs and less with art right now. It’s unfortunate, because this year and last saw AMPAS nominating some of the best films in a long while, and they are not getting just reward for doing so.

  58. brian

    there will be blood, best picture since the godfather

  59. :omg:

  60. :omgomgomg:

  61. [img]http://www.awardsdailyforums.com/images/smilies/keep/omgomgomg.gif[/img]

Leave a Comment