The Oscars exist in an insular bubble and the voters have no interest in changing because that would mean they’d have to stay on top of current news and not have their movie choices hand delivered to them by publicists, choosing only what they feel like watching in their screener pile. This year, we all knew the ratings would drop significantly. There was very little general buzz heading into the race.
The #oscarssowhite tag hurt the Oscar brand this year, especially with the younger generations who are politically activist enough to know that they have the power not to watch.
Here are some films that earned high box office, great reviews and became part of the cultural dialogue:
1. Gone Girl – no further explanation necessary.
2. Guardians of the Galaxy – could be included if they had a flat ten nominees.
3. Interstellar – mixed reviews, perhaps, but still a movie that might have been included.
And to make the Oscars MORE INTERESTING at least:
4. Foxcatcher
5. Nightcrawler
Just a thought.
@Ryan Adams
That does not mean I would wanna see a Gone Girl or Dark Knight nominated. I think AMPAS should face reality and nominate worthy blockbusters. Or else, might as well nullify the ABC television contract and go internet stream like the Daytime Emmys.
@Ryan Adams
I do agree though that the Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson fans won’t exactly be swooning to watch the Oscars if Mockingjay were nominated for Best Picture. Inception and Toy Story 3, which both made $292 million and $415 million respectively, were nominated at the Oscars, but the ratings fell to 37.90 million (compared to 41.62 million the previous year).
Young people know what will Best Picture even if the Academy decides to expand the nominees to 51 films. I don’t know your age, but we young people have the internet to find out how things work.
@Ryan Adams
I don’t agree with everything in the article. Just saying that box office does NOT necessarily translate to Oscar gold
“And while you’re there, enjoy your grand total of 4 channels on TV.”
Well, ABC and the Academy think they still can earn ratings like that of the Roots miniseries. Although that’s just wishful thinking.
Birdienest81,
Even though you brought Sam Adams’ article here to AD, I know you’re not endorsing everything he wrote. Anything he wrote in that piece that I’m disputing is not a dispute with you. 🙂
“the Academy think they still can earn ratings like that of the Roots miniseries.”
I don’t believe the Academy’s main concern is ratings. I hope to god it isn’t. I am CERTAIN that rating are no concern at all to Academy members. What possible benefit does any Academy member derive from ratings? Nothing.
If the Academy is more worried about TV ratings for their party than they are with the integrity of the Oscars and its historical legacy, then why the hell should any of us care to help them with such a petty goal?
But, as I say, individual Oscar voters do not give a shit about ratings. And even if they did, what can any of them do about it?*
Maybe ABC cares, but how is that any of our concern?
*(Next year they could try trotting out Eva Green in her underwear. Not a bad idea. But that won’t help ratings either.)
Those stats comparing 1980 to 2014 are fascinating. Pretty comparable numbers of tickets sold, considering the only option you really had in 1980 was to see in in the theater or wait 6 months for home video or tv release within the year. ‘Ordinary People’ also came just after another domestic drama swept the board.
@Paul Hanlin, Jr.
From IndieWire:
Every Oscar season has its rituals: the red carpets, the speeches, and the annual complaint that an elitist Academy has lost touch with the movies “real Americans” watch. This year, it comes from the New York Times’ Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes, who say that the Oscars “have nearly broken their connection with the movies that many millions of people buy tickets to watch.”
As I pointed out yesterday, “Birdman” is the second-lowest-grossing Best Picture winner in at least four decades, and even the technical categories which usually serve as the Academy’s token handouts to blockbusters were invaded by “Whiplash.” But it doesn’t follow, at least without an argument that Cieply and Barnes don’t bother to make, that that Academy’s taste has shifted, or that this supposed shift means the Oscars are in imminent danger of losing their cultural standing.
If you review the roster of Best Picture winners without glancing at box office, they seem remarkably consistent: modestly self-congratulatory issue movies like “In the Heat of the Night” (1967); movie-star entertainments like “The Sting” (1973); glossy period pieces like “Chariots of Fire” (1983); spectacles like “Around the World in 80 Days” (1956). Substitute “Crash,” “Argo,” “The King’s Speech” and “Chicago” and it doesn’t seem like much has changed.
What has changed is what movies audiences are going to see in theaters — the only metric Cieply and Barnes cite, despite its increasingly limited relevance. “Ordinary People,” the 1980 Best Picture winner, had none of the characteristics of a modern box-office hit. It’s essentially a drama about people talking in rooms, but its domestic gross was more than $54 million. That’s $155 million in 2014 dollars, which would have landed it in the year’s top 20, right between “Gone Girl” and “Divergent.” (It actually finished 11th, just outside of a top 10 that included “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Smokey and the Bandit II.”) The Oscars haven’t abandoned movies with mass-audience appeal. It’s theatrical audiences who, with rare exceptions, who have abandoned anything but big-budget spectacle.
Like many reporters who cover the movie industry, Cieply and Barnes seem to have internalized its values, Stockholm Syndrome-style. (As I was writing this, James L. Brooks, who won several Oscars for “Terms of Endearment,” lit into the article in a series of tweets that called it, among other things, “virulent anti-art.”) What’s good is what makes the most money, and the Oscars had better get with the program or risk being put out to pasture. Never mind that, as they pointed out in 2013, revenues for the Oscar telecast have continued to rise even as its ratings have fallen off, or indeed, that any awards show faces an uphill battle in a post-monoculture world where crowning a singular work the best in its domain has increasingly less value. The Grammys, which Cieply and Barnes use as a perennial club to beat the Academy Awards, has responded to the fracturing of culture by giving out more than 80 awards, then exiling those awards to unaired ceremonies while it devotes the vast bulk of its TV broadcast to musical performances. That not a route it would be either sensible or desirable for the Academy Awards to follow — not to mention that if one of your criticisms of the Oscars is that, to cite Cieply and Barnes’ sole quoted source, a film studies librarian from the University of Michigan, “No one really believes anymore that the films they chose are the ones that are going to last over time,” the Grammys’ absurdly hidebound, historically risible choices don’t represent much of an improvement. (In 1977, the year the Academy’s Best Picture was “Annie Hall,” the Grammys’ best new artist was the Starland Vocal Band.)
It’s true that, to an extent, the Oscars’ ratings rise and fall with the popularity of the nominated movies. But it hardly follows that a Best Picture slate including, say “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay — Part 1” and “Transformers: Age of Extinction” would bring viewers running. It’s doubtful that, say, “Hunger Games” fans much care about the Academy’s validation, and the implication that awards shows should replicate box-office results amounts to a kind of hegemonic bullying. The Oscars should not reward movies for being hits any more than critics should penalize them for it. As James Rocchi put it, “There’s already an award for the Oscar nominee seen by the biggest audience. It’s called ‘Money.'”
I’d love to see the Academy demonstrate more catholic taste: Imagine a Best Picture field in which “Guardians of the Galaxy” competes against “Under the Skin.” But for critics of the Academy’s supposed “elitism” — a laughable claim given the body’s implacably middlebrow taste — there’s nowhere to look but up the box-office ladder. The unvarying charge repeats itself year after year, no matter the contradictions involves: This year, Cieply and Barnes complained about a “confusing tangle of awards that went in many different directions”; in 2013, they smiled approvingly on voters’ Golden Globes-like generosity in “[h]onoring a wide variety of pictures.” In 2012, “Hollywood’s awards machinery” was “broken”; this year, it was an unstoppable juggernaut.
But then, this debate isn’t really about the Oscars. It’s about the collective shame of an industry that’s built a business model on pandering to teenage boys and sets aside one evening a year to pretend it’s about anything else — or, in the case of “Birdman,” a movie that dramatizes that very struggle. How convenient it would be to kill that last shred of conscience; to happily embrace the profit motive and set all else aside; to treat art as a welcome but inessential side effect of commerce. It would certainly make reporting on the movie industry easier. Every last one of the Academy’s eight Best Picture nominees has earned back its budget several times over, but there’s no room for such piddling successes in the global game. It’s winner-take-all, everything else be damned.
The Oscars haven’t abandoned movies with mass-audience appeal. It’s theatrical audiences who, with rare exceptions, who have abandoned anything but big-budget spectacle.
THIS. IS. SUCH. BULLSHIT. I get so sick of showing the numbers to people.
As if 1980 was some pinnacle of artistic glory at the box-office?
Airplane!
Any Which Way You Can
Private Benjamin
Smokey and the Bandit II
The Blue Lagoon
— all those movies were in the top 10 in 1980. ‘
I fail to see how that’s better or “more adult” than Gone Girl, Planet of the Apes, Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America or Maleficent.
Even moneywise, can we please STOP pretending that sophisticated Americans flocked to see Raging Bull in 1980 (before we were all “dumbed-down”?
Only 8.5 million Americans bought tickets to see Raging Bull. That’s right in line with the same number of Americans who bought tickets to see The Imitation Game and The Grand Budapest Hotel this year.
Ticket sold. This is the metric for comparison: TICKETS SOLD. So let’s look at that, shall we?
2014 TICKETS SOLD (for Oscar nominees)
39 million = American Sniper
10 million = The Imitation Game
7 million = The Grand Budapest Hotel
6 million = Selma
4 million = Birdman
1980 TICKETS SOLD (for Oscar nominees)
25 million = Coal Miner’s Daughter
20 million = Ordinary People
9 million = The Elephant Man
8.5 million = Raging Bull
7.5 million = Tess
70 million tickets sold to Oscar-nominated movies in 1980
66 million tickets sold to (the top 5) Oscar-nominated movies in 2014
oh nooooo, 4 million less! The Sky Is FALLING!
No, it’s not. The sky just got bigger, that’s all. The sky enlarged and the UPPER reaches are filled with movies that now sell 50 million tickets. Because Hollywood figured out how to do that, and Hollywood would be stupid to throw that revenue stream away.
Yes, there were a couple of movies in 1980 that sold 40-50 million tickets. Movies like The Empire Strikes Back and 9 to 5. Movies that people in 1980 loved — people of all backgrounds and IQs. Who’s complaining about those movies? NOBODY.
Now we get Interstellar, Captain America, Maleficent, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Lucy — movies that people of all backgrounds and IQs can enjoy. Who’s complaining about those movies? Nobody in his right mind.
Yes, there are people today who will turn their noses up at Fifty Shades of Grey, The Hunger Games, Godzilla… fine, Those Movies Were NOT made for you. Does that mean they shouldn’t be made at all?
Trust me, there were people in 1980 who turned their noses up at Airplane! Smokey and the Bandit, Any Which Way You Can, Stir Crazy — all top 10 hits at the box-office. FINE. Those movies were not made for the people with their noses in the air.
Face the facts: America at large has never been all that sophisticated. There are 40 different Abbott and Costello movies. FORTY. There are 25 Three Stooges movies. There are 25 Rin Tin Tin movies (Warner Brothers would have gone bankrupt in the 1920s if not for Rin Tin Tin).
It’s just so ridiculously false to look back on 1980 as if it’s a time before America was “dumbed-down.”
Go back to 1980 and try to find the Boyhood or Gone Girl of 1980. Find me the movies directed by Black women in 1980. Find me the movies with sympathetic gay characters in 1980.
Go back in your time machine to the halcyon days of 1980 if you think things were so smart and sophisticated back them. And while you’re there, enjoy your grand total of 4 channels on TV.
“Ordinary People,” the 1980 Best Picture winner, had none of the characteristics of a modern box-office hit. It’s essentially a drama about people talking in rooms
Misleading. Mary Tyler Moore was coming off a red-hot 7-year streak as THE most popular woman on television. There was no actress more beloved nationwide in 1980 than Mary Tyler Moore. And Robert Redford was not exactly an unknown quantity in pop culture either.
But if you want to talk “aesthetics,” I don’t know if we want to wave Ordinary People around as if it’s a cinematic milestone. Aesthetically, it’s exactly on the same level as Still Alice, which has been roundly dismissed all year long by dozens of idiots like Jeff Wells as a “Lifetime Movie.”
If Ordinary People had come out this year, Jeff Wells would be stupidly calling it a Lifetime Movie, because he’s an idiot.
Yet another reason the telecast should move back to march. I know a lot of people who didn’t see Imitation, Theory, Birdman, etc simply because they hadn’t made the time. They had interest in seeking out the “oscar” movies worth seeing, but there’s so little time from when they hit wide release to the ceremony.
I maintain that the Oscars are relevant precisely because they DON’T award films based on box office or general audience appeal. They are relevant because they prop up and encourage the production of lesser-seen artistic triumphs like Boyhood and Birdman instead of bowing down to the almighty dollar. It’s obviously the audience that’s in an “insular bubble”, and box office riches are reward enough.
Fuck the money.
Antoinette, thank you for the eloquent words. I’m used to taking crap on here from the arthouse fans on this board. I’m their worst enemy.
I want the Academy to realize that those who make blockbusters embraced by critics and fans alike are no less worthy of recognition than the likes of Richard Linklater and Innaratu. They put no less of a supreme effort into making their movies watchable and enjoyable as the precious arthouse movies do. Financial success and high quality are not, nor will they ever be mutually exclusive. I want an Oscars with arthouse vs. mainstream and that it’s a fair competition. You need not look any further than the opening 5 minutes of the Oscars that you know how much they despise blockbusters, especially superhero fare.
Last time I’ll say anything on this; nominate movies that the public has seen, and then you’ll bring the viewers back. Nobody gave 2 shits about Whiplash, Still Alice, Theory of Everything, Birdman, Boyhood, Imitation Game, even Selma fizzled, and American Sniper was ultra-conservative driven. I had to rack my brain to figure out the Grand Budapest Hotel was a finalist for BP.
This year’s Best Picture crop seemed a lot like 4 quality originals vs. 4 mediocre biopics. Selma and Citizenfour also felt horribly overrated among many Oscar watchers, particularly Selma in the US. The rousing populism of their content should not override the overall quality of the film, and I couldn’t help but suspect that some championing these films didn’t even see them in the first place, or went into the film determined to love it. The Selma shenanigans in the ceremony therefore left a bad taste in my mouth.
I did find it irritating that of all the bio pics to miss out, it was Mr. Turner, the one progressive game changer of the lot, and a British/Leigh Oscar darling at that. Even Foxcatcher was better than that bland foursome.
That said, all the Oscar acting wins were very welcome with me, whilst Boyhood & Birdman were both above average contenders for Best Picture.
Aaron nails it:
““What? Captain America? It was pretty good but not *that* good” but you know what? That was my reaction to something like “The Theory of Everything” so it would still in it’s own way be pretty refreshing every now and then.”
The Academy fucked with black women. Never fuck with black women. They don’t know that… yet.
They need to cut all of the extra musical numbers. Only the nominated songs should be performed… As good as Lady Gaga did what the hell was the point of it all besides “The Sound of Music is 50 years old now!” No shit. I can read numbers. And Jennifer Hudson’s performance should’ve been during the in memory sequence instead of after… There’s 15 minutes right there. And Hosts are almost pointless. Make an impressive/hilarious opening video to kick off the intro to the show and have the announcer introduce the presenters. The Presenters can act as the hosts.
I generally like NPH, but a better host would’ve helped.
Gone Girl, Galaxy, Interstellar, and/or Unbroken being nommed would’ve helped.
How about an earlier start time by half an hour?
Less Musical numbers would’ve helped (though, I did love Gaga).
Bigger stars/celebrities presenting would’ve helped.
More diversity of nominees would’ve helped.
I could go on and on. Plenty of things would’ve raised the ratings a bit.
The Oscar ratings sucked because nobody gave a shit about most of the nominated movies. I seriously doubt the lack of diversity affected the ratings much. (You can go back to previous, equally homogeneous shows and see higher ratings to disprove this theory.) The only popular film nominated this year was American Sniper, but many of its biggest fans despise what they call “Hollyweird” and wouldn’t be caught dead watching the Oscars. That doesn’t leave you with a very large audience. And that’s not even considering that the show itself was abominable, and I’m sure many changed their channels or went to sleep.
We’re not talking about “Transformers” here. Every year there are plenty of films that critics AND audiences both love, and it would be nice to see more support for them. Every 10 years it seems we have a “Lord of the Rings” (ok that happened three times, but you know what I mean).
“The Lego Movie,” “Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Captain America,” “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” “X-Men Days of Future Past” and “Interstellar” all had at least 70 metacritic scores as well as being in the top 20 box office. Only one of those made my own personal top 10, and my reaction to a nomination for the others might be something like “What? Captain America? It was pretty good but not *that* good” but you know what? That was my reaction to something like “The Theory of Everything” so it would still in it’s own way be pretty refreshing every now and then.
@Daveinprogress
Good point, if box office (always) equaled high ratings, then why doesn’t the People’s Choice Awards earn higher ratings than the Oscars. I’m very sure that if next years Best Picture went to Avengers 2, many people will think that Academy is insulting our intelligence.
What the Academy needs are films like Gravity or ET, films that were blockbusters, but had that zeitgeist factor that made them cultural touchstones. You can’t just clumsily throw in a movie that has made $300 million into the Best Picture race and expect people to watch the ceremony (see: American Sniper). There needs to be a blockbuster that has a real shot at winning Best Picture.
I’m just not sold on the notion that if AMPAS was to include a Galaxy or a Lego Movie among a 8-10 picture line up that viewers will tune in. In the same way i would not watch the People’s choice awards, it doesn’t interest me; so too, people know if the Oscars are their thing and either think (which it is) an exclusive club for art house movies and moviemakers; then nothing will bring them in.
As for Neil Patrick Harris, he’s a good singer but he lacks hosting skills. This was a tough call to give a hosting job to a rookie. Someone with hosting experience like Jimmy Fallon or even Ellen again will work.
I will say this. I think a lot to do with the lower ratings has to be the lack of movies that win at the box office. In fact Michael Medved made note just before American Sniper’s big-ass weekend that The LEGO Movie made more than all eight Best Picture winners combined. Yeah, I know it’s a typical stunt of Medved’s to show the superiority of family movies over Oscar fare: always was his schtick. Nevertheless it did point out how the Academy is increasingly straying away from movies that succeed well at the box office. In fact six of the past ten Best Picture winners have failed to gross over $100 million. Even a friend of mine said he stopped watching the Oscars because it’s ‘less and less Hollywood.’ I wish the Academy would stop buying the popular belief among hipsters and film critics that box office success is a film making weakness. Sure seems they think that way.
Bob’s point is a good one, about marketing the event and the host and the nominees. As a former tv producer, i know that there are multifarious factors that can affect the ratings of a special event. On paper Neil Patrick Harris is a good choice – he is known as an exemplary host, he also had a starring role in a sitcom that ran for several seasons. Not celebrating the 8 movies up for best picture individually was a mistake. The negative publicity around the lack of diversity of nominations probably kept a lot of viewers away, but there are viewing platform shifts that affect numbers. I don’t know about the Nielsen ratings systems, but traditional viewing habits keep changing as more people consume their media on other devices.Do we know whether the ratings started low and stayed there or opened strongly and there was a huge switch off factor during the show? What was on offer on the other networks? All these factors contribute to the end result.
The Oscars ratings rose to 37.26 million total and 11.0 in 18-49 demo. Significantly down, but as Mark Harris pointed out the Oscars have earned between 36 million and 46 million (except in 2003 and ’08). So it’s relatively on par with the past 40 or so years.
But, enough about this ratings nonsense. This IS NOT ABOUT QUANTITY. IT’S QUALITY.
It’s hypocritical how the Academy Awards look down comic-book movies and popular blockbusters, relegating any recognition of them, usually to visual effects and sound. But then the stars of those movies are asked to be Oscar presenters to help bring in TV viewers: Chris Evans (”Captain America”), Chris Pratt and Zoe Saldana (”Guardians of the Galaxy”), Ansel Elgort (”The Fault in Our Stars”), Josh Hutcherson (”Hunger Games”) , Chris Pine (”Star Trek”), Scarlett Johansson (”Captain America,” ”Avengers,” ”Iron Man 2”), etc.
Compare the line up of the nominees, with the 8 top films of 2014, in my book…
1. Stranger by the Lake, an extremely graphic gay thriller taking place in a cruising area. Cahiers du Cinema’s #1 and ICS’s winner for Best Picture
2. The Lego Movie (’nuff said)
3. Snowpiercer
4. Boyhood
5. Grand Budapest Hotel
6. Selma
7. Nightcrawler
8. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
9. Guardians of the Galaxy
I wonder what ratings would a ceremony with those nominees have had, with three acclaimed blockbusters, a such groundbreaking film for the AMPAS nominations, the cult action movie of the year, plus Selma and Boyhood. I think it looks way better than a 8 finalist list in which I doubt 4 of them would be in my top 20 of the year, when all is said and done (Birdman, Whiplash, The Theory of Everything and American Sniper).
Problem with the ratings was..
1) The most “popular” nominee was American Sniper, which is a film plenty of people simply, despise.
2) The blockbusters that were universally acclaimed by reviewers were just showing up in technicals, Lego, Captain America, Guardians, and to a minor extent X-Men, Interstellar, Dawn of Planet of the Apes. The disconnection between AMPAS and critics when talking about genre film is really, really worrying, ’cause the audience simply doesn’t understand, anymore.
3) The songs. 4 out of 5 were completely exchangable, despite the obvious quality and resonance. Only “Everything is Awesome” stood out, so why watching live an event in which 4 songs would probably become snore fests? Add to that the unavoidable song for the “In Memorian” (which wasn’t overlapped, but sung RIGHT AFTER, in which was one of the night’s worst mistakes in production)… and yes, Lady Gaga was going to perform, but apart from the curiosity to see what she was wearing at the red carpet, every single Gaga fan, knew she was going to sing some material that wasn’t hers, so that wasn’t enough hook.
You really can’t make the AMPAS decide what to nominate, but certainly it’s important to remind them, they’re sinking their own boat.
Who cares if it’s the lowest rated. I still watched it and thought it was really good.
The low ratings should not be a surprise. Last year there were four films nominated for BP that earned over $100 mil. Gravity, American Hustle, Wolf of Wall Street and Captain Phillips. This year only one film that earned more then $100 mil was nominated American Sniper. Most people had no idea about the nominees in the main categories. I also think the left wing politics injected to acceptance speeches by privileged Hollywood elite will only turn more people off. Even though I love American Sniper I didn’t bother watching this years ceremony.
”Despite the quality of their work, the Academy chose not to nominate people of colour. As a result, the audience that appreciates and/or identifies with those artists take a pass on the broadcast.”
Steve50, I couldn’t agree more. The Oscarcast tried to overcompensate its all-white slate of acting nominees by including lots of African-Americans as presenters: Viola Davis, Kevin Hart, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Idris Elba, Terence Howard, Octavia Spencer, etc. But ultimately, it was window dressing. And while we’re at it, I saw only one Latina (Zoe Saldana) and no Asians as presenters. Diversity comes in more shades than just one color.
”Several under-promoted films that contain some of the most brilliant performances and writing of the year are not seen by the Academy voters who cannot be bothered to watch them, much less nominate them. The cinephile crowd, in return, cries foul and skips the telecast.”
The problem is the Academy voters can barely get around to watch the handful of Best Picture nominees they have screeners for. … As we can see from the acting nominees for the Independent Spirit Awards, there ARE worthwhile performances by actors of color BUT you have to recognize them. About 6-7 of the 20 Spirit-nominated actors were ethnic. … And even when there ARE actors of color in the major Oscar contenders, the Academy voters are blind to them: like Tony Revolori (”Grand Budapest Hotel”) , etc. … As long as the Academy is 94% Caucasian & 76% male, it’s still an old white boys’ club.
I’ve said it over and over, but this IS an Academy that ruined the BP lineup by overreacting to Dark Knight criticism. Bank on them making some wild overcorrection that will make this problem even worse without seeing that the problem with the ceremony is and has always been the guilds sapping the suspense out of the final night. Until something is done about this they can expand the field to 100 nominees for all the difference it will make.
You people are on drugs. Who gives a fuck about ratings? The Marvel-Disney-DC complex audience do not give a shit about The Oscars — let me rephrase it, they could not tell you three Best Picture winners if you paid them. Have some self esteem. Additionally those movies rarely bear the highest quality and significance and Best Picture nominee should have, ideally. HARRY POTTER? PRISONER OF AZKABAN sure would not have been horrible than what? Maaaybe HALF-BLOOD prince just because it went all expressionistic on my ass and I was OK with that because it was kind of bold, after those two there’s really nothing on the franchise to even pretend to cover one’s ass. Marvel? You have THE AVENGERS, the first CAPTAIN AMERICA movie, perhaps the second one which have some kind of character and edge that slipped by the series runner’s censors. I’ll give you WATCHMEN of course. One or two of Nolan’s BATMAN’s, but after that you need to have an argument as to what else could be part of a line-up of ten — just 10 at most! — so let’s please not be wasteful. How about coming up with good suggestions to make their selections better and not worse? Look at AVATAR and the sore stain in their history The Academy dodged by not awarding it. It’d have been down there with CRASH, 80 DAYS and OLIVER! a year later in the considerations. No, no, no.
Last year’s ceremony had the largest audience since American Beauty won 15 years ago.
Tom Cruise, Denzel Washinton, Russell Crowe and THE SIXTH SENSE were nominated that year and Angelina Jolie won. Brad Pitt, Jared Leto and Matthew McConaughey won Oscars last year. Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts, Jennifer Lawrence, Christian Bale and wait for it…. Leonardo DiCaprio were nominated last year. Are those people popular? *scratches head* Let’s see, this year, Leto and McConaughey gave awards to box office titans Patricia Arquette and Julianne Moore. And Galadriel gave an award to New British Guy #2. It’s a damn good thing everyone knew Michael Keaton wasn’t winning beforehand. Nobody ever liked him.
That’s why Dave Karger had UNBROKEN for so long. He knows what the Academy are supposed to do. Handing the reigns over to critics gets you this mess. Critics and people haven’t agreed since forever. The Academy and people have agreed more over the years. THE DEPARTED, BRAVEHEART, RETURN OF THE KING, GLADIATOR, ROCKY, FORREST GUMP, TITANIC. ‘Memba them? Those were the good years.
Another hint. When the most American story in the running is cast with a bunch of Brits don’t expect Americans to tune in either. SELMA, I’m looking at you. Because you know there were no African Americans who could have played MLK, People love it when foreigners come over here and “take our jobs”. For future reference, the Avengers are mostly American actors. 😉
It’s because they don’t nominated the movies people love and care about. It’s what Paul Hanlin, Jr.’s been saying all year and all he gets is shit for it. He’s been trying to alert the Academy that they need to include movies like Harry Potter since Harry Potter and they don’t want to hear it. I realized earlier this season that the people who put on the show and the people who do the voting are two different groups. The producers and NPH did what they could but it was too late. No normal people had a dog in the hunt. But in my opinion if they’d released the films better even the nominated films would have had more of a draw.
I obviously agree with the idea that this anti-superhero movie stuff is ridiculous. It’s kinda racist against superheroes. It’s saying that movies about them cannot be of the highest quality or Oscar worthy which is absolute hogwash. How many of us, people who comment here and care about the Oscars, had CAPTAIN AMERICA; THE WINTER SOLDIER in their top tens this year? It was in my top 5. That’s not because we don’t know what goes into the making of a great motion picture. We know and we chose to include that film as one of the best of the year. Did the pundits include it in the Oscar race? Of course not, because it didn’t fit the prognosticators definition of an “Oscar Movie”. So they vetted it out of the running on behalf of the Academy. The same way they toss quality pictures every year in their quest for the self-fulfilling prophecy so once we can get to the ceremony they can complain about the crap the Academy chooses. But they’re still the ones who narrow it down for them. It’s their fault.
But a superhero movie won anyway. lol I’m glad so many people think it’s not a superhero movie, even those who made it. But anyone worth their salt knows what it is. You thought you made a crêpe but you made a pancake. Pancakes are better anyway. 😛
Last year’s films were just as Indie as this years expect for Gravity and Wolf of Wall Street. Just better. But the elephant in the room is that the lead actors and others in this year’s films were pretty much unknown to the general public. Folks sitting at home don’t know who the dukes Eddie Redmayne or Paul Thomas Anderson or Richard Linklater is, talented as they may be. There were no real big and readily recognizable names to draw every day people in like last year. Silly reason for cinephiles, but not for regular folks going to the movies and tuning in to a TV show, it is important..
Ok, so now the Academy has to make their choices based on rating? What the people want? So let’s turn the Oscars into the People Choice Awards!
Here’s why I think ratings fell so badly:
NPH was a terrible choice; he was out of his element, not funny, and just awkward. None of the bits landed and it was kind of painful to watch.
Not enough black films/actors – you want viewers, nominate more black actors/films/writers/directors. It’s not about diversity; if it was a 50/50 split of white to black nominees, hardly anyone would bat an eye; forget about diversity in age, forget about Latin Americans, Asian Americans, LGBT, etc. Just nominate more black individuals and you’ve got yourself a ratings bonanza.
Lady Gaga KILLED it. None of the pop “singers” of today could have pulled off HALF of what she did; however, she’s white. So, put Beyonce and Rhianna up there. Jennifer Hudson is too talented; her vocal gifts eclipse many times over those of Beyonce, Rhianna, etc. So, forget about the talent, just put Beyonce up there and you’ve got yourselves more ratings.
Make fun of more white people. Forget about how talented anyone is; poke more fun at the fact that white people have talent, and you’ve got yourself an uproarious crowd and millions of viewers.
Chris Rock sucked as a host; but, by all means, get him back. Have him host with Kevin Hart and Oprah … ratings bonanza!!!!!!!!!!!
Have Kanye West interrupt winners (but only the white ones because those seem to be the only winners he takes aim at). That’s always fun to watch.
Follow these steps, and you’ve got yourselves a sure-fire hit!
Another thought:
I looked over the Top 20 highest grossing films of the year in the US from 2014, as it currently stands. I haven’t seen Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, so I’ll exclude it and talk about the other 19:
Having seen all 19 of these films, there are only TWO that I would rate lower than Birdman – Transformers: Age of Extinction and Divergent. The other 17 are all superior films to Birdman. Even The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is better.
Also, my two cents on the topic of ratings is that if American Sniper wasn’t going to convince people to watch the Oscars en masse, I don’t understand how Gone Girl, a film that made half as much money and is substantially less hot at the moment, would have really pulled them in. Guardians of the Galaxy and Interstellar might’ve had an effect, but including the latter for the sake of ratings would be a far larger red flag for the Academy than diminished ratings, in my opinion.
It’s gotta be that the Oscars are soooo predictable. I mean, how many times can you see the same actors win the same award over and over??? We know they are going to win. THEY know they are going to win. Makes the whole thing seem like a colossal waste of time. I can’t imagine how tiresome it is for the other nominees who have to lose multiple times.
As for the American Sniper. most people knew all along that the film would NOT win Best Picture. People have the internet, and they can track who is winning the precursor awards. So, they must have thought “Oh, Birdman will win. So why give a fuck?”
Patently false. Outside of Oscar prediction circles, among the people I talk to every day, there was a large contingent that believed that American Sniper was going to win Best Picture (a prospect that excited some of them and depressed the rest). I was asked (as a resident movie buff) by no fewer than ten different people leading up to the Oscars if I thought American Sniper would win BP, and nearly all of them were surprised when I said it wouldn’t happen. Many were surprised when I said I thought Birdman would win, at least in part because they weren’t familiar with the film. Most people who watch the Oscars don’t read prediction sites, it turns out.
I also think the LEGO snub really hurt them this year. It’s not that I think huge numbers of people tune in solely to watch the animation category, but rather that its absence combined with the #OcarsSoWhite problem created a perfect storm type narrative that the Academy’s just not cool. Its inclusion may not have specifically driven ratings up, but its exclusion certainly helped to suppress them.
This. The Academy really shot itself in the foot several times over this year. One other factor — Harris as the host. Sure, everyone likes NPH (or at least they did before last night) but he’s such a constant host on so many awards shows that there was almost a feeling of ‘been there, done that’ when he was announced with the Oscars gig. He definitely lacks Ellen’s cultural sway, and while Macfarlane and Franco/Hathaway bombed, at least those were somewhat outside-the-box choices by the Academy that could’ve had people tuning in just to see what the hell was going to happen. This being said, I’m of the belief that the show doesn’t really even need a single host — just have the Academy president open the show with their usual speech, introduce some big “Movies Are Great” musical number and then let the rotating cycle of presenters ‘host’ things over the course of the evening.
Remember that the 2009 ceremony was the year of the Dark Knight snub, and such an uninspiring Best Picture field that it led to the Academy making wholesale changes to the voting. I wonder if we’ll get a return to the firm list of 10 for next year’s ceremony.
Well Sasha and anyone the proof is in the pudding in the public eye oscar is in crisis…it inevitable heads will roll in the executive arm at the Academy they surely know they cannot ignore that which gives life to the movies..the fans ignore them at your peril. It not just bout political activism Sasha,
it the simpler fact people use common sense regardles of one age demographic..namely people know when the films they value and respect are not nominated or even a seriouis contender when nominated so why should they bother? fair enough i say so? what is oscar gonna do about it?
They dont have a leg to stand on oscar anymore..they lost both legs now it seems they might? be hellbent on wearing out their artifical peglegs lol
Despite the quality of their work, the Academy chose not to nominate people of colour. As a result, the audience that appreciates and/or identifies with those artists take a pass on the broadcast.
Despite the quality and intelligence of several blockbusters this year, genre bias prevents the Academy from allowing any of them out of the minor tech categories. Again, that audience also takes a pass on the show.
Several under-promoted films that contain some of the most brilliant performances and writing of the year are not seen by the Academy voters who cannot be bothered to watch them, much less nominate them. The cinephile crowd, in return, cries foul and skips the telecast.
Add to that the homebodies who may have seen one of the nominated films but tunes-out the broadcast in favour of Downton Abbey because they don’t recognize most of the nominees…
I’m surprised the ratings were as high as they were.
And “The hobbit” Why do you always forget “The hobbit”?????
The Academy was the story this year. Seriously. The nominees were barely mentioned in the press in the weeks leading up to the show.
Heard on NPR that DuVernay was instrumental in preventing a major demonstration against Academy racism.
Gone Girl?… AGAIN?… Snap out of it!!!!
For the love of God, please nominate Star Wars or Avengers 2 next year. Aside from American Sniper this years linup was fucking boring.
Anyway, Academy… despite the way Selma was treated in the nominations… It is that film that brought you the best moment of the ceremony… The best song performance in the history of the Oscars.
The ratings deserve to be the lowest in a while. Uninspiring nomination list, a year vastly inferior to the past two in terms of overall quality and a lack of suspense regarding the winners. Plus: an irregular work by Neil Patrick Harris. Started well but finished poor.
I think the #OscarsSoBlack had the most to do with it. Even I felt a bit dirty about watching the show because of it.
I think that Gone Girl had a lot to commend it as a best picture nominee and an all-around great film, but I’m not convinced that it would have boosted the ratings much if it was included. I feel like part of the movie’s fan base were film lovers who were already watching, and the other part were film lovers who wouldn’t be tuning in for awards unless it was actually slated for a big win. Maybe what I’m trying to say is that it’s inclusion wouldn’t have changed the conversation ENOUGH to really see a ratings boost. In a similar way, I agree that Foxcatcher & Nightcrawler would be more interesting for us cinephiles who have seen everything, but wouldn’t have impacted the ratings. The general public sees all three of them as too similar to what already got picked.
Guardians of the Galaxy (or possibly even Interstellar) as a nominee may have had a bigger impact. It’s a different “type” of film in a way that might interest a larger demographic. A Guardians nomination, in particular, is a huge enough hit that audiences would expect it to be commented on during the monologue and throughout the show, so it might have signaled the possibility of a “cooler” show that they might have tuned in for, if that makes any sense.
I also think the LEGO snub really hurt them this year. It’s not that I think huge numbers of people tune in solely to watch the animation category, but rather that its absence combined with the #OcarsSoWhite problem created a perfect storm type narrative that the Academy’s just not cool. Its inclusion may not have specifically driven ratings up, but its exclusion certainly helped to suppress them.
I think not-nominating certain movies had to have had an effect on the ratings. The lack of racial diversity hurt it for sure. I wonder though, and I really do mean this, I wonder how many people were watching the new episode of The Walking Dead instead.
Well, I hope this means we won’t have to stand those stupid producers again…
Also, for the defenders of only 5 nominees: imagine the ratings without American Sniper and Selma, which would clearly not make the list (ToE wouldn’t either, but who cares?).
@birdienest81: Thank you for posting James Gunn’s letter. The stupid elitist old men of Hollywood diss superhero movies while choosing for Best Picture shameless award bait like ToE and TIG.
The Oscar ratings problem is more than just simply AMPAS itself. I strongly believe that it is more of the Hollywood establishment problem. Whatever happened to the days of ET, Jaws, and Raiders of the Lost Ark. At their core, they may as well be genre films, but they had that zeitgeist fell to them that makes them cultural touchstones that resonates today. We need to lobby the studios to focus less on tentpoles and more to ingenious ideas.
After all, there all only so many ways you can retell of superhero story. After that the well will run dry.
Here’s what Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn wrote about awards season and superhero film bashing:
I didn’t really find the Jack Black superhero jokes offensive, did you guys? It was, like, a joke. I’m not sure if you guys noticed, but the writing on the Oscars didn’t seem to be all that well thought out.
As far as Dan Gilroy saying that attendees of the Independent Spirit Awards have survived against a “tsunami of superhero films” – well it seems a bit weird coming from a guy whose wife has acted in two Thor films – really, that seems like you’ve drowned horribly in that tsunami. But I know I just kind of make up stuff as I go along on these awards shows, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Whatever the case, the truth is, popular fare in any medium has always been snubbed by the self-appointed elite. I’ve already won more awards than I ever expected for Guardians. What bothers me slightly is that many people assume because you make big films that you put less love, care, and thought into them then people do who make independent films or who make what are considered more serious Hollywood films.
I’ve made B-movies, independent films, children’s movies, horror films, and gigantic spectacles. I find there are plenty of people everywhere making movies for a buck or to feed their own vanity. And then there are people who do what they do because they love story-telling, they love cinema, and they want to add back to the world some of the same magic they’ve taken from the works of others. In all honesty, I do no find a strikingly different percentage of those with integrity and those without working within any of these fields of film.
If you think people who make superhero movies are dumb, come out and say we’re dumb. But if you, as an independent filmmaker or a “serious” filmmaker, think you put more love into your characters than the Russo Brothers do Captain America, or Joss Whedon does the Hulk, or I do a talking raccoon, you are simply mistaken.
From his facebook page BTW
@Sasha Stone
BTW, I have curated Oscar ceremony articles on Wikipedia and promoted them to Featured List. I try to keep the info on them as accurate as possibly.
Neil did the best he could with this wack ass set of movies this year. It stung seeing the clip for nightcrawler only nomination in original screenplay. It stung knowing selma would only win one award for song. Sooo maybe they’ll learn their lesson next year oh nope they didn’t couldn’t even give boyhood best director or best pic.
Last year’s ceremony had the largest audience since American Beauty won 15 years ago. Even shows with Avatar and Return of the King weren’t as popular. This year’s ceremony had an almost 10 million drop in viewers, and if you want to believe Wikipedia, it’s the third least viewed show in 30 years.
There was really nothing that would have made me watch this whole thing. I simply didn’t care for the movies that had a chance at winning. I didn’t have a horse in the race that made my heart beat and pulse raise when the envelope was being opened. I preferred to watch it during the commercials of what I was watching at the time and simply saw the vids of the winners I admired to see today. To be honest, I personally didn’t care much for any movies of 2014 period, outside of maybe to some degree The Grand Budapest Hotel, Whiplash. Selma and Nightcrawler. There was nothing the producers could have done to get me glued to the tube and dedicate 200+ mins watching this stuff this year. For me, this was a blah year for the film industry and an even worse year for the academy.
As for the American Sniper. most people knew all along that the film would NOT win Best Picture. People have the internet, and they can track who is winning the precursor awards. So, they must have thought “Oh, Birdman will win. So why give a fuck?”
I think it was the #OscarsSoWhite backlash that tarnished the Oscars this year. Several twitter messages seemed to echo a boycott this year:
http://thegrio.com/2015/02/23/oscars-ratings-blacks-boycott/