I was aboput to mention that.
For those morons who figured because ther eis no blockbuster, no one will watch. Morons. :wink:
:mrgreen:
| World of KJ http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/ |
|
| Academy Audience Slightly Smaller Then Last Year http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4999 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Joker's Thug #3 [ Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Academy Audience Slightly Smaller Then Last Year |
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... _ratings_2 NEW YORK - With comedian Chris Rock, the Academy Awards (news - web sites) succeeded in its effort to find a younger audience  but perhaps at the expense of the country as a whole. A total of 41.5 million viewers tuned in Sunday to watch "Million Dollar Baby" take the Oscar for best picture. That's down 2 million from last year's show, which honored "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," according to Nielsen Media Research. ABC undoubtedly hoped for better, after preliminary figures released earlier Monday from the top 56 markets were the strongest they were in five years. The drop in total viewership was an indication that this year's Oscar ceremony was more popular in the big cities than rural areas, more so than an average Academy Awards, said Larry Hyams, vice president of audience analysis and research for ABC. Oscar ratings were up from last year among viewers aged 18 to 34  a prime target for the advertisers who pay millions of dollars for time on what is traditionally the year's highest-rated program after the Super Bowl. Hyams attributed the boost in young viewership to Rock. "The academy made a concerted effort to go in a different direction and try to appeal to a younger audience with the Academy Awards, and it appears they have succeeded," he said. It was the 12th time since 1990 that the Academy Awards drew an audience of between 40 and 46 million people, according to Nielsen. The peak during that stretch was the "Titanic" year of 1998 with 55.2 million, and the low point was 33 million in 2003, when "Chicago" won. Rock said backstage after the Oscars (news - web sites) that he hoped to do it again, although "who knows if they would want me again." He attracted plenty of pre-Oscars publicity, including speculation about whether he would make jokes at the expense of President Bush (news - web sites) (he did) or test ABC censors with curse words (he didn't). "Put it this way, I don't curse in front of my mother," Rock said. "And my mother was front and center, you know, right in my view. So I could never curse in front of Rose Rock, so why would I do it on television?" |
|
| Author: | Levy [ Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Now that's a real surprise... |
|
| Author: | Rod [ Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was aboput to mention that. For those morons who figured because ther eis no blockbuster, no one will watch. Morons. :wink: :mrgreen:
|
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
People watched for Rock and to see if the show was a disaster. The movies had little to do with the boost (box office proves that). |
|
| Author: | MikeQ. [ Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
loyalfromlondon wrote: People watched for Rock and to see if the show was a disaster. The movies had little to do with the boost (box office proves that). Exactly. It's not as if the boost in ratings was because of the films or anything. PEACE, Mike 
|
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Spoke too soon. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050228/ap_en_mo/oscars_tv_ratings_2 NEW YORK - With comedian Chris Rock, the Academy Awards (news - web sites) succeeded in its effort to find a younger audience  but perhaps at the expense of the country as a whole. A total of 41.5 million viewers tuned in Sunday to watch "Million Dollar Baby" take the Oscar for best picture. That's down 2 million from last year's show, which honored "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," according to Nielsen Media Research. ABC undoubtedly hoped for better, after preliminary figures released earlier Monday from the top 56 markets were the strongest they were in five years. The drop in total viewership was an indication that this year's Oscar ceremony was more popular in the big cities than rural areas, more so than an average Academy Awards, said Larry Hyams, vice president of audience analysis and research for ABC. Oscar ratings were up from last year among viewers aged 18 to 34  a prime target for the advertisers who pay millions of dollars for time on what is traditionally the year's highest-rated program after the Super Bowl. Hyams attributed the boost in young viewership to Rock. "The academy made a concerted effort to go in a different direction and try to appeal to a younger audience with the Academy Awards, and it appears they have succeeded," he said. It was the 12th time since 1990 that the Academy Awards drew an audience of between 40 and 46 million people, according to Nielsen. The peak during that stretch was the "Titanic" year of 1998 with 55.2 million, and the low point was 33 million in 2003, when "Chicago" won. Rock said backstage after the Oscars (news - web sites) that he hoped to do it again, although "who knows if they would want me again." He attracted plenty of pre-Oscars publicity, including speculation about whether he would make jokes at the expense of President Bush (news - web sites) (he did) or test ABC censors with curse words (he didn't). "Put it this way, I don't curse in front of my mother," Rock said. "And my mother was front and center, you know, right in my view. So I could never curse in front of Rose Rock, so why would I do it on television?" |
|
| Author: | Joker's Thug #3 [ Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Guess ill change this thread then |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Killuminati510 wrote: Guess ill change this thread then you do that. |
|
| Author: | STEVE ROGERS [ Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
loyalfromlondon wrote: People watched for Rock and to see if the show was a disaster. The movies had little to do with the boost (box office proves that). I can't count the amount of times I've said this about the nominated films not doing squat at the box office cause there not when compared to past nominated films and even USA TODAY points this out.. Folks did tune in more cause of Rock, but I think the show was Mixed enough to the point where he won't be back next year.. No way.. Too many times they panned out to the audience during his monologue and they looked bored or weren't into his schtick.. Again, this event is a serious event for these actors/actresses and they take this stuff seriously.. It's their 1 night out of the year to be honored and they don't want it fucked yup by a standup comedian that in the end, doesn't really care one way or another about this sort of thing.. Hell, which would be worse?? Having Rock host or getting someone like Wanda Sikes to host?? Imagine that?? 
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|