| Author |
Message |
|
Anonymous
|
 This Year's Oscars: Lowest Rated In Modern History? Tom O'Neil over at The Envelope is predicting that this year's broadcast will be the lowest rated ever.
Considering fewer people have seen the five Best Picture nominees than normal, that the five films have racked in fewer dollars at the box office than normal, low ratings seem to be in the cards.
But will they be the lowest rated ever in modern history?
|
| Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:59 pm |
|
|
|
Cotton
Some days I'm a super bitch
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:22 pm
Posts: 6645
|
No.
There's no way it'll be lower than 2003's telecast (which averaged a paltry 33 million). Sure having huge movies nominated for Best Picture doesn't hurt, but I don't think it'll have such a huge negative effect. Other variables come into play as well, such as the host, outside events drawing away viewers, etc.
|
| Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:07 pm |
 
|
|
|
Dkmuto
Forum General
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:00 am
Posts: 6502
|
Low rated? Yeah. But not lowest rated.
It has pretty much no competition.
|
| Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:16 pm |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
The 33 Million in 03 was blamed on the war and the lack of the Barbara Walters pre-show. And it was apparently the lowest since 1974.
|
| Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:22 pm |
|
|
|
dolcevita
Extraordinary
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts: 16061
Location: The Damage Control Table
|
Frankly, I don't care if it is. Everything else in Hollywood already caters to the lowest common denominator just to bring in the numbers. Leave all the ridiculous opening weekend winners for the last month to the masses, keep the Oscars what they are. A celebration of the best, not the most popular.
They do make errors, and I think they need to reconsider their approach to comedy and action, but in all honesty, its alot easier to make a good drama than a good comedy, imo, so there are much less good comedies to even pick from every year than dramas.
I could care less of "no one" has seen a bunch of good movies so don't care if they win or lose. Its those audiences faults for not even being interested in seeing the movies in the first place. I'm not going to a watch a show where the top five grossers are the top five nominees every year just because thats what the hordes consumed.
|
| Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:44 pm |
|
|
|
Mister Ecks
New Server, Same X
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:07 pm
Posts: 28301
Location: ... siiiigh...
|
It's funny, because this is the first time ever where I will have seen all five Best Picture nominees, and most of the major category nominees (I'll keep my fingers crossed that I get to see North Country tomorrow).
_________________
Ecks Factor: Cancelled too soon
|
| Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:01 pm |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
Mr. X wrote: It's funny, because this is the first time ever where I will have seen all five Best Picture nominees, and most of the major category nominees (I'll keep my fingers crossed that I get to see North Country tomorrow). so in the future, don't see so many films. That's the key.
|
| Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:04 pm |
|
|
|
Dkmuto
Forum General
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:00 am
Posts: 6502
|
Mr. X wrote: (I'll keep my fingers crossed that I get to see North Country tomorrow). God speed, sir. God speed.
|
| Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:13 pm |
|
|
|
Shack
Devil's Advocate
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am
Posts: 40256
|
This will also be the first time where I've seen most of the major players, but that's mostly due to this site and my increased examination and attention to everything.
_________________Shack’s top 50 tv shows - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90227
|
| Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:16 pm |
|
|
|
Lucky
The Incredible Hulk
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:50 am
Posts: 514
|
Ratings for the Oscars have been declining every year since record ratings for Titanic. With last years Oscar telecast being the second lowest rated ever. I think ratings this will be lower this year then last year but not the lowest rated ever.
|
| Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:40 pm |
|
|
|
DP07
The Thirteenth Floor
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15497
Location: Everywhere
|
Yes.
I think it will drop below 2003. These are the least popular nominees ever.
|
| Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:58 pm |
|
|
|
Alex Y.
Top Poster
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:47 pm
Posts: 5812
|
Since Brokeback Mountain appealed to a lot of old people and women, who make up a bigger audience than young people and men,this telecast should pull in enough audience to be greater than 2003 (It helps that ABC is no longer the bottom ranked network).
|
| Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:08 pm |
|
|
|
Mister Ecks
New Server, Same X
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:07 pm
Posts: 28301
Location: ... siiiigh...
|
loyalfromlondon wrote: Mr. X wrote: It's funny, because this is the first time ever where I will have seen all five Best Picture nominees, and most of the major category nominees (I'll keep my fingers crossed that I get to see North Country tomorrow). so in the future, don't see so many films. That's the key. If I don't see any of the Oscar nominees next year, the show will get 80 million viewers.
_________________
Ecks Factor: Cancelled too soon
|
| Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:18 pm |
|
|
|
dolcevita
Extraordinary
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts: 16061
Location: The Damage Control Table
|
Quote: Hollywood's Crowd Control Problem
By MANOHLA DARGIS
TONIGHT, an expected 41 million Americans will tune into the 78th annual Academy Awards to watch a spectacle largely honoring films they have not seen and may never get around to watching. Much has been made, in particular, about the smallness of most of the nominees for best picture, which usually refers to their modest budgets and absence of stars, but also rightly suggests an economy of ambition and scale. With the exception of Steven Spielberg's "Munich," a political thriller about the 1972 Olympics massacre and its aftermath, these are intimate stories in which most of the action involves characters talking and occasionally shouting at one another. They were also released by an independent or studio specialty division (Little Hollywood, not Big).
There are all sorts of reasons why "Munich," along with "Brokeback Mountain," "Capote," "Crash" and "Good Night, and Good Luck" were nominated for best picture (they're pretty good, for one) and a couple of reasons why we should care. Among the most obvious and discomfiting, however, is that Big Hollywood increasingly finds it difficult to make the kinds of high-profile movies that the industry likes to honor with its most important awards. The received wisdom about the awards, especially outside Los Angeles, is that they are nothing but an orgy of self-love, which of course they are. But they are also a useful barometer of mainstream American film culture, and they tell us something about how the movie industry sees itself and sees us, its increasingly fickle consumers.
You don't have to have followed all the reports of a box-office slump last year to know that Hollywood is in trouble. You just have to walk into the lobby of a multiplex and look at the posters to know that America's big screens are awash in the fast and the furious, the cheap and the stupid. To judge by how executives at major studios often talk about their business, in their discussions about closing windows, new platforms and emergent technologies, the movies themselves barely count. What counts is when you can watch a film on your cellphone, not if there is something worth losing your eyesight over. In the age of the incredible shrinking movie, content equals quantity, not quality.
No matter the guff about the old studio moguls pounding their fists on their desks and demanding excellence, and despite the sob stories about trampled vision, the American film industry has always been a business first. The genius of the system, to borrow André Bazin's phrase, was that this heavily standardized, technologically dependent industry still fostered creative freedom and produced individual works of art. American movies both gave us an image of who we wanted to be and were instrumental in the creation of who we became.
But what are our movies saying about us now?...
|
| Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:36 am |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
where did he get that 41 Million from?
|
| Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:45 am |
|
|
|
baumer72
Mod Team Leader
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:00 pm
Posts: 7087
Location: Crystal Lake
|
loyalfromlondon wrote: where did he get that 41 Million from? He called evry house on the US and asked who was going to be watching. It took a very long time. It's an estimate, because he lost count at about 39.5674 mill.
_________________
Brick Tamland: Yeah, there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.
Ron Burgundy: Brick, I've been meaning to talk to you about that. You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you're probably wanted for murder.
|
| Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:30 am |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
baumer72 wrote: loyalfromlondon wrote: where did he get that 41 Million from? He called evry house on the US and asked who was going to be watching. It took a very long time. It's an estimate, because he lost count at about 39.5674 mill. 
|
| Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:31 am |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
| Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:19 pm |
|
|
|
Christian
Team Kris
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:02 pm
Posts: 27584
Location: The Damage Control Table
|
Hmm I thought it would drop harder, but it still can manage 38-40 million.
_________________A hot man once wrote: Urgh, I have to throw out half my underwear because it's too tight.
|
| Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:22 pm |
|
|
|
Cotton
Some days I'm a super bitch
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:22 pm
Posts: 6645
|
Hardly the lowest rated in modern history.
|
| Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:27 pm |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
Nope, looks like it'll run second to 2003.
|
| Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:31 pm |
|
|
|
MikeQ.
The French Dutch Boy
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:28 pm
Posts: 10266
Location: Mordor, Middle Earth
|
Wow, it dropped again. That sucks for Stewart (he definately won't be back now - if ratings were smoking hot he'd easily be back). I'm kinda really happy that the ratings sucked, because the Best Picture winner sucks too. It correlates.  
I wonder what will happen with the Academy this year. After Return of the King, they take a sharp turn to two years of all small films. Now what?
PEACE, Mike.
|
| Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:29 pm |
|
|
