Oscars Gets Best Ratings in Five Years

Although it didn't hit the Oscar high point of 1998, when James Cameron's Titanic was the box office behemoth up for Best Picture, the Academy Awards did show marked improvement, according to the overnight Nielsen ratings. An estimated 41.3 million tuned in, which is not fantastic - the NFC championship game this January had about 15 million more viewers, and it's not too much more than a big week on American Idol - but it's the highest viewership since 2005. That year, Million Dollar Baby won Best Picture, and outside of Jamie Foxx doing battle with Johnny Depp for Best Actor, there isn't much to suggest why that would have had much better numbers than the past three or four years. Titanic and E.T. helped propel the Oscarcast to over 50 million total viewers, by far the most it's seen, but producers will take a 14% jump from last year. It's still only nine million more than the low point in recent years, the 2008 Oscars led by No Country for Old Men. We haven't talked about the content of the show much, but I thought it was awful. The NPH musical number wasn't much to get excited about, unless you still think Dolly Parton references are timely. But it was better than the completely awkward dual monologue by Baldwin and Martin, in which maybe three in ten jokes worked. Most of the presenters were boring, the absence of Best Song performances and the silly interpretive dance number to the Best Score nominees was tough to watch. And how do you do the cinematography award without showing one clip from any of the movies? Isn't it a visual medium? The eulogies for the Best Actor and Actress nominees works, but should be shorter. I think they'd be ideal as individual tributes going into commercials. But the way they are now is just too long. And yes, I know they're not eulogies, but they kind of feel like it. And I'm not sure what the deal was with Best Picture. I don't think it was an issue of the show running long, although it could have been. It's not like that show hasn't been two-three minutes over time before. Did they actually plan the Tom Hanks run-on to be that way? There's still a lot of room for improvement with the Academy Awards show, and unfortunately, I didn't see one change in last night's presentation that's worth keeping.

Comments

[Vince]

For the record, I found myself more entertained by the live-blogs on The A.V. Club and Entertainment Weekly.com than the actual show itself. The show had mad pacing problems, even by (lowly) Academy Awards standards. I liked what they did with "Best Original Song"- the montage/talking heads thing, and I think that should be done for more award nominees- Film Editing, Cinematography, etc. You'll be able to show clips from the film and have soundbites from people talking about the importance of said aspect of the film.

Oh and while I'm used to odd interpretative dances (I have friends who have...unusual dance performances), I can't think of really anyone who liked that part of the show. Technically well-done, yes, but what does breakdancing have to do with The Hurt Locker?

[SEAN]

It was really sloppy in my opinion as well...

I mean it felt as though NO ONE wanted to be there....Like there was no energy or enthusiasm from anyone really....

[Darrin (a girl for the gender conscious)]

The interpretive dance number was painful, ITA, Colin, and they've done it so many times before, you'd THINK they'd figure out it's just inappropriate in the extreme when given the typical subject matter of most Oscar-nom'd movies. IMHO, I think a montage of the music is still in order (for me, most soundtracks are almost a character of the film) but let's just use specific scenes from the films where the music was most effective and/or a fave of the director's. Any composer worth his salt would be able to seam the five sets of music together in a lovely 5 to 7 minute bit.

I loved NPH's song (love him doing just about anything), but agree that it should stay contemporary. Ideally with their wanting to bring in the younger viewers, at least use topical people, or at best the nominated actors/directors/movies themselves like Billy Crystal always did - yes, shoot me if you want but his opening numbers were awesome, IMHO.

Alec was likeable, but I think Steve could've handled it on his own much better. And did anyone else have a WOAH dude!! moment when they spotted a very young Alec Baldwin in one of the JH film clips having just seen the current Alec Baldwin moments before?! I'd forgotten just how major a babe he was back in the day, ROFL.

And one little rant/vent from someone who feels 30 but really is 48 - Zac, Taylor, sweeties... When someone who is seriously deserving of your respect for having an excellent career in the same industry you are messes with you a little, it would behoove you to play along instead of sitting there wooden-faced and making asses of yourselves attempting (yet failing miserably) to be "cool". You too will be "old" one day soon.

[Chad]

didnt watch it too much but my mom did. I can tell you one thing if those acceptance speeches seem like eulogies then just give Hugh Laurie every award for best actor and heck why not best actress. He'd keep you entertained most of the time. Just look at his speeches on youtube for his emmy and grammy. That's how you accept awards not boring

[cheap wow gold]

wow gold
cheap wow gold
runescape gold
runescape money
rs gold for sale

[Handbags]

coach factory online
Coach Outlet
Coach Outlets
Coach Bags
Coach.com
Coach Purses
louis vuitton
Chanel Outlet
Coach Sunglasses
louis vuitton outlet
lv outlet
coach coupons
coach handbags outlet
coach bags
coach factory online
coach factory
coach outlet online