TOLDJA! Really Lousy 80th Oscar Ratings

COMMENTS (30)

• Here’s an idea, Hollywood: don’t relegate non-blockbusters to only your arthouse divisions.

  And don’t limit your “Oscar films” to one or two serious contenders like The Departed and American Gangster.

  I seriously think in today’s studio system, Forrest Gump & American Beauty would never get the greenlight.

  Comment by 40yearoldstitzer — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 1:36pm PST  Reply to this post

• I watched it, but you so saw this coming!

  The only reason I watched is for Patrick Dempsey…drool

  Comment by lisi — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 1:36pm PST  Reply to this post

• nikki, love the news you break but finding your opinions more noxious by the day. if it’s money and populism one wants, all one has to do is read the year end box office charts or watch the adult video news awards or watch survivor 28. geez, seems the films which in hindsight matter to and improve our cultural firmament, were often and usually incredible pieces of non-commercial art like bonnie and clyde and raging bull. the oscars should be awarding great films such as these (or TWBB, NCFOM, Atonement), without concern for their commercial success which has little to do with how good the filmmaking is. this has been a frickin inspiring year, the best of my short life (1978-present) and thought jon stewart was witty as all heck. worst oscars ever was the titanic coronation. yawn.

  Comment by foreign producer — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 1:46pm PST  Reply to this post

• Hollywood needs to take a serious look at itself. I have some thoughts about what they can do.
  1. They need to get a hold on the tabloids. The coverage of stoopid backwoods trash 24/7 is killing the brand. People who don’t know anything about hollywood know Britney Spears and think they are one and the same. Yeah, coverage of her makes money. So what? It’s costing more in the long run.
  2. AMPAS needs Super Voters, same concept as Super Delegates. I would suggest a group of 5 people (names kept secret)who are under the age of 40 who give the final five nominated films and top categories a once over before they become finalized for final voting. And also check the final votes before airtime. They would have the ability to change a choice. For example, change the best picture vote of NCFOM to Juno. No one would know, except the accountants. This must be kept secret. I think having the ability to make a choice more in line with the public would be a good thing. They wouldn’t have to make a choice, but having the ability to change a choice I think is good.
  3. TV vs. Film. I’m a snob. I admit it. I think the downward spiral of the film business started with the crossing over of TV actors and TV filmmakers and execs into the film business. I call it the TV-ification of film. Too many films seem like warmed over tv movies. Too many movie actors can be seen or heard doing commercials or cable movies. Why pay for what you can get for free? Standards are too low for who is considered a movie star. Must be raised. Seriously.
  It’s probably already to late. I think the film business is about to be relagated to the .50 cent bin. But one can hope. I’m a screenwriter and I would prefer to see my scripts on the big screen and not a cell phone.

  Comment by mla28 — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 1:48pm PST  Reply to this post

• AMPAS voters should be “snobs” if snobs means hewing to taste and quality

  It’s nice to have one quasi-remnant of elegance

  There’s enough crappifying and pandering to the MTV crowd everywhere else – including the red carpet to the Oscars with Ryan Seacrest, Lisa Rinna, etc Blech! At least put Kathy Griffin back in there.

  Comment by 18-49 — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 1:59pm PST  Reply to this post

• Why does EVERYTHING have to be about the writer’s strike?! You can’t blame the writers OR the CEO’s and studios for low ratings. Because the quality of the show may affect their opinion, but whether they even tune in in the first place has to do with ONE thing: the nominees.

  I completely agree that academy SNOBS need to be more willing to nominate more popular films. Remember the days when Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark could get nominations? That would NEVER happen these days.

  But let’s face it – it’s time to stop trying to blame every little thing on the writers strike. It’s over – move on.

  As for the show, ratings and quality are not connected. Sometimes the best shows get low viewership, while the worst drivel brings in the crowds. I personally thought the show, and especially host Jon Stewart, were just fine.

  Comment by Brian M — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 2:22pm PST  Reply to this post

• Here’s another idea, I’m providing this free to the academy. Reality Show. “Who wants to produce the Oscars?” Have people produce Youtube videos of how they would produce the show,complete with presenters, production numbers, etc. Pick one and LET THEM DO IT. ANYONE would be better then Gil Cates. Or at the minimum, hire someone from the East Coast who has worked on a successful Broadway play. Jesus! This isn’t brain surgery.

  Comment by mla28 — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 2:38pm PST  Reply to this post

• So…we’re saying that it’s a GOOD idea to put Transformers and The Simpsons Movie up for Oscars?

  Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Oscars are about rewarding quality; they do it so infrequently to begin with, let’s not muck it up with subpar movies that just so happen to be popular.

  Comment by Arlo J. Wiley — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 2:57pm PST  Reply to this post

• Nikki! What’s the matter with you?

  The five films DESERVED to be nominated. Because, as I understand it, the IDEA behind the award for BEST Picture is…the BEST Picture. Not Most Popular. Not Most Audience Friendly.

  First, the films you suggest throwing in for more mass appeal- “Spiderman 3″?? For Best Picture?? And “Transformers”? Then the awards would really be a joke.

  You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The problem is not really with the Academy. The first part of the problem is with the business, i.e. the studios, that see movies as a 2 hour piece of a giant promotional fiesta, “vertically integrated” with fast food joints, toys, cell phones, and amusement parks. You ain’t going to get “On The Waterfront” out of that formula.

  The second problem is with the audiences. Or more to the point, the part that rather drop $200 – $300 million worth of ticket purchases on any “Pirates of the Carribean” movie than “No Country For Old Men” ($65 million or so) or “There Will Be Blood” ($45 million).

  The latter two movies have nothing to apologize for: they weren’t designed to for you to have a “good time” and be intellectually disposable. So the whole notion of comparing their dollar grosses to what are basically amusement park rides (and are mostly seen by sensation-seeking kids) is absurd on its face.

  The point of the Oscars is the highest level of work, and the most challenging. That might strike some people as quaint. That might strike businesspeople as irrelevant. That might leave performers and movies that are alien to people who view cinema as just 2 hour distractions. These people are wrong and need to either come around or be ignored. It’s not the Oscars that need to change for them.

  And the ratings? Who cares? I mean, at the end of the day, it’s an industry awards show. It’s only an accident of history that it’s ever been an ratings sensation. Of course the ratings are lower. In 1955 you got one night a year of this stuff. Now you get it all the time. Big whoop. I’d be happier if it weren’t a ratings bonanza and it was “only” for people who cared about movies.

  Oh, mla28- your ideas are ridiclous.

  Comment by PG — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 3:13pm PST  Reply to this post

• PG, you and your friends who care about movies will be lucky to be watching the Oscars at 3am on AMC next year. Or not at all, like most business industry awards presentations that are held at the holiday Inn with rubber chicken dinners. I think AMPAS cares dearly about their access to millions of viewers. Why? $$$$ So they’ve got to decide whether they want to continue to get $$$$ or get a few fanboys (girls?) to tune in to whatever cable channel decides to run the show in a few years. So they need to implement some changes ridiclous or not, soon. Because Pepsi and Coke aint playing 1.8 million per commercial for 15 people to gawk at.

  Comment by mla28 — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 3:44pm PST  Reply to this post

• Oh and the real reason the Oscars were created? To promote the movies to the public. Not to promote art. That’s a fallacy that’s been created in the public’s mind over the years. That’s why it’s called “The Academy”. They wanted to give it a high minded name to make it look official.

  Comment by mla28 — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 3:47pm PST  Reply to this post

• Perhaps America just doesn’t give a flying ****
  anymore?

  Comment by Mooshy — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 4:09pm PST  Reply to this post

• Ms. Finke has an eternal chip on her shoulder Re: Hollywood. It’s her “act.” And the Academy Awards is the perennial pinata to smack around. In the end, though, the ratings of the Academy Awards is meaningless, much like that of the Super Bowl. Ratings will fluctuate but the show will go on, never to be cancelled. The Academy was putting on a show decades before television was even available, and it will continue onward through the internet age, and long after the Nielsen ratings cease to exist.

  Comment by Alex — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 4:12pm PST  Reply to this post

• AMPAS had better hope the Academy Awards don’t go the way of the Miss America Pageant, which once was sort of a national institution, both before and after the era of television. It regularly, annually, predictably pulled in big Nielsen-TV-rating levels several years ago, but lost that popularity more recently. This year it ended up on cable TV, and even barely there at that.

  My one, basic suggestion to AMPAS is: Don’t pick hosts who are identified mainly with cable TV shows (eg, Jon Stewart). If you can’t get even that one matter handled properly, the Oscars are toast.

  Comment by Eileen — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 4:23pm PST  Reply to this post

• There are several things that can be done but the damage will take time to repair.

  Trust me… you’re not going to like what’s coming (and no, I’m not a republican).

  1) People want to be entertained and not talk about politics. There are plenty of 24-7 shows now to do that. This trend has turned off many and having John Stewart the host just reminds people that their going to get an earful (even if they don’t). Now, don’t go throwing stones at me because I like John a lot and I love the Daily Show. It’s just that not everyone lives in NY or LA. So, a little bit of middle american thinking can’t be all bad, can it? Maybe we can get the pendulum to swing back to “let’s entertain” instead of “let’s promote my message”? There’s plenty of time to do that later…

  2)The strike hurt, no question. The lack of stars promoting their craft on late night television had to hurt from December on.

  3) Who saw these movies? Very few. How do you expect people to get excited over a performance that no one saw? Remember Titanic? Well, a lot of people actually went out and saw it. There was a lot of excitement about that academy awards (“how many would they win”?!) Because so many of the 2007 movies are released so late in the year or with limited distribution, you can’t blame people for wanted to watch when they don’t even know what the movie is about. My suggestion…. make the cut off date for nomination back from September to September instead of until Dec 31st or whatever it is now.

  4) Stop using the Awards as a MARKETING TOOL to get increased DVD sales in lieu of more traditional advertising. We all know that it’s going on. Many movies are released with the smallest distribution just to get a nomination. People feel duped as the awards talk about a movie that they never even heard of but feel compelled to see it. If people feel duped (that is, that the show is not REAL but just a gimmick to increase sales), they will turn off.

  5)I believe there should be some kind of “people’s choice”. Its fine for the academy to reward itself (and it should) but to ignore the big movies that people really liked and saw in groves is not fair either. Somehow, recognition of the best of the blockbusters must find a way into the system. Now, I really hated Transformers but to ignore it’s audience is actually — insulting to them. It’s like saying “yah, you saw it. But, what the heck do you know?”

  6) The internet is alive and well yet hollywood is completely in the dark. There needs to be an internet campaign that helps gets people excited and motivated to want to watch. It’s not 1954 anymore.

  7)The awards seems to be suffering some of the same affliction as the Miss America padget. It’s.. well.. for old ladies. It’s just not hip anymore. We don’t have the Jackie Gleason or Dean Martin shows anymore- and for good reason. Yet, this show looks like it a variety show stuck in the 1960′s. Can’t someone figure out how to move it forward? Doesn’t anyone realize that American Idol blows these awards shows out of the water? I’m not saying make it like American Idol. My point is, it needs more creativity and better outreach to the casual movie goer.

  I know this one is going to raise eyebrows but here it goes… someone in this industry needs to crack down on out of control actors (primarily with drugs and alcohol)AND on the tabloid press blowing everything out of proportion. People are tied of actors getting into trouble and hurting themselves while the execs on top say they know nothing about it and what a shame it is. They have policies in sports. Why can’t we have one for entertainment? How many have to be thrown in jail or die before the industry wakes up? True, every industry has to deal with drugs and alcohol. But, in this business, it seems in the headlines every day and nothing changes. It’s NOT HELPFUL to this industry. People’s lives are damaged and it turns audiences OFF. Please tell me what part of that is a good thing?

  Well, that’s my rant. By the way, I thought Michael Clayton was one of the best screenplays I’ve seen in a while. So, its good to see that Hollywood can crank out stuff of a higher caliber than Transformers or Bratz!

  Comment by bobd — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 4:30pm PST  Reply to this post

• Talking about MSN Movies: 2008 Oscars Best and Worst
  Bad ratings? I’m so surprised. Two reasons: First – The nominated films are not main stream entertainment anymore even though more people are watching more movies than ever before! Why? because the movies people are watching now are so fragmented and niche that one award show about a few nominees and a handful of actors is not relevant to them. Secondly – The ratings sucked because the production sucked! John Stewart was dying up there, the writing pathetic, the pacing awkward, the music drab and most of the winners were so self absorbed that they came prepared with absolutely nothing to say!! What a embarrassment to the industry. The show was a complete dog. I mean how many times are they going to seat Jack Nicolson in front of the audience and throw to him just to bail out the host? The show needs to be more about movies than about the people who make them because the people who make them are boring. The Oscars should feature more movies in more genres and awards be given out to the end product only. Leave the stars out of it. I think the show hit its peak with Billy Crystal and it will never be that great again. He knew how to deliver the Oscars! Bring him back and pay him as much as he wants to produce the Awards OR sell the show to cable and let it fade away. It’s not prime time faire. No one cares anymore.

  Comment by MArk — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 4:44pm PST  Reply to this post

• WORST. OSCARS. EVER.

  Comment by Anonymous — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 5:12pm PST  Reply to this post

• I agree “bobd”. Image counts for alot. All you hear about hollywood nowadays is crazy ass starlets, drug addicted actors dying or committing suicide. Then the top movies, no matter how good they are, are about killers and the darkness of the soul. No wonder the show was somber. And also, there a symbiosis between the music biz and the movies. When there’s good music in the movies, the oscar show is good. When the music sucks, the show sucks. I’m not saying I want Busby Berkley back but still. Also, the best oscar shows were the ones where there was much adlibbing to what was going on in the show in real time. You really can’t write this show. Anyone remember Bette Midler’s presentation of an award back in the 80′s? See that for a way to present an award. It takes a special skill to adlib. The host may be afraid to say anything too upsetting because his/her career may take a hit. (Case in point,Whoopi. I feel for her for that slight. AMPAS, actors do have feelings ya know? Jerks)

  Comment by mla28 — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 5:24pm PST  Reply to this post

• I ride the subway everyday in NYC. Often I see young, Hispanic and Black males watching DVDs (sometimes bootleg)on small DVD players to pass the time on the train. What movie have they been watching lately? Atonement? Juno? Little Miss Sunshine? American Gangster. That movie spoke to them. Would it have hurt to throw that movie a bigger bone in terms of noms? Then AMPAS could plaster posters all over Harlem where it was filmed and I live saying…”Check out The Oscars next week and see if American Gangster mows down the competition!” Might have persuaded a few more people to watch.

  Comment by mla28 — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 5:37pm PST  Reply to this post

• Let’s just assume that the country is 50% Democrat- 50% Republican.(using the last two presidential elections) I’m not a big wig studio honcho, but when the stars diss half of their viewing audience (with their political pronouncements)it’s not a surprise that people don’t want to tune in if they’re expecting to be insulted.

  The stars of yesteryear (I know, I know) also knew how to speak in public. Is it too much to ask to have an actress just get up and speak her lines? Saying something amateurish like “I’m so nervous” is embarrassing. Memo to starlets: it wouldn’t hurt to take a cue from the Maureen O’Hara’s or Jane Wyman’s of the world and learn diction and ee.nun.see.ay.shun.

  No, I’m not an old fogey- I’m 36!

  Comment by flyover — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 6:32pm PST  Reply to this post

• The low quality of presenters didnt help either. Cameron Diaz is an illiterate moron and Jessica Alba, while hot had no business on that stage. The Oscars are for movies that neither of them are or ever will be in.

  Comment by Steve — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 10:27pm PST  Reply to this post

• Hey mla28, no one who cares about movies gives a flying f*** what Coke or Pepsi has to pay for an ad spot. This means what, exactly, in my life? The fact that you can even care about something so far removed from the movies shows why you’re completely off target here.

  Oh, I’m supposed to care because that’s the be-all and end-all of the Oscars telecast? Again, whoop-de-frigging-doo. The Oscars aren’t going to be on AMC next year or even in 5 years. And if they were, it doesn’t matter (it might even be better for them).

  Irregardless of the reason of their creation, they’ve come to stand for film QUALITY. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don’t. But they never will to if they listen to the nonsense shoveled here.

  Look, I saw the Oscars with 50 people and we thought Jon Stewart was funny as hell. You didn’t? Too bad for you.

  Those of you still jaunting over from Drudgeland- go back to jerking off to Faux News or something.

  The films that were nominated were the ones that should have been. (Yeah, a case could be made for “American Gangster”- but not just because young guys watch it on the subway-please.) Those of you that have a problem relating to them really have a problem with good moviemaking. (And, no, none of the nominees were perfect.)

  And the year “Titantic” won? Most. Boring. Oscars. Ever.

  Comment by PG — Tuesday February 26, 2008 @ 12:21am PST  Reply to this post

• the strike had nothing to do with it. I know it will be hard for you to find something else to spew nonsense about but the strike is over. Get over it.
  The problem is John Stewart. I know douchebags who are actually quite dim but fancy themselves aesthetes and scholars love the guy, but the ratings don’t lie. The Daily Show has a tiny audience. He’s been booted off network TV a billion times for having no drawing power and they shouldn’t rely on a guy that most of America doesn’t like (the numbers once again don’t lie) I think he did well, but they need a comedian up there America actually likes. I hate Ellen, but her show is huge and so were last years Oscars. Coincidence? I think not.

  Comment by manny — Tuesday February 26, 2008 @ 4:47am PST  Reply to this post

• Dear Hollywood,

  In light of your recent Oscar ratings embarrassment, perhaps you would be willing to hear a few “truths” from flyover country.

  1. We don’t really like you. Perhaps you think
  that given the popularity of People or US Weekly or
  the like, you think you are loved. In truth, the
  public purchases those magazines because some of us
  are fascinated by the freakishness of you. See
  Britney, Lindsay, etc.

  2. Where are the modern Clark Gables, Steve McQueens,
  John Waynes, Bette Davises, Ingrid Bergmans, etc.?
  Do you really think George Clooney or Brad Pitt fit
  their mold? Twenty years from now Tom Hanks may be
  thought of as fondly but the rest are pretenders.

  3. And this has been said before, quit making movies
  which are not only of little interest to us but
  are actually intentionally INSULTING to us and our
  beliefs.

  4. Explain to us, please, how Michael Moore’s films are
  more legitimate documentaries than are Christopher
  Guests.

  On the other hand, pay no attention. The hell with ya.

  Comment by Mark Clark — Tuesday February 26, 2008 @ 6:00am PST  Reply to this post

• flyover: Your message is correct, but your numbers are wrong, politically the country breaks down like this:

  20% far left
  20% far right
  60% somewhere in-between.

  Part of the problem is Hollywood is firmly in the 20% FAR LEFT camp.

  Don’t believe me? Just read PG’s post.

  Comment by JoeCool — Tuesday February 26, 2008 @ 1:45pm PST  Reply to this post