UPDATE: Wow, Worst-Rated Oscars Since Nielsen Started Tracking Them in 1974!

COMMENTS (43)

• I doubt Billy could draw those 50 million viewers today. Not to slight Billy Crystal, but fewer people watch network television today than ever before. (And yet, curiously, no one questions the Oscar’s annual billion-viewers puffery.)

  Comment by Anonymous — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 3:26pm PST  Reply to this post

• DAMN. Nikke you called it. I thought it was hyperbole at first (what, you?) but, holy jebus, you pegged it. 1974 was probably the first one I watched as a kid. And I’ve watched everyone since. And last night, I almost didn’t watch it, so I guess that’s it. The Oscars are officially over.

  Comment by mla28 — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 3:29pm PST  Reply to this post

• In 1998, the 55 million record audience was due to Titanic being nominated, not Billy Crystal hosting. This year, the nominated films were all lightly-viewed, with the exception of Juno. I thought Jon Stewart was funny but if the Academy wants people to tune in mass numbers then they need to select more popular, commercially viable films. It also couldn’t hurt to allow for some aspect of spontaneity, would liven up an otherwise entirely predictable show.

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

• It seems as though you’re taking no small amount of delight in the poor ratings. Maybe it’s time to take up a hobby that will help vent some of your rage. African dance, boxing, dog whispering…there’s plenty out there.

  Comment by waltmink — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 3:48pm PST  Reply to this post

• So…

  I agree that it wasn’t a very good Oscars show, but the connection between that and poor ratings doesn’t completely make sense to me. I mean, all those people who weren’t watching it had no idea how bad (or good) it was. Clearly they couldn’t have made their decision not to watch based on the quality of a show that hadn’t happened yet. If anything, it seems like the quality of *last year’s* show would be more likely to drive a drop in viewership this year (“that sucked last year; I’m not going to waste my time on it again”).

  Are there metrics showing that viewership was high at the beginning of the show and then trailed off (truly indicating that the quality of the show is what caused the poor ratings)?

  Comment by Sean — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 3:53pm PST  Reply to this post

• Oh sorry, I forgot to add:

  We watched the Independent Spirit awards Saturday, mostly because we’re fans of The Office and Rainn Wilson. And I have to say, it was about 1000% more entertaining, despite the fact that we’d seen even fewer of the nominated films. Why can’t the Oscars be more like that? (I know, I know…)

  Comment by Sean — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 3:55pm PST  Reply to this post

• It’s because the studios ruined it

  It’s too packaged and staged and predatory

  Viewers are wise to the fact they’re being manipulated to go see these movies to make studios more money

  The stars should dress and “style” themselves. It should not be a force-fed fashion show. It’s all so fake and people know it.

  The Oscars used to be fun, spontaneous, and have some inherent value.

  Now it’s just an obnoxious commercialized event with overly self-important people engaging in a giant circle jerk.

  Comment by tv fans — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 3:56pm PST  Reply to this post

• Well, what do you expect when the Academy has the troops present an award and that award goes to a film about gays in the military, which is then followed by a bunch of anti-war documentaries being nominated in the next category? It just looks like a slam at the military and reinforces why many of us hate Hollywood and what it represents.

  Comment by Bill — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 3:56pm PST  Reply to this post

• people who don’t like nikki’s venting are free not to visit the site, yet you keep coming back

  Comment by fr — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 3:58pm PST  Reply to this post

• Honestly, what do they expect when they hire a host that nobody outside of New York and LA have ever heard of? Viewership of The Daily Show is a pathetic million or so. So Jon Stewart is to blame for this atrocity (he wasn’t funny in the least). Add to that the number of D-listers who should have been on The Surreal Life rather than presenters of the Oscars. Considering there were a number of past Oscar winners in the audience, why couldn’t one or two of them go up and present an award rather than some D-lister nobody who doesn’t devour US Weekly know? When the bulk of the films nominated are indie flicks and the bulk of the stars nominated are not movie stars, you need to pile on the movie stars as presenters. They failed to do that this year and instead just trotted out a series of lame ABC “stars” who are sitting around waiting for their shows to get back into production. I mean, Jason Bateman? Patrick Dempsey? Oh please!

  Comment by Sandy Daley — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 3:58pm PST  Reply to this post

• How does Nielsen take account of people like me, who went over to somebody else’s house to watch?

  Not a rivetting telecast, exactly, but my neighbors are nice, the food was good, we played the Jack Nicholson Drinking Game only with diet coke, we all wrote down our predictions and we were all mostly wrong. We made notes for our Netflix queues. I explained who Edith Piaf was.

  A low-key good time, perhap, but then we’re not industry folk.

  Comment by dizzheart — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 4:00pm PST  Reply to this post

• Of course, this was all Gil Cates fault. Of what I watched, this is a show that shouldn’t have happened. Outside of the monologue, there wasn’t any real effort to entertain us at home or in the audience. In addition, the clips shouldn’t have been like they were and should have been reduced to just a pinch of false excitement by Jon Stewart. Also, it would have helped that both screenplay Oscars be the first two handed out. For an opening, I would have had Jon Stewart standing out in the rain with writers and some of the nominated actors while others “cross the picket line.” As the entire opening is concerned, everybody would be debating which movie is better while coming to a realization that the strike is over and it is time for the Oscars. As Garfield the Cat would say, Mr. Cates should be drug out onto the street and shot.

  Like I said before, the ceremony needs to be moved to May (first weekend) a split to occur where there are two divisions; drama, comedy, and maybe a third celebrating independent films. Finally, Don Mischer would be my choice to replace Gil Cates. He has experience in major productions such as Olympic ceremonies and even an Emmy Awards telecast.

  Comment by Jessy S. — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 4:01pm PST  Reply to this post

• In 1998, there weren’t bloggers live blogging the results, either. Or instant photos of the arrivals, streaming feed online. Who has to sit through them anymore? Especially if they’re not going to have anything edgy. If I want clips, I can Google for those.

  Comment by erin — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 4:10pm PST  Reply to this post

• Despite the ratings, I thought Jon was brilliant, given the circumstances. Had he and his awesome team of writers been given the time (ergo, had the AMPTP gotten off their as*es back in December and settled the strike, like they should’ve) they needed to properly plan for the show, I guarantee the ratings would’ve been better. Despite the circumstances, I thought he was calm, cool, collected, hilarious, and, most importantly, himself. Jon is one of the most stand-up and grounded guys in Hollywood, and I love the fact that he brought that part of himself to a night when, all too often, it’s overburdened with who people are wearing and pre-Oscar politicking.

  And I might add, who else would’ve given Marketa Irglova a chance to give her acceptance speech? Not in memory has anyone been allowed back on stage to finish an acceptance speech…and I believe Jon had everything to do with that.

  Comment by Lisa — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 4:22pm PST  Reply to this post

• If the Academy wants the Oscars to get better ratings, maybe they should put the hosts and writers on a slightly looser leash. As far as I can tell, writing jokes and sketches for that show is about as easy as putting together a comedy roast for a bunch of Chinese government officials. And the show was even rated TV-14 this year! I bet you Stewart and his people had tons of great material that Gil Cates and his Senior Squad redacted to smithereens.

  Comment by Nick — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 4:42pm PST  Reply to this post

• Where did you buy your Magic 8 Ball? That thing works great! Better than the Ouji board used by ABC.

  Comment by pb — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 5:04pm PST  Reply to this post

• The ratings were poor because the every year the Academy honours more and more films, seen by fewer and fewer people.

  The only films nominated that had and real viewership was Juno and No Country… (And No Country wasn’t half the moneymaker Juno is)

  Hollywood has become incredibly inbred, thinking more of what other Hollywood people think than the audience.

  The problem is that without the audience, Hollywood won’t last long.

  Comment by Furious D — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 5:40pm PST  Reply to this post

• This is NOT good news for Hollywood…when folks from Drudge came over this weekend complaining about the poor quality of product Hollywood was producing–they were met with derision and disdain from Nikki’s regular visitors.

  Hate to say it Hollywood–but your arrogance is making you blind to the fact that you are pissing off most your customer base. It’s not just the Oscars–the Emmys and Grammys had shitty ratings too.

  why does this matter? because the more the general public cares less about you–you CEASE BECOMING A POP CULTURE INFLUENCE. that’s the ONLY currency this town really trades in

  I swear in a few years the Oscars are gonna be tape delayed and broadcast on the Family Channel

  also..as others here have stated—the Academy doesn’t nominate audience friendly movies anymore. seems like a few film critics in L.A. and NY tell the Hollywood sheep what’s supposed to be good and the “out of touch” Hollywood-ites follow…and then they blame everything else BUT their product for waning interest in what they create–also—Hollywood has competition now for our entertainment time/money AND most of us can download Hollywood crap for free!!

  when Jimmy Kimmel’s “I’m fucking Ben Affleck” is causing more of a pop culutre stir than who won yesterday’s oscars…well, you’re…FUCKED

  The days when a Raiders Of The Lost Ark, The Fugitive, a Jaws or even a movie like The Sting being nominated for Best Picture are OVER!!

  I’ll bet in a year–movies about dysfunctional upper class white people in the suburbs are gonne be nominated. That’s the kinda shit film critics who don’t pay movie admission like

  and as someone here noted—it seems like the town is so inbred that they care only about the people within their social circles here–they could care less about “the masses”, they figure if they throw us a Transformers every other year, we’ll start caring

  read the ratings of your awards shows Hollywood—that’s a BIG FUCKIN WARNING…but true to your arrogance…you won’t care

  hope you lke the Family Channel

  Comment by drew — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 7:32pm PST  Reply to this post

• I guess I don’t understand those who seem to chide the Academy for not selecting more popular films–when they do, people rail against it being nothing but a popularity contest. In my opinion, the best film of the year went home empty-handed (Diving Bell) an Julie Christie was robbed of what should have been a triumphant second Oscar for her stunning work in “Away From Her.” But my own preferences aside, what would be the point of having the Oscars if the overt decision were just to honor films people have seen, rather than films the membership thought provided the best work. “Juno,” the biggest b.o. of the five BP noms was, in my opinion, the weakest and the one with the shortest expiration date (again, “Diving Bell” should have had that place). It’s like the comment that “No country” had a weak ending–what people do, have the Coens change McCarthy’s novel to make a better, more “satisfying” conclusion. Remember, folks tried to do that with “King Lear” in the 18th and 19th centuries–somehow, Shakespeare’s unfortunately downer of an Act V curtain has survived.

  Turn to People’s Choice if you want films that satisfy hoi polloi–a legitimate honor but should not be that of the Oscars, anymore than the various Critics associations should be careful not to honor foreign language films, as they are TOO HARD TO READ! Whether the Oscars need the amount of hoopla that surrounds them is another question (see A.O. Scott in the Sunday Times)–and I had my heart broken two years ago irrevocably when BBM lost to “Let’s feel Good About Race in America” (i.e. “Crash: Not the David Cronenberg One.” When I was twelve I nearly lost it when “Hello, Dolly” didn’t triumph over “Midnight Cowboy.” time for me and all of us to grow up. Maybe the Oscars should move to something like Bravo or TCM–I found the comparatively short, more stripped down version this year refreshing–at least no Debbie Allen-channeling-Twyla Tharp to show off the costumes for “Schindler’s List” this year!

  Comment by Bruce in Ithaca — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 8:32pm PST  Reply to this post

• “Jon is one of the most stand-up and grounded guys in Hollywood, and I love the fact that he brought that part of himself to a night when, all too often, it’s overburdened with who people are wearing and pre-Oscar politicking.”

  That is the saddest thing I’ve read on this page so far. Stewart is an abusive, anti-union, writer-hating scab. Them’s the facts. Read a paper once in a while. Signed,
  A former Daily Show writer.

  Comment by The ghost of Jim Earl — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 11:00pm PST  Reply to this post

• “32 million” is being generous. The show didn’t even average 30 million. 32 million was the sample number at 8:30 p.m. The audience steadily declined throughout the evening.

  Here are the numbers in comparison to the most recent American Idol episodes. Yes, the Oscars couldn’t do better in rating/share than either of the American Idol performance shows. I suppose the reverse spin is that FOX can claim it airs the equivalent of the Oscars twice per week.

  The 80th Annual Academy Awards (ABC)
  Sunday, 2/24/2008
  8:30-11:00 p.m. Viewers: 29.16 million, A18-49: 9.8/23
  8:30 p.m. Viewers: 32.27 million, A18-49: 10.6/24
  9:00 p.m. Viewers: 30.70 million, A18-49: 10.2/23
  9:30 p.m. Viewers: 30.07 million, A18-49: 10.2/23
  10:00 p.m. Viewers: 27.34 million, A18-49: 9.3/23
  10:30 p.m. Viewers: 25.42 million, A18-49: 8.8/23

  American Idol (Fox)
  Tuesday, 2/19/2008
  8:00-10:00 p.m. Viewers: 28.84 million, A18-49: 11.2/27
  8:00 p.m. Viewers: 26.51 million, A18-49: 10.0/27
  8:30 p.m. Viewers: 28.49 million, A18-49: 11.1/27
  9:00 p.m. Viewers: 30.72 million, A18-49: 12.0/28
  9:30 p.m. Viewers: 29.65 million, A18-49: 11.7/27

  American Idol (Fox)
  Wednesday, 2/20/2008
  8:00-10:00 p.m. Viewers: 28.67 million, A18-49: 11.1/27
  8:00 p.m. Viewers: 25.18 million, A18-49: 9.5/25
  8:30 p.m. Viewers: 28.48 million, A18-49: 11.0/26
  9:00 p.m. Viewers: 30.64 million, A18-49: 12.0/28
  9:30 p.m. Viewers: 30.37 million, A18-49: 11.9/28

  American Idol (Fox)
  Thursday, 2/21/2008
  8:00-9:00 p.m. Viewers: 23.17 million, A18-49: 8.4/21

  Comment by Harold — Monday February 25, 2008 @ 11:29pm PST  Reply to this post

• The Oscars are voted on by the members of the different guilds – writers vote on screenplays, directors for directors etc…. so of course the nominees are going to consist of what they think is great work. They aren’t going to admit they watch the Transformers or the Simpsons. They are artists and their work is craft that just may be entertaining to us common folk. The audience votes in the People’s Choice awards.

  The Oscars could do several things to improve the show:

  1. Have an audience award voted by the audience
  2. Move the lesser awards to the technical night – like short documentry.
  3. Dump all the montages except the obits
  4. Have more set pieces like what they did when that guy visited the accountants that protect the envelopes. That was funny.
  5. Require the network broadcasting it to be neutral – no stunt presenters like Miley Cyrus or the obvious plug for “Get Smart”. It is just tacky.
  6. Have it on for 2 hours period.
  7. Present all the major awards in a block in the last hour of the show.
  8. Have fun with it.

  Basically like others have said it has become elitist, stale, fake, and one big commercial for movies people will only see if they have “Movies on Demand”.

  Comment by Doug B — Tuesday February 26, 2008 @ 12:15am PST  Reply to this post

• 32 million… still going to be the top-rated show of the week. Nothing’s getting the ratings that it used to, so I don’t think this says anything in particular about the Oscars themselves.

  Comment by ML — Tuesday February 26, 2008 @ 1:22am PST  Reply to this post

• Come on, Nikki, why are you so happy? What did the Oscars ever do to you? As for who is to blame, it’s not Jon Stewart. He was actually the best thing of the night and the best reason to watch.

  Comment by Ben — Tuesday February 26, 2008 @ 2:18am PST  Reply to this post

• The Oscars ratings from the 1970′s are not the same as the 1980′s or the 90′s . Jon Stewart did a better job than most with the currant state of “maybe “? The maybe is a factor that includes writers , choices and the lack of details that factor into a show that is so vague and indifferent than anything relating to the viewing public . You can’t host a dinner party or even blog if you are ” not well” , Stewart is always capable of fearless dedication to anything he comets to , if you want to be a critic be capable of accepting a critical view of your version of ” real hollywood “? Truth or dare can you compete with the best and be open to the questions about your abilities?

  Comment by please — Tuesday February 26, 2008 @ 3:30am PST  Reply to this post