On Sunday, Feb. 24, the Academy Awards telecast earned its lowest audience rating on record, plummeting 21 percent from last year. Is the Oscars in crisis? And what, if anything, can the Academy do to turn the tide? EW.com spoke with Bruce Davis, executive director of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: What was the reaction at the Academy when you got the ratings numbers on Monday?
BRUCE DAVIS: That’s kind of a foggy day for a lot of us, but there was some phoning back and forth. We were startled that they were as low as they were. Because we had small and dark pictures this year, we all thought we wouldn’t hit 40 million [viewers] again. But I never talked to anyone here who expected it to fall off as much as it did.
Can you tell from the ratings when people tuned in, and when they tuned off?
There was a lot of shuffling, people tuning in and then moving away and then coming back. But the main problem was that a huge part of the traditional audience just never showed up.
How does this low rating affect the Academy’s contract with ABC to broadcast the show?
It’s not important in the sense that the network won’t pay us as much
next year. We have a contract that runs through 2014. But the next time
we negotiate a contract, if this is an ongoing trend, it may well have
some effect.
How does the contract work?
It is a licensing fee, but there is some revenue sharing if they sell
commercial spots for more than was expected when we were predicting
income [at the time the contract was negotiated].
Everyone has theories about what caused the ratings drop. Some
say it was the movies. Some say the lack of stars. Some say the
writers’ strike hurt the award season. What do you think caused this?
I don’t think the writers’ strike had much to do with it. I think Jon
Stewart did a terrific job. The things we could control went pretty
well. The length of the show was good. We had some really memorable
acceptance moments. I do think, finally, that the trend of the studios
making big action pictures and the specialty houses making small,
prestige movies is sort of catching up to us.
How so?
Some of these movies are just too difficult for a mass audience,
frankly. And if we have moved into an era where there’s this dichotomy
between big popular studio movies and smaller pictures for more
specialized audiences, we may just have to get used to smaller
audiences [for the Oscar telecast.] This could be a one-year blip but
it doesn’t look like one. It looks like something that has been
developing over the past few years. It’s as if the National Book Awards
had to make a choice between giving awards to very serious fiction or
to the most popular bestsellers. We’ve come to that point where there
are two kinds of movies, and we’re focusing on the ones which, almost
by definition, aren’t going to be blockbusters.
So should the Academy try to be more populist?
[Speaking tongue-in-cheek] We could try to get all the members to vote for the big popular pictures but I don’t think we can do that.
What motivates most people to watch the Oscars? Is it the movies? The fashion?
ABC did a series of focus groups a couple of years ago. Prior to that,
we all assumed that a horse race — a year when nobody knew what was
going to win Best Picture or Best Actress — would [drive ratings up].
Our assumption was completely wrong. When we asked people in the focus
groups, people who described themselves as regular Oscar viewers, how
many of them saw all five best picture nominees, no hands would go up.
How many saw four? No hands would go up. Three? You’d get a couple
people. [We realized] that they’re watching the Oscars for the aspects
of the show that we’ve all been a little embarrassed by: They like the
red carpet and the movie stars. Many years, it doesn’t matter if
they’ve seen the films or not. Somehow this year, it did.
The show has been on an overall, general ratings decline for
decades now. If the Oscar telecast never regains its ratings dominance
— if this is the new reality from no on — does it change the kind of
show you’re able to put on?
For the next few years, absolutely
not. But that’s an interesting question. At some point in the future
will we be looking at a different kind of awards show? That’s
conceivable. We gave out Oscars before there was any television
broadcast at all, we may have to live with doing something for a much
more restrictive audience. We will see.
Is your primary mission to put on a profitable TV show, or to reward the best film work of the year, ratings or no?
We recognize that it’s a television show, but emphatically we come down
on the other side of your question. If we simply wanted to do a
television show, we would cut out all the awards that didn’t go to
actors and directors. We know that a one-hour show like that would
attract a larger audience, but we’re not doing that. And it’s not
because we’re too dumb to know that people aren’t fascinated by who
wins Best Production Design.
All awards show ratings have been in decline recently. Why do you think that is?
Not only has the TV dial fragmented and re-fragmented, but you have
competition from other home entertainment. That the ratings have
drifted downwards isn’t surprising to anybody. The nice thing is that
there are so few shows that can gather as large an audience as the
Oscars can. Sponsors are very eager to have that crowd even though it’s
not as large as it used to be.
Do you expect to do any soul searching about how the show works?
We always analyze the show. We have a special committee meeting where
we talk to the producer, and then another meeting where we have the
Academy governors look at the show. Those meetings are usually about
how the show can be better. This year, the issue is people [not
watching the show at all.] I imagine we’ll talk about that, but the
range of options is narrow.
How does this low rating affect the Academy’s contract with ABC to broadcast the show?
It’s not important in the sense that the network won’t pay us as muchnext year. We have a contract that runs through 2014. But the next timewe negotiate a contract, if this is an ongoing trend, it may well havesome effect.
How does the contract work?
It is a licensing fee, but there is some revenue sharing if they sellcommercial spots for more than was expected when we were predictingincome [at the time the contract was negotiated].
Everyone has theories about what caused the ratings drop. Somesay it was the movies. Some say the lack of stars. Some say thewriters’ strike hurt the award season. What do you think caused this?
I don’t think the writers’ strike had much to do with it. I think JonStewart did a terrific job. The things we could control went prettywell. The length of the show was good. We had some really memorableacceptance moments. I do think, finally, that the trend of the studiosmaking big action pictures and the specialty houses making small,prestige movies is sort of catching up to us.
How so?
Some of these movies are just too difficult for a mass audience,frankly. And if we have moved into an era where there’s this dichotomybetween big popular studio movies and smaller pictures for morespecialized audiences, we may just have to get used to smalleraudiences [for the Oscar telecast.] This could be a one-year blip butit doesn’t look like one. It looks like something that has beendeveloping over the past few years. It’s as if the National Book Awardshad to make a choice between giving awards to very serious fiction orto the most popular bestsellers. We’ve come to that point where thereare two kinds of movies, and we’re focusing on the ones which, almostby definition, aren’t going to be blockbusters.
So should the Academy try to be more populist?
[Speaking tongue-in-cheek] We could try to get all the members to vote for the big popular pictures but I don’t think we can do that.
What motivates most people to watch the Oscars? Is it the movies? The fashion?
ABC did a series of focus groups a couple of years ago. Prior to that,we all assumed that a horse race — a year when nobody knew what wasgoing to win Best Picture or Best Actress — would [drive ratings up].Our assumption was completely wrong. When we asked people in the focusgroups, people who described themselves as regular Oscar viewers, howmany of them saw all five best picture nominees, no hands would go up.How many saw four? No hands would go up. Three? You’d get a couplepeople. [We realized] that they’re watching the Oscars for the aspectsof the show that we’ve all been a little embarrassed by: They like thered carpet and the movie stars. Many years, it doesn’t matter ifthey’ve seen the films or not. Somehow this year, it did.
The show has been on an overall, general ratings decline fordecades now. If the Oscar telecast never regains its ratings dominance— if this is the new reality from no on — does it change the kind ofshow you’re able to put on?
For the next few years, absolutelynot. But that’s an interesting question. At some point in the futurewill we be looking at a different kind of awards show? That’sconceivable. We gave out Oscars before there was any televisionbroadcast at all, we may have to live with doing something for a muchmore restrictive audience. We will see.
Is your primary mission to put on a profitable TV show, or to reward the best film work of the year, ratings or no?
We recognize that it’s a television show, but emphatically we come downon the other side of your question. If we simply wanted to do atelevision show, we would cut out all the awards that didn’t go toactors and directors. We know that a one-hour show like that wouldattract a larger audience, but we’re not doing that. And it’s notbecause we’re too dumb to know that people aren’t fascinated by whowins Best Production Design.
All awards show ratings have been in decline recently. Why do you think that is?
Not only has the TV dial fragmented and re-fragmented, but you havecompetition from other home entertainment. That the ratings havedrifted downwards isn’t surprising to anybody. The nice thing is thatthere are so few shows that can gather as large an audience as theOscars can. Sponsors are very eager to have that crowd even though it’snot as large as it used to be.
Do you expect to do any soul searching about how the show works?
We always analyze the show. We have a special committee meeting wherewe talk to the producer, and then another meeting where we have theAcademy governors look at the show. Those meetings are usually abouthow the show can be better. This year, the issue is people [notwatching the show at all.] I imagine we’ll talk about that, but therange of options is narrow.
Comments (1-30) of 42 Add your comment
I used to care about who is winning but now I think I’ve outgrown the Oscar and other awards. Winning is not everything and I don’t really care much for the red carpet anyway.As long as they are good movies,I’ll watch and won’t care much about the nominations.
I am glad to see that the focus remains on the movies and not the glitz, but that can well change in the face of money. The niche audience of the Oscars os a fascinating one – get rid of overblown song productions, PLEASE cut down on the navel-gazing montages, adjust the nomination processes to allow great movies (Persepolis) to be nominated.
The Oscars as a friendly, chatty recognition of peers would be much better. For that matter, the presentation of the nominations themselves should be extended (like when they show us how the storyboards were made into the final film etc.) and the BS banter should be cut down. You may not get superbowl numbers, but you would cut the fat and have something that truly celebrates movie excellence (what the Oscars purport to do)
They need to move the show back to the end of March — where it belongs. It’s all too rushed a process since studios don’t release movies until december and don’t go wide until february. How can we catch up on movie watching and be interested in the oscar race if we are not given the time to watch the movies.
There is nothing wrong with the oscar ceremony. The fact is, I didn’t see any advertisements about the oscars. Three years ago, the academy decided to move the ceremony one month earlier to February which has been one of the worst mistakes the Academy has ever made. It doesn’t give people time to see the nominated films, it rushes the nominating process and forces the Academy to nominate films simply on what other people say is good. Studios lose the box office leading up to the awards and then lose after because people are not as excited. If the Oscars want to retain their stature, they need to move out of the way of the other awards shows and move back to March.
Can i just say that I love the oscars and I enjoyed the ceremony. It seems to be the same old thing to bash the oscars. People love to bash the oscars saying it’s too long — it’s once a year and the grammys, the super bowl are both longer– or they need to change this or that — They don’t need to change a thing. Jon stewart was the best host. I think with the writers strike, they should have just postponed the show a few weeks to get everything together but other than that. Leave the oscars alone!
What the Oscars lacked this year was….Matt Damon.
The Academy members nominated Bourne Ultimatum in 3 categories – and it swept all 3.
Why not Bourne Ultimatum for Picture of the year? That it was critically embraced, made so much money and starred the most bankable Hollywood star at the moment seems to have worked against it with the Academy. Something absolutely wrong with that. Maybe jealousy?
Second reason the ratings are tanking – new media and plethora of media outlets now who all cover this thing. It’s over-kill. The Oscars used to be a rare and fascinating event- like some of the stars used to be as well. Now – well, thank goodness for the more “exotic” Europeans. But spare me your Ryan Seacrests, please.
The reason why I do not watch the Oscars any more is due to the political speeches and all the “stars” thinking they are better than the public.
I am sick of them pushing their mindset on America.
That is why I do not go out to movies anymore either.
Well said, sayhere. I agree that the Academy obviously liked The Bourne Ultimatum for it to sweep its categories, and it was perhaps the one movie last year that both critics and audiences loved. Where was the Best Picture nom?
I could personally do without the short action film/live action whatever those 2 categories are. It’s not like they even show them online or at the show so that you can judge for yourself.
As for every other category – however “minor” they may seem to some folk – I want to see Editing/Makeup/Sound Mixing/Art Direction/Costume/Cinematography/Score,etc. Knowing what the gold standard is, makes me want to see/review the movie. Bourne ultimatum – best sound editing – now, i’d want to assess for myself why it’s so good.
The main reason I bother to tune in – the horse race aspect and to see that good work is properly rewarded. I just wish some real “stars” were invited to present a category. Like, who invited Colin Farrell? He’s “important?” What’s the cinematic standards/accomplishments of Jessica Alba or Miley cyrus?
I could personally do without the short action film/live action whatever those 2 categories are. It’s not like they even show them online or at the show so that you can judge for yourself.
As for every other category – however “minor” they may seem to some folk – I want to see Editing/Makeup/Sound Mixing/Art Direction/Costume/Cinematography/Score,etc. Knowing what the gold standard is, makes me want to see/review the movie. Bourne ultimatum – best sound editing – now, i’d want to assess for myself why it’s so good.
The main reason I bother to tune in – the horse race aspect and to see that good work is properly rewarded. I just wish some real “stars” were invited to present a category. Like, who invited Colin Farrell? He’s “important?” What’s the cinematic standards/accomplishments of Jessica Alba or Miley cyrus?
My reason for not watching.
Best Picture “Crash” over “Brokeback Mountain” still upsets me.
I always love the Oscars — I think moving it back to March would be a great idea, since you do get more time to see the movies. Also, I think a Friday or Saturday night would be a beneficial swicth — older people have work on Mondays, younger ones have school, so I would imagine you lose a lot of the audience at the end of the braodcast because of that. The Superbowl is just as long, but it starts at 6:30…
Trim some of the categories, like animated shorts and live action shorts. They are important, but could be done at another ceremony or briefly mentioned. The Golden Globes runs three hours and seems to cover a lot more ground. They should take a cue from them.
I didn’t bother watching the Oscars this year because I didn’t care for most of the films that were nominated–especially for Best Picture. My problem with the Oscars is that they listen way too much to the critics instead of the audience on what they should nominate and win. The Academy really believed that JUNO was a much better comedy film than DAN IN REAL LIE, THE SAVAGES or LARS AND THE REAL GIRL to get nominated for Best Picture? And what’s th deal with NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN? That movie was well done but it did not deserve to win the Oscar for Best Picture. (Even the Golden Globes and BAFTA acknowledged that.) Some people found the car crash in MICHAEL CLAYTON unbelievable. What about some random hunter finding a pile of drug money out in the middle of nowhere in Texas? That’s believable? And then this same idiot goes back to the scene of the crime only to be spotted by the psycho killeer. Yeah–that’s real believable. Those are some of the problems I had with NCFOM.
It doesn’t matter what movies are nominated. People watch the Olympics without knowing any of the competitors. The Oscars show is the thing at fault here it was boring. If the Academy wants to make people care about the show they need to make them care about the nominees. Build the awards show like you would build an olympic telecast. Make us care about the nominees, tell us their backstories. Show us more footage of people at the ceremony. As I watched this years awards I was utterly bored (& I actually saw almost every single movie nominated this year). They didn’t even do the normal thing of introducing us to each best pic nominee one at a time through the evening. That is one easy way to get people to care. The group who produces the award show just needs to re-shape how they put it together. I know nothing about football what so ever, but I watched the superbowl all the way through. Tell the academy to watch the Superbowl and catch a clue.
I love the Oscars, but it needs more real stars to make a better show. Where were Angelina Jolie, Catherine Zeta Jones, Halle Berry, Susan Sarandon, Sharon Stone, Charlize Theron, Beyonce, Queen Latifah, Barbra Streisand, Drew Barrymore, Uma Thurman, and all those other larger than life superstars who light up the stage and the red carpet with their fabulous fashion and personalities? Find a way to get more of the A-listers there (if they aren’t nominated, have more of them as presenters or something to get them there at least on the red carpet).
For me, part of the excitement of the Oscars is seeing someone who is totally surprised to win get up there and just be so joyous. The fact that the orchestra plays them off after 20 seconds and plays a million montages pisses me off. I don’t need to see a retrospect of 80 years of movie making three times over, but I would like to see someone who is genuinely excited and overwhelmed get their due moment and have time to thank those that supported and believed in them along the way.
My problem with this year’s montages was not that there were too many–it’s that they sucked. There are fanvids on YouTube being cut together by 13-year-olds that have more zip than what we saw on the Oscars. Plus, while Jon Stewart is hilarious in the proper context, I think he is all wrong as an Oscar host. The reason why Billy Crystal was so good at it was that he was so full of life and good cheer, and he made everybody feel like they were at the most fun, glamourous, important party of the year. Where are today’s larger-than-life showmen or women that can bring that kind of attitude again?
Jon Stewart sucked! Come on, playing Wii is funny? NOT! Also, the Oscars should represent the best of the best the industry has to offer; The Rock & Miley Cyrus are far from that. Also move the awards back to March where they belong. Now they’re just one more award show stuck in February. Categories like short animated flicks, sound mixing, sound editing should be moved to the technical ceremony. So in a nutshell: more MAJOR movie stars, less categories & move it back to MARCH!!
Dear organizers. I will put it simply:
TOO MANY MONTAGES.
MOVE THE OSCARS BACK TO THE END OF MARCH. The awards season is now one six week blob from mid January to the end of February – with too many ceremonies week after week. Some of the movies nominated now, don’t even open in some markets until early in the year, so the audience hasn’t had a chance to see them – hence the lack of interest. Let the Oscars stand by their own the first week or two of Spring instead of being lumped into the awards blob early in the year.
I always watch no matter what. Love the ceremony and the longer the better for me. And it shows that the academy still cares about art. The moment they start nominating crap like Transformers or Alvin and the chipmunks for best picture then I’ll stop watching.
The ratings are going down not only because of the movies, but because people are onto which movies and which stars Hollywood wants to reward. It comes off like the show is fixed because we all pretty much know who will win (even without seeing the movies). Moreover, it is starting to look the the voters aren’t watching them either, they are simply voting for the buzz around the movie (because it says what they want to say, because everyone says the actor was great, because the star/director wasn’t recognized in the past for a project he/she should have been, because he/she is old, etc.) In short, it’s starting to look fixed, and that lessens the Academy’s credibility and makes for some pretty boring television.
EVERYONE IS SICK OF THE CELBRITIES CONSTANTLY SLAPPING THEIR SELVES ON THE BACK FOR CRAP.
Seemed like a lot of stars we associate with TV rather than film – Jon Stewart, Jennifer Garner, Keri Russell, Katherine Heigl, Patrick Dempsey, etc. All in films but still more popular for their small screen roles. Gave the whole night a Golden Globes/People’s Choice vibe. I like Jon Stewart but he’s not “movie” enough. We want inside jokes and celebrity participation – like the great montages Billy Crystal used to do. It should play on the fact that we’ve all seen these movies. And this year’s movies were a dour bunch. Hard to get excited or emotional about No Country For Old Men regardless of how good or critically acclaimed it was. Oscar’s appeal is old fashioned…play on that. And why didn’t they give poor Amy Adams something to do while she sang her song. She looked and sounded great but looked a little lonely on that massive set.
They need to stop doing dozens of montages that pay tribute to themselves and how great they are. People watch for the awards, not the montages.
The ratings were not bad. The movie people seem to think the oscars are on the same level as the super bowl or the combine audience of the world series or nba final and its not. This year was one of those years were the industry said forget the public and many people tuned them out. The years where the public like the movies they tune in. That’s just the way it is. No right or wrong just reality.
The ratings were not bad. The movie people seem to think the oscars are on the same level as the super bowl or the combine audience of the world series or nba final and its not. This year was one of those years were the industry said forget the public and many people tuned them out. The years where the public like the movies they tune in. That’s just the way it is. No right or wrong just reality.
Peabob, I agree with you. It seems that Oscar members are more into rewarding themselves with their “enlightened” perspective rather than rewarding movies that truly deserve praise. It doesn’t surprise me though because that’s just the way Hollywood is. Anyway, I’ve stopped watching since Brokeback lost and to be honest, the ceremony just doesn’t have the same magic anymore. Ah well.
Honestly, the folks that keep saying that they don’t like listening to stars speak their political views (aka that opinions) must not be Americans. If they were Americans, they’d know that it’s everyone’s right to speak their opinions – political or otherwise,. Interestingly, it’s the very thing they themselves were doing by posting here in this forum…
And as for the Oscars, a lot of the people I know are skipping the OScars after Crash was given the Oscars over the clear best film, Brokeback Mountain. Beyond the distasteful display of homophobia, the Academy just showed that they truly aren’t in any way fair or judicious about the awards, and that is a massive turn off. I think many feel that the awards are a bit frivolous in the first place, but to then show that the sickening level of politics that is involved tips them to other forms of entertainment.