Oscars: Least watched ever?

Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:50 PM EST

Dear Kevin,
Lighten up. Its not bad that America wants to see big movies instead of depressing or violnet ones like There Will be blood.

CMU Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 01:28 PM EST

I think that there are so many pre-Oscar award shows that all of the surprise and mystery is taken out of it. They're still a big deal, but once a movie has already won so many awards, it's hard to care that much. We all knew who was going to win the big categories. It'd be better if the Oscars came first, and let all the other awards follow.

Julie Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 09:37 AM EST

We are sick of the stars preaching to us about their political views. The Oscars are the last thing we want to watch. zzzzzzzz

Fred Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:46 PM EST

I agree with Turbo Kitty--Roy Scheider deserved a mention. "All That Jazz" is one of the best movies of all time. Maybe he passed away after they put the montage together.

And I disagree with Turbo Kitty--"Transformers" sucked. Great effects but please, please, please producers, spend some of those millions on a decent script. The animated movie from way back when had a much better storyline and far more interesting characters. Let's hope the sequel fares better.

Fred Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:31 PM EST

The reason why people have not heard of the nominees is because they haven't taken the time to go out and actually see their movies. Just because Brad, Angelina, Leo, Julia, etc. were not nominated does not mean that there weren't any amazing performances. I don't think it's fair to blame the actors who were in the running. They just didn't happen to be in the tabloids every two minutes. Perhaps they should have a tabloids awards show; I'm sure no one would complain about the nominees then. But as for this year's Oscars, please run it with a little more dignity and less like a late night talk show. I like Jon Stewart, but to the producers I ask, do we really need another opening monologue? And do we have to repeat the same montages every year? And do we have to ask past winners what it felt like when they won? Awards shows are becoming more and more like the MTV awards--lame humor and current pop references. How about one awards show that celebrates the movies with class?

Sweet Pea Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:19 PM EST

Americans face economic uncertanty daily. Is it any wonder why watching over paid actors, wearing expensive cloths and jewels not entertaining anymore. The real entertainment is in the Presidential Race.

Turbo Kitty Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:55 PM EST

Also, The Bourne Ultimatum got the shaft too, in my opinion. I mean, c'mon! Nominated only for best Sound Mixing and Sound Editing? Granted, they won for both, but it should have gotten more nominations than that. Also, I do love Transformers, and was happy to see it got three nominations, but saddened it didn't win anything. But let's face it, the ones that won were more deserving.
Additionally, in watching the Oscars the last few years, something has come to my attention.
Has anyone else noticed that every nomination and winner for the Best Supporting Actor/Actress and Best Actor/Actress in recent years has been from films set in more realistic settings? I mean, when Return of the King won 11 Oscars in 2004, NONE of those Oscars were for those categories. None of the actresses or actors were even nominated.
It's like actors in the Fantasy based films these days are getting overlooked for the more serious and realistic toned films. I don't think that's fair.
(more)

Turbo Kitty Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:54 PM EST

the awards get such a limited time to speak and are basically rushed off by the orchestra playing. Does that seem RUDE to anyone else? If you're going to have people sitting around for hours, then at least give them the time they need at the mic when they come up for their Oscar.
As for the nominees, I admit that I did not see most of the films that were up for nomination. I also think a few good movies this last year got the shaft. I mean The Golden Compass was only nominated in two categories, Visual Effects and Art Direction. Granted they won for Visual Effects, but there were no nominations of the actors or actresses from that movie. Anyone else who saw The Golden Compass would agree that Dakota Blue Richards should have gotten a Best Actress nomination. I mean they nominated the girl who played in that movie JUNO, but not Dakota for her role as Lyra? That just pissed me off. I also think Nicole Kidman should have gotten a Supporting Actress nomination for that movie too.
(more)

Turbo Kitty Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:51 PM EST

Well, I personally have a history of watching the Oscars every year for two main reasons.
1- My mother and I would watch them every year together. I still watch them even now that we're a whole country apart because it kind of became important to me.
2- I watch for the memorium segment every year to see what actors/actresses passed away in the last year. We lost alot of good ones this year too like Deborah Kerr and Betty Hutton. And of course Heath Ledger's shocking death too. But I was really surprised that they forgot to add Roy Sheider, considering he died about a week or so ago.

In all honesty, I admit that the Oscars this year was sub-par at best. I watched the SAG awards a few weeks back too and, in retrospect, they were better put together than the Oscars were. The SAG awards are usually more concise and to the point, but also give the winners and presenters a chance to speak. That's one thing that always bothered me about the Oscars; that the people receiving (more)

Terre Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:49 PM EST

I saw that the Oscars were on, along with reruns, over-shown movies, and just plain junk (200 channels of Dish Network), so I opted to go to sleep early. Guess I made the best decision of all.

Diane Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:05 PM EST

I turned off my television after the bad dream montage. I didn't find the show funny. The dresses were boring. Worst of all I didn't care about any of the movies that were nominated, and I'm willing to bet that with the exception of (maybe) Juno we won't even be able to find the movies in ten years. The Godfather II was on cable and I kept switching over to watch it (again) until I decided that was a more enjoyable use of my time.

antonio Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 03:50 PM EST

I don't think it's appropriate for people, like Steve Baxter and others, to state: Jon Stewart is not funny. It's better to say: I don't think he's funny. That way it doesn't seem like one owns the truth. Personally, I think Jon Stewart is one of the funniest people alive.
Antonio
Antonio

TheBigMansini Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 03:34 PM EST

you know what? Movies just ain't where it's at no more. It's alllllllllllllll about the interenet. Who's gonna watch movies anyways? Damn tickets are damn near 10 bucks! Screw that, yer better off just getting a bootleg. Also, Tas is right, there was a time when movie stars lead private lives. Keep those lives private. We don't really need to hear about dumb stuff like JL Spears getting a GED. Who the hell cares about that? Also, the Oscars are too damn long. A good reason why I barely even watch the tube anymore is because there's a serious lack of entertaining/thought provoking television, even with the writers working. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Bob Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 03:22 PM EST

I thought Jon Stewart was great. I believe the reason that viewership was down was that viewers this year had gotten accustomed to turning away from shows they normally watch. With so many reruns on and award shows that did not happen, many were not even aware that it was time for the Oscars to be given out. I only became aware of the fact while watching the NASCAR race, where the drivers were asked over and over again what their favorite movies had been. Stewart's humor was cutting and had lots of bite. He didn't give anyone a free ride and nothing or no one was considered a taboo area to make jokes.

Bob Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 03:22 PM EST

I thought Jon Stewart was great. I believe the reason that viewership was down was that viewers this year had gotten accustomed to turning away from shows they normally watch. With so many reruns on and award shows that did not happen, many were not even aware that it was time for the Oscars to be given out. I only became aware of the fact while watching the NASCAR race, where the drivers were asked over and over again what their favorite movies had been. Stewart's humor was cutting and had lots of bite. He didn't give anyone a free ride and nothing or no one was considered a taboo area to make jokes.

JimmyG Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 03:15 PM EST

If ratings were to forecast future Oscarcasts - this years' awards would've been:
Best Picture-Spiderman 3
Best Actor - Will Smith I am Legend
Best Actress - Lindsay lohen for Georgia Rule
Supporting Actor - Tom Cruise or Robert Redford for Lions and Lambs
Supproting Actress - Julia Roberts' Charlie Wilson's war
Director - Rob Zombie for Halloween
Original screenplay - I now pronounce you chuck and larry
Adapted screenplay -Harry potter and the order of the phoenix.

mike m Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 03:09 PM EST

What happened to all the American film makers like Speilburg, Lucas, etc. This years academy awards should be re-titled to the "International academy awards".

irene Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:57 PM EST

I agree with missy, I hope they don't blame Jon Stewart. I thought he did a wonderful job as host. It really comes down to the nominated movies and stars.

EB Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:34 PM EST

Major reason for lower audience -- Jon Stewart. How lame. Need to find a host without the obvious and offensive personal agendas.

mark andrews Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:20 PM EST

im ready to accept my oscar anytime.....just call......the requirements seem to be if your breathing and can find appropriate dress!

Jeff in Kabul Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:14 PM EST

Hollywood makes movies for the people that live in Hollywood. They have an adjenda to push. Nobody else watches them and nobody really cares.

Make movies that the people in "flyover country" want to see and we'll also be interested in what awards you give each other.

As it is you make distastful movies and award each other for doing it, than are surprised when no one watchs.

penny Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:13 PM EST

people of color "dominated" last years awards? LOL

i believe spaniards are considered caucasian under the current immigration codes. (if anyone has ever been to an INS office back in the 90s you may recall seeing the chart on the wall that told you your race based on your country of origin. does it still exist?)

penny Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:51 PM EST

Thank God for the classy young woman from "Grey's Anatomy" for her beautiful hair. Most of the ladies had horrible hair this year. Who pays thousands for a dress and shoes then goes to a worldwide televised event with bed head?! I felt embarrased for them. I guess some stylists had been out of practice due to the writers strike??

re:sallyinchicago Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:38 PM EST

Re Sally - Didn't a person of "color," two in fact, dominate the acting awards last year? Javier Bardem isn't considered a person of "color?" He's from Spain and his skin looks darker than most.

Lilly Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:36 PM EST

Although I LOVED the results, I hated the show. I have no use for the endless red carpet garbage, the rows and rows of stars up front who weren't nominated or even made an appearance in any nominated movies and the endless Hollywood-in-love-with-itself montages. The Academy Awards always balances on a fine edge between honoring real artistic achievement and pandering to at home audiences for the sake of putting on a big pageant/fashion show. Sad to say that it seems like the better the nominated films and performances, the lesser the viewer turnout.
Spend more time on giving the awards, let the winners speak, and cut all the obnoxious banter and clips of other Oscars (they were boring, too).
If box office stats are the only important factor, why not give the awards out before the movies are released?
While the format of the show needs a serious overhaul, the Academy's choice of nominees was almost perfect this year.

dennis Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:15 PM EST

Yes, everyone knows Jon Stewart is Mr super liberal and hates President Bush. Get over it Jon. He was only one of the weak links in the show. Please next year let's get a real comedian and not someone who obviously does have an agenda!

Barbie Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:14 PM EST

Peter O'Toole lost last year. Never watching the Oscars again. It's painful.

Jose Sinclair Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:05 PM EST

The Oscars are about quality in films, not TV ratings. Who cares how many or few people watch, outside of the tv advertisers? The year of Titanic was the worst year for quality winners that I can remember. The public can choose the "people's choice" awards - thankfully they have no vote in the Oscars or Johnny Depp and Leo Dicaprio would always win, and movies like Pirates, Spiderman, Sat Nite Fever would always win (Rocky was an awful choice).

More people are taping and watching the show in 90 minutes, avoiding all the useless fluff, ie commercials, songs, and montages. The host won't pull in viewers, it's the boring format that kills the show and thankfully we have the technology to avoid wasting half a night to get 14 winners now.

Film buffs will always watch, moviegoers can stick with American Idol and vote their mediocre populist choices. When we turn over artistic content and recognition to the public, our artistic culture will be watered down into worthlessness! - the Jman

cg Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:53 PM EST

The show was a bore. I only laughed at one Stewart joke and cringed at a few. I am so tired of the people on stage fawning over Nicolson. Please stop it! Agree, DVR is the ONLY way to go.

Maka Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM EST

Low ratings because of people like me, the DVR user. I started watching the show 90 minutes into it, and caught up 15 minutes before it was over. I then went and watched something else for 10 minutes, came back and zipped to the end. The best way to watch. DVRs need to be factored in. The rule! You can getthrough American Idol in 20 minutes!!

spud Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:09 PM EST

The movie geeks will sit through the Oscars regardless, start to finish, like I do every year. But "Middle America" needs popular fare that they can get behind. Like Titanic, like Gladiator, like The Return of the King. Those were high-rated shows because of the movies nominated, that most people had seen or were aware of. Most won't give up 3-4 hours of their lives to watch people and films they care little about congratulate each other. The worst part? The media knows this, but still runs with the "Lowest Ever" story like it's some sort of shocker.

Hallie Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM EST

I was completely turned off by the format. It was "montage, award, commercial, montage, award, commercial..." If I had felt any of the larger awards were really up for grabs, I would have stuck with it. But I refuse to sit and watch more commercials than programming. Especially when the only category to have any suspense (leading actress) was announced so early in the evening.

JohnT Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:00 PM EST

This year's Oscars were very much 'inside baseball,' focused on Hollywood insiders honoring each other for films and performances not that many people saw. If next year's nominations are of the same ilk, ratings will be even lower. At some point, they'll probably just move the program to a cable channel and be done with it. Then film lovers could seek out the show, and movie goers could watch something else.

Marie Ireton Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM EST

The entire show was dull and boreing. I don't think the writers helped the situation. I watched it to see the gowns and jewlery.

Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:19 AM EST

Several people pointed out the problem: the best movie nominations are movies that weren't watched by the general masses. So why would they bother to tune in to watch a show honoring movies they haven't watched and have no vested interest?

As matchkitjohn said, the Oscars should just stop caring about ratings if they continue to nominate movies people don't watch.

Just sayin... Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM EST

Titanic won the Oscar in 1998.

WTF?! Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:26 AM EST

Just because you've never HEARD of the winners does not mean they're performances weren't amazing! I did see these movies and all the actors who won ABSOLUTELY deserved to be winners. Next year lets not nominate people who deserve it and just nominate random "stars" so that people will tune in! Ridiculous! That is not what the oscars are about.

Tas Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:16 AM EST

I think that there really are no more "Movie Stars". Pacino & DeNiro, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Redford, Jack Nicholson; who are they passing the baton to? I think the days of the movie star/great actor are going by the wayside. That's part of the problem with the Oscars. You tuned in to see the big names. There really isn't anyone who can fill those shoes.

Kevin Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 09:43 AM EST

The problem wasn't Jon Stewart. Nor was it the nominees. Nor was it the films released this year (in my opinion, the best year for movies since 1994). No, the problem is with you people. People that LOVED Transformers. People that thought Pirates 3 and Spiderman 3 were "pretty good". People that think No Country is "too violent" or that complain that it doesn't have a nice, tidy ending. People that think There Will Be Blood was "too dark". People that don't see foreign movies unless they are dubbed over. People that don't know who Javier Bardem is (dude's been nominated twice and The Sea Inside won Best Foreign Picture...WAKE UP PEOPLE!). It's a sad state for American culture. If The Godfather came out in this sort of cultural void, no one would have watched it...and that's sad.

matchkitjohn Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 09:39 AM EST

The Oscars should realize that if they want to continue to honor the best movies and not be a popularity contest then don't worry about the ratings.

Sam L Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 09:33 AM EST

Tom,
Jon Stewart wasn't forcing his agenda on the audience--he was making a joke about how the Academy is very liberal and how they're going to vote Democrat no matter what.
Personally, I think Stewart's a great host, and I thought Marion Cotillard and Tilda Swinton's surprise wins and great speeches were highlights. I also thought it was classy of Stewart to bring "Once" co-song writer and winner Marketa Irglova back on stage to make a speech after the composer cut her off the first time. The show was blah overall, but there were some memorable moments, as there always are.

Rose Tyler Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 09:07 AM EST

It's a shame people didn't tune in. It was a delightful and streamline show. I get it that it was because of the crop of nominees. It shows the difference between film lovers(who tune in no matter)and movie lovers(those who tune in to see things like Titanic win). Besides my guess is lots of people used their DVR's and that doesn't factor in the ratings. Can we fix that by the way?

Tom Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 09:00 AM EST

I'm glad this ceremony isn't a "popularity contest." Who cares if people don't know the actors nominated - let's keep the standards up and reward the craft - want "popular," go to the Blockbuster awards.
Jon Stewart - he had some one-liners - I'd get a chucke, but nothing that was a complete belly laugh. I got tired of him right after he told everyone to "vote for your favorite Democratic." It's people like that, that want me to vote for a Republican. Don't force your agenda on a captive audience.
As for the show - I completely got the yawns after Best Actress. (Thanks Marion for waking the audience up with your speech). I wanted to turn the show off after that - it was a chore -after looking at my cheat sheet - that I had to still endure Best Original Screenplay, Director, Editing, Actor, Picture, Cinematography.
My head scratcher -- why is it that Spike Lee & Samuel L. are always given good seats? Should'nt, say, Dianne Weist, who has 2 oscars, be given closer seats?

c Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 08:58 AM EST

Actually this is one the shortest Oscar's we've seen in awhile. And somebody mentioned that the nominees should be blamed for the poor ratings because she 'never heard of them'? What size rock do you live under??
I think people don't watch because they don't see their own personal favs on the list.

majigail Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 08:32 AM EST

You know Oscar's on Sunday, and I have to work in the morning... with a show that ran until almost 11 (central time) I had issues. It's one thing to joke about how long it is, but how about next year, do something about it!

mkb Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 08:25 AM EST

Maybe they should have nominated the cartoon about the rat -- anything that people saw and liked.

AV Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 07:18 AM EST

2 words. Writer's Strike.

cute Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:17 AM EST

Jon Stewart is cute. I saw his profile on millionaire personals site WealthyRomance.com last week. What is he looking for on that site.

WarOnTara Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:12 AM EST

It really was just the lack of blockbuster hits and popular stars nominated. I personally loved that because it meant that interesting, well done films were rewarded instead of more Oscar bait. But I could see where that would make people less likely to watch.

Lee Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:30 PM EST

I didn't bother watching the Oscars this year because I didn't care for any of the nominees in the major categories--except for Atonement which I knew wasn't favored to win. Most of the movies that I thought were amongst the best of the year weren't even nominated in the major categories, such as Dan in Real Life, Lars and the Real Girl, Across the Universe, The Kite Runner, and Waitress. Why should I watch the Oscars? Especially when they honor such crappy movies like No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood.

Steve Baxter Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:15 PM EST

Jon Stewart?? That guy was funny way back in '94. is he funny now?? absolutely not. Dear Jon - you hate George Bush. we get it. please write some fresh material.....

Maegan Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:05 PM EST

I also blame the nominees, not Jon. I mean, I had never even heard of any of the winners prior to this Oscar season. That doesn't mean that they don't deserve to win, but it definitely effects people tuning in.

Calliope10 Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:44 PM EST

They should have tried leaking the info that Owen Wilson was presenting (his publicist is a GENIUS - by scoring him a presenting gig, she gets his face back out there in a BIG way with miminal work from him and gets a chance to remind people that he is Academy-award nominated - so, you know, just forget all about all that OTHER stuff.)

Marty Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:24 PM EST

To be expected. I've tried to see the movies nominated but the theaters near me never showed them and by the time they were available on DVD I just didn't have the time or wasn't in the mood for their serious gloomy atmosphear. It's a shame that just because a movie is popular that it shouldn't be considered and what can we still say about comedy actors...

SallyinChicago Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:20 PM EST

I turned it off after Ruby Dee lost. She was our only chance for an American and a person of "color" to win....after that I knew who was going to win - DDL, Bardem, NC, Marion and the Once song. It was an efficient show. But I agree with the others -- there are no "stars" and the movies are not "big". I can't remember the last time I actually cried at the end of a movie -- maybe it was 3 years ago, M$B, or maybe it was Freedom Writers...but since that time I just haven't had any emotional attachment to a movie. There were very good entertaining movies like Amern. Gangster, but that's one out of how many? And I'm not into the toilet humor comedies that Hollywood is putting out. If I have to catchup on movies I download from AMZ Unbox or Movielink. Jon was good.

Jordt Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:07 PM EST

I hope that next year we will see Leo, Kate Winslet, Meryl Streep and Bradgelina get nominated... then I'll tune in. I haven't heard or seen half the nominees. Thats what the Indie Spirit awards are for, isn't it. I wanna see the big stars and the great movies nominated. I get it already, indie flicks deserve a spot, but don't overdue it with the indies taking up 80% of the nods. Bring back Julia, Brad and Jack... Bring back the old Oscars filled with stars, and not just as presenters. Thanks

cloud strife Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:45 PM EST

I turned it off the moment George Clooney said there's one thing constant about the Oscar awards: it's long. Ooops, way past my bedtime, sorry...

Tas Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 07:39 PM EST

I didn't watch because I have not seen any of the movies. Also, where were the major movie stars? Brad and Angelina, Reese Witherspoon, Julia Roberts, Leo DeCaprio? I realize they were not nominated, but thats the problems. The nominees were mostly unheard of, so people weren't interested. I think another problem is, there is just no mystery anymore with the celebrities. In the days of Cary Grant, Humphrey Bogart, and then later with Paul Newman and Robert Redford, we didn't have the intense media coverage and paparazzi 24/7. It was a treat and exciting to see them at the Oscars, because you weren't bombarded with them on mags, internet, etc.... It just seems that in the last 10 or so years, Oscar just isn't that exciting anymore.

Kai Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 07:28 PM EST

Uh...could it be the fact that there were a million needless montages? how about the fact that the people and movies nominated were barely watched by the masses? i think had more popular movies like Pirate of the Caribbean or Bourne Ultimatum been been nonminated in anything other than costumes and sound, more people would have cared.

sam Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 07:14 PM EST

I'm not surprised. I love movies and I thought that it was incredibly boring. Jon is great on his own show, but a terrible Oscar host. It would be more enjoyable if it really celebrated movies and didn't try to be "current" with a lot of stupid humor. Cut it down to two hours, give out awards and only perform the songs that are enjoyable (making that poor girl sing about cleaning the toilet without the animation was just cruel). The last hour was best--it moved along with awards and without awkward humor and bad songs.

Jeff Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 06:38 PM EST

I actually stopped watching after the best actress award was announced, since I knew that Daniel Day Lewis would win, and No Country for Old Men would win. I was surprised with Tilda Swinton's win, and her speech was priceless (making fun of George's "batsuit.") And Marion Coutillard (spelling?)'s reaction to her win was truly a great moment, as was the win for Best Original Song from the movie "once." Otherwise...zzzz.....

missy Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 06:22 PM EST

I'm not that shocked. People tune into the Oscars to root on movies they saw and actors they know and love. The only best picture nominee to be a box office hit was Juno and, with the exception of George Cloony, most of the actors and actresses were not well known stars.

I just didn't hear a a lot of people who were excited about the movies this year. In fact, the question I heard most around the office today was "What was No Country for Old Men about?". People weren't going to stay up until midnight to see what movie they never heard of was going to get the award.

I really hope they don't blame Jon Stewart or the writers for the low ratings. It really comes down to the nominees. In years when the nominees are the highest grossing films (like Titanic) people tune in. End of story.