Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2008 > February > 26 > Entry
What would make you watch the Oscars?
By now, a lot of sponsors, ABC executives and Academy officials are wringing their hands over the lowest rated Oscars in history.
It’s a shame, really. As I mentioned Sunday night, I thought this year’s show was one of their better efforts in a while. That it only ran about 15 minutes over is something of an achievement in itself, considering the seemingly endless marathons of years past.
Still, I can’t say I’m all that surprised. The conventional wisdom holds that you need to have a monster hit in the nominees like Titanic or Lord of the Rings to get monster ratings. This year, the only nominee that was a nine-figure hit was Juno.
So what can be done to improve the show? Nominate more popular movies? Somebody seems to float that idea every year, and it always sounds dumb. What should they have nominated from last year to get more people to watch? Last year’s biggest hit was Spider-Man 3, but you can’t get 50 people to admit they liked the thing. Transformers? I think even its fans would admit it’s not exactly Oscar material. Heck, it couldn’t even win any of its tech nominations Sunday.
I think the only $200 million-plus grosser you could make a legitimate case for is The Bourne Ultimatum. Well, that and Ratatouille, if the Academy had the savvy to nominate an animated film for Best Picture, which they clearly don’t anymore.
Now, I recognize that not everyone is a movie nut, and that there are people that don’t give a rip about the Oscars. Fine. I usually don’t give a rip about the Super Bowl myself. I heard this year’s game was pretty good, but I didn’t know, because I was too busy cavorting around Disney World. Even with the blisters I got, I still had more fun there than I would have watching the game.
Still, I don’t think that many people are that actively disinterested in the Oscars. When you get down to it, the problem was that this year’s slate wasn’t widely seen. At least that’s my guess. So let me ask you. If you didn’t watch, why not? And even if you did, what do you think could/should be done to get more folks to watch?
Permalink | Comments (5) | Categories: Oscars Sunday Night
Comments
By Kim
February 26, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this
I guess that is hard for me to answer since I DO watch, but I just don’t think this has ever appealed to the general public much. It’s not like the Grammys where there is big star performances to get people to watch an endless parade of speeches. They put together nice production numbers for the nominated songs, but it’s not like it’s popular music - bet you’ve never heard one of them on the radio! So it’s just not a mainstream kind of night. Nominating popular films would completely defeat the purpose of the whole thing. There have been instances where I’ve thought a popular movie was also artistic enough to deserve an Oscar - but it hasn’t happened often! I do sometimes wish they would start it earlier so I don’t have to stay up until midnight to watch it - most folks can’t hang that late on a work night. And I think the writer’s strike hurt it - it made it too last minute without much buildup as a great event, plus I know I for one have just completely gotten out of the habit of watching TV since it had become so stale and now that I’ve broken the habit - I just no longer care what’s on. The writers may find themselves coming back to canceled shows.By SRCputt
February 26, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
For the people who think bigger films whould be nominated: four of the five biggest releases of 2007 were Spiderman 3, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Shrek 3, and Harry Potter 5. And the fifth was a hi-tech remake of a TV show based on a toy (Transformers). Anyone want to highlight this as the height of creativity?By SRCputt
February 26, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
No Country and There Will Be Blood were talked about within film circles, but as There Will Be Blood has only grossed a little over $35 million, it hasn’t quite reached the critical mass in general society. Us film nuts know it is great, but There Will Be Blood has grossed less than Spiderwick Cronicles, Jumper, and even Meet The Spartans. And No Country For Old Men still ranks behind 27 Dresses, Cloverfield, and The Golden Compass. And it is probably less than that, because I would bet There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men have had more repeat viewers. I know I’ve seen them both twice. The general public sees these films as obscure arthouse films.By Allie D
February 26, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
I am shocked that this wasn’t more widely seen, not only because it was a decent show, but also because there was so much worrying over whether or not there would even BE a show given the whole writer’s strike debacle. Personally, nothing would really stop me from watching the Oscars. A few years ago, I think 2005, I wasn’t quite as amped up to watch because I hadn’t seen hardly any of the nominees, so that could be a motivating factor. But considering the fact that No Country, Juno and There Will Be Blood were so widely TALKED about, I’m surprised more people didn’t tune in. And nominating bigger-grossing movies? Forget that. The day the Oscars get dumbed down to draw in viewers is the day I stop watching.By SRCputt
February 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
The point of the Oscars is that it is an award from the peers, so to change the nomination process would be a mistake. I think any change to the awards (except for a needed fix to foreign film) would cause more damage than good. So they’re stuck.