Every year it seems we see the same post-Oscars article about how the ratings for the telecast are down. But this year’s show may have been the worst ever. The Associated Press has called it a “dud” and reports that preliminary ratings point to this being the least-watched in history — 14% worse, in fact, than the previous least-watched telecast, in 2003. There was a lot of speculation going in that it would receive a poor viewer turnout, mostly because the nominated films weren’t as well-known or seen and because the writer’s strike allowed for little definite planning. Aside from the lack of mainstream appeal, though, this year’s ceremony is also being considered a bore, whether due to its predictability or its shortage of interesting, exciting or hilarious moments.
So, I’ve been wondering how the Oscars could both draw more viewers and be more entertaining to those of us who tune in every year, no matter what. I have my own ideas, I’ve asked friends and family and I’ve searched the blogosphere for what the people want. Hopefully the Academy will pay attention:
- Gary Busey Red Carpet - Beginning with the pre-show, I have to admit that my favorite moment of the evening (and I know I’m not alone) was seeing Gary Busey attack Jennifer Garner’s neck on the red carpet. ABC needs to hire the creepy Oscar-nominated actor, replacing that fool who mispronounces Javier as Xavier, and let him have free
reignrein until he gets punched — at which time the ceremony will be queued to begin. - Today’s Bob Hope to Host - My mother wishes there was a better host, citing Ellen as being more entertaining than Jon Stewart. But then, she also wants more dancing, which I think is not what most people want. Meanwhile my friends at Balcony.com would prefer a more established, popular comedian to host, a la Bob Hope, if there is possibly any modern equivalent. I definitely agree. I was only alive for one of Hope’s shows, but I was then an infant and never actually saw him host — and yet I’m still very familiar with a number of his memorable jokes and moments. I can hardly even remember anything Stewart said or did last night. Someone at the Reeler/Spout party last night (I think it was Stu), said Rainn Wilson, who hosted Saturday’s Independent Spirit Awards, should emcee the Oscars.
- Miley Cyrus Performs the Song Nominees - A few friends have mentioned there being a problem with the musical performances. My friend Justin suggests the original artists need to be replaced with more popular artists — “artists that are not so adult contemporary”. Sure, it’s great that Amy Adams sang her own part in Enchanted, but more people would have tuned in had Miley Cyrus gotten to sing it (they had her there, for what?). Maybe the Academy thinks it would be a disservice to the original artists, but maybe the Academy would like to be poor and continue being self-congratulatory in someone’s back yard, un-televised (I know, that would never happen). Additionally, the songs need to be cut shorter and possibly strung together — maybe have one popular artist do all the songs, as Beyonce did with three of the songs last year. If I wrote a brilliant original song for a film, but it was the length of “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida”, would I get to perform it intact? I doubt it. So, let’s just have a snippets performance and move on. Nobody cares about the original song Oscar these days anyway.
- Less Time for Pre-Awards Buzz and Blogging - Karina would like the Oscar ceremony to be much sooner following the announcement of the nominees. Or have “some kind of federal restriction on when bloggers can start prognosticating and when E! can start airing Oscar-related programming … no one should be allowed to even talk about the Oscars until 2 weeks before the ceremony.” This way, we wouldn’t be bored with the predictable outcome nor tired of the Oscar race altogether.
- More Mainstream Nominees - A few people have also mentioned the problem of there not being enough popular or at least well-known nominees. Of course, the Academy can’t force voters to nominate Enchanted for Best Picture, but here’s my idea: Add on a sixth nominee for each major category that’s just for the mainstream crowd. Say, add on Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End as one of the Best Picture nominees and add on Daniel Radcliffe and Miley Cyrus as Best Actor and Best Actress, respectively, just to get the viewers. It could be an inside joke, in which the Academy has no intention of even putting those titles and names on the ballots, but as far as the viewing public knows, there’s a chance. Would that be too pretentious and dirty a trick? Yeah, probably. But the Oscars could use more controversy and/or risk-taking to attract more of an audience (there’s a reason gossip blogs are more popular than real movie blogs).
- Viewer’s Choice Interactivity - A different but related idea comes from my friend Jen, who thinks the Oscars need to be more interactive. There wouldn’t have to be a democratic vote for the winners, exactly (there’s already a People’s Choice Awards), but the Academy could still be more like its main ratings competitor, American Idol. There could be real-time viewer-submitted voting (phone/text/email/etc.) for favorites to win, aka “viewer’s choice”. Then they could compare who actually won and who the viewers would have preferred. Perhaps there could even be an actual Oscar given to the fan favorite Best Picture (but then Juno would have gotten it, and Karina would be pissed!).
- Celebrity Dog Show - Last week, before the actual telecast and before its dismal ratings were known, The Guardian had their own suggestions for how the Oscars could attract a larger audience, and they too were primarily focused on there being more lowbrow appeal, with elements comparable to dog shows and beauty pageants. They wrote: “In a tabloid-driven, scandal-drunk, diminished expectations environment, Oscar must turn the opposite way and embrace more fully the half of itself that is irredeemably tacky, cheap, second-rate, old hat and lowbrow.” Obviously what follows was meant to be in jest, but hey, it might be time for desperate measures.
- More Time for Post-Awards Buzz and Blogging - Karina almost echoes that article in her piece from earlier today (”The new generation of celebrity porn addicts don’t even know they’re supposed to obsess about the Oscars, because the Perez Hiltons of the world are instead blogging about Jennifer Aniston’s frozen eggs, because at least they have visual aids for that.”). That post is about how there is disappointingly no access to clips from last night’s show, despite the Academy having its own YouTube channel, and how the Oscars “should at least be reaching out to the Gawkers and the Perez Hiltons, so they can gush and snark and generally sell the impression that the show is a must see.” Perhaps the masses would then be interested in tuning in in the future.
- Xenophobia - I heard a few quips about all the Oscar-winning actors being foreign. I guess the Academy could do as the conservatives do and build a big wall around Hollywood so as to keep all the immigrants out. Or it could be like the BAFTA Awards and have separate categories for just the Americans. Over at Cinematical, they’re taking suggestions for other new, more “fan-friendly” categories that should be added or replace existing categories. Head over there if you can think of a good one.
- Strippers! - Finally, the Oscars should have just given the public (and the critics) what they really wanted: Diablo Cody stripping on the Kodak stage!
Nice job, Karina. Enjoying the reports!
34 Comments
You want a real suggestion? The Academy should end its association with Cates, immediately. It’s the insane strangehold of this ancient man that actually creates an environment where billions of people are forced to watch things like that shockingly boring dissertation on how votes are counted. He must be crazy to include something like that. I’m not even going to get into how dumb and ill-conceived it was to have Amy Adams singing that Happy Working Song all alone on a stage, looking bug-eyed out at the audience and calling them ‘vermin’ like some Soviet taskmaster.
The thing is, I think they realize that people don’t understand the voting process. So, in a way, that boring dissertation is almost necessary, but not during the actual telecast, especially when it’s this boring of a show. Plus, I still don’t completely understand how the votes are counted, and I watched that video and I have read the rules multiple times and I follow that industry for a living.
i can’t agree with any of these disney-esque suggestions (well, number 10 i would watch for a little while at least)…but hey, i’ve got an idea; let’s lose the interminably boring montages. there is no way that the winners would speak for longer than the ridiculously re-hashed film clips…the show may actually come in under three hours.
The telecast was mostly entertaining, fluid, intelligent and fun, I believe the problem is the US people. Hey, too bad a Spaniard wins an Oscar, or smart movies get lots of nominations. If we are being fair this is good for the industry, the big blockbusters are not usually anything new or worth being praised but more like the constant reusing of proven formulas, the academy should award innovation, intelligence and creativity and the fact that people demand dumb movies to be nominated or awarded at the Oscars proves that they don’t understand the spirit of the ceremony. The award is not called “most seen pic” or “highest grossing pic” but Best Picture.
There is still a long way to go but I hope the Academy keeps the show smart, intelligent and most of all I hope it keeps the spirit shown by this year’s nominations and awards, not everything is Enchanted or Dreamgirls, good movies are made everyday and they should be seen by a wider audience, more nominations and wins by movies that are not made to be automatic blockbusters will educate the audience and present with wider options for the movie going people.
The problem with the Oscars is it takes itself far to seriously.
Not a year goes by without a bevy of dark, depressing, arthouse films that nobody’s heard anything about getting the top honors while the average viewer is left to scratch their heads and wonder what kind of stick the Academy has up it’s rear end this year.
I’ve always found the endless clips of movies I could care less about and actors wailing and wringing thier hands in torment more boring then the 3 hour telecast itself.
I have always thought the Academy could take a page from the Golden Globes and include a musical or comedy section. That way some other types of movies could at least have a chance.
This, and returning Billy Crystal as host would certainly make watching the show easier for this viewer.
Um, the Baftas don’t have separate categories for Americans.
Those were mostly terrible suggestions. I completely disagree with the criticism of Jon Stewart– he was brilliant as usual. As much as I love Rainn Wilson, he’s not Oscar host material.
Also, while I agree that nominating more mainstream films would boost interest, doing it as a joke would mean nothing. Even mentioning Pirates 3 or Miley Cyrus in the same paragraph as Oscar is a crime. A frickin’ crime. Instead, perhaps mainstream movies that were actually good should get the nomination, and a serious one at that. Movies like The Bourne Ultimatum, or American Gangster. (With that in mind, you can’t be upset with last year’s winner, The Departed, which was both excellent and quite mainstream.)
I know your column was kinda-sorta meant as a joke… but come on.
I’m not sure how much of a joke this article is intended to be, but I have to say it felt like you don’t actually mean any of this.
Well, I hope you don’t.
The suggestion I particularly dislike is number 5. Nominate mainstream actors/films without the intention of giving them the award? How is that a good idea? Not only is it harsh on the nominee’s but it also completely removes the credibility the oscars have.
Also, Rainn Wilson is an annoying and distinctly unmemorable person.
First of all I agree with the few people who have actually stated that most of this years nominated movies were the right ones. We are supposed to award the best of the best. While Pirates of the Caribean 1,2 and 3 are entertaining and fun, it would be mockery to nominate any of them as best movie of the year, and even though the actors in it are popular, this is not where they show their talents.
Maybe it would be a good idea to include a couple of new categories. Best comedy, best horror/suspense movie, best musical, best kiddie movie or something.
But above all this there are two problems that can never be solved completely within the rules and realities concerning the Oscars today.
There are just about 1 billion people watching the live telecast from the show. This is too big and diverse a group to ever target or satisfy. The problem is, that with a compromise no one is really satisfied. If they add more dance sequences, some will be annoyed. If they cut the montages, other people will get mad. If they make too much of a comedy show of it, some people will feel that it is not being taken seriously. The second problem is, that when a person has been awarded with an oscar, he or she is automatically part of the group of people who can vote in the future. This is a problem that will get progressingly worse over time! The reason is that while most of this years reciepients are not very well known or big stars they will be choosing next years winners. I don’t see the Cohen Brothers ever choosing films like “Enchanted” as best movie, I don’t think that Tilda Swinton would ever vote for the likes of Ocean’s Thirteen, and I can’t imagine, that this years winner of best song (I don’t even remember their names)would ever vote for Celine Dion or Beyonce.
And hey, I’m european, and I like the fact that the Oscars have become more international, I like Quality movies, I like the montages and love the speeches. So as far as I’m concerned, just put Ellen back on as host, and you won’t hear me complain!
i know the article was tongue in cheek,but every once in a while someone needs to remind the public that the show is NOT for them..its the public that gives us american idol,survivor,and wrestling..the CEREMONY is for the industry to honor who they think should receive awards,and we’re invited to watch if we choose to..for those who arent sufficiently entertained,there’s dozens of other channels with the kind of mindless crap you might be seeking
The Academy Awards are for film lovers not celebrity lovers.
Wow, those are probably the worst ideas I’ve ever come across (except for Diablo Cody stripping). Nominating a sixth picture just to have more people turning in and being more xenophobic!? God, I hope this was a joke blog! Why don’t go watch the MTV Awards?
One thing they could do is have each of the nominees in a category come from a different source: a fan choice, an actors’ choice, a directors’ choice, an executives’ choice, etc (or whatever breakdown). Then it becomes more like a contest of whose pick wins it all. People like contests where you can keep score like that, and it would do something to let everyone have a stake.
Umm… Wow! You always talk in absolute truths?
“Nobody watched the Oscars, and those who did were bored.”
How does this sound?
You are a person of limited intelligence and unlimited ego that spouts (no pun intended) idiotic claims as if they are facts.
Why don’t you improve your life and go and suck on a tailpipe somewhere?
Tony, I meant that the BAFTAs have a category for their own kind, so we could have the equivalent.
As for the montages, another thing that has gotten very tiresome is the idea of montage self-awareness and attempts to put together more humorous montages. Now the parodying time is over and we should either have great, important montage sequences or none at all.
It just goes to show you that linking your article/the SpoutBlog to imdb is a recipe for mixed feelings at best. I don’t know if I’m commenting more toward the article, to the fact of the ratings, to the people who are reacting so violently to the article, or to anything in particular. The Oscars could stand to benefit from some imagination and originality, sure, but this year was a little bit of an anomaly or fluke, wouldn’t you say? I agree with the comments that the Oscars are for film-lovers and not celebrity-lovers or meant to be for universal public consumption. Yes, they are broadcast to a worldwide audience of billions, and yes, those billions were down by 20%, but I don’t think it was Oscar or the Academy that was the singular cause for the slump.
Frankly, I am an Oscar-worshipper. I am one of those people that finds the broadcast intriguing at its most basic level and too exciting beyond that. Did I find the broadcast boring? Yes. Does that mean that I didn’t enjoy watching it? No. That just means that there weren’t any moments to be discussed, digested, and disposed of at the watercooler for the next two days. No Jack Palances doing one-handed push-ups, no David Lettermans offending people by rhyming names for three hours, no Cuba Gooding Jr’s jumping up and down for ten minutes, no Roberto Benignis crawling all over rows of celebrities in his excitement…and, sometimes, the lack of such antics happens. Could it be that these “less mainstream” movies were nominated, so it drew less fare? What about Juno? Karina doesn’t like it partially because it’s billed as an indie that’s not really an indie. It has mass public appeal, and I’m sure people were drawn in by that.
Incidentally, sometimes pop artists are nominated and sing their own songs (Eminem, Elton John, Beyonce, etc.). This year that wasn’t the case. That doesn’t mean that the Once song wasn’t popular of its accord. And Amy Adams did a fine job.
The fact of the matter is, I think the writers’ strike was largely to blame this time around. Look at what happened to the Globes! People like to get warmed up with these less-important movie awards before they can get geeked about the Oscars. They weren’t even sure they were going to have Oscars! And then, with the largely unimaginative Gil Cates at the helm, the hurry-up-and-go plan turned out to be sort of boring.
That doesn’t mean that the dresses and the awards weren’t interesting themselves. And most of the awards weren’t that predictable this year. I usually manage a 2/3 to 3/4 average at correct predictions (including all technical categories), and with people like Marion Cotillard and Tilda Swinton winning the awards, my percentages were all screwed up.
I just think people are making mountains out molehills and should have expected these low ratings. The real question: would changing the tactics (even cheekily as the article suggests) really bring in more viewers? People who don’t watch the Oscars usually don’t ever watch the Oscars. Or, maybe watch the opening monologue and the Best Picture presentation (the given beginning and end of the broadcast). So, what difference does it make? Let’s see what happens next year, when there should be no strikes (unless SAG walks out in the spring and it lasts for months), and when better planning and other precipitating factors will be more back to normal as opposed to this flukey year.
PS, why Rainn Wilson as host? Why not Steve Carell? He’s from the Office, too, you know, and is hilarious, scripted or not. He could have his own talk show. He SHOULD have his own talk show.
I was thoroughly entertained by the Oscars. But then again, I saw almost all of the nominated films and love films in general. I wasn’t watching to see celebrity dresses or Miley Cyrus; I watched to see films and actors I love honored.
The Academy Awards have been around before television was even invented. It’s not about ratings, it’s about rewarding art.
It’s “free rein,” not “free reign.” It’s hard to take a columnist who doesn’t know the difference seriously.
I know the difference seriously. Where is hard to take me?
Hey, look, we can criticize each other’s English skills. But I can edit mine.
Thanks for the correction.
Simple — Let the winners talk as long as they damn well please, regardless of the category. That is where the most memorable, entertaining moments come from, and if that means you have to cut a montage segment, or run over by 15 minutes, so be it. These people worked their asses off to get there, and so what that they made a documentary short that no one in the Kodak Theater saw? Give them their moment. That’s how the Spirit Awards do it and they are so much better. Does anyone disagree that the best moment of the night was when Jon Stewart brought the best song winner back out on stage and gave her a chance to speak? Lose Bill Conti, Lost Gil Cates and make it a show that celebrates achievement, not overproduction and commercial breaks.
What’s with the comments about not having heard of half the movies nominated? That’s confusing to me if you consider yourself a film lover. I have heard of, and even seen most, of EVERY film mentioned.
Maybe some people should make the time to look for new film releases somewhere other than TV commercials.
And as far as making things more mainstream for ratings, how much MORE mainstream get you get!?! Why do you think so much press is covered on actors and actresses? Because those are the only people, and the only profession, the public understands.
And as far as the joke category, what do you think Juno and previously Little Miss Sunshine were?
They were there for ratings.
I liked Stewart, he seemed relaxed. But his ‘welcome back to the show’ line after most of the commmercial breaks were odd.
Why not have a different host for each of the four hours? Is there some reason for continuity? Then you could have Ben Stiller (family-friendly funny), Katie Holmes (young), Gene Hackman (classy), and then Dave Chapelle (less-family-friendly funny).
You know what I think the biggest problem with the Oscars are?
The week after the ceremony when every media outlet in America/Bloggers like you tear it all apart, criticize the host, the nominees, the montages, the length. So half the people in the US catch the negative vibe through osmosis because deep down maybe they don’t really have much of an opinion about the show. But then they are told it sucked over and over again. If we keep this up no one will ever watch the Oscars in 10 years. Or better yet we can make it partisan! Oscar lovers and Oscar haters. The American Way.
This years ceremony was great. Montages are part of Oscar, and John Stewart is classic. A great year for movies too. I beleive truly great work was rewarded, maybe there is no such thing as “Best” when it comes to art, but I feel the winners were worthy artists.
You offer no solutions. You are only the problem we as a nation need to face. The solution in my opinion is removing half the editorialists from the face of the earth, because most of them are as ignorant and negative as yourself. But they continue to spew negativity and ignorance on television/computer screens/magazines/newspapers/radios all to help sell (american apparel ad in this case) and in turn make a buck. Say anything to them and they quote the constitution or the famous line “you don’t have to read/watch/listen.”
I would say before your life ends do something constructive like create a piece of art. Otherwise your contribution will be nilch with garbage like this. You might as well eat out of people’s garbage in the middle of the night.
And if your aim was satire go back to school.
Anyone who says that they should split comedies up from dramas like the Golden Globes, or start honoring more mainstream movies just don’t understand what the awards are for. Best Picture is the ‘Academies’ choice for best picture, not ours, it is voted on by people in the ‘academy,’ hey are voting for what they think is the best picture. They don’t have to take into account what we think, their awards show was just made to be the biggest. The reason more comedies aren’t nominated is because for the most part they dont have the depth or strength of character that dramas do, they are shallow compared to dramas (not saying all, but most).
These are awful reasons! They don’t just give away Oscars to mainstream people with no talent (Miley Cirus!), they give them to people who deserve them, who work hard at what they do! So what, the Oscars got low ratings? I was entertained by them and I think Jon Stewart’s a fine hose. Sure, Ellen DeGeneress (I probably didn’t spell that right) interacted with the stars in the audience and put on one heck of a show, but Jon Stewart just went there to do his job, which I think is fine. Host the Oscars, get a few laughs, and be the hilarious man he usually is.
These reasons are simply terrible. What nonsense. What do the ratings matter anyway? It’s the Oscars! As long as the awards get handed out, it doesn’t matter how many people watch. What matters is that the award goes to its rightful owner. ‘Nuff said!
MM
these have to be some of the most stupid suggestions i have ever heard… and i am soooooo trying to take them as the joke i pray for them to be.
i hope people aren’t THAT stupid to actually go along w/them…
^o^
#5 & #6
are you shitting me?!?!?!?!?!?
My suggestion for Oscar host is Margaret Cho. I find her consistently funny. As far as the nominated songs go, there was one year where they were done as as a medley. As for the singers, previously they had well known singers, but not the ones who sang for the film, perform the song. Having the original artist was an improvement. The problem is having these big, elaborate numbers rather than just concentrating on the singer, the song and a few well chosen clips from the film.
I am not sure what people seem to hate about the Oscars. Sure there are lulls (who cares about who wins best documentary short, but it is worth acknowledging some smaller films) it was reasonably entertaining for an awards show.
How about the networks attract better advertisers? I am in Canada so maybe it was different in the states but if you could get film companies to release new trailers for upcoming films to show during ad breaks as opposed to commercials for cosmetics like what was showing here.
As well what is up with people disliking Stewart hosting? He was infinitely better than Degenres last year (I don’t even know if that is how you spell it). And bringing Irglova back on was really classy (and she had a great speech too).
I don’t think there is anything sufficiently wrong with the Oscars, more of the blame lies with the general population, where a film like Wild Hogs can earn $170 million or Fantastic Four 2 earns $130 million but a great film like Rescue Dawn makes $5 million. The problem lies with the masses not with the awards, or the nominees themselves
Tell me you’re kidding on no. 3, right? Also, your suggestion that the third Pirates should have been nominated for Best Picture is similarly laughable.
There is no way to save the Oscars. It’s an event whose time has passed. It used to be the way people could see their favorite stars outside of the roles they played. That’s not the case in the internet age. There’s very little special about it anymore.
It’s true, the Oscars does take itself far too seriously. In contrast, The Spirit Awards show was fun, enjoyable, with decent clips, and everyone seem to be having a good time, including me as I watched it.
There are always going to be a bevy of dark, depressing, arthouse films that nobody’s heard anything about getting the top honors at the Oscars. But those are the requirements for being nominated for the Spirit Awards. All in all, the Spirit Awards did it right. The Oscars did it wrong.
And no, Jon Stewart was dreadfully boring, and sucked the life out of me. After watching the Spirit Awards, I’d enjoy seeing Rainn Wilson host the Oscars. Or rather, bring in Hugh Jackman who was great hosting the Tonys. Or maybe Wayne Brady, who would be a perfect host, since he’s funny, can sing, and is great at improvisation. All the successful qualities that made Billy Crystal so good.
I also want to put in my vote for Craig Ferguson to host. Why? Well he’s also now an American citizen, does great impressions, and is a great comedian. American, does impressions, great comedian? Remind you of anyone?
I just pray they don’t drastically change the award ceremony to please the masses. I’m not saying the awards don’t need tweaking(more time for the major categories, for instance), but I can’t stand any event that adds audience participation.
Can’t we have any event that doesn’t involve a text message vote or an e-poll. Guess What? You’re not that important.
If you don’t want to watch the Oscars, so be it. Just don’t change the Oscars to the Viewer’s Choice Awards.
Maybe next year they’ll add best on-screen kiss to the the categories. I’m sure that will improve ratings.
The montages were cut with a hacksaw–those sequences haven’t been any good since Cates stopped hiring Chuck Workman. Also, the Academy is very aware that most contemporary films can’t compare to the Hollywood classics, so the montages have to feature recent films (you can’t use Garbo, you have to use When Harry Met Sally, for example.)
And anyone who thinks Hollywood is in the art business is sadly mistaken. Any art is accidental.
2 Trackbacks
[...] The other day, Erik asked you for your ideas on new Oscar categories to shake things up a bit. I don’t think it’s Jon Stewart’s fault the Oscar’s tanked, but will he be asked back next year? I’m betting not, but who knows? Meanwhile, Cinematical’s Chris Campbell, who also writes for Spoutblog.com with former Cine EIC Karina Longworth, has some excellent ideas for ways to boost the Oscar ratings. [...]
[...] are a bunch of posts around Ye Olde Interwebs today on how the Oscars, either as a broadcast or as a ceremony [...]