Comments on: Academy Awards Show Ratings

By: Biggest Oscar TV audiences | GetListy

Biggest Oscar TV audiences | GetListy — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:28:00 +0000

[...] Nielsen and tvbythenumbers.com. Please Share and [...]

By: Kara

Kara — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:21:30 +0000

A bunch of looney liberals gushing over each other isn’t something I want to watch

By: David

David — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:25:43 +0000

Die Hollywood DIE!

By: Vic Bulaich

Vic Bulaich — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:43:02 +0000

To the Academy : Want the ratings to go up ? Go to where the audience is. Action, comedy, animation……………….

By: Los Oscar aumentan ligeramente su audiencia

Los Oscar aumentan ligeramente su audiencia — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:44:48 +0000

[...] Vía | TV by the numbers [...]

By: Oscar Ratings 2009 - Will the Academy Awards Ratings be Slumdog? « Social Mode

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:57:52 +0000

[...] 2/23 – No news about the official ratings yet. It’s not looking terribly good though. Review the last 50 years of ratings here. [...]

By: Katy

Katy — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:59:48 +0000

I happened to click on to the Oscars as a “Buzby Berkeley” style dance number was beginning. I was instantly transported back over the years to a time when entertainers did just that. They entertained. They didn’t do political commentary or urge the world to stop polluting, etc. They just entertained and acted and did slapk-stick and “settled the west.”

I was mesmerized by the dance number. I don’t know who the man singing was (he wasn’t all that good), but I was most pleased to see Beyonce Knowles appear on stage in her red costume. I was subsequently appalled when, as the backdrop on the stage turned red, Beyonce seemed to disappear.

Perhaps it’s a sign of the times. Hollywood just doesn’t impress me any more unless its with amazing special effects. Flesh and blood performers are simply allowed to melt away into the scenery.

By: johnson west

johnson west — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:52:51 +0000

Slumdog Millionaire 8 Academy Awards, What A Joke… It’s Good, But Not That Good… The Godfather 3 Oscars, Shindler’s List 7 Oscars, Star Wars 6 Oscars, The Silence of the Lambs 5 Oscars, The Martix 4 Oscars, American Beauty 5 Oscars, Forrest Gump 6 Oscars, The Departed 4 Oscars, Gladiator 5 Oscars, Slumdog 8 Oscars … Depp, Di Caprio, Will Smith Have Never Won… Clint Eastwood Was Robbed… Grand Torino Wasn’t Even Nominated… I’ll Never Again Watch The Oscars, Atleast Winslet & Ledger Won… Ant Finaly The Dark Knight, 2 Awards, Slumdog Won For Sound, What A Pornography…?!?!?!?!?

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 06:26:01 +0000

Just watched the show…actually fast forwarded thru it with my DVR.
Numbers might be high due to Heath Ledger. Other than that:
1. Too predictable; it is a small circle of people patting themselves on the back and pushing what they want to be everyone else’s value systems instead of just nominating good movies.
2. They don’t nominate what the people go out and spend their money to watch. Will Smith is one of the biggest movie stars but unless he makes one of their approved movies it will never be nominated.
3. The show is TOO LONG.
4. They seem to rarely allow a good looking actor to win an Oscar. They seem to punish good looks.

By: AniMatsuri

AniMatsuri — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:02:47 +0000

I’m just going to post what I hope: less than 20 Million. This relice of a show needs to go the way of the Miss America contest.

By: Elyk

Elyk — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:52:58 +0000

25 Million. The Academy snubbed the two movies that would have given it a huge ratings boost: The Dark Knight & Gran Torino

By: jay turney

jay turney — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:32:15 +0000

The history of the Oscars could be and probably is more than one book in itself. Future historians may look at the chart above and get a Phd thesis on late American Empire culture. ( They’d have to watch all the movies, too though. The Godfather along with, what, whatever wins this year?) What a cool chart.

By: johnson west

johnson west — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:02:22 +0000

people are disappointed this year and they will punish the awards

By: johnson west

johnson west — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:57:18 +0000

if the dark knight had 10-12 nominations i would say at least 45 million, bu slumdof millionaire, what a joke, now more than 25 million will suprise me

By: William Hughes

William Hughes — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 04:47:19 +0000

Take a look at what films have been nominated during the last few years and then take a look at what kind of films won the awards 40 years ago. Up to the late 1970s the Blockbusters had a decent chance of winning an award. Nowadays the Acadamy Award nominations go to a bunch of obscure films that only saw a limited release in the New York or Los Angeles areas during the waning days of the year, and are thrust upon the General Public only after they are nominated. And they wonder why they cannot keep their audience! As for me, I have better things to do, this will be the ELEVENTH year in a row I did not watch the awards, and it will be for the same reason as the other ten, I didn’t have anything to root for!

By: jp

jp — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:34:58 +0000

with the movies pretty much familiar to most us, the show should do well. i’m looking at 35 to 39 million viewers.

By: Predicting the Oscar Audience « Between The Screens

Predicting the Oscar Audience « Between The Screens — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:54:32 +0000

[...] the Oscar Audience By asacasa I recently saw this posting on TV By the Numbers regarding the historical ratings of the Oscars. Much has been made over how the event’s [...]

By: Everett W.

Everett W. — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:55:46 +0000

The willingness of more television outlets to run original programming against the awards is also hurting here. As recently as five years ago, Fox running a NASCAR race or CBS an Amazing Race against the Academy would have been unthinkable.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:05:52 +0000

Oscar ratings are directly related to the popularity of the movies in contention; the tv audience loves to see their favorites get their awards (see Lord of the Rings, Titanic, & Forest Gump) and generally don’t bother when art films are in the lead (see No Country & Chicago).

ABC would be lucky to have a contest between No Country & Blood again this year; compared to that, a contest between a British film set in India and a gay rights pic should have their execs writing “#1 in Women!” press releases already.

The only wild card is the defacto Heath Ledger memorial Best Supporting Actor. Will people (youth, mostly) sit through the whole thing just for that, rather than just Youtubing it on Monday? I doubt it.

So I’ll go with 30.3 million (and would love to see half-hourly data).

By: johnthemon

johnthemon — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:49:22 +0000

Oh, and John Norman

Please explain to me how any of the best picture winners since 2000 have a leftist agenda. Seriously, think before you speak.

By: johnthemon

johnthemon — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:47:25 +0000

i’m gonna say over 30 million, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s less than last year…or a little better, but I don’t think it will tie/beat 2006 numbers.

By: John Norman

John Norman — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:18:51 +0000

The reason that the academy awards show (that is, the Oscar telecast) has totally lost connection with the majority of the country. They cater to the liberal left in Hollywood, San Francisco, New York, and old New England. They talk to each other about the esoteric brillances that they and their films portray and they try to influence the public with their political views. It really doesn’t work and it is starting to show in the numbers.

By: Unknown

Unknown — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:32:59 +0000

The ratings, will be slightly better then last year but only because of Ledger. The problem is do, the award show this year, is TO PREDICTABLE!! Everybody knows Slumdog is gonna win it, everybody knows Ledger is gonna win it, we all know its gonna either be Penn or Rourke. Hell most likely Winslet is gonna win it already so she can finally be happy. its to predictable, not to menchant the lack of the Dark Knight as a nominee, which is seriously a major snub. Some people may disagree with me but my opinion stands. Dark Knight and Nolan deserved a nomination, not the win itself but atlease a nomination. Well lets see what happeneds on Sunday

By: JS

JS — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:25:03 +0000

The problem is clear: the public hasn’t seen half the films nominated! They shoulkd try and put at least 2 commercial films in the Best Picture race. I still don’t think nominating TDK would’ve go Titanic numbers though.

By: R.G.

R.G. — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:17:47 +0000

Fans wanted Dark Knight for Best Picture nomination – That’s not happening —
so less viewers than last year at least…

By: Zee

Zee — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:11:31 +0000

I’ll say just about 30 million

By: Tim D

Tim D — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:56:04 +0000

I think the numbers will continue to decline. I think the entertainment options are so varied these days and what Oscar even means has always been in doubt — popularity contest or what? Their appeal will continue to decline and they will air on a cable channel in the next 10 years or so. If you follow the lead up to the awards, there is only one category undecided — will (in my opinion) best actor go to the best performance (Sean Penn) or the Aw We Love a Redemption Story (Micky Rourke). If you look back over the past years, many movies now considered the best were not even considered by the Academy Awards as nominees.

By: Julia

Julia — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:28:05 +0000

DaisiesDeathKnell, seems more like they should change the date of the show and nominations and such, rather than change the date of the submissions. If you can’t include movies that were released in all of 2008 it’s less neat and tidy.

By: DaisiesDeathKnell

DaisiesDeathKnell — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:11:39 +0000

Had The Dark Knight been nominated, they’d have neared 50 million if not topped that. But The Dark Knight didn’t even make my Top Ten last year, so….

Really, the only draw here is Slumdog Millionaire which hasn’t passed $100 million yet. Milk/The Reader/FrostNixon averaged about $25 million a piece while Benjamin Button was pretty much met with zero response from anyone under the age of 60 as it really is a terrible, shallow movie aside from some brilliant technical aspects.

What would totally help the ratings is if they pushed back the deadline of when films had to be in release. For example, make it a rule that a film must have played in at least 500 theaters by the start of December…..then the general public would have more of a chance to see some of these. Heck, I saw a Frost/Nixon DVD screener like a week after it was released and it was pretty much playing in like 30 theaters throughout the end of 2008. You can’t really expect people to tune in for an awards show for movies they haven’t had the chance to seen, and frankly, can’t see within 100 miles of where they live unless they’re in a major urban area.

By: Josh Emerson

Josh Emerson — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:08:59 +0000

I’ve never gotten the appeal of the Oscars. The show goes on for hours and is one of the most boring things you could possibly find on television.

By: Mikey

Mikey — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:50:47 +0000

I’ll take the under on that 30 million. It’ll be close.

By: Alex Sanchez

Alex Sanchez — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:18:42 +0000

I think this year’s Oscars will probably beat last year’s numbers, but not by much…

Wow, the year in which “Titanic” won received the most viewers by a mile, not really all that surprising when you consider how huge that movie was in 1998.

The Academy should definitely reconsider putting more mainstream movies if they ever want to see “Titanic” numbers again.

By: cool

cool — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:48:03 +0000

ABC must be pissed that The Dark Night is not nominated in Best Picture.

By: tom

tom — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:38:19 +0000

this will be by far the LOWEST audience yet for the Academy Awards. I predict that for the first time ever, the audience will be below 30 million viewers. None of these films have generated any excitement. all the races are just about decided(except for Best Actor and even that is only between two men Penn and Rourke). It is going to be a SNOOZEFEST!

By: don't know

don't know — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:29:28 +0000

Viewers Best Picture Best Supporting Actor
(million)
42.000 Slumdog Millionaire HEATH LEDGER

BETCHA!

By: Martha

Martha — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 06:35:00 +0000

I don’t think it could be lost on anyone that the poor ratings are directly linked to the type of movies the general public may or may not see. 1998 was year of Titantic which most people saw and it definitely spiked in the ratings. Last year was very artsy obscure movies. This year Slumdog is a feelgood (well, kind of) movie that people can relate to, and it’s doing pretty well at the box office, so if I’m allowed to vote (not being a regular around here) I’ll vote higher than last year, over 40 million.

By: Vader

Vader — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 06:27:39 +0000

I’d give you that if it were up for best picture, Jesse. It’s sad when the Best Supporting Actor category is what people are most looking forward to. I think a lot of people A) Consider the Oscars to be a joke compared to what they once were (you can put me in this category) or B) Simply don’t care that much anymore. Not many people have seen any of the nominees.

By: Pad

Pad — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 06:09:12 +0000

The nominees have had a large effect on the ratings fall. This decade has seen very little in the way of crowd pleasing blockbusters being nominated (outside of the LoTR movies). Its no coincidence the Oscar’s biggest ratings year was the one with the highest grossing movie of all time involved.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:53:09 +0000

I’ll take the over on 30 million.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:51:29 +0000

I feel like the inevitability of a Heath Ledger win will bring tons of viewers. That movie made like a gazillion dollars based mostly on the strength of his performance, people are going to tune in to this. The buzz has been going for it since July.

By: Vader

Vader — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:42:56 +0000

I’m going to predict 27 million. None of the best picture nominees hold a candle to the ones from last year. (Slumdog Millionaire? Are you freaking kidding me?) I’m still sad that Clint Eastwood got robbed.