This is Kid Rock.
Easy to get it all confused, I know . . . especially when you get these two in the mix.
Posted on 02/28/2005 3:09:29 PM PST by kellynla
Following in the footsteps of both The Golden Globes and Grammy Awards, ratings for Sunday night's 77th Annual Academy Awards were down this year.
Some 41.5 million viewers on average watched ABC's Oscar telecast this year, a 5 percent drop from 2004, according to Nielsen Media Research. The sweep by "Million Dollar Baby," the Clint Eastwood boxing flick that won four of the top six awards, drew a 25.2 rating and a 38 share, according to figures released Monday afternoon by ABC.
A rating represents the percentage of total U.S. television households. A share represents the percentage of homes with their televisions on at the time.
The numbers, released Monday afternoon, are lower than the preliminary returns widely reported earlier in the day. Monday morning ABC, which is owned by Walt Disney (Research), said ratings from the top U.S. markets showed a 30.1 rating and a 43 share.
Nielsen ratings can fluctuate until they are finalized. The data that ABC released Monday afternoon, while not official until Tuesday, are a lot closer to the mark than the earlier results.
While Oscar ratings for the last two years are higher than they were in 2003 -- when 33 million viewers tuned in to see "Chicago" shimmy its way to a best picture statue -- viewer levels over time show that Oscar is slowly losing his Midas touch.
Academy Award viewership has been sliding since 1998, when the blowout success of "Titanic" helped draw 55 million watchers, according to Nielsen. That year, in which "Titanic" hauled in 11 Oscars, marked the ceremony's best showing since 1983.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
That about sums it up.
I would have watched for only reason, that reason was dismissed by the Academy. I have no other reason to watch these people.
I note they fail to mention why the Oscars were so low in 2003. I seem to recall the celebrities were at the height of their obnoxious best bashing Bush and the war and the country turned on them.
USA Today was touting a similar line. Maybe they thought if they said it enough, it would come true. ;)
Did you know that movie ("Gandhi") was very heavily subsidized by the Ministry of Culture of India? As a result the plot/story line was a bit,er, "expansive", shall we say.
I was attacked on the live thread last night for citing this as drivel...looks like I wasnt't alone!
So what did Hewitt have to say?
Chris Rock wasn't funny. People in the audience laughed because they were supposed to. Sean Penn is self-absorbed.
He'll be talking about Robin Williams after he talks to John McIntyre.
yep, right after the clown stated he wouldn't "bash Bush" he spent the next five minutes...yep, that's right...he bashed Bush! and made fun of the war and insulted the troops...
Perhaps a noticeable Drudge flaw, going back years. His site sometimes takes on the appearance of a Barbara Walters gossip sheet.
"I suppose it was all spin from one of his Hollywood buddies."
well it appears to be...but the final numbers aren't out yet
I thought Drudge was touting it as a BIG RATING BOOST for the Oscars ..??
As others have mentioned, the cities were first out with the ratings. Cities = blue zones. When the ratings for the "red states" came out, they were dismal, and brought down the viewers totals quite a bit.
|
|
Next year: Carrot Top. |
"Interesting. On radio, earlier today, ABC News said that the ratings were the highest in 5 years (they said due to Chris Rock)."
it appears that the spin stops here. LOL
He's trying to be Walter Winchell, who mixed news and gossip.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
