Oscar Ratings Sink With Rock(Punk Rock Bombed Last Night!)

CNNMONEY ^ | 2/28/2005 | Krysten Crawford

[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.

[yankeedame]

Yeah, though it did on occasion lead to some good lines

CAT#1: The bird! The bird! Give me the bird!
CAT#2: If the Hayes Office would let me, I'd give him the bird all right!

============

LOL! And what about the "Thin Man":

In search of the missing gun, police are searching through the Nick and Nora's dresser. Nora see them and exclaims, "What's that man doing with his hand my drawers?"

Or while lounging after breakfast Nora is reading the newspaper out loud to Nick about Nick's criminal close call of the night before:
Nora: It says you were shot in the tabloids
Nick: Ha! They didn't get anywhere near by tabloids.

[Wolfstar]

If you're suggesting that movies aren't Art then you're sadly mistaken. I don't know of any other word to describe 'Citizen Kane', 'The Passion of Joan of Arc' or 'Vertigo', the latter being among the peaks of any American art of the 20th century. AMPAS was created primarily to fight the influence of unions. The awards were a footnote in their charter that gradually became more and more popular. And btw The Hayes Code didn't go into effect until 1934.

Thank you for your reply. With respect, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating flat out that actors are not artists, they are entertainers. A motion picture is the collaborative product of multiple people; often hundreds. The product has the potential to be a work of art, that's true. But the individuals involved in creating a film are not artists. Some are performers, some directors, or producers, or grips, or sound engineers, or assistants, or script writers, and so on. If actors are to be considered "artists," then so should the other creative people involved: directors, writers, cinematographers, computer experts who produce today's wonderful special effects, and so on.

Re the Hayes Code, I didn't say it started in 1927; only that the Hollywood scandals of the 1920's (and early 30's) led to the Hayes Code.

Re the reason for founding AMPAS, here's what their own website has to say:

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a professional honorary organization of over 6,000 motion picture professionals, was founded to advance the arts and sciences of motion pictures; foster cooperation among creative leaders for cultural, educational and technological progress; recognize outstanding achievements; cooperate on technical research and improvement of methods and equipment; provide a common forum and meeting ground for various branches and crafts; represent the viewpoint of actual creators of the motion picture; and foster educational activities between the professional community and the public-at-large.

In short -- and in truth -- it was a response to the industry upheaveal brought about by advances in sound technology. It was also a PR tool to help improve the film industry's image with the -- as they put it -- public-at-large. The awards were an integral part of that PR effort.

[Borges]

I didn't mean actors specifically. I meant everyone. Well except Producers who are generally not involved in the making of a film only in its financing and broad planning. But the people involved with the making of a film are artists in their respective field. Cinematography has been described as 'painting with light'. And Designers, writers and film directors are certainly artists. Art and Commerce can coexist...however ignoble the origins of AMPAS were their stated goal today is to honor artistic achievement. This sort of shift in perspective occurs all the time...No one thought Shakespeare and Dickens were arists in their day either. They were talented hacks who entertained the masses.

[1Old Pro]

Three minutes in and he praised F9/11 as a "great film" (applause from the libs), then in the next breath bashed Bush (louder applause and laughter). And they wonder why their ratings continue to fall?

Any Republicans watching turned it off after the first few minutes.

[Wolfstar]

I can accept the use of "art" and "artist" in connection with films if the terms are applied to all the creative fields, not just acting. So it seems that you and I are in agreement on this point.

[Borges]

Well acting is a tricky thing to classify. Interpretive artists as opposed to creative ones? Is a concert pianist an artist? They don't write music they interpret the music of others. They're performers.

[Liz]

Post-Oscar news clips showed a hyped-up Chris Rock looking and acting paranoid. Guess he did a couple lines too many to calm his nerves preparatory to having to go on and face an audience.

Nearly all of the reviews of Rock's performance have been scathing. He was lacerated by the usual Follywood kneepadders in the MSM.

Watching the news clips---didn't watch the show itself----I also wondered why no one told Rock how to use a mic.....that one does not speak certain consonants
directly into the mic to avoid the grating pffft effect that reverberates into the sound system...........must have been so annoying for the show's studio and TV
audiences.


Assessing Follywood's marginalizing of The Passion of The Christ, we need to understand that proselytizing Hollyweirdos view their output as cutting edge----the direction--- they feel---in which a culture is going.

Christianity was obviously anathema---not the way "they wanted" the culture to go.

I trust most Americans recognize that destructive, feckless Follywood does not decide for us where the culture is going.

[Mr. Blonde]

So money is the only way to judge a good film? Is Citizen Kane a poor film because it was a box office failure? I have not seen The Passion, but is it not primarily a 2 hour beating of Jim Caveziel? I can understand how that might not be rewarded as the best film of the year.

After seeing South Park's The Passion of the Jew and then rewatching some of Mel Gibson's films I think Trey Parker and Matt Stone have him pegged. He is a Sado-Masochist

[kellynla]

I realize you're new around here, so I'll cut you some slack...
first "So money is the only way to judge a good film?"
not really the money as to the number who paid to see the film...are you still with me?...okay
next "2 hour beating of Jim Caveziel?" you obviously haven't seen the film since there was no "2 hour beating."
hence your calling Gibson a "sado-masochist" is DUMB!
now the Romans who beat Christ may have been sadomasochist but then that's another discussion now isn't it...

Please don't waste any more of my time with your inane posts!
I don't have the time or the inclination to debate a subject with the ignorant!

cyaaaaaaa

[Mr. Blonde]

I said I haven't seen the film. And it was somewhat in jest calling Gibson that, but honestly how many films have you seen where he gets the crap beaten out of him. There is of course Braveheart which outside of him being drawn and quartered after being beaten there is numerous other episodes of graphic violence. Payback he is beaten up quite ruthlessly, and of course he gets beaten up in the Lethal Weapon series regularly.

My point about money is that it is continually brought up as the only indicator of a good film and the one that should get best picture.

[Borges]

People who've payed attention to Mel Gibson's career over the years shouldn't have been surprised by the focus that he puts on suffering. He has a long record of making films with revenge/martyrdom as the primary theme. Lethal Weapon, Braveheart, The Man Without a Face, Ransom, Conspiracy Theory, Payback....heck even Hamlet is basically about revenge.

[kellynla]

so what's your point?

so it's Mel Gibson's fault that the Romans made hamburger out of Jesus Christ before nailing him to a cross????
or should we just forgetaboutit!

[Borges]

No point of the sort. Just an analysis of the themes Gibson is attracted to. It seemed to tie into the argument you were having. I'm just saying its no more surprising, given his previous work, that Mel Gibson would be drawn to filming a Passion Play then it was that Spielberg was drawn to making a movie about Peter Pan. It fits in perfectly with their respective ouvre.

[kellynla]

got cha! LOL

but I'm still outraged that the Academy snubbed the film except for a couple of minor nominations...

but Gibson could care less...he can BUY all the Oscars he likes now! LOL

again, it just shows how anti-Christian and ant-Catholic the industry is today...they cut off their noses...well you know the rest!

[Stand Watch Listen]

thought Drudge was touting some headline that the Oscar ratings were the "Best Since the Year 2000!"
What happened to that?

My understanding was that the earliest returns (the ones ABC, the MSM taunted ad nueseum) were from the blue state big cities. The Nielsen Media Research subsequent ratings set forth a 'flushing out of viewers' as the telecast progressed. Hence the overall ratings are down.

Giving Drudge the benefit of the doubt, he just reported the early, though incorrect returns.

[Borges]

I know it's a hopeless argument with many but Cinematography is not a minor nomination! They paint with light. It lost to 'The Aviator' which had a much wider color palette. Trust me if a film is badly lit it becomes unwatchable! Bad acting you can get by with...bud bad lighting...forget it...a headache ensues about 5 minutes into it. And music is important too of course. :-)

[kellynla]

and "The Passion" didn't even win one of those...
kind of like "kissing your sister" LOL