Posted on 02/25/2019 4:07:52 PM PST by EdnaMode
When the Academy Of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences decided to end the relentless parade of host-related Oscars drama by simply doing the show without one, there were concerns as to whether or not the choice would negatively impact the ratings. As it turns out, the absence of a central person to spout toothless jokes and bother the audience actually might have played a part in this year’s ratings boost. The 91st Annual Academy Awards garnered a 7.7 rating in adults 18-49 and 29.6 million viewers this past Sunday. To compare: Last year’s show only saw a 6.8 rating and 26.5 million viewers.
That’s reason enough to call this year’s event a smashing success, right? Well, not necessarily. Though they may have topped their previous year’s audience size, Sunday’s telecast was still the second lowest rated ceremony in the show’s history.
This is the second time the Oscars carried on without a host, joined only by the historically catastrophic effort in 1989. There is a possibility that the slight swell in this year’s viewership could be attributed to a morbid curiosity as to whether or not the horror could be duplicated in any way. If you counter that with a vague disinterest in a somewhat predictable slate of winners (because some of us may not have wanted to purposely tune in to see Green Book win anything, believe it or not), then you get a technical victory with so much room for improvement.
The night came with a few gems, like a highly deserved Best Animated Feature win for Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse and a trio of golden statues for Black Panther’s original score, costumes, and production design. In addition, we witnessed the ultimate lesson in fashion courtesy of Billy Porter’s tuxedo gown, so there’s still a lot to applaud.
I’d like to believe people are tuning out that crapshow, but it’s probably more to do with a lot of younger people watching it online rather than on TV.
Yep. When nominated films are ones that people have actually seen and enjoyed, the Oscar telecast will do better.
Bohemian Rhapsody and Black Panther helped with the ratings.
Who’s Oscar? Apparently I’ve been missing this for the last 50 years.
I don’t follow movies too closely, but have had the impression, that in recent years, mostly “arthouse” type movies which haven’t been seen by big audiences, are the ones which get nominations for Oscars.
And the TV ratings reflect that. How many people want to sit through an awards show, to see which movie or actor/actress from a movie they never saw, won an award?
This shows that having a popular host, or even a controversial host, apparently has no effect on the ratings. I heard there were minimal political statements last night. Which could be due to having no host, who usually opens with a monologue of liberal pablum.
Oscar is a Sesame Street character. Somewhat of a grouch.
I agree. Last night's show was the first in quite a few years to nominate movies that were popular with the public. It was also a good move to not have a host, to spend the evening insulting the audience.
I doubt if young people care about this garbage. Good news, though, is if they are watching online, they aren’t supporting the advertisers, which is the only real important thing about ratings.
And they’d get even better ratings by replacing the actual ceremony with old reruns of ‘Dragnet’.
Yeah those movies definitely made a difference. I think the highest rated Oscar telecast was the year Titanic, Good Will Hunting and As Good as It Gets were nominated.
Way back, when the statue was first designed, somebody exclaimed “That looks like my uncle Oscar!”, and the name stuck. Maybe not an uncle, but some acquaintance, ex-husband, relative, etc.
If the Academy Awards were to disappear tomorrow I wouldn't shed a single tear.
Not one!
The origin of the name Oscar is disputed. One biography of Bette Davis, who was a president of the Academy, claims she named the Oscar after her first husband, band leader Harmon Oscar Nelson.[21] Another claimed origin is the Academy’s Executive Secretary, Margaret Herrick, who, when she first saw the award in 1931, made reference to the statuette’s reminding her of her “Uncle Oscar” (a nickname for her cousin Oscar Pierce).[22] Columnist Sidney Skolsky was present during Herrick’s naming and seized the name in his byline, “Employees have affectionately dubbed their famous statuette ‘Oscar’.” [23]
One of the earliest mentions of the term Oscar dates to a Time magazine article about the 1934 6th Academy Awards.[24] Walt Disney also thanked the Academy for his Oscar as early as 1932.[25] The trophy officially received the name “Oscar” in 1939 by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
“I’d like to believe people are tuning out that crapshow, but it’s probably more to do with a lot of younger people watching it online rather than on TV.”
Could be. I just wanted to see Queen but there was no need to subject myself to the Oscars for that. Wait a day or so and catch it on youtube.
You heard it here first. There will come a day when the Hollywood bimbos will DEMAND that the statue be redesigned to look like a woman because its current look is too patriarchal and repressive.
Not "inclusive" enough for all the fly-by-night "genders".
How many tuned in just to see Queen, and then tuned out?
It only got any ratings because people were mesmerized by Donald Trumps hair....
https://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/5c705b6982972b7299148ddb/16:9/w_1280,c_limit/08_OSCR91_CrystalSwag_122418JA.jpg
The 3 groups I despise the most:
Democrats
Hollywood
ISIS
(pretty much in that order)
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.
