Posted on 01/12/2009 11:37:19 AM PST by abb
Fancy gowns and teary speeches made a comeback at Sunday's Golden Globes on NBC, but all that couldn't rescue the ceremony's ratings, with the telecast delivering its second-worst numbers since 1995.
The three-hour Globes averaged 14.6 million total viewers, according to early data from Nielsen Media Research. That was a big improvement over last year, when the writers strike led to a stripped-down, one-hour telecast seen by a total of only 6 million viewers.
But the Sunday telecast marked a steep dive from 2007, when the Globes averaged 20 million total viewers -- not to mention as recently as 2004, when the award show was encroaching on Oscar territory with an audience of 26.8 million.
It's possible that last year's interruption may have hurt the Globes. Limited constituencies for the movies nominated this year -- including "The Reader," "Revolutionary Road" and "Slumdog Millionaire" -- probably didn't help, either.
On the bright side, the Globes ranked first in every half-hour the program aired except for the 8:00-8:30 p.m. block, when CBS' "60 Minutes" was artificially inflated due to the runover in some markets from the San Diego Chargers-Pittsburgh Steelers football game.
On Fox, a two-hour special season opener of "24" averaged 12.6 million total viewers, which was slightly higher than the numbers for the series' "Redemption" TV movie that aired back in November and roughly in line with "24's" season averages across its run.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
I just look at their products, not the people. I don’t pay any attention to them, they can say anything they want for all I care.
Thanks. I can’t watch them and I’m glad of it, but I’m not trying to give you a hard time. Take care.
It doesn't matter if a movie makes $100 million if it cost $150 million to produce. Add to the production costs the price of making 2500 movie prints and the advertising. That's usually equal to the production costs. "Button" has to make over $300 million to see a profit. Won't happen.
Did anyone watch this tripe? I don’t know who won, who was nominated, or who cares.
OK, I didn’t watch them either, I just figure they’re no different than people on internet forums that like to express themselves, they just get access to much bigger and audiences and are more visible. Thanks to recorders, I usually just watch stuff I didn’t get a chance to earlier.
There is one big difference. If people come here to read what I say, they are here to see those opinions.
If people tune in to see the entertainment industry event, they aren’t tuning in to get propaganda. Specifically those who tune in just to see the entertainment part of the program, are forced to listen to the propaganda to see what they want.
Nobody comes here for any other reason than to see personal views. I’m not taking advantage of anyone when I express my views on a forum designed to allow me to do so.
Good. I hate all of these self indulgent morons.
I’m not surprised. I watched it — terrible show, the writing for the presenters was very, very bad and most of the presenters were either drunk or very stupid, not certain which, Mickey Rourke was crude and his director was rude, clearly they did not care this was on national television.
Rene’ Zewelgeer being a huge exception, her dress was awful as was her hair.
Actually I thought it was fun watching Ryan Seacrest get snubbed buy Brad and Angelina.
Exactly. Their self-admiration is palpable. And nauseating.
Yet, everyone I know who has seen Button loved the movie, I also thoroughly enjoyed Valkyrie.
I can think of better things to do with my time than sit around watching a bunch of elitest, arrogant actors and actresses circle jerking each other.
What we witnessed last night is why the media bosses basically told their reporters to give wide berth to the Travolta family last week, said they are far from the bad kids of Hollywood, keep a low profile and go out of their way not to get in the tabloids unlike most of the people we witnessed last night... who beg for attention any way they can get it, and that includes be outrageous as they can get away with. Mickey Rourke thoroughly disgusted me... but Colin Farrell was just as bad.
http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/How_to_save_the_Seattle_P-I_37442339.html
Ten steps to save the Seattle P-I, and maybe the rest of the industry
Knowing how they made Button I can see it getting several technical awards at the Academy Award show in February.
“It doesn’t matter if a movie makes $100 million if it cost $150 million to produce. Add to the production costs the price of making 2500 movie prints and the advertising. That’s usually equal to the production costs. ‘Button’ has to make over $300 million to see a profit. Won’t happen.”
You’re looking at it from a profit-loss standpoint, which is fine, since movie-making is a business. But I think it’s beside the issue the article and I are adressing, which is whether the awards shows are suffering because they choose to honor films that are obscure to the general public. I’d say Button’s gross proves that a significant portion of the movie-going public is aware of it, at least relative to “The Reader” and “The Wrestler”. On the other hand, “Fireproof,” though great for investors, was not exactly a mainstream hit.
Whether or not it returns a profit is beside the point. I think it is technically possible for a movie to lose money and be a hit. “Titanic,” for instance, probably would have lost money if it had only grossed 300 million. However, that 300 million would have made it the highest grossing film of the year, which in turn would make it hard to call it anything but a hit.
Isn’t what they make in the theaters or even here in the USA unimportant compared to what they make in foreign distribution and DVD sales and later cable TV?
“Spielberg actually said: ‘they keep saying we should make movies for wide audience distribution, but you people in the room are what this is all about and we need to keep making the movies that show off our art’”
I don;t want to get into an aesthetic argument with Spielberg, but suffice it to say that I don’t consider movies to be high art. They are entertainment. Some of them have more artistic value than others, but none of them can compare to Shakespeare, Michelangelo, etc.
That being said, I don’t think the ultimate test of an awards show is not whether they award money-makers. There’s entertainment and there’s entertainment. I’m perfectly fine with awarding one type of successful entertainment (say, “The Godfather”) over another (say, “Shrek 3”). The ultimate test, in my opinion, is whether anyone will care about the winners in ten year’s time. I fear that if it is ignored, people will remember “The Dark Night” like they do “E.T.” being robbed by “Gandhi”.
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.