Oscar Ratings Second-Lowest Since 1987

Pardon me for going overboard, but yeah, no one watched, really.

Why? I think this guy may be on to something.

Cates pointed out that the films nominated for best picture simply weren't the ones viewers actually went to see last year. "All five of the best picture nominees together, I don't think (their box office) goes to $250 million. 'Narnia' goes to $800 million by itself," Cates said.

I imagine the ratings are okay when films people have seen, or at least are interested in seeing (Gladiator (which sucked, I know), RotK, Silence of the Lambs, Titanic) are much-nominated, and low when the nominees are all independent crap like Breaking the Waves that no one has seen or wants to see.

Hollywood has to decide what it's selling. Is it selling entertainment -- and not just dreck entertainment, but well-crafted smart entertainment -- or is it selling social messages?

Few will drop $10+ to watch a social message.

The Oscars are a big night for promotion. Why are they so eager to promote what is not really their main stock in trade? I think it's to both attempt to influence public opinion and to assuage themselves that they're in a noble, important calling.

I think they'd be better off admiting they're selling entertainment and just offer a few token nominations to all the well-meaning but boring independent films they so often honor now.

Oh, yeah, and on clips? ONE CLIP MONTAGE per show. For crying out loud, there are only so many variations -- musicals, film noir, epics, war movies, etc. There's no need for three or four of these per year.

And all the clips are always the same, anyhow. If it's a montage of musical clips, we're just going to see Dancing in the Rain for the six billionth time. They defend this by saying people have to be "reminded" of the impact movies have had on them, but 1, if we have to be reminded, obviously we weren't impacted all that much and 2, we don't have to be reminded every frigging year.

posted by Ace at 05:29 PM

| Access Comments