Oscar Telecast Sinks Even Lower
Gimmicks are the next trick up the Academy's sleeves
A couple of days ago Michael Cieply at the New York Times published an interesting note regarding the Oscar telecast and one that just may prove the producers simply have no idea what to do to increase viewership:
In a staff meeting over at Warner Brothers the other day, it was mentioned that the studio had picked its clips for the end-of-show, upcoming-movie montage that will likely be part of the refurbished, way-more-fun Oscar ceremony on Feb. 22. Not too surprisingly, the company decided to put its biggest, if not best, foot forward: The choices were Sherlock Holmes, directed by Guy Ritchie with Robert Downey Jr.; Terminator Salvation, directed by McG with a temperamental Christian Bale; and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, directed by David Yates with Daniel Radcliffe.
It's a sad day when gimmicks have to be used just to get people to watch an award show for an industry that generates billions from consumers already. As Cieply says, "But the preview gimmick, if it stays in the show, will put an exclamation point on the academy's big problem: its disconnect with people who watch films."
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 12 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I hope somebody gets the preview on YouTube.
I'm not going to watch the Oscars this year, no thanks to The Dark Knight not having a Best Picture nod.
Awards shows are fundamentally flawed by their very nature, and speaking for myself I don't really see any way to make them watchable. The only bits that I find interesting in the Oscars are the obituary section (which will be longer and sadder this year than most previous years) and some of the year round-up montages. I quite like watching some of the clips they show from the movies aswell, I suppose. That's really not much from a 4 hour show. I want to like the Oscars, I really do but there's so much in the show itself that I find completely irrelevant (the obsession with designer clothing), boring (the monotonous 'thankyou' speeches), or cringeworthy (the blubbering winners, the fawning pre and post ceremony 'interviews'). I would never do away with the Oscars and I look forward to them every year, but for the life of me I can't figure out why.
I guess I must be having an off day because I really don't see why this is a bad thing. People used to watch awards shows because they were news and there were only three channels. Now that people have hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of options they can be choosy and with the Internet, DVD and other medium available there isn't the rush to see it live.
Is it sad that the oscars are too good to nominate a film like TDK for best picture but they are fine with having commericials for big studio films at the end of their show for ratings? Jesus just have Michael Bay eat a puppy on stage already, just to kill the last shred of respect I have for the show.
they pretty much said fuck you when we saw their nomination, and this is how people we respond, by not wacthing the oscar. another record- low rating, and they deserve it
You know, its interesting. I wasn't hugely disappointed with the lack of a TDK nomination, but it clearly is going to have a huge negative effect on ratings… and I have to wonder… is a best picture nom for the Reader really worth it to Harvey Weinstein? Does the benefits of a best picture nomination really outweigh the amount he paid, plus his portion of the fallout for significantly lower ratings from now on? Buying Cider House and Shakespeare in Love nominations/wins seems like a good decision on his part (although something I personally loathe), but this time, it seems like he's barely rational…
the no TDK thing is a big factor and pisses me off.
but the ratings have been poor because, for the most part, the movies are depressing and dull to the average person (ben button, reader, no country, etc.). they are good movies and i like them all personally, but they arent ratings boosters.
I don't know that this is "sinking lower". Part of Oscar night should be about celebrating movies and promoting upcoming films should be part of the process. It's maybe sad they are doing it primarily to help with ratings but I actually think this is a good idea in general. A better idea would be if the Academy could somehow promote some indie or lower budget features coming out in the next year or so, or maybe serious-minded medium-sized budgeted features people are excited about. Let the big budget films be featured in commercials throughout the telecast. There's promoting the industry for you.
i hope nobody hates me for saying this but… i dont really care that TDK didnt get a best picture, director, or screenplay nod. it was a great movie and all, but the oscars are the oscars. theres bound to be some big snubs. im gonna watch them anyway.
c'mon no one actually believed that the dark knight would be oscar nominated did they? all they do is wait til the end of the year and then nominate anything with a good review with nazis in
i was more shocked that richard jenkins was recognised for his brilliant performance in the visitor and it wasnt in a film that came out 2 months ago!!!!!!!!
Hey – I had an idea…Get lookalikes wearing designer clothes to walk the red carpet and do all the pre-ceremony interviews, then the real celebrities do the actual awards. That might be a lot more fun.
How ironic that they're going to be showing previews for movies that people will actually watch, while refusing to nominate movies that people have seen…
Maybe people would watch the Oscars if they had an actual stake in the outcome.