Low ratings in store for Oscars?

Published 10 years ago by , Updated February 9th, 2012 at 9:02 pm,

I have never been a fan of the Oscars. Ever since that pinnacle of mediocrity known as Titanic won 11 Oscars out of 14 nominations (!), including Best Picture, I have turned up my nose in disgust at the whole thing. As far as I’m concerned, the Oscars are nothing more than Hollyweird’s annual opportunity to ignore the real problems in this world and hold the world’s largest popularity contest. Especially in the last decade, it seems like the fashion sense of the attendees receives far more exposure than any of the films being nominated for some insipid award. Judging by the numbers, it looks like the rest of America is starting to agree with me.

So which numbers am I talking about? Basically, all of them. Ratings for the Oscar telecast have left much to be desired over the past several years, and with a new host (Chris Rock) whose previous hosting efforts for other shows have been rather underwhelming, this year doesn’t look promising. The total box office take for this year’s Best Picture nominees is less than half of what it was last year. Sure, I’ll admit, last year’s nominees included the mega-hit (and Best Picture winner) Return of the King, but come on, less than half the box office take this year?! icon eek Low ratings in store for Oscars? That’s a huge drop. Not only does this year’s list of Best Picture nominees not include a single blockbuster, but none of them has reached the desired $100 million mark so far.

The point of all these numbers is simply that when the nominees are popular, the Oscar ratings tend to be higher. When the nominees are adored by critics but ignored by audiences, Oscar ratings tend to be lower. To put it another way, good box office results for the Best Picture nominees translate into good ratings for the Oscars. This year’s underwhelming box office numbers could be a harbinger of low ratings. The ratings for the recent Grammy telecast were the lowest since 1995. Bottom line, we shouldn’t expect anything spectacular.

I wonder if Britney, Madonna and Christina are available this year… or maybe Janet Jackson. icon wink Low ratings in store for Oscars?

The Oscars will air live on both coasts February 27 on ABC. There is supposedly no tape delay of any kind. I wonder if the Oscar producers had the chance to see the Golden Globes where the lead singer of U2 got a little carried away during his acceptance speech.

Source: CNN


Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:

5 Comments - Comments are closed.

  1. Maybe if they gave people time to actually care about the movies that are nominated. Not only is there the annoying habit of releasing Oscar-bait movies on the last few days of the year (and in limited run at that), people have all of two months to see the movie. Since I don’t limit my movie viewing to the dead of winter, where is the fun in that? Why should I watch an awards show for movies that only movie critics gush over?

    I’ll probably check the news after they’re done to get the specifics. The Oscar’s are too self-important to care about spending 3+ hours on.

  2. I will not be watching the Oscars. I haven’t cared about them in years.

  3. Let me get this straight… Chris Rock hosting, and no delay??

    LMAO!!! :lol:

    I really believe that all this supposed controversy that’s been brought up via Rock’s comments is really a PR deal designed to get people to tune in to the show.

    We used to be big fans of the Oscars, but with all the political soapbox stuff, seeing some awards given to obviously non-deserving nominees, etc., I really don’t know if we’ll tune in this year.

    Eh, we probably will, but on a delay and we’ll Tivo through the commercials and annoying stuff.


  4. I just read there will a five second time delay, which certainly makes sense considering the host. :shock:


  5. I agree; that makes sense. Five seconds doesn’t seem like a lot, though…