Will this be lowest-rated Oscarcast ever?
February 25, 2008 | 12:45
pm
Variety reports that this year's Oscarcast is on track to be the lowest rated in the 55-year history of TV coverage of moviedom's biggest night. Indeed, this 80th anniversary celebration may well rank below the diamond jubilee awardsfest from five years ago that drew only 33 million viewers.
As per Variety: " Demographic data and total-viewer estimates won't be issued by Nielsen until this afternoon, but Sunday's telecast on ABC settled for a 21.9 household rating/33 share in the 56 metered-markets monitored by Nielsen — down sharply from last year's 27.7/42, which translated into more than 40 million viewers. The 21.9 rating is also considerably below the 25.5 rating earned by the 2003 Academy Awards telecast." Stay tuned.
Sorry Donna, America didn't send a rejection notice to Hollywood's so called liberal media. The truth of the matter is that the mainstream media is bought up and own by the right winged conservative nutcases you belong to...never noticed it? Isn't Faux News, CNN, CSPAN, MSNBC,etc. all Bush-licking networks who contribute to all Repube politicians?... If you despised the liberal media, as you put it, why did you bother to watch the Oscars and why are you posting on this site?...Why aren't you out there campaigning for your nutty candidate Insane McCain for more wars, corporate profits, and economic recessions...obviously over 5,000 dead soldiers and over a million Iraqis don't mean squat to you....
Posted by: Frankie R. | February 26, 2008 at 09:58 AM
Once again America sends Hollywood & the Liberal Media Left a resounding message of total rejection. It will only get worse. We refuse to buy your products anymore and refuse to be "entertained" by you anymore. And that equals a whole lot of money that used to go into your pockets that won't be there anymore. A defeat for the left and a victory for cultural conservatives.
Posted by: Donna | February 25, 2008 at 09:47 PM
Well said FRANKIE R.
It's time Hollywood start toning down on star power. Perhaps the ratings are down because the majority of the nominees were not your stererotypical "stars" nor were the movies that were nominated "star vehichled" American epics. Take the best actress category, Kate Blanchett, Julie Christie, Laura Linney, Helen Page and Marion Cotillard. In today's Hollywood A-list, perhaps Kate Blanchett would be best represented. But the British actress is mainly known for her acting ability than her desire to be a "Hollywood" actress.
The movies for best picture, the lead acting category and both supporting acting categories followed a similar pattern. This is what the Hollywood press needs to cater to thus grooming the public perception of outstanding movies and performances, outside of blockbusters and blockbuster stars. Sure, action packed movies and star vehicles are necessary and television ratings are impportant, but should not be a barometer to distinguish a successful Academy awards show or not.
Posted by: Simple Rep | February 25, 2008 at 06:35 PM
Ya know it's funny how some people come onto this site and complain about celebrity phonies and they're sick of them and all that bull...my suggestion...DON'T WATCH AWARDS SHOWS AND STAY AWAY FROM SITES LIKE THIS ONE!!!! It's so easy to do...
Posted by: Frankie R. | February 25, 2008 at 04:46 PM
Take a clue, Hollywood.
We are sick of being force fed celebrities who think they are actors.
Do us all a favor. Stop televising the Oscars.
Posted by: KParrish | February 25, 2008 at 04:16 PM
Well you consider the following: the writer's strike...the nominated films didn't appeal much to all movie-going public...not enough prep time to put a show together...it had quite enough disadvantages going against it....maybe they'll rebound next year...
Posted by: Frankie R. | February 25, 2008 at 03:08 PM