February 26, 2008

Did you hear?

A record-low 32 million viewers tuned in to last sunday's Oscars, making it the lowest rated Academy Awards telecast of all time! By contrast, when box-office juggernaut Titanic swept the Oscars in 1998; 55 million americans tuned in...

Expect crowdpleasers like American Gangster and Hairspray to dominate next year's Oscar race... (just kidding).

Anyway, Can you imagine next year's disaster when the 50% that tuned in this year just for Juno don't return?


  1. I think people are watching less live TV in general (especially with Award shows). They've never really been that interesting. Of course, people are going to blame the movie nominated. And, there might be some truth to it. But, I don't think the Awards lost about 20 million viewers in the last 12 years because of the movies nominated. I'm sure there is an overarching reason to explain: like Awards shows are just boring. I was bored this year. I'm glad no country won, but it just wasn't that interesting. I don't think more "shocking" result will save it either. I mean, honestly, how people knew that no country was the front runner? Most people don't know about critic awards... I'm pretty sure most people probably thought American Gangster was the best movie of the year. So, I don't think surprising results will make things better. They need to get Dane Cook as a host, and invite 50 cent, Kanye, and Timberlake to perform some songs. I guarantee they will see a dramatic rise in ratings.

  2. this could just be a thing that happened locally, but my whole campus lost the cable for about an hour because our satellite connection went down...i don't know if this happened to a lot of people up here in the northeast but it's possible...we had a ton of people watching the show with us and quite a few left because the cable didn't come back on for a while...who knows, though...