Strike and No Blockbusters - Who Will Watch The Oscars?
I make no secret about it. Aside from Christmas, the Oscars are my favorite day of the year… always has been… even before the birth of The Movie Blog. I’ve been a film fan all my life. My earliest childhood memory (no joke) is being taken to see Star Wars for the very first time (I’m sure a part of the reason it’s still my all time favorite movie). So with film always being a passion of mine, you can understand why the one day of the year that celebrates the achievements of the industry is a big deal to me. I almost count down the days to the Oscars each year too. It’s that big of a deal to me.
However, last week on the Uncut LIVE show, Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor mentioned that the Oscars were “next weekend”, and it caught me totally by surprise. It’s not that my interest in the Oscars has waned at all, on the contrary, with all the best picture nominees this year being excellent films, I’m more interested in the awards show than ever. So why did the Oscars sneak up on me this year? The writers’ strike.
With all of the chaos and uncertainty surrounding the now thankfully settled writers’ strike, the Oscars got sort of lost in the mix for me. Not only was there drama going on around the strike, but the strike held the potential of canceling the show (even though Oscar producers insisted the show would go on regardless). With all of that, the actual date for the Oscars became inconsequential. Thus my mild surprise when I realized it was this weekend.
I don’t think I’m the only one in this boat either. With all the uncertainly surrounding it, I think a lot of people have either forgotten, or at least marginalized in their own thoughts the fact that the Oscars are indeed this Sunday. Even media outlets have had far less coverage and buzz pieces about the event. Marketing for the show is down and just less people in general seem to be talking about it.
On top of the Strike, there is another factor to take into consideration for the lack of buzz about the Oscars this year. There are no blockbusters or high profile films up for the big award this year (with the possible exception of Juno which has made just over $130 million… more than all the other nominees combined). That isn’t a reflection on the QUALITY of the films nominated this year… but it does mean that a LOT of people haven’t seen ANY of the movies nominated for best picture this year. If people haven’t seen the films, they have less personal vested interest in the awards. If you don’t have someone to root for, you’re less likely to be interested in the process. As great as Juno, No Country and There Will Be Blood are… almost no one has seen them, and that doesn’t help the Oscars at all.
Don’t get me wrong here. I’m NOT suggesting that the Oscars should nominate film based on popularity. NEVER. All I’m pointing out is that there will be years where all the best films had no one see them… and that’s just a part of the game. Unfortunetly for the Oscars, that phenomenon is happening on the same year a writers’ strike just ended.
To compound the problem, last year’s show was a dreadful mess with a dreadful host, and yet again this year, they’re turning to a TV personality to host the movie industry’s big event. I love Jon Stewart. I think he’s the funniest man on TV right now… but he shouldn’t be hosting the Oscars. His last outing was “ok” (1000x better than the Ellen train wreck), but lacked any magic at all. I’ve said for years, the Oscars should have a legitimate movie star hosting the show. That doesn’t mean it will always WORK and that just any movie star should host (Whoopie anyone?) but that should at least be their staring point. George Clooney would be a great host for example.
The point is, The Oscars are this Sunday, and I can’t remember a year when less people seemed to care. Between the writers’s strike and the lack of any high profile films being nominated, it’s really not surprising. Traditionally, the Oscars are the second most watched television event of the year just behind the Superbowl, but don’t expect the ratings to be huge this year.
Do you think there are other factors involved in so few people talking about the Oscars this year?
1. Phil Gee replies at 20th February 2008, 1:18 pm :
I don’t honestly think that there is a strong enough contender to sweep all the awards this year, or one that is a sure bet to win best picture, or one that a lot of people are passionate enough about to want to win (not to the level of ‘The Departed’ last year). This won’t really work in the UK (because we’re only just getting the oscar contenders and, much to my fury, ‘There will be blood’ isn’t even playing in my city), but if you engage, even a group of friends who are film fans and ask them which film should win best picture, they might give you an answer but I wouldn’t think it would be a particularly passionate one.
For myself, I watch the damn thing ever year, and every time at the end of it, I say that I just wasted 4 hours of my life. The occasional good joke and the ‘in rememberance’ montage are the only good things about the show….ever. Maybe other people feel the same way and just aren’t bothering this year.
2. wordy replies at 20th February 2008, 1:33 pm :
Word of advice to the new kid in town… don’t plan on driving anywhere that afternoon. Your neighborhood will be bumper to bumper once they close down Hollywood Blvd. I miss that…
3. rafa1215 replies at 20th February 2008, 1:36 pm :
It’s gonna be the “no country for old men” awards show. But best actor for me will be Lewis - He’ll drink your milkshake.
4. Rob M. replies at 20th February 2008, 2:13 pm :
Every year I typically have a party, and a drinking game, revolving around the Oscars.
Well as me and my group have gotten older we haven’t had the same amount of time/dedication, to seeing these films in theaters.
To make matters even worse, I had no idea it was this weekend until just now.
Pity, hopefully next year things in Hollywood will be back to “normal.” Well, as “normal” as that place can get.
5. Brian replies at 20th February 2008, 2:14 pm :
I am unable to articulate my reason as to why people avoid the oscars in droves. So, I am quoting the great DIRTY HARRY’S comments as posted on the Liberty Film Festival site. As usual he’s hit the nail on the head.
“For four-hours you’re forced to sit on pins and needles waiting to be the victim of a cheaper than cheap shot aimed at either who you are, your religion, or your political beliefs.
Until last year when I started live-blogging the ceremony I hadn’t watched the Oscars since Billy Crystal retired because I was tired of that sick feeling in my stomach every time the smarmy host, a dim-witted presenter, or some self-absorbed winner opened their mouth. It just gets tiring. It’s no fun waiting to be insulted, or worse, disappointed when someone you had admired lashes out at you.
Certainly, Medved’s right that America’s overall indifference to the nominated films has hurt the ratings, but like a Super Bowl with two uninteresting teams we would probably still watch the Oscars in much higher numbers if we didn’t have to cringe and wait for it at the sight of the Usual Suspects like Clooney, Sarandon, Streisand, Moore, Gere, Robbins, etc..
It’s taken a number of years, but the industry has worked hard and finally drained itself of audience goodwill. The magic is gone. We just don’t like them as much as we used to. Probably because they don’t like us.”
Well said Harry - well said.
6. Jonathan replies at 20th February 2008, 2:44 pm :
“There are no blockbusters or high profile films up for the big award this year (with the possible exception of Juno which has made just over $130 million… more than all the other nominees combined).”
$30,975,900 - There Will Be Blood
+$60,925,778 - No Country for Old Men
+$47,453,273 - Atonement
+$47,500,409 - Michael Clayton
____________
$186,855,360
7. John replies at 20th February 2008, 4:25 pm :
Hey Brain,
You said:
“why people avoid the oscars in droves”
Considering it’s the second highest rated show of the year, I don’t think it’s quite fair to say that.
8. Brian replies at 20th February 2008, 5:17 pm :
John,
To clarify - in 1996 55.5 million people tuned into the Oscars, last year 39.9 million watched. It barely beat American Idol. Good numbers, no doubt, but it continues to slide downward at a pretty steep rate comparitive to past years.
9. John replies at 20th February 2008, 5:25 pm :
Hey Brian,
But those numbers are deciving. They have not continued to go down all that time. As a matter of fact, they’ve gone up and down consistently, and the year those ratings were that high was the year Titanic won best picture, and had more people see it than any other in history at that point.
10. alfie replies at 20th February 2008, 5:51 pm :
the ratings do go up and down year to year but in the grand scheme of the history of the show the trend in general is downwards…
it may fluctuate a few million here and there (last years ..the um…ellen show was a million up from the year before) but the titanic show in 1998 with 55 million was the highest rated show since 1983!
and no oscar show since that night has gotten that many viewers again…
I think its award show fatigue…there are so many shows now and the general public just don’t really care….
like brian said…it does about as well as american idol…which is a gigantic mega hit of a show so its not like no one is watching but the oscars do not hold the same allure as they used to.
and as for winners…I have a feeling no country may have peaked too early..all the currewnt heat is on there will be blood…i still the coens have it in the bag due to they whole “it’s their time” kinds of thing…time for them to get their dues but TWBB is certainly the fucking film of peoples choice at the moment.
who knows…maybe they will want to reward juno for making so much money with a budget of under ten million. i mean the studios will be looking to replicate that now….that is a better business model for them than spending 300 million and waiting for dvd sales to make a profit.
if they do reward juno i think it will be with screenplay and I also think ellen page is going to win best actress. its all been la vie en rose till now but she is the industry darling and I have a feeling its going to her.
for me its the best line up of films nominated in years. i don’t really disagree with any of them..I was surprised that clayton got so many nods in the big catagories….its a very good film but i didn;t think it would be right up there.
although how joe wright missed out on director for atonement is beyond me..more so than best picture he deserved the nod for that tracking shot on the beach alone.
anyway…we will see
11. Brian replies at 20th February 2008, 7:50 pm :
John,
Alfie makes good points. I’m not saying it gets terrible numbers. For any other show they are magnificent. But its trending down. And for reasons, in my opinion, that I stated in my original posting. It’ll be interesting to see what kind of rating it pulls on Sunday night.
12. Teller replies at 20th February 2008, 10:35 pm :
John, you do realize that most of the movies that either get nominated or win are not blockbusters. I don’t know why people act like this is something new. Yes every once in a while a movie comes along like Lord of the rings, or Titanic, or even Departed, but that’s like a needle in a haystack. 95% of movies that are nominated at the Oscars are not blockbusters, or even seen by massive people for that matter.
A lot of have people have seen NCFOM, no it’s it not a blockbuster, but it has made just as much money if not more than the majority of most of the other Oscar nominees over the past years.
To say that No one watches Juno when the movie has made more money than Cloverfield is absurd. And I believe it didn’t take very long to do it either.
I’m surprised that you don’t think nominating a black man for our presidential nominee for the first time in history might not have something to do with people not talking about the oscars much.
And the fact that the race itself is history seeing as a woman and a black man are going head to head for the nomination.
Don’t worry, people will tune in.
13. nbakid2000 replies at 20th February 2008, 11:06 pm :
I avoid the Oscars because
a) they’re meaningless
b) it’s a party where people congratulate themselves
c) booooring
d) they’re meaningless
e) I usually don’t care about the hosts
f) they’re meaningless
14. sfsilver replies at 21st February 2008, 10:00 am :
I don’t think it’s necessary for the host to be a bonafied movie star. Johnny Carson was arguably the best host behind Billy Crystal and when other movie stars such as Whoopie hosted it was fairly lack luster. I don’t think most movie stars have the nimbleness to react quickly to the often spontaneous nature of these kinds of shows. Comedians (Crystal’s training was most solidly as a comedian) seem to have what it takes to host these shows. What movie star should host? Isn’t just about anyone going to pale in comparison to the brilliance of Crystal’s mad hosting skills.
I also think the show is at the end of the day a TV show, we don’t go to a movie theater to see the awards show. I don’t have a problem with people primarily known for their TV work hosting a TV show.
perhaps the lack of a crowd award show season will help this year. There have been no real movie awards on network TV yet this season. The Globes and People’s choice were unwatchable this year without celebrity star power and red carpet glamor.
15. alfie replies at 21st February 2008, 11:21 am :
i agree with sfsilver..I don’t understand this idea that it has to be a movie star.
it is a tv show after all….so who cares if its a tv guy or a movie person