From the reporter.com, this article on why we watch the Oscars (BTW, I have not seen any of these movies yet):
Feb. 28, 2006
Why watch the Oscars? Because they're there
By Ray Richmond
As if we needed more evidence heralding the official arrival of a new audience-fractionalizing D-Day (as in DVR, DVD, VOD and ADD), now comes word that Sunday's 78th Annual Academy Awards are in grave danger of tanking in the ratings by dint of the fact that mainstream America hasn't shown the least interest in this crop of nominated flicks and folks.
Red alert! Red alert! A wake-up call has jolted an event that's rarely had to concern itself with the vagaries of competition or the evolution of consumer entertainment. Now that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences membership has gone all indie elitist in its Oscar lineup choices, fears of a Nielsen revolt are palpable at both ABC and AMPAS.
So significant is the anxiety that a version of ABC's Oscar telecast poster has only one actual face on it, that of host Jon Stewart -- a known commodity from Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" and a genuine selling point. The other three squares depict mere hands clutching statuettes in front of formally clad torsos, one of them a doctored image of the white-gloved Grace Kelly. Ah, the good ol' days.
The sense of dread this week stems from the seemingly sound presumption that small movies equal small viewership, that America isn't about to flock to a kudofest dedicated to honoring films about gay cowboys ("Brokeback Mountain"), gay novelists ("Capote"), iconic TV journalists ("Good Night, and Good Luck"), racial unrest ("Crash") and the aftermath of a horrific act of terrorism perpetrated nearly 34 years ago ("Munich").
Heath Ledger? Keira Knightley? Jake Gyllenhaal? Terrence Howard? Joaquin Phoenix? David Strathairn? Amy Adams? Michelle Williams? Who are these people? At least George Clooney is a magazine-cover kind of nominee. Why did the Academy's members snub Peter Jackson and "King Kong" and Russell Crowe and Tom Cruise and Renee Zellweger and Ron Howard and ... and ... ?
Well, I'm here to tell everyone to basically relax. It's all going to be OK, because the truth is that the Academy Awards aren't about having seen the nominated pictures. They're about watching the Academy Awards.
It's the spectacle, stupid!
As the closest thing that showbiz has to a public trust, the Oscars are like a protected spring in the middle of a forest, largely unaffected by the surrounding forces of nature (or in this case, industry). ABC and the film Academy have a huge amount riding on the show remaining what is typically television's second-most-watched program.
In order for the ratings to truly plummet, millions of the diehards who make the Oscars appointment viewing would have to suddenly decide that this relative dearth of recognizable names may just inspire them to go out to dinner instead. It would almost be a case of standing on principle to bypass the year's preeminent water-cooler event.
This isn't to say we don't see some genuine swing in the numbers. When a "Titanic" is sweeping things, you see a bounce. When the big kahuna is "Chicago," there's a noticeable dip. But you're always going to have a solid core of 35 million or so loyal Academy Awards junkies who are there come hell or high apathy. To believe there will automatically be a substantial tune-out or midshow exodus from the Oscarcast because there aren't enough stars or too many nominated films made for under $30 million is akin to thinking consumers will en masse forego turkey on Thanksgiving because the supermarket decided not to stock Foster Farms and Butterball.
The Oscars really are like that: a tradition for which boycotting would be largely unthinkable even if it seems voters have lost touch with the moviegoing public. This remains, for the moment, the one Hollywood event that's essentially idiot-proof.
Now, getting people back in theaters the following weekend ... that's a different story.
Feb. 28, 2006
Why watch the Oscars? Because they're there
By Ray Richmond
As if we needed more evidence heralding the official arrival of a new audience-fractionalizing D-Day (as in DVR, DVD, VOD and ADD), now comes word that Sunday's 78th Annual Academy Awards are in grave danger of tanking in the ratings by dint of the fact that mainstream America hasn't shown the least interest in this crop of nominated flicks and folks.
Red alert! Red alert! A wake-up call has jolted an event that's rarely had to concern itself with the vagaries of competition or the evolution of consumer entertainment. Now that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences membership has gone all indie elitist in its Oscar lineup choices, fears of a Nielsen revolt are palpable at both ABC and AMPAS.
So significant is the anxiety that a version of ABC's Oscar telecast poster has only one actual face on it, that of host Jon Stewart -- a known commodity from Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" and a genuine selling point. The other three squares depict mere hands clutching statuettes in front of formally clad torsos, one of them a doctored image of the white-gloved Grace Kelly. Ah, the good ol' days.
The sense of dread this week stems from the seemingly sound presumption that small movies equal small viewership, that America isn't about to flock to a kudofest dedicated to honoring films about gay cowboys ("Brokeback Mountain"), gay novelists ("Capote"), iconic TV journalists ("Good Night, and Good Luck"), racial unrest ("Crash") and the aftermath of a horrific act of terrorism perpetrated nearly 34 years ago ("Munich").
Heath Ledger? Keira Knightley? Jake Gyllenhaal? Terrence Howard? Joaquin Phoenix? David Strathairn? Amy Adams? Michelle Williams? Who are these people? At least George Clooney is a magazine-cover kind of nominee. Why did the Academy's members snub Peter Jackson and "King Kong" and Russell Crowe and Tom Cruise and Renee Zellweger and Ron Howard and ... and ... ?
Well, I'm here to tell everyone to basically relax. It's all going to be OK, because the truth is that the Academy Awards aren't about having seen the nominated pictures. They're about watching the Academy Awards.
It's the spectacle, stupid!
As the closest thing that showbiz has to a public trust, the Oscars are like a protected spring in the middle of a forest, largely unaffected by the surrounding forces of nature (or in this case, industry). ABC and the film Academy have a huge amount riding on the show remaining what is typically television's second-most-watched program.
In order for the ratings to truly plummet, millions of the diehards who make the Oscars appointment viewing would have to suddenly decide that this relative dearth of recognizable names may just inspire them to go out to dinner instead. It would almost be a case of standing on principle to bypass the year's preeminent water-cooler event.
This isn't to say we don't see some genuine swing in the numbers. When a "Titanic" is sweeping things, you see a bounce. When the big kahuna is "Chicago," there's a noticeable dip. But you're always going to have a solid core of 35 million or so loyal Academy Awards junkies who are there come hell or high apathy. To believe there will automatically be a substantial tune-out or midshow exodus from the Oscarcast because there aren't enough stars or too many nominated films made for under $30 million is akin to thinking consumers will en masse forego turkey on Thanksgiving because the supermarket decided not to stock Foster Farms and Butterball.
The Oscars really are like that: a tradition for which boycotting would be largely unthinkable even if it seems voters have lost touch with the moviegoing public. This remains, for the moment, the one Hollywood event that's essentially idiot-proof.
Now, getting people back in theaters the following weekend ... that's a different story.
