Oscar Ratings Up This Year Despite Poor Reviews


Sunday’s Oscar ceremony may have been dull, rushed, and occasionally downright embarrassing, but for producers Adam Shankman and Bill Mechanic, they still managed to achieve the only goal that really mattered: TV ratings were up 14% over last year. Not that it would take much to improve on the past couple of years; the 2008 Academy Awards were the lowest-rated telecast since Nielsen started tracking them back in 1974. According to estimates, this year’s show scored an average of 41.3 million viewers, which makes it the “most watched entertainment broadcast since 2005″.

There were a number drastic changes this year (expanding to 10 Best Picture nominees, cutting out performances for Best Original Song, including more young stars like Taylor Lautner and Kristen Stewart), but in the end, I don’t really think any of that mattered. The main reason that people tuned in was because the highest-grossing movie of all-time was up for Best Picture. Of course, since it ended up losing to The Hurt Locker, I don’t know if that really gives mainstream viewers much of a reason to tune in next year. What did you think of this year’s broadcast? Should they keep the same format for next year?

  • dah

    “The main reason that people tuned in was because the highest-grossing movie of all-time was up for Best Picture.”

    Huh? That’s a little presumptuous, unless you have poll results that state such. People also tuned in because District 9, Inglourious Basterds and The Blind Side were nominated; especially people tuned in with the expectation that some very popular actors, like Jeff Bridges and Sandra Bullock, were poised to receive awards. The world does not revolve around “Avatar.”

  • I will agree about Sandra Bullock’s nomination, that was also a huge draw. But I don’t think it’s presumptuous to say that a lot of people wanted to see Avatar win.

  • Space Bandito

    There was also some history. First female director. Precious. Bridges winning his first etc.

    I was not a fan of the 10 movies as I felt it cheapened “the real contenders” but it did get me watching more movies. As lame as the jokes were I wish the hosts were a stronger presence. It didn’t feel like they were actually hosting the show. They felt more like a side act.

    Now I love good speeches after someone wins an award. However, they do show the credits after a movie so I don’t need an entire list of every producer, agent and camera man thanked. These are people the actors may know but not many of the viewers.

  • Hannes

    Is Sandra Bullock really that popular?
    I mean, how many good movies has she been in?

  • Space Bandito

    Sandra Bullock is that popular. With men and women. She may not be Will Smith popular, but she has certainly had a good rebound the last few years.

  • 81

    I’m sorry but who give’s a fuck when it come’s to reviews for the oscars,so what! it’s all about how many people watch,GET OVER IT review watcher’s.

  • Mike

    I think they should give the best song Oscar before the televised event, and the winner should perform in the telecast.

  • Brendan

    I wasn’t planning on watching at all, but ending up watching the whole thing because of the Film Junk live Ustream chat. Maybe people making sarcastic comments over the internet while watching helped the ratings.

  • Bob Bobson

    I still have no idea why (for Best Picture) they had Tom Hanks just say the winner right away. No buildup, nothing at all. The perfect opportunity to build some tension there, and they pissed it away. Yet we had to endure a brutal 10-minute dance segment, so whatever.

    I also ended up watching the whole thing, but I thought it was rather underwhelming.

  • Space Bandito

    Good point Bob. While we didn’t need to see more scenes from each movie a little intro would have been appreciated. Was there a writers strike at the Oscars? ; )