International Law

Reforming the Oscars

In the Los Angeles Times Patrick Goldstein offers some suggestions on how to improve the Oscars broadcast:

IT'S now painfully obvious that the Oscars need what nearly every aging star in Hollywood has already had -- a face-lift.

The ratings for the show couldn't have been any worse if they'd been stuck with all of Jay Leno's strike-show guests instead of Jon Stewart and Co. The numbers hit rock bottom, down a million viewers from 2003, the show's previous low ebb, and that was right after a war started. Even worse, the ratings for younger viewers dropped off a cliff, falling almost 25% from last year's telecast. The film academy elders should be very, very worried. If Fox doesn't have a best picture nominee next year, they'll probably cook up a nighttime NASCAR special hosted by Jessica Alba, run it opposite the Academy Awards and do some serious damage.

By now you've probably heard all the same excuses. The show was hurt by a host of downbeat, little-seen movies. The show was damaged by the bad vibes from the writers strike. Stewart doesn't cut it with a mass audience.

Phooey. The writers strike didn't hurt movie box office, so why would it damage the Academy Awards? The academy could've given 10 nominations to "Transformers," but does anyone really think having Shia LaBeouf on stage would turn the Oscars into a youthquake? As for Stewart, who seemed slightly defanged for my tastes, whether a host kills or bombs doesn't lure anyone new to watch the Oscars any more than hiring a replacement for Katie Couric would ever get me to watch the "CBS Evening News."

THAT brings us to the academy's real problem. Like the evening news broadcasts, the Oscar is a relic, a cobwebby holdover from a bygone media age when Big Events earned Big Audiences. Those days are going, going, gone. The Grammys' ratings were down, the Emmys were down, the Golden Globes would've been down even if it hadn't been eviscerated by the strike.

Younger audiences just don't believe in appointment viewing anymore. Their lives are full -- they don't stop what they're doing to watch Oscar night. The only show that's held its ratings is the Super Bowl, which had at least three things the Oscars lacked: inventive, state-of-the-art production; a whole second show inside of the show -- splashy new commercials, which are often more involving than the game itself; and a far more suspenseful fourth quarter. Is there really anyone in America who didn't get best picture, best director and three of the four acting awards right in their Oscar pool?

In an era where everyone's lives are twice as busy and their attention span has been cut in half, it is simply suicidal to put on a pokey three-hour-plus award show.

Read more here.

Full post as published by Freedom to Differ on February 28, 2008 (boomark / email).