Do you remember what film won the Oscar for Best Picture last year? (No Country for Old Men). What about Best Actor and Actress? (Daniel Day-Lewis and Marion Cotillard). If you didn't remember, don't feel bad. You're probably like most people. Most of us weren't watching in 2008. Even though they were celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Academy Awards, it was the lowest rated and least watched telecast ever. As I perused the Academy Award nominations yesterday, I couldn't help but think that this year's broadcast is going to have a hard time drawing a huge TV audience. And considering that the only thing you can usually count on with the Oscars is that they'll run over three hours long, the show will probably leave something to be desired, too.
In fact, here's six reasons the Oscars -- which will be broadcast live on February 22 on ABC -- will probably stink.
1) Has anybody seen these movies?
Have you seen Frozen River? Do you know anybody who has? I had to look it up when I read that Melissa Leo was a Best Actress nominee from that film. Unfortunately, even the most popular films on the Oscar nomination list are only marginal box office hits. That means most TV viewers will not have seen Frost/Nixon, Slumdog Millionaire, The Reader and Milk, four of the five Best Picture nominees. Only The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the big three-hour movie with Brad Pitt, has been playing wide at the multiplexes. The really big box office films, especially a blockbuster like The Dark Knight, deserved to be nominated and would have been a ratings draw. Alas, only technical nods for The Dark Knight, Iron Man, et. al.
2) Where are the star nominees?
I loved Richard Jenkins in The Visitor. He was great. He was also the father on Six Feet Under, so I recognized him. And Sean Penn's won before, just a few years ago for Mystic River. Still, where are the big star nominations? Wasn't Clint Eastwood predicted to be a nominee for Gran Torino? What about Leonardo DiCaprio for Revolutionary Road? True, Brad Pitt is a big star, and it would be nice to see him honored, but who's Melissa Leo? Angelina Jolie is a star, but I think I'm like one of a dozen people who saw Changeling, so what chance does she have of winning?
3) That's entertainment?
You know what occurs to me when I watch the trailer for The Wrestler? How atrocious Mickey Rourke looks. This movie may be great, but geez, it looks depressing. Take a look:
On the other hand, Tropic Thunder was hilarious. Even Mamma Mia! was entertaining. There was lots of action in The Dark Knight, and I enjoyed every bit of Iron Man. This year's Oscar noms are filled with serious, mournful stories. Doubt: Catholic school drama. The Reader: Holocaust. Milk: assassination. Changeling: abducted children. Rachel Getting Married: druggie daughter ruining a wedding.
4) Why no love for the blockbusters?
There was a time when Hollywood was a lot more attuned to the population. Movies that won the Oscars for Best Picture were blockbusters. This held true through The Lord of the Rings and Titanic, but an awful lot of really popular, really great films have been snubbed by the Oscars. In 1980, for instance, Ordinary People won Best Picture, while The Empire Strikes Back -- perhaps the best of the Star Wars trilogy -- wasn't even nominated. When blockbusters are in the running for the big awards, TV viewers are more inclined to tune in.
5) Hugh Jackman as the host.
Before the new producers decided on Hugh Jackman as the host of this year's broadcast, Ricky Gervais was considered. Gervais, who was the funniest presenter at the recent Golden Globes, would have been an inspired choice. You want a funny host. Billy Crystal was quintessentially good. Johnny Carson, who did it for years, was also very good. Other possibilities include the likes of Stephen Colbert and Tina Fey, both of whom ranked high in our TV Squad poll. Instead of Ricky or Billy or Stephen or Tina, Hugh will be the man. I like Hugh Jackman. He's very, very talented, and as the host of the Tony Awards, he showed off his terrific singing and dancing. You know what's interesting about the Tony Awards? Nobody watches them. That's not what the Oscars want. Also, Hugh's last foray into TV was Viva Laughlin. 'Nuff said.
6) Will there be stars ... who knows?
In years past, you could look forward to seeing some of Hollywood's biggest stars -- past and present -- at the Oscars. You'd see Sean Connery and Tom Hanks presenting. Barbra Streisand and Robert Redford having a reunion. Halle Berry looking gorgeous. Jim Carrey talking out of his butt. This year if the stars are going to be there, it'll be a surprise. You won't know beforehand because the producers, in their infinite wisdom, are not announcing who will be presenting in advance. Therefore, that means if someone's not interested in the films that have been nominated, will he or she tune in for a chance to see Hollywood's biggest names on parade? There's a reason you publicize an all-star line up -- to make people watch.
Well, even though I'm sure to be disappointed again, I will be watching the Oscars and hoping for the best.















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
1-23-2009 @ 10:26AM
大宝宝 said...
Melissa Leo played Sgt. Kay Howard in Homicide: Life on the Street. Left acting for a while due to a messy divorce and custody battle with her ex, fellow actor John Heard.
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 10:43AM
ac said...
I was surprised Dark Knight wasnt nominated because if LOTR could win win best picture, TDK should at least be nominated. Its alot better.
Im going to see The Wrestler because it does look like a good sad film (despite whatever Rourke did to his face jeez!). And they filmed it in my town.
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 10:53AM
Dinu said...
While I think The Dark Knight definitely had merit to be in the Best Picture nomination discussion, I think a lot of your other points are more than a little off base.
I know this is framed as why the Oscars ratings will probably be low, but you talk a lot about these things as being poor choices by the Academy. And I really think that's just plain wrong. Just because a lot of people liked Tropic Thunder and Iron Man doesn't mean they're great films to be placed in the pantheon of spectacular cinema. I mean, the damn Hannah Montana movie killed at the box office, but it sure didn't deserve any awards.
I was never a fan of Titanic, but the LOTR trilogy was beautifully done and definitely merited the best picture it (eventually) won. That doesn't happen that often, blockbusters are rarely also that deserving of awards.
I definitely suggest that people go out and see Milk, Frost/Nixon, The Reader, Slumdog Millionaire, and Benjamin Button. You won't be disappointed, they are all amazingly well acted, written, directed, and shot. While you're at it, go see Revolutionary Road, Doubt, and Rachel Getting Married too. This goes double for you Allison, because if your favorite movies from this year were TDK, Iron Man, Tropic Thunder, and Mamma Mia, then you're missing out on a whole lot. It shows why you're here, and not writing about films.
I do agree about Hugh Jackman though.
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 11:20AM
StillBash said...
I agree with all of your points.
And I still think "Blood Diamond" should've won something.
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 11:23AM
Andy said...
You listed 6 reasons the Oscars will probably not be interesting to Average Joe Moviegoer, who's only seen the most popular dozen or so movies in the last year, but they're hardly reasons the show will *stink*. This isn't a popularity contest.
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 12:42PM
Pinwiz said...
Exactly. We have the People's Choice Awards for that.
1-23-2009 @ 12:05PM
Michelle said...
I'm a little puzzled by the first four reasons listed here. While blockbusters make for great Best Picture nominees, few ever really match the quality of a true contender. I found Tropic Thunder and Iron Man quite entertaining, but I must admit that they pale in comparison to the superior blend of art, entertainment, and poignancy that were Milk, Curious Case of BB and Slumdog Millionaire. We've got the People's Choice Awards and box office earnings to honor Blockbusters; that's not the role of Oscars.
As to points 5 and 6, you hit the nail on the head!
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 12:33PM
makb said...
My husband and I are movie fans and look forward to the annual award shows despite their decreasing popularity in recent years. We watched the nominations live broadcast yesterday morning and when all was said and revealed - we looked at each other and said at the same time - the OSCARS will suck AGAIN this year. It's so sad. We really enjoyed watching this year's Golden Globes and every year the Academy gets a huge heads-up from them and blows it. I'm not saying the Oscar nominations should be identical to the GG nods but the Academy should tune in and get some ideas as to why the GG broadcast works so much better. Our only disagreement with this post is that we don't see Hugh Jackman as a negative. Could there have been better hosts ? Of course, but that being said, we love Hugh's work and he's a nice guy who'll surely give 100% effort. The man was named People Magazine's Sexiest Male of 2008 (TY! People) and there is a lot of appeal to him. We also happen to think he's pretty funny. It's not widely talked about, but his hosting of SNL a few years back was one of the funniest episodes of the season. We'll be tuning in and cheering him on. Oh and one last shot at the Academy - no nod for Bruce Springsteen's 'The Wrestler' as best song. What in God's name were you thinking (idiots).
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 12:41PM
Pinwiz said...
I love the Box Office argument because it's so irrational. Slumdog Millionaire (the likely winner) has already made $40 million in limited release, and it goes wide TODAY. It'll outsell Benjamin Button by the Oscars, just you watch.
The other problem I have is all of the outrage is related to The Dark Knight, when WALL-E (imho) was a superior movie that truly got snubbed. TDK was good, but WALL-E was just as successful and was actually a masterpiece.
Finally, Hugh Jackman has more potential for rocking the Oscars host position than anyone else in recent history. The first Tonys Awards he hosted was absolutely brilliant.
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 12:52PM
Arbitrator said...
I've seen both Dark Knight and Wall-E, and there is simply no contest: live people can out-act computer generated products, even when the live film is made by high school students.
Wall-E a "masterpiece? Another sweet exercise perhaps, but nothing more.
People will be re-watching Dark Knight when Wall-E is long forgotten, which won't be long, unless you're 5 years old.
And please, please try and refrain from using the "M" word so lightly.
You're insulting some gifted on-screen actors: Christian Bale, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, and THE performer of the year --- Heath Ledger.
Now go drink a juice box and take a nap.
1-23-2009 @ 12:56PM
JHF said...
... you do realize the Oscars are about rewarding actors who deserve recognition, right?
Because all your talk about how there aren't many star nominees and no one's seen the movies smacks of not getting the point.
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 1:14PM
Dave said...
It seems like a big chunk of your concern can be boiled down to "who's Melissa Leo?" I don't see how the Leo nomination can be a bad thing while the Jenkins nomination is somehow good; it's basically the same nomination: obscure movie that came out last spring starring TV character actor in an well-received role.
Also, Ordinary People shouldn't have won Best Pic, but that's only because it was up against Raging Bull. That was the snub, not Empire Strikes Back (this is the first time I have ever seen someone refer to a Star Wars movie not getting a Best Pic as a "snub).
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 1:16PM
Modwild said...
Most likely reason for a movie to get nominated these days is a political agenda. How Ben Button managed to snag so many is beyond me. Somehow they've also decided only those actors, directors and writers worthy of acknowledgment are in independent cinema. It's gotten ridiculous, frankly, that a handful of movies every year (similarly we see this in the Emmys, and maybe the Tonys, but I don't watch those as they are pointless when I live in Denver) are worthy of praise and awards.
Just because a movie doesn't have the BEST writing, doesn't mean the acting or directing isn't worthy of nomination, for example. They have to stop with the assumption that if a movie isn't critically acclaimed in every category that they can look past it.
That said, Robert Downey Jr. was nominated for Tropic Thunder. If he wasn't against Heath, I'd be rooting for him, if only for the fact that they thought outside the box. So few of those make the cut, I always hope they win.
I won't be watching. Not even the red carpet ceremony. If other networks are thinking clearly, they'd put something incredible against the awards, as I'm sure they can win the night with something other than the Academy Awards.
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 4:37PM
Monkeydog said...
This is why TVS isn't Cinematical. :P
Although I must agree on The Dark Knight, and it deserving to be at least nominated. I'd be a little less peeved if it snubbed for The Fall or WALL-E, but they also didn't get nominated.
Curious Case seriously does not deserve it's nomination. It's a good movie...but not in the league of the fellow nominees and the movies that deserved to be nominated...regardless if they did well in the box office or not, that doesn't matter at all.
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 3:40PM
Dan said...
As someone who has seen all the nominees for best picture along with Dark Knight, Iron Man and the other Hollywood films you seem to think belong, I can honesly say that they DON'T belong in that company. Milk was an inspiring bio-pic that I believe is the best Bio-pic I've ever seen, better than Walk the Line and better than Malcolm X. Frost/Nixon was just a fantastic film with incredible acting and great dialogue and is a typical BP nominee (like Quiz Show) that has no real shot at winning. The Reader is a powerful film with fantastic acting and is a film that will have you talking and discussing it weeks after seeing it. Benjamin Button is typical Oscar bait hollywood fare and is just like Forrest Gump, but less comical. And Slumdog Millionaire is simply the best film I've seen in years, and it already won the golden globe.
Eastwood was good in Gran Torino, but he was just Clint Eastwood. I watched Unforgiven and he was the same character basically. Plus, Gran Torino had some awful writing and acting at times, the Hmong actors were truly painful to watch. I believe Leo deserved a nomination for Revolutionary Road, but he's a great actor and will get more shots.
Tropic Thunder got an acting nomination, and considering it was a controversial film that was a total satire comedy, that's actually pretty good.
We have the "People's Choice Awards" for those who don't care about quality and only care about entertainment. "The Wrestler" is such a realistic portrayal that it's hard to believe it's a movie and not a documentary. Mickey Rourke's performance is almost as good as Daniel Day Lewis in "There will be Blood".
How many blockbusters have won best picture?
Lord of the Rings, because that was a horrible year in movies.
Titanic, which was a far inferior film to Good Will Hunting.
Forrest Gump, which beat out the #1 film on IMDB, The Shawshank Redemption
And that's about it. All the others are either Mafia epics (The Departed, The Godfather), historical epics (Dances With Wolves, Gladiator), or small-time art-house type films (Crash, No Country for Old Men).
I loved The Dark Knight, have it on Blu-Ray and I saw it twice, but that's clearly not a best picture. A best picture isn't just about suspense, action and special effects. It's about acting, writing, impact and memorability, which all those nominees have.
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 5:23PM
Benjh said...
Are you freaking SERIOUS? This post must have been written by a 16-year old high-schooler who can't wait to see hotel for dogs.
Oscars celebrate great movies and great moviemaking, but obviously you know nothing about that. This is a joke.
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 6:34PM
Walter said...
Hey!
I saw Frozen River. Melissa Leo is definitely deserving of a nomination.
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 8:12PM
Tamara said...
If the Academy only start giving awards and nominations to popular movies, then you'd start to see movies like Mean Girls and American Pie win best picture. And Best Actor and Best Actress are exactly that. Not "Best Actor from very good movies." The movie can be unbelievably bad, but the acting performance by someone might be superb. Extremely bad movies won't be watched by many people at all, but the acting performance still deserves to be rewarded if it's deserved.
Reply
1-23-2009 @ 8:33PM
Tamara said...
Of the biggest 5 awards (Picture, Actor/Actress, Supp Actor/Actress) I've seen all the movies except The Reader and Revolutionary Road, so I'll exclude those from my picks. Picture - Milk; Actor - Mikey Rourke; Actress - Melissa Leo; Supp Actor - Heath Ledger; Supp Actress - Viola Davis.
Reply
1-24-2009 @ 1:48AM
Saya said...
Apparently I must be the only person who watches the Tony's (except wait, no I'm not - I even know of people who have had Tony award parties!) The Tony's is the only award show I watch some years (and certainly the only one for which I will set a recording if I'm going to be out of town). Yes I know. Musical theatre folk are a rare breed. But we get excited about the Tony's so no dissing the Tony's, especially when we're talking Hugh Jackman here, LOL =) Seriously though - even though the Oscars never have anything interesting to me on there, I'm actually kind of excited just because Hugh is hosting...
Reply