"2007 sure was a yawner for movies"..................amen to that!
Certainly the number of TV channels and the growing number of entertainment options might be partially responsible for the worst Oscars telecast ratings in 33 years.
Then again, you have to wonder if the product needs work.
The telecast, for one thing, lasts way too long. If they're going to go over three hours like that, throw in some football and sideline reporters.
The writer's strike, which lasted up to the last minute, couldn't have helped, either.
In addition, the host, Jon Stewart, leaves a lot of folks pining for someone funny. And he seems even more left-leaning than the award winners.
"At age 80, Oscar's heart rate is low," lamented one headline.
"Award for ratings dud goes to Oscar show," blared another.
"Maybe settling the strike in time for the Oscars wasn't such a good idea after all," Robert Bianco of USA Today said.
Ouch! Is that any way to treat an 80-year-old?
After all, doesn't most of the blame rest with the movies themselves? Box office receipts kept up well enough, thanks to ticket prices, but 2007 sure was a yawner for movies. It tells you something that the top-grossing movies were mostly sequels and TV retreads. And the movies up for Oscars were overly grim and not altogether family friendly.
An Oscars broadcast can be helped along by a better host and tighter staging.
But, bless his soul, Oscar will never be any better than the movies he celebrates.
Comments
"2007 sure was a yawner for movies"..................amen to that!
critical praise for most films usually equals minimal mass appeal......juno was the exception this year.......but, most of the movies nominated were actually quite exceptional this year......leave the top box office films to the video music awards on mtv......i'll take the oscars and/or golden globes anytime!!!
Jon Stewart did a fine job, again. He will be back. Most of his political jokes were aimed at the Democrats and the "Liberal Hollywood" audience. The movies nominated for Best Picture were all very deserving and No Country For Old Men was one of the truly best pictures to win in the past 80 years. Thank God "family friendly" movies and block buster hits, Ratatouille, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Spiderman 3, were not nominated in that category. The Chronicle has little to complain about since Michael Moore's Sicko did not win Best Documentary. Maybe the Chronicle should watch the documenatry that did win, Taxi To The Dark Side, to be truly outraged. They love torture, murder, and injustice when it is done by the Terrorists. Wonder if they'll love it as much when it is done by the United States? They'll get their chance when it airs on HBO this fall.
I enjoyed the Oscars myself. Stewart's a good host. And whoever said that 2007 was a "yawner for movies" obviously hasn't paid attention: No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Michael Clayton, Juno, The Darjeeling Limited (or was that early 2008?), not to mention more conventional, but still entertaining, popcorn fare like 30 Days of Night and Beowulf? Its been a good year.
Yeah, I'm not sure what movies the AC saw, but they certainly didn't see the ones nominated for Best Picture. No Country for Old Men might have been grim, but it was an absolutely amazing picture and, in my opinion, rightfully deserved the award. Michael Clayton was the only one that I didn't think was spectacular, and even that movie was good. In fact, I would say 2007 was a pretty darn good year for cinema, with only the blockbusters lacking in quality.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
