Oscar Ratings Look Up

NEW YORK — An estimated 36.3 million people watched this year's Academy Awards, an increase of more than 4 million from last year's least-watched Oscars ceremony ever.

While ABC was heartened by the larger audience, especially among younger viewers, there are still only two Oscar telecasts on record with fewer viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Last year, when "No Country For Old Men" won best picture, the telecast was seen by 32 million people. The 2003 telecast, with "Chicago" as the best picture winner, was seen by 33 million people.

Hugh Jackman was the host of Sunday's show, where "Slumdog Millionaire" was the big winner. Among the earlier awards on the telecast was the late Heath Ledger's best supporting actor prize for "The Dark Knight."

At a time that the TV audience is fragmenting, Sunday's audience was the biggest for any prime-time entertainment program in two years, ABC said. The Golden Globes was seen last month by just under 15 million people.

The largest Oscars audience on record was in 1998, when 55.2 million watched "Titanic" win best picture.

Comments

[Isis N]

This was actually a fun show. As much as I adore Hugh Jackman, I was still not sure how well he was going to do hosting the Oscars (and YES, I actually saw him host all 3 years of the Tonys that he did), due to all the others who also work behind the scenes.

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it, and I really loved the homage to the movie musical, though I would have LOVED to see HSM not be included in that! And I'm sure that John Travolta was amused by Hugh singing songs from Grease...

All in all, a much easier and fun to watch show than what's been there for the last several years.

[peachykeen]

This just means there were more people than last year who were disappointed in what they saw.

[postit2u]

Why is America so obsesses with foreign actors and movies. You would never see 4 of the top 5 awards given to Americans on a foreign award show. When I saw a foreign actor play a cowboy, I knew we had a problem. (smile)

[x004Ronin]

Look, this was the 3rd lowest rated Oscars. The top 2 lowest?
The 2003 Oscars, which happened like 4 days after we invaded Iraq (meaning minds were focused elsewhere).
The 2007 Oscars, which happened like a couple weeks after the writers' strike ended (meaning that the writers were rushed and promoting the show didn't occur until far later than usual).

I'm not trying to be mean, but my point is that the 3rd lowest-rated Oscars is a pretty poor result considering there was no external event crippling the show.
Show needs to be shorter...
And Benjamin Button beating both Iron Man and Batman in Special Effects is just ridiculous on so many levels....

[culturebeast]

In my opinion the reason the Oscars aren't watched as much is partly because Hollywood is one of the whipping boys of the Right. The right doesn't like Science, Education, Culture or art. In other words anything that causes people to reflect and perhaps challenge their own rigid narrow thinking. Think of how this sets their children up for doing poorly in school.

Hugh Jackman is a great entertainer AND artist. He probably attracted many who are Wolverine fans.

[loax]

Hugh Jackman was great! Very talented man who brought back a little glamour!

[Isis N]

Absolutely! I couldn't keep my eyes off the screen when he was on! Great presentation!

[shoshannah]

A whole host of fans of the late Heath Ledger had tuned in to see if he would win and who would accept the award on his behalf. And the producers were well aware this was a factor. Ever since the ceremony has been televised, the first award given out has been for Best Supporting Actor; this year its order of presentation was swapped with Best Supporting Actress for no reason other than the producers’ fears that once Ledger’s win was announced, viewership would drop off. Duh.

[schicklett3]

Best Oscar telecast, and format, I've ever seen.
It was very entertaining, and Hugh Jackman was incredible.
KUDOS!!!

[santiago9629]

i still don't understand why Hugh Jackman hosted...can someone enlighten me?

[TruEngineHearing]

Because Jackman is a very talented man and somebody recognized that audiences would love to be entertained by actual entertainers - not text-heavy mouth-breathers.

I barely knew who he was until the Oscars, but now I sure do.

[Seven7s]

I loved him as host actually. And I didnt know he could dance so well either.

[KathyinCT]

Gorgeous.

Funny.

Entertaining.

Non controversial.

What's you problem with him?

[peachykeen]

Hugh Jackman was the only highlight of this show. The In Memorium sequence was the most horrid I have ever seen. The Best Songs medley stunk. Overall, a D for the whole show.

[Isis N]

Because he actually has talent, and is a legitimate triple threat (singer, dancer, actor) in a time when most people can't even be a single threat in the industry (ex: Miley Cyrus, Jonas Brothers, etc).

[chardonnay48]

Jack Black is a tool.

[mlaiuppa]

I haven't watched the Oscars (except for the last 10-30 min or so) for years. But I watched the whole thing this time. I liked the new "narrative" format and I especially liked the medley and montage ways of presenting the categories. I think the thing I liked the most was that they used 5 previous winners to each introduce a nominee. The Oscars are the Academy honoring their own. And that is what was brought back this year. The speeches seemed to be short and I like that they were never interrupted by the orchestra. It was over by 9pm pacific. Most of the dresses didn't suck either. I hope they do the same, only even better next year.

[Amerigucci]

I'm convinced that those who are writing that they liked the show are ringers. Everyone I know, every single one of them, said they thought it was awful. "The worst ever." It was the talk of the day. One friend just said that there must be something in the stars that are making Republicans think they're succeeding by being against everything that Democrats just won an election over, and the people here who thought last night's Academy Awards show was great.

The show started at 5:30 pm pacific. Same length as previous broadcasts. The speeches were the same length as previous years, too. The only difference was that there was no music leading them off.

[daedelus]

Your comment reflects more on the people you know than it does on the Oscars..

[KathyinCT]

You have weird friends.

I got emails from 7 different friends during the evening saying variations on "Wow, this is good, this is fun."

Everyone loved having a previous winner speak personally about a nominee -- so much more personal and meaningful than showing the same old clips that have been shown all over TV for weeks.

When Adrian talked about Richard Jenkins' long long career, it was really touching.

[Marcospinelli]

Every year the Oscars are bad, mainly because of the length. The time is filled up with unknowns on the other side of the camera making speeches that only those they mention (parents, friends, children) appreciate. What is good about them (star-gazing, movie clips, tributes to legends) got cut this year. The memorial segment this year, with Queen Latifah singing to names and photo stills that had my party guests yelling, "Who is that?" and howling with rage. In a year where Sidney Pollack and Paul Newman die, we should have seen lengthy scenes and memorable quotes from their classic movies and careers replayed without Latifah struggling to make the notes.

The past winners roasting the nominees was wretched. Not one scene from any of their performances was shown.

This was the worst ever, and I understand it's due to Hugh Jackman who got to bring in his own team to write the show. What this shows me is that he doesn't love movies.

[KathyinCT]

Soak your head.

The clips were shown at SAG, Golden Globes, Spirit Awards, and on every TV interview that every nominee gave. I can act out all of them. WHO besides YOU wanted to see the same clips again.

Watching a legend like Shirley McLaine talk directly to a new legend-to-be like Anne Hathaway, and bring tears to her eyes, was touching. Listening to Adrian Brody honoring Richard Jenkins' remarkable body of work was also touching.

IF your friends can't read (the names of those being memorialized were ON THE SCREEN) perhaps they need glasses or a literacy course? And why should not legends like Richard Widmark and CHARLTON HESTON be honored, along with those who MADE the movies behind the cameras.

If your party guests truly HOWLED WITH RAGE -- they need some therapy and you need some new friends.

It's a TV show, for heaven's sake. There are better things to howl and rage about, buddy.

[Lulubelle1]

It pains me to say so, since I LOOOOVE Jon Stewart, but Hugh Jackman was amazing, and I liked the entire narrative thread of this show. It was extraordinarily well done, with few dull moments. Kudos to the entire production design, performers, presenters, and writers.

[GrkAm]

This was one of the absolute worst Academy Awards I have seen!! Although I understand the public's scorn of glitz, it's also the oppportunity to pay homage to the ARTISTS who worked tirelessly to complete a project.

There was not even one clip of performances of the nominees in the top categories. What a slap in the face to all of those who were nominated!! The past winners in those categories were eloquent, and it was a nice touch to the evening; however, all of the past winners (and their respective competitors) were honored by a clip of their work.

Considering a ticket to at the box office costs $7.00 (for a matinee), plus a soda and snack puts the bill at approx. $30 in our household-- that is for two people. Normally, we gauge future viewing on the performances shown on the Oscars. We have spent our money going to a movie that was a dud and have felt it was wasted money. No more! We will wait and watch movies on DVD or cable.

[mediamarv]

Couldn't disagree more.... this one was a refreshing change, well thought out and very entertaining... it was well paced, intimate and those nominated got more from the personal introductions than watching a re hash of selected scenes. I much prefer this format and by the time of the show, most in the tv audience are familiar with the nominated performances, and if they aren't what better way to get them out to the theaters....
Jackman was very impressive... facets to his talent that most of us never knew.

Well done, all!!!

[s miller08]

I liked how they presented the acting categories very much. It was intimate and interesting. The Oscar acting clips are tired. I'm sure youtube has clips of the performances.

[GrkAm]

You have a point. But what about people who can't afford the internet, can't use a computer, or have the time to look up look up every performance, every tune, etc.??

Not all of the world has electronics to assist them, but a majority of them have a TV. They don't need to be penalized for this!

[Marcospinelli]

You're right. It stunk.

It was written by people who don't love movies. I just learned that whoever hosts the show gets to bring in his own team to write the show. Jackman obviously isn't a movie buff.

The montage of those movies up for Best Picture combined with clips from movies from other years was infuriatingly confusing.

The memorial, with Queen Latifah, couldn't have been more disrespectful to some of the greatest icons in the industry. It would have been more of a tribute to leave it out entirely.

The top awards, delivered by groups of past winners speaking their own tributes was cringe-worthy. They should have had clips of from the nominated performances. I don't care that Marion Cotillard thought Kate Winslet "was really awesome".

[dandypuddin]

I couldn't believe they didn't show clips of the works of the actors and actresses. Couldn't they have cut Beyonce's number to show the actual movies these folks were in? Shameful, really.

Also, someone needs to tell the producers that 5 former winner thingy on stage was weird, phony (except for DeNiro and MacLaine) & very uncomfortable all around.

[RachelMc]

just had to squeeze in beyonce huh?

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

The method they used to deliver the screenwriter's award was really interesting! It showed people how the magic is made.....how the printed page gets transformed into what you see on the screen.

Jackman did a great job, as well.

[HolePunchSD]

I agree completely! I thought Hugh Jackman's opening was great and refreshing. The man is truly talented. The screenwriter's portion was amazing. I think the show's producers should expand all categories to meet a similar format.

[Isis N]

You just said everything I was thinking! I LOVED this year's Oscars, and sorry to Jon Stewart and Ellen, I do love you both, but Hugh just made this fun to watch!