In Contention
By Josh Spiegel
December 11, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Instead, let's take a long, yet completely healthy and not obsessed, look at the upcoming Oscar ceremony, airing on national television on March 7, 2010. Much, of course, has been bandied about with regards to the decision of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) to expand the Best Picture nominations from five to ten. However, the entire ceremony will attempt to look different, not just in the biggest category. Last year's Oscar producers, Bill Condon and Laurence Mark, are gone; in their place are Bill Mechanic, a former film executive, and Adam Shankman, a choreographer (if you've been watching the FOX reality show "So You Think You Can Dance", you'll know him as one of the show's judges) and director of such films as Bringing Down the House, Hairspray, and The Pacifier.
The most notable change is in the show's host. Last year's host, song-and-dance man/action star Hugh Jackman, politely refused to repeat as emcee; in his place are Steve Martin, who's hosted the Oscars twice in the past decade, and Alec Baldwin, whose popularity has been on the rise since "30 Rock", the NBC sitcom in which he co-stars with Tina Fey, became popular. You may be wondering what kind of method there is to the madness of two hosts instead of one. Now, granted, Martin's time as Oscar host is fondly remembered by some (including me); Baldwin, if not a host of major awards ceremonies, is a dryly witty actor. Still, the idea of having not just two hosts, but two men who happen to be co-starring in the upcoming It's Complicated, which has been getting Oscar buzz for the past month or so, stinks too obviously of corporate integration.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not naïve; I'm fully aware that, whatever lofty ideals and hopes you or I may have, placing the Oscars on ABC is all about wanting to make money. Alongside the Super Bowl and the finale of a show like "American Idol", the Oscar ceremony is a surefire way for the network to make lots of cash off all sorts of advertising revenue. Moreover, the more people who watch means more money is made. And, hey, if It's Complicated makes a lot of money, at least for a movie of its genre, and Martin and Baldwin host the Oscars, couldn't that guarantee more viewers? This mindset may not be of any wholesome meaning, but it annoys me far less than the idea of having ten Best Picture nominations.
What's wrong with sharing the wealth? In theory, nothing. The problem with this cockeyed idea is that AMPAS is working on a theory only. In some ways, arguing that having more popular movies nominated for the Best Picture Oscar will garner more viewers is the same as arguing that a popular host will garner more viewers. If you asked me before Martin and Baldwin got tapped to host who the ideal emcee would be, I'd tell you Jon Stewart. Stewart has also hosted twice in the past decade, and has the right amount of ironic detachment to be funny to those in the Kodak Theatre as well as people at home who may not be familiar with the year's arthouse flicks. But Stewart is the host of a program that, while enduring, has never gotten more than a few million viewers a night, and that's only when "The Daily Show" is involved in a minor controversy.
Stewart's two Oscar shows both got above 30 million viewers, which isn't a bad number, especially when there are hundreds of television channels to choose from. The second time around, to be fair, did get the lower number of viewers (roughly 32 million viewers, as opposed to roughly 39 million). But did those seven million viewers rebel because of Stewart's presence? That's doubtful, and not easy to quantify. Will people tune into this year's show because of Steve Martin? One of his two hosting stints did garner over 40 million viewers, but could that not be somewhat due to the fact that Gladiator won Best Picture that year? His second time hosting, the viewership went down nearly ten million viewers, the year that Chicago won Best Picture.
To AMPAS, the problem is that the movies that are nominated for Best Picture just aren't popular enough to get people interested. They argue that when movies such as Titanic or Lord of the Rings: Return of the King won Best Picture, the ratings were high. Though this is correct, we can't ignore the fact that, for the 2002 ceremony (when Martin and friends only had 33 million viewers watching), Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers was nominated. In 2004, when Chris Rock hosted, the Oscars got 42 million viewers. The Best Picture winner that year? Million Dollar Baby, which made $216 million worldwide...after playing for six and a half months. By the time the Oscar nominations for that year were announced, the film had made just under $9 million. The movie, thanks to a simple expansion, made money afterwards, but only just got over $100 million in its domestic gross (again, over a six-month period).
And what about last year's ceremony, which is said to be the main reason for adding double the Best Picture nominations? The show got nearly 37 million viewers, despite popular and well-received films such as The Dark Knight and WALL-E not being nominated for Best Picture. The ceremony was highly rated, more so than the year before, when there weren't really any major box-office smashes to be found in the Best Picture nominees list. The point I'm trying to make here is simple: there's no way to know that having ten nominees this year is going to get ABC more ratings, or get AMPAS any more credibility. If anything, the Academy may lose some credibility if some of the nominees don't seem to match up with the standards of quality, not popularity, some folks have laid down.
The problem for ABC is simple: they want ratings to be as high as they were when Titanic won Best Picture; that year's ceremony garnered over 57 million viewers, the highest-rated ceremony in the past 20 years. Why is this pie-in-the-sky goal a problem? It won't happen. First of all, for the ratings to be that high, the Oscars need another Titanic. Some people, certainly, are hoping that James Cameron's latest film, the upcoming Avatar, is going to be that film, the one that makes a huge amount of money and captures the hearts and minds of almost every human being in the world. As has been said, however, many times on this very Web site, Titanic wasn't just unique when it came out in terms of awards attention, but its box office performance has not been equaled. It took over a decade for another film to come even close to the $600 million record, and will likely take even more time for another movie to cross the $500 million threshold.
AMPAS may assume, and perhaps be right, that if The Dark Knight had been nominated for Best Picture last year, the ratings would have soared. But therein lies the issue at hand: does a film's popularity equal quality? The highest-grossing film of 2009, to this point, is Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I won't bore you with a lengthy diatribe, but is this film worthy of Best Picture? No. No, no, no, no, no. Would people watch if it was nominated? Maybe. Is anyone even considering nominating it? Of course not. Just because a film is popular doesn't make it great. The Dark Knight was somewhat unique, managing to be a popcorn movie that pleased just about everyone. Films like this don't come along every year; though there have been some great popcorn movies this year, such as Star Trek, they may not all deserve a golden statuette or Best Picture nod.
There are some good reasons to have ten Best Picture nominees, but depending on the year, the list of films is going to be very weak. Unfortunately for AMPAS, it looks like 2009 is going to be one of those years. Their idea should be applauded for its chutzpah and originality; if only AMPAS had the right luck, they might have had a real hit of a show on their hands. Whether or not Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin are great hosts, whether or not popular or unpopular movies get on the Best Picture list, there's no way to know (and it's foolish to assume otherwise) that those movies will incite those who don't normally watch the Oscars to tune in.