New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

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.

Continued:       1       2       3