erik lundegaard

 RSS    Facebook
ARCHIVES
By Category
General
Baseball
Biking
Books
Business
Culture
Hiking
Jean Gabin
Jordy’s Reviews
Lancelot Links
The Media
Microsoft
Movies
Movies - Box Office
Movies - Foreign
Movies - The Oscars
Movies - Reviews
Movies - Reviews - 2010
Movies - Studios
Movies - Theaters
Movies - Trailers
Music
Personal Pieces
Politics
Quote of the Day
Robin Hood
J.D. Salinger
Seattle
Seattle Mariners
Superheroes
TV
Vietnam
What Liberal Hollywood?
Word Study
Yankees Suck
By Month
March 2010
February 2010
October 2009
June 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
October 2008
February 2008

All previous entries

LINKS
Movies
Roger Ebert
David Edelstein
Film Experience Blog
Patrick Goldstein
Dave Kehr
Large Ass Movie Blogs
Le Monde
Northwest Film Forum
James Rocchi
Jeffrey Wells
Politics
Eric Alterman
Hendrik Hertzberg
Clay Shirky
Andrew Sullivan
Tom Toles
Baseball
Rob Neyer
USS Mariner
Joe Posnanski
Friends
Deb Ellis
Andrew Engelson
Tim Harrison
Jessica Thompson
Uncle Vinny
Friday October 30, 2009

Which Host with What Most?

I agree with the Hollywood talent agent in this Patrick Goldstein post: Having Ricky Gervais host the Golden Globes is the Globes' gain and the Academy's loss. He's one of the funniest men on the planet, and, being British, he's at least somewhat international, although I doubt his shows carry far into Europe, let alone Asia or Latin America. His movies certainly don't. 

So what's the Academy looking for in a host? What's their goal—to increase U.S. ratings or international ratings? "Both," I'm sure someone would say. But if they had to choose, wouldn't they want the latter rather than the former? And what are the international ratings of the Academy Awards? I remember how common it once was to talk about "a billion people watching" but they haven't trotted that one out in a while, and a quick Google search gives us, at best, vague reports, like this one from Variety: "Some suggest that as many as 800 million people watch the Oscarcast worldwide." I like that. Some don't even "say" it; some merely "suggest" it. Some gossip that... Some spread rumors that... It's called news.

The U.S. numbers, meanwhile, are no mere suggestions, and they are definitely dropping. No year in the '90s dipped below 40 million—with the high point being the 57 million who watched "Titanic" win—while no year in the last five years has risen above 40 million. These ratings drops correlate with the drop in the box-office numbers of the best-picture candidates, so one wonders how much a host can counter this trend. Isn't that what the idiotic expansion of the best-picture candidates is for?

Even so, who would you pick as your Oscar host? Another funny TV star—like Johnny Carson, David Letterman or Jon Stewart? Another funny movie star—like Bob Hope, Billy Crystal or Steve Martin? A song-and-dance man like Hugh Jackman? Apparently the show's new producers, Bill Mechanic and Adam Shankman, are seeking co-hosts, rather than one host, to appeal to the different demographics in our increasingly fragmented country in our increasingly international world. So who could that be? Brad and Angelina? Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts? Justin Timberlake and Beyonce? Who matters in the movie world anymore?

This last question actually clarifies. If movie stars no longer matter, as the box-office numbers indicate, you go with what does. Thus: Welcome! To the 82nd Annual Academy Awards! With presenters: Harry Potter! The Dark Knight! Optimus Prime! Captain Jack! Spider-Man! Iron Man! And Darth Vader! And now, here's your hosts, Shrek and Donkey!

Posted at 07:45 AM on Oct 30, 2009 in category Movies - The Oscars
No Comments yet   |   Permalink