Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Oscar's rating's improve

Who may know why this year's Oscar's were up 13 percent from last year, at 36.3 million viewer's, compared to last year's all time lowest rated ceremony.

Could it be the all around thespian/singing skills of a new host in Hugh Jackman, the sexiest man alive, so People magazine voted earlier this year. ? Could just the change of the host, make a 4 million viewership difference ? I just find that analogy hard to chew on.

I will admit that personally I had no problem with Jon Stewert as the host last year, but there has to be a reason why there was an improvement in the rating's. Maybe it's because there were film's that were more seen and more likeable than last year. I have pondered this more than once.

I do have one slight problem with the show. I would like the ceremony to stay within the past tradition of the past winner presenting with a clip for the nominated actor and actress. A lot of the people chose to present were reading off a teleprompter, and that seemed to make it less genuine. I would have much rather seen Daniel Day-Lewis give the golden statue to Kate Winslet.

As for a complete show, I'd say it was a decent watch. It seemed like a quicker three hours than last year. I'd still go with a proven comic to host the show though. Especially in these times. People need to laugh.

No comments:

About Me

My photo
Started to really pay attention to film ( movies ) what was going on in front of the camera, but more interestingly, behind it as well at about as far back as age 10. Motion pictures ( when good ) are a fascinating medium. All the work and prep that goes into filmmaking. It's an amazing process !