TV and Movies

[Group 5 minus 1]

We did not even know that they were on!

[Snoopp]

I have no interest in listening to a celebrity pontificate.  Count me out.

[Qshopper1991]

I have zero interest watching ANY award show.  

[SahmIam]

Too bad it isn't more...like 100%. Then we wouldn't have to listen to their drivel any longer. Actually, I don't as I don't watch them or any other Hollywood **ap any more because of what they've turned it into. The fact that they think people actually care what they think is what I find....comical and yet disturbing at the same time. 

Do love the fashions but beyond that...*yawn*.

[Cumbercookie13]

I don't watch because it's too long. It shouldn't be 3-4 hours for handing out awards. The preshow hosting is not what it used to be. Surely they can get someone other than Ryan Seacrest. It's too much gossip and not enough talking about the show and the films. And the majority of the movies just don't play in my area until they come out on On Demand, or the content doesn't interest me. Although The Shape of Water sounds interesting, as I do like some sci-fi/horror/fantasy films. 

I don't care about the politics. These celebrities work, pay taxes (for the most part anyway), live here, so they should have a voice about what goes on in this country. Those of you who get so angry about them speaking out and wanting them to "shut up and act," need to get over yourselves. You have no problem expressing your opinion, why should they be silenced because they're millionaires? Socio-economic status should not dictate who can talk and who can't. You're sounding just the spoiled elitists you're accusing Hollywood of being. 

[LoriLori]

---

@ms traditionalwrote:

not sure what is final number for viewership - but LATimes says 26.5 mill this year vs 32 million plus last year.  i always think it is interesting to see how much of the audience sticks around after the first 1/2 hour. i haven't seen that diagram yet. this is below the previous low of 32 million. in 2008. in 1998 viewership was over 55 million - year of "The Titanic."

---

@ms traditional, again, this is very misleading.  No media buyer ever has been made on Households.  Households is a useless rating.  This is why the media can afford to buy the data. 

The real data, the nitty gritty of the demos, the things that professionals use -- those are not available to the public and too expensive for almost any web site (except zap2it) to purchase.

So this chart means nothing.  It doesn't even say it's Households, I'm just assuming.  

And again, adjusted ratings take six days to allow for DVR viewing.  And this doesn't count streaming, numbers that never ever get released.

[LoriLori]

---

@yellowBeetlewrote:

Official numbers are in....only 26.5 million watched making this the lowest-rated Oscar show ever!!!

Wow!!!

(Everyone is reporting this now...L.A.Times, New York Times, USA Today, etc.)

---

@yellowBeetle, totally fake news. 

Official numbers are not in and won't be until Saturday when adjustments are made for DVR viewing all week. 

This is a fake number but anyway it is also useless.  No demo.  Is it Households?  No media buyer ever bought on Households.  It's PR and nothing more.

This is all fake news.  Smug, fake news.  Scares me what people will use to prove their confirmation bias.

[CANDLEQUEEN]

I only watched about an hour or so of the Oscars, but I found them to be far less political than past shows......To me it was more about diversity, and really celebrating movies, there were some wonderful song productions, and for the most part, the speeches were much shorter with a few exceptions......

I enjoyed what I did see.....Actually I think I watched closer to 2 hours of the show-forgot that it started at 7pm CST.......To each their own, but I have always loved The Oscars......

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@Cumbercookie13wrote:

I don't watch because it's too long. It shouldn't be 3-4 hours for handing out awards. The preshow hosting is not what it used to be. Surely they can get someone other than Ryan Seacrest. It's too much gossip and not enough talking about the show and the films. And the majority of the movies just don't play in my area until they come out on On Demand, or the content doesn't interest me. Although The Shape of Water sounds interesting, as I do like some sci-fi/horror/fantasy films. 

I don't care about the politics. These celebrities work, pay taxes (for the most part anyway), live here, so they should have a voice about what goes on in this country. Those of you who get so angry about them speaking out and wanting them to "shut up and act," need to get over yourselves. You have no problem expressing your opinion, why should they be silenced because they're millionaires? Socio-economic status should not dictate who can talk and who can't. You're sounding just the spoiled elitists you're accusing Hollywood of being. 

---

@Cumbercookie13

Very well stated!       I can't help but wonder how many that bash actors watch the Kartrashians and read gossip mags.   Everyone seems to assume that all celebrities are multi-millionnaires ... not true at all .....  I guess it's easier to bash "rich" people?    Give them credit for actually EARNING ther money ... not inheriting it from their father.

A lot of actors work several jobs and live job to job until they get a really meaningful part .... and there's no guarantee that another one will come along any time soon.   It's an extremely competitive business, and there's always someone coming along who is younger, thinner .... and will work for less money.  

It's tough working job to job and having to constantly interview .... especially if you have a family to support!   A lot more movies are made in Canada and away from home.   Try dealing with that!    

And YES, they have to pay taxes just like the rest of us.   

[culebra]

Other than Dunkirk, The Post and Get Out - all of the movies were art house movie.  They were good, but they did not set the box office on fire.  A few years ago when Argo, a successful film at the box office, won Best Picture, ratings were up.  Ratings have to do with number of people who have seen the movies.