Live-Blogging The 2007 Oscars: The After

I thought I would do a brief wrap-up of my post-Oscar thoughts. Thankfully, this will not be as long as my post on the show. And on that note...

Oscar has known for years that the primary complaints about the telecast are that it is WAY TOO FUCKING LONG and WAY TOO FUCKING BORING [and this year's telecast was maybe. The. Worst. Oscars. Ever.]. This has caused all kinds of problems for Oscar, the most important of which is declining ratings.

Okay, sure, Oscar still is the highest-rated awards show of the season. And lots of other shows would kill to be in Oscar's "precarious" position. But Oscar has to be worried about its longer-term slide. The future for Oscar is ominous.

Programming on television exists for ONE REASON ONLY -- to aggregate viewers in front of advertisers. That's it. Sorry to burst your bubble. [N.B.: Don't talk to me about "commercial-free" television that survives on government subsidies and corporate funding [*cough* "commercials" *cough*] such as PBS or "commercial free" television that survives on subscriber fees such as HBO.] There is no accounting for "high art" or "critical acclaim" here -- if the viewers don't show up, the advertisers won't show up, and the show is gone. This happens with all forms of entertainment television, including sitcoms [e.g., "Arrested Development"] and sports leagues [e.g., the USFL].

We hear a lot about how the multitude of entertainment options [DVDs, video games, the internet, cable/satellite, music, etc., etc., etc.] available to consumers has impacted the viewership of "the traditional networks", and that's absolutely true. But a dirty little secret of the networks is THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. All of the corporate-owned networks have their hands in multiple "traditional" networks, cable networks [general, specialty, and niche], movie studios, sports teams, etc., etc., etc. Many of these entertainment options have very small niche audiences, but that's okay -- there are still advertisers that will pay handsomely to target their advertising at these niche audiences with predictable interests.

The big albatross the "traditional" networks still have to deal with, ironically enough, IS the "traditional" network channels. Even though most Americans have easy access to dozens or hundreds of other choices, programming on these channels still is expected to draw multiple millions of viewers. If a show doesn't live up to these standards, it will either be cancelled or shipped off to one of the smaller-audience cable channels.

Rob, you're rambling on just like Oscar does. What does any of this have to do with Oscar?

Two words: Miss America.

Within the lifetimes of many DHMBIB readers, "Miss America" was the most popular program on television. In the mid-60's, the audience for the program began to erode, as the program's depiction of the "feminine ideal" was becoming increasingly out-of-step with changing cultural tastes [hmmm, sound familiar???]. Many attempts to revive the ratings only delayed the inevitable, and in 2004, Miss America's broadcast partner -- ABC [ahem!] -- dropped her.

Miss America now runs on...wait for it...CMT. FWIW, CMT is part of the MTV Networks family of cable channels.

So, Oscar, babe -- watch your back!

*****

As noted above, Oscar's ratings are still excellent. It will likely take many years for them to sag to Miss America territory. But American Idol is poised to overtake Oscar, and that is not good news for ABC.

Oscar's preliminary average rating this year was 39.9 million viewers, which was actually up slightly over last year and was double the number of viewers for either Grammy [CBS] or Golden Globe [NBC].

Meanwhile, American Idol [Fox] is bringing in 30+ million viewers twice [and sometimes thrice] a week.

I predict that this year's finale of American Idol will beat Oscar in the ratings. Write that down, and come back in late May and we'll talk again.

*****

So, I wanted to offer some ideas about things that Oscar can do to pick up its ratings. This will most likely be accomplished by shortening the show and perking it up.

Here are some things Oscar should do shorten the show, zip it up, and make it more appealing to viewers:

* Cut the show down to three hours: Heresy, I know. But it has to be done. Four hours is simply too long. Cutting the show down to three hours means Oscar will have to...

* Get rid of some of the categories: Oscar gave out 24 awards on the air this year, not counting "special" awards. Grammy gave out 11 awards on the air this year, again not counting "special" awards. That looks like Oscar was "more efficient" in giving out its awards, but it only looks that way. Grammy gives out many more "special" awards every year. And more importantly -- most of Grammy's non-award time is spent on musical performances.

Grammy also has lots more awards that it gives out than Oscar does. Grammy knows it can't put everything on TV, so it presents most of its awards before the ceremony and runs a graphic on screen announcing who won these awards. The effect actually makes the ceremony feel zippier, and the telecast looks more like modern TV with its bottom-screen "ticker".

Oscar needs to get rid of many of its awards. I'm not saying "a quarter", because I propose below some new awards be added. I started to make a list of the awards that should go, but I see it's easier to make a list of the awards that should stay: the Acting awards (both levels); Picture; Director; Animated (Feature); Song (Original); and Visual Effects. Yep, that's it.

My rule of thumb: If the average viewer won't recognize or hasn't seen the winner, the category should not be on TV. Which leads me to my next suggestion...

* Nominate some movies and actors that people know: How many Oscar discussions have you had where most of the participants said, "I haven't seen any of the nominated movies this year." Exactly.

Oscar should take a page out of Golden Globes's playbook and split its acting and film categories into Boring Drama and Interesting Comedy / Musical categories. Yes, that will add new categories, but will also lead to the nomination of a lot more movies and actors with which the average viewer will be familiar. It also will avoid the annual debates about whether movies like Dreamgirls or -- heaven forbid!!! -- Borat should be nominated for "Best Picture".

To accommodate these new categories, Oscar will need to...

* Get rid of the montages and "special" awards: We don't need a five-minute montage on the history of the depiction of the journalist in film. Seriously. We don't. Get rid of everything except for the people-we've-lost-this-year montage. That one is nice.

Also, Oscar should lose its "special" awards like "Lifetime Achievement" and that "Humanitarian" thing. It's fine to honor the recipients, but they don't need a montage and then an award and then a three-minute speech. Grammy has its award presenters announce these special awards before they give out the "main" award for which they are on stage. That's sufficient.

Together, these two changes will take out some of the most boring parts of the show and will give the producers huge chunks of time back. Time they can use to...

* Put something exciting on the stage: Oscar should do everything it possibly can to have five exciting and dynamic songs nominated in the "Original Song" category. That means, among other things: NO MORE RANDY NEWMAN OR JAMES TAYLOR. The nominees -- and the performers -- in this category should look more like the pop charts and less like the adult contemporary charts. Beyonce: good. Jennifer Hudson: good. Three 6 Mafia: good.

Seriously, the only time during this year's telecast that I put my computer down and actually WATCHED AND LISTENED was during the J.Hud-B "diva-off".

*****

Okay, I've already written too much. And I know I'm not the first person to recommend that Oscar make some of these types of changes.

Just my $.02