Oscar ratings slip 7% as critics scorn hosts Anne Hathaway and James Franco
Many critics dissed the hosting combo of James Franco and Anne Hathaway, but considering that the ceremony lacked a huge crowd-pleasing nominee such as last year's "Avatar," Sunday's 83rd Academy Awards telecast on ABC held up pretty well in the ratings.
The three-hour-plus show scored a 24.6 household rating in the top 56 TV markets, according to early results from the Nielsen Co. That was down 7% compared with last year's broadcast.
But the ceremony, which awarded the best picture prize to "The King's Speech," slipped just 2% among viewers ages 18 to 49. That may have been thanks to Hathaway and Franco, the youngest cohosts in Oscar history and an effort by the academy, as Hathaway alluded to in an early joke, to be "appealing" to a youthful demographic.
But the critics were mostly less than kind. The Hollywood Reporter said the awards show "could go down as one of the worst Oscar telecasts in history." Los Angeles Times critic Mary McNamara said the pair "played it safe" but nevertheless delivered what was expected of them.
More detailed ratings, including a total-viewer count, will be released later Monday.
What did you think of the show?
-- Scott Collins (Twitter: @scottcollinsLAT)
Related:
Television review: Anne Hathaway and James Franco play it safe
Oscars ceremony was one of the shortest in recent times
The British are coming? Decoding the 'King's Speech' win
Big Picture: The triumph of Hollywood conservative values
Photo: James Franco and Anne Hathaway during Sunday's Oscar telecast. Credit: Michael Yada / European Pressphoto Agency
I actually enjoyed it. I thought the 2 did a good job and made sure that the movies got the full recognition and the many talented people & again, I thought that they balanced nicely with this aspect. I really liked the recognition of classic Hollywood & the sets were really well done, especially when they would show film clips in the background. The writer of this article mentioned, really no huge crowd-pleasing films, but I honestly would categorized this as "Inception" but maybe it's because I really liked the movie. Happy that Trent won for "Original Score" for "The Social Network" but really like the music from "Inception". Happy to see "The Wolfman" won "Best Make-up".
Posted by: Jason | February 28, 2011 at 11:21 AM
They do rehearse this show, yes? Then the producers had to know Franco and Hathaway were completely incompetent for this job! Franco looked stoned all evening and Hathaway just doesn't have the talent to improvise and click with the audience. Best part was Sandra Bullock asking Jeff Bridges not to win and share the wealth. She is funny, can improvise, and I'd love the Academy to give her a chance to host next year - alone! Just let one person host, and quit with all the introductions for someone who just comes out to introduce someone else - enough already! And PLEASE, if Paltrow comes near a microphone again, turn it OFF!
Posted by: Movie Mom | February 28, 2011 at 11:24 AM
The demographic which might be interested in watching Hathaway and Franco is never going to watch this snooze fest. It's like trying to make a rodeo appealing to PETA. Those that do tune in are going to quit watching if the producers don't realize the difference between entertainers and actors.
Posted by: nijode | February 28, 2011 at 11:24 AM
I thought Franco and Hathaway were fabulous...Hathaway a little more than James, especially her little singing routine. Bravo!
Posted by: joan v. | February 28, 2011 at 11:26 AM
One of the worst Oscar shows of all time, and there have been some very bad ones in the past. James Franco seemed sleepy and uninvolved with it all, and his drag appearance fell totally flat, while Anne Hathaway, while always a pretty sight to look at, had no good lines to offer. Where are all those talented
Hollywood writers? The only memorable part of the show was seeing Kirk
Douglas. The red carpet events prior to the show were better than the
show itself. What a shame.
Posted by: Marcher | February 28, 2011 at 11:28 AM
I thought the show was better than many in the past - the reference to Academy history, old clips, the special projection effects were great, and the opening sequence with the hosts was fun. Hathaway and Franco were trying too hard and she got too giggly at times. Chalk it up to youth. Bring back Billy Crystal!
Posted by: sharon | February 28, 2011 at 11:29 AM
Annie Hathaway was great.
Posted by: Scott | February 28, 2011 at 11:43 AM
maybe it's because the show is predictable. Everyone guessed the king's speech would be the big winner.
Posted by: Ieat | February 28, 2011 at 11:44 AM
James Franco's 'stiff' act wasn't fun to watch. He was dead weight next to Anne Hathaway who was trying to carry the show and drag him along. Anne was more real and likable, but obviously had to script read. However, WHAT was with all her 'woohooing' over the other actors? She should have been a professional host, not a teen fan! Oh, yeah, she was acting 'young and hip.'
If Billy Crystal could be there for a guest appearance, why couldn't he have hosted the show? If he can't do it next year, what about Sandra Bullock? She seemed comfortable and confident on stage and delivered humorous lines with ease.
As for the red carpet coverage...oh, PLEASE!! So many actors/actresses who obviously need a script to sound intelligent and enthusiastic...can't think on their feet. And I for one don't care 'who' an actress is 'wearing.' Does the younger audience the show's producers had hoped to attract? This is suppose to be a show about movies, not runway designers.
Posted by: JeanC | February 28, 2011 at 11:50 AM
James Franco would have been fine in a looser setting. Being a good host requires a level of phoniness that the guy just doesn't seem to possess. Good pairings typically have one off the wall person teamed up with a straight man to react. Such a pairing would be a duo like Sarah Silverman and Paul Rudd.
Posted by: Paul Taegel | February 28, 2011 at 11:51 AM
I am actually a big fan of the annual Academy Awards show, but I hated this one. And I usually defend the show, but there was no saving this one. How annoying could Ann Hathaway be - woo-HOO-ing after every winner's name was announced, navel-gazing, and as for James Franco - a naked Taylor Lautner would have been more interesting as James apparently thought "hip and cool" meant standing/slouching and squinting/smirking. No personality whatsoevah.
I agree with the previous poster who said that it was cruel and painful to watch Kirk Douglas attempt to mouth the words he was supposed to be saying...it's a miracle he's still around, of course - and - let's acknowledge that by showing him seated in the crowd, not forcing him to make himself a morose spectacle.
Gwyneth Paltrow - let's talk about ill-advised - she is NOT a singer, I don't care how many country-western made-for-tv's she's been in or Glee episodes. She was so off-key I think the American Idol judges would cover their ears. No longer can you pawn off talent because of your parents, your spouse, or your blog darling; stick to sickly sweet rom-coms. For the most part I enjoyed the Red Carpet segments more than the ceremony - other than Jude Law and Robert Downey Junior - they rocked.
Posted by: san frann | February 28, 2011 at 11:57 AM
I thought they did okay. It seemed to me that the crowd ws a bunch of stiffs...lighten up folks and have some fun. The fault should go to the producers. I dont think the audience was mic'd properly..you could barely hear them applaude but when whoever was at the podium clapped it sounded like thunder. ELI WALLACH deserved more than clips of him at an afternoon luncheon ceremony. How about Clint Eastwood presenting him with his special award??? That was a HUGE miss. The writers should have come up with funny jabs at the lady who dropped the F BOMB..."You can take the girl out of Southie..." Oh, and next time get the animation awards over before you put her on tv...had to scurry my kids out of the room.
Posted by: patrick | February 28, 2011 at 12:04 PM
It always amazes me how people like to sit back and criticize the hosts of the Oscars. The hosts are on for at most a collective 30 minutes. Everything else is about the arrivals, the presenters, the dresses, the winners, the losers, the production value, etc. Why don't Saturday Night Live hosts ever get this much scrutiny? And they have more to do. It's probably comforting for viewers who will never achieve that level of fame or notoriety to sit on their collective couches and find fault wherever they can, like a person who doesn't exercise making fun of someone on a treadmill. I'm a low budget filmmaker on the outside fringe of the Hollywood system and when I see these people who have achieved a level of fame I no longer strive for, I can live vicariously through these privileged people. I know how hard it is to get there and (with some exceptions) appreciate all the work they put into achieving their goals.
Posted by: Lee Neville | February 28, 2011 at 12:08 PM
It was painful to watch. I gave up after about an hour and a half. These two tried very hard but don't have the chops to carry this type of event off.
Posted by: Chris | February 28, 2011 at 12:16 PM
Franco was hilarious. Hathaway was terrible... she's like the annoying theater girl neighbor everyone grew up next to... hard to swallow. But Franco... his faces are priceless. Overall, the show had few surprises... other than the snub on Fincher for best director.
Posted by: Marv | February 28, 2011 at 12:16 PM
Who even cares about the Oscars!
We were catching-up on recorded Fringe and Parenthood.
Posted by: the winner is... | February 28, 2011 at 12:18 PM
You know you are in trouble when you are out-performed by a stroke victim who can barely walk and talk. It was painful for anyone who ever saw Kirk Douglas in his prime to watch him last night...and he was the hi-light of the show! Franco performed like his arm was pinned underneath a rock or something. He was stiff, bored, uninteresting and, at times, seemed like he was in pain. Hathaway tried to salvage some really lousy material that she had to work with (in addition to that cadaver standing next to her), but in the end only proved that she was both overrated and clueless. Her many wardrobe changes were kind of interesting...but in the end, it was like putting lipstick on a pig. Only their mothers and agents could love their performances. Both were totally out of their depth and the material they had to work with was horrible.
That was the worst Academy Awards TV show that I have seen since the mid-1950s. Those two must NEVER host the Academy Awards again.
Posted by: Bradford Talamon | February 28, 2011 at 12:18 PM
terrible hosts, not remotely "hip", just Hathaway behaving like a spunky summer camp counselor, embarassing herself.
If hip and fresh is the target, the entire set should have been more modernist and not a tired old throwback to Kodak theater / DW Griffith Hollywood blvd crappy kitsch. Live musical numbers should be foregone, so we dont feel like we're on a cruiseship karaoke. It would actually be nice to see a short compilation of many great film songs that were not nominated, rather than hearing the dreadful 5 nominees performed live. Take the opp to celebrate performers who were not nominated.
The Oscars problematically celebrates stars, not filmmaking. In 10 years the average audience member will not have contributed to or even seen a movie before 1970. So all movie history pre-1970 will be lost at the Oscars. so the Oscars should be hip by tying the first 50 years with the present
For example, by showing vignettes that tie the great influential editors of the 20th century, with the new pantheon of editing greatness for example. A 2 minute celebration of editing from Eisenstein to now would serve to celebrate film and tie the past with the present. Otherwise, we have no idea what the difference is between great and good
The same kinds of vignettes should be done for Directors who influence current directors, visual effects etc.
in other words, make the oscars cool by celebrating film and acting, not celebrating stardom and resporting to Jimmy Fallon pranks and fake trailers and MTV award spookfs (althought that stuff is fun, and a couple would bring some levity to an otherwise tired, boring old mare of a ceremony.
Posted by: soccerforguns | February 28, 2011 at 12:23 PM
Roll model? Damn right! Where's Poppin' Fresh?
Posted by: MCF | February 28, 2011 at 12:24 PM
I think the relevance of the Oscars has dwindled and to place the blame on James Franco and Anne Hathaway is just finding a scapegoat for an otherwise inconsequential awards show. Like someone said already, by the time the Oscars roll in, it's no surprise certain movies win certain prizes, since they already got it in the guild awards. Lame.
Posted by: O-town | February 28, 2011 at 12:28 PM