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
Hathaway needed to dial down the perky.
As for Franco, he was a lost cause from the get go.
Posted by: DG3 | February 28, 2011 at 02:03 PM
It's no accident that Billy Crystal got a standing ovation.
Posted by: DG3 | February 28, 2011 at 02:05 PM
No, let's NOT bring back Billy Crystal! Breathe some life into the Oscars but that doesn't mean you have to be stupid about your choice of host. Oscars 101: A host should have comedic timing.
Posted by: No!!! | February 28, 2011 at 02:07 PM
At least Hathaway was trying. Franco was a complete stiff. Uninterested, dull.....an complete zero. He ruined her effort. She was trying. She's not to blame for a bad show. Franco -- complete disaster.
Posted by: Smooth | February 28, 2011 at 02:08 PM
This year's show wasn't any better or worse than last years show or so many before. The Oscars have become a mega-bore coming on the heels of all the others, what with the winners in the major categories mostly all the same trying not to give the same thank-you speech for the umpteenth time. The Academy was on a roll with regular hosts like Bob Hope, Johnny Carson and Billy Crystal. Since then, a succession of rotating "hosts-in-training" have left the show rudderless. Interesting to see the producers decided to eliminate the clubby orchestra circle with the lowered stage to benefit the A-list stars. The set was nothing special either. If you didn't know better, you'd think it was being televised from Radio City Music Hall. The Academy needs to bite the bullet and hand out all those technical and short subject awards prior to the show. Watching Kirk Douglas was painful. Whose dumb idea was that? Rivals the Bette Davis fiasco when they let her present post stroke. Would have liked a shout-out to Elizabeth Taylor on her 79th birthday. That would have been a classy touch.
Posted by: freeway | February 28, 2011 at 02:19 PM
Dramatic actors should not host the Oscars. Detracts from their acting work. Russell Brand would be a marvelous host (on a 7-second delay, of course!).
Posted by: Californian | February 28, 2011 at 02:29 PM
WOOOO ..HOOOOO....as Anne Hathaway will say!
Posted by: Raul | February 28, 2011 at 02:41 PM
Funny, well-paced and entertaining. A few significant nominee snubs not withstanding (Barney's Version and Blue Valentine; Paul Giamatti and Ryan Gossling) I thought it went rather well.
Worst dressed (Elvis in drag?) and worst acceptance speech-Melissa Leo-Uggh!
Ann Hathaway-wonderful job. Opening montage was hysterical.
Best Acceptance Speech; late blooming David Seidler(screenplay) and Randy Newman (though his song DID NOT deserve to beat out "If I Rise" from 127 Hours)
Kirk Douglas was a hoot!
Best Makeup for Wolfman belonged across town at the Razzies! (Did anybody in the Academy even see "Barney's Version"?)
6 of 10 Best Pic noms were blanked. Time to return to 5 noms, IMO.
Posted by: Mark Tusher | February 28, 2011 at 02:45 PM
Being an expert I can honestly say it was embarrassing.
Posted by: Charlie Sheen | February 28, 2011 at 02:51 PM
Maybe it isn't the hosts. Maybe we are up to our ears with unending displays of overpaid people patting themselves on the back. The parade of "who's wearing who" is so ridiculous. That may have appealed to people in the 40s and 50s, but that time is long gone. It's a new century and people are looking for REAL meaning, not glitzy make believe addicted narcissists.
Posted by: Lois | February 28, 2011 at 02:55 PM
For the longest time, the Oscars show has been an exercise in Political Correctness.
Posted by: Wolfy | February 28, 2011 at 02:56 PM
Lacked a huge, crowd-pleasing nominee? Are you for real? For the younger demographic the Academy producers were going after, you couldn't get a more crowd-pleasing mega-hit than Inception.
Posted by: freeway | February 28, 2011 at 02:59 PM
Whats going on, doesn't anyone know that all the Aussies and Brits come over to get the prizes, and then head home, adding nothing to our economy. I agree most critics, the show gets worst and worst, and we have ABC for another 10 years or so? I feel sorry for those in audiences, except those that wait out the long night to see if they are getting a prize and then get up there and can't remember "his wifes name"? Or Franco who seemed bored with it all, caused your good looking doesn't cut it any more. The only redeaming part of the whole night was the Kings Speech getting what they deserved, number one, and the other sorry flicts that also ran!
Posted by: dporter | February 28, 2011 at 03:05 PM
For 2012 Oscars host, I nominate Wanda Sykes.
That should liven up things somewhat.
Posted by: Wolfy | February 28, 2011 at 03:11 PM
they should have gotten ricky gervais to host...then maybe i might have bothered to watch.
Posted by: jacque | February 28, 2011 at 03:17 PM
ABC should demand their money back from James Franco. He did nothing but show up. He took money under false pretenses. He knew that he couldn’t pull this off but thought some major piece of luck would come his way. I would say that his entire career has been based on either dumb luck via his membership in the Pineapple Express club or the casting couch or a bit of both based on his looks of course. Who knows? Maybe his mother is in the business and got him in.
He’s certainly appeared to be on drugs and have no idea where he was or what he was doing half the time. Even he made an F in drag--and that's hard to do. Poor Ann Hathaway. She tried. She really tried but she was at least ten years before her time.
I honestly believe this was the poorest hosted Oscars in its history. Whoever hired these two should be fired as they don't know their butts from their elbows. They did not one creative or interesting thing. All in all, the show was like some Middle School takeoff of the Oscars.
It's obvious what happened. In order to juice up the Oscars, ABC turned this program over to two un-proved new producers this year. They in turn pitched it in the laps of Anne and James--and thus it became Doubie City. I'd have to say it was the worst Oscar show I've ever seen and I've been around for years.
Posted by: Jack Fitzgerald | February 28, 2011 at 03:42 PM
For the longest time, the Oscars show has been an exercise in Political Correctness.
Posted by: Wolfy | February 28, 2011 at 03:46 PM
They should have let Charlie Sheen host. That would have made for fantastic television if his Today Show interview today is any indication. Never seen Two and a Half Men, but him hosting the Oscars I definitely would not have wanted to miss!
Posted by: Rismay | February 28, 2011 at 03:51 PM
Who is to blame for the awful hosts...the producers who picked them!!! Who in their right mind would have picked those two!
Franco was so stiff and Hathaway came off like she was always looking for her laugh and that "look at me" attitude. Didn't care for either one.
When I saw Billy Crystal come out...I thought it was the calvary coming to save the rest of the show!!!!!!!!!! Love him as host!!!
Melissa Leo...came off coarse.
Paltrow..looked so nervous..it looked painful for her to perform.
The Oscars should be and was a classy affair with MOVIE STARS-LEGENDS...now it's just whoever has a movie out at the moment.
Bring back the LEGENDS..i.e. Kirk Douglas and other living legends...i.e. Ernest Borgine and actors/actresses of THAT calibar. There is no reason they can't host or present to the winners....it would be like a passing of the torch! Please bring back the class that this prestigious award deserves!
Posted by: Hope | February 28, 2011 at 04:47 PM
I have been watching the oscars since i was a little girl, As far as hosts go Billy Crystal is one of the best ive seen, and Hugh Jackman made it very entertaining and did a good job this year however i was excited to see James and Anne do their stuff, but they had no chemistry whatsoever , the songs by Hathaway were flat, their jokes resulted in scattered laughter, Anne would try and be funny and fall flat, i only watched because i respect the Film industry so much.
When Billy Crystal walked out there was a stadium full of laughter like it was should have been under James and Anne, and the Oscars felt like they were in good hands again, Academy stick to funny guys.
Trying to appeal to a younger audience, well im 18 but kids these days unless their very into films just wont watch it wait til lthey get older, don't lose your other audience.
Posted by: Caroline Sparkes | February 28, 2011 at 04:53 PM