Before I get on task, let me say I don’t generally watch the Academy Awards until the last hour, that’s when they finally get to all the awards I care about. What I do watch, however, is every single Oscar fashion review I can find. It’s sick, but I’m a sucker for pretty clothes and jewels…especially jewels. But since acquiring a DVR, I don’t watch anything on time. I record and fast forward through commercials or anything I find boring.
Smooth transition to topic. Newsweek and Kimberlee Morrison (Associate Editor/my editor/author on the KMM network) both assert this year’s Oscar telecast was especially boring. For a telecast that’s known for being smidge dreary and a little long in the tooth to be described as boring seems an especially deep cut. Newsweek’s article said, “One of the most uneven (and uneventful) telecasts in recent memory. Actually, it felt as if it had been slapped together in just a few days, and it probably was.”
MSNBC saw the telecast through rosier colored lenses, Marc Hirsch said:
"10 days to pull it all together. That's what Jon Stewart had between the end of the three-month writers' strike and Sunday night's Oscars broadcast. But there was no sense of panic and little indication that the show was hobbled by the lack of prep time. If anything, the compressed time frame might have precluded anything particularly elaborate. His second go-round as host topped his first […]."
Whether it can be attributed to the writer’s strike or the negative overtones of the film nominees, ratings were abysmal. Viewed by only 32 million people, this ranked as the least watched Academy Awards in history (33 million viewers watched the 2003 ceremonies, Chicago won for best picture).
No Country For Old Man, the favorite, won best picture, and Diablo Cody can say she's an Oscar winner and a former stripper for her original screenplay victory for Juno. The official Oscar website has a complete list of winners.
Comment Preview