The answer is pretty simple to me, but the network will never agree to it. Cut the show to 2 hours max. Make it entertaining and big-award-centric. Keep it moving. Continue with comedy at the beginning, but then "cut, cut, cut". Go right to the major awards. Get rid of most of the "production segments", but keep a few for entertainment value, of course. Can they do this in two hours? Yes, I think so. But as I said, the network won't ever agree to less revenue, even with greater ratings. Perhaps I am too stupid to understand the money involved, but I would certainly watch a 2-hour show instead of my usual tuning in and out, (mostly out).
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Oscar Telecast Flops_May be an All Time Low!
- Thread starter umfan
- Start date
What makes you think a shorter show will get better ratings? Every live event on TV today is at least 3 hours long. There's no point doing a live event, from a sports show to an awards show to a presidential speech. If you're going to hire a remote truck, a full crew, do rehearsal and event planning, you're going to want a 3 hour show. Even ESPN's College Game Day is 3 hours. Do you think you'd get better ratings if the Super Bowl was 2 hours? With no pre-Bowl build-up?
Maybe but then again the Oscars has to please a certain demo though like the Sundance Film Festival Crowd and Cannes Film Festival Crowd.
up against reruns in every other network, no one bothers to counter program the big events even with declining ratings
I can do without a 5 hour Superbowl pregame.
But the company that's paying the bill so you can watch for free can't. That's the point. If you're willing to pay your share of the rights fee, then they can forego the 5 hour pregame. It all comes down to the fact that someone has to pay the bill. You can't lose sight of the fact that there are bills to pay. I think the viewing public has, and now that ratings are dwindling, they will have to choose between paying for what they want, or not having it at all.
I never know what the difference is between sound editing and sound mixing, but it sounds like this movie shouldn't have won for sound mixing. I don't recall which movie won that.
That is an interesting statement. The problem is, of course, that even paying for content doesn't guarantee you will get anything of value. Just look at subscription TV right now.
If and when the day comes that my dollars can dictate what appears on my TV then I might give subscription TV another try. Not likely though.
Nah - what would be the point? Even though you're an old-timer like me, Landtuna, I think you see the writing on the wall. I dumped cable years ago for DirecTV - and liked it for awhile, but have now "cut the cord." I get most of my local news over the internet, and most everything I want to see, I can stream. Between CBS All Access, Hulu, and another streaming service I hesitate to mention by name because I suspect it is too good to be true, I'm spending less than $30 per month (I buy the annual subscriptions to save $). The fourth is Amazon Prime, but I use that for other things besides streaming, so I'm excluding that.
The point is, I have more content at my beck and call than I have time to ever watch. There are a few things I have to wait for, because they are still on Premium "cable," but I know they'll be available eventually. The only downside I see is for sports. I'm not a sports fan, but I realize it might be difficult for fans to watch live sporting events over the internet, though I understand that is changing too.
Difficult? No. Costly? Yes.
But most Oscar Winning films had to have been seen at a film festival first
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_festival
Yes Tribeca, Sundance, Cannes, Venice and Toronto are some of the places these films had to be seen first and get praised by critics in those places prior to being Oscar Winners.
- Status