Post a response to this discussion thread
Timeline: 1995> Best Picture nominees: Babe, Braveheart, Il Postino, Sense & Sensibility-- combined gross = a little over $100 million + Apollo 13 ($150 million gross) Local TV Rating = about 20
1996> Best Picture nominees: The English Patient, Fargo, Secret & Lives, Shine-- combined gross = a little over $100 million + Jerry Maguire ($150 million gross) Local TV Rating = about 20
1997> Best Picture nominees: As Good As It Gets, Good Will Hunting, The Full Monty, LA Confidential-- combined gross = around $400 million + Titanic ($600 million gross) Local TV Rating = about 35, with most viewers ever
1998> Best Picture nominees: Life Is Beautiful, Elizabeth, Shakespeare in Love, The Thin Red Line-- combined gross = a little over $100 million + Saving Private Ryan ($200 million gross)
What rating the advertisers are willing to pay for this year: last year's 35
More likely rating based on BP nominees: about 20
What the rating probably would have been had popular Jim Carrey & $125 million grosser "The Truman Show" sneaked into the major nominations: a whole lot higher than a 20! (but probably not a 35)
What's going to happen to my station and me after we vastly undeliver rating points on March 21st: Did you happen to see the opening scenes of BP nominees "Elizabeth" or "Saving Private Ryan"? If not, the closing scenes of BP winners "Braveheart" or "Titanic" will suffice.
Thank-you, oh, heavenly Godmother, for using your divine intervention to get "Life Is Beautiful" the nod over "The Truman Show." Praise thy name! (And I was planning on retiring next year, too.)
In all fairness, I told my managers all the way back in June that there was no way in hell this year's ceremony was going to be anywhere near as highly-rated as last year's-- forget the "Titanic" phenomenom for a second: never before in history have THREE Best Picture nominees grossed more than $100 million (and "LA Confidential" got much more than half that much). Usually only 1 has anywhere near $100 million.
Furthermore, I suggest this will be one of the lowest rated ceremonies ever. The BP nominees are too homogenic (3 WWII flicks, 2 Elizabethan era costume dramas, all historical), which narrows their appeal immensely. (Think about how diverse last year's bunch were.) Two are brutal war pictures, which turned many women & children off (only 2 of my dozens of female friends even saw "SPR"). One is entirely in Italian with subtitles-- enough said. Even I consider "Elizabeth" to be nothing much more than an elaborate history lesson. Except for "Shakespeare in Love," that's the problem with all of the English-language nominees-- they're basically what I would call anti-entertainment; there's not much "fun" to them, and there wasn't meant to be. Even "Shakespeare" is too cerebral to be a pure crowdpleaser like "Titanic" and the two "Goods." That kind of stuff may play well in Harvard, LA, Crankyland and my house, but down in the sticks…
looking for a lifeboat,
The Creep, The Freak & The Loser
PS This year's Golden Globes was the highest rated ever, both here and nationally, despite last year's Titanic effort. But then, Jim Carrey was involved...
PSS I reiterate-- personally I have no problem with "Life is Beautiful" or other low-grossing films. In fact, "Saving Private Ryan" and "The Truman Show" were the only "hits" in my top 10 for 1998. I think the 5 BP nominees all deserved their nominations... but so did "Truman." That's 5 slots for 6 great movies. Somebody had to be left out, I guess... Professionally, though, I wish it was "Life" or "Elizabeth" or "TTRL." (By Oscar time, "Shakespeare" may be approaching $100 million.) And, as I'm sure many are aware, "Truman" was my PERSONAL favorite, so why not?
Post a response to this discussion thread