View Full Version : Hot Off The Press! The Latest Television News and Info
Hilton Hacked:
Paris' Address Book Hits Internet
(zap2it.com)--Paris Hilton has never been one to shy from publicity, but the hotel heiress/FOX TV star is now seeing the minutiae of her life spread all over the Internet. Phone numbers, cell-phone camera pictures and other little tidbits from Hilton's T-Mobile Sidekick have spewed forth into cyberspace in recent days, causing headaches for the people in her address book and glee among those who track her every move online. Gawker.com, sister site Defamer.com and countless other blogs have devoted considerable time to parsing the information gleaned from the hacked data.
No one's sure who posted Hilton's information online, but New York's Daily News notes that it first appeared a few days after a 22-year-old named Nicolas Jacobsen pleaded guilty to hacking T-Mobile's servers last fall. Hilton appears in ads for the Sidekick, a combination phone/PDA/camera that's a coveted celebrity accessory.
While Gawker and Defamer redacted phone numbers and other sensitive information in their posts about the "Simple Life" star's Sidekick, others who posted the data did not. That's resulted in people in Hilton's address book receiving dozens of calls from strangers and has caused many to change their numbers.
"I got 100 calls in two hours," Victoria Gotti, star of A&E's "Growing Up Gotti" and a Star magazine columnist, tells the Daily News. "This went on all [Saturday] night. Finally, at 5:30 a.m., I took them off the hook. [Sunday] morning, I put them back on and they started ringing immediately. It's driving me insane."
The spreading of Hilton's address book is the latest Internet misadventure for the hotel heiress. In the fall of 2003, a sex tape featuring her and ex-boyfriend Rick Salomon was posted online; it's now being marketed on DVD as "One Night in Paris."
Judges Take Shots at Broadcast Flag
By Bill McConnell Broadcasting & Cable2/22/2005 4:59 PM ET
During a court hearing Tuesday, two of three federal appeals judges showed open hostility to a Federal Communications Commission rule that requires digital TVs and VCRs to be equipped to block illegal transmission of television shows and movies over the Internet. If their acerbic questioning is any indication, the fate of the so-called "broadcast flag" now may depend on whether one of those judges decides that activists suing to eliminate the broadcast flag mandate have standing to bring the law suit.
"You crossed the line," Federal appeals Judge Harry Edwards told FCC lawyer Jacob Lewis during oral argument in the case. Judge David Sentelle appeared to agree that the FCC had no authority to mandate that TV equipment include flag technology. But Edwards' vote to strike down the FCC is not guaranteed. Edwards also questioned whether the American Library Association and other groups challenging the rule face sufficient harm from the rule to fight in court.
The other member of the panel, Judge Judith Rogers, appeared to believe that opponents of the law did have standing to sue, but that the FCC acted within its authority. Oddly, Edwards could pair with her to grant activists' standing and then team with the other judge, David Sentelle, to strike down the law.
The FCC in 2003 required personal computers and digital storage devices be equipped to recognize a code, or flag, embedded in TV signals indicating to what extent programming may be transmitted over a computer network. The code could indicate that unrestricted copying is permitted, one-time copying, or none at all.
The technology won't stop TV programs from being copied to a DVD or stored on a personal computer, but it would stop a user from sharing that file with another computer user.
Edwards and one of the other two judges appeared to agree with the critics and told FCC lawyer Jacob Lewis that the law does not give the agency specific authority to dictate how electronic devices must be made.
A ruling by the panel is expected in two or three months. The caveat in oral arguments is that some judges play devil's advocate to test the strength of various points, so their decisions aren't guaranteed to track with the tenor of the questions.
(From Marc Berman’s Programming Insider column Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2005 at Mediaweek.com)
On the Air Tonight:
Primetime Programming Options
Tuesday 2/22/05 Night 20 of the Feb. 2005 Sweep
ABC:
My Wife and Kids (40-minutes) HD
George Lopez (39-minutes) HD
According to Jim (41-minutes) HD
NYPD Blue HD
CBS:
NCIS HD
One Day at a Time Reunion Special
Judging Amy HD
NBC:
Law & Order: Criminal Intent (R) HD
Scrubs
Committed HD
Law & Order: SVU HD
Fox:
American Idol HD
House HD
UPN:
All of Us
Eve
Veronica Mars HD
WB:
Gilmore Girls HD
One Tree Hill HD
One Day at a Time Reunion Special HD ---Is not HD.
sorry f44 -- fixed for those on the West Coast.
NBC's 'Contender' to Face Some Fresh CBS Challengers
By Lisa de Moraes washingtonpost.com Wednesday, February 23, 2005; Page C07
Another blow for NBC's new boxing competition series "The Contender":
What with the February ratings sweeps turned into a somewhat silly exercise now that it includes the Super Bowl, suits at CBS (which did not air this year's game and therefore stands no chance of winning the ratings competition) have decided to yank valuable original episodes out of the final Monday of the sweeps -- Feb. 28 -- to deploy them against the 90-minute premiere of "The Contender" on March 7.
NBC also plans to give "The Contender," from reality series guru Mark Burnett, one airing in the "ER" time slot on Thursday, March 10; CBS has saved an original episode of "Without a Trace" for that night at 10. CBS's decision to hit "The Contender" with its best stuff comes days after one of the show's 16 contestants committed suicide, news of which, grievously, probably means the show's opening will snag more viewers than it might have otherwise.
On Valentine's Day, contestant Najai Turpin, 23, shot himself in the presence of his girlfriend, with whom he has a 2-year-old daughter. The New York Daily News reported the next day that his manager said Turpin was "bothered" by the fact that his NBC contract had kept him from fighting until the oft-delayed series finally aired. Another paper reported he had gained 20 pounds.
The much-juggled "Contender" originally was to debut in November, but NBC yanked it to distance it from Fox's knockoff, "The Next Great Champ." The Fox show was such a ratings train wreck it was yanked before finishing its run. Next NBC picked a January start date. Then it pushed the show to February, opposite Fox's ratings behemoth "American Idol" on Tuesdays.
That got scrapped and the show was moved to Wednesdays at 8 p.m., which still left it vulnerable should Fox decide to expand its "Idol" telecasts that night. Given Fox's track record of swelling "Idol" episodes for the sake of ratings, that's a pretty safe assumption.
So earlier this month, NBC announced it would move "The Contender" to Sundays at 8 p.m., bumping "American Dreams." But the show would settle into that slot only after a 90-minute preview on the first Monday after the February sweeps, and another special broadcast that Thursday.
Turpin's manager, Percy Custus, told the Daily News: "With 'The Contender' thing he hadn't fought in over a year. That bothered him, but I can't say that was the only thing that was bothering him."
TV critics, who'd been waiting for a contestant to get killed while participating in a reality series, snapped at that like stray dogs on rib-eye. The next day, the same paper reported that Turpin's relatives said he killed himself after quarreling with his girlfriend over custody of their daughter.
A couple of days after that, NBC went ahead with a long-planned phone news conference for the launch of "The Contender," and principals Mark Burnett, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Sugar Ray Leonard and Sylvester Stallone dismissed any responsibility for Turpin's tragic death. It was a ghoulish news call. One critic said she had just "a quick question," which was, "How did each of you hear about Najai's suicide and what was your initial reaction?"
Another critic prefaced her question by telling the men, "Let me just say, I'm sure everyone feels this way, we'd like to extend our condolences to you since you all got to know him much more intimately than probably a lot of people since he was so young." She was curious to know whether there would be any acknowledgment on the show of Turpin's suicide. They also asked about that weight gain, and about the manager's comments.
Leonard said that boxers often fight only once or twice a year and that any real trainer would know that. He added that it's not unusual for a boxer to gain 20 pounds between fights. Burnett said all of the contestants knew that "the show didn't end with the show" and that many of them would get the opportunity to box again in rematches chosen by the fans. The show employed two roving trainers who traveled throughout the country checking up on the boxers' progress.
"We know Najai was at training camp in the Poconos . . . and left because of a personal issue he needed to deal with back in Philadelphia, and that's when this occurred," Burnett said.
One critic asked Burnett, who also executive-produces CBS's "Survivor" and NBC's "The Apprentice" and used to do "Eco-Challenge," whether Turpin's death caused him to "rethink the selection of these people for reality shows like this," adding that "you know the kind of people you're looking for and you always find them . . . in some ways combative, type-A personalities."
Faster than you can say "DreamWorks SKG," Katzenberg jumped in: "There has been a great deal of introspection among the partners of this show in the last few days . . . because you can't have something like this occur and not look at yourself and ask, 'What is your responsibility and what is your part in all of this.' We feel we have approached the making of this show in every respect with a great deal of care and consideration. These participants in this show are professionals, they all came to us with a great deal of experience, and a tremendous amount of care was taken on our part. . . . Obviously we are heartbroken about what has occurred. . . . Having said that, the issues as we understand it for Najai were personal issues and unrelated to the show." Katzenberg said he thought it was "not right" for critic to be implying otherwise.
Burnett said he does not plan to edit any of Turpin's appearances throughout the series because "his family deserves to see him being himself." But an acknowledgment of what had happened would be added to the show, he said, as well as "an opportunity for viewers, who I know are going to fall in love with him the way we did, to contribute to a trust fund" that will "give a future to his young daughter."
Which seemed really tawdry and smelled like a publicity stunt, given that these men together are collectively richer than God and could easily afford, if they just pooled their pocket change, to set this little girl up to live extremely comfortably for the rest of her life.
Tuesday’s ratings been posted at the top of Latest News, the first item in this thread.
Network drama pilots ease off the gunplay
By Gary Levin USA TODAY
Desperate Housewives may meet some Soccer Moms, and plane-crash survivors won't be the only ones Lost on TV next fall.
Both new hits are sparking a renewed interest in cheeky soaps and ambitious, splashy mysteries as new-series hopefuls for next season. Fans of cop, law and medical dramas needn't despair; the networks are still plotting many of these TV staples. But they're less dominant among the 50-odd drama pilots being filmed over the next few weeks, hoping for spots on the fall schedules that will be announced in mid-May.
Instead, look for more character-based soaps, some with twisty mysteries that keep viewers coming back for more. Housewives and Lost "are the two obvious shows that people are sort of copying," says Paul Haas of the Endeavor talent agency, mostly by finding similar marketing hooks that are "highly promotable, where it's easy to understand what the show is."
In the Housewives vein, ABC has comedic drama Soccer Moms, starring Sex and the City's Kristin Davis, about a pair of suburbanite private eyes; and Westside, about doings at an upscale L.A. real estate agency, with a cast including Ashley Scott (Birds of Prey). Like Lost, there's Invasion, about residents of a Florida town mysteriously besieged by aliens after they're hit with a devastating hurricane.
Elsewhere, there's:
•The Commuters, (CBS) about three couples in suburban New York, where secrets are revealed while husbands ride the 7:40 train. Jeri Ryan (Boston Public) stars.
•Prison Break (Fox), about a man who breaks into jail to get his brother out.
•Fathom (NBC), a twisty, Lost-like mystery about a weird sea creature's effect on a San Diego family, the Navy and some fishermen.
•Reunion (Fox), which follows six friends from high school graduation to their 20th reunion, as characters age one year in each episode.
•Love Monkey (CBS), about the dating and marriage foibles of four male friends (including Ed's Tom Cavanagh).
•Ticket to Ride (Fox), concerning the lives of 20-odd acquaintances who share a huge lottery jackpot.
•The Prince (WB), a soap about a rich family after the death of its favorite son.
•Triangle (UPN), about a doctor who stays in the Caribbean after his wife disappears on their honeymoon.
Despite the failure of Once and Again to find a large audience, producers Marshall Herskovitz and Ed Zwick also are trying once again with ABC's 1/4 Life, one of several new relationship dramas about post-college twentysomethings.
"We always develop those kinds of programs, but for whatever reason they just never made the cut," says ABC prime-time development chief Francie Calfo. "Now we sort of have a better shot of getting them picked up (as series), because we've proven we've got an audience that's turned on by those shows."
The trend defies the TV industry's conventional wisdom that viewers prefer neatly self-contained crime-solvers such as CSI and Law & Order. But the networks are eager to continue tapping that vein for economic reasons: Such shows are more easily repeated, making a hit show even more profitable. That's why ABC remains bent on finding a new crime hit, elusive since NYPD Blue —exiting next week — premiered 12 years ago. "We're all about diversity," Calfo says. "We're not going to chase the hits we have by developing 10 more like them."
Different does not always equal better. Although it's liberating to see hit dramas where "they all don't have to be toting guns," says NBC Entertainment president Kevin Reilly, too often "the tendency is to reach for things that are different but just aren't very good." And when those fail, networks blame the idea more than how it's translated.
Viewers "are just as apt to reject an out-of-the-box concept that's poorly executed as they are a mediocre, down-the-middle show."
The weekly national Nielsen ratings are delayed a day this week by the President's Day Holiday Monday.
I expect to post them later today.
'The West Wing's' character issue
By David Bianculli New York Daily News Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005
On "The West Wing" this season, all roads lead not to Rome, but to the White House. Getting there has been more than half the fun - but I'm unconvinced, watching this year's episodes on NBC, that the destination will be as worthwhile as the journey.
As the show, which presents its newest episode tonight at 9, charts the events that will lead to a successor to Martin Sheen's President Bartlet, the plots have been truer to the process than to the characters. It's been intriguing watching the various presidential wanna-bes, including Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda) and Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits), both new this season, jockey for position in the Iowa caucus and press the flesh for the New Hampshire primary. Location scenes have captured the frostiness of both the environment and the populace, and the crowded political field makes for lots of drama.
In addition to Republican front runner Vinick and Democratic dark horse Santos, there are two familiar faces who worked directly under Bartlet: Gary Cole's Vice President Bob Russell and his disgraced predecessor John Hoynes, played by Tim Matheson.
In last week's episode, Bradley Whitfield's Josh Lyman, who left the White House after persuading Santos to run, pulled every trick in the book to open a New Hampshire debate between Hoynes and Russell into one for all seven Democratic candidates. In the end, though, Santos who, rejecting all those tricks and speaking directly to viewers in one live commercial minute of TV time, turned the tide and saved his candidacy. It was a good dramatic moment, however improbable.
The idea that "The West Wing" has become, for the moment, not the story of one side fighting for right, but of several sides fighting for position, has made it less predictable but not always more satisfying. Russell is a political lightweight, yet he has not only Joshua Malina's Will Bailey in his corner, but also Janel Maloney's beloved Donna Moss. Shouldn't Donna see what Josh sees, even if she's no longer working for Josh?
Story lines this season have shaken up the staff as well as divided it. John Spencer's Leo McGarry had a heart attack and resigned. Allison Janney's C.J. Cregg took his job, and now scolds the President about taking too harsh a tone with her.
For two seasons now, President Bartlet seems to have gotten dumber, while all those around him have increased their IQs and attitudes. Watch the show's first two seasons, still the undisputed high points under series creator Aaron Sorkin's rule, to compare and contrast.
Promos for tonight's show have Josh and Toby getting so angry at one another, they get into a physical fight. That isn't the Josh and Toby I know, no matter how heated the argument - but more and more, this isn't the "West Wing" I know, either. A meteor heading toward Earth as a presidential crisis? Please. That's the dumbest thing associated with this show since Rob Lowe's decision to leave it.
There have been some good things this season, in addition to the primary (literally) story line. The worsening of Bartlet's multiple sclerosis has been an unusual subplot; Mary-Louise Parker's return last week as Amy Gardner was both welcome and charming, and Alda and Smits have added a lot of dramatic fire.
It's easy to predict that when the dust clears, it'll be Alda's Vinick and Smits' Santos in a race for the White House - and not much harder to predict that, at the end, Alda and the Republicans will win. But by then, how many of the long-term "West Wing" characters will even remotely resemble the ones we met when the series began?
FCC Makes It Official: No Must-Carry for Multicasts
Written and posted by dline
(Feb. 23) The FCC today reaffirmed its stance against "multicast must-carry."
It released its official Report and Order, ruling that broadcasters may only require cable operators to carry one stream of programming. The document also denies broadcasters' petitions to reconsider that ruling.
The commission made its decision February 10. Most commissioners said they voted against multicast must-carry because they didn't believe Congress had multiple programming streams in mind when it passed the law in the early 1990s.
Even so, some commissioners had qualms about their vote, and every commissioner posted a statement on the FCC website giving their take on the issue.
"The must-carry statute limits the video signal that must be carried to the 'primary video'," FCC Chairman Michael Powell said in a statement. "If some video is primary, it necessarily follows that some is secondary. The view urged by broadcasters that primary video includes all their video streams without limitation proves too much and, to my mind, effectively strikes the restriction from the books."
But in a partially dissenting statement, Commissioner Kevin Martin lamented the effect this decision could have on smaller, independent broadcasters.
"Network stations ... are likely to get their signals carried through retransmission consent; must-carry was never about these large broadcasters," Martin wrote. "Must carry was designed for these smaller broadcasters that in the past have been unable to negotiate with larger cable operators. These broadcasters play an important part in their communities, and we should not be hindering them from investing in new, free programming for their viewers."
And Commissioner Michael Copps warned that the decision "may lead some broadcasters to use the public spectrum for ancillary pay services, rather than for free over-the-air broadcasts in their communities. That's not what the transition is supposed to be about."
Full statements, and the Report and Order, can be accessed from www.fcc.gov .
___
dline posts this for information only and does not necessarily endorse any of the points of view expressed above.
CBS Wins Weekly Nielsen; Fox takes 18-49 Demo
'CSI' and 'Idol' Battle for Weekly Ratings Split
(zap2it.com)--The powerhouse launch for "Survivor: Palau" helped push CBS' Thursday highs and gave the network yet another easy overall win for the week ending Sunday, Feb. 20. While CBS continued to push its across-the-board viewership advantage, FOX grabbed another demographic win and keeps pulling ever closer for the season in the tight race.
Overall Prime Time Ratings/Share/Total Viewers
CBS 8.6 rating/14 /13.41 million primetime viewers
NBC 7.1/11/10.67 million viewers
ABC 6.8/11 and 10.44 million viewers
FOX 6.1/10/ 10.19 million viewers
WB had a 2.3/4/3.51 million viewers
UPN' 2.2/3 and 3.23 million viewers
Adults 18-49
Fox 4.4
ABC 3.9
CBS 3.9
NBC 3.8
WB 1.4
UPN 1.3
CBS's three top shows for the week came on Thursday, led by "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," which hooked 30.71 million and an 18.9/28, making it television's top show for the week. "Without a Trace" wasn't far off, holding onto enough of the "CSI" audience for a 13.5/22 and the week's No. 5 position. "Survivor: Palau" kicking the night off right with a 13.3/21 for No. 6.
"CSI: Miami" (12.6/20, 7th) paced CBS' strong Monday, which also landed "Everybody Loves Raymond" (11.2/17, 9th) and "Two and a Half Men" (10.5/16, 11th) in the Nielsen Top 20 for the frame. Sunday also had three listworthy CBS shows, as Tom Selleck delivered big ratings with the telefilm "Stone Cold" (11.2/17, 9th) and "Cold Case" (9.5/14, 17th) and "60 Minutes" (8.9/15, 20th) worked their usual magic. Also making the Top 20 for CBS was Wednesday's "CSI: NY" at No. 14 with a 9.6/16.
NBC had five Top 20 shows, with Thursday's "ER" (11.9/19, 8th) and "The Apprentice 3" (9.6/14) leading the way. The Donald's reality show tied with "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" (9.6/16), just ahead of "Medium" (9.4/15, 18th) and the "Law & Order" mothership (9.3/15, 19th). The network's special "Saturday Night Live: The First Five Years" was No. 25 with a 7.6/12.
ABC's hit freshman dramas "Desperate Housewives" (14.7/22, 4th) and "Lost" brought home their share of the Nielsen bacon, as did the always reliable "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" (10.2/15, 13th).
Casual ratings observers will be shocked to discover that FOX's top two shows for the week were Tuesday's "American Idol" (15.5/24) and Wednesday's "American Idol" (15.5/23), which tied for No. 2 on the frame. Those same shocked people will be surprised to see three installments of "American Idol" on this list for the next three weeks.
A new "Gilmore Girls" paced The WB for the week with a 3.7/6 for No. 81, while UPN's leader was "WWE Smackdown!" at No. 85 with a 3.4/5.
UPN also had network television's least watched original program, as only 2.24 million viewers tuned in for a new "Kevin Hill," just fewer than the 2.29 million fans for The WB's fresh "Jack & Bobby."
Last week’s ratings been posted at the top of Latest News, the first item in this thread.
The Loser Is: Ratings for Awards Shows
By ANITA GATES The New York Times February 24, 2005
More than 16 million people saw Jamie Foxx come close to breaking down at the Golden Globe Awards last month. Mr. Foxx, accepting the award for best actor in a film (as Ray Charles in the director Taylor Hackford's "Ray"), tried to say that he believed his grandmother was looking down on him from heaven but had to stop to compose himself. The people who missed that speech included about 10 million who had watched the Golden Globes in 2004 but didn't bother tuning in this year.
In the world of awards-show ratings, this is hardly an isolated case. The Grammys, broadcast this month on CBS, attracted roughly 19 million viewers, a 28 percent decline from last year. Even the Oscars have been steadily dropping in viewership. The 1998 telecast, when "Titanic" won 11 awards, was the last big success, with more than 87 million viewers in the United States. Last year about 43.5 million watched. This Sunday night, when the 77th annual Academy Awards are shown on ABC, the numbers are not expected to soar.
This ratings decline has been attributed to a number of factors, from a dearth of big stars in the presentations to the sheer number of awards shows. Where once the Academy Awards was the only big televised movie-awards show, viewers now have the Golden Globes on NBC, the Screen Actors Guild Awards on TNT, the Critics' Choice Awards on WB, the People's Choice Awards on CBS, the MTV Movie Awards, and the Gotham Awards and Independent Spirit Awards, both on IFC. Not to mention the British Academy of Film and Television Awards on BBC America.
What most of these shows have in common is an assortment of glamorous presenters, nominees and dates: Annette Bening, Warren Beatty, Hilary Swank, Clint Eastwood, Leonardo DiCaprio, Martin Scorsese, Johnny Depp, Kate Winslet and Cate Blanchett.
"If you're just showing people stars, that's not enough," said Gil Cates, the producer of this year's Oscars telecast and of 11 others since 1990. "Yes, there is a certain allure to watching a movie star. But the more often you see them, the more accessible they become, and there's a slight diminution of interest. The context is what supplies the interest."
For Mr. Cates, the only context that matters is the Academy Awards themselves. "People watch the Oscars for three reasons," he said in a telephone interview from a Los Angeles recording session. "First, it's a news show. They watch to see who's getting the Oscar. They watch it to see fashions and entertainment. And then I think they watch it for whoever the host is and whatever the host contributes to it." This year's host is Chris Rock, whose well-known irreverence ABC can only hope will draw new viewers.
Mr. Cates said he considered it unfair to compare subsequent shows' ratings with the "Titanic" year, because moviegoers' emotional investment in that film was such a rare phenomenon. Ken Ehrlich, the producer of the Grammys, says he feels the same way about comparing his show's 2005 viewership with 2004. "Last year I credit a great deal to the Super Bowl Janet Jackson incident," he said. The Grammys, on which Ms. Jackson appeared but did not perform, were held one week after her infamous wardrobe malfunction. In other years with particularly high ratings, he said, "there was more of a horse race."
This year, for the first time, there was also "Desperate Housewives," ABC's Sunday night hit soap, which earned higher ratings than the awards show broadcast opposite it. Mr. Ehrlich plays down that factor. "The reality is that 'Desperate Housewives' or not, the normal audience that comes to the Grammys year to year really wasn't there in the numbers that it has been," even at 8 p.m., before the ABC show started, he said. "I think this was a less compelling year."
"The core audience who really love music watch the Grammys because they're interested in the performers they like," Mr. Ehrlich said. "They're less interested in what the awards are. Maybe the ratings differential is tied to those people who aren't hard-core fans."
One cable executive thinks the problem is much simpler.
"There's no spontaneity," said Evan Shapiro, general manager of the Independent Film Channel and an executive producer of the Independent Spirit Awards broadcast. "There's no chance of anything interesting happening on these awards shows. If you go online, the one word you see over and over again is 'boring.' With lots of O's. Big capital O's." Not surprisingly, Mr. Shapiro sees the Independent Spirit Awards, which are presented the day before the Oscars, as far more interesting.
"They're wearing jeans and flip-flops," he said of the actors and filmmakers who attend the oceanside ceremony in Santa Monica, Calif. "They're drunk oftentimes."
But since these are awards for independent films, some nominees are not that well known. It may not be as exciting for audiences to see Jared Hess or Kimberly Elise let their hair down as it was for Mr. Shapiro to see a major movie star so distracted that she forgot to read the nominations before opening the envelope on the Golden Globes a few years ago.
"I loved it when Elizabeth Taylor got up there and gave that presenting speech," he said. "I called people and said: 'You've got to turn on the TV right now. It's a car wreck.' "
Both Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Ehrlich describe themselves as big awards-show fans. Mr. Cates says he does not normally watch the shows. Shari Anne Brill has to.
As vice president and director for programming at Carat USA, a media services company, Ms. Brill subscribes to a modified version of the celebrity-fatigue theory. It's not that the public has become bored with the rich and famous; it's just that seeing them on screen isn't the hallowed experience it once was.
"Celebrity is in our face all the time," she said in an interview from her New York office. "Do I really care about Paris Hilton's phone book being hacked? We're preoccupied with them, because they're always there. You can get your helping of celebrity any time you want. You don't have to go to the Oscars to get that."
Ms. Brill did say she believed that "the glut of awards shows cannibalize each other," but she sees the Academy Awards as above the general fray, even if its flaws are a subject of popular debate.
A recent report on the CBS News program "Sunday Morning" referred to the Oscar acceptance speeches as the best part of the show and took Mr. Cates to task, partly tongue in cheek, for cutting them off. Mr. Cates says that he enjoys a well-done speech but does look back nostalgically on the day when "Oscar winners only said thank you."
Mr. Ehrlich agrees that viewers are tired of unimaginative acceptance speeches. "Too often it's agents and publicists and labels" who are being thanked, he said. So maybe awards shows would be better television if actors and musicians had speechwriters.
"You've got kids and they don't have a context, but they're great mimics," Mr. Ehrlich said. "When a winner says, 'This is the most exciting moment of my life,' you don't have to be a very sophisticated viewer to say, 'Oh, come on.' "
The Week’s Winners and Losers
By Lisa de Moraes The Washington Post Thursday, February 24, 2005; Page C07
"Survivor" came on strong to put CBS at the top of the ratings heap last week, but "American Idol" kept Fox in first place among younger viewers. Here's a look at the week's muscled and weak:
WINNERS
CBS's Thursday. CBS logged its largest Thursday audience since at least 1987 thanks to the debut of "Survivor: Palau," which averaged nearly 24 million viewers, and "CSI," which posted more than 30 million. It was the "Survivor" franchise's biggest kickoff audience since "Survivor: Africa" in October 2001 (if you exclude the post-Super Bowl debut of "Survivor: All Stars"), and "CSI's" second-largest crowd this season, behind only the 100th episode in the November ratings sweeps.
Daytona 500. Fox's Sunday afternoon telecast of the race averaged 18.7 million viewers, crushing TNT's Sunday prime-time telecast of the NBA All-Star Game, which bagged just 8.1 million.
"Stone Cold." The CBS Sunday movie, starring Tom Selleck as a hard-drinking, hard-living Los Angeles homicide detective turned hard-living, hard-drinking small-town police chief, nabbed about 18 million viewers, making it the season's third most watched made-for-TV flick, behind ABC's "Mitch Albom's the Five People You Meet in Heaven" and CBS's "Magic of Ordinary Days."
"Battlestar Galactica." Sci-Fi Channel has renewed "BG" for another season; this season, the show is averaging about 3 million viewers Fridays at 10 and is the cable network's highest-rated original series.
LOSERS
"Michael Jackson's Secret World, With Martin Bashir" remains largely secret, with or without Martin Bashir. Only 8.8 million viewers showed up Thursday night for the ABC News February sweeps special. Two years ago, when ABC News telecast "Living With Michael Jackson," also with Bashir, it copped a whopping 27 million viewers. Wonder if media organizations preparing to spend millions covering the Trial of the Whatever Period It's Been Since O.J. sat up and took notice.
"The L Word." The second season of Showtime's series opened Sunday with 515,000 viewers; last year the series premiered with 936,000 viewers and wrapped its first season with an average of just under 600,000. In fairness the second-season opener was considerably better than the network's prior four-week average in the time slot -- just under 300,000 viewers with various programs.
"Jonny Zero." You can say that again. Fox's new Friday drama trickled in with its smallest audience yet -- 3.2 million viewers -- and got beat in its time slot by WB's "Reba" and "Blue Collar TV."
Clarification of my earlier post #1796
(http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5227406#post5227406):
The FCC's decision on multicasting was actually made Feb. 10. The only thing new which happened Wednesday was that the FCC made it official by releasing the Report and Order, which officially denied several broadcasters' request to reconsider. I have edited my post on the subject.
Wednesday’s ratings been posted at the top of Latest News, the first item in this thread.
Complete Season To Date Primetime Ratings Through February 20, 2005
From allyourtv.com
# / Program / Viewers in millions / 18-49 Rating / No. of Shows
1 AMERICAN IDOL-TUESDAY 29920 10.8 5
2 AMERICAN IDOL-WEDNESDAY 26380 9.5 5
3 CSI 26220 9.4 20
4 SURVIVOR: PALAU 23660 8.5 1
5 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES 23200 8.3 15
6 SURVIVOR: VANUATU 19640 7.1 11
7 CSI: MIAMI 19060 6.9 22
8 WITHOUT A TRACE 18790 6.8 20
9 EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND 17060 6.1 21
10 E.R. 16530 5.9 18
11 LOST 16360 5.9 21
12 TWO AND A HALF MEN 16240 5.8 22
13 NFL MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL 16230 5.8 15
14 APPRENTICE 2 16140 5.8 11
15 EXTREME MAKEOVER:HM ED-8P 15880 5.7 19
16 COLD CASE 15480 5.6 17
17 MEDIUM 15290 5.5 7
18 APPRENTICE 3 15270 5.5 5
19 60 MINUTES 15040 5.4 20
20 CSI: NY 14430 5.2 19
21 NCIS 13950 5.0 17
22 LAW AND ORDER:SVU 13520 4.9 19
23 LAW AND ORDER 13230 4.8 19
24 ALIAS 12960 4.7 6
25 AMAZING RACE: 5 12850 4.6 1
26 BOSTON LEGAL 12720 4.6 15
27 LAW AND ORDER:CRIM INTENT 12420 4.5 15
28 CROSSING JORDAN 12270 4.4 16
29 CBS SUNDAY MOVIE 12110 4.4 15
30 NUMB3RS 12040 4.3 4
31 24 11850 4.3 6
32 LAS VEGAS 11690 4.2 19
33 WEST WING 11550 4.2 17
34 AMAZING RACE: 6 11510 4.1 12
35 JOEY 11310 4.1 20
36 WILL & GRACE 11110 4.0 17
37 SIMPLE LIFE 3 11030 4.0 3
38 FEAR FACTOR 10900 3.9 22
39 ACCORDING TO JIM 9PM 10670 3.8 19
40 JUDGING AMY 10530 3.8 15
41 SIMPSONS 10480 3.8 13
42 KING OF QUEENS 10430 3.8 15
43 STILL STANDING 10310 3.7 22
44 BIGGEST LOSER 10300 3.7 12
45 SUPERNANNY 10140 3.6 5
46 LISTEN UP 9880 3.6 22
47 JAG 9770 3.5 15
48 NYPD BLUE 9700 3.5 18
49 WIFE SWAP 9620 3.5 16
50 EM HM:HOW’D THEY DO THAT 9480 3.4 5
51 THIRD WATCH 9360 3.4 16
52 RODNEY 9340 3.4 18
53 DATELINE FRI 9240 3.3 18
54 LAW & ORDER:SVU-SAT-RPT 9110 3.3 13
55 CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE 9040 3.3 12
56 HOUSE 8880 3.2 12
57 MEDICAL INVESTIGATION 8820 3.2 17
58 BACHELOR, THE 8790 3.2 9
59 YES, DEAR 8770 3.2 1
60 BACHELORETTE, THE 8740 3.1 6
61 20/20-FRI 8700 3.1 19
62 AMER FUNN HOME VIDEOS 8610 3.1 16
60 MINUES WEDNESDAY 8610 3.1 18
64 NANNY 911 8210 3.0 9
65 DR. VEGAS 8160 2.9 5
66 JOAN OF ARCADIA 8140 2.9 16
67 DATELINE SUN-7PM 8050 2.9 19
68 LAW & ORDER:CI-SAT-RPT 7980 2.9 8
69 MY WIFE AND KIDS 7970 2.9 17
70 GEORGE LOPEZ 7930 2.9 17
71 TRADING SPOUSES 7790 2.8 14
72 8 SIMPLE RULES-FRI 8:30PM 7720 2.8 4
73 AMERICAN DREAMS 7530 2.7 13
74 CLUBHOUSE 7510 2.7 4
75 HOPE & FAITH 7500 2.7 18
76 LAW & ORDER-SAT-RPT 7470 2.7 6
77 CRIMETIME SATURDAY 7450 2.7 16
78 SCRUBS 7400 2.7 17
79 AMW: AMERICA FIGHTS BACK 7370 2.7 14
80 LAX 7350 2.6 9
81 48 HOURS MYSTERY 7290 2.6 19
82 ABC SAT MOVIE OF THE WEEK 7280 2.6 5
FATHER OF THE PRIDE 7280 2.6 6
84 COPS 2 7270 2.6 14
85 COMMITTED 7240 2.6 7
86 SWAN 2, THE 7200 2.6 9
87 HAWAII 7160 2.6 3
88 8 SIMPLE RULES 7120 2.6 18
89 O.C. 7030 2.5 15
90 PRIMETIME LIVE 6930 2.5 19
91 WONDERFUL WORLD OF DISNEY 6890 2.5 6
92 MOST OUTRAG MOMTS LIVE TV 6830 2.5 3
93 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES-SAT 6750 2.4 8
94 COPS 6650 2.4 14
95 THAT ‘70S SHOW 6580 2.4 15
96 LESS THAN PERFECT 6550 2.4 17
97 EXTREME MAKEOVER-THU 9PM 6510 2.3 5
98 EXTREME MAKEOVER-THU 8PM 6450 2.3 10
99 WICKEDLY PERFECT 6140 2.2 7
100 MALCOLM IN THE MIDDLE 6110 2.2 10
101 COMPLETE SAVAGES 6090 2.2 14
102 ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT 6020 2.2 11
103 SIMPSONS-SUN 9:30P 6010 2.2 3
104 FAMILY GUY 5900 2.1 5
105 7TH HEAVEN - WB 5870 2.1 20
106 LAST COMIC STANDING 3 5780 2.1 3
107 NBC SATURDAY NIGHT MOVIES 5640 2.0 7
108 KING OF THE HILL 5510 2.0 6
109 QUINTUPLETS 5190 1.9 12
110 LIFE OF LUXURY-MON 5180 1.9 5
111 WWE SMACKDOWN! 5070 1.8 21
112 BERNIE MAC-WED 9:30P 5060 1.8 3
113 SPORTS ILLUS:MODEL SEARCH 5040 1.8 6
114 AMERICA’S NXT TOP MODEL 3 5020 1.8 13
115 GILMORE GIRLS - WB 4920 1.8 21
116 BERNIE MAC 4840 1.7 9
117 BERNIE MAC-FRI 8:30P 4810 1.7 6
118 ONE TREE HILL - WB 4560 1.6 14
119 SMALLVILLE - WB 4550 1.6 21
120 NEXT GREAT CHAMP 4530 1.6 2
121 REBA - WB 4470 1.6 19
122 BENEFACTOR, THE 4410 1.6 5
123 SURVIVOR: VANUATU ENC 4350 1.6 4
124 RENOVATE MY FAMILY 4340 1.6 6
125 LAW & ORDER:CRIM INT-TUE 4290 1.5 1
126 WILL, THE 4240 1.5 1
127 POINT PLEASANT 4220 1.5 5
128 EVERWOOD - WB 4210 1.5 20
129 REBEL BILLIONAIRE 4130 1.5 10
130 NORTH SHORE 4070 1.5 10
131 BIG FAT OBNOXIOUS BOSS 4040 1.5 5
132 REBA - FRI - WB 3960 1.4 6
133 JONNY ZERO 3940 1.4 6
WORLD’S CRAZIEST VIDEOS 3940 1.4 4
135 APPRENTICE 2-SAT 3810 1.4 4
136 LIFE AS WE KNOW IT 3800 1.4 11
137 TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS BHVR 3660 1.3 4
138 CHARMED - WB 3630 1.3 18
139 GIRLFRIENDS 3600 1.3 20
140 BLUE COLLAR TV - WB 3530 1.3 19
141 CUTS 3480 1.3 1
142 BLUE COLLAR TV - ENC - WB 3340 1.2 3
143 HALF AND HALF 3320 1.2 21
144 ONE ON ONE 3230 1.2 21
145 SECOND TIME AROUND 3010 1.1 18
146 KEVIN HILL 2990 1.1 20
147 EVE 2960 1.1 20
148 ENTERPRISE 2880 1.0 17
149 ALL OF US 2830 1.0 20
150 D CAREY GREEN SCREEN-WB 2740 1.0 5
151 ROAD TO STARDOM 2700 1.0 7
152 WHAT I LIKE ABOUT YOU-WB 2670 1.0 18
153 GROUNDED FOR LIFE - WB 2660 1.0 14
154 HIGH SCHOOL REUNION-WB 2520 .9 7
155 COMPLEX: MALIBU 2500 .9 3
156 JACK & BOBBY - WB 2480 .9 14
157 S HARVEY BIG TIME - WB 2470 .9 21
158 VERONICA MARS 2450 .9 20
159 WB THU MOVIE - WB 2440 .9 13
160 MOUNTAIN - WB 1920 .7 13
161 AMER NEXT TOP MODEL 3-ENC 1900 .7 10
162 BMOC - WB 1690 .6 6
163 OE TREE HILL - THU - WB 1610 .6 2
164 CHARMED - THU - WB 1530 .6 4
165 ROAD TO STARDOM ENC 1380 .5 7
166 SUMMERLAND - SUN - WB 1350 .5 6
WB Adds Extra 'What I Like,' 'One Tree Hill' Episodes
(thefutoncritic.com) – The WB is rallying behind "What I Like About You" and "One Tree Hill," as the network has confirmed it has ordered additional episodes of each series this season.
Said orders are for two extra episodes of "What I Like About You" and one additional installment of "One Tree Hill," bringing each series' respective total to 24 and 23 episodes.
You are right, bgall -- and it has been about the only thing saving Fox this year.
I'm surprised MNF maintained #13. I didn't think that many people watch football on a monday night, I didn't.
TiVo's most recorded shows of week ending February 19
#/Show title / Network / % of TiVo Owners
1. Desperate Housewives, ABC 30.4%
2. American Idol (Tuesday), Fox 26%
3. American Idol (Wednesday), Fox 23.2%
4. The Apprentice, NBC 22%
5. Lost, ABC 21.5%
6. Survivor: Palau, CBS 20.1%
7. CSI, CBS 19.5%
8. Grammy Awards, CBS 18.1%
9. 24, Fox 17.7%
10. ER, NBC 16.2%
USA Today Source: TiVo, week of Feb. 13-19; based on analysis of viewing preferences of anonymous aggregate sample of 20,000 households; reflects recorded and live viewing of prime-time programs.
PJO1966
02-24-05, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by fredfa
reflects recorded and live viewing of prime-time programs.
How can they differentiate between live viewing of prime-time programs, and TiVo's that happen to be sitting on a channel while nobody's watching?
They can't any more than a Nielsen box can differentiate between a TV left on while its owner takes a shower.
(But there are indications: channel surfing in commercial breaks, checking the various TiVo menus, etc.)
But the TiVo numbers can (and do) indicate when a specific program is not only recorded but played.
is 24 down compared to other seasons?
Well, 24 barely survived Season 1's ratings. So it is doing better than that. I think it's the highest season yet, even though the last 2 had an American Idol lead-in for part of their years. Could be wrong.
I believe it is doing its best numbers -- and certainly compared with the rest of the non-AI Fox schedule.
Scott G
02-24-05, 09:23 PM
Complete Season To Date Primetime Ratings Through February 20, 2005
Some of these total season ratings are not that relevant. Shows like George Lopez, My Wife and Kids and Joan of Arcadia have been dropping dramatically lately. While some others like Hope and Faith and 8 Simple Rules have been rising lately. These are the season averages.
True, Scott G, but that's why I post the weekly numbers, and, occasionally, the season to date ratings (both viewers and 18-34), so people can make their own judgments.
How Many People Watch the Academy Awards?
(Hint: NOT A Billion)
by Daniel Radosh The New Yorker Issue of 2005-02-28
About the Oscars this Sunday, one thing may safely be predicted: someone will do something embarrassing onstage, and someone else will point out that it was done in front of a billion people. It is common knowledge that the Academy Awards are watched by a billion people around the world. “They keep reminding you, like, every two seconds,” Cate Blanchett, who is a nominee for Best Supporting Actress, recently complained to Oprah Winfrey. Last year, the figure cropped up in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Daily News, The Economist, and dozens of other publications. If anyone remembers a single speech from last year’s Oscars, it is probably the one made by Andrew Stanton, the co-director of “Finding Nemo,” who told his wife, “I wrote it to you in a note in eighth grade, now I can say it in front of one billion people: I love you.”
But the worldwide audience for the Oscars isn’t even close to a billion, as a little common sense makes plain. In the United States, 43.5 million people watched the show last year. That’s a lot, but it’s 956.5 million short of a billion. Can the show really pick up that many viewers in countries that most of the films and people being honored are not from, and where the speeches are in a language that most of the population does not speak?
One way to calculate that the Academy Awards could almost reach a billion viewers is to assume that since the domestic audience of 43.5 million amounts to fifteen per cent of the American population, maybe fifteen per cent of the world population also watches. That would make nine hundred and sixty million, close enough for rounding up. There are a few problems with this assumption, though. The first is that even though the ceremony is broadcast in more than a hundred and fifty countries, in many of those it is available only on satellite or cable channels that have relatively few subscribers. If one uses some generous estimates (is it possible for every man, woman, and child in Russia to get to a TV?), the total potential audience for the Oscars is around two billion. Fifteen per cent of two billion is only three hundred million.
Few other countries track television audiences the way the United States does, so solid data are hard to come by, but the evidence isn’t promising. For instance, of the 715 million Chinese who could have tuned in last year, only one per cent did. Recently, the Colombian actress Catalina Sandino Moreno, a Best Actress nominee for “Maria Full of Grace,” told the Times that she had never seen the Oscars at all. “In Colombia, the big thing is to watch the beauty pageants,” she said.
So where does the billion figure come from? “I think several years ago that was a number that a variety of entities handed out,” Leslie Unger, the publicity coördinator for one of those entities, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, said. “I don’t believe any entity now thinks that the number has any veracity.” The division of the Walt Disney Company that distributes the show internationally also disavows the figure. Unger added, “Our best estimate is several hundred million.”
Despite the backpedalling and the occasional skeptical glance from such publications as the Wall Street Journal and Variety, there is little chance that the myth of the billion viewers will fade, if only because it has a twenty-year jump on the revised figure. The claim that a billion viewers watch the Oscars first appeared on March 24, 1985, in an Associated Press article, according to Nexis. The following year, it was cited onstage by the Academy’s president, and by Robin Williams, who turned it into a joke (“A billion. That’s more than Mrs. Marcos spends in, oh, maybe a week”).
One of the earliest and most enthusiastic citers of the statistic was a U.P.I. columnist named Vernon Scott. Between 1985 and 2002, when he died, at the age of seventy-nine, Scott mentioned the figure at least thirty-nine times. He pegged the Oscar audience as, variously, “a billion,” “an estimated billion,” “approaching a billion,” “a reported billion,” and “more than a billion.” A couple of times, it spiked upward, once to “1.5 billion” and once to “2.5 billion,” before settling back down.
It helps, perhaps, that, while common sense exposes the billion figure as preposterous, Hollywood common sense reinforces it. If you are, say, Cate Blanchett, or even Andrew Stanton, how could it possibly occur to you that a billion people wouldn’t want to watch you win an award?
j_buckingham80
02-25-05, 10:54 AM
A couple numbers from Drudge:
FLASH: CBS WINS BIG THURSDAY: 'CSI' 19.8 RATING/28 SHARE TOPS [OUTPACES 'IDOL,' 'HOUSEWIVES' FOR #1 OF WEEK] LOW END OF NIGHT: ABC'S PETER JENNINGS 'UFO' 8.0 RATING/11 SHARE...
Thursday’s ratings been posted at the top of Latest News, the first item in this thread.
FCC: Angel Episode Not Indecent
(Feb. 25) The FCC unanimously turned down an indecency claim against an episode of the WB show Angel.
The Parents' Television Council complaint against The WB's affiliates in Washington, D.C. and other cities. It centered around two sexually explicit scenes in the November 19, 2003 episode of the program, which aired at 9 p.m. Eastern.
But commissioners decided that the two scenes, in the context of the program, weren't explicit enough to tip the delicate balance between the First Amendment and federal indecency laws.
"After review of the Complaint and the videotape of the episode provided by PTC, we conclude that the material is not 'patently offensive' as defined by Commission precedent, because the cited material is not sufficiently graphic or explicit," the commission said in its Memorandum Opinion and Order Friday. "Both scenes are brief. Neither scene at issue contains any nudity and neither is sufficiently graphic or explicit to render the program patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards."
Commissioners posted no individual comments on the FCC's Web site as of Friday afternoon.
The full opinion can be read with Adobe Acrobat at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-37A1.pdf, or with Microsoft Word at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-37A1.doc.
_____
dline posts this for information only and does not necessarily endorse any point of view contained in this post.
At NBC, it's all 'Law & Order,' all the time '
By Robert Bianco USA TODAY
Here's how bare the programming cupboards are at the network that was for years broadcast TV's most dominant and innovative: Next week, NBC will air 12 hours of Law & Order in its various, if not varied, incarnations, allowing the franchise to occupy more than half its schedule. It's as if the network were purposely pursuing the TV version of the perfect storm, that fatal point where creative exhaustion meets audience ennui.
Oddest of all, right in the middle of that Order onslaught (which drops to a mere nine hours the week after), NBC will premiere the fourth show in the franchise, Law & Order: Trial by Jury. Can you think of a better way to make viewers think they're simply getting more of the same than by surrounding Jury with more of the same? It could be the first show in TV history to premiere as a rerun.
The reason for this late February influx is ratings. NBC is in danger of finishing fourth in the soon-to-be-concluded sweeps — not just in total viewers, but also in the younger viewers the network used to brag about capturing. So it's making use of one of the only weapons it has at its command. What else can it do? Supersize Joey, a once-promising sitcom that has bled viewers and goodwill as the network, the studio and the producers dithered?
The question is how NBC allowed itself to become so reliant on one franchise — a franchise that, unlike CBS' CSI juggernaut, doesn't even hold a spot in the Top 10. Indeed, other than SVU, L&O shows don't even consistently win their time slots. Still, given that NBC is so dependent on L&O, reason says the network would be wise to avoid exhausting it. Yes, overall, the shows are holding up remarkably well, given that they sometimes air as much as 10 hours a day between network and cable.
But as ABC learned with Who Wants to be a Millionaire, it's virtually impossible to tell when a series has reached the exhaustion point until it has — and by then, it's too late. Ask the buffalo hunters, if you can find any.
Clearly NBC isn't the only network to work a show or a genre to death, or to have trouble coming up with new ideas. Between the falling Numb3rs and the vacant CSI: NY, which is no more than a title in search of a show, CBS has clearly drained the procedural well dry. Over at Fox, the network's only true hit is the mega-smash American Idol— though wisely the network has used it to boost two great hours, 24 and House. And although ABC has struck the mother lode with Desperate Housewives and Lost, it's propping up the rest of its schedule with various versions of Extreme Makeover.
Still, whether you base your judgment on what people actually do watch or what they should watch, NBC is clearly at the bottom of the network Big Four. Its only series in the season-to-date Top 10 is the aged wonder ER. Its next best performer is The Apprentice, a show that can do no better than a distant second place in a time slot NBC owned for decades. That's such a dismal development record, you might think the network was being run by a secret cabal of ABC, CBS and Fox executives.
The hopeful news is that network ratings collapses are nothing new, and they often have the same salutatory effect as a forest fire. They're terrible as they rage, but they clear out the deadwood and make room for new growth. Indeed, the farther networks fall, the more prone they are to the kind of experimentation that leads to new, breakout hits. Look at ABC, which went from desperate network to Desperate Housewives in one artistic leap.
Maybe next year, NBC will have a similar recovery. Or maybe it will give us Law & Order: Chapter Five. In which case, we can all just order up another network.
Clearly NBC isn't the only network to work a show or a genre to death, or to have trouble coming up with new ideas. Between the falling Numb3rs and the vacant CSI: NY, which is no more than a title in search of a show, CBS has clearly drained the procedural well dry. Over at Fox, the network's only true hit is the mega-smash American Idol— though wisely the network has used it to boost two great hours, 24 and House. And although ABC has struck the mother lode with Desperate Housewives and Lost, it's propping up the rest of its schedule with various versions of Extreme Makeover.
I'd have to disagree a little with that assessment, since there are only three "Extreme Makeover" shows on ABC, and the plastic surgery version is different enough from the "Home Edition" that you'd almost have to consider them separate shows. Also, Alias and Boston Legal -- as well as NBC's Medium -- are no slouches (though I admit I have yet to watch Medium.)
I would have to agree, though, that NBC Thursday (or anyone's Thursday, for that matter) isn't as "must-see" as it used to be, that Joey just isn't the same without his old "friends," and that sitcoms in general seem to be lacking (unless you count the humor in shows like Desperate Housewives and Boston Legal as comedy). It would be interesting to see whether the switch to HD is causing us to make different choices and switch away from sitcoms, even HD ones.
Re "Law and Order", just think, it would be 2 more hours if "Crime & Punishment: Real Life Law & Order" and "Law & Order: Deadline" hadn't been canceled, then there were the proposed Chris Noth recurring L&O TV-movies (Noth BTW is now going to be alternating with the sporadic Dinofrio on "Criminal Intent").
Actually, it could be "3 more hours." Wasn't Players also a Dick Wolf show?
I was looking at a reference book the other day and noted that in the early 1970s, nine of the top 10 programs were half-hour sitcoms.
Things sure have changed.
Cable News Ratings, Thursday, Feb. 24, 2005 '
(from the drudgereport.com)
FOX NEWS CHANNEL—(8 pm)--Bill O’Reilly 2,181,000 [VIEWERS]
FOX NEWS CHANNEL—(9 pm)--Hannity & Colmes 1,622,000
FOX NEWS CHANNEL—(7 pm)--Shepherd Smith 1,386,000
FOX NEWS CHANNEL—(6 pm)--Brit Hume 1,318,000
FOX NEWS CHANNEL-(10 pm)-Greta Van Susteren 1,307,000
CABLE NEWS NETWORK-(9 pm)-Larry King 1,004,000
CABLE NEWS NETWORK-(8 pm)-Paula Zahn 673,000
CABLE NEWS NETWORK-(10 pm)-Aaron Brown 551,000
CABLE NEWS NETWORK-(7 pm)-Anderson Cooper 524,000
MSNBC—(7 pm)-Hardball with Chris Matthews 388,000
CABLE NEWS NETWORK—(6 pm)-Lou Dobbs 379,000
CNN HEADLINE NEWS—(8 pm)-Nancy Grace 366,000
MSNBC—(10 pm)-Joe Scarborough 240,000
MNSBC—(8 pm)-Keith Olbermann 208,000
j_buckingham80
02-25-05, 05:17 PM
And yet really creative and innovative Sitcoms like Arrested Development are not heavily watched. Part of it may just be the need for quick hits instead of developing an audience. Networks seem to be giving in to a quick Cost-Benefit Analysis as opposed to a longer-term view of cultivating an audience. L&O is easy because it will generate enough viewership, it won't challenge new ground, making it cheap to produce. Arrested is tough because it's challenging new ground (the mockumentary) and isn't guaranteed viewership. Andy Richter was another good show, Sitcoms unlike plug and play tv, take time for viewer to invest themselves into the show. This was true with Seinfeld, and probably would have been true with Friends if Seinfeld hadn't been helping Friends establish. After all, Friends was really just Seinfeld but not nearly as funny. Heck it probably would've been true with Frasier if it hadn't been a spinoff of Cheers.
I think you have to consider the platform: broadcasting.
The networks try to cast a wide net to gain as many viewers as possible.
Thus shows like Arrested Development (in your eyes creative and innovative, in my eyes something far less) might do much better on HBO.
Perhaps a reason for their demise is that sitcoms have mined every off-color joke and innuendo there is and there is no place else for them to go.
Of course writing funny shows which deal with relationships and every day occurrences is a bit more difficult, but when networks seem to have decided to approach sitcoms as merely a pretense for seeing how far they can stretch the boundaries of taste, perhaps this is the price they pay.
As the USA Today article I posted earlier today notes about the L&O franchise, NBC seems to be doing everything it can to milk any possible ratings points out of it, no matter what the long-term cost.
Sad, but once or twice a week it was appointment TV. Now it almost seems like you can't escape it.
NBC's lack of creativity is obviously maiming its ratings this season -- and could, a la ABC's "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" fiasco of a few years back, cripple the network for several seasons.
As to the cost-benefit analysis -- exactly what could Fox have done to get an audience for Arrested Development? It seems clear that while there is some audience for AD, it is a very small one.
But it is not as if Fox just buried it. They have promoted it heavily, and still too few people watch it.
j_buckingham80
02-25-05, 06:09 PM
Well I think Arrested actually been quite poorly treated by Fox in relation to some of their other shows. But Fox has that problem with a lot of programming especially with their sports line-ups and the rest. 24 suffered and I think a lot of their other programming did as well. I also think that's why with AI on now you, House has been able to take off, and the no-interruption 24 doing some very good numbers on Fox. Fox just has a wacked out schedule, which doesn't help out their shows. It also didn't help that Arrested backed up to My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss, opposite Desperate Housewives. To be honest, I'm not actually that concerned about Arrested however, with Simpsons decling and AD outpulling MitM lately I don't think Fox is going to be quick to dump AD.
I understand that's Arrested is not funny to a lot of people, I think it's just a show you have to get into. I remember thinking that the first couple episodes were dumb, but once I got into it, I found it to be quite funny. I just happen to be a big fan of Fox's sunday night, so that's how they roped me in, and then like good shows got addicted.
And actually Fox itself is interesting because it seemed like it was really close to wiping out this season like NBC, but instead of L&O overdose on reality overdose. For them their two season year really helped, and with scripted shows House and 24 helped prevent a Reality overload, which, possibly could have really harmed AI, remember how Fox was setting low expectation for AI before it started.
You know what?
There are no right or wrong answers about what we like.
I agree that Fox could have done better with AD but some of their execs seem pretty dense about promotion.
As I noted after the Super Bowl, what was up with promoting a "Simpsons" episode and an "American Dad" (which won't reappear until May 1), when they could have perhaps helped AD or some of their other shows.
"House" was growing steadily, and probably would have been renewed even without the bump from AI. Perhaps now is the time to move "House" and give that massive lead-in to some other show that Fox might be able to nurture into a solid hit.
j_buckingham80
02-25-05, 06:28 PM
Fredfa, you sound like you'd make a good network exec! Seriously I do think the nets probably new blood at top, and I completely agree with you.
HBO to Air 'Six Feet Under' on Mondays '
By Jon Lafayette TVWeek.com February 25, 2005
HBO plans to air the final season of "Six Feet Under" on Monday nights, starting in June. The move is a test to see if the premium network can put its originals on a night other than Sunday. In June the Lisa Kudrow comedy "The Comeback" and the second season of "Entourage" will air on Sunday, HBO's traditional night for premiering originals.
HBO said a smaller portion of its viewers are watching its shows during their premiere run but are instead watching reruns or using the HBO On Demand service. HBO downplayed the notion that it is moving programming to Monday to avoid competition with ABC's blockbuster "Desperate Housewives." "Comeback" and "Entourage" as well as the new season of "Deadwood" will run from 9-10 p.m. HBO does not plan to air originals on Monday night during the fall, when "Monday Night Football" is broadcast.
JAG's Star: Why He's Out
”We want a younger, hipper JAG”
by Mary Murphy TVGuide.com
David James Elliott did not jump ship; he was forced to walk the plank. Elliott, who plays Navy attorney Cmdr. Harmon "Harm" Rabb Jr. on JAG, is leaving the show when it concludes its 10th season in May. Elliott, 44, has already signed a series-development deal with ABC. "David left, and we wish him well," JAG creator Donald Bellisario says. "His contract was up, and we never expected it to go on. We had to cut costs. [So] we started doing episodes with less of David, and it became obvious to him that we were not going to renegotiate."
Elliott's manager says CBS never responded to his client's salary request for another season, but "David loves CBS. [The role] had run its course. He has made a lucrative deal with ABC."
That said, there may not even be another season. CBS won't announce its fall lineup — including JAG's fate — until May, but Bellisario has made a preemptive strike by adding a new attorney to anchor the show. Chris Beetem, a 32-year-old As the World Turns veteran, joined the cast Feb. 18 as Lt. Gregory Vukovic and has already been signed for a potential 11th season.
"We want a younger, hipper JAG," Bellisario says. JAG attracts nearly 10 million viewers on average, but only a quarter of them are in the 18- to 49-year-old demographic coveted by advertisers.
One character who won't be swept overboard is Lt. Col. Sarah "Mac" MacKenzie, played by Catherine Bell. "It was always intended that Catherine would be [on] the show next season but [Elliott] would not," says Bellisario, who promises a surprise in May that will wrap up the relationship between Mac and Harm. But don't pick out wedding gifts just yet.
The First Televised Academy Awards: How Things Have Changed!
The accidental 1953 Academy Awards
It was the last thing the big studio bosses wanted
By Ed Robertson medialife.com
On Sunday night some 40 million Americans will sit down to watch the Academy Awards. It's a wingding of a television event for sure, and every bit a TV institution after a half century, even with all the social changes that have swept across America and the enormous changes in media over those 50 years. Yet the very fact that the Academy Awards air on TV is a fluke of history. We owe it all to a flap over money.
more here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=513939
Friday’s ratings been posted at the top of Latest News, the first item in this thread.
(From Marc Berman’s Programming Insider column Friday, Feb. 25, 2005 at Mediaweek.com)
Tonight’s Network TV
Saturday 2/26/05 Night 24 of the Feb. 2005 Sweep
ABC:
Movie: Forrest Gump (R) HD
CBS:
Wickedly Perfect
Cold Case (R) HD
48 Hours Mystery
NBC:
Law & Order (R) HD
Law & Order: Criminal Intent (R) HD
Law & Order: SVU (R) HD
Fox:
Cops
America's Most Wanted
I will be travelling Sunday, so I will get Saturday's ratings posted late Sunday PT.
Saturday’s ratings been posted at the top of Latest News, the first item in this thread.
j_buckingham80
02-28-05, 09:21 AM
From Drudge:
OSCAR OVERNIGHTS:
2005 30.1 RATING/43 SHARE
George Thompson
02-28-05, 09:37 AM
CBS Triples HD coverage of NCAA Tourneys...
More HD Sports News
http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/sports/20050225/#
George Thompson
02-28-05, 09:43 AM
SMPTE seeks info on lip sync errors. Here's your chance to be heard.
http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/bth/20050227/#smpte
It is always helpful to put ratings in whatever context we can.
Here is the rest of what Matt says about the Oscars:
OSCAR OVERNIGHTS:
2005 30.1 RATING/43 SHARE
2004 29.6 RATING/43 SHARE
2003 25.2 RATING/37 SHARE ** SET RECORD LOW
2002 29.1 RATING/47 SHARE ** SET RECORD LOW
[2005: MAX 63 SHARE NYC, 54 SHARE L.A., 61 CHICAGO, 51 PHILLY, 54 BOSTON, 61 SAN FRAN, 51 DALLAS, OTHERS... NATIONAL #S DUE LATER MONDAY, COULD OFF-SET URBAN GAINS]
Fox to Sweep February
But big advertisers seem not that impressed
By John Consoli mediaweek.com February 28, 2005
With one week to go in the February sweeps, Super Bowl XXXIX and American Idol have essentially guaranteed Fox will be the runaway winner in all major demographics, and its strong month has propelled the network to a tie with CBS in the season-to-date battle for the 18-49 demo title. However, even if Fox comes out on top of the 18-49 demo for the season, media buyers said Fox should not count on garnering extra favor among advertisers and media buyers in the May upfront.
“Fox winning the sweeps and 18-49 demo for the season is great for its morale, but from our point of view, it’s not that big a deal,” said Steve Sternberg, executive vp and director of media analysis for Magna Global USA. “We know those ratings were driven by only a few shows, and we need to look at the entire schedule, for consistency on every night.”
Shari Ann Brill, vp/director of programming at Carat, agreed. “No one is fooled by bottom-line demo averages,” said Brill. “So much of Fox’s success is due to American Idol. Even its [Tuesday 9 p.m.] drama House was only doing half the [adults] 18-49 ratings earlier in the season, before it got Idol as its lead-in.”
Brill added that while one cannot discount the power of Idol in drawing viewers to the network, because of category exclusivity on the show, some advertisers could not take advantage of Idol in their upfront packages.
During the sweeps, House has lost half of its Idol lead-in audience in adults 18-49, but retained 95 percent of last week’s still-solid 5.6 18-49 rating in the second half-hour of the show. And Fox’s move of 24 from Wednesday at 9 to Monday at 9 has paid off particularly well during the sweeps, averaging a 5.1 in 18-49, up 25 percent over last season.
Through the first three weeks of sweeps, Fox leads all networks in viewers with 16.9 million, adults 18-49 with a 7.0 and adults 18-34 with a 6.5. CBS ranks second in viewers at 12.6 million, and in adults 18-49 with a 3.9 (but falls to fourth in adults 18-34 with a 2.8). ABC is third in adults 18-49 with a 3.8 and second in adults 18-34 with a 3.0.
UPN and the WB are both down double digits across all demos, but because they operate off a lower base, media buyers are less concerned about them than they are about NBC, which is also down double-digit percentages across all demos (to 10.2 million viewers, a 3.6 in 18-49 and a 2.9 in 18-34). “NBC missed its opportunity when it didn’t come up with a viable replacement last fall for Friends,” said Brill. “They’ve been paying for it all season.”
But with three months left in the season after the February sweeps, there is still time for NBC and the other networks to make some positive impressions on the ad community.
“Even though NBC is down for the season, it is still only three-tenths of a rating point behind the leader in 18-49,” Sternberg said. “NBC is just one show away from being back. It’s going to be a real horse race.”
Alas, format did not do Oscar proud
By Robert Bianco, USA TODAY
Do the Oscar folks have rocks in their heads? Apparently the academy thought using hipster favorite Chris Rock as host and giving short shrift to the lower-profile awards would re-energize the Oscar show, turning it from a dowdy matron into a hot, younger-demo hit. Instead, ABC's three-hour plus broadcast of the Academy Awards Sunday seemed tailor-made to bore the young, embarrass the old and chase away even the most dedicated Oscar fan.
Yes, it moved faster — but where exactly did it think it was going?
To be sure, Rock is one of the funniest, smartest, most talented comics in America. What he clearly wasn't, as the academy must surely now realize, was a smart choice to host the Oscars. His act may have worked in the hall (and to be fair, the crowd did seem to be with him), but it didn't work on TV. Loud, snide and dismissive, he wasn't just a disappointment; he ranks up there with the worst hosts ever — particularly when you factor in the expectations. When the show ran a salute to Johnny Carson's years as host, the comparison was so painful, it made you think the academy would have been better off just letting a computer-generated Carson host again.
Perhaps someone should have told Rock that he wasn't just doing a stand-up gig, he was hosting the Oscars. At the minimum, that means you're kind of expected to act as if you have some interest in the proceedings. Instead, his monologue bypassed the nominated films entirely in favor of a few mild generalized jokes about movies and movie stars — praising Clint Eastwood, mocking Jude Law It wasn't just pointless, it was dull (and apparently offensive to Sean Penn, who came to Law's defense).
Unfortunately, what many viewers are most likely to remember — particularly those who feel Hollywood is out of touch with many of its customers — is Rock's lengthy attack on George Bush. It went over big with the crowd, and if you voted for John Kerry, you probably found it amusing. But that routine had nothing to do with the Oscars, either, and it very likely sent half the audience fleeing from what was otherwise a politics-free evening.
Later, as if to verify that he thought the show was a waste of time, Rock ran a pre-taped interview with people at a movie theater, none of whom had any interest in the nominated films. The bit was hardly shocking: We all knew there was no Lord of the Rings blockbuster in this year's lineup. On another night, on another show, it might even have been funny. On this night, at this event, it was alarmingly out of place.
Doesn't anyone have a sense of occasion anymore? It's one thing to make gentle fun of the nominees, as Billy Crystal does so well, and another to imply that no one outside of the hall cares about their work. Surely someone involved with last night's broadcast should have known the difference. Luckily, like every other host, Rock made only limited appearances after the first half-hour. In this case, less was best.
Rock, however, can't take all the blame for an evening that was well-dressed but almost ceaselessly dreary. Among a host of awful ideas, the worst was the decision to make second-class citizens out of the nominees for the technical awards — otherwise known as those people who have the nerve to be nominated without being famous. If anyone should realize that these categories are as integral to a movie's success and as hard to pull off as a great acting performance, it should be the members of the movie academy.
Instead, they made the nominees for some of those awards, such as art direction and documentaries, stand together on stage while their names were read, like American Idol contestants at the results show. That meant the losers also had to stand there and clap, at least until the camera closed in on the winners. At that point, one assumes, the losers were whisked away, though for all we know they were dropped into a hole in the set.
Even so, they were treated like stars compared with the nominees for a few other categories, such as best action short, who had to accept their Oscars in the aisle. Wouldn't it have been even faster just to pitch the Oscars at their heads?
Does it really take that much more time to let a winner rise out of a seat and come up on stage? If being asked to give up a few extra viewing seconds so these people can have their proper due is that much of an imposition, then here's a radical idea: Every event on Earth is not about you. These people have just won the most important award in their field. For heaven's sake, let them enjoy it.
But then for years, the intent of the Oscar broadcast has seemed to be to take the focus away from the awards and put it on ... well, what, exactly? The awards don't get in the way of the show; they are the show. If the producers think the acceptance speeches are boring, then by all means encourage the nominees to limit their thanks to those people to whom they are actually grateful. (That should cut the speeches down drastically.) But it's awfully hard to persuade an audience to watch an awards show when the people presenting the awards act like they're meaningless.
Of course, those lucky few winners who did get on stage immediately found themselves upstaged by the set, which did just about everything but talk. Note to the director: When you have Sidney Lumet accepting the lifetime achievement award with one of the evening's more eloquent addresses, it's not the best idea to have some giant Oscar lazy-susan spinning behind him. Yet there it was, rotating away behind every acceptance speech like some out-of-control carnival ride. Didn't that thing have a "stop" button?
Still, if Sunday's program went too far with its innovations, that doesn't mean the Oscar format couldn't use some tweaking. For one thing, the time has probably come to make the original-song category optional. Beyoncé is a lovely woman and a fine singer, but most of those songs not only shouldn't have been performed, they shouldn't have been nominated.
Ironically enough for a show that seemed ashamed of its own awards, it was the award winners who came to the rescue. Hilary Swank gave a touching, graceful acceptance speech, thanking her husband and scaring off the orchestra. Jamie Foxx's win gave the show a long-awaited emotional boost. And Clint Eastwood added old-school, masculine class.
Clearly, the Oscars rock. What a shame the show didn't.
Rock, Well . . . Didn't
By Tom Shales The Washington Post Monday, February 28, 2005; Page C01
Chris Rock jokingly welcomed viewers to "the 77th, and last, Academy Awards" last night but this Oscar show, nervously televised from Hollywood on ABC, will more likely turn out to be the first, and last, to be hosted by Rock. Though a brilliant and caustic stand-up comedian, Rock's stint as an Oscar host was strangely lame and mean-spirited.
Since we are apparently still living in the aftermath of Janet Jackson's overexposure at the 2004 Super Bowl, and because Rock is a comic known for raw and risque material, there was much hullabaloo in the weeks leading up to the ceremony about whether Rock would misbehave, perhaps earning ABC a scolding and sanction from the Federal Communications Commission, which now doles out fines the way Hollywood doles out awards.
But the only real controversy generated by Rock came during a so-so monologue in which he insulted several actors, Jude Law among them, as being small-timers who got parts only when better actors were unavailable. Rock had also pre-taped a peculiar bit of man-on-the-street comedy in which a collection of Hollywood moviegoers, most of them African American, said they hadn't seen or even heard of many of this year's nominated films. It was unclear if this routine was some sort of commentary on racism or a gratuitous slap at Hollywood, but either option is hardly encouraging.
The first half of the show was dominated by the film "The Aviator," about the life of Howard Hughes, but then the show was taken over by "Million Dollar Baby," a gritty drama about a woman who wants to be a professional boxer. "Aviator" won for art direction, costumes, supporting actress (Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn) and cinematography, but "Million Dollar Baby" won the million-dollar awards: Best Director (Clint Eastwood), Best Picture and best performance by an actress, the toothy Hilary Swank.
Swank also took dubious honors for one of the evening's most torturous and prolonged acceptance speeches, refusing to be cut off by the orchestra, which had managed to silence a few blabbermouths who preceded her. Few winners followed the sterling example set by Morgan Freeman, who was named Best Supporting Actor in the same film and whose speech was brilliantly brief.
Producer Gil Cates made a few brave tries at shortening the show. Some awards were handed out in the audience, eliminating a few of those agonizing long walks to the stage (which some shrewd winners always draw out by stopping to shake hands with everybody they met in Hollywood on their way to the top). Nominees and winners of craftsmanship and technical awards were already gathered onstage when their awards were announced.
That led Rock to joke that next year some Oscars will be presented in the parking lot, with winners taking advantage of a quickie drive-through lane.
This year's Oscars featured, for the most part, such a gloom-and-doomy array of nominees that it would have been very hard to turn the show into a funfest, or even a decently entertaining three hours of self-indulgence.
Fearing that the lackluster box-office performance of the nominated films would translate into low ratings for the Oscar special, Cates and other producers of the program hired hot comic Rock and then sent him on a publicity tour during which he repeatedly suggested he would not soften or homogenize his material. The promise appeared to be that this year's Oscars would be racy and sexy and a slap in the face of blue-nose pressure groups who have currently declared open season on TV and its allegedly offensive programming.
But the brave front was a sham. Robin Williams was scheduled to perform a song ridiculing censorious fringe groups, but according to news reports the song was deemed so inflammatory, and was so heavily edited by ABC censors, that its authors refused to let it be performed. When Williams stepped onstage, he'd affixed a piece of white tape over his mouth to symbolize the censorship.
His comedy routine included some of the material that had been in the song -- jokes about comic-book and fairy-tale characters having scandalous private lives -- but the song itself was gone, revealing ABC censors to be chickenhearted in the way that almost all censors are, and handing a victory to the pressure groups, one of which recently charged that the popular cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants was sending out secret pro-homosexual messages in his animated adventures.
"SquarePants is not gay," Williams jokes. "Tight Pants? Maybe. SpongeBob HotPants? You go, girl!" The cartoon, which airs daily on Nickelodeon, is one of the most popular programs of any kind on cable TV.
The annual Academy salute to motion picture figures who died during the previous year was movingly accompany by a Yo-Yo Ma cello solo. As was only fitting, the personality saved for last and given the most time during the tribute was Marlon Brando. Earlier, however, the Academy badly fumbled a chance to offer a tribute to Johnny Carson, who hosted the Academy Awards many times in the '70s and '80s, back when the show still had a vestige of energy and the nominated movies still had some glamour and pizzazz.
This year's Oscar show was certainly more ethnically diverse than ever, but so much attention was called to this that it made the program seem lopsided, a celebration only of films that qualify as politically correct. Actor Jamie Foxx, who won for playing the great singer Ray Charles in the film "Ray," seemed to be exploiting the racial angle by implying his victory was a victory for African Americans. He gave essentially the same speech he gave at the Golden Globes, replete with threats to break up in tears when he got to the part about his dear old grandma and her influence on little Jamie when he was a child.
That influence included "whippings," Foxx said, but he claimed to be grateful even for those. In the audience, Oprah Winfrey gave Foxx a big wave as if she somehow shared in the award for his acting talent and heartfelt performance in the movie.
The Oscars are losing their status as a big national party and turning instead into de facto political conventions -- and if there's anything TV and the nation don't need, it's more of those. Chances are the ratings for this year's Oscar show will not be especially high and might be especially low, unless Rock turns out to have been enough of a name to bring viewers back to their sets. More likely, the whole horrible mess will have to be rethought once again, and next year's Oscarcast will be preceded by a fresh wave of hype about how new and improved it all is.
Perhaps Billy Crystal will come riding in on a white horse again and rescue the show with a zippy performance as host. There can't really be great Oscar shows, however, without great movies. The fault for this year's dry and dreary fiasco isn't Rock's or the windy speechmakers thanking half the population of North America. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in our motion pictures.
New tune, but song's the same
The big surprise is that Rock turns out to be not too dangerous
By Paul Brownfield Los Angeles Times Staff Writer February 28, 2005
Oh, cruel Oscar world, with your caste systems and not-so-subtle slights! I know that this year's telecast was designed to streamline things, to head off the collective unconsciousness that tends to kick in around hour three. But all the little stylistic changes — barring some winners from going onstage, limiting Robin Williams to 10 jokes about Beverly Hills face-lifts — couldn't save the show from devolving into the overblown TV event it wants always to be. It doesn't matter where you place Scarlett Johansson to talk about technical achievement, the Oscars are a popularity contest that pretends also to honor the boulder pushers who spend months of their lives applying makeup to a celebrity's puss at 5 in the morning.
Those would be the makeup artists, among the categories in which the winner accepted the award in the aisle, like an audience member asking a question on a daytime talk show. Lacking a great race for best picture and fearing the audience fatigue that has seen ratings for the Oscar telecast — and other award shows — spiral downward in recent years, the PR strategy this year was to plug its "dangerous" host, Chris Rock. By the time Rock took the stage Sunday night, so many thousands of words had been written about what he might say and whom he might alienate that it seemed the fate of Iran and North Korea's nuclear capability hung in the balance. Rock did filter the broadcast through the prism of his comedy in a way that at times felt indecorous, if not dangerous, and he shook things up about as much as could be expected when you've got a five-second delay on your script and a movie career — his own, namely — to think about.
He kept bringing it all back to race, in a kind of "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"-ization of the Oscars. The asides gave the evening whatever tension it had, and it didn't have much.
"Black movies don't have real names," Rock said in his opening monologue. " 'Barbershop,' 'Cookout,' 'Car Wash,' — you know 'Laundromat's' coming soon. And after that 'Check Cashing Place.' " You can hear Rock do this joke anywhere, and the monologue, overhyped as it was, was anticlimactic — a separate, out-of-context event grafted onto the event at hand. In his brief set, Rock took several passing jabs at President Bush but, bizarrely, ended up incensing more people in the house with a running gag about the cinematic omnipresence of Jude Law. "Who is Jude Law?" he carped, and hours later, presenting the award for best actress, Sean Penn peevishly called out Rock for sullying the name of "one of our finest actors."
Rock wasn't the best choice for the gig he was the best choice to get people talking about tuning in. "Sideways" is a nice movie, and so is "Finding Neverland," but this year's Academy Awards, you just knew, weren't going to make anyone forget that on Sunday night at this time ABC is usually showing "Desperate Housewives."
So here was Rock, in a made-for-TV event. It was a ruse. If you've seen him perform, it takes Rock about 30 minutes to get going — his anger builds, his rhythm picks up, he's eviscerating black street culture.
This, on the other hand, was 10 minutes before kicking it over to Cate Blanchett. One of the reasons Billy Crystal dominated the awards as host for so many years is that the night lends itself to a Vaudevillian master of ceremonies, someone who enters doing light shtick.
That's not Rock. And so he mostly behaved, and pretty soon it was the same old three-hour-plus ritual again, only with rearranged furniture. By the end, the most memorable segment was one that Rock and his writers taped at the Magic Johnson Theaters in Los Angeles. There, he asked black moviegoers to list their movies of the year. One guy said "The Chronicles of Riddick." Several others said they really liked "White Chicks," which became the running joke — applaud yourself all you want, Hollywood, but your business is built on the opening-weekend take of "White Chicks" at the mall in the predominately black neighborhood. You could feel the self-congratulatory air back at the Kodak Theatre being sucked out of the room, and for a brief moment it felt as though Rock had blown the show open.
Sunday’s ratings been posted at the top of Latest News, the first item in this thread.
Paul Bigelow
02-28-05, 11:58 AM
I think the Academy Awards presentation is first and foremost an awards presentation, a chance to see performers and technicians come together and celebrate a year of work.
I think when forces act upon the presention to try to morph the Awards into something else -- that's when it runs into trouble.
Hollywood needs to find one of their own who is smart, nice, talkative, and has a deep understanding and appreciation of movie business and history.
IMHO
Paul
George Thompson
02-28-05, 02:20 PM
NBC UNIVERSAL WILL SHOP FOR A LOT AT NAB
By Glen Dickson, Broadcasting & Cable, 2/27/2005
NBC Universal's John Wallace is going to preside over a big field trip at the NAB. As executive vice president of television operations and production services, he oversees technology for the NBC network and its 14 owned stations; NBC Universal cable networks; and Telemundo and its 16 stations. He'll take 80 staffers to Las Vegas to help him shop for technology that can solve production and distribution challenges.
Three major areas NBC Universal will be focusing on at NAB are HDTV, multicasting technologies and creating a standardized platform to manage spot sales and playback across all NBC Universal television properties.
"We're looking at solutions for a more complex environment as we explore mobile technologies, targeted ads and interactive mediums like VOD," says Wallace. "The traditional paradigms of how we broadcast and sell are changing, and there are some interesting thoughts in how vendors are tackling the market."
HDTV production gear is a priority since NBC will launch Late Night With Conan O'Brien in HDTV in April and convert Studio 8H, home of Saturday Night Live and Last Call With Carson Daly, by October.
And to support NBC's high-def broadcast of the 2006 Winter Olympics from Turin, Italy, next February, the network will upgrade its 32-channel Genesis operations center in New York to handle eight channels of HDTV.
"The biggest difference [compared with the Athens Summer Olympics in 2004] is that the NBC television network will do a simulcast in full HD," says Wallace. "This time, we will do all the commercial integration through New York and manage multiple time zones."
NBC Universal is also creating a new network operations center (Genesis II) in Englewood Cliffs, N.J., for its cable and Telemundo networks. Due to go online next month, it's designed to handle 64 channels and a mix of standard-definition and HDTV feeds. Initially, it will support 28 channels including Universal HD.
On the station side, NBC Universal is focused on ways to use its digital spectrum for multicasting, with such projects as NBC Weather Plus, the 24-hour weather service it is launching in 14 markets. In that vein, NBC will be investigating 'virtual-set' systems.
NBC U is standardizing technology platforms at all of its facilities to streamline the selling and airing of commercials. Wallace wants a system that handles sales, reporting and playback across all broadcast and cable properties and is able to expand to new applications, such as targeted ads, mobile-content services and VOD advertising.
"We want a 'sales-to-playback' strategy that will let us efficiently sell to the customer across multiple digital mediums," he says.
Wallace has digital asset-management systems on his list, too, prices have become more reasonable in that area. Storage is important, but "I'm also looking at the ability to manage content through the enterprise and push and pull material," says Wallace. "If a story is breaking in Birmingham, can I have it in my desktop in New York immediately?"
FCC Denies Indecency Complaints Against Three More Shows
Saving Private Ryan, Arrested Development, Will & Grace Targeted
(Written and posted by dline)
(Feb. 28) The Federal Communications Commission today dismissed indecency complaints against three more programs.
One of these shows was ABC's Veterans' Day broadcast of Saving Private Ryan. Many affiliates refused to air the movie because they feared the FCC would fine them due to its language and graphic war scenes.
ABC's contract required the network and its affiliates to air the film uncut.
"In light of the overall context in which the material is presented, the Commission determined that it was not indecent or profane," the FCC wrote in a press release, adding that indecency and profanity rules do not apply to violence.
The commission's order noted ABC's various warnings, including the movie's introduction, the full-screen graphic after each commercial break, and the "TV MA LV" rating bug.
In a separate statement, FCC Chairman Michael Powell wrote: "This film is a critically acclaimed artwork that tells a gritty story -- one of bloody battles and supreme heroism. The horror of war and the enormous personal sacrifice it draws on cannot be painted in airy pastels. The true colors are muddy brown and fire red and any accurate depiction of this significant historical tale could not be told properly without bringing that sense to the screen."
The complaint against Saving Private Ryan was filed by the American Family Association.
The FCC also denied complaints filed by the Parents' Television Council against recent episodes of the Fox show Arrested Development and the NBC comedy Will and Grace, both of which targeted sexual innudendo. In both cases commissioners decided the material cited by the PTC was "not sufficiently graphic or explicit."
More information and the full reports can be obtained through www.fcc.gov .
___
dline posts this for information only and does not necessarily agree with any point of view contained in this post.
j_buckingham80
02-28-05, 04:20 PM
Drudge is reporting that the National Numbers for the Oscars reflect a 6% YOY decline in viewership for the Oscars (no number given) reflecting "Heartland America" not watching the Oscars.
41.5 Million Viewers down 2 million from last year.
Full Article:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050228/ap_en_mo/oscars_tv_ratings_2
In regards to Dline's FCC post, I must concur with some of the sexual complaints about Arrested Devel. I like the show and I have it as a season pass on my Directivo, but it seems as of late that the sexual innudendo has become more commonplace and overt. And it seems that Tobias is the one that the innudendo is coming from but the other character seem to also direct it at him. The show can and has been funny with Tobias making references to performing oral sex on himself.
j_buckingham80
02-28-05, 05:59 PM
Last episode was pretty heavy on the innuendo. It's like salt, a small amount lightens up an episode and contributes to the opinion one has of Tobias as a little clueless, but too much and it can easily ruin the meal.
The Fast National Oscar ratings (off 2.03 million viewers from last year) been posted at the top of Latest News, the first item in this thread.
Oscar viewership slips again
By Scott Collins Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
Chris Rock didn't utter any naughty words at the Oscars — and he didn't boost ratings either.
Average viewership of Sunday's Academy Awards telecast slipped 5%, to 41.5 million viewers, compared to last year's show, according to preliminary data released today from Nielsen Media Research.
Oscar organizers hoped that as a first-time host, Rock would help halt an overall trend of ratings erosion.
Despite a weeks long controversy over the comic's irreverent comments in magazine articles — and worry about whether he might spice Oscar night with the expletives familiar from his stand-up routines — Rock did not appear to have connected even with his core fan base of younger viewers. The ratings slipped 6% in the key viewer demographic of ages 18 to 49.
This year's nominated films failed to stoke much enthusiasm among viewers — none of the five films tapped in the best picture category has grossed more than $100 million. But the clutch of critical pans for Rock's performance might send the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences back to the drawing board next year.
"Rock wasn't the best choice for the gig; he was the best choice to get people talking about tuning in," Paul Brownfield wrote in The Times. Reviews in the Washington Post and USA Today were even more harsh.
Based on ratings, the Oscar broadcast captured 30.1% of viewers, a slight 1% improvement over last year's results, according to wire service reports. It was the highest ratings, based on share of the audience, since the 2000 awards broadcast.
TiVo Picks Jamie Foxx as Oscar’s Big Winner
Red Carpet Diva Cate Blanchett Ruled the Oscar Pre-Show as TiVo Viewers Hit Replay to See Her Stunning Entrance
ALVISO, Calif., Feb. 28 PRNewswire-FirstCall--Front-runner Jamie Foxx's emotional acceptance speech after winning the award for "Best Actor" was the top TiVo moment of the Oscar broadcast according to TiVo analysis released today. In his speech, Foxx gave a heartfelt tribute to his grandmother saying "She still talks to me, only now she talks to me in my dreams. I can't wait to go to sleep tonight."
The second most popular TiVo moment of the evening was the "Best Picture" win by "Million Dollar Baby."
Taking home four awards in some of the event's most prestigious categories, the film, directed by Clint Eastwood, was the Hollywood knockout of the night.
Cate and Kate Rule the Red Carpet
"The Aviator" co-star Cate Blanchett -- who clinched the award for "Best Supporting Actress" -- was the most popular Hollywood celebrity to grace the red carpet, among TiVo subscribers, as she made her entrance in a yellow Valentino gown with diamond brooch. Blanchett's arrival was the most replayed moment of the night's red carpet glamour.
Not to be outdone, actress Kate Winslet's arrival in a blue Badgley Mischka stunner also caught the eye of TiVo subscribers, ranking number two as the second most popular replayed TiVo moment on the red carpet.
TiVo's audience measurement analysis is based on aggregated data from a sample of 10,000 anonymous TiVo households. TiVo viewership information gauges viewer interest in programming content by measuring the percentage of the TiVo audience who are watching in "Play" speed.
A more complete look at Sunday’s Oscar ratings – which were, at first, reported to be solidly higher than in 2004,.
But then the returns from the smaller markets came in….
The Oscar Telecast's Ratings: Less Than Rock Solid
By Lisa de Moraes The Washington Post Tuesday, March 1, 2005; Page C07
About 41.5 million viewers watched Chris Rock's first (and, many were speculating yesterday, last) gig as Oscar host on Sunday. That was 2 million fewer viewers than watched last year's Billy Crystal-hosted Oscarcast.
Based on the numbers, it would appear that the decision to hire Rock to host the Academy Awards show -- a choice that had done so much these past few weeks to cause the media's knotted and combined locks to part, and each particular hair to stand on end like quills upon the fretful porpentine -- did not have the same sensational effect on the public at large. Wish we had a buck for every time that's happened.
Some industry pundits had speculated that Oscar viewing levels would be high because of Rock's gig -- the mere anticipation of which had caused the media's hair to stand on end like that porpentine (aka porcupine) whose one big moment in "Hamlet" we pinched above, proving that you never know when the drivel you're forced to memorize in school is going to finally come in handy. Indeed, news reports early yesterday said Sunday's Oscar numbers were the franchise's best in five years.
Those reports, however, had been based on so-called "metered market" ratings, which aren't worth the per-pound price of porpentine when it comes to trying to figure out national numbers for a live broadcast such as the Academy Awards.
In fairness, Rock's audience was much larger than the paltry 33 million who had gathered around their sets to watch the Academy Awards in 2003, when Steve Martin hosted the show. (That audience remains the trophy show's smallest ever.) On the other hand, Rock's following was about 1.5 million viewers shy of the audience for the Martin-hosted 2001 Academy Awards. Rock also scored fewer viewers than Oscarcasts of 2002, 2000, 1999, '98, '96, '95,'94, '93, '92, '91, '89 -- we could go on and on.
This was not because, as Oscar hosts go, Rock was lousy, though there is a compelling argument to be made (and quite a number of critics have made it) that Rock was pretty lousy. This was because the number of viewers who tune in to the Academy Awards is largely dependent on what movies are in the race. This year, for the first time in 15 years, none of the Best Picture contenders has broken $100 million at the box office. Last year, on the other hand, blockbuster "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" was among the final five.
Back in October, when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced that Rock would host the Oscars, sending the media's locks into that porpentine routine, Academy Executive Director Bruce Davis said Rock was sure to attract those young male viewers the show has had so much trouble getting to watch. So how did Rock do with young male viewers? Not so well, turns out.
This year's Oscarcast is down in that age bracket compared with last year. In fact, Rock's male 18-to-34 numbers are lower than any Academy Awards broadcast in recent Oscar history, except that super-lousy one in 2003. ABC noted yesterday afternoon in its Oscar ratings roundup that the show posted its best numbers in that demographic group in three years and credited the boost to Rock.
Hooey.
In truth, Sunday's show delivered only 400,000 more 18-to-34-year-old viewers -- chump change in the broadcast TV business -- than last year's show.
And this was because the broadcast attracted more young female viewers, probably thanks to Beyonce and "Aviator" star Leonardo DiCaprio. Rock actually delivered 400,000 fewer 18- to 34-year-olds than the 2002 telecast, hosted by grandmother Whoopi Goldberg, while a whopping 1.6 million more turned up for the 2001 Oscarcast, hosted by Martin, who was then in his mid-fifties.
Also contributing to Sunday's dampened numbers: virtually no surprises. Hilary Swank, Best Actress; Jamie Foxx, Best Actor; "Million Dollar Baby," Best Picture, all as forecast by the Golden Globes and critics.
Which is not to say the show was devoid of excitement. There was the mystery of Beyonce singing three of the five nominated songs. Billboard reported that she had stepped in for Minnie Driver on one song because Minnie discovered a "scheduling conflict." Do you believe that? Me neither.
And how about John Travolta's Chia Pet hair? Three nights earlier, Travolta, sporting a very short haircut, appeared on David Letterman's show to promote his new movie. As an Oscar presenter, his hair appeared to have grown about four inches. This would not cause alarm in Hollywood, where hair idiosyncrasies are commonplace, but in Washington it's another matter entirely, particularly when talked about on-air by hair-ch