Sunday’s telecast of this year’s Golden Globes awards on NBC garnered its second lowest ratings in 13 years. The three-hour congratulate-them-fest was watch by 14.6 million people beating out last year’s viewer crash to a low of six million.
The dramatic loss of viewership last year was blamed on lack of glitz due to the writers’ strike.
Speculation varies on why this year’s broadcast drew fewer than the 20 million who watched in 2007 from nominated films hardly anyone bought a ticket to see to dwindling audiences for television shows, which is pretty much the same for each genre.
Still, there were the usual crowd-pleasers, such as Clint Eastwood, Jennifer Lopez, Leo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in attendance.
Those names and others are usually enough to draw a large crowd, if for no other reason than to see “who the stars are wearing,” Hollywood-speak for who designed your gown?
My speculation is that millions of viewers were lost to the season premiere of “24” on Fox, while columnist
Greg Hernandez thinks audiences are suffering from award show overload.
“Consider this,” Hernandez said, “ in the five days leading up to the Globes, the stars were at the Palm Springs Film Festival Awards, People's Choice Awards (CBS), Critics Choice Awards (VH1), the American Film Institute lunch, and the British Academy of Film and Television Arts' glitzy tea party at the Beverly Hills Hotel.”
Additionally, in the next six weeks the Screen Actors Guild Awards, NAACP Image Awards, Independent Spirit Awards, Grammy Awards and the non-televised Directors Guild Awards, Producers Guild Awards and Writers Guild Awards will be televised.
Then there’s the splinter group -- probably only comprised of my daughters -- who watch the Globes pre-game show to see who was wearing whom…with the sound muted, because they can’t stand the silly questions asked by the interviewers or the inane prattle between interviewer and interviewee.
I confess, I was one of the millions who did not watch the Globes; I was on a two-hour long overdue date with Jack Bauer.
I won’t be watching much of the Academy Awards, either. I haven’t seen any of the movies, the international broadcast of the awards has a well-deserved rap of going on for far too long, usually four hours or more.
I find myself bored almost immediately and it is the ultimate in Hollywood self-congratulatory spectacles. In a bit of irony, the movie awards show usually wins an Emmy, and I have no idea why, because there’s nothing about it that’s Emmy-worthy.
The last movie I saw in a theatre was The Hunt for the Red October, and that was because someone else popped for the two tickets at six bucks apiece, too high then and almost a bargain when compared to today’s ticket prices of $8 to $12.
I have about two dozen pay-for movie channels; I haven’t seen one movie that’s worth more than a 25-cent admission price; and I’m patient. I can wait for the movie to come to cable; I’m paying for it anyway.
Besides, I reject going to an uncomfortable movie theatre, putting up with the back of my chair being kicked by some kid who’s parents should have gotten a sitter; rude people talking on cell phones or to each other; and being -- according to Randy Newman’s song -- one of those “no damn good” short people.
Invariable, at the last minute the empty seat I chose to sit behind is filled with a six-foot-five giant, blocking my five-foot-three view, and there’s no place for me to move.
And when are theatre owners going to get smart and stagger the seats so heads aren‘t aligned with each other, and no one has to put up with Mr. Too Tall blocking his view?
Oh wait, there are such theatres and what happens? The six-foot schlamzel can’t watch the movie unless his head becomes one with his affaire de coeur, and now the two of them are blocking my view.
No thanks, I’ll wait and watch movies from the comfort of my home.
