Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Do Oscars need a new producer?

As you no doubt know, this year's Academy Award telecast was the lowest-rated in over 30 years. With viewership declining for years now, and with a long string of unsatisfying hosts and too-glitzy production numbers, I wonder: Is it time to get rid of Gil Cates?

(Before I go any further, no, I do not know him personally. He seems like a great guy.)

The show is extremely glossy with little to no content. They didn't include a famous decease actor in a montage, even though he had been dead for weeks. They said they didn't "have time" in the montage. Even though the whole show was padded with useless montages left and right. And you're telling me that in a day and age filled with hundreds (thousands?) of producers who have worked in news stations, who must edit and update packages all the time, that no one on the crew was able to slip him in? That's just rude.

The show for years now has been considered "boring" by both mainstream Americans and media alike. Viewership declines consistently. (Note: He didn't produce last year.) And this guy keeps his job? How many jobs in this country allow you to consistently fail and still allow you to keep your job? If I became a producer of a local newscast, I can guarantee you that if the show was considered dull and I lost viewers all the time, I wouldn't keep the job. None of my staff would. But Cates does!

Since there's no real danger of Cates actually losing his job ever, apparently, then let's hope that he can be creative enough and open enough to new ideas to spruce the show up. The Emmy's are in an ugly transition period as they struggle to stay new and fresh, but at least they're trying. (For the record, I liked Ryan Seacrest in the round theatre. There, I said it.)

The Oscar's ratings are declining, and it seems pretty obvious that if you keep doing the same thing, it is not going to attract eyeballs.

No comments: