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.

Oscars Review

Last night, the 80th Annual Academy Awards ceremony were held on ABC. In case you missed it, I held off doing other homework (heh) and live-blogged the whole ceremony for our sister blog, Collegiate on Movies. If you missed the ceremony, here's what you missed:

Not a lot.

I was talking to blogging parter Rebekah today and we both agreed that we were entertained throughout the whole show. In my opinion, it was still a kind of dry show, but there were enough funny bits from Jon Stewart where it made the whole thing entertaining. But apart from the honest speech from the Once music team and Javier Bardem's speech, there were not many standout moments. It was entertaining to watch at the moment, but nothing that really sticks out in my mind the day after.

What worked: I was impressed, though, by Jon Stewart. Some shows have the host on for very little throughout the whole show. But Stewart had a definite presence throughout the program.

What didn't work: Those montages! I actually liked the "horrible" montages of people looking through binoculars, but having the orchestra swell with a sentimental piece every five minutes as we remember shows past? When a seventh of your show is spent remembering other shows, it doesn't say a lot for your confidence in the program, writer's strike or no writer's strike.

Why no one will like the Oscars

This Sunday night, the Oscars are to be handed out live on national television. It is one of the highest-rated telecasts of the year. The money spent on advertising during the awards show is starting to equal that of the Superbowl. And every year, people hate the Oscars. Why?

First off, there's the problem with the "host." The host, if you will notice, is responsible for entertaining you for the first fifteen minutes, then probably appears for a grand total of five minutes for the rest of the night. The host is usually the most-hyped part about the night, and it is almost always a let down. Not just because they are barely on, but because their jokes are trying to pander to such a wide audience that generally, they are more safe than creative, more bland than funny, dull rather than entertaining, and so forth.

Then there's the fact that people feel that only movies that they have seen should be nominated. It doesn't matter if the nominated films are actually award-worthy when compared to everything else. Mainstream America likes it's mainstream films. And if the film can't make more than $50 million, it doesn't deserve an award. (Speaking of not-mainstream, the little independent film Bella got snubbed by the Academy, which I will never forgive them for.)

Finally, people complain every year that the show is too long. It's scheduled to end at 11, but some years goes close to midnight. (If we are so fortunate!) And despite the fact that the whole premise of the award show, of ANY award show is people congratulating each other, people find that when it involves anyone in Hollywood, it's suddenly pretentious and snobby.

Personally, I find the Oscars to be fun, invigorating and an enjoyable mess to watch for hours. But I know I'm in the majority. Monday's press will have headlines like Stuffy Oscars go on too long, Show out of touch with America? and Why the Oscars don't matter. (Maybe some of those stories in The Collegiate even!) But I don't care. It's a night full of pomp, ceremony and it can actually sometimes help showcase some really good, deserving talent. If only people were more open to it.

What about you? Do you like the Oscars? Or do you think they are out of touch with the heartland? And what would you change about the show? (Me, personally, I would get rid of the host.)

theRecap: 24 co-creator quits, Bell thanked for not choosing "Lost"

I'll be trying a few things out here at Collegiate on TV, including launching a weeks-end review of television news stories that were, called theRecap. From show news to the television business, there's nothing that can't be remembered. So without any further ado, I present the inaugural edition of theRecap.

- The WGA members voted to end the strike, allowing television show runners to return back to work on Monday and writers on Wednesday. However, it is too late for some shows to return this season. Check here and here to see if your shows will be back in time for May sweeps.

- Joel Surnow, co-creator of 24 and a self-declared "right wing nut job" has left the real-time thriller to find other projects, perhaps in cable. In other 24 news, FOX is going ahead and having the rest of season seven filmed, with all 24 episodes to air probably in January, 2009.

- Lost will film 5 more episodes for the season. But instead of finishing airing the 8 episodes they have finished now, ABC will only show 7, and then come back for May with 6 episodes total. Make sense? The show will also air at 10 p.m., right after Grey's Anatomy when it returns from it's hiatus. Also, Rebecca Mader thanks Kristin Bell for not working on Lost.

- The Oscars will go forward as originally planned. Translation? People will still find it boring, pretentious and utterly worthless. (But I made some predictions that better come true!)

The rest of the rest:
- Being a Deal or No Deal model is tough business!
- Showrunner from My Name is Earl worked at a fast food joint during the strike.
- Carson Daly's staff gets cut down.
- Donald Trump's talk show is delayed again.