People in showbiz (and other bizzes, I imagine) refer to the Flyby (or Flyover) States…that is, states that don’t register on their personal radar other than that they fly by them while jetting from Los Angeles to New York and back. Well, fly by states have viewers with ratings boxes as much as NY and CA do, and I have a strong feeling that they’ll be watching something else this year for the Oscars.
(Broad brush warning: The following is speaking in generalities, not individuals. If you feel you’re an exception, then you probably are. I’m speaking of general viewing habits, not specific viewers.)
None of this year’s Oscar nominated films are remotely what one would call populist fare. My purely unscientific guess is that the vast majority of film goers have not seen the vast majority of this year’s films or its nominees. Not only that, but two of the films focus on homosexual protagonists (“Capote,” “Brokeback Mountain”), but one of the nominees (Felicity Huffman) plays a transsexual. So not only do you have no films that are general viewer turn-ons (such as “Titanic” was), but considering the number of states that went out of their way to introduce the legislative bigotry that is the gay marriage ban (there, I fixed it, happy? You knew what I meant), I have to think you’ve got some active turn-offs in there. This may well be the first Oscar cast that’s picketed by the religious right.
And who’s the MC? Jon Stewart, whose work I adore and you probably do as well. But compared to the heartland appeal of Johnny Carson, or the vaudeville schticky “eager to please you” Billy Crystal, Stewart may well be perceived as that smart ášš smug New York Jew (plus anyone who doesn’t have cable may well not know who the hëll he is.)
When you consider all that, I have a sneaking suspicion that this year’s Oscar cast may well have ratings that make the Tonys look like a ratings bonanza.
Me, I’ll be watching. What can I say? I’m a glutton for glitzy out-of-control sluggish behemoths of awards shows. Plus it’s Jon Stewart, and we smart ášš smug New York Jews must show solidarity. But I’m doubting I’ll have a ton of company, especially in the Fly Bys.
PAD
• 
Heh, I thought for a moment you said Tony (Danza) would have better ratings.
Maybe you could do another running commentary like last night’s SOTU?
I second the motion. Your commentary will probably be better than the actual show.
I like Stewart but he has to be careful not to make it to USA politics-oriented in his jokes. It’s not that I would find the jokes offensive, it’s just that I’m always amazed how, right after pointing out that the show is watched by a billion people as far away as Swaziland, Upper Volta, and Left Fenwick, the host then tells a joke that reuires an intimate knowledge of the New York City mayorial race or some other topic that will leave about 999,878,000 people scratching their heads.
considering the number of states that went out of their way to introduce the legislative bigotry that is gay marriage,
???
I prefer a smug smart ášš jew to a whiny one any day. (Seinfeld) Course thats just this polaks opinion. *insert polish joke here
I almost never watch the Oscars. I do read the newspaper the day after and see who won. Wonder if I can just record the oscars and fast forward to Jons comments? =0
“the number of states that went out of their way to introduce the legislative bigotry that is gay marriage”
Definitely needs to be rephrased.
I think the show will be well-liked but little seen, for most of the reasons that PAD illustrated above. My only exception is to the mention of anti-gay measures in the recent election. The people weren’t clamoring to be heard on the issue; the Republicans cynically introduced the measures to get their brain-dead fundamental base to turn out and put up enough votes to make the Diebold fraud more plausible.
Of course, a lot of jokes in venues like these play better at home if they play well with the audience at the event. I think it pretty safe to say that most of the Oscar attendees share Jon’s view on a lot of topics, and that his wit is so sharp that he won’t need to stoop to simple audience potshots (which always tend to be hit-and-miss).
Can we get t-shirts to pass around at the NY Comic Con next month that say “Another Smartass Smug New York Jew for Jon Stewart?” Or do you think Cafe Press is a better way to go with that?
Considering I haven’t seen a single one of the nominees, I probably will be tuning in and out. I would like to see most of them at some point, but frankly the comics budget takes priority. come first. Plus, I’m still a little miffed that Andy Serkis was snubbed out of a supporting role nomination again. I don’t care if the character on screen is CGI – like Golem before him, Kong was all Andy.
Of course, that information about how many people watch around the world? Bogus. Utterly. The audience for it is largely American, and it’s a shrinking fraction of the country who watches it.
Well, this is one heartland populist who may tune in for the first time EVER to watch the Oscars.
Yep. Never watched them before. (I grew up in an area where we got two channels, and one of them was PBS. Then I went to college and I was too busy. Then I had kids and I was too tired. But this time, they’ve got Jon Stewart.)
But then again, we may be in “Fly-over country”…but nobody really flies over Minnesota…so maybe we don’t count.
BTW, I have six girlfriends from highschool that I still hang out with. We have VERY different tasts in men. Jon Stewart is the only guy we all agree on. Out of all the men on the planet…he’s the only one. We all think he’s adorable.
🙂
I think it will have the same ratings it always gets. People tune in to see famous people all glammed up, it’s really not as involved a decision as Peter makes it sound.
And in terms of the amount of nominated movies involving gay themes, to most regular guys EVERY movie on the Oscars is a gay movie. But it’s the Super Bowl for their wives and girlfriends, so they’ll be watching like they do every year.
And in terms of the host,I think it’s a mistake, but only because he’s not a big enough star. When you think about it, almost no one watches the Daily Show. It gets like a 1.5 in the Nielson ratings. Stewart may be a media darling, but comparatively speaking, no one knows who he is…
Man, I wish I was a smart ášš smug New Yourk Jew. Instead, I’m a smart ášš smug Baltimore Christian. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
Pennsylvania always seems to be split 50/50 between being part of the “smart ášš smug New York Jew” crowd (Philly and Pittsburgh) and the flyover (the “T” section), so that often gives me an interesting perspective on things like this.
PAD does have a point, most of the nominees were not wildly popular movies. Some would even qualify as box office bombs, indicating that Hollywood does have a very different idea of what makes a “good” movie then the flyover country does. Part of the problem may be that the movie industry has reached the point of saturation in terms of the number of gay movies, for lack of a better term, that actually have something original to say about the issue.
I probably won’t watch the Oscars. I haven’t watched them in years. Like the SOTU address, it’s a meaningless and shallow event devoid of substance.
As someone who lives in a flyover state, I won’t be watching the awards this year. It’s not because of anything you mentioned. I just long ago decided that I could decide myself what films were good and bad, and I didn’t much care about the awards. However, if someone is happy winning them, and you’re happy watching them win, I’m cool with that. I just won’t be joining you.
What film won the Best Picture Oscar the year Spinal Tap came out? If you had to choose between watching Spinal Tap or that film, which would you choose?
I won’t be watching the Academy Awards — but I never do. I find that they overlook too many great movies (from CITIZEN KANE to GARDEN STATE) and award too much mediocrity (TITANIC, GLADIATOR). And if I were to watch them, I’d record them and watch ’em the next day, fast-forwarding through all the musical numbers and tributes.
And if you want to do something fun, see BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. It’s not only my vote for best movie of the year, but seeing it will pìšš øff the religious right! Win-win, comrades.
What film won the Best Picture Oscar the year Spinal Tap came out? If you had to choose between watching Spinal Tap or that film, which would you choose?
AMADEUS. A great film, though your point is valid.
I don’t want to be an ášš, but I note that Mr. David points out that “anyone who doesn’t have cable may well not know who the hëll [John Stewart] is.” I’ve come across the statistic several times that about 95% of the country, including middle-America, has cable.
Of course, all of this in tangential to the actual point of Mr. David’s essay. I don’t normally watch the Oscars (given that I normally haven’t seen most of the movies being honored), and I’m not sure what motivates the average Oscar viewer to tune in. But John Stewart is certainly a draw, and I myself am a smart ášš jew (from Philadelphia), so I’m down with the solidarity-thing.
-Andy Holman
I’ve come across the statistic several times that about 95% of the country, including middle-America, has cable.
Then you need to break it down a little further, because most areas likely have Comedy Central available only to expanded basic cable (where I myself only have standard basic atm), and others might not have it unless they have digital cable.
So…
Man, I wish I was a smart ášš smug New Yourk Jew. Instead, I’m a smart ášš smug Baltimore Christian. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
I hear ya… Smart ášš smug Seattle Buddhist just doesn’t have the flash, either (not to mention I should probably work on the smug bit).
Jon L – 1.5 for a cable company is considered excellent ratings, given the number of channels they compete against. Multi-digits are only considered important for major broadcasters…I was reading last week that how much it costs to run an advert during a shows broadcast is a more accuratae indication of popularity/target market appeal, and the Daily Show is one of the tops.
Also, with the repeated award wins and battles with various conservative commentators, I think Jon Stewart is more well known than people think.
-Kelly
John Scalzi – author of the awesome “Old Man’s War” – has a similar attitude and writeup over on his blog.
Posted by Scott at February 1, 2006 10:12 AM
What film won the Best Picture Oscar the year Spinal Tap came out? If you had to choose between watching Spinal Tap or that film, which would you choose?
If you mean, as you said, “the year ‘Spinal Tap’ came out”, then the answer is “Terms of Endearment”
If, instead, you meant, “for the same year as ‘Spinal Tap’ “, then, as stated above, it’s “Amadeus”
Of the three, i’ve seen “Spinal Tap’, which is by me pretty much a funny-once, and have not the slightest desire to see “Terms of Endearment”.
So i guess the answer is “Amadeus” — if it didn’t cost much.
But the one thing you have to notice about this year’s nominees are that so many of them are set in “flyover country” – Brokeback Mountain(Wyoming), Capote(Kansas), Hustle and Flow(Tennessee), North Country(Minnesota), A History of Violence(Indiana) and Junebug(North Carolina).
Shouldn’t that appeal to some of the people living in the heartland?
I can vouch for the validity of Peter’s Statement.
For the last 15 years I have helped out at a movie poster store in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Every year folks come out to get the posters for the years hot films for a Oscar party. Many of them get them early in December or January due to the fact if they wait the nominated posters are gone. Well this year we sold very few posters for AA nominated films. (Part of the reason the store closed for good last week. But that’s another story.) Also in December in a co-op with the local Free Weekly, (a Liberal Rag if there ever was one,) we gave away FREE Transamerica One-Sheets, (Thats what movie posters are called). In 14 days we GAVE away three posters! What’s interesting NOT even our Gay and Lesbian customers were interested. The D/FW area is considered by some the buckle of the bible belt. However when even the community the films address pass on free posters there is something up.
Bobb
I agree 100%. I said pretty much the exact same thing on my blog, “The Mack Attack” last week.
Is Hollywood really putting out films that appeal to the general public any more or has it become intoxicated by a self-imagined importance in the political arena?
Has George Clooney, with his thinly-veiled political rants on celluloid led the entire industry astray? Are the Academy Awards simply now a forum for inappropriate politicizing a la Michael Moore?
That said, the best film I saw in 2005 was Cinderella Man starring Russell Crowe, which despite a gay-sounding name, was anything but.
I agree with Peter that there will be less people watching this years Oscar show… I just don’t think it will be THAT many less. They’ve got a long way to slide before they even begin to reach Tony ratings numbers… and I just don’t think that’s going to happen.
Remember, as was famously recounted in Howard Stern’s book and film about his life (memoir, autobiography, “Frey” reenactment?) the people who hated/disliked Stern in his early days listened to his show longer than those who liked him.
So you can definitely count in Rev. Donald Wildmon and his “crew” to be watching for every favorable gay syllable uttered. With “controversy” being manufactured like that, it stands to reason that millions will watch because they’ll want to know firsthand what all the hubbub was about the following morning.
The Oscars were always a popularity contest. What they are NOT anymore is classy. Classy exited stage left with Johnny Carson’s departure and Rob Lowe’s singing lovingly to Snow White… And it hasn’t ever really come back.
Of course, ABC will welcome all our eyes to the show and chuckle all the way to bank. Between the $uper Bowl and the Oscar$, the network is definitely starting off 2006 in fine financial shape.
Since, according to RottenTomatoes.com, the current biggest box office hit is Big Momma’s House 2, I think it goes without saying that popularity is not an indication of quality.
“Is Hollywood really putting out films that appeal to the general public any more or has it become intoxicated by a self-imagined importance in the political arena? Has George Clooney, with his thinly-veiled political rants on celluloid led the entire industry astray? Are the Academy Awards simply now a forum for inappropriate politicizing a la Michael Moore?”
And…what about Naomi?
(Kinda dated myself with that one…)
PAD
PAD wrote:
“And…what about Naomi?
(Kinda dated myself with that one…)”
Hey, I got it immediately. But then, I’m in my forties.
I am a smartass, smug Minnesotan who not only will not be watching the awards, but also, for some reason, really takes offense to being labeled a ‘fly-by.’
“Of course, ABC will welcome all our eyes to the show and chuckle all the way to bank. Between the $uper Bowl and the Oscar$, the network is definitely starting off 2006 in fine financial shape.”
And this is a bad thing, how? And given that this is probably the last Super Bowl ABC has for a while, give them a break.
I’ll add my vote for a running commentary; it would be nice to read one with a bit of wit and intelligence. I used to scan Harry Knowles’ Oscar commentary on Ain’t it Cool News, but it was so rife with bad grammar and spelling, lots of stuff in caps to SHOW EXCITEMENT and phrases like ‘(Person X) fûçkìņg rules!!’ that it was like reading a blog written by a meth-addicted 12 year-old. So as a dumb New Jersey Catholic, I’d welcome some enjoyable commentary by a smart-ášš New York Jew (your choice of words, not mine).
And just in case anyone is interested, here are my own Oscar predictions:
1. Munich gets shut out completely.
2. More un-funny gay jokes than you can possibly imagine. (with Jon Stewart referencing Brokeback Mountain and Ðìçk Cheney within the first minutes of his opening monologue)
3. Some mind-numbingly awful musical numbers (okay, so that one is a given).
4. George Clooney wins best supporting actor, so that Hollywood can show how liberal everybody out there is.
5. Felicity Huffman wins best actress, just in case Hollywood didn’t show how liberal everybody was with the Clooney win.
6. The Curse of the Were-Rabbit wins best animated feature, because everybody loves Wallace & Gromit.
7. March of the Penguins wins best documentary, because everybody loves penguins.
And finally,much as I love Jon Stewart, I suspect a lot of the jokes will fall flat, simply because his edgy style won’t mesh well with Oscar writer Bruce the Giant Smurf’s tired and dated material. Sort of like matter and anti-matter. Or Uma and Oprah.
I think PAD’s view on the type of movies nominated are a good reflection of the year overall. Last year saw tons of movies be huge hits with critics and flops with viewers. Cinderella Man, Weatherman, and others did poorly at the box office and the critics couldn’t figure out why.
I think part of it is that movies are being made for the movie industry instead of the public a lot these days. Fancy camera work and innovative storytelling are getting emphasised more than the public wants. Movie makers and critics love that stuff because they’ve all seen so many movies that they’re tired of seeing the same things again and again. However, the general public doesn’t see a hundred movies a year like a critic does, so they not sick of the same things that critics are.
And…what about Naomi?
Next week, on “Love … of Chair”!
I’m quite a bit younger than you, PAD (mid-30s), but believe me, I got it.
TWL
Man, I wish I was a smart ášš smug New Yourk Jew. Instead, I’m a smart ášš smug Baltimore Christian. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
Yeah. Rolls off the tongue easier than “smart ášš smug Tennessee agnostic” as well. But my description sounds kind of like a band name. :p
First off, I wouldn’t mind terribly if Philip Seymour Hoffman won an Oscar. Didn’t see Capote, and I personally can’t STAND Philip Seymour Hoffman’s acting, but if he wins good for him. Kinda feel the same way about the rest of the Oscars, too. I don’t CARE who wins. I usually have no desire to see an Oscar-winning movie or actor or whatever, I just want to see a GOOD movie or actor or whatever. And generally what I think is good and what the Academy thinks is good are several light years apart.
Of course, if my movie gets made and they’d LIKE to consider it, I’ll recant this faster than a fast recanting thing….
“Smart-ášš smug Indianapolis spiritual-but-not-religious Christian” is just a disaster to try and get out…
-Rex Hondo-
Jason Bryant wrote:
“I think part of it is that movies are being made for the movie industry instead of the public a lot these days. Fancy camera work and innovative storytelling are getting emphasised more than the public wants.”
Seems like quite a few of the college students and twentysomethings I know really go for those kinds of things. Surely that’s a significant part of the public, in terms of ticket sales if nothing else.
Also, don’t forget, the critics don’t get to pick the Oscars, or the nominees, and are often unhappy with the results.
G. Mackster wrote:
“Is Hollywood really putting out films that appeal to the general public any more or has it become intoxicated by a self-imagined importance in the political arena?”
So if I understand you, you’re saying that films like “The Dukes of Hazzard,” “The Longest Yard,” “The Wedding Crashers,” “Doom,” “The Fog,” “Red Eye,” “Flight Plan,” “Hitch,” “The Pacifier,” “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,” “The Amityville Horror,” “Sky High,” “White Noise,” “Kicking and Screaming,” “Saw 2,” “Cheaper by the Dozen 2,” “Are We There Yet?” “Must Love Dogs,” and “Herbie: Fully Loaded” are the product of a film industry that has stopped catering to popular taste and is instead “intoxicated by a self-imagined importance in the political arena.”
That’s kind of silly, isn’t it?
I’m not saying that all of those are good films, or that Hollywood doesn’t skew liberal at times, but the majority of Hollywood films are not exactly political tracts.
“Man, I wish I was a smart ášš smug New Yourk Jew. Instead, I’m a smart ášš smug Baltimore Christian.”
Well, it gives you something in common with Guy Gardner…
Oh, and Bill, your response had too many notes in it.
I may be missing something, why is this thread titled, “The Truman Show”? I don’t see the relevance.
Yeah, but that “Revenge of the Sith” was obviously a left diatribe aimed squarely at the current administration…
The Truman Show.
Truman…Capote.
PAD
Oh, and Bill, your response had too many notes in it.
Took me a good 5 minutes to get it. I’m getting old.
Thinking about why movies like ‘Capote’ and ‘Brokeback Mopuntain’ aren’t popular in ‘flyovers states’, I think you are missing a far more obvious reason for that lack of popularity than religious bigotry. It’s: how many of those movies actually made it to an actual screen in the states in question? I live down here by Columbus, Indiana, and I can tell you the number of theatres that would show movies like that in this area are one, tops, if that. The former Keystone Cinema down here used to show smaller movies like that on a regular basis, but only for one week engagements (two if the film was lucky, but never three that I noticed). I can tell you that the main theatres down here would much rather use several screens to show one popular movie than spare one screen for a ‘minor’ film like ‘Capote’, or any other small film you can name, and ‘moral values’ be danged, money is the main motivating factor there. In fact, it is only recently that Indianapolis got a independent film theatre up and going again; even up there you can hardly find the small films critics like in the main movie theatre chains.
Enough rant/comment. I’m tired, and I’ll be suprised if the preceding made any real sense whatever.
Chris
It made a lot of sense, Chris, but you’re almost making the opposite of your point in a sideways way. And no, I’m not talking sideways the movie, either. Go with me on this one. Theatre owners know what kind of movie will get people into seats in an area, (well, they THINK they do) so that’s what movies they get, so if they think that a movie won’t sell in an area they don’t waste their time or money to get it in there. So, if they don’t think that people will pay for it or worse, it’ll cause a SCANDAL (head for the hills, Public Opinion’s coming with torches and pitchforks!) they don’t go near it with a 10-meter cattle prod.
It always amuses me when people attack Hollywood films for being too liberal. The majority of films are bedrock-conservative paeans to the status quo; the few that have liberal points of view are so shocking to those who need to be shocked that all films are condemned by association. (My own father in law claims that liberals took over Hollywood forty years ago, and that not a single good film has been made since — an extreme view easy to support if you then see no films for forty years.)
And Clooney’s films of this year, “thinly disguised liberal rants?” Jeez. One, SYRIANA, has the deeply liberal message that the world is complicated, that corruption bites both ways, and that decisions made in one place can affect another. Whoa, that’s downright pinko. And the other, GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, is a historical drama arguing for courage in news reporting. Seriously: they’re both good films, but they’re both moderate films. They’re intolerable to certain people because they’re also not cheerleader films.
But, Adam-Troy, only pinko commie homo liberal traitor scum who want America to fail believe that the world is complicated. True patriots know that everything is simple: Democracy is the on march and elections = a free and stable society because everyone wants to be like ‘Muricans and vote for freedom and capitalism.
Well, ‘cept those wacky Palestinians.
And the Shi’ites in Iraq.
And the Russians.
And the Bolivians.
And the Venezuelans.
I thought, briefly, that this was going to be one of those “That’s what I was thinking!” kind of posts. Unfortunately it isn’t. You started strong talking about the flyby states, but you flew right past them.
The problem with the flyby is that they are misinformed, basically. As someone from a flyby state, I assure you if you look at the level of celebrity participation in their cultures, you will see exactly what is going on. Why are comic books feared in my home state? Well, when was the last time a big name comic book icon went to a convention there (that would be Mississippi). That example is accurate for pretty much every form of media.
Since the general populous there has less chance to be informed, that leads to being ignorant. What happens when you are ignorant of something? You fear it. What happens when you fear something? You try to ban/outlaw/protect society from it.
Of course, counter that with the only big name celebrity to visit Mississippi in 2005, the president. He came and talked to people and acted like he cared. A lot of people will believe him just because he showed up.
Whenever someone steps in the fill in the cultural void in the flyby states, there will then begin meaningful change in the country.
That example is accurate for pretty much every form of media.
I’m sorry, but it’s just not that simple.
For example, has DragonCon convinced everybody in Georgia that D&D isn’t Satannic? I doubt it.