According to overnight ratings from Nielsen, this year's Oscar telecast could go down as the second lowest-rated of all time, behind only 2003's show which produced Chicago as its Best Picture. With roughly a 10% drop from last year's ceremony, it appears as if the stampede of Oscar advertising did nothing to save this ship from sinking faster than Ryan Seacrest's interviewing ability.
Throughout the night., ABC averaged a 27.1 household rating, down from last year's 30.1, yet miles above 2003's disgusting 25.5. Even though the telecast progressively became more boring as time went on, ratings still managed to slowly climb each half hour, ultimately leveling off in the last hour. I'd be curious to know what exactly could have been added to attract more viewers?
For example: If Batman Begins was up for more awards, would you have tuned in? Sure, all of the films nominated weren't as commercial as say, Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo, but you'd think, with all the controversy swirling around Brokeback Mountain, it would at least bring in more eyes. I guess we're lucky there was no singing and dancing in Brokeback Mountain because then, well, Ryan Seacrest would be our only highlight. Geez, talk about the end of the world, huh?