Ratings way down - lowest since NBC started broadcasting it:
The 66th annual Globes averaged 14.6 million viewers across its three hours on NBC, earning a 4.8 rating among adults 18-49 and an 11 share.
That’s down 26% in the adult demographic compared with two years ago (last year's short Globes press conference is not considered comparable) and marks the lowest-rated Globes since NBC took over the telecast in 1996. A red carpet special served as lead-in (7.7 million, 1.8/5).
The Globes were upstaged in the 9 p.m. hour by a drama series that was shut out from this year's nominations -- ABC's "Desperate Housewives" (13.8 million, 5.2/12), which ranked as the top-rated entertainment program of the night.
The PR people for most people (or interns working for them) read most boards like this.
We still don't know that Tina Fey did until these specific comments were pointed out to her. It wouldn't surprise me either way - that she reads it, or doesn't actually.
Originally posted by seanflynn: Ratings way down - lowest since NBC started broadcasting it:
The 66th annual Globes averaged 14.6 million viewers across its three hours on NBC, earning a 4.8 rating among adults 18-49 and an 11 share.
That’s down 26% in the adult demographic compared with two years ago (last year's short Globes press conference is not considered comparable) and marks the lowest-rated Globes since NBC took over the telecast in 1996. A red carpet special served as lead-in (7.7 million, 1.8/5).
The Globes were upstaged in the 9 p.m. hour by a drama series that was shut out from this year's nominations -- ABC's "Desperate Housewives" (13.8 million, 5.2/12), which ranked as the top-rated entertainment program of the night.
Predictable that the ratings were low AGAIN!
I told you nobody cares about the Globes anymore because most sensible folks have recognized that the HFPA lacks credibility.
Originally posted by Frank Sinatra's Bow Tie: I love Kate Winslet but what's up with that acceptance speech...both of them. I never understood how these celebs get up there and just ramble on and on. Here is the moment that they have been dreaming about all their lives...and I don't know its such a let down to hear what they have to say, reading from a piece of paper no less. The best thing she said was a wave to her kids "mummy won"...the same thing with Sally Hawkins which was almost painful to watch. Surely they can dig deep inside themselves and say soomething quick and meaningful without saying "omg this is heavy".
Yes, I thought Hawkins was one of the worst and didn't understand why they didn't cut her off. I can understand her being overwhelmed by winning, but the tone of her voice seemed so monotonous compared to the other winners, and she kept going on and on and on.
It's one of my pet peeves about the Oscars that they don't let most of the winners speak more, but in the case of someone like Sally Hawkins winning, I understand the need for time limits because she easily could have wrapped up her speech sooner.
Are you kidding...let the woman talk! I thought she was sweet, completely overwhelmed and having the moment of a lifetime. Clearly Emma Thompson and Meryl Streep didn't mind, and understood, as they were beaming for her. Give her her moment!
Posts: 832 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 03, 2003
There wouldn't have been a reason to cut anyone off. There was enough time for everyone to get done with there speeches, even though some people did go over.
For Your Grammy Consideration: Kristin Chenoweth - in all eligible categories
Major congrats to Kate Winslet, Tina Fey (LOL @ her speech!), "30 Rock" and "Mad Men" on their wins.
As for the whole Winslet Oscar situation, I think her 2 wins tonight are really gonna screw things up a bit, so it's up to the SAG to help clear things up.
First off, what happens if she grabs both Oscar nods and then the SAG decides to hand her BOTH awards? Does she then win an unprecedented TWO acting Oscars in ONE night? Clearly, if she only gets one category at the SAGs, that's the only one she'll win at the Oscars.
If she wins Lead Actress at the SAGs, then she takes home Lead Actress at the Oscars. Period. Whoever takes Supporting Actress will also take it at the Oscars; the winner is anyone's guess. I think the SAG winners will end up all winning at the Oscars this year.
I just really wonder. If Kate manages to pull off this same double-win at the SAGs in 2 weeks, does anyone think she could win 2 Oscars?
Overall boring award show. Loved Tina's acceptance speech, 30 Rock win, Ricky & JLo (Mama is talkin) presenting, Kate winning twice, Sally Hawkins emotional speech, & the wins for Slumdog and Gabriel Byrne.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: east/west,
Posts: 5352 | Location: New York/California | Registered: September 30, 2006
I do think she could win both Oscars. I think that she has given 2 great performances, plus that would be a historical event so the Academy may want to do something historical.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Royal Night,
For Your Grammy Consideration: Kristin Chenoweth - in all eligible categories
Did anybody catch Ryan Seacrest's interview with Maggie Gyllenhaal during the E! Red Carpet pre-show?
Of course he asked how she felt about Heath Ledger's nomination, and she gave the most intelligent, eloquent response. She graciously said she understands why everyone would be so curious about how The Dark Knight's stars felt that night and would thus ask about Heath, but she also very politely said that it's incredibly difficult, particularly with all the pomp and circumstance of the red carpet, to talk about n close friend who has passed away and is missed dearly. She then went on to talk about his performance and his character in a very well spoken manner.
I've always enjoyed Gyllenhaal's performances, but my respect for her skyrocketed after that interview. She wasn't a bitch by refusing to answer the question, but she did put into perspective how trying it is to have to speak about such a sad things in their lives well still acknowledging the public's curiosity. She was incredibly well spoken and classy, and above all paid a great tribute to Ledger.
I'm now officially a huge fan of hers.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: sirkevin,
Originally posted by seanflynn: Ratings way down - lowest since NBC started broadcasting it:
The 66th annual Globes averaged 14.6 million viewers across its three hours on NBC, earning a 4.8 rating among adults 18-49 and an 11 share.
That’s down 26% in the adult demographic compared with two years ago (last year's short Globes press conference is not considered comparable) and marks the lowest-rated Globes since NBC took over the telecast in 1996. A red carpet special served as lead-in (7.7 million, 1.8/5).
The Globes were upstaged in the 9 p.m. hour by a drama series that was shut out from this year's nominations -- ABC's "Desperate Housewives" (13.8 million, 5.2/12), which ranked as the top-rated entertainment program of the night.
Predictable that the ratings were low AGAIN!
I told you nobody cares about the Globes anymore because most sensible folks have recognized that the HFPA lacks credibility.
Ratings are down in every genre...the reality is that the rise of cable and niche programming for specific demographics has changed the game. The Oscars are down, the Emmys are down, Daytime ratings are down...heck the network shows in the Top 10 would barely crack the Top 30 in the 80s and 90s. I don't think this is a reflection of the credibility of the Globes- I don't think people ever tuned in for that. It's fun to see your favorite stars toasted on TV!
But declining ratings are a fact of life across the board, and I don't think they are as indicative of much anymore specific to a program.
Posts: 832 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 03, 2003
Originally posted by seanflynn: The key point is that they lost head to head the Desperate Housewives - they normally win all hours of their broadcast.
Is that show still on TV? I think it's WAY past its expiration date...
Originally posted by seanflynn: The PR people for most people (or interns working for them) read most boards like this.
We still don't know that Tina Fey did until these specific comments were pointed out to her. It wouldn't surprise me either way - that she reads it, or doesn't actually.
^Oh yeah and I'm sure there are some in here that even post and participate.
Originally posted by seanflynn: The key point is that they lost head to head the Desperate Housewives - they normally win all hours of their broadcast.
Originally posted by seanflynn: Ratings way down - lowest since NBC started broadcasting it:
The 66th annual Globes averaged 14.6 million viewers across its three hours on NBC, earning a 4.8 rating among adults 18-49 and an 11 share.
That’s down 26% in the adult demographic compared with two years ago (last year's short Globes press conference is not considered comparable) and marks the lowest-rated Globes since NBC took over the telecast in 1996. A red carpet special served as lead-in (7.7 million, 1.8/5).
The Globes were upstaged in the 9 p.m. hour by a drama series that was shut out from this year's nominations -- ABC's "Desperate Housewives" (13.8 million, 5.2/12), which ranked as the top-rated entertainment program of the night.
Predictable that the ratings were low AGAIN!
I told you nobody cares about the Globes anymore because most sensible folks have recognized that the HFPA lacks credibility.
Ratings are down in every genre...the reality is that the rise of cable and niche programming for specific demographics has changed the game. The Oscars are down, the Emmys are down, Daytime ratings are down...heck the network shows in the Top 10 would barely crack the Top 30 in the 80s and 90s. I don't think this is a reflection of the credibility of the Globes- I don't think people ever tuned in for that. It's fun to see your favorite stars toasted on TV!
But declining ratings are a fact of life across the board, and I don't think they are as indicative of much anymore specific to a program.
People have better things to do than watch overpaid celebrities get drunk, talk about cocaine use, and idolize themselves.
The ratings for the Globes have been low for quite some time I believe.
