Why doesn't this article address the REASON for the low ratings? It was the writer's strike (if the producers aren't even sure that it will air, they are less likely to commit to advertising). A very minor secondary reason was the dark nature of most of the films- not a negative in my opinion, but certainly not a positive for the masses. Still some great films and acting from last year.

Maybe it's just me, but the oscars seem to be just a tad self serving. Whenever people come together to kissy face each other and hand each other wonderful awards, it makes me ill. After they have told each other and the viewers how wonderful and brilliant they are, we get to hear them tell the world how rotten the United States is. They might as well hold up a finger. They make it clear they don't need me. And you know what? I agree.

tru dat. i think we all should have like 8 awards shows to help boost our fragile egos!

Nonsense comment...Oscar always was narcissistic and a sorta industry circle of jerks if you get my wordplay. This year's no different. What was different was the ambiguity surrounding the strike, but ostensibly that was resolved, perhaps not soon enough for adequate staging. I think the bigger deal was the fact that even though there was plenty of quality in this year's crop (think about films that for the most part missed the cut, like 3:10 to Yuma, Eastern Promises, Once, Charlie Wilson's War, American Gangster, The Kingdom, Away From Her, The Brave One, A Mighty Heart, The Savages, Gone Baby Gone) there wasn't the mass market appeal or marketing push for a lot of these films. Only Ratatouille, Shoot Em Up, Rescue Dawn, Enchanted & Hairspray & to a lesser extent Michael Clayton got any push. Not even the positive and joyous critic's fave Juno nor the ready-made hit fodder Sweeney Todd cut broad swaths in the public eye. They were more interested in the last installment of Pirates, Bourne, Harry Potter, Spidey & related Marvel sequelae, 300, Simpsons and a a spate of B horror flicks. In other words, cartoons & John McClane, who always delivers. You'll never get a TV audience excited about Ma Vie En Rose or The Kite Runner. The two hot props this year were both dark violent burlesques, then you throw in the Demon Barber of Fleet Street and the Grand Guignol pucker factor was amped way past what the hoi polloi could cotton to. Too bad the world wasn't ready for a film about teen pregnancy no matter if it WAS about responsibility. We just wanted to see a rat. My zeal for Patton Oswalt notwithstanding, Ratatouille did not improve the medium upon The Incredibles, sorry Mr. Bird. I feel for Jon, he did his wascally best and was a mensch in so doing.

Politically, they are people too, I guess they feel the need to vent and have a platform. Thing is, the awards shows would get a better rap if they'd like acknowledge when our country and her leaders were doing good too. Like, great job feeding the world or getting the bad guy, etc. Thing is right now, we don't look so hot.... Here's hoping for a turnaround no matter who we put in the White House. Then we can hope that the Hollywood moths can say something good for once.

face facts - this was the worst year of movies in decades. it's jaw dropping how many people out there admit to not having seen a single film that was nominated for the top prize.

Actually this year was unually good for best pic nominees. Let's look at the rest of the '00s, shall we?

2000:

Chocolat

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Erin Brokovich

Traffc

2001:

Gosford park

In the Bedroom

Lord of the Rings

Moulin Rouge

2002:

Gangs of New York

The Hours

Lord of the Rings

The Pianist

2003:

Lost in Translation

Master and Commander

Mustic River

Seabiscuit

2004:

The Aviator

Finding Neverland

Ray

Sideways

2005:

Brokeback Mountain

Capote

Good Night, and Good Luck

Munich

2006:

Babel

Letters from Iwo Jima

Little Miss Sunshine

The Queen

I would argue that with the possible exception of 2000, this year's best pic noms are the best of the decade so far.

um, Matt... why did you leave off all of the actual winners? the point is just because the movies are great to you doesn't mean they're great (that's not pointed at you. it's a general statement). people didn't tune in because they didn't see the movies. there was no blockbuster. every year there's been a blockbuster nominated except this year.

2000: HUGE! Gladiator, Erin B., Traffic 2001: A Beautiful Mind, Lord of The Rings, Moulin Rouge 2002: Chicago, Gangs of New York, Lord of The Rings 2 2003: Lord of The Rings 3, Mystic River, Seabiscuit 2004: Million Dollar Baby, The Aviator, Ray 2005: SUCKED but everyone saw Crash and knew about Brokeback 2006: THE DEPARTED!

No Country For Old Men was AMAZING but do you really think my mother or your mother (again, general statement) liked that movie enough to tune in to see if it would win? There Will Be Blood? No way! Michael Clayton? Even with Clooney, no chance. Atonement? Name a man without a wife or girlfriend who saw it and of the men that saw it, show me one who was hoping it would win. Now Juno was great and good enough for people to root but I think reality beat out hope and people knew this had no chance. Regardless, look at the list above. Every year there's been at least one film that everyone (and I mean everyone) had seen pre-Oscars. not this year.

I agree with Matt and Chris in that as far as straight quality goes, this year was VERY good, and with Doberman in that there wasn't a runaway hit for people to root for this year as in years past (although you did say that it was the worst year for films in a long time, which is inaccurate, though it appears that you just didn't clarify yourself enough).

It is true that "No Country" and "There Will Be Blood" as the prohibitive favorites in most of the major categories weren't exactly crowd-pleasers. But does that mean that we should start giving awards based on box office receipts? If, so our best picture this year is "Spider-Man 3," and who is wanting to see that?

Joe, I stand by statement about this being the worst year for film. You guys are looking at it from a critics standpoint. Critics, for the most part, LOVE films like No Country, Blood, La Vie En Rose, etc., etc. but critics don't pay for tickets. When the public has to pay to see a movie they want to be entertained and though it cannot be guaranteed they are more willing to take a chance on a crepe film starring the Rock, or a comic book film or a romantic comedy, etc. as opposed to a hip, indie film that they might not understand. i'm a total film geek but i can honestly say that i HATED There Will Be Blood and i strongly disliked Michael Clayton. and remember this, it's not just about the mainstream film that people cheer for, it can also be a mainstream actor. look at the actors that led the charge in this year's crop of nominated films. DD Lewis, Josh Brolin & Javier Bardem, Ellen Page, James Mcavoy... Granted people love Clooney but obviously that movie didn't go over well with the masses. most years there are at least 2, if not 3 films people cheer for. this year the masses chose zero.

just my opinion. i do think Iron Man will win best picture next year!

AMEN AMEN AMEN! If joe is still working as movie critic for Indy.Com, i think they should re-think their staffing choice and hire the doberman! :) I wish more awards went to movies like "Bottle Rocket" and less to "There will be Bloods"!

I try to avoid all award shows... but I doubt even the worst of ratings will mean the end to them... those people just love themselves too much.