A few quick points about the Oscars…
A billion people are not watching. People who ought to know better keep saying this and it's never been close to true. Back in 2001 in this article, I debunked the claim. Since then, others have finally taken note — like this article in The New Yorker and this article on the website of The Los Angeles Times. As the second of these notes, the Super Bowl doesn't draw a billion viewers, either.
People shouldn't take the winners and losers too seriously, especially since we never hear vote totals. You may think it's an outrage that your favorite Sound Mixer didn't win…but maybe he only lost by one vote.
Not knowing the vote totals also make it difficult to infer any real trends among the voters. Supposing all the gay-themed nominees win tonight. That doesn't mean Hollywood went for gay-themed movies. They may have all won by one vote. Assuming the Academy voting reflects everyone in Hollywood is silly. It's like assuming everyone in America wanted George W. Bush as president in 2004.
One should also remember that the voters are not Hollywood and Hollywood is not the voters.
Never forget that one of the reasons a film or person gets nominated (or doesn't) for an Oscar has to do with when it's released. Each year in each category, the Academy nominates five. If there are three great movies, they nominate five for Best Picture. And if there are thirty great movies, they nominate five for Best Picture. Woody Allen's movie Match Point qualified for this round of Oscars by being released on December 28, 2005. If the distributor had delayed it a few days, the film would be in next year's contest and some writer who didn't get nominated would be up for Best Original Screenplay tonight. Getting nominated is not just a function how good you are. It also has a lot to do with when your film (and someone else's film) got released.
The ratings of this year's Oscars will tell us absolutely nothing about Jon Stewart's popularity since we have no way of knowing how this particular broadcast would have done with someone else hosting. A recent Harris Poll said that 84% of Americans say they don't tune in or not tune in because of the host and the rest were pretty much split of whether Stewart would make them more or less eager to watch. For the most part, people probably watch because they care about certain pictures or certain nominees. There don't seem to be great dramas hovering over these decisions this year.
Every year, I hear someone moan that the Oscar voters are out of touch with the American people because they don't honor the films and achievements that the country voted for at the box office. This is a stupid way to look at it. If that's all the Academy Awards should be about, they can save a lot of time: Just give the statuettes to the producer, director, stars and writer of whatever film had the highest gross in the past year. The awards are supposed to honor excellence, not popularity.
That said, one of the reasons we have things like the Academy Awards is because movie studios want them to boost business. Selling tickets is not irrelevant to the proceedings. It often seems like the voters want to reward the films that were made without obvious commercial appeal and to give those movies a bump. Awards are supposed to recognize courage and it doesn't take a lot of courage to make some of the high-grossing high-concept movies.
Lastly: Yes, the ceremony lasts a long time. It's supposed to last a long time. There a lot of very expensive commercials to air. If you don't like it, record the thing and watch it later with your Fast Forward button at the ready. Tonight during the telecast is a great time to go to that restaurant that's usually too damn crowded on Sunday evening. You might have a much better time that way.