Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[TP2000]

Ratings are in for the '25 Oscars. They declined 7% from last year's 19.5 Million. This year they got 18.07 Million viewers, which includes both the ABC live color HD Telecast and whatever the mess they were doing on Hulu was.

Oscars Hit 19.7 Million Viewers, Up 1% From Last Year

19.7 million viewers tuned into Sunday's Oscars, a 1% increase from last year, according to finalized reporting from Nielsen.

variety.com

A total viewership of 18.07 Million means that about 5% of Americans watched the Oscars last night.

Yup. This is fine. Hollywood is back and doing great! Or something.

 

[Agent H]

Ratings are in for the '25 Oscars. They declined 7% from last year's 19.5 Million. This year they got 18.07 Million viewers, which includes both the ABC live color HD Telecast and whatever the mess they were doing on Hulu was.

Oscars Hit 19.7 Million Viewers, Up 1% From Last Year

19.7 million viewers tuned into Sunday's Oscars, a 1% increase from last year, according to finalized reporting from Nielsen.

variety.com

A total viewership of 18.07 Million means that about 5% of Americans watched the Oscars last night.

Yup. This is fine. Hollywood is back and doing great! Or something.

I agree that overall views have dropped on standard tv but what does that have to do with the state of Hollywood overall?

 

[DKampy]

Ratings are in for the '25 Oscars. They declined 7% from last year's 19.5 Million. This year they got 18.07 Million viewers, which includes both the ABC live color HD Telecast and whatever the mess they were doing on Hulu was.

Oscars Hit 19.7 Million Viewers, Up 1% From Last Year

19.7 million viewers tuned into Sunday's Oscars, a 1% increase from last year, according to finalized reporting from Nielsen.

variety.com

A total viewership of 18.07 Million means that about 5% of Americans watched the Oscars last night.

Yup. This is fine. Hollywood is back and doing great! Or something.

I would expect that….last year had Barbenheimer

 

[TP2000]

I agree that overall views have dropped on standard tv but what does that have to do with the state of Hollywood overall?

It's an issue of cultural relevancy, and the impact of big Hollywood movie studios on the American culture. They are losing their grip and their audience. Do they know that? Are they course correcting? Or just doing more of the same?

Oscars Audience Size Poses a Test: Is Hollywood Still Culturally Relevant?

Worries about the award show’s TV viewership, a barometer of the industry’s influence, are rumbling through the movie capital.

www.nytimes.com

I would expect that….last year had Barbenheimer

It's also a continuation of a general trend since 2000, that became a dramatic downward trend after 2015.

In 1946, 35% of Americans listened to the Oscars on a live nationwide radio broadcast.
In 1975, 23% of Americans watched the Oscars on TV.
In 1998, 21% of Americans watched the Oscars.
In 2015, 12% of Americans watched the Oscars.
In 2024, 6% of Americans watched the Oscars.
In 2025, 5% of Americans watched the Oscars.

‘Wicked’ and Conan Couldn’t Save the Oscars’ Ratings

18.1 million people watched this year’s Academy Awards—a 7% drop from last year.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[Phroobar]

Flow was very good. I'd be hard pressed to choose between it and Wild Robot for Best Animated Feature.

All of the movies up for Best Animated Feature were amazing except Inside Out 2.

 

[Disney Irish]

It's an issue of cultural relevancy, and the impact of big Hollywood movie studios on the American culture. They are losing their grip and their audience. Do they know that? Are they course correcting? Or just doing more of the same?

Oscars Audience Size Poses a Test: Is Hollywood Still Culturally Relevant?

Worries about the award show’s TV viewership, a barometer of the industry’s influence, are rumbling through the movie capital.

www.nytimes.com

It's also a continuation of a general trend since 2000, that became a dramatic downward trend after 2015.

In 1946, 35% of Americans listened to the Oscars on a live nationwide radio broadcast.
In 1975, 23% of Americans watched the Oscars on TV.
In 1998, 21% of Americans watched the Oscars.
In 2015, 12% of Americans watched the Oscars.
In 2024, 6% of Americans watched the Oscars.
In 2025, 5% of Americans watched the Oscars.

‘Wicked’ and Conan Couldn’t Save the Oscars’ Ratings

18.1 million people watched this year’s Academy Awards—a 7% drop from last year.

www.thedailybeast.com

I think some of these numbers need to be put into context.....

From your same article you just posted above -

"Still, 18.1 million was enough to make the Oscars the most-watched and primetime entertainment (meaning non-sports and non-news) telecast of the 2024-2025 TV season thus far. It also had the highest rating among adults age 18-49 this season with a 3.92, up 3% from last year. And when isolated to adults 18-34, it was the highest-rated Oscars in five years with a 3.17. "

Oscars Hit 19.7 Million Viewers, Up 1% From Last Year

19.7 million viewers tuned into Sunday's Oscars, a 1% increase from last year, according to finalized reporting from Nielsen.

variety.com

This means that overall TV viewership is down and no other broadcast has brought in this viewership so far in 2025 outside of sports. And among the most sought after and lucrative demographic of adults 18-34 its the highest-rated Oscars of the post-pandemic era. So its likely your generation that is dropping off, not the younger generation which is gaining and good for Hollywood.

 

[brideck]

30 years ago the nominees would have been Wicked, Dune, Conclave, Challengers and one of the obscure movies that were nominated this year (sure even Anora perhaps, though The Brutalist is more likely). Then Wicked would have won. Are you implying that Wicked isn't a good movie or didn't deserve to win just because it's popular? Come on...

A little confused by this list -- neither Conclave nor Challengers made more than $50m domestically, so that makes them pretty obscure by most accounts. By that measure, you're better off replacing them with things like Nosferatu, A Complete Unknown, or Civil War. [Speaking of the latter, I totally would have been onboard with Cailee Spaeny getting a Supporting nod for her work in that, especially since it was a weak category this year.]

Anyway, the Academy doesn't usually reward the first part of a known series with Best Picture. If Wicked's going to be seriously considered for one, it'll be with next year's installment. (see: Lord of the Rings)

 

[TalkingHead]

2015 Oscars: 37.2 million viewers

2025 Oscars: 18 million viewers

Dropped by half in the past ten years. What will it be another ten years?

 

[Tha Realest]

2015 Oscars: 37.2 million viewers

2025 Oscars: 18 million viewers

Dropped by half in the past ten years. What will it be another ten years?

A web series hosted by Mr. Beast and Sean Evans.

 

[Farerb]

2015 Oscars: 37.2 million viewers

2025 Oscars: 18 million viewers

Dropped by half in the past ten years. What will it be another ten years?

How does it not frighten Hollywood "stars" that they have become irrelevant?

 

[brideck]

It won Best Original Screenplay.

That was probably the biggest upset of the night for me. [It's also when I became certain that Anora was going to win Best Picture.] I was fully expecting Jesse Eisenberg to take this one for A Real Pain.

 

[brideck]

How does it not frighten Hollywood "stars" that they have become irrelevant?

That's right. Only appreciated by millions of people instead of... well... millions. Totally irrelevant.

I think any celebrity at the top of their respective field probably feels absolutely fine about their individual relevancy, assuming that's even a thing that they want or need. If you listen to any of them speak, the vast majority seem to just want to do creative and rewarding work and be able to make a living from it.

 

[Chi84]

How does it not frighten Hollywood "stars" that they have become irrelevant?

You’re obsessing about them so . . .

 

[Animaniac93-98]

2025 Oscars: 18 million viewers

Does this include the people who watched it on Hulu (until they couldn't)?

 

[Farerb]

You’re obsessing about them so . . .

Making a mild comment is obsessing apparently.

 

[TalkingHead]

Does this include the people who watched it on Hulu (until they couldn't)?

Apparently does. So if it had been ABC only, even lower seems likely.

 

[Farerb]

That's right. Only appreciated by millions of people instead of... well... millions. Totally irrelevant.

I think any celebrity at the top of their respective field probably feels absolutely fine about their individual relevancy, assuming that's even a thing that they want or need. If you listen to any of them speak, the vast majority seem to just want to do creative and rewarding work and be able to make a living from it.

Based on recent box office gross, people don't tend to go to movies because of who stars in them, they are no longer a draw, they go because of the content.

There have been many articles on this matter:

Twilight of the A-list: has the 21st century killed off the movie star?

Brad Pitt’s new film is fizzling out. Meryl Streep is doing TV. Only Tom Cruise fills cinemas – and, in the age of superheroes and streaming, his days may be numbered. So, what does the future hold for Hollywood’s big beasts?

www.theguardian.com

Why Are There No Movie Stars Anymore?

We're in a bit of a draught when it comes to bankable names.

nofilmschool.com

Hollywood Has No More Movie Stars, Says Jennifer Aniston

Aniston got her start on Friends.

screenrant.com

Why A-List Movie Stars are on the Verge of Extinction

We break down the main reasons why there are less and less A-list movie stars in modern Hollywood, and if they can make a comeback.

discussingfilm.net

We’re Out of Movie Stars. Whose Fault Is That? (Published 2022)

There are fewer films now that allow an actor to grow a persona and a Tom Cruise level of stardom. It’s a crisis, and the movies know it.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Chi84]

Based on recent box office gross, people don't tend to go to movies because of who stars in them, they are no longer a draw, they go because of the content.

There have been many articles on this matter:

Twilight of the A-list: has the 21st century killed off the movie star?

Brad Pitt’s new film is fizzling out. Meryl Streep is doing TV. Only Tom Cruise fills cinemas – and, in the age of superheroes and streaming, his days may be numbered. So, what does the future hold for Hollywood’s big beasts?

www.theguardian.com

Why Are There No Movie Stars Anymore?

We're in a bit of a draught when it comes to bankable names.

nofilmschool.com

Hollywood Has No More Movie Stars, Says Jennifer Aniston

Aniston got her start on Friends.

screenrant.com

Why A-List Movie Stars are on the Verge of Extinction

We break down the main reasons why there are less and less A-list movie stars in modern Hollywood, and if they can make a comeback.

discussingfilm.net

We’re Out of Movie Stars. Whose Fault Is That? (Published 2022)

There are fewer films now that allow an actor to grow a persona and a Tom Cruise level of stardom. It’s a crisis, and the movies know it.

www.nytimes.com

What’s the difference?

 

[brideck]

Based on recent box office gross, people don't tend to go to movies because of who stars in them, they are no longer a draw, they go because of the content.

Based on recent box office gross, people don't tend to go to the movies.

For those who actually do go with some regularity, I would imagine that there are still names that get them to come out. I know there are for me.

But for the masses? No. The draws are the franchises. Not the people or even the particular stories. The only possible exceptions that I see are action stars like The Rock or Jason Statham, and even they can't get movies to break $100m without their being part of a franchise.

 

[TP2000]

I think some of these numbers need to be put into context.....

From your same article you just posted above -

"Still, 18.1 million was enough to make the Oscars the most-watched and primetime entertainment (meaning non-sports and non-news) telecast of the 2024-2025 TV season thus far. It also had the highest rating among adults age 18-49 this season with a 3.92, up 3% from last year. And when isolated to adults 18-34, it was the highest-rated Oscars in five years with a 3.17. "

Adults in the demo of 18-49 at 3.92? The Oscars have been skewing older for years now. The context here in 2025 is that this isn't a huge gain, but merely a small gain in a very older overall demographic.

In March, 1998, when Titanic pulled in a lot of young women viewers, that year's Oscars telecast had a 18-49 rating of 24.90.

So that means that 2025's Oscars telecast of 3.92 in the same demo got only 16% of the young demographic that 1998's Oscars telecast got.

Which aligns with the fact that 2025's Oscars telecast had about 31% of the viewers as the 1998 Oscars telecast. Meanwhile, the population of America has grown since 1998 by 66 Million people, or by 23%. But the viewership declined by nearly 70%.

I wonder how much money ABC (Disney) paid to get the Academy Awards broadcast rights for crashing ratings?