Academy President 'Defends' Troubled Oscar Broadcast With a Shrug

This is the closest you'll get to a major figure admitting failure - a sort of "eh, what'll you do?"

In a story in The Hollywood Reporter, Tom Sherak, President of the Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, admitted that the reach for younger viewers didn't work, that the hosts' chemistry wasn't what it could be, that they never should have been hired, and that come on, we're trying the best we can! We still got 38 million viewers!

The viewership was actually down from last year's ceremonies, which garnered nearly 42 million viewers on the promise that "Avatar" would go home a winner, but was hardly the lowest of the decade.

The 2003 broadcast, in which "Chicago" was awarded Best Picture, brought in only 33 million viewers, and in 2003, 32 million people saw "No Country for Old Men" own the evening. Even two years ago, when audience favorite "Slumdog Millionaire" won, only 37 million were there to see it.

But the biggest problem, many viewers agreed, were the hosts.

James Franco has especially taken much of the heat for barely showing any interest alongside Anne Hathaway's almost uncontrollable giddiness. Sherak admitted that "the chemistry seemed to be off," and noted that "Franco is a very charming guy, but sometimes you need a comic to make fun of things."

Still, he noted, "Give them an A for guts to get up in front of everyone. People don't want to do it. They don't want to take the chance of hurting themselves. In today's world especially, it's vicious."

Franco and Hathaway were selected in a bid to win over a younger audience, a notion that was joked about often during the broadcast, but the viewership actually skewed older this year with the average age landing at 50.6 years old.

In fact, aside from being relatively younger Frano is 32, Hathaway is 28), there is little evidence to suggest either of them actually appeals to anyone under the age of 30, or anyone at all.

Sherak isn't too worried about it all, noting that you have to take your hits with your punches.

"Go back and look at what these same critics have written: 'The Academy is afraid to take chances,' and 'if the Academy doesn't get younger, they'll be off the air,'" he noted, rattling off familiar, long-standing criticisms. "So when the producers came and said, 'We've got an idea,' we said, 'Great.' We tried something."

The biggest problem drawing viewers is one completely out of the hands of its producers - nominating the right films, and giving them an honest shot.

"We didn't have an 'Avatar' or a 'Titanic' this year," Sherak said, "We had some really good movies that did a lot of business, but it is what it is. Next year, if there is a huge movie, you'll see more people."

What Sherak really means is a big movie that has a fighting chance of winning.

"Inception" did nearly $300 million at the domestic box office, and "Toy Story 3" did over $400 million. Both were incredibly well-received by audiences. But neither were expected to win going into Sunday. If the Academy marketed their nominees better, got more stories online, and insisted that it was actually a ten-film, or even a five-film race instead of the yearly two-film deathmatch, far more people would be inclined to at least have it on.