Stars may be aligned for improved Oscar ratings

If Sunday’s Oscar telecast ends up breaking ratings records, organizers might just want to send a thank-you in the Na’vi language to James Cameron.

Cameron’s “Avatar,” a sci-fi fable about endangered tree-dwellers on the fictional moon Pandora, has become the highest-grossing picture of all time with more than $700 million in U.S. box office. It’s also up for nine nominations including best picture. The last time a Cameron picture brought home academy hardware -- for the previous box-office champion, “Titanic,” in 1998 -- the award telecast soared to new heights. That year, an average of 55.2 million viewers tuned in, according to the Nielsen Co.

So the TV gods may finally be smiling on the academy after recent times when the ceremony has seemed to drift along with tepidly received hosts, little-seen contenders and a growing sense of viewer apathy.

Analysts credit officials’ decision to enlarge the pool of best-picture nominees from five to 10, which theoretically allows more room for crowd-pleasing films.

“Otherwise, ‘Avatar’ may not have been nominated,” said Steve Sternberg, a veteran audience analyst who runs the Sternberg Report website.

Another plus sign for Oscar: This is turning out to be a good year for live events, despite executives’ worry about the continuing fragmentation of the TV audience. Award shows such as the Grammys have posted healthy increases and NBC’s coverage of the Winter Olympics drew big crowds. Last month’s Super Bowl on CBS was the most-watched TV program in history, with more than 106 million viewers. Experts say the sluggish economy continues to give Americans a good reason to stretch out on the sofa and entertain themselves on the cheap.

“More people are staying home to watch these events,” said Dave Karger, who writes the OscarWatch blog for Entertainment Weekly.

It also may help that the producing duo behind this year’s show, Adam Shankman and Bill Mechanic, have spiced the lineup with presenters chosen to appeal to younger viewers, even if the co-hosts, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, look like a pitch to the middle-aged crowd.

“When you have Miley Cyrus and the cast of ‘Twilight’ presenting,” Karger said, “that’s going to bring new eyeballs.”

However, it may be hard for the Oscars to hit a record this year, if only because it’s a little out of practice with such things. Last year’s telecast, with Hugh Jackman as host, delivered 36.3 million total viewers, up 13% from the previous year. But to break the “Titanic” record, Sunday’s program would need to post a whopping 52% year-to-year increase -- possible but unlikely given the level of competition that exists on TV today.

Longtime analyst Shari Anne Brill predicted that the show won’t go near the 1998 number, although “ratings will be up versus last year,” she said.

Although the Oscar telecast has remained very popular among older Americans, it has steadily lost appeal among young adults over the last decade.

In 1999, the year after “Titanic’s” big win, the Oscars commanded 45% of the adults ages 18 to 49 audience. By last year, its share had shrunk to 29%.

Organizers have tried to lure younger viewers back over the last few years with hip hosts, such as Chris Rock and Jon Stewart. But the films being honored didn’t always cooperate with that agenda. In 2008, when the violent, downbeat art-house picture “No Country for Old Men” won best picture, the telecast slipped to a record-low 32 million viewers. Stewart was the host.

“When ‘No Country for Old Men’ or ‘Chicago’ is the front-runner for best picture, a regular entertainment fan isn’t necessarily going to care who wins,” Karger said.

This time around, however, there no such problems.

“If the Oscars are huge this year, I don’t think it’s going to be because Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin are the hosts,” Karger said. “It’s going to be because of ‘Avatar’ and the economy.”

scott.collins@latimes.com