February 8, 2010
According to preliminary ratings estimates by Nielsen, Super Bowl XLIV between the Indianapolis Colts and the New Orleans Saints was the most watched television program ever in the United States. Approximately 106.5 million people tuned in, toppling the viewership record held by M*A*S*H since its finale drew 105.97 million viewers in 1983.
[time.com, 2/8/10; marketwatch.com, 2/8/10; rbr.com, 2/8/10 stats]
|
 |
QUOTE: "If you're a sports fan, and I am, that's the holiest day of the year. It's not a day to discuss abortion. For it, against it, I don't care what you are. On Super Sunday, I don't care what I am. Feb. 7 is simply not the day to have that discussion."
—cbssports.com columnist Gregg Doyel, two weeks before the Big Game, on why CBS should've rejected Focus on the Family's Super Bowl ad [AP, 1/25/10] |
|
 |
QUOTE: "By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers."
—part of a letter protesting Focus on the Family's much-discussed Super Bowl ad before it aired. The letter to CBS was sent and signed by a number of women's activist groups. [AP, 1/25/10] |
|
 |
QUOTE: "Touchdown! The long-awaited, much-hyped ad from Focus on the Family aired shortly after the Colts and Saints kicked off at Super Bowl. And their early hit could have the last laugh on critics. What could they say to this?"
—USA Today "Faith & Reason" religion reporter Cathy Lynn Grossman, minutes after the commercial aired [usatoday.com, 2/7/10] |
 |
|
 |
QUOTE: "Here's what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence. You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren't embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions."
—Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins, responding to Focus on the Family's Super Bowl ad that features Tim Tebow and his mom [washingtonpost.com, 2/2/10] |
 |
|
 |
QUOTE: "I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in [the Tim Tebow ad]. That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."
—National Organization of Women president Terry O'Neill [latimes.com, 2/7/10] |
 |
|
 |
QUOTE: "Over the past 43 Super Bowls, commercials have grown from simple product pitches into pop-art touchstones as companies spend millions for 30 seconds of the nation's undivided attention. They've run the gamut from provocative to subversive, ridiculous to sentimental. They've employed celebrities and ordinary people; they've praised and mocked their subjects. But until Sunday, they all had one thing in common: They stayed away from the charged worlds of politics, religion and morality. With one gently pitched 30-second ad, however, all that has changed. A door previously closed has now been cracked open. The ad isn't simply an advocacy of a particular moral position; it has the potential to be a watershed moment in our national discourse if we allow real-world concerns to impact our entertainment."
—Yahoo! Sports contributor Jay Busbee [sports.yahoo.com, 2/7/10] |
 |
|
 |
In 1997-98, James Cameron's Titanic became the highest-grossing movie ever, taking in $600.8 million in North American theaters and $1.8 billion worldwide. For more than a decade nobody came close to touching it. Now, in 2009-10, James Cameron's Avatar has become the highest-grossing movie ever, having already taken in $630.1 million in North American theaters and $2.2 billion worldwide. (And it's still going strong.) [AP, 2/3/10; boxoffficemojo.com, 2/8/10 stats] |
 |
|
 |
Many have noted that Avatar's numbers need to be kept in perspective. Inflation and higher prices for 3-D and IMAX screenings have accelerated the film's box office take, which makes comparing it to everything that's gone before something of an apples-to-oranges proposition. Entertainment Weekly, for example, reported in late January that 3-D screenings accounted for 80% of Avatar's domestic haul. And when you factor inflation into the formula, Avatar clocks in at No. 21 on Box Office Mojo's all-time North American list. At the top? Gone With the Wind, a 1939 film whose $198 million gross translates to a whopping $1.5 billion in today's dollars. [AP, 2/3/10; Entertainment Weekly, 1/26/10; boxoffficemojo.com, 2/8/10 stats] |
 |
|
 |
QUOTE: "Gone With the Wind didn't have to compete with television. Star Wars didn't have to compete with DVDs. Titanic didn't have to compete with Blu-rays and satellite. So I think every film has to compete on its own merits."
—Avatar and Titanic producer Jon Landau, on how the entertainment world's fragmentation and increasing number of options for consumers may negate pundits' "apples-to-oranges" inflation argument [AP, 2/3/10] |
|
 |
QUOTE: "[Jim] used to say to me: 'Anybody can be a father or a husband. There are only five people in the world who can do what I do, and I'm going for that.'" —actress Linda Hamilton, who was James Cameron's fourth wife, on the director's propensity to prioritize his work ahead of his family [dailymail.co.uk, 2/5/10] |
|
 |
This year marks the first time since 1944 that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has nominated 10 movies for its Best Picture award. That year, Casablanca won. This year, one of these picks will: Avatar, The Blind Side, District 9, An Education, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Precious, A Serious Man, Up or Up in the Air. [oscars.org, 2/2/10; chicagotribune.com, 2/4/10] |
 |
|
 |
In the wake of Taylor Swift's Grammy performance with Stevie Nicks—which many commentators have described as out of tune—the country-pop teen icon has taken so much criticism that the head of her record label, Big Machine Records CEO Scott Borchetta, has come to her defense. "She is the voice of this generation. She speaks directly to [her fans], and they speak directly back to her," Borchetta said in a phone interview with the Associated Press. "This is not American Idol. This is not a competition of getting up and seeing who can sing the highest note. This is about a true artist and writer and communicator. It's not about that technically perfect performance." Borchetta also attributed Swift's pitch problems to technical difficulties during the live broadcast: "We had a volume problem in the ear. So, she was concerned that she wasn't able to hear everything in the mix. That's just part of live TV." [AP, 2/4/10] |
 |
|
 |
QUOTE: "This is what we, as a culture, tend to do in situations like this. It's in our nature to knock folks down from the pedestals we've put them on. Still, I'm sort of amazed at the acrimony with which [Taylor] Swift is being assaulted. Yes, I'm aware that the Internet has much to do with it … after all, it provides not only the stage but the secure blanket of anonymity. The allure of the 'comment' box is that it allows you to say the nastiest things imaginable—things you would never dream of saying directly to someone—without fear of direct retribution. And yes, I'm aware of the fact that negativity and pettiness are the cultural currency of the day, that they drive page views and sell magazines, and that we are all competing to see who can get to the bottom the fastest."
—MTV News contributor James Montgomery, on the Taylor Swift Grammy controversy [mtv.com, 2/2/10]
|