A recently conducted Harris Poll found that 43 percent of U.S. adults plan to watch the show while 54 percent expect to skip it (though no comparison was given to last year). Most women (52 percent) expect to watch; most men (64 percent) plan not to. Age groups 18-30 and 31-42 actually are more likely to watch (48 percent each) than ages 43-61 (43 percent) and 62 and older (32 percent).

The popularity of a particular Oscar show is generally thought to be tied to the profiles of the nominated movies and performers. Last year's telecast, in which "Crash" beat out "Brokeback Mountain" in a field of mostly independent-type films, attracted 38.9 million viewers, down from the 42.1 million of the 2005 telecast ("Million Dollar Baby") and the 43.5 million of the 2004 one ("Lord of the Rings: Return of the King:), according to Nielsen Media Research.

That 2004 telecast (for films released in 2003) was the first to air in February instead of March, and its viewership represented a significant jump over the 33 million who saw "Chicago" win in 2003 in the lowest-rated show ever. (Some viewership numbers were lower in the 1960s, but the ratings as measured in households watching were much higher.) But the telecast has yet to approach the 55.2 million viewers of the "Titanic" victory telecast in 1998 and the following two years in which wins by "Shakespeare in Love" and "American Beauty" drew 45.6 and 46.3 million viewers, respectively.

The Academy moved up the air date to tighten the drawn-out Oscar campaigns and to boost the show's stature in a crowded landscape that had the Golden Globes, the Screen Actors Guild and other groups giving out many similar awards over the previous weeks. The Globes, which also honor television in a looser, more alcohol-fueled environment, actually scored its best ratings in 2004, the year of the Oscars' shift to February (26.8 million viewers), followed by two relatively weak years (16.8 million and 18.8 million in 2005 and 2006) and a bit of a rebound for this January's telecast (20 million).

Academy spokeswoman Leslie Unger said the Oscars' move to February has been successful "in some ways.... I think there is a sense that it is more timely. I think the sense is by being in February instead of March, there's a stronger recognition and remembrance of the films (from the previous year)." To Unger, this year's overall interest level feels the same as usual.

But some see a downside to the earlier date and compressed Oscar campaigns — for moviegoers as well as the studios. Beforehand, a film such as "Shakespeare in Love" could open in December and enjoy a three-month ride of Oscar publicity in the theaters, boosting its box office and enabling more viewers to have a stake in it come Oscar night.

"There are just fewer weeks to have a box-office bump," said New York publicist Cynthia Swartz, who helped coordinate the Oscar campaign for "The Queen." "I wonder whether having films in the marketplace for another month would help people become more familiar with the nominees. I worry that there are a lot of people out there who haven't seen or even heard of a number of them."

Film critic/historian Leonard Maltin said although more good movies have been opening before December since the shift, end-of-the-year Oscar-hopeful releases have been brutalized; "Letters from Iwo Jima" is the only December release among the current best picture nominees. "What is continuing to happen is what's always happened," he said, citing films such as "Children of Men," "The Painted Veil" and "Miss Potter" that got lost.

In Maltin's view, the Golden Globes have surpassed the Oscars "in terms of celebrity gawking.... But no one can touch the Oscars in terms of tradition, continuity and legitimacy.

"Now whether anyone values tradition, continuity and tradition, I don't know."