Oscars 2012

I really doubt they will ever go back to Anne Hathaway in anyway as a host (presenter easily). I am not saying she is to blame but it's just from the moment they would announce her as a host the media would be reminding everyone of what a flop the last time she hosted was and the fact that she didn't bring in the younger viewers they were expecting her to.

I liked Jackman. I still get "I didn't see The Reader" stuck in my head and his "I AM WOLVERIIIIIINE" was delightful. I prefer the large production numbers to Billy Crystal's solo number.

I'd be more than pleased with Hugh Jackman as the host again.

Tom Hanks would be a good choice, but I can't imagine he'd ever seriously consider it.

Honestly, I'm not sure why anyone would agree to host...it is a hard job. The show is always somewhat boring, and the host gets blamed for any problems. There were people online calling Billy terrible about two minutes into the show. I can't think of anyone who's hosted and gotten all positive reviews.

I think what makes the Oscars entertaining is when there are good/memorable winners. Usually this happens with a newcomer or a surprise win. But if nothing like that happens, the host gets blamed.

Someone please tell me I'm not the only person on this planet who wasn't impressed with Hugh Jackman's turn as host. I just didn't get it.

No, I wasn't a fan of it either. My favorite recent hosts were Steve Martin's first solo, Jon Stewart and Chris Rock. But then again i don't get the appeal of Jackman period.

Dr. Cox from Scrubs has found his people.

I've wanted Stephen Colbert to host for ages. Failing that, a team-up of Tina Fey and Amy Poehler would be fabulous.

One of my all-time favorite Oscars joke was during Steve Martin's first time hosting, when he said there was an update about the plot to kidnap Russell Crowe: "Tom Hanks, I'm very disappointed in you." And of course Tom Hanks played along, because he's the best.

Crystall has been doing that impression for decades and even used to open up for Sammy Davis Jr while he was alive. So Sammy was okay with it back when.

queenofdenile wrote:I've wanted Stephen Colbert to host for ages. Failing that, a team-up of Tina Fey and Amy Poehler would be fabulous.

I am so invested in Fey/Poehler that anyone else is going to be disappointing, but I don't think it'll happen. I'm holding out they might get the Emmys. Tom Hanks would be fabulous, though, I agree.

I was one of the people calling it the worst ever, although I could be persuaded to just call it most boring. But even though last year was a freaking train wreck, at least they were TRYING something new. This year was just recycled jokes, and not very funny ones. Billy spent five minutes making fun of how James Earl Jones said a word in a 23-year-old movie (holy crap I am old), and that was one of the more topical jokes. That is just ridiculous. Even the funny stuff (I thought the Bieber joke was pretty good, although in what universe does he bring the 18-24 demo? Isn't he more on the 12-18 demographic?) got stepped on by unfunny crap like the Sammy Davis Jr. joke.

I'm still holding out for Eddie Izzard, I know it will never happen, but how goddamn funny is it in my head. Hanks would also be good, as he's proved on SNL so many times the man knows how to work on live tv/he's such a natural comedian. I think RDJ, on his own, writing his own bits, rather than whatever it was they had him do with GOOP, would be good.

Aside from the ceremony itself, anyone have thoughts on winners/losers?

I got 15 correct in my Oscar pool because I stupidly did not pick Hugo for the tech awards, thinking that the Academy would want to throw Spielberg a bone for War Horse in at least one category. Of the big 8 (Picture, Director, acting awards, screenplay awards), I got all right except Best Actress. My favorite lead female performance of the year (Charlize Theron in Young Adult) wasn't even nominated, but Viola Davis was my favorite of the 4 I saw and Meryl my least favorite, so that particular win was hard to take.

I thought Christopher Plummer gave the best acceptance speech, and my favorite part was when he said that he would share the award with Ewan McGregor if he had any decency but he doesn't, so he's not going to.

curryalley wrote:I liked Jackman. I still get "I didn't see The Reader" stuck in my head and his "I AM WOLVERIIIIIINE" was delightful. I prefer the large production numbers to Billy Crystal's solo number.

Every time The Reader is mentioned I think of that whole "I didn't see the Reader" and you know what? I still haven't.

I don't think I would ever say whatever year is the worst Oscars ever though I would be disappointed in hosts, like James Franco or Billy Crystal who I've been over for a while.

I did see The Reader, and I enjoyed Hugh Jackman's number about not seeing it a lot more than the movie itself.

I loved Christopher Plummer's purple velvet jacket. On anyone else, it would have looked skeevy. Captain Von Trapp 4-EVA!

I think that with Billy's turn as host, it was just so dated. I would rather see Chris Rock host with Louis CK writing. Or a triple team of Jackman, Hathaway and Emma Watson. Or Jackman and NPH hosting. This just seemed like a major 180 from the previous year, which I didn't think was that bad honestly.

I guess that my view is that if they want to make big changes, commit to them. Don't be wishy-washy and swing back and forth each year.

As for the wins, I was entirely meh on the list this year. I think the only one I was really cheering for was Gary Oldman in TTSS.

And SBC always amuses me. I know some people hated him dumping the ash on Seacrest, but I liked it. I'm a sick fuck like that.

I go back and forth on SBC. I recognize that he's extremely talented but sometimes his humor crosses the line from satire into bullying. BUT I am greatly in favor of anyone being an ass to Ryan Seacrest. That urn gag was even better than Brangelina subbing him a few years ago.

Honestly all the hosts kind of blur together in my mind. I remember James Franco was stoned off his ass and Anne Hathaway was ultra peppy, and that Chris Rock hurt Sean Penn's feelings...and that's about it? I can't even remember Jon Stewart's turn. I remember liking Steve Martin's effort. And that Ellen was boring, but I always think Ellen is boring.

Hosting the Oscars is hard, because it's almost always gonna be mostly boring. And the Academy WANTS it to be boring. Anytime anything interesting happens, it's been a mistake, or an improv, or a short skit clearly contrasted with the tone of rest of the show. Every commentary I've read has been about how 'backward-looking', 'old-fashioned,' 'out of date', etc, etc. And that's what is said virtually every year. I actually missed most of the ceremony but am not too surprised that I missed nothing worth tracking down.

For me, the problem with the Oscars isn't (for the most part) who hosts but rather the fact that it just isn't a three hour show. The producers keep wanting it to be this big extravaganza but ultimately they're trying to stretch what is, at it's heart, maybe an hour, hour and a half gig into something it just isn't. It's like how SNL frequently has one or two really good sketches and then the rest of the show is filler. This is the Oscars to me: a few really good bits surrounded by a whole lot of filler. Regardless of who hosts, you can only squeeze so much quality out of it before it just collapses under its own bloated weight.

The show doesn't have to be just people coming up, reading nominees, and announcing winners. The concept can be expanded but not into three hours, and not into this song-and-dance/variety show format they keep trying to work, year after year after year. I mean, that whole schtick they did with RDJ and GOOP for documentary? Really? Just come out, say a few lines about documentaries, then get to the nominees. As others have said, I'd much rather watch bits that were relevant to the movies, actors, and technicians being nominated rather than Cirque du freaking-Soleil.

Also, I wonder why this year they needed the orchestra. I liked the house band with Sheila E, Pharrell and everyone else. Have them play everyone on and off. It's not like you needed anyone for best score or best song. SINCE THERE WERE NO PERFORMANCES. /grumble

I think it might have to do with the Musicians union. Pharrell was a music consultant but he kept mentioning in his interview with Seacrest that they couldn't do a lot of changes only a few twists because of union rules.

Huh. I wonder if music union rules are part of the reason they insist on having so many stupid dance/acrobatic sequences. Although getting rid of the song performances doesn't jive with that.

Or a triple team of Jackman, Hathaway and Emma Watson.

Really, Emma Watson? I've seen her present at the BAFTAs and she's always nervous as a chiuhuahua. It'd be as bad as watching KStew host the Oscars.

I figured she meant Emma Stone.

Ahhh, that makes a lot more sense.

Yeah! That one! Good grief there are a lot of Emmas. You can almost tell the generational changes by which names are popular. /old lady.

I'm the one who originally suggested Hanks, but I'd co-sign on RDJ as well.

I think the reason I enjoyed Hugh Jackman so much is that he seemed to be having such a good time doing it.

As for the awards, they were pretty "meh." I didn't have strong opinions about any of them. There were more people I didn't want to win (O HAI WOODY ALLEN) than people I did want to win. I saw six of the nine nominated films - Midnight in Paris and Tree of Life have been sitting here for weeks in their little red envelopes, but I just haven't been able to drum up the enthusiasm to look at them, mostly because both directors have irritated me in the past. As for the other missing film Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, well, life has just been too sucky lately for me to sit through a film about 9/11. Fun fact: ELAIC is the only Oscar-nominated film ever to score less than fifty percent on Rotten Tomatoes.