I’ve learned that the Academy Of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences board of governors wanted a complete do-over of last year’s Oscar broadcast that broke a string of low, lower, lowest TV ratings. I’ve already reported that AMPAS went to Larry Mark and Bill Condon and asked them to respectively produce and direct again. But Mark is producing Jim Brook’s next movie, and Condon is prepping his Richard Pryor biopic. So they turned down the always prestigious offer. Now I’m told that AMPAS is about to check on the availability of Hugh Jackman to host for the 2nd year in a row. What an honor for the Aussie actor, who recently helped the show win the Emmy. But I’ve learned people around Jackman are going to privately recommend against him doing it twice. “He’s a movie star, not a song and dance man,” one rep told me, especially since Hugh also hosted the Tony’s. So it looks as if new AMPAS president Tom Sherak is back at square one. Meanwhile, I hear that Hawk Koch and Joel Silver separately offered to produce the Academy Awards last year. And Sherak could always go to his longtime business intimate Joe Roth who produced the 76th Oscars in 2004. Ah, but getting a host is always the hardest part. I’ve learned none will be announced until AMPAS pins down the producer who has final say over everything to do with the telecast.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.







The Oscars has never honored movies that put butts in the seats. It honors the art of filmaking. The artier the better. 3 hours of watching scenes of movies I never saw in the theater seems to turn people off. That’s why the popularity contest we call the Golden Globes and People’s Choice Awards do better in the ratings.
They should either reduce it to no more than 2 hours and limit it to the major arts and craft segments (actors, writers, music etc..) or just move it to a cable channel like TBS or USA.
As for a host NPH would be good so would Craig Ferguson, Ricky Gervais, or even past BAFTA host Stephen Fry.
u gotta take a look at what george stevens, jr. does with son mike.they know film (4 generations back to the silents) – george really created the tribute show with the first 26 afi life achievement shows (he created afi and ran it, too) and the kennedy center honors (32 years and 8 emmys, including one in sept.) – and the son directs and produces and writes, too. these guys are show men. they conceived, orchestrated, wrote and produced obama’s lincoln memorial concert on hbo in somethin’ like two weeks. produced the thin red line, and george stevens, sr (giant, gunga din, shane) was a past academy president, or dga prez, or both. and george is a longtime acad member as well. these guys have taste.they’re old n’new school. most importantly the guys can put on a show ‘bout FILM! and keep it tight – no 4 hr silliness with these guys. event tv producers who are filmmakers? – hmm. . . is the that THE job description or what?
ABC had the board jump through the hoop on 10-nominees-10, and they’ll be picking the host, too.
The reason, IMO, the Oscar ratings were in the sewer was that the Academy had an acute attack of insanity by not including The Dark Knight in the picture, acting and technical races. Why watch to see winner after winner from Slumdog Millionaire? A TDK-SM showdown would’ve popped a huge Nielsen number. TDK earned over a half-billion dollars domestically and was the most serious challenger yet to Titanic’s $601m. And it was a damn good movie. That’s why this is the wrong year to have 10 BP nominees. There aren’t 10 worthy ones. I’d consider Star Trek and The Hangover to tip the hat to popular opinion, then have the other 3 nominees pictures that are seen by less people than went to watch La Vie En Rose.
Paul, in the sewer ? Didn’t they get like 30 something million viewers ? That’s low by Oscar standards but great compared to normal shows.
Why the hate on Billy C?
http://www.starpulse.com/Actors/Crystal,_Billy/
He still has a pulse. I’m tired of this Hollywood mentality that pushes anyone over the age of 25 to the curb.
Who spends money, young people?
Where do they usually get their money from?
People over 25.
I still like animation, cartoons and fun movies like Zombieland but I also like movies that move you like Schindler’s List, Michael Clayton etc.
Will Smith sounds great as suggested from above. But it would never happen and if it did it could be the kiss of death like Halle B winning her Oscar. To note an article from the guardian.co.uk, Ms. Halle’s career hasn’t blossomed since her Oscar win. Whoopi’s movie career vanished after her performance of the Queen in 1999. I like Will Smith, so please stay away from anything to do with Oscar, hint Hugh Jack man. After all this is the year of downsizing and Oscar will be back to five nominated films next year. Don’t become a quiz show question. What was the 7th film nominated for an Oscar in 2009 and who was the host?
A TV star should be the sacrificial lamb just pick one from the pen, someone from ABC.
I know who should host.
Think about it. We KNOW the Academy is desperatelt seeking viewers, especially younger viewers, since they stacked last year’s show with young popular people.
We want someone who is charismatic, funny, talented, and – for a good opening number – musically inclined. Someone who has proven himself to be a good host. So ladies and gentlemen, I submit for your consideration…
JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE
Now many of you will turn your nose at this just because you hate young and popular. But the guy is TALENTED. He hosted the ESPY’s to great acclaim, and has shown his comedic chops repeatedly on SNL (and won an Emmy). He’s the man for the job.
Unfortunately the show is not very relevant. The popular culture has moved on. Films most assuredly will be with us forever but their position in the cultural food chain has been moved down a peg or two. There is no host nor producer on earth who can fix that.
Mel Gibson – the whole world would watch.
My vote is for John Waters. When he hosted the Independent Spirit Awards, it was always entertaining. But they probably won’t choose him because he’s too much of independent maverick. He might offend some Hollywood egos.
hey what about Liza Minelli hosting with her best
friends producing those darling dusty fellas Zadan and
Meron.
Gerry Butler can sing, act, and is well-known. He should host.
There is only one option that would be really good.
STEVE MARTIN!!!
arthur.i, it’s relevant to the artists, the actors and writers and producers, the people who the awards are meant for. Obviously people who are bitter at Hollywood will not watch. Movies have gotten us through many tough times, they will always be beloved by most.
Unless the Oscars start nominating transformers and GI joe certain people will not tune in.
one name that has never come up
on these blogs (nor on possible
host lists) is one that should
be obvious.
BETTE MIDLER.
has anyone seen her in concert?
been to vegas lately?
the lady can work a room, crack
up an audience, sing, dance, adlib
and be more professional than
50 Cameron Diaz’s.
forget Whoppi. give Bette a chance.
Vanessa Williams last hosting job was funny and she can dance.
If they can’t get Hugh back I am for her.
As far as Ryan Seacrest if they want to pay him a lot of money
to bore everyone that is a good choice.
Kevin Spacey would be perfect!
It will probably be Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin together.
But, let’s be honest, the most entertaining host would be Kathy Griffin.
How come no one has said
BEN STILLER
?
Some great ideas for hosts here. I hope someone who has a hand in the Oscar show decision-making will be reading.
I love the idea of either Justin Timberlake, Craig Ferguson, Stephen Colbert, or Tina Fey hosting this. All of them are fresh faces, witty, and charming. I have a feeling they are also too controversial for the staid old Academy, but maybe they will surprise me. I personally thought Jon Stewart did just fine when he hosted, but they haven’t asked him back. I also think NPH was great hosting the Emmys and would do a great job on the Oscars, but he is a lightweight when it comes to movies and I doubt he will get the gig.
I also thought Hugh Jackman was charming last year, and that the problem was with the mostly awful (and yes, I saw all of them) movies that were nominated. And instead of the stupid idea of having ten nominees, why on earth didn’t the Academy do the logical thing and have two categories of winners like every other awards show does, one for comedy and one for drama? That’s the change that was really needed. FWIW, of course.
Here’s the truth. The award ceremonary is not about the host. Its about the shows. So why do they advertise the host instead of attracting the viewers with finding out if their show will win. And 10 nominations is ridiculois. Not everybody can be great, so why thin out the votes just to make the winner meaninless. Just quit trying to nominate losers in favor of the movie goers’ preferences. The movie goers really decide if you are the best actor or actress. The academy is the only group that constantly rewards unpopular and unsupported movies. IT IS ABOUT THE MOVIES. Two host is like the contest where everyone comes in first place.
The old timers like Hope and Martin, Johnny Carson and others were great MC’s was becasue the were naturally funny and did it with grace and poise. They let the awards be about the movies and the popular stars. Cut out the extra songs and dances, its about the movies. Get rid of the politics and causes, its about the movies and the stars. Maybe not him, but a Ben Stiller might be just the ticket. Ten nominess!,they will need a run off election to make the winner meaningful.