UPDATE: The Academy just made it official. Press release below.
Oscar telecast producers Bruce Cohen and Don Mischer announced just now that “James Franco and Anne Hathaway personify the next generation of Hollywood icons— fresh, exciting and multi-talented. We hope to create an Oscar broadcast that will both showcase their incredible talents and entertain the world on February 27. We are completely thrilled that James and Anne will be joining forces with our brilliant creative team to do just that.”
Analyzes Deadline awards columnist Pete Hammond: “Part of the reason the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences feels comfortable going with these two is that both James Franco and Anne Hathaway have very successfully hosted Saturday Night Live. And they looked at that and felt these young actors could work in front of a live audience which is why in the past the Academy has gone to so many stand-up comedians. And, of course, the other factor is that they really ’young up’ the Oscars this year. It’s an interesting choice and certainly unexpected and bold.”
EXCLUSIVE BREAKING NEWS 6:45 AM: I’ve just learned that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has asked James Franco and Anne Hathaway to host the 83rd annual Academy Awards on February 27th at Hollywood’s Kodak Theater, and it “looks like” both young stars have accepted the offer. There is always the chance that one or both of them might back out because of prior commitments and other concerns. But my sources say the host announcement could be made as soon as this week. Both are starring in Fox movies out in theaters now: Franco in Fox Searchlight’s 127 Hours, and Hathaway in 20th Century Fox’s Love And Other Drugs. The star of Princess Diaries and The Devil Wears Prada, Hathaway did a major dance and musical number with then host Hugh Jackman at the Academy Awards two years ago. Franco is also a multitalented actor who has taken risks in everything from the Spider-Man movie franchise to ABC’s General Hospital. Both are equally adept at comedy and drama. Their selection, if it pans out, is an inspired choice and demonstrates how much current Academy president Tom Sherak wants to improve Oscar ratings.
What’s most unusual about their hosting is that both thesps may be Oscar nominees themselves in the fiercely competitive Best Actor and Actress categories this awards season. Franco is considered a shoo-in for a nomination director Danny Boyle’s thriller 127 Hours, the real life story of a trapped hiker who must choose between his arm and freedom. And Hathaway is more of a long-shot in director Ed Zwick’s romantic dramedy Love And Other Drugs which opened soft at the box office this past weekend. That might be the main reason one or both of the stars decide to beg off. A decision like this to host the Academy Awards is made by committee with a star’s agent, publicist, manager and even studio weighing all the pro and con options. Which is why the Academy has such a tough time finding good people every year to host because it can be such a career-altering decision. And even more so when the stars are this young.
—
Here’s the official announcement made shortly before 9:30 AM today:
Beverly Hills, CA — James Franco and Anne Hathaway will serve as co-hosts of the 83rd Academy Awards®, Oscar telecast producers Bruce Cohen and Don Mischer announced today. Both have previously appeared on the telecast but not in hosting capacities.
“James Franco and Anne Hathaway personify the next generation of Hollywood icons— fresh, exciting and multi-talented. We hope to create an Oscar broadcast that will both showcase their incredible talents and entertain the world on February 27,” said Cohen and Mischer. “We are completely thrilled that James and Anne will be joining forces with our brilliant creative team to do just that.”
Franco, who currently can be seen in “127 Hours,” will be making his second appearance on an Oscar telecast. His other film credits include “Eat, Love, Pray,” “Date Night,” “Milk” and “Pineapple Express.” Franco is also known for his portrayals of Harry Osborn in the “Spider-Man” trilogy.
Hathaway will be making her fifth appearance on an Academy Awards telecast. She was recently seen in “Alice in Wonderland” and currently can be seen in “Love and Other Drugs.“ Hathaway’s other film credits include “Bride Wars,” “Becoming Jane,” “The Devil Wears Prada” and “The Princess Diaries.” She was nominated for an Oscar in 2008 for her lead performance in “Rachel Getting Married.”
Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2010 will be presented on Sunday, February 27, 2011, at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center, and televised live on the ABC Television Network. The Oscar presentation also will be televised live in more than 200 countries worldwide.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.




Oscar nomination for Anne Hathaway? Her movie got a 42% on Rotten Tomatoes and made only 9.9 Million at the box office after getting naked for it. That does not say Oscar to me, that says career disaster! Tina Fey as a solo host would be a better choice. Like someone else said Franco can be a bit stiff live.
Biggest problem is treating the Oscars like they’re any other television show — only after ratings. The Oscars are based on the Academy’s voting for the BEST in the year of MOVIES, not a way to raise money for the studios. Worrying about the world’s top grossers being nominated, or bringing in millions of more viewers, has reached the point of desperation for no reason. It’s ridiculous and insulting to the winners that the producers are more worried about the number of people watching than actually honoring the winners and nominees. The Oscars used to be prestigious, but they’re quickly falling into the crowded category of pointless, pandering awards for one purpose: Money.
Best post yet. Give the Academy the choice to award and not televise or to televise and not award, just promote. I swear if I see one Jersey Shore cast member show up, I’ll never watch again.
Many Emmy hosts have hosted and been nominated (Neil Patrick Harris, Ryan Seacrest, Jeff Probst, etc) and none of them had any problem transitioning after their award.
Boring. Bring back Billy Crystal. Tina Fey would be good too. These two are not funny.
The Oscars have taken one step closer to having robots as hosts.
Sigh. The Academy’s attempts to woo younger viewers are getting increasingly desperate, and off-putting to their ACTUAL viewer base who can be counted on to watch the ceremony.
Sure, Hathaway and Franco are both appealing enough and they’re younger than Hugh Jackman and John Stewart and Billy Crystal, so what? They will NOT appeal to the Twihards.
The Twihards are not going to watch the Oscars. There are only three actors who will turn out the Twihards in droves, and we know who those three actors are. It’s bad enough that all of the Hollywood studios are dropping their knickers and/or getting on their knees in desperate attempts to pleasure the Twihards, it’s sad to see the Academy stooping to the same level.
Kanye West & Taylor Swift, as co-hosts! That would be awesome, and quite funny – tons of skit possibilities!
are they actors?
Really? Only other stars and production companies are responsible for Hathaway’s success? Obviously you have never seen Rachel Getting Married, where not only was she basically the biggest star, but she was NOMINATED for an Oscar. Maybe you should get your facts straight before you bash a great actress, who I can assure you, will be around in Hollywood for a very long time.
Forget the hosts, if they want ratings, they need to nominate movies people have heard of, not a bunch of bloggers favorites. With the movies they now nominate (for the most part), it should be aired on the Sundance station at 2 in the morning. They could also change the name to the bloggers/critics awards. It’s sure not movies the American public can relate to. You’ll notice that the only time ratings go up, is when something like Avatar is nominated.
So, by this logic of box office=Best Picture, two of the five Best Picture nominees in 2006 would have been X Men: The Last Stand and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, which were both top 5 pictures in terms of domestic gross. Would you have been ok with that?
No, Pete; that’s the other extreme. But FFS, at least nominate films people have seen, never mind going out of their way to see. Evan is right; there’s a vast disconnect between what bloggers love and what the ordinary average moviegoer does. 2009′s results in picture and director damaged the Academy’s reputation, maybe beyond repair. There needs to be a balance between what critics like and what the people like. You think millions of us are rooting for Sally fucking Hawkins to get a nomination for Made in Dagenham?
Paul, I wasn’t citing an extreme. If people complain that BP nominees haven’t been seen by enough people, it would logically follow that using this argument that artistic merit is tied primarily if not exclusively to Box Office. After all, in 2006, the Departed only made a tick over $100 million. Both X-Men: the Last Stand and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest made three times as much. Therefore, those films should have been more entitled to the Oscars Departed won because they “connected” with audiences.
Obviously, you seem to think Hurt Locker’s victories were problematic. Tell me, did you find the film artistically unworthy because of its box office? Did Avatar’s massive take somehow erase its laughably bad script?
This might not directly relate, but have you noticed the laudatory assessment’s of Leslie Nielson’s work on the television show Police Squad? You remember that show don’t you? The one that was cancelled after six episodes because of terrible ratings. I guess that because it “failed to connect with audiences” that means that the show wasn’t funny, huh?
This is a ridiculous announcement….neither are adept at live comedy. Franco can play comedy, but he’s not naturally funny. Hello–Kevin Spacey?????!!! Let’s fill the gap left behind by Billy Crystal.
Boring…
It would have been great if Neil Patrick Harris and Hugh Jackman hosted together.
Also, it always looks really dumb when the host of an awards show wins an award at the ceremony, which might be the case with Franco. He’s a dum-dum to accept this offer, image-wise. Glenn Close did this at the Tonys years ago and it always comes off looking like a bad beauty contest.
Totally agree. Bring back the comedians. Stewart, Rock, Gervais or any of the others, even Ellen. Please no Hathaway (how is she a star) or Franco. I’d take Fey and Carell over AH and JF anyday.
If they have AH and JF I’ll just have to record and fast forward through their parts
Jim Carrey would have been a good choice… In 1998.
I watch no matter who hosts but these two should be interesting. Who will design her gown & what character will Franco be in this time?
Saw 127hours last night in a theater that smelled like vomit (no kidding). Bought a snack (dark choc covered pretzels) at the counter, but between the smell & agonizing movie scenes, didn’t eat.
Despite the dilapidated, I thought the movie was well done and both Franco and Boyle did great jobs.
Regarding hosting, both Franco and Hathaway can deliver jokes well. It’s now up to the writers.
Mel Gibson.
cool. A young award show. Love it.
Fine, I’ll bite. But Tina Fey seems such an obvious choice it makes me wonder if she turned it down. Would prefer her and Steve Carell.
dumb. Good actors, nothing personal. But always better to have someone w/comedic background vs. “leanings”. I’m for a sparer and less glitzy form of acknowledgement this year. Such a crude contrast to the bad shape were in economically, environmentally and during war time to have this garish excess and narcissism.
No comment.
Oh, wait, I do have a comment.
This is embarrassing. It’s such an obviously ploy to garner viewership why not just invite the cast of Glee to host?
Neither Franco or Hathaway is a professional comedian, which is not to say they’re both not skilled in what they do, but comedians, hosts, entertainers they ain’t.
Jesus, the world truly is crumbling.
I know “Eat, Pray, Love” was an unbearable movie, but get the title right.
I agree with the Franco choice but disagree with the Hathaway choice. Oh well. I’ll still probably watch.
The only thing that could explain the choice of Hathaway is that it was an all-male nominating committee. She may be fine in film roles, but in real life she is a strangely unpleasant person. Definitely not a girls’ girl. We’ll see if the female Oscar audience can abide her throughout the 3+ hour show.
Franco is over-rated, but and interesting and likeable character.
Franco and Hathaway are both interesting actors but don’t have anything close to the star power the Oscars need to remain in the spotlight. And the comedian/Vilanch chemistry is so thin at this point, reducing the show to more of an SNL-level mockery.
Angelina and Brad not available that night? Can’t get sitter for kids?
How about Will Smith? He’s even funny.
Clooney too busy?
Anybody?