And anyone who thinks Hollywood is in the art business is sadly mistaken. Any art is accidental.

Can’t we have any event that doesn’t involve a text message vote or an e-poll. Guess What? You’re not that important.

If you don’t want to watch the Oscars, so be it. Just don’t change the Oscars to the Viewer’s Choice Awards.

Maybe next year they’ll add best on-screen kiss to the the categories. I’m sure that will improve ratings.

And no, Jon Stewart was dreadfully boring, and sucked the life out of me. After watching the Spirit Awards, I’d enjoy seeing Rainn Wilson host the Oscars. Or rather, bring in Hugh Jackman who was great hosting the Tonys. Or maybe Wayne Brady, who would be a perfect host, since he’s funny, can sing, and is great at improvisation. All the successful qualities that made Billy Crystal so good.

I also want to put in my vote for Craig Ferguson to host. Why? Well he’s also now an American citizen, does great impressions, and is a great comedian. American, does impressions, great comedian? Remind you of anyone?

How about the networks attract better advertisers? I am in Canada so maybe it was different in the states but if you could get film companies to release new trailers for upcoming films to show during ad breaks as opposed to commercials for cosmetics like what was showing here.

As well what is up with people disliking Stewart hosting? He was infinitely better than Degenres last year (I don’t even know if that is how you spell it). And bringing Irglova back on was really classy (and she had a great speech too).

I don’t think there is anything sufficiently wrong with the Oscars, more of the blame lies with the general population, where a film like Wild Hogs can earn $170 million or Fantastic Four 2 earns $130 million but a great film like Rescue Dawn makes $5 million. The problem lies with the masses not with the awards, or the nominees themselves

are you shitting me?!?!?!?!?!?

i hope people aren’t THAT stupid to actually go along w/them…

^o^

MM

The week after the ceremony when every media outlet in America/Bloggers like you tear it all apart, criticize the host, the nominees, the montages, the length. So half the people in the US catch the negative vibe through osmosis because deep down maybe they don’t really have much of an opinion about the show. But then they are told it sucked over and over again. If we keep this up no one will ever watch the Oscars in 10 years. Or better yet we can make it partisan! Oscar lovers and Oscar haters. The American Way.

This years ceremony was great. Montages are part of Oscar, and John Stewart is classic. A great year for movies too. I beleive truly great work was rewarded, maybe there is no such thing as “Best” when it comes to art, but I feel the winners were worthy artists.

You offer no solutions. You are only the problem we as a nation need to face. The solution in my opinion is removing half the editorialists from the face of the earth, because most of them are as ignorant and negative as yourself. But they continue to spew negativity and ignorance on television/computer screens/magazines/newspapers/radios all to help sell (american apparel ad in this case) and in turn make a buck. Say anything to them and they quote the constitution or the famous line “you don’t have to read/watch/listen.”

I would say before your life ends do something constructive like create a piece of art. Otherwise your contribution will be nilch with garbage like this. You might as well eat out of people’s garbage in the middle of the night.

And if your aim was satire go back to school.

Why not have a different host for each of the four hours? Is there some reason for continuity? Then you could have Ben Stiller (family-friendly funny), Katie Holmes (young), Gene Hackman (classy), and then Dave Chapelle (less-family-friendly funny).

And as far as making things more mainstream for ratings, how much MORE mainstream get you get!?! Why do you think so much press is covered on actors and actresses? Because those are the only people, and the only profession, the public understands.
And as far as the joke category, what do you think Juno and previously Little Miss Sunshine were?
They were there for ratings.

Hey, look, we can criticize each other’s English skills. But I can edit mine.

Thanks for the correction.

The Academy Awards have been around before television was even invented. It’s not about ratings, it’s about rewarding art.

Frankly, I am an Oscar-worshipper. I am one of those people that finds the broadcast intriguing at its most basic level and too exciting beyond that. Did I find the broadcast boring? Yes. Does that mean that I didn’t enjoy watching it? No. That just means that there weren’t any moments to be discussed, digested, and disposed of at the watercooler for the next two days. No Jack Palances doing one-handed push-ups, no David Lettermans offending people by rhyming names for three hours, no Cuba Gooding Jr’s jumping up and down for ten minutes, no Roberto Benignis crawling all over rows of celebrities in his excitement…and, sometimes, the lack of such antics happens. Could it be that these “less mainstream” movies were nominated, so it drew less fare? What about Juno? Karina doesn’t like it partially because it’s billed as an indie that’s not really an indie. It has mass public appeal, and I’m sure people were drawn in by that.

Incidentally, sometimes pop artists are nominated and sing their own songs (Eminem, Elton John, Beyonce, etc.). This year that wasn’t the case. That doesn’t mean that the Once song wasn’t popular of its accord. And Amy Adams did a fine job.

The fact of the matter is, I think the writers’ strike was largely to blame this time around. Look at what happened to the Globes! People like to get warmed up with these less-important movie awards before they can get geeked about the Oscars. They weren’t even sure they were going to have Oscars! And then, with the largely unimaginative Gil Cates at the helm, the hurry-up-and-go plan turned out to be sort of boring.

That doesn’t mean that the dresses and the awards weren’t interesting themselves. And most of the awards weren’t that predictable this year. I usually manage a 2/3 to 3/4 average at correct predictions (including all technical categories), and with people like Marion Cotillard and Tilda Swinton winning the awards, my percentages were all screwed up.

I just think people are making mountains out molehills and should have expected these low ratings. The real question: would changing the tactics (even cheekily as the article suggests) really bring in more viewers? People who don’t watch the Oscars usually don’t ever watch the Oscars. Or, maybe watch the opening monologue and the Best Picture presentation (the given beginning and end of the broadcast). So, what difference does it make? Let’s see what happens next year, when there should be no strikes (unless SAG walks out in the spring and it lasts for months), and when better planning and other precipitating factors will be more back to normal as opposed to this flukey year.

PS, why Rainn Wilson as host? Why not Steve Carell? He’s from the Office, too, you know, and is hilarious, scripted or not. He could have his own talk show. He SHOULD have his own talk show.

As for the montages, another thing that has gotten very tiresome is the idea of montage self-awareness and attempts to put together more humorous montages. Now the parodying time is over and we should either have great, important montage sequences or none at all.

How does this sound?
You are a person of limited intelligence and unlimited ego that spouts (no pun intended) idiotic claims as if they are facts.

Why don’t you improve your life and go and suck on a tailpipe somewhere?

Maybe it would be a good idea to include a couple of new categories. Best comedy, best horror/suspense movie, best musical, best kiddie movie or something.

But above all this there are two problems that can never be solved completely within the rules and realities concerning the Oscars today.
There are just about 1 billion people watching the live telecast from the show. This is too big and diverse a group to ever target or satisfy. The problem is, that with a compromise no one is really satisfied. If they add more dance sequences, some will be annoyed. If they cut the montages, other people will get mad. If they make too much of a comedy show of it, some people will feel that it is not being taken seriously. The second problem is, that when a person has been awarded with an oscar, he or she is automatically part of the group of people who can vote in the future. This is a problem that will get progressingly worse over time! The reason is that while most of this years reciepients are not very well known or big stars they will be choosing next years winners. I don’t see the Cohen Brothers ever choosing films like “Enchanted” as best movie, I don’t think that Tilda Swinton would ever vote for the likes of Ocean’s Thirteen, and I can’t imagine, that this years winner of best song (I don’t even remember their names)would ever vote for Celine Dion or Beyonce.

And hey, I’m european, and I like the fact that the Oscars have become more international, I like Quality movies, I like the montages and love the speeches. So as far as I’m concerned, just put Ellen back on as host, and you won’t hear me complain!

Well, I hope you don’t.

The suggestion I particularly dislike is number 5. Nominate mainstream actors/films without the intention of giving them the award? How is that a good idea? Not only is it harsh on the nominee’s but it also completely removes the credibility the oscars have.

Also, Rainn Wilson is an annoying and distinctly unmemorable person.

Also, while I agree that nominating more mainstream films would boost interest, doing it as a joke would mean nothing. Even mentioning Pirates 3 or Miley Cyrus in the same paragraph as Oscar is a crime. A frickin’ crime. Instead, perhaps mainstream movies that were actually good should get the nomination, and a serious one at that. Movies like The Bourne Ultimatum, or American Gangster. (With that in mind, you can’t be upset with last year’s winner, The Departed, which was both excellent and quite mainstream.)

I know your column was kinda-sorta meant as a joke… but come on.