Academy Civil War Brewing Over 2012 Oscar Hosts?
The Great Oscar Host Debacle of 2011 remains an open wound today at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, from which Academy president Tom Sherak ruminated about the efficacy (or lack thereof) of James Franco, Anne Hathaway, and/or any comics who might have assumed their places. But the real fun starts, however, with the told-you-so moment supplied by an anonymous, "high-ranking Academy member."
"The choice of hosts is a convoluted affair. It is left completely to the producers and president. There is no discussion with the board of governors.
"A lot of us said Franco, who is a good actor, is the wrong guy when it was announced," the Academy member continues. "We questioned the TV value of both hosts, and it turned out to be right."
A committee deciding on the hosts is a "bad idea," according to Sherak.
"What you have to keep in mind is, when you hire producers, you have to have confidence they are going to put on the show you are looking for," he says. "Basically Don [Mischer] and Bruce [Cohen] put on the show they promised. [...] You can't do this by committee. You will never have everybody agree. There is no Bob Hope anymore."
Except... when there is. Anyway, Sherak is relatively sanguine about the end result of Sunday's show -- a 9 percent drop in ratings and a receiving line of critics holding their noses with one hand and swinging haymakers with the other. "We didn't have an Avatar or a Titanic this year," he told THR. "We had some really good movies that did a lot of business, but it is what it is. Next year, if there is a huge movie, you'll see more people."
I don't know about that. I'll give Sherak the Avatar factor to a degree, but not a hemorrhaging-four-million-viewers degree. And to be totally fair, Sherak accurately adds: "Go back and look at what these same critics have written: 'The Academy is afraid to take chances' and 'if the Academy doesn't get younger, they'll be off the air.' So when the producers came and said, 'We've got an idea,' we said, 'Great.' We tried something." But who is "we"? Literally only three guys make a decision that directly influences an 83-year-old institution, a major network, dozens of advertisers and must be sold at ground level to the average TV viewer/moviegoer? If you're chasing the youngs, how much insight and awareness can three industry lifers with a combined age of 182 actually bring to that effort without some input?
Moreover, what if last year's audience boost -- a five-year Academy Awards high -- in fact owed more to its hosts than its nominees? Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin weren't merely a couple of safe old Hollywood dudes (though they were that, too, thus reinforcing their Oscarcast creds among the old guard); Martin interweaves mass-market garbage (e.g. Cheaper By the Dozen and/or Pink Panther remakes) with prodigious art/literary/banjo-playing pursuits, while Baldwin is one of the Emmy-winning principals on arguably television's hippest comedy. Martin alone reaches more than twice as many followers on Twitter as Franco, while Baldwin was of enough value to the Academy to return as the linchpin of the short-film opener -- a.k.a. the best five minutes of the night. This all had to cross the trio's minds at some point.
Anyway, hats off to Sherak for taking at least bit of responsibility for the Franco/Hathaway mismatch and for his forthcoming acknowledgment that the hosts' "chemistry seemed to be off." At the same time: Get with the picture, Tommy. You don't need a "committee" for this, per se, but you do need to involve some fresh blood in the early stages of the host-selection sweepstakes. I'd volunteer my counsel, but I'd also scrap the host entirely, so that probably precludes me from the running. In any case don't expect to see this kind of public postmortem a year from now: something in this process will change. And if nothing else, Oscar night can only get better, right?
· Academy President Tom Sherak Defends Oscars Broadcast, Franco, Hathaway [THR]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Thought Hathaway was great. A fine mix of glamour, old-school daffiness and a modern sensibility.
I LOVED Anne Hathaway! I thought she was charming and natural. Not afraid to be a little silly. I don't think that James Franco quite knew what to do with her! She was delightful!
If that's the real personality of Anne Hathaway, what is she going to bring to Batman's Catwoman? Grinning smiles?
I think they should bring Baldwin & Martin, or any comedian. Hollywood takes itself too serious. I don't know if anybody would want to host in the future, because the producers have nixed out everybody possible.
The biggest problem lately with the Oscars is that Oscar-guessing has become a fulltime sport. And they're usually right! So why bother watching the show when you already know what or who will win the only awards anyone cares about: Best Picture, all four Acting categories and Best Animated Feature? If the Academy wanted people to watch, it needs to bring some surprise back to the race. Bump up the number of Acting nominees to 7 for each category. Add a bunch more people under the age of 40 to the Academy. And revamp the ballot-counting to make surprises more likely. People might not always be happy at the outcome, but they'll enjoy the show a lot more.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
The only reason I watched the Oscars this year was to see if Banksy would win for Doc and if Fincher would win for Director. I knew Inside Job and Hooper would probably win, but I had my fingers crossed for justice to prevail. It didn't and I tuned out after Best Director.
I knew how the rest of the awards would shake out months ago because of the endless amount of conjecture and speculation and just by casually noting the results of other award shows. And knowing the way the Weinsteins campaign.
It's like...if The Olympics had 10 or 20 mini-sporting events before the main Olympics. With all the same events. And all the same competitors. And endless commentary by noted Olympic experts. How am I supposed to be surprised when Bolivia takes the Bronze in the long jump?
Animated Feature is a joke. It's something like, you can only have 5 nominees if there's more than 15 submissions. That's why Disney stuck a Tinkerbell Direct to DVD flick in limited run before it's release. So they could submit it for as Best Animated Feature and hopefully score Tangled a spot alongside Toy Story 3. They shouldn't have to do stupid stuff like that. If you have more than 5 nominees, have 5 spots.
I just don't understand why anyone would watch or not watch the Oscars based on its hosts.
I'd like to nominate Simon Pegg and Nick Frost to host next year.
Bottom line the Academy did do one thing, bring OSCAR to the younger future viewers. Problem, is that, that is what they did. Doubt many will return next year unless there is film buzz.
Here is an idea .... Sandra and Ryan Reynolds
I second the motion -- Sandra Bullock would be perfect. She is witty without the attitude.
Neil Patrick Harris
Bonnie Hunt
Jimmy Fallon
Ellen DeGeneras (again)
Tina Fey (& Amy Poehler)
Jon Stewart (again)
Joel McHale
Steve Carell
Bette Midler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AComykpX7E
Why isn't the writers , producers, and director not taking most of the blame ? How can any host work with absolutely nothing to begin with ? Why are they blaming Anne Hathaway ? Anne is a charming triple threat performer , and she wasn't utilized properly - probably because they didn't want James Franco to feel left out. Anne was game for anything to get a laugh and entertain the audience, but she didn't have the material nor a co-host . Also, I heard Hathaway was entertaining the audience during the commercial breaks.
If the show was written, directed, and produced well, I could see a successful show with Anne partnering with Hugh Jackman, or partnering with Justin Timerlake, or even partnering with Robert Downey Jr. Hathaway gave her all that night and she proved that is the ultimate trooper.
they should get Eddie Murphy or Brendan fraser to host the 2012 oscars you can't go wrong with that.