How would you fix the Academy Awards? [Archive]

sithgoblin

02-26-2008, 03:48 PM

Over the years, the Academy Awards have made some amazing gaffes (like making some winners accept their award from the aisle - wtf!), but fortunately they have been isolated to individual years. However, there are some fundamental problems with the Oscars as a whole that I think should be fixed.

1. Don't drown out the winners with music
Jon Stewart did a commendable thing when he let that woman back on stage to give her acceptance speech. It's the winner's night, for christsakes. Let them have their moment. That's what it's all about, celebrating their talent. If you want to save time, how about less focus on the inane presenter banter - which is always lame - and more on the winners?

2. Don't perform every Best Original Song nomination live
This is a huge snoozefest for me, and also an annoying one. This isn't a music awards show, it's a film awards show. And they don't play complete cues for the original film score nominations, they place short excerpts. They should do the same for Best Original Song. If they want to honour them so badly, they could perform the winner live, but performing every damn song is time that could be spent on other things - like, oh I don't know, letting the winners give an acceptance speech? Or just making the show not go overtime?

Anyone else?

Raiden

02-26-2008, 04:15 PM

I agree with your suggestions. I also think they should move the show along briskly and cut out montages that just seemed to prolong the show. I also think they should bring John Stewart back; having a competent host can help increase the enjoyment of the show.

Spider-Fan

02-26-2008, 04:16 PM

No more stupid montages :o

Keep the ones for the people that died in the past year, the honorary award, etc. But none of the crappy ones they do (tribute to gay cowboys, people having bad dreams, etc).

BatSpider

02-26-2008, 04:17 PM

Best Superhero Movie/ Best Blockbuster Category :oldrazz:

tzarinna

02-26-2008, 04:18 PM

I like the montages. :csad:

chaseter

02-26-2008, 04:19 PM

I like the montages. :csad:
I do to...just not after every commercial break:o

I would hire multiple hosts, maybe 2-3 like Chevy Chase, Steve Martin, Conan, Colbert, Letterman, etc...John Stewart clearly had no set and his jokes that he 'winged' were awful.

Spider-Fan

02-26-2008, 04:20 PM

I like the montages. :csad:

I like the ones for the people that died and the honorary ones...but the other ones that are just supposed to be funny are stupid. THAT IS WHAT THE HOST IS FOR!!!

chaseter

02-26-2008, 04:21 PM

I like the ones for the people that died and the honorary ones...but the other ones that are just supposed to be funny are stupid. THAT IS WHAT THE HOST IS FOR!!!
Like how John Stewart said that if it wasn't for the writers being back, they would have more dumb montages...yet there was still one every 10 minutes:o

terry78

02-26-2008, 04:23 PM

When you say "fix." You mean so every year Denzel and DiCaprio gets one, right?

Superhero Hype!

02-26-2008, 04:55 PM

terry78

02-26-2008, 04:56 PM

Actually nominate movies that people care about? And while I love Jon Stewart (seriously, I watch the Daily Show all the time), I think they need a host like Billy Crystal that can perform and do a GRAND entrance.

I think they're swinging away from the Steve Martins and Billy Crystals because they want someone the youngsters can relate to. Someone ironically funny. You seriously think they'd try to bring Crystal back?

Catman

02-26-2008, 05:00 PM

they don't play complete cues for the original film score nominations

I remember a time when they DID do that. In fact...I remember 10 years ago they had dancers perform to the nominees. I'll never forget a bunch of dancers in suits and dark glasses dancing to Danny Elfman's Men In Black theme. :heart:

No more stupid montages :o

Agreed. I like the montages but they over do it.

I think they need a host like Billy Crystal that can perform and do a GRAND entrance.

Agreed. Billy Crystal was the best. Steve Martin, Whoopi, Ellen, Jon Stewart, etc haven't lived up to the greatness that was Billy Crystal. Chris Rock was close but I missed the song and dance.

cerealkiller182

02-26-2008, 05:02 PM

Dont be so bias towards comedies. Only thing I would change

Catman

02-26-2008, 05:03 PM

they want someone the youngsters can relate to.

They should bring back Chris Rock or get Conan. Or maybe even Colbert.

matthooper

02-26-2008, 05:06 PM

Not about the show but the process. No mater what the perception is, most academy members do not see the majority of films nominated. That's a fact. They vote on hype and recomendations. Much of the Acedemy is made up of old geezers who neither go to see the noms or know how to use the DVD's that the Academy sends them. The rest are stars and workers who do not have the time to see the films.

A friend of mine has an uncle in he Academy, he was a cinematographer in the 60's. My friend told me he voted for No Country For Old Men because and I quote, "was the favorite and it had to be good", he never saw it.

I don't know what he answer is, but when you have people voting on films they have not even seen, I think that's a bigger problem than the host or a montage.

cerealkiller182

02-26-2008, 05:06 PM

Montages funny? Are we seeing the same montages? I dont believe that this is their point. The point of the montages is to honor cinema which is what the whole point of the show is in the first place.

YsoSerious

02-26-2008, 05:14 PM

We don't need entire performances of " song of the year ", just a snippet from the film will do. Also, quit showing Jack Nicholsen wearing his shades every 2 minutes.

cerealkiller182

02-26-2008, 05:17 PM

We don't need entire performances of " song of the year ", just a snippet from the film will do. Also, quit showing Jack Nicholsen wearing his shades every 2 minutes.

I like that the performances are played. This is suppose to be a show afterall.

terry78

02-26-2008, 05:18 PM

That year Robin Williams covered Blame Canada was one of the better ones. Those should be kept, because usually the songs are pretty good.

Prison Mike

02-26-2008, 05:19 PM

Get Conan as host next year!

Matt

02-26-2008, 05:23 PM

Two words:

CONAN DAMNIT! :cmad:

FaT_tONle

02-26-2008, 05:53 PM

Ellen Degeneres should never host again... she was not very entertaining last year... but if they need a woman in there which they probably do then keep her I guess... the third person in the rotation should probably be Conan but I wouldn't mind some new blood... I don't like Chris Rock that much either...

Drizzle

02-26-2008, 07:27 PM

Actually nominate movies that people care about?

:huh:

Tons of people cared about "Juno", "No Country", and "There Will Be Blood".

Catman

02-26-2008, 07:30 PM

:huh:

Tons of people cared about "Juno", "No Country", and "There Will Be Blood".

Not the general public. Juno was the ONLY movie people have seen of the five movies nominated. No wonder when Titanic was nominated it was the highest rated Oscar telecast.

Movies205

02-26-2008, 07:31 PM

Actually nominate movies that people care about?

You suck, sorry, no explanation is needed when you make a stupid statement like that.

Explanation: I'm bored... The oscars are not meant to nominate movies people care about, if you want that then go watch the PEOPLE's Choice Award. The Oscars pick the BEST movies of the year whether people care or not doesn't matter. These are movies chosen by the artists themselves. Now whether those movies are actually the best is another matter but that's not what you said. So this is why your statement is so undeniably dumb.

Super_Ludacris

02-26-2008, 07:33 PM

There was nothing wrong with Stewart, dude got great reviews. smh@ people so desperate for Conan to be mainstream.

Super_Ludacris

02-26-2008, 07:36 PM

You suck, sorry, no explanation is needed when you make a stupid statement like that.

Ironically his reason is the reason why many people thought no one watched the show if you read the papers and the online articles yesterday. Most people didnt know about No Country and Blood until like a month ago. I mean thats not saying I agree with him at all, but as horrible as it sounds.......that was kinda reason no one watched.

odiin

02-26-2008, 07:36 PM

What I would change would actually be the voting process itself. I know that the whole Super delegate thing gets a lot of flack in the democratic primaries, but I think something like that could work in the Academy awards:

In order to prevent a repeat of 2005 where the voters where Crash won best picture because the voters were split on the other movies, there should be a special council of like 9 randomly selected voting members who discuss all the movies face to face like a jury until at least 2/3 of them can agree on one movie to put forward as their selection, and then their vote counts for like 5-10% of the total which would eliminate the chances of one relatively crappy film getting through because people couldn't choose between the 4 good ones.

Movies205

02-26-2008, 07:39 PM

Ironically his reason is the reason why many people thought no one watched the show if you read the papers and the online articles yesterday. Most people didnt know about No Country and Blood until like a month ago. I mean thats not saying I agree with him at all, but as horrible as it sounds.......that was kinda reason no one watched.

I'm not disagreeing on whether people care or not but the truth of matter is that shouldn't matter, it's not the Oscars fault that people can't appreciate good movies.

odiin

02-26-2008, 07:39 PM

Not the general public. Juno was the ONLY movie people have seen of the five movies nominated. No wonder when Titanic was nominated it was the highest rated Oscar telecast.

Yes. Lets nominate inferior movies simply so we can get higher ratings on the television.

terry78

02-26-2008, 07:41 PM

Well, last year people were all up on Departed's nuts, and every year there's that one movie that garners controversy, like Brokeback, etc. This year we just had Juno to be honest. And middle America ain't all into the artsy-fartsy stuff that wins awards.

Kahran Ramsus

02-26-2008, 07:41 PM

I don't think there is much that needs fixing. While there are times where I disagree with the decision that the Academy makes, it is still much preferable to practically any other award show out there. We don't need the Oscars to turn into a complete farce like the People's Choice Awards.

KenK

02-26-2008, 08:28 PM

Figs

02-26-2008, 08:33 PM

One thing I can think of to change is to get rid of those god damn musicals.

Were watching to see who wins and whatnot. Why in the holy hell must they waste time showing some lame ass showtunes?!!?

It's because of **** like that that they said they only had time to show 50 out of I'm sure many more film makers/actors who passed away last year.

That and rushing people on their speeches...only use the band if their really getting carried away. Other than that give them some decent time at least.

cerealkiller182

02-26-2008, 08:36 PM

Add "Best Stuntwork" to the technical Oscars. Those guys deserve major accolades, seeing has how several stunt performers have died for their profession. The risk, and their dedication needs recognition.

They talked about putting it in the big show but "talking heads" were talking about how the show was already to long. I think editing and maybe sound should be moved to the technical awards to make room for stuntwork since the general audience can prolly gauge it better. Like Stewart said when the editing award was handed out, "Someone just got the lead in their Oscar pool on a guess"

Drizzle

02-26-2008, 08:43 PM

Add "Best Stuntwork" to the technical Oscars. Those guys deserve major accolades, seeing has how several stunt performers have died for their profession. The risk, and their dedication needs recognition.
I agree. Stuntwork is a much more important category than some of the ones they already have, like Best Sound Editing. BTW, why can't they just combine Best Sound and Best Sound Editing into one category?

terry78

02-26-2008, 08:46 PM

Because stuntwork implies that you're awarding a non-artsy film. Most flicks that involve stuntwork are lowbrow, according to the higher-ups.

cerealkiller182

02-26-2008, 08:49 PM

Because stuntwork implies that you're awarding a non-artsy film. Most flicks that involve stuntwork are lowbrow, according to the higher-ups.

Thats the dumbest thing I have ever head. Indiana Jones, Die Hard, War movies,etc are considered great cinema. Stuntwork is a challenging field and deserving of awards. Excluding them is like excluding the writers. Bourne won a bunch of Oscars, it had stuntmen, they would have definitely clinched it. Transformers and Spiderman 2 have been nominated in the past also.

And the higher ups keep making them,so they cant hate them that much

02-26-2008, 08:52 PM

Either get Billy Crystal to host, or let Conzie Wonzie take a stab at it.

Drizzle

02-26-2008, 08:56 PM

Yeah, Billy Crystal needs to come back. I love when they digitally insert him into the movies. Unfortunately, more often than not, the dude loves to get naked in those clips(see the 2004 Oscars for reference), but they're still hilarious.

I don't know why some of you are criticizing John Stewart, though. I thought he did better than the first time he hosted, and I also thought he did a better job than both Ellen DeGeneres and Chris Rock. Chris Rock did okay, but the thing people remember most about when he hosted the Oscars is when Sean Penn pwned him about his Jude Law comments. I still remember that.

Figs

02-26-2008, 09:00 PM

What did Sean Penn say? I don't remember hearing that...probably because Penn is always sticking his nose in others business instead of sticking to what he knows...acting.

terry78

02-26-2008, 09:03 PM

Thats the dumbest thing I have ever head. Indiana Jones, Die Hard, War movies,etc are considered great cinema. Stuntwork is a challenging field and deserving of awards. Excluding them is like excluding the writers. Bourne won a bunch of Oscars, it had stuntmen, they would have definitely clinched it. Transformers and Spiderman 2 have been nominated in the past also.

And the higher ups keep making them,so they cant hate them that much

What's your theory as to why it's not an award, dude?

Drizzle

02-26-2008, 09:03 PM

What did Sean Penn say? I don't remember hearing that...probably because Penn is always sticking his nose in others business instead of sticking to what he knows...acting.

Early in the show Chris Rock said something like "Back in the day, we had classy movie stars and now we've got Jude Law! Who is Jude Law anyway, and why is he in every movie?" Nobody laughed.

This pissed Penn off and when he went to the stage later he said something like "In regards to what our host (and he said host with such a grimace on his face too) said earlier, Jude Law is one of our finest actors." The audience applauded.

Figs

02-26-2008, 09:05 PM

Thanks Drizzle. It's been awhile and I couldn't remember what had gone down. Good part on Penn!

Have to agree that was a really low blow from Chris Rock.

cerealkiller182

02-26-2008, 09:07 PM

What's your theory as to why it's not an award, dude?

Falling ratings coupled with a growing running time.

Or just like everyone else that works below them, they believe them to be expendable and interchangeable.

I just cant see them skipping it due to the body of work that uses them since those movies still get nominated: Transformers, Spiderman 2, Bourne Identity, Lord of the Rings.

02-26-2008, 09:09 PM

I enjoyed Ellen immensely. . .

02-26-2008, 09:10 PM

chaseter

02-26-2008, 09:13 PM

There was nothing wrong with Stewart, dude got great reviews. smh@ people so desperate for Conan to be mainstream.
Conan is mainstream:huh: And the Colbert Report has surpassed the Daily Show in viewers:huh:

DieSmiling

02-26-2008, 09:16 PM

Thats the dumbest thing I have ever head. Indiana Jones, Die Hard, War movies,etc are considered great cinema. Stuntwork is a challenging field and deserving of awards. Excluding them is like excluding the writers. Bourne won a bunch of Oscars, it had stuntmen, they would have definitely clinched it. Transformers and Spiderman 2 have been nominated in the past also.

And the higher ups keep making them,so they cant hate them that much

LOL... I love Die Hard as much as the next dude, but it doesn't belong in the same sentence as "great cinema."

Drizzle

02-26-2008, 09:18 PM

LOL! I do remember a time when Jude Law was in a every damn movie.

Yeah, he was like the white Samuel L. Jackson.

Figs

02-26-2008, 09:19 PM

LOL... I love Die Hard as much as the next dude, but it doesn't belong in the same sentence as "great cinema."

Have to agree. As much as I love Die Hard, and I'm a really big Willis fan...it isn't really a great in cinema as a whole.

It definetly is an action great or even one of the greatest action films, if I must say so myself but not in cinema overall.

Drizzle

02-26-2008, 09:19 PM

LOL... I love Die Hard as much as the next dude, but it doesn't belong in the same sentence as "great cinema."

Bite your tongue, sir. "Die Hard" is one of the greatest action films of all time. It more than qualifies as great cinema. :cmad:

Movies205

02-26-2008, 09:20 PM

LOL... I love Die Hard as much as the next dude, but it doesn't belong in the same sentence as "great cinema."

I study film so I'm going go with yes Die Hard is great cinema :)

KenK

02-26-2008, 09:21 PM

Because stuntwork implies that you're awarding a non-artsy film. Most flicks that involve stuntwork are lowbrow, according to the higher-ups.

You do realize Norbit was nominated for an Oscar, right?

cerealkiller182

02-26-2008, 09:22 PM

LOL... I love Die Hard as much as the next dude, but it doesn't belong in the same sentence as "great cinema."

Why? Its one of the greatest action movies ever. The stunt work and the effects were both practical and better than most today,as well as looking amazing on screen. John McLane was witty, likeable, grounded, and was easily relatable. Fast tracked the career of one of the bigger movie stars today. Had an impressive villain performance. It also created a precedent that most action movies are pitched with: Die hard on a boat, on a plane, in space, etc. What is there that makes you think its not great cinema?

tzarinna

02-26-2008, 10:09 PM

http://blog.spout.com/2008/02/25/ways-to-boost-the-oscar-ratings/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/movies/awardsseason/24scot.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.forbes.com/digitalentertainment/2006/03/01/oscars-black-market_cx_lr_0301blackmarketoscars.html

The Dark Defender

02-26-2008, 10:19 PM

You suck, sorry, no explanation is needed when you make a stupid statement like that.

More of an accurate statement actually. Most films that they nominate are simply not very good, toppled with bs like what matthooper pointed out about the academy and how choices are made, the so called "award" is a crock...to put it nicely.

It's far stupider to take them seriously than to point out the obvious as he was doing. Oscars are no more about film quality than the Razzies are. I can't help but shake my head whenever someone brings up those irrelevant little trophies in a discussion about how good or bad a film is.

Reviews are also often used for this, and a determining factor in nominations, and I lost track of how many times that I've seen these so called "professionals" make objectively inaccurate statements that anyone with a brain and a set of eyes that was paying attention could've clearly seen was not the case.

I almost feel sorry for people that actually bring up this garbage when trying to argue their case for or against a film. It's undeniably dumb.

Pointing out "well it won a bunch of Oscars" or "it has a great rating on rotten tomatoes" has about as much to do with quality as saying "kittens are fluffy" or "pickles are green."

Drizzle

02-26-2008, 10:25 PM

Most films that they nominate are simply not very good.
Okay, if you say that, then I doubt you've even seen any of this year's best picture nominees.

The Dark Defender

02-26-2008, 10:33 PM

Okay, if you say that, then I doubt you've even seen any of this year's best picture nominees.

I'm speaking in general, not specifically toward this year in particular. Juno was an excellent comedy and No Country for Old Men was very good, although I didn't care for the ending.

Shifty

02-26-2008, 10:47 PM

Like how John Stewart said that if it wasn't for the writers being back, they would have more dumb montages...yet there was still one every 10 minutes:o

I'd only accept montages in anniversary years (?0th, ?5th) like this past show, it was the 80th.

When you see predictions for Oscars it usually deals with the acting, directing and picture. The hardcore predict the other categories even though they have no right or idea what makes a film have the best sound editing or mixing.

Solution for saving time and ratings: have an afternoon ceremony that can be broadcast online in the Kodak Theatre with the technical awards that the majority of the viewers could careless about. Look at at all the time that could be saved by moving the acceptance speeches, announcing the nominations and presenters to the afternoon. Sure those in live action short might be pissed off to be bumped but they could be given longer time to give thank yous and they could always have a moment in the live broadcast to review the 13 awards given out in the afternoon and they still can go to an Oscar party later that night. Hell they can start early!

Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Original Screenplay
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Animated Feature
Best Animated Short
Best Art Direction
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Documentary Feature
Best Documentary Short
Best Film Editing
Best Foreign Language Film
Best Live Action Short
Best Makeup
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Sound Editing
Best Sound Mixing
Best Visual Effects
Academy Honorary Award

I TiVoed the Oscars this year and was done in less than two hours. I watched all Jon Stewart, the montages and most acting awards, the screenplay, and didn't bother with most speeches. Plus the commercials.

Then once the format has been changed, revise the way the films are nominated and voted on.

Canadian Rider

02-26-2008, 10:48 PM

One giant Cage match. :)

Superhero Hype!

02-27-2008, 12:15 AM

You suck, sorry, no explanation is needed when you make a stupid statement like that.

I do huh. Then tell me why the ratings for the year Titanic was nominated were so high? I'm simply answering the question stated at the beginning of this thread--- how would YOU fix the Awards. I never said No Country or any of the movies nominated this year were not good. In fact, some are fantastic, but if ABC and the Academy want ratings, they are going to have to change some things.

And to comment on the above posts, I think Conan would be a brilliant host. He would definitely do the sketches/video montages with him in it that people loved about the Billy Crystal days.

the a1ant

02-27-2008, 12:42 AM

Yeah, Conan would be a great host.

The Academy Awards needs a serious overhaul. Their vierwship numbers are getting worse and worse every year, with this year being one of the worst. Next year, they should think outside the box and do something unique and unexpected.

Shifty

02-27-2008, 01:05 AM

I do huh. Then tell me why the ratings for the year Titanic was nominated were so high? I'm simply answering the question stated at the beginning of this thread--- how would YOU fix the Awards. I never said No Country or any of the movies nominated this year were not good. In fact, some are fantastic, but if ABC and the Academy want ratings, they are going to have to change some things.

Well ABC just has to accept that like everything, except the Super Bowl, ratings for television will go down. Logically the People's Choice Awards would be the most watched award show but it isn't. It does craptacular compared to the Oscars. It will be interesting when the PVR ratings come out next week to see where the Oscars placed.

And to comment on the above posts, I think Conan would be a brilliant host. He would definitely do the sketches/video montages with him in it that people loved about the Billy Crystal days.

I think these comedians have respect for each other's work and would never "copy/steal" their material. That's why no one has done anything like Crystal though nothing is stopping them.

Jon Stewart was in bed with Halle Berry/George Clooney At the Emmys, Conan showed up at the sets of certain shows but with movies it could be hard but he's creative something could be done where he interacts with the characters somewhere but even with better technology I don't think we'll see Conan inserted into films.
They could always do a passing of the torch with Crystal and Conan. I do love those introductions and especially the out of nowhere cameos like David Letterman and Kevin Costner.

The introduction to the this year's Oscars, blending all these iconic or well known images in a race to get to the Academy Awards. Something like that could've been good with Conan.

Another thing could be people have finally given up tuning into famous people getting awards. Who cares?

I did like Harrison Ford's quote about not winning an Oscar in the horrible Barbara Walters interview prior to the show. He would rather win the respect of his peers on the set, then on the screen.

Mr. Crumb

02-27-2008, 02:17 AM

I think if the Academy actually lets these "lowbrow" movies be eligible for awards like art direction, makeup, original score, costume design...maybe more people will care.

I mean...how many awards will these idiots give out to costumes that are gowns and dresses from the middle ages or the early 1900's, etc etc. I mean...yeah they are nice, but how many times will we see these kind of movies get nominated and win this kind of award? Its every year!!

How bout science fiction movies or horror movies to be let into these awards? I mean, the costumes for those movies is derived simply from imagination itself. There is no basis in history for this almost! Its simply ridiculous that these kind of movies are ignored for categories such as this.

Horror movies should be eligible for makeup...I mean...c'mon! There is more hard work to make a horror movie work for makeup than a period piece movie. Gimmie a break. If those period piece movies are so "realistic", makeup is wouldnt have been used extensively back then, or it would look horrible anyways.

Until the Academy starts allowing stuff like that to be eligible, I wont give a rats ass about the Oscars.

Catman

02-27-2008, 02:39 AM

Early in the show Chris Rock said something like "Back in the day, we had classy movie stars and now we've got Jude Law! Who is Jude Law anyway, and why is he in every movie?" Nobody laughed.

This pissed Penn off and when he went to the stage later he said something like "In regards to what our host (and he said host with such a grimace on his face too) said earlier, Jude Law is one of our finest actors." The audience applauded.

The Oscar audience is too stuck up. Everytime Chris Rock made fun of people at the MTV Video Music Awards everyone was laughing their ass off. Chris Rock was great for people watching at home, but not for the people sitting in the audience.

Logically the People's Choice Awards would be the most watched award show but it isn't.

um...no. People's Choice Awards honor the summer blockbusters. There's a difference between honoring movies the general public likes and summer blockbusters. People assume its the same thing but it is not. Look at Juno. That was not a summer blockbuster yet it was a movie that general public loved and it will probably become a bigger classic than the other movies nominated in the best picture category.

Also, the other problem with the People's Choice Awards is that they take themselves "a little" too seriously. The MTV Movie Awards are basically the same thing as the People's Choice Awards but the difference is that MTV accepts that their award is crap and just makes an effort to do a fun awards show.

Catman

02-27-2008, 03:00 AM

Of all the problems with the Academy Awards it's fair to assume that their biggest is the lack of respect for comedies. The Academy needs to realize that a great comedy will usually out-live a great drama. Example: What was the best picture winner of 1986? Platoon...if I'm not mistaken. Platoon is a great movie. It most likely deserved to win the Best Picture Oscar. Now...think about how many times you've seen that movie? Do you have an estimated number? Good. Now...think about how many times you've seen 1982's Stripes with Bill Murray.

Super_Ludacris

02-27-2008, 03:22 AM

Conan is mainstream:huh: And the Colbert Report has surpassed the Daily Show in viewers:huh:

The Daily Show comes on CNN International 3 times a week so dude has a bigger international audience. Ever since 04 he's kinda crossed over. I think from a wider audience. Look I like Conan a lot, thats my dude right there but lol@ him ever hosting the Oscars, not yet anyway. They'll wait till the Peacock sterilises him in 2009...

Super_Ludacris

02-27-2008, 03:26 AM

I'm not disagreeing on whether people care or not but the truth of matter is that shouldn't matter, it's not the Oscars fault that people can't appreciate good movies.

Oh dont get me wrong, your 100% right but in the words of Rev Run: Ehhhh Whatchagonnado?.

This was just one of those years where the Academy did a lot of right things and people still had apathy over the show. Im looking at some of the live blog notes from movie sites, a lot of people said that although the Academy got all the winners (mostly) right and there was no outrage and the telecast was (seemingly) shorter than previous years and some of the over indulgent song and dance numbers were kept away......it still all felt kinda "meh"

Its simply one of those damn if you do, damned you dont moments, ya know?

Jake Cassidy

02-27-2008, 03:29 AM

Catman

02-27-2008, 03:32 AM

Its simply one of those damn if you do, damned you dont moments, ya know?

Conan would have fixed that. :yay:

Super_Ludacris

02-27-2008, 03:44 AM

Conan would have fixed that. :yay:

Uh, no.

Love the dude and his show but they'll look at Billy Crystal, Jon Stewart or someone before they get Conan. I'll be pleasently suprised and happy to be proven wrong but lol@ him hosting the Oscars. Its such a long shot at this moment. Maybe when he hosts the Tonight Show (and who knows how he'll be then) but for next year or something? Probably.