Hugh Jackman to Host the Oscars!!

[terry78]

I had heard they were considering Ricky Gervais to host, which I think would have worked as well, as he has no problem being self deprecating and deprecating others as well. I am willing to see how Jackman does though. I know he can be funny and a little self deprecating in interviews(his combo of being an iconic comic book superhero and a song and dance man pretty much guaranteed that) and what not, but we'll see.

 

[Matt]

I had heard they were considering Ricky Gervais to host, which I think would have worked as well, as he has no problem being self deprecating and deprecating others as well. I am willing to see how Jackman does though. I know he can be funny and a little self deprecating in interviews(his combo of being an iconic comic book superhero and a song and dance man pretty much guaranteed that) and what not, but we'll see.

I'm sure Jackman can be self-deprecative...but I doubt he can be it towards others.

 

[Drizzle]

Every year, I hope and pray that they bring back Billy Crystal and they never do.

I was hoping for Ricky Gervais, but I'll take Jackman. It's a bit out of left field but I'd like to see what he does. I'd like to see Billy Crystal host again in the near future, though. I'd also like to see Conan O' Brien and Robin Williams host in the future as well.

 

[danoyse]

Oy, Matt...I don't even know where to start.

I've seen Jackman perform live. If you haven't, then you have no idea what the guy is capable of (and I don't mean YouTube clips). I have been going to Broadway shows since 1980, and I have seen a lot of so-called "A-listers" on stage. Hugh is the only one I've seen get a standing ovation during the show. And not just from theater-freaks, Wolverine fans, and crazed middle-aged women. The entire audience. I'm not even slightly exaggerating - he was that good.

Keep in mind his show did not get great reviews from critics. In fact the NY Times critic commented that Hugh's shoulders must be killing him from having to carry that show every night. But once word got out about that performance, it sold out every single night. They had to shut down rather than use the understudy when he went on vacation, and instead of recasting they actually just closed the show.

You cannot compare the raves he got on Broadway to the raves Clay Aiken got in Spamalot. Aiken had no theater background, and it was stunt casting for a show in box office trouble. And supposedly the rumor going around is that he actually hates the show.

Hugh has an extensive theater background in Australia, London, and NY. Watching him on stage, you can see how much he absolutely loves it. On top of giving this phenomenal performance, he had the opportunity to play with the audience and ad-lib and go completely off the wall every night.

If you've only seen him in the movies, you don't know the half of how talented the guy is. Again, it was like nothing I've seen on Broadway before, and I am a Broadway vet.

 

[danoyse]

she was briefly following the Trump/View fiasco...but she is still well liked enough and far better known than Jackman.

Rosie's new variety show was cancelled after one show because the ratings were abysmal, so I'm not sure how much the audience still loves her.

 

[danoyse]

Most people don't know who the **** Hugh is. He is not an A-lister. The character he plays is. People see him as Wolverine. The Prestige wasn't a box office hit and only made profit because of its low budget. The Fountain and Van Helsing both bombed. The X-Men series has been his only mainstream success in America. He doesn't have appeal that ranges across many markets because most people do not know who he is.

Here's a good article on it

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-critic13-2008dec13,0,6889365.story

And the middle aged market is the one that makes the Oscars. That is the rating demographic they need. The producers know they are not going to win 18-25. They need the same demographics that make CSI and Desperate Housewives a success.

Matt, that was a terrible article. It basically said that because Hugh is talented and can work a stage performance, that those are actually bad qualities for hosting the show. They're ripping a multi-award winning performance that sold out in NY every night - a good chunk of that audience are the demo that actually watches the Oscars - and lamenting not having the same hosts that have been dragging the show down for years now.

Keep in mind the YouTube performance mentioned in the article not only won him the Tony - he won an Emmy as well.

Suddenly being talented is a bad thing? Yes, he hasn't had huge box office success at the movies outside of X-Men, but clearly the talent is there, since at this point he's more well known for his stage work, where he's been extremely successful.

The ratings of the Oscars have been dropping every year - why not take a chance on it?

 

[Matt]

Oy, Matt...I don't even know where to start.

I've seen Jackman perform live. If you haven't, then you have no idea what the guy is capable of (and I don't mean YouTube clips). I have been going to Broadway shows since 1980, and I have seen a lot of so-called "A-listers" on stage. Hugh is the only one I've seen get a standing ovation during the show. And not just from theater-freaks, Wolverine fans, and crazed middle-aged women. The entire audience. I'm not even slightly exaggerating - he was that good.

Keep in mind his show did not get great reviews from critics. In fact the NY Times critic commented that Hugh's shoulders must be killing him from having to carry that show every night. But once word got out about that performance, it sold out every single night. They had to shut down rather than use the understudy when he went on vacation, and instead of recasting they actually just closed the show.

You cannot compare the raves he got on Broadway to the raves Clay Aiken got in Spamalot. Aiken had no theater background, and it was stunt casting for a show in box office trouble. And supposedly the rumor going around is that he actually hates the show.

Hugh has an extensive theater background in Australia, London, and NY. Watching him on stage, you can see how much he absolutely loves it. On top of giving this phenomenal performance, he had the opportunity to play with the audience and ad-lib and go completely off the wall every night.

If you've only seen him in the movies, you don't know the half of how talented the guy is. Again, it was like nothing I've seen on Broadway before, and I am a Broadway vet.

And I have not denied that he is talented in this thread. I just don't think a song and dance man, no matter how good, is the right person to host the Oscars.

Rosie's new variety show was cancelled after one show because the ratings were abysmal, so I'm not sure how much the audience still loves her.

I'd say its more a commentary on how little Americans want to see any kind of revival of the variety show genre. Which is really my point. If the producers are looking to turn the Oscars into a variety show, I believe it will bomb horrible. Hell, they've tried it before at a time when variety shows were still in and it bombed horribly then too.

Matt, that was a terrible article. It basically said that because Hugh is talented and can work a stage performance, that those are actually bad qualities for hosting the show. They're ripping a multi-award winning performance that sold out in NY every night - a good chunk of that audience are the demo that actually watches the Oscars - and lamenting not having the same hosts that have been dragging the show down for years now.

Keep in mind the YouTube performance mentioned in the article not only won him the Tony - he won an Emmy as well.

Suddenly being talented is a bad thing? Yes, he hasn't had huge box office success at the movies outside of X-Men, but clearly the talent is there, since at this point he's more well known for his stage work, where he's been extremely successful.

The ratings of the Oscars have been dropping every year - why not take a chance on it?

But just because he is talented doesn't mean it is the right kind of talent. No one is saying that being talented is a bad thing. That doesn't mean he has the right kind of talent to host the Oscars. I am a very talented boxer. Does that mean I can perform any kind of athletic event? Could I go and play for the Pittsburgh Steelers? Of course not, because I do not have talent in football, despite being very athletic and good at boxing. My contention is that Hugh's talent does not lend itself to this kind of show and you are going to see this year's Oscars be little more than a collective shout from Hollywood of "HEY EVERYONE! COME SEE HOW GREAT WE ARE!" That is what variety shows tend to be. Celebrities showing off. That is what the Oscars are by their very nature. When you have nothing to keep it in check like a comedian using a roast format...I think you're going to have trouble. You know that scene in Anchorman where Ron Burgandy screams "HEY EVERYBODY! COME SEE HOW GOOD I LOOK!" I can't help but think that's what this years Oscars are going to be with Jackman at the helm.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I think that Jackman hosting is a bad idea and getting rid of the comedy element will make the show damn near unwatchble.

 

[danoyse]

And I have not denied that he is talented in this thread. I just don't think a song and dance man, no matter how good, is the right person to host the Oscars.

He's hosted the Tony Awards - which is the format as the Oscars - 3 times, and won an Emmy for it. I've watched the Tonys and the Oscars for years. The only difference between the shows is number of live performances from the nominated shows. Outside of that it's the same self-congratulation party as any other awards show.

In fact, Bruce Vilanch is the writer responsible for most of the zingers on the Tonys AND the Oscars the last few years, so don't think they're not related.

I'd say its more a commentary on how little Americans want to see any kind of revival of the variety show genre. Which is really my point. If the producers are looking to turn the Oscars into a variety show, I believe it will bomb horrible. Hell, they've tried it before at a time when variety shows were still in and it bombed horribly then too.

If Rosie had put together that variety show during the height of her talk show's popularity, it would have done so much better. She's got too much baggage now, and people have had it with her. I was a fan of her old talk show, and I can't stand her anymore.

You can't assume they're turning the Oscars into a variety show just because they're taking out the opening monologue. Apparently he just got the offer this week, so no one knows what the exact plan for the show is.

But just because he is talented doesn't mean it is the right kind of talent. No one is saying that being talented is a bad thing. That doesn't mean he has the right kind of talent to host the Oscars. I am a very talented boxer. Does that mean I can perform any kind of athletic event? Could I go and play for the Pittsburgh Steelers? Of course not, because I do not have talent in football, despite being very athletic and good at boxing. My contention is that Hugh's talent does not lend itself to this kind of show and you are going to see this year's Oscars be little more than a collective shout from Hollywood of "HEY EVERYONE! COME SEE HOW GREAT WE ARE!" That is what variety shows tend to be. Celebrities showing off. That is what the Oscars are by their very nature. When you have nothing to keep it in check like a comedian using a roast format...I think you're going to have trouble. You know that scene in Anchorman where Ron Burgandy screams "HEY EVERYBODY! COME SEE HOW GOOD I LOOK!" I can't help but think that's what this years Oscars are going to be with Jackman at the helm.

And I'm saying that because I've seen him perform live on stage several times (which it doesn't sound like you have), I've watched those entire Tony telecasts he's hosted, and I've seen a hell of lot more of what he can do in front of an audience and that he's got incredible potential to be a great Oscar host. I just have a better perspective on it because I've seen a lot more of what he can do...and he's fantastic.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I thought I knew you. YOU TOLD ME YOU LOVED ME!

He's ok in small doses.

Touche. But that's the demographic they need. The coveted 18-24 demographic does not watch the Oscars. They will be watching Family Guy.

But I think they'd like to try and broaden their appeal and hell coffin dodgers like big Hugh!

If I remember right, he made a joke about Law, that Law laughed at. Then Penn came out on stage and more or less lectured Rock for it and then flicked him off while leaving stage. God, Penn is an ass hole. t:

he is the king of taking himself seriously! "I am not a mvoie star i am an ActOR!!!!"

As for Clooney...It was a few years back. He won for Syriana right after a video on black actors and their influence and accomplishments on cinema ran, and while accepting he went on some rant about how Hollywood is always ahead of the curve and were giving Sidney Pottier an Oscar before the civil rights movement and then went onto imply Hollywood was responsible for the civil rights movement.

Stretching there Mr Clooney.

As I respect that, so I suppose we must just agree to disagree.

 

[Captain Planet!]

I hope Conan hosts next year.

 

[FaT_tONle]

No more late night personalities... those guys are so overexposed... okay I'd give Conan a shot but I mean cmon... even guys like John Stewart... the political rhetoric gets pretty thin after awhile. Does anyone have originality anymore? Now that doesn't mean I am sold on Jackman... and I get that you need a name in there for the Oscars... but the late night guys need to stick to their shows... I mean what's next? Frank Caliendo? Jimmy Kimmel? Oh it will happen sooner than later...

 

[RKO]

I think that Jackman hosting is a bad idea and getting rid of the comedy element will make the show damn near unwatchble.

You have not seen Jackman do comedy. He can, and is very entertaining.

 

[DACrowe]

Matt, you are judging him solely on being Wolverine and then criticize those who support them for being rabid X-fans.

The man has incredible range. In his films you can see some interesting work for a leading man like in The Fountain, The Prestige, etc. as well as the occasional comic performance (that movie where he played a man from the 1700s transported to 2000 NYC).

But, as others have pointed out, you need to look at his live previous work as a live performer. The Boy from Oz is basically a comedy act where he sings, dances and breaks into unrehearsed and spontaneous jokes depending on the audience.

You talk about there being a large jump from hosting the Tonys to the Oscars? Try the jump between Broadway and Hollywood! Different mediums, different criteria. He went from Curly in West End's Oklahoma to action movie lead in X-Men. That is a huge jump.

I say, given his experience, let's give him the benefit of the doubt before ruling, "he'll just kiss ass and suck," with no proof. Because I'll be honest, Letterman, Whoopie and Ellen are all comedians and were all LOUSY, AWFUL hosts. And Jon Stewart who was really funny his first time, was stale and boring his second, but that may have been the writer's strike to be fair.

Let's give the "serious actor" a chance. Maybe he'll make the jump from one awards show to another.

I mean if Chris Rock can jump from MTV to the Oscars...

 

[DACrowe]

And I have not denied that he is talented in this thread. I just don't think a song and dance man, no matter how good, is the right person to host the Oscars.

Since when have song and dance men been bad for comedy? Does anyone remember Fred Astaire, the man many film historians credit as the entertainer of the 20th century (for better or worse)? What about the entire cast of Singin' in the Rain and we all know how seriously Gene Kelly really took himself? Danny Kay and Bing Crosby in White Christmas?

Since when has song and dance man meant he/they can't be funny?

 

[Cinemaman]

Finally they found someone perfect for such role!

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You have not seen Jackman do comedy. He can, and is very entertaining.

I meant getting rid of the opening monologue.