criterionforum.org

They're going as milquetoast as possible, I see. They've never quite found the right balance with the hosting of that show (though I'd argue that Jon Stewart was pretty much the perfect person for the job).

Can't believe they're still not letting Jimmy Kimmel host this

I doubt many of the people who make these decisions on the Academy side of things are young enough to know who Kimmel is.

Jimmy Kimmel, from the way Howard Stern has described parties at his home, is friends with a whole hell of a lot of very A-list actors and actresses, and would be a well-liked, friendly face for attendees to balance with his slightly edgy sense of humor. Would definitely be a good fit.

I have no doubt that this is true but those A-listers aren't making this decision, they're busy working. Kimmel will get his chance.

After the recent unpleasantness of Seth MacFarlane, zombie Billy Crystal, and Franco-Hathaway, I'm all for a return to the host being a sharp yet belovedly anodyne comedian. People like Bob Hope, Johnny Carson, Billy Crystal in his earlier years, and Whoopi Goldberg are perfect hosts for what is generally a staid, older-skewing show. And yet Kimmel does seem like a perfect middle ground between those kinds of hosts and the desperate grab for younger viewers with MacFarlane. He seems to be very well-liked in Hollywood, he did a good job with the Emmys last year, and you'd think ABC would want to promote their own (though I know they don't get to choose the host).

Black Hat wrote:I have no doubt that this is true but those A-listers aren't making this decision, they're busy working. Kimmel will get his chance.

Didn't mean to imply that they were, I'm just surprised he's not on the academy's radar because of his Q-rating (so to speak) among their most treasured guests.

I think Matt hit the nail on the head, they want to go back to someone they know exactly what they're going to get from before trying out someone new. I'd put money on Kimmel hosting it next year.

I've thought this many times. "Why don't they get Ellen Degeneres again?" I saw those Oscars with a bunch of classmates who weren't really cinephiles and they liked her and the show. Since then, everyone's complained about every show. Just go with what works, changing the host over and over again in some desperate scattershot bid to get certain ratings is self-defeating. At the very least, they'll probably have a good show (she has a good record for hosting awards shows in general), and you at least build up her "brand" as an Oscar host, so the ratings could very well improve in subsequent years if you string a few of them together.

The good thing about Kimmel not hosting is that means another great post-Oscar all-star skit to join I'm Fucking Ben Affleck, Movie: The Movie and especially whatever the workout one with all the hot actresses was called.

The first Movie: the Movie Kimmel aired post-show a few years back was funnier than anything that's ever aired on the Oscars in all ceremonies combined

Wouldn't the academy just take the funny away from him?

He does a good job of that himself.

domino harvey wrote:Hopefully this at least deflects liberal guilt noms away from the Butler, which I can't believe is still actually considered an Oscar sure thing by many

Unfortunately, Butler just the right kind of middlebrow mediocrity (liked by many, strongly disliked by no one) that the Academy loves, so it may have a fighting chance. Still, there's plenty of time between now and January, so it could easily turn into an also-ran that only gets pity nominations for Best Makeup and Costume Design.

The Weinsteins have pulled too many coups for me not to believe they could manage a few solid nominations, and the Academy would revel in the chance to have Oprah in attendance.

She is already an Oscar nominee, so I'm sure it'll happen

Not to mention two of the last three winners have been Weinstein films. I'm 100% that it will at least get nominated and probably snag Oprah a support win.

I've said this a thousand times already but unless something goes horribly awry in the adaptation Margo Martindale will win Best Supporting Actress for August Osage County-- the role is manufactured to win whoever plays it awards and has for as long as it has been performed

Some of the Oscar prognosticators were predicting that Julia Roberts and Meryl Streep will be run in the actress and supporting actress categories, respectively, in order to avoid the inevitable dilemma of splitting the vote. I'd worry that Streep might crowd out Martindale with popularity votes if it came to them both being supporting actress contenders.

While that makes a kind of sense when predicting a film sight unseen, I suspect anyone who's read or seen the play knows where to place bets

domino harvey wrote:I've said this a thousand times already but unless something goes horribly awry in the adaptation Margo Martindale will win Best Supporting Actress for August Osage County-- the role is manufactured to win whoever plays it awards and has for as long as it has been performed

Like watching her upcoming CBS sitcom?

Lansbury is so good. I'm honestly surprised she hasn't been awarded before.