comment #1

christian says ...

how about just geting rid of pesky actors as presenters altogether? just a cavalcade of hip snarky silverlake under 40 edgy comics to remind people about the magic of motion pictures.

comment #2

cjKennedy says ...

When I hear over-the-hill ad executives toss around phrases like "relatable to young people", I can just see the gears turning in their heads as they try and think of ways to make the ceremony more like the MTV Movie Awards and I gag on the donut I'm eating for breakfast.

Sure the ceremony itself is ever only sporadically entertaining, but do we need to have poo throwing monkeys presenting the new award for "Best Fart Scene" in a movie?

Great, I've turned into a cranky old man before my time.

comment #3

Mr. Blood Vessel says ...

they should have stuck with jon stewart again this year.
he and the classic daily show team made it worth watching.

comment #4

christian says ...

just treat it like an awards show not a variety special.

comment #5

christian says ...

"Younger viewers live their lives pushing the envelope, breaking rules and bending rules,"

which rules? imagine having to listen to that bullshit all day. just brings you closer to hell.

comment #6

jeffmcm says ...

It doesn't matter who's hosting if the show still has the same producers, and is still structured as a rambling series of tribute speeches, tedious musical numbers, and too many montages.

comment #7

ArchiveGuy says ...

I love Sarah Silverman but she would be a disaster on the Oscars. She kills at the ISA because it's a relaxed atmosphere (which is more conducive to her frank/ribald comments) and there are few industry bigwigs, so she can piss on the studios and valorize the small guy. Most Academy types wouldn't "get" her and while the Spirits zip by for 2 hours, the Oscars are almost twice that--both variables that would end up eating away at her performance over the course of the night.

Heck, John Waters would be a better Oscar host than Silverman.

comment #8

donnyboy says ...

"Younger viewers live their lives pushing the envelope, breaking rules and bending rules"

By doing drugs, drinking, having sex, not using valets?

How dangerous! This generation sounds very, very unique, look out!

'The problem with the shows is that they lack any kind of spontaneity or 'buzz factor.'

Really?...No PR or HYPE has gone into the Oscars?

Who are these tools?

comment #9

NYCritic says ...

Maybe what should happen is that networks and guilds and whatever should dispense with the 99,000 other award shows leading up to the Oscars. Like it was back in the 70s, when the critics groups didn't really matter because hardly anyone outside the industry paid attention to them and the Golden Globes were still thought of as something of a joke. I already feel like I've seen the Oscars and the show hasn't aired yet.

And sorry but I don't "get" Sarah Silverman. I've seen her in movies, seen her on TV, her appeal escapes me.

comment #10

Howlingman says ...

I think the "problem" (if one can call it that) is that today's "young people" not to mention a significant number of older ones, just don't care about the Oscars and all the glitzy trash it entails.

Back in days of yore it was entertaining because it was the only place you could see the stars of the day on television, and LIVE. Now, with 24 hour tv, "E!" and the standard crop of gossip mags, there's no spark or thrill to seeing people you've probably seen a hundred times already without even looking.

As evidenced by its plummeting ratings I say stick a knife in the Oscar telecast as it's quite done. Knock it down to two hours and just run the major awards.

comment #11

christian says ...

silverman is funny, give it up, but she's about absolutely nothing and i love these la/ny suck up pieces putting her in the league with lenny bruce. she's dating jimmy kimmel fer god's sake.
she doesn't give a shit about anything exxcept circle jerking with hipster la comics.

but archive guy, JOHN WATERS is a brilliant choice.

he would kill. and it would be the most subversive radical thing in the academy's history.

JOHN WATERS!

comment #12

lionsfan says ...

Why the obsession with an event like the Oscars being "relevant" to the under 40 crowd, Jeff? (You've yelped like this before.) Honestly, sometimes you sound like the sort of desperate studio executive who in the 60's, in order to keep up, suddenly donned bellbottoms, in the 90's claimed to listen to Tupac. Surely, too, generations can coexist for such an evening. Or do you impute acute cinematic "sensitivity" solely to a certain age group? If so, then you're going to have to explain away all those millions who saw "Saw," "The Hills Have Eyes," various versions of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and Tyler Perry's movies.

And Shari Brill just sounds like a dimwit. Her remarks indicate nothing other than a craving for attention. But then, she's also id'ed as an "advertising executive." Now there's an employment group which has contributed mightily to Western, Judeao-Christian civilization.

comment #13

Rich S. says ...

The Miss America pageant, a similarly-bloated, self-important spectacle that used to play to millions on network television, played Monday night on cable network CMT.

Tastes change and maybe, just maybe, people no longer want to spend three hours of their time watching a bunch of politically-motivated backslapping that in actuality seldom rises above pinning a ribbon on the prize hog at the county fair. The Oscars had their day, but maybe that day is past.

comment #14

Mgmax says ...

"Younger viewers live their lives pushing the envelope, breaking rules and bending rules,"

I'm sorry, was this sociological insight or a commercial for new Totally XTreme Ocean Rush Lipton Tea?

comment #15

VedaPierce says ...

Sarah Silverman?! You've got to be kidding.

People tune in because of the pageantry. This kind of decadence needs a formal context in order to have consequence at all. Otherwise you get the VMAs.

As someone mentioned earlier, the ceremony was a huge deal back in the day because you rarely saw these people.

"OMG, is that Warren Beatty and Liv Ullmann?!"

"Now, here to sing the nominated song from The Deep, Lola Falana!"

And usually these people were glamorous and charismatic enough to make you care. Now we get bullshit presenters like Jennifer Garner, Claire Danes, Ryan Phillipe, Ashton Kutcher and other nonsense. Ugh, just kill me already.

comment #16

cjKennedy says ...

In terms of the show itself, I agree with Rich S, the glory days of the show being a cultural moment are as over as broadcasts of "Battle of the Network TV Stars".

But the awards themselves seem to have as much relevance as ever, at least it feels that way at least among the admittedly biased group of people who talk about movies on the internet.

Unless you're the network airing the show, who cares how many people watch? Among the people who do watch it, how much of the draw is the dog and pony show itself and how much is simply a rooting interest in the nominated films?

Skewing younger would be foolish unless the nominees appeal to that demographic anyway. How do you make The Queen seem hip? More likely 'the kids' would just catch the best bits on YouTube and the rest of the audience that is actually interested in the movies would be alienated.

If all they care about is drawing more viewers, don't televise the 'lesser' awards, minimize the extraneous nonsense and keep the show under an hour and a half.

comment #17

anti-sardine says ...

I'm so sick of everyone pandering to the under 30 crowd just because they are more irresponsible with their money than the old folks. The Oscars should to be glamourous, overly long and somewhat boring. What percentage of the nominated films were financed, produced, directed, shot, edited, scored, gaffed, best boy'd, advertised, booked or reviewed by under 30's anyway? Probably pretty low I'd guess. This is the once a year opportunity for Hollywood to dress up, show-off and pat each other on the back, even if their choices are not as cutting edge as many would like. (including myself) Leave the Oscars alone. That's why they have the MTV awards, so people that think they are smarter/hipper than everyone else can watch an awards show that thinks it's more clever than everyone else. If you try to turn it into the X-oSCARz, with snowboarding rappers between every presentation and lightsticks handed out to the crowd, then you might as well scrap the whole thing.

comment #18

VedaPierce says ...

Do you think they'll have Leo and Kate present an award together to honor the 10-year anniversary of Titanic? It would be a nice way to acknowledge the last time the Oscar ceremony was watched by anyone under 30.

comment #19

Pelham123 says ...

Isn't the Oscar telecast the #1 show the week it is aired year in and year out? There are about 500 other options of what to watch when the Oscars come on so the fact that it remains #1 should mean something. Why people are scratching their heads over "lost viewers" leaves me scratching my head.

comment #20

christian says ...

anti-sardine nails it. i'm sick of people saying, "just get rid of the lesser categories" -- well fuck you. the oscars, silly as they are, at least give some unsaluted members their shot at recognition.

and often, the "lesser category" winners make far better, more touching speeches.

the awards are not about the audience, they're about those nominated.

comment #21

donnyboy says ...

--the awards are not about the audience, they're about those nominated---

Totally agree.

comment #22

cjKennedy says ...

I agree with you Christian and I wasn't intending to slight the 'lesser categories'. Me, I like the boring show the way it is, I was simply suggesting an alternative to skewing younger because if they do that, I'll probably stop watching altogether.

comment #23

VedaPierce says ...

The Oscars are still big, it's the stars and pictures that got small.

In fact, the only time you see any real stars on the show anymore is during the death montage. After having to endure a presentation by Cameron Diaz, no wonder everyone claps so hard when they see Shelley Winters.

comment #24

jeffmcm says ...

Titanic is only 9 years old, not 10.

comment #25

VedaPierce says ...

It was released in 1997, so they could officially anoint this the 10-year anniversary.

comment #26

zoey says ...

Please God...bring back the interpretive dance numbers to honor the Best Song nominees!

comment #27

Mgmax says ...

Shouldn't the real concern be losing the gay audience due to the failure of Dreamgirls to get nominated? Screw 20somethings, it's gays who make Oscar a big deal.

comment #28

jeffmcm says ...

Titanic won its Oscars 9 years ago, so they will probably wait until then. 10 years ago, Cameron was frantically editing and trying to decide if he could make his 4th of July release date.

comment #29

Aladdin Sane says ...

I'm sure there were a few under 30s watching when Return of the King won...it's not that it's boring - it's that they aren't nominating films that under 30s typically flock to.
I'm 25, and one of my favourite films last year was The Fountain. Personally, I only know one person that is youunger and she said she liked it. Most of my peers are more content with saying their favourite film last year was Borat or Little Miss Sunshine.
Unless a big blockbuster is nominated (Titanic, LOTR etc), the general population probably doesn't care about Oscar.
If it became like the VMAs, I'd probably not watch. There's a time and a place for everything - and I also don't want to see Sarah Silverman host. Bring back Stewart, or better yet, have Stewart host with Colbert - now that would be a blast.

comment #30

Hallick says ...

Sarah Silverman (who seems to have the same damn article presenting her to the mainstream written about her every year! New project, article, project bombs, new project, article, project bombs, new project...) would probably tank at the Oscars due to whatever curse it is that hit Letterman, Rock and Stewart. But nothing will ever change for the better anyway as long as the show is produced by the usual suspects behind the scenes.

comment #31

christian says ...

i'm the only one who thought letterman was great -- he just didn't kowtow at all and that did not please the crowd...

comment #32

cjKennedy says ...

Oprah.....Uma. Uma.......Oprah.

That was classic comedy right there.

comment #33

Terry McCarty says ...

A few suggestions:
1. Multiple hosts
2. No more Chuck Workman montages
3. No dance numbers
4. Best Independent Film category for those
indies that aren't studio-boutique releases

comment #34

christian says ...

and here's a simple, yet brilliant suggestion:

show actual clips from the fuckin' films.

not the same ones you've seen a million times on E, but ones picked with loving care to show off the actors Or directors or whatever.

seriously, this is a no brainer but the clips have sucked for years.

comment #35

Mgmax says ...

Steve Martin was great because the audience could tell he was condescending to them, but couldn't quite get how.

comment #36

erniesouchak says ...

I would have approved of John Waters for the Oscars years ago, but now that he's super-smug "indie insider," running around Sundance as a figurehead for independence that no longer exists (if it ever actually did), I wouldn't want to see it. Steve Martin worked because he's Hollywood's idea of an intellectual and amusing to boot. I think Ellen will be OK. Personally, I never saw what the problem was with Whoopi. She did a well as anyone else has. As for "younger viewers," they're sheep looking for someone to follow. They shouldn't find that on the Oscars.