On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Mark J. <[email protected]> wrote:
> What it means for the Oscars show is that they want movie stars > hosting this year and they don't want smartass late-night comics > who'll make jokes about "Sex and the City 2" and sequels in general. > On the other hand, I'm not sure that outside of Stewart, there's any > current late-night host who wants to do it (Dave) or will be allowed > in by the Academy (Chelsea Handler). I've posted this before - a few years ago Charlie Rose interviewed Conan O'Brien on his show. Charlie asked Conan if he wanted to host the Oscars and Conan said he didn't as it was a no-win situation. If you win over the live theater audience it doesn't bring new viewers to your show and if the live audience doesn't like you the media will rip you for your performance. The late night comics have figured out that their personal styles don't work at the Oscars and it isn't worth taking a shot any more. What the choice of Franco and Hathaway says to me is that the Academy is going young. When I started watching the Oscars in the early '70s it seemed the ceremony was the meeting place for all of Hollywood and a place where the older "Golden Age" generation was shown respect. >From the clips I've seen in recent years it seems the older generation is made up solely of Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
