I think that the Oscars are written by pretty much the same people no matter who hosts, and even to the extent the writers change, there’s a set Oscar style that every host tries to fit into (with varying degrees of success). So no matter who is up front, the result is never that different from year to year. Some hosts and good and some suck, but the style doesn’t change much. I guess that’s partly just the nature of the enterprise- it’s unnecessary in the first place and the theater audience wants to be told how great it is. If the host doesn’t tickle everybody’s balls sufficienently (Jon Stewart’s first time, Chris Rock’s joke about Jude Law not being a real movie star), they get offended, and if the host is too respectful, it’s boring. I think some hosts don’t know what to do with it (or maybe James Franco was just really stoned).
And I think that 30 years ago, this would be a very interesting choice. Today I’m not sure I get it. I do know that I really dislike Brett Ratner.
I don’t watch the Oscars, ever. But I am curious. “What happened to Eddie Murphy?” is one of my enduring questions. (Comedically, not physically.)
It seemed he was trying to recreate himself as a kid’s entertainer, and while it made him good scratch, I can’t help but think that either his chops weren’t all that (hard to believe for someone who grew up listening to Delirious and Raw) or he sustained a brain injury that made him unfunny for life. I do think he was great in the Dreamgirls movie. Maybe he’s heading to Robin Williams territory - incredibly unfunny to me, but brilliant in dramatic roles.
To see a glimpse of 1980s Eddie would be fucking awesome.
I thought the same thing happened to Richard Pryor. His more “adult” comedies were great, but then he made several family-friendly comedies (The Toy, Superman III) that weren’t very funny.
My impression (not that I know what I’m talking about or anything) is that it depends on the host, and that some hosts and/or their own creative teams provide at least some of the material. At least, I’m having trouble imagining “Oprah… Uma” and “Would you like to buy a monkey?” originating with the standard Oscar committee.
As for Eddie Murphy, I don’t know whether it’ll work or not, but I’d like to see him try.
now that I’ve thought about it -
-maybe Academy feels that they snubbed Eddie since he didn’t win when he was nominated & he made a stink about it. Therefore he should be the obligatory next black host. [sarcasm]
-apparently Academy has given up on their ‘attract the youth’ effort w/James & Anne
-I think Neil Patrick Harris should host. or maybe Jimmy Fallon. They’ve both done excellent jobs on recent awards shows.
-wouldn’t it be great if instead of outfit changes ala Hathaway, that every time the show came back from a break, Eddie appeared as a different character - Gumby, Donkey, Mr. Robinson, etc. etc.
That was the Oscars for 1983. Apparently you were going on his SNL and standup career popularity, while my friend figured the Academy was cashing in on the post-Beverly Hills Cop hype. Now that I think of it, when was he the hottest commodity around that time?
My contribution? I thought, “…well, I thought Bowfinger was funny.” That’s from 1999. :smack: It’s the last thing he’s done that stands out in a positive way to me, barring his Shrek voicework.
That could actually work. Eddie’s always been at his best when (a) he’s been in front of a live audience and/or (b) he’s had the opportunity to play different characters.
Apparently you were going on his SNL and standup career popularity, while my friend figured the Academy was cashing in on the post-Beverly Hills Cop hype. Now that I think of it, when was he the hottest commodity around that time?