Page 1 of Yet more evidence that the people running the Oscars haven`t got a frickin clue

Billy Crystal`s out....

Chris Rock is in...

Anyone else think this might be the worst decision in Oscar history since Michael Clarke Duncan missed out on Best Supporting to Michael Caine?

============================
I ate what?


My Collection

This item was edited on Thursday, 14th October 2004, 22:52

ahhh well it was good whilst it lasted.

Good whilst it lasted? I thought the Oscars have always been the most long winded, self congratulatory, dull ceremony ever!

Give me the British Comedy Awards anyday. :)

Editor
DVD REVIEWER

"There has to be a balance between telling the truth and reassurance"
Home Secretary David Blunkett

You know what - I think Chris Rock is a good choice - he`s done a few of these shows and he doesn`t fail to entertain. As much as Billy Crystal is the Oscars - his last outing was a little bit staid.

Who would you want the role to go to????

At least Rock has been making movies since birth - David Letterman had a 2 second cameo in Cabin Boy!! He`s a part of the system even if "Head of State" and "Down to Earth" were a load of old tosh.

Rock On Rock!

From IMDB:

====================================

Oscar bosses are standing behind Chris Rock as their choice to host this year`s 77th Annual Academy Awards ceremony - despite the comedian calling the event a "fashion show" that is only watched by homosexuals. Head Of State star Rock made his controversial remarks to US magazine Entertainment Weekly, just two weeks before he presents the glitzy bash later this month. In the interview, Rock told the publication that Oscar ceremonies never hold his concentration for the duration, before deriding the annual event as "idiotic" and a pointless fashion parade. Rock said, "I never watched the Oscars, except the Halle Berry / Denzel Washington year. But even then, I went back and forth to other channels. Come on, it`s a fashion show. No one performs, it`s not like a music show. Nothing against people who aren`t straight, but what straight guy that you know really cares? Who gives a f**k? They`re clothes. What straight black man sits there and watches the Oscars? Show me one. And they don`t recognize comedy, and you don`t see a lot of black people nominated, so why should I watch it?" But Oscar producer Gil Cates yesterday dismissed reports that Rock`s comments had offended anyone at the Academy Of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences. He said, "The Academy is excited about Chris Rock hosting this year`s Oscar telecast and looking forward to a very funny evening with him. Chris`s comments over the past few weeks are meant to be humorous digs at the show that some people, obviously including Chris himself, think may be a bit too stuffy."

So one embarrassing presenter has been replaced with another embarrassing presenter at an event that is nothing more than an overblown ego-w***.

The ability of the Oscars to identify true talent can be demonstrated in a single salutory lesson. Take a look at a `top 100` poll of films and then look at the number of Best Picture Oscars amongst them. >:( I rest my case.

Accordingly, why does it matter who hosts such an event? In any case, in terms of entertainment it`s a non-starter. Toe-curlingly embarrassing acceptance speeches, unfunny jokes, and predictable results. Sorry, but I think even the Generation Game offered more entertainment.

Don`t you see what great entertainment this ceremony is going to be this year - Rock is alreay providing comedy.

He might actually have an effect on this long winded over-hyped self-congratulary nohing!

I think Rock is a great choice for all the reasons Stanz stated. I havent watched the oscars in years because I find it a long winded, self congratulating procession of bordom.

He was spot on with it being a fasion show that straight men dont watch.

But I think Chris Rock is funny and will probably be the only reason I watch it. He livens up the MTV awards and, lets face it, Billy Crystal is old and busted.