I'm a little horse.
Har har har. But seriously, yes, I have been struck down by a cold, and just could not bring myself to blog yesterday. (Although "blog" does sound like something you'd have to do when you have a cold. "Hold on a second! I'm gonna blog!")
However, this news did not pass me by. I'll be honest. I don't think the Academy Awards is the right gig for Chris Rock. Don't get me wrong, I think he's hilarious. But not so much when he's got to perform with a five-second delay, and when the crowd is filled with the uptight Hollywood "elite." I've seen him host the MTV Awards, and even then he kind of seemed like he was wearing a straight-jacket.
I think my favorite host of the past decade or so has been Steve Martin. (Next to David Letterman's one-time stint. Sue me. I thought he was hilarious.)
3 comments:
I, too, think he is the wrong guy..I mean if they want to go that "route", why not upstanding citizen Will Smith...or go all the way and get Denzel Washington (the new Sydney Poitier).
Well, I'm not going to start thinking of better black guys they could have chosen because that's not my point. I think Chris Rock is hilarious, when he's not censored. And obviously that's not going to happen for the Oscars.
Of course, it's not like the Oscars are known for their "class," (paging Rob Lowe and Snow White!) but I just think the ideal Oscar host is someone who's capable of being kind of bland. Chris Rock is not bland.
Choosing him is obvious an attempt to youthen up the show and get that "hip" audience, and perhaps it'll work. But part of what I LIKE about the Oscars is how old-school Hollywood (read: boring) it still is.
i agree that steve martin was the one good oscar host [at least in these modern times. like, i guess they might have had some good ones back in the 50s and such but i didnt see those, did i?].
Post a Comment