Jon Stewart to Host Oscars for Second Time
Filed under: Awards, RumorMonger, Newsstand, Oscar Watch
According to a story in The New York Times (who, surprisingly enough, have appeared to scoop the scoopers, and their scoopers), The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will announce today that Jon Stewart will be invited back to host the Oscars this year. The event, which is scheduled to air on ABC this coming February 24, will mark Stewart's second time hosting; he last took the reigns reins back in 2006. Although this is The New York Times, I do have to throw out the requisite "rumor" warning since they claim their sources are "two people involved with the plan who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to talk to the news media." And I imagine those two people would suffer a major beatdown if someone were to find out who they were. It was you Colbert! Wasn't it! Damn you! Damn you I say!
So now we have to raise the obvious question: Should Stewart be back? Last time out the man was fairly well received, but not according to the numbers. Last year, Ellen DeGeneres helped score the show 39.9 million viewers, whereas Stewart took in only 38.9 million. Compared to Chris Rock's 42.1 million in 2005 and Billy Crystal's whopping 55 million in 1998 (when Titanic was pretty much guaranteed to win everything -- and it did!), Stewart doesn't seem like the obvious choice ... on paper. But he's a likable enough guy, his jokes and mannerisms are usually pretty funny, and he's tame. He'll most likely be asked, once again, to hold back on all the political humor -- everything will be fine and dandy -- and we'll live-blog the whole thing. Sweet. Now all Hollywood needs is a big fall, because nothing looks appetizing from a viewer's standpoint thus far. And Stewart had Brokeback Mountain (as well as all the jokes that went along with it) back in 2006; will anything even come close this year. I doubt it. What do you think?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-12-2007 @ 10:39AM
Sam said...
You know, I'm okay with this.
Reply
9-12-2007 @ 12:27PM
Pat Miller said...
I'm good with Jon Stewart. He reminds you of Carson and has the ability to be a Bob Hope if he can sneak in the political humour.
Reply
9-12-2007 @ 1:30PM
Cath said...
First, it's reins (like for a horse) not reigns (like a king). Second, I thought Stewart was the best host for the Oscars in a very, very long time. The complaints about him had more to do with the pettiness in Hollywood. Stars get paid enough that they should be able to take a joke at their expense. Ideally, someone who knows more (and cares) about films would be wonderful, but of the current pool, I think you can't do much better than Stewart. He will bring a hipper, more worldly presence to an otherwise deadly, parochial affair.
Reply
9-13-2007 @ 12:46PM
liya said...
He definitely brings a sort of outsider point of view to the Oscars (except when he's making fun of his own film career) and I like that. I think a lot of people watched Chris Rock just to see if he could pull it off. Billy Crystal's much more showy and "Hollywood" and probably appeals more to the older audience that watches the Oscars. That's what made him a successful host, I think.
With Stewart, on the other hand, it felt like sitting on the couch with a smart-ass friend and watching the Oscars. I disagree with the description of him as "tame", though. He can actually be very subversive, but in a quiet, self-conscious way.
I'm surprised that whoever's in charge of this picked Stewart again because he did get mixed reviews. But then again, no one ever seems to think that someone was a good Oscar host until long after the fact.
Reply