It's funny. His Globe nomination was probably the last time I've even thought about Kate & Leopold.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Well i'm neither a woman or gay and i think this a great choice. I thought he did a great job at the tony's. He was very cool and let the jokes roll off in a very casual way...and i liked that and in a long show like this one i think it will go a long way. I think he will carry the night very well. I wonder what they would have done if australia was any good and jackman was going to get an actor nomination....he was pretty darn good in the film...too bad the film was pretty darn bad.
Mister Tee wrote:Jackman has been excellent as a Tony host, but I'm iffy about this. The Tonys are, let's be honest, considerably gayer than the Oscars (yeah, I know -- "Gay Super Bowl" and all, but it's the difference between Scott Rudin and Liberace), and I think Jackman would have to strike a somewhat different tone in Hollywood. Like everyone, I'll be hoping he hits it just right, but it's a bit of a gamble.
OscarGuy wrote:This is such a brilliant choice. He's a great host AND he'll bring in the two core demographics the Oscars have: Women and Gays!
It's not as if the Oscars are going to have any trouble getting either of those two demographics to watch anyway.
EDIT: I didn't notice that Sabin had already made that joke. Nevermind.
Edited By MovieWes on 1229118161
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
rain Bard wrote:My question is: does this increase or decrease Australia's chances for technical nods?
I doubt it has any impact.
I suspect they wanted Jackman all along but but waited for the critical reaction to Australia so that if he were a strong candidate for best actor they would have gone to someone else so as not to make it look like they were stacking the odds in his favor.
Actually it brings back memories of Jack Lemmon in more ways than one. Lemmon, who could get Oscar nomiantions for just showing up actually gave one of his best performances in Mass Appeal in 1984 but failed to secure a nomination for it, the year he hosted.
That's the thing, I don't think this decision is trying to turn the Oscars into the Tonys and I guarantee you that virtually no one who would tune in for Jackman has ever watched or cared a flip about the Tonys and aren't really going to associate Jackman with that. It's more likely they'll associate him with his movies like X-Men and The Prestige.
I think what they are trying to go for is a classicism. Make this more about the movies than about a means to an end. The Oscars are meant to celebrate the movies and I know most of us have been griping how the Oscars have virtually eschewed that for years and been more about bringing in an audience. What Condon and co. has announced so far has been a clear attempt at bringing class and style and movie magic back to the Oscars. At least that's how it looks to me.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Jackman has been excellent as a Tony host, but I'm iffy about this. The Tonys are, let's be honest, considerably gayer than the Oscars (yeah, I know -- "Gay Super Bowl" and all, but it's the difference between Scott Rudin and Liberace), and I think Jackman would have to strike a somewhat different tone in Hollywood. Like everyone, I'll be hoping he hits it just right, but it's a bit of a gamble.
I do, though, think it's about time someone abandoned the "It must be a stand-up" tradition, which Gil Cates created in '89. Prior to that we had plenty of hosts who simply set a classy tone and made it a memorable evening -- someone like Jack Lemmon (before he became so self-indulgent) did very well, and I could see George Clooney filling the bill just as nicely. I hope Jackman can pull that off.
While you may have minimized my statement into its basic cores, my statement was a suggestion that the female/gay audience members who DON'T tune in will now have more of a reason to watch.
I agree, it just seems at the expense of alienating those who don't want to see the Oscars turned into the Tonys.
My gut reaction is negative. Bill Condon is a sharp guy and I want to give him the benefit of the doubt so I'll retract my statement and we'll just wait and see...
An excellent choice. It's clear they are going with someone who will add class to the presentation instead of another comic who won't increase the size of the audience anyway.
And Sabin - please go to tnd best by the best thread and add your second round choice. Thanks.
Well, I know that I used to hear guffaws and admonitions of the Academy every time people discussed the multi-hosts. I mean look how well that worked for the crash-and-burn Emmys this year. These were five, admittedly untalented, individuals who had HUGELY popular shows yet couldn't draw an audience to save their lives, the shitty monologue excepted.
I told a friend a few minutes ago Jackman was hosting and she said, and I quote, "Woo, a reason to tune in". She's not a movie buff...at least not the kinds of movies the Oscars recognize. While you may have minimized my statement into its basic cores, my statement was a suggestion that the female/gay audience members who DON'T tune in will now have more of a reason to watch.
That's neither here or there. Jackman is a big name. He's not a popular comedian, but he's got the style, the looks and the personality that old world Hollywood was built on. While he's not a box office sensation by any stretch of the imagination, he has the classic celebrity aura that will be a boost to the Oscars even if only minimally.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Sabin, you aren't happy with anything ever, are you? You should probably take some time off and consider why you even still watch the Oscars...
This statement seems like a slight overreaction but I'll bite and politely ignore the implications made...
No, I know quite well why I do. Let me amend my statement: I have no doubt that the Condon team will produce a fantastic show. Hugh Jackman doesn't seem like a great choice to me b/c he brings a core group that is already there. Hugh Jackman has only drawn audiences when he is Wolverine, not when he's dancing and singing. I'm not sure how much this would broaden the audience. I think the show has the capacity to be good, but I'm not sold on this choice. I still say the best idea is a revolving door of three to four hosts and I don't know why this hasn't been done for decades. I'm curious but dubious.
Zahveed wrote:This is quite a leftfield choice. I think this will draw in more comic book fans than women and gays (Wolverine, for crying out loud, is hosting). If The Dark Knight is indeed nominated, this will be the largest comic-con ever.
Hugh Jackman has quite a huge following in the theater community, having won many, many fans among women and gays for his Tony-winning role in The Boy from Oz. So that's three huge Oscar-watching groups (women, gays, fan boys).
He hosted the Tonys for, I think, 3 straight years and was nominated for an Emmy twice and won once. Here's two major excerpts from the show that won it for him. It should give you rough idea of what an Oscar show with Hugh Jackman would entail.
