Hollywood Babble On & On #834: The Ratner Factor?

Brett Ratner, the director behind the Rush Hour movies and Tower Heist, is producing the upcoming Academy Awards.  Among the decisions he's made is to drop Bruce Vilanch as the top writer, give a rather raunchy interview on the Howard Stern Radio Show, and insult and enrage the gay community.

Now some are calling for Ratner to be promptly fired and replaced.

But that raises a different question:

WHO COULD REPLACE THE RAT-MAN?

You can't have the Oscars without a producer, and look all the stress is making Don Draper cry:

So let's look at the pros and cons of potential replacements for Brett Ratner.

J.J. ABRAMS

PROS:  He's a very successful producer and director of film and television, and is credited with reviving both the Star Trek movie franchise and the lens flare. 

CONS:  He could spend the entire Oscar telecast planting clues to what film will win Best Picture, only to have a finale that leaves the audience and nominees confused and vaguely dissatisfied.

MICHAEL BAY

 

PROS:  He knows how to coordinate large scale productions, and since he's never satisfied a critic in his life, the inevitable griping and grousing about the show's quality will be like water off a duck's back to him.  

Plus, if your speech goes too long....  

BOOM!  

Exploding podium.

CONS: The costs of making the Oscars will be massive and the stage could collapse when a life-size Transformer robot goes out to present the Oscar for Best Sound Design.

RYAN MURPHY

 

PROS: He's a successful and experienced film/TV director and producer. 

CONS:  There will be annoying musical numbers starring those overage "kids" from Glee every ten frikking seconds.  Plus, he's going to want the host to wear that rubber/leather gimp suit from American Horror Story.

ELI ROTH

PROS:  His films are about torture as well as torture to watch, so it's not much of a stretch for him to do the Oscars, which are just torture to watch.

CONS: Presenters could slip on the inevitable arterial spray and that could lead to lawsuits.

JAMES CAMERON

PROS: He's an Academy Award winner and has experience handling large scale productions with big budgets.

CONS: The budget will balloon into the hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for converting the broadcast to 3D, and the whole production will have massive gaps in logic that will annoy any viewers with half a functioning brain cell.

QUENTIN TARANTINO

PROS:  He's a past Oscar winner and critically acclaimed director.  Plus, Samuel L. Jackson presenting the award for "Best Motherfucking Picture."

CONS:  There will be just too many close ups of actress's feet for a respectable awards show.

HARVEY WEINSTEIN

PROS: Has a lot of experience with the Oscars from his days with Miramax, and is really good at getting what he wants.

CONS: He'll refuse to broadcast the Oscars live, preferring to tape the show, then sit on it for two or more years, re-editing it to include more dick jokes, and a hip hop soundtrack.  It will then be dumped into discount video bins after a hell of a lot litigation.

FURIOUS D

PROS:  Makes up for lack of direct Hollywood experience with common sense and a certain amount of demented evil genius. Will use cattle prods to end speeches that go long.

CONS: None. He's perfect in every way, and that's an unbiased judgment by an expert.

Well, now that we've looked at our options, there really is only one choice.