Friday, 11 November 2011

Hollywood Babble On & On #836: Random Drippings From My Brain Pan...

Hello everyone, time to wipe some random drippings from my brain pan, and wipe them on your computer screen....


The folks at the LA Times are wondering if the Oscars have given up on wooing the young with the recruitment of Billy Crystal to be the host. 

Now I think Crystal, who first hosted the Oscars in the Silent Era, probably got the job because he was actually willing to do it on relatively short notice more than any demographic consideration.

However, should the Oscars pursue the young whipper-snappers in their dungarees listening to their rock and roll boogie woogie music?

Probably not because it only succeeds in making the Oscars look even more old fashioned and square.  It's the Awards Show equivalent of your grandfather dressing up like MC Hammer because they think it will make them a "hep-cat."

Let's look at Oscar's recent attempts to "connect" with the youngsters:

1. Jon Stewart came across as stale and smug.

2. Chris Rock didn't seem to know what to do, and I think he hurt Sean Penn's feelings when he made fun of Jude Law.

3.  Anne Hathaway was actually burning calories when she co-hosted, but her co-host James Franco looked bored, disinterested, and possibly high. Their mismatched energy was further hobbled by limp writing.

I don't think the Academy shouldn't even bother angling for the youngsters, because youngsters don't give a shit about the Oscars.

The Academy Awards are for people who go to movies that are made for people who vote for the Academy Awards.  It wasn't always this way, but times and Hollywood have changed, and unless they're going to start nominating Twilight movies, the Academy isn't going to get any younger.
Don't accuse me of posting cheesecake, I Googled "Past Oscar Host" & got this picture instead of one of Billy Crystal, honest.


I think this a sign of hope, Sony Pictures has ceased production of Roland Emmerich's next bombast fest Singularity, because they thought the script wasn't good enough for a $175 million production.

However, this sign of hope is hampered by the simple fact that Sony's Columbia Pictures division has spent $79 million on Adam Sandler's latest shit-sandwich Jack & Jill.  Don't just take my word for it, Movieline has collected the most scathing critical responses to the movie, which stands, as of this writing at 4% "Rotten" at Rotten Tomatoes.

Seriously what possible reason other than the paychecks and perks written about yesterday can possibly explain how $79 million was spent on Adam Sandler running around in drag?

Taking a stand about Singularity's quality was a nice first step, but it's only a first step.

I think Sandler's become a parody of himself now, I really do.


....and admits that he's an idiot.
The truest thing he's ever said.

He's handing over control of his Twitter account to his management and publicity team after tweeting to the defense of Penn State Football Coach Joe Paterno who sorta, kinda, allegedly allowed child rape as a hobby for a member of his coaching staff. 

I guess 140 characters just took up too much brain power.


  1. The Academy doesn't have to nominate Twilight. However, they had their chance to stay even remotely relevant and blew it when they didn't nominate Dark Knight, a film destined to become a classic on the order of Star Wars or Jaws or Rocky, which *were* all nominated for Best Picture. Dark Knight was a towering mass market film of the type rarely made anymore, and the Academy bypassed it so they could nominate (among others) a film about freakin' Richard Nixon. How can Hollywood appeal to young people when it's living 40 years in the past?

  2. I wrote about this phenomenon in the past where, when it comes to Oscar movies, they've become not only their own genre, but one where the audience is almost like the enemy.

    It's getting so that the more popular a film is with the audience, no matter how well made, the less the Academy will want to do with it.

  3. I went to the premier of the Altman 'Nixon' thing. Spent about a million years of my life sitting next to my hugely pregnant wife who was uncomfortable and bored by the boring movie. She occasionally made some comment quietly to me or sighed when she needed to get more comfortable. The old pervert looking bastard sitting next to my wife gave her dirty looks and 'hurmphed' at her so much that I switched seats with her. I almost said something to him but I was brought up polite and he was a lot smaller and punier looking than my six-four two thirty-five (I was teaching martial arts). I simply glared at him until he quit fidgeting and 'hrumphing' at my wife.

    Later I found out it was the director. Nearly everyone in the theater had left their seats in self-defense at some point and there was polite applause and a slightly embarrassed laughter when he was 'revealed'.

    At that point I just gathered my wife and friends and left. We laughed about it. We never expected to hear another word about it again.

    That's the kind of junk that is 'Oscar bait' All insider baseball and all boringly predictable all the time. It is 'edgy' and 'daring' in a strictly non-edgy or daring way from a Hollywood perspective.

    Oscar could go back to being a 'family' oriented night with someone classy like Bob Hope but since he's long gone and nobody has his class or humor that crosses generations, I think that is a pipe dream.

    Keep it clean don't be partisan, don't be snooty, and you might get the audience back. I watched as a kid because Hope was hosting. I think the only one with that generational appeal might be Bill Cosby but I haven't seen anything from him in decades.

  4. Well I am mainly a fan of horror and foreign action movies so I doubt I will live to see ANY movie I like show up at the oscars.