John, John, John!

Just because Chris rock may be the HOST for the Oscars doesn't mean that the academy's voters won't nominate and let win the work of worthy actors, actresses and small, made-no-money-at-the-box-office-films. They're just trying to experiment with ramping up some of the entertainment value of the show since there weren't as many viewers last year and ad sales were down.

Hey Crystal

Ahhhhh... so they're just "trying to experiment with ramping up some of the entertainment value of the show since there weren't as many viewers last year and ad sales were down."

But you see... THAT'S what worries me. When decisions about the Oscars start being made soley based on Entertainment and ratings... then where does it stop?

Hey, Chris Rock has had ZERO movie career, will never even sniff an Oscar... BUT WAIT! He's hip! He's popular! The Kiddies will dig it!

I guess what it comes down to for me is that I don't care about the "show". I only care about the awards and the cerimony. If they start scewing with the integrity of one in the name of ratings... then I gotta believe they'll screw with the other one as well.

But like I said, I could be wrong. I HOPE I'm wrong.

Something is lost here: The fact that nowadays it's imperative that the Oscars must score high ratings shows how fucked up their priorities are now. Isn't it just supposed to be an awards ceremony for the film industry that HAPPENS to be televised? I guess that's the way it originally started, and maybe it should go back to that. The ratings should come secondary. It would be more interesting and respectable if the awards went back to their roots. No, it might not make for "exciting" television, but awards shows in themselves aren't that interesting to begin with.

I don't get heated up about the Oscars. They don't give the awards to the best movie, nor have they in a rather long time. What, you think Howard Shore suddenly became a better composer when he started working with Peter Jackson? Odd that he only started getting Oscar nominations then.

Yeah, waxing poetic about the "integrity" of the Oscars is pretty funny. I guess if you're into Hollywood cinema then yeah, I could understand the objection, but dozens upon dozens of both American and foreign independent films every year go unrecognized purely because they weren't produced by the American studio system.

That's who Oscars solely exist for: rich Hollywood producers who want to gain some artistic cred with their rich friends by funding an "artistically important" (read: boring and contrived) movie.

Plus, the Oscars have now become closely connected to ABC, owned by Disney Corp. Can anybody really be surprise at news like this, knowing how this empirical coporation likes to pressure it subisdiaries into falling into it's own economic line of thought. (Which is extremely short-term and ill-informed, but what about most American institutions isn't these days?)

"That's who Oscars solely exist for: rich Hollywood producers who want to gain some artistic cred with their rich friends by funding an "artistically important" (read: boring and contrived) movie. "

Did you watch the awards in 1997 when a low budget Australian film (which was even low budget by Australian standards) received 7 nominations and won Best Actor? I guess not. The movie was Shine and the actor was Geoffrey Rush.

johnny boy,

dude, this is like such a small matter.
who cares if chris rock does the show?
i dont see anything bad can come of it seriously.
im sick and tired of watching billy crystal already com on lighted up.

what i do want to see next time are these names on stage for oscar's host:

a) Hulk Hogan - oh my God,yes brother!!!

b) Osama Bin Laden - honestly i want to see if they have the opening dancers in burkas. and come on i know osama is everybody's favorite fetish!
i want osama at my graduation or prom! it would be something to remember.

Here a the films that the Academy feels represent the BEST of cinema in the past 15 years:

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
CHICAGO
A BEAUTIFUL MIND
GLADIATOR
AMERICAN BEAUTY
SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE
TITANIC
THE ENGLISH PATIENT
BRAVEHEART
FORREST GUMP
SCHINDLER'S LIST
UNFORGIVEN
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
DANCES WITH WOLVES

All Hollywood studio produced and one (pseudo)independent film. This is Hollywood. Bringing in Chris Rock to pander to a greater audience is in keeping with these ethos.

The Oscars are the last remaining REAL awards ceremony where they honor the art of moviemaking.

Thank you, I haven't laughed so hard in years.

Listen buddy, The Pianist and Life is Beautiful are both Holocaust films, and as long as they are even half decent, they are gonna win something.

Personally I liked English Patient a lot, but was it the best film that year?

Should I bring up Titanic?

Hey everyone, Good comments, let the debate continue:

I never meant to suggest that the Oscars were perfect, nor do I always agree with the outcome. For instance, for "The Matrix" to win best visual effects over Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (even though Matrix was a much better movie overall) was the biggest joke in Academy History. My point is that out of all the "awards" shows, it has the MOST integrity... not perfect integrity, but more than any other awards cerimony you can point at.

And iamNataku basically proved my point for me. Look at that list of movies he gave of previous Oscar winners. Aside from THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (which I still contend is the single greatest overall achievment in film history), TITANIC and BRAVEHEART (which in my opinion was EASILY the best moive that year), none of the other winners could be classified as "blockbusters". Sure, most of them made money, but didn't come near the highest grossing films (or most popular) for their respective years. You think the Grammys would do that???

Good debate here. And like I said, I could be totally wrong... but not bloddy likely! :)

People worldwide spend big bucks to support the movie industry - it's America's #1 export, $20 billion dollars - and billions of people watch the show around the world. The WORLD. It is a SHOW at this point not "an awards ceremony that happens to be televised". Sorry. This is not 1955. Anything that airs on television is on because companies are willing to pay for the ads to have the general public view it. From what I understand there's been pressure from past and potential advertisers and tv stations around the world who buy the rights to air the show to the producers of the Oscars to RAMP UP THE SHOW. Call them wrong but they know that people don't just watch the Oscars to see who won because if that were the case people would be satisfied to read about the winners in the newspaper the next day like one does with the winning lottery numbers whether the show aired or not.

No advertising, no show. Or very little show. There WILL be experimentation of hosts and/or formats. Strap yourselves in for the ride.

I couldn't agree more with iamNataku. The oscars promote themself just as much as any other televised awards show. So Chris Rock to host the Oscarnight is no more ridiculous than Whoopi Goldberg or Billy Cristal. You want integrity, you better look to other filmfestivals (festival of Cannes, Venice,...). And sure, now and then they select an outsider to be in the spotlight. Hell, it is the Hollywood Core Story Element. But when you look at that list of award winners (or even the nominations), there is no mistake to be made. Sure it is all about Hollywood. 80% of American Independent filmproductions don't even count (not to mention the rest of the filmmaking world).

And Titanic best film of the year??or Chicago???

WOW.....John
LIGHTEN UP .....dude.

John, if you say Oscar has the most integrity among the BIG award shows, then I will give you that. I still think all award shows are nonsense though.

Titanic best film of 97? I love James Cameron but I think L.A. Confidential easily beats it, and that's probably not the best film that year either.

Hell, 2001: A Space Odyssey wasn't even nominated in 1969. Anybody remember who won that year?

Sure other than those three the others weren't mega-blockbusters. But they were all widely seen and known inside the bubble world that is Hollywood. The elitists in Hollywood naturally want to pick something the general public doesn't know about, how else can they prove that they are true artists? By visiting here, I hope we all know better.

And please. Would you watch A LOT MORE foreign films before you claim which movie is best? If there is even such a thing ...

Personally, I don't mind Chris Rock.

Keep up the good work.

Hey, I never denied that the Oscars are for Hollywood... but you imply that there's something wrong with that.

The Oscars have ALWAYS been put on by Hollywood... for Hollywood. It is their awards show. I don't think there is anything wrong with that... and it doesn't pretend to be the "global" film awards. It's Hollywood. But personally, I don't see why anyone should expect it to be anything else.

And pointing out Titanic over ond over again, only proves my point. That one drastic mistake (which EVERYONE, including critics and audiences, thought should win best picture at the time... and then we all changed our minds later) stands out. Just my two cents worth. Cheers!

Titanic is the easiest target, but I can probably argue successfully why any picture on that list is not, or not even close, to being the best.

Oscar is a Hollywood popularity contest, and I have no problem with that. You seen to agree that it has very little meaning too. So why fret over Chris Rock leading this giant masturbatory act?

Remember, you were the one saying Oscar is about the art of moviemaking, when in fact both you and I know it's not. I was only trying to belittle it, and didn't do a very good job.

Besides, Oscar never made the distinction that it's only for Hollywood. How else do you explain the nominations of popular foreign films on its list? If it's going to do that, then why can't it look beyond what is popular?

How can you say it's a popularity contest? Aside from Titanic and Return of the King, None of Best Picture winners even came CLOSE to being the most popular films of that year. Yes, they were Hollywood productions, but to say they won because they were the most popular is just inncorrect by a mile.

I see what you're saying, and I can understand where you're coming from... but I just totally disagree. That's the best part about movies... the pure subjectivity of them! Cheers!

But they are the most popular! Perhaps not by box office numbers, but certainly within Hollywood circles. Oscar is voted by the people within the Hollywood system, not the general public. That doesn't make it necessarily better IMHO.

Hey John, I agree with you. although i have to say that i am a little more perturbed my the academy's choice. I, too am a person who believes in the achievement of the Oscars in keeping the standards high, but find Chris Rock a performer whose 15min were up 15 months ago....
He bases his popular material on genre that is outdated, uneducated, stale and "guaranteed always to get a laugh" from someone, forget your demographic. He is in no way clever, open-minded and has absolutely none of the characteristics that I think will portray the Oscars in the light that it so grandly deserves.
Hey, they've started a petition to boot Ashlee Simpson......Why don't we band together to create !Stop Chris Rock!.com
we'll cc: the Academy with the results:)

when you boil it down it basically means that white people don't want niggers doing their show. That's the sum of it. you can say this, you can say that but when you reduce it, it boils down to white people don't want niggers interferring with their show. except for whoopie goldberg (but not anymore though)

Congratulations "Gifted One". You've just put up the most ignorant, stupid, racist and closed minded comment ever posted on this site (and that's saying something).

I'm all about sharing opinions... but this is just too much.

Ok John, I see that you get my point. This is what a black comedian would say or Chris Rock would say. I knew you would be offended. you passed the test. You got a whopping A. Now you see why white people don't want Chris rock to host the oscars!

So i guess according to your logic if I say that Paul Rodriguez is a bad choice for Oscar Host, that means I hate all mexicans right?

I also said before that I thought David Letterman was a bad Oscar host. I guess that means I don't want any white people hosting the Oscars either and I don't like white comedians.

I guess in your world it's not possible to dislike 1 black comedian without also disliking all blacks. What a sad little world you live in.

John you like passing test. The world I live in is the same world you live in, it's just that your world is slightly rosy.

Let's look into a little deeper. Chris Rock is the bench mark for Black Comedy, this is who people look up to if they want to get into the comedic biz. now If you don't like Chris Rock who do you like, besides Bill Cosby (I like him too)?

I never said that you disliked blacks, But you are making a big deal out him hosting it, which leads to something deeper. Maybe you don't like what he talks about or how raw he is but for the most part this is black comedy.

Let's apply math and the social research method to this: If you don't like Chris Rock, chances are you won't like any other black comedians. Ask a black person who is the funniest man, then rock will be your choice. You can't stand rock , but blacks love him. Do you see the paradigm shift here?

So John.. what is your perspective of the sucessfulness of the Oscars after you seen it? Do you think that Chris Rock did a good job. I have a question, what is the difference between if Chris Rock were to host the Oscars or if Billy Crystal were to? There both comedians. They both like to entertain and make people laugh. I see it as a chance for diversity in the Entertainment Industry. I see it as an opportunity for black people to come up in the industry. Actually I believe that black people are making a good come up in the industry. First Denzel and now Jamiee. I think were making a good name for ourselves. Personally I think Chris Rock did just fine. So honestly, why did you feel that his hosting the Oscars would be such a problem? Was it an issue of race or what? Be honest.

Dear Jenet.

Did I think Rock did a good job? I think he did ok (use the search to find my post on "2005 Oscar Results" to see my review).

What was my problem with Rock hosting in the first place? Here are some answers I've given in other posts about that.

1) The Oscars are about the movie business.

2) Rock has no movie career (what few movies he's been in have sucked huge). I want a movie person with a solid movie career to host the Oscars.

3) I do not find Rock to be all that funny (I don'think he "sucks" as a comedian... I just don't find him to be all that good).

4) I don't like comedians who don't know how to be funny if you take away the words "fuck, shit, bitch, nigger, ass, mother fucker or racial references" from them. When you take those away from Rock... he's got nothing left. The GREAT comedians like Sienfeld, Steven Wright, Bill Cosby, and Richard Prior all had the talent to be very funny without vulgarity (even though Prior often used vulgarity... he was equally funny without it).

Let me make one thing VERY CLEAR. I could care less if Rock was Black, White, Hispanic, Italian, Hindu, Jewish or Iranian. I want the Oscar host to be funny, have a solid movie career and show respect to the Oscars.

Why are people always asking me if it has something to do with Chris Rock being black!?!?!

If I said I didn't want Bobcat Goldwaith (remember him?) to host the Oscars for all the same reasons I mentioned above... would you ask me if I just didn't want him to host because he's white? I doubt you would.

So what part... out of ALL my posts and comments... even suggests in the slightest way that the reason I didn't want Rock to host the Oscars was because he's black?

your'e a fuckin faggott and so is everyone else who watches that oscar faggott shit who fuckin cares. don't you have anything better to do? i do, infact i didn't and i only read first scentence in tha third paragraph of your article "the grammys used to mean something bla bla bla" and just from that i knew right away that you are a faggott. so fuck you all and get off hollywoods dick you faggotts.

Hi I am new to this site which looks quite good. I just wanted to answer to John about the whole Chris Rock thing. I am not quite sure about what your knowlegde of Chris Rock's material is, but it would be great if you could actually take a moment and check out one of his stand up acts. There is one good reason why Chris Rock is known as one of the funniest man in the country right now, and it has nothing to do with him being crude, or sing profanity ( sure he does and what?) The main reason why Chris Rock is so successful is that he is one of the most acute observant of our society, and he is able to pick up the most disturbing things from society and is not afraid to point them out, when no one else dares to: the GAP worker/George Bush job record is one of the cleverest one made in a long time. Of course I understand that Billy Crystal and Whoopy Goldberg are safely "pleasant" to your ear, .
Note that except in the opening line Rock did not use any profanity and was still very funny