Hugh Jackman to host OSCARS 2009 -- People Magazine

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 1:27pm

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20246416,00.html?cnn=yes

Didn't see that coming!

[Shannon Bo Dannon]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 1:28pm

So flippin excited, I can't even tell you. =D

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 1:35pm

Why? What was the last hit movie he was in that wasn't animated or didn't have "X-Men" in the title?

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 1:44pm

AUSTRALIA?

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 1:47pm

No

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 1:49pm

How's AUSTRALIA a hit?

I'm a fan of Jackman though he seems a bit of an odd choice for the Oscars. I really thought Tina Fey would do it after the thrilling months she had during the election time.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 1:59pm

Totally missed the word "hit." Still, it's a step in the right direction.

I think it's a great choice. He's proven himself a showman in BOY FROM OZ and hosting the Tonys for three years. He's a Hollywood favorite (both inside the industry and by the fans). 'Why not?' is the question.

The only thing that makes me uneasy is that his film, AUSTRALIA, could be up for awards. Even Hugh himself! Not that this hasn't happened before at the Oscars (Billy Crystal hosting the year City Slickers was up for a Supporting Actor).

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 2:05pm

I think Hugh is a great choice!

Just remember the best (and most frequent) host of the Academy Awards was ... that giant of the film industry ... that mega-movie star ... Johnny Carson!

So I don't get the bitching, at least using the logic of a recent "hit" movie under his belt as some sort of necessary criteria.

It's a show. It needs an entertaining host. I don't care if he's plumber, as long as he can do the job.


EDIT: Just not ... JOE the Plumber. Oy.

Updated On: 12/12/08 at 02:05 PM

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 2:09pm

Not the greatest argument, besty. Whether Johnny Carson had hit movies or not, he was still extremely popular.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 2:10pm

And Hugh isn't?

[supportivemom]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 2:11pm

I thought Hugh did a great job when he hosted the Tonys a couple of years ago. He is quite charming and witty. I think he would do a great job at The Oscars- very refreshing!

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 2:12pm

He has fans, no doubt, but not enough to make most of his films successful. He wasn't named Sexiest Man Alive by the public.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 2:17pm

Hugh knows how to entertain and be charming in front of a camera as well as in front of a huge live audience. He's been doing both for a while now. That's part of the problem with some Oscar hosts. They might be able to handle the idea of a billion TV viewers watching at home, but they freeze up with stage fright in front of a few thousand peers and industry folk staring them in right the face.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 2:23pm

Well, I hope he can draw in enough people for them to see that he can handle it.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 2:39pm

If I were watching the Oscars because of the host, I would probably skip them this year. But I watch them no matter who hosts. He wouldn't be my 1st choice as host. I expect we will get a musical number with him at some point and I am not really crazy about his voice. I think the Tina Fey suggestion was a good one. JMO

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 2:45pm

"Well, I hope he can draw in enough people for them to see that he can handle it."

In the audience? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they can fill the Kodak that night.

If you meant TV audience at home, that's not what I was talking about at all in my post by "handling it." They can ALL work the camera to some degree. No prob. That's their "regular job."

It's the LIVE audience that's the problem for some of them. They become wooden. Hugh is a theatre actor. He won't have a problem working in front of a live audience (which is what I said in my post).

And I agree (other than his duet with Aretha Franklin on "Somewhere"), he was a terrific Tony host.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 2:47pm

Sorry, besty, I misread.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 7:56pm

Nice.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 8:15pm

I bet he'll be fun.

[Q]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 8:24pm

I actually figured I wouldn't watch this year - I've cared increasingly less as the years have gone by.

But now, I think I'll watch.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 10:15pm

I think the Oscar ratings depend on the movies nominated and general feelings of excitement about the movie industry when the ceremony rolls around, not the host's identity. So as far as ratings go, I don't think this is a good move or a bad one; it just kind of is.

But on a purely individual level, I do think I'll be fast-forwarding less of the ceremony this year. :)

[thejoeyOshow]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 11:58am

Arent the Oscars pretty dull with the host being funny? So then they tell him he doesn't need to be funny? I don't get it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEChrFc8VcY

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 12/14/08 at 1:08pm

Why the hell do they even NEED a host? They appear at the beginning and by the 1 hour mark they are so overtime the "host" just becomes an announcer anyway. Just give out the freaking awards and cut the dull crap down by about 2 hours.