MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Oscars to have NO host for the first tim...

Oscars to have NO host for the first time 30 years


Who would have ever thought that a no talent like Kevin Hart killed the OscarsπŸ™‚πŸ™‚πŸ™‚

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6575531/Oscars-NO-host-time-nearly-30-years-Kevin-Hart-debacle.html

reply

Nah, Oscars killed Oscars.

reply


Bingo! I especially enjoyed the entire La La Land / Moonlight debacle! That was hilarious!

😎

reply

Well that will reduce the audience even more. The host generally brings in their own audience.

reply

you think they could get someone safe like Steve Martin or Billy Crystal.

reply

I loved Seth McFarland

reply


It serves them right. They canned him for some OLD social media messages. The moronic
PC Police get their panties in such a twist over minor unimportant shit like that. If I were him,
I would tell them to pound sand, then I'd get nasty.

😎

reply

They become more and more irrelevant every day, but the dolts ain't gots a clue.

reply


Dis be true, Mon!

😎

reply

Get that water girl to host. She though I didn't watch it was the hit of the other award show.

reply

Oh gee, I'm soooo heartbroken. (sarcasm)

Frankly, my family hasn't watched the Oscars since "American Beauty" won Best Picture. When you give that award to a film about a man lusting after his own daughter and sleeping with her, you know you've had enough.

Someone from the Golden Age of Hollywood once said that the Oscars were little more than Hollywood bigwigs glorifying themselves, and they were right. Almost none of those awards are given to people or films that actually deserve them. Most of the time, they are given to whoever's the most popular with the Academy (a very snobby and exclusive club in Hollywood with poor taste in films) or whoever has bribed or sucked up to them the most.

Plus, I really got tired of all the commercials and having to wait forever for the awards we really cared about.

There's a reason those idiots in southern California didn't replace their host. They're only slightly aware that almost nobody is watching the self-glorification, but with their usual stupidity, they blame the hosts of the show instead of the people who are really responsible: themselves. They think that using multiple hosts will bring viewership back up. Fat chance!

reply

that wasn't his daughter. you should have paid closer attention.

reply

After hearing what the film was about, and seeing a skeletal, anorexic girl lying on a bed almost naked, save for rose petals on her non-existent boobs, we weren't really interested.

reply

i didn't really like the film either, but the girl wasn't his daughter.

reply

his daughter's friend and they didn't have sex.

reply

Still don't care, it's still got a full-grown man getting involved with an underage girl. Sounds creepy.

reply

I am not sure she was underage but it was a bit creepy.

reply

Do any movie buffs still watch the Oscars? Seems like the Oscars are a bunch of circle jerk rich people tooting their own horns. Doesn't deter my love of film, though :)

reply

as a bona fide cine-file I can say I have not watched the Oscars in years.

reply

Never miss them. But it's not what it was, that's for sure.

reply

Is asking Tom Hanks really that hard? He's got charm, charisma, everyone loves him and he's got two Oscars himself.

reply

Tom Hanks is a good suggestion.

reply

Not everyone. His sell-by date expired long ago.

reply

They should bring back the Crystal or get Jeff Goldblum to host it.

reply