Oscar 2011: Sorry Kermit! It's Billy Crystal!

Well, there were certainly a lot less satisfying ways this could've proceeded. After Brett Ratner had royally soiled the air of the prestigious Academy Awards telecast, he packed Eddie Murphy back up in his little suitcase, and went on his merry way. Thus began the theorizing and hopeful chances. I heard a lot of things that I didn't want to hear. Melissa McCarthy, while entertaining, does not have nearly enough points on her side to gather the proper amount of love. And when Brian Grazer came on board, many continued punching out those gut-wrong feelings. People were talking about bringing Eddie Murphy back, or worst, getting Ben Stiller at the head. God knows I didn't want that.

So in a week that's been hell to begin with, especially for us of the film awards circuit, I don't think you could've been any more soothed by the announcement of Billy Crystal as the host of the 84th Annual Academy Awards. Yes, it is an incredibly safe and predictable choice, but a welcome one nonetheless. The man is a skilled entertainer, as his tenure as most successful host will attest to. The last good host was Jon Stewart, so it could've been a hack job of who they chose. So just thank god it's Billy and not somebody terrible. Yes, I had my hopes set on Kermit and the Muppet gang, but who's to say that still won't happen someday? And even more, they'll still have a presence at some point in this year's show. At least, they will if the producers have any sense in them.

Carpet-Bagging: Murphy Out! Muppets In?

"First and foremost I want to say that I completely understand and support each party's decision with regard to a change of producers for this year's Academy Awards ceremony. I was truly looking forward to being a part of the show that our production team and writers were just starting to develop, but I'm sure that the new production team and host will do an equally great job."

So said Eddie Murphy as he followed Brett Ratner out the door of the 84th Annual Academy Awards telecast. I could tell yesterday that this was probably going to end up happening, and it would've been a mistake if it had not. Yes, this has been a P.R. nightmare for the Academy, and a blow to the show beyond what most of us really expected. But can we really say that a Brett Ratner produced show would've been the best way to go? I was against it from the start, but I had a sense of optimism about the positive rumblings of "Tower Heist". People liked it, and say it was funny, so that was a glimmer of hope for this telecast. And then it came crashing down soon after.

And I've admittedly come around somewhat to Eddie Murphy. The man is truly funny, and I imagine he would've brought the right sort of hosting energy to the show. But this news means not only is he unlikely to ever host the show, but he's liable to pretty much fade from relevance entirely, which is sad. The man isn't horrible, but he's had horrible luck all the same. So this changes a lot of things, for example, who the hell is gonna produce and who will host? I'm immediately hearing great names across the board, from Tina Fey, to Kevin Spacey, to Albert Brooks. And then I came around to this beloved little tidbit.

THE MUPPETS! Of course! That is the most perfect suggestion and decision that could possibly be made to really turn all of this around. The show hasn't gotten this much buzz, negative though it may be, going in a long time. Bringing on Jim Henson's beloved comedy gang is the best way to turn it all bright and fuzzy. You can't tell me a smile doesn't come to year face thinking about it. The only possible snag? The new co-producer has been announced as Brian Grazer, so who's he likely to choose? I don't know, but I maintain that the fuzzy pack is the best way to go. I have some sad doubts, but can something beautiful happen for once in our lifetime? PLEASE!!!!

For Your Anticipation: Gimme Yo' Wallets

It's all too easy to express hatred towards Brett Ratner, as the man is bound to get a high degree of flak for his work on "Tower Heist" and the upcoming Oscar telecast. But, given some of the footage I've seen from his latest film, I can somewhat give him the benefit of the doubt. There's something naturally funny about a bunch of average people trying to rob the man who ruined their lives, and failing thusly. But there's also the entitlement that most of the comedies imagine themselves to have, and that works quite detrimentally more often than not. I'm half tempted to see "Tower Heist", but it's not something worthy of the theater experience. It looks like fun, but not for $10.

Eddie Murphy hosting 84th Annual Academy Awards

And here I was thinking that Brett Ratner wouldn't be dragging all parts of this year's Oscar telecast down to the pits of oblivion. Well, any denial is just superfluous at this point, so it looks like Eddie Murphy is going to be the face of the 84th Academy Awards. Now, am I saying that this is necessarily a condemning factor in the scheme of this year's ceremony. Yeah, pretty much. It's exactly the sort of decision you'd expect Brett Ratner to make, it goes in line with all his beliefs, it's the first guy he'd choose, and it's a completely unimaginative vote.

Am I saying that Murphy doesn't have the capacity to be funny? Far from it, as I admit he has had potential for success in the past, but has since fallen into a downward spiral. He's most infamously known for making comedies that are neither good, nor are they at all funny. And it does somewhat weaken the resolve of an awards telecast that should have nothing to do with the mainstream. The Academy is constantly in denial of what their show should be like, and that's my biggest lament of this move. It's crass. It's loud. It's not good.

Biggest Oscar Disappointments: Best Supp. Actor (2006)

Almost four years ago, this was proclaimed as one of the biggest disappointments of the awards season, and there's a very specific and unique reason it was so disappointing. In year of great performances from Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine), Jackie Earle Haley (Little Children), Djimon Hounsou (Blood Diamond), Mark Wahlberg (The Departed), and Jack Nicholson who wasn't even nominated, the clear front-runner in the supporting actor race was none other than Eddie Murphy (Dreamgirls).


His performance in the musical film was one of the things that nearly drove this film towards a Best Picture nomination. It was the perfect chain of events that had not happened for him before, and most certainly will not happen again. What screwed him over wasn't Alan Arkin, who was always in a close second and merely got the benefit of Murphy's fall. His own worst enemy was himself. A month before the Oscars, a Murphy premiered a little creative project called Norbit, and more than anything else, that was the reason he didn't walk away as the winner that night.


Of course, had the circumstances been different, and Jack Nicholson was nominated for The Departed instead of Mark Wahlberg, it may not have made any difference whether Murphy screwed up or not. Murphy had so much going for him that nobody felt that anybody else stood a chance. It makes sense that Alan Arkin came out on top, as his performance was more than deserving. That doesn't make Murphy's little accident any less disappointing. He's always been drawn to these pathetic films, and for once, it got the best of him. What is your opinion? Do you think that Eddie Murphy should have won? Do you think the Academy shouldn't have cast him out for that one (or three rather) role(s) he played in Norbit that he wasn't nominated for that year? If not, who do you think should've won instead? I want to know what you think.