The Oscars are CRAZY to bring back Jon Stewart as host!

Stewart was my favorite Oscar host. Just because he doesn't worship the Academy and calls out the silliness of the process he's a jaded, bad host? Weird logic there.

Not that I need to add here, but I thought Jon Stewart was pretty good. The Oscars aren't so important that I can remember the entire ceremony two years ago, but I do remember liking the ceremony overall. I remember plenty from Ellen's gig, and loved it, especially sound mix choir. Chris Rock can suck it, though. So can Tom O'Neill. How can anyone not like Jon Stewart and George Clooney on Brokeback?

P.S. Shut up about Sweeney Todd already, too.

I thought Stewart was notably impressive last time round. And sure he'll do at least as well this time round (with one "practice round" already in.)
Of course, you have to like Stewart's lay-back, subtle "style" of delivery. And his intelligence in picking subject matter, combined with that subtlety may completely pass "over" some Glitter Heads, it's true.

I'm personally glad to hear Stewart's hosting agian. I'll be rooting for him. Main thing to remember when critiquing Stewart is that "he is NO Billy Crystal." Which is NOT demeaning at all, but simply observing that Stewart's style is entirely different, and less rapid-fire "obvious" than Crystal's.

The truth is - Bob Hope and Johnny Carson left some awfully big shoes to fill. Maybe Billy Crystal for awhile....I agree recently ELLEN has been the only decent host.

But I also think they need to get away from these comedians and their flop sweat - at times it becomes excuriatingly painful even to watch.

I like the idea of a George Clooney type - an actor, a professional, someone with charm and presence - I mean he could be funny, just needs a good staff of writers.

But finding a GOOD HOST is the least of their worries; eliminating embarrassing musical production numbers (these aren't the TONYS - and it shows in lack of quality) and moving some awards (Best Documentary Short Subject anyone?) to a separate night - and maybe only one tribute special per year?!? And oh yeah - hold it down to TWO HOURS please!!!

Jon Stewart was fun and entertaining at the Oscars. He did seem a bit nervous and a little uncomfortable at first, but he got into the swing of things and he was funny and smart. I work in the movie business and it sure is a pleasure that Jon Stewart does NOT act like a Hollywood insider. The "insiders" are just a little too corny and way to reverent of their business...it's ONLY movies!
I may be a Californian, but I like "snarky" New Yorkers!

George Clooney would be a great host.

Really, the Oscars is a big, 4 hours of who cares? I can't imagine who'd actually sit down and watch the show when you get the stuff you're really interested in (the big winners, the fashion melt downs) on the internet.

Are you kidding me?! I thought Jon Stewart was the funniest host in YEARS. I love Ellen, but they were pretty boring last year. Frankly, I think most people in the entertainment industry think far too highly of themselves to enjoy Jon making fun of them, which is why "the audience didn't seem to enjoy it." The rest of America sure did!

Why is anyone nostalgic for Billy Crystal? A few years ago he started the show singing "Mystic River" to the tune of "Old Man River." Brilliant pun and a cutting-edge reference to a hip new song.

Stewart is a great choice.

that was the most pompous, stupid, unimportant article i've seen in years. you guys actually pay that windbag to write this stuff?

Jon Stewart is not all THAT.....

But neither are the Oscars......

He's a perfect fit!

Uh, you mean some people outside of "the biz" actually watch the whole four hours? The rest of us get our dose in 2 minute bites and shticks from The Daily Show.

And I live in L.A. Maybe that has something to do with why the producers picked Stewart?

I support any host that Tom O'Neil doesn't approve of

:-D

Interesting that Sarah Silverman and Jerry Seinfeld are thought of as too Jewish. And no one else is offended by that. Would we be able to say Chris Rock is too Black? David Letterman too goyish? Dunno, but I just did.

Please get over yourself, O'Neil. Anyone who describes the Oscars-- the annual four hour Hollywood infomercial-- as a "a wondrous, magnificent, heartfelt, historic, special night" is the one who is humorless. I bet you were a fan of Sean Penn's "comeback" to that Chris Rock joke about not knowing who Jude Law was. "He's one of our finest young actors." Ugh. Yeah, that's entertainment.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Oscars. But you need a host that pokes fun at the stars and the apparatus or all that self congratulatory glad handing gets real old real fast.

Honestly I think all the recent hosts have actually done a pretty nice job. The show has ups and downs largely due to the public's interest in the movies/stars being feted. When big stars are up for awards, people tune in. When lesser known, often more deserving actors and project dominate, fewer people tune in.

Got to say, Ellen was the best host of the past few years. Sly, funny, and baggage-free. Okay, she's gay. But he humor didn't alienate anybody, and that's a good thing for one of the most boring shows ever devised. If Stewart could replay his brilliant Petraeus-skewering of the 11th, that's where he's brilliant. Johnny Carson, or Bob Hope, he's not.

Like anybody's first gig as host, he or she will be a bit nervous. But Jon was good. Maybe this time around he'll improve and find his rhythm do well. Ellen was good too but could have been better..she played it safe. Chris Rock on the other hand is just plain annoying and not very funny. Never found him all that funny to begin with...just annoying. Well there's always Ms. C-list now Kathy Griffin...I bet she can spew much needed scandalous quips to liven up the show...Hell The Emmys have already censored her...and there's Sarah Silvermann...nah! too Jewish for some but vulgar and annoying as hell..just like Jerry Seinfeld (ugh! totally unfunny)...

I didn't think Stewart was that bad nor Ellen or Chris Rock. I think it depends on if you like the person's humor or not. I laughed at almost every Chris Rock joke, because I like him and think he's funny. Same goes for Stewart.

What the Oscars need to do is go host-less, cut the "cavalcade of stars" intro, reduce the old movie montages (aren't the Oscars a celebration of the past year's movies, then why am I looking at a compilation of 1940s Westerns), and actually produce the show like it was a show, something to see (that does not mean include interpretive dance unless there happens to be interpretive dance in an honored film, and that's a stretch). Until then, it will bleed viewers.

I thought Stewart was a great host. People like Shales, who have little credibility with the television watching masses because he is so condescending (and lousy at communicating his opinions) and people like the know-nothing shlubs who write reviews for the AP or the trades (reviews should be done by people who have a basis to criticize or lots of experience, not just by the low man on the totem pole at a third-rate publication that uses words like "boffo" and "laffer"), just don't have an appreciation for humor that isn't knee slapping or obvious.

It's humor that's smarter than what most award-watchers were used to; not that achieving that goa would be hard.

The ratings were down in 2006, but the films nominated were not box office favorites. Four of them were among the consensus best films of the year among critics and award bestowing organizations, but the biggest box office at the time of the show was a paltry $70M -- at $10/ticket, that's only 7 million people in the US and Canada (and you just know that "Brokeback" had a lot of repeat business). And what else was a low rated year? 2002. Steve Martin was a great host (even Tom liked him, I think) but the films up were not big grossers (aside from LOTR, but everyone knew the second chapter of that was not going to win).

The host doesn't matter when it comes to the ratings (someone tell Ms. Know It All Nikke Finke that). The ratings across the board are down for television as other options are available and the Oscars have only had "boffo" ratings lately when the show had an exciting storyline among the Best Picture nominees or a blockbuster hit that was heading for a massive sweep of the big awards. If Dreamgirls or King Kong had been nominated in 2005 or 2006, I'm certain there would have been higher ratings thanks to their fanboy fanbases... but it also would have been a travesty of Oscar selling out and putting a bad film in the limelight just to score some advertising dollars (like with Titanic).

I haven't agreed with Tom Shales in a long time. Stewart started out slow (once the opening spoof montage was over), and he seemed nervous--but he improved as the evening went on. I'm sure he'll do better this time. David Letterman was stupid--and not funny. (I don't think Letterman himself is stupid, but his performance as Oscar host sure was.) Whoopi Goldberg was extremely crass--and not funny--during her last stint as host. I'll watch Stewart host again.

And Hollywood's High Holy Event is not all that High, and not all that Holy. It's all about box office and politics, and the viewers know it. I find the show entertaining, but it's pretty damn meaningless. At least Stewart seems to know that.

Steward has absolutely no hollywood wit. He has political wit but when it comes to Hollywood he is pretty witless. He is not Steve Martin or Billy Crystal or even Whoopi Goldberg so I expect Stewart will be a disaster again.

Ok, we get it Tom, you didn't like him. He was really good, but you didn't like him. Apparently, the producers didn't agree with you. Too bad (for you).

I think Hugh Laurie would have been a great choice (I'm still wondering why the Emmys chose Seacrest over him) but Stewart brings something other people don't: brains.

And he was in no way a flop like Letterman. Letterman was painful, PAINFUL to watch.

And Billy Crystal isn't a snarky New York type?

I thought Jon Stewart did pretty well and that Tom Shales, like always, is an egomaniacal idiot. I'm glad Stewart's coming back, especially after the disasterous results of Ellen Degeneres hosting this past March. And the fact that unlike Rock and Letterman, Stewart being asked back for a second time must mean that a good number of people found his last performance to be decent enough. Remember, Johnny Carson was no film icon or insider either, but he hosted several times.

I thought Stewart was the funniest host the Oscars have ever had. Then again, this is coming from a "snarky New Yorker."

Guess the only reason Billy Crystal keeps saying NO is because his film career is so HOT !!