Comments on: Why can’t the biggest movie night of the year draw more movie stars?

By: Weirdduck

Weirdduck — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:14:07 +0000

To: KXB
Amen.

By: KXB

KXB — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:39:26 +0000

Instead of getting MORE stars who don’t seem interested in being there anyhow, I think we can all agree one that should go for good (at least re. presenting)- buzzkill Sean Penn!

By: Victor Erimita

Victor Erimita — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:58:44 +0000

Well, with the old studio system long gone, the studios can’t force them to go. And apparently, if they don’t have any immediate skin in the game that year, they don’t go. And they don’t care that the overall “Hollywood glamour” factor is pretty much gutted if only the nominated show up.

I’m sorry, but Tina Fey does not say Hollywood glamour. Steve Carell? Yeah, they’ve made a couple movies, but they aren’t movie stars, they’re TV people.

The Hollywood fantasy is dead.

By: Dealbreaker

Dealbreaker — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:38:32 +0000

Scoff all you want, but Tina Fey is more of a “bona fide” movie star than Julia Roberts (not to mention more entertaining, and I say this while not agreeing w/her politically) these days; Baby Mama and (most likely) the upcoming Date Night grossed more than anything the Pretty Overrated Woman has starred in in close to a decade…

By: Dagnabbitt

Dagnabbitt — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:29:14 +0000

Dollar, dollar bill, Y’all

It IS about the money – and the swag tax definitely undercut the “promotional perk” that once attracted the big stars to these events, which in turn drive up the Nielsen ratings that finance these events.

(and I agree with some of the posters: many on your list no longer are, or never were big stars – making a distinction between “fine actors,” like Giamatti and Hoffman.)

It also may be noteworthy to observe that the historic glamor once associated with the Oscar presentation ceremony has been losing its luster successively for years now – the “star” in starpower has a different, downward-trending definition these days…

By: mrbeverage

mrbeverage — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:52:52 +0000

The movie stars stopped showing up when the I.R.S. started taxing the $40,000.00 SWAG bags as income that were handed out to the attendees……… after all, diamonds are for the stars and taxes are for the little people………

By: judith pressman

judith pressman — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:35:48 +0000

This is a good point,that is where are the big names in the movie business on Oscar night? When past winners aren’t there I get a feeling of disconnectedness…the AMPAS people don’t do enough to showcase movie history. Afterall the moviegoers weren’t always addicted to fusion blockbusters with loads of fantasy and CGI and feature length animated movies. By the way it would have been nice to see Russell Crowe.

By: Kirstin

Kirstin — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:56:46 +0000

Paul Giamatti may be a fine actor, but he is not on my list of bona fide movie stars.

Nikki Finke live-blogged the Oscars, and she said that everyone in Hollywood hates the show, except for the seat-fillers. I think that most of the nominees wanted to be there.

There are way too many awards shows now. I remember when the Golden Globes were an absolute joke.

By: TJL

TJL — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:48:59 +0000

It’s all about eye candy. Why is Cameron Diaz a presenter every year? Because she looks great all dressed up in a gown and strutting out on stage.

By: Erin

Erin — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:04:29 +0000

How could you be dumbfounded by the appearance of Miley Cyrus at the Oscars? She’s been there for the past 2 years, and is currently promoting a Nicolas Sparks movie (which is why she presented with Amanda Seyfried, who is also currently starring in a Nicholas Sparks movie). Say what you want about those puke-fest love stories, but they tend to bring in a considerable amount of money.