Comments on: Less Music, More Hugh Jackman Wackiness At The Oscars

By: Weezy F Baby

Weezy F Baby — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:01:00 +0000

@Tauwan: Ick... what about the Wackness is remotely exciting?

By: Thierry

Thierry — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:40:31 +0000

I’m pretty sure that if Bruce Springsteen’s song from The Wrestler had been nominated, they wouldn’t have kept him to a 60-second bit…

By: Tauwan

Tauwan — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:44:23 +0000

At first glance I thought your headline said “Less music, more Hugh Jackman, and THE WACKNESS” at this year’s Oscars and got all sorts of excited. And then I realized you weren’t referring to the movie with Ben Kingsley and that kid from Drake & Josh. Damn.

By: Christopher R. Weingarten

Christopher R. Weingarten — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:53:14 +0000

i’m sure you’ll be able to text A for something or text B for something or text C for something else all night

By: Invisible Circus

Invisible Circus — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:51:54 +0000

clearly, the producers didn't see the win with the Grammys. Performances sell. Anybody remember when they had Amy Adams and Kristen Chenoweth perform the nominated songs from Enchanted? Complete with choreography?

sigh.

oh wolverine...

By: tigerpop

tigerpop — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:47:39 +0000

I've heard choruses that last one minute. And this for the guy who sang "Supper's Ready"? Not. Fair.

By: Maura Johnston

Maura Johnston — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 03:57:29 +0000

"I have no idea what Hugh Jackman will be doing in between awards to entertain the audience, but somehow I suspect it will be vastly less interesting."

oh, it definitely will, given that the hacktastic joel stein is writing some of the oscar 'banter.'

[www.time.com]

bruce vilanch, come back!