For your consideration: Neil Patrick Harris as Oscar host

Posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at 3:14 PM Central
Last updated Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at 3:50 PM Central

by John Couture

Here we are barely into the month of November and the 2012 Oscars are already the talk of the town. In case you've been living in a cave or sleeping off a serious weekend bender, allow me to fill you in.

In the last few days, Brett Ratner has been doing what he does best, running his mouth as though he's never heard of a filter. Not to get bogged down in the murky specifics and not to mention that it's not worth dignifying his remarks by stating them here, Brett made a poor choice of words at the very least. Suffice to say, he said something, well a few things, that the producer of the Academy Awards show probably shouldn't have said.

During the fallout while the Academy was weighing its options in light of his remarks, Brett Ratner resigned from the producing gig of the Oscars. Less than 24 hours later, confirmed host Eddie Murphy (who was a personal choice by Ratner to host) pulled out of the hosting duties and left the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences with not one, but two big holes to hill.

Or, you could argue that the Academy has a wonderful opportunity here to right a few wrongs and actually make the Academy Awards watchable again.

Let's be honest, having Brett Ratner produce the Oscars was an odd choice to begin with and one that certainly would have increased viewership, if by only having viewers tune in to see the train wreck. Eddie Murphy was a bold choice as well and just when things were seemingly going in its favor, the last week happens.

So, where do you go from here?

Friend of the site Kevin Smith has his own ideas and (jokingly?) throws his own hat into the ring for the producer job via his Twitter feed. While I know I would tune in to see that show, I doubt that the Academy would take such a risk given this week's developments.

In terms of producer, if the Academy wants to go the route of having a recognizable name in charge may I suggest Billy Crystal. He's got plenty of hosting experience and I think that he would be a good judge of knowing what will work in the show and what won't.

Another off-the-wall idea for producer would be SNL head honcho Lorne Michaels. He has been in charge of a weekly live TV show for almost four decades. He would certainly be able to handle the duties and his penchant for comedy might actually breathe some new life into the awards show that has long ago started to show its age.

And besides, with the entire SNL writing crew behind him, including Seth Meyers, there would be a chance that the jokes might actually be funny this time around.

But where do you go for a host?

This question is really the bigger elephant in the room. There is a chance that if the Academy goes with Michaels as producer he could lure back SNL alum Murphy back into the hosting gig. However, I think at this point of his career, Murphy's allegiance is more in Ratner's court, for better or worse.

The easy choice for host would be last year's Golden Globes host Ricky Gervais. However, there are unconfirmed reports that Gervais has been tapped to host the Globes again. After the fallout from his hosting duties last year and a few of his scathing remarks, such a reconciliation would have been thought impossible, but apparently not.

Either way, it's quite possible that Academy wouldn't want to pursue Ricky Gervais anyhow. After this week's brouhaha, I think it's safe to say that the Academy wants to avoid as much controversy as possible.

To that end, I humbly submit that the Academy should pursue Neil Patrick Harris to host the 84th Academy Awards. NPH has won rave reviews for hosting the Tony Awards twice, so he certainly has prior awards show hosting experience on his side.

Sure, Neil Patrick Harris is more known for his TV work than his film resumé, but I would argue that a good host doesn't need to be movie star to make a good host. He's certainly a recognizable talent around the world and the international viewing audience would connect with the youthful vibrancy that he would bring as host.

Another good argument for NPH would be his versatility. He's not only an actor and a comic, but he is also quite a singer. He showed his vocal range on Broadway and most notably in Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. Speaking of Dr. Horrible, Joss Whedon would be another great producer option.

Finally, while it's certainly not a deciding factor either way, the fact that NPH is an open homosexual would go a long way in soothing over the insensitive remarks made by Brett Ratner earlier this week. At the very least, it would send a strong message that the Academy doesn't discriminate based on sexual preference.

Reportedly, Neil Patrick Harris has no desire to host the Oscars and he's "actively anti-campaigning" against it. However, I would be surprised if NPH actually turned down the gig if the Academy offered it. He knows that he would be good at it and it just might open a few doors to more movie offers.

Well Academy, the proverbial ball is in your court. What are you going to do with it?