• More
Back to PopWatch Main
Complete Archive

Depressing Emmy rumors of the day

Aug 31, 2007, 05:41 PM | by Gary Susman

Categories: Emmys

Laurie_l Not that I really expected Justin Timberlake and Andy Samberg to perform an unexpurgated version of their nominated song "D--k in a Box" on the Emmy telecast, but it's kinda sad to learn that Fox reportedly asked them to sing a clean version. (To their credit, JT and Samberg have reportedly balked.) Nice irony: as E! Online gossip Marc Malkin points out, by the time the Emmys air on Sept. 16, the song may already be a trophy-winner, since the best song award will be handed out the week before at the Creative Arts Emmys (a.k.a. the Emmys in the lesser categories that they don't have time to give out during the main show).

Sadder still is the report from awards guru Tom O'Neil claiming that Fox almost chose Hugh Laurie to host the Emmys. Now, Laurie fans know that the House star is eminently qualified as a comic — as anyone who's seen his British TV shows with Stephen Fry (pictured at right, with Laurie) can attest — to emcee an awards broadcast. Even those who know him only as Dr. Crankypants know that he can be surprisingly funny amid the carnage on House (where he gets all the best lines) or have seen him deliver sparklingly witty awards acceptance speeches in recent years. Still, according to O'Neil, Fox decided that too few American viewers know of Laurie's extensive comedy résumé from his roles back home in England, and rather than confuse us, they hired the decidedly not funny but comfortably familiar Ryan Seacrest instead. In other words, it's as if Fox were telling us: "Hey, America, we get to host this party only once every four years, and we could have served you prime rib, and while everyone who's tried it thinks prime rib is delicious, the unfamiliar dish might have perplexed you, so we're going to serve you the same McDonald's cheeseburger you can get every day.... Oh, by the way, be careful, 'cause we're not sure what Justin and Andy packed in that Happy Meal box."

Paul Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 06:27 AM EST

Great blog with lots of useful information and excellent commentary! Thanks for sharing.
http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/T1-Internet-Service.html
http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/Satellite-DSL.html
http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/Satellite-Internet.html

Frank Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 06:26 AM EST

This blog really provides great updates on entertainment and entertainers!
http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/Satellite-Radio.html
http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/Direct-TV.html
http://www.1-satellite-tv-facts.com/Dish-Network.html

oqbcdzgw rpjviws Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 05:13 AM EST

pect viopyw flshtoe zljxde hnjgxmcz zfsyghj btujf

Re: Scott M. Wed, Sep 5, 2007 at 07:23 AM EST

You hit the nail dead on.
Seacrest is their man of the hour.

Scott M. Tue, Sep 4, 2007 at 04:16 PM EST

If you look at any of the decisions Fox has made, be it in TV or movies, they have been made on the notion of "widest appeal". While Fox started out as the edgy channel, it has become the epitome of mass media. And while it is reassuring that talkbackers seem to hate RS, the rest of the country doesn't seem to share your opinion: he has several tv shows, a hugely popular radio show, and various other gigs. The obvious question is why? Who is this dude and what has he done to get so far so fast? He must have pics of Fox execs in compromising positions or something, because they seem to let him do whatever he wants. All that for beating out Brian Dunkleman as AI host. RS is the poster boy for being in the right place at the right time. He's entertainment's version of Paris Hilton: famous for no reason. But I bear no ill will towards RS; he is making the most of surprising fame. No, the fault here lies squarely on Fox's shoulders. Thanks for playing to the lowest common denominator.

Tama Tue, Sep 4, 2007 at 04:00 PM EST

Fox could of had comic genius HUGH LAURIE instead of Seacreast! How stupid are they at Fox? Seacrest is not funny and so overexposed. Hugh? Can't get enough of him. Expecially with his original accent. Swoon!

Winona Tue, Sep 4, 2007 at 10:31 AM EST

While I was previously "meh" about Seacrest hosting the Emmys, now that I know that Hugh Freakin' Laurie almost had the gig, I'm livid. I actually screamed at my computer screen. Ugh.

Me Mon, Sep 3, 2007 at 09:17 PM EST

Duh. Most people who tune into the Emmys are those who are actually familiar with TV. Hugh Laurie has been around awhile in film and now of course House. I'd love to see him host.
Maybe it has something to do with him being a foreigner? Whatever the stupid excuse, booooo Fox!

courtney Mon, Sep 3, 2007 at 06:10 PM EST

what the f#&% Ryan Seacreast blah been their done that. I have watched him host American Idol for four years, and I must say I am NOT impressed. Hugh Laurie would have been yet another reason to watch the Emmys. The man is brilliant. FOX, you can do better than that can't you?

Silv Mon, Sep 3, 2007 at 02:13 PM EST

Gee, a double slap in the face. What do you do when you can't turn the other cheek because both have been smacked? Ah, what the heck, it's not as if the media won't be Emmy results-crazy the next day. My favorite part is reading the awards show criticism in the papers the next day...and the day after that...and let's not forget the week later...

Gill Mon, Sep 3, 2007 at 11:11 AM EST

Fox did not want to confuse us? Do they really think TV viewers are THAT DUMB!! The whole country knows that Hugh Laurie is English, and as for the thought that the country is not familiar with any of his other work, then what a great oppertunity they have now missed to show everybody just what an amazing tallented and classy entertainer Hugh Laurie is. And beside is not the Emmys suposed to be shown around the world? Hugh Laurie is known in more countrys than Ryan Seacrest I am betting. Well I wont be watching the show if Ryan Seacrest is hosting. I will record only to see Hugh get his well deserved best actor Emmy. There will be the true crime is he does not win.

European Mon, Sep 3, 2007 at 06:46 AM EST

Ryan Seacrest is by far the worst thing that the American entertainment industry has ever produced. And it's a shame to hear that your network channels don't have much faith in peoples intelligence (by putting him everywhere).

Jenny K. Sun, Sep 2, 2007 at 11:54 PM EST

I'm an awards show junkie. I will not be watching the Emmys this year. The thought of 2-3 hours of Ryan Seacrest was already turning my stomach. But dismissing the hysterical Hugh Laurie for that idiot? The man who gave us the Mystery Song, Peter the businessman, and Bertie Wooster being passed over for the man who gave us, "Seacrest out?"

How condescending.

Matthew Sun, Sep 2, 2007 at 02:04 PM EST

Hugh Laurie would be a great host. Even though I dont watch House, I've seen him on SNL and I've seen his award speeches. He's amazingly hilarious, and a way better choice than "seacrest out." And did FOX really think they'd do an edited version of the song? The whole humor would just be out and it'd just suck, to put it frankly.

Boffle Sun, Sep 2, 2007 at 12:04 PM EST

Would have loved to see Laurie host the Emmys: it would have been a landmark success for all concerned. However, all is not lost: perhaps the Emmys' loss will be the Oscar's gain should the Academy folks be paying close attention...

Lola Sun, Sep 2, 2007 at 09:35 AM EST

I've always had a problem w/ Seacrest- to me, he is the epitome of dumbness. But this is simply heartrending news. Has some Fox executive lost their mind? Yes, they've made an idiotic, idiotic, AWFUL mistake in choosing the Seacrest thing over Hugh Laurie. But now they go ahead and announce it? And explain it by saying that America will be confused by Laurie in an unfamiliar role? GOD, I HATE THESE PEOPLE. Also, I imagine Hugh must feel great- these are basically his bosses announcing to the world that they like Seacrest better.

Jeez.

Ken Kaufman Sun, Sep 2, 2007 at 07:39 AM EST

same old same old: looking down the comments, it seems we're all a bit crestfallen

HadasBT Sat, Sep 1, 2007 at 07:24 PM EST

Gary that last bit was hilarious!!

Lily Sat, Sep 1, 2007 at 03:35 PM EST

Depressing. What was FOX thinking? The nominees (no Lost, no The Wire but Heroes and Greys Anatomy, list goes on) were depressing enough. Boo Fox! I am going to tivo the Emmys to avoid all things Seacrest.

I actually am sad to here D*ck in a box may win. Though funny, Scrubs two musical songs were superior.

Ceballos Sat, Sep 1, 2007 at 08:42 AM EST

Wow, I had not even considered (or any other nominated actor) as a possibility to host, but why not? Laurie would've made perfect sense because he's incredibly charming and witty and he's Fox's boy. I know that Emmy-nominated performers (like Conan last year) host all the time, but for some reason I think it would've been cooler to have an actor.


If Fox wanted to go from someone outside their own network (which they never would) they could've picked an actor like Steve Carell. How great would that have been?


Finally, if this report about people not knowing about Laurie or his comedy chops is true, then that's just embarrassing. First off, ANYONE who watches AI knows that commercials for the MOST.INTENSE."HOUSE".EVER! are routinely featured on the broadcast. Also, House has been on for three years now...I think people already know Laurie is British...and funny. Finally, if they didn't know, would it not be a pleasant surprise? Blech, Seacrest!

Barry Sat, Sep 1, 2007 at 07:34 AM EST

A class act like Hugh Laurie would have been spectacular, but would have upset TV's role in the 'dumbing down of America'. What a shame!

kcholt68 Sat, Sep 1, 2007 at 12:24 AM EST

To my knowledge, the Emmys have never had song nominees performed on their shows (not even when "High School Musical" was nominated), so I don't see why people expected "D*ck in a Box" to be done, censored or not.
-kch, http://moviedearest.blogspot.com/

whol Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 08:24 PM EST

If you believe everything Tom O'Neill tells you....

Ronald McDonald Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 08:24 PM EST

Hey, don't compare that hack to my products! True, while pretty unhealthy and not bourgeois, our cheeseburgers are nice and comforting. Seacrest is more like the E. Coli burritos at Taco Bell.

Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 07:22 PM EST

Okay, so I was less than enthusiastic about Seacrest hosting before, but now I'm CRUSHED!

A guy once told me that if he had one chance to kick any celebrity in the face with a golf shoe he'd kick Ryan Seacrest. I'd expand that and kick everyone at Fox.

dma69 Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 06:42 PM EST

ANY host would've been an improvement over Ryan Seacrest. And to think, Dr. House could've liven up things. His acceptance speeches at the Golden Globes are priceless. Damn you, Emmys!!! A missed opportunity.

Martha Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 06:39 PM EST

Stephen, if you're unfamiliar with Mr. Laurie's past work, may I recommend renting "A Bit of Fry & Laurie" from Netflix? You won't be disappointed.

BrandonK Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 06:39 PM EST

Nice. Hugh Laurie would have been a great host! (Stephen Fry would have been fun, too.) Anybody but Seacrest.

Martha Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 06:38 PM EST

If Fox had taken the prime rib route and chosen Hugh Laurie, there's no way I'd have missed the Emmys this year. However, since they've chosen Mr. Seacrest, I think I give it a miss...McDonald's cheeseburgers and my digestive tract don't get along.

nunya Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 06:31 PM EST

Millions of people watch House and know and love Hugh Laurie -- he would have been familiar to everyone and brilliant. People DO NOT watch AI because of Seacrest, in fact, I usually cringe whenever he does one of his many time-wasting ad-libs, so much so that I usually change the channel for a few minutes. Is it too late to start a petition to dump seacrest and hire Hugh Laurie???

Snarf Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 05:58 PM EST

A huge misstep that some suits at Fox will come to regret come bonus time.

lw Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 05:37 PM EST

ryan seacrest = i'm not watching.

tnygrl Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 05:36 PM EST

I'll see the UGHs and raise you a GAAAHHH!!! Hugh Laurie would have been amazing. So while we can take British imports by the pound (like the Office...and even AMERICA IDOL, formerly UK's Pop Idol), we can't actually have a British host because he'd be unfamiliar? Oh Fox...and you wonder why we laugh at you and not with you.

Stephen Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 05:22 PM EST

Ugh Gary, why'd you tell me that?! Hugh Laurie would have been so great. I am unfamiliar with his past work, but it only took his acceptance speeches at the G.G.'s and SAG's to know it would have been hilarious and classy at the same time.

Stephen Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 05:22 PM EST

Ugh Gary, why'd you tell me that?! Hugh Laurie would have been so great. I am unfamiliar with his past work, but it only took his acceptance speeches at the G.G.'s and SAG's to know it would have been hilarious and classy at the same time.

actingup Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 04:45 PM EST

Talk about pouring salt in a wound - UGGGGGGGGGH! Hugh Laurie would have been brilliant. I have watched his Golden Globe and other speeches over and over because he is HILARIOUS. Not to mention Black Adder, etc. That wonderful British wit. He would have been fantastic. I will now go in to mourning for what could have been - and prepare myself for the HORROR that will be the Ryan Seacrest Emmy's. I shudder at the thought.

advertisement

Add Your Comments

The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject — or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.



  • 1000 characters remaining
    • When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.
Copyright ©2008 Entertainment Weekly and Time Inc. All rights reserved.