Rock and Letterman were fantastic, they roasted the celebs rather than kissed their asses

Aside from kicking off the show, which Billy Crytsal excels at, the host has a pointless role. I say ditch the host and get on with the presentations already.

Pacheco, you're right. I fixed the post.

Prateek, if you noticed, I praised both Rock and Letterman. I liked Stewart's performance, too. But critics think they bombed because the stuffed shirts in the audience didn't laugh. Those are probably the worst people against whom to gauge an Oscar performance, which, of course, is opposite the general wisdom of stand-up comedy.

Jon S. is a great choice. My friends and I actually had FUN watching the show when he hosted. Hopefully since this is NOT his first time, the expectations will be a bit more tempered and thus he will be much more relaxed.

Isn't Martin a two-time host? The year Gladiator won and the year Chicago won? I think so, right?

It's a tough gig to do, having to please everyone across the spectrum. I think the classy, beloved comedian (like Billy Crystal) is still probably the best bet.

I don't think anyone should be subjected to Carrot Top or Dane Cook. Especially the whole mess of people that tune into the Oscars. There have been too many great hosts... Carson... Hope... Letterman... Crystal... so I don't think we should settle for middle of the road comedians. Stewart and Rock were great in my opinion. Also, seeing as how Conan was a slam dunk at the Emmy's I think he's worth hosting as well. All these guys have found ways to breathe life into the show for everyone. It wasn't corny and cookie cutterish, and it wasn't inappropriate! Congrats Jon... here's hoping for a big musical number with you, Colbert and Carrell!

Jason Alexander actually might be pretty good. As far as the other names--why make a long, painful night even worse?