Why Ryan Seacrest as Emmys host?
I admit it, I've been kind of a bitch today. It's part sleep-deprivation and part being annoyed with a lot of stuff going on in the world right now!
OK, so Ryan Seacrest in gonna host the Emmy Awards. WHY? FOX already gets monster ratings for "American Idol" so Ryan does not need the exposure. Sure he's cute in that meterosexual way, but between "Idol," "E! News Daily," and his radio show, Seacrest is already over-exposed. But more than that, he's just not that interesting/. His humor does not seem to come from an authentic place and he is merely a professional host. I'd think the Emmys would work better either without a host or with a comic. Conan O'Brien and Ellen DeGeneres have both done well in the past and there are plenty of other funny people on the planet who can enhance the telecast.
Ryan Seacrest?
Why????
3 Comments
Leave a comment
About Out
in Hollywood
Greg Hernandez authored Out In Hollywood for the Daily News from June 2006 to February 2009. He can now be found at Greg In Hollywood: www.greginhollywood.com
Greg: For once I agree with you. How about Drew Carey, who's only just beginning to be over-exposed (but not as much as Seacrest)? Kathy Griffin would be awesome, since she's dissed just about everyone expected to attend. And then there's Graham Norton, who would sparkle every bit as much as the set.
Totally agree, Seacrest is sooo overexposed. Remember, he will also "host" the Super Bowl. Aren't the "AI" producers producing the Emmy show this year? Talk about nepotism.
Because the world is coming to an end, that's why.
I just don't *get* Ryan Seacrest. He has no personality and he's not funny. He might be cute if his blandness and inauthenticity weren't so overpowering. Give me someone not-cute but funny any day. Like how about Bruce Vilanch?