MTV Video Music Awards to return to L.A. after 10-year absence

Jessica Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:06 PM EST

umm...ya...I watched the red carpet... not bad than as soon as the show started and that brand guy started talking I was like what the heck is this...I watched an hour somehow and had to turn it off..I was tired so to me sleeping was more entertaining. He was by far the worst host ever, hardly can understand him and who the heck cares about his fews on politic's..I sure don't. I can't believe mtv let that happen...what were they thinking.

Michele Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:21 AM EST

I think the host of the VMAs, Russell Brand was horrible. He was way out of line w/the things he said about the Jonas Brothers. I hope he does not get away with what he said.

They are nice boys w/a nice family and I respect their beliefs. They are one of the few bands, that are clean cut and and don't swear. My kids like them a lot.

Denise Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 08:55 AM EST

I thought Russell Brand was fresh and exciting, and the award ceromony was good. As for Russell Brand, I don't believe that stars influence politics unless you let them. But he and anyone else are free to voce their veiws.

Sara Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:37 AM EST

I felt this years MTV awards were awful. MTv has lost sight of it's roots. Superficial and overall unintelligent. I find it funny that they try to influence political views. Miss the MTV of the 80s and 90s when they had a valid view point and valid music. Of coarse I realize their target audience is what 15 yrs old now...and it shows!

Michelle Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:08 PM EST

Omg...Rihanna and Disturbia was horrible, The place didnt seem fun at all, I only liked Russell Brand, wow I was falling asleep an hour in. I loved 2005 Vmas wow good times. At least britney won she is a fav of mine.

Mason Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:06 PM EST

this host was horrible, i mean ya it is ok to voice your opinions about politics and of corse this being MTV you know he was a anti bush liberal, i mean MTV is so anti everything republican. But seriously this host looked and talked like he was on crack, he spoke a mile a min and was just Why do celbs always try to use their power of influence to sway people towards their views? Do they think we are all too stupid to make up our own minds?

cris Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:45 PM EST

vmas sucked this year point blank. i thought britney spears was gonna perform tonight and didnt. extremly disapointed

Amanda Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 09:14 PM EST

It's only worth watching if britney spears performs. The last several years the VMAS have sucked so badly and this year is no exception, the 2008 VMAS might be the worst one yet.

huey Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 12:57 PM EST

any1 plz plz plz tell me if vh1 will show the vma's 2008. plz any1 e-mail me. cuz I only hav vh1.

KennyG Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 05:45 AM EST

Oh, and my favorite VMA moment: when the Beastie Boys performed "Sabotage" on a rotating stage and afterwards Green Day played a new song from their at the time upcoming CD Insomniac "Armatage Shanks". Being a big fan of both bands at the time, I was both confused and happy to hear GD play a song I never heard before.

KennyG Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 05:41 AM EST

It doesn't make sense for MTV to still be called MTV or for them to host something called "Video Music Awards" when only about maybe 5 percent of their programming is music videos. It was acceptable for MTV to do their Video Music Awards up to maybe 10 years ago, but even then they were primarily focused on reality shows and goofy teen and young adult programming more than music videos. Maybe Viacom should just regroup it's focus: turn "MTV Hits" into MTV (keeping it offered as a digital only offering), MTV in some sort of deserved name, VH1 Classics into "true" VH1 (and change the programming to include some more stuff from the past 20 years) and what is called VH1 now into "whatever-MTV-changed-it's-name-to 2" and have the entrire lineup of channels shaken up under Viacom's own name change to "V-Com". After that shake up, then we could maybe see the VMA's on the channel with the largest coverage (probably the MTV or VH1 or today) and an HD offering on MHD (a pretty cool channel!)

brandon Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 02:37 PM EST

I completely agree, the best MTV awards we're the ones where Madonna either was nominated, presented, and above all performed. That's why the European MTV awards are MUCH better. Better hosts, awesome performances, better nominees. It's really about the artists as ARTISTS. The American MTV awards just focus on the moment (Lil' Wayne, Jonas Brothers? WTF?) When Madonna's "Hung Up" lost in all it's categories even though it was by far the video with the most artistic integrity, I lost all hope in the awards. Now it's all about pop stars who have no artistic integrity and suck at performing. What happened to MTV of the past? Madonna needs to win/perform/host anything.

Alli Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:23 AM EST

God, I miss when these awards show were GOOD. It doesnt help though that I dont like alot of music they put out today. I would love to see the old VMA's from the 80s, 90s, up til 2005 put on DVD!! Does anyone know if thatll happen??

stephanieeee Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 07:33 PM EST

Bring back the VMAs to MIAMI !!!

Get back Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:09 PM EST

You clowns are pretty lame. Oh the nostalgia. You whine abou tthe performances, but guess what? There are no more legitimate mega stars these days. That's why you keep harping on Madonna. They don't play as much videos b/c its a lifestyle channel. If half of you knnew about corporate America you'd get it. it's common sense that nobody is going to wait 2 hours to see a video when they can go to Youtube and see it when they want to, hence the ratings go down. Funny thing is you all complian, yet know immensely more about the shows from the last few years that someone like myself who watches the channel. guess for all that ire they still roped you in. What videos who you prefer them play instead of the ones from artists that are selling? She & Him, Manchester Orchestra? No Age? They played them, but guess what? Those videos suck and they only attracted a select few "purists" who log in their moms basements. Unless you have a nielsen box, I highly doubt they care if you watch or not. Loser

smb Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 01:44 PM EST

I'm so tired of watching awards shows that spurn the ego of rich people who are already full of themselves. I'm a poor college student. Why do I want to watch rich people have fun and hang with celebs. Uncool MTV. uncool.

THE 2007 VMAs WERE LAUGHABLE Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:11 PM EST

The VMAs have been pretty unwatchable for the last six or seven years, but look on the bright side. After last year's terrible show, the program has no where to go but up. At least, I hope. Could it get much worse???

Classy Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 09:19 PM EST

I really only wanna watch it if Madonna or Britney performs. Regardless of where it's held.

David Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:55 PM EST

The VMAs are irrelevant and lame because MTV doesn't celebrate musical diversity-or even music for that matter- they don't even show any videos! They should have an award show for all their mind numbingly awful reality shows.

Cassandra Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 04:55 PM EST

I was part of the MTV generation when it first came out back in the 80's. It was great from the 80's into the 90's. After 1995, it just slid downhill as the music styles changed. Because of the garbage they play today, I can't be bothered with the channel any longer. But if they do bring someone of interest to the awards, I do watch it.

Doesn't matter who people like - Madonna will ALWAYS draw the crowds.

aron Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 02:14 PM EST

it's only worth watching for madonna...

B- Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 01:52 PM EST

The last good MTV awards was the Britney "Oops I Did It Again" year. After that it has been far too predictable. Less Rock. More Rap. It's not even balanced anymore. I remember the real good years like the year Christian Slater hosted. Or the Rosanne hosted one. Now it just SUCKS...

tipotropical Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 01:35 PM EST

Good Im glad they are not having them in Miami. I hope they never come back here again.

Me Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:21 AM EST

I look forward to the day when cable companies allow subscribers to choose only the stations they wish to have included in their service (and then pay accordingly). When that day comes, I will not be selecting MTV or VH1 in the channels I select for my cable service.

--- Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:06 AM EST

I've enjoyed the VMA's from 1997-2000, and I like the show in 2006 (minus Jack Black, who I can't stand at all), but last year's show has definitely been the worst so far.

It really didn't make sense at all to relegate some of the top acts of the year, like Rihanna and Kanye West, to perform in hotel suites while others performed on the main stage. Las Vegas did sound exciting and promising to hold the VMA's, but the choice of the Palms was crap (even though I know MTV held one of The Real World seasons there). I know the Billboard Awards has hosted in Las Vegas for a number of years, and their shows have been far more entertaining.

I'm not going to get my hopes up for the 2008 VMA's, but I would like to see Steve Carell host the show.

Martin Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:49 AM EST

Any year Madonna has been on the show, it has rocked, too.

Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:29 AM EST

I’ve been trying to go to this show for five years and every year they move it somewhere that’s NOT New York—the show's true home to me. Where else could Diddy close down five city blocks to perform on a double-decker bus?

This is a desperate attempt to get more A Listers to attend and to increase ratings as they have been dismal for the past few years (a reflection of the current music scene, perhaps?). The problem with the VMAs is that they promise an edgy, crazy night, but then try to force something that can only be created. The best moments in VMA history weren’t planned, they happened organically. I kind of liked the idea they had last year with the parties and the different suites in LV, but it executed terribly. I hope this show is somewhat decent this year. While we're changing it up, can we ban Sarah Silverman and Paris Hilton from the premises?

Maria Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:13 AM EST

To me, 1999 was their finest hour: the location, the host, the vibe (yes, yes, moot point if you hate pop music) and it's been hit or miss ever since. Miami wasn't bad and Vegas could have been fantastic if it weren't for the foul ups.

Martin Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 08:59 AM EST

The Paramount lot unpredictable? It's called corporate synergy...it's what "earned" Transformers all kinds of attention at last year's and this year's Movie Awards.
Having the awards in Miami, while logistically challenging at times, made the VMAs more fun. Stars were relaxed, like they were on vacation (VIP rooms here are small, indeed, so they can unwind). As an island, South Beach is smaller than Manhattan, thus easier to get around. Yes, it's hot, but it's also HOT.
Vegas was a disaster. The categories became a joke. Content-wise, the VMAs haven't been at their best since 1999. The ultimate irony is that the VMAs aren't relevant anymore because MTV's programming is a joke. We're one awards show away from Lauren & Co. as hosts. Hello.

Brent Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:07 AM EST

The best VMAs so far was 2005. because the show was held in a city of heat, hot performances, great host and all the award categories in its glory. now since MTV has gotten the VMAs back to september, the show has gotten a whole lot dumb. there is no more musical categories. What is up with only airing the show once. BET Awards are much better!!!

Scott Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:18 AM EST

No one cares about MTV video awards. The "awards" themselves are arbitrary and worthless, and there's no attempt made to really showcase music played by musicians (usually it's just a dance recital). James, the poster below, does point out that there was a good show in 1992 and he's right on the money. In addition to the acts he mentions, that show also included the Black Crowes and U2 via satellite from the Zoo TV tour. That was indeed a very good show, and MTV should've used that as the blueprint for every year that followed. But predictably, MTV executives and decision makers are all too busy smoking crack apparently.

Los Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:33 AM EST

Amen to James' comment. Last year's show would've been good if they only aired what was going on in the Foo Fighters wing (the Foos, Queens Of The Stone Age, Lemmy, Cee-Lo and Mastodon all performed and no senseless awards were given).

James Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:53 AM EST

Best VMA would have to be 1992. The musical acts included Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Red Hot Chili Peppers, G N' R and Elton John, etc. Dana Carvey hosted.

vin Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:12 PM EST

"The most memorable vmas were from 1999-2003."
You have GOT to be kidding! I will assume that's the opinion of someone too young to remember the VMAs 80s and 90s heyday. It doesn't matter what city you put this crapfest in. The few good videos that are made every year never get played, and what little airtime the others get is wasted on clips from songs whose airplay and Billboard success is manipulated in a board room.

Louis Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:36 AM EST

MTV sucks now. VH1 who is owned by Viacom also is actually pretty damn entertaining for a channel that doesnt play music. MTV just sucks. MTV you have ruined music.

RayT Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 09:00 AM EST

Didn't they try that "We're only airing it once" strategy last year? It still aired at least 3 times a week for the rest of the month!

Wes Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 07:40 AM EST

The MTV Awards have been laughable and nearly unwatchable for three years now. Remember last year when the performances were all held off-stage and only shown on the internet? Who cares what city this crap is held in?

Shamrock Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 04:52 AM EST

Why is this show still even on?

Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:49 PM EST

The most memorable vmas were from 1999-2003. It's been on a downward spiral ever since. When they moved to Miami, than back to New York, then to Vegas last year. Worse to worse to worse. But the worst really was in 2006 when Jack Black hosted. All the winners were weird and the guests seemed disinterested to be there.

nunya Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:21 PM EST

they need to go back to NYC and stick to one HUGE stage where all the action happend, with a hilarious host. the years when chris rock hosted at radio city were the most memorable. viewers don't give a damn about multiple stages and camera views--it dilutes and fragments the show.

susan Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 08:37 PM EST

I thought it sucked last year when they aired it only once in it's original format and they're going to do it again. Not that the show was any good. It was the worst one ever with the year before in Miami right behind it. Go back to radio city music hall in New York with one stage and artists just performing on one stage.

common sensse Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 07:50 PM EST

Last years VMAs were the worst I've ever seen. I doubt this years will be any better.

Los Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 05:04 PM EST

Whoopty-crap. Maybe if MTV actually started playing music programming, the VMA's could also have a chance to return to relevancy. It doesn't matter if you hold the awards show at L.A., Las Vegas or Flint, Michigan; If your channel does not air the music videos they are supposed to be awarding, then the VMAS are utterly useless. They're just wasting a crapload of money on a show that will garner embarrassing ratings because real music lovers at this point understand that MTV is a joke. These piddly 'artist of the week' segments playing during the credits of your shows doesn't suffice as music programming; its just an half-@$$ed excuse for this channel to have the nerve to still call itself 'MTV: Music Television'. This channel should be called "SCRTV: So-Called 'Reality' Television."