Twitter

The announcement of host for the upcoming Academy Awards likely won’t come for another month yet. The last two hosts, Chris Rock and Neil Patrick Harris, were both announced in October of their respective years, and besides, the Academy hasn’t yet announced who will be producing the ceremony this year, so let’s not put the cart before the horse. Still, that doesn’t mean it’s too early to start speculating about who would be right for the job!

The job of Oscar host may well be the most thankless one in Hollywood. It takes weeks of preparation, and it is annually the most nitpicked three and a half hours on TV. While the possible upside of an increase in star power and visibility is nice, it is almost certainly outweighed by the chances of falling flat on your face in front of everyone. Remember that before he hosted the Oscars, Neil Patrick Harris was known as a slam-dunk excellent awards host, having pulled off successful Emmy and (multiple) Tony Awards ceremonies. One ill-conceived lock-box routine later, though, and he’s a notorious disaster.

So if NPH probably won’t be asked back, who will get the gig? There are certainly past hosts to look at. Of all the former hosts who might host again, I’d be the most bullish on Steve Martin (an all-time great host and perhaps the most underrated) or Hugh Jackman. And Alec Baldwin (who hosted the 2009 Oscars with Martin) has been reminding all of us what a fun host he can be on ABC’s Match Game. But wouldn’t it be much more fun to have a brand new host?

Here are our five best choices for the host of the 2016 Oscars, along with their pros and cons. These aren’t necessarily the most likely. They’re just the best.

Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy

Pros: Have you seen The Heat? Better yet, have you seen the outtakes of The Heat? The buddy-cop charisma and teamwork that McCarthy and Bullock had on display in that movie should be all the proof you need. Both women are major box-office stars, former Oscar nominees themselves (Bullock winning for The Blind Side), and have proved time and again to be incredibly game to put their star power in service of silly comedy. The Oscars tend to work best in one of two hosting scenarios: a stand-up comedian who understands the film industry or a one-of-us movie star who gives the room a sense of comfort. McCarthy and Bullock could be the best of both of those worlds.

Cons: They’re both huge movie stars. They have pretty much nothing to gain by hosting the Oscars.

Tina Fey and Amy Poehler

Pros: We already know they can do it. No, the Golden Globes are a far cry from the Oscars, and we’re not just talking about running time. But the razor-sharp comedy that Fey and Poehler brought to the Globes — fearless but never alienating — would be highly transferrable to the Academy Awards.

Cons: Reportedly they keep saying no. And a few more duds like Sisters and they might not be too keen on reminding people that they’re movie stars.

Key & Peele

Pros: The timing for this seems pretty right. Last year, in the midst of the #OscarsSoWhite controversy, having Chris Rock at the help of the Oscars felt not only appropriate but fortunate, as he was able to both address and diffuse tensions. This year, with the bubbling Nate Parker controversy surrounding The Birth of a Nation and a set of nominees that honestly still could end up overwhelmingly white, we may end up needing an anger translator around. This also feels like the right time for Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele to take a step up, seeing as they’re making movies more and more these days.

Cons: They got a good bit of negative attention for their quasi-hosting bits at this year’s MTV Video Music Awards, though the lion’s share of that seemed to stem from the YouTube generation bristing at jokes being made about the YouTube generation. The risk of that is a good deal less at the Oscars.

James Corden

Pros: He honestly did a tremendous job hosting the Tony Awards, a show that has proved to be a testing ground for future Oscar hosts like Jackman and NPH. He’s fun and energetic and would seem to be a host in the Ellen Degeneres mold.

Cons: It’s not gonna happen. At least for a while yet. He’ll end up hosting the Emmys the next time they’re on CBS, but the Oscars feels like a ways away yet.

Barack Obama

Pros: HEAR ME OUT. Look, come January, he’s going to have a whole lot more free time on his hands. What next job could meet the levels of notoriety, prestige, pressure, and diplomacy of the Oval Office? How about the Dolby Theater! Obama is already beloved by Hollywood. His life story is already trickling into the movies (Southside with You is in theaters now; another film, Barry, about his time in New York City in the early ’80s, premieres at the Toronto Film Festival this week). And did you see his set at his final White House Correspondents Dinner? He killed. Tell me he wouldn’t mow down the Oscars audience. Of all the possible candidates for the job, Obama is the only grand slam option; the Oscars would be utterly unmissable with Obama at center stage. And think of all the taped bits with Biden!

Cons: The amount of preparation that goes into hosting the Academy Awards might preclude the President from taking the job this year. Furthermore, naysayers would probably worry about turning off the Obama-hating red states, but honestly: are those people watching the Oscars anyway? I dare them not to watch.