I really wanted Kathy Griffin to host.

I think it will be interesting, possibly for the better. From what I've seen the hosts always try to make the show revolve around themselves.

Billboard reported this some days ago.

Kathy Griffin, Sarah Silverman... Ryan Seacrest (?) so many options... are you for real? They better give us a good show

And MTV said that they would have a host just yesterday.

The Grammys never have a host and it works out fine. Aside from the opening monologue, what will honestly be missing? Not much. The hosting can be such a mixed bag anyway, so it will be interesting to see how the VMAs go this year.

Sunday can't come any sooner

Yeah, but the only problem is that the VMAs have typically done poorly when there's no host. 2004 ran WAY too long and seemed rather unorganized, while I don't even want to get into that abomination that was the 2007 VMAs...

At the same time, though, given that you need a comedian or funny person to prepare the monologue, skits, one-liners, etc., for several days, if not weeks, then I guess it's for the better. I'd rather have no host rather than one who does it like Diddy in 2005...

My hope is that this means we're in for the messiest show of all time.

This will be fine. It will still be a crazy show, they've don't this before anyway. But I wouldn't have minded another year with Russel Brand. He was the only one who didn't cone off corny...

Good. Russell and Chelsea ruined the recent shows for me.

FLOP.

I smell MESS. This is going to be so boring with that lady talking "Please welcome... Britney Spears" "Please Welcome... Beyoncé" gurl bye.

Sarah Silverman should host for the rest of time.

How does that even work? Dead

Isn't this old news? Anyway, ugh. But I'd rather have no host than Chelsea again.