MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

The Last Time Oscar's Box Office Cabinet Was So Bare

One has to go back to 1989 to find a year in which none of the five Best Picture candidates were over $100 million at the box office at the time of nominations.   Of course, we are four box office weekends away from the announcement of nominations this year.  But even with expansions of The Aviator, Million Dollar Baby, Phantom of the Opera and at the end of the period, Sideways, none of the contenders, except long-shots The Incredibles and Fahrenheit 9/11 will even be close to $100 million.

The 1989 group and its box office at the time of the nominations announcements…

Dead Poets Society – $95,860,116 – 1109 screens
Field of Dreams – $64,431,625 – 1100 screens
Born on the Fourth of July – $48,358,094 – 1315 screens

Driving Miss Daisy – $32,941,528 – 1302 screens

My Left Foot – $65,732 – 50 screens

Driving Miss Daisy would go on to win and to be the only $100 million film in the group, over $30 million of it after it won and over $40 million between nominations and the win.   Born on the Fourth of July also got a bump, but only about $21 million total after nominations.  And My Left Foot, a classic Miramax effort, got to almost $15 million on the power of a nomination.

1989 was a very different box office year than 2004, with eight $100 million films before Oscar… four sequels and Batman, Look Who’s Talking, Honey, I Shrunk The Kids and Parenthood, which was expected to make the cut and did not.

This year, there are nineneen $100 million movies already, with a few more to come out of this month, before any Oscar jumps.  Amazingly, only four are sequels.  But even with that much commerciality, only Collateral, Fahrenheit 9/11, The Passion of The Christ and The Incredibles are considered worthy even of consideration from that group. 

So what does that mean for this year’s nominations?  Well, not much.  You can’t change the numbers. 

It does mean that Ray may want to start a whispering campaign about it being the most financially successful of the serious candidates, which it certainly will remain in the next two nomination voting weeks. 

It’s another arrow in the quiver of Harvey Weinstein and Michael Moore as they continue to push F9/11.

Andit gives a good argument to the Hotel Rwanda team for status as the My Left Genocide of the season.  (Wouldn’t that be ironic, given that Terry George and Jim Sheridan are professionally tied at the hip.)

The thing is, there is no way of effectively getting these ideas out into the minds of Academy voters in the next 12 days… and that’s all that’s left.  Besdies which, do Academy voters really think about these details or do they just plain vote for what they like, with the simple exception of not feeling like they are wasting their vote?

And isn’t it ironic that, even with screeners, even with lowered box office expectations, it still looks like neither Lions Gate, Newmarket, or the youngest of the Dependents, Warner Indie and Focus will make it to the big slot at the big show this year?  And two of the likely nominees, The Aviator and Ray, were truly independently financed, but released by major distributors (as with Oscar, Miramax is a major). 

I would say that the results of the Academy move to February are cool… very cool indeed.

Be Sociable, Share!

88 Responses to “The Last Time Oscar's Box Office Cabinet Was So Bare”

  1. Mark says:

    I think the Aviator will rise above 100.

  2. David Poland says:

    Really? Before January 25? Gangs didn’t break $60 million in four weeks.

  3. Josh Massey says:

    Possibly Mark, but not before the nominations are announced.
    Reading that 1989 nominations list, I’m still pissed that “Driving Miss Daisy” won over “Field of Dreams” (yes, it’s sentimental, but damn does it work) and that “Do the Right Thing” wasn’t even nominated.

  4. joe says:

    and the nominees are….
    THE AVIATOR- its just a lock
    MILLION DOLLAR BABY-another lock
    ETERNAL SUNSHINE…- One of the best movies ever made. EVER.
    KINSEY- In my opinion this will be the surprise. Its just so respected.
    SIDEWAYS- Everyone seems to love it

  5. LifeAndDeathBrigade says:

    Eternal Sunshine just passed me by. I could have
    seen it but it just did not seem important. Michel
    Gondry does rule all, but I never got around to
    seeing that flick. Bring forth a SPECIAL EDITION
    next month so I can experience it in TWO DISC
    glory. Until then; “Oh, Navy Seals!”
    That aside; you cannot forget about Sideways. All
    of those critics nods have to get it a Best Picture
    nome just on the basis of hack Academy members giving
    their vote to it because everyone else seemed to
    like it. I loathe the film, but more mature people
    suffering some sort of existential crisis seem to
    love it! So Sideways, Million Dollar Baby, Aviator,
    Ray, and possibly Farenheit should be the top 5.
    If not, then…

  6. joe says:

    9/11 should get a nod, but I don´t see it coming.
    And RAY shouldn´t get a nod and hopefully it´s not gonna happen.
    For some reason I think KINSEY is gonna get nominated.
    It just seems right.

  7. KamikazeCamel says:

    I’d love a nod for Collateral!
    but the nods will (i think) be:
    The Aviator
    Finding Neverland
    Million Dollar Baby
    Phantom Of The Opera
    I still don’t know about Ray!

  8. Dan says:

    I think The Aviator could hit 100 mil by 1/25, though it will be a squeaker. It should do better than Gangs due to the PG-13 rating and the simple fact that it’s getting better reviews. I think word of mouth will help.
    And I’m not so sure The Passion of the Christ and/or F 9/11 won’t get nominated. After all, it would only take 20.001% of the Acadamy to vote one or the other of them in for a nomination for PB, and I’d be willing to bet there are at least that many people on the far right and the far left in H’wood.

  9. KamikazeCamel says:

    But how many people in the academy are fans of each movie? WHile I’m sure there’s more F9/11 fans than Passion fans (i could guarantee it) I still don’t see them nominating either of them purely cause that would be way too controversial. And the academy doesn’t like controversy.
    Hell, they didn’t even want controversy from Lord Of The Rings geeks so they gave it 11/11 last year even when it clearly did not deserve at least 4 of them.

  10. Reure says:

    It´s incredible how Eternal Sunshine is a love/hate movie. Blessed is Jim Carrey, who in the name of Charlie Kauffman, bring the clever ones to the inteligent life in hollywood.

  11. bicycle bob says:

    pretty strong guarantee that f911 has more fans than the passion. i doubt u on that one. i see the passion ahead of f911 for that last spot if it comes down to it. it deserves it anyway. a religious movie in a foreign language grosses over 400 million bucks? come on now

  12. bicycle bob says:

    how can u hate eternal sunshine? takes a real dumbass or a real elitist to hate that flick. perfect performances throughout. winslet should be one of the top 5 ladies if there was any justice

  13. Barry says:

    Sunshine is, like all Kaufman movies, incredibly overrated. I enjoyed myself but it’s still a mess.

  14. teambanzai says:

    I loved the Aviator, but I don’t think it will get over one hundred million till after the nominations, that’s when it will get it’s bounce. As for Eternal Sunshine I’m neither a dumbass or a elitist Kaufman and Carrey for that matter are both overrated. I’d be surprised if it’s nominated in any major catagory.

  15. Sandy says:

    Eternal Sunshine will not be a BP candidate at the Oscars. That’s just a fool’s hope. The most that Gondry will get is a screenplay nom.

  16. Sandy says:

    Oh yeah, Kaufman and Carrey.

  17. joe says:

    I am mexican and I have seen really bad american movies and from my point of view it is eternal sunshine… and lost in translation the really good movies lately.
    Eternal deserves Best Movie, Director, Actress, Actor (He wont get a nom and they might be better performances but his work is Oscar caliber)and definetly (no idea how to write this stupid word)will win best original screenplay and editing.

  18. Stella's Boy says:

    Man you miss a lot when you’re home for the holidays for a few days. bicycle bob, does Passion deserve a Best Picture nod just because of its box office? Though I’m a big fan of Eternal Sunshine, I would be stunned if it was nominated for BP. It ain’t gonna happen. I wish voters had better long-term memories, but for the most part they don’t (I’m still bitter over the way Donnie Brasco was completely ignored).

  19. bicycle bob says:

    i’m not saying it deserves an oscar nod because of box office. i’m just saying it stands a better shot than f911 in the fact that more people “like” it. like being box office. do i think it will get a nod? i say longshot. i would like eternal to get one though but i think its an even longer shot.

  20. Mark says:

    If Brasco came out today, Depp would be nominated for best actor and Pacino would be right up there for best supporting.

  21. Dan says:

    I think more people in the Acadamy like F 9/11 than Passion, but I think it’s the Passion fans who would be more likely to spend a vote on their cause celebre. The liberals I know seem to feel the election is over and we should focus on the future. They’re more likely to give a nod to Kinsey, to p*** off the right, than trot Moore out again. The righties in the film business on the other hand have nothing to rally behind but Passion. That’s their one shot at being heard.
    As for predictions I’d be willing to bet a month’s salary that the BP nods will include
    all the other films out there will be fighting for the last two slots, and I think it could go to just about any of a list of about 10 films. If I had to guess now, I’d say RAY and THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, but they might go to KINSEY, FINDING NEVERLAND, 9/11, A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT, HOTEL RUWANDA, PHANTOM, ETERNAL SUNSHINE, MOTERCYCLE DIARIES….

  22. bicycle bob says:

    it would be pretty funny if f911 got a best picture nod. pretty much proof its a fictionalized drama.

  23. Dan says:

    If that’s all the “proof” it would take for you to think something’s not true, I guess logic’s not your strong suit, Bob.

  24. bicycle bob says:

    what kind of movies are nominated for best picture? fictionalized drama’s. what category is f911 trying for? hmmmmmm. interesting
    rochester university. home of the ugliest girls in america. rochester basketball. its more than a game.

  25. Mark says:

    Only ultra liberals will come out of the woodwork to vote for Fahrenhype. (putting 9-11 in there is disrespectful to all that it stands for). On the bright side if it does get nominated, its basically a four movie race.

  26. Stella's Boy says:

    Fahrenheit 9/11 will not be nominated for BP. Nor should it be.

  27. PeppersDad says:

    Yeah, Mark, you’re right. I honestly don’t disagree with you at all. Sincerely. On a stack of bibles. Only ultra-liberals will come out to vote for Fahrenheit 9/11.
    And, as we all know, there aren’t that many ultra-liberals in Hollywood…

  28. Mark says:

    They’re ultra Lib’s everywhere. I just don’t see them voting for this movie just to makes a statement. Some might find it great. I just don’t see it cracking a top 5 list.

  29. Gombro says:

    How does Rochester University play into this BicycleBob? By the way “Schindler’s List” won best picture, and everything in it is basically true, so suggesting a nomination for 9/11 would make it fictional is wrong. And there’s no apostrophe in the phrase “fictionalized dramas,” so I guess grammar isn’t a strong suit for you either. (And I do agree with Mark that F 9/11 won’t get nominated.)

  30. bicycle bob says:

    thats my point. everything in f911 is fictional. it deserves to be in the fiction category. no one ever called schindlers list a documentary. glad i have to spell it out for u

  31. Gombro says:

    Hummm… Have you even seen F 9/11? Do you know the definition of the word documentary? Saying something is “not a documentary” is not the same thing as saying it’s “not true”. By the way, Einstein, your logic seems to be that since there’s never been a documentary nominated for best picture, there never will be, and that if F 9/11 gets nominated it will prove it’s not a documentary. That’s crazy thinking, bucko. That’s like saying “there’s never been a Chinese man nominated for best actor, so if Jet Li gets nominated for best actor it will prove he’s not Chinese.” Get it? You’re being totally illogical.

  32. bicycle bob says:

    yea, i’ve seen it. and its fiction. just because it looks like a docu doesn’t mean it is so. its kinda like this is spinal tap. looked like a docu right?

  33. bicycle bob says:

    ur chinese arguement is beyond comprehension. thats racist against asians. have some compassion cause jet li is a great actor.

  34. Gombro says:

    Jeeze! The fact that you think my example about Jet Li is racist, and that, by your own admission, it was beyond your comprehension sorta shows the level of intelect a right winger has.
    Let me put it this way, then I’ll stop trying: The Best Picture catagory is not called Best Non-Documentary Picture or Best Fiction Picture, it’s called Best Picture–docs are eligable, even though one’s never been nominated before (first time for everything, right?), so it wouldn’t prove anything for 9/11 to get nominated for Best Picture, except that the Acadamy really likes it. Is that simple enough for you to understand, buddy?

  35. bicycle bob says:

    its spelt intellect, brainiac. and its spelt eligible. i thought liberals were supposed to be semi intelligent?

  36. Stella's Boy says:

    Way to focus only on the spelling mistakes (should we go and find all the ones you have made here?) and completely ignore the bulk of his post. Which is pretty much right on.

  37. Mark says:

    Whats the point? The Moore movie is a disaster. If I were a Liberal I’d be even more upset with him about it. It rejuvenated the right and their base. Seeing him in the Presidents box at the Convention probably made 10 million more people vote. I think its a shame he took his movie out of the documentary category. I would love to hear him get boo’d again.

  38. bicycle bob says:

    well the guy did spell everything wrong. thought i might as well point that out. if you’re going to try to brawl with the bike guy, u better step up

  39. Mark says:

    The Academy will lose a lot of respect if Moores drama fiction movie gets a nod.

  40. Stella's Boy says:

    Do you think the Academy really commands a lot of respect as it is? I know that I am usually not too fond of their decisions.

  41. Joe S. says:

    Bob, anyone who can’t be bothered to spell the word “you” correctly should not be hammering on the spelling of others.

  42. Jon S says:

    Being new to this thread one thing is very clear–Mark and Bicycle Bob don’t like Michael Moore. Do you guys have anything else to say about the Oscars? If not, you can stop. We get your point. (By the way, I’m sure Academy members could care less about your respecting them.)

  43. Jon S says:

    And just to put my money where my mouth is in terms of the Oscars, I predict the following five for Best Picture: “The Aviator,” “Finding Neverland,” “Hotel Rwanda,” “Million Dollar Baby,” and “Sideways.”
    I think “Fahrenheit 9/11 will get a nomination or two, but most likely for editing and director. Documentaries have been nominated for editing before; those editors know that editing millions of feet of documentary footage down into a two-hour feature is one of the hardest jobs there is. The nominated “Hoop Dreams” for editing a while back, and the directors like to reward courageous filmmakers for having the guts to make controversial films. The X rated “Last Tango in Paris” and the very controversial films “Seven Beauties,” “Blue Velvet,” and “The Last Temptation of Christ” all got nominated for best director but not best picture. If Moore gets in as best director, expect him to bump the director of “Hotel Rwanda” out for the slot.
    As for “Passion of the Christ,” expect to see it nominated for a number of technical awards like “Sound,” “ Sound Effects Editing,” and maybe “Cinematography.” There are a lot of cultural conservatives in the tech branches of the Academy, many of them Mormons who went to the BYU film school and ended up in Hollywood in the technical end of the business.
    Finally, as for the fact that you have to go back to 1989 for a year when a non-100 mil grosser was up for Best Picture, if inflation is factored in I’m sure “Dead Poets Society” and maybe even “Field of Dreams” would be at the same level as one of today’s 100 million dollar films, which only makes this year even weirder.

  44. Joe Leydon says:

    Jon S.: Good point about factoring inflation. It’s one of those details people often forget when making comparisons between one year (or decade) to the other. People also tend to overlook population growth. Consider this: There are something like 100 million more people in the U.S. today than were here in 1967. But it’s my understanding that the number of movie ticket sales hasn’t grown at anything like a comparable rate. Which means, even you make allowances for homevid and cable viewership, moviegoers comprise a measurably smaller percentage of the population than they did three or four decades ago. Or, to put it another way, movies are considered important enough to make an effort to see on a big screen by a smaller percentage of population. Even the MPAA has stated that something like 25 percent of the US population NEVER see (or should that be “sees”?) movies in theaters. Now, I’m assuming that plenty of these folks still watch movies from time to time on TV. But….

  45. Mark says:

    I do not like Mikey Moore. I don’t like how he operates. I did like Roger and Me though. I’m objective. I just think he ignores facts and fits what he wants to prove his thesis. Rubs me the wrong way with a documentarian.

  46. Mark says:

    How didn’t Field of Dreams crack 100 mill? Such a classic. Good point about comparing nowadays to even 1989. It’s a different business. Dave, you can write a really good article on that.

  47. Jon S says:

    That’s the 5th comment you’ve made against Moore on this thread, Mark, and he’s not even the main topic of discussion. A bit fixated, aren’t you?
    Happy New Year, everyone.

  48. Mark says:

    If he’s going to be brought up, I’ll gladly throw me three cents in. Glad you’re counting Joey.

  49. Jon S says:

    Actually, it’s Jon, as in Jonathan. I think it’s funny that you claim to be objective but then say you liked ROGER AND ME but not F 9/11 because he “ignores facts” in that one. All objective voices have basically admitted that 9/11 is factually correct, far more so than was ROGER AND ME. In fact, the opposite of what you say is actually true. ROGER AND ME was filled with errors, for which more was roundly criticized (it probably cost him an Oscar nomination that year), and ever since then he’s been much more careful and methodical in his presentation of the facts. F 9/11 was fact checked to death and is completely defensible in its assertions. Me thinks you just don’t like the truth he’s saying and rather than deal with it, you’ve decided to do the cheapest thing of all–just bury your head in the sand and dismiss him as a liar. Sorry, but Moore’s been far more honest with the American people than the Bush administration. Not that you’re alone. 51 percent of the voting public had the same problem last year.

  50. Martin says:

    That’s not entirely true, F911 had some mistakes, including a claim that no one could board airlines for several days after 911, except for the bin laden family. Not true. I think there were a few more. However, it was more accurate than many conservatives were willing to admit. The majority of the criticisms of the film and filmmaker were personal ones, ie Moore’s a fat slob, etc. which just goes to show that both parties are morally bankrupt.

  51. Mark says:

    The thing about Roger and Me was it was at least entertaining. I guess Moore didn’t have to live up to anything on that one. There were a lot of lies and made up truths, same as in his latest movie. But at least that one was watchable.

  52. Stella's Boy says:

    Mark, do you know for a fact that F9/11 is full of “lies and made up truths,” or do you believe that because Fox News told you so? I’m not saying every single accusation Moore makes is 100% correct, but agree with the man or not, there is a hell of a lot more in the movie that is true than the other way around.

  53. bicycle bob says:

    even a guy like u stella, a confirmed liberal, can see that f911 is a fabrication and lie at every turn

  54. TheBrotherhoodOfTheLostSkeletonOfCadavra says:

    So F9/11 is a fabrication and lie at every turn? I see. I guess Moore must have pointed a gun at Bush’s head and forced him to say all those untruths and stupidities. What Moore did with the Bush clips is no different than what Letterman does every night; the difference is, Letterman does it for 15 seconds and Moore did it for two hours. And he has repeatedly said that people are welcome to sue him for any false claims in the picture, but so far the courts have been silent. But please, feel free to keep believing your little delusions; the German people also swallowed the garbage Goebbels was shoveling at them every day.
    And by the way, the best way to tell when someone knows he’s lost the argument: he goes to the fat jokes.

  55. Stella's Boy says:

    I am waiting for you to point out all of the lies and fabrications bob. Please, feel free. Back up your claims.

  56. Gombro says:

    Looks like it’s not going to happen, Stella’s Boy. If “bob” can’t use punctuation or his shift key, how’s he going to offer evidence in terms of a thoughtful response to your meaningful questions?

  57. Stella's Boy says:

    Yes, bob is mysteriously silent. I suppose that says a lot in and of itself.

  58. Joe Leydon says:

    Yes, he’s quiet. Too quiet.

  59. bicycle bob says:

    i know u liberals think its fact and hes a god but deep down u know its all lies at every turn.
    fat moore is a guy who doesn’t think we are even at war with terror and islamics. he complains more democrats died on 9 11 than republicans! he lied and was deceitful the whole movie and still continues to be to this day. all hes out for is profit for himself. i’ll throw some at you.
    1. showing gore as a winner in florida when he was never declared
    2. lying about the florida recounts
    3. lies about the book bush was reading to the children. it was reading mastery 2. not pet goat. which obviously sounds funnier when hes lying to an audience.
    4. lying about how the president knew planes were going to attack us and doing nothing about it.
    5. criticizing the saudis leaving the country. then not mentioning it was his Hero richard clarke as the one who gave the go ahead to leave.
    6. fat moore points out the close relations bush has with the saudi prince. failing to mention the close relations the prince and his fmaily have had with almost every president especially clinton.
    7. his indictment of the carlye group. and the investments of bin ladens family. failing to mention another investor george soros. but hey u can’t indict a liberal right?
    8. saying the war in afghanistan is about an oil pipeline. with no facts the prove it obviously. this idea was clintons and was dropped in 1998!
    9. fatty moore claims osama might even be innocent. the be all and end all of claims and lies. he goes out of his way to connect bush to bin laden and then does that? he even 3 days after 9-11 says we shouldn’t go to war over it. like it never happend.
    10. he never properly goes into how afghanistan is now after we liberated the country. thats forgotten because we’re the big bad americans.
    Thats 10 things. u want more?? i can go on for days. but yea, keep going with how bush and his cronies are profiting and its all a right wing plot to get power. thats why the left in this country is falling far behind the mainstream. you all should move to canada. thanks. kisses.

  60. Stella's Boy says:

    OK, 1 and 2 are your opinion, not facts, whether you like it or not. Understand the difference between fact and opinion bob? Or is that too tough for you? As for 3, that is just funny. I have never read anything about Bush reading another book. Not even Fox News claims that. No one has disputed what book Bush was reading. That’s one of your complaints? Seriously? You’re a trip man. 4, Bush did have information that terrorists might try to use planes to attack. That is also fact. He didn’t have specifics, but he knew planes might be used as weapons. 5, you might be right. I know others have pointed out the flaws in Moore’s statements about the Saudis. 6, um, so you agree it is true? Bush is close with Saudi royalty. That is fact. 7, of course Moore will leave that out. But he isn’t wrong about Carlyle. You are really not doing well here bob. 8, honestly, I don’t remember Moore claiming that Afghanistan was only about oil. Maybe he did, I just don’t remember that in F9/11. 9, Moore never claims that Osama might be innocent. You are just making stuff up now. 10, Afghanistan is a mess, bob. That is a fact. Anyone can tell you that.
    Is that the best you can do? You have one decent point, #5. That is it. Pretty poor showing bob. You are totally delusional in your Bush worship. Of course he and his cronies are profiting. Is that really that surprising? Another fact you ignore? Seriously, could you be any more obtuse? I love America. I have lived in a third world country. I know how great we have it here. Why can’t I criticize the president? How does that make me un-American? I am a better American than you are. You are a blind sheep. And when will you get it through your head, I don’t love Moore. Neither do my friends.

  61. bicycle bob says:

    first off the book bush was reading wasn’t my pet goat. that was a story in the book he was reading. but hey its funnier to lib’s that that was the title. right, libs?
    how is afghanistan a mess? 10 million people voted!! in afghanistan!! u comprehend this? obviously not. a country that was taken over by terrorists, now is free and liberated. thanks to who? the good ol US of A.
    whos profiting from a war? why is everything a conspiracy with u libs? weren’t we attacked? many times? now its just about time we did something about it. there are no treatys with these people. no negotiations. no settlements. only force.
    you agree with all my points then u try to berate me. typical liberal stuff. try to drown out points with loud talk and personal insults. so u and ur lib friends think this propoganda movie is gospel. thats fine. but don’t try to put that onto the american public. ur a crappy american and ur better off in france where u belong, stella.

  62. Mark says:

    How can you defend this? There is not one thing factual in this “documentary”. Good points, Bobby, but you left out about ten on Iraq. I realize there is way too many in this little propoganda tool to actual list on a blog. This is the kind of film the Nazi’s made in the 30’s. When Islamic fundamentalists show and praise a film don’t we have to look at it with objectivity? Not to mention the French.

  63. Stella's Boy says:

    Why should a person debate with you bob? You can’t even read, much less formulate an articulate opinion. I agreed with one of your points, and somehow you turn that into agreeing with all of them? You typify the right-wing lunatic, a la Limbaugh and O’Reilly. You don’t listen. You have a narrow mind. You make stuff up. You intentionally twist people’s words. You are exactly what is wrong with this great country. And I already know I am 10 times the American you are, because you throw around tired, ridiculous right-wing insults like “go to France.” That is so incredibly moronic, I can’t believe you would actually post it. You just aren’t a bright man.

  64. SRCputt says:

    An honest question here, because I’ve never heard an answer to it: How is it un-American to disagree with a policy of an elected leader?

  65. Stella's Boy says:

    Good luck getting a logical answer on that one.

  66. PeppersDad says:

    This is the kind of film the Nazis made??? SHAME ON YOU! The Nazis made hideously demagogic films that were most astonishing for the way they beautified the grotesque German nationalism of the time. If a comparison is to be made, that is MUCH more akin to what the Republicans do with all of their endless, hollow, deceptive “patriotic” sloganeering. Whether you buy into his perspective or not, how does Michael Moore’s efforts to debunk the status quo party line even begin to compare???
    You continue to disgust, Mark, with your offensive, ignorant, half-baked, dangerous remarks on this site. If you can’t even speak with a C- knowledge about Nazi evil, can you at least please stop identifying yourself as a Jew here? You are a true “shondah” to our community.

  67. Stella's Boy says:

    bob and Mark, this one is for you. I hope it is simple enough for the two of you to understand.
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
    — Theodore Roosevelt

  68. Jake says:

    No offense, but anyone who takes F 9-11 seriously is a full fledged moron. Stop embarrassing yourself.

  69. Stella's Boy says:

    Nice contribution Jake. Very insightful. Way to make yourself seem very intelligent. How long did it take you to come up with that brilliant observation?

  70. Mark says:

    Stella is a true blue Liberal. There is no reasoning with him so it is really not worth the effort to explain facts to him. Pretty much like all his kind out there. Be careful Jake. He may put a curse on you.

  71. bicycle bob says:

    see stella. i list facts and u come back with personal insults. i didn’t expect anything less from you. thankfully. u can criticize a politician all u want. just make sure ur facts are right before u go preaching gospel. but it seems u can’t understand that. i guess anyone to the right is fair game for ur liberal pansy cronies.

  72. Joe Leydon says:

    Excuse me, folks, but I would I advise you against making any blanket statements or rash assumptions about “the kind of movies that Nazis made.” The vastly overwhelming majority of films made by German studios throughout the Third Reich were not explicitly political or propagandistic. Heck, even propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels himself warned filmmakers against producing films that weren’t uplifting, feel-good entertainments (that, of course, would be good for home-front morale) or lavish period pieces (in which, of course, Germany was gloriously romantcized). His theory: As soon as audiences realize they’re being served propaganda, the propaganda is useless. Any “messages” in the films usually were sugar-coated, artfully disguised and infused with emotion. (I know this is going to piss you off, Dave, but “America’s Heart and Soul” is just the sort of movie that would have delighted Goebbels.) I’ve written articles about this, but you don’t have to take my word — there are several good books on the subject. (One of the better ones: “The Ministry of Illusion: Nazi Cinema and Its Afterlife” by Eric Rentschler.) Trouble is, many people have seen or heard of “Triumph of the Will” or the even more despicable “Jew Suss” and assume they were the norm for Nazi cinema. But, really, they weren’t. Incidentally, there’s a new documentary film recently released in NYC and, presumably, due to open elsewhere in the coming months: “Hitler’s Hit Parade.” Haven’t seen it yet, but I’ve heard it includes many excerpts from Nazi-era movies.
    Oh, and by the way, here’s another reason why you shouldn’t be too quick to assume you know what Nazis liked in their movies: Goebbels notes in his diary that Hitler was greatly pleased by a 1937 Christmas present Goebbels gave Der Fuehrer: 18 Mickey Mouse shorts. No joke.

  73. bicycle bob says:

    leydon changed his last name when he moved here from the old country. it used to be goebbels. thanks

  74. TheBrotherhoodOfTheLostSkeletonOfCadavra says:

    Bob calling Leydon a Nazi? Swell. That’s like being called effeminate by Richard Simmons.

  75. Joe Leydon says:

    Thanks for the defense, Skeleton, but it’s like a college professor once told me: As soon as you start calling someone a Nazi, you’ve lost the arugment. Ipso facto, Bi-Bob is a loser.

  76. bicycle bob says:

    i can’t go against facts leyd-O. but as u are the expert on nazi propoganda films…
    kinda like how steel is the expert on the san francisco bathhouse scene

  77. Joe Leydon says:

    I don’t know if I qualify as an expert, Bi-Bob, but I have done some research to back up what I’ve written. They hide information like that at those places they call libraries, in those things they call books.

  78. Mark says:

    Maybe you should crack thos books some more “Goebbels”. The Nazi party was a propoganda spin organization and turned out films to send their message around Germany. They weren’t making some supporting the Jews. I love know it alls.

  79. PeppersDad says:

    Mark –
    What the FUCK are you talking about, you despicable “shondah”? Are you really looking to push people so hard that, eventually, someone (NOT ME) will locate you and crack your brainless skull open?
    Are you now going to start calling me a Nazi, too? I’m Jewish and my grandparents were killed in concentration camps, as were many other close relatives I never got to meet. As someone with close ties to and knowledge about this subject, believe me: a cowardly thug like Mark resembles the brownshirts immeasurably more than a well-spoken, educated man like Joe Leydon.
    Funny how Dave Poland whines and whines about what others have written about him, then he blindly stands by as sick, definitively evil comments by his supporters (like Mark and Bicycle Bob) are allowed to stand on his website.

  80. Joe Leydon says:

    You know, Mark, you really should learn how to spell words like “those” and “propaganda” before you start trying to talk with the grown-ups. And, by the way, you’re taking the typically stupid approach of an ignorant blowhard by accusing me of saying something that I most certainly didn’t. I never said German producers made movies supporting Jews during the Nazi era. I said that very, very few of the films produced under Nazi rule were explicitly (as opposed to covertly) propagandistic. To quote my earlier posting: Any “messages” in the films usually were sugar-coated, artfully disguised and infused with emotion. Go back and read what I posted. Or, better still, have someone read it to you.

  81. Joe Leydon says:

    Pepper: David doesn’t whine and whine. He kvetches and complains. There IS a difference.
    BTW: Dave, any chance of your installing SpellCheck in here?

  82. PeppersDad says:

    Joe –
    Point taken. Same conclusion, though.

  83. SRCputt says:

    Two days later, my question goes unanswered: How is it un-American to disagree with a policy of an elected leader?
    I ask because I was raised that America’s founders encouraged and wanted healthy debate. And one poster here told others they were a “crappy american” and should move to another country for honestly questioning a political leader. I think the person advocating blind trust in political leaders would be the one who is un-American.

  84. Joe Leydon says:

    SRCputt: Don’t pay the barking dogs any mind. During the Vietnam War, the Righties tried to squelch dissent with a slogan: “America — Love It or Leave It.” They were wrong then, they’re wrong now.

  85. Mark says:

    Whoever said it was un American to disagree with government? Thats what our whole system and why we fight is all about. Thats why we preach freedom and free thought. So guys like you can disagree and say it. That is why this country is great. But when people lie about things, it works the other way too. Those lies can be called out and disproven and discredited. What don’t you get?

  86. PeppersGrandma says:

    Leave my family alone. Just because we’re backwards and don’t know much doesn’t give you the right to talk about us. Take ’em to court family of Peppers. Fry all Americans. String em up.

  87. Stella's Boy says:

    Apparently you haven’t been reading much around here Mark. Anytime anyone says anything remotely anti-Dubya or anti-war, they are branded a liberal traitor and told to move out of the country. What don’t you get?

  88. SRCputt says:

    Thank you Mark. It looks like you and I agree in healthy debate and that healthy debate is an American trait of which we can be proud. It allows us to say what we believe. And you’re right: part of free speech is the right for someone else to tell me I’m wrong.
    The reason why I posted my question was in response to an earlier comment on this thread “ur a crappy american and ur better off in france where u belong”. That same person told all liberals “you all should move to Canada”.
    In my opinion, nothing on this board has been un-American. In fact, its the opposite: different opinions is quite American. That was my point. I’m glad to see that most people (save one, apparently) agree with me.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon