MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Oscar Dating

I don’t know why the following mythologies continue to be bandied about, but…
1. The Japanese follow-up to Flags of Our Fathers will not be qualified for this year’s award season according to sources who are actually in business with Clint. Million Dollar Baby was being discussed as a year-end release by this time that year – I know… I broke the news – and didn’t settle until mid-October.
Anything is possible, of course. And one scenario no one seems to bite on, but is possible, is a December release without putting the film into the Oscar race for Picture, but only for Actor and tech awards.
I don’t know where the illusion that Clint talked to Peter Bart last month come from, but there was no indication in the Bart column that they talked about it directly.. other than PB putting his name on the line by printing the story as fact and not speculation.
2. Paramount will NOT release Fincher’s Zodiac for Oscar contention this year. I would bet much on this. They not only have too many awards movies already, but World Trade Center has been given high priority, while Dreamgirls and Flags are expected to make their own gravy, the charge being led by Terry Press.
There is less than 1 percent chance that Paramount would ever risk WTC for the sake of Zodiac. The reason it is not Silence of the Lambs is that it is a boy-driven film and not a Jodie Foster vehicle.
I know it gives bored people something to talk about, but it ain’t happening.

Be Sociable, Share!

22 Responses to “Oscar Dating”

  1. Nadsat says:

    The interesting question on Zodiac isn’t whether it should be released in December–it seems likely to cause trouble for Paramount’s more likely contenders while having little chance of winning anything itself–but why, if it’s being kept out of December, it would be relegated to the oblivion of January 2007. Based on early reports, this is a heavy, 3-hour long, disturbing film that lacks an audience-friendly ending (most of those aspects also distinguishing it from Silence of the Lambs), and coming right after the December deluge of critics darlings would seem to doom it entirely. If the film is really good, it would seem a better candidate for Spring, late Summer or Fall 07, unless Paramount wants to dump it for unknown reasons.

  2. David Poland says:

    Blackhawk Down is probably what they are thinking in January. That film was qualified, but didn’t get big nods.
    February would seem to make more sense.

  3. Jimmy the Gent says:

    The Silence of the Lambsw was released in February of ’91. Just something to think about.

  4. EDouglas says:

    It’s pretty amazing how many Oscar buzz films Paramount has this year….when was the last time they had *any* films in the race? Gotta be more than four years.

  5. PetalumaFilms says:

    I *liked* WTC* but it’s strangely forgettable. That’s not meant as an insult to the real 9/11 tragedy but maybe the reality is more compelling than the movie. It’s a really good movie, but I haven’t given it much thought since I saw it.

  6. marychan says:

    None of us has seen the rough cut of ZODIAC, but Paramount execs had seen the rough cut of ZODIAC, and they know why this movie “deserves” to be released in January 2007.

  7. Hopscotch says:

    I’m not quite seeing that Flags of our Fathers is any (if all) the front runner. why? WE’VE seen it!!! A color-drained love letter to WWII vets. We’ve seen it. A film about heroism and how war changes people and often in tragic ways. Seen it.
    Also Million Dollar Baby and Mystic River had just some of the greatest talent around. That AIN’T the case here. I don’t want to sound pompous about it, but Ryan Phillipe was destined for a TV show, not the big screen.
    Last year there was a front-runner all the way up to mid-December, then another front-runner took over and had it all the way until “Crash” was announced. So I’m not making any assumptions on anything.
    Personal Note: I was so completely pissed off about Crash’s win this year, that I’ve sworn off watching the oscars or getting caught up in the awards hysteria. The Academy has been wrong before, insanely wrong on MANY categories. But for them to annoint Crash was for me just unexcusable. So I’m taking a break from that show and talks surrounding it. who’s with me?

  8. L.B. says:

    I’m with you on that last bit, Hopscotch. The Oscars wore themselves out for me this year. Between the pathetic “please see movies in the theaters” and “movies: better than progressive legislation” montages I was bored beyond salvation. I perked up a bit for Three 6 Mafia and zoned out again. And the fact that they gave such a bright, shining mediocrity the top award sealed the deal.
    The Oscars are beyond irrelevant. Unless you stand to profit materially from the nomination or winning bump, why should you care?

  9. jeffmcm says:

    I’m really surprised by the notion that Paramount would think that WTC, a movie that has already come and gone and received good but hardly great reaction from audiences and critics (I thought it was mediocre) would be the easier movie to sell to Oscar voters than Flags. It really lowers my expectations for Flags.

  10. Lota says:

    shoot. i thought this thread was about getting me a date for the red carpet. false advertising 🙁

  11. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    I actually think Flags isn’t gonna get a BP nomination. But, then again, this happens every year. The movie everyone says is going to get nominated right from the start (well, not everyone WAS predicting this one at the start, actually). As Hopscotch said, we’ve seen this movie all before. WWII has been done to death, and while that won’t stop them in the future I just think this year, they’re gonna have a break from it. Plus, how often does a director get three movies nominated in four years (and a screenwriter three out of three years).
    If Flags ended up being nominated and WINNING it would be the third Paul Haggis written movie in a row to win Best Picture. Jesus, that’s scary.
    The number of WW movies released this year has been absurd.
    And seriously, what the hell is happening to Zodiac? JANUARY?

  12. Dave says:

    I wouldn’t write Flags off just yet. There was a post I read on another site just the other day from some guy claiming he’d spoken to some of those who’d seen the first showings & apparently they were devastated by it, in tears all the way through apparently.

  13. adorian says:

    What about “Freedom Writers”? Is it going to get some December-qualifying showings? Or is it really going to be dumped during the second week of January?

  14. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Dave, while I still believe it’s in the hunt (you’d be a fool to think otherwise), doesn’t every WW2 movie have people claiming “everyone was crying!”

  15. Dave says:

    As a follow up to the suggestion that people were weeping right the way through an early screening of Flags Jeff Wells is now quoting a source whose seen the film & he calls it ‘damn good’ – but wait – Letters from Iwo Jima is, according to Wells’ source, even better. More screenings of Flags this week, apparently.
    Kamikaze, what are all these WW movies that have apparently been released this year which you term ‘an absurd number’? I think I must have missed 98% of them.

  16. ployp says:

    I’m more interested in seeing the Japanese perspective of the event and I really, really hope that they didn’t make it stereotypical especially coming from an American director and studio, you know, the japanese-willing-to-die-rather-than-be-captured-and-disgraced scenario. Plus, the US has a big thing about being politically-correct.

  17. Josh Massey says:

    I can’t believe a stunningly mediocre film like “World Trade Center” would still be in the runn… oh right. “Crash.”

  18. jeffmcm says:

    Ployp, your two statements seem to contradict each other – if the movie is politically correct, then by definition they would avoid the stereotypes you’re talking about and vice versa. Which one are you more concerned with?

  19. ployp says:

    Jeff, my main concern is that the makers will be too careful about portraying the Japanese that they will portray them as being the noble samurai-like kind, which I think is the stereotype of the Japanese (I remember the scene from Pearl Harbor where the pilot is looking at a picture of his family before crashing his plane into a ship. I’m not comparing the two movies but this scene just stood out for me when I saw Pearl Habor) just to be politically correct. From the trailer, with Ken Watanabe sounding grave tellling the soldiers that they must protect Iwo Jimura (spelling??) from the Americans at all cost seemed, to me at least, to hint at the noble Japanese stereotype again. I guess I think that the makers will not want to portray the Japanese as a 3-D character. I’m sure not all of them were willing to die.

  20. ployp says:

    Jeff, my main concern is that the makers will be too careful about portraying the Japanese that they will portray them as being the noble samurai-like kind, which I think is the stereotype of the Japanese (I remember the scene from Pearl Harbor where the pilot is looking at a picture of his family before crashing his plane into a ship. I’m not comparing the two movies but this scene just stood out for me when I saw Pearl Habor) just to be politically correct. From the trailer, with Ken Watanabe sounding grave tellling the soldiers that they must protect Iwo Jimura (spelling??) from the Americans at all cost seemed, to me at least, to hint at the noble Japanese stereotype again. I guess I think that the makers will not want to portray the Japanese as a 3-D character. I’m sure not all of them were willing to die.

  21. jeffmcm says:

    I totally understand what you’re saying – not standard WWII stereotypes of kamikaze maniacs, but more contemporaneous ones.

  22. palmtree says:

    Historically, the Japanese military was so severely trained that it wasn’t about nobility but just what they had to do. To suggest that most of them weren’t willing to die I don’t think is accurate either.

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