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
It won’t make the movies any better than they already are though. We now just have 5 more slots open up for movies that voters can say were in their top ten but not previously worthy of the elusive best picture nods.
The argument on the blog this week has been that studio heads (such as Amy Pascal) are cutting costs now to save face due to perceived future and current losses, which may or not be smart.
Pascal was willing to waste (if she doesn’t recover the costs) $20 million (by your estimate) to avoid risk on a Soderbergh/Pitt project.
So, do I think Paramount will spend $20 million to chase a BP Oscar nomination for Star Trek to make JJ Abrams feel better at night? Are you kidding me? Isn’t Pascal standing up to Pitt and company a sign that things are changing in Hollywood the same way they have been changing in the newspaper industry for the past couple of years?
Here is another way to put it: do you really think that Brad Grey and everyone on the e-mail that Michael Bay sent to Paramount were nervous that he might not make another Transformers movie? Did anyone copied on that e-mail take him seriously? If you believe they did, then I underestimate the power of directors like Bay in Hollywood. If you believe they didn’t, I’m with you in agreeing that Grey probably called Spielberg to laugh about how they could replace him for 1/10th of the cost on the next picture, and nobody would notice. I’m sure the budget would drop and profits would increase. Arguments?
You underestimate the power of directors like Bay in Hollywood.
Really? Is there a sign that marketing was upped after that e-mail?
So what happens when T:ROTFL winds up the biggest grossing movie of the year and Bay then pushes to get the movie one of the 10 BP slots?…
I’m not sure how they can do this when there usually aren’t 5 good pictures in a year anyway. I look forward to seeing Transformers 2 as one of the nominees.
More Finke envy? Geesh. So much envy, so little time. I’ve got an idea. How about a second site dedicated to venting this particular spleen, something along the lines of Nikki Is Always Wrong Even If She’s More Successful Than Me?
That’d be hella fun.
Actually, Harley, that’s kinda funny.
are you really saying that an oscar campaign costs $20 million?
Mutiny-I have little doubt that Transformers will be the top grosser of the year, but don’t you think the academy is gonna get enough heat for dumbing down their awards without even taking into account campaigns for the Star Trek/Transformers type movies?
If Bay comes back to Paramount demanding an Oscar campaign, the smart move for a studio trying to reign in talent for the sake of profits would be to tell him that they would be more than happy to pay for an Oscar campaign for Best Picture, but the first half of the desired ad buys would come out of the gross point players pool (I’m sure this isn’t contractually possible, but they could set a precedent for future negotiation). As Dave keeps pointing out-Paramount is the studio that has their name on the Indy/Transformers pictures, but doesn’t reap the main benefits.
I don’t live in Hollywood and I’m not an economist, but does anyone think it would be rational for Paramount and their partners to spend a dime on trying to get Transformers anything other than tech nods? Does the core audience for that movie give a damn about the Oscars? I’m not saying that the Bay’s of the world don’t have their egos and don’t have clout, but the reason that studios continue to take major risks to earn 10 cents on the dollar is beyond me.
They should NARROW the Director nominees down to ONE, because all they need is ONE:
MICHAEL BAY, BEST DIRECTOR.
TAKE THAT TO THE BANK. MAKE IT HAPPEN.
Dunno. Lots of actors and actresses contractually force studios to buy ads promoting them for Oscar noms. People who’d never have a chance like J Lo. Never underestimate vanity. Michael Bay doesn’t have The Rock and Armageddon as part of the Criterion Collection because they’re classic art films.
Jack, a movie like TransFormers 2 is simply not going to get a Best Pic push, let’s get real. They could get up to top 20 and it still wouldn’t be considered to be in the race. What scares me is that a few oddballs will start pushing a similarly one-dimensional film like Star Trek for the big award, and then good money will be thrown after bad. It’s the movies that get the pat on the head, “good for what it is” type reviews that then snowballs. The Dark Knight was an exception, a b-movie that truly could have been on a Best Pic 10-list. But for the most part, this jump in nominees is just going to see a lot more peddling of junk for awards and it diminishes the process.
Mutiny, you’re right. I said TF2 wouldn’t be considered, but I’m talking about at the studios or by the voters. But I’m often amused by how creative talent can be completely oblivious to the quality of their work, and the perception of it. I remember Bruckheimer complaining in USA Today a while back that Con Air was a great picture, and it’s a shame that the Academy is so close-minded to action movies because Con Air should have been in consideration.
Mutiny-if the studios in the past have been forced into ad buys for ridiculous vanity projects, don’t you think now is the time that they force the talent to ‘put their money where their mouth is’? Michael Bay may be egotistical (and apparently delusional if he didn’t think the word of mouth was out on TF2), but I don’t believe for a second that he thinks that TF2 has a shot at a Best Picture win (or nomination in my opinion, but I don’t know how far his delusion goes), whether there are 10 nominees or 50.
Martin-Do you really imagine that the Academy would seriously consider Star Trek, regardless of whether they spent 200k or 20 mil? I think the Dark Knight was one of the rare exceptions where public enthusiasm for a very good popcorn film made journalists believe (or hype) that a nomination was possible. But, doesn’t the fact that the Reader, Frost/Nixon and Milk beat out the Dark Knight for the nomination (btw-TDK grossed more than those films combined grosses, budgets and advertising, plus the ad costs and budget on the film itself!) show you that the academy is still not watching box office, even if they are nominating five more per year?
Actually Jack, I don’t think the Academy would consider Trek even remotely. But I DO think that a movie like Trek which was actually a little better than expected, got good reviews, did good box office, WILL have some internal studio and director/producer support to go for a Best Pic nod. I think it’s ludicrous, and you may as well, but they are in a different mindset from the average moviegoer or the Academy voter. They see the film as their baby that everyone now apparently loves and it must have some intangible greatness to it that deserves Awards. Of course it doesn’t, but that’s not the point. It’s not my money, it’s the studios, but I feel bad for the guy at Paramount that says “sorry JJ, we’re not going to put $5 mill. down for a Best Pic nod. Good movie, but not THAT kind of movie.”
Martin-do you think the $10 million + spent on the Dark Knight campaign (I have no idea how much they spent on the Heath Ledger Oscar) was made up in BO revenue? And if not, should WB have been pushed into spending anything to guarantee that Ledger got a nomination (and I agree that he deserved the win in that year).
Jack-
The Oscars have nothing to do with quality. They have everything to do with vanity.
I’m not saying T:ROTFL is actually going to win or get even get nominated. Not a chance at either. But you’d damn well better believe there’ll be ads for it come awards season. Serious push or not.
Martin, I agree re: Trek. While I haven’t seen the film (and don’t plan to), the language I’m reading in the reviews is nowhere NEAR the type of praise that The Dark Knight was getting. No way in hell this idea is still going to be in play by Awards Season.
But yes, it’s foolish to think that a genre pic can’t win. How quickly we forget the watershed year of 2003 with Return of the King going the distance, and to a lesser extent the cheap thrill factor of The Departed (which is subversively deeper than even its fans gave it credit for). The Dark Knight winning it all last year, or getting major noms really wouldn’t have surprised me.
If Nolan does come back to do a third film you never know what kind of make-up sentiment could be on the table.
So really this is five more chances for the Academy to screw it up.
This may have been touched upon in one of the earlier pieces on this subject but there seems to me to be a flaw to the top 10 format from the point of view of a spectator (and at the end of the day this is still a television show). Won’t it be quite obvious that most of these films stand no chance of winning?
I’ll use a speculative example from last year. Many of us here presume The Wrestler would be in the top 10 were the new rule in place. Yet the film was overlooked in the direction, writing, editing, cinematography, music, etc… categories. So assuming it made it into the best picture top 10, are we to overlook its absence in every other category and talk about the film as though it were in the race? Or do we all quietly acknowledge the old rules hold true (no direction/editing nomination = not going to win) and that the film is an also-ran, in which case it would seemingly defeat the stated purpose of expanding the category.
But The Wrestler did receive two acting awards. Actors rep the largest voting block. And Mickey sure did have a lot of good will blowing at his back…
It probably would’ve gotten in.
Acting nominations, I meant.
(in case that required explaining)
Mutinyco:
I was never really arguing that it wouldn’t make the top 10 last year. That was the assumption of my whole post. What I’m saying is if The Wrestler were nominated for Best Picture and two acting awards and nothing else under the old (5 nominee) system would people say it had a strong chance to win Best Picture? And if they couldn’t say it with only 4 other films to compete with, what could be said of its chances when it’s up against 9, many of which will have the benefit of nominations in more categories. So instead of 1 Atonement (or Finding Neverland or Seabiscuit) we get 6 of them.
The solution to all this is very simple.
The Academy should simply stop referring to the BP nominees as nominees.
It should simply announce its Top 10 list for the year.
It’s semantics. But it changes the general perception. Sort of like saying, “And the Oscar goes to,” instead of, “And the winner is…”
Mickey Rourke was the biggest, baddest weapon in “The Wrestler” arsenal – and he didn’t win. So getting the movie into the running for Best Picture under this spread eagle system would still be moot.
Forget The Hollywood Ten. This is The Academy Ten.
First off, by doubling (DOUBLING!) the number of nominees, the Academy are diminishing the honor of a BP nomination. It is now confetti. And it also dilutes the link between director and BP. We know that each year there is one is film / director who doesn’t make the cut / inches out someone else. But with TEN? I reckon now that as soon as the nominations are announced, commentators will quite visibly divide the BP category into TWO TIERS: those films that are also nominated for Best Director and Those that are not. Those that are not will immediately relegated as less serious/authentic nominations, and the five that do, will be focused on as the real contenders. Same thing with the acting categories: if the film doesn’t have a Lead nomination, it will mean less.
If I were on the Academy board, I would have overhauled the Foreign Language category. One film per country? And it has to be officially selected? So, what if TWO masterpieces were to emerge from a country that is in political upheaval? That country’s government would not endorse either film and neither film would get the platform a nomination can provide. I know this is wishful thinking but if the increase to ten benefits Foreign Language films, and not some mainstream studio product, it may not be the dumbest idea in the history of dumb ideas.
I doubt we’ll be seeing movies like Star Trek take spots. It’ll be more of those middle-of-the-road oscar bait movies taking the spots, surely. I doubt this is going to help any films that would’ve been impossible beforehand. It’ll just help the movies that were already in the running. Frozen River got better nominations than, say, Changeling but the latter would’ve been nominated over the former. Hell, Gran Torino probably would have made it along with NO other nominations.
We’ll see how it plays, but I can’t see it working out very well. It feels like even more of a put down to the movies that didn’t make it. “We have ten slots and you STILL couldn’t get in!”
And what will the Academy’s defense be now when something hugely popular with critics and/or audiences doesn’t make it? “Oh, I guess we are just a bunch of fuddy duddies!”
Plus, so many of the films nominated back when they had ten nominees are terrible.
So say “Star Trek” gets a spot. It isn’t going to win; it isn’t going to be a contender; it isn’t going to make much more money than it already has; it doesn’t need more exposure for damn sure. But a 100% moot nomination is some kind of validation for crowd-pleasing blockbuster filmmaking? Possibly, but you’ll also wind up giving dreck a place on that podium too, so whatever the old glory was to be had is going to be blander for sure.
In other news, Clint Eastwood just announced he will be following that soccer movie up with NINE other features, all to drop in December.
lol
KC gets an assist on that one, since he reminded me of the Changeling/Torino possibilities.
the director versus best picture issue is interesting … I looked up some of the 30s awards and for inst in 1936 of the five directors nommed one, Gregory La Cava for My Man Godfrey, was not matched in the picture category, and the director winner (Capra for Mr. Deeds Goes to Town) was not the picture winner (The Great Ziegfeld’s Robert Z. Leonard) … ditto other years … plus there are ten slots for writer’s …
Lex, as someone who loathes that Oscar whore Clint, I must tip my hat. If I hadn’t just woken up with a margarita and scotch hangover I would have LOLed.
You too, K-Cam.
And of course the real question is, do we think that the ratings will go up because of this?
I will say, no. Even a film like Star Trek, which I love, does not deserve a BP nod. If it gets one I cannot see it having the “rooting” for it that TDK would have because everyone will know it has no chance of winning.
From this vantage point it seems like a desperate move overall.
I hadn’t watched the Awards except for in dribs and drabs for the better part of 5 years. This year we tuned in to root for Mickey Rourke thinking this might make up for a lot of Academy mistakes.
My partner had long since went to bed. When the name Sean Penn was called, I shut off the TV immediately and said it will be another 5 years before I give these twerps the benefit of the doubt again.
And do not think Penn helped the Academy with his lecture/”speech”.
Put flatly; the Academy has burned off way too much good will with the general public for the past 20 odd years with the engines going overboard the past 5. This will not help ratings.
If I am wrong next year, I will gladly admit it.
I’d pay money for a video of Nicol watching either of Penn’s wins, or the ones for George Clooney, Tim Robbins, Michael Moore, etc.
Mickey Rourke was certainly a sentimental favorite last year. And he did a great job. But Penn’s was a worthy win, even if more gimmicky/less natural than his competitor.
Lazarus,
I remember the Michale Moore win. I actually think that was the last Oscar party I attended. When he walked up, the entrire room just went quiet. No one rooted him, no one booed him.
We all just sat there; no one wanted to ruin what up until then was a fun evening.
Tim Robbins I actually think is a very good actor when he wants to be and Jacob’s Ladder is one of my favourite films bar none. CLooney is just Clooney and has no business winning acting awards.
Hmmmmm….maybe if Moore is nominated this year I’ll tape myself and put it on Youtube. You can see me throwing a beer bottle at the screen.
I’ll even put it on a Michael Bay canted angle!
And at my Oscar party, we went ballistic when Moore laid the stage smackdown on Bush and his illegal lying war. One of the great Oscar moments. At least Nicol D could take solace in those evil union stagehands booing him. Bet they wouldn’t today.
You’re right. Today their names would be taken and they would find themselves out of a job the next day.
Somthin’ like that?
Sean Penn should have won last year (2003, different story).
Rourke’s performance. Oh man, so staggering. Do you guys remembered that part when he was walking and unpacked his suitcase? So powerful. I was floored.
Ok, I’m mostly joking. I thought it was a touching performance. But Sean Penn totally inhabited that Harvey Milk. You saw him in front of crowds, saw him intimately with his lover. Noticing the differences in his posture when he was in a room with his friends versus a hostile crowd of other politicians. Really remarkable stuff.
We still have a very long way til December. I doubt Star Trek will pass the muster, but surely one or two crowd-pleasers will make it on there.
It takes a lot more acting skill to pull of the naturalistic fly on the fly style that Rourke did than the hagiographic movie of the week style that Penn did. I am the opposite. Penn did deserve for Mystic River. Milk is one dimensional MOW stuff. The real Milk was a complex man full of contradictions. Penn’s Milk is a saint.
Nicol = paranoid.
Jeff,
I am not really a paranoid person. I just play one on The Hot Blog.
Playing devils advocate here and being sliiightly off topic BUT….
I never download movies illegally, especially big summer blockbusters. It’s pointless to see a big smash up, loud movie on your computer screen. But lets say I pay to see “Star Trek” one time, like it o.k., but don’t have the money to pay to see it again but would like to watch it again so I download it illegally.
Is that *wrong* when the money I would be giving to the film by paying to see it again will go to some stupid ass Oscar campaign for a movie that has absolutely NO business in the game?? I mean, do I need to pay for something I don’t want to buy which is the impending “For Your Consideration: Zachary Quinto, Best Supporting Actor, “Star Trek” campaign?? I feel the same way about bands I like.
I’m already getting screwed on ticket prices so if I download an album of a band I love, and am already seeing them in concert and buy a shirt, isn’t the money I would have spent on the CD just going to go to some PR flak or some douchey A&R guy to promote a band I already know about??
Oh, and to offer an actually substantive comment, Nicol, you are conflating Penn’s performance with the rest of the movie (writing, direction). And for all the hagiographic flaws in the screenplay, I think you have to admit that the performance itself, separated out, was pretty terrific in terms of Penn’s self-transformation, emotional openness, and layers.
Jeff,
I judge Penn’s performance based on as best what I know who Milk really was. I cannot completely separate Penn from the simplistic, worshiping contours of the script and direction because that was the film he signed on to play. That was the version of the character he talked about and agreed to play with the screenwriter and director.
It is a good performance. It is not a great one. As many have said before me, the mid 80’s doc on Milk which I saw years ago late one night is a much more complex view of the man.
Penn did not deserve the Oscar over Rourke. Penn took no risks. All of The Wrestler is an artistic risk.
Dave, time to put all of those MCN top ten year end list mega compilations to work and see what wins when they’re tallied like a preferential ballot.
Weinstein made his oscar career begging second and third place votes. Those are even more important now, I imagine that fourth and fifth place votes are going to matter significantly for the first time in a long time.
The real question is, will it be harder for a film to get 1/11 +1 first place votes than to get 1/6 +1? Seems like a silly question, but having ten nominees reduces the potential for consensus and ‘crowd wisdom’ the increased ‘chaos’ from more movies means that there is greater likelyhood of votes being scattered all over the place, rather than concentrated in the top 4-7 films everyone has agreed to love for a season. I think this will be especially true this year as it’s the first year.
in any event, I imagine fewer films will make the threshold on first place votes this year, with most films securing a nomination on second, third, fourth and possibly even fifth rounds of voting. Whoever is capable of really exploiting the system this year has a BEAUTIFUL opportunity to really game it in their favor, at least Best Picture nomination wise.
(how many current academy members have voted in one of the years when there were ten or more nominees, Temple, de havilland, Cooper, Rooney, I don’t think Karl Malden was in the academy then, but it’s a possibility.)
as for the idea this is increasing the number of producers, not necessarily. Remember the academy doesn’t auto-invite all new nominees anymore.
All I know about MILK is there’s a part where Emile Hirsch is at that march and chants “Anita, ya liar, your pants are on fire!” in this bogus accent that makes liar and fire into “lie-uh” and “fie-uh,” and it’s maybe one of the most EMBARRASSING, CRINGE-INDUCING things I’ve ever seen in a movie. I was just bristling at it and it gets stuck in your head as something you can’t unsee.
How can Van Sant have left that in the movie???
Nicol, the act of playing a fairly well-known public person who also happens to have a completely different body language and emotional perspective on life is a pretty big artistic risk. Case in point for when it fails is Lex’s example of Emile Hirsch’s phony accent – and that was playing a person who wasn’t known at all.
You’re letting your obvious bias cloud your judgment (as usual).
I think Van Sant can have the worst taste possible sometimes. It’s really weird.
Oh, I also saw that Times of Harvey Milk documentary a few months back and, while it was interesting, it was also very thin material. They had so little footage of Milk himself that about a third of the movie was actually about Dan White and his murder trial, to pad out the running time.