MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Top Ten, Pt 2

Sooooo…
After a few hours of thinkin’ on it – how old fashioned – and receiving some takes from others, my feeling about this change is firming up.
The real answer is still… we don’t know how it will play out. Things have changed a LOT since the old studios “ran” the Oscars – mostly by block voting – and what films fill the 10 slots cannot be predicted.
Michael Speir, who is apparently going to be The Wrap’s Oscar dude, wrote a bit of a hysterical piece about the idea of The Hangover being in the race. They will race it now… but no, not really. On the other hand, he wondered whether anyone really needed The Visitor to get nominated… to which I respond that new nominees like that woud be the most positive possible outcome… like The Hurt Locker and Tetro.
We should all keep in mind that while studios will fight harder for more, perhaps less worthy films, a more spread field allows for companies like Overture, who can’t chase a nomination with millions, but who have a movie that Academy members truly love, to have a shot.
Moreover, new sites like The Wrap – which has been positioning itself for Oscar ad sales for months already – are now much more likely to stay in business because of this move. The Hollywood Reporter and, somewhat, Variety too. More people will need more ways to get to voters. Prices per ad will be slightly lower, but the net will be cast much wider. DVD Wars will intensify. And publicists who were considering grad school will have 6 months of full employment again.
Will a crap movie that doesn’t deserve it and is advertised in get in? Yes. They do now. But there should be some sincere excitement about the door now opening a little wider for indies and foreign films and docs and some really fine films that have been priced out of the race in the past.

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Responses to “Top Ten, Pt 2”

  1. mushmouth says:

    And the Best Picture campaign for ‘Paul Blart: Mall Cop’ starts now!
    Actually, this is a good thing. Considering the worthy stuff that missed the cut this year (‘Doubt’ and ‘The Wrestler’ to name two) this should potentially give some ‘little’ movies a fighting chance to at least enjoy a bump in attention.

  2. Wrecktum says:

    Not only will this dilute the Best Picture pool, but it’ll mean even more wining and dining of the Academy establishment. With fewer people to lobby to get a Best Pic win (as few as 600-700) you’re going to see a full court press on titles with with big Academy budgets.
    If only the Weinsteins actually had cash…they’d rule the world again!

  3. Joseph says:

    I really love the 10 film nominees notion. Though if one was to compare to other the practice to other groups that allow for ten in one best picture category, such as BFCA, I think the outcome of what will win won’t change. It’ll just mean five more films that have the Oscar stamp of consideration that get more exposure.

  4. Crow T Robot says:

    I think if the Oscar top ten lists look like the more astute AFI top ten lists then hell yeah, The Hangover has a shot at a nomination. As does Star Trek. And that would be a good thing. The problem with Oscar is that it’s stuck in Oscar mode… So you get limp dick tv movie of the week nominees like Milk, Frost Nixon & The Reader simply because they smell like Oscar. (“This one’s called Body Bags 2, Clarence.”)
    I also think that The Academy casting a wider net should come as an embarrasment to the studios. If their big popular movies were good enough to be nominated, this would not be necessary.

  5. Chucky in Jersey says:

    @Wrecktum: Dream on. Harvey and his cronies may soon be writing Chapter 11 if not Chapter 7.

  6. Hallick says:

    “On the other hand, he wondered whether anyone really needed The Visitor to get nominated… to which I respond that new nominees like that woud be the most positive possible outcome… like The Hurt Locker and Tetro.”
    “Tetro” would only benefit from a nominee ballot the size of a Torah scroll.

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