MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

True Grit Watch

Now that True Grit has muscled its way into the frontrunner slot to win Best Picture – more in a 20 Weeks column coming up later today – watching the film’s box office, a major influencer, becomes more interesting.

The best comparison I can find is Benjamin Button, which didn’t win Best Picture, but actually came to the table with higher expectations than Grit. They had slightly different points of entry, as Grit opened on the 22nd while Button stuck to the Christmas Day release. And with one extra day, Grit’s 7-day is only about a million dollars up on Button’s 6-day, putting both on even footing on the Tuesday after Christmas.

However, while Button blew out of the gates more strongly, Grit is the film that’s accelerating post-opening faster, grossing $2.1 million more than Button on the comparative Monday and $1.4 million more on Tuesday. Projecting a modest (using Mon/Tue as a guide) 30% increase onto Button’s run from yesterday (Wed) to the end of the upcoming holiday weekend, which was $31 million, you’re looking at True Grit closing the holidays at just around $90 million domestic, passing The Social Network as the highest grosser other than Toy Story 3 and Inception in the field by midweek, maybe Jan 4 or 5.

Be Sociable, Share!

103 Responses to “True Grit Watch”

  1. Prognos says:

    I loved “True Grit,” but it won’t win the Oscar. “King’s Speech” was better. But more importantly, the voters won’t give it to the Coens again THAT soon. And “The Social Network,” while another great film, didn’t have likable enough characters — when you get down to it it’s just some rich a-holes swindling other rich a-holes — not the most endearing of plots in these economically ravaged times.

  2. Not without a SAG ensemble nod. Tough one to overcome.

  3. Nathaniel R says:

    I’m confused. when did True Grit become a frontrunner? Did I sleep through an important development?

  4. bulldog68 says:

    Must be a very merry christmas at the dude’s home. 2 $100M grossing movies released in the same month. Jockeying positions in the top 3 for days now, and despite the GG non-nom, I think he’s a lock for Academy nom. The Dude abides.

  5. Loyal says:

    The main thing keeping Grit out of the conversation is the lack of a big guild win. SAG is out, DGA is very unlikely, PGA isn’t going to happen, WGA is also very unlikely.

    So at the end of the day it has great reviews and box office. And box office while great, isn’t so great that it creates a mandate in and of itself. If it grossed 200m, becoming the biggest western ever, that would be one thing.

    I think a more likely scenario is that True Grit’s financial success splinters the “I like this film more than The Social Network” vote even further and actually HELPS The Social Network win. You now have the Black Swan camp and the Toy Story 3 camp and the Inception camp and The King’s Speech camp AND the True Grit camp all vying for the same piece of the pie and trying to topple The Social Network. It far easier to chose between two films than it is six films.

  6. IOv3 says:

    Let me just throw it out there: The King’s Speech. The Social Network is not exactly Network and thus not exactly about this current age. Toy Story 3 should win the Oscar but really, can we count on actor’s voting for a movie that did not feature any of them on screen? Inception should also win but it’s TOO LOUD FOR FUCKING MICKEY ROONEY SO THAT’S FUCKING OUT! You also have True Grit which, let’s be honest, is about as deep as a puddle. This leaves us with a rousing movie, with a rather loved actor for 20 years, giving like his third award worthy performance in a row.

    Seriously, The King’s Speech is as OSCARY a movie can get.

  7. matt says:

    Agreed that True Grit broke out way beyond expectations, but…
    agreed that True Grit is only a contender and not a frontrunner. Locked out of the GG, and even Crash had a SAG ensemble win while True Grit does not have an ensemble nom.

  8. LexG says:

    Considering that IO is a “fan” of literally EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY ON EARTH, EVER– seriously, the dude probably knows exact timecodes to the FRAME of lines of dialogue from GoBots Episode 312 from 1985 and likely has dutifully logged VHS tapes of the fucking CARRY ON… series from the 1970s, it is mind-blowing to me that the second movie, like, EVER, he’s gone on a psychotic sports-fan-type “everything the away team does is 100% evil and every thing my home team does is 100% correct” diatribe against…

    is TRUE GRIT, of all perfectly excellent movies.

    I like IO but this is quite insane, and EXACTLY the kind of thing he calls out Poland on every single day of the year.

    (Ducks from the “McWEENY STYLE” response or whatever he’ll call it.)

  9. a_loco says:

    Is it just me, or does anyone else have a hard time believing a bunch of Director’s are gonna vote for Fincher, as is expected? I mean, he didn’t do a bad job at all, but he even admitted during that Charlie Rose interview that the screenplay was pretty much failsafe as far as the direction went. It’s like when Ron Howard directed Frost/Nixon. The movie was good, but not because of him.

    (Not that I’m saying Howard is Fincher’s equal, I’m just saying that they’re both writer’s movies.)

  10. Direwolf says:

    It won’t win, not even in the conversation to win, but I still favor Winter’s Bone.

  11. David, this might be the single most wrong thing you’ve ever written. I will personally give you a million dollars if TRUE GRIT wins BEST PICTURE. Write it down on a post-it and stick it on your fridge. Front-runner? For real? This is not addressed to you, but everyone in our community: GET OFF THE COEN BROTHERS’ BALLS! We’re totally blinded by our allegiance to these guys. My 21-year-old brother, a senior at Syracuse, saw TRUE GRIT with a couple of other intelligent kids in Boston the other night. They all hated it and were bored out of their minds. This is what the actual reaction is outside of our little bubble. I was one of those who pushed There Will Be Blood over No Country For Old Men, but I wasn’t shocked when the latter won Best Picture. It was a great movie with a meh ending. True Grit, however, is all meh. It’s a very well-crafted film, maybe the most accessible the Coens’ have ever made, and Hailee was a nice find, but IT WASN’T THAT GREAT. My jaw legitimately drops whenever I see it at #1 on someone’s Top 10 list. That decision blows my mind. I can’t even fathom how someone who paid attention to movies this year would give that a pass and declare it the best of the year. It was a good, 3-star movie (out of 4), but there was nothing terribly exceptional about it and the tone was all wrong for what was supposed to be a revenge-driven Western. All this shit about people reading the film as a metaphor, and how Coen movies NEED to be seen twice. It’s RIDICULOUS. Same with A SERIOUS MAN. Why are the rules different for these two? TRUE GRIT isn’t a pimple on the ass of THE SOCIAL NETWORK and to argue otherwise is simply crazy talk. Period. End of story.

  12. LexG says:

    Holy shit, InSneider bringing the THUNDER…

    But on one thing I DO agree: The Coens could certainly withstand a little respectful dissent in film-nerd circles; They really ARE the one and only one directorial entity that almost to a critic, to a film geek, you NEVER hear anyone talking mad smack about. Not that they deserve it, they’re great, etc… But think of ANY OTHER MAJOR BELOVED DIRECTOR, be it Scorsese or Lynch or Eastwood or Woody or Ridley or Cronenberg, you’ll find a healthy percentage of online blowhards hyperbolically ranting against them. Coens are the only ones who can put out an INTOLERABLE CRUELTY and their fanbase (ie, every critic ever) will sit there nodding over what a DELIGHT IT IS.

    If Martin Scorsese or Clint Eastwood made the exact same movie as Intolerable Cruelty (not that they ever would, of course, so I know it’s a silly argument) they’d be verbally lynched online.

    And if MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL were somehow magically a Coen film, it would be an IMMORTAL CLASSIC.

    Just saying, I know VERY SMART MOVIE GUYS who have such a boner for the Coens, they go into each and every new one with this WIDE-EYED GIDDY GLEE, which is great but they should have that for a LOT of other filmmakers, yet they’ll go into a new Scorsese or Nolan or whoever all grumbly and cynical and rubbing their hands just WAITING to pounce on the first transgression so they can launch into it.

    Basically the Coens, if you get down to it, are the ONLY DIRECTORS ON EARTH where movie bloggers and critics go into the theater ACTIVELY WANTING TO LIKE THE MOVIE.

  13. IOv3 says:

    Lex, there are things I do not personally do, and one of them is not to shit on the Duke. Seriously, if True Grit was remade by any filmmakers not named COEN, that entire LOT OF YOU, would be giving them shit for remaking it. Instead, it’s the beloved Coens, and they can do no wrong. Yeah yeah yeah.

    The fact that it has exact dialogue in many scenes, that it’s STILL NOT SHOT IN MY PART OF THE WORLD, and that it’s a REMAKE OF THE ONE MOVIE THAT GOT DUKE AN OSCAR! Well, yeah, that pisses me off but unlike with a remake of Dawn of the Dead, there’s no Zack Snyder to be gained from this film, it’s just the Coens making more static cinema.

  14. Hopscotch says:

    DP is in pretty close contact with a lot of voters so I wouldn’t take his prediction lightly. I think it’s possible. Some think The Social Network is too cold and unemotional, some think The King’s Speech is too formal and slow. True Grit could sneak in there.

    The year analogy I’d give is 2006 when the Departed won. Also a remake, also seen as a “commercial film” by a respected director. They’re both serious genre films, but with some very funny lines.

    I’d say the only “Clear” front-runner in anything is Firth for Best Actor.

  15. IOv3 says:

    Again, rewarding the Coens again is horseshit. The fact that god damn A Serious Man got a BP nomination last year, pretty much shows to a great degree that if the Coens shat in a box. Many of you, critics, and Academy voters would declare it the great shit ever composed in a box and worthy of the highest considerations.

    Oh yeah, if the Directors vote for anyone, it should be Nolan. Seriously, that dude hides in his house most of the time but if the DGA wants a panel, that guy gives them a panel and will DISCUSS HIS FILM IN DETAIL!

    ETA: Hopscotch, he talks to a bunch of older voters that THOUGHT INCEPTION WAS TOO LOUD! These voters are obviously old and of course old people are going to vote for True Grit: it’s an old people’s film.

    Also, they literally left the fucking throat rip in Road House for AMC. That’s mind-blowing.

  16. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    IO are you not a Coen Brothers fan in general? I for one have to disagree with your contention that people would be outraged by a True Grit remake if someone else made it. I think most people have come to terms with remakes being a major part of the business, for better or worse. While it isn’t me favorite movie of the year, True Grit 2010 is a great flick. Stellar acting, beautifully shot and scored, very funny. I enjoyed it immensely. And my 61 year-old father, a Western nut and big fan of the original and John Wayne, thinks the remake is better. It’s a real crowd pleaser and will do strong box office. That and good reviews could easily lead to a BP win.

  17. Hopscotch says:

    I’m 30 years old and I loved True Grit. I can’t wait to see it again. It’s my second favorite film of the year behind Inside Job. I’d love to see it rewarded with oscars.

    After Crash won Best Picture in 2005 (one of the worst if not THE worst best picture winner), anything is possible with that group of voters.

  18. InSneider: Stick to finding Paramount memos in the Xerox machine.

  19. Geoff says:

    IO, I agree and disagree with you:

    This bullshit about Inception being too loud is completely fucking ridiculous – and if guys like Mickey Rooney are saying that, then fuck Mickey Rooney! Dude did Night at the Museum and that shit wasn’t exactly “quiet.”

    Nolan and Fincher are definitely deserving, but do we need the hatred/resentment of the Coens???? I’ll say it, True Grit doesn’t deserve Best Picture but it’s a damn good movie and they’re not exactly shitting on the Duke.

    Where does that shit come from? Bogey films have been remade, Cagney films have been remade, Tracy/Hepburn films have been remade, freaking Cary Grant films have been remade…..but John Wayne films can never be revisited? We’re not talking The Searchers, here – even die-hard Wayne fans don’t consider Grit among his best.

    It was far from a perfect film and it WAS based on a novel that is considered literature and open to interpretation – we see multiple films based on Shakespeare, you don’t hear this kind of outcry.

    IO, I’m right there with you about Inception – I can personally attest that it is very rewatchable (in theaters and Blu-Ray) and was THE film of 2010. Forget the imagery even; Hans Zimmer’s score is going to be used for a million montages and other trailers, for years to come.

    But let’s stop acting like the Coens did anything to hurt poor old John Wayne as if they were Michael Moore invading his mansion grilling him about gun violence…’s insanity.

  20. IOv3 says:

    Paul, not really. I do not eagerly anticipate each film they make because to me honest with you, all of their films recently have been cold inside. They do not move, inspire, and have rarely entertained me. Seriously, you folks fawning over them like you do, grosses me the fuck out.

    Hopscotch you are a 30 year-old on the hot blog. Most of you people come across as 55 year old men, who have had two bypass surgeries, and who are now working on wife number 5. The fact that Mendelson is 29 blows me away. No one writes like an old curmudgeon more on this blog than that guy and the thought that such curmudgeonly thoughts come from such a relatively young mind, is rather peculiar.

    ETA: Geoff, yes it’s literature, but when you have scenes in the remake that are damn near exact as the original, and people start defending the remake as being MORE AUTHENTIC… I call bullshit. Seriously, the sky here and the sky in New Mexico are very different, but apparently filming it in New Mexico makes it AUTHENTIC? BULLSHIT!

    Seriously, if Lucas wants to avoid getting any shit for the next SW trilogy. He should just let the Coens direct because there’s no way fucking geeks, dorks, and critics could ever turn on their beloved Coens.

  21. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    That’s cool IO. Different strokes and all that. But some of your fawning probably grosses people the fuck out as well.

  22. IOv3 says:

    Paul, I stand alone against a herd of Coens fans that pretty much bend over backwards for these people. Seriously, TSN, is not that great of a film, but if it leads to Fincher getting a Directing Oscar over the Coens. GLORY GLORY FUCKING HALLELUJAH!

    Oh yeah Lex, it’s not about True Grit Remake as much as it’s about plain and simple bullshit. It’s not more authentic, it’s still not filmed here in the mid-south, and it features scenes almost exactly found in the original. IF ANY OTHER FILMMAKERS DID THIS… EVERYONE WOULD BE UP IN ARMS ABOUT IT! Seriously, the fact that no one is calling BULLSHIT on this film outside of 55 year old 29 year old Scott Mendelson and a guy who works for Breitbart, IS FUCKING BEYOND ME!

  23. David Poland says:

    I’ll say this before I write more… the ONLY two movies that I have heard commented on as #1 choices, unsolicited, are The King’s Speech and in the last week, True Grit.

    There is respect for Winter’s Bone, which made its case in the dog days in summer when it was one of the only movies for interested, but not obsessed, movie people to see.

    There is a lot of respect for The Social Network… lots of talk about its quality.

    I’ve gotten mostly ambivalence about The Fighter, except for Bale and Leo.

    There is angry rage at having their time wasted about Black Swan or romantic love… but the love seems to be in the minority in that group.

    But when they started screening The King’s Speech for this crowd – as IO would say, old people – there was a real love… a degree of love that I don’t share. I like the picture a lot, but I don’t think it’s GREAT, as its ambitions are not that.

    And I got a sense that True Grit wasn’t going to click so much… that is was too distant and would take until next year for people to start “getting”… and then screenings… and then theatrical… and BAM… it went from “I don’t want to see a remake of a John Wayne film” to anything from “That’s the movie I’m voting for!” to “It was a little cold, but the movie was beautiful, the girl was amazing… I saw it on a screener, but I am going to try to see it again on a big screen”

    It is absolutely true that the The Social Network screener is getting watched a lot right now by Academy members who don’t quite get why the critics are crushing on it so hard.

    To my ear, that makes just 3 titles that are going to get multiple viewings from members.

    PS. I love the must-have of the SAG nomination. Beware the precusor game of chicken and egg… especially in a field of 10… and especially with early voting on the last movie in the water.

    Or do you think True Grit is going to get fewer acting nods (or as few) as The Hurt Locker?

  24. cadavra says:

    I think it should be pointed out again that if they hadn’t just swept two years ago with NCFOM, GRIT would indeed be the front-runner (“They’re due.”). But even so, I also need to point out again that the voting for Best Picture involves a weighed point system–and if, say, SOCIAL, SPEECH and INCEPTION split all the first-place votes while GRIT is almost everyone’s second choice, then GRIT likely wins.

  25. Nelson says:

    David Poland has until Feb. 28 to decide which wine goes best with crow. GRIT’s not winning anything except perhaps Cinematography.

  26. IOv3 says:

    “But when they started screening The King’s Speech for this crowd – as IO would say, old people – there was a real love… a degree of love that I don’t share. I like the picture a lot, but I don’t think it’s GREAT, as its ambitions are not that.”

    It’s not about that film being GREAT as much as it having the look of a Best Picture winner. It’s a crowd pleaser, it’s about overcoming adversity at the highest levels one can ever overcome adversity, and it stars Colin Firth. It’s clear the actors like the guy and he’s been solid for two decades. The guy is due.

    You put that all together and you get a film that’s a BEST PICTURE NOMINEE and possibly a winner. Seriously, it’s not appeasing the old people as much as it’s appeasing that thing in everyone that just knows a best picture winner when they see it, and that film has always had that sort of look to it.

    Oh yeah: True Grit is fine and dandy like sour candy, sure, but it’s the Michael Vick of the awards season. It’s not the MVP aka BP winner because there’s a better film out there like Tom Brady that deserves it more.

  27. Okay, David. Stick to your guns. No one can say you don’t go down in a blaze of glory every year…

    But I’m just saying, the nom comm (which admittedly changes guard every year) saw the film, “late voting” or not. Missing an ensemble bid there is a sign of SOMETHING, just as it was last year for Up in the Air (which missed even with three single acting nods).

  28. Er, make that “early voting.”

  29. Melquiades says:

    I recall David predicting a Hurt Locker win months before the Oscars last year. Which makes up for some of his big misses in previous years (Phantom of the Opera, anyone?).

    I’m guessing The Social Network will be the winner this year but I certainly won’t be shocked if it’s True Grit, King’s Speech or even The Fighter.

  30. leahnz says:

    i think what cadavra mentions above about the way the voting works now with 10 noms could be important; i remember having an epiphany last year and understanding exactly how it works for a brief moment, with the ranking of the noms from 1-10 and how the movies are tabulated, knocked out or conversely can sneak up on second and third choices, the various possible scenarios, and it really can make a big diff to the outcome

  31. David Poland says:

    Kris… Up In The Air was dead, for the win, long before SAG.

    The problem I have with the precursor obsession is that every one of these “never happens” rules gets broken each year and then we keep hanging onto the alleged science of this.

    I haven’t said that True Grit is a lock to win. I haven’t even said that it’s a prohibitive front runner. But today, given the business the film is doing, given the surprisingly positive response from voters – much, much more so than critics – it has to be considered the current front runner. Still could be King’s Speech. Social Network a distant third… but not out of it.

    We still have a long way to go. I expect the Globes and BFCA to both go Social. I expect King’s Speech to be left out of either PGA or DGA. Grit will be in both.

    But you know, these vote are all influenced by the spin in the media as well. HFPA will vote for who they think will win Oscar and will be wrong as often as not. If you held the SAG Nom Comm vote again today, grit would be in and would still lose to Social Network. But when they voted, all the media monkeys were leaning against Grit.

    And if you don’t think the dog & pony shows for months for SAG NomComm don’t count… well, you must… think you are just making the argument. But having 1.5 weeks to screen the movie and turn the vote is a challenge. And if everyone were All True Grit All The Time, it would have happened. But it didn’t. Last I checked, no one submits their SAG voting slip for Oscar. So it’s not actually something to overcome.

  32. edkargir says:

    The Social Network is going to win Best Picture as it the best film of the 21st century so far.

  33. Maverikk says:

    David, don’t you and Tapley and the rest of the wannabe blogger pronosticators ever get embarrassed that you can’t seperate your bias from reality? When are you guys going to realize that you are nobody that influences the academy. It’s their vote. You don’t count in their minds!You’d think after all these years, something would have started sinking in! lol

  34. David Poland says:

    PS – I think the last time I “went out in a blaze of glory” was Gladiator in 2000, when I refused to believe The Academy would piss all over 4 superior films.

    I hated Crash, but I was second only to Pete Hammond on understanding that turn. I seem to recall being right on top of Hurt Locker, Slumdog, and No Country, while others told me I was crazy. I was one of the first to say that Departed was an Oscar movie, though I did think the violence would keep it from winning, though I didn’t actually think any other film had a better shot in the end. Called M$B first. Always knew Rings 3 would win. Chicago, though I rooted against it and early on predicted against it. And Beautiful Mind, which I knew would likely win from the trailer.

    Please tell me where this blaze of glory is. Calling Avatar? Thinking like every single other person doing this did that Dreamgirls would be nominated?

    Point of pride… if there is anything I have excelled it, it’s calling off the sucker bets… from Seabiscuit & Mystic River to The Aviator, Brokeback, Babel, Blood, Button, and Up In The Air.

    Here’s a stat… until last year, for s full decade, the BP winner would end up being the #1 or #2 grosser amongst the 5 nominees. 10 nominees threw that out the window and last year, they went for #8 of 10.

    Chew on that.

    Maybe last year was the beginning of a new era. My guess is more that it was an anomaly. That doesn’t mean that TS3 or Inception will have surprise wins. But in a field of 5, TS3 isn’t s nominee and Inception isn’t 100%… in which case, it’s still Grit and Social Net.

    Lingering in December precursors is not a great idea. More macro.

  35. Nelson says:

    Dave thinks Social Network will win the Critic’s Choice and the Golden Globe but NOT the Oscar? If it wins those two along with (almost) EVERY SINGLE CRITICS GROUP calling it the best film of the year, plus its likely PGA, DGA, and WGA wins, than it will have too much momentum and the Academy, with its credibility to think about will be forced to follow the herd.

    Yeah, we know, Dave. You talk to Academy members and we don’t. But unless you’re talking to A LOT more than 20 or 30, then you really don’t know what will happen any more than we do.

  36. David Poland says:

    Maverikk… when it comes to the final vote, I agree 100%. My point exactly. It’s not about the media, though there are still some influences, just not between winning and losing.

    As for the pre-season, you’re wrong. Idiots like us do narrow the field. And part of that is influencing the precursors, which narrow the field more. Sometimes, the narrowing is broken. Mostly it is not.

    Pete Hammond is not very accurate early in any season. He gets convinced by the response of a room or two of viewers. But come January, with the ballots in, he is as smart as anyone because he spends a ton of time with voters… probably more than any of us… because he does all those Q&As and events. And with the field narrowed, the whims of the voters are much easier to hear, without the noise of 15 other film titles floating around.

    And that is why I believe that True Grit has become the film to beat, at least for now. I am listening. 6 weeks ago, I was telling… then it seemed I might be wrong… and now, the movie is swinging it back.

    And I believe that The Fighter and Social Network, two very good movies, are much more media phenoms than likely winners. But you never know.

    It gets very blurry in all this, between the idea of who is following and who is leading. And I don’t just mean us, but all the voting groups who would like to be seen as influential. Almost everyone says they don’t care about being seen as leading and almost everyone lies.

    Phase One, we can influence. Phase Two, we can only report on what’s happening out there.

  37. IOv3 says:

    David, outside of some rather glaring examples like Dreamgirls or Phantom, you’ve gotten much better at this over the last few years. Sure we still yell at you for two months and think you are stupid for your opinion, but that does not change how right on you have been for a while.

  38. LexG says:

    Poland is kicking ass today.

  39. chris says:

    Admittedly, I’m not a big fan of “King’s Speech” and I do not all get how this well-made episode of “Masterpiece Theater” is in any way considered a great film, but the charge that “True Grit” is cold makes no sense to me. Some Coen films? Sure. But this one? With the — SPOILER ALERT — long, sentimental ride to save the life of the girl, accompanied by stirring music and gorgeous, starry skies? And the beauty of the central relationship? And that lovely coda? Not cold at all.

  40. David Poland says:

    Nelson… you’re right… sometimes, the ball gets rolling too fast… we’ll see…

    And you’re right, I haven’t done a scientific poll of Academy members.

    But the psychology is a little different every year. I don’t recall a year – except the inevitability of Rings 3 – where The Academy was muscled into voting a movie to win BP by other groups.

    Last year, the groups gave Academy voters permission to feel that a Hurt Locker vote wasn’t going to be wasted. It’s not that they didn’t like Hurt Locker and didn’t want to vote for it. But many Academy voters won’t vote for a film they think can’t win or get nominated. And believe it or not, on Dec 1, Hurt Locker was not considered a lock for a nom by everyone. (Crash, in a 5-film field, fired their team over Christmas, so sure that they weren’t getting Oscar nom’ed… WRONG!)

    Also, the groups got people who hadn’t watched the film – a film that plays great on DVD – the reason to finally watch it. So… Hurt Locker won because it was their favorite. But there were steps to allow that to happen… unplanned, unexpected steps.

    I don’t see the “looking for a reason to vote for it” on Social Network. I see respect over love. But hey, maybe I am dead wrong.

  41. Maverikk: Not that it’s worth a response since it’s so mean-spirited, pointless, and obviously baiting, but I don’t think I’ve once said I did or even wanted to influence things. Get it together, hoss. You seem to care more than I do.

    And keep reinventing history, David. Someone gave you credit for Hurt Locker above. I remember you sticking to Avatar until the end. Year before that, we all knew where things were going. Before that, weren’t you all over Michael Clayton? And yeah, there’s “Dreamgirls would have won if it were nominated,” going along with your “phase two is a different game” (which I agree with, but not to that extreme) position. This year it’ll be True Grit you sail with until, whatever wins, you decide you were “the first” to put in the game.

    You weren’t “the first” to do a lot of the things you claim to have done or said “first,” but you were certainly one of the voices. Uncouth to bring these stretched truths out every year. Most of the time I let it go, but…

    Well, anyway. Like I told Maverikk, don’t really care.

  42. bulldog68 says:

    I’ve been looking for where Dave predicted that True Grit would win but can’t find it, so I wont join the chorus line. Box Office success, especially unexpected and a perceived overachiever at the box office, gets people to pay attention, and surprisingly, much like Inception, the Academy can vote for a film that is both a critical success and commercial success as well in true Grit. True Grit might be more palatable and less “noisy” than inception.

    Not saying by any means that True Grit is the frontrunner, and as the academy has proven with Hurt Locker, they will go for the underachiever as well, but True Grit, by my reasoning, could be somewhat of a safe choice, as well as an homage as well to one of the greats.

    Besides, if True Grit wins, that sound you hear will be Joe Leydon having the biggest orgasm he’s had since the 60’s.

  43. El Bicho says:

    “My 21-year-old brother, a senior at Syracuse, saw TRUE GRIT with a couple of other intelligent kids in Boston the other night. They all hated it and were bored out of their minds.”

    Unless they are Academy voters, that means what exactly? There’s plenty of Best Picture winners that 21-year-olds likely found boring.

  44. David Poland says:

    Kris… as I have pointed out 100 times, it’s not a guessing game, it’s a journey.

  45. David Poland says:

    And I just love the name “El Bicho”

    I am pretty sure it’s not meant to mean El Bitch-o, probably a reference to the band, but still…

  46. LexG says:

    “Bow to the King!” Keeping my money on King’s Speech, sticking it out Karger-style.

    In related news, “Welcome to the Rileys” has muscled its way in front of “The Runaways” and “Disappearance of Alice Creed” as the frontrunner to win the Fourth Annual LexG Boner Awards.

  47. Well, that’s another point we agree on, frankly (re: the “journey”).

  48. IOv3 says:

    Gemma Atherton is a classy lady.

  49. Roger Jones says:

    The Social Network the the REAL most overrated movie of the year. Granted it deserves to be nominated and in anybody’s top ten list. Also, Fincher is a great director. I realized that as soon as anyone when I watched Alien Cubed, which I believe was pretty well disregarded at the time. But there are several better films than TSN this year, most notably The King’s Speech, The Fighter, Winter’s Bone, and, yes, True Grit. True Grit is the best of them all. And InSneider, that’s a HUGE period, and the REAL end of story.

  50. David Poland says:

    You’re funny, InSnider. I will restrain myself from lecturing you on thinking your personal opinion is “what people outside our bubble think.”

    But “Movie X isn’t a pimple on the ass of Movie Y” sounds like some nasty movie hating and a remarkable disregard for talents that are well beyond the grasp of most people.

    Do you think Fincher thinks the Coens aren’t a pimple on his ass? I don’t.

    And seriously, take a breath. Regardless of what films you like or don’t, if you don’t understand that many of the best films breathe differently in multiple viewings, you don’t know much aside from what you like. And that’s valid. But it’s not very insightful. And it kinda takes the best work of The Coens, Kubrick, Coppola, Scorsese and many others – including Fincher, by the way – out of your reach. If Fight Club plays for someone the same time on the second viewing as the first, they’d have to be a pretty shallow monkey.

    Maybe you don’t care about movie history at all. So many of the movies that are now seen as classics were bombs when they came out. And many big hits that were seen as being of quality are regarded as shit.

    I don’t have to tear down The Social Network to raise True Grit. Social Network is pretty much a perfect film, given what the ambitions were. And I can’t say that about True Grit. I don’t know yet and I have seen it 3 times. What I do know is that True Grit resonates for me more than Social Network.

    And I also know that Never Let Me Go achieves what both films achieve… and is, as such, superior to both.

    But that’s my opinion. I am not an Academy voter, much less 600 Academy voters. And no doubt, some Academy members will feel like you do (aside from the pimple metaphor). But the feedback I am getting is very warm on the film… more so than I ever expected.


  51. Joe Leydon says:

    For several years, I kept on the bulletin board in my home office a message I received from my editor during my stint as entertainment writer for the Dallas Morning News. It was scribbled onto a typed note I’d sent her to suggest we run, on the day of that year’s Oscarcast, my interview with the director of a Best Picture nominee — because I had a hunch that his film might score an upset win over two more heavily hyped front-runners. My editor’s response: “Don’t bother. There’s no way his movie will get the award.” So we didn’t run my interview with Hugh Hudson. And that was a pity, because the underdog movie he directed, Chariots of Fire, did indeed bring home the Oscar gold, beating the favored Reds and On Golden Pond.

    If True Grit does get the Best Picture trophy, I wonder if David will print out some the nastier notes posted here, and tack them on the bulletin board in his home office?

  52. IOv3 says:

    Yeah, Chariots of Fire deserved to win that award as much as I deserve to win a Golden Boot award from Barclay’s Premiere League. Seriously, what bullshit those hokey bastards consist of as HUMAN BEINGS to not reward ON GOLDEN POND! Shameful bunch that Academy but I guess ON GOLDEN POND WAS TOO FUCKING LOUD FOR THEM AS WELL! (yes, I am going to use the TOO FUCKING LOUD bit for as long as possible because what David wrote above, is fucking hate speech).

    ETA: David, it’s a battle and everyone wants their film to succeed for reasons that include reasons as to why the other film up for nomination, fucking sucks.

    It’s not like I even have a horse in this race, I am just calling bullshit on Coens fandom more than True Grit. The same with calling bullshit on the critics, who are all bending over for a movie in The Social Network, which has the exact opposite meaning of what they believe that film to mean.

    Calling bullshit is calling bullshit, but I could give a shit who wins this or any other year from here on out. Here’s hoping something different wins, but even with 10 choices these people will make the safe choice. That’s who they are and I really hope it does not bite them in the ass one of these years.

  53. LexG says:

    Wrong year, IO. Though Raiders vs Chariots OR ET vs Gandhi would make your point exactly.

  54. IOv3 says:

    Thanks Lex, this temp change is making me wiggy. How that fucking film beat ON GOLDEN POND IS A GOD DAMN TRAVESTY! Nevertheless, even for me, I would have a toss up between Gandhi and ET. Why? I got all sorts of love for Gandhi, even if the movie leaves out all the mad amounts of fucking that guy did as a spiritual leader.

  55. lazarus says:

    I’d like to know who all these Coen fan boys are who, according to IO (and to a lesser extent, Lex), were singing the praises of Intolerable Cruelty or The Ladykillers. Every Coen fan I know doesn’t have a very favorable view of either of them. The best I can say about IC is that it’s somewhat funny. But it’s not a very good or great film.

    And any time the Coens come up on a message board or blog and people start talking about their films, there is a WIDE variety of opinion on quality. Some hate The Hudsucker Proxy. Some love it. Same with The Man Who Wasn’t There. There are people who don’t like Miller’s Crossing, or O Brother Where Art Thou. The only ones that people seem mostly unanimous about are Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, and The Big Lebowski. And I guess NCFOM, although you do have some morons like The InSnider who think the ending is “lame”.

    What I also find surprising is throwing the same umbrella over the reception A Serious Man and True Grit received. The former is arguably the Coens’ most personal (or at least autobiographical) film that also shows them at their most uncompromising in terms of story, character arc, visuals, etc. True Grit, as much as I enjoyed it, is a much more safe project where the filmmakers have subjugated themselves to their source material (something IO conveniently forgets while he’s busy ranting about the Coens trying to one-up The Duke). In a perfect world, the Coens would have won their Oscar sweep with A Serious Man and not NCFOM, because as great as the latter is, it doesn’t define them in the way that A Serious Man does. And while ASM got that Best Picture nom probably on the Coens’ name alone, I think it’s a minor miracle that it will go down in history as such.

  56. IOv3 says:

    Subjugated my ass. If they really were subjugated to the novel and decided to go all out for it. THEY WOULD HAVE FILMED THE GOD DAMN MOVIE IN ARKANSAS AND TENNESSEE NOT NEW MEXICO! Seriously, the Coens could be hoarders of rare and valuable artifacts and people online would give them a pass.

    The Coens could steal the Statue of Liberty and not return it, and people online would give them a pass.

    Joel could turn into the Hulk, Ethan into Rulk, and people online would excuse them destroying everything in their path.

    The Coens could be involved in mortgage fraud and people online would give them a pass.

    The Coens could illegally manufacture faulty bumpers for Toyota Camrys, that people online would buy in a second. Even if they did not own a Camry or even a car.

    The Coens could bring back folksie music for a time and people online… shit. That one happened.

    Damn it.

  57. lazarus says:

    The Coens could remake The Ladykillers.

    Oh, wait. That one also happened, and got them a 55% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

    Doesn’t sound like a free pass to me.

    Are you able to have a hyperbole-free discussion?

  58. yancyskancy says:

    laz is right – few filmmakers are more divisive than the Coens. Of course there are fanboys out there, but even the Coens’ most enthusiastic critical supporters seem to snub them occasionally. Among my film buff friends, opinions vary wildly as to the merits of A SERIOUS MAN, NCFOM, O BROTHER, BARTON FINK, etc., and many well known film writers can’t stand them (any time they get mentioned at Dave Kehr’s blog, for instance, debate arises).

    I haven’t seen TRUE GRIT yet (probably this weekend), but it’s doing strong business and word of mouth seems solid. Makes me think that maybe 21-year-old Syracuse students, intelligent or no, are not particularly representative of the “true” reaction “outside our bubble.”

  59. leahnz says:

    fwiw i’m not a boy but i’m a fan of the bros and of ‘intolerable cruelty’ as the coen’s weird screwball comedy farce and i’ll admit it quite happily (do not dig ‘ladykillers’ tho and i’ll also say that quite happily too, yikes)

    (re: ‘int. cruelty’: “But it’s not a very good or great film.” says who? can people just please speak for themselves rather than stating their subjective opinion as fact, as if formed by superior intelligence and depth of appreciation for quality? i think ‘intolerable c’ is a good movie. what of it? am i wrong and a big dope? no, my opinion/interpretation/reaction is just differnt i guess, but just as valid)

  60. IOv3 says:

    Laz; where you find hyperbole. I find sincerity.

  61. Samuel Deter says:

    IOv3 why so angry? TRUE GRIT’s not winning anything. Relax.

    And just so you know, it’s early but I’m rarely, if ever, wrong.

    GOLDEN GLOBES – King’s Speech, Kids are All Right, Portman, Bening, Firth, Bale and Leo

    DGA – Fincher

    WGA – Sorkin

    SAG – The fighter, firth, portman, bale, leo

    OSCARS – TSN, Fincher, Sorkin, Firth, Portman, Bale, Leo

    And True Grit wins best cinematography!

  62. Samuel Deter says:

    Forgot about Mattie Ross. She might win the oscar. The only sure-lock is Christian Bale. Not even firth. But oh well… it’s going to look a lot like that above

  63. Maverikk says:

    Comeon, David, you’re having some delusions of grandeur if you really think that. These people know their business better than you do, and they don’t need anybody “narrowing the field” for them, the field is theirs! The politics are their own! They aren’t getting online to see what David Poland thinks are the movies and actors that should be considered! lol You’re just a fun little blog and score keeper, not a member of their club!

    Tapley, you might not come out and say you think you influence anything, but are you seriously claiming that you basically devote your life to the awards season because you’re not trying to? You know you are!

    I kinda lost faith in y’all when you were all shouting out that The Departed was not an Oscar type of movie. All that influenced was a bunch of hobbyists online that can’t think for themselves( I called the Departed a lock right away!)not the academy voters. They don’t care what you guys think, nor do they need you to help them think like David said. It’s their business and their life, and they didn’t get where they are by relying on people who are not in the business to help dictate their careers and choices! That’s just a silly notion to be entertaining!! That’s not baiting or mean spirited, it’s just a reality check. Have fun, just don’t take it so seriously that you lose perspective, as that will surely kill your track records if you can’t seperate your bias and be objective. Peace.

  64. Michael Lewis says:

    Looking at boxoffice results is okay, but remember – The Hurt Locker won Best Picture of 2009, and didn’t even crack $20 million domestically. So go figure. Is it quality of film making, or quantity of dollars – you be the judge!

  65. chris says:

    Leah, this is a forum for opinions. Don’t you think we can pretty much assume the “in my opinion” in every statement without writing it?
    And io: Why on earth would they have shot “True Grit” in Tennessee? Have you SEEN the movie?

  66. David Poland says:

    Maverikk, you keep adding things that haven’t been said to what has been said to make your point.

    I don’t know who you are, but if you don’t think there is a narrowing that happens that is heavily influenced by media of all kinds, you don’t know what you are talking about.

    As I wrote before, no media or precursor decides what Academy voters, too often seen as a more malleable group than they are, will vote for in the end. But to be in the game, movies have to be seen. And the media, online and off, does have influence on whether voters feel compelled to see many of the movies. Like real moviegoers, unless it’s a brand name, they don’t know what they are in for, especially if screenings start well in advance of wide release. Buzz has an influence. Not as much as in being a Clint Eastwood or Spielberg or Scorsese movie… but people don’t see movies randomly. Word of mouth is best. But media still pushes things.

    And movies do get killed (and sometimes made) at Toronto every year.

    But mostly, media has influence on other media… and on the studio spends on these films. Again, it’s not, “David Poland likes this movie, so let’s spend another $10 million on an Oscar push.” But the media serves as a test audience that is paid attention to.

    I think you are all worried about Kris or I feeling like we’re important and that we are key players in the season. I don’t think Kris has that delusion. Nor do I. We are not members of The Club. But you know, it always comes down to a few people making the decisions about how to play the awards game. And if some of those people value the opinions of this person or that person, a movie or a performance can be raced or not raced.

    For your “insight” about Departed to be correct, many other movies had to fall to the wayside, WB had to handle that campaign right, and the movie had to be very popular. That all came together. But you – it seems – have no sense of any of that… except that you think you are smarter than others because “you knew.”

    It’s not a game. None of us “know.” It’s not up to critics or prognosticators or precursors or history or anything else. None of it assures anything… but we read the tea leaves along the way. Now that there is a cottage industry in being “Oscar experts,” fewer insights come from educated opinions and more come from personal tastes. And that posses me off as much as it seems to piss you off, even though there are those who would accuse me of the same.

    It IS a travesty that Bardem may not be nominated for Best Actor. But I’m not in charge of that. I can be supportive, from my perch. But I can’t force 2000 people to watch a movie they are afraid of watching.

    You also forget the other aspect of The Club. Members vote without seeing some of these films. I see it every single year… nominees for films that clearly have more votes than viewers… the Umberto Eco Coffee Table Book phenomenon.

    Of course they are, like all of us, under the influence of all kinds of input. They are not mad geniuses, all 5800 of them, who are watching every screener and sussing it out with precision and care. It’s a big group and a wide-ass range of ways of processing. Your tendency to overstate the nature of the monolith is much more out of touch with reality than any prognosticator’s delusions of grandeur.

    It’s math. If David Poland or Kris Tapley can influence 300 or 400 more people to put a movie in the DVD player, we are having a real effect on the race. If David Poland or Kris Tapley (and the rest) can write something that gets someone at other publications to write something that gets people to consider or reconsider a movie, we are having a real effect on the race.

    When David Poland (now in 3P!) says True Grit is now the front runner, he is not causing anyone to vote for True Grit directly. He and I know that. But the idea may echo and bounce and become significant to some small number of people and open a crack in a doorway that was closed… or shut one.

    You know… studios spend $4000 – $5000 a screening to get maybe 6 Academy members to see a movie… and all the other guilds have people in there too… but we’re talking Academy. All those incredibly expensive lunches and dinners and events that basically are targeting a dozen or two dozen of the 5800… maybe 3 dozen. They spend millions all year long on the 80something HFPA members to lobby for nominations and wins for an award they don’t really care about except in that it may open the door for Oscar.

    In the end, the movies are the movies are the movies. But they need to get into the gate and onto the track and close on the finish line. And there are thousands of tiny pieces that do influence that. We are one of those tiny pieces… the weight of which varies… but is never as grand as you think we believe… and often not as small as you would argue (which is zero).

    Frankly, it’s a silly argument… because you’re right on some level, and clearly wrong in the intensity of your claim. And speaking for myself only, you are projecting your idea of what I think I mean to the season onto me… perhaps because of how I write… but inaccurately, if not unfairly.

  67. leahnz says:

    aahh my brain is mush cuz i couldn’t sleep in having to drive a bunch of very loud boys into the bush which i’m dreading with every fibre of my being, but re:

    “Leah, this is a forum for opinions. Don’t you think we can pretty much assume the “in my opinion” in every statement without writing it?”

    chris, one hears this argument from time to time on the internet re: expressing opinions about movies, but the fact is it’s so easy to phrase things so that the self-aggrandising of one’s own opinion about movies is not necessary. instead of saying, ‘such-and-such is a shitty movie’ or whatever, one can simply say, ‘i don’t like/fucking hate/etc such-and-such movie’ and relate your own opinion/experience.

    when you say, ‘such and such is not a good movie’ you are not just talking about your opinion, you’re making a declarative statement that implies those who might think otherwise are wrong, which is inherently inflammatory, laying down the gauntlet for those who feel otherwise. ultimately it’s an egotistical and dismissive way to express a subjective viewpoint that can easily be expressed more appropriately.

    (and DP, i don’t care one iota but i’d think your rather self-aggrandising comment above is gonna open you up to a world of hurt, hope you’re wearing your cyber-armour today)

  68. chris says:

    Shouldn’t that, then, be, “In my opinion, ultimately it’s an egotistical and dismissive way to express a subjective viewpoint that can easily be expressed more appropriately.”

  69. IOv3 says:

    Chris that’s why I do not use IN MY OPINION… HOWCHA CHA CHA CHA CHA!

  70. Maverikk: If you knew me, you’d understand how wrong you are. And whether I influence or not (I don’t think I do) or whether I want to influence or not (I couldn’t care less), the ad money flows all the same.

    It’s called paying bills.

    And anyway, what David said. You’re way too angry and care way too much to engage further on this one. Fare thee well.

  71. shillfor alanhorn says:

    Tapley’s just bitter because the slathering coordinated early sneak-peak blow-job he gave last year to the pat UP IN THE AIR, which single-handedly started its Oscar buzz, ultimately failed at the finish line because everyone realized what a hateful prick Jason Reitman is and withheld their votes on principle. David is making a really smart and valid point: TRUE GRIT, as unlikely as it might have seemed on paper given the Coens’ track record, is a total undeniable crowd-pleaser with flyover word of mouth and momentum on its side (bet Paramount now wishes it hadn’t sold half the film to Larry Ellison’s flyboy son). It overtook FOCKERS for first place yesterday, is going to win the heavily-contested holiday weekend and is going to wind up with at least $150M domestic before Oscar season is through. If anything, in terms of playability and seemingly coming out of nowhere to exceed b.o. expectations, it is this year’s BLIND SIDE. And its boxoffice success gives it a wonderful sweet spot in terms of Oscar — it is the rare mass appeal hit that also has a bonafide critical pedigree. That combo, particularly in a diluted field of 10 films, makes it a totally legitimate contender for the big prize and to dismiss that and not see it for what it is indicates a blindness to how these things really work.

  72. Happy New Year, shillfor alanhorn. I hope 2011 treats you better than 2010 apparently did. (Because, really, who’s bitter here? Not me…)

  73. IOv3 says:

    1) A remake has never won the Oscar.

    2) The last time a remake got a nomination was 48 YEARS AGO!


    4) Anything else, Buffy? CAN WE REST NOW? CAN WE REST!?!?!

  74. christian says:

    People that saw TRON in 1982 and pine for a sequel would certainly be considered “old.”

    And ironic that Jeff Bridges – who stars in TRUE GRIT and TRON: LEGACY is 61 years old.

  75. LexG says:

    1) The Departed was a remake and won the Oscar.

    IO, your crusade against TG of all excellent movies is sounding more and more like the most deranged thing ever.

  76. IOv3 says:

    Apparently being a little kid doesn’t count for things in Christian’s world. Good to know.

  77. christian says:

    Apparently age and wisdom is a negative in IO’s world. Obviously. And how much sex does a little kid get?

  78. leahnz says:

    ‘my fair lady’, ‘mutiny on the bounty’ and ‘ben hur’ are also remakes that have won best pic. there might be more

  79. IOv3 says:

    My Fair Lady is a remake? Of what? THE BROADWAY MUSICAL?

    Ben Hur… silent film.

    Mutiny won in 35 did my man from Arabia beat it’s remade ass!

    Christian, a lot… 4th grade was a wonderful year XD!!!

    Lex… I could give a damn about a western made by filmmakers that mean as much to me as the lent in my pockets. Seriously, they mean very little to me and True Grit Remake has ever really interested me. Again, it’s not about True Grit Remake as much as it’s the doucheybaggery surrounding the Coens and some of their fans.

    That aside, Departed is an adaptation of a foreign film. I always see a difference between adapting a foreign film and remaking a domestic film. It may be a potato/potato(e) situation but Fincher is adapting an American version of Dragon Tattoo, and not remaking the Swedish films.

  80. leahnz says:

    ‘my fair lady’ is a known and acknowledged remake of ‘pygmalion’, which was nominated for best pic some many years earlier. the remake of a big silent film is still a remake. and i don’t know what your mutiny comment is supposed to mean but the ‘mutiny on the bounty’ that won the oscar is a remake of a previous version starring errol flynn. so io, your statement about a remake having never won an oscar is bogus. can you deal with that?

  81. lazarus says:

    How do you people stomach interacting with IO’s obtuseness on a daily basis?

    He’s like the D.Z. of The Hot Blog.

  82. IOv3 says:

    Laz, go fuck yourself. You lack the fucking ability to give ANYONE SHIT on this blog. After your bitch ass wished for Lex to kill himself. Seriously bitch ass, you got some fucking nerve to ever insult anyone on this blog. Let alone me you no good rotten piece of filth.

    Leah: MY FAIR LADY is consider an ADAPTATION of a BROADWAY PLAY. Mutiny on the Bounty from 1935 won but the one released in 1962 lost to Lawrence of Arabia. Seriously, use the internet but how do I feel about that Leah? HOW DO I FEEL ABOUT THAT? DEADSPIN WORST OF 2010… LET HER KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT!

    “Worst DVD Movie of 2010 When Watched In Two Dimensions
    Avatar. When stripped of its technological reason for being, you suddenly realize what a predictable, pedantic, obnoxiously liberal, kinda racist pile of shit that whole fucking movie is. God, it’s so bad. OH NO! THE EVIL PALEFACES CUT DOWN OUR LIFETREE! BANSHEE WAIL AYAYAYAYAYAYAYAY!”


  83. leahnz says:

    io, take yer meds son. you’re losing it.

    ‘my fair lady’ the film is adapted from shaw’s own screenplay for the FILM ‘pygmalion’, not the stage play, which is quite differnt. the facts are your friend, but reliance on the internet, esp. when you don’t use it right, is not.

  84. IOv3 says:

    Leah, again, YOU SHOULD NEVER THROW AROUND ANYTHING ABOUT ANYONE BEING CRAZY! Seriously, I have never thrown that out at you but everyone else has, and you then throw it at me? That’s some bullshit.

    AGAIN… IT’S AN ADAPTATION! NOT A REMAKE! THEY ARE DIFFERENT! I ask you this though: when they do a revival of My Fair Lady, what do they revive? The stage play or the film?

  85. leahnz says:

    i’m sorry to inject some reality into your delusion, io, but perhaps 3 people have called/call me ‘crazy’ here, usually accompanied by ‘lesbian’ and ‘feminist’, and their pathetic little agenda is all too clear; that this is ‘everyone’ to you is bizarre but not surprising, but whatever (and you have most certainly called me crazy on numerous occasions on this blog, so a bit of the ginko biloba may be in order, good for the memory)


    lmao. are you serious? people have been telling you the bros ‘grit’ is an adaptation of the portis novel for months and your anti-truegrit-remake crusade is still in full swing! classical

    (oh and re: “I ask you this though: when they do a revival of My Fair Lady, what do they revive? The stage play or the film?” huh?…)

  86. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Technically Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy (which won one or two awards) is a remake – Bakshi did the first two, while Rankin-Bass did the third.

  87. IOv3 says:

    FS: that makes no sense what so ever.

    Leah: THERE ARE ONLY LIKE 10 OF US! If THREE OF THEM use that on you then that’s 3 out of 10, and that’s substantial. Again, you, of all people, should never use such phrasing but you do love to believe that your own shit does not stink, so slam away Kiwi lady. Slam away.

    Oh yeah, it’s a REMAKE! It’s not an ADAPTATION. If you have people who know both films and can tell the exact same scene is in both, shot the same damn way, that’s a remake. Seriously, you don’t like that an American blog refers to AMERICAN BOX OFFICE AND OTHER THINGS AMERICAN more than Agora but when it’s made here… REMAKE! When it’s made over there… ADAPTATION! END OF LINE!

  88. hcat says:

    Lex wrote earlier:
    “Basically the Coens, if you get down to it, are the ONLY DIRECTORS ON EARTH where movie bloggers and critics go into the theater ACTIVELY WANTING TO LIKE THE MOVIE.”

    You are forgetting about Pixar which is the most sacred cow of all hollywood blogdom.

    As for Serious Man’s oscar nom, you could probably give equal credit to it being the only film on the Focus slate that they could push for awards that year. They have had a nominee in the running five of their seven years in existence, so they are obviously no slouch in the campaigning department. It got fantastic reviews and deserved to be in the running a hell of a lot more than Avatar or District 9.

  89. IOv3 says:

    YOU INSULT DISTRICT 9? BAT CREDIT CARD? [randomly fires in the air]

  90. yancyskancy says:

    Some of this is semantics, I guess, but I don’t think I’d consider MY FAIR LADY a remake of the 1938 film PYGMALION. Shaw wrote the play first, then adapted it for the screen. Lerner and Loewe adapted Shaw’s play for the musical stage, and the Cukor film is an adaptation of that musical. To me, a true remake of PYGMALION wouldn’t have the music.

    And IO, again with the semantics, but THE DEPARTED is a remake of INFERNAL AFFAIRS. What does the language or country of origin have to do with it? Is anyone saying Zhang Yimou’s latest isn’t a remake of BLOOD SIMPLE simply because it’s not in English?

  91. yancyskancy says:

    Oh, and as leah suggested, Lerner and Loewe did use some scenes from PYGMALION the film, including the ending, I believe. So that muddies the waters a bit further.

  92. hcat says:

    What the hell does Bat Credit Card mean? I get what you are referencing to but don’t get the connection. Are you saying I am hokey for suggesting that a decently made action film shouldn’t have made the Oscar cut?

  93. lazarus says:

    Yancy, IO isn’t interested in logic. This has nothing to do with semantics, he just wants to make a bunch of noise and non-sensical arguments for attention.

    Just because someone has been frequenting a website for a long time doesn’t disqualify him from being a troll. You and Leah can keep dismantling his claims easily, but it ain’t gonna put a stop to the ranting and raving.

    Try moving onto another subject.

  94. cadavra says:

    One more remake that won Best Picture: Olivier’s HAMLET. And it wasn’t a musical!

  95. Sergio says:

    Lmao! This is an absurd discussion. All I can say is, out of all the lines of opinions on this entire thread, the one I agree with the most is “Never Let Me Go achieves what both films achieve… and is, as such, superior to both.” haha

    So it goes.

  96. Eds says:

    Ben Hur is also a remake.

    I’m shocked everyone is dismissing True Grit as a best pic, director, screenplay, supporting actor contender. Really shocked. The film is a crowd pleaser for a lot of folks in between LA and NY. The 55 plus crowd is really enamored with it. Frankly this year will prove more than ever that the globes matter to zero when it comes to predicting Oscar.

  97. Triple Option says:

    I don’t think True Grit as frontrunner is such an outrageous claim. I’d say it’s just the opposite of IO’s claim of being the Michael Vick of BP noms, it’s more like the Tom Brady. It’s very safe.

    There’s not a whole lot of room to take a whole lotta chances in it, though, for better or worse. It’s a lotta good elements, good solid team like the Pats. Brady makes them the team w/the best record in the league. You take him out and they’re still a playoff calibre team. W/out Vick, no way Phili makes the playoffs.

    Inception and Black Swan are more like Vick. A bit more gutsy pick but for those who really loved them, they had a bigger payoff than the safe play of Grit. Maybe people take for granted how difficult it would be to make a movie as good as Grit. Sorta like the skater who has high technical marks but doesn’t come close to attempting a triple axle. It’s easy to feel robbed by a movie being otherwise blase.

    I personally wasn’t blown away by Grit but I think it was a good solid movie. Compared to some winners of the past I won’t be scratching my head wondering how did that happen.

  98. IOv3 says:

    Triple: stop being a homer. The Eagles have McCoy, DeSean Jackson, Jeremy Maclin, and Brent Celek. They would have been fine with Kolb. All Brady had is a 5’9 running back, a 5’10” Wideout, and Gronkowski. Seriously… you Philly fans not really getting how much talent you have and the Pats do not, pretty much means you just screwed up a good analogy… YOU HOMER!

  99. Triple Option says:

    First off, not a Eagles fan. (Not a hater but definitely not a homer). Next, Vick’s 2 fumbles and pick in the Vikings game was the difference between me NOT winning my fantasy football league but coming in second, so, no, not in the mood to sing his praises w/limit or justification.

    The Pats’ D gave up 4 pts per game LESS than the Eagles. I’m sure that number would shrink to being under 17 points per game if you were to eliminate garbage time points scored after the outcome of games had already been decided. If you tell me your defense could go on the road and hold the team to under 17 pts, you could run a T formation and still win 10 games a season.

    Outside of Brady, sure NE doesn’t have anyone as talented as DeSean but they also have something Vick wishes philly had, an offensive line. Vick had over 675 rushing yards in not 12 full games played. Nearly 3x the amount as the 3rd leading rusher on their team. It’s no coincidence that BOTH Kolb and Vick were out injured this past season. As good as Brady is, you have a Freaky Friday moment and send him to play behind the eagle’s line, he’d been lucky to last half the season.

    Oh, and while we’re at it, Brady gets something Vick doesn’t get, protection by the league’s front office. A DE so much as blows on Brady and the yellow flag comes out. Vick can go into a hook slide for five yards and still get speared by a free charging safety and no one says a thing. I’ll listen to arguments who say Brady is the best overall qb in the game today but I gotta go w/Vick as this year’s mvp.

    Trying to get this thread slightly back on track…I was just wondering for those who talk to Academy voters, do they ever vote for one person in like their own Guild Awards but then vote for someone else for the Oscars? Is that at all common? Like make one award the consolation prize and vote for their favorite in to win the Oscar?

  100. christian says:

    Michael Vick is a piece of shit. Thus endeth my sports commentary for the week.

  101. David Poland says:

    T.O. – There are people who vote for a movie they didn’t vote to nominate for the win.

    The finals and the nominations are different. Guilds and Oscar voting, very different… or you would see the Guilds match the branch nominations… and they rarely do.

  102. maverikk says:

    How’s that influence you have over the academy serving you, David? As I said, you are kidding yourself if you ever believed that you help them think. You’re not in the club. They know exactly what they are doing, and an internet blogger isn’t being relied on to point them in the right direction. No offense, but you need to come to grips with that fact! The DGA snub shows exactly how much they’re paying attention to your wants and needs! lol

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