MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

CNN: Nikki & Tom – Hollywood’s Sigfreid & Roy

Yeah, I’m sick of Nikki too.

THIS MONTH IN NIKKI
1. Fake picture.
2. Real high school picture
3. Cease & Desist
4. HBO passes on Tilda (which would have been the most generous presentation possible of her and made Nikki much more sympathetic and potentially, powerful).
5. Return to running an Oscar show rundown
6. Credentials revoked

Just for the record, out of maybe 100 people i talked to at the Indie Spirit Awards today, 2 brought up Nikki and the 5 stories prior to today. It’s not all anyone can talk about, by any stretch. But for me, it’s an open-ended story.

On the credentials thing… I wish this were complicated.

The Academy is not easy going about leaks and other bad journalistic behavior…. doesn’t even have to be that bad. “Uptight,” has forever been the word.

Nikki, who has gotten the rundown of the show every year for at least the last five, ran them in the past, and in recent years, negotiated with the producers not to run the rundown. In other words, she blackmailed them and/or they bribed her.

But The Academy could never respond to NIkki’s behavior because she had no stake in what they controlled, Oscar night. She doesn’t attend. She doesn’t leave her house. So what could they strip her of? They just managed her, from the top down, so they wouldn’t be under constant attack.

This year, Deadline applied for credentials for the first time. And got them. And therefore, there was something at stake.

If Access Hollywood ran a full rundown of the show this week, you can be absolutely sure that if they were not denied ALL of their credentials, they would have some of them lifted and would have their red carpet position severely impacted. Same with any other TV show, much less an inside baseball website. Outlets, particularly international ones, without the wherewithal to make a big media stink about it have been disappeared in the past.

So make no mistake. This is a normal Academy response to bad behavior by someone to whom they are giving access.

But there is a question mark. How complicit is Tom Sherak in Nikki’s overall behavior?

Nikki writes, “A few (though by no means all) of the “spoilers” reported by Deadline — including Billy Crystal’s scheduled appearance — were done so with the permission and encouragement and even timing suggestions of Oscars bigwigs.”

That’s Mr. Sherak. He has, as I reported yesterday, been floating things to Nikki since he got into office, starting with Board of Governors meeting info.

So… when Sigfried & Roy decided to train wild animals and put them in a Vegas showroom, whose fault was it when the wild animal ripped out Roy’s throat… the lion or the presumptuous handler? Or both?

One thing we know about Nikki. She wouldn’t publish the rundown without floating it past someone – Sherak, Cohen, Misher, or all three – before printing it. It is extremely rare that she runs something extreme that isn’t being planted with purpose by a major Nikki Handler, without threatening the person who will be damaged and offering them a chance to give her something not to run the material. (As seen on Entourage…)

So what really happened? One of Nikki’s best tricks is that she knows that The Academy and most executives in town will not respond to her publicly. So she can claim whatever she wants knowing that she will be the only one telling the tale. It’s unlikely that Sherak, Cohen, or Misher would ever admit on the record that they negotiate with Nikki for anything at anytime. Every time they give her something first, it’s not going to the ET, Access Hollywood, LA Times, NY Times, EW, Hollywood Reporter, Variety, etc, etc, etc. So they would rather let her maintain the image that she is a reporter who digs things out. Nikki’s rundown source has to be someone who has worked on the show for the last five years… maybe at the theater… maybe at ABC… maybe a publicist who has some big clients and would actually get a full rundown… maybe in The Academy. Regardless, I guess one can say that she digs that out. She has a source who isn’t The Showrunners or The Academy.

Her indignity is comic, but she’s been so indulged for so long, including taking some nips at Sherak’s feeding hand, one almost feels sorry for her, confused by being told, “no.”

Thank God The Academy did this. And heaven help us if they reverse themselves.

Will others follow?

And will Tom Sherak now be out of the NIkki Handling business, once and for all?

He should be. Or his role as a leader at The Academy should be in real jeopardy.

Meanwhile, the price will be paid not by Nikki, but by Mike Fleming. She will Live Snark the show… and the same small group that cares about her Live Blogging will still care. But look at her best shot at The Academy…

“I spoke to Sherak who didn’t appear angry, which leads me to believe so it was Robertson who threw the hissy fit.”

Wow. Brutal. No wonder people quake in their boots when Nikki calls.

And leave it to Nikki to throw her source, Sherak, under the bus when it suits her.

Get your head out of her mouth, Tom. All risk, no real reward.

Be Sociable, Share!

19 Responses to “CNN: Nikki & Tom – Hollywood’s Sigfreid & Roy”

  1. cadavra says:

    I feel bad for Fleming, who flew out from NY just for this and got his credentials yanked because of his boss’ actions.

  2. IOv3 says:

    Yeah that sucks but this is what he gets for working for a crazy woman. Oh yeah, we need an Oscars BYOB because it’s time for the annual HOT BLOG COMMENTATORS OSCARS PREDICTION THREAD!

  3. LexG says:

    The Nikki stuff is always way too inside for a clueless outsider like me, and since she’s been built up as the Suge Knight of Hollywood, I kind of CAN’T BELIEVE anyone dares to say anything about her that isn’t absolutely GLOWING.

    But I go to DH pretty much only for early box office news on Friday nights… From a movie lover’s perspective, her site doesn’t offer anything; It’s surely manna to the execs and suits and agents and guys who cover the business end, but it might as well be a website about the semiconductor industry, because there’s no reviews or even SLIGHT enjoyment of or enthusiasm for movies.

    I get that it’s basically a scoop-oriented trade kind of deal, but it’s 100% business oriented with no reviews and no madman blogger riffs and rants like you get on anyone else’s movie site. And I get that that’s what it’s supposed to be… I just don’t get why her fans come here and bag on Poland about how Nikki’s where it’s at.

    It’s like reading a spreadsheet.

  4. Joe Leydon says:

    So what will be the biggest Oscar upset? I still think Annette Bening could pull off a Best Actress win.

  5. IOv3 says:

    If the Academy does not reward Natalie Portman tonight for being… Natalie Portman, they are a bunch of punchjokies high on their own NoS energy drinks! The only real upset will probably be Steinfeld winning for True Grit. Leo had it then threw it away apparently, but it would be cool if HBCB won just for the speech alone.

    Also, Alexandere Desplat better kick Trent Reznor’s ass tonight. Yeah yeah, I love Trent as much as the next teenager from the 90s, but he’s up against… ALEXANDRE DESPLAT! That dude is about as magical as a score can get without John Williams being involved.

    Finally, Lex makes a great point about Deadline. That place really is an enthusiasm black hole. It’s all about the scoop and nothing else. Seriously, if Nikki maybe gave a shit about film as much as she does about being a scooping tool, then that site would be something.

  6. leahnz says:

    which one got mauled by the tiger?

    i’m also feeling annette. i hope there is (at least) one big sloppy upset tomorrow; one thing i don’t like about oscar in recent years is how predictable the winners are becoming…i seem to remember a time in the past when, before the days of the big bucks hard-core public political campaigning and nominee dog-n-pony show and 67 ‘precursor’ awards and such, you often really had really no idea which of a few favourites would win, the awards mixed it up and not all winners across the board mostly came from the same three movies and there was still an air of mystery about the proceedings – upset front runners and out of left-field pics – it all didn’t feel so preordained…either that or i’ve got rose coloured glasses on and the show was always this predictable and boring and it was actually ME that was different, a fresh-faced dufus more easily dazzled by shiny objects. but i’m pretty sure it’s not just me.

  7. LexG says:

    My hail-Mary, 10-zillion-to-1 upset money is on this crazy feeling I have that Bardem will beat Firth. I have about a half dozen probably bullshit justifications for this theory in mind, but then again I’m the guy who thought THE GOODS would do 50 mil opening weekend…

  8. leahnz says:

    also, nobody comes on to present the awards drunk anymore. basinger’s hammered tirade about dissing the spike may be the last great pissed presentation fuckarow of this or any other century. after her i imagine some guy standing in the shadows with a breathalyser as the presenters get ready to trot on stage to prevent ‘a basinger’, like ‘a munson’ from ‘kingpin’. sean young did a bit of a hammered toxic masacre on schnabel that time more recently but i’m pretty sure that wasn’t the oscars.

  9. The Pope says:

    Okay, just for what it’s worth I’m throwing this out.
    Do you think that maybe Sherak has nudged Nikki into this… and she didn’t see it (her megalomania causing myopia). Might it just be the Academy’s way of saying F-U to her when no one else dare do the same? This is the very first year DH gets accreditation and this is what happens. “Oooh, that’s a BINGO!” Seems to me they may have been waiting in the grass. It means that for this evening, they have reduced her to Live Snarking. Sort of like putting a little rodent back in its box.

  10. MarkVH says:

    There won’t be any Oscar upsets. The shortening of the season and the rise of Internet punditry have combined to pretty much kill the potential for them. Can anyone name me the last time there was a big upset in a major category? I’m thinking Crash, but even that was predicted by a good number of people. Upsets are an important part of Oscar history, but not its present or future.

  11. Great Scott says:

    I finally get why David Poland despises this woman. On the other hand, she did only write SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER about 100 times. If you don’t want to know the rundown of the show, stop reading at that point.

  12. Great Scott says:

    And good lord, when will some people stop pushing this Annette Bening thing? How many awards does Portman have to win before they finally give it up.? IT.IS.OVER.

    I think…

  13. David Poland says:

    I think Annette is a remote possibility.

    But the reason I think people keep thinking it could happen is because they feel like Bullock over Streep was a surprise last year. Penn over Rourke the year before.

    When that doesn’t happen for a year or two, people stop speculating and then we get surprised again.

    And I feel that this is also behind the unanimity of critic in choosing Social Network and only Social Network. Last year, they think they won it for Hurt Locker. They didn’t. But no matter how open minded, consensus like this didn’t happen because Social Net, terrific as it is, is the next Schindler’s List or Lawrence of Arabia or Citizen Kane.

  14. arisp says:

    There will upsets galore this year. Calling it now. Bale won’t win. Steinfeld will win, Benning will win. Deakins will win (an “upset”, if you will, based on his infamous shutout).

  15. IOv3 says:

    There shouldn’t be any upsets because it’s that cut and dry this year. Seriously though, if Bale doesn’t win, I hope he goes full-blown Kanye tonight and starts screaming GOOD FOR YOU at everyone.

  16. LexG says:

    Is KRISTEN STEWART presenting?

    Amber Heard? Megan? Dakota? Kunis even showing up?

    Trying to plan my enthusiasm.

  17. JKill says:

    Bale not winning will genuinely upset me.

    Also, I know it probably won’t happen, but does it make me a bad person that I really would like Nolan to upset Seidler for original screenplay?

  18. IOv3 says:

    Jkill, I may have been wrong to jump on Nolan for Cavil since it seems to be a ZACK LOVED HIM IN THE SUIT situation there, so Nolan winning that award would be cool. Seriously, Inception needs to win something tonight, and Bale not winning would genuinely upset me as well.

    I would get started on the whole Benning thing but what’s the point? Portman, much like Bale, continue to be one of the best at what she does. The thought that some folks would want this woman to lose, is epically annoying to me. She’s Natalie Portman, he’s Christian Bale, and it’s about time they both had ACADEMY AWARD WINNER in front of their names.

    ETA: Lex, Kunis will probably be presenting tonight.

  19. LexG says:

    “Lex, Kunis will probably be presenting tonight.”

    BONER. Will anyone be hotter? I doubt it.

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