MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB: Oscar 2016


Be Sociable, Share!

19 Responses to “BYOB: Oscar 2016”

  1. Ryan says:

    It doesn’t seem like the Academy members are doing themselves any favors with the public by filling out these “Brutally Honest” Oscar Ballots for THR. They all seem to vote for everything out of personal biases and show that the awards really have nothing to do with the filmmaking process, but rather the egos involved. Not that this is something new coming to light, but you would think that right now of all times, they would want to be more careful about how they are perceived.

  2. JS Partisan says:

    Ryan, they just don’t get it. The sooner they do. The better off film will be, because these fucking people seem to be the worst.

  3. jepressman says:

    Doesn’t Hollywood have a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng history of professional jealousy,you know backbiting petty nastiness. Revenge is a dish best served cold type stuff. Nobility and impartiallity,now that is for movie characters.

  4. Hallick says:

    So…is the hashtag now #diversitysoblack?

  5. Hallick says:

    Sigh…I’m just going to go ahead and call it now: The Hot Blog’s time of death is 9:15am PST, February 29, 2016.

  6. JS Partisan says:

    It’s the Oscars, and they were terribly boring. It’s not fun like box office discussion!

  7. brack says:

    Gotta say Rock was good at first, but went overboard, especially with the Compton theater bit, as if most white people ever heard of Spotlight either.

  8. Hallick says:

    “It’s the Oscars, and they were terribly boring. It’s not fun like box office discussion!”

    When you can look at another movie blog and see upwards of 500+ comments on the show, but even the tumbleweeds and crickets aren’t over here, you still gotta say something’s dead.

  9. Hcat says:

    Personally I thought that was the best oscars in quite some time. I clicked away a bit but even with the extra time it didn’t seem to drag like previous years, some genuine surprises in the awards, and while I still would rather have clips than a song during the in memory section, it didn’t seem like a performance first this year ( though to end on Nimoy? I would have gone with Ohara or even Rickman)

    Overall I would say this was the least painful since the first time Steve Martin hosted.

  10. spassky says:

    Where was Rivette… in memoriam is a joke!

  11. Ray Pride says:

    The Academy’s online In Memoriam has 136 figures, including Rivette and Abe Vigoda.

  12. spassky says:

    i’m aware of the online gallery, but this just strikes me as even more of a slap to the face — no snafu, only intentional omission. great.

  13. Ray Pride says:

    Agreed, Spassky. Badly produced, and hard-to-navigate online gallery ain’t a true substitute.

  14. Mark F. says:

    Cut out the stupid song category , and don’t leave people out of the “In Memoriam” section. Geez!

  15. Mike says:

    Since people are ALWAYS upset about the In Memorium, just cut the whole stupid thing.

  16. spassky says:

    OR include legends like Abe Vigoda and Jacques Rivette and leave out billionaire asshats like Kirk Kerkorian. AMPAS is a wonderful institution primarily for its education and preservation efforts, so I think more elements in the oscar show to highlight that would be appropriate.

  17. Glamourboy says:

    Yeah, I need a better movie blog….which other ones do you read?

  18. leahnz says:

    i remember watching the oscars ‘in memorium’ segments growing up, inevitably there would be a few ‘damn this thing is long’ and ‘gee a lot of people died last year’ sighs while watching it on the living room floor, but there was something special about it — the lights would dim in the theatre and the wistful orchestral music played over all the many names, usually with little video clips showing a snippet of what they did, many unknown names but then your personal fave dead person would come up on screen (sounds kind of macabre i know) and your chest hurt a little being reminded they’re gone, and you’d listen for how loud the audience applause for your fave was and then reflexively feel bad if the other dead people didn’t get as big a reaction, or bigger. i think it took up a whole segment of the telecast between ad breaks (or i just remember it that way); yes it was long and exhaustingly thorough and a bit boring, but for somebody watching, everyone on that honour roll was somebody’s fave dearly departed person who’ll be sorely missed. i think because they took the actual time to pause the show and honour the industry’s dead in such a way it seemed to really mean something, as opposed to today’s method where it’s a hurried list of names/faces with a celebrity musician presumably to hold interest, randomly whittled down, leaving people out so there’s time for another dumb segment about cookies or some such nonsense, kind of sad.

  19. leahnz says:

    ‘in memoriam’, derp (tablet’s spellcheck is turned off)

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