Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Oscar Hype has started! ARRRRRRRRGGGHHH!

This is topic Oscar Hype has started! ARRRRRRRRGGGHHH! in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001410

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-03-2002, 03:53 PM:

The endless Oscar Hype is back to haunt us! This year it's earlier and worse than ever!

Churning out Oscar Hype is just like being a sportswriter -- rumor and speculation, nothing more. I guarantee you the product that's being pushed for Oscars this year is worse than ever. Want proof?

This is what the Film Snobs are pushing for Oscars. Each is followed by why it should not get an automatic nomination:

Far from Heaven -- director is a critics' darling with no hits. Opens in NYC/LA opposite 8 Mile; goes national opposite Die Another Day.

The Quiet American -- Miramax sat on this picture for political reasons and is opening it only because the star cried "Censorship".

About Schmidt -- its star has Oscars already.

The Two Towers -- Miramax involvement.

Antwone Fisher -- Fox is selling off the international rights.

Gangs of New York -- Miramax.

Narc -- Paramount muscled in on this one thanks to Tom Cruise.

Catch Me if You Can -- Spielberg.

Chicago -- Miramax.

The Hours -- Meryl (Box Office Poison!) Streep. Also, Miramax involvement.

The Pianist -- gawd, not another Holocaust movie. The director also is a convicted sex offender.

If you're gonna tout a movie for Oscars tout something that's already a hit. Disney is doing that -- why can't anyone else?

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 11-03-2002, 06:02 PM:

Miramax will push anything for an Oscar.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a push for Wesley Snipes for Best Actor or Undisputed for Best Picture.

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 11-03-2002, 07:00 PM:

--and the same people, who want the hype and the pr turned down, are the same to wonder, when some day the theatre they work in, has to close because of audience getting to small.
But what the heck - Somebody will build a new megaplex nearby, and then they can have a job there instaed....

go gentle !

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-03-2002, 10:06 PM:

So, if somebody wins an Oscar that means they should never be able to win another one?

That's not exactly fair. Great performances are great, no matter who's doing them.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-03-2002, 10:36 PM:

Well, the only one that I can really comment on is "Far From Heaven" and I would say it is definitely, to sound like a trade ad, 'worthy of your consideration.'

As for "The Pianist" I can't believe people still dredge up that Roman Polanski business. As I recall he was going to plead guilty for a short sentence that was exactly in line with what was custom at the time but the judge reneged on the deal (probably because Polanski was a celebrity) and was going to put him away for 50 years. That's when he fled. Even the victim doesn't want him jailed. Read here

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-04-2002, 12:37 AM:

Pedophile or not, I've never seen a good film by a French filmmaker (that I know of). Currently I am exhibiting a Jean-Claude Godard (or is it Jean-Luc Picard?) movie called "In Praise of Love". Just walking by the projector while it's playing is enough to bore me into a coma.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-04-2002, 06:09 AM:

My real problem with Polanski is not that he's French or a peadophile, but that, with the sole exception of Chinatown, his films are nasty, sadistic and overrated cack. Even there Robert Towne's very tight script fails to completely stop P's sadistic streak plastering the screen with gratuitous violence which is completely unnecessary either for the plot or the atmosphere (e.g. the nose scene and the close-up of Faye Dunaway shot through the head).

I don't have a problem with violent or sexually explicit scenes when they're there to make a point, but in Polanski's case I suspect it's just because he likes them. Worryingly, I suspect that his incident with the 13 year-old shows that he has a problem separating films from real life. Back to Chinatown again - the John Huston character gets away with a particularly unpleasant rape due to his wealth and status: I can't help thinking that this is a case of life following art.

As for the French, I've seen good French films and bad ones. I agree, though, Godard too is overrated. I quite like Alphaville if only for its very dated view of computers and IT, but a disproportionate critical fuss has been made about him, IMHO.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-04-2002, 06:51 AM:

That "In Praise of Love" trailer is hilarious. The whole thing is quotes from supposedly people in-the-know about what good photography and filmmaking is all about. I don't remember any of them word for word, but they were quotes such as "never have I seen such incredible images grace the screen and blah, blah, blah". Meanwhile I am looking at the screen saying "this looks like it was shot on VHS and duped down a few times!" Good photography my ass.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 11-04-2002, 07:56 AM:

Joe, what about AMELIE?

------------------
Find me online
AOL: Dexter Caldwell
yahoo!: dexter_caldwell

"It is the opinion of the entire staff the Dexter is criminally insane."

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 11-04-2002, 09:56 AM:

We have had confirmed Nov/Dec/Jan bookings for Academy Screenings
for all those pictures above, for the last three months. I have Miramax,
Paramount, Dreamworks, New Line, Focus, UA, all coming in during that time.

Looks like a Merry Christmas.
Ho Ho Ho Hooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-04-2002, 11:32 AM:

I have never seen Amelie. All I know about it is what the newspaper ad looked like. I remember some chick with gigantic huge eyeballs. That is all.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 11-04-2002, 01:15 PM:

She also had a cute smile too.

Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 11-04-2002, 01:46 PM:

Most French filmmakers are quite annoying because there is a lot of blah-blah in their films and they don't care enough about picture and sound technology. Jean-Luc Godard is one of them! I noticed sound was often not as good as with American films. They still enjoy using direct sound when they can because they say it's more realistic.

Speaking of Polanski, I love many of his films, especially The Ninth Gate. I haven't seen The Pianist though because I'm not interested in "yet another film about the holocaust" as somebody else previously mentioned.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-04-2002, 06:54 PM:

Amelie opened in the US on 11/2/2001. Miramax pushed it hard -- especially for Best Picture. Not!

Amelie only got nominated for foreign-language feature IIRC. Lost to No Man's Land.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 12-01-2002, 11:48 AM:

Far from Heaven sold out last night and the night before at the AMC Hamilton. The trailer pack is all "Oscar Bait": Talk to Her, The Pianist, About Schmidt, The Hours, Catch Me if You Can. Of those 5 the only one with real box office potential is About Schmidt.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-01-2002, 07:42 PM:

quote:
"The Quiet American -- Miramax sat on this picture for political reasons and is opening it only because the star cried "Censorship".

Charles, Charles, Charles. Always working so hard to find hot-button issues like "politics" and "censorship" in everything. You're kind of like Film-Tech's version of Dale Gribble, seeing conspiracy and political intrigue all around you, when there's usually a much simpler explanation. [Wink]

Hint: 99.5% of the decision-making process in Hollywood is based on issues of money. Miramax knew they had a good movie but they were nervous about the film because it didn't test well, post-9/11. Martin A. Grove wrote a lengthy piece on "The Quiet American" in an article for Hollywood Reporter:

quote:
At one point, Miramax was going to hold the film's release until next year, which would not have qualified it for the Golden Globe or Oscar consideration... "I think that in the months after 9/11 some aspects of this story, particularly its unnerving images of the carnage of war, hit very raw nerves amongst some of the audience members who were watching the film at previews, particularly in the New York area," Noyce noted. "The film did not preview well. Remember, the particular sense of violation that we all felt in the months after 9/11 and which people in New York and New Jersey were particularly susceptible to. Perhaps there couldn't have been a worse collision of a movie and a real event than 'The Quiet American' and 9/11. I think that justifiably Harvey (Weinstein, co-chairman of Miramax) was skittish and uncertain about when to release the movie. We and Michael, in particular, all urged him to use Toronto (the Toronto International Film Festival in September) as a litmus test, which he did. And now it's going into release."

Now, let the Oscar hype continue! If it puts butts in the seats, it's good for this business and for film lovers.

[ 02-04-2003, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: David Stambaugh ]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-02-2002, 11:42 AM:

In the interest of being "fair and balanced", and on behalf of Charles, I'll provide a rebuttal to my own earlier post. [Wink]

Basically, "The Nation" published an article by Jon Wiener which criticizes Miramax for shelving "The Quiet American" as being an act of politically-motivated "self-censorship". The author claims the film previewed very well on 9/10, but after 9/11 Miramax got cold feet about releasing something that's very critical of past US foreign policy, and which has parallels to today's situation with Iraq.

I still say it's only about the money. If the film's box office potential was hurt by world political events on 9/11, of course Miramax will make a business decision to put the film's release on hold. To say a film was shelved "for polical reasons" without looking at the entire picture is disingenous at best, and suggests that Miramax was pressured by someone, oh say W or Rumsfeld, to quash the film. Which is a bunch of baloney.

The Vietnamese government gives "The Quiet American" its thumbs-up: Here

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-04-2003, 11:09 AM:

Meryl Streep slams Oscars

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-04-2003, 05:00 PM:

Charles Everett Wrote:

quote:
Far from Heaven sold out last night and the night before at the AMC Hamilton. The trailer pack is all "Oscar Bait": Talk to Her, The Pianist, About Schmidt, The Hours, Catch Me if You Can. Of those 5 the only one with real box office potential is About Schmidt.

Grosses as of 2/4/03:
Catch Me If You Can- $152 million
About Schmidt- $44 million
The Hours- $18 million
The Pianist- $7 million
Talk to Her- $4 million

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 02-04-2003, 05:24 PM:

Remember it's not How Many Tickets You Sold. Is the Picture Good.

This year's nominations will be announced on Feb. 11 from the
Academy of Motion Pictures Sciences in Beverly Hills. With the
ceremony on March 23 on ABC. [Big Grin]

Remember to get ready for your annual 4 hours of entertainment
Live from the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood.
[sleep]

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-04-2003, 05:59 PM:

Oh I know, its just that I found his assertion that About Schmidt was going to outgross Catch Me If You Can rather humorous. One can't help but wonder if the fact that CMIFYC was a Mirimax picture had anything to do with his prediction.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 02-05-2003, 01:32 AM:

Catch Me If You Can is Dreamworks.
Or was Miramax tied to it?

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-05-2003, 01:52 AM:

I think its Dreamworks/Mirimax.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 02-05-2003, 04:16 PM:

"Catch Me If You Can" is a Dreamworks SKG picture. Miramax has nothing to do with that picture.
Distribution outside of US is UIP.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-05-2003, 05:00 PM:

Many apologies for my mistake, for some reason I thought Mirimax co-produced the movie.

Apologies to anyone offended and specificaly to Charles for jumping to a false conclusion.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-15-2003, 12:22 PM:

Miramax on Academy's [bs]

List over Gangs promotional ad.

Miramax's Oscar Campaign for Scorsese Causes Stir

Fri Mar 14, 8:06 PM ET

By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Just when it seemed that heavy-handed Oscar promotional campaigns of recent years were on the wane, Miramax Films has drawn fire for running newspaper ads quoting a revered Hollywood figure as praising "Gangs of New York" and its director, Martin Scorsese (news).

AP Photo

Slideshow: Academy Awards

Related Links

•
Complete List of Oscar
Nominations (AP)

Executives of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (news - web sites), which presents the Oscars (news - web sites), say Miramax crossed a line by recruiting former Academy president and Oscar-winning director Robert Wise (news) to write a commentary endorsing Scorsese for the best-director award.

Critics of Wise's column, published initially as an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Daily News, said the director breached an unwritten but apparently sacred prohibition against academy members revealing how they were casting their Oscar ballots.

And they say Miramax, the film's distributor, violated the spirit of Oscar- campaigning guidelines designed to maintain the "fairness and dignity" of the voting process.

"It's an outright violation of academy rules," academy president Frank Pierson told the Los Angeles Times in a rare public rebuke over Oscar politicking. "The reaction among our membership has been real dismay, anger and outrage."

Producer-director Barry Levinson (news), an Oscar winner for "Rain Man," told the Times he found the Wise ads "extremely vulgar."

"You look at an ad like that and say, '... Why don't we just give money to people and tell them how to vote?" he said.

After appearing in the Los Angeles Daily News earlier this month, Wise's column was reprinted as an advertisement paid for by Miramax that ran in several other publications, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and Hollywood trade papers.

ACADEMY MEMBERS MIFFED

Pierson said some academy members were so miffed that they wanted their completed ballots returned so they could strike Scorsese's name. Ballots mailed out to some 5,800 voting academy members are due back by March 18.

Miramax executives countered that ads and opinion pieces from Hollywood luminaries praising the work of peers are commonplace. They said Wise agreed to write a column supporting Scorsese after the industry daily paper Variety published a scathing commentary from screenwriter William Goldman saying "Gangs" was a "mess" and that Scorsese did not deserve an Oscar for it.

Miramax chief operating officer Rick Sands said he found it "ironic" that the studio heard no complaints from academy members about Goldman's piece. "Was that not vulgar?"

But Scorsese, a five-time Oscar nominee who has yet to win, was "horrified" by the ads, said his spokeswoman Lois Smith.

"He's known Robert Wise for many years, so of course he was touched by what Bob wrote about him, but he didn't know it was going to be used for an ad," she told Reuters.

Miramax, which is owned by the Walt Disney Co., has a reputation for its spare-no-expense, take-no-prisoners approach to Oscar politicking. The studio co-financed and released "Gangs of New York," which is nominated in 10 Oscar categories, including best picture and best director.

Although some regarded Scorsese as a sentimental favorite in the race for the best directors Oscar, he became more of an underdog after rival nominee Rob Marshall (news) claimed the top honor from the Directors Guild of America for his work on "Chicago."

ADS WITHDRAWN

Wise could not immediately be reached for comment but told the Times he was not aware his column had upset anyone.

Academy spokesman John Pavlik said that in more than 10 years he could not recall any other past or present academy president signing an opinion piece endorsing a particular Oscar nominee. "The academy presidents for years have been the ones sending notices to members saying, 'please don't over-do the campaigning,"' though nothing in the campaign guidelines expressly bars such endorsements, he said.

A Miramax spokesman said the studio withdrew the ads after "a couple of academy members had expressed concern about it," but executives were surprised by the controversy.

"We were completely unaware that this was something academy members found offensive and ... we certainly did not know this practice was a violation of academy rules," Miramax operating chief Sands said in a written statement.

He cited a number of recent ads or published commentaries from Hollywood heavyweights praising the work of others, even during Oscar season. Among them were endorsements last year by Wise praising the 20th Century Fox musical "Moulin Rouge." In addition, Julia Roberts (news) endorsed Denzel Washington (news) and Warren Beatty (news) endorsed Halle Berry (news), Sands said.

Pavlik said the academy's board would likely take up the issue of published Oscar endorsements at its meeting in April.

The flap over the Miramax ads came during an Oscar season in which high- octane politicking that marked previous years appeared to have otherwise have cooled down.

"It did seem a little quieter, like there was less advertising in general, less blaring, screaming types of advertisements ... and then of course this happened," he said.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-15-2003, 05:59 PM:

Gangs was an incredible piece of [bs]

and doesn't IMHO deserve any award except possibly "most boring". I am also getting a bit sick of this Miramax nonsense with the Oscars. I certainly hope this puts an end to any chance this movie has of getting an award this year. The Academy should flat out dismiss it from the running.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-15-2003, 06:28 PM:

Because of the negatives comments about "GANGS OF NEW YORK" here and elsewhere, I did not see the movie in a theatre. With my special senior discount, I can rent the DVD when it comes out very soon at Tower Video for about $1.50 and if it is indeed a piece of [bs]

as Brad say it is, I'm only out the rental fee instead of "$4.75 it would have cost for a theatre ticket. [Smile]

-Claude

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 03-15-2003, 09:30 PM:

Is the Academy Diamond Anniversary Trailer any good?

--jhawk

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-15-2003, 11:12 PM:

Well, if there were any decent movies out there playing, I might actualy get a chance to see the Jubilee trailer. But since there aren't, I guess I'll have to skip it this year! [Frown]