This is topic Moore trying for Best Picture. 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=003544
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 09-07-2004, 08:19 AM:
Click this..
EDIT: Now that I think about it, due to the content of the movie, maybe I shouldnt have posted this. I wouldnt want to spark any unwanted and unnecessary political debates here. Mods, remove if you feel necessary. Sorry.
quote:
Moore to pursue best picture Oscar
By ANTHONY BREZNICAN
AP Entertainment Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Michael Moore says he won't submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for consideration as best documentary at this year's Academy Awards. Instead, he's going for the bigger prize of best picture.
Moore's critically acclaimed film slams President Bush's war on terror as ill-advised and corrupt. The movie has cheered Democrats but enraged the president's supporters, who booed Moore when he visited the Republican National Convention last week.
"For me the real Oscar would be Bush's defeat on Nov. 2," Moore told The Associated Press during a phone interview Monday from New York.
The $6 million film has become a sensation that collected $117.3 million in the United States this summer, despite an early roadblock when the Walt Disney Co. banned its Miramax Films division from distributing the political hot-potato.
In the midst of the presidential campaign, Moore's announcement is a strategic move for his Oscar campaign. Documentaries and animated films have their own categories, but the conventional wisdom in Hollywood is that those niche awards can limit a film's appeal in the overall best picture class.
Moore said he and his producing partner, Harvey Weinstein, agreed "Fahrenheit 9/11" would stand a better chance if they focused solely on the top Oscar.
He also said he wanted to be "supportive of my teammates in nonfiction film."
So many documentaries - such as the gonzo fast-food satire "Super Size Me" and the sober look at Arab television news in "Control Room" - have made the rounds in theaters recently that Moore, who won the best documentary Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine," said he wanted to give others a chance. "It's not that I want to be disrespectful and say I don't ever want to win a (documentary) Oscar again," Moore said. "This just seems like the right thing to do. ... I don't want to take away from the other nominees and the attention that they richly deserve."
Moore also hinted in a recent interview in Rolling Stone he would like the movie to play on television before the presidential election. According to the rules of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, playing on TV would invalidate its contention in the documentary category, but not for best picture. With the movie coming out on DVD Oct. 5, it's not clear whether the TV deal would happen.
Nominations for the Academy Awards are scheduled to be announced in January.
Regardless of who wins the election, Moore said the movie's presence at the Academy Awards in February will provide another forum for Americans to think about its message.
"The issues in the film - terrorism, the war on terrorism, the Iraq war - will be with us five months from now, sadly," Moore said. "The issues that the film raises will be no less relevant, in the new year."
© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Purchase this AP story for reprint.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-07-2004, 08:42 AM:
On his website he says:
quote:
Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction).
Does anybody know if this is correct, and, if so, why?
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-07-2004, 10:01 AM:
The only reason I can think of is that once you've televised a niche interest film such as a documentary, that is likely to seriously undermine any box-office and rental/retail video income that would follow in the wake of an Oscar. The distributors of fiction films would probably never sell the TV rights before the theatrical and video markets were played out anyway, thereby protecting the likely theatrical revenue surge from a post-Oscar rerelease. The chances of a feature documentary being televised before winning an Oscar are a lot higher, I would have thought, because its theatrical and video market is going to be significantly smaller. Furthermore, many feature documentaries are either produced by or substantially underwritten by TV companies anyway.
Even so, I'm a bit surprised that the 'no broadcasting' rule doesn't apply equally to all Oscar-nominated titles, without exception.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-07-2004, 04:15 PM:
So long as the replies have no political statements (implied or obvious), I see no problem with this thread, as it deals with film and the Academy Awards.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-07-2004, 04:59 PM:
Leo, I can understand that the theatrical distributers might want to delay any television broadcast of a flm, and I can understand why Miichael Moore wants this film to be shown on television, he has clearly stated that he wants it to be seen by as many people as possible, but I don't understand why the Academy should care where a film is, or isn't shown.
Also, if the rule is applied only to documentary film, and not to drama, it's not always easy to draw a clear line between the two. A film like 'Gettysburg' is almost as documentary in nature as some of the World War II documentries which have been shown on televsion recently.
Are there siimilar restrictions for any other awards, e.g. the BAFTAs?
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 09-07-2004, 05:43 PM:
I find it interesting that MM cares so much about what kind of Oscar the picture should get nominated for. That seems to suggest to me that he really is in it for the money, not the statement.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-07-2004, 06:01 PM:
Lots of people say this movie doesn't qualify as a documentary, so perhaps this is to appease them. I don't know why he announced it and why it is all over the news, though.
Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 09-07-2004, 06:08 PM:
I thought about that too. And what does this mean for the future in terms of a documentry catagory? Might not every other director of these features now suddenly argue that his / her piece should compete for top seed.
I liked the film, but I'd never vote for it to be the best picture of 2004.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-07-2004, 06:13 PM:
Kill Bill 2 is still the best movie of the year. But "Best Picture" will probably go to some slow movie with lots of old actors in it like Meryl Streep or Diane Keaton that deals with, ummm, being old.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-08-2004, 04:28 AM:
quote: Michael Schaffer
I find it interesting that MM cares so much about what kind of Oscar the picture should get nominated for. That seems to suggest to me that he really is in it for the money, not the statement.
Or that he thinks that he'll make a 'louder' political statement that way. After all, Columbine is the only documentary to have received any significant theatrical distribution this year. Therefore few heads would turn if it wins the documentary Oscar, as it's not up against any real competition. I guess he feels that winning best picture Oscar would enable his political beliefs to get another high-profile airing.
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 09-08-2004, 07:47 AM:
Getting best picture would be THE biggest statement he could make. With the seccess it's had he's got to go for it.
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 09-08-2004, 08:57 AM:
His statement that he would like it to be on broadcast TV before the election seems a little false. He knows two things, first that the DVD sales would be hit hard and second that no broadcast or cable station would air it before the election in fear of looking culpable to a violation of the McCain Feingold campain finance reform act that prevents political ads from non-combatants this close to an election.
I would also doubt that any pay cable service would be airing it as the DVD distributor probably also has some guarantee rights regarding time. This would be standard practice where there is usually a set amount of time from the DVD release to make sure the distributor is not cut out of its share of the profits.
It usually lays out a plan of 30-90 days from DVD release for Pay Per View, then an additional 120-600 days from pay cable viewing, then an additional 300-900 days from broadcast or commercial cable viewing. terms are negotiated with the DVD distributor who usually gets thier way because they are the ones paying for it.
With this in mind, I find it very difficult to imagine any distributor who would allow this under thier contract, as it would impact them in a very severe way. It would also impact thier contracts with the pay per view, pay cables, broadcast... etc.
Does anyone know if this movie has been shown on any inflight movies yet?
Ciao
dave
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-08-2004, 10:30 AM:
I'm sure it would go down well on a Gulf Air flight!
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2