This…
No matter what happens in the short term, you can bet this will be a hot topic of discussion when the entire board of governors holds its annual postmortem on the show and the process. The academy does not take attempts to interfere with its voting process or to contact its members lightly, no matter how big a mea culpa the offender is offering.
…is, I’m sorry, the biggest chunk of bullshit I’ve ever read in an Oscar season, and you get a lot of it this time of year.
I suppose publicists “polling” members by telephone and insinuating this or that in favor of their films isn’t taken “lightly?”
I suppose holding swanky, expensive events for films throughout the season and inviting members to show up and be glad-handed by talent isn’t taken “lightly?”
Give me a f***ing break already.
Comments
63 responses to “There is no plot to thicken”
I’d like to believe that this whole story is stupid and pointless, because if any academy voters WERE swayed by this story, then I’d lose all faith with them altogether. Seriously, anyone who decides to vote for a movie based on a grammatically incorrect email sent by a producer (who almost wasn’t even nominated) needs to NOT be voting…likewise, anyone who decides to not vote for a movie because of said email needs to also NOT vote at all.
WHO CARES IF HE BENT THE RULES, KNOWINGLY OR NOT!?!? Last time I checked, the Oscars were about the quality of the movies. If you’re swayed by a friggin’ email, or are bitter about said email ever being sent, then cry me a river and MOVE ON.
(this coming from a person who thinks “Fantasic Mr. Fox” was the best movie of the year…so I’ve got no deep investment in THL or Avatar winning)
PS: this was not meant as an attack on Kris or any other Oscarbloggers, but more of an attack on the academy voters themselves. I realized after posting that it may sound like I’m pissed with Kris…I’m not, not in the least bit.
Adam Smith — I couldn’t have said it better myself.
ahhh, matthew starr, all I can say is whatever dude. This is a website for oscar talk, maybe you should just check in after March 7, so you are no so bothered by all the oscar coverage, or actually a week after that. You have the right to your opinion and your feelings but don’t piss all over those who love the oscars and are excited about them. I’m just tired of all those cynical people who say the show is too long or wish it was over — yet there are no complaints for the superbowl, the grammys or the emmys which are all equal in length. It celebrates movies and I am a filmmaker and would someday like to be up there , so that is where the thrill comes from. There are oscar parties throughout the country as well, so i’m not the only Oscar lover. So again, whatever, agree to disagree and glad you are amused. And yes, i’m excited for inception too.
Why is oscar voting deadlines two days before the show — does that give PWH enough time? Dont’ they need extra time to do the preferential ballot? I hear they do it by hand.
@jamie: the superbowl coverage is 2 weeks. plus one gets to actually see teams compete in a fair way rather through innuendo, deceptions and lies.
there’s nothing cynical about wanting the oscars to be about awarding the “best” performances rather than who has the slickest, biggest campaign.
@snowballa — you are not reading the past threads. I was comparing the superbowl to being about the length of time of the show — that no one complains about that — and coverage is much more than 2 weeks == coverage is from august of who will win, etc.
I was not talking about the cynical in that way — of course the best peformances should always win, i don’t think that films win largely on the biggest slickest campaign — i mean are you swayed by that if you were a voter — you vote for who you think is the best. That’s why back to the original topic of this conversation, i think a big deal is made out of nothing and the reason I still believe that Basterds will prevail because I think if people actually see the film, they will see it is by far the best picture of the year.
I never said anything about the length of the Oscars so I am not sure why you bring that up.
Also the best films and performances rarely get awarded by Oscar. Hitchock, Kubrick, Welles never won and it took Scorsese forever just to get one.
Inglorious Basterds is definitely not the best picture of the year by the way and I own it on blu ray and have seen it twice.
Matthew — I bring up the length because you are just like all the others who complain the next day about how long it is — and you said you couldn’t wait for oscar season to be over with — so I assumed that you would want the show itself to be over as quickly as possible.
I agree and it is common knowledge that you don’t win for your best performance — Penelope cruz, renee zellwegger and yes it took scorsese forever to get it and I think Tarantino should not have to wait this long because he has created a masterpiece which i’m not sure he can top.
If you don’t think basterds is the best, what do you think is the best and who should win — from all the movies of last year, doesn’t even have to be one that was nominated.
My top three of 2009 as of right now.
1. A Serious Man
2. Moon
3. The Hurt Locker
I am actually going to an Oscar party myself. Once the show is actually on and I am with people it’s alright although like I said I will know about 20 of the winners before the show even begins.
Part of why I think there is too much “Oscar talk” is because the Oscars are so late. If they happened in late January or early February it would not be so bad. I like the oscar talk in November and December when the movies are actually still fresh.
By the way Jamie are you on Facebook? Add me if you can find me.
I don’t know why people are complaining about the length of the Oscar season. It wasn’t that long ago when it was close to three full months of the new year. This year it’s just two months and a week of 2010.
Matthew, i know this may seem like i’m just going against you, but I just didn’t get a serious man and I don’t understand why it was even nominated for best picture — although I did like no country for old men. Michael deserved a best actor nod but the movie itself was a puzzler for me.
I actually think it’s better that the oscars are in March because it actually gives voters and the audience time to actually see the movies — if you have the ceremony in january — then voters end up just voting for whoever is hip — I think it’s a much fairer system if they have the time to actually look at the pictures -=- especially now that there is 10. Also, they don’t have to rush to nominate actors etc — before the deadline was like january 2nd — who has time to even think about it after the holidays? Thanks for wanting to be my friend on facebook after all of our back and forth, hahaha
I like to know who I am having a discussion with. So yeah friend me if you see me I should be easy to find. I am friends with most of the film bloggers out there.