The Hot Blog

Can we just pretend that in split years, the Best Director winner (Saving Private Ryan, The Pianist, Brokeback) is really the Picture winner? All three of those movies are superior the movies that beat them.

Meanwhile, in non-Oscar new...did anyone else realize that Robert f'in Downey Jr. is in The Shaggy Dog?! Jeez, smack must be getting more expensive.

I'm so sick of defending Shakespeare in Love but I just watched it after Crash won Best Picture to remind myself that once in a blue moon the Academy chooses correctly. This is very clear to me. Shakespeare has a FANTASTIC screenplay. It's alternately highbrow and lowbrow at all the right times. It's one of the few romantic comedies that manages to be extremely funny while containing a well-written romance. It appeals to fans of Shakespeare's work but tells an original story entertaining in its own right. And it has an assortment of great actors operating at their very best. Hell, even Ben Affleck was good, and with a British accent. That's impressive.

Saving Private Ryan is certainly a more visceral experience, but nowhere is it said that this is a qualification for winning Best Picture. It had an average screenplay with characters that were pretty far from three-dimensional. The bookends, in addition to being hamfisted and filled with jingoistic, flag-waving bullshit, essentially lie to the audience by making them think the story is being told from one person's perspective, only to find out at the end it's someone else's POV. Never mind that the character WASN'T EVEN PRESENT at Omaha Beach. Regardless, the film is a brilliant 20 minutes followed by 2 hours of moments lifted or inspired by far superior war films. I'll take any of Sam Fuller's war films over this any day of the week. You know, he actually FOUGHT in World War II.

Sure, Shakespeare was a feel-good movie. That shouldn't exclude it from awards. There's nothing wrong with that when it's well-earned, without resorting to cheap conventions. It may not aim as high as Spielberg's film, but it's a lot closer to perfection. And since many feel that Terrence Malick's WW2 film was superior in 1998, it's difficult to say that SIL robbed SPR of a Best Picture win.

When did we annoint Brokeback Mountain the title of film of the year? Was the Oscar win supposed to be icing on the cake for their year?

Ang Lee has nothing to be disappointed about.

Lazarus,

I completely agree with you, regarding Saving Private Ryan. I have gotten into many an argument about that film. No doubt, there was some intense stuff in the first and third acts that it would be hard NOT to be affected by. It had a very good cast and mostly good performances. And nobody can deny the impact it has had on our culture, certainly more than Shakespeare in Love. Would any one even be talking about the "greatest generation" without the release of this film? Most war films that have been released have tried to ape its style, as well.

But......

I have just not found it to be a cohesive or engaging film. The narrative and focus on the characters is very confused, the tone and style changes of each act of the film is very jarring. Especially that middle section, they just amble around the countryside, really no narrative drive or tension and what was with that out-of-the-blue cameo from Ted Danson? But I think the big drawback is Tom Hanks' character and his performance. This has been a recurring problem with Spielberg in recent years, especially with the films starring Cruise and Hanks. He and they are just not willing to take their characters to the dark places that they are headed. They are just too afraid to go against the good will that audiences have given them.

For instance, that scene where Tom Hanks' character breaks down and tells every one that he is a teacher. That is TOM HANKS telling them, not the character. No doubt in my mind that the scene was written for him. Completely took me out of the movie.

That's part of why Munich was so strong. Spielberg cast it perfectly with Eric Bana and he does a fantastic job of taking you on a very dark journey. And that's why it is his strongest film since SChinlder's List.

Infact, just imagine if they followed the original plan of casting a star in the title role for Schindler's List and cast Mel Gibson as Oskar Schindler. Just would not have been the same film and probably would have had similar problems to Saving Private Ryan.

One of Spielberg's biggest weakness is catering to big stars who do not want to alienate their audience.

Saving Private Ryan had a great first twenty minutes. Then the story kind of lost track. I wasn't shedding any tears over it losing Best Picture to Shakespeare in Love. Spielberg probably deserved Best Director for the stunning first twenty minutes alone. I also think SPR had some unfortunate luck in the process.

It probably split some votes with the other WW 2 movie among the five, The Thin Red Line. That probably really hurt it at the end in the voting. Allowing SIL to pull ahead.

Geoff,
Good observation. I sometimes feel that cameos with known stars takes away from the action. The Ted Danson cameo comes out of nowhere there. I was almost expecting him to smirk and ask Mr. Peterson if he needed a beer. I can understand why actors do not want to be type cast. Perfect case in point. He'll always be Mayday Malone to me.

Casting stars in lead roles is a nature of the business. For one they're needed for the box office and business. And two they're usually the better actor. Hanks was needed in Private Ryan because they needed a center. And he is not who you usually think about when you think of an action star.

SIL cheats because they have Shakespeare to come bail them out at the end. Which is why, even though it is a less flawed movie than SPR, I'd have voted for SPR.

Thank you for posting that, David. I think people are confusing annoying "BBM" lovers with the filmmakers (who have lost graciously), and it kind of pisses me off that homophobia and other issues are coming up as a defense for the "Crash" win over "BBM." It didn't seem to me that the Academy really loved any film too much. I know they were "lesser" awards, but "King Kong" and "Memoirs of a Geisha" tied the big films. Kind of reminds me of when "The Matrix" took home one less Oscar than 1999's big winner "American Beauty."

I never thought I'd hear it.

BEN AFFLECK with a good British accent.

That had to be the reason it won. People were in shock. The stars were aligned.

I just watched Tom Hanks in "Road to Perdition" again. Wow. Talk about a well-loved star going to dark places! Both he and Jude Law deserved Oscar nominations for that movie. It should have been released in November, not June.

It's hard to argue about which is the better movie of the year when personal taste is the primary factor. It's like the pie judging contest at the county fair. I like pecan pie. I hate peace pie. So if the judges pick the peach pie as the best pie of the year, am I right in saying the pecan pie was better?--the maker of the pecan pie got robbed?---the judges are old and obviously Yankees and they are prejudiced against pecan pie? Hmmmmm.... In fact, the cherry pie might have been better, but it's all just a matter of private personal taste.

I am not upset that "Crash" won. I would not have been upset had "Brokeback" won. But now I'm hungry and I want a piece of pecan pie.

Jude Law is that actor that really is a character actor in a leading mans body. He's terrific when in the supporting character roles. Like Road to Perdition and Talented Mr. Ripley.
He loses all his charisma when he has to shoulder the movie for some reason. Maybe he hasn't found the right starring vehicles yet.

But Road to Perdition is weakened by the star power of Hanks. As they soften the Michael Sullivan role to make him more appealing. It lost the essence of what the material was about. He was hard and unflinching.

Thanks, Lazarus... you posted just about everything I think about the Shakepeare in Love / Saving Private Ryan divide. The better film won.

Of course, the true best film of that year (Rushmore) wasn't even nominated.

It's nice to look back on the RYAN/SHAKESPEARE Oscar thing and feel that a truly great film won, whereas this year there is a lot of bile & disagreement. Mind you, I love RYAN far more than the ther film, but the fact that I (and a lot of other people) genuinely like both films makes this season--where passions were segmented, and most people were tepid on everything-- feel even more disappointing.

Now "Rushmore" would have been the inspired choice in '98. But the bigger shaft that year was Bill Murray. Genuis work by one of our great artists.

In '98 you didn't hear the SPR fans villifying the SIL fans.

^ Maybe they were, we just didn't hear it because the means didn't exist back then.

Theres always going to be fans of a movie upset at the outcome of an awards show. Someone has to lose in the end. Not even is a winner and goes home with a prize. It's subjective. Who's really to say one is better than something else? Their opinions mean so little? If you don't like how the Academy runs things then do what mad consumers do. Stop buying the product. Don't watch. Don't participate. Don't care.

Groups and people got angry way before there was even a thought of a thing called the internet. It's made it easier to gripe and have people hear you but it didn't invent the wheel.

From what I remember about '98 was that movie fans were more upset about the SIL win because they felt it was an inferior picture to SPR. And the discourse was focused on that.

I thought the big complaint was that Miramax had campaigned too much (perhaps even negatively against "Private Ryan") and that the Spielberg camp had been too gentlemanly to fight back. (or didn't know they should have fought?)

But once Miramax showed how an Oscar fight could be won, the gloves came off for future years. Will the Weinstein brothers be back in the game next year? It's always interesting when they have a few horses in the race. (Yes, mixed metaphor. Sorry)

I remember a lot of vilification of Shakespeare in Love back in '00. That's why the memes today are "the wrong movie won" and "Harvey bought an Oscar."

I think the SIL vilification wasn't as strong as the anti-Crash abuse you see this year because Saving Private Ryan wasn't as beloved as Brokeback. In other words, the people who love Brokeback are more passionate about their film than the people who loved Ryan. The legacy of Saving Private Ryan isn't the movie itself (save the first reel) but how society reacted to the film.

Saving Private Ryan was a fine film, but it achieved something Brokeback hasn't. The one thing that Brokeback fans desperately wanted: a change in American societal attitude. SPR led to the idea of "the greatest generation", which spawned a plethora of books, TV shows, museums (the D-Day museum in New Orleans), memorials (the WWII memorial on the mall in DC), etc., etc., acknowledging and celebrating the WWII generation. The impact of the movie went beyond the movie itself, so the fans of the film didn't feel the need to fight for its award show legacy.

Unfortunately for Brokeback, such societal acknowledgement and celebration will not take place. Advocates for the film have nothing but the film to rally behind and, as a result, the defense of the film is more rabid.

Peggy Noonan has a wonderful piece in the Wall Street Journal on contemporary Hollywood. If you read the piece in its entirty it is not written with a nasty edge at all. She also has a point.

"But Mr. Clooney's remarks were also part of the tinniness of the age, and of modern Hollywood. I don't think he was being disingenuous in suggesting he was himself somewhat heroic. He doesn't even know he's not heroic. He thinks making a movie in 2005 that said McCarthyism was bad is heroic.

How could he think this? Maybe part of the answer is in this: The Clooney generation in Hollywood is not writing and directing movies about life as if they've experienced it, with all its mysteries and complexity and variety. In an odd way they haven't experienced life; they've experienced media. Their films seem more an elaboration and meditation on media than an elaboration and meditation on life. This is how he could take such an unnuanced, unsophisticated, unknowing gloss on the 1950s and the McCarthy era. He just absorbed media about it. And that media itself came from certain assumptions and understandings, and myths."

I recommend people search the article out.

Noonan's point is moot, because Clooney's live HAS been about media and journalism. His father was a journalist. He grew up with firsthand knowledge of the era. It's not like Clooney was watching the TV one day and said "Oi! I think I'll write a movie about TV journalism!!"

I liked GNGL as a meditation on media. That was the whole point of the bookends. For me, the film was more of a wake up call to the degradation of TV news than it was a film about how McCarthy was bad.

And furthermore, why isn't it valid to have films that are meditations on media? TV has only been around since the 1940s so basically we've now become a society that has grown up on it (while to a lesser extent on radio, books, movies, internet, video games). That makes it relevant to our life even if it feels myopic. In 20 years, I wouldn't be surprised if films were suddenly meditations on interactive video games because that will be what the next generation will have grown up with.

Stop the bullshit!

SPR was The Movie of 1998 bar none. As was The Passion in 2003 and Brokeback in 2005; the movies that took an axe to cinema that year and had everybody talking.

Yes, you can nitpick about the SPR bookends -- which is Spielberg's very Spielbergian way of telling this generation that they've earned their great lives (He didn't find a subtle way to do it, he just up and told them, hey fine) -- but the story, structure, technical feats and performances are all better than anything in a three year radius. Heck, after 20 minutes it has already achieved classic status... I can't think of another film in my lifetime to pull that one off.

SIL is a terrific movie as any student of Shakespeare and storytelling will tell you, but selling it as a film anywhere as important (and entertaining) as Spielberg's film is crap. The movie, like many best picture winners lately gasped to $100 mil on its Oscar win, and has become famous now more for this debate than its acclaim for the year.

What's funny is that none of the nominees of 2005 were anywhere as good (and again, entertaining) as SPR and SIL... which I guess doesn't mean much when what we're really talking about these past few days is more politics.

SPR is great for the same reasons everyone accused BM of being so loved: it is part of a movement. I don't knock the film or the movement, but it was definitely not Spielberg's finest. And I'd say as time has gone on, SPR feels overrated just as SIL feels underrated.

what movement is saving private ryan a part of? the freedom movement? world war two vets? who cares? the movie is a classic. it should have won the big prize and has more of a beef than brokeback mountain ever will.

"SPR led to the idea of "the greatest generation", which spawned a plethora of books, TV shows, museums (the D-Day museum in New Orleans), memorials (the WWII memorial on the mall in DC), etc., etc., acknowledging and celebrating the WWII generation."

Uh...no, it didn't. Congress designated the spot for the WWII memorial in the mid '90s, several years before SPR, and the website of the D-Day museum says that Stephen Ambrose started the "D-Day Museum Foundation" in 1991. SPR was undoubtedly a big part of the "greatest generation" business, but it certainly didn't inspire the whole thing.

Spielberg must have something against campaigning for awards in general. That feeling has hurt his movies at Oscar time.

Another thing I take from the '98 campaign was Miramax going all out and making sure there movie got seen by every single voter. A strategy that helped the film and changed how studios campaigned for awards.

The top three from 1998 are better than anything from 2005. Oscar wise that is.

I'd take Thin Red, SPR, SIL. Over the 5 from 2005.

Looking back at 1998, the Brokeback fan club should be more concerned with that year than BBM losing this year.

Ian McKellen losing to Roberto Benigni was the real landmark and a really bad error of judgement. One of the worst calls by the Academy ever.

Hey Crow, I'm not sure by what you mean about SPR's bookends talking to 'this generation'...do you mean the WWII generation? In my opinion, the bookends are ambiguous and undercut any rah-rah message of everything is fine.

What people forget is that the people voting aren't pro critics. They're fans as much as anyone else. It isn't a board of critics deciding what is the best. Some vote with their heart and vote for what they like best.

Now if some didn't see a particular movie they shouldn't be voting because that is disrespectful. That doesn't take your job serious as a voter. Why even vote then?

The bookends in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN almost ruined the movie.

There was no need for it, absolutely no need, but you take the good and you take the sap from Spielberg. With extra servings of sap.

Still, it could have ended with the soldiers hitting the first beach spot and taking out the gunner and I would have been over joyed.

Well, I think you're mistaken. The bookends are crucial to Spielberg's entire underlying point. Without them, it's just another movie with explosions.
Just remember, the movie ends with old Ryan needing to be told that he's lived a good life and is a good man... raising the question, if a soldier who sees combat isn't even sure, what does that say for the rest of us?
But, feel free to disagree. Anyway, for my money the best war movie of 1998 was Thin Red Line.

"Uh...no, it didn't. Congress designated the spot for the WWII memorial in the mid '90s, several years before SPR, and the website of the D-Day museum says that Stephen Ambrose started the "D-Day Museum Foundation" in 1991. SPR was undoubtedly a big part of the "greatest generation" business, but it certainly didn't inspire the whole thing. "

Neither project had any financial traction before the movie was released.

The bookends are there to hit you over the head.

How did they help move the story along?

It was extra sap for sap's sake. Spielberg can't help himself.

I won't fault him. We know what we're getting with him but I didn't think they were needed. The picture would have been fine if we started on the boats and ended at the bridge.

Tom Hanks would have been a fine bookend.

Gee, could it be that perhaps CRASH won because it was simply seen by more people than BROKEBACK vis a vis DVD? That perhaps those who loved CRASH were more ardent in their support than BROKEBACK's supporters? Because in the final, unheated analysis, those will be the two factors that will be recognized as determining how this came to pass.

I come in contact with many people who are involved with making movies in this company town and last summer the one film everyone seem to be talking about was CRASH. Mostly favorably (I am not in the CRASH camp, in case anyone is wondering. I thought parts of it were decent, but overall it has for me a pessimistic message that doesn't accomplish anything). Over and over I heard from bright, intelligent industry people how much liked this film and were recommending it to friends. And those who hadn't seen it were going to because several friends had already praised it. That is genuine word of mouth within a community that when the votes were counted mattered.

The same thing can easily be argued happening ten fold once the DVD was released, with non-Academny members talking the film up to their Academy friends. Plus, Lion's Gate was available to flood Academy members with DVDs without cumbersome anti-piracy rules.

Meanwhile, BROKEBACK never seemed to get that sort of "go see it" factor going for it like CRASH had. While everyone talked about the awards it was racking up and the gay issue become a topic in the zeitgeist, no one was really talking about the film (for the record, I like the film. I found it touching and sad, but overall I wasn't particually blown away either).

If ever there was a year when it would be interesting to see the actual vote counts with some means of breaking down the demographics, this was it. Because I would wager that each of the best picture nominees had their own core group of supporters. I imagine it would be something like actors going for CRASH, old guard liberals going for GOOD NIGHT/LUCK, new guard liberals going for BROKEBACK, older voters going for CAPOTE and the ardent Jewish vote going for MUNICH.

"Shakespeare in Love" like any comedy or lighter type movie doesn't get the respect it really deserves even with an Oscar win.

There will always be those who give more credit to more dramatic movies. Thinking that drama means a better movie. SIL has more than held up thru the years since its win and you can't blame the win on the Weinstein's buying it.

The did what Executive Producers are supposed to do. Get their picture seen by everyone it can and make it money.

If I had a vote in 1998, it would have been a tough call for me between SIL and "Saving Private Ryan". Granted, this is almost 8 years later so it doesn't mean much. But SIL has held up for me.

I think SIL is a good movie. I enjoyed it the first and only time I saw it. It's entertaining and amusing and the cast is great. But I forgot it soon after and don't really care if I ever see it again. SPR is flawed, but for my $ it's a better film and one I am happy to revisit from time to time. That said, I prefer The Thin Red Line to both of them.

Are you people serious? Shakespeare isn't even in the same ballpark as Saving Private Ryan. Like comparing apples and oranges.

Seeing the actual vote count this year would be interesting. What if BBM was third? We're assuming a lot thinking it was a two movie race for best Pic. Who's to say one of the other 3 didn't come close?

It's amusing to read Alias Man tout SiL under "quicksilver4u" and then bash it under "Mark Ziegler."

Crow asked for a refresher list in the last topic, but the aliases all used by this same guy include Josh, Bruce, BluStealer, Mark Ziegler, Lester Freed, Rufus Masters, joefitz84, Charly Baltimore, Angelus21, quicksilver4u, bicycle bob, Sanchez, Terence D, Fades to Black...I think I may be forgetting some.

Periodically, the guy introduces a new alias, but his trademarks (halting sentence fragments, a lack of real film knowledge, a tendency to become incensed by George Clooney or liberal thought) make him easy to spot.

Maybe I should repost this list at the beginning of every topic until DP texplains to us why he condones one dude polluting each blog entry under fifteen different aliases? I mean, does anyone else care about this besides me? I guess we can always find some other place to have film discussion where that kind of shit's not allowed.

Oh, also: Yodas Right Nut Sac and PandaBear. But I should hasten to mention that though Nicol D is a vocal conservative here -- and easily confused with Terence D -- he is not among the aliases.

Not bicycle bob too!

I kinda liked him.

Anybody but Bob!

:)

SPR and Brokeback were robbed.

Dave P. got pissed at me when I suggested this once before, but I think he likes having the extra site traffic.

"but the story, structure, technical feats and performances are all better than anything in a three year radius."

Crow, you're off your rocker. The technical feats of Titanic, one year earlier, were more impressive, however bad the rest of the film was. Performances? Give me a break. Tom Hanks, Vin Diesel, Matt Damon and Barry Pepper aren't exactly an unstoppable thespian arsenal. The ensemble in Shakespeare is far superior. Paltrow, Dench, Fiennes, Rush, Wilkinson, and Affleck all turning in great work. Hell, I'll take Penn, Caviezel, Nolte, Koteas and Mihok from The Thin Red Line over those guys. And I'm amazed that you would put that forth when the characters in SPRare such cardboard cutouts. I did note that SPR was a very visceral war film, but that doesn't put it among the best.

As 1999 was one of the best years for film in memory, to call SPR better than any film from that time period is laughable. There were probably 5 films better in 1999 alone, and in all those categories you mentioned as well.

And I still say that Apocalypse Now, in all its messy glory, still says more about war, human nature, and the effect of one on the other than Saving Private Ryan. And it doesn't have any of the flag-waving bookend bullshit that makes it look like a government-commissioned project.

How many times do I have to repeat it: just because Spielberg put a flag in his movie doesn't mean it's inherently a symbol of jingoistic patriotism. If you actually pay attention to the movie, you'll see that it's a story about soldiers questioning the very idea of the individual putting his life on the line for his nation. Over and over again in the movie, this idea is put to the test and by the movie's resolution, the answer is an uncertain, ambiguous yes. The American flag that ends the film is thin, almost transparent, a frail reminder of the fragility of America, not a hollow demand for patriotism, like when you see an American flag in a Michael Bay film, for example.

But a lot of people just want to watch Nazis get blown up, which is why the movie made as much money as it did and would prefer to ignore the bookends.

I'm sure that if I got mad at you, J-Mc, it was about some ther obnoxious comment.

I have no traffic concerns. MCN is well up in traffic and revenues from last year, as we have been every year we've been in business.

The idea that I run things for traffic bumps is stupid since I don't actually run things that are terribly controversial. If I wanted traffic bumps, I would write the words "Paris Hilton" and "Desperate Housewives" a lot more often. As Traditional Media outlets have found out... the interest in Oscar stuff is hard core, but not to big outside of Oscar week.

MEMEs Mr Wrecktum?! Memes.

Maybe Hollywooders transmit to the next generation of executives via Memes. A meme afterall does include the concept that "A lie repeated often enough becomes True" to the sponges taking it in.

Grant Morrison should be consulted. or at least Richard Dawkins.

SPR was not the best movie of the year IMUHO, but I don;t think it was Warfare Light either. SIL was vilified, I didn;t hate it, but I can see why some peeps would see Shakespeare Light as a little tiresome.

I can think of several other movies that shoulda been Somebody that year. And the SIL vs. SPR battle rages on.

I am still so annoyed that AHOV got infinitesimal love.

Laz, 1999 was a banner year for daring movies but I'm not so sure about greatness... American Beauty as the best representation of them all? Come on, dude.

As for Apocalypse, it is one of the greats but who are we kidding... they ran out of ideas at the end and had Brando recite Elliot to keep the whole thing "deep." That pretentious bullshit is five times as awful as any anything people argue about in the "bookends."

You mentioned Titanic... the techs are amazing all over... but the intigration of special effects for catastrophic, historic realism doesn't come close to Ryan. Giovanni Ribisi's bullet ridden chest bleeding and naked is way more of a feat than a digital boat.

People bash the film because it wears its heart on its sleeve and recycles the gung ho 1940s John Wayne structure, but unlike other recent war classics, it throws metaphor to the side and heads straight for realism. It does this brilliantly, angrily. You won't find any surfing marines in this one.

I do like this argument... SIL is a formidable opponent.

See this Movie review over on MSN for a movie coming out this next weakend? (intersting back story by the by) But what caught my eye is the quote at the end of a long article. People this sh#@ has legs:

"“Ask the Dust” will play a short while before disappearing to DVD (maybe there’s even a Director’s Cut version in its future) but if you’re in need of a beautiful story and you’re still in a state of shock that a cliché piece of L.A. trash like “Crash” can win a best movie Oscar than see this movie; it’s a real L.A. story, one that is dirty and dusty with characters that yearn for redemption."

DP, why are you addressing MCN site traffic instead of our real question: why do you allow the same dude to post over and over on almost twenty aliases? Aren't you worried it's going to make a mockery of your site when he's up to thirty? Forty? Or do you allow it because you want the blog to appear to have more readers?

I think more people would actually post here if you did something about it.

Maybe these were actually all real people and someone hacked in and compromised their identity by getting it off the internal network.

...that movie is so stupid.

Yeah, if this is the same one guy who's been pulling this board into tired ad hominem political debates against jeffmcm (the ones DP had to shut down himself), then yeah, I say ban the trolling bastard.

Who are you accusing, James Leer. I have no idea.

If you mean the relatively new Brokebackers, an investigation a while back showed that they were individuals, though many of them came from the same BBM fan site.

In other words, Dave P. is not paying attention to a situation that has been going on for several months, despite repeated complaints, evidence of mischief, and abuse. He's more concerned with people who abuse him for not liking Brokeback.

But seriously, Dave, I've been tough on you on occasion, but you do actually read this blog, right? Do you really have no idea what is being talked about? Is this ignorance or willful ignorance?

if all those aliases are used by one person, Dave, maybe it would be sensible & kind for your bloggers who actually like to talk about film that each IP is limited to one alias.

opinions are like assholes in that everyone has one, but this is like 8 people who have one asshole (and it's a big one on occasion). It clutters up the place, makes longer reading before one gets to a "point".

Bluestealer, for one, sounds just like the guy posting from the same IP acc. to my security dude who checked the page for me. Anyone who has to say practically every frickin time "I'm a gal" or some such, is not a gal. And anyone who describes Jake Gyllenhaal as "dreamy" and the other hilarious adjectives is not a gal, cowboy! [yes Blustealer that was you].

I guess I really don;t care in the moral sense, but there is so much bird do in most threads from the same parrots.

Seriously, J-MC... why is it always about what is wrong with me? Perhaps you might answer the question I asked instead of taking it as yet another opportunity to tell me how terrible I am.

Since the crowd kind of broke up after all that drama months ago, things seem to have calmed down with only minor flare-ups. If you or anyone else feels there is a serious problem with one poster or multiple posters, I am willing to look into specifics.

P.S. One problem with the IP thing is that there are people who post from the same company... same IP...

Well Dave, it's your website. Everything on it reflects back on you. Regarding this particular situation, your continued insistence on ignoring it is, frankly, insulting to a large portion of your readership.

If Blustealer, Joefitz, Bruce et al. work for the same company...Sell stock in that company!

Is that an answer, J-Mc? You think Blustealer, Joefitz, and Bruce are the same person?

I'm sure you will attack me before you answer... feel free... but how about a yes or no. I know you can do it.

Yes. Also Lesterfreed, Rufus Masters, Josh, Sanchez, Yodas Left/Right Nut Sac...all as previously documented by James Leer.

Can I attack you now?

;)

Well, after some considrable effort to find IP addresses in the new MoveableType configuration, there are indeed a lot of names coming from one IP.

I have asked for an explanation. If none is forthcoming, I will take some kind of action.

Personally, I really don't care. You are almost all anonymous to me and perhaps my schedule lately has kept me from noting trends from specific aliases. But an opinion is an opinion is an opinion. I don't take it personally - except when it is personal... something I do not condone for anyone here. They're just ideas. But I can see how it might be irritating.

Thank you for the effort.
I'm not a fan of shutting people up, but there is such a thing as abuse or a privilege.

'of', not 'or'

Thank you, DP. If you ban that character, the level of discourse here will elevate considerably.

Dave,
maybe this will refresh your memory:

http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2006/01/name_faking.html.

It occured while you were at Sundance, while you had other prorities. I'm not talking about the name-faking itself; scroll down to the discussion of the "pod" person with all the different names. A couple of us also e-mailed you about it, and your lack of concern was enough to make us wonder if this person isn't your brain-damaged second-cousin the family keeps locked in the attic like the idiot prince in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (but with an internet connection.)

It died down for a while when the pods got scared--you can tell who they are because they were the ones saying "let it go" and "who cares" or just trying to change the subject. They're also the ones who never directly address the issue.

To be fair, I don't just blame you, Dave. We had the pods down, and it was time to go in for the death blow. I suggested a few ways to keep them/him pinned to the mat. But other ostensibly concerned parties backed down when push came to shove, and I finally shrugged and walked away. It seemed as if there were an unspoken consensus that this corner of the internet just isn't worth fighting for. But I do recall saying that the respite would be temporary if we let it slide--and here we are, talking about it again.

So if you want this blog to be anything other than a joke or one sick individual's playground, you can do what we asked you to back then: find out who's posting from the same IP and tell us. You don't have to give real names; just say (for example) "Sanchez, bob, rufus and blustealer are all posting from the same place, " block all but one ID, and then make it impossible for them to pop up again with new IDs. And if they do try, it will be pretty apparent to the regulars. If nothing else, it would show us that you give a shit about your own blog.

As for people posting from the same IP at work, too bad. Tell the bastard(s) to get back to work! They can post from home.

usually same IP means same person. in a med-to-large company or even University/govt office every PC or networked mac/desktop has their own IP. There usually is not enough hours in the day for 8 people to post off one IP.

many if not most companies, unless they are tiny self-employed groups have an IP-per-person so they can fire your ass when you send an email saying how much you hate your boss or if you download movies/music or porn.

And other workplaces like mine which is a large-ish employer assign each person 1-2 IPs. I have three. Some med-top large companies which used to be small companies have "floating" IPs per X number of desktops becasue they didn;t foresee the computer age explosion and don;t have enough jacks.

so... many peeps off one IP is unlikely in this day and age. It is easy enough to find out who the IP is reg-ed to (company or person via network provider). But is it necessary? Likely not if the piker just shuts the fuck up and talks about movies and leaves Stella's girl alone.

ugh, i skipped most of the second half of this thread because it was getting stupid.

I absolutely HATE it when people equate importance with being the best. Yes, SPR was important, but Shakespeare was the better ENTERTAINMENT. And maybe voters thought they were a bit sick of war movies and went with the classy entertaining romance movie that featured on the greatest screenplays ever written, great performances, great techs, great everything. It's not like the movie wasn't well-liked. It had the most nominations including three acting awards (compared to SPRs 1 for Tom Hanks), and it had won awards throughout the season.

And yes, Dreamworks actually spent more money on SPR's Oscar run than Miramax did for SIL's. Why is Crow comparing Titanic to SPR? They weren't the same year.

(the other debate of this thread is discussed elsewhere, so i replied there)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: