The Hot Blog

"Milk": Gay martyr, sold by referencing a Harvey Weinstein Special. Technically a re-release since it went national at Xmas and had been losing theaters before the noms came out.

"Frost/Nixon": Dead politician, sold with "Academy Award Nominee" and another Harvey Weinstein special. Already gone from the Hamptons.

"The Reader": Holocaust movie, this year's Harvey Weinstein special and another "Academy Award Nominee".

These 3 titles will lose theaters in the next 2 weeks thanks to product flow. The public sees all this name-checking/Oscar-Whoring crap for what it truly is, Hype and B.S. (Biggie Smalls, R.I.P.)

Speaking of Oscar nominees, "Waltz with Bashir" was 1 week and out in South Jersey. Mismanagement by SPC or a reaction to the country of origin?

Chucky, would you do the universe a favor and either EXPLAIN your material, or stop spreading it around?

As it stands now, everyone who reads your postings gets a little stupider as a result, because it by and large appears to be insane bullshit.

To detail, you say "Gay martyr", "Dead politician" and "Holocaust movie" as if those are all bad things. You use "Harvey Weinstein Special" as if we're all supposed to know what that means, and even though Weinstein was only involved in one of the three movies. There is NOTHING WRONG per se with name-checking or referencing the Oscars in ads.

And yeah, I bet there's a big anti-Israel contingent in Atlantic City and Camden to the point of boycotting a relatively obscure animated documentary mostly in a foreign language.

Your extrapolations and conclusions are absolutely, positively, insane, irrational, and unwarranted.

Oh, and here's a question that can be answered with a simple yes or no to each:

Have you seen any of the four above-mentioned movies (The Reader, Milk, Frost/Nixon, Waltz with Bashir)?

If not, why do you consider yourself capable of slamming each of them?

And how do you explain away the dishonesty inherent in that action?

What was the lousy Fox direct-to-DVD movie? Behind Enemy Lines 3?

If so, I give more credit to WWE on marketing that than Fox.

No, Poland is talking about TAKEN, and it's clear from his statement that he hasn't seen it.

The phrase "vicious circle" comes to mind.

How is Milk a "gay martyr?" His sexual preference had absolutely nothing to do with his death.

That is such a strange and passive aggressive way to sum up the success of Taken, a great time at the movies.

Uh... saw it Burma... paid my fare and sat in a real live movie theater... there are 3 or 4 close-to-something sections of the film, but it has an painful first act, not well-shot action, and gives us the weakest version of virtually every cliche of that genre. Great idea, in a seen-it way... bad, bad movie, unfit to carry B13's jock.

I wouldn't be calling anything starring Liam Neeson "direct to DVD." Sure, it might suck (haven't seen it), but his name and the genre make it more than that in sheer marketing terms, no?

TAKEN FUCKING RULES.

Take a seat on this one, Poland.

Neeson for Best Actor '09.

DP, why do you keep insisting on comparing Taken with Banlieue 13, when the movies have very little in common?

(And can we retire "carry ___'s jock" as a phrase in polite society? That phrase is not fit to carry "it fucking sucked"'s jock.

Pierre Morel directed both films. I think that's a pretty big link between the two movies, and a good reason to compare them.

Doubt never went wider than 1200 screens and will get to $30 million. I guess they were smart to go that wide at Xmas, when they were the only game in town in smaller markets.

I blame (in part) blogs and bloggers. For many years now they have been nothing but killjoys in regards too Awards anticipation and importance.

That elitist attitude cultivated online for many years probably split over to the general population. One look at any of the (more or less) general population film blogs reveal the sorry state of affaris we are in. It's not just AICN anymore. And this is why Bart and Goldstein actually had a point, before they too had to be forced into if you can't win them bandwagon.

Now if only those snobs actually had good taste and weren't mativated by their egos and tiny penises than I would have said it were more of a good thing than a bad thing.

Alas, the tinypricked nose twirlers have their way.

P.S. Of course it's only part of the picture but I think it has as much to do with the source of the problem as any other issue.

What about the fact that, along with the 24 hour news cycle, we now seem to have a 365 day awards cycle? Even the meager impact of the critics awards has gotten diluted when it seems like every podunk hamlet with a four digit population is forming their own critics association and doling out yet another set of prizes (usually the same set as the other 89 groups of critics).

By the time the Oscar nominations are released, the most likely nominees have already been feted ad nauseum in this country. You can't really add buzz to something that's already been put on display for two or three months in the run up. I'm already tired of "Milk" and "Frost/Nixon" and "Slumdog Millionaire" sight unseen at this point. The new "Friday the 13th" movie seems more intriguing now.

Speaking as a distrbution vet, going too wide has been a dumb idea way too often. Even commercial films playing in wee towns frequently don't even earn back the cost of the prints, thus cutting into profits, if there are any. Ten to 12 hundred prints is plenty for upscale films like MILK and F/N, which will not do well in most of the South and most towns smaller than Dayton or Duluth.

Morel may have directed both films (which I realized shortly after posting that) but (a) they still aren't that commonly marketable - one is a movie primarily about stunts and athletic performances, and the other is a star vehicle/revenge thriller;

And it's not like when, say, Children of Men came out everyone compared it to Harry Potter/Azkaban.

J-Mc... your wide-eyed, big-mouthed innocence is astounding at times.

Thank you.
If you meant it in some other way, please elaborate.

I'm with Jeff on this one. What the hell are you going on about Poland? One movie is meat and potatoes American fare. While the other is a trippy French movie. Seriously, you really, do not need to play in these situation.

Probably too late to the party with too obvious a comment, but as others here have pointed out in prior threads, fucking EVERYTHING got chased out of theaters *this* January because the market's been flooded with new '09 flicks, many of which did pretty well and went so wide that 14- and 18-plex theaters were brooming out shit that was STILL successful.

Oscar flicks aside, what happened to Marley and Me, Valkyrie, Bedtime Stories, Australia... even Quantum of Solace? Those were all still posting decent numbers and per-screens, but are all effectively GONE and have been for a couple weeks. In prior years, something like Marley or Bedtime could've stuck around till mid-Feb or longer. But when multiplexed need to clear two screens for Mall Cop, one for Notorious, one for Bride Wars, My Bloody Valentine... You get the point: Even the shit that IS catching on gets 86'd for the new.

Plus, more than even usual, this year I think there really IS something to that Joe Six-Packish idea that the regular folks don't care about these movies. Much as it PAINS ME to come down on the more conservative, LCD side of that argument-- it's something a Nicol D or a "Dirty Harry" would posit-- but so many of the contention flicks this year were stuff that would NEVER catch on in the heartland, no matter how much acclaim or how many awards.

"Much as it PAINS ME to come down on the more conservative, LCD side of that argument"

Aren't you the guy who keeps singing the praises of George W. Bush?

ANYONE ELSE HORNY AS FUCKING FUCK?

EVERY SECOND OF THE DAY WHERE YOU'RE NOT IN A VAG IS FUCKING BULLSHIT.

I DESPISE MYSELF.

WHEN I GET FAMOUS, I will be THE BIGGEST ASSHOLE EVER.

FUCK THE WORLD.

LexG is correct: The general public doesn't care about Oscar Bait unless it has a mass-appeal hook. That's why "Benjamin Button" and "Gran Torino" are hits while "Frost/Nixon" is not.

As to those who approve of name-checking and Oscar-Whoring? "Wide-eyed, big-mouthed innocence" indeed.

BTW Camden and Atlantic City have been black/Latino for at least 40 years -- all the whites live in the suburbs. Besides, not everyone marches in lockstep with Big Government and the Liberal Media.

Chucky, I'll ask you again:

Have you seen any of Frost/Nixon, Waltz with Bashir, Milk, or The Reader; and if not (which is what I presume), how do you logically justify badmouthing each of the four of them?

It is a profoundly dishonest thing to do and it shows that you aren't arguing your points in good faith; your refusal to explain or justify your irrational arguments is further proof.

And yeah, I know who lives in Camden and Atlantic City - that was the point I was making.

Oh, and as for 'innocence'? Educate me. Prove your case. Provide evidence and corrobrating arguments. That's what I've been asking for for YEARS now, ever since you introduced these insane-on-their-face notions.

But you don't want to do that, do you.

Georgia Rule.

A-plus, Chucky.

GAHHHH! That's not an argument! That's ONE MOVIE!

Did you even see that movie, Chucky? I will give you a thousand dollars, addressed to the New Jersey Home for Asperger's Research, if you say yes.

Your position is irrational. But sadly, arguing with a crazy person is also irrational, so I guess that makes us even.

We can safely say the Oscar Bump is dead for another year.

We can safely say that you have not seen any of the movies you are talking about, as expected.

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: