comment #1

T. S. Idiot says ...

I saw my first post-nominations TV ad for DG this morning and was puzzled that it implies the movie is all about Knowles and Murphy. Hudson and Foxx were barely glimpsed.

comment #2

corey3rd says ...

Who attended the "Screw Geffen" meeting at the Academy HQ where everyone was instructed what names to ignore from Dream Girls?

But to suggest amongst the thousands of voters that everyone has a grudge against Geffen is just going overboard to explain why it didn't get the Top Five votes. Do Dame Judi Dench and Marty hate Geffen?

it's a shame that the Academy doesn't release the top 15 names and the number of votes they got. For all we know, Dreams Girls was #6 and missed it by five votes. Or it was #60 with five votes. The only thing we know is that it didn't impress enough voters to rate on their five nomination slots. It's sad that too many Oscar bloggers/columnists want to appear like Politico breakdown kings, but since we don't get real numbers from the Oscars, it's useless.

Maybe it didn't get Best Picture because it didn't look too good through an oxygen tent? But the folks at the old actors home loved the singing so they gave it to their favorite singers?

comment #3

NYCBusybody says ...

Re: United 93

"There was also the content problem: Given this town’s anti-Bush fervor, no one in Hollywood wanted to nominate a drama that could be perceived as even remotely jingoistic."

With that, I think Ms. Finke hits the nail on the head. I've never really understood Wells' explanation for United 93's cold reception as being because of "too-sooners" who were uncomfortable with the subject matter. I always thought U93 would eventually falter come awards season simply for the reason that it's become a very popular conservative film (Greengrass was on the Rush Limbaugh show to promote it upon release).

"World Trade Center" never caught on among conservatives simply for the Oliver Stone baggage, who is seen in their corner as beneath contempt.

comment #4

Adonis says ...

Dame Judy Dench has been known to call Geffen a pansy and a tart, full of fruit and bitterness.

Her loathing for the man apparently stems from an ill-conceived skinny-dipping incident several years back during the Cannes Film Festival.

One hopes that these pity contrivances will some day cease to dictate awards and prizes, but so goes the social dialectic.

comment #5

jeffmcm says ...

Interesting since Greengrass is a huge liberal (and so is United 93, for that matter).

comment #6

bellepoitrine says ...

Nikki needs to adjust her meds. DREAMGIRLS undoubtedly missed nomination by a handful of votes. What that really means, given the obvious popularity of the picture, is that none of the nominees swept in, rather they all probably got a vote tally within easy reach of each other. There's no marked enthusiasm for any of the nominees, so it could go any which way. As for her envy theory, what else is new? The only solid observation she makes is that Eddie Murphy won't win. She's got that one down cold. It may be Mark Wahlberg's moment. It's a great Oscar story -- from boy band hip-hopper to serious actor/movie star. Think Sally Field.

comment #7

NYCBusybody says ...

My point wasn't that Greengrass is conservative, or even necessarily that U93 is (I think it's quite purposefully apolitical).

Coastal liberalism is notably endowed with an aversion to American flag-waving symbolism - whether that's good or bad, it's a primary cultural touchstone. I think Ms. Finke is correct that rightly or wrongly, supporting any film whose poster shows The Statue of Liberty is not politically correct at this time, when as good patriotic liberals we are supposed to be offering our support to Freedom Fighters like Bin Laden and al Sadr.

comment #8

jeffmcm says ...

NYC, you managed in one short sentence to take me from 'hey, I agree with him' to 'he's an idiot'. Nice job.

comment #9

insidah says ...

Oh My God, enough already - the movie just isn't that good - sure the production has as much talent and spectacle and one could wish for, but the basic storyline just wasn't that compelling...you can only trick something up to a point.

comment #10

Craig Kennedy says ...

NYC, your theory is predicated on the belief that liberals as a whole hate America which is absurd. Rush Limbaugh says it's so because it makes for good ratings, but it's a blatant falsehood as is the opposite assertion that conservatives as a whole are evil.

Either you believe your own rantings or you're just running at the mouth because you enjoy pissing people off. One or the other, your thinking is diseased and your spoutings are tiresome.

Not every fucking thing is a Red/Blue issue. There's a whole grey middle ground here where most of us live and we can agree to disagree with out making complete douchebags of ourselves. Turn off talk radio and come on in, the water is fine. Plus there are some pretty good movies playing.

comment #11

MoroccoMole says ...

For what it's worth, I attended a press screening of United 93 where the crawl at the end basically said, "It was the Air Force's fault, and not Bush's, that none of the planes were shot down." (I don't remember the exact verbiage.) The last sentence -- which I do remember, because I booed it out loud -- was "The war on terror had begun."

That crawl was changed before the film hit theaters.

comment #12

MarkVH says ...

cjKennedy, I don't think that's what NYC is saying at all. There's a difference between patriotism and nationalism - the issue here is that most far-left leaning liberals are too quick to view patriotism AS nationalism and therefore shun it, while far-right leaning conservatives are too quick to embrace nationalism while calling it patriotism (e.g. America can do no wrong), which colors the lefties' view. It's a symbiotic relationship that doesn't help anyone and often diverts the real issues at hand.

And agreed that United 93 wasn't (and isn't) a red/blue issue - I don't recall any significant support for the film coming from either side. The closest there came to a political confrontation over it was when Greengrass removed (or changed - can't recall) the statement at the end of the film that seemed to equate 9/11 with Iraq. But the argument never amounted to anything.

I'm much more inclined to believe the more rational argument that a lot of Academy voters just couldn't bring themselves to view the movie, but voted for Greengrass for the courage he showed in making it. I personally still haven't seen the film (I'm a wuss), and one day I'll probably have the stones to see it. But I'm pretty sure the red/blue thing in this instance is rubbish.

comment #13

Craig Kennedy says ...

"the issue here is that most far-left leaning liberals are too quick to view patriotism AS nationalism and therefore shun it"

That might be true, but we're talking about a very very tiny minority of people who, if they truly inhabit Hollywood at all, aren't enough to sway Oscar nominations.

As always, NYC is painting all liberals with the same Limbaugh brand brush and drawing spurious conclusions from his binary world view.

comment #14

MarkVH says ...

Oh, and an addendum:

"I think Ms. Finke is correct that rightly or wrongly, supporting any film whose poster shows The Statue of Liberty is not politically correct at this time, when as good patriotic liberals we are supposed to be offering our support to Freedom Fighters like Bin Laden and al Sadr."

That sentence was, indeed, retarded.

comment #15

erniesouchak says ...

How funny. So now the "D'girls" snub is a widespread vendetta against Geffen? Why can't people just accept that it didn't get big nominations BECAUSE IT'S LAME.

comment #16

corey3rd says ...

Marky Mark beating Murphy? Please.
It's Jackie Earle Haley's Oscar. He's got a backstory that works - he's the comeback kid. Not only that, but during his downtimes, he didn't end up like other teen actors. He's not relying on the Surreal Life to regain profile. Plus he'll get a good coattail effect from Kate Winslet.

comment #17

jeffmcm says ...

...but nobody has heard of him or seen his movie.
Arkin is more likely than Haley because he's a veteran.

comment #18

sardine says ...

DREAMGIRLS GOT SNUBBED BECAUSE IT is a terrible movie. David G. i like because he's a democrat and will shell out the dough.....for the senator from Il. Be careful, David. You must also mend that fence with the Clintons....it is not about anyone's ego.

comment #19

corey3rd says ...

While maybe a potato farmer in Idaho has never heard of Little Children or Jackie Earle Haley. But Academy members have the movie on their DVD shelf. And maybe it would just sit and linger like "The Sweet Hereafter," the Academy members will probably be more willing to watch it since it has Kate Winslet. Who the hell saw Iris? But guess what actor won Best Supporting Actor that year?

comment #20

jeffmcm says ...

Ah, but they had Harvey Freakin' Weinstein, not the lummoxes at New Line who have all but abandoned that movie.

comment #21

Craig Kennedy says ...

'Lummox' is a great word. Puts me in the mind of Lumpy Rutherford.

'Nikki Finke' puts me in the mind of filthy, vacuous, bitter, Million-Dollar-Baby-ruining Hollywood bottom feeders.

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Dreamgirls might have had a better chance if Dreamamount wasn't plastering those shitty Norbit ads all over the city.

comment #23

jeffmcm says ...

I think you're right and if Murphy loses, that's what they'll blame it on: "Oh look, Eddie Murphy was good in Dreamgirls, and remember how great he was in Beverly Hills Cop and Trading Places and Coming to America...Oh. Another fat suit movie."