comment #1

Dixon Steele says ...

Glad to see that you're not compelled to be the one to "take down" DREAMGIRLS.

But you're right, that Poland really doesn't like you, does he?

I think it's because he feels you're a bit of a homophobe.

And to be honest, he's right.

Also, my uncle, early 70s, a member of the TV Academy, absolutely refused to even see BROKEBACK. Another homophobe.

comment #2

MASON says ...

Anyone who has seen Poland's little "Lunch with David" videos knows why he would have an even bigger problem than most with homophobes.

Seriously, I enjoy both sites. I am a little baffled by Poland's insistence that Dreamgirls is still a "lock" for best picture.

comment #3

snackyx says ...

Hatfields and McCoys. Trump and Rosie. Jeff and Dave. Why is it always Poland starting this personal crap? Drives traffic to his site?

comment #4

jeffmcm says ...

Poland has been on the Dreamgirls bandwagon ever since it was announced, yet he insists that every one of the stories and Oscar prediction posts he has written about it is pure journalism. I don't care that he loves the movie, but his insistence on being 'above' the fray - EVERY fray - is insulting to his readership. I think he's gotten very, very arrogant in the time that he has been self-employed.

Whereas Wells at his old Hollywood Confidential gig is exactly the same as he is now.

comment #5

Geoff says ...

Poland seems to be the one who wants to take down Children of Men.

comment #6

Mr. Muckle says ...

"I liked it in spurts."

I don't know if that's how you really want to quote yourself JW. Sounds like a porno connoiseur. ;-)

comment #7

Mr. Muckle says ...

OK, two ss's in connoisseur.

comment #8

Craig Kennedy says ...

Putting aside for a minute the fact that Wells and Poland just need to get a room and get it over with, two of the more engaging threads I've read this week centered around Children of Men. Whatever one's feelings about the film, it's stirring up a lot of passionate and entertaining debate. I'm not ready to proclaim it the movie of the decade, but it's not an empty vessel either. Fascinating.

comment #9

dobbsy says ...

A little friendly advice from someone who can stand only so much Oscar blog punditry to begin with: Folks, don't go to Poland's site! As snackyx pointed out, puerile feuds instigated almost entirely (maybe, yes, entirely!) by Poland are just kiddieland nonsense designed to get readers. Don't reward.

Here's why I like the Wells site: the people who read it and write on it are generally smart and care about movies and keep the blognosticating down to a roar.

This is a really silly enterprise, all this blognosticating, that masks a more serious enterprise: loving quality cinema. The awards season is, for better or worse, the way that films that aren't four-quadrant blockbusters, get to market in these troubled times.

So wade thru the juvenile postings, the endless punditry about who will win what and why and read about the moviemaking and love of same. Skip Poland and spend the time rearranging the socks in your sock drawer, rotating the cushions on the sofa. Anything but Poland...

comment #10

bmcintire says ...

Careful, Jeff. The very same "rat's tails and slithering serpents" that populate The Hot Blog talkback have taken up residence in your blog as well. Otherwise, everyone would be responding "David Who?" every time you bring him up.

comment #11

bmcintire says ...

Dobbsy - not meaning to call you out (or start any peurile backbiting), but have you been paying attention to this site at all? Jeff's practically pleading for "whisper campaign" gossip is only the latest dip in the Prognostication well for Wells. The permanent presence of his Oscar Balloon (counting down the minutes before the 2007 version is up and running!) at the bottom of this thread his very anchor of such classification. And his random (yet probably very calculated) "Flyover State" pronouncements should soon appear as Wikipedia's entry for "kiddieland nonsense designed to get readers." Just ask NYCBusybody or Nicol.

comment #12

Arrow77 says ...

The notion that Brokeback Mountain lost because of homophobia is very questionnable, whether you like Poland or not. I liked the film overall but didn't thought it was one of the greatest film ever made abd definitely didn't thought it was the kind of film the Academy usually vote for. The campaign for the film (vote for us or you're homophobic) may have influenced even more than some people's homophobia.

comment #13

austin111 says ...

I actually find this stuff fairly amusing in a childish kind of way. Hatfields and McCoys -- so who's who or does it even matter? Anyways, I'd take Jeff's side most of the time. Most of the time I can at least get where Jeff is coming from. Half the time I don't get Poland's shit...which doesn't mean I always dislike what he has to say either. But I love Wells when he says stuff like "rat's tails and slithering serpents"....such an apt description of Poland's blog.

comment #14

rocco says ...

Polski is obsessed with Wells...his claim several days ago that he mentions Wells merely 5 or 6 times per year smacks of an alcoholic denying he has a problem. What I don't understand is why Wells plays the game...he just seems a lot more secure and together than Poland, I don't see the payoff from humoring him.

comment #15

austin111 says ...

Polski obsessed with Wells.....LMAO. He mentions Wells in his column at least once weekly, if not more, especially this time of year. To be fair, though, Wells often does same.

comment #16

Movie fan09 says ...

I really want to see a cagematch.

comment #17

LYTrules says ...

Wells and Poland need a TV show, especially if Ebert never comes back.

comment #18

dobbsy says ...

bmcintire: no offense taken, but rather point well taken. in another post i made exactly the same point: blognosticating in awards season is the silliest part of the site's dialogue. but i accept it as the price to pay for having film worth watching. i just caught up with pirates. whew! second biggest film of all time and there's no story, no pacing, no wit, no acting chops and poor stellan was romping around in the worst panto makeup of all time. a few nice visual effects do not a three hour blockbuster make, but wait, something worked to generate the gazillion bucks it made. see, awards season, even at its most banal low points, starts to look and sound pretty good!

comment #19

frankbooth says ...

Ssssssssssssss!

comment #20

transmogrifier says ...

I agree with dobbsy; the Oscar-obsession of many blogs is a constant assault against art, taste, logic and what it means to be human. It is a breath-taking exercise in futility, millions of words spewed trying to guess what a small subset of all people who walk this earth think about a small subset of films that happen to have enough clout to get enough of the first subset to actually see them, yet not enough provocation to run the risk of alienating too many of them. It's the biggest waste of time ever, beating out trying to beat someone to death with a sack of feathers and Seasons 6-10 of Friends.

comment #21

Edward Havens says ...

"The bottom line with yesterday's anti-Wells posting is that Poland likes the Hollywood Reporter's Sheigh Crabtree, so he felt not only shocked ("dropped my jaw") but betrayed when she referenced that letter I received yesterday from a director who said that Children of Men and Pan's Labyrinth didn't make the DGA cut because members hadn't had a chance to see either one, etc."

Sorry, but I have to call BULLSH!T on at least part of this. Universal had no less than 43 (that's forty-three) For Your Consideration screenings for Children of Men in Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco and Chicago between November 7th and December 22nd. 20 of the 43 were in Los Angeles during that time, including several in sizeable screening rooms such as the DGA Main Theatre and the Clarity screening room. And then, the film was playing in some damn good sized theatres those first few weeks when it only played in a handful of theatres.

Oh, and if anyone wants to argue that those theatres weren't accepting guild cards those first two weeks of release will get another round of BULLSH!T called at them. As someone who has worked in exhibition for a number of years (longer than Mr. Wells or Mr. Poland have been professional writers), I know firsthand that at least 95% of guild members whose attempts to use their guild cards to get into a free movie are rebuked by theatre cashiers will buy the tickets for that movie anyway. I've seen it in the past few months at my theatre for Borat and The Prestige and Rocky Balboa and Casino Royale and Charlotte's Web. Just tonight, one fellow came up to my box office and plopped down his DGA card, trying to get into Rocky. I explained to him that, since the DGA nominations had already been announced and Rocky was not among the nominees, we could no longer accept DGA members for it. He shrugged, pulled out his wallet, put his card back in its slot and pulled out a Jackson so he could see the film.

I would accept the argument a bit more for Pan, however, since Picturehouse only had five FYC screenings for the film in Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco and Aspen before the film opened.

comment #22

MarkVH says ...

LYTrules, I've been secretly hoping for a Poland/Wells "Pardon the Interruption"-type TV show for years. You know, not a review show like Ebert/the other guy, but more of an issues/argument show .

Problem is, generally for people to be on that type of show, they need to like each other at least a little (which Wilbon and Kornheiser obviously seem to), as well as have on-camera chemistry (Guber and Bart are there, but neither one knows how to talk on camera). Still, would be cool if they could pull it off.

comment #23

bipedalist says ...

"I agree with dobbsy; the Oscar-obsession of many blogs is a constant assault against art, taste, logic and what it means to be human. It is a breath-taking exercise in futility, millions of words spewed trying to guess what a small subset of all people who walk this earth think about a small subset of films that happen to have enough clout to get enough of the first subset to actually see them, yet not enough provocation to run the risk of alienating too many of them. It's the biggest waste of time ever, beating out trying to beat someone to death with a sack of feathers and Seasons 6-10 of Friends."

Almost as much of a waste of time as writing THAT long of a paragraph about how much you hate them. If you hate them so much, don't read them. Again, I have to say, what a bunch of whiners. You have more choices than ever before about where to point your browser. There are millions of blogs on every topic. Plenty of film sites that don't concentrate on the Oscars. Some of us do it (Oscar sites) because they're fun (you know, fun?) and some of us do it because we love movies so much we get attached to them and want to see them awarded by the Academy and thus placed in American film history. Awards attention thrown on a small movie can make the difference between whether we see a hundred more movies like that or none at all.

On the one hand, ultimately I agree with you about the process - it is futile to try to guess how it's going to go. But if you look a little closer and a little deeper you'll see that most of these sites aren't about finding the winners but about influencing voters. I know it sounds crazy but that's what HE and MCN are. Even "objective" sites like mine get into the racket. It can be a huge high if an obscure movie or performer you personally loved gets a nomination because you took the trouble to give it some free publicity.

It's a slippery slope and now most of the journos or bloggers on the scene are "owned" by publicists or have relationships with film directors, ahem, and therefore are loyal "friends."

Either way, the internet is a global experience; the Oscars have become a global experience. Where there is interest in something there will always be someone willing to provide information about it.

Please, do me a favor, though. Complain about something that really matters. You know, like how our vice president lied to us about the events leading up to the Iraq war. Complain about the lack of treatment for Autism. Or global warming - anything but whining about how much you hate Oscar sites. Who gives a fuck, really? So what. If people get some fun from them where's the harm?

And please don't throw back at me, "it's ruining the appreciation of film." Yes and no. Yes, because people get in the mindset of judging every movie as an awards success or failure and thus many great films get lost in the shuffle and no because we're not led around blindfolded and forced to go to Oscar sites and get caught up in the hype - we do have choices. LOTS and lots of them. And you know, anyone (even you) can start an Oscar-free zone site about just the movies.

The Oscars are Jeff Wells' and others' bread and butter so don't count on coverage ending any time soon.

My name is Sasha and I run an Oscars website (hangs head)

comment #24

Craig Kennedy says ...

Hi Sasha! My name is Craig and I've been Oscar complaint free for 2 months!

Well I might of slipped up a little here and there.

The thing is, Wells probably makes the bulk of his advertising revenue on For Your Consideration click through ads so Oscar coverage is never going to go away. I faced the prospect of sucking it up or going elsewhere some time ago and I chose to suck it up.

Look at the bright side: we all love movies, right? Oscar gets everyone talking about movies. It's a focal point. What you do with it is your choice. As I've mentioned elsewhere, some of the best threads I've read lately were about Children of Men and, call me crazy, but that film will be lucky if it gets a Cinematography nod. I don't think it's exactly an Oscar frieght train, yet it still gets passionately discussed. That rules. Am I wrong?

comment #25

bipedalist says ...

Not at all wrong - I learned during the Lord of the Rings three year reign that Oscar attention (the game of winning and losing; which humans by nature seem drawn towards) actually draws cinema discussion out of the masses - people who wouldn't ordinarily discuss the merits of, say, the cinematographers guild suddenly were. So, yeah...good and bad, like everything else.

comment #26

transmogrifier says ...

Whatever gets you through day, Sasha.

What makes you think I hang out at Oscar sites anyway? Given my disdain for them, it would be a pretty masochistic thing to do.

I'm not arguing you shouldn't have a Oscars website Sasha, I just think it's pathetic that you do. So take a deep breath and go justify somewhere else.

comment #27

Dave Polands Gut says ...

Come on Jeffrey. You know when Dave is bored and needs a fire lit he references you and gets it.

Its his game.