2006: The year the OSCARS died?

This week is a biggie for the guild awards -- traditionally a very good barometer of how the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will lean in their nominees for the Oscars.

The WGA and the PGA both announced today - and the news is: Oscar is going small this year...

CAPOTE, CRASH, GOODNIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, THE CONSTANT GARDNER all seem to be on level ground for a Best Picture nomination.

KING KONG, CINDERELLA MAN, MUNICH, GEISHA, all look likely to sit out on the big race -- indeed none of the big budget traditional Oscar fare seems to be showing up.

Interesting to me, when we are seeing front page stories in the LA TIMES about the steady decline in movie attendance, and the stagnating numbers at the box office.

Ten years ago, the complaint was that the Oscars never went "indie." Now, they seem to have the reverse problem.

While its nice to see smaller films recognized -- the industry seems to be forgetting that it is indeed a business.

Who is going to watch the Oscars in a year where the Best Picture line up could be: BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, CAPOTE, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, and CRASH?

The lowest rated Oscars in history means the lowest post Oscar rises at the box office - and the downward spiral continues...

It will be interesting to see if Hollywood will really have the balls to go for an all indie Oscars - or if they will realize that, as always, the Oscars have always been that celebration of populist entertainment. Especially when those are the movies that employ 75 percent of the industry...

To see the PGA/WGA noms -- check out www.Oscarwatch.com

Regardless of having the balls I think it's time Hollywood realizes that some movie goers crave quality instead of much of the crap that the studios are putting out. I attend many screenings during a year of films that will never get distribution and many are wonderful works by gifted film makers. It's very sad to me.

---

Well - I thought the Oscars were voted on by peers and not box-office reciepts. Understandably some are to believe that that which makes the most money must be best - but I think these people are a minority and have not even seen all the films before they are open for noms.

---

Cheez you are right, but its also very political.

If you are a member of the art direction guild, common sense says that its wise to vote for a film like KING KONG or NARNIA, because "big budget films" employ more craftsmen. And a film with more craftsmen that wins big at the Oscars insures that the industry will make other similar projects and you will in turn have a shot at greater job security.

If all Hollywood made were films like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and GOODNIGHT GOOD LUCK, a lot of people in the Hollywood Hills would be losing their swimming pools...

It's amazing that both the WGA and the PGA went for the smaller films that are considered the best of the year.

However, the DGAs will likely be more in line with what the Best Pic noms will be. And the DGA and/or the Academy could easily say to hell with what everyone else has been honoring and nominate King Kong and Munich or whatever else they want.

It could be a year of the biggest shift between the precursors and the Oscars.

---

Well, one would hope the Academy won't let ratings affect their voting (aren't there enough factors?), but this is precisely why King Kong could get a nom.

---

You know, the controversy over Brokeback could lend to higher ratings. Maybe?

---

Yes, we should keep in mind that these articles are just the speculations of journalists who have no greater ability than anyone on this board to speculate why ratings dropped in one year and soared in another.

I would say that it is good for film to go hot and cold with big budget films -- it makes sure the candy gets passed around, and it also makes sure that those with lots of money don't keep giving it to the same people over and over.

And it encourages those who work in art direction, and 3d animation to keep pushing themselves for better work.

It's a good year to bring down the scale of the noms, i think. Count me among those who will be surprised if King Kong gets a nod for best pic. Although, I'm still counting on Munich and Crash to get quite a few "surprise" nods.

---

Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.

---

"No DVDs for Munich or Kong for PGA
Apparently, there weren't screeners sent to the Producers Guild for Munich or Kong, which meant that anyone interested in seeing it had to go to the theater.

Once again, proof that Universal (distributor of both KONG and MUNICH) is doing a terrible job marketing their films. I'm shocked that MUNICH didn't make the cut, but for KONG it was always a long shot, given its action-movie status. The true harbinger for the Oscars is tomorrow's DGA announcement, though, and both Spielberg and Jackson have been getting raves for their direction.

There's a strong correlation between Oscar ratings and the type of films that are nominated: there were huge rating spikes for both the TITANIC and RETURN OF THE KING Oscar ceremonies right after a year of abysmal viewership (1996'S ENGLISH PATIENT and 2002's CHICAGO), followed by another plummeting of the ratings (1998's AMERICAN BEAUTY and 2004's MILLION DOLLAR BABY).

I don't think that Oscar viewership affects employment in Hollywood, though; as the Oscars' importance goes down, so does their influence on what kind of movies get made. Will an indie-only Oscars ceremony force Hollywood to make better movies? I don't think so -- it didn't work after 1996, why would it work now? (And I think this year will be very similar to 1996; this year's JERRY MAGUIRE is WALK THE LINE, a conventional, relatively-successful flick, serious but innocuous enough for middle America).

My predictions for tomorrow's DGA and also for the Oscars:

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
GOODNIGHT AND GOOD LUCK
WALK THE LINE
CRASH
MUNICH

---

Updated On: 1/4/06 at 07:22 PM

Of course it is a bit difficult when EVERY single film nominated is an indie...but you have to look at the amazing quality of work that has been coming out of the indie circuit that has been ignored by the Academy -I'm glad that some of the films that are being considered are bit more risky. It's probably good that there be some sort of happy medium, but I'd rather have this result than a completely blockbuster set of nominations.

---

Agreed. I found it rather bland, though that could be coming right off of Ray.

---

Thank you. What I meant was that there hasn't been an obvious breakout hit that really invaded the public's consciousness and was also worthy of serious discussion (what the Hollywood statisticians call "water-cooler buzz.") CRASH, for good or ill, was one, and I think BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN will be another, but that's it. The big blockbusters come and go without leaving an imprint (what could you really say about REVENGE OF THE SITH, other than rave about the special effects?) and the interesting movies are mismarketed or ignored and slip under the radar. That, I think, is the reason for the box-office slump, the Oscar blues, and this entire thread--the movies just don't seem to connect with our lives in ways that matter any more.

---