'Broadway: The Golden Age' Oscar Nom Snub

[CapnHook]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 2:50pm

Has anyone seen any of the films nominated for Best Documentary Feature? If so, how do they compare to 'Broadway: The Golden Age'? Did the film deserve a nod, and just didn't get the publicity/advert for it?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 2:54pm

Glad you mentioned that Cap'n. I know there is some oddness around how Documentaries are nominated and voted on after the debacle of "Hoop Dreams" a few years back. I was sad it didn't get the nod, even though I don't know how many sales or rentals a "Best Documentary" Nomination generates.

As nice as awards are, Money still rules hollywood. The DVD apparently sold quite well and so I guess the follow-ups are still on the way.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 3:05pm

Since it was so sadly overlooked this year, perhaps the Academy (who loves to do make-up nominations for past snubs) will recognize one of the two sequels next year. Let's hope.

[leomaxfrank]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 3:09pm

What was the debacle with Hoop Dreams? I'd love to know. I was moved by that documentary.

[lna]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 3:26pm

'Broadway: The Golden Age' wasn't snubbed. It wasn't eligible. As I understand it, Rick was persuaded to submit it for last year's awards.

Yeah, I too thought it would have been guaranteed a nomination.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 3:27pm

Just more proof that the Oscars have little to do with quality.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 3:32pm

Unlike the other categories, the nominations for best documentary are submitted only by people who have watched the movies at Academy Screenings. These screenings are mostly attened by retirees. They are notorious for shutting off films after watching only a few minutes if the audience doesn't take to them immediately. "Hoop Dreams" wasn't nominated for best documentary despite landing in more critic's top ten lists than any other film that year. The offical line was that the nominators thought the other films were better, but many folks thought that the subject matter was probably not of interest to 70- and 80-something retirees. AND due to the academy rules, ONLY people who have seen the film at a screening may vote for it. If you saw the film in the theatre or on DVD you'd have to come see it again at the screening.

You'd think "Broadway" would be right up their alley, but who knows; maybe they detected an anti-hollywood bias.

[VIETgrlTerifa]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 3:36pm

And yet...Tupac Resurrection was nominated. Talk about what old retirees want to see.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 3:39pm

LOL VietGirl I was just looking at the list and said "WTF?"

I wonder if the nominating procedures have changed. I wanted to add, if anyone wants to know more about "Hoop Dreams" getting screwed out of the Oscar, Roger Ebert wrote extensively about it. You can google "Hoop Dreams" & Oscar and the links all come up.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 4:01pm

I was really hoping it would be nominated. Of the five nominees, I've only seen two: "Super Size Me" and "Story of the Weeping Camel". I'm endorsing "Super".

BTW, "Tupac: Resurrection" was released in 2003.

[VIETgrlTerifa]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 4:21pm

Yeah, that's why I don't understand how it got nominated this year.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 4:34pm

I think that the documentary category must have special rules, b/c there have been HBO documentaries that have won the award and haven't even been shown in the theatres, whereas a beautiful film like "Broadway: The Golden Age" is shamefully passed over.

[ReederWI]

Posted: 1/25/05 at 10:40pm

Broadway: The Golden Age DID NOT qualify for a nomination. Here are the rules for Documentary Features (40 mins or more in length) or Documentary Short....

For both categories of Features and Short Subjects: The film must be publicly exhibited for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in either Los Angeles County or the Borough of Manhattan in New York for a run of at least seven consecutive days, by means of 16mm, 35mm or 70mm film or in a 24-frame progressive scan digital format (minimum native resolution 1280 by 1024 pixels), delivered to the screen by an image and sound file format suitable for existing digital cinema sites.


In addition:

a. The film must have theatrical runs in at least four additional cities, advertised and exploited in a manner considered normal and customary to the industry, each engagement to be a minimum of two consecutive days. All screenings of the film must begin between 10:00 AM and midnight, and must commence by the day nominations are announced for the awards year.

b. Not be shown on television or the internet until 9 months after the nominations for the year it was filmed.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/26/05 at 11:09am

Reeder, now I'm puzzled: Which of those conditions did "Broadway..." not meet? I thought it had run in several cities-- I know it ran here in Chicago, In LA and in NYC.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 1/26/05 at 11:20am

I just need to set the record straight for this one.

Rick's film was not eligable for an Oscar nomination this year because the studio had submited the film last year in a rough cut format before it had been released into theatres, therefore taking away it's chances of being submited again this year.

[Mr. Tuttle]

Posted: 1/26/05 at 11:26am

Yes..thanks Matt.

It was not eligable this year. So what's the debate, people?