Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Elston Gunn Asks “What Is Oscar Trying To Say To Documentaries?!”

FIRST by phoenixangel	May 7th, 2007 06:04:47 AM
I've only been on here 2 days!!
The Academy by Kingdaddy	May 7th, 2007 06:05:45 AM
lost all credibility when they started giving Oscar's to Moore's Mockumentaries.
Phoenixangel by Kingdaddy	May 7th, 2007 06:06:45 AM
Congrats! Expect Harry and the gang to show up on your front door and congratulate you! YOU'RE THE BEST!
Moore by phoenixangel	May 7th, 2007 06:08:00 AM
Moore has a unique approach, it's like marmite, you either love it or hate it!
Kingdaddy by phoenixangel	May 7th, 2007 06:10:16 AM
Ha ha, you're so very funny!!!! I've been lurking for years and have now achieved my lifelong dream of posting FIRST in a tb!!!!! Can you hear the sarcasm??!!
Who cares about the Oscars? by Dulcebase	May 7th, 2007 06:11:23 AM
Fuck 'em, what do they know anyway?
Do we need any more proof that the "Academy" ... by Bronx Cheer	May 7th, 2007 06:22:05 AM
is as focused on Film-as-Art as the RIAA is on Music-as-Art? The only way this makes sense is if Commerce is a key component of...whoa, what am I saying? The Academy is telling us that "real" films cost a lot of money, and that films made with little money are not legitimate enterprises. Additionally, films that have a very limited theatrical audience are also not worthy of Academy notice. (That leaves "Grindhouse" out!) I have not watched the Oscar broadcast in years, based on the belief that the Academy Awards are worthless. Here's more proof to back up my belief. Could it be that the main reason behind these new restrictions is an attempt by the Academy to squelch political or controversial films? Just when it looked like filmmaking was going to become a truly egalitarian form of expression, the Academy tries to smash that idea like a cheap MiniDV camera. The beauty is that film distribution is in the middle of a revolution, and while a nomination for an Oscar can bring a tremendous amount of attention to a documentary, I'd be willing to bet that an equally huge audience is present every day on the Internet, and they're starving for good content. I have to get going; I'll be late for work. Well done, Elston Gunn. Thanks for keeping us informed.
What we need by HornOrSilk	May 7th, 2007 06:22:45 AM
An awards show which gives awards to awards shows: Best awards show of the year, best host for an awards show, best music for an award show, etc. After all, we can never have too awards shows where people making millions congratulate each other for making millions can we?
First by SingingHatchet	May 7th, 2007 06:38:21 AM
Sucka!
I mean, ninth! by SingingHatchet	May 7th, 2007 06:39:17 AM
Darn you michael bay
Exactly, Oscars and other awards blow shit. by DigitalDong	May 7th, 2007 07:37:01 AM
All that matters is the box office/viewers if you want to know how your movie did. Crash won best picture...it made shit. Angels in America won some awards and got good reviews...no one watched it, even those with stolen HBO. As for docu's I guess the idea isn;t to make money, or to win awards. But to get people to think about the world we live in. Isn;t that a reward in its own? Well unless you're Moore and wanna just make money.
And the Academy slips further into irrelevance by Theta	May 7th, 2007 08:25:59 AM
Yes, these rules are ridiculous, but honestly, while I don't claim to be intimately connected to the scene, I doubt 95% of the documentarians out there really give a shit. The distributors are pissed, naturally, it means more money and more work for them. But it's the Oscars; they never even nominate anyone who deserves to win in the first place. All this tells me is that we'll be seeing more Holocaust documentaries win.
TOO SOON!! by Pageiv	May 7th, 2007 08:42:22 AM
Just makes it easier for Michael Moore to win again.
Misplaced Priorities by SutureSelf	May 7th, 2007 09:29:41 AM
Too bad the Academy doesn't require documentaries to actually tell the truth.
After that slide show won last year... by jimmy_009	May 7th, 2007 09:57:39 AM
...I think their attitude toward documentaries became quite clear.
so now we get only the big-budget crowd pleasing drivel by newc0253	May 7th, 2007 09:57:55 AM
like the stuff that Moore and Spurlock both make - supposedly 'provocative' fare that's full of half-assed, headline-grabbing tendentious claims - instead of insightful, analytical stuff that rarely draws a crowd because it doesn't pander to simplistic positions like "fast food = bad" or "global warming = bad". fuck the Academy. fuck them in their stupid asses.
It's not too surprising by DoctorTom	May 7th, 2007 10:30:14 AM
They're just trying to pander to the big money major studio documentaries and stifle the independent documentaries, much like the MPAA is there for the studios. Maybe we'll get lucky, though, and Kirby Dick will use this as an opportunity to make a sequel to "This Film is Not Yet Rated" - "This Film is Not Yet Submitted for an Oscar", covering the bias inherent in the new system.
Todays documentaries are comentaries anyway... by Negative Man	May 7th, 2007 12:34:35 PM
...And they make money by 'confirming' the beliefs of other fellow head-nodders on a particular subject. "Hey! Our movies is about the evil plight of the Immigrant Smog War Rat! Come see!" "Wow! A movie about the Immigrant Smog War Rat that will confirm everything I already feel about the Immigrant Smog War Rat!!! Yup, I gotta pay to see this!" Todays docs suck for the most part. Special interest slants made for easy swallowing.
The Academy is like the BCS now? by durhay	May 7th, 2007 12:53:50 PM
Only the big boys can play? Awards are played out - some years there are multiple qualified films, other years there are none. The nomination itself should be an oscar. Enough with assuming there will always be exactly five good movies to choose from. This will prevent any "director who is due gets an award for a lesser movie" wins.
this is a load of crap by Lou C.	May 7th, 2007 01:20:58 PM
For all the commercialized and political crap about the Oscars, the one nice thing you could say is that at least some aspiring filmmakers had a chance to get the ultimate exposure for simply doing good work. One thing I always appreciated about the documentary categories was that I was at least going to find out about some interesting stuff people were doing that I otherwise might not find out about at all. And while the category was becoming increasingly commercial by picking whatever documentary made it into theaters as a nominee and likely winner, there were still other lesser known ones getting nominations. And when good ones got the shaft, there was a discussion about it in the media that gave those ones exposure anyway. This pretty much reduces the category to meaningless. If this is the way they're going to do things, I don't see why I should bother to watch anymore.
hmm by CaptGrogan	May 7th, 2007 01:25:14 PM
personaly I think the Academy is a colelction of fuckwits if ever there was one. However, I kind of see thier point here. How many times has a documentary won and you go "who the fuck even heard of that let alone saw it?" I like the idea of requiring more screens - but - the implementation sucks - the number is too high.
How about...... by ptindy	May 7th, 2007 02:17:56 PM
actually having true documentaries instead of political hit pieces and fantasies/fairy tales..um Mr.Gore...er Mr. Moore.
Boo Hoo by tonagan	May 7th, 2007 02:30:07 PM
Now nobody will see my film about crinoline. Waah. Life is not fair, and neither is the Academy. Suck it up.
I thought real artists weren't in it for the awards. by ExcaliburFfolkes	May 7th, 2007 03:43:54 PM
Is the Academy being mobbed with documentary submissions that they feel they must institute hurdles to limit the ones that qualify?
No Oscar for SoaP = flames on the nipples of Optimus. by Err	May 7th, 2007 03:58:33 PM
Too true.
THIS YEAR'S LITTLE MISS PEOPLE'S CHOICE AWARDS! by Err	May 7th, 2007 03:59:04 PM
Or the Blockbuster Entertainment awards. Whatever happened to those?
since I don't live in LA or NY by strangernparadis	May 7th, 2007 04:47:17 PM
I have never heard of 75% of the films nominated in ANY catagory
So no HDV ? Guess the want you to rent a GENESIS cam by Mace Tofu	May 7th, 2007 04:52:11 PM
My local theaters can digitally project off a standard DVD. I have not seen the new rules but it looks like even if you went out on Standard def DVD to all the indi theaters that have SD video projection that would not count if not they were not HD projectors or shot on a higher HD format than HDV? The silly part is if you blow up to 35 mm you could shoot in SD mini-Dv and that would be OK or did they ban mini-Dv too?
all these left wing docos catering to the elite by slappy jones	May 7th, 2007 04:56:23 PM
make me sick with their twisted facts and far left bias. Documentaries make me want to puke.
"..they want to rent..." by Mace Tofu	May 7th, 2007 04:56:42 PM
Well we indi's can buy a RED HD camera I guess but that will still add another $25,000 to the budget of any doc.
Sorry to play devil's advocate... by Christopher3	May 7th, 2007 04:57:04 PM
But do docs really need Academy support? Sure, you get a gold statue and shit, but the Academy Awards are sliding into irrelevance like the Miss America Pageant. I'd rather see a documentary that won the Peabody. That's a better hallmark of quality to me.
It's a shitty situation... by Crimson King	May 7th, 2007 07:12:33 PM
Because, yeah, the Academy Awards are a joke these. They don't necessarily reward the "best" film, they base their decisions on box office and politics (and bocx office politics?). However, here's the thing...so many people in this country will make a decision based on the fact that a film won an Academy Award or two. Here's another thing, just because a film is praised by the Academy doesn't mean it's bad...people are sort of taking this mental approach that, "shit, it won an Academy Award, it must be some fabricated bullshit." Not necessarily. And finally, this hurts the documentary filmmakers because now films that might have originally gotten recognition and distribution won't get it....or have to fight so much harder (it's hard enough as it is!!) and pay ridiculous amounts of money that didn't need to be spent originally.
Nobody's stopping the Right from making docs. by Bronx Cheer	May 7th, 2007 07:23:59 PM
What's with all the carping about the Left leaning documentaries? What turns out to be the case is quite often docs are made to expose the truth in a case where the truth has been suppressed by corporations or governments. So yes, that makes them a little progressive. There are plenty of docs that are biographic, etc, but I think the main issue here is that most documentaries are not commercial. The Academy is there to support the US Film Industry, not a ragtag bunch of filmmakers whose movies are not fiction...well, usually not. The more I think about it, I think this step by the Academy is actually a sign of integrity. They're finally just coming straight out and saying, "We don't care about those odd little documentaries. Away with them." All we'll be left with are docs funded by those with vested interests in getting out a certain POV (aka propaganda).
RED Camera by Bronx Cheer	May 7th, 2007 07:27:49 PM
Don't get too excited about that RED camera. The test that Peter Jackson shot was hardly a good demonstration of an HD camera's performance. If it turns out to be a good camera, fantastic. I think the jury is still out. (Hell, the jury hasn't even been selected yet.)
The Oscars offer great exposure for little-known films by Bronx Cheer	May 7th, 2007 07:32:12 PM
narrative and documentary alike. It's not that docs need the Oscar nominations for artistic validation, but they sure help bring eyes to your film, and that's ultimately the mission here.
MPAA keeps on rolling limp. by spiderwalk007	May 7th, 2007 11:12:24 PM
Way to go, guys. Underminding human intelligence. Most studios try to anyhow. I say Wild Hogs needs at least 6 sequels!
THE CORPORATION = BEST DOC EVER. by Gilkuliehe	May 8th, 2007 12:29:56 AM
And that didn't win shit. Scariest film of all time too. Who cares what Oscars think anyway. Just get rid of the category and add a new relevant one like say, best explosion or whatever.
I'm Sorry, it's sad, but they had to do it... by Space oddity	May 8th, 2007 02:51:07 AM
When you consider the recent proliferation of small film festivals, the advent of DV features, and the internet as a means of self-distribution the Academy is probably drowning in entries. This is not proof that the academy id evil, it's proof that the Academy is IRRELEVANT. It's purpose of awarding film was started when there was nothing outside of Hollywood, the Foreign Film Category is even a joke, and just as prohibitive as Docs and Shorts. Let me put it this way, do you remember that year to save time they started making all the 'lesser' winners accept their awards in the audience and didn't even get to show a clip? For a lot of small-timers that's their one chance to be commended on the same level as the big boys and they get segregated. The Oscars was built for old Hollywood, and Old Hollywood is as dead as Dillinger.
Oh dear. by Reelheed	May 8th, 2007 04:29:11 AM
I can't see why anyone takes the Oscars seriously at all anymore - when was the last time that the shortlists (never mind the actual winners) contained any real suprises?
Old Hollywood is dead? by JackRabbitSlim	May 8th, 2007 06:43:43 AM
Spiderman 3 grosses in three days higher than the gdp of every Sub-Saharan African country but Hollywood is dead? Riiiight...
That's fucked by PotSmokinAlien	May 8th, 2007 09:04:17 AM
i mean i sure dont think the oscars mean anything anymore, if they ever did, but putting those kind of restraints on an entire school of filmmaking, one that was never conceived to make any money in the first place, that is completely fucked up. then again, maybe this will just serve to take away even more credibility from the academy and expose them as a bunch of rich old idiots (and dakota fanning)
FUCK YOU Jack Valenti! I hope you DIE!!! by Kentucky Colonel	May 8th, 2007 09:57:55 AM
Rat Bastard!!! You, too, Laura Ingalls!
Spiderman 3 is the product of... by Space oddity	May 8th, 2007 03:32:38 PM
major Summer releases that cumulatively cost several times the GDP of a Sub-Saharan African Country. It is also a product of anew releasing system that sends prints to every corner of the world simultaneously. It is also the product of an ideology of mass market saturation. With final costs amounting to about $350 million, Spiderman 3 is hardly representative of "Old Hollywood." By the way, Old Hollywood didn't even really like advertising on television and it wasn't until Spielberg pushed forward the idea in the 70's with 'Jaws.' I was pointing out the fact that the Oscars started as a way to award the likes of Chaplin and DeMille, and is hardly vital to the era of youtube and digital cable. I was making NO STATEMENT referring to the money making prowess of massive banks with billions of dollars at their disposal, which is what Hollywood is now.
The Oscars are a joke by richier123	May 8th, 2007 03:48:19 PM
Concerning documentaries, this decision is going to hurt way too many small gems that never get much screen time in the first place. But with that said, the winners and nominees in the last few years have involved big name celebrities pushing left-wing agendas anyways. But regaurdless of politics or beleifs, the oscars rob deserving people of their awards based on their own politics and money-making (i.e. mr. moore and giving jennifer hudson an oscar over much more deserving and experienced actresses).
The Academy hates movies by CherryValance	May 8th, 2007 04:37:42 PM
Isn't it obvious? I really don't known what their purpose is.
LAZY Academy is more like it by antonphd	May 8th, 2007 05:37:55 PM
I know there are really bad reasons for this, but I can't help think that the big reason is that it will ultimately cut out most of the required viewing work.
Hoop Dreams by OGREISHERE	May 9th, 2007 09:06:34 AM
So here is what the academy learned from the Hoop Dreams episode of 94... 1. Fuck over the great films 2. Reward much lesser films that dont really deserve a damn thing.
This Enrages Me by psychedelic	May 9th, 2007 09:04:53 PM
I've seen so many excellent documentaries at festivals and these new "coffin nails" of rules go further to ensure that they won't see the light of day. I guess this is another reminder of The Studios bottomless thirst for monopolies on all media. I want to shake somebody and scream at them. But who? Would they listen anyway? Would it matter?

Talkbacks

Elston Gunn Asks “What Is Oscar Trying To Say To Documentaries?!”

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks