The Academy recently released their shortlist of 15 feature documentaries which may compete for the Best Documentary Oscar in February, and out of 15 — FIFTEEN — Anvil! The Story of Anvil didn’t make it. I’m not going to pretend I saw every movie this year, but I saw a lot, and out of all the movies I saw — not just documentaries — Anvil is easily in the top three.
Out of the 15 they picked, one was Valentino: The Last Emperor, about the fashion designer, which got a 7.2 from IMDB voters and a 78% on Rottentomatoes — compared to Anvil’s 8.2 and 98%. Another was… oh Christ, I’m not even going to go through the rest of these. Ninety-eight effing percent! I don’t know anyone who saw Anvil! who didn’t leave the theater raving about how awesome it was. How does that not get on the list?? And these aren’t even the nominations! It didn’t even get nominated to be nominated. Sadly, this isn’t the first or probably even the second or third time I’ve said this, but, THIS IS WHY THE OSCAR STATUE HAS NO BALLS. Please jump in a volcano, you filthy, ox-touching, baby effers. <3 Vince
According to Nikki Finke, who as far as I can tell is the only source for this, Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr. were approached by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences about hosting this year’s Oscars as a duo, but turned them down. Pretty disappointing, especially if RDJ was considering doing the whole show in blackface, as Billy Crystal used to do. But you can hardly blame them for not wanting to take orders from this guy:
Nikki Finke recently broke the news (accompanied by one of her always classy and humble ‘TOLDJA!’ headlines, of course), that Adam Shankman and Bill Mechanic would be producing the next Oscars telecast. Nikki writes:
I consider it a good choice that bodes well for AMPAS new president Tom Sherak. Both Adam Shankman and Bill Mechanic are experienced movie people, and Shankman has the added benefit of current TV experience.
Is this bitch serious? Let’s do a run through of the movies Adam Shankman directed and their accompanying rank on RottenTomatoes, shall we?
- The Wedding Planner, 16%
- A Walk to Remember, 27%
- Bringing Down the House, 34% (34%? Really?)
- The Pacifier, 21%
- Cheaper By the Dozen 2, 7%
- Hairspray, 91%
- Bedtime Stories, 24%
The one success is Hairspray, which was based on an already-successful play, which was in turn based on a cult-classic John Waters movie. And having seen the horrific nightmare fuel that is John Travolta in drag, I still wouldn’t watch that flick unless I got kidnapped by the Saw guy and it was either that or gouge out a testicle and eat it. Oh, but he does have non-directorial credits, what were those again?
(”DOES THIS HAVE CHOCOLATE IN IT?”)
Back in June, the Academy announced that the Best Picture Oscar category would expand to 10 nominees, in order to rob five more films when Slumdog Millionaire wins. Now they say they’re also switching to a “preferential voting” system. It’s sort of complicated, but basically it’s like a sorority rush without “circle the fat.”
Voters will be asked to rank their preference from 1 to 10, with 1 being best. It’s the same preferential voting system that the Academy uses in its nominating process, but it hasn’t been used in best picture voting since 1945.
The Academy has opted to use the preferential system in the best picture race because with a field of 10 nominees, a winner could emerge with just slightly more than 580 votes out of the potential voting pool of 5,800 members.
…ballots are first separated according to first-place choices. If one film wins a majority among all first-place votes, it’s the winner. If not, the film with the fewest number of first-place votes is eliminated and the No. 2 choices on those ballots are redistributed among the remaining films. The process continues until one film has picked up a majority of votes. [THR]
Martin Scorsese’s latest, Shutter Island (trailer below), was set for release October 2nd, but Paramount has decided to move it to February 19th, taking it out of contention for the 2009 Oscars (and a February release won’t help their chances in 2010 either). Via Nikke Finke:
An insider tells me. “It tested in the high 80s/low 90s and Scorsese even brought it down to 2 hours.” So what’s the problem? I hear that Paramount told the filmmakers it doesn’t have the financing in 2009 to spend the $50M to $60M necessary to market a big awards pic like this. [...] I’m also told that, among the many reasons for the move, Leo [DiCaprio] wasn’t going to be available to promote the pic internationally. So the studio settled on the release date of February 19th because “that’s when Silence Of The Lambs came out” back in 1991 and it won the Oscar.
Now Paramount can throw their full weight behind their other two big Oscar contenders, GI Joe and Transformers 2.
