Oscar noms and some other business

It's always depressing when one of your two comments end up being spam. And that, three posts in, they judge it to be "inquisitive" is a little frightening.

Katie, I will definitely write back. I always meant to write you. Then I got lazy. But it's up to you to start it now. I believe in you. Godspeed.

Hey, Oscar nominations were announced today (linked in the title). "Brokeback" picked up eight, "Good Night and Good Luck" and "Crash" picked up six, and "Capote," "Memoirs of a Geisha" (which I don't think anyone saw), "Munich" (balls yes), and "Walk the Line" (though not for Best Picture, strangely) picked up five. Assorted thoughts to follow...

This is the best line-up of leading actors I've seen since probably '02, but Hoffman had better as crap win. It's not even his best work to date, but he deserves it.

The only movie in the Actress in a Leading Role category I saw was "Walk the Line." Go Reese?

Maria Bello should've been nominated for "A History of Violence." Viggo should've as well, but like I said, the lead actor category is pretty damn good. But when they're shuffling in Judi Dench and Charlize Theron, there's definitely some room for Bello.

"Crash" got too many nominations. It's a fine little movie, and I can deal with Matt Dillon's acting nomination (though they should've given it to Terrence Howard, especially 'cause he'd have a nom in each actor category). But screenplay? No. It has no story or characters, only a message it attempts to convey and people to spout it. I'm okay with it being up for Best Picture because it was a huge audience favorite...but if that sucker wins over "Brokeback," "Good Night and Good Luck," and "Munich," t'will be a dark day. As for editing, I don't know much about how they pick that, but that had some of the worst pacing of the year. Did you know it all took place in one night? I didn't. But apparently it did.

And Paul Haggis over Peter Jackson, David Cronenberg ("A History of Violence"), Terrence Malick ("The New World"), Ron Howard, Woody Allen, and Fernando Meirelles ("The Constant Gardener")? No, that's not right.

Wow, they didn't have to resort to nominating "Madagascar" for animated film. Life is good. I wish I saw "Wallace and Gromit," but I'll still be pulling for them in support of my childhood.

"Batman Begins" got a cinematography nom! I can't prove it, but that might be the first time a superhero film got nominated for something other than visual effects or sound. That said, "The New World" better win 'cause it got shafted everywhere else (notably, I would've loved noms for Q'Orianka Kilcher, Christian Bale, and Terrence Malick's direction).

The director nominations are the same as the best picture for the first time I can remember. There's usually one that's different. Go Spielberg.

I wish I saw "Murderball."

The song "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" from "Hustle & Flow" got nominated. I never saw the movie, but that kicks ass.

I still don't know the difference between sound mixing and sound editing. I probably never will.

How did "Narnia" get nominated for visual effects, but not "Star Wars" or "Sin City"? That said, none of those three deserve it over "War of the Worlds," but if "Kong" wins that's cool by me.

That said, I humbly admit that "Narnia" deserves the makeup award. That WETA (the LOTR and Kong folks) did it makes that easier to say.

"Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang" should have been nominated in and won both screenplay awards, because that's how much ass it kicks.

I hope "Good Night and Good Luck" wins best original screenplay, and it should, but I'd be fine if "Match Point" or "The Squid and the Whale" won. Really, as long as it's not "Crash." Adapted goes to "A History of Violence." Right now.

As for best pic, I'm pulling for "Munich" (I hope it takes this or Spielberg for director...ideally both) but if "Good Night and Good Luck" wins it'll be a great day in cinematic history. Still, it's the year for "Brokeback," but at least that's deserved. It's a damn fine film, it was the most picked on critics' top 10 lists, and audiences loved it.

Gotta say though, aside from maybe "Star Wars" for visual effects and DEFINITELY Maria Bello for Lead Actress in "A History of Violence" and putting aside my own personal squabbles (basically that "The New World" deserved better), there really aren't any glaring omissions. Solid noms.

Hmmm...

Haven't had to title these in some time. Take some getting used to that's for sure.

I downloaded the High Fidelity soundtrack. Made me love the movie even more. Must watch it soon.

I missed the entirety of SNL. In fact, I think I exactly missed it. Steve Martin was hosting, is why it's a loss. It probably blew, but it's Steve friggin' Martin!

AMC merged with Loews. Thankfully, I can still get my discounted tickets and use my leftover gift card money.

They now have South Park, Beavis and Butthead, SpongeBob, and even the freaking A-Team on iTunes. The video iPod gets better and better.

My crooked foot prevented me from ice skating for more than like fifteen minutes at a time. That was a drag.

EVERY common room was taken earlier tonight. I couldn't believe it.

The Emerson Channel showed "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," completely unedited. Yeah. We're pretty hardcore.

It was almost 60 degrees today. Boston, you baffle me.

And there was my attempt to mention as much a variety of subjects as I could muster in hopes one will strike you.

Welcome

Yeah, so this is actually my second post, but it feels better if there's a nice little welcome at the top instead of the bottom.

So, the Xanga community kinda died five or six months ago when school started back up. For whatever reason, at the time during which we'd all have the least knowledge of what's going on in each other's lives, everyone stopped posting just that. I stuck with it for awhile 'cause I enjoyed blogging, but in the hustle-and-bustle of Christmas break just stopped. I was never really crazy about Xanga's formatting, and I remembered that I still had the old Rail of Tomorrow (this address) set up from...I think the Dead Man Walking days...maybe before that. Don't know.

So I cleaned it out, set up a links section, so this'll be the new home for pointless musings about college life and inspired movie rants. My Top 10 Films of 2005 is over at The Gravy (which you can click right over to on the right), and the reviews (as always) will be posted over there. So yeah. Hope you read. Hope you comment so I think someone's actually reading. But I'll post either way. I'm a stubborn bastard.

P.S. I stole Shakeer's formatting, because it looks damn good and he, sadly, no longer blogs.

Damn You, Cuban!

Well, there goes the neighborhood.


"Bubble," the new film from Steven Soderbergh ("Traffic," "Erin Brockovich," "Ocean's 11") is being released in theaters today. And on sattelite. And on Tuesday, it'll be on DVD. This mode of action has been talked about for quite some time right now, and there are a number of critics who feel it'll mean the end of the movie theater.

I agree.

Mark Cuban, whose Landmark theaters and HDNet are the ones making this all possible, had some words on Fresh Air:

In collapsing the months-long release window [between theatrical release and DVD release - Scott] into a matter of days, Cuban says consumers will have more choice in how content is delivered, which may result in higher overall sales. In answering critics who have decried the day-and-date approach as the death knell of the theater experience, Cuban has compared the approach to the NBA, in which sold-out games are also aired live on television.

First, you can't compare the NBA to the movies. Cuban also owns the Dallas Mavericks, so his perspective's a bit skewed on the whole thing. I've been to an NBA game before, and there's a clear, distinct difference between watching a game live and on TV. While I believe there's a huge advantage to seeing movies in theaters, there are plenty of people out there who not only believe there's little-to-no difference, but if there is a difference, watching movies on DVD is better (less expensive, no crowds, etc.)

Here's the thing about giving people a choice - they'll choose one or the other. Some will buy the movie blindly. Some will rent. Some will see it in theaters. Some will buy it through sattelite. But it'll be months, maybe a year or so, 'til the theatergoers rent or buy it, unless they REALLY like it. Which is EXACTLY how the market exists today. Besides, with tickets being the price they are, someone's gonna figure out that if they just pay an extra $10, or the price of another ticket, they can own the movie, whereas the old-fashioned way of doing things would have them paying the $10 ticket, then ANOTHER $20 when the DVD comes out.

Yes, overall, this is better for the average consumer. Choices are always preferable to the average consumer. But if studios pick this up, I fully believe that the theater business will dwindle if not disappear altogether, neither of which I'm really interested in. I LIKE going to the movie theater. I LIKE a ton of people being in the audience. Can you really imagine theaters being as packed for the opening night of the next Spider-Man or Batman or Harry Potter if audiences realize they can just go rent it a couple days later? Gone will be the days of loud cheers and a real buzz over major new releases. No more fight to get tickets to sold-out shows, and realizing that everyone's discovering a tiny Oscar hopeful at the same time as you.

I've been posting various articles about the so-called box office slump over the past few months, and it's really all come down to this. This really could be a major mark in the history of motion pictures, or another failed experiment. I can only hope for the latter.