RE: Your appearance on Scarborough Country

I was taken aback by the characterization of Taylor Hicks as a cheesy Vegas act and his fans as fat women from Battlecreek, Michigan. I am a 35 year old woman from Tampa, Florida. I am CIO of a large software company. I am also the proud mother of 3 children. For the past few years, I have been subjected to listening to every young dumb, blonde and 5 boy band, overproduced singers that has graced the radio pop stations. My kids enjoy watching American Idol which usually features the same type of music. In years past, I only half
listened when the show was on - a very handy mother trait to have. All this changed with one audition. As soon as a young man named Taylor Hicks started singing, I was hooked. He has awoken the music in me again. I have never missed a show since. I have started buying music again including Taylor Hicks original CD Under the Radar. I have taken back my car radio from the kids. The amazing thing is that my kids are loving it too. My son said it best, this is the first music he likes that he can't whistle to. You can't whistle to it because it is not just the same ole boring pop song. This music has soul. While Katharine is a beautiful young lady with a pretty voice, she is no different than 20 other disney produced flash-in-the-pan pop star. You should try listening to Taylor's original music found on www.graycharles.com in the MP3 link. You might find your mood change for the better. Good music can do that to you! Taylor has awoken a sleeping generation. Watch out American Idol and Pop music. A change is coming!

Thank you for your time,

Tom;
I read the Goldstein article, and felt as if he resents sharing power and influence. Bloggers are a nuisance to him, because he formerly held sway in influencing the readers of THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, many of whom are oscar voters.

So it's good to see so many different viewpoints by bloggers, instead of those of just one columnist.

Mr. Goldstein is a classic example of an old-school journalist who doesn't get it on such a grand scale that he doesn't even realize the difference between a 'blogger" and a bona-fide journalist who happens to write on the Internet. David Poland, Jeff Wells, Tom O'Neill, several people Goldstein mentioned are all journalists who happen to write on the Web now. Bloggers, by definition, are usually considered the more amateur among us, like the people who write on Gold Derby, for example, who may or may not have a journalism background.

But be that as it may, what Goldstein doesn't get the most is that the media landscape has changed, and he is part of the dinosaurs among them. There is a reason why studios quake when bloggers (true bloggers, not verified journalists, who still have to kiss their butts to some degree) diss a movie they are trying to push. Because people are increasingly listening to, and believing the words of others who don't have an agenda, or an axe to grind, over overstuffed, overpaid journalists who look down their noses at us "bloggers."

--Michelle Belaskie, journalist who also blogs

This madness should end, soon! Any point that was trying to be made has become mute. Mr. O'Neil and Mr. Poland are just plain silly, but what a cute pair of misfits. Thanks for sucking the life out film's highest honor.

It's silly of Mr. Goldstein to write an article like this, because Oscars have always generated a great deal of hype and probably always will. Remember the Julie Andrews/Audrey Hepburn scandal back in the 1960's over My Fair Lady? Poor Audrey did not even get a nomination for Best Actress even though the picture was nominated in virtually every other category -- all because of the media hype surrounding the part of Eliza Doolittle. This is just one example of the hysteria that has gone on for a long time. So, chill out, Mr. Goldstein, you are feeding the same machine. I often wonder, as I'm sure others do as well, what qualifications movie reviewers for newspapers and journals have to fling out their opinions so vehemently? I do not consider them much better than the bloggers necessarily. Actually, I have read some reviews by bloggers that I thought were remarkable. Most are silly, it's true. Real film criticism is much different than what you usually read in most newspapers and magazines. Where are the James Agees or Andre Bazins or Pauline Kaels of today? Don't say Roger Ebert, because he doesn't write; he dictates.

Eric, you wrote:

"that Oscar pundits are overwhelmingly indifferent to discussing the merits of the film and have become obsessed with the horserace while having very little horsesense. They handicap films they haven't seen. "

You are wrong, sir. Sorry to be the one to point it out but there it is. Why is it so hard a concept to grasp that Academy voters vote a certain way - they don't vote for the best films of the year, not by the longest shot. If you'd been doing this as long as I have you'd see that. The awards are handed out like they were choosing the king and queen of the prom. The better films, throughout Oscar history (save a brief moment in the 70s) have been IGNORED. So don't blame us if the art of film has been lost. We try to figure out how they are going to vote, knowing it has nothing whatever to do with art. Come on, the Oscars have always been about business. And besides, it is only our love of movies that keeps us going. Otherwise, why bother?

Interesting. The Independent Spirit Awards get more mainstream every year. This year, for I think the first time, all five nominees for best picture are things that are realistically in Oscar contention as well. The nominees for Best Actor could conceivably be exactly what the Oscars nominate. What happened to the really quirky, small-scale works that used to excel in even the top categories of the Indie Awards?

I agree the Squid and the Whale is not gonna be nominated for Best Picture Oscar, but it could easily get nominated for Actor and Screenplay.

O'Neil completely misses the point of Goldstein's argument, namely, that Oscar pundits are overwhelmingly indifferent to discussing the merits of the film and have become obsessed with the horserace while having very little horsesense. They handicap films they haven't seen. O'Neil's contention that occasionally a Hilary Swank is brought to the attention of the Academy thanks to the Oscar bookies is comparable to saying that Bush is a friend to African Americans because he hired Condi Rice. The bottom line? The argument -- and the award -- go to Goldstein

If nothing else, Patrick Goldstein's rant finally got you and DP and me to agree on something...a first!...so bravo, Patrick Goldstein! :)

SAG don't foretell the Oscars. I thought that was in On How To Oscarwatch Vol. 1.

I think you missed the point, Tom. Your reply didn't address much of your colleagues concern. You talked about all the awards programs and societies and guilds, but very little about the bloggers. The bloggers who decide who's going to be nominated and who has the inside track to winning--even before the movies are released, before they see the movies. How does that happen? How do they know? What makes them so right, the fact that they have a blog?

I don't like football but I can't believe you say the Superbowl is nothing. Since you pulled out ratings to prove the viability and vitality of awards shows, I guess I have to pull out ratings to inform you that the Superbowl is always much more highly rated than the Oscars. And it seems your definition of pop culture is restricted to movies and TV, not sports or press or books or music. But let's stick with sports and that inconsequential Superbowl. Is not Donavan McNaab and his Campbell soup-pushing mother part of the pop culture. Joe Namath's book "I Can't Wait Until Tomorrow because I get better looking everyday" is part of high culture? I don't think so. Aren't the commercials during the Superbowl one of the highlights of the game? And the majority of those commercials are premiered during the Superbowl. Is the same true for the Oscars?

But I digress, the real point is that you missed the point. The Oscars and all the bloggers prognasticating is about movies, entertainment, ephemera. There's so much hot air about it all and for what? Now, Hillary Swank gets a better choice of roles? A bigger paycheck? An entry in EW's annual clout issue? None of this has any effect on us, the nation and/or the world at large.

Bush starting a war based on lies, does--and over 2000 families have lost loved ones in it. Countless thousands have lost limbs. This war affects my pocket book directly and the programs the government offers our fellow citizens directly. Blogging about the war and other issues that actually affect us is important, blogging about the politics of which category someone will submit themselves, or how many people died in the film seems to be frivolous and distracting to the real issues at end.

That said, I love the Oscars. I love the silliness and pomp and the speeches that I'd heard threee or four times before the actual Oscars (case in point: Jamie Foxx--I could have done that Oscar acceptance speech for him, after seeing him win every other award in sight.) And what we lose sight of--and this is the real point of your colleagues article--was the art of the movies, the wonder of the movies, the excitement of them, of their ability to transport us, to touch us, to anger us, to disgust us. All the bloggers' clicking is about everything but the art of the film, the beauty of film, the art of film and the artist's work in the film. And that's what all the bloggers forget.

Why is that the day after the Oscars, nobody much cares about anything but who wore what? The Oscar and awards prognostications madness is all about hype, and when the awards are handed out, it's over. The payoff doesn't much matter.