SubscribeWho's being 'totally ridiculous,' Mr. Cates?
"That's totally ridiculous!" exclaimed Oscarcast producer Gil Cates to the Associated Press in response to my claim that the Golden Globes and Oscars may have no choice but to proceed without a telecast if the writers' strike continues. See the AP story — CLICK HERE.
Oh, yeah, Mr. Cates? The Peoples' Choice Awards just announced — after that article hit the wire — that it will ditch its usual CBS telecast that follows the model of traditional award shows attended by stars who march to the podium to accept a statuette after a list of nominees is read off and a winner announced. Instead, on January 8, the Peoples' Choice will present a show that the nominees and winners don't have to attend. Interviews with winners will be taped ahead of time at remote locations. There will be no red carpet and arrivals. And no suspense about who wins. But there's never been any suspense surrounding who claims the Peoples' Choice Awards. Winners have always been tipped off ahead of time. Thus, it's not a suspense-driven awards show like the Oscars, Golden Globes, Grammys and Emmys. So such a retooled show is probably not an option for the other kudos.
Besides, the People's Choice Awards are about average people. They'll end up filling the audience chairs, if the telecast proceeds with the traditional auditorium setting. At the Oscars the seats go to actors, directors and other filmmakers who aren't likely to cross a picket line. The WGA has officially announced plans to picket the Golden Globes . It's likely that the Oscars will be next. The guild has already refused to grant a waiver for the Globes to be scripted or the academy to telecast clips of new movies and old Oscarcasts. Behind the scenes WGA officials have told Oscar chiefs that they won't grant a waiver for the Oscarcast to be written either. Looks like both award shows are getting the same treatment. One option the Globes are seriously considering is the obvious one: ditch the cameras and go on with the ceremony as planned. That way filmmakers can still attend because there will be nothing for the WGA to picket.
If the Globes go on without the telecast, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association will lose about $5 million in license fees. The Oscars will lose more than $30 million in fees and ad dollars.
As noted by "30 Rock" writer Brett Baer in that AP article, the guild is aiming specifically at kudos, saying, "If we could shut down the awards shows, that would be great."
Message to Mr. Cates: If the Globes end up having to nix the cameras, why do you think the Oscars will be different?
(Note: An earlier draft of this blog item mistakenly repeated initial reports that the Peoples' Choice telecast would be dropped completely. Later in the day CBS cleared up the confusion.)
Frankly, the Oscars themselves have become irrelevant. One must ask a question and do so honestly: What is the true validity of a group who bestows awards when they -- the members of said group -- do not see all of the nominated films?
And, too, one must think about the fact that there are campaigns for films to be nominated. Why not select films based on the merit of the work therein? It's grown pathetic -- all the "campaigning." And then people "win" these awards and some of them actually think it is for meritous reasons.
Too bad more people cannot take note of the wise Anna Magnani. When it was made known to her that she would more likely than not be nominated for "The Rose Tattoo," she was told to come back to America to commence campaigning. Ms. Magnani replied, "No." She said that if she were to be given an award, it would have to be based on the strength of her performance and not for her ability to shake hands.
With what the "Oscars" have become, it's no wonder that Katharine Hepburn stayed away from all the mire of it.
And it's sad, for I used to enjoy the Academy Awards -- that is, until I realized how silly the whole thing is. Even those who have won have articulated this. Jeremy Irons, in accepting his award for "Reversal of Fortune," thanked first in his speech David Cronenberg, who directed Mr. Irons in "Dead Ringers." Naturally, given the nature of the film, Mr. Irons wasn't nominated for "Dead Ringers." And a few years later, as he collected his trophy for "Reversal" and intoned Mr. Cronenberg's name, there was a tumult of applause.
So, apparently, the Academy understands how hypocritical it is, but cares to do nothing to rectify the situation.
Now, with the Writer's Strike, it's the same hypocrisy rearing its head. If people do the work, they should be compensated for that. If studios don't like the fact that they have to treat others decently... well, that's just too bad.
I fully support the strike. It's nice to see that integrity and honor are still valued elements by some in a culture that has grown thick with greed and willful ignorance.
Posted by: John Zulovitz | December 21, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Roy's comment that AMPAS has 150+ million in fixed assets and can thus afford to miss the ad revenue shows a lack of financial understanding. Fixed assets aren't liquid and can't be used to pay ongoing expenses involved with running their film library.
I'll watch the Oscars regardless, but I'll definitely be disappointed if they aren't able to attract nominees and presenters of high calibre because of the strike. It this point, I'm not sure how I feel about the writers' strike since it has been reported that the two sides aren't that far apart in their offers. In principle, I definitely feel they deserve fair compensation for their work, including residuals on income from all distribution avenues.
Posted by: Brian | December 20, 2007 at 09:02 AM
Tom,
(OFF TOPIC)
What is up with no Sweeney Todd or Atonement nominations at SAG?
Posted by: Janet Whitlatch | December 20, 2007 at 08:34 AM
WGA strike is ridiculous. Fair compensation? You are WRITERS, don't tell me you want to don in Valentino and vintage Galanos as well. That's the price you have to pay for living in corporate America. To shove your battle into nominees' throat is crueler than not getting properly paid.
I'm crossing my finger to cheer on Julie Christie and Daniel Day-Lewis winning their second career Oscar on Feb 24th.
Posted by: Kamal S | December 20, 2007 at 08:29 AM
The same here. Tom, sometimes you act really as if you're the king of Hollywood... and actually you're the person who predicted a Dreamgirls-sweap last year. And I have to tell you that the People Choice Awards are nothing. Oscar is a myth. And it'll go on, because if writers don't help, they'll have a lot of people turned against themselves. And to tell you something: I read an interview with a writer and a WGA member and he actually expressed his joy that they could actually make a show fail? And it's not fair to viewers around the world.
The Academy can, ANYWAY, take some foreign writers, can't they?
Posted by: Ross | December 20, 2007 at 04:29 AM
I was all for this strike, but now it's getting ridiculous. Like some people here said, for some people it might be the only nomination in their life, so why those pothead want to picketing it?
Posted by: Paul | December 20, 2007 at 02:35 AM
Am I missing something? Aren't the little written bits for the presenters usually the worst part of the telecast? It takes a team of writers to come up with those awful moments?
I would think ad-libbing would actually be an improvement.
Posted by: Roy | December 20, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Have you seen the Academy's balance sheet? They have something like 150+ million in long-term fixed assets. They could easily skip the televised revenue, and still have their ceremony in private.
Posted by: Michael | December 19, 2007 at 07:04 PM
The WGA strike is about writers getting fair compensation for the work that they do. Part of a strike and a work stoppage, is to demonstrate the how their not working (the writers) can effect so much of the industry where it matters most, from a business perspective, income to the corporations involved.
I don't think WGA members want to boycott the Oscars. This is about their negotiating fair pay agreements. I am shocked to read these self-involved comments like this here. If people are upset that the Oscar telecast won't go on or be the same because of the WGA strike, that anger should go towards the studios and production companies
Posted by: BSamo | December 19, 2007 at 07:00 PM
Gil Cates is right. It's completely ridiculous as WGA continues to undermine their remaining public support.
The Academy makes millions of dollars in ad revenue. Of course, AMPAS does more than the awards ceremony. They have a library and film archive to maintain and employees to pay. You can't forfeit millions of dollars because WGA thinks the awards don't benefit them.
The Oscars give screenplay awards which help writers' careers. So instead of trying to shut the awards down, why not support the nominated writers with others in your field for a night?
People don't care about the hardships the writers are facing. They care that Grey's Anatomy isn't coming back in January and that they won't get to see film clips during the Oscars. WGA should aim its hostilities away from the Academy.
Posted by: RBurton | December 19, 2007 at 04:45 PM
What makes the Oscars different Tom is that it's an institution which turns 80 this year. Peoples choice awards are a joke and have been for years. The Oscars will be telecast for the 55th year in a row on Feb 24th, 2008. People who picket awards shows cut their own throats. For many, it may be their only nomination. So, WGA, get off your high horses and quit shooting yourselves in the foot,
Posted by: bill | December 19, 2007 at 04:34 PM