The Talk forum this week is reflecting back on the Academy Awards, and coming up with ways to fix them. "I have an idea about how to make the awards show more interesting," writes egra. "Let each of the studios get a three- or four-minute slot on the telecast to show a promo reel of their upcoming movies for the summer. This would give moviegoers around the world the perfect opportunity to get their first look at the big movies coming up, and also give the studios the opportunity to showcase their product." gj Frankic, however, disagress: "When fed a constant diet of celebrity faces in magazines, tabloid TV and Internet access, the excitement of seeing performers, yet again, loses lustre. The specialness of Oscar Night may return only when spending an evening with favorite performers is something more than same-old, same-old."

Log onto the Talk forum to join in this conversation, or to start a Shootout topic of your own!

The Tribeca Film Festival is well under way, and the forum is wondering whether it's indie-friendly any more. "No, they are not Indie-Friendly," said Matt. "Almost all of them are driven by politics - how many celebrities can we get to show up and show their new $50 million movies. The fact is that 'Independent Film' doesn't mean what it used to -- it means a budget at least six, usually seven figures, and the little guy who sells his car to make a movie just can't get it seen, whether it has merit or not." While I argued that thanks to the Internet, true independent filmmakers now have a whole new arena to show off their talents, Matt contested, "The filmmakers who believe that they can post their movie somewhere, and a month later the Weinstein company is going to call up, should prepare for disappointment."

Meanwhile, movie-lovers debated whether Hollywood has run out of ideas. Julaso says absolutely. "Hollywood is consistently rushing films into production, or simply optioning foreign films or older films to be remade without closely analyzing what made the original film a success." Dennis contends that "today it seems studio's are lining their pockets with money making bad movies for 14 and 15 year old kids. I will watch movies from my library, they hold up even more today because of all the crap made."

Log onto the Talk forum to join in any of these conversations, or to start a Shootout topic of your own!

Hollywood is in the middle of another contract negotiation that could bring movie and show production to a halt again if it goes awry. On the one side are Hollywood actors, represented by the Screen Actors Guild; on the other side is management -- represented ultimately by the titans of industry who own the studios, such as GE Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt.

Hollywood actors and SAG passionately care about the deal they will strike.  But is anyone listening on the management side of the negotiating table?  It may be that for the titans of industry, the immediate fate of the movie business is not a top concern.  Then what happens?

"This is the opposite of 1920 when there was too much [management] attention on movies -- now there's no attention at all," says Shootout co-host Peter Bart.

[Photo by Richard Young / Rex USA, courtesy Everett Collection. Rupert Murdoch, Keith Urban and Nicole Kidman 79th Annual Academy Awards Vanity Fair Party, Los Angeles. Feb 25, 2007.]

Continue reading "If Studio Owners Don't Care About Movies, What Happens Next?" »

Hollywood used to be a "clubby town," where agreements were done with a handshake and a sense the parties could trust each other, according to Shootout co-host Peter Bart (notwithstanding Samuel Goldwyn's famous comment, "A handshake deal isn't worth the paper it's printed on"). "Sometimes people would get cheated," says Bart. "But things would get done."

These days, Hollywood is the setting for the trial of private investigator Anthony Pellicano, who is charged with racketeering and illegal wiretapping of prominent Hollywood figures. The case is a signal, says Bart, "that many of the power players will stop at nothing to get their deal done."

[Photo: The Sweet Smell of Success, David White, Barbara Nichols, 1957]

Continue reading "Surprise! Hollywood Had Ethics, But Did It Lose Them?" »

The Talk forum this week wondered if Hollywood has run out of ideas. Prompted by my post, which reasoned that with all of the sequels forthcoming, and all of the Oscars this year having gone to novel adaptations, Hollywood may very well have tapped its talent dry, Nicholas responded, "Agreed. The motion picture industry is so inwardly focused and so paranoid about reviewing outside materials." He went on to say, "Hollywood needs to take a risk and look to the outside. I viewed two recently released films this weekend with famous actors and disliked both. No Country For Old Men got the nod because the literati love Cormac McCarthy. The film was trite and not believable."

Next week we'll be discussing the outcome of the AFI Dallas Film Festival -- what films are you looking forward to seeing? Log onto the Talk forum to join in these conversations, or to start a Shootout topic of your own!

The cultural gap between parents and kids has grown so wide, the two virtually live in different societies. In the parents' society, says Shootout co-host Peter Bart, "the hottest touring group is the Police. The most surprising movie hit is The Bucket List. The Republican candidate for president is 71 years old... The hottest act at the Super Bowl was Tom Petty, who is in his mid 50s..."

The society of the parents also happens to be the fastest growing population segment; there are 78 million baby boomers (age 44 through 62). And they're the ones with the money. Those over 50 have an estimated spending power of $3.4 trillion.

So if there are more older folk and they're richer, why are movie studios and cultural marketers ignoring them in comparison to their kids?

Continue reading "Why Do Kids Get to Dictate What's at the Theater? " »

This week on Shootout, co-hosts Peter Guber and Peter Bart examined the ever-dwindling ratings for Academy Award broadcasts and asked the big question: Are the Oscars becoming boring, and can they be saved? AMCtv.com readers weighed in on the issue.

"The reason no one cares for the Oscars is because they make the most stupid mistakes in nominating films," said Filmmaker1138, echoing Peter Bart. "The industry is not listening to what people want to see." Not all readers concurred. Cajaygle asked, "Do you want the Oscars to be a top-rated television show, or do you want it to be a meaningful set of awards given to the top talent in the industry?" Pamela-Marie agreed: "This ceremony is about honoring films," she said. "The Oscars, unlike most recent award shows, was not created for the purpose of being on TV and garnering ratings."

Other readers, like gj Frankic, blamed the stars for the Oscars slumping numbers. "When fed a constant diet of celebrity faces in magazines, tabloid TV and Internet access, the excitement of seeing performers loses lustre. The specialness of Oscar Night may return only when spending an evening with favorite performers is something more than same-old, same-old."

But for some, the question is not of blame, but of relevance. "The Oscars have outlived their time," said Windsofmarch. "Much like the Miss America Pageant."

The Oscars are in danger of becoming a non-event. Ratings among viewers in the key 18 to 49-year-old group dropped 25% over 2007. The Academy Awards are being out done in key viewers not only by the Super Bowl but even by American Idol. Overall, Hollywood's self-celebration lost eight million viewers from last year.

The problem is simple. The Oscars are boring.

"This needs more than a nip and a tuck. It needs liposuction," says Shootout co-host Peter Guber. "Without reducing the fat -- the boredom -- it can't succeed."

Guber diagnoses the causes of the show's boredom disease: it's too long at 3.35 hours, it moves too slowly, and it doesn't capture the zeitgeist in terms of what audiences are watching and talking about.

"It could be shorter. It could even be a dinner," suggests Shootout co-host Peter Bart. The Academy Awards started in 1929, at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. "Everybody was a little looped. It was fun and convivial," he says.

Guber feels the awards need to refocus on being entertaining. He suggests streamlining and shortening the awards, getting a new host, devising better categories such as best new star, bringing the audience more into the awards -- perhaps by letting them vote -- including more blockbusters and moving it up earlier in the year so it feels less like a regurgitation of other awards that have already been handed out.

"On the one hand, the Academy Awards are professional awards for achievement," agrees Bart, "but let's face it -- it's become a little stuffy in its professionalism."

The nominees are a factor in the ratings slump too, Bart says. Art films like In the Name of Blood, are getting the nominations rather than popular favorites because the awards are run by the major studios, which produce both art films and blockbusters. The studios calculate that they will get a box office lift out of an award to a lesser-seen art film, while a hugely popular movie like Pirates of the Caribbean 3 has already topped out at the Box Office and there's nothing more to be gained.

Can the Oscars be saved? Comment below.

Photo: Ethan Coen, Scott Rudin, Joel Coen at the after-party for Governor's Ball After-Party - 80th Annual Academy Awards Oscars Ceremon. Photo by: Emilio Flores/Everett Collection

Commenters this week continued to debate whether celeb endorsements impact political elections. (It didn't turn out well for the celebrities.) NANCIE posited, "Part of the reason this country is so messed up is through the pathetic emphasis that is placed on 'celebrities.' They are for the most part, immoral, spoiled, and self-destructive." dave seemed to agree: "Most celebs have nothing more than a high school education. They know nothing of history, political affairs and so on."

The South by Southwest Film Festival is churning out scores of interesting pictures this year. Log on to the Talk forum to tell us which you're most anticipating, join in any of these conversations, or start a new showbiz topic of your own!

The most gripping drama out this year is not a future Oscar contender. It's the race for president -- and it's studded with real stars.

The race features Chuck Norris, supporting Republican candidate Mike Huckabee; and Matt Damon, Tom Hanks and Robert De Niro, behind Democratic candidate Barack Obama -- who we all know already has Oprah in his court. The action team of Harrison Ford, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone have embraced Republican John McCain. (Republican Ron Paul somehow garnered the support of both Howard Stern and Barry Manilow.) According to Backstage, Hillary Clinton's backers include Jack Nicholson, Elizabeth Taylor, Rob Reiner, America Ferrera and Amber Tamlyn.

What does all this glittering movie talent have to contribute to the political realm? Money, for one. "If they are at the fund-raiser, they draw a lot of people, and last election, 2004, $28 million, was raised in Hollywood -- about 70% of it going to Democrats," says Shootout co-host Peter Guber.

Continue reading "Do Movie Star Endorsements Matter in the Presidential Race?" »