PeterDavid.net

Heh, I thought for a moment you said Tony (Danza) would have better ratings.

Maybe you could do another running commentary like last night's SOTU?

I second the motion. Your commentary will probably be better than the actual show.

I like Stewart but he has to be careful not to make it to USA politics-oriented in his jokes. It's not that I would find the jokes offensive, it's just that I'm always amazed how, right after pointing out that the show is watched by a billion people as far away as Swaziland, Upper Volta, and Left Fenwick, the host then tells a joke that reuires an intimate knowledge of the New York City mayorial race or some other topic that will leave about 999,878,000 people scratching their heads.

considering the number of states that went out of their way to introduce the legislative bigotry that is gay marriage,

???

I prefer a smug smart ass jew to a whiny one any day. (Seinfeld) Course thats just this polaks opinion. *insert polish joke here

I almost never watch the Oscars. I do read the newspaper the day after and see who won. Wonder if I can just record the oscars and fast forward to Jons comments? =0

"the number of states that went out of their way to introduce the legislative bigotry that is gay marriage"

Definitely needs to be rephrased.

I think the show will be well-liked but little seen, for most of the reasons that PAD illustrated above. My only exception is to the mention of anti-gay measures in the recent election. The people weren't clamoring to be heard on the issue; the Republicans cynically introduced the measures to get their brain-dead fundamental base to turn out and put up enough votes to make the Diebold fraud more plausible.

Of course, a lot of jokes in venues like these play better at home if they play well with the audience at the event. I think it pretty safe to say that most of the Oscar attendees share Jon's view on a lot of topics, and that his wit is so sharp that he won't need to stoop to simple audience potshots (which always tend to be hit-and-miss).

Can we get t-shirts to pass around at the NY Comic Con next month that say "Another Smartass Smug New York Jew for Jon Stewart?" Or do you think Cafe Press is a better way to go with that?

Considering I haven't seen a single one of the nominees, I probably will be tuning in and out. I would like to see most of them at some point, but frankly the comics budget takes priority. come first. Plus, I'm still a little miffed that Andy Serkis was snubbed out of a supporting role nomination again. I don't care if the character on screen is CGI - like Golem before him, Kong was all Andy.

Of course, that information about how many people watch around the world? Bogus. Utterly. The audience for it is largely American, and it's a shrinking fraction of the country who watches it.

Well, this is one heartland populist who may tune in for the first time EVER to watch the Oscars.

Yep. Never watched them before. (I grew up in an area where we got two channels, and one of them was PBS. Then I went to college and I was too busy. Then I had kids and I was too tired. But this time, they've got Jon Stewart.)

But then again, we may be in "Fly-over country"...but nobody really flies over Minnesota...so maybe we don't count.

BTW, I have six girlfriends from highschool that I still hang out with. We have VERY different tasts in men. Jon Stewart is the only guy we all agree on. Out of all the men on the planet...he's the only one. We all think he's adorable.

:-)

I think it will have the same ratings it always gets. People tune in to see famous people all glammed up, it's really not as involved a decision as Peter makes it sound.
And in terms of the amount of nominated movies involving gay themes, to most regular guys EVERY movie on the Oscars is a gay movie. But it's the Super Bowl for their wives and girlfriends, so they'll be watching like they do every year.
And in terms of the host,I think it's a mistake, but only because he's not a big enough star. When you think about it, almost no one watches the Daily Show. It gets like a 1.5 in the Nielson ratings. Stewart may be a media darling, but comparatively speaking, no one knows who he is...

Man, I wish I was a smart ass smug New Yourk Jew. Instead, I'm a smart ass smug Baltimore Christian. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

Pennsylvania always seems to be split 50/50 between being part of the "smart ass smug New York Jew" crowd (Philly and Pittsburgh) and the flyover (the "T" section), so that often gives me an interesting perspective on things like this.

PAD does have a point, most of the nominees were not wildly popular movies. Some would even qualify as box office bombs, indicating that Hollywood does have a very different idea of what makes a "good" movie then the flyover country does. Part of the problem may be that the movie industry has reached the point of saturation in terms of the number of gay movies, for lack of a better term, that actually have something original to say about the issue.

I probably won't watch the Oscars. I haven't watched them in years. Like the SOTU address, it's a meaningless and shallow event devoid of substance.

As someone who lives in a flyover state, I won't be watching the awards this year. It's not because of anything you mentioned. I just long ago decided that I could decide myself what films were good and bad, and I didn't much care about the awards. However, if someone is happy winning them, and you're happy watching them win, I'm cool with that. I just won't be joining you.

What film won the Best Picture Oscar the year Spinal Tap came out? If you had to choose between watching Spinal Tap or that film, which would you choose?

I won't be watching the Academy Awards -- but I never do. I find that they overlook too many great movies (from CITIZEN KANE to GARDEN STATE) and award too much mediocrity (TITANIC, GLADIATOR). And if I were to watch them, I'd record them and watch 'em the next day, fast-forwarding through all the musical numbers and tributes.

And if you want to do something fun, see BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. It's not only my vote for best movie of the year, but seeing it will piss off the religious right! Win-win, comrades.

What film won the Best Picture Oscar the year Spinal Tap came out? If you had to choose between watching Spinal Tap or that film, which would you choose?

AMADEUS. A great film, though your point is valid.

I don't want to be an ass, but I note that Mr. David points out that "anyone who doesn't have cable may well not know who the hell [John Stewart] is." I've come across the statistic several times that about 95% of the country, including middle-America, has cable.

Of course, all of this in tangential to the actual point of Mr. David's essay. I don't normally watch the Oscars (given that I normally haven't seen most of the movies being honored), and I'm not sure what motivates the average Oscar viewer to tune in. But John Stewart is certainly a draw, and I myself am a smart ass jew (from Philadelphia), so I'm down with the solidarity-thing.

-Andy Holman

I've come across the statistic several times that about 95% of the country, including middle-America, has cable.

Then you need to break it down a little further, because most areas likely have Comedy Central available only to expanded basic cable (where I myself only have standard basic atm), and others might not have it unless they have digital cable.

So...

Man, I wish I was a smart ass smug New Yourk Jew. Instead, I'm a smart ass smug Baltimore Christian. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
I hear ya... Smart ass smug Seattle Buddhist just doesn't have the flash, either (not to mention I should probably work on the smug bit).

Jon L - 1.5 for a cable company is considered excellent ratings, given the number of channels they compete against. Multi-digits are only considered important for major broadcasters...I was reading last week that how much it costs to run an advert during a shows broadcast is a more accuratae indication of popularity/target market appeal, and the Daily Show is one of the tops.

Also, with the repeated award wins and battles with various conservative commentators, I think Jon Stewart is more well known than people think.

-Kelly

John Scalzi - author of the awesome "Old Man's War" - has a similar attitude and writeup over on his blog.

Posted by Scott at February 1, 2006 10:12 AM

What film won the Best Picture Oscar the year Spinal Tap came out? If you had to choose between watching Spinal Tap or that film, which would you choose?

If you mean, as you said, "the year 'Spinal Tap' came out", then the answer is "Terms of Endearment"

If, instead, you meant, "for the same year as 'Spinal Tap' ", then, as stated above, it's "Amadeus"

Of the three, i've seen "Spinal Tap', which is by me pretty much a funny-once, and have not the slightest desire to see "Terms of Endearment".

So i guess the answer is "Amadeus" -- if it didn't cost much.

But the one thing you have to notice about this year's nominees are that so many of them are set in "flyover country" - Brokeback Mountain(Wyoming), Capote(Kansas), Hustle and Flow(Tennessee), North Country(Minnesota), A History of Violence(Indiana) and Junebug(North Carolina).

Shouldn't that appeal to some of the people living in the heartland?

I can vouch for the validity of Peter's Statement.
For the last 15 years I have helped out at a movie poster store in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Every year folks come out to get the posters for the years hot films for a Oscar party. Many of them get them early in December or January due to the fact if they wait the nominated posters are gone. Well this year we sold very few posters for AA nominated films. (Part of the reason the store closed for good last week. But that's another story.) Also in December in a co-op with the local Free Weekly, (a Liberal Rag if there ever was one,) we gave away FREE Transamerica One-Sheets, (Thats what movie posters are called). In 14 days we GAVE away three posters! What's interesting NOT even our Gay and Lesbian customers were interested. The D/FW area is considered by some the buckle of the bible belt. However when even the community the films address pass on free posters there is something up.

Bobb

I agree 100%. I said pretty much the exact same thing on my blog, "The Mack Attack" last week.

Is Hollywood really putting out films that appeal to the general public any more or has it become intoxicated by a self-imagined importance in the political arena?

Has George Clooney, with his thinly-veiled political rants on celluloid led the entire industry astray? Are the Academy Awards simply now a forum for inappropriate politicizing a la Michael Moore?

That said, the best film I saw in 2005 was Cinderella Man starring Russell Crowe, which despite a gay-sounding name, was anything but.

I agree with Peter that there will be less people watching this years Oscar show... I just don't think it will be THAT many less. They've got a long way to slide before they even begin to reach Tony ratings numbers... and I just don't think that's going to happen.

Remember, as was famously recounted in Howard Stern's book and film about his life (memoir, autobiography, "Frey" reenactment?) the people who hated/disliked Stern in his early days listened to his show longer than those who liked him.

So you can definitely count in Rev. Donald Wildmon and his "crew" to be watching for every favorable gay syllable uttered. With "controversy" being manufactured like that, it stands to reason that millions will watch because they'll want to know firsthand what all the hubbub was about the following morning.

The Oscars were always a popularity contest. What they are NOT anymore is classy. Classy exited stage left with Johnny Carson's departure and Rob Lowe's singing lovingly to Snow White... And it hasn't ever really come back.

Of course, ABC will welcome all our eyes to the show and chuckle all the way to bank. Between the $uper Bowl and the Oscar$, the network is definitely starting off 2006 in fine financial shape.

Since, according to RottenTomatoes.com, the current biggest box office hit is Big Momma's House 2, I think it goes without saying that popularity is not an indication of quality.

"Is Hollywood really putting out films that appeal to the general public any more or has it become intoxicated by a self-imagined importance in the political arena? Has George Clooney, with his thinly-veiled political rants on celluloid led the entire industry astray? Are the Academy Awards simply now a forum for inappropriate politicizing a la Michael Moore?"

And...what about Naomi?

(Kinda dated myself with that one...)

PAD

PAD wrote:
"And...what about Naomi?

(Kinda dated myself with that one...)"

Hey, I got it immediately. But then, I'm in my forties.

I am a smartass, smug Minnesotan who not only will not be watching the awards, but also, for some reason, really takes offense to being labeled a 'fly-by.'

"Of course, ABC will welcome all our eyes to the show and chuckle all the way to bank. Between the $uper Bowl and the Oscar$, the network is definitely starting off 2006 in fine financial shape."
And this is a bad thing, how? And given that this is probably the last Super Bowl ABC has for a while, give them a break.

I'll add my vote for a running commentary; it would be nice to read one with a bit of wit and intelligence. I used to scan Harry Knowles' Oscar commentary on Ain't it Cool News, but it was so rife with bad grammar and spelling, lots of stuff in caps to SHOW EXCITEMENT and phrases like '(Person X) fucking rules!!' that it was like reading a blog written by a meth-addicted 12 year-old. So as a dumb New Jersey Catholic, I'd welcome some enjoyable commentary by a smart-ass New York Jew (your choice of words, not mine).

And just in case anyone is interested, here are my own Oscar predictions:
1. Munich gets shut out completely.
2. More un-funny gay jokes than you can possibly imagine. (with Jon Stewart referencing Brokeback Mountain and Dick Cheney within the first minutes of his opening monologue)
3. Some mind-numbingly awful musical numbers (okay, so that one is a given).
4. George Clooney wins best supporting actor, so that Hollywood can show how liberal everybody out there is.
5. Felicity Huffman wins best actress, just in case Hollywood didn't show how liberal everybody was with the Clooney win.
6. The Curse of the Were-Rabbit wins best animated feature, because everybody loves Wallace & Gromit.
7. March of the Penguins wins best documentary, because everybody loves penguins.

And finally,much as I love Jon Stewart, I suspect a lot of the jokes will fall flat, simply because his edgy style won't mesh well with Oscar writer Bruce the Giant Smurf's tired and dated material. Sort of like matter and anti-matter. Or Uma and Oprah.

I think PAD's view on the type of movies nominated are a good reflection of the year overall. Last year saw tons of movies be huge hits with critics and flops with viewers. Cinderella Man, Weatherman, and others did poorly at the box office and the critics couldn't figure out why.

I think part of it is that movies are being made for the movie industry instead of the public a lot these days. Fancy camera work and innovative storytelling are getting emphasised more than the public wants. Movie makers and critics love that stuff because they've all seen so many movies that they're tired of seeing the same things again and again. However, the general public doesn't see a hundred movies a year like a critic does, so they not sick of the same things that critics are.

And...what about Naomi?

Next week, on "Love ... of Chair"!

I'm quite a bit younger than you, PAD (mid-30s), but believe me, I got it.

TWL

Man, I wish I was a smart ass smug New Yourk Jew. Instead, I'm a smart ass smug Baltimore Christian. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

Yeah. Rolls off the tongue easier than "smart ass smug Tennessee agnostic" as well. But my description sounds kind of like a band name. :p

First off, I wouldn't mind terribly if Philip Seymour Hoffman won an Oscar. Didn't see Capote, and I personally can't STAND Philip Seymour Hoffman's acting, but if he wins good for him. Kinda feel the same way about the rest of the Oscars, too. I don't CARE who wins. I usually have no desire to see an Oscar-winning movie or actor or whatever, I just want to see a GOOD movie or actor or whatever. And generally what I think is good and what the Academy thinks is good are several light years apart.

Of course, if my movie gets made and they'd LIKE to consider it, I'll recant this faster than a fast recanting thing....

"Smart-ass smug Indianapolis spiritual-but-not-religious Christian" is just a disaster to try and get out...

-Rex Hondo-

Jason Bryant wrote:
"I think part of it is that movies are being made for the movie industry instead of the public a lot these days. Fancy camera work and innovative storytelling are getting emphasised more than the public wants."

Seems like quite a few of the college students and twentysomethings I know really go for those kinds of things. Surely that's a significant part of the public, in terms of ticket sales if nothing else.

Also, don't forget, the critics don't get to pick the Oscars, or the nominees, and are often unhappy with the results.

G. Mackster wrote:
"Is Hollywood really putting out films that appeal to the general public any more or has it become intoxicated by a self-imagined importance in the political arena?"

So if I understand you, you're saying that films like "The Dukes of Hazzard," "The Longest Yard," "The Wedding Crashers," "Doom," "The Fog," "Red Eye," "Flight Plan," "Hitch," "The Pacifier," "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," "The Amityville Horror," "Sky High," "White Noise," "Kicking and Screaming," "Saw 2," "Cheaper by the Dozen 2," "Are We There Yet?" "Must Love Dogs," and "Herbie: Fully Loaded" are the product of a film industry that has stopped catering to popular taste and is instead "intoxicated by a self-imagined importance in the political arena."

That's kind of silly, isn't it?

I'm not saying that all of those are good films, or that Hollywood doesn't skew liberal at times, but the majority of Hollywood films are not exactly political tracts.

"Man, I wish I was a smart ass smug New Yourk Jew. Instead, I'm a smart ass smug Baltimore Christian."

Well, it gives you something in common with Guy Gardner...

Oh, and Bill, your response had too many notes in it.

I may be missing something, why is this thread titled, "The Truman Show"? I don't see the relevance.

Yeah, but that "Revenge of the Sith" was obviously a left diatribe aimed squarely at the current administration...

The Truman Show.

Truman...Capote.

PAD

Oh, and Bill, your response had too many notes in it.

Took me a good 5 minutes to get it. I'm getting old.

Thinking about why movies like 'Capote' and 'Brokeback Mopuntain' aren't popular in 'flyovers states', I think you are missing a far more obvious reason for that lack of popularity than religious bigotry. It's: how many of those movies actually made it to an actual screen in the states in question? I live down here by Columbus, Indiana, and I can tell you the number of theatres that would show movies like that in this area are one, tops, if that. The former Keystone Cinema down here used to show smaller movies like that on a regular basis, but only for one week engagements (two if the film was lucky, but never three that I noticed). I can tell you that the main theatres down here would much rather use several screens to show one popular movie than spare one screen for a 'minor' film like 'Capote', or any other small film you can name, and 'moral values' be danged, money is the main motivating factor there. In fact, it is only recently that Indianapolis got a independent film theatre up and going again; even up there you can hardly find the small films critics like in the main movie theatre chains.

Enough rant/comment. I'm tired, and I'll be suprised if the preceding made any real sense whatever.

Chris

It made a lot of sense, Chris, but you're almost making the opposite of your point in a sideways way. And no, I'm not talking sideways the movie, either. Go with me on this one. Theatre owners know what kind of movie will get people into seats in an area, (well, they THINK they do) so that's what movies they get, so if they think that a movie won't sell in an area they don't waste their time or money to get it in there. So, if they don't think that people will pay for it or worse, it'll cause a SCANDAL (head for the hills, Public Opinion's coming with torches and pitchforks!) they don't go near it with a 10-meter cattle prod.

It always amuses me when people attack Hollywood films for being too liberal. The majority of films are bedrock-conservative paeans to the status quo; the few that have liberal points of view are so shocking to those who need to be shocked that all films are condemned by association. (My own father in law claims that liberals took over Hollywood forty years ago, and that not a single good film has been made since -- an extreme view easy to support if you then see no films for forty years.)

And Clooney's films of this year, "thinly disguised liberal rants?" Jeez. One, SYRIANA, has the deeply liberal message that the world is complicated, that corruption bites both ways, and that decisions made in one place can affect another. Whoa, that's downright pinko. And the other, GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, is a historical drama arguing for courage in news reporting. Seriously: they're both good films, but they're both moderate films. They're intolerable to certain people because they're also not cheerleader films.

But, Adam-Troy, only pinko commie homo liberal traitor scum who want America to fail believe that the world is complicated. True patriots know that everything is simple: Democracy is the on march and elections = a free and stable society because everyone wants to be like 'Muricans and vote for freedom and capitalism.

Well, 'cept those wacky Palestinians.

And the Shi'ites in Iraq.

And the Russians.

And the Bolivians.

And the Venezuelans.

I thought, briefly, that this was going to be one of those "That's what I was thinking!" kind of posts. Unfortunately it isn't. You started strong talking about the flyby states, but you flew right past them.

The problem with the flyby is that they are misinformed, basically. As someone from a flyby state, I assure you if you look at the level of celebrity participation in their cultures, you will see exactly what is going on. Why are comic books feared in my home state? Well, when was the last time a big name comic book icon went to a convention there (that would be Mississippi). That example is accurate for pretty much every form of media.

Since the general populous there has less chance to be informed, that leads to being ignorant. What happens when you are ignorant of something? You fear it. What happens when you fear something? You try to ban/outlaw/protect society from it.

Of course, counter that with the only big name celebrity to visit Mississippi in 2005, the president. He came and talked to people and acted like he cared. A lot of people will believe him just because he showed up.

Whenever someone steps in the fill in the cultural void in the flyby states, there will then begin meaningful change in the country.

That example is accurate for pretty much every form of media.

I'm sorry, but it's just not that simple.

For example, has DragonCon convinced everybody in Georgia that D&D isn't Satannic? I doubt it.

nope, they have a con where people go and learn about things they dont know about. in mississippi, there are a lot of people who still equate d&d with devil worship. why? no informational outlets.

He came and talked to people and acted like he cared. A lot of people will believe him just because he showed up.

He visited New Orleans as well, and strangely, most people there don't seem to believe he cared.

I don't think it's as simple as the flyover not seeing enough celebrities to feel comfortable about Hollywood. With the tabloid TV shows and the internet, the average person in Mississippi probably knows as much about the state of Brittney Spears' marriage as the people in Beverly Hills do. I think it's more that celebrities tend to live in urban areas and urban areas tend to skew liberal. The majority of people in the "flyover" live in rural communities, which tend to skew conservative.

i mean't nope, but there are likely fewer...yadda yadda

"The majority of people in the "flyover" live in rural communities, which tend to skew conservative."

liberals had mississippi until reagan. my grandfather never voted for a republican in his life. there was no republican governor in the state after the civil war until the 90s with kirk fordice.

a lot of that is post war animosity, though.

but still you back my point up: the more isolated you are, the more conservative you will be.

and new orleans is a whole different ball game than mississippi. for one, they just had a flood. if you visit coastal mississippi, you will see a lot of places where there were cities, towns and communities where there is nothing now.

there are a lot of people in mississippi who resent all the attention new orleans has gotten in spite of essentially just having gotten spit upon on katrina's way to rape mississippi's coast.

I'm sorry, but it's just not that simple.

For example, has DragonCon convinced everybody in Georgia that D&D isn't Satannic? I doubt it.

But does everyone in New York understand that it's not Satanic? Again, doubt it. Remember the movie Mazes and Monsters, that painted this really bad picture of D & D? Starring Tom Hanks, from California, and set in Michigan, where a real investigation into the "criminal" and "occult" aspects of the game was conducted. Point being, I think people everywhere have misconceptions about D&D, and likewise, D&D is extraordinarily popular all over the country as well.

The same can be said not just for D&D, but for any of the discussed movies or other popular tastes that it would appear the non-"fly-over" states believe are exclusive to them. I'm always kind of amused when people from said states believe they have something of a handle on the cultural environment of "fly-over" states. But how could they when they indeed just fly over them? I live in northeast Tennessee right now, and yes, it's true, a significant portion of the population votes Republican and probably doesn't have any interest in a movie like "Brokeback Mountain.". But an equally significant portion of the population does just the opposite, and Brokeback Mountain has been quite a popular movie at my local theaters. So I'm always kind of baffled when people from elsewhere in the nation purport to understand states that they don't live in, because half the time, their assumptions are just incorrect, at least as it pertains to my own experience in this "fly-over" state. But I don't know, maybe some place like Ohio or Utah does hold true to these perceptions. Haven't been there, can't say.

"With the tabloid TV shows and the internet"

likely not as those shows don't get much viewership. entertainment tonight didnt start airing in the state until the turn of the millenium. only 47% of the state has internet access, the lowest rate in the nation. i imagine only a tiny fraction of that is high speed internet.

where do you find out about things? the local news and church.

liberals had mississippi until reagan. my grandfather never voted for a republican in his life. there was no republican governor in the state after the civil war until the 90s with kirk fordice.

The fallacy in your point is equating liberal with Democrat and conservative with Republican. That is the current state of affairs, but not always. In the 19th century, the Republicans were the liberal party and the Democrats were the conservatives. And yes, the Democrats dominated the South after and civil and continue to do so until the Civil Rights Act in the 60s and Nixon's southern strategy triggered a watershed that reversed that trend, making most of the south solidly red.

But just because those states were electing Democrats from 1865-1990 doesn't mean they were electing liberals. In fact, the "Dixiecrats" (southern Democrats) were well known as being some of the most conservative politicians in the country, rallying around the traditional conservative issue of states rights (to be racists) and a limited federal government. But, as the national Democratic party under likes of FDR, JFK, and Johnson starting skewing more towards a stronger federal government, particularly in the role of civil rights, many Dixiecrats switched parties. Indeed, many of the most strongly conservative republicans of the past 50 years such as Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, and Strom Thurmond, began their careers as Democrats or working for Democrats.

likely not as those shows don't get much viewership. entertainment tonight didnt start airing in the state until the turn of the millenium. only 47% of the state has internet access, the lowest rate in the nation. i imagine only a tiny fraction of that is high speed internet.

Well, there are the tabloid papers like the National Enquirer, but I suspect the next thing you'll quote is that Mississippi is at the bottom of the country in adult literacy, too. :)

Whether they have high speed or dial up, those that do use the internet can still view the entertainment news websites if they can read them.

And ET is hardly the only program that airs celebrity news and gossip. All of the broadcast networks are something that covers the topic. And if they have cable, I'm sure they watch Fox News, which also does celebrity reporting. The point is, people who want to know about that stuff can find it pretty easily if they want.

Point being, I think people everywhere have misconceptions about D&D, and likewise, D&D is extraordinarily popular all over the country as well.

I think those misconceptions were far more common in the 80s and early 90s, when Chick publications were at their height and the Tom Hanks movie was aired on TV. I haven't seen to many instances of people claiming that D&D is a tool of the devil in recent years. Most people seem to regard it as just another aspect of geek culture.

You make a good point about misconceptions about other states. I imagine that many people in Tennessee have just as many misconceptions about what life in NY or California is like as well. The biggest problem that the Democrats have is that on a national level, they've all but retreated from the "flyover" (I'm really getting to hate that term), so to them, it's starting to look like a foreign country.

As I mentioned before, Pennsylvania, or, as James Carville called us, "Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Alabama in between", is about 50-50 split between urban and rural. There are parts in Pennsylvania that look exactly like some of the towns in the South that I've visited and the attitudes are more or less the same.

"AMADEUS. A great film, though your point is valid."

Not really. I'd much rather watch Amadeus than Spinal Tap. I'm not sure what his point even is, actually.

But does everyone in New York understand that it's not Satanic?

Which pretty much agrees with my point that throwing some celebrity out there in association with X, Y, or Z doesn't mean anybody gives a rat's ass, or they're going to be more enlightened about X, Y, or Z afterward, regardless of where they live.

While Brian seemed to be saying that, some how, having PAD go to a con in Mississippi is suddenly going to change how people there view comic books.

It isn't.

Well, it depends. Amadeus is a great movie, no question about it, and it's been far too long since I've seen it. But there are probably more times that I've needed to sit back and relax with a dose of fictional stupidity, as opposed to the real thing.

(And now I feel bad because I just got back from taking some of my students over to an adult day care center so they could make candles with some of the elderly residents. The kids were great, so sweet it could almost break your heart. It's always easy to focus on the screwups and slackers but by and large these are good kids and given the opportunity they can really come through. So always take my occasional bitching with a grain of salt.)

"Posted by Jeff In NC at February 1, 2006 06:12 PM
"Of course, ABC will welcome all our eyes to the show and chuckle all the way to bank. Between the $uper Bowl and the Oscar$, the network is definitely starting off 2006 in fine financial shape."

And this is a bad thing, how? And given that this is probably the last Super Bowl ABC has for a while, give them a break."

Jeff in NC... as the author of the top quote above I don't remember saying ANYTHING negative about ABC at all. In fact, I don't remember even IMPLYING anything negative about ABC.

Go back and reread my post. I was carping about Rev. Wildmon and just stating the obvious.

If a man-made controversy does end up surrounding these Oscars-- it will most certainly be a boon to ABC by increasing viewership. This doesn't mean that they started or fostered any of the controversy in any way... But they'll "love" it if it increases their ratings.

And I don't need to give ABC "a break". I watch COMMANDER IN CHIEF, BOSTON LEGAL, LOST, INVASION, DANCING WITH THE STARS (sue me, a friend is on it), CRUMBS, DANCING WITH THE STARS RESULTS SHOW, INJUSTICE, DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES and GREY'S ANATOMY.

If I gave them any more of "a break", I'd need a third DVR and only 2 hours of sleep instead of my normal 3 or 4!

Two things about us flyover states/rural areas and the Oscars...

1. It's hard to make room for, say, Capote when you still have five screens of the multiplex devoted to multiple showings of the same movie. (And that is so they can make more money, in theory, and do better for Monday. Horse race culture.)

2. The Oscars were invented as a gimmick for advertising. Sure, sometimes a nomination or a win goes out to a movie/performance/script/etc that really just deserves it, and sometimes the nom/win goes out to a movie that needs no help with the box office. But mostly, those noms get people curious. Because most folks, really, want to see why something is considered "the best" (or a candidate for same.)

Brokeback Mountain is playing in rural theaters as we speak in part because of that. (;

"While Brian seemed to be saying that, some how, having PAD go to a con in Mississippi is suddenly going to change how people there view comic books."

As a photojournalist, I have lived and traveled all over the country and I think about the people I meet and their situations. I work in Philadelphia now. I have been around. Hopefully you are not as dense as your comment there makes you seem.

Mississippi is basically a state that has had it's morality taught to it from the Old Testament. Without other people going, talking and educating, there is no balance to the information presented.

You had the largest natural disaster in the last hundred years happen and the only person who cared enough to come see was the President. That buys him quite a bit of loyalty. Remember, that has been shunned by most all celebrities since the 60s. (My dad hates Bonanza. Why? When he was a kid, the cast was going to come visit, but cancelled because the colleseum wasn't integrated. Did my dad hate black people? No. Did it teach him how important civil rights are? No. It just taught him that his heroes hated him because of where he was from. You can hope that wasn't the lesson they were trying to send to the youth of the state.)

So how do you fix it? Have people of stature who are well-spoken give them new heroes and people to look up to. There isn't a thing wrong in the world with looking up to all your favorite Old Testament heroes, but sometimes it helps if you know about people who thought twice before using the jawbone of an ass to wipe the floor with your enemies.

Anyway, it's late. I am tired and rambling. I am sure most everyone is content to leave the poor states to fend for themselves.

Add me to the list of mid-westerners tired of the whole "fly-by" designation. I don't have to go far to see the nominated films, even most of the documentaries. Brokeback Mountain is playing in my town of 25,000 and I saw both The Matador and Syriana last weekend.
Wasn't easy to find Howl's Moving Castle last year, but that's more Disney's fault than anything to do with where I live.
Don't hate us just because our cost of living is so much lower than yours. (but catching up)

You had the largest natural disaster in the last hundred years happen and the only person who cared enough to come see was the President.

I guess you didn't see Sean Penn riding around in his rowboat helping people.

Seriously, are you saying that celebrities have to make a meaningless photo op in your hometown for you to like them? Seriously, when a celebrity shows up at the site of a natural disaster, its more about them getting some publicity then the people who are actually in need. Bush showed up (eventually) because it's his freakin' job as president to visit the site of natural disasters. He didn't do it out of charity, he did it because for five days after the hurricane hit, he got slammed in the media for appearing disengaged and clueless about what was going on there.

And tell your dad to get over the Bonanza thing. If I were Michael Landon and had to keep my religion in the closet in the 60s because producers were afraid people in Mississippi wouldn't even watch the show if they found out I was Jewish, I tell the state to go f--k itself too.

Hey, can someone tell me what "What about Naomi?" is a reference too?

I remember that Paris said this at the end of Incredible Hulk #405. I didn't get it then and I don't get it now! To what does this allude???

Thanks to whomever can help me!

Just had to respond to Den's post above, about the attitudes about D&D and their timeliness. Trust me, the satanic title is far from over for D&D or Warhammer or some of the other RPGs out there. Hey, I once had someone tell me the Star Trek RPG was satanic and vile. My response to this last was "Oh, you've played with George too?" A game master whom the only thing we could come up with that was nice to say about him was that he had nice shoulders. As was said above, if someone doesn't understand something it's labeled as vile and evil and "not the thing we want for OUR children. Now let's go lynch someone!"

Jason, "What About Naomi?" was the tagline announcement for a fictional soap opera called "Love of Chair". The whole thing was a running gag on PBS's "The Electric Company", airing in the early and mid 1970s.

(Now, I know why I saw it so much -- I was born in 1970 and thus grew up with the show. I don't know why PAD knows it so well, though!)

TWL

Damn, did it again, got in the middle of a post and lost my point. The big reason you don't hear about all the satanic RPGs out there is because now it's the video games, horror horror, that are ruining our children! Although, a lot of parents do that JUST fine on their own...

But that's the point, parent groups and the wingnuts have found other targets to go after. In the 80s, it was RPGs and playing heavy metal records backwards. Now, it's video games and Spongebob.

THey should leave Spongebob alone. Now, if they went after Dora the Explorer and The X's, THERE they'd have my support. Brian(my young clone) will have Dora on for HOURS at the end of which, just by hearing it, I want to drive my car through a 7-11 just to stop the voices...my god, the bilingual voices....

As a Midwesterner, I have a term for the coasts. "Nice to Visit." It's fun to vacation on the coasts. I go to one of them at least once a year. But the Midwest (South Dakota specifically) is where I want to live and raise a family.

I personally take exception to you refering to Jon Stewart as a "smart ass smug New York Jew!"

The man was originally from Lawrenceville, NJ, which would make him a "smart ass smug NEW JERSEY Jew!"

First you New Yorkers take Frank Sinatra away from us, then Joe Pesci, and now Jon Stewart?

Just because the New York Giants play in the Meadowlands Stadium doesn't entitle you to steal OUR national monuments! Talk about nerve! ;)

But seriously, I couldn't agree with you more about this possibly being the most controversial Oscar ceremony since Chris Rock chewed out that Big Name Chippee (what's her name?) for making out with her husband-of-the-month in the balcony while he was doing a monolog ON NATIONAL TELEVISION!

"I guess you didn't see Sean Penn riding around in his rowboat helping people."

that was new orleans. there is a difference between mississippi and new orleans.

while i have run into racists in the south and elsewhere, i have never run into an anti-semite anywhere, so that was just morons in hollywood thinking there was a problem when there wasn't.

if there was a problem with anti semitism in the south during that time, how would they have seen any movies since most of the studios were founded and run by jewish immigrants?

"Bush showed up (eventually) because it's his freakin' job as president to visit the site of natural disasters. He didn't do it out of charity"

sorry, missed that part before: it's all about perception. for the most part, perception = reality for people. if your house explodes, will you think more of the person who comes, looks and promises to help or the people who don't? and if just one person with any power to do anything to help comes, will you be grateful or just be suspiscious and paranoid?

another addendum: and if just one person with any power to do anything to help comes, will you be grateful or just be suspiscious and paranoid? particularly if your local pastor tells you that person is heaven sent to help you and protect you from eeville lurkin in thuh shadders (lurking in the shadows)?

and what does that do to your ability to think objectively about that person since the consensus is the guy is a hero for other things and now he is trying to rescue you?

we are talking about a state where the fartherest most people have travelled from home is florida.

Hey, I'll freely admit to loving the lib vs con arguments more then the average "next guy" out there. However, has anyone thought that maybe the show will do poorly more due to the lack of big movies to get behind then due to the politics of it all?

There aren't many films in the mix this year that were really major $$$$/popular support winners at the box office and very few films that people want to see as their root for under dog winner. It's kinda like going to someone else's stadium and rooting for somebody else's team. A lot of people like to get behind something because it was their pick and its winning shows that they had better taste or smarts then the people rooting for the other team.

Think about all those categories in the awards shows that most people don't care about unless it just happens to be their thing. Well, that's how most people are probably seeing this year's show's major categories. Most the movies didn't play in lots of areas and then they had to deal with whether or not they could overcome the "culture war" aspects being stirred up by so many out there in the media. Many people out there don't care who the hell wins because they don't have a horse in the race.

I'm not much different. I only watched last year's show because I wanted to see Peter Jackson and LOTR finally get all that was due them. I don't care about this years show because I didn't get to see the movies I would likely root for (like Good Night and good Luck) and I don't care about the rest. It's got nothing at all to do with politics and I can't be the only one who feels like this.

That should have read...

"...has anyone other then our host thought that maybe the show will do poorly..."

Several thoughts:

First of all - Munich should CRUSH every other movie in the best pic category because it deserves it. It works as pop entertainment as a thriller, but it also offered a very unique perspective on terrorism, vengence, and human bloodshed. Great stuff, one of Spielberg's best in this century. Munich is not a movie about a conflict of political or religious ideologies — it’s got bigger things on its mind, larger ideas, like how people deal with violence and vengeance, how becoming a killer simultaneously causes them to dehumanize themselves, how a “regular” person deals with pointing a gun at someone intending to kill them. If you haven't seen it, leave the computer and go, right now.

Second of all - Man, I can't wait to see Jon Stewart host this. I loved Chris Rock last year (yeah, even though 90% of audiences' didn't) but Stewart is the freakin' man! Considering how 'effed up Oscar night can be (Jack Palance doing one-armed push-ups anyone?) you know he'll have an awesome spur-of-the-moment quip to tear the whole thing down.

Third of all - just for kicks and giggles here's my top ten list of 2005. (Munich and The Matador, two movies that were wide-released in 2006 that I adored, are not on there cause I hadn't seen them by that point. However, both are at the top of my 2006 list right now. Anyways)

10. The Devil's Rejects
9. Kung Fu Hustle
8. Lord of War
7. Crash
6. Millions
5. War of the Worlds
4. Jarhead
3. Murderball
2. Sin City
1. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

If anyone cares, I'll post the longer-winded top ten list. But, yeah, doubt it. (ROTS rocks, don't deny it.)

Well, reading your list reminds me ... I see so few movies.

I am interested in seeing Munich, I think. And it's nice to see Revenge of the Sith recognized - that was a pretty awesome movie - it really delivered on some surprises, drama, and heart - and yes, it was one of the best I saw last year. (I'll vote for you posting your reasons for your Top Ten, btw.)

I notice another of my best missing from your list, though - see Serenity. (You don't have to have seen Firefly first - my wife didn't. She said she had no interest in the show; but volunteered to go see the movie with me. And, she became a huge fan of both. At this point the question isn't "Has Serenity been played today?" but "How many times has it been played today?" :) )