How do Miramax and Dreamworks buy Oscars? (1 Viewer)

[Ryan Peter]

Every year we hear this, and I don't even doubt it. I just am wondering how it works? What's the process?

 

[Bergan Peters]

I'm sure that they make payoffs to the judges.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I'm sure that they make payoffs to the judges.

I assume this is a joke, since the Oscars don't have "judges".

Publicity costs money. Promoting a film for the Oscars isn't fundamentally different from promoting it for general release. It's just a narrower focus with a smaller target audience.

M.

 

[Ryan Peter]

Michael, so are they getting people to vote for a film they haven't seen? Or are they getting people to go to their film? I don't see how advertising a film in Variety would make it get an Oscar nod.

 

[Terrell]

I wouldn't lump Dreamworks in with Miramax. If anything, they got robbed when they didn't win for Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. Miramax is the worst.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Think of it like an political election.

Studios check the "markets", look for moods and sentiments, and advertise to work on data they have at the time.

Miramax is the worst. DW is still smarting from 1998, but at least they consistently put out good, if not great, movies. They are all bad about it...Miramax is the worst.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Richard Kim]

I wouldn't lump Dreamworks in with Miramax. If anything, they got robbed when they didn't win for Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. Miramax is the worst.

But then Dreamworks wins Best Picture 2 years in a row, including last year's sub-par Gladiator. However I do agree that Miramax is pretty blatant in advertising its movies to the Academy

 

[Patrick McCart]

The Oscars are a joke, IMO.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Part of it involves the general culture of Hollywood. People in a position to judge movies suddenly find themselves with a lot of new friends. They get invited to grand movie openings. They get wined, dined, and laid. They lose objectivity when rating a film.

One would think that a critic or "judge" or whatever could become immune to this stuff since it happens so much. But these people are just as much Hollywood as the actors or agents, so it will always work.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I don't see how advertising a film in Variety would make it get an Oscar nod.

As others have pointed out, publicity includes a lot more than just taking out ads in Variety. It could involve special screenings, parties, receptions, one-on-one interviews with stars and filmmakers and probably a lot of other activities only a professional publicist could dream up.

As for voters casting a ballot for films they haven't seen, I'm sure that happens all the time, but not as a result of PR campaigns. Just as there are citizens who always support their party no matter who's running, I'm sure there are Academy members who always support their friends (or their favorite studio) no matter what the film.

M.

 

[Anthony_D]

dont forget...miramax is owned by di$ney...they have enough money to buy anything

 

[Marc Colella]

I wouldn't lump Dreamworks in with Miramax. If anything, they got robbed when they didn't win for Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. Miramax is the worst.

I'd lump Dreamworks in there as well.
SPR didn't even deserve to be nominated. Shakespeare in Love was a much better film and deserved their nomination, but The Thin Red Line should have been the Best Picture.
Don't even get me started on Gladiator. Dreamworks bought their way into the Oscars with this cheesey film. Best Picture and Actor? Yeah, right.
It's true Miramax bought they're way in with nominations for Cider House Rules and Chocolat, but at least they were decent films.
Dreamworks should get a collective slap in the head for not promoting Almost Famous enough. They actually owned one of the best films of 2000, and used their efforts in promoting the pile of cow dung called Gladiator.

 

[Jim_C]

>>SPR didn't even deserve to be nominated. Shakespeare in Love was a much better film and deserved their nomination

 

[Terrell]

You say Gladiator sucked, I say it rocked. With incredible cinematography, fantastic performances from the entire crew, some of the best battle scenes ever, emotion, great art direction, and intensity. I'm glad Gladiator won. It was my favorite film of the year last year. So I don't think they bought their way in with that one.

Well, I know most here hated it, but I thought it was fantastic.

 

[Seth Paxton]

How do Miramax and Dreamworks buy Oscars?

Well, there's this guy down on Crenshaw, he drives a blue van and on Tuesdays and Wednesdays you can catch him, if your lucky. He makes things happen, if you know what I mean. Just make sure the money is good.

 

[Seth Paxton]

But these people are just as much Hollywood as the actors or agents

Actually they ARE actors (and maybe agents). The Academy is made up of filmmakers themselves, from all aspects of the process. It's not a group of 10 judges or something.

The election comparison is the best one to use.

Everywhere you go there are ads, actors doing appearances, gift boxes arriving at houses, invites to parties going around. I don't think it's as much a direct pay-off as some would think, but more a soft pay-off. You buy people's affection by playing to them, then they sympathise more with you than others later.

Like if I went to the national HTF meet and was paying for drinks, dinner, etc every night, it would be hard for those people not to feel some greater affection for me. Heck, I wouldn't have to even be insincere about it, just really nice.

Of course the fact that Miramax and Dreamworks spend some of the most money being "really nice" to a certain group of people can be read in less innocent terms.

 

[Elbert Lee]

I believe that Mirimax does promote its films to the academy more so than some of the other studios. I believe that SPR deserved the Best Picture oscar over Shakespeare in Love, but I can't help but believe that Speilberg's earlier effort with Schindler's List probably hurt his chances with SPR.

The Academy has a habit of going with the more CINEMATIC films such as GLADIATOR (Production value and mass appeal). I don't disagree that these are very valid elements to a good motion picture and should be weighed EQUALLY with the merits of the smaller, more risque films like The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, Chocolat, Traffic, etc. Some of these films build their merits on ingenious directing, excellent writing, and risky subject matter and have all of the elements of truly great film making, but CINEMATIC, LARGER-than-LIFE movies like TITANIC and GLADIATOR always have a upsides with the academy because they take full advantage of the medium to bring together a truly cinematic and involving experience to a mass audience.

THe past 10 years was the learning curve for CGI and hollywood has had a poor turnout of quality Oscar-contending films. This gave independents a chance to give audiences a welcome reprieve from all of these CGI showcase films. Now that we've grown past all of that, I anticipate a return to the mainstream and subtlety in special effects will be the norm.

In the meantime, all of the studios will continue to promote their contenders, send promotional materials to the press and artificially enhance their films' chances to getting a nomination.

Elbert

 

[Randall Dorr]

Am I the only one who's noticed Miramax's best pic nominees get more formulaic and unoriginal every year?

'92 The Crying Game

'93 The Piano

'94 Pulp Fiction

'95 Il Postino

'96 The English Patient

'97 Good Will Hunting

'98 Shakespeare in Love

'99 The Cider House Rules

'00 Chocolat

'01 possibly The Shipping News

And Elbert, no offense, but if you think English Patient, Shakespeare and Chocolat are in any way, shape or form risque films, you must not see very many movies.

(also Miramax had nothing to do with Traffic)

 

[Elbert Lee]

no offense taken, however a simple "I disagree with your take on "risque" films would have sufficed, though.

That's beside the overall point I was trying to make.

I do watch many films but admit that I'm more mainstream and less into independents unless the subject matter appeals to me. Let me redefine "risque" as I used it improperly in my earlier post. I meant it films that are less mainstream and may not appeal to mass audiences.

Shakespeare in Love caught my attention and I enjoyed the film through and through. Based on its merits, I thought that it deserved a nomination, but I thought that SPR was more deserving.

On the other hand, I did not enjoy the English Patient even though I thought it was beautifully shot and performed. Many people that I watched it with did not have a good time watching it, but, nonetheless, it moved most of them.

I agree that Mirimax has been less imaginative with the marketing of their "front runner" film in the past few years with Chocolat and Cider House Rules, and now with The Shipping News. Different films but same marketing schtick and same repetitious trailers with a thousand unknown critics' quotes of "Oscar" certainty. Mirimax's earlier films got the Oscar buzz based on the strength of the film and not on the promotions.

Elbert

 

[Michael Reuben]

Let me redefine "risque" as I used it improperly in my earlier post. I meant it films that are less mainstream and may not appeal to mass audiences.

It sounds like you mean "risky". "Risque" usually refers to entertainment that is indecent or improper, usually in a sexual manner. (An older American slang equivalent would be "blue".)

M.