By Aaron 3/4/2008

Tomorrow is March 3rd, when people in Texas and Ohio will vote in a contentious Democrat party primary that will either punch Obama’s ticket to the big show or keep Hillary alive. Even a close victory in both states might not be enough for Hillary, who will have to wait awhile for another important primary, and may be urged to withdraw. Why is all of this political speculation showing up on your favorite entertainment blog?

Back in January Bob wrote on interesting article about the top 10 campaign advertisements of all time.
While the article made light of the Willie Horton affair, it had an important thesis: that big ads can change elections. Combine that insight with one of Brett’s best pieces about viral marketing for films and now we are somewhere back in the realm of entertainment, and finally reaching the heart of this article.

This weekend the most fun campaign ad to hit the tubes ever caught my eye. Or rather yahoo featured the clip and I lucked onto it. The clip is good ol’ Jack (Nicholson – duh) with clips from some of his very best movies as lead ins for why he thinks people should choose Hillary. The ad made me smile. But by the end it made me sad – because there was Jack sitting there and he looked old.

 

I think I loved the ad because it combined two of the things that fill up my life these days – movies and politics. Wait, who am I kidding. I loved it just because it had movie clips. Eat your heart out Obama who would have thought the one to “change” political ads would be Hillary? Who’s the candidate of change now.

  I’ll take a step back from plugging my candidate to let someone else do it. Hillary took advantage of a different media outlet and one that strives on the same viral goodness that brought us a little bit of Jack. If you still don’t know what I’m talking about, I’m referring to the several SNL skits over the last two weeks poking fun at the Democrat debates and then Hillary’s appearance this past Saturday.

 
These are funny because they are true – no matter which side you come down on you have to admit their angle is pretty accurate. Will they change the election? Unlikely. Are they amusing? Definitely.

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.