<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Oscar Update: Blockbuster vs. Contender&#8230; Setting the Record Straight</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/oscar_update_blockbuster_vs_contender_setting_the_record_straight_20081028/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/oscar_update_blockbuster_vs_contender_setting_the_record_straight_20081028</link>
	<description>The best and latest movie news, reviews, features and editorials - updated daily</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:21:24 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: caitlingrieve</title>
		<link>http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/oscar_update_blockbuster_vs_contender_setting_the_record_straight_20081028#comment-3893</link>
		<dc:creator>caitlingrieve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:08:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/news/?p=10612#comment-3893</guid>
		<description>Mr. Brevet, thank you for a wonderful post on the flaws of the &quot;pop Oscars&quot; article in the New York Times. I think it particularly enlightening that Cieply and Barnes fail to adequately mention how both Wall-E and The Dark Knight were extremely well-reviewed. While they do mention the attention Wall-E got for some of its more innovative cinematic techniques, there is no mention of The Dark Knight&#039;s critical success. What is more, the writers obviously think that popularity tarnishes a movie&#039;s reputation, regardless of how much praise is heaped on it by critics across the country. The fact that it appealed not just to movie commentators, but to the public at large, should only enhance its status, not degrade it. You also rightly ridicule the idea that the Warner Bros. suddenly &quot;decided&quot; to campaign for a nomination for The Dark Knight, as if they looked only at box office receipts and not the dozens of reviews that hailed it as a seminal piece of work. Any studio that possesses a film as lauded as The Dark Knight would be looked at incredulously if it did not attempt to ride the momentum to the Academy Awards. On the other hand, do you think there is any validity to the worry that big-budget movies could overwhelm smaller independent films in the Oscar race? Given how many pictures in the competition over the last few years have been relative unknowns, I do not believe the trend will reverse overnight. After all, only three or four of the films in the running for the major categories are what the Times would label &quot;pop&quot;; the vast majority are in the same vein as contenders from past Oscar ceremonies. I was also as baffled as you were about the notion that Academy voters were unaware they could nominate a film for both Best Picture and Best Animated Feature. I would certainly hope that voters would have the wherewithal to double-check the regulations before they submit their ballots. It seems that the New York Times is merely trying to predict the doom of Wall-E before the votes are even cast.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Brevet, thank you for a wonderful post on the flaws of the &quot;pop Oscars&quot; article in the New York Times. I think it particularly enlightening that Cieply and Barnes fail to adequately mention how both Wall-E and The Dark Knight were extremely well-reviewed. While they do mention the attention Wall-E got for some of its more innovative cinematic techniques, there is no mention of The Dark Knight&#039;s critical success. What is more, the writers obviously think that popularity tarnishes a movie&#039;s reputation, regardless of how much praise is heaped on it by critics across the country. The fact that it appealed not just to movie commentators, but to the public at large, should only enhance its status, not degrade it. You also rightly ridicule the idea that the Warner Bros. suddenly &quot;decided&quot; to campaign for a nomination for The Dark Knight, as if they looked only at box office receipts and not the dozens of reviews that hailed it as a seminal piece of work. Any studio that possesses a film as lauded as The Dark Knight would be looked at incredulously if it did not attempt to ride the momentum to the Academy Awards. On the other hand, do you think there is any validity to the worry that big-budget movies could overwhelm smaller independent films in the Oscar race? Given how many pictures in the competition over the last few years have been relative unknowns, I do not believe the trend will reverse overnight. After all, only three or four of the films in the running for the major categories are what the Times would label &quot;pop&quot;; the vast majority are in the same vein as contenders from past Oscar ceremonies. I was also as baffled as you were about the notion that Academy voters were unaware they could nominate a film for both Best Picture and Best Animated Feature. I would certainly hope that voters would have the wherewithal to double-check the regulations before they submit their ballots. It seems that the New York Times is merely trying to predict the doom of Wall-E before the votes are even cast.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
