You’re not kidding. This article claims that studios can spend up to $15 million dollars(!) promoting an Oscar contender.
I watch for Ricky Gervais. Without him, I wouldn’t bother.
Somebody won an award tonight who was not there. Don’t recall who or what. Presenters were Blair Underwood & Vanessa Williams. Doesn’t prove anything, but it’s an exception to the rule.
I’m sure that the networks are happy with the show and pay good money to have it presented. It gets viewers during a time when everyone is playing reruns, and viewers bring in advertising dollars. High end advertisers from what I could tell.
That’s no joke.
Often, it is written into the contract that a studio will have to do awards season promotions.
When I worked at the film studio, we would laugh at the (expensive) full page ads in Hollywood Reporter and Variety that would push actors/films for awards with “for your consideration” pushes to get a nomination.
Although many were serious and just trying to remind voters of the films/actors that year, others were just silly…“Jaws 3 - For Best Film!”, “Pauly Shore in Encino Man for Best Actor!” and other really horrible films/actors trying to get a nomination.
But hey, sometimes it works - many small films got nominated by having tons of ads running in the trades. Miramax and those Weinstein brothers got it down to a science and could promote small films into nominations and wins year after year.
Laura Linney, whose father had died the day before. She wasn’t a “no-show” in the sense of “won’t win an award unless he or she guarantees an appearance at the dinner.”
“We’ve established what you are. Now we’re just negotiating a price.”
I’ve always seen an apparent problem with whining and dining. It always occurs before the judges vote. So I really don’t understand why it would mean anything. You can always vote for someone else with no consequences.
“But wait,” you may say, “if they do that, then people will catch on and not whine and dine them next time.” But that’s incorrect. There’s no way for them to know that they didn’t just get outdone by the guy who did win.
The only way a bribe can successfully work is if the reward is given out after the judging. But rarely have I seen people allege that that is actually the case.
“Is that a gift bag or are you just happy to see me?”
But the existence of a system of wining and dining voters (which is what I assume you meant) is based on the expectation that it gets results. If some studio spends a couple of million dollars on entertaining voters one year and doesn’t win any prizes, then the studio heads are not going to spend a couple of million dollars next year. They’re not going to reason out why it didn’t work, they’re just going to go by the lack of results. They’re not going to care whether you’re secretly voting independently or whether you sold out to a higher bidder - they’re just going to think their money was wasted and not want to repeat that mistake.
They might decide they need to spend 10 million instead of 2 million. I’d actually guess they’re more likely to do this, because these people believe deeply in greed and corruption.
It’s greed that will prevent them from throwing away millions without seeing any results.
I meant that if the Golden Globes are all corrupt but the Oscars are not, there is more suspense in watching the latter show than there would otherwise be.