Entertainment desk
< January 22	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 23

Jefferson Davis in Marvel Comics

Has anyone at Marvel Comics ever explained why the father of Miles Morales is named Jefferson Davis? That's an odd name... Zagalejo^^^ 02:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but it reminds me of Tara Thornton. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars - clone troopers & cloning technology

In Star Wars, how are the clone troopers & any other clones created? By that I mean, has it been mentioned if somatic cell nuclear transfer is the method that is used? 62.253.143.3 (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Oscars

I thought that one of the "main" requirements for a film to be eligible for an Oscar was that the film had to play in the Los Angeles area theaters during the specified time frame. If that's the case, how is Netflix getting films nominated for Oscars? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which film are you referring to? All of this years nominees have had theatrical releases. MarnetteD|Talk 18:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They had limited theatrical releases, probably for the sole purpose of qualifying for Oscars. See Roma (2018 film)#Box office and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs#Box office. There are also "normal" films which release in a few theatres before the Oscar deadline and open wide later. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was referring specifically to Roma. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Oscars, especially the Best Picture Oscar, has become the Ouroboros of the American Film Industry. It has caused the creation of movies which are solely created to win Best Picture Oscars. Not to sell tickets, or make money, or be seen by anyone except voters of the Best Picture Oscar, so they make movies, release them just wide enough to meet the minimum requirements of the award, and that's it. I can remember a time when I had actually seen most of the nominees for Best Picture in theatres during the prior year. Now the Oscars are "Here's 5 movies you've never heard of, and can't even figure out how to find a theater to watch them in. We'll tell you which one is best!" It sucks. At least award shows should be useful in granting awards to things people actually have the ability to enjoy themselves. </rant> --Jayron 32 21:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or in recent years eight or nine of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, The Deer Hunter was the first movie to successfully use this strategy but in that particular case it led to a lot of ticket sales after it won the best picture Oscar in 1979 and was widely distributed as a result. I'm not sure if any other movies have been as successful using the strategy since. In the case of Roma, while it was not screened much (although it did play in my neck of the woods which is nowhere near L.A., albeit in a smaller cinema), it was available to many viewers via another distribution system, and was widely reviewed upon its release last November/December. So it's not exactly the same strategy. --Xuxl (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, I've not heard of movies being made specifically for the Best Picture Oscar. Can you provide some examples? Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 00:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the article cited by PrimeHunter above, titled Oscar bait. Films like The English Patient (see here for an analysis) and The Kings Speech (see here for an analysis) among many others (those two chosen to be representative, not exhaustive, of the concept), were made specifically for Oscar voters and their production, release schedule, and everything else around them was done just so to generate publicity for the studios that made them using the Oscars as a vehicle for doing so. It's an incestuous relationship between the Academy and filmmakers. This year, for example, Netflix (almost cynically) made two films and released them to barely meet the minimum requirements for Oscar season, and tailored them to get nominated as such, the already cited Roma and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. --Jayron 32 03:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that our article you linked, no matter what it says in the lead, doesn't really support what you suggested. If you read it, instead of there being no intention to make money, the impression it gives is the intention is to game the system, by making more money if they succeed in getting nominations. If you are successful, the times you fail to get nominations may be made up for by the times you succeed. A cynical strategy perhaps, but different from what you suggest. This is specifically suggested to be the case for The King's Speech and Deer Hunter. (I suspect this is reflected in the article you linked to discussing The King's Speech but didn't bother to check. Probably The English Patient one too.) It may be that the prestige the producers get from being successful is one of the goals, but this is fairly different from there being no intention to make money. (Also Deer Hunter is an interesting case as it sounds like this wasn't the original intention, but rather after spending the money making it and realising they were screwed, they looked for a way to try to come out ahead. And succeeded mightily.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: What do you mean when you say that they (the producers of The Deer Hunter) "realized that they were screwed"? I am not that familiar with this film or, at least, I am not familiar with its behind-the-scenes issues. What happened? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the movie either. I'm just going by what the article Oscar bait (which I now realise was linked by PrimeHunter not Jayron32)

The first film to deliberately seek Oscar nominations as a marketing strategy was The Deer Hunter in 1978. After a disastrous test screening of the lengthy Vietnam War epic in Detroit, Universal turned to another producer, Allan Carr, with both Broadway and Hollywood experience, for advice on how to successfully market a depressing film.[7]
He realized that, with such a grim subject and brutal depictions of war and torture, the only way viewers would seek the film out was if it had been nominated for Academy Awards. Carr, once the producers had hired him as a consultant, arranged for two two-week screenings at a single theater in each of New York and Los Angeles before the year ended, the minimum requirements for Oscar eligibility at that time. The audiences were limited to critics and Academy members. After that, Universal pulled the film from distribution[8] save for some showings on Z Channel, a boutique cable network that catered to film enthusiasts with showings of rare, arty movies and exclusive director's cuts of more popular ones. "We will cultivate the right audience," Carr promised. "The Deer Hunter is an Oscar winner!"[7]

The impression this gives me is not a film which set out from the get go to use the Oscars as a marketing strategy, but one that turned to that only after it became clear the movie was going to fail badly otherwise. (I mean I guess it's possible the original director also realised this but it isn't stated probably because if it is the case it isn't know. )

By way of comparison, from the info on Monster Ball and the aforementioned The King's Speech, the impression I get from our article is that it had been the plan all along to rely on the Oscars to make money. Although possibly or even probably also because of the people involved, especially the now infamous Harvey Weinstein, also wanted the prestige from the Oscar's. (i.e. I'm not saying it was all about making money, simply that it was still a key part of the equation.)

Nil Einne (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I guess it's more "to make money by using the Oscar nomination for publicity" rather than "to make money by meeting an existing public demand". The issue with these films is that they are made primarily for Oscar voters rather than for general audiences; with the hope that the Oscar nomination is what generates enough buzz to sell tickets. --Jayron 32 14:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You never know about these things. The only reason I went to see No Country for Old Men (film) was because it won the Oscar - and it was wretched. It had what Siskel & Ebert used to call the "idiot plot". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No Country for Old Men is consistently rated by viewers and critics alike as one of the best films of the past 20 years. De gustibus non est disputandum and all that, I guess. Also, it has zero bearing on this discussion. It wasn't an Oscar bait film. Oscar bait films are released in December to limited audiences only, often with no wide release, or a wide release after the Oscar nominations came out. No Country for Old Men was released in May, 2007 on the film festival circuit, and got a wide release in November, 2007. It was the Coen Brother's highest grossing theatrical release. --Jayron 32 14:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, kind of the reverse. It won the Oscar and "baited" me, so I went to see it, and wished I hadn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]