Drudge gloats F 911 No oscar nominations,nothing for "Passion" either

[romantico]

Okay, Matt has been a bad little boy again. On his homepage he gloats, "Michale Moore shut out! Fahrenheit 911 not one nomination!!!" Yet he forgets to mention that "The Passion of the Christ" also gets not one nomination!!!! What a fucked up guy Drudge must be!

[Kire]

1. Passion got three nominations.

Cinematography, Score and Makeup

[fryguy]

3. and best portrayal of a prophet - - n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

29. No surprise. Slasher-Horror movies often get the "makeup" nomination.

Do they have a category for best snuff film?

[Bertha Venation]

2. Drudge is an idiot -- Moore did not even submit F911 for consideration.

What an ass.

[ET Awful]

4. It wasn't submitted, thus it can't be nominated.

As usual Sludge displays complete dishonesty.

The Passion did get nominations, oddly though, none for the script, the acting, the movie itself, or anything of real note. Sorry, but "makeup" ain't a big deal.

[cali]

11. It may be debatable

whether make-up is a big deal, but Cinematography and Score are absolutely big deals.

[Mistwell]

12. F 911 WAS submitted

I thought I specifically heard Moore say it WAS eligible for best picture, and just intentionally held back from documentary, and it was eligible for most categories.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0904/171132.html

BTW, Passion was nominated for cinematography, makeup and original score. I'll grant you makeup is not very meaningful, but cinematography is a pretty damn important category, at least to me.

I'm disappointed F 911 didn't get nominations.

[Tempest]

14. Moore did not submit the film for consideration

Your article is out of date.

Moore talks about his reasons for not submitting the film on his web site.

[Mistwell]

16. for DOCUMENTARY!

he talks about not submitting FOR THE DOCUMENTARY category. He specific said he WAS submitting for best picture. If you have a link that says different, show me.

[HboRc3]

26. It was submitted for best picture

Moore didn't submit it for best documentary because it was shown on PPV. But it was submitted for best picture. He was interviewed on E channel not long ago and said he was hoping for best picture.

[ET Awful]

31. No, what he said was that it was eligible for the category, not that it

was submitted.

You might want to get your facts straight.

[Mistwell]

48. Apologize

You've been bahaving pretty aggressively in this thread, and in fact somewhat rude.

Now you've been shown: 1) Moore said he was submitting the film to the Academy for consieration for Best Picture and other categories, just not Best Documentary, 2) That the film had to be submitted to be eligible, according to the official rules, 3) the film was officially listed by the Academy as eligible, 4) that Harvey Weinstein was actively promoting the film for Best Picture and other catagories, and the studio went so far as to take out full page ads promoting the film for the Academy awards.

So, now that you KNOW you were wrong in bashing people for not "getting the facts straight", perhaps you should apologize for being so aggressive about something which you were blatantly wrong about?

A real man can admit when they are wrong.

[ET Awful]

58. Who are you my mother?

I think not.

[HboRc3]

27. it was submitted for best picture

I loved F9/11 and thought it had a good chance for best picture until Aviator and Million Dollar Baby came out. In my opinion, they were better films.

[fryguy]

5. drudge is a non-entity IMO

he's used up his 15 mins of fame and is now little more than an internet equivalent of a B-rate celebrity trying to keep himself alive on Hollywood Squares....

[bunkerbuster1]

21. Amen. Why do people keep boosting this overpaid prick's ad rates?

Every time you click on Drudge, baby Jesus cries, or something like that.

[fryguy]

22. which is why i NEVER go to his sludge site

makes me sick, and i'm certain that baby Jesus cries and don rumsfeld kills a puppy on every click

[Dorian Gray]

6. I thought that it would be eligible for

Best Picture, but not for Documentary? It doesn't really matter, though. The important part is that it was seen by as many people as possible.

[Ekirh]

10. Your right...

It was eligble for Best Picture... but as it keeps on being brought up... Documentaries are never nominated for Best Picture. And with all due respect to F 9/11... I thought there were quite a few films that deserved a best picture nom more than it. But in any case, there you go :)

[sarcasmo]

7. Drudge is Right Wing tool like O'liely vibrator and Rush Oxycotin

I am waiting for Drudges scandal. O'liely had vibrator gate, Rush has Oxycotin addiction, Drudge is abusing something it will come out. All these Right Wing media hounds are hypocrites of the tenth degree.

[sarcasmo]

8. Drudge is Right Wing tool like O'liely vibrator and Rush Oxycotin

I am waiting for Drudges scandal. O'liely had vibrator gate, Rush has Oxycotin addiction, Drudge is abusing something it will come out. All these Right Wing media hounds are hypocrites of the tenth degree.

[qanda]

9. Somebody should send this letter to Drudge

Why I Will Not Seek a Best Documentary Oscar
(I'm Giving it up in the Hopes More Voters can see "Fahrenheit 9/11")

by Michael Moore

Dear Friends,

I had dinner recently with a well-known pollster who had often worked for Republicans. He told me that when he went to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" he got so distraught he twice had to go out in the lobby and pace during the movie.

"The Bush White House left open a huge void when it came to explaining the war to the American people," he told me. "And your film has filled that void -- and now there is no way to defeat it. It is the atomic bomb of this campaign."

He told me how he had conducted an informal poll with "Fahrenheit 9/11" audiences in three different cities and the results were all the same. "Essentially, 80% of the people going IN to see your movie are already likely Kerry voters and the movie has galvanized them in a way you rarely see Democrats galvanized.

"But, here's the bad news for Bush: Though 80% going IN to your movie are Kerry voters, 100% of those COMING OUT of your movie are Kerry voters. You can't come out of this movie and say, 'I am absolutely and enthusiastically voting for George W. Bush.'"

His findings are similar to those in other polls conducted around the country. In Pennsylvania, a Keystone poll showed that 4% of Kerry's support has come from people who decided to vote for him AFTER seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- and in an election that will be very close, 4% is a landslide. A Harris poll found that 44% of Republicans who see the film give it a “positive” rating. Another poll, to be released this week, shows a 21-point shift in Bush's approval rating, after just one viewing of the movie, among audiences of undecideds who were shown "Fahrenheit 9/11" in Ohio.

My pollster friend told me that he believes if Kerry wins, "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be one of the top three reasons for his election. Kerry's only problem, he said, is how many people will actually be able to see it before election day. The less that see it, the better for Bush.

But 20 million people have already seen it -- and the Gallup poll said that 56% of the American public has seen or plans to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" either in the theater or on home video. The DVD and home video of our film, thanks to our distributors listening to our pleas to release it before November, will be in the stores on October 5. This is very good news.

But can it also be shown on TV? I brought this possibility up in this week's Rolling Stone interview. Our contract with our DVD distributor says no, it cannot. I have asked them to show it just once, perhaps the night before the election. So far, no deal. But I haven't given up trying.

The only problem with my desire to get this movie in front of as many Americans as possible is that, should it air on TV, I will NOT be eligible to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Academy Award consideration for Best Documentary. Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction).

Although I have no assurance from our home video distributor that they would allow a one-time television broadcast -- and the chances are they probably won't -- I have decided it is more important to take that risk and hope against hope that I can persuade someone to put it on TV, even if it's the night before the election.

Therefore, I have decided not to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for consideration for the Best Documentary Oscar. If there is even the remotest of chances that I can get this film seen by a few million more Americans before election day, then that is more important to me than winning another documentary Oscar. I have already won a Best Documentary statue. Having a second one would be nice, but not as nice as getting this country back in the hands of the majority.

The deadline to submit the film for the documentary Oscar was last Wednesday. I told my crew who worked on the film, let's let someone else have that Oscar. We have already helped to ignite the biggest year ever for nonfiction films. Last week, 1 out of every 5 films playing in movie theaters across America was a documentary! That is simply unheard of. There have been so many great nonfiction films this year, why not step aside and share what we have with someone else? Remove the 800-pound gorilla from that Oscar category and let the five films who get nominated have all the attention they deserve (instead of the focus being on a film that has already had more than its share of attention).

I've read a lot about "Fahrenheit" being a "sure bet" for the documentary Oscar this year. I don't believe anything is truly a "sure bet." And, in the end, I think sometimes it's good for your soul to give up something everyone says is so easily yours (ask Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps why he gave up his spot in the last race to someone else equally deserving, and you'll know what I am talking about).

I have informed our distributors of my decision. They support me (in fact, they then offered to submit our film for all the other categories it is eligible for, including Best Picture -- so, hey, who knows, maybe I'll get to complete that Oscar speech from 2003! Sorry, just kidding).

Don't get your hopes up for seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" on TV before the election. In fact, I would count on NOT seeing it there (you know me, I'm always going after something I probably shouldn't). Get to the theaters soon, if you haven't already, or get it from the video store in October and hold house parties. Share it with everyone you know, especially your nonvoting friends. I have included 100 minutes of extras on the DVD -- powerful footage obtained after we made the movie, and some things that are going to drive Karl Rove into a permanent tailspin -- more on this later!

Thanks for all of your support. And go see "Super Size Me," "Control Room," "The Corporation," "Orwell Rolls Over in His Grave," "Bush's Brain," Robert Greenwald's films and the upcoming "Yes Men." You won't be sorry!

[Mistwell]

13. And then he also said

He was submitting for best picture, and thought it important that the movies presense during the awards would bring the issues raised by the film back up for audiences around the country.

Why are we re-writing history? Moore clearly wanted a best picture nomination, it was of course a long shot, but we have a right to be disappointed. Why are we instead pretending that reality is different from what it is, and that the film was never submitted for ANY category of awards when it clearly was?

[xfundy]

15. Whine much?

[Mistwell]

17. Call it a whine if you want

...but I have a right to be disappointed the movie didn't get any nominations, and I am not going to pretend it's because of false reasons like "it wasn't submitted".

[ET Awful]

18. Yet you haven't produced a single piece of proof that it was submitted.

Please provide your proof of submission.

Sorry, but an article over a year old discussing eligibility is NOT a proof of submission, it's an outdated article regarding whether it COULD be submitted.

Where's your proof that it actually was?

Thanks.

[geek tragedy]

19. Will the AMPAS website satisfy you?

http://www.oscars.org/77academyawards/reminder/reminder_html.html

[Mistwell]

20. Thanks!

Maybe that will put an end to this stupid, backward, history re-writing crap in this thread.

[ET Awful]

24. Actually, that's a list of movies that are eligible, not ones that were

submitted.

For instance, that list contains films such as Starsky and Hutch, You Got Served, YU-GI-OH The Movie, etc. None of which were in consideration for anything.

Eligibility does not equate to submission.

[Mistwell]

35. Not true

Those are the movies that ARE ELIGIBLE. If there is a submission needed, it means they got the submission. Those movies could have been nominated...any of them. They met all eligibility requirements.

Frankly, I think this idea of "submission" for the Academy is a myth. I think it's just a requirement that your movie be out in a certain time frame, meet certain requirements, not be out during another specific time frame, and that sort of stuff. I do not think you have to "submit" your film for any category other than foreign film (which has to have a country submit it as their entry for the year).

[ET Awful]

37. Yet you haven't provided any proof of your assertions.

So, if you don't have to submit your film for any category, how can you say as you did above that he didn't submit it for the documentary category? Please get your story straight.

[geek tragedy]

41. Harvey Weinstein was promoting the hell out of that film for Best Picture.

But, if you really, really want proof:

[July]

25. According to the rules at that site, "eligibility" and "submission" are

two different things. In a short look-around, I didn't find a list of films actually submitted. It doesn't seem to clear up the question completely.

[ET Awful]

32. BINGO!

Yet another person that sees reality.

[geek tragedy]

42. Reality is that people could have voted for it. They just didn't. eom

[Mistwell]

36. You have a link?

Since, as far as I know, eligibility means just that - if there was a submission criteria, you had to meet that criteria to be eligible. Some films must submit - like foreign films. Others do not have to, like best picture. At least, that is my understanding.

[July]

38. I clicked the link in the above post, then looked around the site.

They have a long section of rules. Eligibility is discussed before submission (as two different categories within the rules). It seems (my understanding) that films that are eligible may be submitted, but it's not clear to me how it works. Didn't find a list of 2004 submissions. That's all I know after a few minutes looking at the site.

[geek tragedy]

40. You have it backwards.

4. Eligibility is contingent on the receipt by the Academy of the following information on Official Screen Credits forms obtained from the Academy, to be signed by the film’s producer or distributor (unless waived by the Academy) which shall include:

a) full, complete and authentic credits,

b) the name of the Los Angeles County theater where the film has played, and

c) the dates of the Los Angeles run.

That is what people mean by "submission" here.

"Submission," as defined by the AMPAS, means films that are NOMINATED must provide a COPY of the film.

No mystery. They just snubbed the film. End of story.

[ET Awful]

43. So when exactly did you become a member of the Academy that you

are so knowledgable?

Sorry, there's no "snubbing" going on here. First, it wasn't submitted, second, if it was, at no point in history has a documentary EVER been considered for best picture, no snubbing at all.

Sorry to disappoint you.

[geek tragedy]

45. I'm a moderator at an OSCAR discussion board.

Anyone who pays ANY attention to the Oscar race knows that F911 was eligible/submitted and was being actively campaigned by its studio.

And all documentaries are eligible to be nominated for Best Picture. They just never get chosen.

[ET Awful]

46. Yet again, no evidence, simply assertions from someone who

claims to know.

[geek tragedy]

47. How about an ad promoting F911 for the Oscar for Best Picture?

[ET Awful]

52. Once again "eligible" not "submitted" n/t

[sonicx]

53. Go to this link...

http://www.oscar.org/75academyawards/rules/rules_75.pdf

Read Rule 4. Submission is for films already nominated.

[ET Awful]

55. I'm not going to read 55 pages.

Also, as stated above, REGARDLESS, if it was, at no point in history has a documentary EVER been considered for best picture, no snubbing is involved at all.

[sonicx]

57. You don't have to read 55 pages...

Scroll to rule 4 on submission. It's pretty short.

As for "snub" or not, I never thought it would be nominated anyway (too much competition). But it is a pretty unique documentary in terms of acclaim and success, so it's not like it didn't have a chance.

[geek tragedy]

61. Like talking to a brick wall. Have a nice life. eom

[qanda]

23. The chances of him getting a nod for best picture were what?

If Drudge wants to make a big deal about it then he should give the whole story and not just the bits and pieces he wants. Isn't that the same thing you're flaming us for?

I'm not disappointed. It doesn't change the quality of my life at all.

[mattclearing]

28. Both were plagued by bad acting.

That Bush guy? Caviezel? They were terrible.

[sonicx]

30. Doesn't matter. It's "Aviator" and Jamie Foxx's night...

They're taking it all.

F/911 could pretty much only get b. director and b. picture nods, but those are way crowded. Passion, however, could get actor and tech nods too. It got some techs, but probably wouldn't win. The pre-fall release dates for both let the buzz run out too.

[mopaul]

33. The Torture of the Christ IGNORED? more Christian persecution

that evil evil liberal hollywood establishment.

sorry mel, maybe a little more blood and guts in the next biblical epic.

[hector459]

34. Moore is crying all the way to the bank!

Boo hooo

[AlCzervik]

39. a tad off topic but.....

I really hope Hillary Swank wins, after seeing her in Boys don't cry and A price above Rubies she's become one of my favorite actors. I also hope Morgan Freeman wins, i love him.

[sonicx]

50. I think she's a lock. Freeman not so much, but it could happen.

[Cleita]

44. Who cares? F911 already has won the most prestigious awards.

The Oscars are noted for being political and not always rewarding the best film artists out there.

[Sparkle]

49. I don't know why he's gloating.

The fact remains that F9/11 educated a lot of people worldwide about the Bush Crime family.

Mission Accomplished!

[bobweaver]

51. Does anyone here actually take Drudge seriously as a journalist?

[President Jesus]

54. I'd take the money both Mel and Moore made any day over noms (nt)

[Mistwell]

56. This bugs me

Am I alone in feeling like F 911 should have been nominated for something? Or does everyone just not care anymore?

[geek tragedy]

63. It was Moore's decision to yank it out of the Best Documentary category,

where it belonged.

[geniph]

59. Totally irrelevant

It was always a long shot for Best Picture. Had Moore chosen to submit it for Best Documentary, it'd have won in a walk, but (despite the rantings of the lunatic wingnuts), Moore is a kind and classy person. Remember when he won Best Doc for Bowling for Columbine? He invited ALL the other nominated documentary filmmakers on stage with him. I thought that was a really classy thing to do. Now he's giving one of the others a chance at the documentary Oscar he's already won.

It doesn't need the Best Picture nom. A documentary would never in a million years win, anyway. He's won accolades out the yazoo for it, but I agree with him; the most important thing is to make sure people SEE the movie.

[brettdale]

60. boycott oscars

I guess they bowed to political pressure. I wont be watching.

[ComerPerro]

62. neither one deserves it, really

[Mistwell]

64. Kinsey

My personal favorite for Best Picture would have been Kinsey. It got some nominations, but not Best Picture.

I saw Million Dollar Baby, and while it was a fine film, I just didn't think it was good enough for Best Picture. Directing and Acting yes, but not Best Picture.