Posted by Taitdog at spider-wl074.proxy.aol.com on February 24, 2000 at 07:19:25:
I can't remember if it was someone on this board or someone I know who said that DOGMA would've gotten a shit load of Oscar noms had it stayed at Miramax. I tend to think this is true, since, looking at Miramax's roster for the Oscar chase this year, DOGMA would've been stronger than them all. But whoever made this comment went on to say, "Since it's not at Miramax, it doesn't have Big Daddy Harvey's deep pocket to buy off Oscar votes like he did all through the 90's."
???
It's not like I haven't heard this before, but I just don't get something about this argument. I mean, when you look at some of the Miramax films that have won over the years like MIGHTY APHRODITE, THE ENGLISH PATIENT, and to certain extent SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (best pic questionable, best actress and script deserved). But I look at films like PULP FICTION, GOOD WILL HUNTING, and BULLETS OVER BROADWAY and I see films that deserved their awards (at least in the first two films, deserved more), but people belittle those films, saying that Harvey bought those awards for them. This is why a lot of people are saying that THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY didn't get the major noms: because Harvey wasn't there.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't get it. When did films as good as PF and GWH stop winning Oscars for being good films and start winning them because of Weinstein's deep pockets? And would DOGMA really have been better off nomination wise if it stayed at Miramax?
Later.
Taitdog
"Good day to be alive, he said..."