'What If?' Iraq Dilemma Faces Oscar Planners [For Hollywood, worse case scenario: U.S. victory]

Reuters ^ | Saturday, March 1, 2003 | By Jill Serjeant

[longtermmemmory]

"Are the Oscars even relevant anymore?

I mean, who cares? "


People who have recieved oscars. If at one time you recieved an oscar you want the oscars to be significant. The studios do not care about the award only the free PR it generates for the movie. PR=profit $$$$

[forktail]

I guess I meant are the Oscars relevant to the general population.

[xp38]

You would be hard pressed to find a member of the general public who could name the best picture, actor and actress winners from the previous year off the top of their heads. Forget the other categories only the true movie buffs know those. Last year might be an anomaly because of the "breakthrough for the actor and actress awards so maybe a few more might remember those two. But try to name all three. If you can go back two years....even harder....again off the top of your head.

[forktail]

I agree totally.

So to further extrapolate. Why do they think anyone will care if they cancel?

Answer: Because they are so full of themselves they give each other awards.

[TADSLOS]

The unspoken "What if?" dilemma facing Hollywood is whether war will wait until after the Oscar red carpet is rolled out, and whether the curtain will go up if it does not.

Yeah, DoD has a contingency plan to put everything on hold for 24 hours so the Oscars can go on uninterrupted from something as distracting as a war - NOT. Pure self absorption, the essence of Hollywood. Those from Hollywood who pretend to be illuminated, world view intellectuals against a war in Iraq are the same fools who wring their hands over whether they will be able to walk down the red carpet on time to congratulate themselves on being professional pretenders. The irony is as thick as their wallets padded by American dollars brought to them from the people threatened by the terrorists they defend through their protest of the war.