There’s gay and then there’s transsexual… and the times are also important.

Um, who are you and what are these inaccuracies?

When a film gets released in order to try for Oscar consideration, one of two things may be in play:

a) The studio thinks it has maybe one good component out of the mess that if recognized by the Academy might make the film a draw. They may feel that the director or one actor is likely to get a nod, not so much for their work here as for recognition of other achievements. (Case in point, Martin Scorsese getting his Oscar for THE DEPARTED, as opposed to some of his better works earlier in his career.) Or they may feel the film has some chance based on popular feelings for the subject or a theme; sometimes it works (DREAMGIRLS getting eight noms after an Xmas release, though not for Best Picture) but more often it doesn’t (ANGELA’S ASHES the biggest most recent example).

b) The studio knows it has no chance, releases the film then anyway, and hopes that between recent notice at the time of release followed quickly by a ‘For Your Consideration’ campaign that maybe, Lord willing, something may result. And if they have talent that is anxious for recognition, the studio throwing that talent a bone like this keeps that person happy, or at least willing to give the studio first look at their next (hopefully better) project.

In the cynical realm of film distribution, trying to take advantage of the Oscar rules as an excuse to dump bad product is not out of the question. The films with a better chance come awards season will come out earlier, usually between Halloween and Thanksgiving, which is when there’s more audience to go after. Christmas is pretty much a loss at the BO and comes right before the new set of books gets started in Accounts Receivable, so releasing a film then is low risk.

In a better world, Dan, a Christmas release would be an actual present; sadly, it’s more like coal in the stocking…

Recently the ads have gone up for THE SPIRIT, Miller’s first solo credited directing job. The ads feature the principal actresses in the film, and the release date:

Christmas of 2008.

Unfortunately, that’s not a good sign. Many studios will release a film on Christmas in large part because of the rules for films being submitted for consideration by MPAA for an Oscar, that it be screened for seven days in New York and Los Angeles (the last day on the calendar to accomplish this being Christmas). This is done in the hopes that a second release later in the year after the Oscar noms are handed out will generate interrest that turns into good BO, enough to cover the fact that without said push they have a real turkey on their hands.

Sometimes a release on Christmas is made out of contractual obligation to try and get that nomination, done for a film on behalf of an artiste that is chasing Oscar any way possible. In those cases, the studios will make a big play about “Special Showings” in NY and LA for that week before the film disappears for good like Atlantis (or Miami post-global warming).

The fact that THE SPIRIT got pushed ahead from original announced release dates in February of 2009 (a relatively safe time for comic films, if one looks at how GHOST RIDER and DAREDEVIL did on their premieres) to Christmas is a good sing that we have a bad film. All the talk about wanting to avoid opening close to WATCHMEN is probably a smokescreen to try and distract people from the evidence.

Miller the graphic novelist, that can be discussed until the bar closes thanks to a good brawl; Miller the film maker, the evidence is looking pretty slim…

Some people stretch it one further to label the comics “bad” or even “intentionally bad”, but the former is subjective and the latter is obviously nonsense. Personally I really enjoyed TDKSA

Besides, Cronin never said we could only suggest CBULs we expected to be true. It’s just something I heard…

Urban Legend: Frank Miller was paid $1 million up front to do Dark Knight Strikes Again, then did it badly on purpose just because he could.

That’s not me being snarky, by the way: it’s something I’ve actually heard repeated…

???
That sounds a bit subjective to me – an an outright lie… lots of people would be reading the book, by doing a bad job on purpose he’d be damaging his own name.

This is pretty much standard practice when talking up the advertising rates. Four-to-six times the sales is what you tell prospective advertisers — especially if you don’t have an audited circulation. And since the advertising agencies all know this, non-audited publications had better multiply by six, because the agency will certainly divide by six!

That’s not me being snarky, by the way: it’s something I’ve actually heard repeated…

Oh wait, actually that’s not true. I think I also corrected some really embarrassing inaccuracies in the entry on Arthur Miller. That makes me feel a little better.