oscarbloggers.jpgRemember Patrick Goldstein's article on the negative effect bloggers are having on the Oscars from yesterday's LA Times? Goldstein took three notable film bloggers out back and sucker punched them, for no apparent reason other than he could. Let's check in with the targetted bloggers themselves, as they wipe the venom from one another's brows and smear it on the blogs:

  • David Poland: Responding to Goldstein's insistence that he's "not one of these MSM (mainstream media) guys who resent my Internet brethren.": "You are one of those guys, Patrick. (It’s OM, btw… Old Media… the mainstream is swimming in my pond now.) And unlike those who have a cushy berth in Old Media, those of us on the web have to earn our position. None of us are delivered to the doorstep each morning. It’s real easy for someone not to click on a web page. And in the case of MovieCityNews, we don’t do Defamer stuff, no matter how much attention it gets. We do news. We have fun. But we deliver the news, hard and soft, but not gossip. And that’s why our numbers go up every year while OM’s go down."
  • Tom O'Neill: On why the awards (and thus prognostication regarding them) matter: "When the film derby runs its course, the payoff is huge. Superstars emerge who will dominate pop culture for years to come. And movies enter the history books, thus guaranteeing that they'll be watched and re-watched for centuries thereafter, affecting people in the profound psychological ways that great films do...Oh, yeah, and gazillions of dollars are at stake."
  • Jeffrey Wells: After discrediting Goldstein's bit about studio publicists "catering" to bloggers – a line that anyone who has heard my horror stories about dealing with certain studios over screenings couldn't possibly believe – Wells goes short and snide: "I think it can be said without any particular prejudice that some people really love sloshing around in their emotional bathwater, even when it doesn't serve their strategic interests."
And a couple of words, from blogers outside this particular catfight, on blOscaring:

  • Eugene Hernandez: "It seems to me that its been studio and Indiewood execs who have increasingly shifted their annual marketing efforts and aggressively courted awards, specifically Oscars. That can be good and bad, but in my mind the fact that some smaller, seemingly unlikely movies ... can have an impact on that race -- and sometimes flourish because of it -- makes it all the more interesting."
  • Meanwhile, the Reverse Shot boys whip out their own Oscar "predictions": "As we know, the Academy has been all about globalization in recent years, and since this promises to be a “topical” and “political” year, I just can’t see them ignoring a film about the plight of impoverished Tanzanian waterfront villages ravaged by AIDS, unemployment, and poverty. I mean, this is the OSCARS we’re talking about."