From the writer and director of 'Match Point'

[thesloppy]

So, I just saw an add for the movie 'Scoop', whcih was completely unremarkable to me, until they mentioned the words above: From the writer and director of 'Match Point'.

Now, it may be obvious to many that this means 'Scoop' is written and directed by Woody Allen, and I'm wondering what is the purpose of such apparently small subterfuge? If you were courting Allen's fans surely you'd want to actually mention his name rather than his most recent semi-failure, right? And if the intent was somehow to distance the movie from Allen's name it was slightly sabotaged by the fact that he also stars in the flick and his mug was plastered onscreen for half the trailer, making it somewhat hard to disguise his involvement.

So, anybody got any clue why you'd market a movie written, directed, and starring Woody Allen by intentionally avoiding saying his name?

[Pyser]

So, I just saw an add for the movie 'Scoop', whcih was completely unremarkable to me, until they mentioned the words above: From the writer and director of 'Match Point'.

Now, it may be obvious to many that this means 'Scoop' is written and directed by Woody Allen, and I'm wondering what is the purpose of such apparently small subterfuge? If you were courting Allen's fans surely you'd want to actually mention his name rather than his most recent semi-failure, right? And if the intent was somehow to distance the movie from Allen's name it was slightly sabotaged by the fact that he also stars in the flick and his mug was plastered onscreen for half the trailer, making it somewhat hard to disguise his involvement.

So, anybody got any clue why you'd market a movie written, directed, and starring Woody Allen by intentionally avoiding saying his name?

actually, you've gotten it completely backwards. woody allen's movies are not mainstream at all. however, match point was a pretty big success, especially for a woody allen movie.

so studios are trying to capitalize on match points success, thinking more people would want to see a movie by that guy than woody allen, realizing many americans probably wont put 2 and 2 together.

silly? absolutely. but maybe itll make em an extra mil or 2.

[saldana]

perhaps it is because alot of younger people may have reallly liked Match Point (ive never seen it), but arent big fans of woody allen (who i personally dont really care for), so they are trying to market it to a different group than die-hard woody allen fans.

[saldana]

dola, or you could just read what Pyser said

[rexallllsc]

actually, you've gotten it completely backwards. woody allen's movies are not mainstream at all. however, match point was a pretty big success, especially for a woody allen movie.

so studios are trying to capitalize on match points success, thinking more people would want to see a movie by that guy than woody allen, realizing many americans probably wont put 2 and 2 together.

silly? absolutely. but maybe itll make em an extra mil or 2.

I agree. I was really surprised that Woody Allen did that movie - I'm not a typical Woody fan, so I think this makes complete sense. Especially because Woody's style is so pigeonholed I think, as most people are concerned.

[thesloppy]

Fair enough. I guess I need to update my reality.

[ThunderingHERD]

Target demographic for that ad could best be summed up as anyone who would refer to Scooped as "that new Scarlett Johansson movie."

And how was Match Point a semi-failure?

[NoSkillz]

Target demographic for that ad could best be summed up as anyone who would refer to Scooped as "that new Scarlett Johansson movie."

And how was Match Point a semi-failure?

Count me in as one of the people who liked that film...

[Easy Mac]

I enjoyed the parts that had Scarlett Johansen in very little clothing.

[kcchief19]

Eh ... Match Point was a mixed bag. It grossed $23 million on a $15 million budget, so that makes it a success. What makes it standout a bit more is that it was Allen's best grossing film since at least Bullets Over Broadway -- you almost have to go back 20 years to Hannah and Her Sisters for a big grossing Woody Allen movie.

It was a tremendous box office gross by Allen's standards, but a modest success by Hollywood standards where you need to gross $250 million on a $125 million budget to be considered a "blockbuster." But it follows the same formula that allows Woody Allen to continue to make movies at an alarming rate -- get talented actors to work for scale because it's Woody Allen and tell a story that requires no special effects.


Given that, it's understandable why they would use Match Point in the advertising.

[cthomer5000]

Eh ... Match Point was a mixed bag. It grossed $23 million on a $15 million budget, so that makes it a success. What makes it standout a bit more is that it was Allen's best grossing film since at least Bullets Over Broadway -- you almost have to go back 20 years to Hannah and Her Sisters for a big grossing Woody Allen movie.

Made another 55 million worldwide. Then when you factor in DVD rentals/sales, I'm sure it made a tidy sum for the studio.

I haven't seen the film, but i know it's not the typical woody allen comedy, so it's understandble that they would market it in this way.

[WVUFAN]

Woody Allen is a hack.

[st.cronin]

Woody Allen is a sleazebag.

fixed

[cthomer5000]

Woody Allen is a hack.

We're talking about the same guy who wrote and directed Crimes & Misdemeanors, right?

[WVUFAN]

We're talking about the same guy who wrote and directed Crimes & Misdemeanors, right?

Yup, and the film that stole the Oscar from Star Wars, Annie Hall.

He's a hack, writes the same drivel each and every movie, and married his daughter.

[Groundhog]

My girlfriend took me to see Match Point and I thought it was going to be a sappy romantic comedy about a tennis player. I walked out amazingly impressed. Very good dark movie.

[ISiddiqui]

And once again WVUFAN is wrong about movies... what else is new?

[ISiddiqui]

perhaps it is because alot of younger people may have reallly liked Match Point (ive never seen it), but arent big fans of woody allen (who i personally dont really care for), so they are trying to market it to a different group than die-hard woody allen fans.
It seems that is part of it. Match Point isn't really an "Allen" movie as the stereotype of it is (whiny, Jewish, New Yorker, etc). However, at the same token, this type of promotion is very Allen-esque in its self-depreciation.

[WVUFAN]

And once again WVUFAN is wrong about movies... what else is new?

This coming from someone who enjoyed Shakespeare in Love, the worst film to win Best Picture since Annie Hall.

:)

[cthomer5000]

Annie Hall is a great movie. My most recently watched movie as well, coincidentally.

[WVUFAN]

Annie Hall is a great movie. My most recently watched movie as well, coincidentally.

It's not even close to being on the same level as Star Wars. But that's been discussed before.

[thesloppy]

Here's the thing I'm still not getting:

Why does the relative success of 'Match Point' affect excluding mention of Woody Allen's name? The ad could remain exactly the same, but at the end couldn't the copy just as easily say: "From the writer and director of 'Match Point'....Woody Allen!"? Point is, I thought it wass odd that he apparently holds no cachet anymore, to the point where the studio would produce an advertisement for his movie, featuring Woody in the commercial, citing the success of the last film he directed and wrote, but not mention his name.

[cthomer5000]

It's not even close to being on the same level as Star Wars. But that's been discussed before.

They're totally different types of movies, which is why you make your "level" claim. Plus, we all know Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie... so you're not appealing to my Star Wars geek side here. You're just making yourself look like the average idiot.

[WVUFAN]

They're totally different types of movies, which is why you make your "level" claim. Plus, we all know Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie... so you're not appealing to my Star Wars geek side here. You're just making yourself look like the average idiot.

Well, first off, I'm comparing them because they were both up for Best Picture, and due to the Academy's bias against genre films, Annie Hall, a clearly undeserving movie, won.

Empire Strikes Back isn't the best of the trilogy, but you can keep thinking that if you want.

As for the "average idiot" comment, I do have a tendency to like movies that others like. I'm not a film snob by any means.

Getting back to topic, Woody Allen is one of, if not THE most overrated director today. On a personal level, he's nothing more than a pedophile that shouldn't be on the streets. I've TRIED watching his films -- they're boring and moronic, and he insists on casting himself on each movie, and he can't act to save his life.

[ISiddiqui]

This coming from someone who enjoyed Shakespeare in Love, the worst film to win Best Picture since Annie Hall.

Both incredibly deserving films to win the award! Both are very clever movies (SIL has perhaps more in jokes than any other movie I've ever seen), well directed, well acted, with magnificant scriptwriting.

[ISiddiqui]

Empire Strikes Back isn't the best of the trilogy, but you can keep thinking that if you want.

LOLOLOL!!!

Your opinion has been completely shot to Hell, with Star Wars geeks and average film goers.

[WVUFAN]

LOLOLOL!!!

Your opinion has been completely shot to Hell, with Star Wars geeks and average film goers.

<shrug> -- I enjoyed Return of the Jedi more than any of them. Empire I liked the least. I know quite a few people who liked the first Star Wars the best. To each his own. Any of the three movies, however, are far more entertaining and have left a legacy far greater than any film Woody Allen ever made.

[WVUFAN]

Both incredibly deserving films to win the award! Both are very clever movies (SIL has perhaps more in jokes than any other movie I've ever seen), well directed, well acted, with magnificant scriptwriting.

Nice try. Saving Private Ryan was clearly the best film released that year. Much like the travesty that allowed Annie Hall to best Star Wars, the same applied to 1998. The best film did not win the Best Picture.

[ISiddiqui]

<shrug> -- I enjoyed Return of the Jedi more than any of them. Empire I liked the least. I know quite a few people who liked the first Star Wars the best. To each his own. Any of the three movies, however, are far more entertaining and have left a legacy far greater than any film Woody Allen ever made.

:eek: :eek:

STOP NOW! Before the hole you are digging just swallows you up whole?! Liking "Star Wars" more because it was out first, I can sort of see, but "Return of the Jedi"?!!!!!
</shrug>

[ISiddiqui]

Nice try. Saving Private Ryan was clearly the best film released that year. Much like the travesty that allowed Annie Hall to best Star Wars, the same applied to 1998. The best film did not win the Best Picture.
Sorry, you be wrong. SPR couldn't really hold a candle to SIL in moviemaking or story (SPR has the amazing first half hour and the rest of the story seems tacked on) and Annie Hall was much better crafted piece of moviemaking than Star Wars (which Lucas admits was done in a "Buck Rogers"/"Flash Gordon" serial type of way... ie, not exactly a highlight of cinema or television Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon was). That's just fact, though I realize you can't handle that.

[WVUFAN]

:eek: :eek:

STOP NOW! Before the hole you are digging just swallows you up whole?! Liking "Star Wars" more because it was out first, I can sort of see, but "Return of the Jedi"?!!!!!
</SHRUG>

Um ... Yeah, I like RoTJ the best. It provided closure to the series, had the best action sequences and the best acting of the three films.

FWIW, if I chose the Oscars, here would have been the winners in recent years:

1990: Actual Winner: Dances With Wolves
My pick: Goodfellas

1992: Actual Winner: Unforgiven
My pick: A Few Good Men

1993: Actual Winner: Schindler's List
My pick: The Fugitive

1994: Actual Winner: Forrest Gump
My pick: Pulp Fiction

1996: Actual Winner: The English Patient (ugh!)
My pick: Fargo

1998: Actual Winner: Shakespeare in Love
My pick: Saving Private Ryan

1999: Actual Winner: American Beauty
My pick: The Green Mile

2004: Actual Winner: Million Dollar Baby
My pick: Ray

They got it right the years I didn't mention, especially last year. Crash was clearly the best film over everything else, especially Brokeback Mountain.

[ISiddiqui]

What really jumps out of that list (though by no means the only disagreement) is: The Fugitive over Schindler's List?! WTF?!

[Pyser]

Well, first off, I'm comparing them because they were both up for Best Picture, and due to the Academy's bias against genre films, Annie Hall, a clearly undeserving movie, won.

well thats an interesting quote....considering comedies, let alone romantic comedies, very rarely get any award recognition, let alone best picture.

that was a very well deserved win, imo.

[WVUFAN]

What really jumps out of that list (though by no means the only disagreement) is: The Fugitive over Schindler's List?! WTF?!

Both were well made movies, but I enjoyed The Fugitive more. I felt, since I'm judging the film based on technical and storyline merits, The Fugitive had better acting, had a more engaging storyline, and was a little more solid in terms of flow than Schindler's List was.

[WVUFAN]

well thats an interesting quote....considering comedies, let alone romantic comedies, very rarely get any award recognition, let alone best picture.

that was a very well deserved win, imo.

True. Comedies do not often win. A sci-fi film, however, has NEVER won a Best Picture oscar. Neither has a horror film.

[ISiddiqui]

Both were well made movies, but I enjoyed The Fugitive more. I felt, since I'm judging the film based on technical and storyline merits, The Fugitive had better acting, had a more engaging storyline, and was a little more solid in terms of flow than Schindler's List was.

You are literally out of your mind, you know that? I don't know how anyone can say the Fugitive had better acting (Tommy Lee Jones was good, but not that to beat out the amazing performances of Ralph Fiennes, Liam Neeson, and Ben Kingsley) and more engaging storyline than Schindler's List... I'll give you the flow of the story, however.

[WVUFAN]

You are literally out of your mind, you know that? I don't know how anyone can say the Fugitive had better acting (Tommy Lee Jones was good, but not that to beat out the amazing performances of Ralph Fiennes, Liam Neeson, and Ben Kingsley) and more engaging storyline than Schindler's List... I'll give you the flow of the story, however.

Yes, all three had great performances, although I though Fiennes was a little over the top. Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones had a better grasp on their parts.

And yes, I thought The Fugitive was better written than Schindler's List. If you're talking about the topic of the stories, then yeah, Schindler's List has got it, but The Fugitive executed better overall.

[cthomer5000]

1990: Actual Winner: Dances With Wolves
My pick: Goodfellas
Both are great movies, but the Academy chose the better one, IMHO.


1992: Actual Winner: Unforgiven
My pick: A Few Good Men Unforgiven is by far a better movie.


1993: Actual Winner: Schindler's List
My pick: The Fugitive I liked The Fugitive as much as the next guy, but come on...


1994: Actual Winner: Forrest Gump
My pick: Pulp Fiction Both are wrong. The Shawshank Redemption was the best movie that year, and in my opinion, easily the best movie to never win an Oscar. A truly competitive year for movies though, i'll say that. Any of those 3 look like locks in most other years. All things considered though i dont think Pulp Fiction really deserved it... it's not even Tarantino's best film.


1996: Actual Winner: The English Patient (ugh!)
My pick: Fargo I've admittedly never seen the English Patient. I like Fargo quite a bit but i think it would be a pretty weak Best Picture.


1998: Actual Winner: Shakespeare in Love
My pick: Saving Private Ryan It's hard to pick against the historical epic, but Shakespeare was an extremely good movie.


1999: Actual Winner: American Beauty
My pick: The Green Mile This is probably the craziest of your reversals. The Green Mile was a great book, but the movie was thoroughly mediocre. Lucky to even be nominated.


2004: Actual Winner: Million Dollar Baby
My pick: Ray Never saw million dollar baby, but i found Ray to be an incredibly tedious watch and not a very good movie.


They got it right the years I didn't mention, especially last year. Crash was clearly the best film over everything else, especially Brokeback Mountain.
I'm admittedly in the minority here, but i thought Crash was an offensively bad movie. Insulting to the intelligence. Brokeback was a very good movie, but again not best picture worthy. I thought 2005 was an exceptionally bad year in movies. Off the top of my head I would say the best movie i saw from 2005 was Me and You and Everyone We Know.

And not only are you nuts to say Empire is not the best Star Wars movie, but you've proven yourself straight-jacket worthy by sayinv Return of The Jedi was the best of the 3. Yeah, teddy bears defeating an army of soldiers with laser blasters... great stuff George.

[sabotai]

They got it right the years I didn't mention, especially last year.
How can they get it right last year when they didn't even nominate that best movie!? (Walk The Line)

[ISiddiqui]

Unforgiven is by far a better movie.

Yep. Probably my favorite Clint Eastwood movie. We all love (or should love) Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, but Unforgiven wanted to show a more honest portrayl of the west. It wasn't all fun gunslinging. There were actual horrible consequences. Just utterly brilliant and top notch acting from everyone in that flick.

It's hard to pick against the historical epic, but Shakespeare was an extremely good movie.

Not only that, but going on WVUFAN's rant about the academy and genre films, Saving Private Ryan was the perfect 'safe choice' as historical epics, especially ones involving war have been handsomely rewarded with the golden bald guy in the past.

Never saw million dollar baby, but i found Ray to be an incredibly tedious watch and not a very good movie.

Perhaps I'm biased (I love Clint Eastwood's directing), but Million Dollar Baby was a great movie. Swank and Eastwood worked absolutely perfect together.

I thought 2005 was an exceptionally bad year in movies.

I think that's true. Probably the reason that no one will really get upset over Crash winning (though I liked the movie) is because there really wasn't anything that great out there otherwise. "Brokeback Mountain" was the favorite, but in any other year...

Kind of like the anti-1994 or anti-2004 (which had Lord of Rings 3, Master and Commander, Mystic River, and Lost in Translation nominated, not to mention Cold Mountain, which may have won in other years, not even getting nominated!).

[flere-imsaho]

Empire Strikes Back isn't the best of the trilogy, but you can keep thinking that if you want.


http://kamilewicz.org/albums/misc/nuts.gif

[flere-imsaho]

Yes, all three had great performances, although I though Fiennes was a little over the top.

Over the top? Of course he was over the top. He was playing a Nazi Concentration Camp Commandant! What did you expect, a nuanced performance? :p

[stevew]

I knew WVU would tubgirl this thread.

[st.cronin]

WVU may have tubgirled it, but flere godwined the thread. I don't believe anybody's fritzed it yet, though.

[stevew]

This thread also had some brilliant posts in it.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=48859&page=3&highlight=annie+hall

[ISiddiqui]

To be fair to Flere, once WVUFAN mentioned Schindler's List, a reference to Nazis was just around the corner.

[stevew]

I didn't really care for Million Dollar Baby, the first half was pretty solid, didn't care much for the 2nd half. I know they weren't trying to make Rocky, so it doesn't have to have some super happy ending. But I think it just kept dragging and dragging and dragging.

[flere-imsaho]

WVU may have tubgirled it, but flere godwined the thread. I don't believe anybody's fritzed it yet, though.

Not fair. That's not a real Godwin. A real Godwin is comparing someone, or their arguments, to the Nazis. I was talking about an actual actor portraying an actual Nazi. Completely separate things.

Personally, however, I find your willingness to overlook the facts and reach your own conclusions to be very reminiscent of the Third Reich.

[Subby]

This thread is kind of like Hell Atlantic's litmus test, except this one detects doofs instead of douchebags.

[ISiddiqui]

Not fair. That's not a real Godwin. A real Godwin is comparing someone, or their arguments, to the Nazis. I was talking about an actual actor portraying an actual Nazi. Completely separate things.

Personally, however, I find your willingness to overlook the facts and reach your own conclusions to be very reminiscent of the Third Reich.

Gold :D

[st.cronin]

Not fair. That's not a real Godwin. A real Godwin is comparing someone, or their arguments, to the Nazis. I was talking about an actual actor portraying an actual Nazi. Completely separate things.

Personally, however, I find your willingness to overlook the facts and reach your own conclusions to be very reminiscent of the Third Reich.

atta boy