Oscars Change Rules for Best Original Song

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/oscars-alter-rules-for-best-original-song-nominees-20120831

In the previous years, the process to choose the nominees for Best Original Song, was based on only having songs that earned an average score. Last year, because of this method, there were only two nominees for Best Original Song. Based on this, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Science decided to Change the rules in which the Best Original Song is voted on. The new method will have the music branch vote for songs and the five movies with the highest votes will become nominees for the award. To every positive, there is a negative, and in this case, by having the five highest voted songs(minimum), there is the chance that a song that isn't very good will end up a nominee for the Oscars.

This article caught my eye because it is about the Oscars changing the way they vote for their nominees. It may not seem like a big deal, but knowing that the Oscars is a prestigious award, hearing that they had to make some changes just shows that they were having some problems on choosing their nominees. In a way, they are kind of lowering the standard for the nominees in order to have more than just two nominees.

As a student, this benefits me because it shows that not everything is perfect and change is acceptable. As a "consumer" or audience this benefits because more songs will be nominated so there will be more variety. As a filmmaker it would be a dream to receive an Oscar for a movie you made, no mater what the award was for. Since the rules for getting more nominees changed making there need to be a minimum of five nominees, that opens up one's chance for their Best Original Song to be one of the nominees, giving them the chance to receive an award.

Since this rule was barely applied, I wonder if this will work out for the Oscars. If it doesn't work this time, will they decide to go back to the previous method, or will they continue to try out the new method for a few years.    

Tony Scott's Unfinished Business

Tony Scott was one of the most active directors in Hollywood. With his death, he left behind four big projects he was working on. One of them being a greatly anticipated sequel to "Top Gun," which was his gateway into his Hollywood career. the other three projects he left undone were "Narco Sub," "Lucky Strike," and "The Wild Bunch." Some people he had recently been working with him described him as being "burning with excitement for creating stuff." There were no signals that his film making energy was running out or that he was suffering from depression that would cause him to suicide. It is uncertain whether or not the sequel to "Top Gun" will be continued.

The title to this article was what had caught my attention. The title, being named "Movies that Tony Scott left behind," lead me to think that the article was about someone who left their legend behind them in their movies. I didn't necessarily think the person had died. After realizing that my thought of what the article was, was wrong, it pulled me in deeper considering how easily one can misconceive titles.

This article also got me wondering how one's life can impact greatly on people, whether they are family, friends, or simply fans of what the person did. Scott had 3 projects he was working on and with his death, he wont be able to direct these films. If these movies are still made, someone else will have to be the director, and they will no longer be his films. Of course, the job will be done and the movies will be made, but they wont be directed the way he would have directed it. Fans of "Top Gun" would most likely prefer the sequel to be made by the original director. It just wouldn't be the same if another director directed it.

I wonder if the movie's Tony Scott left unfinished, will still be worked on. Although these movies wouldn't be his movies any more, would the people he was working with decide that they continue on working on these films, or will they leave them as Tony Scott left them?               

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-scott-projects-20120821,0,7108947.story

Legislative Hurdle Cleared

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-child-actors-bill-20120816,0,4064286.story

A bill was passed to protect child actors. The bill requires the people that work in the entertainment industry who have access to young performers to have background checks. Having background checks done to people in the industry such as talent managers, publicists, and photographers would prevent registered sex offenders to be working with minors. This bill also backed up former child actors that were victims of abuse.

This article is significant because it has to do with the protection of children. As a student, this article makes one feel safer as a child or teenager that are trying to get a job in the entertainment industry. In the film industry, everyone working together on a project is linked. Someone in the film industry would not want to hire someone who could potentially be a danger to any of the workers, especially if they are children. If something of that sort were to happen, the industry, having had hired the person, would get involved with the situation. An industry with a history of sex offenders is not going to appeal to the consumer very much because they would not like to support the problem in any way.

Children are not the only people who could get abused by workers, so having had passed the bill of requiring a background check for people who would be associating with child actors, shouldn't the entertainment agency just do background checks for all of their staff? This would ensure that all of the workers are reliable and it would eliminate the worry of potentially having a problem of abuse among any of the workers.