SILLY SEASON : Oscar Long Shots That Are Spelled ‘Loooooong Shots’

They typically open: “For Your Consideration.” But the response to these ads for Oscar nominees isn’t always the desired one.

Consider Walt Disney Pictures’ latest in the Hollywood entertainment trade papers: “Leon. Best Actor. ‘Cool Runnings.’ ”

Remember Leon? Remember “Cool Runnings”?

Now, Leon is up against such potential best actor nominees as Harrison Ford (“The Fugitive”), Anthony Hopkins (“The Remains of the Day”) or Daniel Day-Lewis (“In the Name of the Father”), to name a few.

This is no slam against the bobsled movie or Leon, who’s driving it. It’s merely an example of what some studio executives refer to as Hollywood’s “political waste.” And it comes bubbling up this time every year.

It doesn’t matter whether the picture is a hit at the box office or with the critics. What matters is that actors’ and actresses’ egos are massaged and studios’ relationships with them are greased so that they will star in future films. That’s critical since most studios are constantly vying for a select group of talent. Besides, if they don’t take out the ads for notable actors, they’ll be dogged by the stars’ agents.

So the long-shot (or what some in the business snidely refer to as “suicide”) ads become a costly necessity at Oscar time. Advertisers say they pay $5,869 for a one-page ad in four colors in the Hollywood Reporter for one day. A two-page ad costs $11,300. Studios and independent filmmakers plunk down those bucks throughout the Academy Awards season, which runs from January to the big night, March 21.

Consider the greenbacks doled out for Bill Murray as best actor for “Groundhog Day” or Sylvester Stallone for “Demolition Man”? Or Stallone in “Cliffhanger”? (“You might as well light a candle and pray to St. Jude,” quipped one Columbia source and academy voter.)

Or the money spent on just about every category for TriStar’s “Rudy”; director, actor and screenplay for Hollywood Pictures’ “Bound by Honor”; best picture--and all the other categories--for both Columbia’s “Malice” and 20th Century Fox’s “Rookie of the Year.”

“Maybe these people think they can fool the public, but the people in the industry? They’re the ones who vote on the nominations, for Pete’s sake!” says a Universal Pictures production executive.

Fine Line Features’ “Short Cuts,” which has seen a media blitz of advertising, is considered a long shot--but Fine Line’s campaign, sources say, is also designed to try to raise its visibility in the film community to attract more directors like Robert Altman.

On the other hand, many voting members said they found Touchstone’s Oscar nominee ads for Angela Bassett and Laurence Fishburne in “What’s Love Got to Do With It”--who are considered genuine contenders--underwhelming.

When studios or independent producers have dropped the ball on long-shot ad campaigns, talent has been known to tout themselves, such as Diane Ladd for a nomination in 1991’s “Rambling Rose.”

And then there are the foreign-language films. “Many of these pictures are only shown for very brief periods of time in Los Angeles and New York and the academy members miss them. The trade ads induce them to go,” says entertainment attorney David Colden, of Weissmann, Wolff, Bergman, Coleman & Silverman. “While many of these pictures are strong on their merit, there are some smaller companies with obscure pictures who think if they spend enough money and take out enough ads, they can buy a vote. Now that’s naivete.”

But for the big boys, it’s an exercise in showmanship.

“But you know what’s so ridiculous?” said one Paramount producer and academy member. “People are running all of these ads, when you know ‘Schindler’s List’ is going to win best picture and director. The one that gets me is the ad for (Columbia’s) ‘Geronimo’ for best picture. Give it up.”