Sony to Universal: 23 Oscars Skiddoo

And now for the bragging rights.

The Oscar nominations had barely been tallied last Wednesday when Universal Pictures boasted that, with such best-picture nominees as “Schindler’s List” and “In the Name of the Father,” it had garnered 23 nominations overall--the best in studio history and, perhaps, the best in Hollywood history as well.

Columbia Pictures, with various nominations for “The Remains of the Day” and “The Age of Innocence,” among other films, was still a distant second with 18 nominations.

But it didn’t take long for corporate pride to take over. Columbia’s parent firm, Sony Pictures Entertainment, soon weighed in with its own tally. Sony: 31 nominations. Universal: 23.

Sony quickly got the word out to the press that three studios under its corporate umbrella had done a sterling job in the Oscar race. In addition to Columbia’s 18 nominations, TriStar Pictures (led by “Philadelphia” and “Cliffhanger”) garnered 10 and Sony Pictures Classics (“Orlando”) had another three.

“Universal may well have achieved the best performance by a single distribution company in history, but Sony Pictures Entertainment achieved the best performance this year by any corporation,” said a company spokesman.

Quicker than one could say “Jurassic Park,” the howls of protest could be heard all the way to Universal City.

Asked if Universal considered itself Wednesday’s true studio winner, a spokesman for Universal replied: “Absolutely! And so does everyone else in Hollywood who doesn’t work for Sony.”

Indeed, some Universal insiders were hopping mad. Sony’s contention that it had the most nominations was a “highly disingenuous, mean-spirited and petty way at looking at the world,” said one executive.

Tom Pollock, Universal’s movie chief, said that the last time he checked, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences gave Oscars to studios--not multinational corporations.

“They list all the pictures by studio,” Pollock said. “They don’t list any picture by Sony. . . . Corporate officials don’t greenlight any (picture), nor does the academy look to who owns movies. They look to who produces it and what the production entity is. Maybe John Malone, who has pay-cable rights to all those (Sony) movies (that were nominated), should be proud.”

At the core of the controversy is the manner in which Sony is set up. Under its corporate banner, SPE has separate distribution arms in place at Columbia, TriStar, Sony Pictures Classics and Triumph Releasing Corp. Universal, by contrast, does the marketing and distribution for its movies. Disney, as another example, has Hollywood Pictures, Touchstone Pictures and Walt Disney Pictures, but releases their product all through one entity called Buena Vista Distribution.

For years, Sony has complained that if the yearly box-office totals from all of its studios were counted as one, it would win the battle for market share against such giants as Disney and Warner Bros. But the rival studios have argued that Sony is a corporation, not a distribution company, and each must be judged separately.

Sony executives argue that since Sony Pictures Entertainment provides the capital for all its films, the corporation should reap the rewards when its films win Oscar nominations and reap the consequences when they flop.

“I would guess that in time you will increasingly see Miramax’s numbers folded into Disney’s numbers,” said a Sony spokesman. “They already had three stand-alone companies but, to use their argument, they have a single distribution pipeline.”

But unlike the three Disney labels (which as previously stated are distributed through Buena Vista), Disney-owned Miramax handles its own marketing and distribution, so only fairly it should be treated separately like Columbia and TriStar.