Racial Controversy over THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG a Lot of Hulaballo Over Nothing

When Disney studios makes its return to the world of 2-D animation this December with its film The Princess and the Frog, it will feature its first African Princess. Tiana, an african woman who starts out as a maid in New Orleans before finding her happily ever after, would seem like a good step forward in bridging the racial gap among Disney Princesses. But some people just won't be satisfied.

First, there's the AOL article that rips Disney's decision to have a Caucasion-appearing prince (though he's technically he's from the Mid-East) angrily asking why, at a time when our President is black, an African is apparently not good enough to be royalty. Another article has an unnamed woman claiming that having a white prince makes that statement that "black love isn't good enough." Would an all-African cast have been nice? Of course. But look at the flipside: this is an interracial courtship and marriage that's going to be taking place on the hallowed screen of Disney. What could be more ethnically diverse? In my view, making a film with only black characters has the danger of reinforcing the idea that blacks and whites can't occupy the same space; it would say you either have one ethnicity or the other. And those complaning about the prince's "whiteness" have to realize they can't have their cake and eat it too: they're also complaining that the villain of the film is black, which demonizes black people. Which is it folks? Are you saying that it is impossible for Africans to be villains? Heaven forbid that the two women struggling in the fight for good vs evil both have the same skin color.

And then there's the complaint about having the heroine Tiana being a maid to a spoilt rich white family in New Orleans. Attackers say this reinforces the idea that blacks should be serving people. This is a film where Tiana is 99% likely to get her come-uppance over her employers and leave them groveling at her feet as she becomes a princess and they loose all rank on her. She will break free of her role underneath the white family and have a triumphant happily ever after. Isn't that an uplifting and rewarding message, that anybody can be a princess, that no one is destined to remain forever subserviant? And isn't showing the white family as stuckup and snobbish a way of showing the pitfalls of such a system?

In short, there are people out there clamoring for attention, making mountains out of molehills. The Princess and the Frog may not be a perfect solution for the world's problems, but its making good steps in the right direction, and I look forward to its release this December.

Twitter: Star-Stalking on a New Level?

Over the last few months, there has been an increasing use of Twitter by those in Hollywood. Slashfilm at the beginning of March put together a list of key actors, directors, and writers who are using the service, which boasts a range of names, from J. J. Abrams to Nick Cannon. The list is only a sampling of the 140+ people that Slashfilm was aware of who used Twitter; undoubtedly the list has grown over the last few week, and will probably continue to grow as the service becomes more popular. So how exactly does Twitter fit into the scheme of relations between industry and consumers? Is it another form of tabloid? Is it a form of publicty? A way for stars and directors to connect with audiences they genuinely care about? The answer is a little of all those hypothesis.

There's no getting around the star-stalking angle of Twitter. There always have been, and always will be, people who want to know every last detail of the lives of celebrities, from what music they like to what film they are working on to their favorite fruit. With Twitter, fans can have these answers directly from the actors and directors themselves. For instance, I can find out at a glance what Stargate: Atlantis star David Hewlett thinks of the latest episodes of Battlestar Galatica or how annoyed Rumer Willis is with traffic at the moment. It is a glimpse into the inner lives of those much of America admires from afar, and I'm sure that there are those out there who frantically check Ashton Kutcher's Twitter to see what divine words he has to say today.

But for all these twitters appear to be the casual comments of actors and directors, we should never forget for a moment that these people work in Hollywood, where image is everything. Bearing that in mind, you have to wonder how many of these Twitters are monitored by press agents, or if someone in marketing has told a director to release certain information in a quick Twitter blurb. The more overt publicity uses of the micro-blogging format are just beginning to be explored; earlier this month, Lionsgate became the first studio to use Twitter to release exclusive content about an upcoming movie. Is it long before every major studio has a Twitter page? There's a good possibility. I've noticed several openings in the industry for people to work on "new media" approaches to advertising. Studios are looking to hire people are adept at internet-markeing sources, those who can track blogs and fan-pages and sites like Twitter so that they can be better understood and used. Twitter is a chance at free advertising; it would be uncharacteristic of Hollywood to ignore the mass audience it can approach.

But putting aside the cynical look at Twitter, I think there are some Tinsel Town residents who genuinely enjoy connecting with their fan base and let loose some steam through using the service. Jon Favreau, director of Iron Man, took fans on a tour of his house via Twitter earlier this week, showing off all the geeky sci-fi memoribilia he's stashed away in his house, from an Iron Man helmet to a Zorgon spaceship from Zathura. Putting together that kind of information goes beyond the off-handed posting of many of those who use Twitter and indicates that Favreau likes sharing his interests with others on the Internet. Yes, this is more of the star-stalking I talked about earlier, but while fans get an insight, directors and actors get to blow off some steam.

Is Twitter a trivial pursuit? For all intents and purposes, yes. But like so many things that seem trivial, it is quickly gaining steam and popularity. Twitter will be around for a while; it will be interesting to see how its relationship with Hollywod evolves.

Nickelodeon's Token Earth Day Tribute is a Mockery

I came across this news bulletin on Variety's website during my internet news browsings. Apparently on Earth Day, Nickelodeon is going to tell its viewers to turn off all electronic gadgets for one minute to "symbolize a commitment to saving the environment." Now, all gimmickyness aside, I thought it was a nice, if small gesture on Nickelodeon's part to point out to kids that Earth Day is taking place and open them up to the idea of saving electricity and whatnot. Until I read further.

This call to turn off electronic gadgets does NOT include the TV set; heaven forbid that Nickelodeon should lose any viewers. Its a similar hypocrisy to when Nick Jr. tells preschoolers they should go outside and play, then follows up with a "Coming up next" advertisement. But hey, they're a television channel, and their business is to have customers, so I'll give them a pass on that. I look to see what time this magical minute is going to take place. Will they do it the morning, when the youngest kids are around, or wait for the afternoon when the teenagers are out of school and plopped in front of the set? Nope, they'll be hosting their Earth Day minute at 9 PM that night. Yes, 9 PM. A time when much of Nickelodeon's key demographic will either be watching prime time television, in bed, or doing last minute homework. Those who do watch will probably be among the older generation hoping to catch Nick at Nite. Now while they could do with a reminder too about conservation and the environment, kids are the ones that need to be targeted by Earth Day so they start thinking about recycling and turning off that extra light when they're not in a room.

If Nickelodeon wants to actually get behind its message, they should move that minute up to a time slot where it may actually have an impact. For now, we can chock up this "conservation minute" to nothing more than an obligatory PR move, and a badly managed one at that.

Sci-Fi Announces Miniseries Line-up

Sci-Fi Channel (or, as it is about to be rebranded, Sy-Fy) has announced that three new miniseries are being developed over the next year, with one slated for a winter release and two being prepared for 2010. A modern adaptation of Alice in Wonderland has secured the winter slot, with an adaptation of comic-book hero Phantom and an adaptation of fantasy book series "Riverworld" to follow.

The Alice story is being penned by Nick Willing, who created the Tin Man adapation of The Wizard of Oz that aired in 2008. I had mixed feelings about Tin Man, which did a good job of bringing the fairytale into the world of science-fiction, but was unable to create a strong drive in me to find out what would happen next. At best I was mildly interested in the story, and with some forced performances, I was underwhelmed by the overall production. I have about the same expectations for Alice; the story lines follow the same episodic construct and Alice has a sufficient supply of zany creatures and characters to create a twisted rebirth of the Lewis Carrol novel. One side note: Tim Burton is currently working on a film adaptation of Alice in Wonderland, with an all-star cast that includes Johnny Depp and Anne Hathaway. What kind of connection, if any, is there between this sudden interest in the tale?

Of the remaining miniseries, I'm most looking forward to "Riverworld," the story of a photo-journalist who ends in a "world occupied by everyone who ever lived on earth." The promise to keep away from campy stereotypes of historical figures and to reimagine them as youthful 20-year-olds sounds like a solid idea. One particular remains unclear to me: Does this journalist travel between Earth and this other dimension, or is he stuck there? As for Phantom, my only exposure to previous incarnations is limited to a vague memory of a movie I came across when I was a child. Apparently there have been multiple attempts to adapt this superhero to a screen format, all without success. I suppose Sci-Fi is living up to the maxim "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try...try again." Here's hoping these producers have better luck than there predecessors.

No More R-Rated Comic Movies?

Splash Page is reporting an interesting rumor: Warner Bros. may be backing away from R-Rated comic movies after the intake for Watchmen was less than they had hoped. The unnamed inside studio source sites the recent over-whelming success of The Dark Knight and Iron Man, both of which were PG-13, as strong factors in Warner Bros. supposed decision to back off darker films in favor of more "family friendly" fare.

This is a move that on the surface makes sense financially. PG-13 films have a wider audience, as parents are often willing to take their kids to see "harmless" superhero violence. But the use of The Dark Knight as a reason to back away from R-rated material is a questionable defense. The Dark Knight was a film that pushed the envelope for violence in a PG-13 film, and it is the opinion of some, including myself, that the film should have been rated R. The film was a top at the box office long enough for word of mouth of its violence to drive away customers, but people kept on coming for first and second showings, until the film finally topped $1 billion dollars in world-wide box office receipts. If Knight had actually received an R-rating, would the success have been the same? I think so.
The critical acclaim combined with the hype created a monstrous wave of consumers that just couldn't be stopped, and I don't think that an R-rating would have catastrophically affected those numbers.

So what, then, about Watchmen, a comic book film that did receive an R-rating, and despite months of hype, including the public struggle of Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox over the rights to the property, failed to gross more than $56 million (domestic) in its opening weekend. To compare, PG-13 Iron Man raked in over $98 million in its first weekend. But there are more factors at work here than simply the film's rating. First, reviews were all over the place, from calling it a plot where "you really don't care" about how it ends to praising it as a film of "psychological sophistication." Compared to overwhelming praise for The Dark Knight, this is not the word of mouth that is geared towards roping in an audience, especially, as Slash Film points out, with the economy as tight as it is right now.

Now add in the fact that the film opened in March, as opposed to May, the kick-off month to the summer blockbuster season, which is usually a track to guaranteed success. Releases dates can make or break a movie. Prince Caspian, which opened in May 2008, while still earning a considerable amount of revenue, didn't hit the numbers Disney was hoping. There's a good deal of analysis that suggests that the film should have been slated for a December release, as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was, instead of sitting in between the two heavy weights of Iron Man and Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. In a similar way, maybe Watchmen should have waited for the summer season for its release, when more people are on vacation and looking for a movie to spend their money on.

Quite simply, though, Watchmen was not a true superhero movie. The focus was on the politics, not the crime-fighting, a fact that probably deterred a substantial chunk of potential audience members. That, combined with the above factors, worked against the film to give it the weak turn-out it received. Does this mean that studios should stay away from R-rated superhero movies? Not necessarily. It more likely means that Watchmen should have been more solidly written and filmed before it was ready to join the league of superheros who have come before it.

True Grit Redux

My natural antipathy towards all remakes had my stomach rolling when I first saw this headline over at First Showing: there's a remake of True Grit in the works. After all, its the film that finally won John Wayne an Oscar for Best Actor. And even if you've never seen True Grit, you've probably seen the clip of Wayne charging the bad guys, reins in his teeth, both guns ablaze. It's one of those iconic film moments that gives you a thrill, especially when you're watching John Wayne fill out the mythical proportions that his screen persona created. Given my fondness for the movie, how do I feel about the remake? I staunchly stand by the idea that Hollywood is out of ideas by investing in ANOTHER remake. And this time, they seem to be getting dangerously close to remaking a classic film, as True Grit treads on the edges of that classification. If the slipperly slope continues, is a Casablanca remake in our future? I do have to admit I'm slightly intrigued by the fact that the Coen Brothers want to shift the film perspective to that of the girl and away from the U.S. Marshall, in an attempt to go back to the original source book of the same name.

In short, please Hollywood, stop remaking films and go find some original ideas. But since this project is already a go, here is a chance to disprove my doubts. Good luck.

Early Reviews of 3-D in Monsters vs. Aliens: Looks Good but Still a Ways to Go

I've been tracking the progression of Dreamwork's Monsters vs. Aliens for some months now, as advertisements hit theatres and the television (including a Super Bowl commercial that failed to impress potential consumers with its 3-D technology). Now early reviews are starting to come out as the film prepares for its March 27th U.S. release date.

Kirk Honeycutt at Rueters enjoyed the plotline of the film and found it quirky and entertaining. He does make mention of an overuse of 3-D "gags;" apparently there are multiple instances of objects flying towards the screen, something that I believe studios have to get over if 3-D is going to have any legitimate place in the future of cinema. Todd McCarthy at Variety doesn't seem to have been too distracted by the 3-D effects, as he limits the mention of them in his review to pointing out one at the very beginning of the film and leaving them out of the rest of his review. Which begs the question: which format did he see it in? It looks like we'll have to wait a few more days before we can get some more substantive reviews about the use of 3-D in Monsters vs. Aliens, so come back later for more reviews!

The Vault is Back Online

Apologies for the extended hiatus taken over this past month! Academics have a way of creeping up on one, and as much as I would have liked to comment on some of the past news over this month, I've sadly had to spend some quality time with some papers that just wouldn't write themselves. Never fear, with classes over, the Vault is ready to bring you the latest news and commentary from around Tinsel Town.

Remake Mania: Are there NO original ideas left in Hollywood?

The news this week that came pouring out of Hollywood made me seriously concerned about the amount of creativity left in Hollywood. Story after story told of yet another remake to be made. First Gore Verbinski announced he wanted to do a new version of Clue. Then Guillermo del Toro, the man with more projects then he has fingers mentions in passing he'd like to redo The Count of Monte Cristo, which was made into a film as recently as 2002. Total Recall, The NeverEnding Story, and Damn Yankees round out the line-up of films announced this week to be getting a new spin. Five movies in one week. I think that's something to be concerned about.

While the original of many of these movies were not very good, they do have something of a cult status. The NeverEnding Story in particular is renowned for having terrified little children for years. Why ruin a good-bad thing? We should count our blessings, I suppose, that studios haven't started cannibalizing classic films. But with rumors swirling last year about a rewrite of Poltergeist being worked on. That's getting dangerously close to genuine classics. I know that a work of art is always supposed to be a work in progress, and these directors think they can improve on what has come before, but sometimes the big wigs in Hollywood need to learn to let sleeping dogs lie.

The Theme is Green: Superhero News

A nice chunk of superhero news has come out of the wood-works, and the Vault has it for you here in a nice neat post. First off, The Green Hornet, the project I fear will never die, has had a new director assigned to it by the name of Michel Gondry. Also a screenwriter, Gondry has only directed a handful of films that have been released in theatre, but he does have Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind under his belt, not only directing but winning an Oscar for writing the Original Screenplay as well. Eternal Sunshine is also one of the 400 movies nominated for the top 100 films of all time; that being said, Gondry also directed Be Kind, Rewind, a film starring Jack Black that was released last year. Given the lesser quality of that movie, it's easy to worry that Gondry may be a one-hit wonder who will fail to deliver. Readers will know that I have been fairly unsupportive of this project for a while now and the directing choice has done nothing to assuage any of my fears.

Keeping on the "green" bent of the post, a currently untitled Green Lantern film has had its release date set for December 17, 2010. Considering that the only solid info on the film is the writers, the basic plot (possible spoilers in link), and a rumored director (Martin Campbell of Casino Royal), this date may be optomistic. No names have yet been announced as to who will play the Green Lantern, a superhero with a power ring given to him by a dying alien.

And for some interesting musings on superhero films, turn to Joss Whedon, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame, who speculates on why DC superhero movies fail to connect with audiences. Whedon may have some insight, especially given the fact that he has penned two different scripts for a potential Wonder Woman movie, neither of which were given the green light to proceed to production. The basic difference, Whedon argues, between Marvel and DC is the difference between ordinary people and gods. Whedon has a point. DC superheros tend to be much more epic, much more invincible then Marvel characters. How do you make Superman, the alien who is virtually indestrucible, relatable to us average mortals? Even Batman has a bit of mystique about him, being a billionaire who can afford or create any gadget he'd like.

Marvel characters, on the other hand, tend to be average joes who are just trying to make ends meet while saving the world in their spare time. Spider-man and X-men run along this vein. Of course, neat categories never work out; Tony Stark in Iron Man also fits the billionaire prototype; and what could be more god-like then an actual god, embodied in Thor? And Marvel superhero films are not infalliable: see Nicholas Cage in Ghost Rider if you have any doubts, or Jennifer Garner in Elektra. Still, Whedon may be on to something, as Marvel has been turning out one superhero movie after another these last few years, while DC has been much slower to the get-go.

Emily Blunt Most Likely Will Not Appear in Iron Man 2

Sad news for Iron Man fans. Slash Film is reporting that Emily Blunt will probably not appear as the Black Widow in the upcoming sequel. Contractual obligations to 20th Century Fox are rumored to have forced her to drop Iron Man in favor of Gulliver's Travels which is due to begin shooting at the same time as the comic book film. If this news is true, and it looks to be fairly solid, then Marvel will be losing a talented actress who would have done an excellent job in their movie, and fans may be forced to live with Scarlett Johansson instead. Casting news is always iffy until the contract is sign, but I had my hopes on this one and am sad to see Blunt have to part ways with the metallic crusader.

Oscar Night: A Review

I return from my week and a half vacation to bring you a review of last night's Academy Awards. It was a night full over very few surprises: Slumdog Millionaire took home Best Picture and Director, Heath Ledger got Best Supporting Actor, Kate Winslet finally got her Oscar, and Wall-E walked away with Best Animated Feature. The only bone I have to pick with the awards themselves is that Wall-E should have received an award in at least one of the sound categories; the first half of the film has almost no dialogue, and the robots have a unique language of whistles and boops that was impressively brought to life, and Wall-E should have been recognized for that.

But what of the show itself? Like the winners, there were few surprises, and overall, it was a lackluster performance. Hugh Jackman did what he could to keep the night moving, dancing and singing the night away, an experience I would have enjoyed more if I didn't feel that it was utterly pointless. The opening number was to be expected, to help people get into the mood and welcome viewers to the Oscars, but was there a real need for the tribute to the musicals routine? Likewise, the montages of animated features, romances, comedies, and action flicks felt pointless, particularly the animated feature montage, as there were no more than five films to take clips from. Such things should be done away with, as it only serves to drag on the show, not heighten any excitement. The one montage I feel they should keep is "In Memoriam" which I always find a touching tribute to those in the profession who have passed away, from cinematographers to actors to screenwriters.

I did like the concept of arranging the awards in the order they come in the production of a film. I honestly can't remember if this just happens to be the way they are always handed out, but even if that is so, attention was drawn to the fact this year, and it was a neat way to help the audience connect with the movie-making process. The idea of having five actresses/actors present the acting awards, however, was an idea that may have looked good on paper but didn't seem to work on screen. Having someone stand on stage and give a lengthy speech about why you should care about a particular performance was not very interesting or inspiring and again lengthened the show more than necessary.

All in all, the Oscars were particularly lackluster, despite attempts to shake things up. Unimaginative montages and slow pacing are sure to have driven many to reach for their remotes, especially since there were few big name films to keep them interested. Ratings were up, however, which indicates that there were those who were interested to see how the Oscars had changed, or perhaps that last year's record lows had more to do with the writer's strike than the programming. The Oscars still have a way to go to connect with audiences, and there's a long road ahead.

Oscar Watch: Doubt

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

Today's review deals with multiple-Oscar-hopeful Doubt, an intriguing drama about a nun who is steadfast in her belief that the priest at her church has committed a dreadful sin and must be brought to justice, even if no one else believes her. Starring a strong cast of Meryl Streep, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams and Viola Davis, the film has had every one of its top-billed performers nominated for acting Oscar: Streep for Best Actress and the rest of the cast in the supporting acting categories. The film has also been nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay.

The thing that I loved about this film is its ambiguity. There is no clear cut black and white in this film; the audience mainly has to rely on hearsay to piece together what might have happened, and in the end, you are not really sure who was right and who has wrong. It's designed to make the audience think: only by thinking can you get any satsifaction from the film. Is it right to stand fast in your conviction if there is no evidence? How far should one go to bring a person to "justice"? Who decides what "justice" is? Is a tiny suspicion enough of a reason to accuse someone of a crime? The big questions come in the last minute of the film, when Streep breaks down to Adams and says (I'm paraphrasing) "Sometimes you have to go away from God to catch wrong-doers. But there is a price to pay. Sister James, I have such doubts!" What are these doubts? Does she fear that perhaps she was wrong about Hoffman's priest? Or by straying from God, has she opened her eyes to things that have shaken her beliefs? Doubt is an open-ended text that can be debated 'round in circles without ever getting to a resolution, short of asking the writer himself for a straightforward answer. That's what the film is about: based on what little you know, can you really make decide Hoffman's fate?

The film is an adapted stage play, and it shows in the pacing of film, which is roughly broken down into several long scenes between two or three actors. This does not detract from the film; indeed, it allows the actors a good chance to get into the material and lets the audience sit back and watch some of the best in the trade do what they excel at. Will this translate to Oscar success? Kate Winslet and Meryl Streep have been fighting back and forth for Best Actress in several different critic pools and other awards, and there is a good probability that the award will go to one of these two fine ladies. Hoffman is unfortunately competing against Heath Ledger for Supporting Actor, so his chances of winning are not particularly good at the moment, though he did give a fine performance. Adams and Davis will go head to head against each other in the Supporting Actress category. This category I'm the least certain about; in my mind it really could go anyway. For outside opinion, Gold Derby blogger Tom O'Neil has an interesting analysis of Adams's chances that is worth a read.

Doubt's Oscar chances may be slim, but that does nothing to detract from a solid film which will have you ruminating as you leave the theatre.

3-D on TV: Reviews

During Superbowl weekend, two 3D spectacles hit the little screen in living rooms across America. The first was the Monsters vs. Aliens 3D trailer that aired during the Superbowl game; the second was a special episode of Chuck that was filmed in 3D format.

I was unable to watch the Monsters vs. Aliens trailer during the Superbowl, but the review over at First Showing indicates that my fears about the the promotion were right. The quality of the commercial was low, especially since it required the use of the more retro and cheap two-color glasses that are a step backwards in 3D technology. What's more, despite the supposed huge campaign to hand out these glasses, many people had trouble finding them before the game, meaning that a good chunk of the audience was stuck watching a blurry picture on the screen for the duration of the trailer.

Chuck, while still handicapped by the lack of glasses, seems to have done a bit better, though the strong material of the show probably helped carry the technology. I was glad to see that the format of the picture was still watchable without the glasses, so that those who were unable to obtain glasses weren't unable to watch the show. Chuck, aside from opening the episode with a scantily-clad Sarah in Chuck's dream, made fairly good use of the 3D format, only once throwing the obligatory knife at the screen and instead using the technology to add some depth to its Intersect-flash moments and rock concert scenes. Still, the glasses provided were only as good as one can possibly get with free technology. The days of regular 3D programming are far from here.

The Current Hot Property in Hollywood? PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES

I got a laugh out of this news item as I was doing my daily perusal of blogs. Slash Film reports that Hollywood studios are currently duking it out to obtain the rights to a novel called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, a novel which keeps a good deal of the original text of Pride and Prejudice and spices it up with a few twists that add a zombie invasion to the plot. I actually think that this film could be some fun, especially given the popularity of the last Pride and Prejudice movie. The premise of original book is so well-known that it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to reengineer it into an amusing horror flick.

The original Times article that broke the story has some interesting tidbits about other literary classics that have gotten a horror remixing, including Wuthering Heights, where the ghost of Catherine does quite a bit of terrorizing. And of course, as Slash reminds us, Jane Eyre already got the zombie rewrite over 60 years ago in the form of I Walked with a Zombie, a slightly creepy Val Lewton film that takes the original concept and adds Jamaica and a little voodoo.

I'm strongly considering buying the book when it comes out in May, if only to see how author Seth Grahame-Smith pulls it off.

Revolutionary Road: The Oscar Performance that Wasn't

When the Oscar nominees came out, there was a great deal of shock at the snubbing of The Dark Knight which failed to edge its way into the race for Best Picture or Director. But among all the hubbub, there was another film that failed to make the list in a category it should have: Revolutionary Road should have gotten Kate Winslet nominated for Best Actress. This is old news by now, but as I have just had a chance to see the film, I wanted to throw in my two cents. Now, I know that Winslet did get a Best Actress nod this year for her film The Reader. From what I hear, however, her performance was at the most, a supporting one, and while still good, not as good as her role in Road. After seeing the film, I'm still stunned that the Academy did not follow suit with the Golden Globes and nominate Winslet for Best Actress in Road and Supporting Actress in Reader. Her performance as trapped housewife April was heart-breaking. In the last fifteen minutes of the film, you can see that she has become emotionally broken, that the life has snuffed out of her. All her glow and vibrancy is gone. It takes skill to portray an empty character that isn't over the top; anyone can stare blankly around, but a real actress can make her character go through the motions of normality and convey that beneath the calm, banal exterior, something is dreadfully wrong.

While Kate Winslet's performance was Oscar-worthy, the rest of the film was lacking, explaining its inability to nab a Best Picture nomination. The transition between naive young lovers and a suppressed young couple in the American dream was literally split second; there was no watching Di Caprio (who also makes a fine performance as a man struggling to choose between a life of comfort and a life of adventure) and Winslet evolve into the people they vowed they never be. The contrast was too abrupt for me to be able to get my bearings with any ease, and I kept feeling like I had missed a scene somewhere along the way. A smaller detail that made things feel a bit off was the continuing absence of the children in the film. Although introduced early on as part of the kit and kaboodle of the American Dream, they only minorly figured into the plot and were conviently never around during the parents multiple arguments. They were there more as props then as characters.

Revolutionary Road is definitely a film worth seeing, even if it is a bit rough. Kate Winslet may not have gotten the Oscar nod she deserves, but hopefully she will at least walk away with a long overdue statue at the upcoming Academy Awards.

Can Oscars Pull it Together Without Household Names?

An interesting column was posted on Variety's Award Central on Friday about the potential ratings success or failure of the upcoming Academy Awards broadcast. Last year saw ratings hit an all time low (see my last post on the Oscars) and there is considerable worry that this year's ratings may plunge even lower. It's sure that the execs responsible for the show were beating their heads when they discovered that The Dark Knight was snubbed in the top categories, as popular opinion agreed that the film was guaranteed to have viewers turning in to see if the movie could walk away with some of the more prestigious awards. People may still watch to see if Heath Ledger can win posthumously, but with Best Picture restricted nearly exclusively to less well-known titles, there is considerably less interest in who wins.

Producers Bill Condon and Laurence Mark are doing their best to put some spice into the show, starting off with hiring Hugh Jackman to host the Oscars. Now rumors are coming around that they are finding new ways to present the categories and trying to shake up the formula of what is announced when, in order to create some new interest. I'll admit my interest is certainly piqued, and as I've watched the past Oscars on tape-delay with my hand continuously hovering over the fast-forward button, I am intrigued to see if this supposedly new format can hold my attention longer. Admittedly, last year's show was hampered by the writer's strike, but that airing may have negatively affected the public's opinion of an already overlong extravaganza. The film gurus are desperately trying to save a sinking ship and even if they don't succeed, it should be entertaining to watch them try.

Super Franchise: Why it's NOT a Good Idea

In what may be a less than surprising announcement, Warner Bros. declared today their desire to spawn several more Batman movies in the near future, as well as expand other franchises like Superman and Sherlock Holmes. Its not hard for the execs at Warner Bros. to do the math: The Dark Knight was the second-highest grossing movie of all time, second only to Titanic. If they can replicate even half that success, the studio would be rolling in dough, which is why they are most definitely keeping the possibility of a sequel open. But while the concept may be good for the bottom line, is it good for the franchise? The answer to me seems to be no.

First off, these movies that are such great success, like Dark Knight, are often because all the right players both behind and in front of the camera came together and almost magically clicked into place. Its rare to continue duplicating that success, as anyone can tell you who's watched a series play out its life. Look at the life of the Spider-Man films. The first one was pretty good, the second one was amazing...and then came number three. I had such high hopes for that film, that came crashing down around my ears. Overdone special effects, bad writing, and too many villains made for a colossal train wreck. Perhaps it was not as bad as it appeared to me, but because expectations for myself and the rest of the public were so high, we were greatly disappointed when the film failed to be merely adequate. And that was a sequel that had all the principle players still in line. The longer these film franchises go on, the more people will start drifting away. Actors often don't want to be type-cast, and sticking with one string of films is a surefire way to get locked into a stereotype. Will Christian Bale want to keep playing Batman? Will Michael Caine stick with Alfred, or will he perhaps retire from acting? As people leave, they'll need to be replaced, and the odds are that the chemistry will be lost. All it will take is for one failure of a sequel to drag the name of the original films into the mud.

Of course, series of films have been done in the past with some success. But when I say "the past," I am referring to the 1940s and '50s, when the studio system ruled and B-films were in fashion. Then it was easy to keep a tight control on talent and ensuring they went to the projects you wanted. It was also the heyday of the B-film, the acceptably low-budget picture that could be made quickly and easily. It was during this time period you got Hopalong Cassidy, Charlie Chan, Sherlock Holmes, and other series films that starred the same actor getting into a new scrape every few months. Nowadays, the B-film is dead, and everything has to be big budget or not at all. It also follows that a film has to make good money in order to cover the expenditures.

Will these franchises succeed in getting the go ahead? Spider-man has already gotten the green light for pictures 4, 5, and 6. Despite luke-warm reviews, the film made out big at the box office, and the same movie-goers will most likely turn out in droves for the fourth film because it has name recognition; it may be hypocritcal of me, but I most likely will see it as well, in the hopes that the third film was a fluke. But Hollywood doesn't seem capable of keeping a storyline fresh and creative for more than a few films. A franchise is either enormously successfull in its initial run and bombs in its second, or it starts strong in the first film, peaks in the second, and crashes in the third. As Christopher Nolan once asked a reporter, how many good third movies can you name? Very very few. In fact, there are barely any film franchises that have lived beyond three films beyond the horror genre, though that trend is starting to reverse; besides Spider-man, Pirates is making a run at a fourth movie as well.

I would love for Hollywood to be able to successfully create these movie franchises. It would give me great moving-going pleasure. But I am cynical enough to doubt that Hollywood is capable of turning out anything other than less-than-adequate sequels which will quickly become a joke. What do you think readers? Do I need to find faith again in Tinsel Town or am I justified in my skepticism?

Oscar Watch: Slumdog Millionaire Review

Last week I began my quest to track down and watch Oscar nominated pictures that I had not gotten around to seeing, in order to be more fully informed in my Oscar commentary. On Sunday I took a step forward and watched Slumdog Millionaire, the odds-down favorite to win Best Picture this year. The film is being touted on posters as "The feel-good movie of the year," a phrase I initially took issue with in the first few hours after seeing the picture. In order to get to the "feel-good" part of the plot, one has to sit through scene after scene of depressing trials and tribulations. But the more I recounted the plot, the more I remembered little moments that had made me chuckle. Slumdog is like watching the sun trying to peak through the clouds: fort he most part, it's dark and unfriendly, but the longer you wait, the brighter the rays get. And as the film is about life in the slums of India, I perhaps should have braced myself a little more for the brutality that awaited me.

What of its Oscar chances? Very good. According to IMDb, the film currently has 42 wins and 36 nominations from other awards handed out around the world. Most notably, Slumdog won Best Motion Picture- Drama at the recent Golden Globes. That doesn't make a Best Picture Oscar a done deal however; last year Atonement won at the Globes while No Country for Old Men walked away with the Academy Award. But given how well Slumdog is doing racking up awards, there should be little problem (then again, The Dark Knight seemed like a forgone conclusion for a Best Picture nod, and we all know how that turned out).

Awards aside, Slumdog seems to have the right ingredients for Best Picture. The camera work is certainly not run of the mill, using hand-held movement and rapid cutting to capture the confusion of slum life, which at times was a bit too disorienting for me. The film exposes societal problems in India which are sure to pull at the conscientious heart strings of Academy voters (but has caused a backlash of criticism by people who say the film is exploiting the impoverished setting in order to make some easy dough). The structuring of the film becomes a bit dull after a while, however. The flashbacks are structured around hero Jamal explaining how he knows the answer to a particular "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" question; once the novelty of looking for the answer in the flashback wears off, you are left with the repetition of waiting for the next inevitable clue to pop up in the plot.

To conclude, Slumdog Millionaire has all the signs of this year's Best Picture winner. Although perhaps a tad overrated, the film is still quite good and shows innovativeness that the Academy is sure to reward.

And for some interesting casting news about Dev Patel, check out this recent post at the Vault.

Mysterious Iron Man 2 Casting Update

Word has been tossed about lately over the potential casting of Mickey Rourke as a villain called Crimson Dynamo in the upcoming Iron Man 2. But in an interview with MTV, star Robert Downey Jr. has partially denied those reports. The consensus seems to be that Rourke is still on track to be cast in the film, but in a much more hush-hush role. Nothing is set in stone yet, but it overall seems to jive with the latest Internet buzz.

One issue that has yet to be resolved is whether Emily Blunt will be able to appear as Black Widow in the Iron Man sequel. Last week it was announced that Blunt had signed up to appear in Gulliver's Travels, which will be shooting around the same time as Iron Man 2. The Vault will post the resolution to that problem as soon as it is resolved.

Last Airbender Casting Change

When the major casting choices were revealed for Avatar: The Last Airbender (now officially truncated to The Last Airbender) movie last December, director M. Night Shyamalan drew considerable heat for his decision to use an all-white cast. Fans of the show didn't understand how a film based on a TV show with heavy Asian overtones (philosophies of the setting parallel Buddhism, and the "magic," if you will, is used through martial arts-style moves) could merit not a single Asian actor. While I agree with fan outrage over the casting, I also have much simpler concerns about casting decisions, which simmer down to one point: Jesse McCartney as Prince Zuko?!? Really? A character who over the course of the show undergoes a complex and tormented character development is going to be played by a teen pop idol?? I gave up the game right then and there, seeing no hope at all for the movie.

Now I see a tiny glimmer of light in the darkness, however small. Jesse McCartney has been dropped from the film, supposedly due to tour conflicts with shooting schedules. In his place is Slumdog Millionaire star Dev Patel, who is currently doing quite well being nominated for and winning awards for his performance in that film. I think Patel will have a much better shot at nailing the arrogant and angry Zuko. What's more, he is most definitely not caucasion, a fact that will hopefully bring down the blood pressures of fans across the nation. Regardless, this film still has a long way to go to dig itself out of the pit it fell into. Shyamalan blundered right of the gate with his casting choices, and although he claims in his interviews to understand the Buddhist influence on the material, I fear that his time in Hollywood is interferring with the director's ability to look beyond the blockbuster concerns of the film and look at the story beneath. To paraphrase movie lore, if you build a good movie, the audience will come. Shyamalan put the cart before the horse when casting this film, and now he'll need to pick up some serious ground to prove to fans that he knows what he's doing.

Stay tuned for further developments in the tale of The Last Airbender.

Annie Awards Shocker: Kung Fu Panda Smacks down Wall-E

I did a double-take when I saw the headline at Slash Film: Wall-E went to the Annie Awards and came home without a statue. The 36-year-old awards ceremony, which as Peter Sciretta describes is the "Oscars of animation," is sponsored by the International Animated Film Association, and features ranging from Best Character Design, to Best Animated Feature, to Best Animated Television commercial. Wall-E was nominated in 8 categories, including Best Animated Feature, and came home with zero. That's right, none. Kung Fu Panda came home with fifteen awards. Panda was nominated in nearly twice as many categories as Wall-E, which, as Sciretta point out, didn't even earn nominations for Screenwriting, Music, or Character Design.

Someone must have mixed up the screenings for the awards voters, because they couldn't possibly have been watching the same movies. Panda is a commendable romp, but what is a more difficult task to pull off: making kids and critics enjoy a band of martial arts animals or convincing those same demographics that a robot can fall in love? Arguably, Panda is probably the more commercial friendly of the two films, as Wall-E admittedly is a slower-paced film. And I won't deny that Kung Fu Panda deserved to win some awards. But to not only shut out Wall-E, but earn twice as many nominations as well? Something's rotten in Denmark. Does this bode ill for the fate of Pixar's shot at the Best Animated Feature Oscar this year? I doubt that Panda has a shot. But then again, if you told me that it would come home with fifteen Annies, I would have laughed in your face.

At least the Annies got something right when they awarded Avatar: The Last Airbender Best Animated Television Show for Children and Best Directing for the last episode of the series "Sozin's Comet, Part Three." I've watched every episode of the show and it definitely grew out of its juvenile antics into a serious, daring, well-written show that ran headlong into a series finale that I was convinced would only disappoint me. In an ususal move for television, the finale exceeded my expectations and left me deeply satisfied, exactly what the end of a show should do. Now if only I didn't have that movie to worry about....

Superhero Rumor Mill

There's some interesting tidbits flying around the Internet today, centering on multiple superhero movies. First off, Slash Film is reporting two stories from the DC world of comics. The first comes from IESB, who claims that Christopher Nolan has begun writing the script for a third Batman film. Peter Sciretta at Slash Film is highly skeptical about the news, and says if anything, they may be tossing around some ideas over at the studio, but not putting paper to pen. I was encouraged by earlier interviews with Nolan when he asked a reporter point blank "How many good third movies can you name?" It certainly indicates that he will be thinking long and hard about creating a third film, though I'm sure Warner Bros. is pushing hard to get another movie maker onto the big screens. There have been whispers on the wind about this or that actor returning to the cast, but none of them have been solid enough to warrant posting at the Vault.

Next up, a Flash film may be slightly more on the way to becoming a feature length film. Writers have turned in numerous treatments of the film, but none have gotten the green light for production. While Sciretta is again sceptical that the news is anything to get worked up about, First Showing is doing cartwheels.

Sadly, Sciretta's post also mentions that the same writer is also currently behind a Jonny Quest film, something I'd been trying to convince myself wasn't true. But after a few weeks of self-denial, I finally put in a Google search and came up this article from last year. Another one of my childhood memories down the drain.

Last, but not least, a more solid but as yet unresolved story involving the casting of Emily Blunt in Iron Man 2. It seems that Blunt has also signed up to appear in a new adaptation of Guilliver's Travels and scheduling conflicts may force her to pull out of one or the other. At the moment, representatives are claiming that she should be available to appear in both films. Stay tuned for more updates.

The Saga of Narnia Continues

Fantasy fans were dismayed last December when it was officially announced that Disney was pulling out of the Chronicles of Narnia franchise. Despite a reasonably decent intake at the box office by Prince Caspian, it was too expensive to make, and ticket sales were not reasonably covering the costs of the project. With heavy expenditures anticipated for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader because of its seafaring plot line, Disney decided it was time to cut its losses and severed its connection with Walden Media, the other studio behind the series.

Now it has been announced that 20th Century Fox wants in on the action, and has agreed to help finance the next movie. The original cast will stay on, and with any luck, a film will be released in 2010. There is some worry, however, that Fox will not be up to the task and may butcher the series. As briefly mentioned in the Variety article, and expanded upon by First Showing, Fox was the studio behind the Eragon movie which came out in 2006, a disaster of a movie that hacked up the plot and failed with critics. I understand the need to shorten plots when one transfers a book to the screen. I put up with a decent amount of cutting in the Harry Potter films with reasonably little fuss. But the team behind Eragon cut out, not one, but two magical races from the storyline, and instead of a conglomerate of dwarves, elves, and humans running around, we were left with simply humans running around, a much more unappealing line up. Will similar cuts be made to Narnia? As Arya went from elf to human, will Reepicheep go from mouse to man? An extreme suggestion, but I'm worried that with Fox behind the film and with director Andrew Adamson not returning to the helm, who will keep the magical spirit alive in the franchise? Fox made a bold move in attempting to take over the franchise; let's hope we don't end up regretting the decision.

Lara Croft Reborn

News broke yesterday that Warner Bros. is gearing up to take over the Lara Croft franchise and give it a whole new spin. As the Hollywood Reporter points out, the first two films by Paramount were highly lucrative, and since the rights were available to purchase, it should come as no surprise that another studio decided to jump on the wagon. The move is yet another in a steady stream of video game-based movies that are slowly revving into production. Rumors of a Bioshock movie have been floating around since last January, and Gears of War is coming along as well, with stories coming out this month about developing the plot into a trilogy, a revelation which surprisingly has gamers cringing in fear. That revelation may be based on the atrocious failure of Max Payne in 2008, a film starring Mark Whalberg that crashed at the box office. Last, but not least, Jerry Bruckheimer, the man behind the Pirates saga, is working away at an adaptation of Prince of Persia.

All in all, Hollywood seems to be keeping an eye on video games for new sources of material. And why not? Tinsel Town executives like to find films with "built in" audiences. It's why they turn to blockbuster novels like Twilight and Harry Potter, because no matter how bad the movie is, there is almost a guarantee that a good chunk of fans will turn out for the release, as Twilight amply shows. With the Lara Croft franchise still actively turning out games (the newest one, "Lara Croft: Underworld" came out in November 2008), it seems likely that there is still a solid base of fans out there who will perk up their ears when they hear the phrase "Lara Croft movie."

The Vault will keep an eye on casting news and further developments behind these and other movies, so check back soon.

Oscar Watch: Frost/Nixon Review

With the Oscar nominees announced late last week, it has become apparent that I am sadly behind on my movie watching, something I hope to correct over the next few weeks. Last weekend, I took a step forward by seeing Best Picture-hopeful Frost/Nixon. The film currently has five Oscar nominations: Best Director (Ron Howard), Best Actor (Frank Langella as Richard Nixon), Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Achievement in Film Editing. The film was also nominated for five Golden Globes: Best Director, Best Actor (Frank Langella), Best Screenply, Best Picture-Drama, and Best Original Score. It failed to come home with any however, and I feel that might be the case in the upcoming Academy Awards.

Frost/Nixon is a solid film. It has great acting, particularly from Frank Langella, who rightly deserves his nomination for Best Actor for his performance of the conflicted Richard Nixon, who is convinced that his actions were right and feels unrightly persecuted, yet at the same time also seems to be struggling with guilt that he has let down the country. Whether Langella can recover from losing at the Golden Globes to Mickey Rourke's performance in The Wrestler remains to be seen, but I feel he has a fair shot. Michael Sheen is also quite capable as David Frost, the TV personality and novice-journalist who takes on the enormous task of getting Nixon to admit he was wrong on national television. The directing is fine, using a unique style of intercutting "interviews" with the characters on the events that transpire in the film, giving it a pseudo-documentary style. Since the non-interview parts are done in what can be overgeneralized as "normal" cinema style, the interviews themselves are a bit jarring as they don't quite fit in. Overall, Frost/Nixon is a fine film, commendable for a job-well done.

But is it the breath-taking wonder that stands up and screams "I am the Best Picture of 2008," the film that leaves you shaking your head in wonder at how so many elements could so perfectly align? That, I'm afraid, it is not. Aside from Frank Langella's performance which I noted earlier, the film does not seem to have the momentum to overcome the favorite in the Best Picture race, Slumdog Millionaire, a film I hope to see later this week. It is definitely worth watching, but it will probably not be raking in the gold come the awards ceremony.

Another Retro TV Show to be Dragged Kicking and Screaming into Theatres

Hasn't the world suffered enough? The news that an "A-Team" movie was being developed made me shake my head in wonder. I have found that there are very few, if any, good adapations of old television shows, and that most are just plain awful. Get Smart, The Dukes of Hazzard, Bewitched, Charlie's Angels, I think the world would have survived without being subjected to Hollywood's attempts to update respectable, if not always the greatest fares from the days of old. But unless this project continues to keep stalling (directors have been hopping in and out of the chair like a hot potato), we may not be rescued anytime soon from our plight. Though Fox has said they're trying they're best to avoid making it campy, and are updating the characters from Vietnam vets to Iraqi vets, I'm not holding my breath. Slash Film contributer Peter Sciretta is more hopeful with the recent addition of director Joe Carnahan to the project, citing his "intense visual style" as a reason to believe that perhaps Carnahan can steer the film away from a train wrek. As with many things in Hollywood, we can only wait and see what the creative forces-that-be will bring us.

Two Films Derail, One Makes it Back to the Tracks

As film festival dust subsides, Hollywood websites are starting to turn their eyes back to projects closer to home. At the moment, there's some notable wreckage in the water, in the form of Seth Rogen's The Green Hornet picture. Splash Page has extensive coverage of the saga behind the movie, which looked like it was going to come together after years of being in the works, when it suddenly all fell apart. I for one, am somewhat relieved. Although I am somewhat of a novice when it comes to the original television show, I've seen enough it to know that Rogen's take on the film probably would have done it a great injustice. His previous work on film's like Pineapple Express and Superbad make me feel that it would have quickly degenerated into a comedic farce full of slapstick humor and bad jokes. The fact that "creative differences" lost the film its director, kung-fu star Stephen Chow, indicates to me that he wanted to take a more serious tact on the storyline. Whether the real story will come out over the next few days will be interesting to see.

Astro Boy was very nearly in the same straits as The Green Hornet, though because of financial problems rather than directorial problems. The three-dimensional animation adaptation of a Japanese anime that follows the quest of a robot trying to understand how to be human ran into financial difficulties when money that was supposed to be covering it through February never "materialized," forcing the studio to close operations until the money showed up. Executives behind the film are all assurances that the problem was minor and temporary and that the film is still a go for its fall 2009 release date.

Monty Python and the Holy YouTube Channel

I came across a fascinating story at Slashfilm this weekend regarding, of all things, Monty Python. The creative forces behind the TV sketch series and movies have long been the target of YouTube pirating, with users posting the popular material left and right. In an attempt to combat copyright infringers, Monty Python has created its own YouTube channel where one can watch clips from not only the sketch show, but from the movies as well. The channel is both free and legal, in addition, when a clip is playing, a small popup shows up in the video with links to purchase Monty Python DVDs on Amazon. The hope was that viewers who were interested in the material they watched would then go on to purchase their own copy online.

The result was a staggering success: Slashfilm reports a 23,000% (yes, that's twenty-three thousand percent) increase in Monty Python sales since the YouTube channel started. Sales didn't merely double or triple, they went up exponentionally. It's an astounding indicator that, contrary to popular belief, making episodes available online at no cost is not necessarily a bad business move. Consider this: when the average joe takes a scene from a Monty Python episode and puts it up on YouTube, viewers are most likely unaware that complete episodes are available on DVD. They'll chuckle over the video and move on to other parts of the internet. Few will take the effort to find out if there are DVDs to purchase. With the new official channel, one is alerted right off the bat that they can buy DVDs, and to make matters even simpler, a link is provided right to the page. If this test case is anything to go by, this is a business model that works.

The fact that Monty Python is using YouTube is interesting based on some of the research I did for a post on Hulu and YouTube last year. Many believe that studios and distributers were hesitant of using YouTube because they don't want to mix their content with home content of unprofessional users. But as Monty Python officials have seemed to figure out, the only way to combat the sharing of your material is to challenge competitors on their home court, fighting poor quality clips with high definition videos. Viewers choosing between two free videos will usually go with the one of better quality; once you have them hooked, you can advertise away to your heart's content.

Incidentally, YouTube is not the only place where free material is connected with links to DVDs. Hulu also has certain television shows, such as the first two seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer available for free on its site, with a link to find out about box sets directly below the media player. While I do not know the stats behind the success of these links, I'm sure they must have some effect; I'm sure that I will be at least Netflixing the rest of the series when I run out of free episodes to watch on Hulu. That makes me a potential investor in four more seasons. Seems like good business sense to me.

High Brow Nominees to Equal Low Ratings?

Ever since the nominees for the 81st Academy Awards were announced yesterday, there has been no shortage of reading material. One article that has caught my eye is a post by Steve Mason at Big Hollywood, who predicts that the lack of The Dark Knight and other popular names on the nominee roster will send Oscar Night ratings plunging down to new depths. His reasoning is that since so few of those in the race are household names, the interest level among the general public is minimal at best. To back up his argument, Mason has compiled statistics for the last ten years of Oscar Broadcasts and compares the combined box office receipts for the five contenders for Best Picture to the number of people who tuned in to see the winner announced. The results are enlightening. While the numbers don't fit perfectly into the pattern, the general trend is the higher the revenue of the nominees, the more people who watch the Academy Awards. The most obvious example is the year when Titanic was in the running; an astronomical 57.2 million people watched the film carry off 11 awards, 10.7 million more people then watched the second highest watched broadcast of the set, when American Beauty beat out The Green Mile, The Sixth Sense, The Insider, and The Cider House Rules. Titanic, incidentally was going up against L.A. Confidential, The Full Monty, Good Will Hunting, and As Good as it Gets, a sizable competition.

Recent years have seen a decline in Oscar viewership; while ten years ago around 45 million people watched the ceremony, that number is down to close to 30 million. What attributes for the decline? Over all, I'm inclined to agree with Mason that since no one knows who is nominated, no one cares who wins. But that doesn't help explain the Oscars of 2002, when Chicago beat out Gangs of New York, The Hours, the Pianist, and Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers for Best Picture, but only gathered together 33 million people, a small wrinkle in the box office vs ratings theory. What else could explain the nosedive? There is something to be said for the overlong duration of the show, as well as the recent straying from a family-friendly format. While I remember very little about the Oscars of ten years ago, I do remember that it was something my family had turned on and watched with some interest. It seems to me at least that in recent years, the Oscars have become edgier, with more risque jokes and language; throw in the performance of Best Song nominee "It's Hard Out Here For a Pimp" and one might be on to at least one reason viewers are fleeing for the hills.

The Academy is hoping to turn things around this year. Bill Condon and Larry Mark, newly engaged by the Academy to produce the show, revealed in December that they were hiring actor Hugh Jackman to play host. It was a surprising leap from the usual comedian that handles the job, but Condon and Mark pointed out that Jackman won an Emmy for hosting the Tony awards, a fact that certainly counts in his favor. But whether the new producers have a huge task ahead of them if they're to repair the reputation of the Oscars, particularly in light of the facts discussed above.

To conclude these thoughts, I leave you with a U.S.A. Today article from only a few days ago that predicted that The Dark Knight would save the Oscars from a ratings nightmare. Obviously, there's a tiny flaw in their plan.