The Vault

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

2009-03-29T23:13:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-03-27T02:57:00.001-07:00

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

2009-03-25T13:10:00.001-07:00

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

2009-03-24T05:37:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-03-23T11:08:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-23T10:32:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-23T10:17:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-23T10:15:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-02-26T05:41:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-25T11:08:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-24T01:24:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-23T11:53:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-10T15:20:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-10T01:41:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-10T01:22:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-09T12:47:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-02-07T16:11:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-05T01:28:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-03T14:18:00.001-08:00

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

2009-02-03T14:07:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-02T14:35:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-31T15:02:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-30T09:28:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-29T05:11:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-28T12:13:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-28T08:30:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-28T01:19:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-27T12:37:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-25T08:37:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-01-23T08:34:00.000-08:00

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.

Paramount Steps up Subsidies for Conversions to 3-D Screens

2009-01-23T08:11:00.000-08:00

The Vault is going to take a quick time-out from Oscar coverage to report the latest news bulletin regarding the ongoing project to make theaters nationwide be capable of screening 3-D films. In October, five major film studios signed a contract with three major distribution chains to help pay for the cost of these enhancements. Now Paramount, one of the original five, has gone even further in the assistance it is offering in order to combat the effects of the economic downturn. According to Variety, this new deal bypasses the chain conglomerates of AMC, Cinemark, and Regal Cinemas and instead goes straight to individual theatres, offering to what is called a "'virtual' print fee." Theatres will be rewarded if they convert "at least 50% of screens to digital," with more money offered if those screens are also capable of 3-D projection.

This move comes just a few months before the release of Monsters vs. Aliens, a film that will utilize the 3-D technology. Paramount is obviously hoping that the investment into theatres now will bring in substantial profits later, as box office receipts for three-dimensional prints versus "flat" two-dimensional prints of films has been noticebly higher. Add to that fact that there is a wave of 3-D films due out over the next few years (Variety notes that there are twelve this year alone, while last year there were two) and it stands in the best interest of studios and theatres alike to see that they are ready to meet the coming film season.

What happened to the "Pop Oscars"?: Oscar Nominees Announced

2009-01-22T08:39:00.000-08:00

Back in October, I wrote a post responding to a New York Times article which stated "Welcome to the pop Oscars." It fussed over the Wall-E, Iron Man, and a little known film called The Dark Knight, and said that big box office is threatening to dominate the Academy Awards. I now have in my virtual hand the list of the 2009 Oscar Nominees and I now ask the New York Times: What on earth were you worried about? The Dark Knight did not receive a nomination for Best Picture OR Best Director, and although Heath Ledger did get his nod for Best Supporting Actor, the rest of the film's nominations were for the most part in the less media friendly technical categories, such as sound-mixing and editing. Wall-E, which the NYT feared was going to encroach on Best Picture territory, was kept firmly in its place in the Best Animated Feature Category. The rest of the acting, directing, and Best Picture fare went for the most part to the traditional end-of-the-year releases, such as Frost-Nixon and Golden Globe favorite Slumdog Millionaire. The only "pop-ish" nominee I could find apart from Heath Ledger's much deserved acknowledgement was Robert Downey Jr.'s Best Supporting Actor nomination for Tropic Thunder (Though I haven't seen the film, I've heard high praise for his performance).

Another analysis from across the web: Tom O'Neil of Gold Derby at the Los Angeles Times writes an article of some of the suprising snubs in the nominee list. He, too, was surprised by The Dark Knight's lack of appearence among the top two categories, but perhaps more suprised by the fact that Kate Winslet was only nominated once. Brad Brevet at Rope of Silicon is more satisfied with the nominations and makes some interesting predictions about who will win Best Picture based on who was nominated in other categories. Brevet is concerned, however, that Dark Knight lackluster showing in the top categories puts Heath Ledger's chances for a win on shakier ground. Over at Slash Film, David Chen is much more outraged with the results of the nominations. Interesting side note:, a common thread running through these articles is a suprise that Bruce Springsteen's song "The Wrestler" did not get a Best Original Song nomination. Last but not least, In Contention, which makes its living doing Oscar predictions, is completely dismayed with the nomination list, especially Dark Knight's abandoment, and the raising up of The Reader, which they see as a flash in the pan that will be forgotten in a few years.

And what of Brook Barnes who, together with co-worker Michael Cieply, was the harbringer of doom-and-gloom by announcing the coming of the "pop Oscars?" They are quietly parsing the nominee list, expressing how wonderful it is that the Oscars "have the power to catapult a niche film into the mainstream and rewrite Hollywood's pecking order." And what of Tropic Thunder's acting nomination? No mention. Wall-E's confinement to Best Animated Feature? Not a word about the category at all. And of The Dark Knight's snubs and Ledger's nomination? Very little to say at all. In fact, in the entire 1017-word article, this is the only mention of the Caped Crusader's film: "Christopher Nolan failed to gain attention for his direction of The Dark Knight." Thirteen words to sum up that perhaps the New York Times read the pulse of Hollywood wrong when they eyed The Dark Knight with such apprehension as a comic film that would dare tread on the Holy Ground of the Academy Awards.

To be fair, most pundits--including the humble writer here at the post--thought The Dark Knight was a lock for at least Best Director, if not Best Picture. But as I predicted here last year, the Academy voters aren't going to change their ways anytime soon. For now, the Oscars will remain the domain of the loftier December releases that often provoke the daring statement when mentioned to a member of the common public: "I've never heard of it."

Golden Raspberry Award Nominees Announced

2009-01-22T01:15:00.000-08:00

On the eve of the announcement of the 2008 Oscar nominees, those behind the Golden Raspberry Award have let their own thoughts about last years films be known. Specifically, they've released their nominees for the worst performances and films of the year. The Razzies (as they are more commonly known) have been ongoing for nearly 30 years, and as their description states, they are determined to throw "Darts of Derision...at Hollywood's High Profile Humiliations." While some may think this a bit mean spirited, what better way to remind Hollywood of their failures? The Razzies, running parallel with the awards celebrating Tinsel Town's achievements, are a huge reminder from the moviegoers that the industry screwed up in a big way. And occasionally, some of the recipients even acknowledge the voice of the Razzies by showing up at the ceremony to accept their award. Halle Berry received a Razzie for Worst Performance in Catwoman, and stood on stage with her Monster Ball Oscar in one hand and her Razzie in the other as she made her acceptance speech (note: video contains some language).

So what unfortunate souls stooped low enough in the film-making profession to earn a Razzie nominee? Leading the pack with 6 nominees was the horrendous The Love Guru, starring Mike Meyers. More suprising was The Happening, an M. Night Shymalan horror pic starring Matt Whalberg, which came in second in the nominee race with 4 nods. And while Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull probably deserves its nomination in the "Worse Prequel, Remake, Rip-off, or Sequel" category, I'm personally rooting for Speed Racer to win the title, as it stole 135 minutes of my life that I would like back. Are there any potential contenders that the Vault thinks is missing? Though it may be heresy to suggest so, I would have liked to seen Catherine Hardwicke in the running for Worst Director for Twlight. I didn't care at all for the film that came out last November (and yes, I have read the books), and I think a large part had to do with the directing of the film. But as the movie is widely acclaimed by many fans, it was unlikely to happen.

What are your thoughts, readers? Did the Razzies peg the right people? Did they miss something obvious? Post your thoughts below!

Wolverine and the X-Men: Review

2009-01-19T14:54:00.000-08:00

Being currently situated in the United Kingdom for a study abroad program, I have been able to view the first three episodes of the latest X-Men series before it airs in the United States via the BBC. Wolverine and the X-Men (undoubtedly named as such to gain publicity for the Wolverine movie due out this summer) will premiere on the Nicktoons Channel this Friday, January 23rd, at 8 PM. My initial reaction to the show is positive, though it is a bit rough around the edges. The animation is not as polished as that of its predecessor X-Men: Evolution. Still, considering the growing abysmal standards for animation, its probably the best that can be hoped for at the moment.

Plot-wise, there is no gentle edging into the world of mutants. The show hits the ground running, fully expecting its audience to have a basic grounding in the characters and their relationships. Since it seems to start in the middle of things, I'm hoping some of the back story of events that take place before the opening of the show will be explored in flashbacks later down the road. The tone wavers between bordering on cheesy and edgy, accomplished by mixing "We're going to save the world" camp lines with a setting where mutants are hunted by the government and locked up, where politicians manipulate prejudice to turn the public into an angry mob, and military police arrest any civilians suspected of helping mutants avoid detection. Add in a few main characters who have mysteriously disappeared within minutes of the opening, and you've got the groundwork for a good show.

If Wolverine and the X-Men can get through its initial growing pains, we may have in our possession something worthwhile to watch while we wait for the new X-Men movie (which is exactly what Marvel execs are hoping for, I'm sure). Be sure to check out the debut this Friday and leave your feedback here!

JERICHO and PUSHING DAISIES to Return as Films?

2009-01-18T01:29:00.000-08:00

This certainly has been a week for TV rumors. First off, on Wednesday, Slash Film posted a conversation co-star Kristen Chenoweth had with TV Guide Magazine about the possibility of a movie to wrap-up loose ends of the canceled show Pushing Daisies. This would be welcome news for fans, including myself, as at the midseason cliffhanger, all kinds of shenanigans were going on, with explanations apparently to be forthcoming. Three episodes have yet to be aired and their fate is currently undetermined. It would be wonderful if ABC would allow the show to reveal all of its secrets, even if it was only in a TV movie or a direct-to-DVD release. The cult following of the show should be worth the effort.

On Saturday, Slash Film also broke the rumors of a film-version of Jericho. This particular show had the honor of being revived from cancelation after great protesting by fans, albeit for only a short while. As Slash Film puts it, the show "refuses to stay dead." The movie adaptation would take the apocolyptic setting beyond the small town and spread it across the nation, putting everything on a much grander scale. While I have never watched Jericho, I wish the fans best of look as we watch these rumors unfold.

X-Men Reshoot: Good or Bad news?

2009-01-18T00:58:00.000-08:00

In an announcement that caused great concern for X-Men fans, 20th Century Fox revealed on Friday that X-Men Origins: Wolverine is returning to the sets for "extensive reshooting." The film, due out in May, follows the beginnings of the mutant Wolverine in a prequel to the three already released X-Men movies. The report of the reshoot has sparked rumors that director Gavin Hood is having on-set battles with Richard Donner, of Superman: The Movie fame, who is supposedly trying to ghost-direct the film. Adding to speculation was an email actor Hugh Jackman sent to Aint It Cool News, claiming that these reshoots were always in the schedule due to scheduling conflicts and weather problems. To mollify fans in the meantime, Jackman attached a new publicity teaser photo that contained a good chunk of the cast.

Although Aint It Cool News suspects that Jackman's story is merely a cover-up for on-set conflict, he believes that the reshoot can only bode well for the film, calling it "very good news" and continuing that the success of The Dark Knight over at Warner Bros. has sparked Fox to put some serious effort into the film. Slash Film is also "hopeful" about the news, believing that director Hood will now be able to put together the film as he originally intended it. Back over at First Showing, however, Alex Billington is more doubtful, wondering if Fox was being too controlling of director Hood's project and is now backing off to try and save the film. If the film is a failure, he lays all blame at the studio's doorstep. Where does the Vault stand? If the rumors are to be believed over the official news, and this is really a desperate last-minute attempt to fix the film, then I am deeply worried. That Wolverine was seen as beeing in desperate enough trouble to warrant reshooting, especially given the economic climate, cannot be a good sign. True, the new sequences could turn the film around, but I hold my judgement for the final cut. Suffice it to say for now that my expectations for the movie have dropped a couple of notches.

Economics Hitting Casting Choices?

2009-01-14T01:06:00.000-08:00

Word is spreading like wild fire around the Internet of Samuel L. Jackson's interview with Los Angeles Times blog Hero Complex, in which he expresses concern for his future in being recast as Nick Fury in the upcoming Iron Man 2. Jackson, who played Fury in the teaser tag at the end of the first Iron Man, stated that "there is an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world" which may be affecting their ability to hire him. This isn't the first time money has been sited in a casting choice for the franchise: Don Cheadle replaced Terrence Howard as Col. Rhodes back in October.

Of course, nothing is set in stone considering Jackson and Nick Fury as of yet. But would opting for a cheaper star help or hurt Marvel Studios in the long run? While a big name star like Jackson certainly wouldn't hurt the fan factor, there's always the possibility that an actor of a smaller status could pull off the job just as well. But, as Hero Complex points out, Jackson has become the icon for Nick Fury, to the point of latest comic conception of the character to be drawn in a likeness of Jackson (above). This being the case, a smaller star would have rather large shoes to be filling given the anticipated presence Jackson could bring to the role. In the end, you have to spend money to make money, and it would probably be in Marvel's best interest to pursue Jackson as a casting choice.

Vampire Mania Continues

2009-01-09T14:11:00.000-08:00

The niche of vampire-fantasy material doesn't look to be running out of steam anytime soon. It's a genre that exploded with popularity with the advent of the Twilight series, the first movie raking it in at the box office despite luke-warm reviews, and the sequel quickly confirmed within a few days of the initial film's release. Its little surprise that studios are latching onto this latest craze and looking to turn out more vampire-related pictures. Last November, it was announced by Variety that producers Michael Birnbaum and Jeremiah Chechik had optioned the House of Night book series, which revolves around a special school for vampires. No word has come on the development of that property in a film, but it most likely isn't coincidence that the decision was arrived at the same month Twilight hit the big screens.

But what is more likely coincidence is the convergence of another pair of vampire-related stories that were announced yesterday. The first is the rumor of villain Morbius appearing in Spider-Man 4. Morbius, for those who have not been initiated into geek-hood, is a scientist who, through an experiment gone awry, takes on vampire-like attributes. Granted, director Sam Raimi makes a fairly solid case for why he wants to incorporate the character into the next film, but is there a chance he was influenced by the recent demand? The second announcement is not directly related to film, but still interesting. Director Guillermo del Toro has apparently written a trilogy of vampire novels that will be released last year. How this man manages to write an "epic" scale trio of novels and turn out films like Pan's Labyrinth and Hellboy II: The Golden Army, as well as being booked with directing gigs for the forseeable future, starting with The Hobbit is beyond me, but I will watch with interest to see how well these novels are received.

3-D Looking to Become a more Permanent TV Fixture

2009-01-06T01:06:00.000-08:00

Readers must forgive the Vault for its inundation of 3-D posts of late, but news just seems to be pouring out of the wood works. Just take a gander at this Monday Los Angeles Times article, which discusses moves that are being made to potentially make three-dimensional pictures a more regular feature on television. The Consumers Electronics Show this weekend will be featuring several televisions from various companies that are "capable of displaying 3-D like pictures." Part of the recent interest comes from concerned movie studios who want to make sure they get the most bang for their buck for investing in expensive three-dimensional escapades by allowing consumers to purchase a 3-D version for home. The studios have an excellent point. 3-D is all fine and dandy on the big screen, but how will that translate to the box in your living room? Current technology means you either opt for the "flat version," or try out a 3-D version complete with old-school red-and-blue glasses, like in The Polar Express remake released late last year. Unfortunately, the attempts to translate the technology from one screen to another have failed; scroll down to "Customer Discussions" on the above link and you will find some very unhappy people who switched off the format ten minutes into the movie. The new televisions that are being displayed this weekend are supposed to be taking a step forward towards smoothing out the major kinks in home-viewing experiences by adapting the advances made in theatre to these smaller venues. Philips even has developed a TV that doesn't require glasses to view the three-dimensional format.

It seems unlikely that a 3-D wave is going to come crashing into the television market anytime soon, especially with the dubiousness of the success of the technology in film. That won't stop TV execs from trying to hook audiences: look for a 3-D episode of Chuck to air after the Super Bowl! Apparently NBC thought that all the glasses wandering around for the Monsters Vs. Aliens trailer that will air during the game were too good an opportunity to pass up and announced last November that they would be putting together a special episode in that format. As a fan of Chuck, my question is this: will the transmission of a 3-D picture mean that those who don't want to watch it in that format will be stuck with a blurry picture? As much as I'm interested in seeing how the technology fares for an entire hour, I'd hate for people to turn away from the show because they can't view it. Check back for more details here as they emerge.

Superbowl Monsters Vs. Aliens Ad in 3-D: A Step Backwards?

2009-01-05T08:24:00.000-08:00

With 2009 promising to be the year to see if 3-D movies can gain traction in Hollywood, I was intrigued by an announ cement that Dreamworks will be airing a 3-D trailer for Monsters vs. Aliens during the Super Bowl. Peter Sciretta in the above link expresses doubt at how well this publicity stunt will turn out, and I'm inclined to agree. While the promotion may help spread the word about the format of the film, it may also reinforce the perception of the technology as a tacky gimick, the exact opposite opinion studios want potential audiences to be forming. Sciretta has reportedly discovered that the glasses that will be given away with Pepsi will use a slightly different process than the old red-and-blue glasses, but the quality will not be much improved. In addition, the glasses will still be the cheap cardboard kind, which cannot help the image of 3-D. There will of course be people out there who will realize that the cardboard is not the same material as the glasses in theatres, but there is a good chance others will be turned off by the 3-D trailer.

And a movie that is bound to used as evidence that 3-D will never be a serious format is the upcoming release of My Bloody Valentine 3-D. The film's quality mirrors that of many of the old fifties horror flicks that doomed the technology in the past (For more Vault discussion on 3-D from earlier decades, see my previous post). But hope is on the way if Monsters vs. Aliens can pull off a decent success; if it doesn't, then Pixar's Up should have a good run at showing any potential in the process. If Pixar can't pull off 3-D, then I don't believe anyone can.

For Posterity: 25 New Films for the National Film Registry

2008-12-30T23:20:00.000-08:00

The Library of Congress today announced the next 25 films that will be added to its National Film Registry. This annual selection chooses American films from any point in the 100+ years of film-making that have "cultural, historic, or aesthetic significance." Those movies that are added to the Registry are actively archived and preserved in the Library of Congress's vaults so that prints that are as near-perfect as possible will exist for future generations. Prominent names among the chosen this year include The Terminator, Johnny Guitar, and Asphalt Jungle. The list is not restricted to blockbusters or critically acclaimed pieces, however: Variety has an interesting description of Disneyland Dream, a film chosen for preservation, though few people have heard of it. That same Variety piece has a list and description of all movies that were added to the Registry this year. To see a full list of the more than five-hundred films that the Library of Congress has already put in it's vault, simply follow this link.

I think this process is a wonderful idea, and I only wish that films could be added to the Registry more often. The process of ensuring that the reels of the movies are preserved and/or restored must be a lengthy and costly one, however, and is probably a reason that only 25 films a year are selected. Still, it is nice to know that future generations will be able to watch gangsters attempt a bank robbery in Asphalt Jungle, or hear Arnold Schwarzenegger utter "I'll be back." There are some things you just have to experience first-hand.

Tales of Beetle the Bard: The Movie?

2008-12-29T09:59:00.001-08:00

As the holidays wind down, I have begun perusing the hefty build-up of news stories I have not yet had time to read. It was this wandering that brought to my attention a bulletin from early December: Warner Bros. reportedly has expressed interest in bringing The Tales of Beedle the Bard to the big screen. The volume of five short stories was written by Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling and was based on a fictional book of the same name mentioned in the last Harry Potter book, The Deathly Hallows. The Vault's gut reaction: Why must every studio milk a franchise dry? A purely rhetorical question, of course, as it is common knowledge that money makes the world go 'round, and to not wring every last dollar from a gold mine is considered sacrilege. And as Cinema Blend's Josh Tyler points out, with only a few more films left in the Potter-franchise, "the magical gravy train is coming to an end," leaving Warner Bros. to look for a new source of income.

But can the WB seriously be considering making Tales into a film? It would take an extremely lucky combination of talent to turn the book into a successful feature length film. This is not simply because of the short story aspect of the material; some critically acclaimed films are based on short stories: Rear Window and Fort Apache are the first movies that pop into my mind. But these are a combination of five eclectic short stories. It is highly unlikely that even an fervent audience of Potter fans would sit through a film that is based on the premise of a wizard reading aloud the Tales to children, with each subsequently appearing on screen. These stories would have to be taken individually and expanded upon. Would the films be connected to the wizarding world established by Rowling or made to stand on their own two feet, with a quick credit to Tales for inspiring the material? Not all the short stories seem ideal for film adaptation (small spoilers ahead): while the exploits of a wizard who uses dark magic to prevent himself from falling in love seems like potential material, will the saga of a boy and his pot with a foot really garner any critical acclaim?

Obviously the rumors of a film based on The Tales of Beetle the Bard are still just rumors. But what do you think? Is there a future franchise in the making?

Buried Treasure: Should Studios be Allowed to Sit on Projects?

2008-12-25T16:35:00.000-08:00

Amidst the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, news has been spread around the Internet that has stopped the heart of fanboys and girls world wide: a judge has ruled that 20th Century Fox has the rights to Watchmen, not Warner Brothers. With legal dust still flying through the air, many are anxiously wondering how this decision will affect the film's early March release date. The case raises an interesting question: Should studios be allowed to buy the rights to material if they then sit on it and don't use it for years or even decades? Take the current Watchmen saga. According to the time line laid out by Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood, Fox bought the rights to the graphic novel Watchmen starting in 1986. Over the years, it had sold some of the rights in complicated deals with various producers and studios, but never made a move to develop the project itself. Fast forward to 2006, when Warner Bros. bought the rights to the film from Larry Gordon, one of the earlier-mentioned producers with whom Fox had negotiated with. That leaves a twenty-year gap where Fox, if they completely win their case, theoretically could have dusted off the comic book and turned it into a movie. Twenty years with no hint of working on the project. Now Warner Bros. has come along and not only made the film, but made a film that looks to be raking in a good deal of money.

Legal issues of who owned what when aside, should Fox have a claim to something they ignored for two decades? Should any studio for that matter? On the one hand, there is something to be said for allowing material to gestate. Clint Eastwood bought the rights to Unforgiven years before he made it, and has said that the time allowed him to "age into" the role; one can only imagine that ruminating over a script for ten-plus years allowed Eastwood to fully flesh out his ideas into the Academy Award picture it became. In addition, technology has been gradually developing over time, making films possible that would have been difficult to pull off in the past. It's very possible that producers were stymied on how to make the effects-laden Watchmen in the early 1990s--special effects has grown considerably in the last two decades. But consider the other side of the coin. A studio can buy a book or a comic and keep it off the market until they decide they no longer want it. But what if a studio with better resources or more will-power comes along? Fox never made Watchmen, but now wants control of the movie after Warner Bros. finally stepped up to the task. After twenty years of no movement on the project, does Fox really deserve the rights they are demanding? It seems to me that options on property should be restricted to a finite period of, say, five-years; after-which, if the studio in question has not made definite steps towards developing the film, it forfeits its rights. That way, if another production company comes along and is interested in the material, they can have access to it.

Granted, this is an idyllic situation. Studios spend millions of dollars to acquire the rights to books and TV shows and expect that they will be able to use them whenever they have an inkling to do so. And there are ways for one company to purchase scripts from another company. But although Fox might have the more solid legal claim to Watchmen, Warner Bros. is still the one who put the effort forth to develop the movie. Surely they should be rewarded for taking the initiative to unearth this forgotten piece of work and to polish it into a respectable looking film?

Leave your thoughts and comments on this developing story below!

Glasses of the Future?: A Review of Bolt and 3-D

2008-11-23T17:08:00.000-08:00

A little over a month ago, I posted at the Vault my thoughts on the future of 3-D film making, writing that I believed that the technology has a viable future in cinema. This weekend, I had the good fortune to find friends who would indulge me in my request to not only see the new Disney animated feature Bo lt, but to see it in a three-dimensional screening as well. The film, which was the first at Disney to be produced under Pixar-head John Lasseter, follows the saga of titular hero Bolt, a dog who is unaware that his "super powers" are the result of television special effects, a fact he discovers as he journeys cross-country to find his owner, Penny. The movie is also the first of several using the 3-D process to be released by animation companies over the next few years. While my experience revealed that the use of 3-D is by no means flawless, I saw hope for the technique.

To start with, the perennial glasses provided by 3-D company RealD are a step up from the bulky contraption I used the last time I saw a film of this nature. They were as lightweight and as comfortable as everyday sunglasses, resting easily on the head and causing no problems during the film. As for the screening itself, I found myself agreeing with the test audiences of the 3-D Journey to the Center of the Earth mentioned in an article in The Guardian in my last post. Those viewers complained that too many cuts made them unable to appreciate the depth of the images created by watching a film in three-dimensions. My impression of the action sequences of Bolt was that they were distracting because of their blurriness; before the picture could settle and my eyes could reestablish the 3-D effect, there would be a cut to another shot. Since the opening ten minutes of the canine movie was a lengthy chase scene, I worried that the quality of 3-D was not what I had hoped. Later parts in the film, though, proved my doubts wrong. Quieter, more contemplative scenes that allowed for long camera holds showed how powerful the depth of field of 3-D could be. At one point, Bolt and his friends sit in a hilly meadow, and I felt like the grassy plains really did extend into the distance. Another powerful moment contained Bolt clambering through a burning building. The three-dimensional effect of iron beams resting askew on top of each other provided a perilous jungle environment that looked real enough for a person to clamber over. These instances lead me to believe that the technique of 3-D will definitely have a place in cinema in the future.

What do other bloggers think of 3-D and Bolt? Karen Dahlstrom of Big Picture Big Sound was mesmerized by it, writing that the technique was "appropriate and seamless." She also gives the interesting observation that since it renders the animation on a more realistic scale, it might be "too harrowing for young children." Bruce Handy at The New York Times is more of the opinion that Hollywood is going through another fad, making comparisions to the earlier three-dimensional boom of the 1950s. He makes great use of news articles from that era to show the relative rise and fall of the technology during its first foray into mainstream cinema. Finally Sherwin Loh of The Straits Times thinks the movie is a definite step up from the usual gimmicky affairs associated with 3-D, as Disney focused more on enveloping viewers in the environment than in making them duck from flying objects. The bottom line, however, is that it will take more than one successful application of the process in a film to prove that 3-D is here to stay. With several such movies slated for release next year, we will have to wait to render a more thorough analysis.

Home Screening Centers: A Look at Hulu and YouTube

2008-11-11T21:17:00.000-08:00

While keeping tabs on Hollywood, I came across the news that MGM has signed an agreement with YouTube to allow the site to legally carry certain movies and video clips. While the offerings are by no means of top quality (they include installments from the original American Gladiator competition and the recent kung-fu movie Bulletproof Monk), this announcement is yet another instance of the studios of Tinsel Town slowly feeling out the possibilities of online posting. For instance, Netflix is gradually expanding its "Instant Watch" library, signing contracts with CBS and Starz to let subscribers access their content on the Internet. CBS is also sponsoring its own channel on YouTube, including not only episodes from its current programs, but also classic episodes from such series as the original Star Trek adventures. These developments made me wonder what attracted companies to certain web-based "on demand" video platforms, and what deals were being made around advertising to support these airings. To get a sense of the general opinion about these media players, I visited various blogs, leaving my comments as I went. The first relevant entry I found was by Mike Boland of the Kelsey Group blog, a company that focuses on analyzing "business, social, economic and technology trends" and how they affect markets. His post "Online Experiment: Losing the Remote" looks at streaming site Hulu and why it is increasing its audience (for a complete discussion, be sure to check out part two, which discusses the implications of Hulu on advertising). I then turned to Bits, a New York Times blog run by Saul Hansell, who explains why "YouTube Pales Next to Hulu's Spiffy Multiplex," an examination of YouTube and how certain of its traits may prevent it from attracting the films of big name studios. As always, my comments are posted below for ease of reference.

"Online Experiment: Losing the Remote" by Mike Boland
Comment:
Thank you, Mr. Boland, for your thoughts on the world of online video! As I read your post, I was suddenly struck by the realization that my situation is similar to your own, namely that nearly all of the programs I watch can be viewed on the web; indeed, I have come to prefer watching shows on my laptop as it allows me to access entertainment at my leisure instead of rushing desperately about to make sure that I am in front of the TV at the correct time. In addition, the quality of streaming video seems to be improving and the image is often better than the low reception my television gets on basic channels. While the clarity of picture does not, as you point out, equal that of HD, I am hesitant to agree that this handicap alone will stem the tide of those favoring online viewing over cable. It seems to me to be a small price to pay for fewer interruptions and more flexibility, and I believe that the number of people watching television on the Internet can only increase, especially given the trend of studios making content legally available, like MGM's recent deal with YouTube. Based on this, I was interested in your thoughts on the future of advertising in this medium. I have read Part II of your post and your discussion of Hulu's "limited commercial interruption" tactic. Do you think the five-minute ad break on regular TV will eventually become a thing of the past, in favor of these shorter, simpler marketing campaigns? Even if cable television remains active, this seems a likely scenario. Since DVRs make it easy to fast-forward commercials, stations may find it necessary to negotiate for "mandatory" advertising, in a similar fashion to web-based players, which suspend the ability to skip ahead until one thirty-second announcement finishes playing. Also, the practice of one company sponsoring an entire TV show is not an entirely new concept; programming decades ago used to be dedicated to the promotion of one product. Soap operas, for instance, got their start from detergent companies trying to take advantage of a target audience. I find it slightly amusing that the industry seems to have come full circle and is taking a page from the early days of its existence.

"YouTube Pales Next to Hulu's Spiffy Multiplex" by Saul Hansell
Comment:
Thank you, Mr. Hansell, for your analysis of the flaws of YouTube! It is indeed a cluttered, difficult-to-navigate website which can be frustrating to use. It seems geared towards driving visitors to wander aimlessly around in the hopes of coming across something mildly interesting. Hulu, while not perfect, appears to have higher quality streaming and, as you say, much more easily accessible video. Granted, it is difficult to organize material when new eclectic entries are posted every day by anonymous users, but it would be advantageous to create a seperate area on the webpage for sponsored content, instead of burying it among the myriad of other media. I was interested in your belief that studios are hesitant about mixing their films with the homemade material of the average viewer, for fear of tarnishing their product. It is a very valid point; in my mind I seem to equate watching YouTube with junk television, a connotation which indeed carried over when I began looking its CBS channel. Mike Boland at the Kelsey Group Blog (http://blog.kelseygroup.com/index.php/2008/11/11/losing-the-remote-will-drm-win-over-content-producers/) says that part of the attraction of YouTube for its average user is its "faux underground appeal." Based on that, how likely is it that Google will overhaul the website? Are there any worries about alienating its consumer base? I feel that any aesthetic changes could only be a benefit and make the site more palatable to a mainstream audience, so long as the mechanics of posting remain the same. I am actually surprised that YouTube has managed to make deals at all with companies like CBS and MGM, given the issues that you have discussed. But the content they have agreed to distribute indicates just how hesitant they are about the platform; is airing episodes of the original American Gladiator going to gain YouTube any prestige? Doubtful. I wonder if these steps are made by studios to entice the website to step it up a notch and enhance its services, in the hopes of snagging more prominent material in the future.

Censored: Are Review Embargoes Outdated?

2008-11-06T14:24:00.000-08:00

Movie reviews. The world takes them for granted. They are the columns that let readers know which pieces of cinema to avoid, which are good for children, and which are sure genius, a feature we accept as an everyday convenience. So it may be surprising to find that this commonplace piece of criticism has become the source of a heated debate. When reading Patrick Goldstein's Los Angeles Times blog The Big Picture, however, that is exactly what I discovered. His post "We're reviewing Milk whether Focus Features wants us to or not" discusses a long-standing practice called "review embargoes," where a studio screens a film for the press, with the caveat that they cannot print their critiques until a certain date. The controversy, which has been ongoing for some time, is currently centered around the circumstances of recent reviews for Oscar-hopeful Milk: Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, two trade magazines with considerable clout, were allowed by Focus Features (producers of Milk) to run their analyses of the picture weeks before any of the other critics who attended the preview showing, leaving pundits for smaller outlets to cry foul, or in Goldstein's case, to break the ban. Once one gets past the finger pointing, the heart of the matter is that, due to the wide-spread use of the Internet, the complicated rules of review embargoes about who can publish what and when are an increasingly outdated form of marketing control.

The biggest problem with review embargoes is the multitude of dates when the embargo is lifted for various critics, especially since the current system does not adequately handle the impact of the World Wide Web on journalism. On the surface, there is a logical progression to when reporters can publish their reviews, based on such factors as whether their news medium comes out once a week or daily. But there are even more guidelines that allow certain trade magazines (publications that are aimed at workers in an industry) like Variety to be free of restrictions well in advance of anyone else. David Poland (pictured below), an outspoken critic of embargoes, argues that this is especially outmoded since most "are no longer primarily a trade magazine. They are websites." In the past, Variety would have largely been seen by a small, select group, mainly those employed in the film business of Hollywood, a fact that partly justified--or at least minimized the impact of--its special treatment. But now that Variety is also online, it has a much wider circulation than it did in the past, spreading reviews well beyond hard-copy subscribers to anyone with Internet access, unfairly scooping every other newspaper and column in the process. Some may argue that this is part of the business; certain reporters get breaks ahead of others. It is one thing, however, to follow a lead or to get a tip that gives one an advantage over the competition. It is quite another to have a company give all columnists the same information and then tell all but two of them to wait three weeks before they run the material. If studios want to allow certain journalists to write their notices early, they should get a separate screening, a tactic that is more akin to granting an exclusive story. In addition, this privilege should be rotated around so that one or two outlets cannot monopolize the market for first reviews. For the rest, the embargo should be lifted on the same date, leaving the papers with the final decision about when to print their thoughts.

Another complication in the mechanics of review embargoes is the argument over what exactly constitutes a "review," especially given the influence of the Internet. As a case in point, examine this post by David Poland, made through his iPhone immediately after viewing Milk. Patrick Goldstein in his aforementioned blog states that Poland's entry "looks like a post" to him. But Poland claims that it is in keeping with Focus Features guidelines, which allowed reporters to distribute "their brief thoughts" on the movie. The difference between "brief thoughts" and a "review," aside from the obvious variation in word count, is highly subjective, with the ultimate decision on the definition residing with the studios themselves. This is further complicated by the changing face of who is writing these critiques. In his denouncing of embargoes, Poland cites multiple instances where a person has managed to skirt around the rules because a studio did not officially classify him as a "film critic" and therefore did not force him to agree to the same contract as the rest of the members of the press. Is a blogger a "film critic"? Today, the ability to reach a mass audience is no longer restricted to accredited journalists. If a blogger manages to secure a ticket to an advance screening, is he bound by the same embargo rules? What of the reporter who works mainly by blogging for a major newspaper? When is he allowed to publish his thoughts? There are dozens of new complications brought to the foreground by the Internet, and even the intricate rules of the embargo cannot cover all the loopholes.

Why do studios stick with a policy that is increasingly flawed? The answer appears to be that they are still trying to maintain control in a culture that revolves around the free flow of information. As Ben Child of the Guardian points out, marketers are notorious for attempting to suppress negative press on a movie before it comes out to prevent potential revenue loss. Aintitcool.com was forced to pull its early bad review of The Clone Wars, though Empire Online's fairly positive feedback was untouched. If a product does not look like it will do well at the box office, the embargo may be held as long as possible, up to the day of its release, in an endeavor to contain the momentum of poor word of mouth. Journalists cannot do much to fight this, as those who break the ban risk not being issued a pass for the next movie screening, something they are not willing to hazard. On the one hand, marketers have an obligation to make sure that their films succeed in the box office. But should they be allowed ultimate control over which critiques are available to the public? It is tactic that benefits the companies' pocketbooks, but not the consumer, who has a right to know if a picture is worth their time and money. Keeping columnists from spreading the word that a film is not worth either seems to be lying by omission. In an ideal situation, the studios should control when a movie is screened, but not what happens afterward. When and where a review is posted needs to be left to the journalists, not to those who have it in their best interests to avoid possible bad press. As long as studios control who gets early access to a picture, however, it is doubtful that a revolution is anywhere in the making.

Pop Oscars: Do Box Office Winners Deserve a Chance at the Academy Awards?

2008-10-30T14:39:00.000-07:00

After taking a look at the growing interest in three-dimensional movies, it is time for The Vault once again to train its eyes on the vigorous debates that surround the Academy Awards. A stone was recently thrown into the pond when the New York Times ran an article by Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes about a trend they are calling the "pop Oscars." The term refers to the apparent recent dominance of big box office movies in the award race, as The Dark Knight, Wall-E, Tropic Thunder, and even Iron Man are increasing their bids for nominations. As a result, Cieply and Barnes argue that there is a shift in studio focus from quieter films such as No Country For Old Men which are "critic-friendly but [have a] limited audience" to blockbusters with mass appeal. Indeed, the reporters characterize the move as "pushing" these big-budget movies into the limelight. Quite a bit of discussion has been generated around the blogosphere by the derogatory tone the article takes towards the idea of letting any of these films anywhere near a golden statue. Deciding to get involved in the ongoing dialogue, I first commented at Monkey See, a blog by Linda Holmes on the website of NPR. Her post "Beware the Pop Oscars! (Whoops, Hang On: False Alarm)" rightly points out the ludicrousness of eliminating a film from award consideration simply because it was popular. Similarly, Brad Brevet of RopeofSilicon.com critiques the article from another angle, analyzing the logic used by the writers, as well as details they gloss over or ignore. My comment to his post "Oscar Update: Blockbuster vs. Contender...Setting the Record Straight" as well as my comment at the blog Monkey See have been posted below for easy access.

"Beware the Pop Oscars! (Whoops, Hang On: False Alarm)" by Linda Holmes
Comment:
Thank you, Ms. Holmes, for your extremely well-written critique of the New York Times article on the supposed phenomenon of the "pop Oscars." I particularly liked your use of humor to point out how the fears of Cieply and Barnes are largely ridiculous. Their harsh reaction to the bids of these prominent films probably has quite a bit to do with their worry that the chances of independent movies to secure an award will be diminished as a result. There are, after all, only five nomination spots, and every one that is taken by a multimillion-dollar grossing film is one that a small-budget film cannot fill. But while there are certainly many lesser-known pictures that should gain attention, they should not automatically take precedence over the "Popular Movies." Success should not be penalized. It is unfortunate that, as you point out "Good Movies" and "Popular Movies" are today regarded as mutually exclusive categories. I believe that it is possible for a "Good Movie" to speak to themes that are important to everyone and to do so in a way that appeals to a mass audience. Wall-E was well-reviewed, dealt with materialism and environmentalism and was both genuinely funny and touching; all of those elements just happened to appeal to movie viewers enough to make it one of the best box office grossers of 2008. Why should all the merits of Wall-E be discredited simply because it happens to be well-known? The fact that it managed to entertain millions of people with its message should only be a tick in its favor. On another note, do you think that a film necessarily has to deal with weighty issues to be worthy of Best Picture? To me, that category implies that those involved in making the movie took all the elements of cinema and united them better than anyone else did in Hollywood that year. If a comedy (which you point out is widely shunned by Academy voters) can accomplish this as well as any drama, it should at least be considered for an Oscar.

"Oscar Update: Blockbuster vs. Contender...Setting the Record Straight" by Brad Brevet
Comment:
Mr. Brevet, thank you for a wonderful post on the flaws of the "pop Oscars" article in the New York Times. I think it particularly enlightening that Cieply and Barnes fail to adequately mention how both Wall-E and The Dark Knight were extremely well-reviewed. While they do mention the attention Wall-E got for some of its more innovative cinematic techniques, there is no mention of The Dark Knight's critical success. What is more, the writers obviously think that popularity tarnishes a movie's reputation, regardless of how much praise is heaped on it by critics across the country. The fact that it appealed not just to movie commentators, but to the public at large, should only enhance its status, not degrade it. You also rightly ridicule the idea that the Warner Bros. suddenly "decided" to campaign for a nomination for The Dark Knight, as if they looked only at box office receipts and not the dozens of reviews that hailed it as a seminal piece of work. Any studio that possesses a film as lauded as The Dark Knight would be looked at incredulously if it did not attempt to ride the momentum to the Academy Awards. On the other hand, do you think there is any validity to the worry that big-budget movies could overwhelm smaller independent films in the Oscar race? Given how many pictures in the competition over the last few years have been relative unknowns, I do not believe the trend will reverse overnight. After all, only three or four of the films in the running for the major categories are what the Times would label "pop"; the vast majority are in the same vein as contenders from past Oscar ceremonies. I was also as baffled as you were about the notion that Academy voters were unaware they could nominate a film for both Best Picture and Best Animated Feature. I would certainly hope that voters would have the wherewithal to double-check the regulations before they submit their ballots. It seems that the New York Times is merely trying to predict the doom of Wall-E before the votes are even cast.

Blast from the Past: The Future of 3-D Films

2008-10-21T20:24:00.000-07:00

The latest news to be brought to the attention of readers of The Vault is this: a decades-old fad may soon be coming to a theaters everywhere. On October 1, Disney, Fox, Paramount, Universal and Lionsgate signed a deal with Regal Cinemas, AMC and Cinemark to cover "the majority of the costs" to upgrade their cinemas with new digital systems. Roughly 14,000 locations will be affected by this agreement, which will take three years to fully enact. While the main benefit is that films can now be transferred to venues "over a phone line" instead of in physical reels, studios are licking their chops about an intended side effect: these 14,000 screens will now be ready to play 3-D pictures. The contract is the newest manifestation of what seems to be a growing interest in this format, as evidenced by its use over the last year in the films Beowulf and Journey to the Center of the Earth. Disney announced in September that it is developing sixteen three-dimensional movies, including the nearly completed Bolt, which is scheduled to release in November. The prominent animation company is not the only one diving headfirst into this niche in the market. Given that this style of filmmaking has often been much maligned, it may be surprising to some that the technology is being invested in so wholeheartedly. But the revelation that the three-dimensional version of Journey to the Center of the Earth sold three times as many tickets as the standard version has many rethinking their past criticisms. It is my opinion that a combination of poor content and inadequate projection capabilities has been largely responsible for the failure of 3-D to gain traction. Both of these obstacles appear to be well on their way to being conquered, making the format a viable medium for the future.

As I just mentioned, a large hurdle preventing the proliferation of 3-D films has long been the technology itself. In his article on the history of three-dimensional effects, Andy Rose of Movie Maker discusses how early products created "severe eye strain after short periods of time" or required the head to be held at a precise angle for the effect to work. This is certainly not an experience that will garner repeat business. But today, companies such as RealD 3D have resolved many of these problems through such innovations as digital projection and polarized glasses that allow freedom of movement and prevent physical pain. RealD has even made it possible for those who are color-blind to view three-dimensional pictures. Not everything is completely solved, however, as filmmakers are still discovering the best way to handle the new medium. When Journey to the Center of the Earth was screened for test audiences, they showed a dislike for the rapid cuts inherent in an action movie and instead wanted longer sequences that would allow a full appreciation of the depth of the image before them. This may mean that the three-dimensional method should not be used for fast-paced adventure films and instead be reserved for more contemplative pieces that allow for longer camera shots. Like all new techniques, it will take some time for a total understanding of 3-D to be realized, but this should not discourage its use altogether.

The process of 3-D is hardly new and innovative. Jeremy Kay at The Guardian explains that it is actually over a century old. It gained popularity during the 1950s as studios tried to compete with television by providing an experience that could only be found in theaters. But the craze died out, aside from a few sporadic releases over the next few decades. Why? A good portion of the blame can be charged to poor storylines that most likely would have failed even without the added projection "gimmick." By examining a list of 3-D movies during the 1950s (scroll down to find the relevant section) one can discover such gem titles as Cat Women of the Moon, Revenge of the Creature and Jesse James vs. the Daltons. Admittedly, some, like Kiss Me, Kate and Hondo, were of quality content, but by and large these were overshadowed by the plethora of cheaply made horror and fantasy flicks. Films in later decades were hardly better; Jaws 3D is a prime example. With the future of 3-D resting on the above-mentioned material, it is little wonder that studios saw small promise in the format. But the pictures that are slated for development seem to be aiming for a higher level of excellence overall. For instance, Disney's Pixar, which has turned out one hit movie after another, will release all of its future products in 3-D according to the announcement I referenced earlier in this post. Studios with solid credentials such as these can hopefully be trusted not to sacrifice elements like plot when putting this new technology to work.

Some, including none other than prominent film critic Roger Ebert, believe that 3-D detracts too much from the story itself; Ebert goes so far as to say he will view Journey again in standard form "to see the movie inside the distracting technique." I concede that, for a long time, his criticism has held true. As Ebert points out, viewers of many 1950s movies were unable to become engrossed in the plots since they were continuously being startled by "thrown" objects. But 3-D was a novelty several decades ago and as such, the studios could not resist showing it off. Today's audiences are much more familiar with the process and are already accepting of how the film is being presented, allowing them to enjoy the experience as a whole. I recently had the opportunity to view Hondo in a restored three-dimensional print. Although the Western was not devoid of spears hurled towards the camera, the intimate feeling it created, akin to watching a stage show, albeit on a large scale, impressed me. The screening proved that 3-D can enhance a performance by being an adornment that aids in the overall production, not the key idea around which a film is constructed. The technology will most likely continued to be perfected to render the clearest picture possibles. It is up to the artists of the cinema world to make the most of it.

Hollywood Insight Roundup: A Look at Useful Websites and Blogs

2008-10-09T11:18:00.000-07:00

It is no secret that the internet is abounding with a plethora of websites and blogs to provide any and all information a person could want to know. But the sheer amount of data can make it difficult to find quality resources to use. This week the Vault, using Webby and IMSA criteria, will point readers in the direction of a variety of online sites that are useful in perusing the goings-on in Hollywood. The most basic of these, of course, are those that are a vast repository of film knowledge that provide visitors a quick stop to find basic facts regarding movies. One of the most popular of these is the Internet Movie Database (also known as IMDb.com). Its main strength lies in the ability to connect one to an incredible amount of information in a matter of seconds, with a nicely laid-out front page and easy-to-use search engine. Navigation becomes tricky beyond the front page, however, as the number of links in tiny print becomes overwhelming. Contrasting with this is the more user-friendly Hollywood.com, which focuses on current and upcoming releases in both film and television. It encourages interactivity among its guests by giving them a space on the site to create their own personal fan page. Hollywood.com is hamstrung by a few faulty features, such as a theatre locator which only sporadically works. For those looking for the latest box office tallies, look no further than the helpful Box Offic e Mojo. The shoddy visual design hides a treasure trove of data that can be delved into through the use of logical links that allow the guest to progressively narrow the scope of the figures provided.

Several websites are useful for a daily perusal of stories, including Cinema Blend (left). Its layout makes navigating a simple task, but is literally overshadowed by film advertising pop-ups that take over the screen until they have completed playing. EW.com, companion site to the magazine Entertainment Weekly, is hampered by a tabloid-like layout that makes it a bit difficult to take seriously, though the "Today's Most Popular" sidebar allows quick access to hot stories. The Video Network found on The Hollywood Reporter offers a change of pace in stories done in video fashion. Text stories, on the other hand, are difficult to search through as they are lumped on the pages in tiny print, making the Reporter middling at best. The New York Times: Movies section employs a diversity of media in a much better way that provides amazing features such as DVD-like commentaries on movie sequences by directors; detracting from this well-done content are film reviews that contain barbed political comments that are irrelevant to the reviews themselves. Another good mainstream source of Hollywood stories is Variety which makes maneuvering easy through a navigation bar that uses dropdown menus to break its news and resources into concise categories to allow readers to find exactly what they need, though the slow loading of its pages on some computers can discourage extensive browsing. For a look at Hollywood from outside the U.S., look at British Times Online: Arts and Entertainment. An outdated Oscar section mars an otherwise decent website that does a good job of providing a variety of content that is sometimes arranged in unique categories, such as "Countdown to the New 007." Combining a look back at the classics with a look at new releases is film critic Leonard Maltin's Movie Crazy which easily allows readers to purchase recommended movies through well-placed links to Amazon, but whose visual design causes entries to blur together, making Movie Crazy a bit disappointing. First Showing, a website focusing on upcoming releases, is well-designed, including a marquee that slowly flashes featured articles to examine, though some pages are not kept current, which keeps First Showing from being polished. To truly stay up-to-date with Hollywood, turn to the MTV Movies Blog, which provides the latest news and interviews to its readers in a concise manner. Its functionality and versatility is exemplified in the video footage that is placed directly in stories for effortless use, but a lack of an archive feature means that looking for a past story involves backtracking page by page. Another good blog is The Big Picture by Patrick Goldstein. It contains a timely, critical look at the intersection of entertainment and pop culture, with multiple posts a day; the blog could be improved with more links inside the posts to point its readers in the direction of other or complementary views to his own.

There are also a host of sites dedicated to official organizations within Hollywood. The National Film Preservation Foundation, a solid site that has clips from some of the footage it has restored available to view online, allowing the guest to get a feel for the work of the NFPF. It does not allow much other interactivity, however, which gives it a static feel. The American Film Institute, on the other hand, is full of things to do in its well-designed website, complete with video, podcasts, and movie quizzes that provide a variety of media to enjoy. Its lack of a forum or other discussion area is one of the few things that stops it from being truly interactive. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has a pleasing layout that unfortunately turns austere when one realizes that this is an informational website that allows no interactivity at all. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the official website for the Golden Globes, does a wonderful job of employing video footage by providing a navigable video gallery of acceptance speeches and interviews from the last awards show, though lack of updating when the Globes are not ongoing makes the pages a bit stagnant.

For Academy Award discussion, one should turn to In Contention, a site devoted to every bit of minutia related to the Oscar awards coverage. The ability to comment on every article or post made on In Contention, as well as daily round-ups of links to relevant news stories, makes it a great springboard for discussion among those who have a passion for the Oscars. Unfortunately, the poorly organized posts make it difficult to sift through stories. The Envelope (right), the Los Angeles Times's self-professed "Awards Insider," does a good job of making news stories easily accessible with links arranged into categories, but sometimes provides outdated links that can lead to details for previous award years, instead of current information. Within The Envelope lies a rather good blog entitled Gold Derby, written by film critic Tom O'Neil. O'Neil combines his analysis with comments from other critics, complete with links to the original source, that allows easy access to a host of opinions. There is no permanent section of links to sites outside of the Los Angeles Times, however, which does not provide the reader resources to further his exploration of other Hollywood news. But the Vault does provide a linkroll, and it is my hope that it will provide guests with many venues to delve into the world of Tinsel Town.

Oscars, Oscars: Comments on Award Hype and the Status of the Awards Show

2008-09-25T23:31:00.000-07:00

Last time at The Vault, I posed the idea that current Oscar hype is unnecessarily overwhelming. Given 24-hour news services, we are inundated with constant updates on the smallest tidbit of information that could affect who is in the lead in the race to secure an Oscar nomination. These updates are often superficial, sometimes including analysis of movies that have not even come out yet. But, as reader Teddy Riley points out in his comment on that post, not all Oscar coverage is necessarily bad. Looking at promising upcoming films is a good way to alert movie audiences of films that might otherwise slip under the radar. There is a fine line, however, between critically parsing a film's components to look for Oscar worthiness and bestowing an Oscar crown just because the plot and the lead actor sound like they fit the Oscar formula. I went out into the world wide web in hopes of finding Oscar predictions that can be examples of the better ways to handle our innate desire to choose the winner of any competition--even if the contest is still five months off. I found what I was looking for at Cinemablend.com, where Katey Rich recently wrote her thoughts about current contenders for the Oscar race in her post "Oscar Prediction Mania 09: Let the Games Begin!" What sounds like another superficial post based on little more than hype is actually a thoughtful, well-put-together look at films who may be Oscar contenders, based on word from previews at film festivals and Ms. Rich's own viewing of films that have actually been released. On top of looking for decent analysis of the Oscar race, I also looked at responses to the recent announcement of who will produce the upcoming 2009 Oscars, namely Laurence Mark (right side of picture) and Bill Condon (left side), who respectively produced and directed Dreamgirls. This announcement has created a flurry of debate in the blogosphere and elsewhere on the state of the Academy Awards Ceremony itself, comments that are summed up nicely in a post entitled "Can the Oscars Be Saved?" by Patrick Goldstein of The Big Picture, a blog that is featured on the Los Angeles Times's website. For ease, I have posted my comments down below, as well as the links where you can find the original article and comment.

"Oscar Prediction Mania 09: Let the Games Begin!" by Katey Rich
Comment:
Ms. Rich, thank you for your detailed thoughts about the Oscar race! I particularly like that you have managed to separate yourself from the superficial hype that many pundits engage in when covering the Academy Awards and instead ground yourself in films that have already been released, either in film festivals or to the general public. After all, if the film has not been released yet (or as you mention, even completed yet!) how can one make a genuine claim about its Oscar chances? On that note, you mentioned that with so many Oscar potential films being released in December, some are bound to "get lost in the shuffle." Do you think that this will lead to a new look at marketing strategies as films try to stand out among the myriad of Oscar hopefuls? For instance, the marketing department at Warner Bros. seems to be pulling out all the stops in their attempts to get The Dark Knight recognized, re-releasing it in January and offering free Blu-ray copies of the film to Academy voters. Do you think other studios will start looking at employing similar tactics, or is this something they are already doing? On a similar note, I'm interested in your prediction that The Dark Knight will increase Oscar viewership during the upcoming Awards ceremony. Do you think there is a chance that the lengthy coverage of Heath Ledger's Oscar chances will burn out potential audience members by the time the Academy Awards rolls around in February 2009? While I agree that people are attracted to rooting for films they've actually seen, there may be a chance that some people will be numb to Ledger Oscar talk since it has been on everyone's minds since his untimely death. It will be interesting to see if The Dark Knight does indeed have the effect you predict. Given how the Oscars have become such a slow, dragged-out affair, I remain doubtful that even The Dark Knight can pull its ratings out of the mire. Many of those who root for its success may be satisfied finding updates online instead of wading through the ceremony itself.

"Can the Oscars Be Saved?" by Patrick Goldstein
Comment:
This is an excellent look at the reactions to the appointment of Mr. Mark and Mr. Condon! It is helpful to have a compilation of the various views on the state of the Academy Awards so that they can be compared easily. You also have some interesting ideas about how to fix the Oscars. I am intrigued about your suggestion to split the technical awards off from the main awards ceremony. This would certainly have the benefit of shortening the main broadcast, as well as reducing it to the awards that viewers care the most about, such as Best Picture and the various Best Acting categories. But conversely, since the technical categories are the ones that people are the least interested in, is there any guarantee that anyone will watch them if they have their own awards show? True, the younger generation may be more attracted to categories having to do with special effects and the like. And, as you suggest, it might be a good place to experiment with new, more effective ways of handling the ceremony. I feel, however, that such an awards ceremony will be much less of a draw than the current incarnation of the Academy Awards and would not be a successful endeavor. Indeed, I am not sure that there is any real way to fix the Oscars. It is already a dragged-out affair. The skits, musical numbers and tributes do serve to break up the monotony from the slew of presenters handing out the awards. Unfortunately, this also lengthens the proceedings, creating the need for more distracting gimmicks, creating a vicious circle in an attempt to balance length with entertainment. The shortest way to handle the affair would be to cut the films down to just handing out the awards, but this obviously would be an extreme solution. Other than splitting the technical awards off from the show, do you have other suggestions for how to improve the Academy Awards? What changes should be made for the 2009 ceremony? Besides better-staged musical numbers, is there anything else you hope that Mr. Mark and Mr. Condon will bring to the show?

Buzzed Out: The Overdone Coverage of the Oscar Race

2008-09-17T22:59:00.000-07:00

In a world of mass media, pundits predict award winners like they pick derby winners, while business gurus sit back and rake in the profit. Sound like a bad movie plot? You would not be far off. While the above may be a bit of an exaggeration, it is what the coverage of the Academy Awards has become. Commonly known as the Oscars, these awards are a way to recognize excellence in film. But while this remains true, the mass media has turned the Awards into a race blown out of proportion, something to be tracked and commentated on avidly, where predicting the correct winner is a cold calculation that has little to do with the individual merits of a film. Silently encouraging this disproportionate enthusiasm are the movie studios, who know that Oscar talk is a golden ticket to bigger profits.

The main culprit responsible for this inundation of awards coverage is none other than the mass media itself. With the rise of 24-hour news mediums, entertainment news outlets are pressed to fill their minutes and hours with any story they can find. And what better provides material than a long, extended race? This formula has already proven itself for political news media in the shape of the 2008 presidential election. For months, America has had daily reports, like this one by CNN, on the latest election polls, with analysis of every minute shift in the percentages. With a new poll every day, pundits are guaranteed to have at least one thing to talk about in their columns and television broadcasts. Entertainment news mediums unsurprisingly have duplicated this approach when handling the road to the Academy Awards. Everything from trailers to interviews is game to be analyzed for Oscar potential.

The handling of the coverage of The Dark Knight is one of the biggest examples of awards buzz gone wild. Rumors began as early as March that Heath Ledger was in the running for a posthumous Oscar for his portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight; as the film's release date approached, the number of articles seemed to increase exponentially. Now Warner Bros. has announced a re-release of the film in January, the time when Oscar nominations are made and votes are cast, undoubtedly in a last push to garner awards. If Ledger is successfully nominated for Best Actor, America will have had a full year of speculation and debate about the likelihood of his winning an Oscar. Undoubtedly, speculation about Ledger's prospects increased in part because of his death and in part because of his genuinely impressive performance. But the year-long coverage of his prospects is an overload and just one symptom of a culture dominated by mass media.

The biggest sign of how out of hand the Oscar coverage has come to be is not the daily columns dedicated to the subject, but the websites tracking probabilities of nominations and wins like bookies calculating the spread on a football game. A prime example is the website In Contention which takes Oscar tracking to an extreme. In Contention features a detailed set of predictions about the final composition of the nominations list. These predictions are not limited to the usual categories of Best Picture or Best Actor, but extend to such obscure categories as Sound Mixing and Art Direction. The vast majority of these films have not even been released yet. The image to the left shows their predictions for Art Direction, containing only one film that has shown in theatres. How anyone can claim to know that the sound mixing for Defiance is Oscar worthy before seeing (and hearing) the film seems to defy comprehension. Those who run this website have an idea of what kind of superficial components an award-winning film should have and seem to make their predictions on that basis alone. If predictions are to be made at all about who will win an Oscar, it should be made after a film is released and viewed, not before. For those who think that In Contention is merely an unusual case in the vast consortium that is the Internet, I invite them to take a look at Buzzmeter, a feature to be found in the Los Angeles Times's website. Like In Contention, this site tracks "who's hot and who's not in key awards races." This description is not the language of a website that is looking at the merits of a film, but of a website that is keeping a popularity poll.

But the media alone is not responsible for the continuous Oscar talk. The movie studios themselves have a vested interest in keeping the "buzz" alive, driven by what every corporation at heart is driven by: the need to make money. It is doubtful that a studio is troubled that people who have yet to see their picture are predicting it will be nominated for an Academy Award. And being nominated for, let alone winning, one of the more prestigious Oscars is a sure way to increase the profit margin.

Box Office Mojo, run by movie analyst Brandon Gray, provides the data to validate this claim. Michael Clayton, nominated for Best Picture of 2007, earned $55,000 the weekend before its nomination (Jan. 18-21) and over two million dollars the weekend following its nomination (Jan. 25-27), as we can see in the data table to the right. All Best Picture nominees for the 2007 Oscars show similar, if not as drastic, boosts in their weekend grosses following their nominations. Audiences are drawn to Oscar-nominated films because they want to see what all the fuss is about. With this monetary incentive, one can easily see why studios would like to bolster any discussion of their film's chances for an Oscar, even if it is only July.

The coverage of the Academy Awards has grown into a unwieldy creature that detracts from the value of the films that are under consideration. Admittedly, much of the coverage of any aspect of the entertainment world is somewhat superficial, focusing on the glitz and the glamor of a world that revolves around publicity. But many of the films that are nominated for an Academy Award have real merits which should be considered as the voting for the coveted Oscar commences. Quite a bit, though not all, of the media's analysis of Oscar films focuses on if the films fit the model of what an Oscar winner is, rather than an actual critical analysis of the components of a film. Unfortunately, this trend is not likely to end anytime soon. Our culture is one that thrives on the latest gossip and rumors swirling around Tinsel Town, and the latest whispered aside on a film's chances for the golden statue is just one more tidbit that people are ready to jump on. In the meantime, we will have to continue living through this rather bad movie plot until someone comes up with a better script.