Paramount Steps up Subsidies for Conversions to 3-D Screens

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

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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

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

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?

With 2009 promising to be the year to see if 3-D movies can gain traction in Hollywood, I was intrigued by an announcement 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.