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

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

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

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

Superhero Rumor Mill

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

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

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

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

The Saga of Narnia Continues

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

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

Lara Croft Reborn

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

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

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

Oscar Watch: Frost/Nixon Review

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

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

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

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

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

Two Films Derail, One Makes it Back to the Tracks

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

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

Monty Python and the Holy YouTube Channel

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

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

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

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

High Brow Nominees to Equal Low Ratings?

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

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

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

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

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.