comment #1

poseidon72 says ...

Who has seen it yet?

comment #2

Jeffrey Wells says ...

December 10th.

comment #3

dinovelvet says ...

I figured that the special effects categories had become the new form of "acknowledging the expensive crap"

comment #4

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Is this post supposed to be sarcastic? I can never really tell with you.

comment #5

Jeffrey Wells says ...

No, I'm semi-sincere. Fox has effectively "bought" the right to expect a little help from the community. They've laid the money down and helped a lot of people pay for the childrens' college tuitions and now these beneficiaries and their friends and cousins need to show a little love back by giving it a Best Picture nomination...that's all.

comment #6

CameronIsHMFIC says ...

Sherlock Holmes (Avatar`s main competitor) has been screened and the word on the Internet is nothing short of awesome. Apparently, it`s tons of fun with some great performances, Richie`s best work to date, Pirates of the Caribbean without pirates,etc. Sounds like a great time at the cinema. Jeff, any word on your side or have you seen it?

comment #7

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

I think you're onto something with the Academy trending away from the awards love for the big epics. I mean, it obviously still happens today, but it's not quite as automatic, is it? That's probably due in a large part to how much rarer they were back in the day, but from a quality standpoint, is 2012 really that far off from a DeMille film? I mean, I don't know -- I haven't seen it -- so I'm seriously asking.

Also, there have been some films (New World, Apocalypto initially spring to mind) that would appear to be slam-dunks for some serious nominations (if not BP noms) back in the 70s. Now they just kind of come and go with barely a whimper. A bit odd.

comment #8

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Richie`s best work to date, Pirates of the Caribbean without pirates,etc."

I'm not saying that it won't end up being an entertaining film, but are these two descriptions of Holmes actually intended as compliments?!

comment #9

Chase Kahn says ...

"Jeff, any word on your side or have you seen it?"

It's Warner Bros.

comment #10

ZayTonday says ...

Sherlock Holmes the Badass Swashbuckling Super Hero

comment #11

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Verbatim quote from New York journo who saw Sherlock Holmes yesterday: "It's all right." Does that sound like cause for cartwheels in the lobby?

comment #12

Matthew Starr says ...

I am sure Fox would be happier at $350 million domestic than a best picture nomination. I guess they are expecting both though.

comment #13

Pynchon8 says ...

Eff No they shouldn't be helped out.

comment #14

drbob says ...

No. No, I don't want to return to the days when the likes of Dr. Doolittle, Around the World in 80 Days, and The Greatest Show on Earth get nominated and, god forbid, actually win Oscars.

comment #15

Alexander says ...

Well, the supply of Best Picture nominations are now twofold from one year ago, so, judging by the weakness of the year thus far, I'd say it's in unless it's simply trash.

comment #16

BanksAreForRivers says ...

So what you're saying is that James Cameron should be able to buy his Oscars rather than earn them?

I personally hope the movie tanks big time, no awards, no box office, nothing.

How many mid level budgeted movies could they have made with the money they forked over for this beast? Is this what you want: Instead of making movies in the 30mil range, instead all the studios focus on blowing their whole wad on one giant ridiculous special effects showcase? So in the end, we'll be stuck with these huge elephants like Avatar and the tiny Paranormal Activities that make it through and nothing in between?

They took the risk, they need to face the consequences if it doesn't pan out. They don't deserve help from anyone.

No Avatar Bailout.

comment #17

BanksAreForRivers says ...

"in a fair and just world shouldn't Avatar get Best Picture nominated for the simple fact that it's a big-gamble movie that has cost $300 million"

I can't believe you even wrote that sentence!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!

comment #18

Ray says ...

Jeff, have you hit your head?

comment #19

THE MovieBob says ...

I get what your saying, and it's true - and Avatar will probably land in every technical category (note all the facial-scars on the humans, so it can be in for makeup AND digital) by default, but as for a "nice job, mate" Best Picture nod it has one HUGE obstacle to overcome: Nobody likes Tom Rothman."

comment #20

DeeZee says ...

Jeff: Considering the state of the economy, I actually find it a bit callous to invest an obscene amount of money on a gimmicky format meant to further rip off consumers who can barely afford to pay rent, let alone go to the movies in general. And it's hypocritical, in light of that whole, "Money's not as important as love" spiel Jimmy wedged in near the end of Titanic. Plus, good or bad, those other epics at least created an experience, and weren't just glorified CG McDonalds toy commercials.

comment #21

Eloi Manning says ...

"ON DECEMBER 18TH, MOVIES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME."

That's what they're really saying on the TV spots.

Piss off. It IS the same; the same as Dances With Wolves.

comment #22

Gabe@ThePlaylist says ...

Yes, we all owe "Avatar" for simply existing. What a noble cause.

comment #23

Jonathan Spuij says ...

DeeZee, economy has nothing to do with it. Not with a film that was greenlighted years ago (literally).
I love the piece Wells has written here because it really serves up the main issue with the Academy, and it is a truly valid point.

As for Holmes, it's a Guy Ritchie film, so that's reason enough to be cautious but it's true that the chatter is huge. Also for Zimmer's apparently stunning score.

comment #24

Jonathan Spuij says ...

Oh and Holmes is currently the main candidate to steal Avatar's thunder.

comment #25

markj says ...

Avatar will be nominated for Best Picture. No question. If there is talk of JJ Abrams being given a nod do you really think that James Cameron won't be?

As for Guy Ritchie... oh, life's too short really.

comment #26

DeeZee says ...

Jonathan: It was greenlit years ago before the budget ballooned up to $300 million.

comment #27

Eloi Manning says ...

ZIMMER POWER.

Is there a better man to go to if you want to add $50m to your box office total? The man shits gold. If it's not him, it's one of his minions; Jablonsky, Rabin, Gregson-Williams, Powell. They ARE action.

comment #28

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Eloi, your exaggerated claims really do get tiresome. No composer is ever going to single-handedly add $5 million to a B.O. total, let alone $50 million.

Also Steve Jablonsky may very well BE action, but until he's just scored something other than every horror remake under the sun, a franchise based on Hasbro toys, and Desperate Housewives episodes, his scores will go (rightfully) unnoticed -- if not completely unheard -- by anyone with a modicum of fucking taste.

comment #29

Doug Pratt says ...

It should be recalled that the 'Best Picture' award is for producers, and so there is a vague logic to nominating films that may not actually be the 'best' but did require the most elaborate, creative and exhausting producing skills

comment #30

Rich S. says ...

Well, as Eloi Manning points out, since Avatar is essentially a remake of a film that DID win Best Picture, I don't know why it couldn't at least be nominated.

The dialog, acting, etc. couldn't possibly be more ham-fisted than Dances with Wolves. But as Oscar pundits know, that's in no way a detriment to its chances.

comment #31

Vaudezilla says ...

I don't think it's as simple as saying, "You took a big gamble and spent a lot of money, so here's an award nomination just for that." If you're really looking for an award- or praise-worthy production, then you have to factor in how efficiently the money was spent, as well as how effectively you get an audience to it And of course, the production should actually be of a quality reflective of the money and effort spent making it.

What Jeff seems to be suggesting is that - to an extent - all Cameron needed to do was throw enough money at his film, and the Academy would rally around him, throwing nominations at the film so as to bolster its box office, therefore giving the appearance that it was a successful production. But in my opinion, part of being an effective producer includes making sure that you can promote the film and market it succesfully enough so that it pulls in audiences on its own merits.

I'm a live event producer in Chicago, and this year, we put on a burlesque variety show based on "The Big Lebowski." We sold out our initial six-show run, added two performances to it (which we sold out in a few days), and then did a one-night encore the following month in a theatre twice the size of the original run and filled 75% of the seats for it. And it made a terrific amount of money for us and for our performers, who ended up getting bonuses because of it.

So how did we do that? First and foremost, we made sure we had a great show. Beyond that, we made sure to promote the hell out of it - press reviews, interviews, press releases, e-blasts, and all the things you do to build awareness. Then, we made sure that we set a reasonable budget and ran an efficient ship. What we didn't do was throw our life savings into the show, then kick back and say, "The rest doesn't matter. The theater community will shower us with praise just because we spent a ton."

The best produced films should be rewarded for having been produced efficiently and successfully, not be rewarded as a way of manufacturing the efficiency and success with which the film should been produced in the first place.

comment #32

Mark says ...

Wow. The economy? This thing is going to bring in a half billion overseas. That pays the salaries of a lot of computer programers in this country. But some here would rather it tank so that more $30M pics are made that don't export for shit.

comment #33

Eloi Manning says ...

"Eloi, your exaggerated claims really do get tiresome. No composer is ever going to single-handedly add $5 million to a B.O. total, let alone $50 million."

I agree actually. I was hugely drunk last night, and reading that post back now is like reading it for the first time. I don't remember it at all.

comment #34

royalonemn says ...

So we've gone from taking down "Precious" to advocating for "Avatar"?

"Avatar" is owed an obligatory Best Picture spot because a lot of money was sunk into it? Well, geez, that makes total sense. I mean Washington works on the same principle...who ever has the most money/lobbyist power normally wins the debate and you see how well that's working for getting anything meaningful done in DC.

We have the government we deserve I guess and comments like this make me think we have the film business we deserve which is always looking at the bottom line and not artistic sensibilities.

So Jeff, just to clarify though "Avatar" should be in and "Precious" should be out because one had the financial resources to market the hell out of the film and the other was a small indie production that had to be cobbled together on a wing and a prayer?

It amazes me reading these posts over the years how much my understanding of you changes. Sometimes it seems your an advocate for change and sometimes you seem like you relish the status quo. I guess it depends upon the day of the week and what color drawls you're wearing.

comment #35

Mark says ...

Eloi. Don't dismiss ur drunk self. Scores are often integral to the success (and thus BO) of a pic. Films like Rocky and Crouching Tiger and Titanic don't take off with average composers.

comment #36

Eloi Manning says ...

Yeah, you're right actually. Star Wars wouldn't have been the success it was without John Williams' score.

comment #37

drbob says ...

Most overrated Oscar category: Best Song; Most underrated Oscar category: Best Score.

It amazes me that the Oscar telecast devotes a good percentage of its run time on a completely insignificant category.

comment #38

Mark says ...

Agree that Best Score is an underrated category. But the most overrated is of course best supporting actress. The award always goes to whoever will sell the most Entertainment Weekly's the following week. Only Kate Hudson was excluded from this in the last 15 years.

comment #39

Rich S. says ...

I once read a story, maybe 15 years ago, that Best Song was second only to Best Picture in terms of the amount of money earned based on the buzz created by the award. Don't know if that's still the case, but that explains why the Oscar telecast devotes so much time to it.

comment #40

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Sorry about the snippiness last night (was a bit tanked myself). I totally agree that a film's score is important to a film's success, and esp. longevity, but I still think pulling a rather inflated figure like $50 million out of a hat is kinda ridiculous.

I absolutely treasure the scores of many movies, esp. Star Wars, LotR, and anything by Ennio Morricone and Bernard Herrmann. Having said that, I don't think the Eloi particularly give that particular credit a second thought before dishing out the $ to see a flick.

I think you could actually make the (unfortunate) case that the Celine Dion/Linkin Park songs put more butts in the theaters for Titanic/Transformers than James Horner/Steve Jablonsky, but even then I think the financial impact seems negligible.

comment #41

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

And Rich just swooped in and stole my thunder on that last point. I think what Best Song does (if it really does anything -- I find it pretty damn useless and extraneous to cinema) is just give the movie exposure to people that might not normally be plugged into movies the way we are.

People will hear a song on the radio (less so today than in the past, no doubt), or especially see a music video (if those things still exist) intercut with clips from a film, and...I don't know. I think it could possibly have some sort of subliminal effect on people, maybe. I mean, we are talking about people that don't necessarily have refined or specific taste in film, they're just looking for something to see on a Friday night. If they've just been exposed to a song featured in a movie, well, that automatically becomes a default possibility.

I personally don't really know any people like this, but apparently they exist (and are a vast majority, even).

comment #42

Mark says ...

I always wondered how much Titanic would have made had Cameron gone with his original plan of instrumental score during the credits instead of Celine.

I think that song created a bond with its audience that may have contributed to up to 20% of the $1.8B it brought in. ($360M worth of repeat viewings) But i could be completely wrong.

comment #43

Gordon27 says ...

And Horner made $1 for every copy of that soundtrack sold.

I agree with the idea that the name of the composer does not sell movies to people, but the scores themselves can certainly have a hand in how people respond to a movie.

comment #44

dangovich says ...

Well, now that Celine Dion has helped boost the box office of Titanic, what say we scrub the song from the movie so that future generations won't have to hear it?

comment #45

DeeZee says ...

Mark: "This thing is going to bring in a half billion overseas."

If you mean Sherlock Holmes, yes. Avatar's a different story, though.

"That pays the salaries of a lot of computer programers in this country."

Um, part of the appeal of CG in the first place is that it requires far less people to work on FX than the traditional methods of production. So, at best, the money will go to a couple developers with about 20-40 people onboard who already make too much money for shit which can be done in India at a fraction of the price. Thus, Avatar succeeding will not do a thing for our economy any more than the bail-outs.

"But some here would rather it tank so that more $30M pics are made that don't export for shit. "

No, we just don't want bloated budget pics which suck.

comment #46

Gordon27 says ...

"So, at best, the money will go to a couple developers with about 20-40 people onboard who already make too much money for shit which can be done in India at a fraction of the price. Thus, Avatar succeeding will not do a thing for our economy any more than the bail-outs."

Yes, DZ, paying Americans to do a job rather than exporting it to India is horrible for the American economy.

Hoo-boy.

comment #47

DeeZee says ...

Gordon: Actually, my point was that you should be paying Americans who contribute to our economy as a whole what you're over-paying a guy who tweaks the resolution on a post-rendered image in a flick. Unless you some how feel a faceless corporation which reaps subsidies and tax breaks to shoot most of the stuff overseas, is somehow benefiting our national economy as a whole. And if that were the case, then we'd be saved by Transformers 2 by now.

comment #48

Gordon27 says ...

well, you're wrong about how many people it's employing, and wrong about how much they get paid. It's funny that you misread Jeff's whole point, which is just how many people this is employing throughout the film industry.

As for your theories about corporations, the simple fact is that movies are generally speaking the US's most profitable export worldwide, and without them, our economy would be significantly worse.

comment #49

DeeZee says ...

Gordon:

"It's funny that you misread Jeff's whole point, which is just how many people this is employing throughout the film industry."

He said hundreds, which is only slightly higher than my estimate. But whatever non-money the movie makes will mostly go to the suits and Cameron, while everyone else will just do better than the average office worker, but still too much, for a turkey like it. And as I said earlier, the other pics Jeff mentioned at least gave you an actual experience, not just a over-priced mod-hack of The Sims. Truly an obscene amount of money for a shallow fan-boy wank-fest which is out-of-touch with the tastes and needs of rest of the country.

"As for your theories about corporations, the simple fact is that movies are generally speaking the US's most profitable export worldwide, and without them, our economy would be significantly worse."

Um, that's bullshit. Movies are luxury items which do not reflect the current consumer purchasing power, or BD players would still be over $300 right now, and 3-D wouldn't be a niche format being used to alleviate bloated budgets, rather than change the art of film-making. The fact that, even with the good box office this year, studios are still cutting back and/or merging, just proves that this economy is bad across the board.

comment #50

Gordon27 says ...

I saw a post a week or two back where you complained that you had gotten too educated and then realized that wasn't enough to suceed in Bush's America.

Well, I'm not faulting your conclusion, but you should know that you are clearly not well educated. You spout bullshit with slightly big words ("current consumer purchasing power" -- big words by your usual standards), but you don't know what it means, and you don't know basic facts. Try and find more successful American exports and then you might have a point.

comment #51

mbt walking shoes says ...

Inspired by the Masai tribe of walking habits, the researchers designed a MBT walking shoes. They found that Masai tribe can go long distances and very long day. MBT shoes sale strengthens the core muscle, strengthens and decides the melody foot and the ankle, the calf, the hamstring, upside and the intrinsic thigh, the buttocks, the stomach and behind. Women's MBT chapa sale including you should not miss the stunning style. These shoes by the wonderful full or split grain leather, knee high top made. You will become strong and toughness through put on the cheap MBT womens shoes to carry out your daily activity.