comment #1

bobbyperu says ...

I felt Nine was fine also, Jeff, and am sorry to see the reception it's received. But I'm wondering if you could elaborate a bit on your apparently about-face on Rob Marshall after the extremities of your views on Chicago a few years back. Nine is not all that different in approach to music, choreography, the setting of musical numbers inside its lead character's head, etc... They feel quite similar though the stories are obviously different.

comment #2

DavidF says ...

I don't think Star Trek was a safe bet at all.
IIRC only two of the original movies crossed $100M and Paramount clearly realized that if they kept budgeting them around $40M or whatever it was, they'd keep making a steady profit.

To have given JJ huge bucks to do a reboot of the series with Young Spock and Young Kirk was a huge risk from where I sit (as a fan of Star Trek who would never dress up).

Star Trek wasn't very 'cool' to begin with and if it failed to please the fanboys it would have been a disaster. In retrospect it's clear Abrams et al knew exactly what they were doing but it could easily have gone all wrong.

comment #3

Jeffrey Wells says ...

I hated Chicago but understood why the schlubs liked it -- it was about honest huckster greed, getting what you can and looking out for #1. I related more to Nine because it was about a world I've savored the aroma of (if only from a distance) when I've visited Italy. And I definitely admired the balls in making a movie that its producers knew would be an uphill from the start. Rob Marshall did a relatively decent job in translating the stage show to the screen. That said, I don't think he's Stanley Kubrick or Arthur Freed. He's a guy who tries hard -- I'll give him that much. And yet I hated Memoirs of a Geisha with every fibre of my being.

comment #4

dggunz says ...

"Star Trek" holds up rather well with repeat viewings. Very, very well crafted film.

comment #5

mattn says ...

To echo what DavidF said, if you fail with Nine it was a noble failure, but if you fail with a very expensive reboot of Star Trek where you replace the original actors with younger unknowns, you're a punchline. It's certainly not the same kind of creative risk as Nine, but it's a risk just the same.

comment #6

TL says ...

To elaborate on DavidF, getting middle America to care about Star Trek -- the nerdiest franchise in the sci-fi ghetto -- seems to me about equal in degree of difficulty as getting them to care about European enui. Maybe Harv W. should have hired JJ Abrams to direct Nine.

comment #7

LauraReeling says ...

I regret the fact that "A Serious Man" didn't make the cut. "Nine" was pretty awful except for a few bright spots (Cottiliard, Fergie's number...).

comment #8

Kristopher Tapley says ...

If "Nine" was such a gamble, does that explain why Marshall lifted every element of "Chicago" -- you know, that financially successful, award-winning homerun -- in its making?

Sorry. Doesn't wash for me. "Nine" was no gamble. It had high expectations from those inside and out, was meant to capitalize on prior success in the genre, and it just didn't deliver.

"The Brown Bunny" was pretty damn risky. Should we be patting Vincent Gallo on the back for that crap? Obviously two different movies, but the idea that you get a nod for trying, an "A" for effort, Jesus, I'd hate to see the awards slates that attitude would yield.

comment #9

Jonathan Spuij says ...

Being a huge Trekker myself I am very happy with all the critical and public plaudits Star Trek has received. However I also understand it's completely silly to regard it as a serious Oscar-movie. I would be more likely to regard District 9 as such, if only for it's subject matter. But that doesn't mean I believe the latter's a better film. Just slightly more politically relevant.

Oh and I finally saw "In The Loop" just now and it's absolutely smashing. Best comedy of the year for sure.

comment #10

P. Mace says ...

This is a great list. A really great one. If they want a huge audience in Oscar night just repeat the nominees. (ok, i know it won't happen. Nine, The Messenger, Last Station or a Serious Man will take the spot of Star Trek and District 9)

Jeff,
I think the right move would be to take back Invictus (or Precious) PGA nomination and give it to Nine.

comment #11

P. Mace says ...

This is a great list. A really great one. If they want a huge audience in Oscar night just repeat the nominees. (ok, i know it won't happen. Nine, The Messenger, Last Station or a Serious Man will take the spot of Star Trek and District 9)

Jeff,
I think the right move would be to take back Invictus (or Precious) PGA nomination and give it to Nine.

comment #12

Gaydos says ...

tapley, i share your astonishment at this proposition: an $80 million dollar film by an oscar-winning director starring an oscar winning actor based upon a hit stage play and decorated with another wonderful half dozen award-winning actresses is the "risky" bet of the year?

I just watched the lovely "ondine" by neil jordan and i'm told (by our review and others) that a beautifully crafted, brilliantly written romantic tale set in ireland starring colin farrell and one that (for lack of a better word) is heartwarming and hooks you from minute one is too "demanding" for the audiences today.

i'd rather celebrate that risk, while also noting jeff might be on to something with this eloi mouth breathing thing.

demanding? what's a movie got to do today to not be demanding; jump off the screen and buy you a malt and give you a back rub? sheeeesh...

comment #13

Katey says ...

I'm saving my pity for Harvey. Inglourious Basterds just gets better and better positioned the longer the awards race goes on, and is a bona fide commercial success. He had an ace in the hole before Nine even opened.

comment #14

zyg says ...

i never understood how anyone could think nine would draw an audience.

it's not a commercial idea. at the very least they should have cut the budget to the bone so the financial loss wouldn't be so bad.

comment #15

Eloi Manning says ...

"hot women, Raybans, cigarettes, sports cars, Amalfi coast, Cinecitta -- that would have trouble attracting the Middle-American Eloi"

Take away the Amalfi coast and Cinecitta and you have the ingredients of a Michael Bay movie, which have no problems attracting Middle-American Eloi.

comment #16

corey3rd says ...

After the reboot on Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek Babies isn't that great of a franchise rejuv

good to see The Cove and Burma VJ getting noms.

comment #17

Eloi Manning says ...

"After the reboot on Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek Babies isn't that great of a franchise rejuv"

It is. Galactica is great, but Star Trek would have been shit if they'd have followed the same gritty approach. The best thing about the Star Trek reboot is that they cast off the shackles of the po-faced Trek films/series of the '90s and early '00s, and just made a big silly blockbuster full of wit and energy.

comment #18

guy says ...

Yes Precious. Because it's a really good film. And really good films get nominated for awards. Next year you should give out the Jeffrey Wells Noble Failures, and then films like Nine will have something to put on their mantle too.

comment #19

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Put me in with those who fine NINE very unrisky.

CHICAGO showed that if you make a musical that appeals to adults, it can make money ($170M domestic from a $45M budget). And while it came out after NINE was off the ground and in production, MAMMA MIA! confirmed that money was still waiting to be made if you appealed to the same group ($144M domestic from a $52M budget. The huge overseas tally of $465M for a English language musical is in large part due to ABBA's music having a built in world wide fan base).

They crammed it with stars (who can't sing) and spent lavishly ($80M), but apparently didn't understand the biggest lesson of those other two hits: make sure people have actually heard of the musical you are basing your film on.

Why cast aspersions on STAR TREK (simply because you loath the genre)? You want to know who the real culprit is here, why your good pally Harvey is getting blown off this year?

INVICTUS

Here is a movie that got a collective "meh" from both the critics and the public, yet when the PGA old fogies decided to reward one of the "old boys" they went with Clint Eastwood, Rob Lorenz, Lori McCreary and Mace Neufeld. You want to rail against a film for denying NINE its slot, then man-up and go after INVICTUS.

No risk factor for TREK? On the Paramount lot for the last 30 years Trek is known simply as THE franchise. The first movies were all done by producers with long standing ties to the studio who would not make any major changes to it. Abrams not only wanted to start over with new actors playing probably the most iconic characters in American pop culture, but he also wanted to risk offending the most rabid fan base in the world by changing the established backstory.

JJ Abrams had a golden track record in TV and a solid start in films - why risk it on something that no matter how successful will never be thought of as truly his creation? Personally, I was very underwhelmed by the movie, but I can easily recognize the accomplishment.

comment #20

markj says ...

The screenplay for Star Trek was atrocious. Step forward Messrs Kurtzman and Orci. And Abrams has no cinematic sense at all, it's just a glorified TV movie.

Still don't understand the love for this movie. At all.

comment #21

BizzarroJeffWells says ...

ST was better thanNINe and better than UITA and better than IG and better than...

comment #22

Renfield says ...

markj,

Yes, the script was terrible but I think that, given the final product, this makes JJ look even better in my eyes. He took a crap script and turned it into one of the most entertaining summer films I've seen in some time.

If you watch the special features on the Blu-Ray, you can see that there was a shit load of story trimming going on through the editing process.

comment #23

moviemorlock says ...

I saw at least 30-40 other films this year that I'd include before Nine. Why should a movie that wasn't terribly good make a list of the 10 best? If Jeff loveed A serious Man as much as he claims, why wouldn't he have written a piece about that instead of a ho-hum musical with a non-likable lead?

I too just saw In the Loop and I would much preferred that film to have made the cut over Star Trek. I enjoyed Star Trek, but found it awfully hard to digest the whole "destroying Spock's home planet" plot line. A good film, but not a great one.

comment #24

Don Murphy says ...

One thing I cannot follow- as a lapsed Catholic I know that Eloi is the Aramaic name for God. Jesus says it while dying on the cross. Jeff seems to be using it as a slagging off, a negative thing. How is Eloi/God a bad thing?

comment #25

Rich S. says ...

Put me in the camp that considered the new Star Trek an enormous risk. Like Lord of the Rings, yes, you have a built in audience, but hell hath no fury like a fanboy scorned. It's doubly amazing since J.J. went back to the silly, funny, colorful cheese of the original series, instead of the ponderous technobabble of the later incarnations.

comment #26

Bob Violence says ...

Nah, this "Eloi" comes from one of the two future societies in The Time Machine, Jeff presumably identifying with the brutish, cannibalistic, working-class Morlocks instead

comment #27

BurmaShave says ...

Wait you mean Eloi is a completely confused term that should really stop being thrown around?

Just rewatched STAR TREK last night, just as solid as I thought over the summer. I've been lucky in this era with STAR TREKS, BATMANS and Bonds.

comment #28

MikeSchaeferSF says ...

It's amusing to see straight guys sticking up for a Rob Marshall musical. Of course, it's a musical in which nearly every number looks like an audition for Larry Flynt's Hustler Club, but still. Has Marshall been hanging out with Jay-Z and Li'l Wayne?

I saw "Nine" on New Year's Day (one of the biggest moviegoing days of the year) at SF's fabulous Castro theater. The place was barely 1/3 full. If you can't get a bunch of queens to show up for a lavish musical, you're in trouble.

comment #29

Fortunesfool says ...

It was a big risk taking Star Trek and dumbing it down for popcorn munching morons. It was an idiotic film, written by morons and directed by a TV director with very little knowledge of cinema or the cinematic. Why anyone would consider it for anything other than a razzie is bewildering.

comment #30

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

"It was a big risk taking Star Trek and dumbing it down for popcorn munching morons. It was an idiotic film, written by morons and directed by a TV director with very little knowledge of cinema or the cinematic. Why anyone would consider it for anything other than a razzie is bewildering."

Has Star Trek (the franchise) EVER truly approached Fellini-levels of wit and intellect to begin with, though?

...I mean, seriously.

And I ask this as a longtime, non-convention-going Trek fan.

comment #31

Don Murphy says ...

Yeah the Eloi thing doesn't make sense. Has anyone actually READ The Time Machine? The Eloi were the ones who Wells sympathized with.

comment #32

raygo says ...

I could see The Blind Side making the final cut ... in place of Up, Precious, or Star Trek. Up will get it's animated slot, no need to double dip, unless by expanding to 10 you get to drop the animated category altogether.

comment #33

BoomerSooner says ...

It's pretty clear that 'Star Trek' was an enormous risk, much more than 'Nine'.

'Nine', plain and simply, shouldn't have been made. It was based on a show that never really found a spot in popular culture, had no defining song, and contained actors that weren't known for being box office draws (despite it's awards pedigree the very few ads boated).

Abrams had to take a franchise that has been irrelevant for roughly a decade, considered too nerdy and comic-conish to succeed in mainstream America, and he turned it into the potentially the most popular franchise in the country in the course of 1 weekend.

The producers gave Abrams absolute free reign over 'Trek', allowed him to cast a group of nobodies with no box office draw to replace iconic actors and characters, rewrite the history of franchise, and appeal to fans, new fans, and critics alike. If this film weren't any good, it's box office would have greatly suffered, unlike 'Transformers 2' and '2012'.

'Trek', in the hands of a Brett Ratner, could have been a supreme box office bomb. It very much deserves this nomination.

comment #34

davie says ...

Nine is a great movie, criminally underrated and way better than Chicago, which was also terrific.

comment #35

Discman says ...

Any love out there for "Burma VJ"? I thought it was fantastic -- my choice for the year's best documentary. But I've heard from others who were put off by what they thought was obviously tacked-on voiceover narration. I don't know how I missed that, but can understand how it might be distracting. I was so caught up in the videotape footage that I didn't notiice.

comment #36

lipranzer says ...

I walked out of NINE. I've gone on record as not being a fan of 8 1/2, but I do recognize it represented something Fellini was trying to wrestle with personally and artistically, and you can say the same about what Bob Fosse (ALL THAT JAZZ) and Woody Allen (STARDUST MEMORIES) did with their interpretations of the same story. All Marshall's film represented was flailing around trying to recapture the magic of CHICAGO, making this almost a sequel. I liked CHICAGO, but everyone here seemed absolutely lost. Having said that:

"but the idea that you get a nod for trying, an "A" for effort, Jesus, I'd hate to see the awards slates that attitude would yield."

I don't think awards should be given for effort alone - talent has to be there as well - but yes, I judge a movie higher if I can tell it was trying to do something, even if it failed, as opposed to being purely a cash register job.

comment #37

Gordon27 says ...

"If you watch the special features on the Blu-Ray, you can see that there was a shit load of story trimming going on through the editing process."

Well, yeah, they weren't allowed to change the script during production because of the writer's strike (and, of all the movies shooting at that time, it was almost certainly the most high-profile, so they had to really watch out). So they'd have to do it during post.

'Star Trek' is a terrible script, but a very fun movie. Anybody who think this is wrong has never watched the original 'Star Trek' television show, of which there are maybe five episodes with genuinely good scripts (I can only think of two off-hand, but I'd bet there are a few I'm forgetting). Many of the best episodes ('Doomsday Machine' certainly comes to mind) have *really* stupid scripts.

comment #38

Sams says ...

What was the risk with Nine? The play was a hit on Broadway and they had half a dozen Oscar winners plus the lead singer of one of the hottest Grammy-winning groups. The ingredients were there, they just needed to cook it right. The real risk was in poor vision and execution, which alas was what came to pass.

comment #39

Bob Violence says ...

And Abrams has no cinematic sense at all, it's just a glorified TV movie.

B-b-but LENS FLARES