Something interesting happened this weekend at the box office. There were four new releases, and they were ranked by the critics from good to bad as follows: "Rango," (88% Rotten Tomatoes score), "The Adjustment Bureau" (69%), "Take Me Home Tonight," (30%) and "Beastly" (21%). Their performance at the box office more or less followed suit, with "Rango" in first at an estimated $38 million in receipts, "Adjustment" in second with $20.9 million, "Beastly" in third with $10.1 million, and "Take Me Home Tonight" bombing quietly with $3.5 million, not even making the top ten. However, then we come to the CinemaScore results, which tell a different story entirely.
CinemaScore is a marketing firm that surveys audience reactions to films on opening weekend, letting viewers grade them on an A to F scale. The studios buy the data, in order to see how their films have been received by various segments of the viewing audience. The general public wasn't privy to the scores in the past, but various industry outlets have started publishing them along with the usual box office reports. This weekend, according to their CinemaScores, the top three films' performances with audiences were flipped from the critical and financial measures. "Beastly" got the highest scores with a B grade, "The Adjustment Bureau" also got a B, but the highly lauded "Rango" only received a C+. For the record, "Take Me Home Tonight" rated a C. A movie is generally considered to expect poor word-of-mouth if it gets less than a B grade, since the mainstream audience is much kinder than the critics.
The Cinemascore data is no real determinant of quality, or even popularity. For one, they're highly misleading, in that they're only surveying those who bought tickets to see these films on opening weekend. The audience for "Beastly" was predominantly made up of teenage girls, who were fans of the young stars, Vanessa Hudgens and Alex Pettyfer. Their demographic gave "Beastly" an A- in contrast to the adult critics who gleefully tore it to shreds. And then there were the audiences for "Rango," which were predominantly families with young children. According to the reviews, they got a weird, unconventional, spaghetti-western homage with several instances of adult humor and language that strained at the bounds of its PG rating. Critics welcomed the movie's daring, but the material may have proved too much for viewers expecting something more in line with the usual Dreamworks or PIXAR fare. Older audiences were particularly hostile, with those over 25 giving "Rango" a flat C grade.
What's really interesting is that the disparity between the box office performances of these films and the CinemaScores shows that there's really no correlation between how much audiences like them and how they perform in the first week. Big opening weekend numbers are driven by marketing campaigns and hype, and the studios putting so much importance on these initial numbers indicates that how well a movie can be made to target a certain audience tends to matter more to the bottom line than the quality of the product. The CinemaScore grade for "Beastly" shows that the CBS Films was right on target, pandering perfectly to that critic-proof audience of teenage girls that loves the "Twilight" movies. An old line from "The Lady Eve" comes to mind – "A girl of sixteen is practically an idiot anyway." And I say this lovingly, as a former sixteen-year-old girl whose favorite film at one point was "Newsies."
"Rango," on the other hand, wasn't a good fit for the family audiences it was aimed at, which may affect its financial performance in the weeks to come. Many big-budget would-be blockbusters take a dive in the rankings in their second weekend, and I expect "Rango" will probably do the same. On the other hand, the marketing campaign did everything right, playing up the involvement of its star, Johnny Depp, and the eye-popping graphics from ILM, so "Rango" is bound to make back its money. The Cinemascore data, along with any bad word-of-mouth it might foretell, will probably encourage Paramount to push for less risky projects in the future. In the end, it's woe to the offbeat, hard-to-categorize movies that can't be pigeonholed into a particular category or easily sold to a certain demographic.
Ultimately CinemaScore tells us less about the movies than it does about the studios and how they sell films to American audiences. Clearly there were people out there who loved and championed "Rango," but according to the studios these were the wrong people, because they weren't the ones the marketing campaigns were targeting and they weren't the ones who came out and bought tickets on opening weekend. Personally, "Rango" has gone to the top of my to-see list precisely because of the reaction its gotten. I like dark and weird and offbeat. And I'll take an animated movie that takes chances, the way "Rango" does, over a by-the-book crowd pleaser like "Gnomeo and Juliet" any day.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Bye Bye Blockbuster
The end is near for Blockbuster, at least for a good chunk of its brick-and-mortar operations around the country. You've probably started seeing the big yellow announcement banners over many of their storefronts over the past few weeks. I walked over to one of the closing stores yesterday, feeling nostalgic, and in the mood to pick over their inventory. Everything was for sale, from the DVDs to the snack foods to the store fixtures.
First, a note to bargain hunters - as with most store closings, the purported markdowns are deceptive. I went into the store primarily interested in their used DVD collection, and found that the bulk of them were priced at $10, or $5 if they didn't have a box. Meanwhile, the average price of a brand new bargain bin title at the local Wal-mart is usually $5-$8. To underline the fact, there were several racks of unopened new discount titles, in the $7-$10 range. Amazingly, the used Blu-rays were all priced a buck or two cheaper than the used DVDs. All the discounted movies could be found online at the usual discount retailers for less. Since most of the racks were still full, and the store was still renting titles, I think it must have been early in the closing process for this location, and prices may come down. Or, they may ship all the unsold inventory to one of the stores that is staying open. I still did some browsing and considered buying a used copy of the Sci-Fi Channel miniseries "The Lost Room" - and then realized that the box I picked up only had the first disc. The second was nowhere to be found.
I don't remember the last time I was in a Blockbuster store before this, but in my college and grad school years I was walking by them almost daily, and rented heaps and heaps of DVDs. The first time I ever did a monthly plan was at Blockbuster - I paid $30 for unlimited rentals for one month, and proceeded to burn through fifty movies, swapping out two at a time every day, at the store in person. (In my defense, this was during the summer, and I had seen maybe five movies in the preceding six months.) I applied to work at one of them once, filling in the application on the little electronic thingy in the back of the store. This was before I learned that you were expected to follow-up on job applications, so of course my efforts were for nada. There were other video stores in my life, of course. There were the dollar-a-night rental places that my parents preferred, and there were the alternative places that organized their titles by director to target serious cinephiles. I would not have become the giant anime nerd I am today if it weren't for the fine proprietors of Wizzywigs in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the day they sold off their VHS rental collection was a sad one for all. But I can't imagine my nascent movie-lover years without Blockbuster.
Sure, Blockbuster has often been viewed as the enemy to smaller video stores, a mainstream behemoth stomping out the scrappy independents. But how could I hate them? They gave me access to so many movies I would have never seen otherwise. The titles that individual stores carried would vary from place to place, but I remember finding so many foreign wonders like "The Five Obstructions," and "Kitchen Stories," and obscure indies like "Bartleby" and "Undertow." I'd hear about these films through "At the Movie" or film websites, but until I got to college and had free run of the video stores, I didn't realize that I could actually rent and watch them like mainstream movies. Blockbuster was absolutely vital in helping me to shape my tastes in film, giving me the opportunity to take home the Swedish apocalypse comedy "Songs from the Second Floor" instead of "Spider-Man." The dollar stores could never match their selection. The cinephile stores usually had wonderful collections of older films, but neglected their new releases.
All that changed with online rentals, of course, and visiting Blockbuster stores became more and more of a drag as time went on. The prices kept going up, being in the stores themselves became tedious, and after a certain point I was a little embarrassed that I had ever wanted to work there. Can you imagine standing at one of those counters all day, listening to the blare of the eternally looping Coming Attractions reel on the overhead television sets? Or having to hawk membership plans and overpriced Twizzlers with every transaction? And once I started getting curious about older films, it was all over. Looking for Kurosawa or Bergman titles? Forget it.
I guess I just outgrew Blockbuster, and from their financial woes it looks like everyone else did too. I did find one great deal while I was at Blockbuster yesterday. They were selling off all the shelf display cards, or "backers," the ones with pictures of the DVD box covers on them to sit on the shelf as a placeholder when a copy has been checked out, twenty cards for a dollar. I grabbed three dollars worth, including cards for the "Millennium" trilogy, "The Maid," "The White Ribbon," "I Am Love," and "Beaches of Agnes." I'll go back again later to see if I can find more rarities, and maybe I'll dig up that second disc of "The Lost Room." Mostly, though, I'll be going for the nostalgia.
First, a note to bargain hunters - as with most store closings, the purported markdowns are deceptive. I went into the store primarily interested in their used DVD collection, and found that the bulk of them were priced at $10, or $5 if they didn't have a box. Meanwhile, the average price of a brand new bargain bin title at the local Wal-mart is usually $5-$8. To underline the fact, there were several racks of unopened new discount titles, in the $7-$10 range. Amazingly, the used Blu-rays were all priced a buck or two cheaper than the used DVDs. All the discounted movies could be found online at the usual discount retailers for less. Since most of the racks were still full, and the store was still renting titles, I think it must have been early in the closing process for this location, and prices may come down. Or, they may ship all the unsold inventory to one of the stores that is staying open. I still did some browsing and considered buying a used copy of the Sci-Fi Channel miniseries "The Lost Room" - and then realized that the box I picked up only had the first disc. The second was nowhere to be found.
I don't remember the last time I was in a Blockbuster store before this, but in my college and grad school years I was walking by them almost daily, and rented heaps and heaps of DVDs. The first time I ever did a monthly plan was at Blockbuster - I paid $30 for unlimited rentals for one month, and proceeded to burn through fifty movies, swapping out two at a time every day, at the store in person. (In my defense, this was during the summer, and I had seen maybe five movies in the preceding six months.) I applied to work at one of them once, filling in the application on the little electronic thingy in the back of the store. This was before I learned that you were expected to follow-up on job applications, so of course my efforts were for nada. There were other video stores in my life, of course. There were the dollar-a-night rental places that my parents preferred, and there were the alternative places that organized their titles by director to target serious cinephiles. I would not have become the giant anime nerd I am today if it weren't for the fine proprietors of Wizzywigs in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the day they sold off their VHS rental collection was a sad one for all. But I can't imagine my nascent movie-lover years without Blockbuster.
Sure, Blockbuster has often been viewed as the enemy to smaller video stores, a mainstream behemoth stomping out the scrappy independents. But how could I hate them? They gave me access to so many movies I would have never seen otherwise. The titles that individual stores carried would vary from place to place, but I remember finding so many foreign wonders like "The Five Obstructions," and "Kitchen Stories," and obscure indies like "Bartleby" and "Undertow." I'd hear about these films through "At the Movie" or film websites, but until I got to college and had free run of the video stores, I didn't realize that I could actually rent and watch them like mainstream movies. Blockbuster was absolutely vital in helping me to shape my tastes in film, giving me the opportunity to take home the Swedish apocalypse comedy "Songs from the Second Floor" instead of "Spider-Man." The dollar stores could never match their selection. The cinephile stores usually had wonderful collections of older films, but neglected their new releases.
All that changed with online rentals, of course, and visiting Blockbuster stores became more and more of a drag as time went on. The prices kept going up, being in the stores themselves became tedious, and after a certain point I was a little embarrassed that I had ever wanted to work there. Can you imagine standing at one of those counters all day, listening to the blare of the eternally looping Coming Attractions reel on the overhead television sets? Or having to hawk membership plans and overpriced Twizzlers with every transaction? And once I started getting curious about older films, it was all over. Looking for Kurosawa or Bergman titles? Forget it.
I guess I just outgrew Blockbuster, and from their financial woes it looks like everyone else did too. I did find one great deal while I was at Blockbuster yesterday. They were selling off all the shelf display cards, or "backers," the ones with pictures of the DVD box covers on them to sit on the shelf as a placeholder when a copy has been checked out, twenty cards for a dollar. I grabbed three dollars worth, including cards for the "Millennium" trilogy, "The Maid," "The White Ribbon," "I Am Love," and "Beaches of Agnes." I'll go back again later to see if I can find more rarities, and maybe I'll dig up that second disc of "The Lost Room." Mostly, though, I'll be going for the nostalgia.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
DirecTV's New Bet on Video On Demand
Worlds are colliding! Worlds are colliding! According to the Los Angeles Times, DirecTV is in talks to start offering early video-on-demand, bringing first run movies to television screens as little as sixty days after their release in theaters, and a month before they hit DVD. The cost of the service is steep - the tentative estimate is $30 per title - but it's a clear sign that content exhibition windows are shrinking again and the fight between content providers and distributors is heating up. Theater owners, of course, are screaming bloody murder because the plan threatens to cut into their profits by shortening the length of time a film stays in theaters. Also, shorter theatrical exhibition tends to negatively impact smaller films that take time to build their audiences, and pretty much any film that isn't front-loaded at the box-office.
I've never used video on demand, so I'm not the best person to evaluate the financial feasibility of this new DirecTV venture. I'm still trying to work out how this is any different than films on pay-per view services, which traditionally come a few months after a film's DVD release. Personally, it sounds like a pretty unlikely bet. $30 doesn't seem like a hefty fee when you consider that it's equal to the cost of about two or three movie tickets, but wait another month, and you can pick up a rental disc from Blockbuster for $6. Wait another month, and it's down to $1 a night from the local Redbox kiosk. The convenience of ordering a movie from home probably counts for something, but unless you're in an area that doesn't have video stores in close proximity or isn't in the service area of Netflix or other rental services, I don't understand the appeal. I can understand spending $30 to go out and see a film in a theater, and prices for souped-up IMAX screens and 3D surcharges are already pushing ticket costs close to the $20 mark in some areas, but not for a home viewing experience.
The only time I could see myself using the service is with limited releases, simply because they take so much longer to reach DVD than widely distributed films, and their release patterns can be erratic. I found out too late that a local art house theater was playing "The Illusionist" for a week, and now I'll have to wait several months to see it by rental. I'd happily pay $30 now if I didn't have to wait until August or September for the DVD release, but this is really an access issue. If there were a theater nearby still playing the film, then I would never conisder it. Of course, I'm sure there are people out there who hate going to movie theaters or simply can't go to movie theaters, who would love to have this kind of service. But are there that many impatient moviegoers with major access issues out there to make this into a viable revenue stream? I get the sense that DirecTV expects that a first-run movie can be treated and priced like a special event, and I think that can work for some titles, but not many. $30 to hold a big home viewing party of the new PIXAR film while it's still in theaters? Sure. "Big Mommas: Like Father Like Son"? Eeep.
It's also worth mentioning that movie theaters are increasingly looking to alternate content like National CineMedia's Fathom events, which distribute live opera and theater performances, concerts, sports matches, business meetings, and even church services. I tried and failed miserably to find tickets to the special screenings of the National Theater "Frankenstein" performances happening in a few weeks, being distributed through BY Experience. These event-based screenings have higher ticket costs, and feature the kind of content that seems more suited to higher price premium video-on-demand than regular old feature films, which takes us right back into comparisons to traditional pay-per-view television. Just as television is encroaching on the domain of movie theaters, theaters are starting to encroach on the domain of television. I've already seen a few special event screenings built around television content, including the series finale of "Lost" last year, featuring a Q&A with the series creators. I wouldn't be surprised, in a couple of years, if they start beaming new episodes of premium cable television series right into movie theaters.
I guess it's all going to come down to the audience's venue preferences eventually. I, for one, prefer seeing movies in theaters, but DirecTV is betting there are a lot of people out there who don't.
I've never used video on demand, so I'm not the best person to evaluate the financial feasibility of this new DirecTV venture. I'm still trying to work out how this is any different than films on pay-per view services, which traditionally come a few months after a film's DVD release. Personally, it sounds like a pretty unlikely bet. $30 doesn't seem like a hefty fee when you consider that it's equal to the cost of about two or three movie tickets, but wait another month, and you can pick up a rental disc from Blockbuster for $6. Wait another month, and it's down to $1 a night from the local Redbox kiosk. The convenience of ordering a movie from home probably counts for something, but unless you're in an area that doesn't have video stores in close proximity or isn't in the service area of Netflix or other rental services, I don't understand the appeal. I can understand spending $30 to go out and see a film in a theater, and prices for souped-up IMAX screens and 3D surcharges are already pushing ticket costs close to the $20 mark in some areas, but not for a home viewing experience.
The only time I could see myself using the service is with limited releases, simply because they take so much longer to reach DVD than widely distributed films, and their release patterns can be erratic. I found out too late that a local art house theater was playing "The Illusionist" for a week, and now I'll have to wait several months to see it by rental. I'd happily pay $30 now if I didn't have to wait until August or September for the DVD release, but this is really an access issue. If there were a theater nearby still playing the film, then I would never conisder it. Of course, I'm sure there are people out there who hate going to movie theaters or simply can't go to movie theaters, who would love to have this kind of service. But are there that many impatient moviegoers with major access issues out there to make this into a viable revenue stream? I get the sense that DirecTV expects that a first-run movie can be treated and priced like a special event, and I think that can work for some titles, but not many. $30 to hold a big home viewing party of the new PIXAR film while it's still in theaters? Sure. "Big Mommas: Like Father Like Son"? Eeep.
It's also worth mentioning that movie theaters are increasingly looking to alternate content like National CineMedia's Fathom events, which distribute live opera and theater performances, concerts, sports matches, business meetings, and even church services. I tried and failed miserably to find tickets to the special screenings of the National Theater "Frankenstein" performances happening in a few weeks, being distributed through BY Experience. These event-based screenings have higher ticket costs, and feature the kind of content that seems more suited to higher price premium video-on-demand than regular old feature films, which takes us right back into comparisons to traditional pay-per-view television. Just as television is encroaching on the domain of movie theaters, theaters are starting to encroach on the domain of television. I've already seen a few special event screenings built around television content, including the series finale of "Lost" last year, featuring a Q&A with the series creators. I wouldn't be surprised, in a couple of years, if they start beaming new episodes of premium cable television series right into movie theaters.
I guess it's all going to come down to the audience's venue preferences eventually. I, for one, prefer seeing movies in theaters, but DirecTV is betting there are a lot of people out there who don't.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Follow-Up Post, March Edition
It's been a while since I did an update post, and there are several prior entries that I think need an addendum, including the Oscar Post Mortem I wrote up on Monday. Without further ado, here are some additional thoughts on subjects discussed in previous posts.
Oscar 2011 Post-Mortem - This year's ceremony turned out to be one of the shortest in the last thirty years, and apparently there was a lot of chaos going on behind the scenes. At least two production numbers and an appearance by Shrek were cut, the latter due to technical difficulties. Excised "Grease" and "Evita" segments of the intro montage can be found online, and a clip of James Franco murdering a Cher song from "Burlesque" was recently yanked. The jury's still out on whether this was a good decision or not, but I think the whole crew should have spent less time cutting those spiffy ABC promos for the ceremony, and actually worried about the ceremony itself. And I'm guessing one of the reasons why Franco looked so distracted all evening was because he was sending out live Tweets all night. Oy.
My Holiday Wishlist - So far, so good. The MGM bankruptcy is going well and all the delayed projects I was interested in are going forward. They even managed to get Sam Mendes back for the next Bond movie. We also got a very promising new version of "At the Movies" currently airing on PBS, and this year's "Doctor Who" Christmas special was pretty darn kickass. Alas, Hulu's new deal with Criterion means that Netflix is going to be more depleted of older prestige titles in a few months, and I haven't had any luck tracking down any of the obscure titles I listed. I was also dismayed to realize that all the major rental services only carry domestic releases, meaning that it's impossible to get my hands on titles like Luis Bunuel's "Los Olvidados" and Roberto Rossellini's "Stromboli," which are only available through foreign distributors. Also, no flatscreen and Michael Bay remains sad and alone.
The Battle For Thursday - You know, maybe if Charlie Sheen's ongoing hissy fit does end up shutting down "Two and a Half Men" permanently, they'll send "The Big Bang Theory" back to Mondays and I won't have to choose between watching "Big Bang" and "Community" live. Sigh. I know it won't happen, because CBS has been doing so well with its new Thursday comedy block, but a gal can dream, can't she? I dropped "Big Bang Theory" for "Community" completely over the winter break for a few episodes, but I'm slowly falling back in to the same old pattern of watching "Big Bang" live and "Community" on Hulu. I can't help it. I've totally fallen for the frumpy charms of Mayim Bialik's Amy Farrah Fowler. Even Troy and Abed (in the morning!) are no match for her.
The Problem With Mary Jane - One nice thing about this new spate of fairy-tale themed movies is that it means a lot of new female lead roles. Amanda Seyfried will be headlining "Red Riding Hood," Gemma Arterton will star with Jeremy Renner in "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters," and there are no less than three different "Snow White" projects gearing up, one with Kristen Stewart. However, the biggest plum role in the pipeline is Katniss of "The Hunger Games," an upcoming action film based on the young adult novel by Suzanne Collins. It's being geared up to be the next big film franchise, and already has a sizable fan base that's been buzzing about potential candidates for months. As for Alphonso Cuaron's "Gravity," after months of drama and a list of contenders as long as my arm, the lead role appears to finally be going to Sandra Bullock.
The Search for the Mom-Friendly Movie - Next year may be easier to find suitable movies for my parents, as there have been several news articles pointing out the resurgence of older audiences at the movies again, and making Oscar fare like "The King's Speech" and "True Grit" into bona fide blockbusters. While mid-range films are unlikely to make a comeback, there's been a welcome trend toward older stars in genre fare. Liam Neeson just had a good turn in "Unknown," which was much better than his last two action films, "The A-Team" and "Taken." Also, Meryl Streep shows no sign of slowing down. This year she'll be playing Margaret Thatcher in the bio-pic "The Iron Lady," and no doubt gunning for Oscar nomination number seventeen come December.
And finally, remember Disneyland: The Movie?! It's still moving forward, along with plans for - I kid you not - a Jungle Cruise movie starring Tim Allen and Tom Hanks.
Oscar 2011 Post-Mortem - This year's ceremony turned out to be one of the shortest in the last thirty years, and apparently there was a lot of chaos going on behind the scenes. At least two production numbers and an appearance by Shrek were cut, the latter due to technical difficulties. Excised "Grease" and "Evita" segments of the intro montage can be found online, and a clip of James Franco murdering a Cher song from "Burlesque" was recently yanked. The jury's still out on whether this was a good decision or not, but I think the whole crew should have spent less time cutting those spiffy ABC promos for the ceremony, and actually worried about the ceremony itself. And I'm guessing one of the reasons why Franco looked so distracted all evening was because he was sending out live Tweets all night. Oy.
My Holiday Wishlist - So far, so good. The MGM bankruptcy is going well and all the delayed projects I was interested in are going forward. They even managed to get Sam Mendes back for the next Bond movie. We also got a very promising new version of "At the Movies" currently airing on PBS, and this year's "Doctor Who" Christmas special was pretty darn kickass. Alas, Hulu's new deal with Criterion means that Netflix is going to be more depleted of older prestige titles in a few months, and I haven't had any luck tracking down any of the obscure titles I listed. I was also dismayed to realize that all the major rental services only carry domestic releases, meaning that it's impossible to get my hands on titles like Luis Bunuel's "Los Olvidados" and Roberto Rossellini's "Stromboli," which are only available through foreign distributors. Also, no flatscreen and Michael Bay remains sad and alone.
The Battle For Thursday - You know, maybe if Charlie Sheen's ongoing hissy fit does end up shutting down "Two and a Half Men" permanently, they'll send "The Big Bang Theory" back to Mondays and I won't have to choose between watching "Big Bang" and "Community" live. Sigh. I know it won't happen, because CBS has been doing so well with its new Thursday comedy block, but a gal can dream, can't she? I dropped "Big Bang Theory" for "Community" completely over the winter break for a few episodes, but I'm slowly falling back in to the same old pattern of watching "Big Bang" live and "Community" on Hulu. I can't help it. I've totally fallen for the frumpy charms of Mayim Bialik's Amy Farrah Fowler. Even Troy and Abed (in the morning!) are no match for her.
The Problem With Mary Jane - One nice thing about this new spate of fairy-tale themed movies is that it means a lot of new female lead roles. Amanda Seyfried will be headlining "Red Riding Hood," Gemma Arterton will star with Jeremy Renner in "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters," and there are no less than three different "Snow White" projects gearing up, one with Kristen Stewart. However, the biggest plum role in the pipeline is Katniss of "The Hunger Games," an upcoming action film based on the young adult novel by Suzanne Collins. It's being geared up to be the next big film franchise, and already has a sizable fan base that's been buzzing about potential candidates for months. As for Alphonso Cuaron's "Gravity," after months of drama and a list of contenders as long as my arm, the lead role appears to finally be going to Sandra Bullock.
The Search for the Mom-Friendly Movie - Next year may be easier to find suitable movies for my parents, as there have been several news articles pointing out the resurgence of older audiences at the movies again, and making Oscar fare like "The King's Speech" and "True Grit" into bona fide blockbusters. While mid-range films are unlikely to make a comeback, there's been a welcome trend toward older stars in genre fare. Liam Neeson just had a good turn in "Unknown," which was much better than his last two action films, "The A-Team" and "Taken." Also, Meryl Streep shows no sign of slowing down. This year she'll be playing Margaret Thatcher in the bio-pic "The Iron Lady," and no doubt gunning for Oscar nomination number seventeen come December.
And finally, remember Disneyland: The Movie?! It's still moving forward, along with plans for - I kid you not - a Jungle Cruise movie starring Tim Allen and Tom Hanks.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
The Charlie Sheen Situation
I stay out of celebrity gossip whenever possible, but the current situation with Charlie Sheen, star of CBS's highest rated sitcom, "Two and a Half Men," and the highest paid actor on network television today, has gone far beyond the covers of the tabloids. "Two and a Half Men," now in its eighth year, has been shut down for the rest of the season after Sheen delivered rants against show creator Chuck Lorre on a radio program and TMZ. He has ABC and NBC tussling over first dibs on interviews, his publicist has quit, and several lawsuits are forthcoming. He's thrown an entire network into chaos, and CBS is now left grappling with what to do with a show that is suddenly without its leading man.
This is a situation entirely without precedent. There have been unexpected deaths in the sitcom world before, which have left shows like "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter" and "The Royal Family" without their headliners, but never has such a high profile, popular star been forcibly ejected from a television program at the height of its success. You have to go back to Suzanne Somers from "Three's Company" to get anything comparable, and back then actors didn't have the kind of soapboxes afforded to them by the media to be disruptive and and combative. And boy is Charlie Sheen taking advantage of the mass media. He's putting his personal life and personal demons on full display, unfiltered, for any gawker who wants to see it.
I don't watch "Two and a Half Men" regularly but I remember Charlie Sheen from his leading man days in the 80s, when he was in "Platoon" and "Wall Street," and romanced Jeanie Bueller while her brother was having the day off. Sheen's substance abuse problems were legendary and provided plenty of gossip column fodder, but you never had the blowouts taking place directly in the public eye like this. What strikes me about the latest meltdown is not only the severity of the financial consequences, with the potential shuttering of a lucrative sitcom, but the total lack of any attempt to do damage control of the situation. Now that CBS has apparently cut ties with the troubled star, it feels like everyone around Sheen has given up trying to hold him back from hitting rock bottom.
What we're seeing now is truly Charlie Sheen let loose, and it's scary. Hollywood is full of overpaid nuts living in warped realities, but it's also full of PR professionals and managers and image consultants helping celebrities to maintain their valuable screen personas. There's a lot of money involved in many cases, and the studios have an interest in making sure their stars behave, or at least appear to be behaving. Morals clauses have been part of employment contracts in Tinseltown for years. It's one of the reasons why celebrity gossip is so intoxicating for many - everyone wants to see the mask slip and get a glimpse of the unvarnished reality.
Right now Charlie Sheen is giving us reality, all right. The reality is that this man is proving himself to be unemployable and needs professional help. It's fascinating to see the dissonance between the truth and the constructed fiction that was the studio line until only a few days ago - that Charlie Sheen was recovering from his last bout of substance abuse and addiction, and was ready to resume work on "Two and a Half Men" as of this past Monday. Instead, it turnes out he's the same womanizing addict he was in the 80s, only he's been better at hiding it for a long, long time. And it's equally telling that the straw that finally broke the camel's back was Sheen's attack on Chuck Lorre. Once it became clear that Charlie Sheen could not honor his professional commitments, and CBS and Warner Brothers' economic interests in "Two and a Half Men" and Lorre's other projects were being put in jeopardy, Sheen became too big a liability and was left to fend for himself.
The cycle of celebrity meltdown and revival is so ingrained in the public psyche, the expectation is that Charlie Sheen will see reason eventually and return to our screens. He's already had one career resurrection, going from movie star to sitcom bad-boy, and there's certainly enough goodwill from the public to ensure that somebody in Hollywood will take a risk on him again, as long as he stays out of jail and can get himself reasonably cleaned up. However, the question is whether this is the end of "Two and a Half Men." Will they recast the part? (What has Emilio Estevez been up to lately?) Write Charlie Harper out of the show? Or will "Two and a Half Men" simply end, despite being one of the biggest ratings winners on the CBS slate?
I honestly don't have much interest in Sheen's ongoing career implosion, but I want to know what CBS is going to do next.
This is a situation entirely without precedent. There have been unexpected deaths in the sitcom world before, which have left shows like "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter" and "The Royal Family" without their headliners, but never has such a high profile, popular star been forcibly ejected from a television program at the height of its success. You have to go back to Suzanne Somers from "Three's Company" to get anything comparable, and back then actors didn't have the kind of soapboxes afforded to them by the media to be disruptive and and combative. And boy is Charlie Sheen taking advantage of the mass media. He's putting his personal life and personal demons on full display, unfiltered, for any gawker who wants to see it.
I don't watch "Two and a Half Men" regularly but I remember Charlie Sheen from his leading man days in the 80s, when he was in "Platoon" and "Wall Street," and romanced Jeanie Bueller while her brother was having the day off. Sheen's substance abuse problems were legendary and provided plenty of gossip column fodder, but you never had the blowouts taking place directly in the public eye like this. What strikes me about the latest meltdown is not only the severity of the financial consequences, with the potential shuttering of a lucrative sitcom, but the total lack of any attempt to do damage control of the situation. Now that CBS has apparently cut ties with the troubled star, it feels like everyone around Sheen has given up trying to hold him back from hitting rock bottom.
What we're seeing now is truly Charlie Sheen let loose, and it's scary. Hollywood is full of overpaid nuts living in warped realities, but it's also full of PR professionals and managers and image consultants helping celebrities to maintain their valuable screen personas. There's a lot of money involved in many cases, and the studios have an interest in making sure their stars behave, or at least appear to be behaving. Morals clauses have been part of employment contracts in Tinseltown for years. It's one of the reasons why celebrity gossip is so intoxicating for many - everyone wants to see the mask slip and get a glimpse of the unvarnished reality.
Right now Charlie Sheen is giving us reality, all right. The reality is that this man is proving himself to be unemployable and needs professional help. It's fascinating to see the dissonance between the truth and the constructed fiction that was the studio line until only a few days ago - that Charlie Sheen was recovering from his last bout of substance abuse and addiction, and was ready to resume work on "Two and a Half Men" as of this past Monday. Instead, it turnes out he's the same womanizing addict he was in the 80s, only he's been better at hiding it for a long, long time. And it's equally telling that the straw that finally broke the camel's back was Sheen's attack on Chuck Lorre. Once it became clear that Charlie Sheen could not honor his professional commitments, and CBS and Warner Brothers' economic interests in "Two and a Half Men" and Lorre's other projects were being put in jeopardy, Sheen became too big a liability and was left to fend for himself.
The cycle of celebrity meltdown and revival is so ingrained in the public psyche, the expectation is that Charlie Sheen will see reason eventually and return to our screens. He's already had one career resurrection, going from movie star to sitcom bad-boy, and there's certainly enough goodwill from the public to ensure that somebody in Hollywood will take a risk on him again, as long as he stays out of jail and can get himself reasonably cleaned up. However, the question is whether this is the end of "Two and a Half Men." Will they recast the part? (What has Emilio Estevez been up to lately?) Write Charlie Harper out of the show? Or will "Two and a Half Men" simply end, despite being one of the biggest ratings winners on the CBS slate?
I honestly don't have much interest in Sheen's ongoing career implosion, but I want to know what CBS is going to do next.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Oscar 2011 Post-Mortem
Let's get one thing out of the way first. I'm terrible at guessing Oscar winners. I only picked half the categories correctly, just one more than my friend at the viewing party who hadn't seen any of the movies this year. There were some good surprises in the smaller races - Wally Pfister won in Cinematography, a non-PIXAR short went home with a trophy, and "The King's Speech" didn't have anything close to the sweep that some were predicting. It got four Oscars last night, the same as "Inception," which had mostly wins in technical categories. "The Social Network" wrestled away a Best Editing win, netting three statues. All the acting awards went to the same actors who have been winning them all season. Though I disagreed with many of the winners, only one really disappointed me - that the Best Director Oscar went to Tobe Hooper for "The King's Speech" over David Fincher for "The Social Network." Hooper did a fine job, but Fincher turned the much-belittled concept of a "Facebook movie" into a critical awards juggernaut, and he's overdue for Academy recognition, dammit.
The ceremony itself tried to be a lot of things, and mostly turned out to be an awkward ordeal, but lets get to the positive changes first. I blogged a few suggestions for improving the awards telecast last week, and it turns out I was on the same wavelength as the showrunners about a few things. This year there were fewer presenters handing out more awards, the audience got to see more clips of the nominees' work, and the orchestra mostly behaved. Probably the biggest improvement, structurally, was removing the individual clips for the Best Picture nominees, opting instead to have a single montage at the end of the night. And using a single presenter to shower kudos on the Best Actor and Actress nominees with a longer intro was a much better alternative to that five-presenter set-up they tried a few times.
Sadly, the special honorary Oscars and the Irving J. Thalberg Awards have been permanently banished to the newly created Governor's Awards ceremony, and they will no longer be part of the usual telecast. Last night a summary of the event was included, similar to the one for the technical awards ceremony. I have to grudgingly agree with their exclusion for the sake of better television, though frankly I would have rather sat through the telecast of that ceremony - honoring Francis Ford Coppola, Jean-Luc Godard, actor Eli Wallach, and historian Kevin Brownlow - than this one. Three of the four got to come out for a cameo, the exception being Jean-Luc Godard of course, because Jean-Luc Godard does not put up with this kind of Hollywood nonsense.
There was a lot of downright cringeworthy business going on last night. Most of the attempts at pre-taped pieces fell utterly flat, including the traditional cameo-riddled opening sequence where the hosts pop in and out of scenes from nominated movies, and a bit where clips from blockbusters like "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" got the autotune treatment. The ideas weren't bad, but the execution was horrendous. It felt like the show's producers had slapped the comedic segments together over the weekend and the writers had abandoned the hosts to flounder with hastily scribbled banter and ad libs. Instead of coming across as young and hip, the Oscars came across as trying very hard to be young and hip, and doing a lousy job of it.
As for poor James Franco and Anne Hathaway, I've read various dissections of their performances, and the overwhelming sentiment is that they were unfortunate choices for hosts. I thought that Hathaway came off better because she was trying so much harder, bumbling her way through a solo dance number in ridiculous shoes, and keeping up the energy in the latter half of the show while James Franco seemed to be in the early stages of rigor mortis. On the other hand, her continuous nervous laughter and odd mugging antics weren't winning her many points. Hathaway and Franco can be charming and funny, but I think they cracked a bit under pressure, and they clearly did not have the chops to save the lousy scripted material. Nowhere was this more apparent than when Billy Crystal showed up to tell a few tepid jokes and had the entire theater on its feet.
Bringing the Best Song performances back was also a mistake, especially this year when the nominees were uniformly mediocre. I have no idea how the logic of the nomination process works, if they bumped a Cher performance in favor of the "Tangled" duet (they should have picked the upbeat "Tangled" barfight number). But the mundane performances didn't stop there. It's now apparently a tradition to get a pop singer to come out to perform alongside the "In Memoriam" segment, a practice I find incredibly distracting. Celine Dion was up there this year singing "Smile," which was predictably dull. This would have been the perfect place to feature some music from the recently departed John Barry, who was listed in the segment, but had no other tribute. Getting a children's choral group to come out and sing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" at the end of the ceremony was also unbearably twee.
The new virtual backdrops were nice, if needlessly distracting. The special effect that allowed Bob Hope to briefly return to the stage as the Ghost of Oscars Past was a neat trick, and might be a way to widen the talent pool for future presenters. And speaking of the presenters, several had good moments. Kirk Douglas was absolutely shameless, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law were effortless, and Helen Mirren and Russel Brand did their best to convince me to see the "Arthur" remake. The winners had their moments too, especially the actresses, Melissa Leo and Natalie Portman, Randy Newman lamenting his win-to-loss ratio, and film student Luke Matheny picking up the Best Short award while sporting the best hair of the evening. All the usual award show business was fun and watchable. It was the spectacle that crashed this time around.
So the most sinister moment of the telecast was the Academy's announcement that they had renewed their broadcast deal with ABC through the year 2020. If the future Oscar shows are anything like this year's, we may be in serious trouble. But all hope is not lost. In some ways, I though the producers were going in the right direction. They should keep the time-saving format changes, but boot the Best Song performances and the entire current writing staff. And please, please, please, next year hire a real comedian to host. David Letterman, Steve Martin, Neil Patrick Harris, somebody. It was a good year for movies, and there's no reason why it had to be such a bad year for the Oscars.
The ceremony itself tried to be a lot of things, and mostly turned out to be an awkward ordeal, but lets get to the positive changes first. I blogged a few suggestions for improving the awards telecast last week, and it turns out I was on the same wavelength as the showrunners about a few things. This year there were fewer presenters handing out more awards, the audience got to see more clips of the nominees' work, and the orchestra mostly behaved. Probably the biggest improvement, structurally, was removing the individual clips for the Best Picture nominees, opting instead to have a single montage at the end of the night. And using a single presenter to shower kudos on the Best Actor and Actress nominees with a longer intro was a much better alternative to that five-presenter set-up they tried a few times.
Sadly, the special honorary Oscars and the Irving J. Thalberg Awards have been permanently banished to the newly created Governor's Awards ceremony, and they will no longer be part of the usual telecast. Last night a summary of the event was included, similar to the one for the technical awards ceremony. I have to grudgingly agree with their exclusion for the sake of better television, though frankly I would have rather sat through the telecast of that ceremony - honoring Francis Ford Coppola, Jean-Luc Godard, actor Eli Wallach, and historian Kevin Brownlow - than this one. Three of the four got to come out for a cameo, the exception being Jean-Luc Godard of course, because Jean-Luc Godard does not put up with this kind of Hollywood nonsense.
There was a lot of downright cringeworthy business going on last night. Most of the attempts at pre-taped pieces fell utterly flat, including the traditional cameo-riddled opening sequence where the hosts pop in and out of scenes from nominated movies, and a bit where clips from blockbusters like "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" got the autotune treatment. The ideas weren't bad, but the execution was horrendous. It felt like the show's producers had slapped the comedic segments together over the weekend and the writers had abandoned the hosts to flounder with hastily scribbled banter and ad libs. Instead of coming across as young and hip, the Oscars came across as trying very hard to be young and hip, and doing a lousy job of it.
As for poor James Franco and Anne Hathaway, I've read various dissections of their performances, and the overwhelming sentiment is that they were unfortunate choices for hosts. I thought that Hathaway came off better because she was trying so much harder, bumbling her way through a solo dance number in ridiculous shoes, and keeping up the energy in the latter half of the show while James Franco seemed to be in the early stages of rigor mortis. On the other hand, her continuous nervous laughter and odd mugging antics weren't winning her many points. Hathaway and Franco can be charming and funny, but I think they cracked a bit under pressure, and they clearly did not have the chops to save the lousy scripted material. Nowhere was this more apparent than when Billy Crystal showed up to tell a few tepid jokes and had the entire theater on its feet.
Bringing the Best Song performances back was also a mistake, especially this year when the nominees were uniformly mediocre. I have no idea how the logic of the nomination process works, if they bumped a Cher performance in favor of the "Tangled" duet (they should have picked the upbeat "Tangled" barfight number). But the mundane performances didn't stop there. It's now apparently a tradition to get a pop singer to come out to perform alongside the "In Memoriam" segment, a practice I find incredibly distracting. Celine Dion was up there this year singing "Smile," which was predictably dull. This would have been the perfect place to feature some music from the recently departed John Barry, who was listed in the segment, but had no other tribute. Getting a children's choral group to come out and sing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" at the end of the ceremony was also unbearably twee.
The new virtual backdrops were nice, if needlessly distracting. The special effect that allowed Bob Hope to briefly return to the stage as the Ghost of Oscars Past was a neat trick, and might be a way to widen the talent pool for future presenters. And speaking of the presenters, several had good moments. Kirk Douglas was absolutely shameless, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law were effortless, and Helen Mirren and Russel Brand did their best to convince me to see the "Arthur" remake. The winners had their moments too, especially the actresses, Melissa Leo and Natalie Portman, Randy Newman lamenting his win-to-loss ratio, and film student Luke Matheny picking up the Best Short award while sporting the best hair of the evening. All the usual award show business was fun and watchable. It was the spectacle that crashed this time around.
So the most sinister moment of the telecast was the Academy's announcement that they had renewed their broadcast deal with ABC through the year 2020. If the future Oscar shows are anything like this year's, we may be in serious trouble. But all hope is not lost. In some ways, I though the producers were going in the right direction. They should keep the time-saving format changes, but boot the Best Song performances and the entire current writing staff. And please, please, please, next year hire a real comedian to host. David Letterman, Steve Martin, Neil Patrick Harris, somebody. It was a good year for movies, and there's no reason why it had to be such a bad year for the Oscars.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Emmy Merges Best Miniseries and Made-for-Television Movie Categories
In this tumultuous entertainment news cycle, when the Oscars are only a few days away and Charlie Sheen is indicating that he hasn't hit rock bottom just yet, there's been one news tidbit that has largely escaped unnoticed. Yesterday, word came in from the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences that they're merging the miniseries and made-for-television movie categories. The networks had been lobbying for the past several years to weasel out of broadcasting htese categories, since they can't be bothered to produced long-form programming anymore, so the awards in these categories predominantly go to cable. I posted in the past that I was worried about this happening, because television, particularly HBO, is one of the last bastions for certain mid-range film projects that we would never see otherwise, like "Temple Grandin," which was a big Emmy winner last year.
Instinctively, I don't like the decision because it's taking away the spotlight from some lesser-seen television that isn't eligible for other major awards and would seem to be speeding the decline of the miniseries and made-for-television movie formats. On the other hand, the decision may be out of the Academy's hands. For the past two years, the miniseries categories only had two nominees apiece. This year, it was HBO's "The Pacific" against PBS's "Return to Cranford." Last year, it was HBO's "Generation Kill" up against PBS's "Little Dorrit." With dwindling numbers of potential contenders, the miniseries category might go away on its own in a few years without any intervention. All the other categories for miniseries and made-for-television movies have been merged since their inception. Originally, these were much more amorphously defined, with everything that wasn't honoring a regular series lumped in under the amorphous heading "Specials." Eventually the dramatic presentations were separated out from the variety shows, award ceremonies, and non-fiction programs. Best Miniseries trophies started being given away in 1973, and the Best Made-for-Television Movie category was inaugurated with "The Miracle Worker" in 1980.
The Miniseries and Made-for-Television Movie races are so intertwined, it would be difficult to separate them out, but if I were running things, I wouldn't be so quick to lump them together. Looking at the last few nominees for the Best Miniseries category, I think it would make for a much more interesting race if they were added to the Best Dramatic Series category instead. After all, structually "The Pacific" and "John Adams" are much closer to serials like "Mad Men" and "Dexter" than single presentation made-for-television movies like "Temple Grandin" and "Grey Gardens." No doubt, producers would argue that the miniseries have an unfair advantage in being higher budgeted, with fewer format rules, and only having to worry about a far smaller number of episodes. However, since cable started getting into the drama business, with their shorter seasons and more variable scheduling, this is no longer the case. Sure, "Return to Cranford" was only four hours long over two installments, but "The Pacific" ran for ten hours and "Little Dorrit" for fourteen. This year's Best Drama winner was "Mad Men," which had thirteen hour-long episodes. Other nominees included "Breaking Bad," "Big Love," and "True Blood," all at twelve or thirteen episodes apiece.
I can't help thinking that the merger decision is short-sighted. Sure, miniseries are out of style now, but that doesn't mean that the pendulum couldn't swing back in a couple of years. There was a boom in fantasy miniseries after "Gulliver's Travels" in 1996, and I used to love wasting afternoons whenever the Sci Fi Channel would marathon them. You'd think that the lack of competition in the category right now might spur some of the networks to push a few new projects into production, just to make their offerings look more diverse. Unfortunately, original productions are expensive, and everybody is getting more risk-averse these days. Miniseries and made-for-television movies are scarce outside of cable now, being pushed aside for cheaper reality fare. A few big projects will still slip through every now and then, which gives me hope. ABC is looking into a "Wicked" miniseries and the History Channel's troubled Kennedys project finally found a home on ReelzChannel. But you have to go to premium cable for the good stuff, like the miniseries prequel to Starz's "Spartacus" series, and HBO's new version of "Mildred Pierce" with Kate Winslet.
The miniseries is such a versatile format, and I'm sorry to see its decline in American television. As a movie nut, I often find best movie lists sneaking in the great miniseries like "Fanny and Alexander," "Berlin Alexanderplatz," and "The Kingdom." Prominent on my current to-watch list is Olliver Assayas's "Carlos." I don't know if we're ever going to see the days of "Roots" again, when a miniseries could keep a rapt audience for eight consecutive nights, but the potential for great television still remains. I hope Hollywood won't lose sight of it completely.
Instinctively, I don't like the decision because it's taking away the spotlight from some lesser-seen television that isn't eligible for other major awards and would seem to be speeding the decline of the miniseries and made-for-television movie formats. On the other hand, the decision may be out of the Academy's hands. For the past two years, the miniseries categories only had two nominees apiece. This year, it was HBO's "The Pacific" against PBS's "Return to Cranford." Last year, it was HBO's "Generation Kill" up against PBS's "Little Dorrit." With dwindling numbers of potential contenders, the miniseries category might go away on its own in a few years without any intervention. All the other categories for miniseries and made-for-television movies have been merged since their inception. Originally, these were much more amorphously defined, with everything that wasn't honoring a regular series lumped in under the amorphous heading "Specials." Eventually the dramatic presentations were separated out from the variety shows, award ceremonies, and non-fiction programs. Best Miniseries trophies started being given away in 1973, and the Best Made-for-Television Movie category was inaugurated with "The Miracle Worker" in 1980.
The Miniseries and Made-for-Television Movie races are so intertwined, it would be difficult to separate them out, but if I were running things, I wouldn't be so quick to lump them together. Looking at the last few nominees for the Best Miniseries category, I think it would make for a much more interesting race if they were added to the Best Dramatic Series category instead. After all, structually "The Pacific" and "John Adams" are much closer to serials like "Mad Men" and "Dexter" than single presentation made-for-television movies like "Temple Grandin" and "Grey Gardens." No doubt, producers would argue that the miniseries have an unfair advantage in being higher budgeted, with fewer format rules, and only having to worry about a far smaller number of episodes. However, since cable started getting into the drama business, with their shorter seasons and more variable scheduling, this is no longer the case. Sure, "Return to Cranford" was only four hours long over two installments, but "The Pacific" ran for ten hours and "Little Dorrit" for fourteen. This year's Best Drama winner was "Mad Men," which had thirteen hour-long episodes. Other nominees included "Breaking Bad," "Big Love," and "True Blood," all at twelve or thirteen episodes apiece.
I can't help thinking that the merger decision is short-sighted. Sure, miniseries are out of style now, but that doesn't mean that the pendulum couldn't swing back in a couple of years. There was a boom in fantasy miniseries after "Gulliver's Travels" in 1996, and I used to love wasting afternoons whenever the Sci Fi Channel would marathon them. You'd think that the lack of competition in the category right now might spur some of the networks to push a few new projects into production, just to make their offerings look more diverse. Unfortunately, original productions are expensive, and everybody is getting more risk-averse these days. Miniseries and made-for-television movies are scarce outside of cable now, being pushed aside for cheaper reality fare. A few big projects will still slip through every now and then, which gives me hope. ABC is looking into a "Wicked" miniseries and the History Channel's troubled Kennedys project finally found a home on ReelzChannel. But you have to go to premium cable for the good stuff, like the miniseries prequel to Starz's "Spartacus" series, and HBO's new version of "Mildred Pierce" with Kate Winslet.
The miniseries is such a versatile format, and I'm sorry to see its decline in American television. As a movie nut, I often find best movie lists sneaking in the great miniseries like "Fanny and Alexander," "Berlin Alexanderplatz," and "The Kingdom." Prominent on my current to-watch list is Olliver Assayas's "Carlos." I don't know if we're ever going to see the days of "Roots" again, when a miniseries could keep a rapt audience for eight consecutive nights, but the potential for great television still remains. I hope Hollywood won't lose sight of it completely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
