11/19 OSCARWEB ROUND-UP: Heyman talks ‘Harry,’ Reynolds named sexiest man, Protozoa inks a Fox deal

Posted by · 8:49 am · November 19th, 2010

How did you know you were in love?  Enter a “How Do You Know” contest to win a San Francisco trip with your story. [Yahoo!]

John Lopez talks “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1” with producer David Heyman. [Little Gold Men]

Ryan Reynolds is crowned 2010’s sexiest man alive. [People]

Sasha Stone “can’t even entertain the possibility” that “Toy Story 3” could win Best Picture and that a win “would immediately degrade the film itself, and it may very well make a mockery of the proceedings.” [Awards Daily]

Steve Pond sits down with “Made in Dagenham” star Sally Hawkins. [The Odds]

Darren Aronofsky’s Protozoa finds a two-year home at Fox. [Deadline]

Conan O’Brien’s sister, Kate, makes her screen debut in “The Fighter.” [Inside Movies]

David Poland still actually believes “Never Let Me Go” is a film that will be remembered in 20 years.  But also wants you to remember a handful of others. [Movie City News]

[Photo: Columbia Pictures]




→ 9 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

9 responses so far

  • 1 11-19-2010 at 9:02 am

    Keil Shults said...

    I was interested in seeing Never Let Me Go, but then I thought I’d read the novel first. By the time I bought it, the movie was no longer playing locally. Do any of you who have seen it and/or read the book have an opinion on whether I should see it or read it first?

  • 2 11-19-2010 at 9:38 am

    Dominik said...

    I would always read the novel first, Keil. Since I actually read it a couple of months ago I can in all conscience recommend it to you.
    Though, I´ll have to admit, I wasn´t fully satisfied with the end of the novel, but that´s truly a minor complaint.
    Haven´t seen the film yet, but looking forward too. Some critics complaint about it feeling too cold, but that´s in the spitit the story is told by Ishiguro.

  • 3 11-19-2010 at 9:54 am

    Keil Shults said...

    Yeah, a brilliant friend of mine, whose taste in film I would tend to respect, said it was his film of the year thus far. So now I’m wishing I had seen it while it was showing at the arthouse theater 25 minutes from my home.

  • 4 11-19-2010 at 10:31 am

    Andrew F said...

    …and Sasha continues her descent.

    Her arguments don’t hold ground: TS3’s RottenTomatoes score (99%) and its MRQE’s score (90) is higher than Social Network’s (97% and 87). And haven’t we all debated the arbitrariness of these numbers, anyway? Or that a difference of 2 or 3 points is practically nil?

    And then she goes on to say “but I can’t even entertain the possibility that it could win up against such visionary works as we’ve seen this year”, referring to SN, KS, Inception, 127 Hours, Black Swan. Honey, this hasn’t stopped the Academy before, and plenty of people *are* calling the Toy Story trilogy visionary.

    And actors’ bias? Has she seen the voice cast of the film? And as has been rightly pointed out on this site, if Tom Hanks starts doing the rounds hard, this apparent bias could easily be overcome.

    Do I think the film will win? Maybe not, but for her to simply shrug it aside with a hysterical rant strikes me as a bit lopsided.

  • 5 11-19-2010 at 10:40 am

    JJ1 said...

    Right. I mean, since when are critics AMPAS voters?

    99 vs. 97, 90 vs. 87 … who gives a crap.

    Something with an 86% RT and 78 MC could win BP for all we know.

  • 6 11-19-2010 at 10:54 am

    Maxim said...

    @Andrew:

    “and its MRQE’s score (90) is higher than Social Network’s (97% and 87).”

    Last time I checked, 90 was not higher than 97.

    “And actors’ bias? Has she seen the voice cast of the film? ”

    Apart from Tom Hanks, what is there to REALLY distinguish this film from scores of other animated titles? What I’m trying to say is that while the cast is unquestionably accomplished, if you are going to make this one of your primary points of distinction, I’m afraid you are going to have to look elsewhere. Big name casts containing Oscar nominees/winners are not that uncommon these days.

    More importantly, how does this address the issue of actors’ bias? Do you really think that Hanks’ presence will make actors ignore that this is a CG film just because it doesn’t employ motion capture?
    I honestly think that this could be a factor and given the sheer size of the actor’s branch I think it’s a valid point.

    This is one of those rare instances when Sasha is right, even if it’s not due to all the right reasons. I just don’t think this film will get a lot of #1 votes. I really don’t. Just because it’s a film the absolute majority liked as evidenced by the high RT score (= lots of citations) doesn’t mean it will get a lot of (#1 votes).

    And, depthwise, it’s not even close to “Wall-E”, a movie that people really could fall in love with but still didn’t get in the year of five. And I don’t think “Toy Story 3” would get nominated in the year of five, either.

  • 7 11-19-2010 at 10:56 am

    Maxim said...

    Made one big error. Please ignore this paragraph:

    “Last time I checked, 90 was not higher than 97.”

    Sorry, I totally misread your original sentence.

  • 8 11-19-2010 at 2:10 pm

    Al said...

    I don’t understand how an animated film winning over a live action film would insult the latter. She is basically saying animation is inferior.

  • 9 11-20-2010 at 12:28 am

    SJG said...

    I think the problem with arguing that TS3 can’t win is the fact that there’s an ‘instant runoff’ system of voting. I think it’s entirely possible that Academy members are much more likely to put other movies at the top of their rankings. But the thing is, if TS3 ends up at the number 2 spot on lots and lots of ballots, it could end up winning Best Picture in a second (or maybe third) runoff.

    Think of it this way. If a movie like The Social Network garners a sizable lead on the first round of voting, and Toy Story generates a decent showing, while a movie like The Town doesn’t do so hot, do you think the sort of people likely to give their vote to The Town are going to be more likely to place TS3 at #2 or a movie like TSN at #2?

    I suspect that the sort of people who would vote for The Town are ones that are looking for a “game changing” type of win in the first place, which means that they may rank TS3 even higher than they really feel it deserves because they respect the risk and challenge it faces in the voting process and they want to pad its support against obvious favorites. So if most of the Town ballots go to TS3 on a second round of voting rather than an obvious front runner, than that means TS3 becomes a more likely contender while the original frontrunner has an increasingly uphill battle to fight.

    And I can see this happening in several rounds. Perhaps another next lowest contender might be a movie like Inception. And like The Town, I suspect that the sort of Academy voters who would lean towards placing Inception at #1 would be the kind to support an upset win for an underdog BP rather than putting a high value on a risky movie like Inception and then put the rest of their high-ranking votes for the Oscar bait productions.

    This is what people like Sasha Stone overlook when they predict that TS3 has no chance. The point is that if a clear frontrunner doesn’t show up in the first round of the instant runoff, then the lowest vote-getters ballots go to the voters second choice. If underdog, off-kilter films are the first to go, movies like Inception or even 127 Hours, I suspect those ballots are going to be more likely to shift over to a movie like the unprecedented TS3 than a movie like the same-ol’-same-ol’ King’s Speech, which would give it a definite competitive edge in the instant runoff system of votes over likelier candidates to win.

    Just my two cents.