• John Horn dutifully writes up the pre-release buzz of “2012.” [Los Angeles Times]
• Pete Hammond on how legends Orson Welles and Tennessee Williams could figure into this year’s Oscar race. [Notes on a Season]
• Years that could have used 10 Best Picture nominees. [Variety]
As more films have been unleashed, the race for the visual effects Oscar now appears clearer than it did three months ago. I’m starting to feel the race for the final three will really be down to a handful of films.
As I explained in August, a shortlist of seven films will be announced in December or January. After the branch screens the films, the three nominees will be announced on the same day as all the other categories. We can expect the nominees to be big budget films – and also big hits, which is why how they perform on release is so important.
Summer titles such as “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian” and “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” strike me as highly unlikely to survive to the year’s end. Nor do I believe “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” will able to distinguish itself enough from its predecessors, only one of which was nominated here.
Spike Jonze’s “Where the Wild Things Are” did not have the reliance on visual effects that I thought would be necessary for a nomination and I frankly doubt its chances. “Watchmen,” on the other hand, has slightly more potential in my opinion but still remains almost too innovative for a berth here.
The two summer films which I do fully expect to be in the running had very different critical reception – though I’m not sure if that will determine their fate in this category. I felt significantly dumber after watching “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.” That said, the box office was nothing short of massive, as were the effects. It’s certainly still among the top contenders.
So this is the song that Brian May was praising to the high heavens. Okie dokie. If this were the mid-1990s, we might be looking at a nomination. But, as it is…nah.
(Courtesy: Vulture)
Back in July, I took an initial stab at the “zaps,” “booms,” “clinks” and “bams” of the sound editing category. Since then, several titles have been seen, moved on to 2010 or popped up as new comers. Let’s take a look…
With “Green Zone” and “The Wolf Man” delayed until next year, the category’s potential seems a touch depleted. And also from that early crop, I think “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” and “Public Enemies” hardly made enough of an impression to be remembered come the end of the year.
Then again, I thought the same about “Wanted” last year.
I do believe a genuine new contender has joined the race in Neill Blomkamp’s “District 9.” While the film’s sound editors have not been recognized by the Academy to date, the film was a surprising hit and its soundscape seems the sort this branch would like to cite.
Elsewhere, my early “Inglourious Basterds” hunch in this category seems to have worked out. The film did quite well for itself and artificial sounds were integral. Wylie Stateman failed to get nominated for his work on the “Kill Bill” films, but he is a four-time nominee nevertheless. And this is a (slightly) more Oscar-friendly film than that two-parter.
I don’t think anything has changed the course of Michael Bay’s “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” in this field. Regardless of quality, Bay’s films do well with the sound branch and Ethan Van der Ryn is a two-time winner. Only if the branch really can’t make it through the film would I expect him and his crew to miss.
No fanfare. A legitimate installment of The Lists on another topic will drop from Chad later today, but here’s what has me stoked:
1. “Up in the Air” (Paramount Pictures)
2. “Avatar” (20th Century Fox)
3. “The Tree of Life” (Apparition)
4. “Where the Wild Things Are” (Warner Bros. Pictures)
5. “A Christmas Carol” (Walt Disney Pictures)
6. “Invictus” (Warner Bros. Pictures)
7. “Capitalism: A Love Story” (Overture Films)
8. “2012” (Sony Pictures) –> guilty
9. “Precious” (Lionsgate)
10. “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” (Sony Pictures Classics)
You?
A few weeks ago I analyzed the Best Sound Editing category, which awards the creation and integration of artificially created sound effects. Today, we look at sound mixing – the overall composition of all the elements of a movie’s soundscape into a singular soundtrack. The re-recording mixers, who do this work during post-production, are rewarded alongside the production sound mixer, who captures the sound on set.
Loud films tend to be rewarded here, with blockbusters and war films, as well as films heavily reliant on music, popping up more often than not.
Speaking of which, I’ll start by discussing the only musical that will likely find some wiggle room here this year. I am speaking, of course, of Rob Marshall’s “Nine.” Marshall’s return to the musical genre strikes me as quite likely to score in this category barring the film being a catastrophe. It’s worth noting that 11-time Oscar nominee Rick Kline is on board, and he’s yet to win a statuette.
James Cameron’s films have excelled in the sound categories. If his “Avatar” does not have a very interesting and unique soundscape, I’ll be quite surprised. I suspect the film could be more of a showcase for sound effects than the overall mix, I nevertheless anticipate it finding a home here as well.
Pixar has done very well in this category lately, with three of its last four films scoring nominations. “Up” is likely to one-up (no pun intended) those films by also finding a home in the Best Picture category. Nevertheless, the film’s sound is not as integral to the film as many of the previous Pixar efforts. A nomination here is certainly very possible. But I’d hardly call it a sure thing. Vets Tom Myers and Michael Semanick (both from the “WALL-E” team) are on board.
Boy, the “Where the Wild Things Are” items are coming fast and furious this morning. I didn’t plan it this way, I swear.
Anyway, generally around late August I begin to start compiling a list of the original song contenders. It’s generally the last category that begins to fall into place after all, so it’s folly to speculate from too far out (which is why you’re greeted with the “coming soon” note in the sidebar for seven months out of the year).
A potential nominee could be in our midst with Karen O’s “All is Love” from “Where the Wild Things Are,” which you can listen to over at MySpace. Any fan of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs is bound to enjoy this bouncing little ditty.
Meanwhile, Queen guitarist Brian May was apparently “blown away” by Adam Lambert’s original song for Roland Emmerich’s “2012.” I’m sure that combination is nails on a chalkboard for more than a few people.
“How did they do that?” Movie-goers often ask this in response to spectacular visual effects, one of few elements of a film, apart from acting, directing or story, that a studio might choose to sell a film directly on.
Not surprisingly, the Academy’s award for Best Visual Effects is definitely the most mainstream-friendly of all of all. $100 million grosses and higher are the norm.
This branch also has a somewhat unusual process for choosing the nominees. A shortlist of seven films will be announced in December or January and members of the branch will screen effects presentation reels of the films from that collective to nominate three contenders announced alongside the rest of the Oscar nominees.
Probably leading the field this year, sight unseen, is James Cameron’s “Avatar.” Cameron’s last five films have all been nominated in this category…with four of them winning! Moreover, “Avatar” seems certain to be, like most Cameron efforts, a showcase for the visual effects. Of course, the film could also be an unmitigated disaster, but barring that I would be quite surprised if it did not find itself among the nominees.
On the other hand, we have already seen several films likely to end up in the running. Michael Bay’s “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” was absolutely wretched in this viewer’s opinion. But considering its massive box office take, not to mention the nature of the effects and the success of Bay’s films in this category in the past, I feel a nomination is quite likely.
Zoom. Smash. Bang. Grunt. Zap. Splash. Screech.
A single sound effect can capture a character, emotion or setting. And creating such sounds is no easy task, requiring creativity, ingenuity and constant communication with the other filmmakers to best capture the feel of a film.
The manifestation of these aural components — as well as their integration into the overall soundtrack of the film — is recognized by the Academy with the award for Best Sound Editing.
I suspect we’ve seen at least two – very possibly three or even four – of this category’s eventual 2009 nominees already. (At this point last year, we had seen four of five!) Blockbuster entertainment tends to rule the day. Let’s take a look.
Though I doubt it will be able to win, given the failure of its predecessor to do so, I am pretty confident that massive box office, not the complex mechanics involved, will manage to bring “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” into the final five. Michael Bay’s films do well with the sound branch.
Also from the summer, another film I strongly expect to enter the fray is “Star Trek.” Against all odds, the film managed to be a very successful reboot to this franchise and sound effects were pivotal to its success. While the series has only been embraced by the category intermittently, if there is one category where I expect this film to score, this is it. The sound effects were impressive and with a wide range.
• How Sacha Baron Cohen ensnares his victims. [Daily Telegraph]
• 26 titles announced for this year’s Toronto fest. [indieWIRE]
• Anna Pickard breaks down the recent “2012” trailer. [The Guardian]
• Gina Piccalo talks to Shohreh Aghdashloo, star of “The Stoning of Soraya M.” [Los Angles Times]
• Noah Forrest joins the “Year One” dogpile. [Movie City News]
• Michael Cieply profiles “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura. [New York Times]
• An antidote of sorts to last week’s slew of dad lists with good cheer: the 10 most horrible dad movies. [Premiere]
• Brad Brevet talks to “The Hurt Locker” director Kathryn Bigelow. [Rope of Silicon]
• Simon Pegg profiled across the pond. [The Times]
• Michael Mann’s much-awaited “Public Enemies” finally peeked out from behind the covers, generating much early discussion, if no permitted reviews.
• A rumor circulated that Christopher Nolan might leave the Batman franchise, prompting heated speculation over a potential replacement.
• Across the pond, we kicked off our coverage of the Edinburgh Film Festival, with Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker” chief among the early highlights.
• Speaking of which, we wondered whether Bigelow’s film could be one of those that prove their legs when awards season rolls around.
• “The Hangover” maintained its hold on the box-office, securing its position as the surprise of the season.
• Meanwhile, the newly released trailer for “2012” carried the scent of a more traditional summer blockbuster.
• While we’re talking about money, Harrison Ford is still apparently making more of it than any other actor.
• And finally, ahead of Sunday’s paternal celebrations, this week’s list paid tribute to the joys of father-son moviegoing.
UPDATE: Commenter IOc is on it. Turns out the phrase is likely a Bible quote from Revelations 16:16: “And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon (here Apocalypse).” Ominous.
EARLIER: Earlier today we posted the new trailer for Roland Emmerich’s “2012.” Clearly anticipation is divided on the matter, but besides all that, I noticed some weird message on the logo at the end. Here’s the clearest screencap:
Looks like it might say “Enter into a place” and then some word that ends with “gue” then “Apocalypse.” What’s it say? What’s it mean? Do you care?
I’m in but if John Cusack figures out a way to stop the natural end of the world, I am going to punch someone in the face.
Chad over in the “2012” thread.
Alright, I’ll say at the top here that I’m full on in the tank for Roland Emmerich’s brand of blow-stuff-up-good apocalyptic cinema. Even when the science is dubious (coughthedayaftertomorrowcough), I’m glad there’s someone out there who at least knows how to make this stuff engaging. Sue me. And this new trailer for “2012” (a subject I’ve written at length about before and which fascinates me completely), is indicative of what has to be the most balls-to-the-wall, destroy everything, leave nothing standing movie ever. Of all time. Biblical. BRING IT.
A sound mixer friend who saw large chunks of the film also told me the technical aspects of this thing are unbelievable. The carnage is outrageous, he says, which has me wondering: could “2012” be the first Emmerich film since “Independence Day” to rack up some tech nods? His films as of late have seemed somewhat stuck in the 1990s when it comes to the below-the-line stuff, but the effects in this trailer (exclusively released on Yahoo! Movies) are quality. Mind you, I laughed out loud at the brazen nature of this destruction. I cracked up at the performances, too. It’s so sincere it’s just too much. But I don’t care. I can’t wait.
I love watching the end of the world unfold on screen. It’s just something I enjoy. And sue me if I was a little bummed at a certain caution on the part of Hollywood to offer up the apocalyptic imagery it had serviced to the masses in the action-packed summers of the 1990s following 9/11.
Go back and take a look at “Armageddon,” for instance. Hardly great cinema but I got a kick out of it just as I did “Independence Day” or anything comparable. The shot of the Chrysler Building being sheered in half by meteorites as people plummet to their death — the imagery is obviously prickly in the post-9/11 environment. And everything from “War of the Worlds” to “The Dark Knight” has gone out of its way to comment toward the disasters of that year, to put forth the sense that a thought process is being injected into blockbuster entertainment, that the mayhem actually means something on an artistic level. And I’m all for that. But I prefer not to be held hostage by it, either.
I remember talking with a colleague in New York last month who was bemoaning the failure of Alex Proyas’s “Knowing.” I had not seen the film yet at the time (though I have sense, and it’s certainly a…lesser accomplishment, shall we say, but it also deals with interesting ideas that really should be in mainstream Hollywood cinema). I rebutted with the notion that maybe a good, spectacle, end-of-the-world trip to the movies is just what Hollywood needs to shake out all the cobwebs.
When my list of the year’s most anticipated films hit on New Year’s Day, more than a few people raised an eyebrow at the inclusion of Roland Emmerich’s “2012.” I should come clean with the admission that Emmerich’s films, more often than not, work for me on some primitive, Neanderthal level. But I have to also admit to being fascinated with all of the speculation over the year 2012, which I wrote about nearly a year ago.
No explanations, just my annual unfiltered, edge-of-my-seat anticipations. My tastes tend to skew entertainment from afar; I don’t look forward to the Oscar stuff until later in the year, when the pieces of that crazy puzzle are slowly revealed.
Here’s what I’m looking forward to:
1. “Watchmen” (Zack Snyder, Warner Bros. Pictures, March 6)
2. “Public Enemies” (Michael Mann, Universal Pictures, July 1)
3. “Avatar” (James Cameron, 20th Century Fox, Dec. 18)
4. “A Christmas Carol” (Robert Zemeckis, Walt Disney Pictures, Nov. 5)
5. “Terminator Salvation” (McG, Warner Bros. Pictures, May 22)
6. “Shutter Island” (Martin Scorsese, Warner Bros. Pictures, Oct. 2)
7. “Green Zone” (Paul Greengrass, Universal Pictures, TBA)
8. “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” (Gavin Hood, 20th Century Fox, May 1)
9. “State of Play” (Kevin Macdonald, Universal Pictures, April 17)
10. “2012” (Roland Emmerich, Columbia Pictures, July 10)
Least anticipated: “Inglorious Bastards”
You?
I have my own fascinations with the year 2012, by now making leaps and bounds in the pop culture stratosphere some 20 years since Jose Arguelles first began scaring the shit out of everyone back in 1987.
I’ve read the books. I’ve always got one toe in the cosmos, so I’m certainly interested in the harmonic convergence that is supposed to occur on December 21, 2012. At 11:11 a.m. GMT, to be exact.
Frankly, most of the stuff that fascinates me about the fated day has less to do with the Mayan long count calendar than it does with the expected geological turmoil forecast. I recommend Lawrence Joseph’s “Apocalypse 2012” despite its hyperbolic (or perhaps not-so-hyperbolic) title. If a former New York Times journalist can dig into things with such precision, it’s no longer safely reserved for the loonies.
So despite the fact that Rolland Emmerich was obviously going to be the guy to exploit the supposed apocalypse around the corner, I still had a strange sort of anticipation built up. Then, this afternoon, I saw that the folks at Collider had gotten their paws on a copy of the script…and boy did my heart sink.
This thing (I know — duh, right?) looks to be a total rehash of everything we’ve seen out of the “disaster movie” genre before, and that’s too bad. Despite the hysteria, it really is a concept worth exploring in a film.
Also this month, LA City Beat is carrying a cover story about 2012. It’s a good primer for those somewhat interested, but I’d suggest digging into Joseph’s book for a good immersion. And if you really want to go out there a bit, I recommend Daniel Pinchbeck’s “2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl.”