• “Avatar”-izing James Cameron’s past characters. [MTV Movies Blog]
• Following “The Hurt Locker,” Kathryn Bigelow aiming for a similar visceral style for “Triple Frontier.” [The Playlist]
• Joseph Gordon-Levitt: the new Heath Ledger? [The Guardian]
• “Avatar”-izing James Cameron’s past characters. [MTV Movies Blog]
• Following “The Hurt Locker,” Kathryn Bigelow aiming for a similar visceral style for “Triple Frontier.” [The Playlist]
• Joseph Gordon-Levitt: the new Heath Ledger? [The Guardian]
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.
• The “Inglourious Basterds” one-sheet that could have been. [Poster Wire]
• On the occasion of Tim Burton’s 51st birthday (yesterday), an appreciation. [Hero Complex]
• On Marvin Hamlisch’s “hilariously schmaltzy” score for “The Informant!” [The Playlist]

Okay, by now you’ve read my thoughts on extended footage unveiled at Comic-Con. You’ve had a look at the trailer and offered some serious debate. Now, those of you who weren’t defeated by a shoddy online RSVP process will get a look at 15 minutes from the film in IMAX 3D. So I’m dying to hear your thoughts. So head on back this way and give us your reaction once you take a look.
This thing has created an intriguing division and a healthy debate, so I figured it was a good time to open a new poll to gauge an overall reaction. Simple question: thumbs up or thumbs down? Let us know in the sidebar poll.
I actually got up early this morning for this. Feels like my younger, not-so-jaded movie-going days. Then again, not so much.
It was “Avatar” fail part 2 with the trailer site still not available as of 7:04. Then the URLs were not valid until 7:39. You could, however, view the the trailer at MSN’s French site, Microsoft effectively scooping Apple because of the latter’s incompetence. Seriously, why have a big countdown on your site for a week and then drop the ball at the goal line?
Meanwhile, the Apple site lists the film as: “From the director of the ‘Titanic.’” The “Titanic?” Wow.
Anyway, the trailer is, of course, beautiful. But I imagine the avatars will catch many off guard. This is such a vibrant, unique new vision that the instinct is, interestingly enough, to recoil. But settle in and try to feel the vibe. I think the imagery is slightly too rushed in appearance, cut together in a dizzying montage that isn’t as effective as it could have been. Beyond that first dolly shot of Worthington looking at the avatar in the tank, there aren’t many chances to marinate in the imagery. But this is just a teaser after all.
Head on over to Apple and take a look at the new trailer, then come back here and give us your thoughts. Six new stills after the jump.
• Production designer Rick Carter (“A.I.: Artificial Intelligence,” “Avatar”) to be feted at Hollywood Awards. [Variety]
• Making the “prawns” of “District 9” look alien but sympathetic. [Hero Complex]
• Robert Rehme elected to head of Academy Foundation. [The Wrap]
In the ole’ inbox from 20th Century Fox this morning:
We apologize for the inconvenience, but due to overwhelming demand to see the special scenes from James Cameron’s epic motion picture AVATAR, our AVATARMOVIES.COM RSVP site experienced technical difficulties. As a result of the crash you must re-select a screening time. Please note you may not get the original time you selected. Also new ticket confirmations that will be generated by your selection here will be the only accepted form of admittance.
Get it together, guys. And it’s AVATARMOVIE.COM, by the way. Oh, and when you go back to the site, you’re greeted with this:
The tickets for the special screening of James Cameron’s Avatar are SOLD OUT. Avatar opens worldwide on December 18.
Oy.
More on the fiasco at Hollywood Elsewhere.
Earlier in the week we told you about Geoff Boucher’s exclusive two-part interview with “Avatar” director James Cameron at the Los Angeles Times’s Hero Complex blog. Part two is up now and in it, Cameron gets into the “‘Dances With Wolves’ in space” thing and talks more about the film’s influences:
You see the same theme in “At Play in the Fields of the Lord” and also “The Emerald Forest,” which maybe thematically isn’t that connected but it did have that clash of civilizations or of cultures. That was another reference point for me. There was some beautiful stuff in that film. I just gathered all this stuff in and then you look at it through the lens of science fiction and it comes out looking very different but is still recognizable in a universal story way. It’s almost comfortable for the audience – “I know what kind of tale this is.” They’re not just sitting there scratching their heads, they’re enjoying it and being taken along. And we still have turns and surprises in it, too, things you don’t see coming. But the idea that you feel like you are in a classic story, a story that could have been shaped by Rudyard Kipling or Edgar Rice Burroughs.
Read the rest at Hero Complex.
Peter Sciretta at /Film woke up to a nice surprise in his inbox this morning: the first official image from James Cameron’s “Avatar” (which will be appearing in magazines shortly). You’ve got Sam Worthington in front of a tank containing one of the avatars with that cool Cameron blue. Very beautiful. For more on “Avatar” (and the avatars, in fact), check out my coverage of the Comic-Con footage here.
![]()
Best Achievement in Film Editing. It’s a difficult phrase to define. To a large extent, excellence in film editing can be editing which blends into the film, allowing the director’s vision, screenwriter’s story and actors’ performances to shine without interference. But equally, a film that stands out as a showcase for flashy but motivated construction deserves recognition as well.
What is certain, however, is that in the absence of editors, our films would all be more than three hours long, largely incoherent and/or tremendously boring.
This category has historically displayed a strong correlation to the Best Picture line-up. Last year marked a return to a typical situation – four of the five films nominated for Best Film Editing were also nominated for Best Picture, with the fifth being an action film.
From 2005 through 2007, however, things were a bit shaken up with a two-to-five ratio. At the end of the day, however, Best Picture contenders, thrillers and actions films always do quite well here.
The other genre that frequently finds a home in this category is musicals. Cutting dance numbers coherently and blending between dialogue and songs consistently clearly impresses this branch. In light of this, I’d call “Nine”’s Claire Simpson the early favorite. A past winner for “Platoon,” she returned to the game after a 19 year absence two years ago with “The Constant Gardener.” Barring the film flopping, I’d say Simpson is good to go.
James Cameron’s “Avatar” is ramping up as “Avatar” Day swiftly approaches. Some think there is a conscious effort afoot to tone down expectations, while others are more and more unable to contain themselves at the industry prospects represented by the film. All the while, a December release date inches closer.
Will it be a game changer? Will the world be the same the next day? Will we all remember where we were when “Avatar” was unleashed to the masses? It’s getting that out of hand in some quarters.
Me, despite a definite sense of anticipation, I checked my expectations long ago. The Comic-Con footage was great, but I’ve become more of a “show me” kind of guy as of late. Burned too many times, I guess. What hasn’t settled, however, is the reason the hair on the back of my neck stood on end when we all got our first glimpse.
I’m going to sound about three times my actual age for saying this, but I’ll say it anyway: I could not care less about 3D.
I know it’s important, I know it’s fun, I know it’s the future. I know all this largely because almost 20 years ago, a group of cheery traveling 3D promoters visited my elementary school in New Jersey, and told the packed assembly exactly the same thing.
“Hey, 3D! Yay, 3D! Everybody see in 3D!” they sang, before showing us some jazzed-up motocross footage in the third dimension. Does anybody else remember sitting through the same demonstration?
I wasn’t thrilled then, and while I’m aware of the massive leap and bounds the technology has made since I was 7 years old, I’m not particularly thrilled now. I like a gosh-wow gimmick as much as the next man — a stupid part of me wishes I’d lived through Smell-O-Rama — but once the novelty of items popping off the screen settles in, I find 3D a dispensable accessory: an extra “D” doesn’t amount to a lot of beans in the cinematic departments I really care about — writing, storytelling, performance.
“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.
• Tom O’Neil wonders whether “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” is Razzie-bound. [Gold Derby]
• Devin Faraci, meanwhile (one of the “easy marks” Paramount screened the film to over the rest of the nation’s critics), comments on the “No ‘Joe’” brouhaha. [CHUD]
• And Steve Weintraub talks to the film’s screenwriter, Stuart Beattie. [Collider]