In Contention

Tag: Robin Hood

  • TECH SUPPORT: Final analysis, part two

    Yesterday I began a final look at the crafts categories. Today, a look at the four remaining fields: Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design and Best Film Editing.

    BEST ART DIRECTION

    The precursors of the BFCA, BAFTA and Art Directors Guild have been fairly consistent in citing four titles in this category. Last year’s winner, Robert Stromberg, seems poised to dip again for creation of a 3D world on Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland.” Eve Stewart, on the other hand, will likely be returning to the fold after an 11 year absence for “The King’s Speech.”

    Guy Hendrix Dyas and Jess Gonchor also have got all necessary precursors, and have fashioned surefire Best Picture nominees, in “Inception” and “True Grit” respectively. It is true that they have had difficulty being nominated in the past but Gonchor has also never had such an Oscar-friendly opportunity, whereas the impressive, integral-to-the-story nature of Dyas’s work has been especially embraced by the precursors.

    (more…)

  • If I had a ballot

    The year is winding down.  Today, as part of the week’s on-going year-in-review specials, I’m offering up my annual “if I had a ballot” post.

    In years past I’ve tended to defer to studio campaigns for category placement, but this year I figured, “Screw it.”  After all, if I actually had a ballot I could call the shots.  So I have.

    You’re familiar with my Best Picture line-up by now.  I’ve opted out of the Best Foreign Language Film and Best Documentary categories because there are a few films I’d rather have seen before making that call, but otherwise, it’s the usual Oscar fields with an ensemble category tacked on.

    Feel free to post up your own selections, if you have them, in the comments section below.  And remember to check back Friday as I close up shop on 2010 with my list of superlatives.  For now, check out my personal ballot after the jump.

    (more…)

  • TECH SUPPORT: Best Sound Mixing — Volume II

    Sound mixing has a lot in common with sound editing, but the distinctions are still critical. While both clearly relate to what we hear in the theater, sound editing specifically relates to the creation of artificial sounds (“sound effects”) while sound mixing brings everything together — from effects to music to dialogue (recorded on set or during post-production) to music – into the overall soundscape of a film.

    Many of the same kinds of films that are nominated for Best Sound Editing are also frequently cited here – blockbusters, action films and war films. But musicals often pop up here, too.  And as in most categories, being a Best Picture contender certainly helps titles that otherwise would not come close to this category. Though it is hardly determinative.

    I said before and will say it again – I believe that Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” is leading the way here, at least in terms of likelihood of a nomination. I honestly expect a good half-dozen crafts category nominations for this title and this will be among them. And I expect the crew, including past nominee Gary Rizzo, to be firmly in the hunt for the statuette.

    (more…)

  • TECH SUPPORT: Best Costume Design — Volume II

    Glitz and glamor.  Period prestige.  Newbie talent and old favorites.  How is the race for Best Costume Design shaping up this year?

    In my opinion, Jenny Beavan is leading the way at this point in time. Beavan earned six nominations in the 1980s and 1990s for her work on Merchant-Ivory films, winning for “A Room With a View.” But after “Anna and the King” and “Gosford Park,” she has been out of the running for almost a decade. That said, there must have been occasions (notably “Sherlock Holmes” last year) where she must have been very close. This year, she designed the threads for leading contender “The King’s Speech.” Recreating British royalty of the 1930s seems almost certain to result in Beavan’s return to the final five.

    Another eight-time nominee (albeit one with two wins) is Colleen Atwood. Atwood again teams up with director Tim Burton this year on “Alice in Wonderland.” The work was crazy fantasy. The branch doesn’t always go for that but they do frequently go for Atwood. That fact, combined with the film’s massive box office haul, leads me to believe Ms. Atwood is looking at nod #9 this year.

    (more…)

  • TECH SUPPORT: Best Sound Mixing — Volume I

    Last week, while discussing the sound editing category, I explained the difference between that art form and sound mixing.  The Oscar for the latter is shared between two (or more) persons who construct the soundtrack of a movie.  The re-recording mixers bring together everything – dialogue, sound effects, music – into what we hear in the theater.  The production sound mixer is also awarded for capturing the sounds during shooting, an undoubtedly arduous task.

    Many of the films nominated here are also nominated for Best Sound Editing.  In fact, rarely is there more than one film showcased for only one field.  Both categories like loud films, blockbusters and, as always, being a Best Picture contender certainly helps.

    That said, some trends are noticeable between the two categories.  Firstly, the branch has a love of musicals when it comes to sound mixing.  That makes sense, of course, because a musical is fully made by its mix.  Meanwhile, animated films consistently fare better in the sound editing category, which also makes sense given that so much of the sound scape is created separately from production.

    (more…)

  • TECH SUPPORT: Best Sound Editing — Volume I

    Now matter how many times I watch the Oscars, someone will always ask, “So what is the difference between the two sound categories?”

    The difference is quite significant.  It is so important that the sound branch is only one of two “tech” branches in the Academy (the other being music) that gives out two separate awards.  Best Sound Mixing awards the individuals who bring the entire soundscape – music, dialogue, effects – together into a balanced mix.

    Best Sound Editing, on the other hand (perhaps better described by its previous name, Best Sound Effects Editing), rewards the artificial creation of sounds to be inserted into the film, but were not captured during the shoot.

    The category, despite its very specific nature, is nevertheless like many other “tech” categories.  Both “loud” films (often war films) and blockbusters are among this category’s favorite fetishes.  And like virtually all categories, being a Best Picture contender can be a big help.

    (more…)

  • TECH SUPPORT: Best Costume Design — Volume I

    Costume design in many ways represents much about the Oscars: glitz, glamor, beauty. But obviously threads do much more than make movie stars look attractive.  They build character, set mood, define period and serve as a defining design aspect of a film.

    Like art direction, the nominees for here overwhelmingly fall into one of two categories: period or fantasy. Indeed, when two contemporary films (“The Queen” and “The Devil Wears Prada”) were nominated in 2006, it was a rare occasion.

    It’s not an exact science, but while a fantasy film is almost always nominated every year, there is usually only one as four films tend to be period. It also should be noted that recent winners in the category have all highlighted British or French royalty and high society.

    Being a Best Picture contender does not hurt with this branch (same with any), but the branch also does a great deal of thinking for itself. Last year, for instance, both “Bright Star” and “Coco Before Chanel” managed nominations here, the only ones for their respective films. In the last four years, four other films (“Curse of the Golden Flower,” “Marie Antoinette,” “Across the Universe” and “Australia”) have also managed the feat, rare for crafts categories.

    (more…)

  • TECH SUPPORT: Best Art Direction — Volume I

    As we like to point out in this space each year, the Academy Award for Best Art Direction is presented to two individuals who have different but key roles in designing a film’s sets and props.

    The first of these, the production designer, is the director of the film’s art department, responsible for the supervision of those in it and the overall architecture of the film’s design. The set decorator, on the other hand, is responsible for filling up those sets with proper scenery to fully bring them to life.  When these individuals, and those who work alongside them in the art department, do their jobs well, we can be fully immersed into the story.

    Historically, the nominees in this field fit into one of two categories: historical or fantastical. At least two – usually three or four – of the nominees every year are set in the past. This is not surprising. Being set outside of day-to-day life, such films require a different sort of research and, moreover, draw attention to themselves by not appearing to be what we encounter every day.

    At the same time, fantasy titles show up at least once, often more, every year as well. Last year’s winner, “Avatar,” is a good example of this.  Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg created a completely different world strictly from imagination.

    (more…)

  • FRIDAY FORECAST: Disrespect the Middle East edition

    *All historical figures cited are adjusted to today’s dollars.

    There’s a mild controversy every time a “Sex and the City” movie comes out where it is mercilessly trashed for existing by male critics who, the accusation goes, often let comparable trash starring men get off easy. Well, you all know that I can not be labeled one who lets any trash off easy so I have free reign to say that anyone who looks up to the women in this movie is probably a terrible person and I weep for humanity that this will be another big hit for Warner Bros.

    “Sex and the City 2” has already opened and earned $14.2 million yesterday. Is that good? Yes. Is it great? No. The first film made $29.6 million on its opening day, albeit being a regular Friday and then dropped drastically to record a weekend tally of $63.2 million. As far as opening days being front-loaded in a weekend, “Sex and the City” is one of the top 15 worst offenders ever and sequels tend to be even worse. But since it’s just a Thursday, no need to panic yet.

    I suspect the film will pick up slightly to around $18 million on Friday and then record around $45 million for the weekend, before adding another cool $8 or $9 million on Monday. All told that will be close to $70 million in five days and set the film up for a profitable run. For some reason, the original was enormous overseas and that should again be the case. But seriously ladies, have some self respect and put your considerable weight (bad choice of word?) as a consumer behind something that doesn’t make you look like a worthless idiot.

    (more…)

  • OFF THE CARPET: Taking the temperature

    Now that we’re on the other side of Cannes, I felt it was a good time to put a finger to the wind, stare into the tea leaves, shake the magic 8-ball and basically just take stock of where we’re at roughly three months away from the start of the 2010-2011 film awards season.

    The festival, covered diligently by Guy Lodge around these parts (we thank him), brought little to write home about where Oscar potential is concerned.  The truth is, it rarely does.  But as the year takes shape, things start to linger.  A film like “Inglourious Basterds” can transform muted if appreciative response on the Croisette into a foaming-at-the-mouth bid for a surprise upset in just a few months’ time.

    The big narrative stand-outs for most were Alejandro González Iñárritu’s “Biutiful” and Mike Leigh’s “Another Year.” Perhaps the latter has an easier Oscar path ahead, given that it was more unanimously accepted and could ultimately be a soft lob for Academy types.  Sony Pictures Classics swooped in and nailed down domestic distribution, so I think we’re looking at a bona fide Best Picture nominee to go along with likely bids for Best Actress (Lesley Manville) and the usual expected tip of the hat from Leigh’s fellow screenwriters.  Maybe even a Best Director nod, too.  And yet the film didn’t win a single festival prize.  See how this works?

    (more…)

  • SUNDAY CENTS: Pain in the ‘Shrek’

    *All historical figures cited are adjusted to today’s dollars.

    We did it guys! Collectively, we have decided that the Shrek property, after three dreadful installments, is no longer an untouchable juggernaut, but just a regular old extremely profitable movie. We have also decided that summer 2010 is going to give movie theater owners a lot of headaches, for which the only prescription is to make popcorn $17 and sell ads on the back of the chairs in front of you. Enjoy!

    Let’s clarify. “Shrek Forever After” is the number one movie at the box office with $71.3 million, instantly becoming the most pathetic film ever to make $70 million in three days. Why? Maybe because “Ice Age: The Meltdown” can debut with $82.6 million in March? But mostly because “Shrek the Third” debuted with $140.5 million in 2007. When you factor in the fact that “Shrek Forever After” probably earned most of its coin from inflated 3D prices, you are looking at less than half the tickets sold from one film to the next. That’s an almost unprecedented exodus for an established franchise like this.

    General fatigue with the characters and the universe is the obvious explanation, but that still only takes you so far. We’re three weeks in now and summer 2010 is posting up consistently disappointing numbers. Granted, “Iron Man 2” and “Robin Hood” came in right around expectations, but the lack of an encouraging or surprising box office performer so far this summer is cause for concern.

    (more…)

  • FRIDAY FORECAST: Is it ogre yet?

    *All historical figures cited are adjusted to today’s dollars.

    That fat, green face to the right is the most successful animated character in the history of film. You guys have made him an icon of cinema greater than Don Corleone, Marty McFly and Jack Sparrow as far as box office receipts are concerned. Whatever hilarious adventure he undertakes with his wise-cracking donkey sidekick, you are game for. His latest batch of hijinks comes with the laziest pun title ever and a general feeling of distaste from the third installment.

    “Shrek Forever After” is the big debut this week and will easily win the weekend. There hasn’t been a big family film released in eight weeks (Sorry Brendan Fraser) and the market is ripe for a new blockbuster. The thing is opening in every theater across the country with 3D prices ballooning up to $20 in some places. All the ingredients are there for the film to best the $140.5 million opening of “Shrek the Third.” Except that people generally thought “Shrek the Third” was terrible. How these discerning viewers found anything different at all from film to film in this series is beyond me, but I gave up after the wretched first so what do I know?

    Any time a franchise entry disappoints, the next film takes a hit and so I’m thinking that “Shrek Forever After” will hover around the $100 million mark for the weekend. Could do $95 million or could do $105 million, but nowhere near that $140.5 million. Regardless, the film will make oodles of money for DreamWorks and Mike Myers will continue to confuse doing a Scottish accent for funny in more films.

    (more…)

  • Tension between Scott and Crowe on ‘Robin Hood’

    We’ve already pointed out the long, destructive development process of “Robin Hood” and how it yielded a Frankenstein assemblage due to multiple rewrites.  So it’s a full nine graphs into this Vulture “exclusive” before you get to the actual exclusive material: the film apparently almost splintered Crowe and Scott’s relationship forever.  Writes Claude Brodesser-Akner:

    With a Screen Actors Guild strike looming, and the release date blown, real tension began to mount between Crowe and Scott. Their familiar bonhomie had been replaced by frosty, terse exchanges. “There was a feeling of ‘Get it right already!” recalls one insider. “They were always speaking, but barely.” Said another source who watched the relationship deteriorate, “There were a lot of forces who all believed they were trying to do the right thing.”

    Then again, there’s not a lot of meat there, so who knows how serious the situation really was. Anyway, more grist for the mill.

  • SUNDAY CENTS: Taking ‘Hood’ stock

    *All historical figures cited are adjusted to today’s dollars.

    Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott helped steal $37.1 million from the poor on behalf of the rich as “Robin Hood” enters the chart in second place this week. The humorless duo courted the older adult audience, and in that respect, this is a solid enough debut. Not quite up to the snuff of “Gladiator,” but a better start than the $22.7 million summer 2005 launch of Crowe’s “Cinderella Man,” a film which is often cited as the one that killed big budget adult dramas being released in the heart of summer.

    Where the film goes from here is up to the word of mouth which, from what I can gather, is mediocre. It’ll need a healthy push to reach $100 million, but I think we’re looking at another “Public Enemies” situation where the film stalls out just under the mark around $95 million. But before you bring Universal some hankies to cry in, you can expect that number to be almost tripled in overseas territories. Crowe lives to leave another interview!

    So that means that “Iron Man 2” is the number one film again this week. Good job Iron Man. The comic book superhero dropped a perilous 59% and continues to do the absolute bare minimum to avoid being called a disappointment. These grosses are perfunctory and little else and it’s sad that we’ve reached a point that a possible $350 million finish is blasé. Again, the film has already topped the $200 million mark overseas as well so this is a very profitable venture for Marvel. The third film is already in pre-production and Martin Lawrence has entered negotiations to replace Don Cheadle.

    (more…)

  • ‘Nottingham’: How a hot script became a forgettable film

    Screenwriter blogs can often reward with a refreshing take on the film industry, even if they are at times flavored by the requisite misanthropy of those of us with visions of slug lines dancing in our heads.  Josh Friedman’s I Find Your Lack of Faith Disturbing was a good read for a time, though it hasn’t been updated in a while.  John August also has a nice outlet that can be a good resource as well.

    I only happened upon William Martell’s Sex in a Submarine today, as his recent post, “Robbing From The Poor (Writer),” caught my eye.  In a nutshell, it’s a thorough look at the development of Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” from a hot Hollywood property into a likely money-losing snooze of a film (with its champions here and there).  And if you’re a fan of smart, unique stories having a place at the table in Hollywood, it’s a bona fide horror story.

    I don’t track projects like some of the other film/fan sites out there, so I wasn’t aware of the fact that Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris’s “Nottingham” was a “C.S.I.”-style look at the classic tale from the point of view of the Sheriff of Nottingham using period forensics.  Sherlock Holmes in Sherwood Forrest, if you will.  But I can’t believe an idea that fresh was squandered so absolutely, even if it is par for the Hollywood course.

    (more…)

  • Russell Crowe wins radio’s Dick of the Year award

    You might recall last year’s prestigious honor for showing one’s ass across the radio waves went to Billy Bob Thornton.  This year’s award goes, in a landslide, to Russell Crowe:

  • FRIDAY FORECAST: ‘Robin’ of schlocksley

    *All historical figures cited are adjusted to today’s dollars.

    Fresh off a tepid debut at Cannes, Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe have unleashed their fifth collaboration upon the world. Forget Scorsese and DiCaprio, these guys are taking actor-director bromance to another level. Together, they’ve given us Oscar winning hits (“Gladiator”), non-Oscar winning hits (“American Gangster”) and non-Oscar winning non-hits (“A Good Year” and “Body of Lies”). Which category will “Robin Hood” fall under?

    The one comparison everybody can’t stop making is to “Gladiator” so let’s start there. The sword and sandals epic also launched in May, of 2000, and slashed up a $51.4 million debut. That was at the very beginning of May with no other summer movies out in competition it should be noted. Both director and star have become much more prolific and popular since then so maybe we should assume that “Robin Hood” could do a little better.

    Not so fast! Medieval/historical epics have had a torrid last few years at the box office. Scott’s own “Kingdom of Heaven” was supposed to kick off the 2006 summer season with a bang but only managed a $24.4 million debut and $58.8 million finish. Oliver Stone gave it the old college try with “Alexander” and found $17.5 million to start en route to a $43.9 million total. Granted, people hated that thing.

    (more…)

  • Tell us what you thought of ‘Robin Hood’

    I’ve told you what I thought.  Guy offered his opinion from Cannes.  What more can be left to say, other than, hey, what did you think?  Cut loose with your comments below when you see the film this weekend (or whenever).  Also, don’t forget to vote in this week’s sidebar poll.