Blogs and Stories
The Oscar Recession
Paramount’s decision to push Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey Jr.’s The Soloist into March was largely a money move. (Though not entirely—rumor has it that schlocky film kept posting worse and worse test screening scores). “In years past, Paramount might have spent the money to see how The Soloist did,” says Variety’s Anne Thompson to The Daily Beast. “But this year, because of the economy, Paramount took a good hard look at their numbers, and decided they didn’t need to spend it.”
Opening a film late and hiding it from critics and insiders has its advantages. It saves money by letting studios skip months of publicity. This may explain why Warner Bros and Sony, in addition to Paramount, are pursuing the strategy for Seven Pounds and Gran Torino.
But the late release schedule for many of this year’s films carries risks. Though it worked for Shakespeare In Love and Million Dollar Baby, both of which were under radar until they opened (and then had all the momentum when Academy voters were casting their ballots), it can be hard to derail a popular film that’s had months to shore up support.
That’s exactly what’s happening with The Dark Knight, which, despite its lowbrow superhero pedigree, has stepped into the Best Picture void thanks to huge box office, critical acclaim and Heath Ledger.
The Dark Knight is exactly the kind of film that may help the Academy itself, which makes revenue off the Oscar telecast, weather the financial crisis. Ratings for the tinsel town extravaganza tend to correlate with the popularity of the films nominated. Last year 32 million Americans tuned in to see indie No Country for Old Men win in the least watched awards ceremony ever. In 1998, 55.3 million people watched all-time box office champ Titanic triumph in the most watched awards ceremony ever. Dark Knight, easily the highest grossing film of the year, could be a corrective to last year’s poor showing, hugely boosting the ratings. The Oscar recession that’s serving up less competition for this juggernaut of a Batman film, just might be good for the Oscars after all.
Below, a brief look at some of the contenders (and losers) of the season.
The RIGHT ON TRACKS—Best Picture hopefuls seemingly unaffected by the recession.
The Reader, December 12, 2008
Storyline: Kate Winslet stars as an emotionally traumatized former Nazi prison guard with a secret.
Status: Despite notorious tantrum throwers Harvey Weinstein and super producer Scott Rudin’s highly publicized throw down about the film’s release date (Harvey won) it’s getting decent word of mouth as a legit best picture contender, exactly as Weinstein hoped.









I don't think it's any secret that the movie industry is going down like a led balloon, fast. You see actors going on talk shows and willingly admitting their movies suck, and that's even more of a sign. I mean, what are you going to do?
It's interesting that a political movie like "W" would be panned by both Republicans and Democrats alike. Perhaps it's time to admit that Oliver Stone has gone the way of other great directors like Stephen Spielberg. Once great. But now cannot direct there way out of a paper bag.
Edits. . . "rein in" - not "reign in," please, in paragraph 4. And the login screen should be "fill out," not "fill-out."
Arg.
Please respect meat-world rules of grammar; please don't let the immediacy of the Web drag us down!!
Why the two references to Batman being "lowbrow" and "low subject matter?" Maybe back in the days of pulpy 10-cent comics, but not now. Comic books, graphic novels, whatever you want to call them, are succeeding as an industry in developing stories with a far more compelling, varied and vivid palette of creativity and talent than either the film or TV industries. While few were looking, comics grew up. And now it's time to stop looking down your nose at them.
What's funny to me is the growing backlash against "all these comic book movies" while seeing, as a reader of comics, that most of these adaptations pale in comparison to their source material. The darly shining exception is this "low" Batman film, which expertly draws inspiration from some of the best stories published in recent memory and adds to them in ways that only moviemakers can. That's what makes this one so special.
"The Curiours Case of ..." is three hours. Won't be seeing that. Isn't this one of the issues that is having a negative effect on movie ticket sales? Who wants to sit in the movie theater for three hours. Aside from the review, the most important factor in whether I will spend my time and money on a movie is the length of the film. An hour, forty-five is perfect. Two hours is pushing it. I broke my daughter's heart when I refused to see the Chronicles of Narnia sequel which clocked in at some ridiculous time, but I would've chewed my hand off if I had to sit through a two-hour, forty-five minute film. We settled for Baby Mama. Good, not great, but I was in and out of the theater without feeling like I'd given half my day. Am I the only one who checks the length of the movie? Surely, I can't be.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.