Will the summer movie season be a wasteland for sequels?

It's a possibility, according to The Hollywood Reporter:

Hollywood still hopes to shake off early symptoms, but there is spreading concern that the summer boxoffice will be plagued by a nasty case of sequelitis.

Conditions are ripe: Studios have planted 11 sequels or franchise reboots in the fertile May-August span, up from nine last summer and seven from the 2008 season. But those opened so far have underwhelmed, with seasonal boxoffice off by a double-digit margin and studio executives beginning to feel woozy.

Most recently, Warner Bros.' "Sex and the City 2" was expected to outpace its 2008 predecessor and top the Memorial Day weekend. Instead, it lagged the original's bow dramatically and debuted with a tarnished bronze medal, trailing even Disney's disappointing "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time." (A would-be franchise starter, "Persia" will need outsized international contributions to reach profitability.)

DreamWorks Animation's "Shrek Forever After" finished first in the frame. But that was of limited relief, as the Paramount-distributed four-quel missed consensus forecasts for its opening by a nauseating $30 million.

Reaction to the latest disappointments came swiftly.

"There very well could be some burnout with moviegoers, who are looking for something new and fresh," a top studio exec lamented Tuesday.

Not everything has been doom and gloom.

Summer's first tentpole release, Paramount's "Iron Man 2," soon should top $300 million after initially disappointing those hoping the Robert Downey Jr. starrer would kick-start the all-important season with a record bow.

But the desultory outings of "Shrek Forever" and "Sex 2" have many seeing signs of franchise fatigue.

"Watching the decline of 'Sex and the City 2' every day has really surprised us," another top industyite said.

The New Line-produced dramedy fetched $14.2 million in its first day of release Thursday but at least $2 million less each day since.

Still, it's possible to explain each pic's disappointment individually.

Expectations of a summer-launching record opening by the "Iron Man" sequel probably were unrealistic, and the second-week traction by "Shrek Forever" suggests a run as leggy as most family pics. As for "Sex 2," the TV series leading to the big-screen franchise ended a distant six years ago.

Film-specific explanations for boxoffice wobbles have some predicting smoother sailing through the balance of the sequel-filled summer. But it's too soon to tell if Hollywood can quell its boxoffice maladies before contagion spreads.

The next sequel set to hit multi¬plexes is Disney/Pixar's "Toy Story 3," which nobody expects to have any difficulty generating impressive boxoffice when it opens June 18.

"The interest is immense," Disney distribution topper Chuck Viane said.

Remakes such as Sony's June 11 opener "The Karate Kid" also will be watched carefully. But pre¬release interest in the reimagined "Kid" appears high, and its comparisons with decades-old boxoffice figures won't be difficult.

So it's possible the best test of moviegoers' attitudes won't come until June 30, when Summit Entertainment sends out the "Twilight" threequel "Eclipse."

All signs point to enormous interest among the fanged franchise's young fan base. But perception is often reality with boxoffice success, so could the vampire romance open well but still be deemed a failure?

Not bloody likely, said a distribution topper at a rival studio citing tracking data.

"Expectations can get out of hand, but I would put the 'Twlight' picture down for a $125 million opening right now," the industryite said. "That's huge."

Just not as huge as the opening posted by the franchise's first sequel: "New Moon" bowed with $142.8 million in November.

Rentrak data show summer boxoffice is off 21% so far at $813 million. The season starts on the first Friday of May and got a one-weekend head start May 1 last year.

Adding in one weekend from the end of spring cuts industry underperformance to 12%. But ticket-price inflation since last summer means admissions are off more significantly.

-How do you think these sequels will end up doing?

Who might end up directing 'The Hobbit' now?

Well, here's a list from Hit Fix (the whole article can be found here) that goes into who some of the possibilities (realistic and not) might be:

THE DREAM CHOICES

Steven Spielberg
Best known for: Being one of the greatest filmmakers in history.
Why: It took him quite awhile to commit to direct "War Horse" and his heart may not truly be in it. He's already worked with Jackson as a collaborator on "The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn." The legendary director has also recently waxed about wanting to create an immersive world like James Cameron did in "Avatar." Can you say "The Hobbit" in 3-D?
Available: If he delays the recently announced "War Horse," yes.
Would he do it: There a lot of bumps to get over to make it happen. First off, two years is a long time for Spielberg to commit to and its doubtful he'd spend a year shooting in New Zealand instead wanting to move much of the production to sound stages in LA (not cheap). "War Horse" is also a new DreamWorks film and delaying it would mean waiting over three years for Spielberg to direct a feature for his recently rebooted studio. That would not make investors Disney and Reliance very happy. More importantly, could his ego stand being, effectively, the "second choice" after del Toro departed?

Tim Burton
Best known for: "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," "Edward Scissorhands"
Why: Has virtually become a cinematic "brand" having created a legacy of iconic characters and memorable movie images.
Available: No? He's supposed to be prepping "Dark Shadows" for Warner Bros, but you'd have to guess the studio would let him delay that flick to work on their own "Hobbit."
Would he do it: Burton is hardly one to be meddlesome with scripts, but Jackson would have to give him huge leeway to present his own unique vision of Middle-earth.

Alfonso Cuaron
Best known for: "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," "Children of Men"
Why: One of the finest filmmakers of his generation who can easily segue from "Y tu mama tambien" to "Harry Potter."
Available: At the moment no. His new sci-fi thriller "Gravity" is about to begin production for Warner Bros. Afterward? Another story.
Would he do it: Considering he is good friends with del Toro he'd have to be intrigued, but the timing seems as though it could be off.


THE SAFE SECOND TIER

Robert Zemeckis
Best known for: "Back to the Future," "Forest Gump"
Why: Arguably one of the most creative commercial filmmakers over the last 30 years who just happened to be overshadowed by Spielberg, Scorsese and Cameron.
Available: In theory, yes.
Would he do it: After the disappointing results of "A Christmas Carol" and Disney shutting down their co-venture in motion capture, it may be time to return to the world of live action. And Middle-earth has more than its share of characters who could fit into the motion capture realm.

Gore Verbinski
Best known for: "Pirates of the Caribbean"
Why: He's been able to create a unique cinematic world with the "Pirates" films even if the scripts failed him at times. He's certainly talented.
Available: It appears so. Besides the animated "Rango," none of his projects in development are close to being greenlit.
Would he do it: Unclear. After spending years on the "Pirates" films does he want to dedicate two more shooting and editing two "Hobbit" features?

Andrew Adamson
Best known for: "Shrek," "The Chronicles of Naria: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"
Why: Extremely imaginative and talented New Zealander who has made a successful transition from animated blockbusters to live action blockbusters. And having made brought the first two "Narnia" books to the big screen he has an acute understanding of the detail that must be given to create an immersive, cinematic world.
Available: Having taken over two years off since "Prince Caspian," yes, he certainly is.
Would he do it: Considering it would allow him to live at home in New Zealand with his family and the respect and admiration he always heaped upon Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, it's hard to imagine him turning it down.

Sam Raimi
Best known for: "Spider-Man"
Why: He really wanted to direct it before del Toro got the gig.
Available: He's reportedly prepping "No Man's Land" after "Spider-Man 4" fell apart, but you have to imagine he'd quickly jump to the "Hobbit" if offered.
Would he do it: Uh, yeah, but after passing over him the first time, would Jackson actually hire him?


THE UNCONVENTIONAL REACHES

Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Best known for: "Amelie"
Why: Hands down one of the most inventive filmmakers ever.
Available: Seemingly.
Would he do it: His one experience with English language films, "Alien Resurrection" was hardly a happy one. Jackson would have to do a lot of convincing.

Joe Wright
Best know for: "Atonement"
Why: Incredibly talented filmmaker with a keen and unique visual sense.
Available: After he finishes shooting and editing the thriller "Hanna" (it's currently in production), yes.
Would he do it: Wright is a pretty strange guy for someone whose made his name in period pieces such as "Pride and Prejudice" and "Atonement." Your guess is as good as anyone else, but he'd be an unconventional, but exciting choice.

Danny Boyle
Best known for: "Slumdog Millionaire," "28 Days Later"
Why: Like Lee, he's been able to jump from different film genres while still keeping his unique perspective on the world. And simply, the man has an eye and a way with actors.
Available: He's in post-production on the thriller "127 days" which should release this November, but after that it appears so.
Would he do it: Boyle has admitted he's not a fan of the lack of freedom massive studio budgets entail, but with a few Oscars in his hands, he might feel it's time.

Timur Bekmambetov
Best known for: "Wanted"
Why: Groundbreaking visual filmmaker who continues to surprise.
Available: Probably not. He's supposed to direct an adaptation of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," "The Last Witch Hunter" and a somewhat delayed "Wanted" sequel for three different studios. That's a lot of gigs to push back for two years.
Would he do it: Sadly, it probably doesn't matter, the man may just be booked.

Ang Lee
Best known for: "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,""Brokeback Mountain," "Hulk"
Why: The Oscar winner has shown an uncanny ability to succeed at multiple genres throughout his career.
Available: Unclear. Lee's next film, "The Life of Pi," is rumored to be on hold over budget concerns.
Would he do it: Another ego question. Would Lee be able to collaborate with Jackson? Unless he has creative freedom, it might not be worth it to him.

Neill Blomkamp
Best known for: "District 9"
Why: Protege of Jackson's who made a spectacular and critically acclaimed debut with "District 9."
Available: Supposedly prepping a secret project for film financier Media Rights Capital. If so, that's a "no."
Would he do it: Even with his friendship with Jackson, very unclear.

Paul Greengrass
Best known for: "The Bourne Supremacy"
Why: He's no stranger to genre having almost directed "Watchmen" and after "Green Zone" he needs a hit and to show he can do something other than his increasingly repetitive hand held aesthetic.
Available: It depends how quickly he can shoot and edit Universal's drama "They Marched Into Sunlight."
Would he do it: Unclear, but his agent will certainly want him to pitch it.


ONLY TO AVOID BRETT RATNER OR McG

Francis Lawrence
Best known for: "Constantine," "I Am Legend"
Why: Criticisms over script choices aside for both his big screen efforts, the man has vision. Plus, he did stellar work on the underappreciated NBC series "Kings."
Available: Not at the moment. He's currently filming the drama "Water for Elephants" for 20th Century Fox.
Would he do it: Unclear.

Bryan Singer
Best known for "X2," "The Usual Suspects"
Why: He's had his share of success with genre franchise and publicly stated his preference for films with multiple character storylines.
Available: Since "Jack the Giant Killer" is on hold for casting and script reasons, he sort of is.
Would he do it: Are you kidding? Singer has attached himself to more genre projects than any other studio director in town. Whether Jackson wants to deal with the "reformed" infant terrible is another matter.

Neil Marshall
Best known for: "The Descent"
Why: On a strikingly similar career path to Jackson's before he was able to get "The Lord of the Rings" off the ground. Deja vu?
Available: Seemingly.
Would he do it: Would be career suicide to turn it down.

-Who would you pick?

Why is it never a good idea to not screen a movie early for critics?

Well, for one thing you get articles like this one (courtesy of IFC and The Independent Eye) written about you and your potentially bad upcoming film:

The press kits given to critics to accompany the movie they're reviewing are, for obvious reasons, not given to hard truths. They tell us how much everyone enjoyed working with each other, how proud they are of the final film, and generally how well everything's worked out -- predictable, harmless stuff.

But once in a while one will go out of their way to make an extra-foolish statement that seriously shatters credulity, like last year's "My Sister's Keeper" (the Cameron Diaz weepy about a terminally ill little girl) kit, which testified that "In films as disparate as 'John Q,' 'Alpha Dog' and 'The Notebook,'" director Nick Cassavetes "has investigated the nuances of the human condition, the nature of love and free will and human dignity." This is not how most people think about "The Notebook."

Generally, though, such statements are avoided for films that aren't screened in advance for critics -- it's tacitly understood that the film in question is, most of the time, no good whatsoever, and that it's only hope is to make as much money as possible before people catch on.

Lionsgate may have well made history in explaining why "Killers" -- next Friday's Ashton Kutcher-Katherine Heigl action-comedy-romance thing -- isn't going to screen for critics (except the day of, in the almost-standard "courtesy screening" that at least saves writers the trouble of invoicing their employees).

It's not, the studio assures, because the film's a stinker: it's because they "want to give the opportunity to moviegoing audiences and critics alike to see `Killers' simultaneously, and share their thoughts in the medium of their choosing. We felt that this sense of immediacy could be a real asset in the marketing of `Killers.'"

Here's assuming they hope that the kind of people most prone to "sharing their thoughts" online about a movie like "Killers" are also the kind of people that go on message boards and call critics they don't like out-of-touch-elitists. The whole scenario is nonsense (and would be no matter what the caliber of the movie; 99% of the time, people write in to hector, not to discuss).

The real issue here, as noted by Screen Daily critic Brent Simon, is that studios "don't really have their finger on the pulse of the fan community":

For people who are really into films, what the Internet has done - through message boards and a plethora of other sites that report on film - is it's opened up this world whereby they're able to see not only the goings-on of production but also of marketing. So when there are no reviews of a film the week of release, that message gets out there. It doesn't really matter what their interests or predilections are as far the types of films they're interested in, but people smell a stinker.They seem to have equal problems figuring out which ones are good, which ones are marketable. The "Crank" films were unscreened, despite being cult classics in the making, and excitably received by some critics. (The same goes for the Neveldine/Taylor team's "Gamer," which is actually good fun.)

Nor do bad reviews make much of a quantifiable difference in the first place: people still showed up for "Transformers 2" and "G.I. Joe." The former screened, the latter didn't; "Transformers"' average Metacritic score is a statistically insignificant three points higher than "G.I. Joe"'s. There is no real way to explain, based on that evidence, why "Transformers" made nearly $500 million more worldwide and $350 million more domestically. It just doesn't matter.

This is a backhanded way of advocating something I think should go without saying, but perhaps studios should rethink this policy because there's no evidence reviews affect box-office revenue. The critic-proof film is now a matter of fact (cf. "Norbit," "Wild Hogs"); let the coverage be done on time. Everyone's lives will improve, and no one's will be harmed.

-Thoughts?

Comparing Woody Allen and Mike Leigh...

...two auteurs with very different methods. Here's the article from indieWire:

At this stage of the game, there’s no point in interviewing Woody Allen (age 74) or Mike Leigh (age 67) about their movies, because we know exactly what they’re doing.

Woody Allen writes a screenplay, and because he’s Woody Allen, he casts it with the best actors available, who make it possible for him to raise foreign coin—and to shoot in exotic locations like London, Paris and Barcelona. Allen was one of many filmmakers showing films at Cannes (You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger stars Antonio Banderas, Josh Brolin, Anthony Hopkins and Naomi Watts) who is in his declining years as a major auteur. During the press festival press conference—Allen was on and funny, despite looking droopy—he talked about how he wrote his characters and then cast them with the best actors he could find.

It hit me that especially these days, his ability to do that is what makes the movies work. Check out the final ensemble for Allen’s latest romantic comedy Midnight in Paris, about a family traveling on business: Kathy Bates, Carla Bruni, Marion Cotillard, Rachel McAdams and Alison Pill. Put Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz in Vicky Cristina Barcelona and sparks will fly. Imagine that movie without them, or Match Point without Scarlett Johansson, and what have you got? What keeps these films fresh and watchable? The actors bring fresh life to Allen’s worn ideas.

Leigh, on the other hand, is neither in decline nor reworking anything: with Another Year (picked up by Sony Pictures Classics) he is at the height of his powers. That’s because his process remains the same. And it works every time. He’s like Pixar. Each new movie is original, entertaining, masterful and emotionally moving. That’s really hard to do consistently, every time. It means that Pixar and Leigh have their process down: they know how to make their films really good.

Leigh starts with no script but a story idea. He works with his actors individually and in different groups for improvisatory workshops where they explore his basic premise and research and define their characters until they become them. They work out the story, often not knowing key plot elements that come as a surprise on set, and Leigh eventually writes it up and they shoot it. It’s so organic that the resulting movie rings true. And the extraordinary performances of Lesley Manville in Another Year, Sally Hawkins in Happy-Go-Lucky, Brenda Blethyn in Secrets & Lies, Imelda Staunton in Vera Drake, David Thewlis in Naked, or Jim Broadbent in Topsy Turvy are the inevitable end result.

-I'm probably in the minority of preferring Woody still, but it's a really interesting article...thoughts?

Do you care if movies are still shot on film or not?

Cinematical has an interesting article on the subject here, but I figured I'd throw it out there for all of you. Personally, I don't mind, though it depends on the film.

-Do you care?

What are some bad movies that had good trailers to tease us?

Well, Cinematic has a very interesting article here, and they mention movies like Dreamcatcher and the remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Godzilla, but I thought I'd let you all do the honors and tell me what films would qualify as this for you. In my case, two examples I would go with from last year would be Sherlock Holmes and A Serious Man (though I know I'm in the vast minority there).

-What other bad movies had really good trailers?

How will Cannes shape up this year in terms of a buying market?

Well, here's an article in The Hollywood Reporter on just that:

Buyers need movies to fill release slates, and any titles with solid casting or a director attached are generally good bets. And sellers want to strike deals at a price that realistically reflects the economic gloom and falling production budgets without erasing profit margins. So the two sides are talking, but are they, you know, talking?

As the Marche du Film enters the home stretch Wednesday, there is reticence on both sides to be the ones to come out and say the marketplace is on its uppers. Certainly fewer and fewer sellers are hollering about North American sales.

The usual North American power buyers, including IFC Films and Phase 4 Films, had made it through Tuesday without pulling out their wallets.

Sony Pictures Classics, though, stepped up to the plate and acquired domestic rights to Mike Leigh's "Another Year" in the wake of a pre-emptive deal for Stephen Frears' "Tamara Drewe" it struck ahead of Cannes.

Newbies such as Red Flag Releasing ("8: The Mormon Proposition") and Oscilloscope Laboratories ("Howl") have yet to splash the cash. But another new guy on the block, Olive Films, opened its wallet, picking up a raft of titles. In addition to Danish film "R," which Olive snatched from TrustNordisk, the company did a major package deal with Germany's The Match Factory. Olive grabbed North American rights from Match for Semih Kaplanoglu's "Yusuf Trilogy": "Yumurta" (Egg) and "Sut" (Milk) and Berlin Golden Bear winner "Bal" (Honey), as well as last year's Berlin winner "The Milk of Sorrow" from Peruvian director Claudia Llosa and San Sebastian favorite "Me Too" from directors Alvaro Pastor and Antonio Naharro.

"There are some gems out there that we're going to be going after," Oscilloscope's David Fenkel said. "You'll see, there will be plenty of deals over the next month. It is a quieter year but that's not because there aren't good films. The big companies aren't going after these movies right now, and that is what typically creates a lot of excitement."

Pre-Cannes, agency sales reps essentially shrugged at the potential for domestic deals, recognizing that shifts in the rhythm of the industry have made the Cannes market even less important for domestic sales.

Whereas the 2008 Cannes featured high-profile titles with U.S. distribution rights available, such as "Two Lovers," "Che" and "Synecdoche, New York," there aren't as many "substantial" titles available this year. CAA is repping Inarrituπs "Biutiful," which is one of the few pictures that seems destined for a domestic deal, but it sold Doug Limanπs "Fair Game" to Summit in the lead-up to the festival.

"The buyers are being very conservative," said Julie Sultan, Peace Arch Entertainment's president of international sales and distribution. "They are being very thoughtful with their selections."

At the same time that U.S. buyers are feeling less and less compelled to make early deals and foreign buyers are busy ... ish.

U.S. sales, finance and production banner Myriad Pictures jetted into Cannes with late sales slate addition "Margin Call," starring Kevin Spacey and Zachary Quinto. Cassian Elwes, along with UTA and Untitled Entertainment, is handling domestic for the banking crisis thriller and Myriad has already struck deals for the picture in Germany, the Middle East, Turkey, Romania, Yugoslavia and Latin America for pay TV.

"Buyers have gone for it because it is truly timely and is a film about what is happening now," Myriad president Kirk D'Amico said.

Make no mistake, while market attendees are not shouting "the good times are back," there is an air of quiet calm if you come with a good script, talent attached and reasonable budget levels.

So while French company MK2 CEO Nathanael Karmitz thinks there are fewer films in the market overall "and hardly any interesting indie titles from the U.S.," Karmitz said international sales are positive.

MK2 scored pre-sales for Walter Salles' "On the Road" to Icon in the U.K. and Australia, Cineart in Belgium and Concorde Tele Munchen in Germany. German sales agent Telepool sold four films -- "Cargo," "The Door," "Mein Kampf" and Tribeca winner "When We Leave" to Mongrel for Canada; two ("Cargo," "The Door") to Seven Sept for France and two ("Cargo," "Mein Kampf") to CCV for Scandinavia.

Ramy Choi, director of acquisitions and deistribution for Jackie Chan International, reported brisk sales for Chan's most recent picture, "Little Big Soldier," as well as the new slate of movies in which he will star and/or produce. "Soldier" went to the U.K.'s Shadowbox Media Group as well as Italy's One Movie SRL, France's Metropolitan Filmexport, Benelux's Splendid Film and Japan's Presidio. His upcoming star turn in "Drunken Master 1945" attracted buys from Shadowbox, the Middle East's Gulf Film, and distributors in Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia/Brunei. The Chan-produced "The Break-Up Artist," starring Lin Peng, went to Shadowbox, One Movie and a host of Middle East and Asian buyers. New company Shadowbox, which is building up its DVD library, and Gulf Film also took rights to such future Chan titles as "Cambodia Landmine," "Tiger Mountain" and "Manhattan."

Confidence could also do with a boost if Japan showed any signs of being back at the top tables.

"Unfortunately, Japan has become an inward-looking territory, one North American sales excutive said. "Because local, less expensive productions seem to be working at the boxoffice there, the buyers are not here spending lots on U.S. product anymore."

So while most agree that, while the days of headline-grabbing deals seem to a part of Cannes' past, the good times may yet return.

-Stay tuned...

It's time for Cannes...

...and to celebrate, here's an article on it from The Hollywood Reporter:

Damn the volcanoes, a mini-tsunami and the fear-driven global economy: The show must go on. Marche du Film attendees who've made it through the financial turmoil of the last two years aren't letting a little Icelandic ash or a wet and windy Cannes blow them off course. Sellers are arriving quietly confident that, with slimmer slates and more realistic expectations, sufficient deals will be done to justify the still eyebrow-raising cost of doing business here. "We came out of Berlin very positive. Buyers are more selective, they are more savvy, but they are still buying," said Helen Lee Kim, president of international at Lionsgate. "But nowadays you have to have a project that hits the bullseye, with a clear demo, a crystal-clear marketing concept. Before, if you got it anywhere on the board, you'd get the presales." Lionsgate is hoping to hit the market sweet spot with Marc Forster's action-drama "Machine Gun Preacher," which has Gerard Butler attached as well as futuristic teen gladiator title "Hunger Games," based on the best-selling trilogy by Suzanne Collins.

And while a slightly better Sundance and an almost buoyant Berlin proved that buyers are willing to spend, with fewer slots on shrinking release schedules, anyone able to sign a check still has the upper hand. One U.S. acquisitions chief said few are expecting the unexpected. "Our team is smaller and we are focusing on fewer titles. There's a strong Asian presence in the lineup this year from seriously interesting directors, which usually creates buzz." Tony Jaa's "Ong Bak 3," which Sahamongkolfilm is selling, CJ Entertainment's "The Servant" from director Kim Dae-Woo and Fortissimo's "Norwegian Wood," Anh Hung Tran's adaptation of the Haruki Murakami best-seller, are just a taster of the Far East movies generating heat as Cannes kicks off. "While many films from Asia continue to fall into the art house category, we feel there's a bit of a comeback in commercial interest as the films grow in budget and gain in their technical sophistication," said Fortissimo head Michael Werner. Going into the market, the Cannes Marche head Jerome Paillard said registrations were up 5% on the same period last year. And he expects final numbers to be on par with 2008, marking a recovery from the dip experienced last year. Some 300 companies will be exhibiting in the Palais, with 150 or so more registered but choosing to take hotel suites or apartments in Cannes as offices instead. Of note is the fact that Latin distributors are particularly noticeable this year as exhibitors as are movies being made in 3D. Buyers are less impressed by the festival lineup this year, which remains strongly auteur-driven, with few anticipated as crossover titles. "The festival's taste has stayed the same, full of difficult, challenging and experimental films, but the market has moved on," said Thorsten Ritter, head of Germany's Bavaria International. "It's harder and harder to find a distributor to pay for these festival films." Bavaria's Cannes has a mainstream tilt, including the South African drama "Black Butterflies," from Oscar-nominee Paula van der Oest and starring Carice van Houten and Rutger Hauer. Every rule demands an exception, and Doug Liman's "Fair Game" is the odd one out as the only Competition movie to wear its mainstream sensibilities on its sleeve. E1 Entertainment took U.K. and Irish rights to the real-life drama, starring Naomi Watts and Sean Penn, ahead of its festival bow. But such high-profile pickups for fest titles may be rare. What marketgoers can expect are more creative partnerships between U.S. and international companies as everyone pools their resources to find more efficient, and less risky, ways to produce and sell globally. A just-announced deal between Fox International Productions and Fortissimo Films will see Fortissimo handle international sales on several of Fox's local-language titles. In another U.S-international hook up, French producer/distributor Celluloid Dreams and L.A-based production/sales outfit XYZ Films will use Cannes to launch a joint venture. "The approach these days is, it's all about the Cannes foreign market," said CAA's Micah Green. "We don't care about the domestic. We don't need to presell these movies. The pressure is on selling international at a level consistent or beyond sales agents' expectations." Green also points to future deals being dependent on the balance of the sales agents delivering on their estimates at Cannes this year.

-Thoughts?

Forbes lists Hollywood's "Hardest working actors"...

...and the supposed hardest working actor might surprise you (though I actually guessed him. Go figure...). Moviefone's full article on this can be found here, but this is Forbes' list:

1. Seth Rogen: 12 films / $892 million in total
2. Morgan Freeman: 9 films / $1,168 billion in total (including The Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Invictus)
3. Matt Damon: 8 films / $696 million in total (including The Bourne Ultimatum, Ocean's Thirteen, The Departed)
4. Will Ferrell: 8 films / $607 million in total (including Talladega Nights, Man vs. Wild, Stranger Than Fiction)
5. Robert Downey Jr.: 7 films / $788 million in total (including Tropic Thunder, Iron Man, The Soloist)
6. Samuel L. Jackson: 7 films / $700 million in total (including Snakes on a Plane, Star Wars: Episodes II and III)
7. Sandra Bullock: 5 films / $655 million in total (including The Blind Side, The Proposal)
8. Meryl Streep: 7 films / $547 million in total (including Mamma Mia!, The Devil Wears Prada)
9. Shia LaBeouf: 6 films / $1.3 billion in total (including Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Transformers)
10. Christian Bale: 6 films / $1 billion in total (including The Dark Knight, Terminator Salvation)

Thoughts?

The 2003 Awards Circuit Staff Top 10's come out, along with an Under the Circuit article on Jim Carrey!

Yes, we'll soon know what the big winners of the 2003 Awards Circuit Community Awards are, but until then , we on the staff have let loose our Top 10 lists for that year. They all can be found here, so check them out, let us know what you think, and tell us what your top 10's for 2003 would have been!
We also have the next article in our Under the Circuit Series, this one on Jim Carrey. Check it out here and let us know who to tackle next!
-Thoughts on the Staff Top 10 lists and the Under the Circuit article?

What might be this generation's best coming-of-age film?

Well, that's the question that Cinematical is asking. There are plenty of films that could be thought of as "The Graduate of the 2000's". The article can be found here, and it's a great read (one that mentions some of the best movies of the genre that deal with other time periods, like An Education or A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints), but here are some of the films that they mentioned:

The 40 Year Old Virgin
Garden State
Elizabethtown
The Squid and the Whale
Adventureland
Knocked Up
Superbad
Greenberg

-What do you think is our generation's best coming-of-age film?

Are certain books "movie-proof"?

Cinematical had an article on this very subject, which got me thinking. First, here's the article:

For as long as Hollywood has been adapting books for the screen there have been works that have earned the title: unfilmable. Usually, the list of 'cursed' books includes Ulysses, The Confederacy of Dunces, Gravity's Rainbow, Neuromancer, and Catcher in The Rye. The medium of literature allows for a level of detail and time and space that most films can never match, and sometimes a book is just too sweeping, too complicated, or just too darn long to make into a movie. Granted, there have been some exceptions, but sometimes I think there are stories that are better when they're left on the bookshelf. As I was perusing the news, I noticed that Chuck Palahniuk's novel Invisible Monsters was back on the movie radar. Now if ever there was a book that I believed was not cut out for the big screen, it's Monsters.

Relative unknown Cameron MacLaren would not be the first person to try to adapt Palahniuk's novel, and the property has been kicking around in one form or another since Jesse Peyronel optioned it back in 2001. Monsters is one of Palahniuk's finest (and most hilariously disturbing) books, but I'm not sure any director could get audiences to look past **spoiler alert** the story of a woman with the lower half of her face missing. But maybe I'm just not thinking this through. These properties must hover on the radar for a reason, and there are always filmmakers who love a challenge and want to bring these stories to the screen.
After all, a story like Clockwork Orange must have seemed impossible to adapt into a film, but as soon as Stanley Kubrick was on the case -- presto! You have one of the greatest films of all time. So just imagine what the right director could do for Monsters. But what about those other movie-proof books? Well, how about Wes Anderson directing Catcher in The Rye (assuming Hollywood could ever wrangle away the rights) or Darren Aronofsky at the helm for Neuromancer? Tell me those don't sound like some pretty cool flicks.

This might be the optimist in me talking, but I'm not convinced there is such a thing as a book that is movie-proof. Even though the thought of screwing up a story that means so much to so many must be a little intimidating, when it comes to books that have earned the title of 'unfilmable', maybe it's just a matter of finding the right person for the job.

So what do you think: is there such a thing as a book that is 'movie-proof'?

-I'm inclined to say that the right filmmaker can turn anything into a good movie, but that's just me...thoughts?

Will 'Iron Man 2' have a record breaking opening weekend?

Well, this article in the Los Angeles Times certainly thinks it's possible:

Exactly one month from Wednesday, Tony Stark, Pepper Potts and the other personalities of "Iron Man" will return to make witty mayhem in the superhero sequel.

And exactly three days after that, we could have a new domestic box-office record.

Stark himself, never lacking in suave self-confidence, probably wouldn't make such a bold boast. But it's entirely feasible.

According to just-released tracking surveys, director Jon Favreau's second installment in the Marvel franchise is showing astonishing levels of interest and awareness well ahead of its three-day opening next month. There are enough statistical indications to think that the first-weekend gross could top the $158.4-million haul for "Dark Knight", the current record-holder for the biggest (non inflation-adjusted) opening weekend and the gold standard for movie debuts.

Christopher Nolan's Batman sequel grossed that amount when it opened over a three-day weekend in July 2008. The same spring/summer period brought the release of "Iron Man." The character was new to mainstream audiences, star Robert Downey Jr. had yet to engineer his Hollywood comeback and Favreau was riding a cold streak ("Zathura: A Space Adventure," anyone?). The movie still opened to an impressive $98 million, and went on to gross more than $318 million domestically. This year's sequel opening on May 7 should pulverize that $98 million figure. Thanks in part to Downey, the Paramount-distributed film is drawing as much (strong) interest among women over 30 as it is among women in their 20s, the tracking surveys show. Males in their teens and 20s are so keen on the film they may as well be dressing up in an iron suit. About the only people who aren't fully sold are teen girls, but there are signs of robustness there too.

All this doesn't even count the intangibles. The movie generated a titanic reception at last summer's Comic-Con International in San Diego, the kind that happens only once every few years, if that. The "Iron Man 2" trailers have practically shut down YouTube. And according to one rival studio, "Iron Man" is now among the most-liked franchises in Hollywood, right up there with "Spider-Man." (It also doesn't hurt that ticket prices have inched upward in the past two years, although the 2-D "Iron Man 2" likely won't touch the domestic record of $742.5 million set by last year's 3-D "Avatar.")

Of course, shattering a box-office record isn't the same as making a creative breakthrough. "Dark Knight" was a singular cultural phenomenon, adored by critics, loved by the public and regarded in the fan universe as the great example of superhero movies, the Giselle Bündchen of the form. Whether "Iron Man 2" will be similarly embraced remains to be seen. From the advance material, we're expecting more humor than we got in the Batman follow-up but not necessarily the same level of grit or complexity.

Still, a combination of pop-culture awareness, hugely appealing (and promotion-minded) actors and a smartly waged marketing campaign could send "Iron Man 2" on the path to a record. That is, for now -- "Batman 3," after all, is currently in development. And given the tendency of superhero sequels to expand audiences as they go, that movie could eventually land with even more box-office force. Your move, Nolan.

-Will Iron Man 2 open to more than The Dark Knight made?

Be sure to check out our look at the upcoming remake of 'True Grit'!

It's a fascinating article, so check it out here and let us know what you think!

John Cusack is the subject of our next Under The Circuit article!

Yes, in our continuing series on actors. directors, and writers who have yet to receive Oscar nominations, we turn our attention to the great John Cusack. The article can be found here, so check it out and let us know your favorite Cusack performance!

The Hollywood Reporter has an article on the 2D-to-3D conversion debate...

...and it's an interesting read. Check it out:

Hollywood is in the midst of a conversion experience.

"Avatar," designed and shot in 3D, has set the gold standard for 3D movies, having grossed $2.7 billion worldwide. But a pair of films that were shot in 2D and then converted to 3D -- "Alice in Wonderland" and the new "Clash of the Titans" -- also have attracted sizable audiences: "Alice" has collected more than $730 million worldwide to date, and "Titans" bowed to $61.4 million domestically and added another $44 million overseas.

With audiences flocking to movies that are converted to 3D as part of the postproduction process, 3D conversions are fast becoming an accepted option for both studios and filmmakers.

Warner Bros.' "Titans" was shot in anamorphic film as a 2D release. But the studio later opted for 3D, and the film was converted in roughly 10 weeks -- a remarkably fast turnaround -- in order to meet its release date. The cost was reportedly around $4.5 million.

But some tech insiders, as well as a number of reviewers, suggested that the rush to convert doesn't always lead to satisfactory results.

The New York Times' Manohla Dargis wrote, "The 3D in the 'Clash of the Titans' remake, which was added after it was shot, has none of the immersive quality of 'Avatar' and instead segments the image into discrete planes, bringing to mind the unintegrated levels of a pop-up book."

Said Roger Ebert, a 3D skeptic: "One word of consumer advice: Explain to kids that the movie was not filmed in 3D and is only being shown in 3D in order to charge you an extra $5 a ticket. I saw it in 2D, and let me tell you, it looked terrific."

Some are concerned that such reactions might threaten to put the brakes on conversion -- and possibly even derail the runaway 3D train.

Prime Focus, the Mumbai-headquartered postproduction business that did the conversion, defends its work.

"There are a lot of different techniques," said Chris Bond, president of Prime Focus, North America, and developer of the company's View-D 2D/3D conversion method. "I invite filmmakers to come and test their material, and to see 'Clash.' We have a lot of creativity and artistic drive to make sure the results look fantastic. I think it looks great."

The debate is sure to underline the importance of quality control as the nascent process becomes more widely used.

Proponents argue that post conversion gives filmmakers more creative flexibility with cinematography during live-action production. That was the deciding factor for Tim Burton and his "Alice" director of photography Dariusz Wolski when they decided to shoot in 2D and then convert to 3D.

Others contend that quality 3D must involve the entire chain from production and post to distribution and exhibition, including the way films are shot and edited. CG-animated movies are computer-creations and lend themselves to conversions, but making over a live-action movie can be trickier.

"3D is a different medium and requires thinking a different way," Sony Pictures Imageworks senior stereographer Rob Engle said. "For instance, (the animated) 'Monster House' was originally planned as 2D, and in some shots they added camera shake. For the 3D version, we dialed it back -- because we were able to dial it back in animation. In live-action, you can't take out the camera shake. There are photographic styles that don't lend themselves as well to 3D."

The bottom line, he said, is "conversion is really hard. You are taking shots that were not intended as a VFX shot and making them a VFX shot. That is neither easy nor cheap. If you don't have the appropriate amount of time, money and technical and creative talent, you are going to receive a result that is not satisfactory."

Dave Walton, assistant vp marketing and communication at JVC Professional, cautioned: "No 3D is better than bad 3D. Those who view bad 3D can get headaches and nausea within a few short minutes. So conversion has to be accurate, and you have to pay attention to the brain's ability to process the images without fatigue."

Of course, money has a way of overshadowing such concerns.

"There is a bit of gold-rush mentality right now," Engle said. "Can we make more money (at the boxoffice) at a controlled cost?"

He added: "There is also a race to the bottom in terms of (conversion) pricing. All of the vendors are hungry for work, if you look at how many vendors are wanting to get their first feature under their belt."

An increasing number of businesses are offering a number of 2D/3D conversion techniques at a different price points -- essentially creating a high, middle and low end for the fledgling market.

At the high end, companies including In-Three in some cases might charge more than $100,000 per minute, depending on the complexity of the material and time spent making creative decisions with the filmmakers. In less complex assignments, though, its charges can fall well below $50,000 per minute.

At the other end of the spectrum is a stereo image processor that JVC plans to launch this month at the National Association of Broadcasters convention. Essentially a box that automatically converts 2D content to 3D, it will be available for purchase for $30,000.

But JVC's Walton emphasized that the converter is intended to augment, not replace, the other conversion techniques where the filmmakers are involved in making creative 3D decisions. "There is no magic box that will let you convert everything, but the JVC system will speed the process up," he said.

Prime Focus' View-D conversion process combines proprietary automated software with manual work that reflects filmmakers' creative decisions. In the case of "Titans," helmer Louis Leterrier was closely involved in setting the creative direction. Bond said Prime Focus charges $50,000-$100,000 per minute of material.

While much of Hollywood's current focus revolves around whether to give feature releases the 3D conversion treatment, the same discussion is starting to take place within the television world.

U.K. satcaster Sky launched its 3D channel Saturday, and in its technical spec, the company stated that it would not accept converted material. Still, Sky will consider such programs on an individual basis.

The 3D TV channels lining up on the launching pad in the U.S. haven't signaled own policies.

-Thoughts?

Start voting for your 2003 Awards Circuit Community Awards winners!

Yes, the polls are open, so go here and make your choices. Will The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King dominate like at the Oscars? Can Lost in Translation pull an upset? What will happen? Be sure to vote and stay tuned to find out!
Also on the main page is an article on cinema in the 1970's. It's a great look back, so go here and check it out. It's a must read!
-Thoughts on how ACCA will turn out?

Check out our new Article series, as well as some new reviews!

Yes, we've started a new series of articles called Under the Circuit, in which we profile someone who's yet to receive an Oscar nomination. The first installment profiles Michael Keaton and can be found here. Be on the lookout for lots more of these to come!
We also have a bunch of new reviews for you. We have reviews of Greenberg, The Runaways, Green Zone, and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Go here to see them all and enjoy reading them!
-Thoughts on the new article and reviews?

Exclusive Kick Ass Script Review, 3 Historical Circuits & Can the Oscars Improve?

Yes, in anticipation of next month's release of the film, we have a Script Review of Kick-Ass. While this is no guarantee of how the final product will turn out, it's a good idea of what the movie is like. Check it out here and be on the lookout for more script reviews to come!
We also have an article on how the Oscars can improve themselves, in terms of the show itself. That's found here, so take a gander and leave some feedback!
Moving on, we have some new Historical Circuit reviews for you, so check out those reviews of classic flicks here and sit tight for more in the future.
Finally, keep voting in ACCA 2003 here, as voting is still open!
-Thoughts on the script review, article, historical reviews, and how ACCA will go?

Behold our 2010 Preview article and some new reviews!

If you're curious what to look out for this year, look no further than our annual 2010 preview article, found here. Feel free to let us know what else to include, but enjoy the article regardless, as a lot of work went into it by Myles.
Also, we have a bunch of new reviews for you. Check out our take on The Ghost Writer, From Paris with Love, and The Crazies, along with more reviews hitting soon (including Cop Out and The Exploding Girl), so stay tuned (and check out all the reviews in the database here)!
-Thoughts on the article and reviews?