“Avatar,” the film a few of us here at the Playlist hopes will tank hard, is not 3 hours long as previously reported. According to Bruce Snyder, president of domestic distribution for 20th Century Fox, the film will be about 156 minutes long, including credits and Leona Lewis’ song. That length will allow for about five showings per day per screen which is crucial to Fox who need this insanely (over)budgeted film to break even at some point in the next decade. Theater owners are being asked to commit eight weeks to the film, but of course, that all depends on if audiences care. But just as importantly, the running time comes in under the 170 minute maximum allowable length when projected through the IMAX system. When working on the final edit, James Cameron apparently had that number as his target, and his final edit still leaves some breathing room. So does that mean we can expect an extended cut like “T2,” “Aliens” and “The Abyss” when this thing finally hits home video? Probably. We’re just glad we’re not going to have to wear those uncomfortable 3D glasses for three hours.
The on again off again financial drama over at MGM continues. In short, within the past couple of months, reports have beeing flying around that the studio is about to go on the auction block, with more reports following a day later that they’ve been given a reprieve. We’ve barely been able to keep up with it. According to the latest news, the studio has until January 30th to get a plan together but by the time this goes live, that may change. Through all of this Warner Brothers has been drooling over MGM’s video catalog, which they already own a huge part of via Turner Entertainment. They are apparently pairing up with MGM for some kind of 85th anniversary promotion that will “temporarily reuniting the legendary library to make some of the greatest movies of all time available in the digital space.” We guess that means they’re putting up a bunch of stuff at the iTunes store. But it’s generally being seen as a sign that Warner Brothers wants MGMs post-1952 United Artists library, their hundreds of titles from Orion, American-International and the old Samuel Goldwyn Company, and video rights to titles from Embassy, Castle Rock and Selznick International catalogs. All valuable stuff, and certainly a gesture of helping the financially strapped MGM get some of those films released digitally puts WB in their good books. Of course, Warner Brothers is relying more and more on their Warner Archive to release classic films, so if they do get control of MGM’s library, this isn’t great news for film fans, but its an even sadder state of affairs, that Warner Brothers diminishing treatment of classic titles is still the best among all the big time studios.
In the wake of online backlash at his outlandish prediction that “Inglourious Basterds” was going to win Best Picture, Tom O’Neil has posted a spirited defense, and claims that so many of us are going to eat crow when he’s proven right come March. Whatever O’Neil. You’re still a reterd. We have nothing against “Inglourious Basterds,” and fully expect it to pick up some nominations, and yes, with ten-wide field, it’s not out of the question that it will be nominated for Best Picture. But there is no way in hell it’s going to win. Sorry.
Remember Rowan Atkinson? Remember “Johnny English”? Yeah, we barely do either, but Working Title are ready to suit up Atkinson once more to play the bumbling secret agent. There was a time when we dug Atkinson’s antics (“Blackadder” and the years when “Mr. Bean” was more of a naive innocent and not just a man-child asshole), but the guy seems to have run himself into a rut. Dredging up a character from seven years ago to make a sequel no one is asking for? We guess he needs some easy cash. There’s no doubt he’s still a very strong international draw, but Rowan, where did your passion go?
Why do you guys want the film to tank so hard? It would stop the technology and advancement of cinema dead in it's tracks and destroy Cameron, possibly preventing him from making films again.
I think Kevin may want it to tank. I don't want it to tank. I don't want any movie to tank unless there's been some major bullshit going on where someone deserves a bullet in the head (can't even think of the last time that happened).
I personally don't really care either way. but my instinct is that it's pushing movies too far into a direction that doesn't interest me that much.
anyway that said, Cameron is a major league assehole, maybe not a bullet to the head, but a kick in the pants wouldn't be unwarranted at this point.
I want it to tank, not out of any hatred for Cameron, but mostly because I think it's appalling for a studio to spend at least $300 million dollars on anything. "Avatar" has to be a bonafide blockbuster to turn a profit and there's no wiggle room. It's the worst form of gambling, and if (and when) it fails it makes things bad for filmmakers both big and small. I think if it fails it will hopefully (though I doubt) send a message across Hollywood that you can just dump a truckload of money into a picture and expect to get it back.
All that said, I will be the first one to champion the film if its great, but I'm not holding my breath.