Tim Burton's 'Alice in Wonderland' a key battleground as Disney fights pirates?

Disney have apparently told the UK’s biggest film exhibitors that they are shortening the time between the theatrical and home entertainment releases of the new 3D Tim Burton film ‘Alice in Wonderland’. Apparently the standard length of theatrical exclusivity is 17 weeks, which Disney have plans to cut to 12. Needless to say, the UK’s biggest cinema chains have not been impressed and are holding their ground, threatening to boycott the film entirely unless Disney reverse their stance. The Odeon and Vue chains have apparently taken the step of removing all trailers and promotional materials from their cinemas, as well as putting a hold on the buying of advance tickets. Cineworld is still advertising the film, but is also understood to be rebuking Disney’s deal.

What is the big deal? Well, distributors, understandably, don’t want to see the gap narrow between the theatrical run of a movie and its home video release, as it increases the likelihood that many may wait and catch the film on DVD rather than go to the cinema. With two adult tickets (or maybe just one for a 3D film) usually being equal to the price of a new DVD, which can be endlessly re-watched with as many people as you like, it isn’t hard to see why waiting for the DVD would become increasingly appealing if the gap were to narrow. Disney, however, have taken the view that most films have stopped showing in cinemas after 12 weeks anyway, and that denying people who wish to own the film a legitimate way to do so for a couple of months may play into the hands of pirates. A fair point, I think.

Of course, this dispute will likely be resolved one way or the other in time for ‘Alice in Wonderland’ to open across the country. I’m sure all this grandstanding ultimately won’t prevent the Odeon from showing Johnny Depp in 3D, with all the potential revenue that brings, whilst Disney won't want to forfeit a projected £40 million UK box office. But regardless of which side wins this battle, it seems clear that it will not signify the end of the war. If Disney sees this as a potential way to schedule all releases in the future then that could very well spell big problems for the exhibition industry, especially once the 3D capable televisions have taken that particular cinema-exclusive novelty into the home later this year.

Anyway, if the Odeon aren't showing the trailer at the moment, allow me to exhibit it here:



For more information on this story read the original Reuters news story or the article on the Guardian website.

Why I still care about the Oscars

Unfortunately a technical error has delayed the latest ‘Splendor Cinema/Duke of York’s’ podcast. In it, Jon and I, discuss the Oscar nominations predicting who should win and who will win. It should be up this week. However, there are friends of mine who would question the wisdom of devoting as much (or any) attention to the Oscars. Some really hate the Academy Awards and will say that they don’t care who wins on the big night. To them, I say, there are so many reasons to care.

Obviously the Academy Awards can rarely be looked at as the definitive summary of that year in film, especially as they ignore foreign language film in the major categories to such a degree. But the awards are of interest because they interest the industry itself. It matters who wins because they will find it easier to get work, and if a film you like wins an Oscar then more people will be encouraged to go to see it. OK, ‘Avatar’, a likely winner of Best Picture this year, doesn’t need a boost to its box office. But imagine if ‘A Serious Man’ won. It would probably more than double the number of people who see that film. In 2008, when Paul Thomas Anderson was nominated for Best Director, I was thrilled, because that sort of recognition counts for something in Hollywood. Maybe he’ll find it a little easier to make his next film, or to attract the actors he wants or whatever. I care if films I like win awards because I want to see more films like them. Mostly though, I cover the Oscars, not because of what they say about art, but because they impact upon cinema as a business in a way BAFTAs, Golden Globes and SAG awards just don’t.

In an earlier post I predicted who I thought would be nominated this time around (and was fairly accurate). Today I thought it would be a bit of self-indulgent fun to hand out my own awards for last year in film. Now, if I were a one-man award academy, ‘A Serious Man’ would win Best Picture, with ‘The White Ribbon’ and ‘A Prophet’ nominated in the category. I would also include the mumblecore gem ‘Humpday’ and the brilliant British satire ‘In the Loop’. The Best Director would be Lars Von Trier (already self-proclaimed greatest in the world: why not make it official?) for ‘Antichrist’, the beautiful and haunting movie that became so notorious last year. ‘In the Loop’ would win the screenplay award it so richly deserves (and is really nominated for) and ‘Ponyo’ would win Best Animated Film (for which it isn’t even a nominee). In terms of actors, I would award Michael Stuhlbarg and nominate Max Records (the little boy from ‘Where the Wild Things Are’). Both are intense and interesting screen performers. The actress category would be won by Carey Mulligan, for ‘An Education’, who is deservedly actually nominated outside of this fantasy.

If, somehow, you aren’t all Oscar-ed out by now, stay tuned for the aforementioned podcast later this week to hear Jon and I predict the winners and losers for the real event.

Armageddon as directors top Hollywood rich list for 2009

An interesting fact emerges from this year’s Vanity Fair “top Hollywood earners” list: the top five places go to directors. Todd Phillips comes in at five, fresh from directing ‘The Hangover’ (subject of a recent Oscar snub), a surprise hit which must have seen Phillips claiming a proportion of the box office gross to earn his reported $44 million last year. At four, Jim Cameron (subject of Oscar buzz), comes in with some of that sweet ‘Avatar’ money. ‘Avatar’ was only released in the last couple of weeks of 2009, so Cameron’s place at four on this list shows just how much money he/that film has made in such a short space of time. I’d expect Cameron to be at the top of next year’s list with the same film. Three sees Roland Emmerich taking $70 million home for directing the disaster movie ‘2012’ (never linked to Oscars). Emmerich is probably another one seeing a healthy proportion of the box office as part of his fee.

That leaves, in second and first place, respectively, father and son duo (as pictured) Spielberg and Bay. They have (depressingly) been raking it in from the recent ‘Transformers’ movies. Say what you will about ‘Avatar’, but it is a coherent film at least – and with its heart in the right place. Michael Bay reportedly made $125 million last year so it's no wonder he doesn’t care what people say about his films. The full break down of this figure is available in the original Vanity Fair article, but interesting highlights include: $75 million from directing/producing the film, $25 million from sales of the DVD (yes, if you bought it, you’re lining his pockets, happy?) and $12.5 million from toys and video games etc.

I really, really wanted to come at this list from the perspective that, regardless of who they were and what they had made, directors had claimed the top five places in this poll, where usually actors dominate (as indeed they dominate the remaining thirty-five places). The thing is that there isn’t really a single person on the list who is there because they directed a film: rather all the directors on the list are also producers. Or they made $50 million from theme parks last year (Steven Spielberg).

Anyway, check out the entire top 40, and all the details therein, here.

It's official: 'Avatar' IS the king of the world

How about that then? 'Avatar' has overtaken 'Titanic' to become the highest grossing movie of all time. Of course, the ticket prices have gone up since 1997 (and 3D ticket prices cost even more) so this doesn't necessarily mean more people have seen 'Avatar' (yet), though I'm sure it's still got time. After all, it has only been out for six weeks and it will get a boost after it wins all the Oscars in March. It may even benefit from increased replay value due to the fact that we are yet to have true 3D in our homes, with some seeing this as the last chance to experience the film in this way.

I didn't think 'Avatar' would be as popular as 'Titanic'. Sure it has had a lot of publicity and then there is the 3D which will have peaked a lot of people's curiosity, but 'Titanic' arguably had an equal balance between romance, action and historical interest, whereas 'Avatar' is more skewed towards the action. Well, I was very wrong indeed, and not for the last time, I'm sure. Whatever you think of the film it has surely been good for the industry and should be praised for getting people into cinemas at least.

Apparently it is the first part of a planned trilogy. Will it go the way of the 'Star Wars' prequels where the first film grossed the highest and people didn't come back for more? Or will it do what Pirates of the Caribbean and Lord of the Rings have done and gross more and more with each release? In other words, will James Cameron have the top four highest grossing movies of all time on his hands in the next decade? We will have to wait and see. We shall also have to wait and see how 'Avatar' affects the world of film production in general. Will Hollywood studios greenlight a whole raft of 3D, live-action movies in the next few years? Is 3D here to stay? I'm sure the debate about the future of 3D movies has really only just begun.
My short review of 'Avatar' was published on the Splendor Cinema blog and can be read here.