Oscar Bait, Low-Budget SciFi and 3D Longevity - It's the Return of John Scalzi's Mailbag!
I think I caught some sort of bug (as in "flu," not as in "insect" or "small alien creature that will devour me from the inside, leaving only a squishy husk"), and that bug is making it difficult for me to string together thoughts longer than a couple of paragraphs. You know what that means: To the mailbag!
First question:
This year the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences announced it was doubling the number of nominees for the Best Picture Oscar. Does this mean a science fiction movie might actually have a chance this year?
It's funny; I think one of the reasons that the Academy is doubling up on nominees this year is because The Dark Knight didn't make the cut last year, which surprised a number of people, including me. And I do think we're going to see more of a range in this year's nominees. That said, so far this year the science fiction movies are not really grabbing me as Best Picture contenders, even with the expanded nominee slots.
Of the movies already released, the only two I think are within hailing distance are District 9 and Moon, both of which come with problems. District 9 is gory and its story construction is all over the board; Moon simply hasn't been seen by enough people, and it's likely to be swamped by everything else. Up has a reasonable chance, although I think it's only glancingly science fictional (and is a lock for Best Animated Feature anyway). Looking to the rest of the year, if Avatar A) does immense box office, and B) has a story that's halfway decent, it has a shot, not the least because director James Cameron has been there before.
Otherwise, I think the real beneficiary of this expansion will be The Hangover, on which I'm laying down a marker as even odds to get onto the ballot. You heard it here first.
Next question:
Science fiction movies are usually big and expensive these days, so I was wondering if you can think of some good, really cheap scifi flicks.
Well, this year, Moon fits that bill: It was made for something on the order of $5 million (and has made just under that in the theaters, which suggests it might be profitable when it goes to DVD). One of my all time favorite examples, however, is 28 Days Later. It was made for $8 million, looks like it was made for $50 million, and brought in $80 million worldwide in theaters, which makes it staggeringly profitable.
If neither of these is cheap enough for you, my ace in the hole is 2003's Primer, a clever little time travel story which did well with critics (72% at Rotten Tomatoes), won an award at Sundance, and reportedly cost $7,000 to make. It made only $474,000 at the box office, but that's still a mind-blowing return on your investment. I also suspect it's not actually possible to do science fiction more cheaply and have it be considered any possible flavor of "good," but I'm willing to be convinced.
Final question of the day:
3D: It's been tried before and it's failed every time. How much longer will we have to endure it this time?
If you're of the opinion that 3D flicks are to be endured rather than enjoyed, then I've got some bad news for you: 3D is here to stay this time. Unlike previous go-rounds, neither theaters or movie studios are treating it as a fad; theaters are rehabbing screens to project 3D using modern processes, and studios are announcing entire slates in 3D, most notably Dreamworks Animation, which has announced that all its releases from 2009 on would be in 3D. And of course there's Avatar.
That said, I do think in the reasonably near future we'll see some significant 3D flops, and studios will remember the trick doesn't help when your movie is unwatchable in the first place. I also strongly suspect that 3D will stay in particular genres. It's a no-brainer for computer animated movies, and it could add a little extra spice to adventure, action and (yes) science fiction -- all genres, incidentally, with huge production budgets that would benefit from the surcharge theaters typically add to 3D ticket prices. I don't really see it making many inroads into, say, historical dramas or most comedies because in those cases it doesn't really add anything, and those audiences generally wouldn't want it anyway.
So if you're a hater, stick to historical dramas and comedies.
Winner of the Hugo Award and the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, John Scalzi is the author of The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies and the novels Old Man's War and Zoe's Tale. He's also Creative Consultant for the upcoming Stargate: Universe television series. His column appears every Thursday.
Last comment first, with regard to 3D comedy -- perhaps an SCTV movie where their fake 3D actually works. (It won't happen, but I can dream, can't I?)
And about your prediction that The Hangover gets nominated -- you're dreaming. When it comes to Best Picture nominees, MPAAS tends to get all snooty, which means Hangover has about a snowball's chance in Hell of getting nominated in that particular category. A) it's a comedy, B) it's a tawdry (funny as hell, but still tawdry) comedy, C) it has Mike Tyson in it, and D) did I mention it's tawdry? Ain't gonna' happen (but wouldn't it be fun if it did?)...
One interesting (and almost unbelievable) note about that Primer, is that the $7K shooting budget includes film stock. The director insisted that it not be shot on video so as to give the shooting a sense of urgency and immediacy.
Up! would seem to also be SF-ish and in the running for Best Picture, although it's presumptive annihilation of all other Best Animated Picture contenders may prevent that.
And while I love The Hangover as only someone who spent the morning after a Vegas bachelor party tracking down and returning a stolen artificial leg can, you are dreaming if you think it has a chance at a Best Picture nomination.
studios will remember the [3D] trick doesn't help when your movie is unwatchable in the first place.
I think your flu has clouded your judgment. The studios certainly didn't learn this lesson when it comes to CGI. I see no reason to assume that they will learn it this time out. Especially considering that surcharge you mentioned and the fact that they can first release the 2D version to DVD and then the 3D version 6 months later. All of that will help even bad movies make more money, so there's little incentive for the studios to prefer story over gimmick.
Also, while it is fantasy rather than science fiction, I would think Coraline has a chance to sneak into the expanded list. It won't win if it does, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it on the list.
I'd argue "Cube" is a good example of decent low-budget sci-fi. It's not a film for the ages or anything, but it was reasonably entertaining, and looked like it was made for a lot more than its $350,000 budget.
Actually, come to think of it, Star Wars is practically a low-budget indie flick by today's standards. Its original budget was about $8 million, and Francis Ford Coppola had to go to 20th Century Fox to plead with the studio to give Lucas another $2 million to finish it. In retrospect, a pretty good investment decision.
I think 3D is here to stay too. I don't have a problem with that - if it can be used to good effect as it was in Coraline. Much as I didn't like My Bloody Valentine (the remake), the gimmicky 3D worked really well in it and, I think, is best used in horror - hopefully someday it will be used for good horror movies. But using 3D for the first 15-20 minutes of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was just a waste of money, for the production and the audience. I enjoyed the movie but regretted shelling out a few extra dollars for the "IMAX 3D experience" - it added nothing to the movie.
I've seen Moon twice in the theatre, and was impressed at how well it held up during a second viewing. They did a good job creating a lived-in habitat. And after the second viewing I decided I really needed to buy the relentless and interesting soundtrack CD -- especially after the main theme showed up as bumper music on an episode of This American Life on NPR a couple of weeks ago -- and had a helluva time getting one out of Amazon because they kept on having trouble keeping it in stock. Interesting...
Dr. Phil
dr-phil, I'm with you on Moon. Saw it a few weeks ago and was very pleased with it. As soon as it's available on DVD, it's going to be in my greedy little hands. It's really a shame that not more people have seen it, which is why I hope it does get an Oscar nod, as unlikely as that might be. If it gets a nomination, it'll bring it into the forefront of the public's attention. Hopefully Sam Rockwell will get a nomination too - he freaking deserves it and his performance falls perfectly into what the Academy likes, even if it isn't exceptionally showy.
I'm fine with 3D so long as they don't fill the films with gratuitous 3D scenes of things flying at the screen for no other reason than to justify making the film 3D in the first place. If it makes sense in the story, so be it.
That said let me grumble about the re-release of Toy Story 1&2 in 3D.
grumble grumble.
Question: You mention that Moon hasn't been seen by enough people to be in the running for an Oscar. However, I often perceive Oscar nominees as obscure. Do I just live under a rock? Or are there certain kinds of movies that don't need to be seen by many people in order to get nominated?
Primer was a terrific little movie. I remember it came on cable one night, and 40 minutes later I'm wondering how the hell I'd never heard about this before.
District 9 was the most inventive sci-fi movie I've seen since Alien. The "documentary style" was done well, sort of a cross between "The Office" and "Cloverfield." It had a great look, and the aliens were both menacing and pathetic.
But mainly, when is the last time ANY movie had a main character who starts off so repulsive, and has the audacity to make him the hero?
I think Moon is definitely going to be on the Oscar ballot. From what I've heard, it was a critical hit.
@Erica It's not just you!
The only thing I hate about the new 3D wave is the inflated cost of the ticket. I enjoy seeing a movie in 3D, but I just don't feel it adds as much value as they are charging.