The Top X list, that staple of American humor, is revived here for your amusement.  The Top X crew noted that, apparently, American Idol ice cream is on sale at a store near you.  Why, we can’t say.  Whether it’s tasty, we don’t know.  All we know are the Top X American Idol Ice Cream Flavors:

10. Clay Aiken’s “Closet Rainbow Sherbet”
9. Paula Abdul’s “Rum Raisin with Methadone Sprinkles”
8. If I’m Being Honest, This Ice Cream Sucks
7. Randy Jackson’s “I’m Feeling You, Dog” (with real dog extract)
6. Cone Deaf
5. Praline Pitchy with Shrillsicles
4. William Hung’s “Unflavored”
3. Cocopaula
2. Delusions N’ Cream

And, filling out his XXXXL jersey at #1:
1. Ruben Studdard’s “Super-Double-Throwdown Extra Chocolate Velvet Teddy Bear #205″

By now you’ve seen the Academy Award nominees (and if you haven’t, why not?).

I hate to say it but I quite like the list. It would have been nice to see films like Children Of Men or Pan’s Labyrinth get more notice, of course, but those films simply opened too late to have any impact. The people predicting both films as Best Picture nominees were living in a dream world. And Little Miss Sunshine seemed more like a decent piece of fluff than an Oscar-calibre film to me, but I would rather solid fluff get nominated than total tripe like Chocolat. Clearly the studios pushing Letters From Iwo Jima, Venus and Half Nelson did their homework, while either the Dreamgirls team failed to do their job or the film really just couldn’t find the love.

In the acting categories, only the supporting actors provided any real surprises. Seeing Mark Wahlberg’s picture on the screen instead of Jack Nicholson’s was shocking, in a good way. I think Jack was fine in The Departed, but he didn’t really fit in with what the rest of the cast were doing; he was in his own little Jack world, doing crazy Jack work. Wahlberg was the classic supporting actor, appearing little, but always making an impact when he did. Kudos to him. Also kudos to the Little Children team for getting Jackie Earle Haley’s name up there. The two lead groupings were as predictable as could be, with the Academy stifling any chance of a Borat bid, or of anyone shaking up the Silver Foxes. And for once, the supporting actress category fell exactly as the consensus predicted. It might all seem a bit boring, but only because we listen to all of the talking heads put these names up there so often that we wind up with expectations. Had none of us paid any attention to the Oscar race until the lovely Salma read off the nominees, we would have been pleasantly surprised by a few of them, I’m sure.

In the Best Picture race, I’m stunned at Dreamgirls’ miss, but only because it seemed to be so perfectly placed. It opened at the right time, had solid reviews, a few guaranteed acting nominations, a Golden Globe win. Really, I think people can be forgiven for thinking it would be nominated. I think most people suspected that Letters For Iwo Jima would manage to push one of the front-runners out, but there was no agreement as to which front-runner was vulnerable. I wouldn’t have been shocked to see The Queen miss, or even Little Miss Sunshine. And in the Directors’ category, those sneaky buggers managed a surprise nomination again, how they manage to do it almost every year is beyond me. That their surprise this year is Paul Greengrass is wonderful. So I understand the decision some people have made to not see the film, I did see it, and found it to be emotionally wrenching, bringing up all kinds of feelings about 9/11 that had been dormant. The film’s impact is entirely thanks to the way Greengrass’ usual barf-cam tricks worked in the confined space of an airliner.

Apart from that, the rest of the categories are fairly predictable. I’m surprised Volver missed not only a screenplay nod, but a foreign-language nod as well! Not that Almodovar’s name guarantees a spot there, but the film has been hailed by all quarters. And it is nice see Children of Men and Pan’s Labyrinth get a handful of technical nominations, there truly were a lot of beautiful films this year.

Tim

Before I get into Lead Actor, here is a small addendum to the previous entry:

One actress who I forgot to mention as a dark horse candidate is Maggie Gyllenhaal for Sherrybaby. I don’t think it will happen. Her film made no money (just over 100k back in October) and only critical types are even mentioning her name, yet who knows, with the right push from the studio, Gyllenhaal could surprise everyone. Including me. Now, back to business.

Most years, the Lead Actor category is full to the brim with strong performances from popular actors, while Lead Actress is a wasteland showing a lack of well-written parts for women. But this year is the exact opposite; we’ve got Meryl vs Judi vs Helen, plus possibly Kate, Penelope, Renee or Naomi, while the men’s side is truly weak. It is nice to see, though I’m sure it is an aberration. A weak year means that actors with smaller pedigrees may finally find enough support to break into the Old Boys Club, and at least one or two of the five nominations will go to those newer faces.

Let’s quickly get this out of the way: Forest Whitaker will be nominated. There is no need to say anything more, he’ll be nominated. Winning every single award on the planet for male lead, including now the Golden Globe can do that for a guy (especially after hearing the crowd cheer at the Globe ceremony).

The consensus seems to be that Will Smith will be up for The Pursuit Of Happyness, Peter O’Toole will get his 8^th nomination, for Venus, and Leonardo DiCaprio will get nominated for something, either Blood Diamond or The Departed. The fifth spot is a matter of contention.

I am happy with the consensus, because it isn’t hard to believe that each of those actors will find a solid level of support. They all earned SAG nominations, their films either reviewed well, made a lot of money, or both. Their performances are uniformly strong (I’m going on word of mouth for O’Toole’s work), though in some cases they hold up what is an otherwise mediocre film (see Pursuit Of Happyness, Blood Diamond). But, I can’t be bothered to write an entry if it is just to list the consensus. So for now, let’s assume that Whitaker, Smith and O’Toole will be #1, 2 and 3 on the list and choose a surprise or two for the rest.

Leo needs some thought: for which film will he be nominated? Blood Diamond got mixed reviews but Leo and Djimon Hounsou earned kudos. The Departed got strong reviews all around, but has a large male cast and Leo could have to fight for votes. However, the key is that Leo will be fighting for those votes in the supporting category, as apparently every star of the film has been pushed there by the studio, and that is where the SAG nominated him. So if Leo is to earn a Lead nomination, it will be for Blood Diamond. For now, let’s place him in there as nominee #4.

There are two, and only two, strong possibilities for the fifth spot: Ryan Gosling (Half Nelson) and Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat). Gosling earned rave reviews as the star of Half Nelson, and earned a SAG nomination as thanks for it, but the film came out awhile ago and his momentum is likely no longer growing. Worrisome as well is the lack of a Golden Globe nod, something that points to a weak promotional effort by the studio. However, even if Ryan Gosling’s total vote count winds up lower than early indicators suggested it could be, I think that enough voters will list him high enough on the ballot that he should still be considered a major challenger.

Sacha Baron Cohen is a textbook example of someone earning fewer total votes, but a higher percentage of top votes. His performance as Borat is a one-of-a-kind phenomenon and everyone knows it, and judging from the crowd’s reaction at the Golden Globes, the man has some fans. If a strong enough subset of voters is impressed with Cohen’s work, they would simply have to list his name on the upper lines of the ballot. The big question is, how many voters were as turned off by the film as others were turned on? I think he gets in, because voters know we won’t see performance that audacious for some time.

There are six names but only five spots. It isn’t possible to truly predict which of them will fail to muster the needed first-choice votes to get in. Ryan Gosling could easily fail. Not enough voters may like the perceived anti-Americanism of Borat. Will Smith could lose momentum. Peter O’Toole could simply not get enough voters, who really can say with a small film like that that has barely played outside of the major population centers. I think only Forest Whitaker can be considered a lock. So since I have to trim the list down to five, let’s bump out Ryan Gosling. The possibility of a Cohen nomination is just too juicy to let go of, and I’m going to stick with it. Expect Ryan Gosling to be left on the outside looking in.

Other minor contenders include Aaron Eckhardt for Thank You For Smoking (too early), Clive Owen for Children of Men (too late), Matt Damon for The Good Shepherd (too long) and Ken Watanabe (never took off).

Tim

Perusing all of the various Oscar prediction websites (OscarWatch, GoldDerby, etc.), I have found one category where there is almost universal agreement over who is to be nominated: Best Actress in a Lead Role. The experts have spoken, and they say that it will be the following five women, no exceptions, and no way that they are wrong:

Penelope Cruz for Volver

Helen Mirren for The Queen

Meryl Streep for The Devil Wears Prada

Kate Winslet for Little Children

Judi Dench for Notes on a Scandal

Now I grant you, this could easily come true. These really are the only actresses who have been mentioned more than once by anyone, they are the five SAG nominees, and I would not bet a single penny that the above list is incorrect. But it sometimes seems that we Oscar lovers come to our conclusions simply because other Oscar lovers have as well, and not based on any actual reasoning. So let’s take a closer look, keeping in mind the Academy’s voting system where an actress would need 16% of first place votes to be nominated (see two posts down for more info on that).

Helen Mirren’s spot has to be assured. She has won virtually every Lead Actress award out there, and there are a lot of them, believe me. The Queen is a favourite of every guild, earning nominations from all of them, and the film revolves around Mirren’s portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II. So let’s assume that we are all correct, and that Helen Mirren will get more first-place votes than anyone else. I have yet to see any compelling reason not to do so.

Meryl Streep has to be next, because, she’s Meryl Streep. She’s been nominated for truly garbage roles (Music of the Heart, anyone?) and this is one of her best performances in a long while, which means she should be assured a spot. However, there may be a small group of voters who list her as a supporting actress instead, which is probably the more correct spot for her. It isn’t likely, since the studios are often insistent on reminding voters of which category is “appropriate”, but it needs mentioning anyway.

Judi Dench is another actress with a history of nominations, often more for bland work (Chocolat) but her work in Notes on a Scandal is juicy and dark, enough to go with the flow and keep her on the list of “probables”.

Penelope Cruz has never been what one would call an Academy favourite, but Volver is unlike any of her Hollywood work. For whatever reason, Cruz is a solid actress is her native Spanish, but in English sometimes just goes off the rails. So with Volver, a big, lush Almodovar picture, Cruz may not get as many total votes as some of the competition, but she will definitely earn enough upper votes to keep her in the game; it is her breakthrough role, something that none of the “Silver Foxes” can claim.

Kate Winslet worries me greatly. Now this is partly because she is my favourite actress in the whole wide world and any perceived snub of Kate is an affront to me. But my worry mostly comes from the fact that at the age of 31, Kate already has four Oscar nominations under her belt. Streep, Dench and Mirren have been lauded before as well, but they’ve all put in some of their best work ever this year, and many voters likely just like to see them still giving their all when so many others from their era have fallen off of the map. I worry that voters will see Kate’s performance (not her best, truly) as something worth listing as a fourth or fifth choice, nowhere near enough to the top to get her in. This leaves her vulnerable to a dark horse candidate with a small number of highly-placed votes, and I’m actually predicting that Kate will be the big snub of the category. Oh, well. I’m sure that they will invite her to be a presenter, at least.

If Kate truly does fall, that means someone will take her spot, and predicting who it will be means thinking about which films are riding momentum right now. Annette Bening’s name had oft been listed in the early days of this Oscar campaign for Running With Scissors, but the film came and went without a peep and the SAG voters would have all seen it in time to judge it. Also, the film has a huge cast, and any support that is out there is likely diffused through them all.

What about Beyonce Knowles? Ah haha, I know. But, remember Chicago? Remember how every single cast member earned a nomination? Oh, wait, Richard Gere didn’t. Ah hahahahaha!!! Sorry, I hate Richard Gere. But, Dreamgirls is in a similar position, and though it is Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson getting all of the kudos, it isn’t impossible for voters to love the film enough to write Beyonce’s name down. Not impossible, but improbable, because if voters feel the need to nominate another female member of the cast, it seems more likely that Anika Noni Rose would be their choice, as unlike Beyonce, she has actually earned positive reviews.

Toni Collette could surprise us all and earn a nomination for her work as the harried mother in Little Miss Sunshine. It is a solid performance, one that anchors the film against the many crazy characters around her, and Lord knows, the film is getting a ton of buzz. I don’t see it happening however, because those anchoring performances tend to be ignored in favour of loonier, flashier fare. If any other cast member will surprise us with a nomination, it would be Steve Carrell.

The Zellwegger is lurking out there with a little film called Miss Potter, in which she plays the title character. Never count the squinty-eyed wonder out, as the Academy voters seem to have a soft spot for her. But did the film get seen? It opened late in theatres, so it will come down to whether the studio got it out there in time. And in the new, shortened period for voters to make up their minds, you would really need a Weinstein to guarantee success in promotion. Oh wait, Miss Potters is being promoted by… The Weinstein Company. Let’s consider Renee a strong, strong dark horse contender.

My last stab at finding a surprise nominee is Naomi Watts, currently starring in The painted Veil with Ed Norton and Live Schreiber. It only just opened and I haven’t seen it, but a glance at the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes shows it to be an old-school period piece, something that Sydney Pollack might have made back in the day. The reviews for Watts are solidly positive and I would have to put her on par with Renee Zellwegger in terms of apparent chances, except that there is no Weinstein attached to her film.

So let us proclaim Renee Zellwegger as our dark horse candidate for the 5^th Oscar nomination, and damn all of the experts who have anointed Kate Winslet has sure to hit the five-timer club. Helen, Meryl, Judi, Penelope and Renee. We’ll know soon enough!

Tim

Previously, I looked at the apparent frontrunners for the Best Director Oscar and separated the “locks” from the vulnerable. Now comes the hard part: figuring out which filmmakers, if any, can find the support to push their way in.

Guessing the dark horse is hard because there are no trends or indicators to use as guides. For instance, it was easy to guess that Marc Forster was vulnerable for his work on Finding Neverland, but how could one safely assume that it would be Mike Leigh who would take his place for his work on Vera Drake? Similarly, Gary Ross was nowhere near being a lock with Seabiscuit, but only a handful of Oscar prognosticators guessed that it would be Fernando Meirelles earning a surprise nomination for his work on City Of God.

Sometimes the dark horse is an eccentric filmmaker (David Lynch, Mulholland Drive) though others of that ilk have failed (David Cronenberg, A History Of Violence). Sometimes the surprise is a big-name foreign filmmaker (Pedro Almodovar, Talk To Her), sometimes simply the director of an uplifting film (Stephen Daldry, Billy Elliott) or even of a weepie melodrama (Lasse Hallstrom, The Cider House Rules). If there is any constant between these lucky few, it must be that their promoters get a great job of making sure that the Academy voters saw their films.

We previously identified Stephen Frears and the duo of Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris as those most at risk of being bumped from the Oscar shortlist. Historically, only one DGA nominee gets bumped, and having just seen Little Miss Sunshine last night, I’m sticking with the idea that Dayton/Faris will be out of luck. We’ll give Stephen Frears a pass.

So who will bump the intrepid directing duo? There is a long list, all of whom are likely to have a small pocket of support amongst Academy directors, but one of whom is likely to reach that crucial 16% level (see previous post for details on that). First up are Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men) and Guillermo Del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth), who along with Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Babel) make up the Mexican Trio that has Hollywood buzzing this year. All three are apparently worthy of recognition (I’m stilling waiting for Pan’s Labyrinth to play here, so can’t directly comment), but it seems as if they are going to attract the same voters. So let’s say that a significant handful of voters list all three on their ballot; could enough of them list Cuaron as #1 and Del Toro #2, or vice versa, to push one of them past Gonzalez Inarritu? It seems likely that since he has already earned a DGA nom and there is so little time between ballots being due for the DGA and the Academy that Gonzalez Inarritu will remain the one member of the Mexican Trio to get through to the Oscar level, while the other two will come up short.

Next we have to consider Paul Greengrass, who made United 93. Lots of people were stunned to not see his name listed as a DGA nominee, judging from various Oscar websites with message boards. But Greengrass’ film came out ages ago, had a small but significant number of detractors, and also has to contend with the presence of another 9/11 film, from a better-known director, Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center. If a voter wanted to list a 9/11 picture, and liked both films, which would they choose? The one they saw ages ago about the plane (to put it in blunt terms) or the more recent one about the Twin Towers? Just like with the news coverage back in those fateful days, the Towers falling get more attention, and so I think Paul Greengrass’ chances were doomed from the start.

So far we have yet to find a convincing argument for anyone to bump out even a weak nominee like Dayton/Faris, but there is obvious one left to talk about: The Clint.

Clint Eastwood has been talked about for months now, with his pair of Iwo Jima films garnering much discussion. Some people loved Flags of our Fathers, many did not. Some people are raving about Letters From Iwo Jima, many have not even seen it. Eastwood has had such a strong string of recent films that many thought he could even be nominated for both films, pulling a Steven Soderbergh, but apparently the DGA isn’t as apt to nominate you based on your name as some feared. We’re left to wonder if Clint vote-splitted (vote-splat?) or if neither of his films is being well-received? I think it is a case of the older directors choosing to vote for Fathers, you know, the one about the American soldiers taking over Iwo Jima and kicking Japan’s butt, and the younger, more left-leaning voters picking Letters because it is (apparently) the better film and also because picking the one told from the Japanese side just feels like a left-wing thing to do. Where I’m going with this is that I don’t think we will see a rallying behind one film or the other; I think Clint is out of luck this year, though perhaps not for Best Picture (we’ll cover that down the road).

Which leaves me with only one last, crazy choice as a dark horse contender, and that is Robert Altman for A Prairie Home Companion. Everyone knows that he never won an Oscar for direction. Everyone knows that he died this past year. Could enough voters look at this year’s crop of frontrunners, like Dayton/Faris, Frears and maybe even Bill Condon, and think “Screw it, I’m putting Robert Altman’s name down”? I think this is a possibility, because I doubt anyone will list Altman’s name on the fifth spot on their ballot. Or fourth. Or third. If a voter writes the name Robert Altman, it will be on the very top line of the ballot, because they will making a statement with their choice. Unlike Clint Eastwood, who will likely be listed in a lot of #2 spots behind Martin Scorsese, or Bill Condon, who will have a lot #2 and #3 votes, Altman’s are #1 all the way. The only question is, am I right that a significant number of directors will want to honour him in this way? We’ll see, but I’m going out on a limb to say that Robert Altman will be 2006’s surprise nominee for Best Director at the Academy Awards.

Thoughts?

Tim

Three days, folks. That’s all the time that remains for directors and their corporate backers to push for some attention from Oscar (The Golden Dude, as Robin Williams memorably tagged him). Because even though the nominees aren’t announced until January 23^rd, those ballots are due by Saturday morning. So for all of you Children of Men fans, and Pan’s Labyrinth supporters, and United 93 enthusiasts, I’ve got some bad news: it ain’t gonna happen.

I know…

I know.

There’s always a chance.

But no.

It’s over.

And I’ll tell you why: because the Directors Guild nominees were announced yesterday. And your guy wasn’t there.

The DGA nominations always come out right around when the Academy Award nominations are due, and thanks to their timing, they provide a certain snapshot of the future. On average, four out of the five DGA nominees move on to Academy Award nominations, and their films, often all five, move on to Best Picture. What can be said about the directors who fail to earn Oscar nods after some DGA love? Well lots, actually, but none of it can be consistently applied to each occurrence. The main thing to consider is the different voting systems of the Guild and Academy. The Guild’s nominees are chosen based on who was listed the most on members’ ballots. The Academy however uses a preferential system where each member can list up to five choices – once a film garners about 16% of the first choice votes, it becomes a nominee (I’d explain the 16% number but it’s not that interesting, trust me). So the accountants drop the films with the lowest #1 votes, and move those ballots to their second choice, etc. until five nominees are determined. This mean that though a film or person can be mentioned often (like Gary Ross, director of Seabiscuit, for instance), if they are seldom listed near the top of the ballot (like Gary Ross, director of Seabiscuit, for instance), they may not become an Oscar nominee.

It’s all about the love, is what I’m saying. Look at the directors who failed to get Oscar nods. Marc Forster for Finding Neverland. Gary Ross for Seabiscuit. Cameron Crowe for Almost Famous. They all kinda feel like fourth choices, don’t they? Compare that to Ang Lee for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Peter Jackson for Return Of The King or Steven Spielberg for Schindler’s List. They all feel like first choices.

This year’s DGA nominees are:

Bill Condon – Dreamgirls

Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris – Little Miss Sunshine

Stephen Frears – The Queen

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu – Babel

Martin Scorsese – The Departed

Do any of those feel like fourth or fifth choices? Try to think of whether a film is heralded because of, or in spite of its director. Babel may have strong performances, but it is Gonzalez Inarritu getting most of the buzz. The Departed is overflowing with strong male performances, but it is Marty getting all of the love. And Dreamgirls? Well okay, Jennifer Hudson is getting most of the love there, but Bill Condon is getting his fair share as well. None of them feel like fifth choices to me.

Stephen Frears may be a third of fourth choice nominee. His name has only occasionally been attached to a heralded film (The Grifters would probably be the last big one), and though The Queen is on everyone’s faves list from 2006, it is because of Helen Mirren, not him. So let’s consider him vulnerable.

Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris are definitely vulnerable. Everyone loved Little Miss Sunshine, but you know why? Because of little Abigail Breslin and the way she closed out the film. They love it because it is a little cinematic treat. Not, at least I think not, because of Dayton & Faris’ direction. So if anyone is getting booted this year, it simply has to be them. But the big question is, will they? We’ll figure that out next…

Tim Chandler

T’was the night before Christmas, when all though the house
Not a creature was stirring, except for a grouse
The tube socks were hung on the lampshade with care
In hopes that Ol’ Santy Claus soon would be there
Little Jimmy was snugly tucked in his dog-bed
While visions of sty-ro-foam danced in his head
And Jimmy in his wood-pile and Jimmy in her cot
Had just gone to sleep, as good Jimmys ought
When down from the street came the sound of a siren
They sprang from their beds to see what was transpirin?
Jimmy flew to the window to see what she could
While Jimmy nervously munched on a big hunk of wood
As she peered through the darkness and into the night
Outside was the flash of a red and blue light
And, what to her shock should she see down below
But a single blue cop car, parked in the snow
With a little old driver, all big, fat and hairy
It must be the Sherriff, their old adversary!
Forcing his girth from the car, he got out
And, raising a megaphone, he started to shout:
“Now Jimmy and Jimmy, you Possible twins!
Ha ha! I bet that you thought that you’d win!
I know that you thought that you had me confounded,
But you’d better come out! I’ve got you surrounded!”
Up in their apartment the two Jimmys sighed
Jimmy opened the window and then he replied
“Our name is IM-possible, you fat stupid boor!
You just don’t listen! We’ve told you before!”
Laughing, the Sheriff said, “Not that old trick!
You two must think I’m as dumb as a stick!
Since you won’t come out,” he said with a grin
While he cocked his gun, “I’ll just have to go in!”
With a thunderous kick he beat down the door
And started upstairs to Jimmy and Jimmy’s floor
The Jimmys grabbed Little Jimmy, his goggles and cape
And ran to the roof to make their escape
They opened the door and ran into the night
When their eyes were met with a fabulous sight
Eight tiny reindeer stood there on the roof
With bells round their necks and on every hoof
Behind them, a beautiful shiny red sleigh
Filled to the brim with gifts for Christmas Day
But Jimmy and Jimmy had no time to waste
They had to hide from the Sheriff in haste!
All out of breath the Sheriff arrived
And behind the sleigh the two Jimmys dived
Madly, the Sheriff was looking around
When he slipped on some ice and fell to the ground
His head hit the roof with an awful loud CRACK
And he lay there, unconscious, stretched out on his back
At first the two Jimmys weren?t sure what to do
But then in an instant they knew, yes, they knew
From the back of the sleigh they took one empty bag
Stuffed the Sheriff inside and stuck on a tag
On it they wrote “From Santa, To Gina
Special Delivery, Destination: Argentina”
And once they had put the bag back on the sled
Downstairs they crept and went right back to bed
But they heard the Sheriff exclaim, as he woke in his sack
“You darned Possible twins! I’ll get you! I’ll be BAAAACK!”

A festive story

So finally HSX has spoken (or, more accurately, EDI) and, lo, it was proclaimed that the Christmas multiplier would 2.9 x (Friday – Sunday). So now we know. But really does anyone care what multiplier is going to be, apart from a bunch of egghead number freaks? If a film is going to be a hit or a flop, it’ll be a hit or a flop irrespective of what multiplier HSX applies. Does the multiplier make any difference?

Yes. Hugely. Allow me to explain.

Talking numbers

The two potential multipliers that could have been applied were 2.5 x (Friday – Monday) and 2.9 x (Friday – Sunday). HSX announced on the Support Board on Ticker Talk that its choice of multiplier would depend EDI, its source of box office data. If EDI reported on the Sunday, it would use the 2.9 multiplier, if EDI reported on the Monday, it would use the 2.5. From that moment on, my money was on a 2.9 multiplier for the simple reason that if EDI reported on the Sunday, the guys who work there would be able to wrap up all their work on Christmas Eve without having to go into work on Christmas Day. A cynical view? Perhaps, but it also proved to be fairly accurate.

There are four big holiday weekend, the tentpoles around the yearly cinematic release schedule is based; Memorial Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas. The thing about holiday weekends is not only that they are bigger than normal weekend, but that they tend to distort standard box office patterns. Cinema going to generally skewed predominantly towards weekends. Over holidays, we may see a second cinema-going bias, towards the holidays. For the purposes of box office analysis, the easiest two holiday weekends to deal with are Memorial Day and Thanksgiving, because they always occur on the same days of the week, so the holiday-going bias is identical from year to year. By contrast, any comparison of the upcoming Christmas weekend with say, last year, would be flawed, because last year Christmas day was a Saturday.

Telling tales

For the last time there was a directly comparable Christmas (i.e. when Christmas Day was a Monday), we have to go back to 1995. Problem is, I don’t have access to accurate figures going back that far, and I certainly don’t have any daily breakdowns. Instead, lets take a hypothetical look at our upcoming Christmas weekend, and then see how far it’s borne out by the available figures.

Friday and Saturday will follow the typical Friday and Saturday path with a big increase in the Saturday take (say, a 30% bump on the Friday numbers). The numbers will be strong, but they Thanksgiving-type blockbuster numbers. The reason? A lot of potential cinema-goers will have other things on their minds, what with Christmas shopping and all those other last minute preparations. Furthermore, the knowledge that Christmas is around the corner, plus possibly days off, means that there isn’t the urgency to see a film at the weekend. This won’t apply so much to kids and teenagers, so expect them to perform better over this first weekend. Sunday will be a bust. Christmas Eve always is. Not only do people have lots of more important things to be doing (figure a lot of them to be travelling, for starters), but also a lot of theatres close up early. The pay-off is Christmas day. It may be a Monday, but the grosses will rival the Saturday, will small drop-offs for the following Tuesday and Wednesday.

Evidence, such as it is

A fun story for all the family, I’m sure you’ll agree, but where’s the evidence to back it up? Let’s take it step by step.

I hypothesised that the box office would not be spectacular because people would have other things to do. In each of the last ten years, the weekend immediately following Christmas Day saw far higher box office takes than the weekend immediately prior to it. Very rarely is that because of new films opening. More often, it’s simply because people have more time to see the existing films.

I hypothesised that the box office would die on Christmas Eve. In 1999, December 24 did see an upsurge from the previous day, but that was because it fell on a Friday. More telling is that fact that the following Saturday the box office rose not by your typical 30% but by (gulp) 144%. In 1998, December 24 was a Thursday. You’d typically expect to see a small drop-off from the prior Wednesday, maybe 5%, maybe less. What did we get? 25.3%. in 1997, December 24 fell on a Wednesday. Again, you’d expect to see a moderate drop-off from the prior Tuesday, albeit, bigger than the drop-off from the Wednesday to the Thursday. What did we get? 42.5%. The drop-off attributable to Christmas Eve is a biggie. I’d suggest that the Sunday figures will be maybe 25% below where they would typically be because of the Christmas Eve effect. That?s on top of the drop you?d expect from Saturday to Sunday. All this implies a typical weekend multiplier of 2.9, rather than the usual 3.1. Bear that in mind when Friday?s numbers come out. Also bear in mind that since the adjust are based on Sunday estimates, this does require a degree of honesty from the studios (thanks Lucian).

I hypothesised that would equal the Saturday figures. And here I’m just hypothesising. But we know that Christmas Day will be big. Check out the grosses for Christmas day as far back as you can. It’s always big. The interesting thing is the couple of days immediately following Christmas Day. They’re also huge.

If the above hypothesis is correct (weak Sunday due to Christmas Eve, very strong Monday due to Christmas Day), using the 2.5 multiplier would result in an adjust 25% higher than using the 2.9 multiplier. As an example, if you think that CASTA can meet it current price of $99 using a 2.9 multiplier, that means would have to expect it could do $50m+ over four days.

The other side to the coin is delist. Now we all know by now that the Christmas release are all big longs post-adjust. The use of the 2.9 multiplier makes that even more overwhelmingly so, and does the fact that there are no big openers scheduled for the following weekend. By the Wednesday or the Thursday, the openers could easily have doubled their opening weekend. Any opener showing a modicum of legs could have grossed its adjust price by the end of the second weekend, with 14 days still to go.

And the moral is

The festive season is not a three day period. It?s closer to a continuous ten day period between Christmas and New Year. The studios know this. That?s why they release their movies at the beginning of the period, rather than on the weekend after Christmas Day. People have far more free time after Christmas Day than before it, so cinema-going is heavily skewed towards the post-Christmas period. However, that doesn?t count towards the multiplier.

Here?s the cliff notes version: This festive season is shaping up to have huge potential. Over the full ten days, it could be (though no guarantees) the biggest festive season ever. However, the most profitable days of the holiday fall entirely outside the adjust multiplier. The effect of this will be to artificially deflate the adjusts for the new openers and to inflate the already-bloated likely delist multipliers.

None of this is conclusive. None of this means that any particular film will automatically adjust above or below its current price. However, it is very good news for shorters, and pretty grim news for anyone holding long. If you want to continue holding long, fair enough. Just ask yourself how much faith you have in the movie.

Whatever you do, make sure you have them long post-adjust.

-Huy

With the last few of my columns on upcoming opening figures proving not-so-helpful, I decided to focus on the upcoming holiday season in a slightly different manner. Rather than talk about the historical November and December opening figures, which may or may not be a good guide in this year of extremes and surprises, I’ll discuss legs.

As Jimmy Impossible noted in his column reviewing November performances, the average legs for November releases are very small (he calculates a 2.62 average multiplier). And, as he will undoubtedly note in his upcoming column reviewing December trends, the average legs for December releases are way up.

However, looking closer, one can actually discern a pattern for legs from weekend to weekend, not just month to month. Examining the legs of November and December releases from the last three years, we will be able to tell just which of the upcoming movies will give the best chances for mega-arb Christmas presents.

[Note: all multipliers are thanks to HSJ's historical database.]

2 weeks before Thanksgiving
1998: I Still Know What You Did Last Summer : 2.18
Meet Joe Black : 2.61
1997: The Jackal : 3.05
The Man Who Knew Too Little : 2.70
1996: The Mirror Has Two Faces : 3.04
Space Jam : 2.66
Looks more or less normal – nothing much to be gleaned here.

1 week before Thanksgiving
1998: Rugrats : 2.68
Enemy of the State : 3.60
1997: Anastasia : 2.96
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil : 3.91
Mortal Kombat 2 : 1.97
The Rainmaker : 3.69
1996: Jingle All the Way : 3.58
Star Trek 8 : 2.50
1995: Bond 17 : 2.98
The thing with this weekend is that the movies get their second weekend (which is the crucial part when it comes to legs) over the Thanksgiving holiday. This explains why, when we exclude the sequels (which usually have low multipliers), we see a lot of multipliers in the 3.5 range, even for middling movies like Jingle All the Way, Rainmaker, and Enemy of the State. (I have no idea why this doesn’t seem to apply for kid films, but there aren’t any this year so it doesn’t matter.) This would seem to bode well for Sleepy Hollow’s post-opening opportunities, especially if it turns out to be as good as it’s letting on in its ads. I listed Bond 17 above – seems that, if the trend holds, Bond 19 won’t be giving much arb either way.

Thanksgiving
1998: A Bug’s Life : 2.09
Babe 2 : 1.77
Home Fries : 1.83
Jerry Springer : 1.69
Very Bad Things : 2.00
1997: Flubber : 1.79
Alien 4 : 1.71
1996: 101 Dalmatians : 1.88
Big suckage here. Not one of the Turkey movies managed to even approach the 2.3 Thanksgiving adjust multiplier, not even the very well-received A Bug’s Life. Time to lower the multiplier, Mac? Anyhow, even if Toy Story 2 and End of Days exceed expectations, look for some large bras . er, anti-arbs.

Weekend after Thanksgiving, aka the Twilight Zone
1998: Psycho : 2.00
1997: None
1996: Daylight : 2.50
The reason most December releases have good legs is due to the huge weekday numbers. However, the weekend after Thanksgiving is too early to really take advantage of the winter breaks. Add the fact that, since it’s a bad weekend for openers, the movies are usually duds, and you get some pretty horrible multipliers. Not that this matters this year, with an empty weekend, but I just thought I’d let you know.

Two weeks before Christmas
1998: Star Trek 9 : 2.66
Jack Frost : 4.39
1997: For Richer For Poorer : 4.06
Home Alone 3 : 4.76
Scream 2 : 2.59
1996: The English Patient : 7.74
Jerry Maguire : 4.86
Mars Attacks : 3.60
The Preacher’s Wife : 5.05
What a change from the week before! Even the franchise sequels don’t fare too badly on this weekend, and if you’re quality you can really get some great legs here. Can anyone say The Green Mile? I knew you could. It seems that even dumb comedies like Deuce Bigalow can have some semblance of longevity on this weekend. Liberty Heights, Cradle Will Rock, and Ride With the Devil all hope to duplicate the staged release success of The English Patient.

‘Twas the Week before Christmas, and all through the multiplex.
1998: You’ve Got Mail : 4.89
The Prince of Egypt : 5.16
1997: Mouse Hunt : 7.55
Titanic : 6.91
Bond 18 : 4.11
1996: Beavis & Butthead : 2.92
My Fellow Americans : 7.01
One Fine Day : 5.99
Scream : 7.88
This is the mother lode weekend when it comes to legs. Stuart Little seems like the best candidate for mega-arb when you consider the success of Mouse Hunt in that department, but Anna and the King and Bicentennial Man are sure to be buys after adjust as well. Normally, small ports shouldn’t bother with trying for arb until near delist, but with the large amounts of virtually guaranteed money available after this weekend, one would be hard-pressed finding better and safer investments.

Christmas weekend
1998: Patch Adams : 3.91
Stepmom : 3.76
The Faculty : 3.03
Mighty Joe Young : 3.81
1997: American Werewolf in Paris : 2.25
Amistad : 3.68
As Good as It Gets : 4.17
Jackie Brown : 2.84
Mr. Magoo : 2.94
The Postman : 2.54
1996: The Evening Star : 3.15
Michael : 3.58
Good but not great. Note that multipliers for stinkers are back down where they belong, and that it’s usually the uplifting and/or light and frothy stuff that get the decent legs here (Amistad had legs only due to subsequent expansion); I don’t think Any Given Sunday and The Talented Mr. Ripley fall into this category, although Man on the Moon and Galaxy Quest might. There really isn’t anything to compare Next Friday to. (Maybe, if it disappoints, one could lump it in with American Werewolf in Paris as another sequel to a cult classic? OK, maybe not.)

If any time besides Christmas ever screamed genre movies, it is Halloween. When better to unleash a slew of movies to scare us senseless, then on the scariest day of the year. But is that really what studios do? It appears so this year, with the full-blown horror-fest “The House on Haunted Hill” (THOHH) being released two days before All Hallows Eve. But one horror flick, a non-horror Wes Craven movie (HEART) and a slew of limited films, do not a horror marathon make.

Do the studios know something that we don’t? Is there a track record of under performance by horror films at this time of the year? Let’s take a look.

1991

Halloween falls on a Thursday. So, more then likely, Halloween parties follow that weekend. (The previous weekend sports no hits, with House Party 2 winning the weekend with 6.03 mil.)

Five films open on November 1st, but only one is a horror film. Wes Craven’s “The People Under The Stairs”. And it brakes no box office records, winning the weekend, but with only 5.52 mil.

1992

Halloween falls on a Saturday. The biggest slag against a film opening when Halloween falls on Friday or Saturday is that no one is going to be going to the movies with all the parties happening. Sunday is a little different, but, more than likely the parties are still on Friday and Saturday night.

One film opens. “A River Runs Through It”. Maybe a horror to watch, but hardly horror. (Interesting to note that, if Halloween killed its opening, it may have “intensified” its legs. An amazing 5.60 delist multiplier, after only opening to 4.25. The ghouls and goblins who were too busy haunting on Halloween may have filtered into the theatres the next few weekends.)

1993

Here we go…Halloween falls on a Sunday. Studios are again weary. One non-horror film, “Fatal Instinct” opens to a paltry 3.5 mil.

1994

Halloween Monday. Parties are probably the weekend before.

Studios are a little braver, opening four films. Basically trash, and one big genre piece…but the wrong genre. The sci-fi extravaganza “Stargate” opens well to 15.65 mil. A nice total. Perhaps the dispersal of parties over several nights, and a normal Sunday take, helped this one.

Also of note, is the fact that it’s not like the studios don’t have the films they need. Within a month or so before or after Halloween, several horror films opened:

• -> 1991 – Freddy’s Dead: Final Nightmare
• -> 1992 – Candyman, Dr. Giggles, Hellraiser 3:Hell on Earth, Bram Stoker’s Dracula
• -> 1993 – Nightmare Before Christmas (pushing it, but doesn’t this just look like it should be released on Halloween?), Warlock: The Armageddon
• -> 1994 – Puppet Master V, Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Interview With A Vampire
• -> 1995 – Halloween: Curse of Michael Myers (if anything should be released on Halloween…)
• -> 1996 – Thinner
• -> 1997 – I Know What You Did Last Summer
• -> 1998 – Urban Legend, Bride of Chucky, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer

1995

Halloween Tuesday. The decision when to hold the party gets a little tougher, but I’d say the weekend before. And so do the studios.

Four films open, with the horror/comedy “Vampire in Brooklyn” (by Wes Craven…you’d think he was John Carpenter the way he is so synonymous with Halloween) finishing second to “Powder”, losing 7.15 to 7.02 mil, in spite of the fact that “Brooklyn” crushed “Powder” in screen counts 2307 to 1592.

1996

Thursday again. After burning “Thinner” (5.68) the weekend of the 25th, November 1st saw almost the anti-thesis of horror released with “Romeo and Juliet”. It grossed a respectable 11.63, while the other three films fail to make 8 mil combined.

1997

Halloween falls on a Friday…interesting. and not a horror film to be seen. “Red Corner” wins the weekend with 7.4 mil.

1998

Our most recent example falls on a Saturday. “John Carpenter’s Vampires” opens to 9.11 mil on only 1793 screens. A decent per screen average of 5081, but hardly spectacular.

So, hard to say what this holds for THOHH, but prior box office doesn’t indicate anything great. Now, most people (‘cept that silly ole Grendel) think THOHH actually looks fairly scary and could do well.

Positives: scary ads; little competition from the returning film BATS.
Negatives: no star power; with Halloween on Sunday, parties will be spread over both Friday and Saturday and Sundays box office will be hurt severely.

A tough call. VMPRS definitely looked like it had more potential last year. It will be interesting to see screens for THOHH, after BATS got an obscene 2540.

Off with their hot pants!
Jimmy Impossible