Two very different trailers for two very different movies… Darren Aronofsky’s (of Pi and Requiem for a Dream fame) upcoming film The Fountain looks very cool. The man doesn’t do light and fluffy movies, that’s for sure. I thought it was a time travel movie until I read somewhere that there are drug use elements to it. That’s all I know and I won’t be spoiling any more for myself before it comes out. You can find the trailer here.
And then there is Steven Spielberg’s next Oscar® contender: Munich. It covers the events following the terrorist attack and murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. As far as I am aware, what happened afterwards was not much-publicized but Munich will be showing us that Jewish leaders recruited a number of regular (ie. non-assassin) men to go after those responsible for those deaths.
It looks like it will be a very powerful (and timely) film. I have no doubt whatsoever that it will be excellent… what will remain to be seen is how the Hollywood community will treat the film and Spielberg come Oscar® time.
You can watch the trailer for Munich here.
‘Anchorman 2′ Trailers Tease the Return of Ron Burgundy’s News Team [Updated] 
Hugh Jackman Reveals Summer Start Date for ‘Wolverine 2′ 
Chris Hemsworth Talks ‘Thor 2′; Mads Mikkelsen Circling Villain Role [Updated] 
‘Walking Dead’ Season 3 Preview Reveals The Prison & Michonne [Updated] 
Loading ...
The trailer for THE FOUNTAIN is at least not cut from the template most other trailers are. That’s nice. And MUNICH looks more interesting to me now that I know it’s about the aftermath of the Olympic event, and not completely about the event itself.
But I’m not sure I understand your closing thought. If Spielberg had never won an Oscar, then maybe a sentence like that would fly… but the man’s won several times. So why does it matter how he and the film are treated at Oscar time?
Funny how movies have become a race for a prize. More people care about box office and awards than they do the actual movies.
Point taken. But you have to admit that the Oscars have a history of “dissing” directors. I’ve always been fascinated how a film can win “Best Picture” without the director winning “Best Director”.
It’s like saying the film was great despite the director’s efforts.
Vic
I agree with Vic, Spielberg won Best Director for “Saving Private Ryan” but the film didnt win Best Picture, I still dont get that until today.
Wow… you got the registered trademark symbol in there and everything! I’m impressed, Vic!
I read that The Fountain consists of several parallel stories spanning the thousand-year time period (or whatever it was). That does sound pretty cool, but Aronofsky’s movies so far have been rough with a capital R. Brad Pitt was attached to that movie for a while, but he dropped out to star in Troy. I’m not sure what to think of that career move. I suppose it could have been worse; he could have starred in Alexander.
Munich looks like it will be really good, but Spielberg’s star seems to be falling as of late. He is no longer the guaranteed hitmaker he used to be, although there is no denying that his talent and creativity have always been evident in all his movies. My past experience tells me that his performance at Oscar® time will have a direct correlation to the movie’s performance at the box office.
Brian
Agreed about SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. That had Best Picture written all over it. SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE? What the hell were they thinking?
Am not sure about Brian’s comment about Spielberg not being a guaranteed hitmaker. How do you define a hit? Box office? If that’s the case, then look at his last few movies:
WAR OF THE WORLDS: $234M (US)
THE TERMINAL: $77M (US)
CATCH ME IF YOU CAN: $164M (US)
MINORITY REPORT: $132M (US)
A.I.: $78M (US)
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN: $216M (US)
AMISTAD: $44M (US)
THE LOST WORLD: $229M (US)
SCHINDLER’S LIST: $14M (US)
Of all of the movies on that list — that list goes back roughly 12 years, I figured that’s enough to qualify for “as of late” — only two of the movies had a US gross that was smaller than their budget (SCHINDLER’s budget was $25M, A.I.’s was estimated at $90M). Even AMISTAD and THE TERMINAL made more at the American box office than it cost to make them.
SCHINDLER’S LIST made a pitiful sum at the US box office, but look at the awards it was nominated for and won at the Oscars:
Best Art Direction (won)
Best Cinematography (won)
Best Director (won)
Best Film Editing (won)
Best Original Score (won)
Best Picture (won)
Best Adapted Screenplay (won)
Best Actor (nominated)
Best Supporting Actor (nominated)
Best Costume Design (nominated)
Best Makeup (nominated)
Best Sound (nominated)
Which would seem to contradict Brian’s past experience about the correlation between box office and Oscar performance…
Jg,
You’ve obviously done your homework. However, keep in mind that just because a movie makes more than its budget doesn’t mean it’s a hit. Back in the 70′s and 80′s, Spielberg had the “Midas touch” with most of his movies. They weren’t just money-makers; they were record-breakers. Not anymore. AI was a major disappointment. Minority Report had the potential to be a record-breaker, but it wasn’t. A box office take of $132 million might be stellar for a fledgling independent director, but for Spielberg (from whom the studios expect far more), that wasn’t good enough.
I didn’t say that every single movie that cleaned up at the Oscars was a major box office success. There are always exceptions, such as the one you mentioned, but the general rule is that movies that succeed at the Oscars in the major categories tend to be box office successes. Schindler’s List was a worthy exception because it was a great movie and because of its subject matter. To give you two examples, Titanic and Shakespeare in Love were both mediocre movies, IMHO, but they did well at the Oscars. Do you really think either film would have won nearly as many Oscars if it hadn’t been a box office success? To me, the Oscars have always seemed like little more than a popularity contest.
Brian
Brian: That’s why I was asking how you defined a hit. Since this isn’t a chat room and you couldn’t answer immediately, I speculated based on the fact that you parallelled Spielberg’s potential Oscar success/failure with the movie’s box office success/failure.
I don’t know if I’d say, though, that because Spielberg isn’t breaking records his ‘star seems to be falling’. There are too many factors involved — ticket prices and the rise of home theatres, to name a couple — to speculate with any kind of accuracy. Box office records are a dime a dozen in recent years.
I will agree, however, that the Oscars do seem to be little more than a homecoming court. Mr. Popular is the king, Miss Cheerleader is the queen, et cetera. Some very deserving but very small movies have been lost in the shuffle.
One of my biggest gripes about awards ceremonies is the habit of rewarding someone who has long been overlooked, whether the current performance deserves it or not. Did Sean Penn deserve the Best Actor for MYSTIC RIVER? Who can say? But he won, and there was much discussion leading up to his win that suggested he deserved to win because he had been overlooked in previous years.
If I recall my history, the Israeli Moussad recruited a team of assasins to hunt down Black September to avenge the murder of the Israeli olympic team. In the hands of a lesser director it might come across as a typical action flick. In the hands of Spielberg, it will be a great film. But what is all this talk of Oscars? Like the Oscars have any credibilty whatsoever. Does anyone recall 11 nominations….0 wins…The Color Purple? Are you telling me that Scorsese has never earned the Best Director award but Redford has? Martin Landau’s performace as Lugosi was more captivating than Jackson’s in “Pulp”? There are other slights but those are the 3 that have permanently left me with a bad taste in my mouth.
As for the box office numbers I would believe that they will closely resemble “Ryan’s” or “Amistad” than Spielberg’s popcorn flicks. This will be a thought provoking and intelligent film and there are just not enough American moviegoers who fit that description.