In this morning’s roundup of movie news ‘n’ notes from around the web, it’s judgment day for highly-paid actresses, 3D movies, and talking animals.
Are moviegoers, and studios, getting their money’s worth? Perri Nemiroff looks at Forbes’ list of the highest-paid actresses, and judges whether the quality of their work earns the paychecks they get. She thinks the list “starts out on a decent note” with Oscar-winner Sandra Bullock, but goes thumbs-down on Reese Witherspoon, Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Aniston and Sarah Jessica Parker, who make up the rest of the top five. (“How can these ladies be making so much when there’s far better talent out there deserving of a higher paycheck”) But she likes some of the next five (Julia Roberts, Angelina Jolie, Drew Barrymore, Meryl Streep) and reserves special kudos for number 10, Kristen Stewart, who she says masks “some serious talent” by moping through the “Twilight” movies. (Cinematical)
Michael Cieply notices that a lot of people in Hollywood aren’t terribly enamored of 3D. “[A] rebellion among some filmmakers and viewers has been complicating the industry’s jump into the third dimension,” he says, mentioning the hostile reception the format received at Comic-Con, and the reluctance of directors like Joss Whedon and J.J. Abrams to embrace 3D. (For theWrap’s take on this, see “3D at the Box Office: Down, Down Down” and “No ‘Avatar’ in 3D’s Next Wave”) For now, he says, the added costs of filming in or converting to 3D are “a blip” when measured against the extra 20 percent that his studio sources say a 3D film grosses. But as more and more films come out with those 3D surcharges – 60 over the next two years, Cieply says – can that 20 percent really hold? (The New York Times)
Trend or coincidence? Carl DiOrio looks at the dismal box-office returns for “Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore” and “Marmaduke,” and wonders if the problem lies with those particular movies, or with the entire talking-animal genre. “Furry animal movies can certainly gross,” insists one anonymous studio executive, whose confidence apparently doesn’t go so far that he wants his (or her) name mentioned. (Reuters via Yahoo! Movies)
Kara Warner writes that Adam Shankman and Ryan Murphy may team up to produce the “2011 Oscars,” but does she really know what she’s saying? At the premiere of “Step Up 3D,” she asked Shankman, who oversaw the Oscars with Bill Mechanic earlier this year, if he’d be up for producing “again next year” – and while he initially dodged and riffed on the question, he ended up saying that he would do the show again, and that Murphy was interested as well. But it can’t be next year, because Shankman knows full well that those producers have already been chosen. (Bruce Cohen and Don Mischer are doing the honors.) On the other hand, in Academy parlance the “2011 Oscars” are the ones that take place in early 2012, so maybe there’s some truth to it after all … (MTV.com)
