The latest Eddie Murphy comedy, Meet Dave, debuted at a dismal 7th place this past weekend with only $5.3 million (on Monday it had already dropped down to #8), marking the worst wide-release opening for the actor since The Adventures of Pluto Nash. Can you spot the connection between these two movies? If you noted that they’re both sci-fi comedies, you’re smarter than the average movie exec, apparently. After comedy subgenre failures like Pluto Nash and Vampire in Brooklyn, you’d think producers would have known better than to cast the broad comedy star in something like Meet Dave. Actually, its distributor, Fox, may have started growing wise to the issue when it threw away the original title, Starship Dave.

A few writers have now addressed some of the reasons why Meet Dave failed, and it should be clear how to avoid such a bomb in the future. At the L.A. Times, Patrick Goldstein argues the sci-fi comedy case, though figured out the subgenre can sometimes go blockbuster, as the Men in Black movies show us. He also notes all the horrible crap that Fox has been putting out lately, displaying how shocking it is that this particular film did so much more poorly than garbage like Alvin and the Chipmunks and even What Happens in Vegas. Still, there seems to be some debate over whether or not Meet Dave suffered from actually being a sci-fi comedy or from Fox’s failure to own up to the fact and market it as such.

…Read more

Oh, I’m so naive to be shocked by this:

Movie studios traditionally spend up to $25 million a year per nominated film in an attempt to secure Hollywood’s highest honor. This time around, Fox Searchlight (”Little Miss Sunshine,” “The Last King of Scotland”) and Paramount (”Babel,” “Dreamgirls”) are leading the pack. With marketing budgets commonly running around $40 million to $50 million for high-profile films, that extra $25 million smarts. But many studios feel it’s worth it.

The above is from an article in yesterday’s Daily News, called “The business of Oscar.” It seemed like a fitting, albeit depressing, follow up to Monday’s post about the push to get Half Nelson star Ryan Gosling a best actor nomination. No wonder our “who-we-think-should-win” and “who-we-think-will-win” lists rarely line up.

Hopwood DePree, screenwriter and co-founder for the Waterfront Film Festival, wraps up Sundance. Paul, Dave and Kevin debate questions like, who is The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? How do they pick a winner? Are losers chosen so they make better films? What is up with Dreamgirls among other bizarre anomalies of the 2007 Oscars?

Download FilmCouch #5 or subscribe to FilmCouch in the iTunes store (search for “filmcouch” or click here to launch iTunes) and a new free episode will download every Friday.

Although she must be burnt out from Sundance, Anne Thompson put together a nice Oscar nomination analysis on her Risky Business blog.

Here are my main two thoughts about the nominations and her post:

- It’s fascinating that a film like Dreamgirls can get eight nominations, including best actor and best actress, but not get nominated for best picture (or director or writer, for that matter). Each year at this time, when I’m puzzling over the system, I tend to be a bit surprised that it’s not more of a science. Then I remember that falling in love with a person isn’t a science–why should our love for a movie be something calculated? (But, on the other hand, when you compare two best picture nominations–Babel and Letters from Iwo Jima, with seven and four nominations respectively–you have to admit that Babel seems a more likely and deserving pick. Sure makes it seem kind of mathematical.)

- Secondly, when I think of this ideal I have–this inexplicable but genuine falling in love with a film–I quickly snap back to this reality: The Oscars, while not a science, are, in many ways, a game. (Yes, I’m well aware love can be a game, too, but the best love isn’t.) In her post today, Anne Thompson references the Clint Eastwood/Warners “Oscar strategy,” and the “trick with foreign films.” Ah, yes. There are strategies and tricks involved. I can’t help it, though. I want to be a purist. I want the film that wins Best Picture to win because, as Thompson says, it is “beloved.”

Our friend Dodd, known as “moviedodd” on Spout, shares with us a bit of what he’s thinking about just hours before the Academy Award nominations are announced. Dodd, who also wrote a Halloween-inspired post for us a few months ago, is a student at Ohio University, where he’s finishing up an M.A. in Film Studies.
- Kristin

It is once again that important time of the year for Hollywood. While complete disasters such as Code Name: The Cleaner and Arthur and the Invisibles are tossed into theaters as part of National January Dumping Season, the best films of 2006 are discussed in great length as top-ten lists are compiled and award ceremonies prepare their nominations. Typically this is a time to compare notes with the Academy and the Golden Globes to see how many of your personal favorites have a shot at the gold. However, this year I must admit to a feeling of dissatisfaction.

The 2006 Golden Globes saw Dreamgirls and Babel taking home the Best Picture trophies. This is not exactly a shocking revelation. Both of these films received mostly favorable reviews from critics. However, when it comes to recalling the highest praised films this year, none of them were even mentioned. Half Nelson? Negative. Children of Men? Not a chance. Pan’s Labyrinth? While nominated for Best Foreign Language Film, it lost out to Clint Eastwood. Emilio Estevez\’s Bobby, though, managed to snag a nomination despite its primarily negative reviews.

The fact of the matter is most of the highly-touted pictures every year fail to get recognized. I am sure it is no coincidence that these happen to be independent films, or those with unconventional storylines and filmmaking techniques. Real gems such as these have become so neglected that they now have their own ceremony, known as The Independent Spirit Awards.

Behind this whole tirade, I am not saying that a film such as Dreamgirls is an undeserving film. Its Detroit-based Motown numbers pulled me in from start to finish, and had my rhythmless limbs moving for an entire week. However, there are plenty of films out there that received higher praise and deserve just as much recognition. As time goes by, it seems as if nominations are more in the vein of the People’s Choice Awards or, (gasp) the MTV Movie Awards.

During this year’s Academy Awards, I will be donning a tuxedo on my sofa, and nodding in mild agreement as Eddie Murphy predictably takes home Oscar gold. However, I will still remember Ellen Page from Hard Candy, Ryan Gosling from Half Nelson, and every other overlooked performer not accepted by the multiplex masses.

(What do you think? Are the Academy Awards and Golden Globes legitimate, or do they need to take a closer look at the year in movies?)