Why? Why? WHYYYY????
It looked so good, and yet here it is...
Domestic Total as of Jul. 25, 2010: $42,609,020
Well, is it doing better overseas? No, it's doing worse...
Well, how much did it cost? Much more than it's making...
Production Budget: $150 million
So with Prince of Persia hitting below expectations (I think it's because the movie had an Orlando Bloom--Jake Gyllenhaal--but no Jack Sparrow), and Sorcerer's Apprentice bombing hard, does this mean Jerry Bruckheimer's clout is going down?
Maybe he should stick to adult action movies instead of trying to bridge gaps to the family market?
My best guess is that this movie fell in the middle. With the lack of exotic locations and adventure that was missing from the trailer (just some jokes and cool effects), the audience really didn't get any sense of story or fun from the trailers, which means it didn't appeal to women and families: the action and dragons were aimed more at an adult male audience. However, the adult male audience looked at the humor and Disney branding and wasn't interested.
The result is that the film got lost in the middle, between the two audiences.
Anyway, that's my best guess why this movie didn't do well, because a lot of people were pleasantly surprised by it when they saw it (which is another hint that the trailer wasn't doing it justice).
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Why? Why? WHYYYY????
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wikipedia thinks Andy Samberg will play Ham again for the sequel:
Andy Samberg - Ham III
Cheryl Hines - Luna
Patrick Warburton - Titan
Zack Shada - Comet
Stanley Tucci - Senator
Laura Bailey - Kilowatt
The discrepency is that Andy's voice doesn't seem to be used in the trailer or the UK release:
So my best guess is either Wikipedia is wrong or they are redubbing Andy's voice over for the U.S. release (which would also explain why they haven't released it in the U.S. yet), seeing how IMDB last thought it would be released in June in the U.S.
IMDB doesn't list out all the official cast yet.
Also, the film was already released in the UK:
Interestingly, this is the first directing effort by John H Williams, a successful animated film producer who started Vanguard Animation (the studio that made Space Chimps, Valiant, and Happily N'ever After). In addition to producing all his studio's animated films, he also produced all four Shrek films. I guess that means DreamWorks kept inviting him back and never saw his other animated films as an actual threat. =^)
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
So this is a work in progress. I'll start with this list and keep building off of it and making it more interesting.
Second, I'm making this list because while the information is out there, you cannot find it in a list like this. You can find the top grossing domestic films. But this is the only list that lists the top grossing international sales... both domestic and overseas.
But why should the domestic sales matter? The point of making films (by the investors and studios that back them; not necessarily the point of the artistic film-makers) is to make money and gain profit on the initial investment. So what should matter is the gross income and not the domestic income. For example, taking domestic comparisons, Shrek 1 made $267 million and Up made $293 million, which isn't a huge difference. However, worldwide, Shrek made $484 million and Up made $731 million, which is a much bigger difference. As another example, Kung-Fu Panda is 15th in Domestic but 6th in world-wide.
That said, the cost of the film is also significant, because that helps determine the net profit (so I include the cost, but I don't bother calculating the net profit, since theater costs also aren't calculated). For example, you could have a movie like Jimmy Neutron be a huge hit because it made $80 million domestic and only cost $30 million. Compare that to Beowulf, which made $82 million domestic, but it cost $150 million to make.
TOP 10 HIGHEST GROSSING ANIMATED FILMS
Note: Listed in order of world-wide grosses.
1. Shrek 2
STUDIO: DreamWorks | WORLD-WIDE: $919.8 mil | DOMESTIC: $441.2 mil | YEAR: 2004
COST: $150 mil
2. Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
STUDIO: Fox | WORLD-WIDE: $886.7 mil | DOMESTIC: $196.6 mil | YEAR: 2009
COST: $90 mil
3. Finding Nemo
STUDIO: Disney/Pixar | WORLD-WIDE: $867.9 mil | DOMESTIC: $339.7 mil | YEAR: 2003
COST: $94 mil
4. Shrek the Third
STUDIO: DreamWorks | WORLD-WIDE: $799.0 mil | DOMESTIC: $322.7 mil | YEAR: 2007
COST: $160 mil
5. Lion King
STUDIO: Disney | WORLD-WIDE: $783.8 mil | DOMESTIC: $328.5 mil | YEAR: 1994
COST: $45 mil
STUDIO: Disney/Pixar | WORLD-WIDE: $731.3 mil | DOMESTIC: $293.0 mil | YEAR: 2009
COST: $175 mil
7. Ice Age: The Meltdown
STUDIO: Fox | WORLD-WIDE: $655.4 mil | DOMESTIC: $195.3 mil | YEAR: 2006
COST: $90 mil
8. Kung Fu Panda
STUDIO: DreamWorks | WORLD-WIDE: $631.7 mil | DOMESTIC: $215.4 mil | YEAR: 2008
COST: $130 mil
9. The Incredibles
STUDIO: Disney/Pixar | WORLD-WIDE: $631.4 mil | DOMESTIC: $261.4 mil | YEAR: 2004
COST: $92 mil
STUDIO: Disney/Pixar | WORLD-WIDE: $623.7 mil | DOMESTIC: $206.4 mil | YEAR: 2007
COST: $150 mil
To be fair to the old timers and to give you a bonus list, here's a list of the top animated films with adjusted income. So that means we can truly compare to ticket sales and how much those movies would have made today. However, the system isn't a one-for-one comparison because (1) films would sell differently at different times, (2) the world-wide market isn't taken into account, mostly because the older films didn't initially release internationally, and (3) the older films were also re-released a few times, and those sales are added in to the total. In other words, even though this is a fair comparison for some reasons, it is unfair in the sense that we have no clue how well the older films would perform if they were released today (probably not as well).
TOP 10 HIGHEST GROSSING ANIMATED FILMS - Domestic and Adjusted
Note: We're including the adjusted foreign income where available.
1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
STUDIO: Disney | DOMESTIC, ADJUSTED: $866.6 mil | YEAR: 1937
ADJUSTED COST: $7.02 mil
2. 101 Dalmatians
STUDIO: Disney | DOMESTIC, ADJUSTED: $794.3 mil | YEAR: 1961
FOREIGN, ADJUSTED: $389.2 mil | WORLD-WIDE, ADJUSTED: $1,183.5 mil / $1.183 bil
STUDIO: Disney | DOMESTIC, ADJUSTED: $660.2 mil | YEAR: 1941
4. The Lion King
STUDIO: Disney | DOMESTIC, ADJUSTED: $614.0 mil | YEAR: 1994
FOREIGN, ADJUSTED: $851 mil | WORLD-WIDE, ADJUSTED: $1,465 mil / $1.465 bil
ADJUSTED COST: $88.3 mil
5. The Jungle Book
STUDIO: Disney | DOMESTIC, ADJUSTED: $585.8 mil | YEAR: 1967
FOREIGN, ADJUSTED: $264.4 mil | WORLD-WIDE, ADJUSTED: $850.2 mil
6. Sleeping Beauty
STUDIO: Disney | DOMESTIC, ADJUSTED: $577.8 mil | YEAR: 1959
7. Shrek 2
STUDIO: DreamWorks | DOMESTIC, ADJUSTED: $564.8 mil | YEAR: 2004
FOREIGN, ADJUSTED: $612.7 mil | WORLD-WIDE, ADJUSTED: $1,177.5 mil / $1.178 bil
AJUSTED COST: $192 mil
STUDIO: Disney | DOMESTIC, ADJUSTED: $535.9 mil | YEAR: 1940
STUDIO: Disney | DOMESTIC, ADJUSTED: $506.5 mil | YEAR: 1942
FOREIGN, ADJUSTED: $818.7 mil | WORLD-WIDE, ADJUSTED: $1,325.2 mil / $1.325 bil
10. Finding Nemo
STUDIO: Disney/Pixar | DOMESTIC, ADJUSTED: $447.9 mil | YEAR: 2003
FOREIGN, ADJUSTED: $696.4 mil | WORLD-WIDE, ADJUSTED: $1,144.3 mil / $1.144 bil
ADJUSTED COST: $123.94 mil
Friday, July 16, 2010
Domestic Total as of Jul. 13, 2010 (Day 5): $72,073,885
Production Budget: $69 million (about $80 million less than its competitors)
Okay, now let's compare it to how well other films did on Day 5...
Domestic Total: $193,595,521
Kung Fu Panda: $72,620,491
Domestic Total: $215,434,591
Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs: $66,732,868
Domestic Total: $196,573,705
My current domestic projection for Depsicable Me: $212 million
Yup, I was right; I think it's going to break 200 million. Universal's in the animation game! Take that, naysayers!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Anony had a great message from a perspective that helps shine some light on what Miley and/or her fans might feel about her leaving Disney:
It's time for Miley Cyrus to part company with Dinsey. While she's taking a break from her music, she's got movies to film. When she resumes her music, we'll be talking about Miley as a country singer- she's done with pop. Disney does have a bad reputation and the infamous propensity of mistreating its stars, and Miley refuses to have anything further to do with that. I could see her signing with Disney's arch-rival, Warner Bros- that'll get Disney's attention, all right. Could anyone possibly see her doing a commercial promo on Cartoon Network? I do, and she'll be good at that. "Hannah Montana" will be no more and movies and her return to country music await Miley Cyrus- I wish her all the best.
I think Anony sums it up well and sheds light on the perspective Miley and other Disney stars feel... they aren't getting their due.
Miley Cyrus definitely has a music career (and I think she'll continue to rock both pop and country for the rest of her life; or at least she can if she wants), but I think she's divorcing Disney too soon. The attitude of "you treat me bad and so I'll teach you" is a poor attitude, and so far it's mostly ruined stars like Hilary and Haley Duff.
Miley chose not to graduate into doing a movie deal with Disney, something that didn't work well for Hilary Duff. However, Lindsey Lohan, Anne Hathaway, and Shia Labeouf are examples of actors who did well starring in Disney films before getting out there in dramas and blockbusters.
The fact is that Miley has a huge fan base watching her on Disney. If she walks away from that fan base, most of the fans might move on to Wizards and other shows. Will her audience graduate to watch her in adult, independent films?
So far, the answer is "Yes" with The Last Song (since it's hard to tell from Bolt and her Hanna Montanna films if it was the TV show fan base). The romantic drama (The Last Song) made $84 million and cost only $20 million to make. So far so good. The movie has given her another 4 projects. So that's four more chances to get another hit.
Monday, July 12, 2010
So more new Despicable Me featurettes are coming out to promote the new movie.
Film Release Date: 9 July 2010
First, here's Steve Carell giving parenting tips:
Second, here's a TV commercial called "Hero and Fluffy"
Third, here's Julie Andrews gives advice and introduces her character in the movie:
Fourth, here's Steve Carell talking about being a bad guy:
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Release Date: 9 July 2010
Pierre Coffin - A new director, he animated on We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story (1993).
Chris Renaud - He has a little more experience. He worked on "Bear in the Big Blue House" (1997), "The Book of Pooh" (2001), Robots (2005), "It's a Big Big World" (2006), Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006), Horton Hears a Who! (2008), and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009). He also wrote and directed No Time for Nuts (2006). He's scheduled to co-direct The Lorax, which is an animated follow-up of sorts of Horton (although Lorax will be done by Universal and not Fox).
Essentially, Chris couldn't get much directing opportunities at Fox (where he worked on Robots, Ice Age 2, Horton, and Ice Age 3), but Universal gave him his first feature film to direct (Despicable Me), and he's already got a second one lined up (Lorax).
Universal Pictures has been trying to join Pixar, Disney, DreamWorks, and Fox in the animated film battle, but they haven't had any hits yet (Curious George, Pirates Who Don't Do Anything, The Tale of Despereaux, and Coraline). Plus they have new attempts coming (Dispicable Me, Lorax, Flanimals). Although I was rooting for Despereaux, it failed to hit the right cords. So now I'm rooting for Despicable Me.
For Despicable Me they seem to have the formula down that DreamWorks and Fox uses (get stars to be funny; get stars to promote film). In fact, the proof is that it seems that DreamWorks is copying them with Megamind, a version of this same story (the bad guy is the actual hero), but Will Ferrell and Brad Pitt play the main characters instead of Steve Carell and Jason Segel.
Plus add Tina Fey and Jonah Hill, as well as the director of Madagascar 1 and 2, and it seems that Megamind might have more star power. However, I think the story of Despicable Me (villain becomes father) is far better than Megamind (villain kills hero and doesn't know what to do).
So, yeah, I'm rooting for Despicable Me. I also like the art and animation style better (and that the hero is more lame and disgusting than the villain is pretty funny). Go underdogs!
Friday, July 09, 2010
Despicable Me (Universal)
Starring (the voices of) Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Will Arnett, Kristen Wiig, Danny McBride, Miranda Cosgrove, Jack McBrayer, Mindy Kaling, Jemaine Clement, Julie Andrews
Directed by Chris Renaud (animation department at Blue Sky Studios, "No Time for Nuts" short, upcoming The Lorax), Pierre Coffin; Written by Cinco Paul and Ken Daurio (The Santa Clause 2, College Road Trip, Horton Hears a Who!, upcoming Hop and The Lorax)
Genre: Animation, Comedy
Tagline: "Superbad. Superdad."
Plot Summary: The diabolical super-villain Gru (voiced by Steve Carell) has a plot to steal the moon, but to do so, he needs to get his hands on a shrink ray possessed by his arch-nemesis Vector (Jason Segel). To do so, he adopts three orphan girls with hopes they'll get into Vector's lair and get the shrink ray, but Gru suddenly finds himself falling for the little girls' charm and having to act more like a father to them.
With Pixar's Toy Story 3 having been in theaters for three weeks now and last week's The Last Airbender receiving scathing reviews and bad word-of-mouth that should kill its second weekend, there's presumably room for a new family-friendly animated movie. Along comes Universal who is not a studio who has had great success with animation, their last attempt being the holiday-released fantasy The Tale of Despereaux. This time, they have a movie that falls more into the realm of Brad Bird's The Incredibles, DreamWorks Animation's Monsters vs. Aliens or Disney's Meet the Robinsons in that its central character is a supervillain and the movie is clearly trying to tap into an older geek audience as well as younger kids and their parents.
Despicable Me will mainly be trying to benefit from the abundance of comic talent, including a lot of Judd Apatow's people, an odd dichotomy since most of them have appeared in R-rated movies, and there's nothing to say any of their teen or older fans will have much interest in a kids' movie.
First and foremost is Steve Carell, who got a big break when Apatow cast him in his first movie The 40-Year-Old Virgin shortly after the start the hit NBC sitcom "The Office." Carell's had a number of hits in recent years, but he's also a regular voiceover actor in animated movies like Over the Hedge and Horton Hears a Who!. He also starred in Universal's PG Evan Almighty, a sequel to the far-more-successful Jim Carrey movie Bruce Almighty in which Carell played a small part. Because of this previous success, Carell is really the biggest sell for the movie, and he's appeared in various promos and probably will appear on some talk shows this week to support the movie even if this isn't his best character.
Jason Segel has been part of Apatow's crew going back to "Freaks and Geeks," getting his big break when he co-starred in Knocked Up and then got his own starring vehicle Forgetting Sarah Marshall along with Russell Brand, who also provides a voice for this. Brand went on to star in that movie's recent follow-up Get Him to the Greek, which has only done moderately well this summer. Both guys are doing the talk show rounds to help support the movie. Other voice roles include Danny McBride, Kristen Wiig, Jack MacBrayer (from "30 Rock") and Mindy Kaling (from "The Office."), with Wiig doing the most previous animation work before. Even with so many funny people providing voices, most of them tend to be better known for their R-rated movies and there's nothing to say that any of the actor's teen and older fans will have any interest in a kids' movie. On the other hand, the biggest draw for girls--who normally might not be interested in a movie about a supervillain--is the presence of Miranda Cosgrove, the star of the popular Nickelodeon show "iCarly," who has also been doing the rounds promoting the movie including an appearance at the MTV Movie Awards with Segel. Cosgrove is on her way to being the next Miley Cyrus, so having her in this movie is pretty big, although having Cyrus in Disney's Bolt didn't do much to help that movie do well against the first Twilight movie.
At this point, there have been so many computer-animated movies released in the past few years, they literally run the gamut of enormous blockbuster hits to absolute and total flops. Unfortunately, unless you're a movie made by Pixar or DreamWorks Animation or Blue Sky Studios (makers of the "Ice Age" movies), you're really taking a chance by spending a ton of money to make and market a computer-animated film, assuming it will do as well. Sony Animation Studios took some time to get off the ground, having had a summer bomb with Surf's Up, not helped by the release of the Oscar-winning Happy Feet months earlier, but they rebounded and had a solid hit last year with Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs. Warner Bros. had Happy Feet while Disney has had a couple of moderate CG-animated hits coming out of their own animation house. Universal only has The Tale of Despereaux under their belt in terms of 3D animation, though at least Despicable Me is closer in tone to hits by other studios.
As we've learned many times, just because a movie has a funny voice cast, that doesn't necessarily mean a movie is funny, and Universal doesn't seem to care much about even mentioning the former, instead focusing their marketing on the odd "Minions" of Gru, which have been everywhere for the last few months. It's a smart move since the cute critters will be targeting the women and kids who'll find them adorable. The older guys who are likely to find them annoying will probably be seeing Predators anyway. The trailers and commercials are funny enough, but they focus too much on these minions, who play a relatively small part in a movie that doesn't really break new ground. Following after such strong animated films as Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon, this one really doesn't stand out and it's not likely to get overwhelmingly positive reviews, which would normally help a movie. Universal has also taken a cue from Pixar and other animation studios by putting these minions in commercials for Best Buy and IHOP (the latter being an odder choice knowing that Universal has another animated movie coming up that was once called "IHOP.")
Universal could really use an animated hit because currently, they're behind all the other major studios in terms of CG animation, except maybe Summit, and having this movie break out can go a long way toward getting more money to develop their animated films. (They have a couple in the works, including a Dr. Seuss adaptation.)
At this point, the fact that the movie is being released in 3D is almost a non-issue, because every animated movie seems to be, but the backlash on 3D has begun, and it's doubtful people will want to pay for the high-priced tickets. Either way, there should certainly be a number of families with small kids who've already seen the other choices who'll give this a look, but it certainly won't seem like a priority for anyone, so it'll probably end up in the lower-mid range for a computer animated movie.
Why I Should See It: This has a nice premise, a great voice cast and lots of those adorable (or annoying) minions.
Why Not: Toy Story 3 is a really hard act to follow for any animated movie.
Projections: $22 to 25 million opening weekend and roughly $75 million total.
What? $75 million? Naw! You can't review a movie based on opinions like this. Incredibles made hundreds of millions. This one is going to do at least $135 million, and it has a chance at breaking $200 million domestic.
And having adult comedians works. It worked for Madagascar, Ice Age, and Shrek. The kids want to go because of the cute kids and minions, the boys like the super hero theme, and the parents say, "Sure. Why not. Steve Carell and Kristen Wiig are in it." It works!
What do you think?
Thursday, July 08, 2010
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Nintendo is showing off its 3-D handheld gaming system and introducing updates to classic game franchises like "Donkey Kong" and "Kirby."
It's part of an effort by Nintendo to stay ahead of its rivals by sticking to what it knows best - video games. Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft are working to expand the reach of their consoles beyond gaming.
At the E3 Expo in Los Angeles on Tuesday, an industry conference of 45,000, Nintendo introduced the 3DS, the latest version of its popular handheld device. But unlike other attempts at 3-D screens, the gadget works without special glasses.
Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter says Nintendo "blew people away." But the big question is the price. Nintendo didn't say how much the 3DS would cost or when it will be available.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
I think my opinion differs from my friend Sibry (and others), but nonetheless I think Toy Story 2 was better.
Sure, the animation was up a notch, they spanned more sets, upped the effects, and cut to humans more. And the Spanish Buzz Lightyear gag was so funny that you get dissappointed when normal Tim Allen takes back over... something I think they recognized, so they put the gag at the end where Buzz danced to the Spanish music.
And sure, the movie's going to make more money. Actually, it's currently the #2 Pixar movie and will easily become the #1 Pixar movie and #2 animated film of all time, and it might even give Shrek 2 a run for it's money as the #1 animated film of all time.
But really, was Toy Story 3 better?
I say no. Perhaps it was better than the first one, and it definitely deserves the box office it's getting, and it's entertaining and hilarious, but I don't think it's better than the second Toy Story movie. This one:
First, I liked the Toy Story 2 villains better. I liked the Wayne Knight human villain, Al (even Toy Story 1 had Sid as a villain), and the villain just doesn't seem as difficult to beat when it's another toy (which I think Toy Story 3 recognized, so they made the villain into a gang of toys). Even Toy Story 1 has Sid as the villain (and no real toy villains).
So the villains in Toy Story 2 were Kelsey Grammer's Stinky Pete, Wayne Knight's Al, and Emperor Zurg was sort of a comical villain that really brought Buzz's character to life (not as funny as Spanish Buzz, but it tied in better to Buzz's character).
So when Lotso shows up in Toy Story 3, I can't help but feel that it's obvious he's the villain and he's doing exactly what Stinky Pete did (stabbing the other toys in the back to create his toy utopia). Stinky Pete was slightly more interesting because he wasn't a stuffed animal, and he had more of a turn because you thought he was stuck in plastic wrapping.
The "demise" was even similar for both Lotso and Pete. Pete got what he deserved by being picked up by the artistic girl in the airport, and Lotso got what he deserved when the trucker attached him to the grill. It's sort of a sentence to an eternity of torture (verses the more common deaths that Disney and DreamWorks villains get).
So that's all the first reason.
The second reason is how personal and direct the theme was to the key characters. In the sense of how they related to Andy, the third movie actually did that better than the first two. However, in the sense to how the story related to Woody, the primary character and Buzz, the secondary character, Toy Story 3 did that the least. And the best one was Toy Story 2.
In Toy Story 2, Woody explored this whole new world of how he was from a puppet-based TV show called Woody's Roundup. It was personal, it was fun, and the new characters were instantly tied in to him (verses the new Toy Story 3 characters; the most interesting one was Michael Keaton's Ken, because he was connected to Barbie). Likewise, Buzz's littler interactions in Toy Story 2 with Zurg were also much more personal and interesting.
So there you have it. Those are the two reasons why I liked Toy Story 2 better.
Was Toy Story 3 a great movie? Yes. Go watch it if you haven't. And if you haven't watched it, I kind of just spoiled it for you (but I warned you first). So sorry about that.
Is Toy Story 3 worth watching in 3D? No. I see no signs that the makers tried to optimize it for 3D. Maybe a tiny bit of thought, especially on things like the title letters, but nothing super impressive.
Overall, it was a worthy successor a great film.
- The Emperor
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Monday, July 05, 2010
Okay, so take a look at the Twilight trailer:
Um, what actually happens in this trailer? Absolutely nothing. There are no cool effects. Nothing. It's just a continuation of the exact same love triangle and threat from vampires. That's it.
However, the film makers are smart, because this trailer has 9 million views. It's meeting its need... to make girls go nuts. That's why there are two female villains and two heroes fighting for the love of Bella... cuz this is for girls. And judging from how much money the movies are making, this is an important market to hit.
Now let's flip that over to Harry Potter, which essentially is a trailer for two movies (I think), number 7 and 8 (because they broke book 7 into two movies).
This is more of a boy's movie (hero's a boy and villain's an older man), but there are several heroines and female villains, and some integral love stories, albeit with far less entanglement than Twilight: the two love stories are fairly direct. But let's be honest... Jacob's got no chance, so Twilight isn't that much less direct and obvious than Harry Potter.
But look at the trailer. I think that's one of the best trailers I've ever seen. It is driven by the raw emotion of the story (emotion that is actually fairly similar to the Twilight trailer), but it also contains some amazing effects that blow you away. Twilight has none of that.
So, the Harry Potter trailer only has 3 million compared to Twilight's 9 million, but it also only has 6 days under its belt. So my guess is that it will have more views than Twilight once Harry Potter 7 hits.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
This morning, Toshi and I took in a screening of "Despicable Me," the new animated film that stars Steve Carrell. Although I'm not able to review it yet, I can say that I was pleasantly surprised by the way the celebrity comedians who contributed voices for the film are all essentially disguised completely. No one just stops in to do a cameo in their own voice. Even Jack McBrayer, best known as Kenneth on "30 Rock," plays a different type of character than normal.
It's nice, because a good comic actor freed of the visual recognition should be able to vanish completely into something, and "Despicable Me" makes very good use of Kristen Wiig, who plays the woman who runs the orphanage where the three little girls who are the stars of the film live when it starts. Wiig gets to play a physical type she'd never play in real life, and she does a voice that didn't make me think of her at all. It's perfect for what you're looking at, but it doesn't sound like "Kristen Wiig," and I think that's great.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Shrek 4 in all it's trailer goodness. It's amazing that a horrible idea can still be done well. =^)
Friday, July 02, 2010
Guardians of Childhood
Directed by Jeffrey Lynch (Simpsons, Futurama, Iron Giant, and co-director on Spider-man 1-3)
From DreamWorks Animation
The Guardians of Childhood is an upcoming animated comedy film based on the forthcoming books by William Joyce, produced by DreamWorks Animation and due for release on November 2, 2012. The film is being described as "a contemporary fairytale based on existing fairytale characters". It will be written by Joyce, the creator of Rolie Polie Olie and Meet the Robinsons as well as a contributor to the underlying ideas behind the film Robots.
The film features a group of our greatest heroes from various childhood stories - Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Genie, the Sandman and Jack Frost — who join together in an adventure to stop Pitch the Boogeyman from sending the world into "eternal darkness".
This would be Andy's third animation! Is this Leonardo's first?
Popular Posts (of all time)
Update: Added Up references at bottom. Originally posted 1/30/08. Source articles include: http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archiv...
UDPATE 7/16/13 : New images. 11/22/12 : I updated some images, dug deeper on narratives around Eisner, Iger, and Ashman, added Bruckheimer ...
Nobody has all the references listed with images, and I just can't take it anymore! So I won't. Here you go. My passion is for ani...
3/27/08 Update - We're starting to flesh out what the new characters would look like. Specifically, we explain Dr. Vector/Hector, Lakitu...
by Alex Popp Your mind is the scene of the crime in "Inception," directed by Christopher Nolan, who previously directed the me...
Sweeney Todd Johnny Depp: Edward Scissorhands (1990), Ed Wood (1994), Sleepy Hallow (1999), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), Cor...
UPDATE: We added a few links to our Princess and the Frog review, we explain #4 a little more (we received an interesting comment on this po...
by Alex Popp It takes two to tangle. (I made that one up) I'm sure we all know the story of Rapunzel, but you don't need to ...
Scroll down for the lineup. Note that there are two re-releases (Toy Story in 3D and Toy Story 2 in 3D) and four direct-to DVDs (Tinkerbell ...
Update : I'm slowly adding more videos and images. Today I added images and more info about the Little Red Riding Hood Laugh-O-Gram shor...