Director John Musker points out some of his fellow famous animation classmates at CalArts: John Lasseter and Brad Bird. No Tim Burton in this photo.
Friday, December 02, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Julia Roberts vs. Charlize Theron: Showdown With The Casts Of The Snow White Projects
Author: Eric Eisenberg
One of the biggest battles of 2012 will be between Universal Studios and Relativity Media... both film companies have their own takes on the Snow White fairy tale coming out during the 12 month stretch. We’ve already seen the studios butt heads over release dates – Relativity pushing Tarsem Singh’s Untitled Snow White project up to March 16th while Universal has Rupert Sanders’ Snow White and the Huntsman dated for June 1st – but what if the characters themselves went head to head?
Early this morning the first images from Singh’s version of the Grimm fairy tale came online and when looking at the Snow White and the Huntsman images from Comic Con, I got to thinking: how would Kristen Stewart’s princess do against Lily Collins’? Could Armie Hammer kick Chris Hemsworth’s ass? What would be the result of a battle between Charlize Theron and Julia Roberts? Below you will find my complete breakdown.
Battle of the Snow Whites: Kristen Stewart vs. Lily CollinsLooking at these two images, I know exactly what you’re thinking: “Eric, one of these young ladies is wielding a sword and shield while the other is sitting pretty in a fluffy blue dress. This is a no brainer.” To that I say not so fast. Stewart may have the equipment (the sword is actually below the picture), but Collins has the numbers. Stewart looks all sad and alone in that photo because she has no friends, meanwhile the bright and shiny, happy-looking princess is surrounded by seven dwarfs that are clearly a little off kilter. Hell, Mickey from Seinfeld has a battle helmet on and one of the dudes in the back clearly murdered and decided to wear a ferocious beast. Plus, that big fluffy dress would be pretty damn hard to stab.
WINNER: LILY COLLINS
Battle of the Dashing Hero: Chris Hemsworth vs. Armie Hammer
Now things are getting a little interesting. These are both strapping young men wielding hardcore weapons that could easily kill a man. But let’s do a little bit of body language analysis, shall we? First let’s take a gander at Hemsworth. His hair is straggly and looks like it hasn’t been washed in weeks, he has a beard (which is a +1 in any fight), his eyes suggest that he’s not too happy with the way you’re looking at him, and the axe is slung over his shoulder like it’s no big deal. Now let’s move over to Hammer. Yes, his sword is thrust forward, but he seems to be leaning back a bit taking a defensive stance. His coat is nice and shiny and I polar bears would be envious of how white that shirt is. If these characters were to actually fight, Hemsworth would probably be okay with getting stabbed a few times provided it got him close enough to chop off Hammer’s head. But let’s be real, this was over the second I noticed the beard.
WINNER: CHRIS HEMSWORTH
Battle of the Evil Queen: Charlize Theron vs. Julia RobertsThis is a much different kind of battle than the last two. Neither of these characters are inclined to do any physical labor themselves, so they definitely aren’t going to be picking up arms against each other. No, this is a battle of malevolence; a war that is won by the queen that simply wants it more. Ignoring the dagger in Theron’s hands (that’s clearly for show, come on), the high-collar and black dress looks so damn evil that Osama bin Laden would have thought it was a bit too much. Then there’s Roberts relaxing deep in her chair and wearing a dress so big that even if she were to try and stand she probably wouldn’t be able to find the floor. She looks so damn relaxed that you could Photoshop a remote control into her right hand and nobody would blink an eye. The choice is simple: one of these ladies simply wanted it more.
WINNER: CHARLIZE THERON
BONUS ROUND - Battle of the Other Guys: Sam Claflin vs. Nathan Lane
Seriously? Come on. It’s in the eyes.
WINNER: SAM CLAFLIN
FINAL ANALYSIS: By a final score of 3-1, the winner of this contest is Snow White and the Huntsman, but the war is from over. To learn more about both films be sure to check out each one’s individual pages in our Blend Film Database HERE and HERE. With that I’ll throw it to you:
Which do you think will be the better Snow White movie?
Snow White and the Huntsman - 71%
Tarsem Singh's Snow White Project - 29%
This is funny, because I was just thinking how much better the Tarsem Singh project (Untitled Snow White) was going to be than the Rupert Sanders one (Snow White and the Huntsman).
Sure the Sanders one has more names... Charlize Theron (Hancock, Italian Job, Monster), Kristen Stewart (Twilight), Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Star Trek, and the upcoming Avengers and Red Dawn)... all of which have headlined hit films (that's three A-List actors in the top roles). Plus add to it the dwarfs are CGI'd pro full-size actors with names like Ian McShane (Blackbeard in Pirates 4), Nick Frost (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz), Ray Winstone (Beowulf), and Bob Hoskins (Who Framed Roger Rabbit).
Why didn't they team up Bob Hoskins to battle Nathan Lane instead? That would have seemed more fair. =^)
Anyway, compare those names to a great cast where your only A-List star name is Julia Roberts (Valentine's Day, Ocean's Eleven, Erin Brokovich, Runaway Bride, Notting Hill, My Best Friend's Wedding, Hook, Pretty Woman). And then the other names are Nathan Lane (Timon in Lion King), Sean Bean (006 in Goldeneye, Lord of the Rings, National Treasure, Troy, Percy Jackson), Lily Collins as Snow White (Blind Side, Abduction).
There's no comparison in star power between the films, and yes, the grittier photos from the Sanders' Huntsman would make all their characters win in a fight. However, there are a few elements to consider that actors aren't going to give you.
First is the director. Tarsem's big film debut was one of the most beautiful and visually compelling films of all time... 2000's The Cell... which was also a big flop, a huge stumbling block for Jennifer Lopez's career, and it certainly didn't help Vince Vaughn get to his hit comedies any faster. Simply put, the story and concept weren't appealing to the mass audience.
However, Tarsem's not a writer, and he's been hard at work banking on good writers. His next/third film will prove that... The Immortals (coming November 2011), which is probably the freshest big budget film to star no A-List actors in a long time (just Mickey Rourke, John Hurt, and Stephen Dorff in supporting roles).
And that film will show that Tarsem's been looking for good writing. That's where his Untitled Snow White has the edge.
Plus this is Rupert's first film. Not his first film he's directed. His first film period. He hasn't made a name for himself directing music videos, commercials, or anything else. Nothing. He's a noob... albeit a noob with a gritty film and an impressive quiver full of star power.
Now listen to the stories. Here's Rupert's Hunstman:
"In a twist to the fairy tale, the Huntsman ordered to take Snow White into the woods to be killed winds up becoming her protector and mentor in a quest to vanquish the Evil Queen."
Sounds cool. Right? They seemed to have turned it into a Medieval film (feels like a Braveheart-style revenge quest). They named the dwarves after Roman caesars (Ian McShane is the leader/Doc... Caesar).
It's obviously a love triangle where Snow White (Kristen Stewart) ends up picking the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) over Prince Charmant (Sam Claflin). Especially since the love triangle thing worked so well for her in Twilight. This time she's going to go for the underdog (instead of the bigger/popular hero like she did in Twilight; sorry Jacob). You can always tell because they tend to cast the A-List actor in the role where the guy gets the girl (why pay money to disappoint fans?).
So you've got this love triangle, gritty medieval time where, surprise, Snow White gets the Huntsman instead. However, Charlize Theron does have us excited.
Now compare that to this...
"A dark twist on the classic fairy tale, in which Snow White and the seven dwarfs look to reclaim their destroyed kingdom."
And I can't help but be more excited by the film that seems closer to Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland than the one that seems closer to Gladiator.
Snow is a "delicate princess trying to overthrow her wicked stepmother with the aid of seven dwarfs, who bedevil the kingdom as woodland bandits." They take her in an train her in different skills to fight. Tarsem says of Collins, who may look delicate, "Surprisingly, from the first day she came in, she's very physical."
Lily reminds me of Aubrey Hepburn.
In this version of Snow White, which will stay truer to the original Brothers Grimm fairy tale, Julia Roberts plays the Evil Queen, Sean Bean her husband, the King, and Armie Hammer as the prince. Collins goes on to explain: "She's a naive innocent young girl who turns into a woman and really finds herself".
In comparison to the dainty Snow White we all know, this won't be the same. "She's very much that fairy tale princess we’ve all read about in books. She's been modernized in a way that she becomes a fighter in the end." Relativity will be bringing Tarsem's Snow White to theaters March 16th, 2012.
And look at the majesty of this...
"I wanted a person who is just schizophrenic. She's a person who would just do all the evil she needs to do to stay in power," Tarsem says. Time to be introduced to the new Evil Queen, the talented Julia Roberts in Tarsem Singh & Relativity's Snow White movie, based on The Brothers Grimm tale, yet is still untitled. Entrainment Weekly has unveiled a big first look, with photos of Roberts in her elaborate, sparkly dresses, designed by Eiko Ishioka (Bram Stoker's Dracula), as well as a few of pics of Lily Collins as Snow White, and her seven dwarfs. Plus a shot of Armie Hammer. Suffice it to say, I have no excitement for this at all.
"She's the cat that ate the canary," Tarsem tells EW of the Evil Queen in his story. "I decided for the evil queen, this is going to be a person who sees her [good] self — but there's a mirror personality." I've added a few of the better photos below, but you can see the entire gallery here or read the full EW piece on Tarsem's Snow White, which needs a damn title already considering it's supposed to be out in March. So take a look!
The interviews are from:
And most people don't know this, but both pictures typically win when they release similar films in the same year (that's why they do it). Or at least one film does better than it otherwise would. Examples... Braveheart and Rob Roy, Armageddon and The Core, Twister and Dante's Peak, and the success of Alvin and the Chipmunks and Scooby Doo gave us Garfield, Yogi Bear, and Smurfs.
But the question is... with all of these fantastic live-action remakes to Snow White (including Julia Roberts), where's Disney?
The same place they were with Hook (also starring Julia Roberts)... behind the game.
So Julia Roberts seems to be doing live-action remakes to Disney films that aren't being produced by Disney (Hook and now Snow White)! Disney better get on the ball!
Disney won with Glen Close's Cruella in 101 Dalmatians and Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland (which made over a billion dollars), but they dropped the ball with Hook and now Snow White. Get on the ball, Disney!
What other Disney animated films will be made into live-action, big-budget films?
- Beauty and the Beast
- The Little Mermaid
- Winnie the Pooh
- Peter Pan (again; two attempts were made so far)
- Cinderella (Drew Barrymore's wasn't "big")
- Sleeping Beauty
- The Rescuers
- Princess and the Frog
- Lilo & Stitch
- Jungle Book (again, but "bigger")
- Fantasia (with Mickey instead of Jay Baruchel)
- Brother Bear
- Jack and the Beanstalk (non-Disney in the works)
- Black Cauldron
- Lady & the Tramp
- Sword in the Stone
- Fox and the Hound
- Treasure Planet
- Great Mouse Detective
- Lion King
- Robin Hood (with animals)
- Oliver and Company
- Emperor's New Groove
- Hunchback of Notre Dame
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
NBC/SNL released this older clip of Phil Hartman.
Michael Eisner tries to explain that families will have a better time in northern Florida.
It's only one joke, but it's good to see Phil again. This aired on SNL on 10/2/93. Phil was nominated for an Emmy for his work on SNL during that same season (93-94). (Being nominated for an Emmy for acting on SNL is quite an honor, and it has only happened for 18 folks.)
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Beyond Catfights: TV That's Good for Girls
Do you remember when you were a kid, about 9 or 10, and your best friend was everything to you? You'd stay up late during sleepovers, play silly games, and concoct crazy stories about your future? And then one day, you grew up, and you threw a glass of champagne in her face for calling your sequined cocktail dress ugly. Wait ... what?
If we believe the stories that so many TV shows tell us about female friendship, this scenario would seem wholly realistic. From America's Next Top Model and Bad Girls Club to The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, girls are portrayed as competitive, backstabbing rivals who overreact to every perceived slight.
And it's not just reality shows that reinforce the stereotype that women can't get along. Scripted teen favorites like Gossip Girl and 90210 regularly pit so-called friends against each other. Most of us grown-ups can see through the hype of TV shows that amp up the drama -- shows that egg on the competition, poking the camera into the melee, just hoping for the perfect catfight. But what kind of message is this girl-fight mentality sending to young women who are still trying to figure out their place in the world?
[Editor's note: Even Disney Channel shows like Hannah Montanna, Suite Life, Wizards of Waverly Place, and the latest batch... all have the theme of deception and rivalry among girls, siblings, and friends.]
It's an unsettling message, that's for sure, one that undermines the support that real female friendships can provide.
And while networks pump up the drama to attract viewers, there are lots of shows that don't wallow in the negative. You can counteract iffy messages by reminding kids and teens what friends can achieve together. Also, point out when shows go for cheap entertainment with tired stereotypes. And finally, choose entertainment that sends a better message to your kids. Here are our favorite weapons against girl hate.
SciGirls, 7+ (PBS) -- This science-oriented educational show highlights girls working together to construct or develop experiments to learn about the world around them. Girls encourage and have fun together while modeling enthusiasm for science.
iCarly, 8+ (Nickelodeon) -- This hugely popular tween sitcom might not be the most realistic, but Carly and Sam are good friends, even though their relationship isn't always perfect. Though they do sometimes compete with each other, they also stand up for each other, and some touching moments highlight how valuable female friendships can be.
Picker Sisters, 10+ (Lifetime) -- These interior designers travel the country looking for odd junk that they can transform into boutique-friendly best-sellers while demonstrating how well two women can work together. Their enthusiasm for each other and their work is infectious and positive.
Born to Dance, 12+ (BET) -- Yes, it's a dance competition, but the contestants are supportive of each other, and host Laurieann Gibson is as encouraging of the losers as the winners. A great example of how women can seek excellence for themselves without demeaning others.
Tia & Tamera, 13+ (Style) -- Real-life sisters go through ups and downs as they navigate different stages of their lives, but in the end they're always there for each other.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer, 13+ (DVD) -- This is an oldie but goodie that never fell victim to silly stereotypes about female friendships. Buffy and Willow are best friends through thick and thin, and even Buffy's female rivals don't fight her over a man -- but rather over the survival of the world.
2 Broke Girls, 14+ (CBS) -- The latest girl-buddy show (aimed at adults, but OK for mature teens) trades a few barbs between the female leads, but ultimately this odd couple shows that being different doesn't mean being rivals.
Parks and Recreation, 14+ (NBC) -- Amy Poehler and Rashida Jones are hilarious and realistic as friends/co-workers who encounter all sorts of wacky scenarios. Their friendship shows that they can stand by each other, even if they sometimes disagree. That's what real friendship is, right?
ANT Farm, 8+ (Disney Channel) -- [Editor's Note: I'm adding this one to the list.] This team of genius friends do a great job of breaking racial boundaries and being kind to each other.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
By Alex Popp
The untold story behind the legend.
Following King Richard's death in France, archer Robin Longstride (played by Russell Crowe), along with Will Scarlett, Alan-a-Dale and Little John, returns to England in "Robin Hood", directed by Ridley Scott.
They encounter the dying Robert of Locksley, whose party was ambushed by treacherous Godfrey, who hopes to facilitate a French invasion of England. Robin promises the dying knight he will return his sword to his father Walter in Nottingham. Here Walter encourages him to impersonate the dead man to prevent his land being confiscated by the crown, and he finds himself with Marian, a ready-made wife. Hoping to stir baronial opposition to weak King John and allow an easy French take-over, Godfrey worms his way into the king's service as Earl Marshal of England and brutally invades towns under the pretext of collecting Royal taxes.
This premise may sound intriguing, but I saw it with my dad, who is an expert on the Medieval ages, and we both noticed different flaws and errors. With this sort of semi-historical movie, you have to be willing to suspend reality in the distortions of history. For example, while "Braveheart" was a fantastic film in all respects, the liberties taken with historical accuracy are legion. This film takes liberties as well (it must since Robin Hood is considered fiction), but it lacks the quality and luster of its predecessors.
First, I have to say that Russell Crowe, who is a major draw in historical epics, is clearly too old for the lead character. As the premise suggests, the movie is supposed to be a prequel to the average Robin Hood story, meaning that in this story, Robin Hood would be 25 at eldest. Russell Crowe is going on 50 and no one could imagine him being a young man. Cate Blanchett is much the same as Marion, though not as bad.
As for the performances themselves, this was, by far, not Crowe's best. Blanchett is lovely and handles her strong character well, but as a women who is willing to wear armor and fight in battle, it is far too trite for Crowe to have to rescue her at the end. I groaned when she had to recite the line "Walter, this one's for you". I think the writers could have done far better. Von Sydow is a joy to watch as his performance is the best in the film. Friar Tuck is obviously intended to be comedy relief, but this falls flat. Robin's battle companions seem present only to give tie-ins to the common Robin Hood tales. They remain on the fringes of the film, are uninteresting, and it is difficult to care much about them. I wouldn't fault the actors in this film; they seemed to have done the best of what was given to them, but the problem was the screenplay.
The action sequences are typical Ridley Scott, but after so many of his films, the quick-action, close-up shots are growing tiresome. It has reached the point were the quick-cut photography now makes it too hard to determine exactly what is happening on the battlefield.
Another thing my dad noticed were the weapons which were clearly all leftovers from another Ridley Scott film: "Kingdom of Heaven", one of my dad's favorite movies. The shields are so poorly repainted that you can see large areas of chipping around the edges. And one of the things I noticed was that there were war scars on every warrior's face. Really?
By far, biggest disappointment with the movie was the appearance of the invading French soldiers in wooden "LSTs" (landing ship transports). In the year 1199 troop transports were seldom more than commandeered trade ships. No Navy in the history of the world ever built such a thing out of lumber. Do you know how when you go to a movie in the theater, you kind of forget that you're there and feel in the movie? When you notice this obvious anachronism, you're back in the theater, and you can no longer buy in to the story. What were the writers thinking??
Overall, it is apparent that this was something the moviemakers saw as something they could just slap together with Russell Crowe, and really weren't trying.
Rated PG-13 for intense war sequences and some sexual content.
Two stars (out of four) for "Robin Hood," one of the worst fims of 2010.
Written by Alex Popp for the Animation Empire blog.
From the Emperor...
Hmmm. I think this review shows details as negatives... details that you might not care about. Overall, it's a fun and interesting tale that I recommend, but "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" is more fun and interesting than this version. So if you're looking for a more gritty and less silly film than that classic, then this is it.
Of course, if you want to get even sillier than "Prince of Thieves," then there's always the classicer "Robin Hood: Men in Tights".
And you have to check out the classicest Disney animated version (you know, with the foxes and animals; which is also the only Disney animated film where the animals are anthropomorphized in a world without humans).
- The Emperor
Monday, October 03, 2011
By Alex Popp
The second studio album from American Country Singer Chris Young.
The first track, "That Makes Me", tells us that this guy is natural in terms of country. It asserts "I don't swear in front of no woman," even though the song uses h---. Oh no, what if a woman is listening to the song? Although, he does claim "I answer yes, sir to my old man." Okay, that's good. But still, the very next line is "I drink my liquor with a side of nothin'." These things don't make a very good him. However...
Whatever he does, he hears "Voices." These include his father encouraging him to work hard and his mother telling him to give money to church and say a prayer every night. Even when he disagrees with these wishes, he always respects them ("Sometimes I try to ignore 'em/But I thank God for 'em/'Cause they made me who I am").
On "The Dashboard," before a brother goes off to war, he tells Chris to take care of his Ford. He says that it will be his if he doesn't return. But when he does, he gives it to him anyway. The song's okay, but has a suggestive line in the chorus: "It's seen a lot of tan legs, got a kick-a-- radio."
In "Gettin' You Home" the singer says that he doesn't care about an evening dance because the only thing on his mind is going home with her afterwards for a night of sex. This song would be better if he was talking to his wife.
Sexual immorality also creates a problem on "It Takes a Man," which is about an unexpected pregnancy that was his fault.
He comes across "The Shoebox" that he packed with memories that he cherishes. For the first time since he died, he opens the pocketknife that was given to him from his grandfather. This is a really good song. In fact, my dad said it was one that he'd have bought the whole CD for.
In the 80s song, "Rose in Paradise," (here a duet with Willie Nelson) a banker leaves town hiring a man to tend to his girlfriend. When he comes back, they were both gone, apparently married, and the banker grows old without her.
"Twenty-One Candles" is about two parents trying to calm their over-confident eighteen-year-old who is on the verge of moving out.
"God, I want to be Your man and I want to be her man." Regretting selfish love that not only doomed a romance but made him a wretch as he says, he turns to God
for a second chance and prays that He'd change him into "The Man I Want To Be."-a great song!
The album concludes with a special rendition of the 60s classic "Rainy Night In Georgia."
Chris Young seems to be of everyday country music; mostly upbeat, but bushwhacked by some unfortunate alcohol and sex abuse and occasional mild profanities. I bought the CD for the title track. That song means a lot to me because I heard it after I gave my life to God praying that he'd change me into "The Man I Want To Be." This song definitely makes up for the previous miscues. "Voices," "The Shoebox," and "Rainy Night in Georgia" also make good additions to this album. I recommend this album for the most part. Just skip 4 and 5.
Written by Alex Popp for the Animation Empire blog.
Friday, September 30, 2011
By Alex Popp
The debut album from "J-Mac"
With a fast-paced beat (he was on a caffeine buzz when he wrote it), "She's No You" was written for a girlfriend who had a tendency of being jealous of supermodels on TV and other girls on music videos. Jesse lets her know that she's more than beautiful to him and no "picture on a magazine" could steal away his love for her.
The title track has similar meaning. "I don't want another pretty face/I don't want just anyone to hold/I don't want my love to go to waste/I want you and your beautiful soul." It's, like, the best song ever written!
"Get Your Shine On": A Michael Jackson style party song that invites everyone to show what moves they've got.
After a break-up, rather than responding with anger, McCartney tells her "Take Your Sweet Time", assuring her "I will never stand in your way/Wherever your heart may lead you, I will love you the same." He speaks with such a soft heart that I wouldn't be surprised if the girl didn't hesitate to come back to him.
"Without U" is probably the worst song on the CD. It simply says "I don't want to be without u/dream without u/walk without u/talk without u". It goes on. There's also a mildly suggestive line at the beginning: "I like when you whisper softly/Things only I should hear that lead me on." But then there's...
"Why Don't You Kiss Her?"-A beautiful song. With slow, quiet guitar music, McCartney lies in bed, thinking of his best friend. He can't help but think about when the time is to express his feelings toward her, "Cause she'll never know/if you never show/the way you feel inside".
In "That Was Then" he assures someone that he has changed and promises to work harder at his relationship if he could be given a second chance.
He offers a girl to "Come To Me" after she had her heart badly broken by her last boyfriend.
"What's Your Name?": The only other song I don't care for on the album. He sees a girl with all her friends here and there, dying to ask her those three words, because he's convinced that "I'm the one you need."
In "Because You Live," something tragic happens and he is "Staring out at the rain with a heavy heart". But just the thought of her being alive is enough to heal him.
"Why Is Love So Hard To Find?": The third "question title" on the CD. Love is vital to everyone and "we can't go on without it", right? But he's seen that there's tension in his house that's gone on for too long. How can we possibly go on when love is that hard to find? This song has related to me, lately.
We all make mistakes sometimes. But he assures a loved one that all "The Stupid Things" he does have no reflection on her.
With lyrics that are easy to understand and a remarkable voice, Jesse McCartney has a lot of songs for both guys and girls. Of course, back in his days, about 95% of his fans were female and he was the talk of the town; Justin Bieber has taken that place (yet another reason why he stinks). I'm not afraid to say I'm a fan and I love this album. "Beautiful Soul" and "Why Don't You Kiss Her?" are the top two highlights of it.
Review by Alex Popp for The Animation Empire blog.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Walt Disney Imagineer, Kathy Mangum, gives you a peek at the vehicle testing for Radiator Springs Racers. This thrilling new attraction is set to open in 2012 with the debut of Cars Land at Disney California Adventure Park.
Friday, September 23, 2011
After the good success of Polar Express, the okay results of Monster House, and the bust of Beowulf, for some reason Disney bought/invested in Robert Zemeckis' Image Movers.
Disney thought the company could line up Polar Express-like hits for their studio. Really?
Well after a successful take on "A Christmas Carol" where Jim Carrey filled the need that Tom Hanks provided in Polar Express, Disney kept at it. And Image Movers' next project did not fare so well. Zemeckis directed Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol himself, but he did not direct...
Mars Needs Moms
We always ask the simple question, "Who is this for?"
Watch the trailer and ask yourself that.
It's a great film. It's jaw dropping at moments and a nice sentimental story (which in theory would appeal to mothers). But aliens kidnapping moms? In a movie starring immature guys? With a visual style of a John Carpenter sci-fi horror flick? Really?
So it doesn't appeal to moms, obviously. You could get that just from the title ("Cowboys Versus Aliens" strikes again).
So who does Mars Needs Moms appeal to then? How about to the immature boys who can identify with the humor of the primary characters? Well, let's see, would teenage and 20 something guys prefer to watch this animation or Hangover Part 2?
No, they're definitely not the audience. Not unless Austin Powers is in this movie (which he's not).
So who's the audience? Girls? Why would girls be interested in a film that looks like a sci-fi horror flick?
What about older men? Well, it's their visual style, but I don't think they really want this family message, humor, and theme.
Then who was it for?
Well enough random people to make about x dollars. However, this hyper-realistic style of 3D animation that Image Movers is pushing forward is really just waiting for a failure (like Final Fantasy was) to put itself out of business. These films are way too expensive, and that puts more pressure on for each to be a hit or else they don't make profit.
Mars Needs Moms cost $ to make. If it cost $ to the theaters and another $20 million in Marketing, then this is a huge loss.
And, as predicted, it did put the Image Movers studio out of business. Zemeckis green lit the film but didn't direct it, and it's the one that sank the studio.
However, Robert Zemeckis is striking back! He struck a deal with X to fund his next grossly expensive animation, Yellow Submarine, based on the Beatles animated short.
But will The Beatles appeal more to adults than children (and then only a niche of adults)?
Will it be able to survive? The only clear hits Zemeckis had (Polar Express and A Christmas Carol) were family/kids films based on the concept of hiring a capable and successful actor to headline the film and make it his own (much like Carrey also did for "A Series of Unfortunate Events").
And Yellow Submarine doesn't fit that mold (instead the focus is on getting actors to recreate the voices and mannerisms of the Beatles). So perhaps Disney wisely pulled the plug?
Anyway, let's talk more about Mars Needs Moms...
It's a great film! =^)
We highly recommend it. It's a little scary (also makes you wonder why moms would want their kids to watch that), it's good fun, adventurous, and it has a nice emotional message about the importance of family and listening to parents. And the acting is almost as great as the visuals.
However, it took me a looooong time of hearing Joan Cusack's voice before I stopped getting pulled out of the movie and visualizing Joan Cusack. (Maybe it's because she was more "in character" in Toy Story 2 and 3 and less herself as she is in "Mars Needs Moms".)
I'm not sure why Mars Needs Moms was made or how they convinced Disney to green light it, but it was. So go enjoy it on DVD!
Sunday, September 18, 2011
At Disney’s annual D23 expo in Anaheim, Pixar officially announced two new films coming to theaters in November 2013 and May 2014, plus a few new looks at the rest of Disney’s animated slate.
The first is an untitled movie about dinosaurs set on an alternate version of Earth, in a reality where an asteroid did not wipe out the prehistoric creatures. Presumably, it involves how dinos and humans co-exist in a modern world, but no further details were given. Bob Peterson, who co-directed Pixar’s Up, is directing the feature. Here is the tongue-in-cheek logo from the expo from PixarTimes (via /Film):
The other is even more vague. It’s an animated, untitled family film directed by the other Up co-director, Pete Docter, set in the human mind. The story will take audiences inside the head where we’ll find out “how we forget, why certain songs get stuck in our heads.” The Playlist has learned that Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine, Toy Story 3) is writing the script about “the formation of ideas.”
At the same expo, Disney touted its June 2012 release, Brave, the story of an unruly princess and accomplished archer named Merida (voiced by “Boardwalk Empire” star Kelly Macdonald) who defies a sacred custom and inadvertently brings turmoil to the kingdom... The teaser trailer was gorgeous and reactions to the introductory footage shown at D23 were of genuine excitement, so watch that:
Brenda Chapman wrote this. She also wrote for Lion King, Chicken Run, and Cars, and she directed Prince of Egypt. Apparently Pixar replaced her on Brave, its first female director back in 2010, and she (Brenda Chapman) left the Pixar studio (this has happened before with Jan Pinkava on Ratatouille and Chris Wedge on Bolt). However, IMDB says Brenda is a co-director, so we're remaining hopeful: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1217209/
Additionally, Disney rolled out a first look at Pixar’s Monsters University, the June 2013 prequel to Monsters Inc. directed by Dan Scanlon (writer on Cars) that details how Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sulley (John Goodman) met in college and became rivals… then friends. Nothing new to see, unfortunately, other than a slightly slimmer Sulley and greener Mike.
Finally, Disney provided an in-depth look at Wreck-It Ralph, their other non-Pixar, animated feature set for November 2012. John C. Reilly voices the title character, an 8-bit video game villain in the vein of old-school games Rampage and Donkey Kong. But Ralph wants to be good and goes on a quest through other arcade games to reinvent himself. The movie will feature familiar characters from arcade favorites like Pac-Man and Q*bert, plus voicework from Jane Lynch and Sarah Silverman.
As for other Pixar favorites, no word on the oft-rumored Toy Story 4. Though Woody and Buzz Lightyear will be back in theaters this November in a short film titled “Small Fry” accompanying Disney’s throwback family movie The Muppets. The characters were also in the short “Hawaiian Vacation” before this summer’s lackluster Cars 2.
NOTE FROM EDITOR: Cars 2 only made about $180 million stateside -- the second lowest Pixar performance ever -- but it made it up in international sales and totaled $521 million worldwide, so it actually performed better than Cars 1, Wall-E, and the older Pixar films. Not too shabby. Plus they opened up the Cars toy line to a lot of cool-looking sportscars and international cars... so it was hardly a bust.
Especially when you compare that to this year's Winnie the Pooh. Now that was a bust!
Really Lasseter? Just because it worked in 1977 with Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh doesn't mean it's going to work again in 2011 with some computer effects thrown in.
Anyway, here is the lineup for Disney and Pixar animated films...
1. Arrietty (Studio Ghibli) - February 17, 2012
Sure you probably don't go see these Ghibli films (Disney has a deal to bring them stateside from Japan and put American voice actors over them, but they really don't do that well). However, Disney wants you to see them and they're released into theaters by Disney, so I'll list them. This one is based on The Borrowers (tiny people who steal our things). Voices include Amy Poehler, Carol Burnett, and Will Arnett.
2. Brave (Pixar) - June 22, 2012
Brave (previously titled The Bear and the Bow) was written by Brenda Chapman and Irene Mecchi and directed Chapman and Mark Andrews. It's an original Scottish fairy tale about how young Princess Merida rebels, gets the Lords mad at her, and she turns to an eccentric old Witch (Julie Walters) for help. Merida then must discover the meaning of true bravery in order to undo a beastly curse before it’s too late. Sounds like fun! Voices include Emma Thompson, Craig Ferguson, Robbie Coltrane, and John Ratzenberger (wouldn't be Pixar without him).
3. Frankenweenie (Burton) - October 5, 2012
Frankenweenie is an upcoming 3D black and white stop motion film and remake of the 1984 short film of the same name. Tim Burton directed that live-action short film (a Frankenstein dog) and this remake as well. Story: A young boy who makes monster movies tries to bring his dog Sparky back to life after he has been hit by a car. This is Burton's third trip back to Disney (where he started from), and we thoroughly enjoyed Nightmare Before Christmas and Alice in Wonderland. Voices include Winona Ryder, Catherine O'Hara, Martin Landau, and Martin Short.
4. Wreck-It Ralph (Disney) - November 2, 2012
Wreck-It Ralph is directed by Emmy-winner Rich Moore, a former animation director of The Simpsons and Futurama. Its working titles were Joe Jump and Reboot Ralph. The film will feature the voices of John C. Reilly, Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch and Sarah Silverman. The film tells the story of Wreck-It Ralph (Reilly), an arcade game bad guy, who is determined to prove he can be a good guy. The 8-bit video game character struggles with the complex question: ‘isn't there more to life than the role I've been assigned?’ In his quest for the answer, we journey with our hero through three visually distinct video game worlds.
5. From up on Poppy Hill (Studio Ghibli) - Probably early 2013
A girl struggles to keep the old history of a building while people are destroying old buildings and rebuilding to prepare for the Olympics.
6. Monsters University (Pixar) - June 21, 2013
Monsters, Inc. 2 is going to be a prequel which focuses on Sulley and Mike's studies at the University of Fear, where they start off as rivals but soon become best friends. It's directed by Dan Scanlon (who directed Mater and the Ghostlight). Voices include John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Steve Buscemi, Dave Foley, and Julia Sweeney.
7. Untitled Stop-Motion Film (Henry Selick) - October 4, 2013
They aren't telling us what it's about, but basically Disney made a deal for Henry to make his own stop-motion movies for Disney without Tim Burton (since Tim split and directs his own animations now). Henry previously directed Nightmare Before Christmas, James and the Giant Peach, Monkeybone, Life Aquatic (the animated sequences), and Coraline. I find it interesting that Disney's investing here, because DreamWorks just pulled out with Aardman after Wallace & Gromit didn't sell so well (but it did win the Academy Award for animated feature).
8. Untitled Movie About Dinosaurs (Pixar) - November 27, 2013
All we know is that it takes place where dinosaurs and humans live together in modern times. Should be interesting. Bob Peterson, who co-directed Pixar’s Up, is directing the feature.
9. King of the Elves (Disney) - Holiday 2013 Based on a fantasy story by Philip K. Dick (Blade Runner, Total Recall, and Minority Report), it is being directed by Chris Williams, director of Bolt. Likely either this one or the Dinosaur Pixar film will slide to 2014.
10. Untitled Movie That Takes You Inside the Mind (Pixar) - May 30, 2014
It’s directed by the Academy Award winning primary Up and Monsters Inc. director, Pete Docter (see image above), and it is set in the human mind. The story will take audiences inside the head where we’ll find out “how we forget, why certain songs get stuck in our heads.” Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine, Toy Story 3) is writing the script about “the formation of ideas.”
There you go! Previous films that have been removed from the Disney animation slate include:
It was the story of a newt from a lab who, um, had to mate with the female and populate the world. Wow, talk about a difficult story to navigate. Maybe the lack of a clear or compelling story is why Lasseter pulled the plug.
2. Snow Queen
The Snow Queen has been put on hold, though even tabled projects can make triumphant returns, like the years-in-development Beauty and the Beast for example. In other words, Lasseter is probably having trouble seeing a compelling story come out of this idea. So hopefully they'll sit on it for awhile and dig a great story out of it.
3. Jack and the Beanstalk
Similar to the Snow Queen, this project has taken off either. I think Lasseter and Catmull were a little disappointed with Tangled and Princess and the Frog. Well, I think the problem is that they aren't experienced making those films. Heck it took Walt Disney's personal team to do them right. And in the late 80s / early 90s Disney luckily had the right combination of people to make them. However, that combination quickly dwindled away (two died and Eisner foolishly fired two), and Lion King was the last one made with all the key players on the team (and after that it became a disjointed team). So, yeah, Lasseter and Catmull aren't just going to walk into Disney and figure out the fairy tale formula. It doesn't work that way. Tangled and Frog didn't do poorly because the market "run a course" (as Catmull says here). It was because you didn't make them to be as magical as Little Mermaid and the other films were. Look at Tangled... the songs weren't creative or all that fun (still good though), there wasn't any Genie-like character (Rafiki, Timon, Pumbaa, Lumiere, Fairy Godmother, Cinderella's mice, Dopey, Sebastian... take your pick). It was a great movie, but the filmmakers don't know the fairy tale formula.
In fact, the directors of Little Mermaid and Aladdin (who also directed Hercules, Treasure Planet, and Princess and the Frog) also don't know the formula... they know their part in the formula. But they relied on other people (Ashman, Roy Disney Jr, Katzenberg, and a few others) to fill the rest of the team in order to make the magic. Lasseter does this today with his style of animated film, but fairy tales are completely different. You have to build the dream team to understand them... just like Disney did and just like Katzenberg did in the late 80s (Katzenberg is the one who brought the broadway people in and pushed the conversations forward). He's now performing his magic tricks at DreamWorks (he's the Lasseter of DreamWorks).
So, anyway, Lasseter and Catmull are a little frustrated and deflated by fairy tales, so they put Jack and the Snow Queen on the back burner while they try other genres.
4. Yellow Submarine
Disney humorously purchased Image Movers from Robert Zemeckis (which Zemeckis built for Polar Express, Monster House, and Beowulf). They then used it for some gain to make Christmas Carol and lost a ton on Mars Needs Moms. That's when they pulled the plug on future projects, including Yellow Submarine, which was a remake of the Beatles animation (a much longer and robust version). The problem with Image Movers was that it just cost way too much to make the more realistic style of animation. It just isn't practical, and it only takes one miss to sink the whole boat (thus they got shut down).
That said, Zemeckis is directing Yellow Submarine himself, so he took Image Movers to Universal to continue production. Apparently Cary Elwes has a good Harrison impression. Can't wait to see it! Interestingly, Zemeckis directed Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol himself, but he passed on Mars Needs Moms. Should have been a sign!
Friday, September 16, 2011
By Alex Popp
Will Ferrell voices a wannabe super-villain in "Megamind."
After Megamind kills his good-guy nemesis, Metro Man (voiced by Brad Pitt), he becomes bored since there is no one left to fight. He creates a new foe, Titan (voiced by Jonah Hill), who, instead of using his powers for good, sets out to destroy the world, positioning Megamind to save the day for the first time in his life.
One problem with the movie is that all of the funniest scenes and lines were shown in trailers; the ones you see 70 million times and then when you see the movie, you're like "Yeah, yeah, let's get to the stuff we haven't seen, please", but then there's no better humor. But there are still some other laughs. But the thing I liked the most about "Megamind" was the redeeming qualities. We all have learned that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but those words take new and unexpected meaning in this film. Some of the superhero abilities and specifications may seem like they were taken from "The Incredibles," but it still has some excitement leading to satisfaction at the end.
Rated PG for sequences of animated sci-fi action.
"Megamind" may not be mega-ingenius, but it is good enough for two and a half stars (out of 4).
Written by Alex Popp for the Animation Empire blog.
I enjoyed it more than Despicable Me, which seemed to be a sappy display of minions and adoption emotions (although Despicable Me was marketed better to mommies and kids as a result).
Megamind had a fresh story with a slight twist or two in it, and the comedic cast nailed it. Though I agree that most of the funny is in the trailer, it's still enjoyable throughout.
You also actually get to like the villain/hero and feel sorry for him and understand him, so the turn is completed successfully. In contrast, the Despicable Me character doesn't seem to change much at all, other than starting to like kids more and wanting to be nicer.
Interestingly, the scriptwriters originally wrote this wanting to cast Will Ferrell in it as a live-action comedy. It went around forever, and it became more of a portfolio piece to get them more gigs. It was finally picked up by DreamWorks Animation, much to their surprise. Ben Stiller picked it up and talked to DreamWorks. Of course, the writers were then happy to see Will Ferrell cast as the main character (as they intended, but they were thinking live action).
- The Emperor
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
So this takes 25 minutes to watch, but you'll learn a lot about Pixar and Lasseter if you do! You get to tour his house and watch Lasseter work on Cars 2!
Monday, September 12, 2011
By Alex Popp
Earth goes dark.
The Transformers series goes wild in its third installment, "Dark of the Moon."
In the last days of Cybertron, the home planet of the Transformers, a single spacecraft known as the Ark crash-landed on the moon. When Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong discovered it on the day of our nation's first moon-landing, its secret was kept hidden for 40 years. When the Autobots learn of it, they race against the Decepticons to reach the ship and discover its secrets, ultimately leading the robots' final battle.
Director Michael Bay has totally outdone himself. Forget the first two movies; get an eyeful of this! With one of the best movie openings, out-of-the-ordinary robot fight scenes, and the most stunning 3D effects EVER, "Transformers 3" is stupendous on many levels. Fans of the Transformers will find this a major improvement after "Revenge of the Fallen." And unlike the first two, the premise is fairly interesting and well thought of in terms of the first moon landing and finding things that are kept secret, much like some movies about Area 51 and stuff like that. There are even parts that are laugh-out-loud funny and it would seem that the main character got himself a better girl. She is not as much of a you-know-what as Michaela, and they both agree to wait to say "I love you." She seems far more sincere about relationships than Sam's ex; all Michaela could think of was "No matter what happens, I'm glad I got in the car with you."
But enough about the other stuff and to the battle scenes that completely make the movie. With spectacular visual effects, and incredible sound mixing and editing, none of the action ever fails to deliver. By the way, if you do plan to see the movie (which I'm sure you will), do not skip the 3D, lest you utterly miss out. "Transformers 3" ends the way it should have and when the words "Directed by Michael Bay" suddenly appear on the screen, you just want to shout out 30 times "It was so good!" (Here's to you, Matthew) The movie takes normal robot fights to extraordinary measures and though it isn't the best movie I've ever seen, it's definitely the most thrilling.
Rated PG-13 for language and some innuendo that is unnecessary, but never slows the story down as it only takes place in the first hour of the film's two and a half hour running time. From then on, there's no time for anymore of it because of the intense, prolonged sequences of sci-fi action violence, destruction and mayhem.
Four stars for the beyond epic and without the slightest hint of unsatisfying, "Transformers: Dark of the Moon." Oh, and did I mention the 3D should not be neglected?
Written by Alex Popp for the Animation Empire blog.
From the Emperor...
I agree. While I can't say it's better than the first, I definitely think this was better than the second, and the reason is because Spielberg fired Meagan Fox.
That's right, after Fox called director Michael Bay Hitler in a magazine interview, Bay was willing to write it off and commented on his blog that she was immature but was still planning to hire her back.
However, Spielberg had none of that, with Hitler being a touchy subject for Spielberg (he made many movies that reflect that). So Spielberg told Bay that Fox wasn't coming back.
And that actually made Transformers 3 better. While I think I like Fox a little better in the films, the new love interest story made this third movie much more interesting than the second one.
- The Emperor
Saturday, September 10, 2011
We've been discussing whether or not animated films that are not aimed at mothers, children, girls, or families will have monetary success in the film market.
Rango and Guardians made a little (when all was said and done), but it could have just been two ups in a sea of downs (and they didn't make nearly as much as Despicable Me, DreamWorks, Disney, and Pixar films, which are all clearly marketed to the family).
9 probably made nothing... http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/9NINE.php
It made $46 million, cost $30 million to make, cost about $15 million to the theaters, cost about $5 million to marketing (-$4 million at this point), made $9 million in DVD sales, cost $3 million to the stores and about another $2 million to marketing... and you're left with dead even. No profit.
And that's actually good. Final Fantasy and Beowulf lost a ton.
So it will be interesting to see what AD does. Which brings us to the trailer (warning: a little bit of bloody)...
Not much is known about whether it will even make it to theaters (can't even find it on IMDB):
It looks like the director might have the experience to fight it through to completion:
What do you think? Does it have a fighting chance? What if it died and came back to life? Would it have a chance then?
Thursday, September 08, 2011
I'm going to compare it to Rango a little. Yeah, bare with me.
Legend of the Guardians did much worse in the box office than Rango or others that struggled. I think it's obvious. Rango at least was comedic, fun for kids, had all sorts of jokes for older people in there, and starred Johnny Depp for the parents. But who was Legend of the Guardians for? It was too violent for little kids and not overly cute or funny (at least not to the satisfaction of what mothers want for their kids). It definitely wasn't for mothers (very violent), and what father really wants to see a cartoon war movie about owls?
I want to know who said, "I've got an idea, let's remake Braveheart, but let's do it with owls instead. You know, for kids!"
I'm not sure who the audience was. It was basically an animated Braveheart. It was made by the director of Dawn of the Dead, 300, and Watchmen. It was great, and I enjoyed it, but I'm not sure why they thought it would sell and why they thought they should give it to the guy who made sweet movies about heroes who die violently.
It cost $80 million, made $56 million in the US, and made $84 million outside the US (the international market also loves epic films with lots of action). Plus we trust Zack Snyder (300 and Watchmen), so that helped a little (and he's now slated to direct a Superman: Man of Steel for Christopher Nolan, which is where Zack belongs). The film didn't do as well on DVD sales (it did okay), but taking into account what the theaters make, and it made less profit than Rango. Another advantage it had, though, is that they made it for $80 million, which is pretty good based on how great that film looks (not sure why they made it for $55 million less than Rango when it seems to look better).
So please keep Zack away from kids movies and give him great movies like "Man of Steel" --- can't wait to see that!
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
By Alex Popp
In "Cars 2", Lightning McQueen gets invited to compete in the first annual World Grand Prix, and brings Mater along. Racing against the world's fastest cars, McQueen has potential to win the three-routed competition. But during the trip, two secret agents mistake Mater for another spy. Together, the three of them travel the world to find the secret behind Allinol, the required fuel for the World Grand Prix.
Marking Pixar's 12th film, "Cars 2" wasn't made because of how well the first one did in the theaters; it was because of all the merchandise. But even so, the movie is quite a fun thrill ride. Although they could have added more with the racing scenes, the spy action zips along, and the writers clearly payed attention to a lot of detail. Like most Pixar movies, it also has its funny and profound elements. Yes, it has less of an emotional pull than the more fresh and sincere original "Cars," and therefore is not as good. But it will still give you your money's worth with its rush of excitement and is a great choice to view in 3-D.
It's rated G, but gets far too intense for very young movie-goers.
Three stars (out of four) for the pared but unique "Cars 2."
Written by Alex Popp for the Animation Empire blog.
Monday, September 05, 2011
UPDATE: Added info about how Rango was the highest grossing film for about a month and how that impacts the business of it. Originally posted 8/28/11.
Some animations seem to focus too much on the adult audience and not enough on the youth audience. And I see that in Rango; I can't help but wonder who it was for.
Who was Rango for? How is Rango interesting to a 9-year old girl? How is Rango interesting to a 12-year old boy, a father, or a mother? Mothers often pay to go to movies because they want their kids to see the movie. What mother sees Rango and wants her kids to see it? Some, yes, but not as many as the mothers who went to see Toy Story 3, Up, or Finding Nemo.
Did you know that Rango was based on an old TV show flop from Tim Conway that lasted one season and was also about a bumbling Old West cowboy who accidentally became sheriff?
Does that seem like a good inspiration for a childrens film?
The point is that films like Rango aren't making as much money as they could and often lose money. The kids can still watch movies like this on DVD (and some films, like TMNT, were made cheap and then probably did much better on DVD than in the box office, thus making a decent profit). Mothers are more willing to pay for DVDs that they don't want to watch... because they don't have to watch them. They just put them on and get a free babysitter for their boys (because Rango seems more aimed at boys than girls).
But of course the mother's preference (for movies aimed at boys) is that it's on TV. Take 3-2-1 Penguins for example. It's a Christian cartoon aimed mostly at boys (from the makers of Veggie Tales). It didn't do well on DVD (mother's didn't enjoy watching it too much, or at least not as much as Veggie Tales), but after the studio (Big Idea) re-purposed it for TV, 3-2-1 Penguins did VERY well. Why? Because the mothers weren't entertained by it, but the boys were. So moms didn't want to invest the time and money, but they were more than willing to sit their sons in front of it and go get some work done.
Now Rango, 9, and Legend of the Guardians were perfect examples of films that didn't do so well (when compared to successes that DreamWorks, Pixar, Ice Age, and Despicable Me are getting), but only in the sense that they lost money or didn't make much to make the effort worth it to the studios (or to get a sequel). In other words, the movies were good even if they didn't make a lot of money. It's more of a marketing problem. (My only point is that they didn't make as much money as they could have; I did enjoy them.)
Fortunately I think Rango is making more money on DVD (again, mothers don't want to go watch it, but as a gift to their boys to watch without them, it seems like a better idea). Also, Rango did better than it would have done, because they hired Johnny Depp to voice it (that made more mommies and daddies interested in it).
Rango cost $135 million to make, and it made $123 million in the states, but it also made $120 million outside the US (the international market loves Johnny Depp after he made Pirates). Add its DVD sales and subtract the costs of theaters (which are never factored in, but could be as much as one third the box office take), and you have a film that made a little and did "okay."
Did you know that Rango was the highest grossing film for about a month in 2011? Now, does that really matter? I say that's irrelevant. They spend x dollars to make something and need y dollars to make profit. If x is too big and y is too small, then it doesn't matter if it sells better than its competitors (because they spent more money on it than its competitors). It's a business just like anything else... like making toothpaste. Doesn't matter if you've got the best selling toothpaste for a month. If you spent more to make it than you're getting back then it's still not a profitable business.
We probably won't see a Rango sequel.
The director of Rango was Gore Verbinski (Pirates 1-3, The Ring, Mouse Hunt). He has wisely decided to forgo more animations and chose to instead go back toward his biggest success (epic adventures like the Pirates movies), and he's trying to do for Old West what he did for Pirates (redefine and reset the genre). (Spielberg, Ron Howard, and the Iron Man director, John Favreau, just attempted to redefine old west with "Cowboys and Aliens" and failed.)
What's Gore Verbinski's next movie?
The Lone Ranger!
(Interestingly, Rango was based on an old TV show flop from Tim Conway that lasted one season and was also about a bumbling Old West cowboy who accidentally became sheriff. I find it interesting that Gore went from Pirates to 2 cowboy movies that are VERY different from each other!)
For Lone Ranger, Gore was also attempting to team back up with his dream team from Pirates 1-3... Jerry Bruckheimer, Disney Pictures, the Elliott/Rossio writing team (who also wrote Pirates and Zorro), and Johnny Depp (who would play Tonto). Armie Hammer (Social Network) is on for playing Lone Ranger. (George Clooney was once in talks.)
However, this past week, Disney announced that The Lone Ranger was on hiatus, simply because the budget is getting big and "Cowboys and Aliens" lost a ton of money.
But I say to Disney... go for it! After all, yes Cowboys and Aliens lost money, but it wasn't very fun (cool but not fun), the romance and story weren't really thought through, and it really wasn't all that well marketed. Who wanted to see it? Sure, women like Daniel Craig, but not enough to see a movie like that. It's target audience was older dudes, the characters were all stoic and serious, the romance wasn't there (Olivia is an alien, keeps dying, isn't relatable to women, and gets naked once... not exactly what women want), the title alone makes most women snort (I've heard a lot of women snorting at it), the weapon on the arm bit gets old after awhile (which is why they change that in the story near the end), and not enough older dudes were interested in it (and the moms weren't interested in taking their sons).
So "Cowboys and Aliens" failure had nothing to do with the old west. They just thought the concept would sell and they stuck too close to the comic and to the screenplay that they got. It could happen to anyone, and this time it happened to three of the best filmmakers of all time (Spielberg, Howard, and Favreau), all of which have flopped like this before (and probably won't be their last; Howard's got the most flops, Favreau didn't do well when he directed Zathura and Spielberg practically lost DreamWorks films when he flopped with Michael Bay on The Island).
In contrast, Wild Wild West did well (despite bad reviews), Mask of Zorro did well, and the Elliott/Rossio writing team (who wrote Zorro and Pirates 1-4) found the right chord with Pirates by including supernatural elements. They sought to do the same thing here on Lone Ranger (with a screenplay massage by Justin Haythe). So Lone Ranger has all the right signs (the right writers, producer, director, actor, and the romance that was missing from Cowboys & Aliens). (For example, the love interest from Cowboys & Aliens, Olivia Wilde, was also the love interest in Tron Legacy, which had a much richer romance, and that film did much better.)
So what's Disney waiting for? This is likely to do amazingly well despite Cowboys & Aliens' performance.
Of course, rumor has it that the "hiatus" announcement is merely a political move by Disney to get Bruckheimer and team to lower their budget. Normally, I would say, "Are you kidding? This is Jerry Bruckheimer we're talking about!" But Bruckheimer did deliver lackluster results with Sorcerer's Apprentice, Prince of Persia, G-Force, Deja Vu, Glory Road, King Arthur, and Bad Company (good movies with budgets too high and that weren't assembled in marketable ways). So I think both Bruckheimer and Disney should compromise a little (since this is the first attempt at a Lone Ranger film, they shouldn't assume it will do $200 million+ ... then they can increase the budget with sequels once they prove that it's a hit).
Jerry and Gore should cut a few financial corners, and they should get this ball rolling!
Meanwhile, Johnny Depp has something good going here. Not only is he Jack Sparrow (Pirates 5 broke 1 billion even though it sold a little low in the United States, so they're making a sixth one), he's tied into almost every recent Tim Burton hit (Sleepy Hallow, Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, Corpse Bride, Sweeney Todd, Alice in Wonderland, and the upcoming Dark Shadows), he's now also on Gore Verbinski's short list (Pirates 1-3, Rango, and the upcoming Lone Ranger), and he seems to have been finding some blockbuster dramatic projects in between Pirates and Burton films (Chocolat, Finding Neverland, Public Enemies, and The Tourist). Plus Johnny has a 21 Jump Street movie coming up. Keep the hits coming for Johnny Depp!
Sunday, September 04, 2011
D23 Expo attendees got even more detail around the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train where guests will take a journey through the diamond mine of the Seven Dwarfs in a new ride system designed by Walt Disney Imagineering. The ride system allows each mine car to swing back and forth individually as the train twists and turns along the track.
Saturday, September 03, 2011
While we can't confirm where your Star Tours flight may take you, here's a sneak peek at a new video that will appear in the queue area of the "re-imagined" Star Tours attraction in Disneyland park and Disney's Hollywood Studios next year. The video produced by Star Tours is a new "commercial" that shows one of their exciting getaway travel packages. May the Force be with you- always!
Ride in the cabin of a Starspeeder 1000 on Star Tours 3D now at Disney's Hollywood Studios at Walt Disney World
Here's C3P0 and pod racing (don't cry):
At Disney's Hollywood Studios in Orlando on May 20, 2011, the grand opening dedication ceremony for Star Tours 2 was held on a stage in front of the Sorcerer Hat featuring George Lucas, Bob Iger, Anthony Daniels, Ashley Eckstein, James Arnold Taylor, and plenty of characters...
Hahaha. Jedi running through Disneyland while being blasted is too funny!
A full look at the queue and new 3D ride at Disney's Hollywood Studios. It's the new Star Wars themed Star Tours: The Adventures Continue...
Friday, September 02, 2011
This is Pixar's first princess fairy tale, which is typically Disney fare, but this one is original and isn't the average Disney princess. So we're up to see what they do with it.
We're also glad to see Brenda Chapman billed as a codirector (she wrote Brave, she directed Prince of Egypt, and she was a writer on Cars, Chicken Run, Lion King, and Beauty & the Beast; she's actually the first/only female director of a theatrical animation, so we're glad to see her sophomore effort come through). Basically, she put this film together and pitched it, and then she reportedly left the picture in 2010 and was replaced by Mark Andrews, the director of the One Man Band short. (Her reason for leaving was likely disagreements with Lasseter, since that's what replaced Jan Pinkava (of Gerry's Game fame) with Brad Bird on Ratatouille and what replaced Chris Sanders (of Lilo & Stitch) with Howard and Williams on Bolt.) So we're hoping that they brought Brenda Chapman back to finish Brave with Mark Andrews.
So far, the trailer looks interesting, as is the tale behind it...
Brave features Merida, an aspiring archer and impulsive daughter of royalty. Merida makes an irresponsible decision that inadvertently unleashes danger and forces her to launch into action to set events right.
Since ancient times, stories of epic battles and mystical legends have been passed through the generations across the rugged and mysterious Highlands of Scotland. In Brave, a new tale joins the lore when the courageous Merida (voice of Kelly Macdonald) confronts tradition, destiny and the fiercest of beasts.
Merida is a skilled archer and impetuous daughter of King Fergus (voice of Billy Connolly) and Queen Elinor (voice of Emma Thompson). Determined to carve her own path in life, Merida defies an age-old custom sacred to the uproarious lords of the land: massive Lord MacGuffin (voice of Kevin McKidd), surly Lord Macintosh (voice of Craig Ferguson) and cantankerous Lord Dingwall (voice of Robbie Coltrane). Merida's actions inadvertently unleash chaos and fury in the kingdom, and when she turns to an eccentric old Wise Woman (voice of Julie Walters) for help, she is granted an ill-fated wish. The ensuing peril forces Merida to discover the meaning of true bravery in order to undo a beastly curse before it's too late.
Directed by Mark Andrews (The Incredibles, Ratatouille, John Carter of Mars) and Brenda Chapman (The Lion King, Prince of Egypt), and produced by Katherine Sarafian (Lifted, The Incredibles), Brave is a grand adventure full of heart, memorable characters and the signature Pixar humor enjoyed by audiences of all ages.
Brave will be out in cinemas in 2012, and will be presented in Disney Digital 3D™ in select theatres.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Check out this story here:
Sony Pictures’ Ghostbusters 3 has been in developmental limbo for years, held up in large part by the studio’s inability to get leading man Bill Murray to commit, or for that matter even read a script. Today, franchise co-star Dan Aykroyd said the film will shoot next year, even if Murray’s not in. “That is our hope. We have an excellent script,” he said on radio’s The Dennis Miller Show. ”What we have to remember is that Ghostbusters is bigger than any one component, although Billy was absolutely the lead and contributed to it in a massive way, as was the director and Harold (Ramis), myself and Sigourney (Weaver). The concept is much larger than any individual role and the promise of Ghostbusters 3 is that we get to hand the equipment and the franchise down to new blood.” Somebody better tell the execs at Sony, where it’s still no Murray, [no] movie. And for that matter, Murray.
And then username "Everyone" had a nice comment here:
Ghostbusters WILL MAKE MONEY NO MATTER WHAT. Since, it’s one of those popular movies that each generation loves. For example Tron was a box office failure but the sequel made bank even though it was only an ok film.
Ghostbusters 2 wasn’t all that bad. It just lacked the epic, edginess and horror elements of part 1. But, it’s not exactly a Uwe Boll film or some cheesy movie of the week on the syfi network. Part two was a quality film that just had a few flaws. I saw it in theaters and thought is was an ok movie. It’s only major flaw is that the made part 2 more of a tongue and cheek family flick which part one WAS NOT.
I think part of the reason was because the cartoons were on TV at the time. I remember the Real Ghostbusters cartoon and other cartoon when I was a kid.
Ghostbusters is bigger then Bill Murray. But, they can bring in any number of A-List comedians who are just as funny or even funnier. I love Bill Murray but if he’s not even going to contribute by reading the script and/or making contributions then he’s not being a team player so forget him!! He’s not exactly A list anymore so NO FRANCHISE SHOULD HAVE TO BOW DOWN TO HIM.
Note to the people making this movie:
WE DON’T NEED ANOTHER BLUES BROTHERS 2000
1. Make sure the story is taken seriously, not campy. The original had comic relief, but it wasn’t a three stooges UNREALISTIC movie.
2. Make sure the horror elements that scared the hell out of me when I was little are in it.
3. Make sure the mythology of whichever horror ghost is on the epic level of part one and not part two.
Again, this movie will be a hit with or without Bill Murray. It’s like Tron and other franchises that are loved by generations.
AND NOW, THIS IS WHAT WE SAY HERE AT THEANIMATIONEMPIRE:
I agree with Everyone…
Everyone is always right…
Everyone always agrees with Everyone…
Okay, how’s that? Punny enough?
Anway… pay attention to Everyone, people who are making the movie but who aren’t reading this!
And while we’re at it…
4. Don’t try to replace Murray. You can try creating a new, fun character, but don’t bother trying to replace Murray. It won’t happen. You’ll have to try to find characters that are good but different.
5. Keep some humor in the film. It is a little scary that Aykroyd and Ramis didn’t help write it (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/fullcredits), but at least they’re both exec producing and Reitman is directing again and exec producing. But see Everyone’s points #1-3, because you made Ghostbusters 2 too campy. So keep the balance you had in Ghostbusters 1.
6. Wait, are you making this one a team of girl ghostbusters??? (Faris, Dushku, Milano): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/fullcredits#cast
Wow. You couldn’t get the rights to Charlie’s Angels? I gotta hand it to you; your ladies wouldn’t try to recreate Murray’s humor. But still, Faris’ humor is pure slapstick and your other ladies are cool, but they aren’t comedians. Good luck with that; it seems far riskier than mixing it up with guys and gals. So… please don’t do this? Please?
Fortunately, on August 25th, Aykroyd said they were looking to cast three guys and a gal:
7. Keep the directing style similar to Ghostbusters 1. Reitman, you must’ve been watching a lot of Spielberg films before you made Ghostbusters, because you nailed it with the right camera angles, reveals, and suspense factor in your timing and pacing. So go watch some more Spielberg films before you begin shooting. Looking at your most recent projects helps calm that nerve a little:
8. I recommend that you keep working on Bill Murray. He was the star of the first film (as Dan said). Ramis and Aykroyd were just straight-man characters that played off of Murray (so Murray was the only character who was intentionally funny). Bill fell away with Dan and Ramis during Groundhog Day (I think that’s the bigger reason why he’s not interested). So try talking to Bill and his new group of friends (Wes Anderson), and see if you can get Bill to sign on and cut some sort of compromise (and maybe his high standards will help make the film better). Previously Bill said he’d do it if he gets to die and be done with it. So it sounds like he’s close.
NOTE TO EVERYONE: Tron 1 didn’t really do that well. It made a little momentum as a cult classic, and then Tron Legacy was released with a blockbuster formula (Tron 1 was missing the love story, emotion, and the pacing felt more like a drama), and it featured Jeff Bridges in a role that made his character twice as interesting. So if we were going to take Tron Legacy as an example, then that’s more of a reason to get Bill Murray on and to redefine his character in a huge way that makes him the center of the story. For example, turn Murray into a ghost, zombie, werewolf, or the main villain/source of evil (or he gets cloned and his clone is the evil one who he has to combat). That would be the lesson to learn from Tron Legacy (along with the love story, emotions, and superior pacing, all of which were used effectively in Ghostbusters 1, unlike Tron 1). And, honestly, if you turn Bill into a villain and have him killed, then you probably satisfy his request to die and could get him to sign on (see #8 above). After all, he died in a hilarious (and slightly similar) way in Zombieland, so he’d probably like the concept.
Aykroyd also says...
"I like this guy Matthew Gray Gubler from the 'Criminal Minds' show, but there's going to be a casting. We're going to see everyone that wants to do it. We're going to need... three guys and a young woman."
Special thanks to Everyone and to the filmmakers who won’t read this!
Monday, August 29, 2011
Join the hunt @ http://JohnoftheJungle.com
Do you have a photo of John Lasseter from his 1977 stint as a Jungle Cruise skipper at Disneyland?
Enter your photo for a chance to win a private Jungle Cruise with John Lasseter and attend the Grand Opening of Cars Land at Disney's California Adventure!
Friday, August 26, 2011
Andrew Stanton follows up Finding Nemo and Wall-E with an Avatar/Star Wars like film, based on the book series that helped inspire such films.
It looks like they made the red princess not too red (or else they might make her feel too inhuman). It looks very interesting the way it's set up. So far, Andrew Stanton has only directed hits. Here's the story...
John Carter of Mars is inexplicably transported to the mysterious and exotic planet Mars, and becomes embroiled in a conflict of epic proportions and discovers that the survival of the planet and its people rests in his hands.
John Carter is a sweeping action-adventure set on the mysterious and exotic planet of Barsoom (Mars). John Carter is based on a classic novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, whose highly imaginative adventures served as inspiration for many filmmakers, both past and present. The film tells the story of war-weary, former military captain John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), who is inexplicably transported to Mars where he becomes reluctantly embroiled in a conflict of epic proportions amongst the inhabitants of the planet, including Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) and the captivating Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins). In a world on the brink of collapse, Carter rediscovers his humanity when he realizes that the survival of Barsoom and its people rests in his hands.
John Carter of Mars will be out in cinemas in March 2012.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Updated with more review info at the bottom (explains how M Night ended up with their Airbender actor, Noah Ringer and how Noah has improved his acting in Cowboys and Aliens). Originally posted on 2/23/11.
by Alex Popp
Four Nations. One Destiny.
The world is divided into four kingdoms, each represented by the element they harness, and peace has lasted throughout the realms of Water, Air, Earth, and Fire under the supervision of the Avatar in "The Last Airbender," directed by M. Night Shyamalan, the director of "The Sixth Sense." When young Avatar Aang disappears, the Fire Nation launches an attack to eradicate all members of the Air Nomads to prevent interference in their future plans for world domination. 100 years pass and current Fire Lord Ozai continues to conquer and imprison anyone with elemental "bending" abilities in the Earth and Water Kingdoms, while siblings Katara and Sokka from a Southern Water Tribe find a mysterious boy trapped beneath the ice outside their village. Upon rescuing him, he reveals himself to be Aang, Avatar and last of the Air Nomads. Swearing to protect the Avatar, Katara and Sokka journey with him to the Northern Water Kingdom in his quest to master "Waterbending" and eventually fulfill his destiny of once again restoring peace to the world. But as they inch nearer to their goal, the group must evade Prince Zuko (played by Dev Patel from the Best Picture winning "Slumdog Millionaire"), the exiled son of Lord Ozai, Commander Zhao, the Fire Nation's military leader, and the tyrannical onslaught of the evil Fire Lord himself.
The film was originally going to be titled, "Avatar: The Last Airbender," because that was the name of the TV series on which it's based. However, the word "Avatar" was dropped to avoid confusion with James Cameron's "Avatar." And this is most certainly not to be confused with the brilliant majesty of "Avatar."
I never watched any episodes from the cartoon, but others who had were disappointed. And I hated the movie enough without seeing the series. The whole premise is based on Buddhist theology, but that wasn't the main thing that brought down the quality. Some may not think about the effects at all, but if you really compare them with the background, you can tell that it's all fake. On top of that, the script is so juvenile, blending well with the terrible acting. To me, the movie was just flat out boring. I probably would have liked it more if Jesse McCartney had gotten the role of Zuko which he was originally given.
Some consider M. Night Shyamalan to be the master of twist endings, but the only twist in the ending of this film is that it tells you there's going to be a sequel. Great.
Don't ask me how M. Night Shyamalan made a movie as good as "The Sixth Sense" and then turned around and made this.
Rated PG for sequences of fantasy action.
One and a half stars (out of four) for "The Last Airbender," proof that not every movie from 2010 was good.
Review by Alex Popp for The Animation Empire blog.
And now here's a review from The Emperor...
I think this review might be a bit too harsh. The Avatar actor (playing Aang) is obviously inexperienced, and so his acting is a little wooden. The northern tribe water nation princess is also a little wooden, but her charm, character, and story arc make all that easily forgiven and forgotten.
The overall story of this film is exciting and interesting, and there is more than enough drama and special effects to hold your interest, especially at the end. So I think if anything, the faults lie (1) in the Avatar boy's acting (and selecting him in the first place) and (2) that (like all M. Night films) it takes some time to get it going. M. Night certainly bombards you with activity and effects at the beginning, but you don't enjoy the characters until later in the film.
The actor, Noah Ringer, was cast as Aang because he's a martial artist (first-degree black belt rank with the American Taekwondo Association). He painted the arrow on his bald head and submitted his tape of him doing all the martial arts. His friends had even already nicknamed him Airbender (based on the fact that he looked and acted like the cartoon character).
However, M Night and crew overestimated their abilities to train a new young actor and to direct a new young actor (two major skillsets, and they depend on the actor's ability to learn). M Night has picked great child actors in the past (Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs), but he picked them based on acting, not on martial arts and how much they look like the character (big difference).
Despite Noah's poor acting as Aang (and despite Night's poor directing his actors to... well... act), Noah was able to train some more and follow it up with a much better performance in Cowboys and Aliens (he was in two films, and both were intended to be hits). So he's off to a good start in his career (despite the acting hickup in Airbender and the poor performance of Cowboys).
I think M. Night needs to be produced well in order to make a hit film, and he got that oversight and attention with his first four commercial films at Touchstone/Disney (Sixth Since, Unbreakable, Signs, and The Village). Then he left Disney, and his films stopped being as big commercial successes (Lady in the Water from WB, The Happening from Fox, The Devil, and The Last Airbender from Paramount).
That said, Airbender was still a success. While it lost 19 million in the US (cost $150 million and made $131 million) it was a success still because it made $187 million overseas, which typically happens when a movie is cool and packed with effects and action, but is weak on story and characters.
Prince Zuko has a great arc that is only just beginning to form in this film (and the actory nailed the character incredibly well; he starts out as the #1 villain and then slowly moves his way down the villainous charts and into your hearts). Katara (Avatar's friend) is a good actress, though not perfect (I think it might be the directing a little though, because sometimes she nails it).
And I loved the story of Sokka (Katara's brother) and the northern princess, which was only beginning to unfold at the end of the film when it tragically stopped. So the problem partially lies with the source material as well. It's a good story, but he probably needed to rip apart the source material even more to make it more interesting earlier in the film. It's definitely a slow burner.
Overall, they'll probably make another sequel (since it made $319 million, worldwide), but either M. Night will do it if he thinks he can step up the game a notch (especially in the story and characters) or they'll give it to a new director. Either way, they need to teach that Avatar kid how to act. (Based on his performance in Cowboys and Aliens, he has definitely improved; too bad the film tanked.)
Currently M. Night is following it up with "One Thousand A.D." with Jaden Smith. Jaden is fresh off of Karate Kid, so this is a good idea (especially with Will Smith producing).
I give it three stars out of five, or 2 1/2 stars out of 4.
- The Emperor
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...