Will A.D. (zombie animated film) be another flop in a sea of adult animated films?

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):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.D._(film)

It looks like the director might have the experience to fight it through to completion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Hibon



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?

Enjoy!

- TAE

Ghostbusters 3 - Will it be a bust? A Ghost Bust?

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.

From:
http://www.deadline.com/2011/08/aykroyd-sees-ghostbusters-3-shooting-in-2012-but-somebody-better-tell-the-studio/

===========================================

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:
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=81518

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:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0718645/#Director

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!

- TAE

Tangled: "Mother Gothel" - Movie Clip

Mother Gothel looks like she'll be a fun villain with a small spin on the Evil Queen from Snow White. But it's hard to beat the evil Fairy Godmother from Shrek 2. Tangled definitely has a lot of comparisons going against it right from the start. Hopefully it will shine through.

- TAE

Tangled: "Reluctant Alliance" - Movie Clip

So Flynn, Rapunzel, the horse, Maximus, and the chameleon, Pascal, form a reluctant alliance.

Looks like fun!

Tangled: "Snuggly Duckling" - Movie Clip

The Snuggly Duckling feels a lot like the "Bad Apple" bar in Shrek 2, but not as cool. It's got to be hard to make a fairy tale and not get comparisons to Shrek.

I can't wait for Tangled! It looks so good!

- TAE

"Winnie the Pooh" Official Trailer - is it enough?

Send Winnie the Pooh back to his roots. I get it. But in 2D? His TV show is in 3D. Is this enough? Sure it worked 40 years ago, but is this really enough by today's standards? I think 2D animated films in general can work if the story is right, but the last times where I saw that work were Mulan and Tarzan, over a decade ago (with "Lilo & Stitch" and "Princess and the Frog" to smaller extents). It's a big risk, and I just don't think this is enough. Sure they are throwing in some 3D effects (like the honey and the pot), but is that enough to get today's audience into the theater?

My recommendation (after this does okay but not great in the box office) would be to try again, but do it all in 3D and try to capture the look and feel of how the characters would look in a semi-realistic version of their world. Rather than make them rubbery like the TV show, give them real lighting and texture, with real fur, colors, and lighting/shadows (in realistic environments). And then throw in effects like the transformation from plush to real characters and you could really begin to take it some places visually (and not just relying on the great story, although that is also essential). I think that's the only way to make a hit Winnie the Pooh animated film.

A similar alternative is to go toward "Alvin and the Chipmunks" by shooting the woods and Christopher Robin in live action but to do all the animals in CG (also done successfully with Scooby Doo and now with Smurfs, but Garfield should be a lesson on how not to do it).

Personally, I would prefer the first option, which would be the more Pixar-like approach to it.

Feel free to drop thoughts if you have them.

- The Emperor

THOR 2011

Can't wait to see Thor!

Disney owns Thor now! =^)

Tangled Trailer 2, Despicable Me 2, Gnomeo & Juliet: Beyond The Trailer

Great insight into the success of Despicable Me!

Enjoy!

Tangled Movie Trailer 2 Official (HD)

Check out this new trailer for Tangled. It keeps looking better and better!

Enjoy!

Space Chimps 2 is coming direct to DVD for the US release

"Space Chimps 2: Zartog Strikes Back" is coming the 5th of October, 2010 (DVD premiere).



This is interesting, because the first one didn't perform in the US as well as they hoped, and so the sequel has been released in theaters in other countries, but in the US it's going straight to DVD.

Here are the international releases...

UK - 28 May 2010
Israel - 22 July 2010
Kazakhstan - 5 August 2010 (3-D version)
Russia - 5 August 2010 (3-D version)
USA - 5 October 2010 (DVD premiere)
Netherlands - 16 December 2010

Wikipedia still thinks Andy Samberg is going to be in the DVD release, but it doesn't have the news that Space Chimps 2 is coming to DVD for the US.

The director of Space Chimps 2 is John H. Williams. This is his directorial debut (sad that he's debuting on DVD in the US). He produced all four Shrek movies. Using that momentum, he started Vanguard Animation (not a huge leap, considering he was already running Vanguard Films), so that means he also produced Valiant, Happily Never After (but he let the DVD sequel go to the studio execs, which is why it has no name actors and why it's so horrible), Space Chimps, and now Space Chimps 2. Their next project is Emo Boy, based on a comic book. More on Emo Boy: http://comics.wikia.com/wiki/Emo_Boy

Enjoy!

New X-Men movie: X-Men First Class

"Damages" star Rose Byrne is in negotiations to join the cast of Fox's "X-Men First Class," being directed by Matthew Vaughn.

Fox is gearing up for a London shoot at the end of this month and zeroing on the last key pieces of its important franchise.

The movie, whose story line remains under wraps, focuses on Marvel's superpowered X-Men team in a younger incarnation than seen in the previous trilogy.

Byrne will play Moira MacTaggert, a scientist and an authority on genetic mutation. She'll be the love interest of James McAvoy, who plays mutant telepath Charles Xavier.

Among the cast are Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult and Alice Eve.


Read more about Rose here:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i4a25a9f106904fc134a58e236767429a

Enjoy!

Space Chimps 2 - oh the drama

Wikipedia thinks Andy Samberg will play Ham again for the sequel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Chimps_2



Cast

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:
 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1537481/business


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. =^)

Enjoy!

Despicable Me - box office so far

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...


Madagascar: $64,847,402

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!

- TAE

Despicable Me - new theatrical trailer

Here's an amusement park clip:



And here's the new, full trailer (that's playing before Toy Story 3):



Enjoy!

Trailers: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" VS "Twilight Eclipse"

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.

Enjoy!

- TAE

Despicable Me - favorable review

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.

Read more:
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/saturday-night-at-the-movies-june-12-2010?m=k

Enjoy!

Smurfs realistic movie makeover

They've been around for over 50 years, but for the first time they're coming to our world. The Smurfs, the little blue people from comics and TV, are getting three-dimensional in a live-action/computer-animated feature film. Watch the exclusive teaser trailer, introduced by star Neil Patrick Harris, for a first look at the new digital Smurfs, then keep reading to find out how they end up in modern-day New York City.

In the original comic strips by Peyo, and later on the animated TV show, the Smurfs lived in a European setting during the Middle Ages. The movie begins in the same era, but the Smurfs' arch-enemy Gargamel (played by Hank Azaria) invades their village and sends them running. According to director Raja Gosnell ("Scooby-Doo"), some of the Smurfs stumble into a secret part of the forest where "there's a magical portal that transports them to Central Park."

Lost in Manhattan, the Smurfs -- Papa, Clumsy, Grouchy, Brainy, Gutsy, and Smurfette -- find a couple of human friends (Harris and "Glee" star Jayma Mays) who take them in. They look for a way home, but Gargamel also crosses into our world to track them down.



From the teaser trailer, it's apparent that the look of the computer-generated Smurfs is very faithful to the originals. They're blue-skinned, though with a textured, fuzzy-looking skin tone the cartoons couldn't capture. And of course they have their signature floppy hats (with Papa Smurf in red). He's not shown in the trailer, but photos of Azaria in costume as Gargamel have surfaced, and he also looks the part. He's bald, with prosthetic ears and a nose, and he's wearing a black robe and red shoes exactly like the animated version.



In addition to the human actors -- Sofia Vergara from "Modern Family" also plays a role -- the Smurfs are voiced by a wide range of comedic talents. Legendary standup Jonathan Winters plays Papa Smurf, George Lopez is Grouchy, "SNL's" Fred Armisen is Brainy, and Paul Reubens (aka Pee Wee Herman) voices Jokey Smurf. Plus, pop superstar Katy Perry makes her movie debut as the voice of Smurfette.

"The Smurfs" will be smurfing their way onto the big screen on August 3, 2011.

From:
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-the-smurfs-get-real-in-first-trailer.html
=================================

An interesting approach. It definitely is interesting, and it probably has the most potential. I think they could have done a lot in the medieval times, but bringing the characters to present times and big cities has worked well for Alvin and the Chipmunks and Scooby Doo (and slightly for Garfield).



Plus giving the film the Scooby Doo director is almost guaranteed a hit.

- TAE

How to Train Your Dragon - has legs!!!

Yes, it has dragon legs!



Despite an average and not great opening weekend, How to Train Your Dragon has been slowing down in box office sales...

SLOWLY.

How slowly? Well, slower than Kung-Fu Panda and both Madagascar movies. In fact, it's been slowing down so slowly that it's beating both the Madagascar movies and Monsters VS Aliens. It might beat Kung-Fu Panda.

What does that mean? What it means, is that there is newfound hope that we might get a sequel!

When a movie "has legs," that typically means that the trailer didn't excite people, but once they go see it, they love it and tell their friends. So it looks like How to Train Your Dragon is fitting in this category. Go DreamWorks go!

How to Train Your Dragon's weekend 4 box office take was $19,633,320. Kung-Fu Panda was $11,692,061 (and Kung Fu Panda is the highest-grossing non-Shrek DreamWorks animated film).

- TAE

Sequel to Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

Good news and bad news, Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs fans. Cloudy will be back! The sequel is in production. But sadly, we can exclusively reveal that the original film's directing duo is taking a backseat this time.

Earlier this week Pajiba reported a rumor that Sony was readying a sequel to the acclaimed Cloudy, based on the second children's book, Pickles to Pittsburgh. We really hoped this was happening, as we believe Cloudy was one of the most underrated films last year, and easily one of the best animated films even though it was snubbed at the Oscars. So we asked our sources and this is what we got back.



A source close to the production confirms that yes, there is a sequel in development. But directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller will only be creatively involved in the process, not directing this time around. Still the good news is the two will be working on the story, which is easily the most important part of the heart-warming first film. The classic jokes told in a modern manner paired with the plot's lovely message really sold this movie. And the new story is currently in development right now. We can't wait to see what actors return to their roles — Neil Patrick Harris had better return as the voice of Steve the monkey.

And just in case you don't remember how great Cloudy was, here are the first six minutes of the film.

From:
http://io9.com/5515454/cloudy-with-meatballs-2-is-happening--minus-the-original-directors

Here is a Amazon's description of Pickles to Pittsburgh:

We check back in with Kate and Henry as they eagerly await Grandpa's return from an unusual vacation. Kate dreams about a postcard Grandpa has sent, and the story begins.

What do you think? Do you think it will be any good? Do you think the directors want to move on to something else instead?

Enjoy!

Marmaduke movie

A combined live-action/animation Marmaduke movie, in which the Winslows and their computer-generated dog move from Kansas to California, is planned for release on June 4, 2010.



If this is a hit, then the world is over.

- TAE