Quantcast
Channel: Kyle's Animated World
Viewing all 673 articles
Browse latest View live

More Dino Stuff: 'Good Dinosaur' Interviews and Articles Reveal New Details

$
0
0

With Pixar's next, The Good Dinosaur, making a splash at Annecy this week, new details have come up... Yesterday, The Pixar Post have uncovered and dissected two articles on the film. One of which is an interview with director Pete Sohn...

First, there's a French poster out. Similar to the European posters for Frozen, it's a beauty. It has a very autumnal color scheme, too. It's the perfect film for the holiday season...


Anyways, The Telegraph ran a piece on the production with a lot of details...

The article confirms that the film was in the works for four years up until its director change, which means that it did begin work in 2009. After all, we saw concept art for the film in the Up B-roll video way back when. (Curiously, the boy in the concept art was a modern day kid.)

"Extraneous characters and story twists and turns had crept in during the development process, and the film was stretching in too many directions at once, tying its 30-foot necks in knots. So John Lasseter, the studio’s chief creative officer, took the drastic step of putting the film on pause – and, after a period of frenzied rewriting and brainstorming, replacing its original director, the Pixar veteran Bob Peterson, with his then-35-year-old deputy Peter Sohn."

So rewrites were occurring before Peterson was replaced? I had heard about Peterson not making decisions on time when he needed to, what with the film's intended May 2014 release around the corner back in summer 2013. (Peterson stopped tweeting altogether in June 2013, no-showed at D23, and weeks later it was confirmed he was off of the film.) It's no wonder why the film had to be delayed, a lot of work had to be done to get the film back on track. No different from Ratatouille...

Footage from the film was shown at Annecy, and it is indeed going to be a subversion of the "boy and his dog" stories. The earlier versions were, to the writer, more akin to Old Yeller and Big Red. Now, it's "more plaintive lost child’s odyssey, in the style of the great, heart-wrenching Forties Disney animations Dumbo and Bambi."

Similar to two of Walt's finest films, you say? The article goes on to mention that the film will have a lot of non-verbal communication, in fact it's almost the entire film. Think something similar to WALL-E's first act, since Spot the human doesn't speak, nor do the humans - should some more show up - of this particular alternate world. Dumbo's main character is silent, and Bambi has little dialogue. Thankfully so. There are stories of Walt getting upset about Bambi having too much dialogue! Imagine that!

Animated films that eschew talky talkiness for body language and whatnot, I feel, are often the superior kind. So much communication, heart, and beauty can be brought out in that form of storytelling, and Disney Animation and Pixar don't seem to have forgotten that, in an age where big-scale American animated films are constantly chat-chat-chatting and loud and noisy. It is reassuring to hear that The Good Dinosaur will not only be going in this direction, but that it'll also be very much like a Walt film. Inside Out was very much like a Golden Age Walt film too, alongside plenty of other Pixar films. Losing their ability to create great movies? I think not...

Sohn had this to say when interviewed for the piece...

"The issue was that some of the foundational elements of the story were creating problems that just could not be fixed. So you have to break them, and in breaking them there are a lot of sacrifices that you have to make. We had got to the point where The Good Dinosaur wanted to be two or three different kinds of films in one, and so we had to try to hone back in on the heart of it."

Nothing new for animated films, and certainly nothing new for Pixar. Ratatouille was a similarly-troubled production that had to be restarted with a new director and a new storyline, only working off of some of its originator's core ideas. Originator Bob Peterson's film sounds, from this information, like it would've been overcomplicated and riddled with subplots. If released as is, it probably would've gotten a lot of criticism. If he couldn't make crucial decisions so late in the game, there were going to be problems.

As I writer myself, I know the struggle too. Recently I've found myself cutting big things out of my own works that complicate the heck out of them! It took me a long time to do so too, years actually! It's a rough process, emotionally, for some to make such decisions and I understand completely. I wanted to keep the ideas I so loved... But for the good of the whole story, they had to go. Some people handle that well, others don't... It's normal.

Pixar took the smart option, I think, something they arguably didn't do for Brave. They tried to add modifications to the originator's version less than two years before its debut, rather than extensively retool it and attempting to get to the bottom of things. Whether Brenda Chapman's original film was superior or not is something we don't know, all I know (from various sources) is that the finished film is not too dissimilar to her vision, the big changes being parts moved around, it being set in summer instead of winter, and some things being dropped. Cars 2? Lasseter was iPad-directing that film within a year before its release, unfortunately he didn't exactly Toy Story 2 it.

Since the crew now wanted to focus on the heart of the story (Arlo and Spot's journey), many of Arlo's siblings had to be written out of the new story, which explains why Neil Patrick Harris, Judy Greer, and Bill Hader are no longer part of the cast. Instead, Arlo has one brother who is played by Marcus Scribner. As I detailed in an earlier article, they most likely weren't removed at last minute, they must've exited back when the film was in turnaround. Over a year ago...

The Telegraph also described a sequence from the film...

"That heart was very much in evidence in a two-minute sequence that Sohn screened from the middle of the film, in which Arlo and Spot, sitting on the bank of a mighty river one night, draw symbols in the sand to describe how each one misses their families in this enormous, edgeless world. The scene has a piercing emotional directness that’s all the more acute for its essential wordlessness. Even though Arlo talks, and Spot growls and snuffles, the meaning of what they’re saying is carried entirely by their gestures and looks, and the warm lights of the fireflies that blink in the darkness."

How can one not get excited after reading that? The more I hear about this film, the more excited I get. This year is really shaping up to be the Year of Pixar, two ambitious originals! Having seen it, I feel that Inside Out is a miracle of a film that pulls every ambition off, so I'm confident this will be no different, no matter what some out there may say or think.


Moving on...

Over at Yahoo! Movies UK, Sohn explained that Arlo's new voice actor was picked for the reason I and many others suggested: Arlo is a teenaged apatosaur, his voice actor Raymond Ochoa is a teenager, original voice Lucas Neff isn't.

"It was all about finding a younger Arlo. It was really about finding a boy [to play Arlo], so that we could push into that idea of him growing up and becoming a man, so the actor previous – who is a great actor – he was already a man, and so I needed to push that arc and find that compassionate kid, so that was the major kind of change. Then everything else, all the other characters that supported that story came in and out and changed and evolved and through that evolution, some of those performers changed out of it."

Again, an explanation for why some actors left and why others were replaced. The story changed, the characters' roles changed, so the actors had to be replaced. Plus, Sohn pretty much confirms that the voice cast changed when the film was being reworked last year.

On the film's Walt-esque qualities, Sohn said...

"There’s not a lot of dialogue in the film, and we’re trying to create a tone that is – I wouldn’t say quieter – but in that sincere way that Bambi and Dumbo are. Like those early films where a gesture can mean everything, where certain behaviours can mean more than words could ever and in my years in animation, hunting for these gestures, hunting for these little details that can speak volumes, that’s been a great inspiration."

On top of this writing decision, it's always - to me - refreshing to hear someone speak positively about Walt's films, rather than acting as if they're old-fashioned or dated or not as good as today's animated films. Comments like these show how highly influential Walt's films are today, and that they aren't films that were designed for kiddies only, like so many articles would like you to think. (Hey John Lasseter, next time you talk about Frozen, quit calling Snow White and Cinderella damsels that were dependent on men. You're supposed to know these things.)

When asked if the film will have long silent sections, similar to WALL-E and Up, he said...

"There are moments in the film where Arlo’s just dealing with nature and it’s been really exciting trying it out like that, because for me, I love movies, and I love being enveloped in something and really immersed. There’s a lot of orchestration to get that going. Sometimes I can really mess up something but I’ve been getting a lot of help in terms of balancing all these things. You see these things over and over again and it’s always finding that balance of pulling the audience in and not raising any flags that pull the audience out. It’s been amazing."

On production problems, what was going on with Peterson's version, and changing it, he said...

"All these films go through this. Every film I’ve worked on, they always go through this, and I guess it all goes with trying to build something original and new, you always have to go through this process. I don’t remember the number of screenings [we went through], but I do remember the film becoming heavier. Meaning that there were a lot of ideas in there that were supporting – all good ideas – they were just support ideas of other ideas that were good, but it just became about trying to honour what Bob started.

I love Bob, he’s a great mentor to me and still is, and he’s still at Pixar. Everything that we started out with, I’m trying to protect. It’s that initial DNA that I want to honour for sure and I feel like we have, we really have. We’re not done yet."


We knew as far back as fall 2013 that Peterson was staying, and it was recently announced that he was helping write Finding Dory. He also appeared in the behind-the-scenes tour that preceded the special screening of Inside Out that I saw yesterday...

Lastly, Sohn explains why the film is titled The Good Dinosaur...

"Arlo has a lot of issues when he’s born. He’s fearful and he’s weak and he’s disconnected from the family because of these issues and he feels like he’s not worthy, and so he finds a way to become worthy."

These interviews and pieces confirm everything I assumed before: The Good Dinosaur, like Ratatouille, seemed like a surefire film under its originator. Ratatouille was in the works under Jan Pinkava for five years until the film was restarted and reimagined in 2005, 2 1/2 years before its summer 2007 release. The Good Dinosaur took off in 2009, and four years later, it was restarted. A full two years before its Thanksgiving release. The voice cast change is a result of that, and it didn't happen recently. That voice cast had to be in place when the film was rewritten extensively...

There seems to be a lot of pessimism out there now that the new voice cast has been revealed, assumptions about the film being in so much trouble that it can't be saved and that the new cast signed on just recently, among other things. Other people act as if they time-traveled to spring 2016 and know that the film turned out to be awful or that it bombed at the box office. The usual with upcoming Pixar films post-Cars 2, endless pessimism and apocalyptic predictions. The decline, you know?

The film itself seems like it really did come around. There are many troubled productions in the history of film that have made it out of the pit and ended up being great films, I can't see why The Good Dinosaur can't be just that. The film could be excellent and amazing for all I know. Also, let's not assume that the pre-Sohn version of the film was some masterpiece that the Pixar heads - namely John Lasseter - were too close-minded to appreciate. Let's not go there.

I feel there is little to worry about at this point. The details on the reimagined film sound great, the film sounds like it'll be the next WALL-E or Up-esque film, it's also Walt-esque, yes... I am very excited for it! Are you?

Skadoosh!: Domestic 'Kung Fu Panda 3' Teaser Debuts

$
0
0

DreamWorks has finally released the teaser for Kung Fu Panda 3...

Not surprisingly, it has nothing on the epic Chinese teaser that leaked a few days ago...


It's a typical American animated film teaser. Jokes and humor rule the day here. It's no different from stacking the American trailers for Pixar or Disney Animation films against the Japanese ones...

I like the first half of this teaser very much, it showcases the same kinetic kung fu madness that helped make the first two films so exciting, whilst blending in some good comedy. The second part is pretty funny, showing that Po really takes after his father, and it'll be fun to see them work off of each other.

It's miles above Kung Fu Panda 2's teaser, which was just Po having a staring contest with the audience. Cute and funny, but this does more and I think it'll help the film do better at the domestic box office. I think it works as a funny teaser, and I hope it works on audiences here in the states. I prefer the Chinese teaser, it's definitely a country mile from this, and I assume a ton of other people feel the same way as well...


And that's pretty much everything from the Chinese teaser, this YouTube vid of it cuts some of the text stuff, nothing in terms of visuals....


Lastly, the villainous Kai will be voiced by J.K. Simmons. Very nice to know! For the longest time, Mads Mikkelsen was set to voice this supernatural menace, but Simmons is an excellent replacement. He already looks like a pretty intimidating foe, and hopefully the film dives into the darker pool that Kung Fu Panda 2 often dived into.

Anyways, I was sold from the very beginning. They had me at "Kung Fu Panda 3", so I don't need a teaser to convince me to see it. I'm already there!

What did you think of the teaser? What do you think of the Chinese teaser?

Editorial: We Still Have A Long Way To Go...

$
0
0

I saw Inside Out on Tuesday. If you haven't read my spoiler-free review on here, here is the skinny: I absolutely loved it and I think it's in the same wheelhouse as Pixar films like The Incredibles, Ratatouille, WALL-E, and Up. It's very ambitious, it feels more like a film for adults that just happens to be suitable for the young'uns to watch, and it tries to push family-friendly filmmaking - animated or not - forward. It's very much like one of Walt Disney's first five films...

However, will we move forward?

While many critics have given the film excellent reviews, a good number are acting surprised - as pointed out in animation historian Charles Solomon's great review - that an animated family film had such depth... As if animated family films in the past never had such depth...

Solomon ends his review with this telling sentence...

"Many critics seem surprised that animation can handle such deeply felt material, just as they were surprised by the depth of Beauty and the Beast, Pinocchio, Dumbo and Spirited Away."

Nothing new, for I heard some critics acted this way back when the Disney Renaissance kicked off. I also heard that when The Fox and the Hound came out in 1981, some reviewers were shocked to see a "Disney cartoon" even go for the themes it tackled. There are reviews of Walt's films complaining that they were too frightening for kids, even back during the Golden Age!

One tired thing I keep hearing in this day and age is something along the lines of "Animation has come a long way. It's become more adult and mature these days..."

It always was "mature" or "valid". Walt Disney didn't make Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs for children only, in fact Walt set his sights on general moviegoers, mainly adults. He did the same for the frightening Pinocchio, the wildly experimental Fantasia (in my opinion, no American animated feature since has come close to this film's ambition), the heart wrenching Dumbo, and the majestic Bambi... Very few people had the gall to call these films "kids' films" back in the day. In fact, it could be argued that "kids films" simply didn't exist in the 1930s and 1940s, during the Hays Code days where you couldn't put in content that was deemed inappropriate by the office...

Content that would make a film a hard PG or PG-13 film today...

Walt was making motion pictures like everyone else, they happened to be fantasy stories that captivated young audiences and moved adult audiences. Snow White didn't become the highest grossing film of all time for nothing before the juggernaut Gone with the Wind was released nearly two years later. Snow White's world premiere alone moved many contemporary Hollywood celebrities to laughs and tears. Pinocchio received excellent reviews when it was released, while Fantasia confused and even rubbed people the wrong way! One critic for The New York Times said the film was the same thing as Nazism!

Imagine that! Walt was something of a bad boy back then! Fantasia kind of is a "bad boy" kinda picture, what with its scary imagery and nudity and bold ideas. Today, it seems tame, but in 1940? It certainly wasn't in any way, shape, or form. That's part of why it didn't catch until much later, it was too much for general moviegoers. Some have said that Walt didn't hit any spot with it, as it was too highbrow for audiences and too lowbrow for the high art crowd. Many classical music enthusiasts and musicians found the film to be an absolute insult.

Today, it's hugely regarded as a masterpiece, and rightfully so. Fantasia wouldn't turn a dime at the box office until its psychedelic-themed re-release in 1969, three years after Walt's passing...

Dumbo was highly popular and received better reviews than a particular film that opened the same year, Citizen Kane. Imagine that! It's still highly regarded, and had the attack of Pearl Harbor never happened, it would've been a blockbuster at the box office and Dumbo himself would've been featured on the cover of TIME Magazine.

Bambi, like Fantasia, was more polarizing. Some thought it was too "realistic" to be a cartoon, one reviewer saying "Mickey wouldn't be caught dead in this." Some argued it was too cutesy. Nowadays? It's ranked as one of the biggest tearjerkers in film history, and just a masterpiece altogether. It has a quietness and subtlety that you won't see in many animated films today.

Walt and his crew hit that sweet spot with most of their films, but what he was doing in the 1930s and 1940s was unheard of, groundbreaking, earth-shaking! Sometimes controversial! Walt's first five films are all important films nowadays, as they are rightfully looked at as classics by open minds...

For every current writer who writes about Walt's films with respect, there are many who don't. I see all these editorials and overblown think pieces that talk about how great today's animated films are, how more "adult" they are, how they've come a long way, how "complex" they are... I just roll my eyes. As if Walt's films weren't just that. For instance, Forbes' movie critic - in his review of Planes: Fire & Rescue - dismissed every pre-1989 American animated film as "strictly for kids" stuff. And that's not even considering the films of Ralph Bakshi and others! Also, that's say nothing of every cartoon short from the Golden Age! I think those get overlooked in many ways, too, whether it's Looney Tunes or Tom & Jerry.

Articles and pieces like that, to me, define how many people see animation of the past. It makes me wonder if many of the writers even paid attention when watching classic animated films, or if they even watched them to begin with. (If you think Cinderella is dependent on a man to save her, chances are you haven't watched Walt's film or didn't pay attention when watching it.) Animation has indeed come a long way from its doldrum days (the 1970s and early-to-mid 1980s), there's no doubt about that, but we have simply returned to the way it was during the first Golden Age of Animation. All the mainstream features don't go above PG, very rarely do any go for the PG-13 and most of the time they don't go over well when they do. To me, American feature animation coming a "long way" means more adults-only films and films tackling all different kinds of subject matter. Look at European animated feature, other foreign works, to say nothing of what Japan does!

We are not there yet. In a day and age where there is no Hays Code, it's kind of frustrating that we haven't gotten there. I'm not saying Disney Animation or Pixar should turn around and make a PG-13 or R-rated film, I'm saying someone else should. Someone should heavily jumpstart adult feature animation here in America, smart adult feature animation, not raunchy stuff that'll easily get the majority of animation-avoiding teens in the theater. This is another story for another day...

Then again, there are people who clamor for animation to be more "grown-up", yet there are people who would prefer if animation remained "childish"...

Which brings me to Inside Out...

One positive review for the film put the following out:

"This is heady stuff - a more natural fit for a black-and-white Bergman than a kiddie caper."

Inside Out is supposed to be a kiddie caper? Says who? Certainly not the filmmakers behind it. Pete Docter himself emphasized in the Q&A at the special screening that Pixar - like Walt Disney - aims their films at all ages and not just kids. And what's wrong with something more family-friendly tackling this kind of subject matter? As if family-friendly entertainment or anything that can be for children shouldn't try to have that kind of content. Or it's unusual that some try. Okay then...

Movie Web's review sounds like it was written by a parent who wants animated family films (which she calls "kids films") to be like, I don't know, Despicable Me...

"Inside Out is a sad, emotionally loaded film that drains any initial exuberance like a faucet. Note to Pixar and Disney, please go back to making films that are more fun than not. I don't want to be bummed out watching a kid's film."

Reminds me of friends I had who said they hated Up because it was "too sad". The reviewer has every right not to like Pixar's latest, but it's not a "kids film". Perhaps if she didn't have such a narrow-minded view of family entertainment going in, maybe she would've appreciated it more or realized what it was trying to say...

It's like watching Bambi and saying, "What? This is a kids movie! Why is it sad?!" No, you only do that when watching Barney with your tykes and it gets dark all of a sudden...

Some reviews keep bringing up kids. "Kids won't get it", "the little ones probably won't understand it"... So what?

Plus, why should kids only be shown shallow entertainment? Kids aren't mindless, and it's quite sad to see that many adults seem to think that kids need to be shown dumbed-down entertainment or aren't intelligent enough or aren't up for something like Inside Out. That's how little some value of children. Sure, kids may like stuff we see as bad or not for us (like say, a kiddie show on Nick Jr.), but that doesn't make them mindless. Kids deserve great art and entertainment, too, so long as it's not too, too much for them.

When I was a little one, I didn't understand the deeper themes of Pinocchio, Dumbo, and Bambi. To say nothing of Fantasia! All I saw was imagery in that one! Just because some ideas go over the kids' heads doesn't mean they can't enjoy it, I certainly loved Pinocchio and Bambi for different reasons as a kid, and even if many kids don't enjoy something... What's the big deal? Critics, I think, should be talking to adults, adults who want to know about the film they are going to watch or already saw. If it's great and you think adults should love it, why the frig are you worrying about what the kids will think? They aren't paying for the tickets. Heck, if you're a parent and your kid loves it, that's just a bonus cherry on top.

Does anyone dare say such things about films like The Wizard of Oz? Or Star Wars? Or E.T.? Or It's a Wonderful Life? Or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?

Animation's "kid factor" is still stuck to it. It's been stuck to it since the 1960s, and here we are, 2015... We're still trying to get it off, as if it's super-glued to the medium.

Worst of all is one of the few negative reviews of the film, from a reviewer who I feel no need to mention given how he's responding to people over disagreeing with him, and how professional critics are sticking up for him. Anyways, he began his review with a condescending dismissal of animated family films, saying that they are made to quiet talky 10-years-old and that's that. He even sounded like it was a chore to even see the film, let alone write about it. Sounds like a cartoon-hating preteen who is trying to be "adult" wrote this. The reviewer seemed to be insulted at the film for attempting to be something more than your average family film, and he said it made him miss the days when kiddie films "pandered"...

So animated family films need to be on the level of silly giggly yellow creatures and funny talking snowmen? They can't aim for the high levels Inside Out goes for because you don't like it? That's fine and all, but that is your opinion... A good many people would love to see films like to Inside Out.

Some people just can't, and don't want to, realize that these films are not designed to be mindless babysitters. They are films, intended to entertain whoever watches them. A simple goal, really. I wouldn't mind if the reviewer wasn't so dismissive of animated family entertainment (again, he sounds like a middle school boy who is trying to grow out of cartoons, Disney, and Pixar films because society told him to do it), or if he didn't spit on those who would like the film. There are some rather unnecessarily condescending passages in the review...

But the review, along with other blurbs, shows that some are still not ready to see animated family films as legitimate motion pictures. It's hard to gauge whether they think that way about family films in general, because few good-to-great live-action family pictures come around, and when they do, they seem to get praise without any mention of the kiddies or how kids will be affected by it. Then again, live-action is still seen as the only legitimate form of moviemaking. There's a reason an animated film won't win Best Picture...

Basically, we still have a long way to go. Some people don't think animation as a medium alone is as valid as live-action (or "real people" movies or whatever), and many find some kind of fault with an animated family film (or in their minds, a "kids flick") aiming high. Nothing new, really. This has been an issue since the post-Walt years and the days when a barrage of kiddie-kiddie Saturday morning cartoons dominated the American animation scene. Things are better than they were back then, but again...

We still have a long way to go... Thankfully we're closer nowadays, what with open minds and those discovering the brilliance of good animated family films, and the brilliance of the medium itself...

Jump Up For Joy: 'Inside Out' Scores $34 Million Opening Day!

$
0
0

Look at that, early box office reports are saying that Inside Out will have the biggest opening for a non-sequel Pixar film!

Variety, Box Office Mojo, and Deadline report that the film has collected $34 million on Friday, which means it'll gross more than roughly $85 million for the weekend. Some analysts are saying it'll top $90 million for the weekend.

WOW.

A little background...

Very few animated family films released since 2005 have opened with more than $60 million unadjusted, except the Pixar films, almost all of which easily leapt past it. However, their originals have always settled for sub-$70 million totals. Up came close at $68 million back in 2009, today that adjusts to $74 million. Sequel Toy Story 3 and prequel Monsters University made $110 million and $83 million respectively. Finding Dory is sure to get up there next summer, if not break the opening weekend record for an animated film, which has been held by Shrek the Third since 2007.

Outside of Pixar, rarely do I see other big animated films pass $50 million on opening weekend. Some non-sequels in the last five years have done it, like Despicable Me, FrozenThe Lego MovieBig Hero 6, and most recently, Home.

If Inside Out scores in the $85-92 million range, it'll be up there with the adjusted openings for Monsters, Inc. ($89 million), Finding Nemo ($94 million), and The Incredibles ($92 million). That's pretty massive... Why are those films' adjusted opening weekend totals so high? The answer: Where were you in the early-to-mid 2000s? It was the CG boom, and any big-scale, family-friendly computer animated film was a guaranteed winner. It was a time when something like Shark Tale could make over $120 million domestically! Nowadays, audiences are choosier and the novelty of CG is long gone. The films now have to look appealing, them being CG films isn't enough these days...

Pixar really scored with this one, more so than their other post-Incredibles originals. I guess the emotions really got a hold on American audiences, and it has an A CinemaScore, so legs ought to be good. There was concern early on that the film being "too adult" or whatever would hold it back, and it is a legitimate concern, because audiences can be unpredictable and fickle. A deeper, less conventional, or more emotional animated film could have issues when it comes to how audiences will perceive it. Let's look at WALL-E. That sci-fi epic had a relatively low 3.5x multiplier for Pixar, and the film indeed polarized some audiences out there. It's a miracle it was able to hold on that well. See, I don't see Inside Out as that kind of film. I think it'll perform more like Up (4.3x) than WALL-E or Brave...

Minions is sure to be a monster next month and should temporarily put the brakes on the speeding Pixar express, but I think Inside Out will play so well that it'll really hold on after that film opens and dash past $300 million domestically. Even if it plays like WALL-E or Brave, it's still making a minimum of $300 million domestically, working off of an $85 million opening! Monsters University opened with $82 million back in 2013, and didn't reach $300 million because its multiplier was a decent (by Pixar's standards) 3.2x.

What's more?

The film took the #1 spot.

That's right, it beat juggernaut Jurassic World. While analysts are thinking Jurassic World will win the weekend overall with around $103 million (which is what The Avengers made on its second weekend), at least the Pixar film got the #1 spot that it could've missed. Even if it is for just one day! So the streak is unbroken in that way, but if Jurassic World wins the weekend, the "weekend streak" will be broken. Still, a Pixar film got to have its day at #1 despite a big booming blockbuster near it.

This all makes me wonder how their future original films will open. Is Inside Out that one special, non-sequel kind of Pixar film that opens above $85 million? That once-in-a-blue-moon occurrence? Or will future Pixar originals reach this benchmark or come close to it? Hey, I wonder if this film's success and dinos being all the rage right now will really work in The Good Dinosaur's favor. Think about it, "Oh my god! The people who made Inside Out making a dinosaur movie?! I'm so going!"

At least that's what I hope will happen...

Either way, it's a red letter day for Pixar and for animation fans! A coup d'etat to coin a Norman phrase...

Is a Pixar Slate Update Coming?

$
0
0

With Inside Out breaking a record and opening very well at the box office, is a better look at Pixar's slate in store for us?

If you think about it, other than the Good Dinosaur delay in late summer 2013 and the Toy Story 4 slating last autumn, their 2016-2018 slate hasn't changed much in the span of two years. Pixar locked four 2016-2018 dates in May 2013, and locked Thanksgiving 2015 back in October 2012.

In April 2013, it seemed like this would happen...

The Good Dinosaur - May 30, 2014
Inside Out - June 19, 2015
Finding Dory - November 25, 2015

Then in late May, Pixar locked down the four 2016-2018 dates...

TBD - June 17, 2016
TBD - June 16, 2017
TBD - November 22, 2017
TBD - June 15, 2018

In August 2013, it was announced that The Good Dinosaur went through a director change. For a while it seemed like they would still aim for the summer 2014 release date and salvage/finish the film, Cars 2-style.

September 2013. Pixar unexpectedly pushes the film back to fall of this year in order to get it right. Things went as expected, the film is nearing completion and we're getting it this autumn. Previous fall 2015 candidate Finding Dory was pushed back to - and filled - the June 2016 slot.

Then we heard nothing for a long while. The only other films we knew of that were in development were Lee Unkrich's untitled Day of the Dead film, Mark Andrews' untitled project, Teddy Newton's film, and Cars 3.

In November of last year, Disney and Pixar unexpectedly announced Toy Story 4, its crew, and its release date. The June 2017 slot was filled, leaving what will fill the fall 2017 and summer 2018 slots a mystery.

As of now, Lee Unkrich's film is still on the docket, as it has been talked about recently. Pixar President Jim Morris mentioned it in December 2014, Randy Newman talked about it a few months ago, confirming that it was going to be a musical. Still no word on a possible title or anything else, a piece of concept art was released back in January 2013, indicating that it would be out by 2016. It's now likely that it will debut sometime after summer 2017...

I haven't seen anything pertaining to Mark Andrews' film since January 2013.

Teddy Newton's film hasn't been talked about since its unveiling in fall 2012. Some people believe that Mr. Newton left Pixar, for a more recent photo of him showed him touring Paramount Animation with Lino DiSalvo and John Kahrs, who have been at Paramount Animation for a little while. It was assumed that Newton left Pixar, and left Pixar for Paramount. Maybe. There wasn't any announcement or anything. I think this project is in limbo, until I or we find out something...

Cars 3 is very much a go, for obvious reasons. The Incredibles 2 is happening, too.

Pixar has been hush-hush on originals, but not so much on sequels. Sequels, of course, are things the powers above them would love to have them announce because it gets investors and shareholders interested. Toy Story 4 is seemingly an exception, for they seemed to have this picture brewing for a good while and were finally ready, two years into its development, to announce its release date. You didn't see them do that for Cars 3 and The Incredibles 2, the former of which entered development four years ago...

Pixar doesn't want another Cars 2 situation with future sequels, they don't want to rush future sequels, considering how Monsters University was allowed to brew for a while and ended up getting pretty good critical reception. (No matter what the Internet says, 77% on RT is not too shabby!) Finding Dory was pushed back half a year, which I think speaks volumes. Toy Story 4 entered development in summer 2012, they didn't announce it until late 2014. Cars 3 went into development in 2011, they waited till spring 2014 to officially confirm that it's a thing... Despite the voice of the Sheriff spilling the beans the autumn before...

Now, as for originals... Pixar is simply doing what they did back in the mid-2000s, they slowly but surely unraveled details on their original stories. The world knew about 2010's Toy Story 3 (the Pixar one, not the almost-made Disney-only one) before they knew about 2009's Up, for example. I remember back in late 2004, we knew so little about Ratatouille, and barely a thing or rumbling on W.A.L.E., I mean WALL-E. I think we got word on that project as late as mid-2006! Two years before it opened!

So that brings me to what's going on now...

With Inside Out taking off, will Pixar tell us what's coming out on November 22, 2017? The slot after Toy Story 4? Or will they simply reveal what the next original will be? Will it be a good first look at Unkrich's film? Andrews' film? Something never hinted at in the past?

If not soon, when?

Pixar Plot Twist: What If 'Toy Story 4' Gets Pushed Back?

$
0
0

This sounds crazy...

I bet it probably won't end up happening, but what if...

What if... Pixar pushed Toy Story 4 back a year?

Now how in the world did this come to mind?

Well, I was thinking of Pixar's slate, Walt Disney Animation Studios' slate, and one particular Pixar film that quite frankly shouldn't be a May/June release or a Thanksgiving release...

You probably know what that particular project is...

Lee Unkrich's untitled film about Day of the Dead, the Mexican holiday. Dia De Los Muertos.

I also think that Walt Disney Animation Studios should not be shut out of 2017, as they are at the moment. I want that 11/22/2017 date that Pixar has locked in its talons to go to Disney Animation, while Pixar takes WDAS' 3/9/2018 release date... Because Walt Disney Animation Studios has another production coming out in 2018, that will bow in November of that year. No loss there...

Anyways, the current 2017-2018 slate looks like this...

Toy Story 4 - 6/16/2017
Untitled Pixar - 11/22/2017
Untitled WDAS - 3/9/2018
Untitled Pixar - 6/15/2018
Untitled WDAS - 11/21/2018

Toy Story 4, according to Pixar, entered development in summer 2012. The film was officially announced last November, 2 1/2 years into its development journey... Was that release date announced because Pixar was confident in it that it would indeed make it to 2017? Or was this just a temporary date to please investors and shareholders?

Now, it entered development in summer 2012, right? Well, the Day of the Dead film was in development since 2011. Lee Unkrich, who directed 2010's Toy Story 3, went into it not too long after finishing his smash hit. Hints of it peaked through in fall 2011, so it was in development before Toy Story 4.

What else entered development before Toy Story 4?

According to various sources, Cars 3...

Animation Anomaly posted an article about the threequel back in January 2013, asking how long will it be until the film is announced. Check out this comment, and take it with some grains of salt...


I would believe they'd begin work on it that early on. Also, remember when Michael Wallis - the voice of the Sheriff - let it slip in August 2013 that it was happening and it would be about Route 99? Now I was told that it was indeed chugging by 2013. Also, this storyboard artist at Pixar tweeted this the day Toy Story 4 was announced...


I bet it entered development back in summer 2011. Again, why wouldn't it? This is the Pixar franchise that makes Disney bean counters happy. Cars 3 was an inevitability since before the second one opened, anyway.

So Toy Story 4 entered development after these two pictures (a piece of concept art for Day of the Dead was released in January 2013 as well, a little while before Finding Dory concept art surfaced), and is coming out ahead of them? Well, who knows...

If Pixar's 11/22/2017 release isn't the Day of the Dead film, when does the Day of the Dead film come out? Pixar's slate ends at 6/15/2018 right now, so the earliest it can open is September/October 2018. The Day of the Dead holiday occurs from October 31st to November 2nd, so why release a film about that holiday in the summer or any time after Halloween?

What if... What if...

Pixar announces that Toy Story 4 will be pushed back a year? What if Toy Story 4 becomes their 6/15/2018 release?

I wouldn't be surprised if Pixar did this, because at one point in time, Pixar and Disney announced that Toy Story 3 would come out in 2009. This was back in 2006 when Pixar, after much trouble with Disney and the whole Circle 7 debacle of the final Eisner years, began work on "their"Toy Story 3. Or re-launched it, because Pixar - by many accounts - did have a Toy Story 3 planned before the acquisition. One they couldn't make for a little while...

However, in 2007, an original story called Up was announced and because that was in active development before Toy Story 3, it moved ahead of it on the slate. It was now the 2009 release, with Toy Story 3 moving back to 2010.

I can see the same happening for Toy Story 4...

They give it another year to breathe, another year to really come together as a great, cohesive whole that's more than worthy of the Toy Story trilogy.

So what takes its place?

Cars 3 now opens June 16, 2017. Six years since the last one, and it makes Disney happier. Since it was in development for a long time, it won't be a rush-job, which Cars 2 was. Cars 2 began development in early 2008, and came out in summer 2011, just three years after being started...

Pixar hands the 11/22/2017 release date over to Disney Animation, for whatever they chose to release on that date (Frozen 2? Something we never heard of?), and they instead release the Day of the Dead film in mid-October 2017...

With Disney Animation getting their fall 2017 slot, Pixar takes the 3/9/2018 slot and puts the untitled Mark Andrews film in it. Then Toy Story 4 debuts on June 15, 2018. Disney Animation releases their next film on November 21, 2018...

Everyone has their cake and eats it too, and that way we got at least one film from Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios every calendar year...

Cars 3 - June 16, 2017
Los Muertos - October 13, 2017
Untitled WDAS - November 22, 2017
Untitled Pixar Original - March 9, 2018
Toy Story 4 - June 15, 2018
Untitled WDAS - November 21, 2018
Untitled Pixar Original - Spring 2019
Untitled WDAS - Summer 2019
The Incredibles 2 - Holiday 2019

Inside... Forward... A Full Review of 'Inside Out'

$
0
0

Inside Out... Pixar's latest... An animated treasure...

There is so much to say about it, if you ask me.

Before you read on, this is the SPOILER HEAVY review. If you haven't seen the film and want to remain surprised, but still want to know what I thought, here's the spoiler-free review...

Okay... Moving on...

Inside Out...

Director Pete Docter is kind of the quirky man of Pixar, from my point of view. Monsters, Inc. and Up are definitely more on the delightfully oddball side of the Pixar palette. If John Lasseter is that big, goofy, heartfelt sincere side, if Andrew Stanton is that epic-in-scope, gargantuan, and sincere side... Docter is the quirky, weirdo, oddball, and sincere side.

Inside Out is purely Pete Docter...

Docter got the idea around 2009, the year his Up was completed. As his daughter began to change as she grew up, there came the genesis for Inside Out. Like many a great Pixar film, it is a personal story for Docter and one that he wrote to understand his daughter during such a time. It's his gift to her, and his gift to the world...

Docter pitched the project to Pixar nearly a year later. An original story called Newt was having issues, which is nothing new in the world of feature animation. Its director Gary Rydstrom was removed from the project, so the brass asked Docter if he could take it over. Docter presented Inside Out, and that was the film that moved forward instead. They all loved it for obvious reasons, there was so much potential for heart and humor, a creative setting and a cool interpretation for how the brain works, it had Pixar written all over it... However...


I almost get the sense that Pixar also loved Pete Docter's idea because it represented what could possibly be their biggest challenge yet. So many of their films have an emotional core that's often unsurpassed in the world of big-scale, mainstream feature animation, having that special kind of mix of humor, heart, and drama that's never easy to get. Some animation studios, when they make certain films, veer too heavily into the comedy side of things and treat the more emotional content as an afterthought. Not once do I really see animated films made by the big studios that veer too heavily towards emotion whilst treating the comedy and lighter moments as an afterthought, because doing that would only leave the audience without a fun time...

Balancing comedy and drama like that is not something you can easily do, especially if you're trying to give the audience as much of a fun, good time as possible. I see so many animated comedies try to shoehorn in a sadder element or something that tries to give it more weight, and it feels contrived to me, because it feels like it's not part of the story they're trying to tell or that it's just a minor element in the grand scheme of things. Pixar doesn't do this, they try to avoid that. Disney Animation too. The other studios have shown they can do that as well, what with DreamWorks'Kung Fu Panda and How To Train Your Dragon films, Sony's Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Warner's The Lego Movie, the list goes on...

Inside Out asks us "What would it be like if your emotions were little people, and they ran your brain like this?"Inside Out asks Pixar, "What if you literally explored what brings the emotions in real life, and by extension, the ones in your films?" Getting the emotional moments to work in narratives is already tough enough, Inside Out handed them a herculean task... And they pulled it off with flying colors.

Inside Out's first act recalls one of Pete Docter's other films, Monsters, Inc. That 2001 film established a whole world inhabited by monsters, how their world works, and everything else in-between. It's a creative premise that's set up beautifully in the first act, showing everything without any needless exposition. At the same time, we get a wonderful introduction to Mike and Sulley, who they are, how they work off of each other, and then we're shown who the possible threat is, what the stakes are, it's all beautifully set up in the first act. Inside Out does the same exact thing, and by the time Riley is off to San Francisco, you're already familiar with the world and inner-workings of her brain and what her emotions do.


Let's get the human characters out of the way first. Riley is likable, a very joyous and happy girl who is very much what Joy is until the move. From the get-go, we sympathize with her and we don't want to see her have a hard time. Her mother and father work well as background characters, and we even get to see a glimpse inside their minds. The rather-criticized "argument at family dinner" sequence is one of the film's funniest sequences, mostly because it does subtly show how her parents are products of their times, and how they would deal with such a situation. Luckily the human story is just the three of them, adding in more human characters would've muddled things up.


The five emotions are all unique characters, and you can see how they think one way. Joy might have her moments where she's a little unhappy, but her overall outlook defines her character and her duty. The same goes for Sadness, Disgust, Fear, and Anger. Joy is perhaps the one in the wrong in the film's first act, being so dismissive of Sadness, who is ultimately just as important to Riley as Joy and everyone else is, and shutting her out all the time. She doesn't have that kind of attitude towards the others, and as a result, Sadness wants to push her way into things. Joy is perhaps a bit selfish, too, as she was the first in Riley's mind. It's easy to cringe at what Sadness does in the first act, touching happy core memories and making them sad, and being something of a nuisance... But it's really Joy who is at fault here, and the film is her journey and how she learns that Sadness is ultimately part of life and that she is...

The very being who completes her.

Their characterizations are spot-on, thanks to the Pixar character animator geniuses and the voice actors. There is not a bad performance here, everyone is great. To say anything else about the cast would be redundant, for Pixar usually casts the right people and not actors who aren't interested in doing voice work for a "cartoon". The characters have their little nuances and their little ways. Joy is always upbeat, chipper, and tries her damnedest to make any situation as good as possible. Sadness bogs herself down, she's a lot like Eeyore, slow, droopy, talks in a slow voice, pessimistic, all everything's bad, but also very understanding and knowledgable of the world's problems... That empathy she has is something that Joy doesn't have. A scene where Riley's forgotten imaginary friend Bing Bong cries about the good times after losing his magic rocket (Riley's old radio flyer wagon with brooms) more than shows that Joy may not have the empathy that Sadness does, again adding to the theme of Sadness completing Joy.


That's to say nothing of the other three emotions. We may not see them for too, too long in the film since this is Joy and Sadness' adventure, but they are brimming with instantly likable personalities and quirks. Disgust is like a cross between a neat-freak, someone who gets grossed out easily, and a cool kid. She wants Riley to fit in and not be embarrassed or made a fool of in public. Aren't we all just that when we're Riley's age? I'm sure when you went through middle school, you didn't want to be seen with your parents or you didn't want to appear 0.1% uncool in front of someone else or a group of people. Disgust's ideas are everything a lot of us felt when we were that age, but at the same time she's fun as a character that just gets... Well... Grossed out by things. Right on cue, no less. The broccoli character design works, too.

Fear is a fantastic character, too. His design kind of reminds me of a germ, and his overall look just gives off "easily frightened person". Some of the best comedy and slapstick comes from him, but much like Disgust, his actions in the second act of the film are a good mirror of how we deal with the more negative things in middle school. When Riley cries in front of her class, there's a perfect bit where he is terrified and yells "Crying?! In school?!" Little things like that, it just hits me. When Riley attempts to go back to her old home, Fear is beyond scared, and that's exactly how we feel when we attempt to do something that we know isn't right. That nervousness, that anxiety... I'm sure this all does the same for the rest of the audience. I mean c'mon, who didn't feel funny if they happened to cry in school? Especially middle school! We can relate to it, and those bits are so subtle, it does it all without being heavy-handed. They just happen and it just clicks in your mind, "I can relate!" or "I've been there before! So true!" They let the characterizations and storytelling do the work, it's just so perfectly handled I can't praise it enough. A weak script would exhaustingly explain what's happening, here... Pixar just shows it, and let's that all do the talking.

A lot is done with Anger as well. Anger has little-to-no tact, he's impulsive, and he's willing to do things without thinking them through. He's very crucial in the film's third act, planting an idea in Riley's head, consequently driving her to run away from her new home. Aside from that, Anger is a walking volcano and when he gets angry, well, you'll see why he has such a design. In the end, he's good at heart and he realizes his errors later on. He also brings a lot of the film's best comedy, particularly when it comes to swear words.

All five of these characters take control and do their work at the perfect time. That's a massive task in itself for the writers: Determining when each emotion acts and when their human acts, how their human reacts to something, and whatnot. That right there is a huge challenge in itself, all the more making this one of Pixar's most ambitious films to date. One slight misstep and this could've gone awry in some way...

That's two major challenges that Pixar, Pete Docter, and everyone involved approached... And successfully completed...

What's another massive challenge that this film faced?

Balance.

Before we get there... One last character. You know who it is...

Bing Bong.


Bing Bong, being an imaginary friend, has one heck of a neat character design. He's pink cotton candy with an elephant trunk, a bushy cat tail, whiskers, and hobo attire, and he can also act like a dolphin. He's very funny and enjoyable to watch, but also very tragic. It doesn't seem like any long-term memories that Riley has of him exist, since the mind workers destroy memories on a whim. Even worse, this selfless character doesn't get what he desires and he ends up in the memory dump, where he'll be forgotten and disappear forever. Usually this comedic side character isn't something another animated family film would axe, but Lasseter's Disney Animation did it with Ray in The Princess and the Frog, and they do it here. Pretty bold! Imagine if 90s Disney killed off Timon and Pumbaa? Or Flounder? Or Chip?

A character like Bing Bong also shows that a funny side character doesn't have to just be funny. Sure, many Disney sidekicks from the 90s and now are somewhat crucial to the plots of their respective films, but Bing Bong is more than just that. He adds to the themes and weight of the narrative, on top of never being annoying. He's genuinely fun to watch, and it makes it all the more heartbreaking when he is forgotten forever... His story arc adds another ring of weight to this already highly emotional adventure.

These kinds of elements, like I said earlier, are balanced. The film had another big task in front of it when taking on its concept and story. How do you balance all this stuff? How do you keep the drama whilst keeping the fun and feel-good?

A perfect balance is what's needed, and they found it.


Inside Out is as funny and zany and enjoyable as it is heartbreaking, moody, and... Well... Emotional!

Like Pixar's other films, one side does not overshadow the other. Like Docter's last film Up, there is this mood that permeates most of the film, one that definitely isn't jovial. We know that while Joy, Sadness, and Bing Bong encounter all sorts of different, colorful things, Riley is suffering. The film doesn't ignore that, you feel it as it progresses. That's much like Up. Sure, things pick up when Carl and Russell end up on their big, zany adventure to Paradise Falls, but things that happened before linger: The fact that Ellie is deceased, the fact that she'll never experience what Carl is experiencing on the journey, his loneliness, the fact that they could have never children, and the fact that the two never fulfilled their dream together. Russell also has his struggles, and how his father is a deadbeat. This is all made worse when Carl realizes that the man he and Ellie idolized, the man who is pretty much the reason why they are who they are, is a monster.

Up could be a complete downer if you look at things that way. If I told someone all this before they have seen the film, they'd probably think it's not a fun film. Pixar's storytelling geniuses and crew balanced that negativity and darkness, and its lighter elements all out with finesse. Up's remaining 70 minutes or so are often criticized, but the wacky adventure with talking dogs and an exotic bird and some very well-timed comedy buffers a barrage of negative realities that are true to life. The lighthearted, adventurous half never, ever, overshadows them. Like I said earlier, the mood is still there. It hasn't gone away, the story didn't push it out of sight. Ellie's picture constantly shows up, and that's to say nothing of the sequence where Carl sits alone in the house and reads the adventure scrapbook.


Inside Out also does this. Riley's suffering and how she deals with her new life is more than enough, because it's something a lot of us can relate to. It doesn't matter if Riley moved to a new home or not, the main idea here is growing pains. You can step back and think, "But no one dies. There's no tragedy. It's just a girl moving into a new home..." It's more than that, it's about Riley facing harsher realities and change, which we all face when we grow up. That's all it needed, it had to hit home with us... For me, it did, in spades. It seems it has done so for many people as well...

Much like Up, that weight is mixed perfectly with the more jovial ingredients. Like Up's fun stuff, Inside Out's more joyous elements never negate the film's main ideas, its human story, and what it will ultimately say during the third act.

The humor expectedly soars, the film is very funny and witty. How Joy and Sadness work off of each other is great, and Bing Bong brings other laughs. The scenes set inside Dream Productions provide a lot of great gags, especially with how they make Riley's dreams. Each corner of Riley's brain brings creative stuff that you go "wow!" at, but also stuff that you get a kick out of.

The comedic and adventuruous stuff is some of Pixar's coolest, trippiest work put to celluloid. The world of Riley's brain is colorful and all sorts of eye-popping. The islands that make up her personality were an excellent story choice, and the little areas like the subconscious caves and Imagination Land add to this world greatly. All the faces they meet are cool, and the sequence involving Dream Productions is all sorts of greatness rolled into one: Movie geekery stuff, laughs, random unexpected humor, clever ideas, it's very Monsters, Inc.-esque in a way. Not to mention a speeding Train of Thought, the canyons that are long-term memory (and a wonderful bit on how random things come to mind at the most random times, Triple-Dent Gum anyone?), and Headquarters, a lovely-looking minaret-like tower. The whole intergalactic-like brain world is just a real visual treat, and one of the coolest environments I've seen in an animated film...


The film even goes for a sequence that comes close to the outright surrealism of some of Walt Disney's films, mainly Dumbo's 'Pink Elephants on Parade' and the last third of The Three Caballeros. There's a short sequence where Joy, Sadness, and Bing Bong take a short cut that's actually a chamber of abstract thought. Abstract is exactly what you get in this sequence. The animation changes styles a few times, and the characters even work off of the different, surreal animation styles to get to the other side of the chamber! Talk about going an extra mile...

So on one side you have a pure Pixar tearjerker with a very real, very human story. On the other side, you have a very fun and smart head trip adventure that doesn't leave out the weird and wild in the visual department. It's truly the best of both worlds, Pixar more than married the two together into one bold, ambitious, wholly satisfying experience...

Not an easy task. It astounds me that they were even able to do this...

That to me is what feature animation should be doing. Risk-taking. Look at how it paid off with the right minds and the right amount of dedication...

This brings me to the last thing that made Inside Out such a masterpiece... It's very much like a Walt Disney film.

A lot of people seem to assume that Walt Disney was just some children's filmmaker that happened to somewhat start animation (also untrue, Walt didn't create animation), a man interested in making "some movies" that happened to be passed down over the decades. Walt's work, I feel, is often sold short. I cringe when I see articles declaring that Walt made babysitter films his whole life, and then his company got more "adult" or more "savvy" during the Renaissance era. Walt Disney was a visionary, Walt wanted to change how people perceived the animation medium, but above all... Walt wanted to tell great stories for everyone. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs didn't become - at the time of its release - the world's highest grossing film for nothing.

Pinocchio aims for the same heights, and Walt didn't care one bit of its second half frights gave younger audiences nightmares. He didn't make the film for kids, Walt never had a target audience, the same goes for every big animation studio that was around during the first Golden Age of Animation. Warner Bros. didn't make their Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies shorts for young audiences only, ditto MGM with their Tom & Jerry shorts and Tex Avery cartoons, ditto Universal with their Woody Woodpecker cartoons, animation was never a children's medium. Walt Disney never made films that were just for children, he aimed his films at... The audience. Everyone.

Pixar operates the same way. They make films that everyone can watch, they happen to be appropriate for a majority of the younger set to view, but the stories, humor, heart, and ideas hit the older folk. Kids can enjoy what they enjoy, adults get something out of it too. However, sometimes, Walt Disney wanted to go beyond just telling great stories. He attempted to make something bold with Fantasia and he was chastised for it. Fantasia remains one of American feature animation's boldest films. I think nothing made since comes close to what that film tries to do. Dumbo goes trippy in its second half whilst still keeping the story work under control, the very quiet and mostly dialogue-free Bambi is more about atmosphere than it is about plot or some adventure or the main character's coming-of-age journey. It's a unique kind of film on its own.


A few Pixar films, I think, go that route. The sort of "Walt tries something crazy" route. The Incredibles, I think, was the first of those kinds of features from Pixar. The five films that preceded it are comedy-adventures that are pretty conventional, but still extremely well-made nonetheless. The Incredibles is an edgy "family film", a sort of "big kids and up" story with very intense sequences, some themes that are definitely more on the adult side (Helen thinking Bob is having an affair, anyone?), and its pointed criticisms at the "everyone is special" mentality that's an issue in our world. Ratatouille? A comedy set mostly in a restaurant with very few fantastical hijinks and stuff? I'd imagine kids getting bored with that film, heck I see a lot of adults call it one of their least favorite Pixar films. I guess it needed some kind of big, fantastical thing, like talking dogs or exotic birds or something. But hey, it does what it wants to do, no matter what the audience - young or old - may think. WALL-E? A polarizing sci-fi epic with a silent first act that also comments on the state of the world today? Up? Need I say more.

I think The Incredibles, Ratatouille, WALL-E, and Up all make up this circle. That circle would be "Pixar films that really go the extra mile". Films that show what family-friendly feature animation can do, or heck, even adult-oriented feature animation! The premise and story alone are so creative, it doesn't matter what rating this film has, whether it's PG or R. Inside Out is the new addition to that circle, and that's just one reason out of so many why I appreciate this film so much.

Before I get to the film's climax, let me also bring up Michael Giacchino's score. One of his finest, one of the best in a Pixar film. Many parts of it are simply ethereal, it's highly memorable, like pretty much all of Pixar's scores. From the minute the film starts, it immediately clicks. The film is one of the rare Disney Pictures releases that actually has music over the opening Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar logos. Well, I think that's a testament to how great the score is! Forget that new instrumental of 'When You Wish Upon a Star' and the silence/hopping sound effects of the Pixar logo for a second, make way for an excellent score!

This is one of the best covers for a soundtrack for
a Disney release...

Inside Out's climax is wholly satisfying in every way, shape, and form...

With everything gone bad, Anger puts his idea into the console and sets Riley on her journey back to Minnesota. Riley runs away, steals her mother's money, and is about to board a bus that'll take her to her home state! The stakes are raised, and Joy, after realizing in the memory dump that she needs Sadness and that sadness is an important part of life, races to find the emotion she kept pushing away. A fast-paced race back to headquarters the hard way ensues. Realizing Sadness' importance in Riley's life, Joy lets Sadness handle the core memories and make some decisions, something Joy barely allowed her to do in the past... Riley then realizes her mistake, gets off the bus in time, runs home... What follows...

What follows is one big reason why Pixar is so beloved. The whole sequence where she cries to her parents about missing home, it's perfection. It's so simple, it tells everything without overdoing it in any department, it's never syrupy. It's a genuinely sad but heartwarming moment that is a massive, successful payoff to everything that has been built up...


Other animated films might bring waterworks with a death scene, or someone not getting the love of their life. Inside Out makes us weepy over a simple scene where someone cries to their parents over something that's bothering them. Why does it work? Everything that happened before, and because of everything that has been established... We didn't want to see Riley suffer from the get-go, we wanted all to be a ok in Headquarters, and here something almost went wrong and here we have all that frustration and uncertainty burning off, with the person breaking down and crying. I'm sure we've all been there before, when everything that's cooked up in our heads, everything that has bothered us about something, all of it coming to a boil... But no outburst, but a breakdown.

You feel the pain, but also her honesty and everything she's feeling. In the process, she reinvents herself as a person, considering that she loses all of her personality islands throughout the story. It is just perfect...

The sequence is also very much in the heart of something Walt Disney would've called for. Some of Walt's films make us cry over a death (Bambi's mother), or the assumption that someone died (Snow White, Pinocchio), or someone visiting a guardian who has been separated from them (Dumbo), but sometimes he had us weepy over unlikely things... Cinderella has a very sad scene where the stepsisters tear the dress that Cinderella's mice friends - her only friends in her abusive household - worked so hard to make for her. Peter Pan has a scene where Wendy tells the Lost Boys - in song - what a mother is, Lady and the Tramp... Lady and the Tramp... It makes emotional scenes out of mere little things, such as Lady's confusion over why her owners are starting to neglect her a bit, or how she behaves after she learns about Tramp and who he really is... To say nothing of the dog pound sequence! In 101 Dalmatians, Perdita - horrified at Cruella coming into the picture - becomes upset about having puppies and doesn't want to have them anymore!

Then there's one of my personal favorites...

Alice in Wonderland's 'Very Good Advice' sequence... The "break down and cry" scene from this very film, I feel, channels that sequence out of all of the emotional moments in Walt Disney's films. I think that the 50s Disney animated films don't get enough mention when it comes to discussions on emotional Disney moments, usually the discussion goes for the first five films (obviously, because of Dumbo and Bambi) or the Renaissance films. 'Very Good Advice'wrecks me. Alice gets lost in Tulgey Wood and sings a song to herself, a song about how she doesn't do the right thing, a song about why she repeatedly makes mistakes... All on top of her being lost with probably no way to get back home. It's "Self Hatred: The Song". She doesn't even finish the song! She sobs trying to do so! She bawls her eyes out, while all the quirky-looking creatures she saw in the woods cry with her in the distance. How does this scene not get brought up?!

Inside Out's climactic scene inside the house when Riley cries to her parents is just like that to me. You don't need to kill someone off for a big emotional moment, you don't need a big heartbreaking "goodbye", or anything of the sort. This sequence is perfection, and it just tops everything off so wonderfully yet it's so simple...

It was truly hard for me to put it all into words. Inside Out is just something special. It truly is. It hits you in so many ways, effortlessly, it never struggles to do such. All the things about why we think, how we go about things, how we went about things growing up... It's all there, it's just there, it's all woven into this rock-solid plot that resonates. It's all inter-locked and so consistent, it's... I just can't praise it enough... And on top of all that, you have such great characters, wonderful animation, acting, art direction, perfect pacing, lots of stakes, and the Pixar heart.

This is a forward-thinking piece of family entertainment, animated or not. Forget the "family" aspect, this is just damn great entertainment. Who says a mainstream film that cost over $150 million can't be something so profound?

Walt Disney would have loved this picture, I believe.

Best of all, it has a perfect ending. Much like how Pete Docter's first film ends with those perfect last few seconds, Inside Out ends flawlessly. The ending closes everything on a bittersweet, ambiguous note. Joy and Sadness may be back to bring balance into Riley's life, her personality islands are back along with many new ones, but puberty is around the corner along with many other things... It addresses this in a witty manner, and it just finishes up the film with that reality looming. That's all it needed to do. It's also perfection.

The credits go the Toy Story 3 and Cars route, showing us some funny bits. We see inside the heads of others in San Francisco, from the angsty pizza server to a dog to a cat to a clown to one of Riley's teachers. It's a nice little treat, the cherry on top per se...

Inside Out is flat-out perfection... Or near-perfection. A perfect film probably doesn't exist, but this one comes close. Pixar has given us a profound but hilarious and heartwarming adventure that's also a surreal, game-changing film. What more can I say? It does everything right, on top of having so much to offer...

A real "Keep Moving Forward" film in the world of animation...

What's The Future of 'Kung Fu Panda'?

$
0
0

With Kung Fu Panda 3 coming in January, I was wondering something...

In winter 2010, months prior to the release of Kung Fu Panda 2, Jeffrey Katzenberg announced that DreamWorks intended to make the story of Po a rather epic saga. And by epic, I mean... The plan was to make four more sequels after Kung Fu Panda 2 opened!

Kung Fu Panda 2 opened in May 2011, and it kind of underperformed at the domestic box office, making significantly less than what its predecessor reeled in three years earlier without the aid of 3D or higher ticket prices. It still performed well overseas, as it did collect a fine $665 million in the end against its $150 million budget. Perhaps that might've put the brakes on a six-film series, because you heard very little about installments beyond a third one. Maybe DreamWorks was thinking that the sequel would pull a Shrek 2, rather than a Madagascar 2.


So... Is Kung Fu Panda 3 the final chapter? So far, from the marketing, it doesn't seem like it will definitely be the end... But at the same time, it could very well be the end. The story has Po reuniting with his father, finding the village where his kind ended up after Lord Shen's genocide, and he'll be facing a supernatural threat that's defeated other kung fu masters. These details sound like "epic finale" ingredients!

Of course, in movieland, smart businesspeople do not walk away from making a sequel to something that cracks $500 million and makes over 3x its big budget. Kung Fu Panda 2 made 4.4x its budget, so I'm surprised that DreamWorks hasn't really hinted at a fourth one between 2010 and now. Does this mean that they decided a long time ago (somewhere between December 2010 and May 2011) to make Kung Fu Panda a strong trilogy and keep it at that?

That could be likely, because they are thinking of doing the same with How To Train Your Dragon. Or at least its creative team is thinking about doing that...

Dean DeBlois, who directed the first two Dragon films (the first of which he directed with his Lilo & Stitch comrade Chris Sanders), said in interviews that How To Train Your Dragon 3 will definitely be the end of the main story, though spin-offs are possible.

"I think I’ve talked [Jeffrey Katzenberg] down from that (laughs). There may be spinoffs to come, but my involvement and my dedication to completing a story that has a reason for being and a strong sense of integrity and three chapters I think is in place and intact. Everybody seems to be in agreement that we’re moving in the right direction."

Of course, he said this back in fall 2014. This was right before Penguins of Madagascar, the company's second theatrical spin-off film, lost money at the box office thanks to a poor domestic performance and particularly high expectations...

I'd be super-surprised if DreamWorks walked away from Berk after the last one (Dragon 2 made $618 million worldwide, 4.2x its budget), even more so if they don't make spin-off films. Artistic integrity is something I admire, but DreamWorks is a company that needs franchises for the time being until someone buys them (whenever that will be, maybe sooner considering the success of Home and the fact that Kung Fu Panda 3 will score), so even though Dean wants to call it quits, the company calls the shots. He thinks it being a trilogy is in place, but that doesn't mean that it is so.

I think we'll end up seeing at least one spin-off, though considering how DreamWorks' last spin-off performed domestically, it is arguably something of a gamble now. I wouldn't rule out a fourth How To Train Your Dragon, or at least a fourth one that's about a brand new set of characters. Especially in a world where Toy Story 4 exists. It depends on what route the third one goes for its finale. DeBlois had this to say back in February...

“[Dragon 3 is] the culmination of Hiccup’s coming of age. Both he and Toothless are now chiefs of their respective tribes, and it’s a dueling story where you have both characters trying to do what’s right for their kind, and an eventual outcome where Hiccup is able to stand on his own. We’re gonna take the story to where the books begin, which is Hiccup as an adult reflecting back on a time where there were dragons, suggesting that the dragons will in some way go away. Why and could they come back and the mystery of what all that is will be saved for the actual story.”

Who knows, who knows. If Dragon 3 has an outcome where dragons will go away for good (I'm not putting that past DreamWorks), then a fourth one would negate that story. But who knows what they'll do...

Back to pandas...

I love this film series' setting and style, so I would be game for a second trilogy, but if the creative team behind the three films wants to put the lid on it after movie #3, I'm okay with that too. Do they plan to do that, though, is the bigger question. Are spin-offs possible?

Right now, DreamWorks is going down a road to recovery after a couple years of ups and steep, steep downs. For the time being, they'll really need sequels to keep them afloat. Kung Fu Panda 3, The Croods 2, and How To Train Your Dragon 3 - the sequels that are currently on their slate that right now ends at summer 2018 - are guaranteed hits. Who knows with big budget non-sequels Trolls, Boss Baby, and Larrikins.

We don't know where DreamWorks will be by the end of 2018, but if they aren't at a safer state by then (as in no one buying them, and them still spending too much on their films - $120 million is still way too much in my opinion), they'll still absolutely need sequels. So what comes from 2019 to 2021? Croods 3? Madagascar 4? Shrek 5? Home 2? They'd probably be all set with those, so maybe there is no need for new Kung Fu Panda and How To Train Your Dragon films by that point. Perfect for them if the creative teams behind them want them to end.

What do you think they'll do with Kung Fu Panda? Will they leave it as a strong trilogy? Or will the story continue? Do you think How To Train Your Dragon will definitely come to a close with its third installment? Sound off below!

You Never Know: Marvel Teaches a Lesson

$
0
0

Early reviews for the latest installment in the ever-expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe have arrived... The reviews for Ant-Man!

To the shock of many, the reviews are solid-to-great...

Not a shock to those outside of the Internet film circles and whatnot...

Anyways, I'm sure you know what kind of troubled road Ant-Man went down. Particularly last summer.

Visionary director Edgar Wright was set to helm the studio's take on the character, and he was gung-ho about this project since 2006, when Iron Man - the very film that launched the MCU - was in early development. Nothing happened for many years though, for Edgar focused on his own projects: Hot Fuzz came out in 2007, then he went to Scott Pilgrim vs. The World which opened in 2010, then he directed his attention to the closer of his Cornetto trilogy, The World's End. That opened in 2013. In-between those projects he worked on other things, such as writing The Adventure of Tintin's script with his collaborator Joe Cornish. Edgar did very little work on Ant-Man between 2006 and 2013, as recently confirmed by Kevin Feige in an interview:

Well, we've done that before, and sometimes that can work, and sometimes it's more difficult. But with Edgar, it was mutual. People said, "You guys have been working together for 10 years; why did you only figure it out a couple of months before you started filming?" But that's really not true. We'd been working on it for about nine months, maybe a year at most. And it became apparent to him and to us that the best thing to do was to move on. But because Edgar has a fan base and Marvel has a fan base, there's good and bad that comes with that high profile. And one of the bads is that internal decisions and shuffles get headlines.

Serious work on the film finally began in 2013, and filming was set to commence in summer 2014. However, creative differences had risen. Wright, an auteur, wanted to do his own thing with Ant-Man. He wanted to make a film that was more or less not connected to the MCU, something that was more irreverent and wasn't as serious. And by "serious", I mean something with the kind of stakes The Winter Soldier or Guardians of the Galaxy had. Wright's film was apparently more silly. Fine, but not exactly in line with the MCU's rules. He basically didn't play by the sandbox rules. Well, a sandbox with rules is the last place an auteur who prefers to stay true to his or her vision would want to be.

The split apparently wasn't too bad, no real bridges burnt. Wright walked, Marvel called on Peyton Reed to direct the film. Around half of the script was rewritten, but apparently a lot of Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish's work is in the film. They're both credited as writers, and reports say that half of their work shines in the finished film.

May 2014 was when the split was announced, mere weeks before filming was set to commence. Now, the Internet flipped when it was revealed that Wright walked. Flipped.

The Internet assumed that Ant-Man was dead. That was it. It was doomed. It was the end. It was going to be horrible. The new director and Marvel were going to destroy it. FACT.

It's as if they had time machines, went to July of this year, and came back to warn us that the closer to Phase 2 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was in fact a huge dud!

Back then, we had less information on how the production was going and why the split happened. The automatic assumption was "Marvel hates creativity and auteurs, so they stomped auteur Wright out because he was getting too creative for them! They don't understand good cinema! Marvel movies are all the same!"

(In that same interview, Feige - in such a classy manner - responded to WB exec Greg Silverman's comment on Marvel's movies being all the same while DC's will all be filmmaker-driven.)

Others assumed that Marvel and the powers-that-be, the Mouse House, had issues with the characters. Apparently Scott Lang was too morally grey of a character or whatever, and there were other rumors that ultimately turned out to be false. Lang is still a con artist with a criminal past, so it doesn't seem like they watered anything down. To further prove all those assumptions wrong, a few months after the split was announced, Guardians of the Galaxy arrived and all the main characters turned out to be criminals! Concerns over grey morality? What?

Everyone wrote the obituaries. Everyone was certain the film was going to be a huge disappointment, something mediocre or less.

Everyone also assumed that Edgar Wright's film, which wasn't even completed or fully realized before production, on top of being something people will not see, was the far better product.

It was certainly a shame to see Wright go. An Edgar Wright-directed MCU film was definitely something to get super-excited about. It is certainly okay to get upset over the fact that he was set to direct this film but ultimately didn't, but the outcry was ridiculous...

No different from the reactions to... Say... Pixar removing directors from their films or overhauling them. It wasn't a problem back when it happened twice before the Disney acquisition in 2006 (Toy Story 2 and Ratatouille), but nowadays it's a cause for alarm. All because Brave wasn't the 15-out-of-10 critical darling despite still getting pretty good reviews from 77% of critics out there... All because of Cars 2 being a muddled mess... All because of Monsters University not being super-excellent either... As if a couple not-perfect films means the studio is going downhill. I've been fighting this uphill battle since Cars 2...

Inside Out is a critical and commercial darling, but all is not fine in the water. Would it ever be, on the Internet? Does it snow in the Caribbean? There's still so much worry about The Good Dinosaur, it's absolutely nauseating: People assuming that the new cast was determined this month (when it was in place prior to the end of last year), people assuming that the film was hastily rewritten earlier this year (when they have been reworking it since summer 2013 when the original director was removed - not like they just set it aside for a year and a half!), and people just assuming that the film is going to be a huge pile of apatosaur dung and that it will be a letdown and so on and so forth.

Internet negativity and pessimism is a force to be reckoned with...

Pixar is upfront about director changes, other studios? Not so much. Of course, we all know that having a track record of 11 critical hits in a row prior to Cars 2 didn't help either, as a lot of people now have such ridiculously unrealistic expectations of the studio, and then act as if they committed a sin when they haven't made a near-perfect film. A good friend of mine who happens to be an animator said he feels that the backlash is akin to parents bashing their straight-A kid when he or she got their first B.

Of course there's also the assumption that all future sequels will be horrible, all because of Cars 2 and Monsters University. I guess we can forget subjectivity, for I thought Cars 2 was a fun little blockbuster (with some big issues) and I thought Monsters University was a very well-made, solid prequel that completes the original. Even if I didn't like those two films, I wouldn't lose hope, for Pixar hit home runs with... Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3!

Then they may cry, "They can't do sequels to their other films, only the Toy Story films! Except Toy Story 4!" It's as if they came back from 2019 to tell us that while The Incredibles 2 was amazing, Finding Dory, Toy Story 4, and Cars 3 sucked.

But sometimes a troubled film or something that may seem like it'll be awful... Turns out to be good...

So I suggest that pessimists stop worrying, and just wait and see...

Despicable Musical: Details on Illumination's Untitled Musical, The Studio's Future

$
0
0

At Annecy, Illumination founder and chief Chris Meledandri revealed some details about the studio's mystery 2016 release. 2016, interestingly enough, is the first year the studio will release two features...

Up until now, we knew that this enigmatic production was going to be directed and written by Garth Jennings (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), it would star Matthew McConaughey, and that it is currently pegged for a December 21, 2016 release...

At the Q&A, it was revealed that McConaughey is voicing a koala named Buster, who happens to be a theater owner. His friend is a black sheep, currently unnamed, and he'll be voiced by John Riley. After doing some surfing, all I can ask is... Who's that? Or did Variety's writer make a typo and meant to say John C. Reilly?

Now this other detail is interesting...

The film is set in a world where... There are no humans, but anthropomorphic animals who do human things!

Well... Insert "This sounds like Zootopia!" comment here.

I wonder what Illumination's all-animal world will be like. It'll be interesting to see two different, unique takes on this concept in the same year. Zootopia, of course, isn't the first animated anything to be set in a world where anthropomorphic animals dominate. As for why Illumination's film is coming out around the same time as Zootopia? Well, great minds think alike... Certainly nothing new in the world of animated features. Well, in one case many years ago it was nasty politics, but... Moving on!

The main plot itself?

The story follows Buster’s problem with his theater, which is empty. To save it, Buster comes up with the idea of a local singing competition.

Meledandri shared more details...

"The movie ends up becoming the story of the lives of the five characters vying to win the competition," adding the movie has "parts of about 85 songs," all known. "But it doesn’t become a story about winning the competition but about character, and that’s ultimately because any of our films have the potential to be successful because they’re about character," Meledandri said at an Annecy Fest keynote/Q&A..."

The good thing is, the main story is significantly different from Disney Animation's feature, and will be music-driven. Disney Animation's film is a mystery story that will be action-packed, this sounds like it's its own beast altogether. Plus, a singing competition? Well, at least it's not the good guys vs. bad guys story that's all too common in American feature animation.

Also, 85 songs? All known, pre-existing songs? How would familiar hits exist in the world they are setting up? (Unless they have contact with the human world, but who knows if they'll go that far...) And before anyone brings up Strange Magic, this could work if it's pulled off right. I haven't seen Strange Magic, but it seems like they tried to weave hit songs into a big fantasy story, whereas this will be about a music competition.

Plus, with Mr. Jennings directing, it's sure to be something quite different.

After presenting that feature, Meledandri spilled a few details on their adaptation of How The Grinch Stole Christmas. He said that they'll be going back to Dr. Seuss'"original intention". I have no idea how that'll turn out, because their adaptation of The Lorax was mediocrity and it goes against the book. In fact, Dr. Seuss-based movies have a poor track record so here's hoping that they can somehow stretch that tale to 90 minutes without filler that does not work. Pipe dream?

I guess if it's not all that good, at least it'll be better than the pretty bad Ron Howard Grinch film. I understand a lot of people my age love that film, though that could be out of nostalgia more than anything else. I liked it back then, but I was always drawn to Chuck Jones' take on the story.

Meledandri also spoke about Chinese computer animation, and how that's progressing. Not surprising, for it was reported a little while back that Illumination had an adaptation of a space-set Korean animated short called Johnny Express in the works. Illumination, from the very start, was all about overseas work. Their films are animated by a French studio called MacGuff, which they acquired in 2011. Best of all, their films are made for lower budgets (we're talking below $80 million here) and end up looking great! I always thought their strategy was very smart...

Lastly, this quote...

“Embrace risk. The driving force behind our economic model at Illumination Mac Guff is designed to preserve the opportunity to take risk. Subvert the expectation of the audience. Surprise them with unexpected choices.”

Illumination, I think, had something of a rough start. I like Despicable Me a great deal, and after re-watching it the other night, I still am very fond of it. I think it balances zany comedy, silly stuff, and a pretty good story quite well without feeling cliche or anything. It has everything I don't like about your typical family animated feature in it, but it all works, shockingly enough. The cute stuff isn't shoehorned in, the funny stuff is inventive and well-timed, the heartfelt stuff works, I like the aesthetic too!

On the surface it seems so basic and bland: Silly sidekicks, a second act twist where something sad happens and all seems lost and there's a scene where the characters mope, a good-vs-evil battle at the end, a montage or two set to a popular song... But it works because the slapstick is great, the comedy aims for both kids and adults (with a surprising dose of dark humor), the various gadgets and tech that Gru and Vector have are very cool, it's witty, the style is quirky, and the story isn't all over the place. Yes, I think the first Despicable Me is a very good film! It doesn't do anything new for feature animation whatsoever, but it really works wonders with what it has. It's not great, per se, but it's a simple entertaining romp done right. And how!

But then there's kiddie-flick Hop, and The Lorax basically had everything Despicable Me had, but none of it worked this time. I found Despicable Me 2 to be forgettable, despite that it tried to do some of the things its predecessor did right (the girls wanting a mom stuff, I thought, took a backseat to everything else and felt phoned in), and it also had a dull villain. I can only imagine how Minions will turn out. Reception seems alright, but I'm kind of burnt out on the Minions to be honest. (I reckon you fellow readers see Minion memes constantly on Facebook...) Despicable Me 3? All I ask for is more Gru & co., dial down the Minions stuff, and get a cool villain for them to face off against.

The Secret Life of Pets can be really fun. For me, it sounds a lot like Despicable Me, in that it's so simple. But the execution matters, and if it pulls everything off with style, I'll be happy. This musical sounds more interesting. Illumination has some projects in the works that also sound promising, like an adaptation of Osamu Tezuka's Pluto and a film based on Emily the Strange. In the works alongside those are some live-action pictures like an adaptation of Jonathan Straud's Lockwood & Co.: The Screaming Staircase. I wish it were animated though. Most adaptations and safer projects were shown the door, like Clifford the Big Red Dog, Woody Woodpecker, and Uglydoll. The remaining ones are The Cat in the Hat, Curious George, and Flanimals.

Lastly, there's Johnny Express, based on the Korean short of the same name...


The short is very clever and quirky, and I really like its look. It seems perfect for Illumination, so hopefully they go through with it, and they keep the short's sense of humor. Perhaps they'll co-produce it with a Korean studio, maybe the one that made the short!

All in all I think Illumination has potential, and I think we'll see some cool stuff from them in the future, particularly in next year's offerings. Let's hope the studio takes some risks in the future!

What do you think of these projects? Do you think this studio has a lot of potential?

More Super Stuff: First Images from Pixar's 'Sanjay's Super Team'

$
0
0

More details and two new images from Pixar's next short, Sanjay's Super Team, have surfaced!

For those who don't know, Sanjay's Super Team is a personal short film for long-time Pixar story artist and animator Sanjay Patel, and it'll be showing up at Comic-Con this week. The short itself, of course, will be released to the public in front of Pixar's next film, The Good Dinosaur, this coming Thanksgiving.

It's already made the waves because it's the first Pixar film - short or feature - to have a lead character that isn't Caucasian. It's also an autobiographical film, and it explores Patel's childhood and how he was more into what American kids were into, while his parents were very traditional.

The synopsis...

"The seven-minute short begins with young Sanjay watching cartoons and eating cereal in a bland, beige room as his father jingles a bell, beckoning him to join in meditation. Reluctant and bored by the ceremony, Sanjay begins daydreaming a kind of ancient, Hindu version of The Avengers, with the gods appearing like superheroes. As the daydream progresses, the color, light and animation of the film grows increasingly dazzling and cosmic, and Sanjay grows closer to understanding his father’s inner world."

The color, light, and animation growing "increasingly dazzling and cosmic"? One of the two new images gives us a taste of that, but first, here's what Sanjay himself will look like and what the non-daydream visual style will look like...


Sanjay's design is unique amongst the other Pixar humans, it's much more cartoony and caricatured than what we've seen before. Pixar's best human designs, to me, were always their more abstract ones. The human design work in films like the Toy Story films and Inside Out are definitely much more realistic, to me those films are like Cinderella or Lady and the Tramp. In those films, the Disney artists went for more traditional, lifelike humans (though those films did have their exceptions, like in Lady and the Tramp, Darling and Jim Dear are more realistic, but Tony and Joe? Not so much.) rather than the more caricatured ones we saw in Pinocchio, Dumbo, and many others from the 1940s.

Meanwhile, other Pixar films have more quirky, outlandish human designs. Up has fantastic character designs, ditto Brave. Films like these are more like One Hundred and One Dalmatians, for that film the crew went with odd shapes and designs, and it makes the film all the more unique amongst the Walt films. After the 1980s, many different varieties of Disney human designs came about: Aladdin is certainly no Hercules, and The Emperor's New Groove is no Atlantis!

I hope future Pixar stories about humans kind of drift away from the Toy Story rules, because as much as I love Inside Out, they did go back to those principles for the human character designs. Then again that makes for a nice contrast to the more loose and cartoony design work of the brain world. Moving on...

Here's what Sanjay's daydream will look like...


Now look at that! Wow!

See, I love it when animated films all of a sudden change styles. It's especially cool in more hyper-real computer animated films, and this is something that Pixar rarely does. Outside of credits sequences, Ratatouille has that one sequence where abstract animation details how things taste to Remy, but that's about it. Inside Out has the wonderful "Abstract Thought" sequence. The shorts do this kind of experimentation more so than the features, some fine examples being Your Friend the Rat and Day & Night. The visual fan in me hopes that Pixar will make more films that change animation styles in certain parts, art shifts. Disney Animation did it for a little while recently with films like Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, and Winnie the Pooh. On top of the many times they did it in the past...

Anyways, the above is image is very colorful and the superheroic takes on the Hindu gods are very clever. I hope that short has more than two animation styles, but the daydream look alone makes it look exciting, not to mention the concept alone. Again, I congratulate Pixar for moving ahead and opting to finally let people from different backgrounds tell stories. (Good Dinosaur director Pete Sohn is Korean, and he'll be bringing his background, experiences, and perspective into the picture.)

Producer Nicole Paradis Grindle (who was an associate producer on Toy Story 3 and Monsters University) said...

"Patel’s animation very clearly comes from a different cultural place than all the other stories we’ve told before. And for kids who come from these backgrounds to see themselves on screen, it’s exciting for us."

Patel himself had this to say...

"If I could, I would go back to the 1980s and give my younger self this short. I want to normalize and bring a young brown boy’s story to the pop culture zeitgeist. To have a broad audience like Pixar’s see this … it is a big deal. I’m so excited about that."

Lastly, and a lot of us knew this beforehand, the score will be done by Mychael Danna (Life of Pi, and also Good Dinosaur), a fitting choice!

What's your take on this new short film? What do you think of the look of it? Sound off below!

(via /Film)

The Name Game: 'Moana' Title Confusion [UPDATE]

$
0
0

Disney held another big presentation of their upcoming projects at CineEurope, a presentation that consisted of Walt Disney Animation Studios' next two films, Pixar's The Good Dinosaur, some of the live-action reimaginings, The Finest Hours (one of the few non-reimagining films the live-action studio has on the docket), and obviously... Marvel and Star Wars stuff...

Interestingly enough, Moana footage was shown during this presentation. But what kind of footage was it? Storyboards? Early, unfinished renders? The Hollywood Reporter says the Zootopia footage that was shown was unfinished, so...

It's been heavily rumored for a while that Moana will be that very Disney Animation film that will seamlessly combine computer animation and traditional animation into one great look, a sort-of "Feast: The Movie" in terms of the visuals. The film is still a year and a half away, so I assume that actual animation work on it hasn't even been started yet. It's possible that storyboards were shown, or pencil tests, since Disney has been doing those for their CG films as of late.

I wish they had specified what kind of footage it was, that way we know what the visuals will be like: Are they going to look like Frozen and Big Hero 6's visuals? Or will it resemble Paperman and Feast? Another story for another day...

What caught attention, however, was a comment by Lee Jury... He said that Moana is a "tentative" title for the film...

Of course, this brought up some bad memories. The days when we were upset over Rapunzel's replacement title, Tangled. The days when we had to hear about the executives being concerned over what adolescent boys wanted to see in theaters, as if adolescent boys are the audience Disney should be answering to. Because that clearly worked for films like Treasure Planet! (To be clear, I like Treasure Planet a lot, I'm simply criticizing how it was marketed.)

Those were frustrating times, and then for a little while we had to hear that Disney Animation was going to cease making fairy tale films, because the newbie higher-ups - especially the then-new Disney Pictures chairman - were close-minded fools that barked death to everything. Tangled was a hit and proved them wrong about fairy tale princess movies being passe, if that hadn't gone over, there wouldn't have been a Frozen. Not for a long while, at best.

So Disney Animation was allowed to continue making fairy tale movies, but because The Snow Queen was resurrected when Ross was still in charge, it had to have a boy-centric title. (Though I think Frozen is a much better title than Tangled, and is actually suitable considering that the film only uses some elements from the original Hans Christian Andersen tale.) Then in June 2013, we learned via Blue Sky Disney that Disney's next fairy tale adaptation was going to be Jack and the Beanstalk, but it was going to be called Giants. So it seemed like they weren't going to use the original titles of the tales, whether they had female names/"girly" words (like princess, queen, etc.) in them or not.

Rich Ross was ousted in spring 2012. Alan Horn replaced him as Disney Pictures Chairman in the summer of that year. The marketing department might or might not have gotten an overhaul, too. Was the "pander to adolescent boys" rule no longer in the book?

That same day in June 2013, Blue Sky Disney informed us that Ron Clements and John Musker's untitled project was going to be called Moana. There was a little rejoicing there, a Disney animated film whose female-centric title wasn't compromised for the suits!

Then worries came again...

A fake Disney Animation slate surfaced in spring 2014 on Tumblr and other sites, a slate that claimed that Disney would change Moana's title to "Spirited". A lot of people got very worried, but a lot of us knew the thing was fake. Everything was put to rest in October of last year, when Disney finally announced the film and its title to the public. It was called Moana, so we all assume that it'll keep that title.

However, these reports may cause people to worry again. But I think we shouldn't worry, because...

Lee Jury. The man who said that the title is "tentative"...

Who is Lee Jury?

A UK Disney marketing executive.

I think Jury is implying that Moana could get a UK-only title change, which is nothing new for Disney releases or movies in general. Tomorrowland's UK title adds the subtitle A World Beyond, due to the fact that there's a Belgium-based music festival called Tomorrowland and Disney owns the "Tomorrowland" trademark in the US only. Zootopia will be titled Zootropolis over there as well, and I've seen no really good reason for that title change. The Avengers was retitled Avengers Assemble, most likely due to the fact that a spy TV show called The Avengers existed two years before the Avengers formed in the comics and that very show was big in the UK, not so much here in the states. Oh, and it also got a movie in 1998. A bad one, but still...

I think the epic musical adventure film that Walt Disney Animation Studio is releasing next Thanksgiving will indeed be called Moana in the end... Here in the states. Whether it is or isn't going to be called that in the UK or other countries is up in the air...

UPDATE

It looks like we might have an answer to all of this.

Iry, who writes for Impero Disney and who has contributed to this blog before, told me on Facebook that the name change could be due to a certain someone: Moana Pozzi.

In case you readers didn't know, Moana Pozzi was a famous porn star in the 80s and early 90s. She died in 1994, but she starred in over 100 pornos, acted in a few films, wrote, and even founded a political party that ended after her death. Anyways, yes, obviously Italy knows her very well to this day, Iry told that me most of Europe knows her, so this could be what Jury is alluding to, and that Moana could possibly see a name change in Europe only because of that, not here. Maybe, maybe not. With this in mind, it's easier to see why Disney would want to change the film's title in Europe. If Moana is called Moana in Europe, then the first thing people over there will think of is a porn star, and Disney probably doesn't want that correlation.

Just a thought. What say you?

If it is retitled in Europe, what do you think it could be called over there?

The Giant Really Returns: Fathom Event 'Iron Giant' Re-release Coming This Fall!

$
0
0

It's finally happening... Brad Bird's feature film directorial debut is coming back to theaters!

Now, this re-release of The Iron Giant won't be a full-blown one. Instead, it'll be a Fathom Events re-release. It'll certainly be played in quite a few theaters nationwide, but it'll be for a week only. The screenings will take place on September 30th, followed by encore screenings on October 4th...

Here's what Mr. Bird himself had to say...


What's particularly interesting about this re-release is that the film will have extra footage in it. Dubbed the "Signature Edition", it'll contain two new scenes. Are they scenes that Bird intended to put in the picture back in the day? Were they finished a long time ago? Or did a studio animate these scenes recently? Did Bird come up with these scenes long after it came out?

The film, I feel, is great without new scenes, but hopefully these scenes overall add to the excellence of the picture.

The re-release will be followed by a home media release... But it'll be digital only. C'mon Warner Bros, get on that Blu-ray! Bird had wanted a full-blown special edition that would have lots of bonus features, while Warner Bros wanted a barebones set at best, as if asking for the film on Blu-ray alone was like giving them a tall order. Warner Home Video has been backing away from physical media for a few years now when it comes to classic animation and older films. Cartoon collections (i.e. Looney Tunes, Tom & Jerry) are pretty much over, some cartoons and more out-of-the-way animated films (i.e. the Rankin/Bass Hobbit films, Twice Upon a Time) only hit DVD.

Well, the good thing is, the film is getting something of a re-release. Maybe these releases will be like stepping stones, maybe Warner Bros is testing the waters to see if there's truly a demand for The Iron Giant. If the response is huge, maybe WB themselves will give it a full-blown re-issue or a proper home media release.

One can only hope...

(via ComingSoon)

A New Lucky Charm: Alan Tudyk To Be In Disney Animation's Next Two Films

$
0
0

It looks like Alan Tudyk will voice characters in Disney Animation's next two films, Zootopia and Moana!

This isn't much of a shock, because Tudyk played prominent characters in the previous three Disney animated films.

Alan Tudyk, prior to voicing King Candy in Wreck-It Ralph, was known for his roles in Firefly and Dollhouse, along with various other live-action roles. He has been no stranger to animation, either. His earliest voice work was for various characters in Ice Age, and he has done voice work for many animated TV shows and films since, including DC cartoons like Batman: The Brave and the Bold and Young Justice...

Tudyk was fantastic as King Candy/Turbo, one of my favorite Disney villains of the revival era features and one my favorites, period. He completely nailed the goofy Ed Wynn/Mad Hatter-esque side of the character, and landed the more sinister side. I thought he did well as the Duke of Wesselton in Frozen, though I didn't find that character to be too memorable. He was also very good as the seemingly suspicious Alistair Krei in Big Hero 6. In an interview with Collider, he jokingly talked about voicing "red herring" characters...

Of course, some of us wondered if he'd be in the next film, or future films from Walt Disney Animation Studios. The answer is yes...

Perhaps Mr. Tudyk is now their John Ratzenberger, the "good luck charm" that'll appear in all of their films. Ratzenberger has voiced major Pixar characters (Hamm), supporting characters (P.T. Flea, Mustafa), and quite a few minor one-scene wonder faces (the Yeti, Moonfish, Underminer, etc.) as well... I reckon Tudyk will be no different. There is not one Pixar film that Ratzenberger isn't in, so I can imagine Tudyk being in all of the future Disney Animation films. Disney Animation has done this long before John Lasseter was even born, too. Sterling Holloway, Verna Felton, and J. Pat O'Malley for starters can be heard in several Disney animated films.


Who will he voice in Zootopia? That's really up in the air, because we only know the names of two characters in that film, leads Nick Wilde and Judy Hopps. With Moana, we know roughly five, and that opens after Zootopia! With Zootopia, I'd imagine Tudyk playing a fairly major character, if not one of the main characters. For me, I hope he doesn't play a character that's associated with the antagonist or another "red herring" character like Wesselton or Krei, if there is one in that film. I reckon there will be a bad guy in Zootopia, given that one of the main characters wants to be a cop and also because the story involves a missing mammal. Earlier synopses mentioned a giant conspiracy, too.

If there is a bad guy, I kind of hope that if Tudyk voices him, he won't be a "reveal" villain, because you'll know his character is the villain from the get-go, thus ruining whatever twist they had in store. What was great about his roles in Frozen and Big Hero 6 was that he didn't play baddies, but characters some audiences assumed would be the villains. I remember going into Big Hero 6 thinking, "Alan Tudyk. His character is a CEO. I wonder if they'll be predictable and make him the bad guy." Throughout the film they try to lead you to believe that he was behind the expo fire that kills Tadashi, though many guessed from the get-go that it was Callaghan. Given Disney's penchant for twists with their recent films, I had a feeling it wasn't going to be Krei, and was happy to see that it wasn't.

So... Bad guy? A supporting character? A henchman? Another red herring? Who knows. I'm sure they won't repeat themselves. It'll be refreshing to see him play a good guy who isn't suspicious at all.

Moana is a bit more interesting. Who could he possibly voice in a story that's set in Oceania, 2,000 years ago? I doubt he'll be voicing a human character. Why's that? I would like to think that Disney will only cast people of Oceanic backgrounds (whether they're Samoan, Tahitian, what have you) for the humans, so I can see Tudyk playing one of Moana's animal friends or the talking tiki head that was rumored a little while back. Maybe he'll voice one of the supernatural creatures that Moana, Maui and the two animals will encounter on their journey.

What kind of character do you think Tudyk will play in Zootopia? Or Moana? Sound off below!

(via Collider)

'Minions' Opens Big, Could It Break That Record?

$
0
0

As expected, Illumination's Despicable Me spin-off Minions is a massive hit already...

Now, I'll be honest, I had no idea it would be this big. My guess was that it would do very well, but it wouldn't be some record-breaking smash. In hindsight, perhaps that prediction was kind of... Well... Dumb. See, my guess was that Despicable Me peaked with the second film, and that Minions would land between the two at the domestic box office, grossing around $300 million or so.

Today, Minions has broken the opening day record for an animated film. $46 million estimated, $5 million higher than the previous record holder, Toy Story 3.

What Toy Story 3 surprisingly didn't do was break the opening weekend record for an animated film. That crown still belongs to Shrek the Third, which took in $38 million on its opening day in 2007 without the aid of 3D or IMAX. The opening weekend gross? $121 million. I should've known better. Like Shrek the Third, Minions was coming off of the wildly successful Despicable Me 2, which - like Shrek 2 - made a hell of a lot more than its predecessor did. And its predecessor, like Shrek, was a real sleeper hit sensation.

So basically Despicable Me is the new Shrek in terms of box office. The first one was something that seemed a bit unlikely, but really caught on and surprised people. The second one rode off of the goodwill of the first one and soared (Universal didn't call the film their most profitable film ever for nothing), now the third entry - a spin-off - will be the big goliath opener... So does that mean it'll have the weakest legs of the franchise?

Shrek the Third made 2.6x its huge opening weekend, showing that the film was both front loaded and that audiences weren't too big on it. Most animated films pull the good 3x multiplier, 3.5x most of the time. Minions, similarly, doesn't have the fresh scores on the review aggregator sites. A good chunk of the reviews have said it's dull, uneven, sporadically funny, etc.

Shrek and Shrek 2 got rave critical reception (why the second one got such good reviews is beyond me), and both had great legs at the box office. Rarely does a big opener have such great legs, Shrek 2 is one of those rare birds. People really liked it, and Despicable Me 2 also had a big opening, but its legs were no different from the first film's legs. Despicable Me is a phenomenon, that I think can't be denied. Minions are everywhere, to the point where it's nauseating.

So yes, I should've known better.

But does Minions break the record? Or does it land below Shrek the Third's $121 million opening weekend gross? It depends on what the audiences think. Better yet, how will it hold up?

Well, if Minions disappoints audiences, then the multiplier will be a far cry from the ones scored by the previous Despicable Me entries: 4.48x and 4.43x respectively. Not that it'll matter to Universal and Illumination, for the film only cost $75 million to make and is sure to make some serious bank overseas. It already has! Its barely out here and it has already doubled its budget! It's got $141 million in the overseas pocket so far! The last film made $602 million overseas alone, I can definitely see this passing that like lightning.

I think it'll definitely hit $1 billion at this rate, no matter how it does here. What I think it won't do is top Frozen, because Frozen was a juggernaut. Minions is that "must-see" film that everyone flocks to on the first week. Now Minions will have legs and traction, but Frozen was a beast of its own. I don't expect the giggly yellow creatures to take the crown from Anna and Elsa...

If Minions does break the opening weekend record, I reckon it won't hold that honor it for too long. Why's that?

Well... Think of what's coming out next summer...

A gang of animated fish is sure to make some serious waves at the box office in less than a year from now. Heck, given that this very film's predecessor made $867 million worldwide 12 years ago without the aid of 3D and IMAX, today's high ticket prices, and what not... It might have a shot at becoming the world's highest grossing animated film.

We're not there yet, though. Let's see how Illumination's latest plays out in the coming weeks. My prediction? Okay-to-good legs (something below 3.5x), massive overseas grosses, $1 billion, won't beat Frozen. We shall see...

What are your predictions?

Breaking Bricks: Is 'Wreck-It Ralph 2' Moving Forward?

$
0
0

For a while, a sequel to Walt Disney Animation Studios' video game adventure Wreck-It Ralph was hinted at...

Not too long after Wreck-It Ralph debuted in the fall of 2012, director/Simpsons alumnus Rich Moore showed enthusiasm for doing a sequel, saying that he had wanted Mario to make an appearance this time around. He also mentioned a game that was removed from the first film, a sort-of social media-type game called Extreme EZ Livin' 2, and those comments sort of implied that the scrapped element could make it into the sequel. Not dissimilar to Pixar digging up scrapped Toy Story ideas and repurposing them for the two sequels...

So at that point, we knew that a sequel was possible...

In April 2014, the film's composer Henry Jackman (who also did the score for Big Hero 6) said in an interview that the sequel was indeed being written. Beyond that, we heard little else. Disney never officially announced it, and a certain someone who is in the know about Disney Animation arguably implied on twitter recently that there's a possibility that it won't move forward. By this point, however, we knew it existed. So at least we knew/know that...

To me, it seems like Moore was always gung-ho for a second Wreck-It Ralph film, but Disney Animation won't move forward on it until the story and script are to their liking. They don't want a rushjob nor do they want something that isn't all that good, especially since Wreck-It Ralph was critically acclaimed and seemed like the winner of the Oscar. (Remember how frustrated a lot of us were when Brave got the Oscar instead?)

Plus, Mr. Moore has been occupied for a little while. He moved on to directing Zootopia, the Hat Building's next feature, which is nearing completion.


However, him directing that feature raises a few questions...

How long has he been directing/working on that film? This past March, it was announced that he was directing the film alongside Byron Howard, the Tangled director who had been working on the project from the start. In fact, he and his directing partner Nathan Greno had pitched it to John Lasseter in early 2011, right after the success of their fairy tale adventure-comedy that became the studio's biggest hit in over a decade.

By mid-2012, it seemed like Greno left the project to pursue his own at the studio, that would of course be the still-not-yet-announced Giants. (Or maybe it has, depending on who you believe. Apparently Mr. Lasseter let it slip in Tokyo last autumn.) Wreck-It Ralph was completed around that time, so did Moore get the Zootopia gig right away? Or did Disney give it to him just recently? That's up in the air, but if Mr. Moore got onboard U.S.S. Zootopia sometime in fall 2013, that would explain why Ralphy's second outing stalled.

I think he got the gig after August 2013, because when the film was unveiled at the 2013 D23 Expo, no mention of him was made...

I mean, it seems like it has taken the sequel quite a while to gel, as it has almost been three years since the original opened. Again, this indicates that Moore started working on Zootopia very early on. Much earlier than this past March, or March of last year even!

You would think that Disney would've announced a Wreck-It Ralph sequel in some way, even if it wasn't going to be ready for a little while. After all, Wreck-It Ralph was a box office success and the Lasseter-run studio's second hit after 2010's Tangled. That being said, out of the four recent hits, it was the lowest grossing entry. Maybe the incentive to make a sequel wasn't as high, especially when one of those four hit films happened to become one of the highest-grossing films of all-time. It's no surprise Frozen 2 got announced first, but even then, they waited a year and a half to officially confirm its existence. You would think that any company would get on that very early on...

So, what's happening with Wreck-It Ralph 2 now? We might have an idea...


A little tidbit that surfaced today implies that the film is indeed going to happen! An Irish radio show called RTE Arena interviewed Ralph's voice himself, John C. Reilly. The show's producer, Penny Hart, said on her twitter that Reilly mentioned that he has signed on for the sequel!


Some would say "take that with a grain of salt", and I can see why. It's kind of a low-key way to announce "There's a Wreck-It Ralph 2 coming and I'm signed on for it!" But Reilly said he has signed on for it, so that means it's definitely a go. Remember back in mid-2012 when reports said that Albert Brooks and Ellen DeGeneres signed on for Finding Dory? Pixar didn't officially announce the film until April 2013. With this announcement, I expect Disney to announce Wreck-It Ralph 2 sometime soon.

This kind of "low-key announcement" thing has happened before though, and I think that the film is coming despite what might've been said before. I don't think Disney Animation cares about getting sequels out in a hurry, for Frozen 2 is going to open in 2018 at the earliest (possibly 2017 if some particular shuffling with Pixar happens), landing it roughly five years after its predecessor. With Disney, if it's hot, it'll probably remain hot for a long while. Hey, Alice in Wonderland's sequel is arriving next summer, that's over six years after the first one blew up the box office! People are still raving about Frozen, from my end. If the second film comes out in 2018, it'll still make serious bank both domestically and worldwide.

Wreck-It Ralph was not a super-smash hit on the level of Frozen, but it was a very big hit in its own right and I'd like to think that it continues to be a popular film to this day. Disney may not aggressively push it in your face all the time, but it doesn't seem like the film has faded away, and thankfully so if that's the case. I consider Wreck-It Ralph to be the best out of the Lasseter-era films (that's right, not Frozen!), and it's arguable that the film set up a big world that should be explored in sequels or other media. I mean, the film is set in an arcade. There are home games, mobile games, console games, there is much potential there! So much to explore! Hey, if Moore himself wants to do a sequel, I say let him!

Right now, it seems like a good chunk of Walt Disney Animation Studios' slate is locked down. Zootopia and Moana have been set in stone for a while, and it seems very likely that Giants will be their spring 2018 release with either Frozen 2 or Dean Wellins' film following in fall 2018. Right now, they don't have a film set for 2017 because Pixar is hogging both prime slots up that year. It's very possible that Disney Animation might end up getting the November 2017 slot, if Pixar were to budge. If that doesn't happen, then maybe this could be the plan...

Zootopia - 3/4/2016
Moana - 11/23/2016
Giants - 3/9/2018
Either Frozen 2 or Untitled Dean Wellins - 11/21/2018
Either Frozen 2 or Untitled Dean Wellins - 2019

That would mean that Wreck-It Ralph 2 would open sometime in 2019 or 2020 (!), roughly 7-8 years after its predecessor. That seems like quite a long wait... But would it even matter, box office-wise? Would a wait hurt Wreck-It Ralph 2's chances at doing well? Or would it only increase demand? I don't know, maybe some sequels aren't meant to out-open their predecessors by a wide margin to begin with.

However, if Pixar were to let Disney Animation have the 11/22/2017 slot that they current have, Ralph 2 would still probably be a 2019 release at the earliest. It depends on what's ready, and what Disney Animation is willing to do. But Mr. Reilly is signed on, so maybe the story is more than ready at this point. If it is, picture this: After Moore completes Zootopia in late 2015/early 2016, he can jump right over to Wreck-It Ralph 2 and possibly get it out as early as spring 2018!

Moore seems to work well within shorter time-spans, which isn't surprising considering his resume. Rich Moore's first Simpsons episode was the season 1 episode 'The Telltale Head', which aired in February 1990. Yes, Moore has been working that way a for a looooong, loooooooong time. I reckon he knows how to solve problems and make decisions quicker than most other directors. Hey, Brad Bird does it as well. In fact, he recently spoke about this at the Tribeca Film Festival, mentioning how his Simpsons and TV days showed him how to not hesitate and just make decisions. Like Walt did in his day.

Bird was directing Simpsons episodes in 1990, before moving on to The Critic and King of the Hill. He got The Incredibles done at a relatively fast clip. He had ideas for the film prior to entering Pixar, but the film was started in 2000 and was done by mid-2004. Compare that to Finding Nemo, which entered active development in 1997 but didn't hit theaters until 2003. Not too long after The Incredibles opened, Brad Bird got aboard the sinking ship that was Ratatouille, turned it around, and got it done in a little over 2 1/2 years. I reckon Mr. Moore operate like this: Make big decisions, don't sit around, get it done.

Wreck-It Ralph evolved out of a project called Joe Jump. Its director Sam Levine was working away at it for roughly four years. It began work in 2004, when Michael Eisner was CEO. Of course, Disney Animation was saved from near-death when Bob Iger, in the months after Eisner's ouster, brought John Lasseter in. Joe Jump was still a go, as Lasseter loved the concept, but two years later he pulled the plug on the project and Levine left the studio. That was in early-to-mid 2008. Lasseter then handed it over to Mr. Moore shortly after the stop. The quarters were in, and Disney Animation pressed "start".


Rich Moore and crew reimagined it (very few of Levine's ideas made it into the finished film), turned it around, and by early 2011, the film was progressing so well that the company moved the release date up. That's right, they pushed it forward because it was coming along so well! Plus, 2012 was vacant, Disney Animation-wise. That move meant that Pixar had to push Monsters University out of fall 2012 and back to summer 2013. Yes, that's how well Ralphy was progressing, that it pushed the Pixar prequel that was obviously going to make big Disney a lot of money, back seven months! Seems like Moore had it all down pat by the end of 2010!

So I believe that Moore can get right into Wreck-It Ralph 2 after Zootopia debuts this coming March, and have it ready by March or November 2018. What do you think? When do you think Disney will announce the film? Do you think, with this announcement, that this film is indeed moving forward? Do you think the story could be in tip-top shape as of now? Sound off below!

'Ant-Man' Review: Little and Hugely Entertaining

$
0
0

SPOILERS AHEAD!

Marvel's latest installment in their big, connected cinematic universe. This particular picture in the canon was perhaps the most notorious. Previous Marvel films were troubled productions, but the original director's departure from this film caused quite a ruckus. After months of concerns and worrying, it's finally here. For this reviewer, Ant-Man proves that a troubled production can turn out to be something very worthwhile in the end...

Ant-Man, billed as the true closer to Phase 2 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, is like a healthy mix of all different kinds of things. This makes it unique amongst the other MCU films, in fact most of Phase 2's films have been showing that the superhero story isn't always about people in costumes fighting typical bad guys. Iron Man 3? Intimate detective thriller with some big-bang-boom stuff. Captain America: The Winter Soldier? Spy-thriller with a hint of political thriller. Guardians of the Galaxy? Bizarro space opera!

Ant-Man is a mixture of things. It's a shrinking movie, but it's also a heist movie, a redemption story, but also a surreal comedy that dabbles in sci-fi and maybe even crime comedy! It's like the "everything burger" of the MCU. Stylish? It certainly is in many parts. Peyton Reed, working off a super-fun modified Edgar Wright/Joe Cornish script, nails the quirkier parts while landing the storytelling with confidence.

The characters? This is where the Marvel movies always succeed. Right off the bat, you like Scott Lang. He's whip-smart, brilliant, he knows the ins and outs of little things, he's extremely strategic, and overall is just a funny, likable type. His break into Hank Pym's vault early on in the film effortlessly illustrates how clever he is. He's like a less snarky Tony Stark who likes to get his hands dirty, he's more of a straight man in the middle of weirdo plot. Never too grey of a character on the morality scale, his determination to better his life and Hank Pym's intentions drive the plot with no hassle.

Hank Pym on the other hand is a bit more bitter and cynical. Long retired and no longer at his firm - Pym Technologies, Pym is not too fond of The Avengers, he wants nothing to do with superheroes given how S.H.I.E.L.D. attempted to duplicate his Ant-Man formula (the "Pym Particle") in the film's 1989-set opening sequence, where we see that he didn't quite get along with Howard Stark. Guilt-ridden by the death of his wife, he makes an effort to hide the Ant-Man technology, but his equally disillusioned daughter happened to get Pym's also disillusioned protege Darren Cross ahead in the company... And he's is out to sell the tech and his own insect-inspired suit, the Yellowjacket. I at first suspected that Cross would be another Obadiah Stane, a villain - mind you - that I did not dislike. Cross shares some similarities, being the guy who wants to take Pym's technology down his path. However, he has more depth.


Pym is a strong central force in the film, creating more problems in an attempt to do the right thing. The Ant-Man suit, unlike Stark's technology or Captain America's vibranium shield, is potentially very dangerous much like Bruce Banner himself. He also functions as a perfect mentor-type character to Lang, being very likable in his own right, and he's certainly not the type that puts up with others. He's certainly snarky and isn't afraid to deal in blows, and it's all justified given everything that's happened to him. Hope is no laughing matter either, as she took up martial arts and shows a kick-ass side when training Lang to use the suit.

What they do with the technology is great! Like Guardians of the Galaxy, the film embraces the inherent silliness of the premise. "Ant-Man" is one of those things that makes people say "What?" Then you tell them, "guy shrinks down to the size of an ant", still not enticing. Of course, those in the know are aware of how cool of a superhero Ant-Man is, but for those who don't, the film doesn't trip up in making everything believable. Guardians of the Galaxy took space raccoons and talking trees and acted as if it was just a matter-in-fact thing, Peter Quill never says "a talking raccoon with a gun?" This has a similar level of confidence.

When Lang shrinks for the first time, it's thrilling. The scene of him in the bathtub is one of those "wonder" moments, where you look at what you're seeing in awe, even though shrinking person movies have been done before. Best of all, the film plays with the shrinking stuff, big time. Whether it's Lang's attempts to survive getting squashed by dancers on the club floor of an apartment building to fighting Cross' HYDRA henchmen, every ant-sized sequence is a blast. They're shot wonderfully, giving them a very big feel (not going to lie, some shots channeled A Bug's Life for me), making scenes that are actually so little feel so epic.

The third act is when the dial is cranked up. Everything that is set up in the solid first two-thirds of this film is used to make one hell of a satisfying pay-off. The first part of the fireworks climax is a really fun heist that gets more thrilling as it unfolds, but it gets ten times better, and fifty times wilder, when the second part rolls in - a hilarious and hectic fight that takes place in Lang's daughter's bedroom on a play table of various different toys including a Thomas the Tank Engine train set. Yes... The hero fights the villain on a Thomas the Tank Engine train set... In a Marvel movie. (Extra points for not destroying the Thomas locomotive or his coaches, Annie and Clarabel!) That's not all, the technology that can shrink and grow things is used here in full force, making for some truly standout moments. A dog-sized ant, a giant Thomas that's probably bigger than Thomas if he were real, trippy quantum realms... Again, all of this in a Marvel movie...


I wasn't this thrilled with a Marvel climax since the third act of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, but this climax - with its unexpected thrills and its laugh-out-loud humor - is more in line with The Avengers' climax. The Thomas toy being thrown out the window and enlarged, to me, was the Hulk's Loki smackdown of the movie. I also hadn't had this much fun in a movie theater since February's Kingsman: The Secret Service. It's the perfect, perfect blend of exhilarating action and quirky comedy. But... It's not finished yet! Scott then goes into the quantum realm, the very one that took Janet away from Hank Pym, to save his daughter from Cross. It's a very trippy sequence that just adds more flair to this already eclectic smorgasbord... One "Wow!" moment after the other...

Yes, the film's third act is that good. It's worth the price of admission alone, it's probably my second favorite Marvel third act behind The Avengers, and a few clicks ahead of Winter Soldier. Marvel does good, action-packed third acts that more than conclude their films on appropriate notes, but rarely do they ever reach this level of surprise and amazement. Most blockbusters don't do this, period. I bet a lot of it came from Edgar Wright, too, showing that his pizazz was certainly not lost in Peyton Reed's movie. A real jolt, the third doesn't make the rest look boring by comparison. There's a lot of style and verve in the first 2/3 of the film, among other good things...

My only slight issue with the first two-thirds is that they are a little on the ho-hum side. Competent, but the flashes of cool keep you interested alongside the great characters. As a defender of the Marvel films, I don't think that they all "feel the same", though they do share some similarities. This film, however, like Guardians of the Galaxy, felt kind of removed from the familiar elements, from the score to the film's sense of humor to the scale of it. S.H.I.E.L.D./HYDRA has some presence, but that's about it. There's a big tech firm that's reminiscent of other Marvel ones, but it still all feels significantly different. The tone, the feel, the mixture of genres and styles, the film is unique in a way. That's not a bad thing, it only shows that Marvel does spice it up, if Phase 2's line-up didn't show that already. These are more than just "superhero" films...

The set-up stuff? Of course it has to be there. To me, only one Marvel film kind of screwed up with this element, and that was troubled production Iron Man 2. Since then, we've seen these films handle these things much better. Iron Man 3Thor: The Dark World, and Guardians of the Galaxy are pretty self-contained for the most part, Captain America: The Winter Soldier sets up so much so subtly whilst effortlessly telling its strong core story, this film sets up future films in a much different way. Ant-Man finds himself at the Avengers base in upstate New York to find a piece of tech that is vital to the heist, and fights Falcon in a very unexpected sequence, and in turn Falcon might have a helping hand for Captain America in next year's Civil War. To say nothing of Luis - one of Lang's gang members, and a show-stealer at that - informing Lang of a guy who "crawls up the walls". The links to the past? Handled wonderfully, what with the opening sequence establishing Pym's character.

It may sound cliche, but Marvel has indeed done it again. The film's third act and its many quirks elevate the seemingly-simple tale to the higher levels of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's not the deep, psychological story that Avengers: Age of Ultron is, but it's much more creative, energetic, and out-there. It's not as consistent as, say, Iron Man 3, but it offers so many surprises to make up for some of its downfalls. It has great character work, solid storytelling, very lean pacing, and many surprises. It's a blast!

Preview of Previews: Two Animated Film Trailers Classified

$
0
0

The ever-trusty Alberta Film Ratings has confirmed that some new trailers for animated films have been classified recently, meaning that they are probably around the corner...

The first one is for The Good Dinosaur, which was classified earlier today.


It seems like Disney marketing will be taking the Big Hero 6 route for the Pixar original's marketing campaign. What do I mean by that?

Starting with Tangled, new computer-animated Disney Animation films were released in November. A teaser would debut in June of its release year, usually before the latest Pixar film (i.e. Tangled's teaser debuted theatrically with Toy Story 3), then the full trailer would debut in September.

In 2014, there was no new Pixar film for the summer. Or the year. Disney opted to release the Big Hero 6 teaser in time for late May release Maleficent. So naturally I (and probably a lot of others) expected a full trailer to follow in September... But we got it in July instead! Nice and early! This was followed up by a second (!) full trailer in September.

So, it seems like they'll be doing just that for The Good Dinosaur. The trailer itself is 2:16, but the site labels it as "Trailer #2", but yes, technically this will be the first full trailer. I'm surprised it was classified today though, given that Ant-Man just opened. Disney doesn't have a big family release between Ant-Man and The Good Dinosaur, so something family-friendly coming out between now and August will likely have this trailer attached. Pixels, I don't know if that's family-friendly enough, but it could be shown before that. Or The Shaun the Sheep Movie at the beginning of August...

That all being said, I expect to see the trailer soon. Maybe some time next week, or at the beginning of August at the latest...


A week ago, a new trailer for Kung Fu Panda 3 was classified. Running at 1:44, the site refers to it as "Trailer A". This to me implies that it'll be a full trailer and not a mere teaser, or maybe it's a second teaser given its pretty short running time. I'm just hoping that this trailer really makes the film look exciting, and that audiences will really want to see it, because I don't want another Kung Fu Panda 2 or How To Train Your Dragon 2 situation.

However, unlike those two films, it should be safe because... What is Kung Fu Panda 3's competition? Disney's true story-based action-drama The Finest Hours (what's that? A Disney live-action film that isn't an animated film re-imagining?) and an untitled horror film. Quite different from something like The Hangover Part II or 22 Jump Street. It pretty much has all of February to itself, too. I think, domestic box office-wise, it'll be a rebound from Kung Fu Panda 2. Whether it'll reach Kung Fu Panda numbers or not ($215m unadjusted, and that was without the aid of 3D) is up in the air...

When do you think these trailers will come out? Sound off below!

Ranking the Marvel Cinematic Universe Films (Phase 2 Edition)

$
0
0

Seven years into its run, the thrilling, ever-changing, ever-expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe has reached the closing of its second phase... A mere three years after Phase 1's ending film was released, The Avengers...

While Phase 1 gave us fresh new superhero stories that provided fun, action, great characters, and more than serviceable writing, Phase 2 opened new doors. Phase 1's biggest challenge was introducing characters who weren't as well-known to the general public, some of which may have gotten film adaptations (Captain America is a fine example) in the past, but ones that didn't make them popular like the likes of Spider-Man and the X-Men. Iron Man, the big risk, the starter of this whole series, a way for Marvel to possibly get out of financial jeopardy... Not only did this very film save them, but started something fresh and unique, something that became huge in the box office world, something that other Hollywood studios are trying to replicate, hoping to see similar successes...

Now that I have seen Ant-Man, the closer to Phase 2, I will now re-rank the Marvel Cinematic Universe films. So without further ado...

~


#12 - IRON MAN 2
Directed by Jon Favreau
Written by Justin Theroux
Released on May 7, 2010

Iron Man 2 was perhaps the most troubled of all the Marvel Studios productions, and it shows...

Prior to the release of Iron Man, were there any plans to do a sequel between the first film and the release of The Avengers? As far as I remember, Iron Man sequels were certainly a possibility prior to the first film's release in 2008. Even after the first film came out, director Jon Favreau had some interesting ideas, making the Mandarin a sort-of "pulling the strings" final villain that would make his proper appearance in a third film, he is certainly hinted at in the first film.

Iron Man was the first film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which was a massive risk in itself, much like Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger. A film based on what some people regarded as a B-list character, and a film that the entire MCU and Marvel's future hinged on. Iron Man was not only a hit, but a smash hit. The armored superhero's first story took off, big time... After it took off, a full slate of movies that capped off at The Avengers - then slated for a summer 2011 release - was unveiled. Iron Man 2 was fast tracked, moved full steam ahead, and had a summer 2010 release date to meet. Favreau had less than two years with this one, and the resulting film does feel very rushed, unsure of itself, and all over the place...

Iron Man 2 isn't all bad, in fact it's much better than some give it credit for. The biggest problem with Iron Man 2 is not that it's something of a mess, but because it is also disappointing considering that the sky was the limit after the first Iron Man ended. The sequel doesn't feel bigger, it's much more ho-hum and a tad uneventful in ways. If this were not a sequel, these flaws could probably be forgiven, but what the film does in its middle portion derails a potentially great and darker story. Not a Dark Knight-like uptick, but a story that could've shown our heroic Iron Man in a more negative light.

The first third of this film, I feel, equals the first Iron Man in terms of quality. A much more powerful villain with better motivations is promised, the trademark Tony Stark humor is back in full force, we see Tony becoming more and more of problem. The new foe, the menacing and disheveled Ivan Vanko, seems very promising in the film's first third. He wants revenge on Tony because of what Tony's father did to his father. All very good stuff, plus he's pretty intimidating and puts together a cool weaponized suit using Stark technology.

Everything from the film's opening to the end of the party sequence sets up a great sequel that end up not getting...

From Tony's drinking problems to the fact that he's slowly dying, we are somewhat promised a tense and darker plot that makes Tony less of a good guy. This is mostly buffered by a subplot where Vanko takes a backseat to Stark rival Justin Hammer, a character who - despite a a wonderfully cocky and arrogant performance by Sam Rockwell - doesn't come off as much of a palpable threat. The direction brings more build-up, though. This stretch shows that film is going somewhere interesting, so what does the film do after Tony does some bad things that put his friends and others in danger?

The film decides to go in a completely different direction.

Gone is the story of Tony's mistakes while a vengeful villain plots against him, in comes an Avengers prequel. Tony is put under house arrest, a surefire way to re-introduce S.H.I.E.L.D. into the picture, not that it doesn't work, but this isn't really Tony's story anymore. Nick Fury gets his proper introduction and while it's cool to see him and Natasha Romanoff, it's still little more than just fun set-up stuff that doesn't really add much to the film we were getting, maybe other than a scene where Fury and Tony talk about the man's father. Romanoff is nothing more than eye-candy here, given a couple action sequences but little else. Very few sheds of the movie that was playing before this one came in shine through the muddled and grounded middle.

What does work during this often-criticized stretch is the father subplot. Adding a little heart, the scene where Tony watches his father's films finally injects some much-needed character development into the picture whilst continuing on what worked earlier in the film. Meanwhile, Vanko and Hammer are still at work, but for some reason they seem to feel like less and less of a real danger. Maybe it's because Tony is no longer the guy who is hurting himself, making things more predictable. Rhodes all of a sudden becomes War Machine for Hammer, though that element thankfully does not feel out of place. After Tony watches the home movies, it's too late to do anything else with the "Tony's issues" story. We're in act three now! Gotta move! So the script now has Tony doing things right, whilst hastily - so fast, it's faster than Quicksilver - making a new arc reactor that can save his life, and then it's onto the big showdown with Vanko and the drones! Rush, rush, rush!

The climax is certainly lots of fun, having overall well-conceived, slick action. Iron Man certainly had good action, but something feels cleaner and more professional about this picture. Iron Man was admittedly a little indie film that also happened to be a blockbuster, this feels like a full-on big-scale movie. James Rhodes' ascension to superhero status may have been super-quick, but at least we get to see him and Tony in suits fighting together. The moment they are inside the glass dome fighting the drones is truly a real joy to watch, but the boss battle with Vanko is woefully short. A great set-piece could've come from this, but the Russian baddie is defeated in seconds...

The better elements keep Iron Man 2 above water during the disappointing second half. The script is a real mess and real stakes are diluted, but the film doesn't stop short on supplying the fun you want from an MCU film and an Iron Man film. Tony's personality and humor are kept, and even though the humor tends to go overboard (did we really need a scene where Tony wets himself inside one of the suits?), it's good that it hasn't been sacrificed in attempt to make the story darker. The action setpieces are all well-shot and realized, with some genuine "wow" moments here and there. The film also doesn't succumb to the traps that other summer blockbusters of this size normally walk right into. The heart is certainly in the right place, here.

All in all it's an entertaining entry in the series, but in terms of the story and the script, it's easily the weakest. A plot with so much potential is ultimately wasted, and we settle for a decent blockbuster-type actioner in the end. With so much to juggle and so little time to do it, it's amazing that it still comes out an enjoyable film with some good ideas...

~


#11 - THOR: THE DARK WORLD
Directed by Alan Taylor
Written by Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus
and Stephen McFeely
Released on November 8, 2013

Like Iron Man 2, Thor: The Dark World was a very troubled production. The Thunder God's sequel also had a similar production timeframe, which most likely didn't help. One director walked after "creative differences" (the usual), the replacement - Games of Thrones episode director Alan Taylor - was reportedly rough to work with, plus they had a short timespan to get the film done. Joss Whedon even had to fly to England to retool some sections of the film, it was a mess that was somehow saved in post-production...

Unlike Iron Man 2, Thor: The Dark World has some actual stakes that it does not ignore. The threat is much more present, and there is a clear end goal without any muddle getting in the way. With no overt set-up stuff and no unnecessary subplots that knock everything off course, the film is much more linear and much more cohesive. So what doesn't work?

Unfortunately, Thor: The Dark World seems to disregard character development much like Iron Man 2. Thematically it's one of the more "nothing" kind of MCU films, a straightforward good guys vs. the bad guys story. Thor is certainly a very likable character, but not much is done with him in this film, unlike the first Thor. In that film, we see him transition from an arrogant upstart into a more humble man, and that film also has an emotional core at its center. Here? No progression whatsoever, and very little emotion. The plot is too basic: A new villain rises, Thor has to stop him. Nothing more.

All of the problems can be detected in the murky and rather uneventful first act, which strangely feels boring, lurching along until Malekith and the Dark Elves invade Asgard. After the chaos goes down, Thor begins to face some actual challenges that test him, such as defying Odin and actually teaming up with an imprisoned Loki to stop Malekith. Now this is thrilling stuff, and it really bolsters the film's second half. The second half has everything the lethargic first half needed: Fun, stakes, some character development (sure it's minuscule, but it's welcome!), twists, surprises, and thrilling action. Sometimes the film even borders on going bonkers, what with its crazy climactic battle that takes Thor and Malekith through London and some of the other Nine Realms, even bringing a Jotunheim beast into the streets! So much fun to watch, and so well-directed!

Still, Thor: The Dark World suffers in other areas. Malekith is certainly creepy and intimidating, but he's a very cardboard villain in terms of his personality. Not like The Red Skull, who is equally basic as a villain, but he's more fun to watch onscreen. Malekith is your typical menacing-voice baddie, who just walks around looking and sounding evil. There are too many Earth scenes too, as we already got enough Earth in the first film. We should've seen more of Asgard and Svartalfheim, the film's titular setting. The Dark World itself is barely visited and it's just another generic barren wasteland. Asgard on the other hand looks wonderful, and has a much more appealing color scheme and aesthetic this time around.

Alan Taylor's directing is consistent and at times very lovely, as Kenneth Branagh wasn't at his finest in sections of the first Thor, though Taylor's directing is mostly average and doesn't have the epic, Shakespearian, weighty feel that Branagh brought to his film. Under better circumstances, Branagh would've knocked all of Thor out of the park, the same goes for Taylor. Both good directors, both working under pressure.

Oddly enough, Loki really steals the show. He makes quick appearances before the attack on Asgard, but he dominates the energetic second half. The dynamic between him and Thor is very fun, and seeing the two work together is also a treat, as we see more of the brilliance of his powers. However, the Warriors Three and Lady Sif should've been in it more. Jane Foster is back and actually does something, Darcy remains the comic relief and she doesn't get too annoying.

Thor: The Dark World is kind of a glass half-full entry in this series. The whole film should've been on the level of its second half, plus it could've used more character development. On the whole it's a fun fantasy sci-fi adventure with some surprises here and there, but it could've been much more.

~


#10. THE INCREDIBLE HULK
Directed by Louis Leterrier
Written by Zak Penn and Edward Norton
Released on June 13, 2008

Yet another troubled production, The Incredible Hulk seems to get a lot of flack. Some say that the picture doesn't feel as connected to the Marvel Cinematic Universe as the other films. This is probably due to the fact that the actor playing Bruce Banner here didn't stick around for the future films of this series, a very competent Edward Norton who seemed to want control over the story and direction, hence making the film's trip to completion a rather rough one. Being the second film in the MCU, perhaps the canon's vibe hadn't been locked down just yet. That wit that makes the films immediately recognizable really isn't here. Marvel Studios hadn't quite defined their stamp just yet, so the film could feel like someone else's blockbuster. Lastly, the directing is among the weakest of the canon's films, not that the directing is bad, but a lot of it - with all due respect to Leterrier - is rather ho-hum and just kind of there.

That all doesn't make The Incredible Hulk a bad film, though. Evolving from what was going to be a sequel to the 2003 Hulk directed by Ang Lee, The Incredible Hulk feels like a soft reboot that was really meant to bring the character into the MCU rather than being a great origin tale, but they still tell a worthwhile Banner-on-the-run story. Perhaps the only full-on action-drama in the series, the film has a first third that is mostly quiet, sometimes weighty, and intimate, though it does a fine job introducing Bruce and his dilemma. The decision to quickly retell the origin story in the film's opening credits was a smart one, because you don't always need to introduce a superhero that way. It gives you the basic idea without sparing anything important, and it kicks the film off to a great start. Originally, the intention was to retell the origin in flashbacks throughout the film, but that just would've made it clunky plus we know what happens. Why not tell it all up front?

Edward Norton actually does a good job as Banner, bringing out his determination and intelligence. However, the performance is a country mile from Mark Ruffalo's more energetic and inviting take on the character. Everyone else is pretty good too, especially William Hurt as Thunderbolt Ross, and it will be great to see him return in next year's Captain America: Civil War. The story does a good job setting up future Marvel films without being blatant whilst focusing on Banner, his return to the United States, and his relationship with Betty Ross. Solid character development isn't left out, and when the action has to happen, it's handled very well too! The film, however, remains intimate and not "big".

The story begins to fall apart by its third act, unfortunately. Abomination feels a bit like an eleventh hour inclusion. Emil Blonsky is fine as an antagonist, but it feels like they just had to have a third-act final battle, one that takes the story of Banner's issues with General Ross off the track. Sometimes superhero films get criticized for having third-act giant battles (The Wolverine being a good, recent example), The Incredible Hulk could've subverted that by having a different kind of conclusion while still having a lot of action and thrills. The Hulk vs. Abomination fight is still exciting enough, but it feels like it was tacked on. The Leader is also teased, but that ultimately went nowhere, further distancing this chapter from its MCU counterparts. Still, Samuel Sterns makes for a good addition to the story and the brief screen time he gets is good stuff.

While not the most memorable film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, The Incredible Hulk is an overall well-made action-drama that doesn't resort to being po-faced (I'm looking at you, Man of Steel), it's got some good action, the main characters are well-developed, and the pacing is also just right. An overlooked addition the series...

~


#9 - THOR
Directed by Kenneth Branagh
Written by Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz
and Don Payne
Released on May 6, 2011

Thor, despite being a good origin story for the character, is more or less a better version of Iron Man 2. Treading too close to that film's waters, Thor is a bit too hung up on setting up The Avengers and establishing the connections between the different films, especially with S.H.I.E.L.D.'s presence. However, S.H.I.E.L.D. actually has something to do with the main plot, and I for one quite like Thor's journey through this often-criticized entry.

Your classic story of an arrogant type being humbled, Thor may seem a bit basic, but the actors all do a fine job, the world building is satisfying, and the plot chugs briskly from start to finish without detours. The Asgard scenes are hindered by a rather questionable design scheme, but the Shakespearian epic scope (and cheese) that director Kenneth Branagh brings to the world makes for a cool vibe. Though we see less and less of that realm when Thor ends up on Earth, it's not like the Earth scenes are bad either. The Earth scenes are thankfully set in a desert town and are calm, quiet, and never too noisy. Thor's relationship with Jane Foster is a bit rushed, but it mostly works. Thor's quest to retain Mjolnir is also a very cool set piece that doesn't rely on spectacle and big booms, as we get to see him fight without such godly powers. The fish-out-of-water humor is far from tired, too, as that "otherworldly being comes to Earth" base produces some of the film's biggest laughs.

The main story works just fine, it's just that the film is trying to juggle that and Avengers set-up stuff. It's weaved into the story a lot more effectively, what with S.H.I.E.L.D. reasonably driving the plot in the second act. Perhaps the film slogs a tiny bit when it's on Earth, and perhaps we could've seen more of Asgard. Thor definitely doesn't qualify as an action-blockbuster great, but its heart, its core, and its character development are arguably overlooked. Like the other MCU installments, the script uses comic relief where it's needed while having those great character moments that little-by-little establish their personalities in spades.

On the whole it just isn't spectacular as a film. A good part of it feels undercooked in a way, Branagh directs some scenes with sparkle, others he does not. This sort of wishy-washiness permeates most of Phase 1. There's a feeling of unsureness and a slight lack of confidence in the Phase 1 entries, even Iron Man and The Avengers to some extent, but that's absent the much better-made Phase 2 installments. Those films mostly boast better cinematography, better scores, more energy, and are a little less laborious. Maybe once you get the origins out of the way, you go explore...

Thor gets affected by this Phase 1 problem the most, but that shouldn't have been an issue because this is a more cosmic, high fantasy story. Asgard, as mentioned earlier, could've looked a lot better and there could've been more verve with some of those sequences. Branagh nails some of them, but he doesn't land others. The same goes for the earthbound plot...

~


#8 - AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON
Directed by Joss Whedon
Written by Joss Whedon
Released on May 1, 2015

Naturally, Avengers: Age of Ultron is one of the very definitions of "bigger"... Not in the way you might think, though...

Avengers: Age of Ultron is certainly mammoth in scope, what with its big villain who has a pretty massive army, much like Loki and his Chituari. The climax involves a whole city being lifted into the air, a city and its ground beneath that are going to be used as a vibranium-powered meteor of sorts that will destroy humanity. The story globe-hops, taking us to Seoul, the fictional African location Wakanda, and fictional European country Sokovia... And even a nice little farmhouse deep in the American countryside! There are more allies to The Avengers, too. It's definitely bigger than its predecessor in those ways. However, Avengers: Age of Ultron has a much more complex and deep, even psychological story boiling under the big-budget surface...

I feel that most of the critics who have given Avengers: Age of Ultron negative scores perhaps need to see it again. I certainly needed to see it again, because I pretty much saw a well-made action film the first time around. The second time around, I saw something more... It wasn't just another Marvel movie, it wasn't just another action film...

The film dives into the psyches of the characters, working off of the introduction of newcomer Scarlet Witch and her powers. These are characters we already know so much about, but the story feels the need to explore them even further. Ultron, an impressive villain that is one of the better MCU menaces, is even more fascinating because he is really an extension of Tony Stark's rather compulsive need to create big solutions to things he perceives as big problems that only something huge can handle - like a force or an army that could backfire on him and those who are close to him. Building an Iron Legion to police the world, it's one step further to his siding with the government over the Superhero Registration Act when Civil War rolls along, while also showing his old Iron Man 3 attitude. Now that functions as both excellent character development for a guy we've seen a lot of in four movies, and a very subtle set-up for future events in this series.

Even more impressive is the relationship between Bruce Banner and Natasha Romanoff. Banner ends up facing the real consequences of turning into the green giant, emphasized beautifully in a thrilling but also harrowing setpiece in Johannesburg. There is an excellent emotional sequence set inside Hawkeye's safe house where Banner talks to Romanoff about his past, and Romanoff comforts him by talking about her dark past, a scene that shows that their romance in the film is more than just that, they truly connect on a deep level. All of this development and warmth perhaps didn't need to be here, but Joss Whedon brought it to the table and amplified it. Quieter moments like these were, I think, the best parts of this big epic with cities being lifted into the air and boom-bang robot fights.

Hawkeye gets a real boost too, as he's more personable and humorous this time around, and it's great to learn more about him and his life outside of hero work. Thor continues to get the shaft here, though he is instrumental in the plot towards the end. New faces Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver immediately shine, the former in particular. The Vision, though introduced rather quickly, is a real show-stealer with some jaw-dropping powers. On top of the character work, the seeds for the future films are sown so subtly.

Another wonderful element of the film comes from Scarlet Witch herself, the scenes where she uses her powers to give a majority of the Avengers horrific, warped, and often surreal visions. Thor and Captain America's visions stick out in particular, but it's Black Widow's past that's truly unsettling and mysterious, a vision that masterfully details some of her past. The Marvel Cinematic Universe rarely ever had "scary" or unsettling up until this point, but I feel some of these moments really tread into that kind of nightmarish territory in their own unique way. I just love that the film goes this direction, making it more than just another Marvel film, as if Phase 2's films didn't do that already. (Yet people still complain.) These dream sequences are elevated by the stylistic choices Mr. Whedon makes, differentiating them yet keeping them mysterious and ominous.

Avengers: Age of Ultron is easily one of the most ambitious films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and it's also one of the boldest and it certainly doesn't leave out a flair for the weird and surreal. For all its ambitions and surprises, the sequel kind of falls short in other departments. The film feels lethargic in places, and has a rather ugly color scheme that I'm just getting sick of seeing in movies today. The cinematography is good, but the way the action scenes are conceived and edited doesn't always work. For some scenes, the staging greatly emphasizes a struggle such as the Avengers' battle with Ultron's bots during the climax, but others are awkwardly-conceived and as a result aren't that thrilling. There are flashes of exciting directing outside of the nightmares, one of my favorite moments is a scene that last mere seconds: Scarlet Witch backing out of a door after encountering Cap for the first time.

The script has some structural issues, too, due to the higher ups that Whedon and Marvel President Kevin Feige reportedly fight with over what goes into the movies... You have to give it to Mr. Whedon. He was tasked with handling all of this material and cramming the stuff into a 2 1/2 hour film whilst meeting demands, some of which being rather ridiculous... He managed to still keep the film very good, exciting, and fresh, even if some of it doesn't add up.

Major props to him and achieving all of that, but I reckon a longer cut is better...

~


#7. ANT-MAN
Directed by Peyton Reed
Written by Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish
Adam McKay, and Paul Rudd
Released on July 17, 2015

The "everything burger" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or a massive smorgasbord of different genres and ideas. Ant-Man on the surface may seem like a Mask of Zorro-type story, but below the exterior lies not only a funny, heartfelt redemption tale, but also a thrilling and clever heist actioner with sprinkles of sci-fi and surreal comedy. Director Peyton Reed balances the stylishness (especially the Edgar Wright DNA of the picture) with the more normal stuff alongside the hilarity, the thrills, and even the outright absurd. Of the troubled MCU productions, this one is easily the best.

Like Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man happily embraces its premise and goes all out in exploring all the different possibilities that the story has to offer. A lot of the technology is cool and different, the writers milk all of the opportunity cows with glee. This is a Marvel superhero movie with shrinking people and tech that allows its users to talk to ants, that has a climactic setpiece where the hero and bad guy fight on a Thomas the Tank Engine train set all the while enlarging things including the toy Thomas locomotive and one of Ant-Man's ant friends, the film's perfect third act is all sorts of madness! The film wants you to enjoy every single second of it...

The only slight problem is, the first two-thirds seem a little ho-hum in comparison. There are certainly flashes of brilliance in the meat of the picture, but what really elevates everything before the climax is, once again, very strong character work. Scott Lang is extremely likable right off the bat, along with his humorous robbing gang (spearheaded by a show-stealing member named Luis), and the more bitter, disillusioned likes of Hank Pym and Hope van Dyne. Even the villainous Darren Cross has some depth and is fun to watch before he suits up. The main story of two fathers reconnecting with their daughters forms the film's great emotional core, adding so much to the story and everything that's going on.

Set-up stuff and nods to other MCU entries are handled in a much different way than expected, what with sequences like Ant-Man fighting a confused Falcon whilst trying to getting a vital piece of Stark tech, and Lang suggesting that Pym call The Avengers for help. Aesthetically the film feels different from its MCU brethren, from the cinematography to the overall tone to even the score! Some of the editing is a bit off the wall as well! The ant-level scenes have a sense of awe and wonder to them, a lot of "wow" shots dominate these beautifully-filmed parts of the film. The film ping-pongs between different styles, but never loses a beat or feels off.

~


#6 - IRON MAN
Directed by Jon Favreau
Written by Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby
Art Marcum, and Matt Holloway
Released on May 2, 2008

The beginning...

And one hell of a beginning it was...

I used to think that Iron Man was actually the best of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Up until the release of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, it was my top pick. I felt it was the strongest due to how it was just a great origin story with a plot that came together wonderfully by the end of the picture, with lots of action and fun on hand...

Iron Man feels a bit Batman Begins-esque, beginning things in a rather gritty manner. There's a real aura of darkness and roughness in those cave scenes, and the intimacy mirrors Bruce Wayne's stay up in the mountains. Unlike Wayne, Stark doesn't go through a philosophical journey, he instead works wonders in a situation he probably would've never been thrown into. Tony Stark is just Tony Stark, honing his brilliance in the cave, it's truly thrilling stuff to watch. The escape from the cave is one of the best MCU set pieces, loaded with suspense and capping off with a spectacular boom. The film continues to impress, carefully setting up Tony's rise, establishing his character perfectly, and developing everyone else around him. The trial-and-error stuff alone makes for all the fun of this portion of the film.

Its third act seems to be the subject of criticism, as the film finally gives Iron Man a main bad guy to fight. After taking out Ten Rings terrorists in a pretty intense Gulmira-set action sequence, where else do you go? Obadiah Stane, who is present throughout the film, turns out to be the villain. For me, he works as a villain because with someone like Emil Blonsky, it seemed like the writers came up with a way to make him a final boss. Let's have him get injected with the serum, boom he's our third act boss battle! Here, they don't do that. Iron Man quietly builds Stane up as a villain, as he gets more and more interested in Stark's newfound discoveries, and soon we learn about Stark weapons being shipped to the Middle East... It's not like it's an eleventh hour decision. If it was, it certainly doesn't feel like it to me, there is considerable build-up.

The reveal is quite effective, and makes for a nice shock as the film walks closer and closer to its climax. We then get a very cool fight scene where Iron Man, still inexperienced, dukes it out with someone in a much bigger Iron Man-esque suit. It caps the film off nicely, and instead of the usual, Tony Stark outright tells everyone... "I am Iron Man".

Now that's a perfect last few seconds...

Iron Man gets so much right. It locks together well, it's very cohesive, it switches moods without hassle, and it doesn't come off as a generic origin story. The Batman Begins influence isn't overt, as the film confidently tries to be its own, unique thing. Iron Man's only problem is that it's got that aforementioned Phase 1 vibe to it. That sort-of "unsure" feeling. For instance, the action scenes are very good, but they don't go all out. Other moments seem rather subdued and just feel kind of plain, kind of "there" in a way. The presentation of the technology is, however, anything but that. The scenes showcasing the suit and Stark's tech are some of the highlights. Competently made and filmed, but it's not overly spectacular. The only reason it soars so high is because of how good the script is... But wait, there was no script for this film!

The film was jokingly referred to as the indie movie that happened to be a big budget $100 million-costing picture. It certainly does feel that way thanks to the improvised nature of the film and the fact that it doesn't really reach for the stars. It handles everything it has considerably well, but maybe it could've had a little more punch?

This criticism is ultimately minuscule in the grand scheme of things, as Iron Man is still a fantastic superhero origin film, but a lot of the film's Phase 2 counterparts do the "comic book movie" thing better than it...

~


#5 - CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER
Directed by Joe Johnston
Written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely
Released on July 22, 2011

There is often a complaint that the Marvel Cinematic Universe films feel too "samey", or their overall aesthetic is boring, or that none of the films feel like different entities...

I disagree to this, with Phase 2's set of films as my main argument, but...

Captain America: The First Avenger, a film that was part of the MCU's first phase, is another argument...

The First Avenger is masterful in so many ways. The very old-fashioned actioner is ridiculously fun, but it has the feel of a pulpy, all-out escapist film with a beating heart at its center, excellent characters, a tone that has fun with campier elements without feeling too goofy, and a World War II setting that's absolutely nailed. It's stylistic but it also has that familiar Marvel flair, yet the film blends it all so well. The whole origin story is fresh and exciting, again, that comes from the setting and the tone they go for. They even go as far as taking affectionate potshots at how goofy the character comes off!

The script basks in the pulpiness of the premise, the tone is decidedly retro. It is the ultimate antithesis to the "dark and gritty" action movie, aiming to be what it should be...

Right off the bat, Steve Rogers is extremely likable and the characters that accompany him on his daring, thrilling mission across the Atlantic also stand out. The villainous Red Skull has some rather basic motivations, but he has a personality and works well as a campy but ultimately classic diabolical baddie. Many of the supporting characters are memorable, too. The origin story and character more than work, all the while quietly hinting at the other Marvel films. For example, Howard Stark and the Tesseract play a major part in the story, but feel like they're part of the story rather than being mere easter eggs or being there just to set up future films.

Certainly a country mile from how that was handled in Iron Man 2 and Thor... The First Avenger set a standard for the MCU, big time.

The super-soldier's first outing is a near-perfect blend of all these elements, and outside of The Avengers, it's easily Phase 1's best. Brimming with a bursting sense of confidence, the film doesn't really have that "unsure" feeling that the other Phase 1 films have, as the action is a lot more exciting, the score is really good and memorable (Alan Silvestri was the perfect pick, here), packing a lot more energy and verve. Slogging a bit towards the end, everything picks back up and when it does, it really picks right back up.

Best of all, the ending is very bittersweet. A real gut-punch, all without being forced. Like Iron Man, these last couple of seconds are perfect...

~


#4 - IRON MAN 3
Directed by Shane Black
Written by Shane Black and Drew Pearce
Released on May 3, 2013

The beginning of Phase 2... The signaling of a new era for Marvel's superheroes...

Like the beginning of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the new beginning was this very film.

Iron Man 3 is the film that starts and defines Phase 2... Origins are over, setting up The Avengers is yesterday, now is the time to explore... And how!

Iron Man 3 is not only a Tony-centric film through and through, but it's also very eccentric. Like Captain America: The First Avenger, I feel that this film pretty much puts up a good argument against the whole "all the Marvel movies feel the same" claim. Iron Man 3 is writer-director Shane Black's film through and through, a sort 80s buddy action film with a slight Marvel feel, that's actually a detective story... With a Christmas setting!

Shutting the door on what the first two Iron Man movies did, Iron Man 3 even tries to stay far from the big battles and huge setpieces that other blockbusters frequently use. At times it's so small-scale and intimate, it's ultimately surprising. Very little does Tony fly around in the suit fighting enemies, kicking ass and taking names... He does all of that, but without the suit. The second act of the film shows how Tony truly is the man without his suit and his tech, as he brilliantly (and I mean brilliantly) comes up with ways to get himself out of tight jams, all the while cracking the clues to get to the Mandarin...

... Only to that find out that there is no Mandarin, or at least the Mandarin everyone is seeing on television. Our real adversary is a man that Tony Stark was a jerk to in the past, and here Iron Man 3 becomes a story that brings Tony full circle. In Iron Man 2 he remains an egotistical jerk who barely learns, The Avengers shows him demonstrating that he does have a very human side and his arguments with Captain America certainly must've given him some food for thought. Here, Tony's character is fully developed and the story singlehandedly does everything that Iron Man 2 should have done. The subplot involving the kid Harley also adds a new dimension to Tony's character, as the kid is pretty much who Tony was as a child.

Having Tony's past and the people he has left behind or outright rejected come back to haunt him makes for a fine emotional arc that only strengthens Tony at the end. All of this is tied to a wonderful detective plot, though there is a dose of big-scale action too. The film is laugh-out-loud hilarious, staying true to Stark and his quip-laden world. The wit is sharp, helping make Iron Man 3 one of the most enjoyable, entertaining films in the MCU. Even its supporting cast is pretty memorable!

Some downsides are in the picture's third act, where we get a massive battle on a oil rig. Now this battle is very well-done, and the ways Iron Man takes out Aldrich Killian's Extremis soldiers are very clever and cool, plus it's great to see all of those suits in action... However, it comes after an already big climactic moment involving Air Force One. By the time we get to this big battle, the picture begins to feel a bit exhausting. Maybe it's because a lot of smaller scale thrills preceded it? Or maybe it's the length? In a way, it gets a bit tiresome.

That's all but a minor dent in what is the best Iron Man film, an eccentric, stylish, and hilarious chapter that packs a strong storytelling punch...

~


#3 - THE AVENGERS
Directed by Joss Whedon
Written by Joss Whedon
Released on May 4, 2012

Let's take the time to consider the kind of task writer and director Joss Whedon was faced with here...

The Avengers is about Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, plus Black Widow and Hawkeye, meeting, teaming up, and taking on a massive threat to Earth - an alien invasion.

Whedon had to have four characters from four different solo films, all with different backgrounds and stories, meet up. Also, two characters had to be part of this team, one a minor character in Iron Man 2 and the other who makes all but a quick appearance in Thor, somehow in some way. What else? He had to have them come together, and then have them later stop a bad guy from laying waste to Earth... All the while keeping up with the connected nature of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

That doesn't sound like an easy task, especially if your background was mostly in television! Joss Whedon managed to do all of this, almost perfectly, and turned out an extremely entertaining movie that leaves you grinning...

That right there is a Herculean achievement in itself. Or a Thorish achievement. (Yeah, I went there.)

The Avengers' tight script is not without its structural faults, that's for sure. There are some little flaws in there, some moments where it goes up and down. The cinematography could perhaps be better too, but... But...

The storytelling and the character development, character moments that make the characters themselves and their personalities shine... It's all in there, there's so much of it, overriding any small hole or flaw in the script. Better yet, the film is great for those who haven't seen the films that have lead up to it, or missed a couple films in the process. Treating you right, The Avengers gets you up to speed with what's going on. Their personalities absolutely shine in this film. Black Widow, who is little more than hastily-written eye candy in Iron Man 2, is a full-fledged character here. Hawkeye, despite that we know little about him and despite the fact that he's brainwashed until the third act, is also fun to watch.

Humor? Balanced perfectly it is, in every set piece or dialogue-driven scene. The dialogue itself is great, especially all of the scenes on the Helicarrier, including the big debate between the five of them. Dialogue like that just adds more and more character work that these kinds of films need. The film contains some of the funniest and most memorable bits in any blockbuster, being very quotable. The action is incredible. Many have complained about the film's cinematography, but the way those action sequences are all staged, they're perfect. The whole Battle of New York is a roughly 45-minute firecracker explosion from start to finish, filled with cool fight scenes, the characters working with and off of each other, thrills, and even some laugh-out-loud moments. How can you top Hulk smashing Loki around like a rag doll?

The film is even... Colorful! No moody tones or color schemes here, no boring teal-and-orange or desaturated ugliness, the film embraces its fun tone and that it's a comic book film based on stories that have a guy that turn into green monsters, a red-white-and-blue guy with a big shield, and demigods!

This epic is colorful, hilarious, extremely fun, heartfelt, loaded with character development, has a straightforward but engaging story, has truly amazing action, it has about everything and then some. The Avengers makes for one of the most ridiculously fun big popcorn action blockbusters of all time. Hitting every beat, it's one of the creams of the crop of superhero films, and also a smooth transition between the unsureness of Phase 1 and the confidence, genre-busting fun of Phase 2.

A real triumph...

~


#2 - CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER
Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo
Written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely
Released on April 4, 2014

With Captain America now living in the modern world, how did Marvel Studios, directors Anthony and Joe Russo, and writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely handle the star-spangled man-with-the-plan's bigger, darker sequel?

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is about Steve Rogers and his adjusting to the modern world after the Battle of New York. Consider for a second that despite having helped save the world from aliens and an evil demigod, Cap has lost a lot... His sweetheart from the 1940s that he never got to grow alongside is on her deathbed, his best friend is alive but he's been turned into a killing machine, and also... Who can you trust? The whole revelation that HYDRA has been operating within S.H.I.E.L.D. more than rams that theme home in such a grand way. The reveal of the Winter Soldier is nothing, in fact the film doesn't do a good job at hiding it, the HYDRA reveal is the real deal!

All of this makes the film significantly darker than the first film, and most of its MCU brethren, but it is never once heavy-handed. The story is never "dark for dark's sake", the tone is never needlessly gloomy and dour. Cap isn't moping every five seconds, he gets up and gets stuff done, no matter what. His dedication, his commitment, all adds to how likable he is. The film's rougher tone comes from the stakes, what's going to happen, what has happened to Cap, and the world he's dealing with. There are moments of great intensity that are balanced with the more lighthearted ones, it doesn't mess around! Never joyless like some other films that have tried to be "edgy" and "darker", The Winter Soldier still has plenty of humor to spare alongside the wit that the MCU films are known for. The picture has humanity, something a film like Man of Steel - which tried to "update" a similar superhero to fit modern audiences - did not have.

The story is air-tight, and wonderfully crafted, and it more than lays the groundwork for the MCU's future without making it so obvious, never falling into the traps Iron Man 2 tended to walk right into. On top of the strong story is not only the character work we come to expect, but also a strong emotional center. You can still feel Rogers' frustrations with modern times, all thanks to subtle little lines and the storytelling itself. All you need to know is shown to you without fuss, nothing is forced. They stay true to who he was in the first film and The Avengers, and they keep his selflessness without ever being preachy, and this is all handled with finesse.

He and Black Widow also make such an excellent team, and how different they are and how they work off of each other all make for some of the film's best elements. This dynamic makes Black Widow even more likable and interesting, as The Avengers already did a good job doing that given what they had to work with. At the same time, the story also subtly throws in some commentary and even has sheds of a political thriller beating under its exterior. Even if the film isn't entirely a political thriller, it still works as a pulse-pounding, often intimate spy thriller, being the only true thriller in the MCU. All of these elements make it stand out, as it differs wildly from the other Phase 2 films alone, and all of the Phase 1 films.

To say nothing of its action sequences! A lot of it is very intense, almost nerve-wracking ground level mayhem, a very nice change of pace from the usual massive scale booms and bangs. You can feel the intensity of the fights, especially Cap's initial showdown with the Winter Soldier, everything is directed with such carefulness by the Russo brothers. Even the more explosive action in the film's final act is wholly satisfying and never exhausting, as there are breaks taken between these knock-out moments that inject suspense and surprises. The third act is so epic, it rivals that of The Avengers' last third. Big is written all over it, for this was a big turning point of the Marvel Cinematic Universe...

New faces? The film introduces them with confidence too, you immediately root for the likes of The Falcon and Sharon Carter. The main villain, the slimy and deceptive Alexander Pierce, is easily one of the best in the MCU. Though not scary in his looks, what he is up to makes him more than frightening, especially when you remember that this story in some ways mirrors what goes on in our world. HYDRA alone makes for a stealthy, massive threat. The tough side villain Rumlow is a fine addition, too. The Winter Soldier almost feels like Jaws on land, he can be anywhere, you never know when he'll strike! The atmosphere, there's a real dread to it because of the man's presence and what he can do.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier gets it all spectacularly right: It's a smart action-thriller with commentary, a story that's a strong and often heartbreaking emotional journey for Captain America himself, it's loads of fun, it's paced perfectly, the whole story is incredibly cohesive, it has something to say, so many seeds are sown for the MCU, ones that turn it on its head, there are many more things I can say about how excellent this film is. It's a top-notch thriller that happens to star a superhero, it's one of the best...

~


#1 - GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY
Directed by James Gunn
Written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman
Released on August 1, 2014

The big one.

The game changer. The wildly bizarre and quirky space opera. The full-blown introduction to the cosmic side of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

In a way, this is a new Iron Man. A new beginning. Something fresh, new, and truly exciting that sets up a whole new side of the universe, a side containing lots of cool things...

Guardians of the Galaxy more than just shows that Marvel movies aren't typical superhero stories. The rollicking adventure is a space opera, a full blown space opera. A very quirky space opera, one that's very much the product of its writer-director, James Gunn.

The film has confidence like no other. Introducing us to characters like Rocket Raccoon and Groot without even flinching or fretting, the audience accepts what they are seeing no matter how weird it all may be. This is coming from a film that opens with a very tragic, Earth-set death scene. About that... The tone is perfectly balanced. After that sad opening, we see a much older Peter Quill exploring an abandoned planet. Initially it's a bit suspenseful and mysterious, but after much time has passed, he turns on the walkman and boom! You know what you're in for, and those few minutes handled all of those moods so well without feeling tonally off. The timing, the editing, everything... The film has this brilliance in spades, and HOW!

The group that makes up the Guardians of the Galaxy, need I say more? All of these characters, like The Avengers themselves and other characters within this series, have such great personalities and are immediately appealing. They're outright a-holes! They never had a heroic bone in their bodies, some of them were even criminals! They happen to come together and become heroes under bad circumstances, and also great friends, and that's a nice change of pace from the usual origin story! Ronan, the film's villain, may have simple goals... But it's the build-up, it's his presence, it's Lee Pace's performance that makes him stand out. He's barely cardboard, and he suits the story, a po-faced baddie who is a nice contrast from all the fun, wonder, and humor the film has to offer.

Thanos is given a real introduction here, one that hints at what this big guy is capable of. The plot is air-tight, the storytelling is once again without peer. The storytelling is so good, not just because of how these characters come off, but because of who they are, what's built up, the stakes, and ultimately how they grow. It's not just the banter, it's the moments that build the characters. The film even justifies its slick 70s and 80s soundtrack in such a heartfelt way. It just does so much right, everything right all the while tying all this narrative prowess to very imaginative visuals that bring back the awe and wonder that the fantasy movies should bring. This is a film that redefines the fun of the going to the cinemas...

Never afraid to embrace its inherent silliness, Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't feel embarrassed of what's on the screen. Characters, plus the film itself, acts as if what's going on is pretty normal! Never overtly goofy, never overtly serious, it's just right. Sad scenes and emotional moments are done so well, again, the film is just doing what it's doing without thinking twice. Why is that? Everything I just mentioned, it has great storytelling, great characters, and respect for the audience. Everyone behind the film, from Gunn to the crew, are fully committed.

Gunn's film, however, goes an extra mile. His film has its own unique style and aesthetic, one that's very intoxicating and it makes you want to go back for more. The look of the various intergalactic locations the characters go to are all dazzling, and the film's color scheme is very pretty and balanced. Its sense of humor is its own, and a lot of it comes from the differences of the characters and their own quirks. The laugh factor is definitely on the edgier side, pushing the PG-13 rating. Gunn and writer Nicole Perlman were able to differentiate its brand of humor from the other Marvel films with aplomb.

What else is there to say? Guardians of the Galaxy is the real deal: Weird, different, creative, emotional, hilarious, out-there, compelling, groovy, filled with wonder... Not only is Guardians of the Galaxy the best Marvel Cinematic Universe film, Guardians of the Galaxy is a triumphant work of fantasy cinema that can more than stand on its own...

~

The Marvel Cinematic Universe, seven years later, has been quite the journey. From Iron Man to Ant-Man, we've seen surprises, things that were fresh and new, but above all we got pretty compelling stories and even the unspectacular entries have pushed the series forward in some way or another. The world building all works, but it's the characters and their stories that keep me coming back, alongside the series' desire to just have fun while telling these very stories to the audience. With the risks taken in Phase 2, ones that showed that superheroes aren't just people in capes stopping bad guys in big cities, Phase 3 promises even more risks and greater things to come...

How would rank the Marvel Cinematic Universe films? Sound off below!

Not a Bad Opening: Don't Fret About 'Ant-Man'

$
0
0

Ant-Man scored an estimated $58 million this weekend...

Analysts and many others are noting that is the second smallest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe opening weekend grosses. 2008's The Incredible Hulk is the lowest with $55 million, but adjusted it's $62 million, so Ant-Man's opening was definitely the smallest in terms of attendance... But I think the fact that it made that much is definitely no cause for alarm...

For starters, Ant-Man is the least expensive of the MCU films. Costing $130 million, it's just a few clicks below the earlier MCU films. Iron Man cost $140 million back in 2008 before post-conversion 3D was mainstream, Captain America: The First Avenger cost the same amount. After The Avengers, the costs went up. $170 million was the minimum since then, but Marvel and Disney were smart when budgeting Ant-Man. You see, they could've gotten cocky based on their previous successes, but they didn't. No $200 million budget, they poured a rather conservative amount into the picture. Now if only Disney's live-action unit didn't have that attitude in the past, for The Lone Ranger and Tomorrowland could've cost $100 million each, and could've broken even.

Only one other non-sequel MCU film was released during Marvel's Phase 2, and that was Guardians of the Galaxy. Now that film opened with a stellar $94 million last summer, but I think that happened because it was a film that you just had to see whether you were onboard the MCU Express or not. It wasn't just another Marvel movie, it wasn't just another superhero film, it was set in space, it had a talking raccoon and a talking tree, it had such colorful visuals, it had 'Hooked on a Feeling', big laughs, it was a big "team" movie like The Avengers... The teaser alone I think sold that film. They probably didn't even need to make Trailer #1 and #2.

Ant-Man's teaser on the other hand was kind of dull. Not that it was bad, it was just serviceable. Introducing Scott Lang, establishing who he is, showing the Ant-Man suit's basic function, the teaser just didn't have the pizazz that Guardians' teaser had. Ant-Man looked like yet another superhero movie, a typical origin story, "another Marvel movie". The film's full trailer showed some thrills (Ant-Man running up the gun is a great shot!) and some of the movie's quirkier elements, but having seen the film, I think the marketing didn't even give you an idea of what kind of absolute madness the film would be. Good thing too, they didn't spoil the good stuff. I don't like seeing tons of stuff in trailers, but audiences seem to want specific things. What the teaser and trailer showed wasn't enough to guarantee an opening weekend gross of over, say, $65 million. Still, a lot of people went. Looked good, was Marvel, it's going to be fine...

We have to remember that, with the exception of Guardians of the Galaxy, the previous solo movies opened with good but not massive grosses. Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger, both released in 2011, each opened with $65 million. However, those came out before The Avengers rocketed the series to where it's at now, popularity-wise. Guardians of the Galaxy, regardless of whether the comics were well-known by a ton of people or not, opened so big because it just looked incredible, the space-set epic didn't look like yet another superhero movie. Ant-Man did, so the opening weekend gross makes sense.

It's not bad for a movie that didn't look like an event, I'd say.

Plus, the film seems to have gotten very strong audience reception. My crowd liked it a great deal, it has a strong A CinemaScore grade, some are calling it the most family-friendly installment of the MCU films so that could help as well. Since it wasn't so front loaded, maybe it'll have stronger legs than the usual superhero film. Most superhero films have roughly 2.5-2.8x multipliers. Here are the MCU entries' multipliers, for starters...

Guardians of the Galaxy - 3.54x
Iron Man - 3.24x
The Avengers - 3.00x
Thor - 2.78x
Captain America: The Winter Soldier - 2.72x
Captain America: The First Avenger - 2.70x
The Incredible Hulk - 2.43x
Thor: The Dark World - 2.42x
Avengers: Age of Ultron - 2.38x (so far)
Iron Man 3 - 2.35x

Fox/Marvel (post-Origins: Wolverine)...

X-Men: First Class - 2.65x
X-Men: Days of Future Past - 2.58x
The Wolverine - 2.49x

DC (2008 and onwards)...

The Dark Knight - 3.37x
The Dark Knight Rises - 2.80x
Man of Steel - 2.50x
Green Lantern - 2.18x
Watchmen - 1.94x

I'm confident that Ant-Man's legs will be much closer to Iron Man's legs. Let's say it pulls a 2.9x multiplier, it finishes up with $168 million domestically. Not awful, could be better, but still fine. With Iron Man legs, roughly $185 million. Guardians legs? $203 million. It won't be a super-mega-blockbuster, but why are we fretting? These are very good totals for a movie about a guy who shrinks down to the size of an ant, and fights an equally tiny guy on the main character's daughter's Thomas the Tank Engine train set!

Sure, it's not as good as the other MCU grosses, but who gives a damn, really? The post-Avengers release Thor: The Dark World opened big but had meh legs, the domestic total for that movie is an okay $206 million. The Marvel Cinematic Universe isn't dwindling. Ant-Man just happened to not look like a "definitely must-see" kind of event. Since it opened a bit lower, I can see it scoring over the weeks, and it'll surprise in a few ways.

As for future Marvel "introduction" films... Doctor Strange is the next one, but I can see that taking off. Not Guardians big per se, but significantly bigger than Ant-Man. Why's that? From everything we're hearing, Doctor Strange sounds unlike anything Marvel has made before. Simple, it's the first "magic" Marvel movie. Just like Iron Man introducing the MCU and being a smash hit, just like The Avengers being a rare "heroes from other movies team up" event, just like Guardians of the Galaxy being a wonderfully bizarro space opera, Doctor Strange promises a Matrix-esque mind trip movie with magic and all kinds of cool things. I think it'll definitely cruise past $65 million on opening weekend in the autumn of next year. It's arguably fresh and new...

Again, you have to have a little more pizazz, even if you are an entry in a big franchise like Marvel Cinematic Universe. Guardians of the Galaxy had a lot of it, Ant-Man did not, but the film still opened very well and is a #1 hit. Not an underperformer. Let's not squash the ant...
Viewing all 673 articles
Browse latest View live