Moving Forward (Part 3)

Here in part 3, I take a look at Tangled, Walt Disney Animation Studios' 50th film (if you happen to go by the canon, that is). This film was notable for being Disney's biggest commercial success since the Renaissance, and one that got outright critical acclaim. But, is it deserving of the status of "Best Disney animated film in years?" Also, I take a look at Winnie the Pooh, the hand-drawn follow up to The Princess and the Frog.

~

Tangled

Directed by Byron Howard and Nathan Greno

Written by Dan Fogelman

Produced by Roy Conli, John Lasseter and Glen Keane

Released on November 24, 2010

Another project that was on and off at Disney for so many years, a serious attempt to actually get started on it occurred sometime towards the end of Michael Eisner’s regime. It was originally thought to be a Shrek-style film called Rapunzel Unbraided, and it was a project that just remained on the back burner until the new regime changed Walt Disney Animation Studios. The writers quickly dropped the original plot, involving two modern day teenagers playing the roles of Rapunzel and her love interest. It would not have worked.

Originally thought to be a revolutionary breakthrough for computer animation, the project would later shift to two directors Nathan Greno and Byron Howard, while original co-director Glen Keane (master Disney animator) was out. He was still involved with the recooked film, which went from Raounzel to Tangled due to Disney’s concerns over The Princess and the Frog’s box office performance.

Tangled comes off as two films much like Meet The Robinsons: 1). An irreverent comedy that sweetly pokes fun at Disney traditions, and not in a cynical and mean-spirited way like DreamWorks’ Shrek films. 2). A heartfelt film in the great tradition of classic Disney films. Meet The Robinsons had a hard time balancing two ideas, this one tries a bit harder and succeeds.

The rather gabby first act really establishes the relationship between Rapunzel (voiced by Mandy Moore) and Mother Gothel (voiced brilliantly by Donna Murphy). In the film’s first few minutes, Mother Gothel steals an infant Rapunzel from the king and queen of an unnamed kingdom and has her locked up in a hidden tower in the forest. Why? She wants Rapunzel’s magical hair to keep her young and beautiful.

Mother Gothel is manipulative of her, no doubt, but at the same time, it’s possible that Gothel actually has some form of affection towards her. Immediately, an emotional side of the story begins to take shape. At the same time, we’re treated to slapstick with Flynn Rider (voiced by Zachary Levy), a bandit who is just after valuables and Maximus, a palace horse. Actually, the two animals in this film don't speak, which makes them even funnier. Aside from Maximus, we also have Pascal, Rapunzel's chameleon. The comic relief all works very well and it adds fun to the story.

We are also introduced to the Stabbington brothers (voiced by Ron Perlman), who Flynn cons during the heist. They seem like minor characters at first, but they do play an important role later in the film along with the tiara that Flynn steals from the kingdom. Character development is more front and center in the film's second act, as we get to know more of Flynn's background. Rapunzel herself is a very well-written character. She isn't rebellious per se, she's curious about the lanterns that always appear on her eighteenth birthday, being sheltered her whole life. She stills worries about what Mother Gothel will say when she leaves the tower for the first time, which says quite a lot about her.

Alan Menken’s musical numbers seem a bit modest at best early on, though “Mother Knows Best” says a lot about Gothel’s character (Judge Claude Frollo in a way, but more flamboyant) despite being a bit silly. Rapunzel’s “When Will My Life Begin” is a great opening that is a bright, cheery number. Menken tries to recreate a showstopper with “I’ve Got a Dream”, a rather nonsensical song that everyone in The Snuggly Duckling (a tavern full of huge, intimidating brutes who are just silly, dreaming men at heart) sings with joy. It’s a little too silly, and it just feels like an attempt to give us another “Gaston”.

Tangled starts firing on all cylinders towards the end of the second act. After an uplifting dance scene in the middle of the kingdom (an actual dance, not one set to some pop song), we see just how saddened the King and Queen are when they plan to launch the lanterns in celebration of Rapunzel’s eighteenth birthday. It’s a silent scene, and for the better, and it wonderfully pulls the heartstrings. This leads to Menken’s “I See The Light”, the film’s best song and one that is a lovely tribute to the big love ballads in the Disney Renaissance films: “Tale as Old as Time”, “A Whole New World”, etc. The color, art direction and lighting on this scene is breathtaking.

When Rapunzel realizes how she’s been lied to all these years, it leads to a surprisingly tense third act that ends with a very sweet conclusion. The color scheme changes during Rapunzel confrontation with Mother Gothel, along with Menken’s score. The writers still attempt to throw humor into the film’s third act, but it’s never distracting. Tangled’s story is very solid, but it’s only held back by a rather inconsistent script. The aforementioned "two movies" problem does affect the film’s first act, and some of Menken’s work is rather flat. At times, the dialogue is all modern and that can get annoying. Eugene’s narration at the film’s beginning and end was rather unnecessary as well, because it treats the film as if it isn't serious. ("But don't worry! This is a fun story!")

Pretty as the animation is, it’s not the revolutionary style we were going to get. Instead, it’s an upgrade of the painterly look used in Bolt. It is a mere stepping stone, but it’s still nice. The character designs are appealing, but not fresh. They basically retain the typical appealing Disney look, but in computer animation. Rapunzel and Flynn's designs are very good, Mother Gothel's tows the fine line between menacing and motherly, with a dash of something over the top. The rest of the humans' designs aren't bland, but they're more on the typical side. Nothing unexpected here. The best designs were saved for Maximus and Pascal, being the film's show-stealers.

Tangled, like most of the recent Disney films, is another project that was saved from development hell. It's one that entertains like no other, and it comes off as a great crowd-pleaser. However, the story and script don’t match the likes of The Princess and the Frog, and even Bolt to some extent. The film somewhat struggles to keep a consistent tone, not knowing if it wants to be a fun comedy or something more in line with a Pixar film. It’s a bit on the safe side, but it has its heart in the right place.
B+

~

Winnie the Pooh

Directed by Stephen J. Anderson and Don Hall

Written by Stephen J. Anderson, Clio Chiang

Don Dougherty Don Hall, Brian Kesinger, Nicole Mitchell

Jeremy Spears and Kendelle Hoyer

Produced by Peter Del Vecho

Released on July 15, 2011

Winnie the Pooh was really nothing more than a gap filler for both Walt Disney Animation Studios and for corporate Disney. Disney apparently needed another Winnie the Pooh feature film to keep the franchise alive (why would they though?). Thankfully, John Lasseter took this under his wing and set out to make a film that was faithful to Walt Disney’s take on A.A. Milne’s classic stories.

At a brisk 69 minutes, Winnie the Pooh is well-paced and quick. It only takes two stories and turns them into a non-cinematic storyline, but one that is very charming and immediately likable. The voice cast is mostly different from the folks who voiced the Pooh characters for the last ten years, but they do a fine job nonetheless.

Nods to the original shorts are littered everywhere. Winnie the Pooh can almost be called a tribute film, yet it's one of the few films in this day and age that appeals more to children yet it does not pander to them like most of today's kid-oriented films. Winnie the Pooh is still a family film, as there is enough wit and charm to entertain anyone older than eight. It's very sentimental and nostalgic, tapping the right buttons.

Like the original shorts, it’s also a musical, with charming musical numbers and an affectionate re-imagining of the Winnie the Pooh theme song sung by Zooey Deschanel. The animation is virtually the same as the original shorts, it’s minimal and it resembles illustrations, but it's great to look at. At the same time, the animators throw in some surrealism to spice things up, with the chalk drawing “Backson” song scene and Winnie’s honey hallucination.

In the end, Winnie the Pooh is a pleasant film that’s very well-written. It’s not ambitious, being just a Winnie the Pooh film, but it’s a lot of fun and one that has a lot of passion put into it.
B+

~

A Grand Slam and a Big Bomb

After several years of early development and story changes, a definitive story took shape at Walt Disney Animation Studios. Rapunzel would continue Disney's classic tradition of adapting well-known fairy tales. For many years of course, this was going to be Rapunzel Unbraided, which ultimately would not have worked out. One look at this PreViz from 2005 is a great indicator.

Glen Keane and the crew behind this film would bring forth a revolutionary art style that made the film look like a Rococo painting come to life. Over the years though, the film would only have sheds of that, instead it would just improve upon the unique look used for Bolt. When finished, Disney kept touting that the budget for this film was $260 million, which would make it the most expensive animated film ever produced unadjusted. Disney most likely took the money spent on early development over the years (for example, Disney spent $25 million during development of Kingdom of the Sun, which later was reworked into The Emperor's New Groove, so that was added to the finished film's $75 million production budget) and added that to how much the actual film cost to make, which should've been around $120-140 million.

Before Tangled's first trailer ever appeared, changes happened at Disney. Rich Ross, whose background was in television, mainly the Disney Channel, was made Chairman of the Walt Disney Studios by CEO Robert Iger. He immediately fired everyone in the marketing department and brought in inexperienced young blood. Rapunzel was dropped, as the executives blamed The Princess and the Frog's underperformance on young boys avoiding a film with "princess" in the title. Failing to realize that it was bland marketing that caused it to underperform, they assumed re-titling Rapunzel to Tangled would solve the problem. This change deservedly got criticized, since the film is, at heart, Rapunzel.

Tangled was an awful title, and many folks knew it. Disney veteran Floyd Norman scathed Disney's decisions, and he was right to do so. Tangled's teaser trailer, which debuted in front of Toy Story 3, was an absolute disaster. With its pop music, teenybopper dialogue ("Best day ever!") and frenetic tone, this looked like a debacle in the making. The marketing, however, was aggressive. The film debuted on November 24, 2010, touted as the 50th Disney animated feature film in the canon.

Something happened... It opened with... $48 million at the domestic box office, a record for a Disney animated feature film! Critics loved it, and word of mouth caught on that this was a comeback for Disney, despite how good Bolt and The Princess and the Frog were. With Thanksgiving weekend giving it a boost, Tangled outgrossed all of the post-Lion King Disney animated features unadjusted. It took in $200 million domestically and $590 million worldwide, while also doing very well on home media.

While Tangled's success was great, it's also saddening at the same time. The two films that preceded it definitely could've done as well had they been backed by better marketing, since word of mouth elevated those films beyond their awful opening weekend performances. With that behind them, you'd think there would be some fanfare for the next animated feature, right? Think again...

Enter Winnie the Pooh, which was a fairly modest project that only cost $30 million to make. It would be a cheaper endeavor, one that could keep the Winnie the Pooh franchise going. The problem was, selling a Winnie the Pooh film wasn't easy. Ever since the Winnie the Pooh merchandising explosion of the early 1990s, numerous direct-to-video and theatrical spin-offs, alongside awful preschooler television shows that heavily pandered to the younger set, Winnie the Pooh seemed like a "kids only" thing from Disney despite the brilliance of the original short subjects.

Winnie the Pooh was obviously going to be just like those short subjects, so maybe it would be a slow burner at the box office. It was not likely. Disney's marketing department, for reasons unknown, decided to give it the barebones treatment. It debuted in Europe first in mid-April, and it did terrible business. The domestic release occurred on July 15, 2011, the same day Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, Part 2 opened. Now, Winnie the Pooh obviously wasn't going to appeal to the same demographic, but it could've. Here's why...

When an animated film grosses a lot, it shows that more than just families and children made them a success. Adults and teenagers play a big part in the success of the biggest animated films, and Winnie the Pooh could've gotten a decent chunk of that had it been marketed correctly and given a better release date. With that, it only opened with an awful $7 million, but... Word of mouth was good! It climbed to $26 million, but that made it the least-attended Disney animated film in years.

Like I said in the review, Disney could've avoided this and just left 2011 empty. The two stories used to form the film (originally, there was going to be five!) could've been divided into two short subjects. With that, they could've avoided the financial disappointment. Hand-drawn animation wouldn't have taken such a harsh blow, and maybe hand-drawn animation would really make a comeback much earlier. It was another marketing woe from Disney that hurt a very good animated feature...

Meet The Robinsons, Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, Tangled and Winnie the Pooh are the rebirth of Walt Disney Animation Studios, as the first film slowly started the Third Golden Age of Animation alongside Enchanted. These films were met with praise for the most part, and are seen as superior to what Disney was churning out every year. After The Lion King, Disney's animation wing fell victim to the executives who thought their "help" was going to improve the animated features. There were a few risky efforts that worked for the most part, but other films only turned people away from the studio as Pixar, DreamWorks and Blue Sky were offering the goods.

Disney executives, and DreamWorks' executives, were so quick to torpedo hand-drawn animation in 2003. DreamWorks' Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas tanked and Disney's Brother Bear underperformed. Finding Nemo, on the other hand, outgrossed the two of them put together by an extremely wide margin. It did so because it was far superior to those films, not because it was a computer animated film. Sure, computer animation was a novelty to audiences back then, but now that it's worn off, now is the time to re-introduce hand-drawn to audiences. Now is the time to remind audiences why Disney is a great animation studio, and shatter the whole "Pixar is great, Disney is bad" mindset.

These five films are already proving this slowly but surely, as Disney seems to be excited about promoting the risky Wreck-It Ralph. With its November release date, an appeal amongst the gamer crowd along with family audiences, and a satisfying trailer, they are looking to recreate Tangled's success. If it does well, then that's good... But that can't be a once in a lifetime hit. Frozen needs to repeat that success when that opens in 2013. The next planned film is Big Hero 6, which will be something along the lines of a blockbuster being based on a Marvel Comics series. That should be another critical and commercial success, if not something that'll be an easy sell to support the studio.

But more importantly, Ron Clements and John Musker's next film, a hand-drawn film that's reportedly going to be done the same style of John Kahr's revolutionary short film Paperman, needs to be even more successful in order to really kick things into high gear.

The future of Disney animation?

Paperman, which is going to debut in front of Wreck-It Ralph, will be no ordinary animated short film. The animation itself is a seamless blending of computer animation and hand-drawn animation, not for a sequence, but for an entire short film. According to various reports, this is how Ron and John's next film is going to look. This is apparently going to be what Disney will be doing for traditional animated features. Not only are they experimenting and trying something different, they are also breaking new ground for the medium. If Ron and John's next film is just like this, then it's not only going to elevate Disney's animated feature studio at the box office, but propel the medium to amazing new heights. You might say the other studios are going to try and emulate that.

It seems as if Walt Disney's dreams of advancing the medium are going to come true. The Disney studios almost got there, had Pinocchio, Fantasia and Bambi never bombed at the box office and shattered Disney's confidence in ambitious works. Over 70 years later, as the studio is no longer controlled by executives or people who weren't creative, they have the opportunity to take daring risks again. With the success of Tangled behind them, now is their chance to really soar.

Can it happen?

~

From Part 4 onwards, I'll take a look at the DreamWorks' films that were released in the last four years starting with Kung Fu Panda. Do you personally believe that Walt Disney Animation Studios is heading towards a new Renaissance? Do you think the Third Golden Age of Animation has been going on since 2007? Or do you think that it has yet to start? Which of these upcoming Disney films are you looking forward to? Which of the five films do you consider the best? Sound off!

Disney Animation Eyes Down "Big Hero 6"

I never thought this would happen, even though Disney owns Marvel and all, but Blue Sky Disney reported that Walt Disney Animation Studios is currently planning on doing an animated film adaptation of Marvel's Big Hero 6.

This is certainly an interesting move made by the studio, as I think this might be the first time Disney's feature animation studio is teaming up with another studio to produce a film. There were rumors going around early on that Pixar might do an animated film with Marvel, but since Pixar sticks with original stories, that seemed unlikely. It's perfect for Walt Disney Animation Studios.

It seems like this will be their big release for 2014, as Ron Clements and John Musker are hard at work on their upcoming project. The film will be directed by Don Hall (Winnie the Pooh), and who knows, this might be the first WDAS film to carry a PG-13 rating since it's a film based on a comic book. Also, being a Marvel film, it's sure to catch on at the box office. Wreck-It Ralph and Frozen look like they're going to continue the success that Tangled brought them. Also, it will probably be a computer animated film, but you never know.

What are your thoughts on this? Are you excited or are you skeptical? What do you think of Disney's animation studio doing a Marvel film? Sound off!

Best Animated Short - 1987

Well, here we are in our 25th review! On one hand I'm thinking, "Yey! We're at 25 reviews already!" On the other hand, we've been doing this since February. With only 25 reviews in four months, it'll take a long time before I finally finish. Oh well. I'm liking this one review / week pace. I don't foresee myself doing it any faster again, especially with board studying coming up. Plus, it should give me more time to get those last seven shorts I am missing. Although it'll be hard with one still locked up in Disney vaults, this time without a Prometheus-like director to release it to the public, and another one considered lost. But I'll still do my best.

Read more »

Genndy Tartakovsky to Direct "Popeye"

When Sony Pictures Animation first announced that one of their upcoming animated films was going to be a computer animated update of Elzie Crisler Segar's classic comic strip Popeye (though many people remember the original short subjects that were made by the Fleischer brothers), I was rather unhappy. There has been a rather unhealthy trend of updating classic comic strip or cartoon characters for modern audiences, but in CGI. Of course, the dreadful Alvin and the Chipmunks films kicked this off, then we got Yogi Bear and The Smurfs.

I thought that this would be more of the same, since the Popeye cartoon short subjects were pure brilliance (some of which were rather groundbreaking for their time, too). However, Genndy Tartakovsky is going to direct the film, which gives me some hope. However, I can't really say much more until a trailer for this film actually premieres, whenever Sony plans on releasing this film. They've already got two films planned for release in 2014, so maybe 2015 at the earliest.

Genndy Tartakovsky, in case you did not know, created Dexter's Laboratory, Samurai Jack and Star Wars: Clone Wars. He also worked on several other Cartoon Network shows in the 1990s such as Cow & Chicken and The Powerpuff Girls. He directed Sony Pictures Animation's upcoming fall release, Hotel Transylvania, which is looking better than before thanks to the recent trailer. The writers (David Ronn and Jay Scherick), however, also helped write the script for The Smurfs. That makes me a wee bit worried, but we don't know yet. The film will also be a co-production with Arad Productions (formed by Avi Arad, the well-known Marvel producer).

What do you think? Are you satisfied with Genndy Tartakovsky being the director? Do you think a CGI Popeye film was necessary? Or not? Sound off!

Moving Forward (Part 2)

In the first part of "Moving Forward", I took a look at two Disney animated features that marked the beginnings of the comeback of one of the greatest American animation studios of all time after years of disappointing audiences and critics alike. Those two films were Meet The Robinsons and Bolt, which I reviewed while also taking a look at how they performed and what the outcome was for both of them.

Here, I take a look at Disney's The Princess and the Frog, the successor to these two films and the studio's return to hand-drawn animation, a medium they ditched six years prior to its release.

~

The Princess and the Frog

Directed by Ron Clements and John Musker

Written by Ron Clements, John Musker and Rob Edwards

Produced by Peter Del Vecho

Released on December 11, 2009

With the changes made at Disney in 2006, hand-drawn animation was going to make an immediate comeback amidst the glut of computer animated films. Fox’s The Simpsons Movie and Disney’s own Enchanted were the first stabs, along with the Goofy short film How to Hook Up Your Home Theater. The Princess and the Frog marked Disney’s full return to hand-drawn animation, and the animated musical format, which they hadn’t done since Home on the Range.

At first glance, The Princess and the Frog (terrible title, should've stayed as The Frog Prince) seems like an attempt to recreate the much-lauded Disney Renaissance. It has a love story, a big bad villain and big production numbers. It actually isn’t, it’s just an attempt to make a good, heartfelt musical in the vein of classic Disney musicals, from any decade of Disney's history. The Princess and the Frog does not go for some epic plot like most of the Renaissance films do. In fact, it’s a simplistic plot that’s very character-driven. Tiana (voiced by Anika Noni Rose) and Prince Naveen (voiced by Bruno Campos) are both the polar opposites, who both learn about the most important things in life on their journey.

Tiana is the textbook example of a workaholic, chasing a seemingly impossible goal. She puts her job and hard work before everything, rejecting spending time with her friends or getting married and raising a family. Her mother Eudora (voiced by Oprah Winfrey) wants her to follow in her deceased father’s (voiced by Terrence Howard) footsteps. Tiana believes she is, by fulfilling his dream. A hardworking man he was, he still made time for his family, something Tiana fails to realize. At the same time, Prince Naveen is cut off by his family for being a lazy schmuck. His valet, the whiny Lawrence (voiced by Peter Bartlett), tries to ram that point home by telling him to either marry a rich woman or get a job. The Maldonian prince (fictional location) doesn’t seem to care, he just wants to live life.

Enter Dr. Facilier (voiced wonderfully by Keith David), a voodoo witchdoctor whom they make a deal with. He's not a big bad powerful villain like some of the Disney Renaissance villains (Jafar and Scar, anyone?), he already has some power, which proves to be his undoing. He has no relationship with the main characters, he's just a con man. He's a threat because of Naveen and Lawrence, he's not a threat from the get-go. A recreation of the Renaissance films? Think again. Facilier grants them a better future, but it ultimately backfires on Prince Naveen. He’s turned into a frog, whereas Lawrence is magically transformed to take on the appearance of the prince, as long as the prince’s blood isn’t used up in the voodoo charm. Tiana meets the frog prince on a balcony during a masquerade ball. The prince tells her that a kiss will undo everything, but it only turns Tiana into a frog. The two find themselves lost in the Louisiana bayou, as the second act goes into full throttle. The two embark on a quest down the bayou to get to a voodoo lady named Mama Odie (voiced by an outrageous Jenifer Lewis) with the help of Louis (voiced by Michael-Leon Wooley), a jazz enthusiast alligator and Raymond, a Cajun firefly (voiced by voice actor veteran Jim Cummings).

At first, these two come off as the typical Disney sidekick characters. The ones that are there to provide comic relief. There’s nothing with this, but Disney had so many annoying sidekicks in the 1990s that popped up in serious moments to lighten the load for children that weren't really necessary. In this film, they aren’t. They’re important to the story, which does get a bit muddled towards the end when the gang meet Mama Odie. Despite some messy odds and ends, the third act climax solves this all without haste. Everything locks together perfectly. Supporting this colorful story are a screenplay that never panders or pulls any punches and musical numbers that ooze with confidence. Randy Newman's New Orleans jazz-infused songs soar, and his score captures the setting of the film quite wonderfully. You can feel the energy that went into this film, it’s quite exciting to experience.

Take “Down in New Orleans” for example, it’s fast and directed with such verve, it pulls you right into the story. Dr. Facilier’s surreal production number, “Friends on the Other Side”, is reminiscent of the outright madness of “Pink Elephants on Parade” from Dumbo mixed with a psychedelic voodoo nightmare. Tiana’s dream song, “Almost There”, is set to a beautiful Art Deco style scene. The animation style shifts, much like it did for the “Barking at the Moon” montage sequences in Bolt.

The other songs are satisfying, though some are better than others. The thumping zydeco tune “Gonna Take You There” (sung by Ray) is a bit flimsy, but Mama Odie’s “Dig a Little Deeper” is bombastic and exciting. “When We’re Human” is like “I Wan’na Be Like You” from The Jungle Book in the Louisiana bayou, it’s a lot of fun. Ray’s love song to a star, “Ma Belle Evangeline”, serves as a love ballad for Tiana and Naveen, much like “Kiss The Girl” and “Tale as Old as Time”.

While moving the story forward with songs that define the characters and situations (not production numbers for the sake of having them), the writers tried incredibly to balance a lot of subplots here, especially the ones concerning Dr. Facilier, Lawrence and Charlotte (Lottie), a wild and obnoxious debutante who is close friends with Tiana (voiced by a hyperactive Jennifer Cody). This is why the story does get a bit inconsistent towards the end of the film, but everything is wrapped up nicely.

The Princess and the Frog’s only other problems are some of the similarities to the older Disney films, but it never feels like they are trying to revive the same old hat tricks. Instead, they’re breathing new life into these Disney traditions. Also, the film does have some unnecessary slapstick, mainly a very cartoony scene involving three swamp hunters, which starts out funny but turns sour when the violence emulates a Warner Bros. cartoon. Slapstick is fine in animation, but when it really goes against the realism of a film, it's a problem.

Best of all is the animation, combining the vivid beauty of films like Bambi and the Golden Age films with the softer style of the 1950s Disney films like Peter Pan and Lady and the Tramp, while also having the style change (“Almost There”) and adding other surprises along the way, such as flashes of Tim Burton (particularly with the scenes with the friends on the other side), Richard Williams ("the cards... The caaaards!") and others. The bayous look lovely, much like the forests in Bambi and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The design of New Orleans itself is pretty to look at, as said before, it has a Lady and the Tramp feel given the turn of the century setting.

The character animation shines, always vibrant and energetic. When it comes to hand-drawn films from Disney, always expect the character designs to be great. The characters move swiftly, and they all have unique designs. Tiana and Naveen may draw similarities to other Disney couples, but then you got Dr. Facilier whose sleek design suggests his snake-like nature. His shadow is creepy, resembling something out of a Tim Burton film or The Haunted Mansion. Lawrence comes off like Cogsworth, but his design is actually rather sinister. Lottie's design is off the wall, going along with her crazy character. Mama Odie's design is hilarious. The frog versions of the two protagonists are fine, but a bit lacking. Louis and Ray? Great designs, especially Ray. You can tell the animators had a field day here.

The Princess and the Frog feels like the studio has gotten their confidence back after years of executive interference. Directors Ron Clements and John Musker essentially delivered the classic Disney musical (after all, they directed Disney's The Little Mermaid, which felt more like a genuine Disney film than the few that came before it) with traces of the other Disney films from every era, but with fresh new twists. It’s a real treat.
A-

~

The Second Coming of Disney?

The Princess and the Frog was chosen for the studio's first hand-drawn film since Home on the Range, most likely because Disney hadn't adapted a classic fairy tale for years. It was announced that this would be the return to hand-drawn animation as far back as July 2006, when projects like American Dog and a Rapunzel adaptation were still in the works. Of course, these two projects would become Bolt and Tangled. When early concept artwork was shown sometime around early 2007 (with the title The Frog Princess), it got criticism from all across the board, directed at the character designs, the setting and the title itself. Changes were made, but the writers kept the idea of having the film be about an African-American princess and it being set in New Orleans (being John Lasseter's favorite city). Originally, Alan Menken was going to write the songs, but the job was given to Randy Newman instead. Disney legends Ron Clements and John Musker (The Little Mermaid, Aladdin) were to direct the film, with Peter del Vecho as producer.

The first trailers began popping up in 2008, but the marketing kicked into full gear a year later. It's too bad that the film's trailers and TV spots didn't sell the movie as an event (I didn't want to see it back when it came out, the ads made the film look lame). Despite the fanfare, positive critical reception and its wonderful performance at the two theaters in both Los Angeles and New York respectively (on Thanksgiving weekend), it took in a disappointing $24 million on its opening weekend. Disney apparently felt that releasing the film a week before competition like Avatar and Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel was a good idea. So, with it disappointing, what happened after that?

People liked the film, despite families being suckered in by the dreadful Alvin and the Chipmunks sequel, they went to see it as the holiday season ended. It crept up to $104 million domestically, not bad for a film that opened so low. It grossed less than Bolt though, and worldwide, it only took in $267 million, against a $105 million production budget. The executives blamed everything on the film having "princess" in the title. However, Disney was at least happy with how it did in the long run (add huge merchandising sales to that). Production on a hand-drawn animated film every two years was a go, rather than being every year. Soon after, a hand-drawn Winnie the Pooh film was announced for 2011.

The Princess and the Frog did well on Blu-ray and DVD, deservedly, as it found new audiences. Like Bolt and Meet The Robinsons, it's one that people are going to discover over the years.

So that wraps up Part 2. It was originally going to include Tangled and Winnie the Pooh, but those were saved for Part 3. The Princess and the Frog's qualities and the fact that it was the big return to hand-drawn animation (not financially, of course) for Disney called for its own part.

George Maestri goes back to basics.

Animation Guru George Maestri, who worked as a producer and writer on popular animated shows such as 'South Park' and 'Rocko's Modern Life' again found some time to share his insights and know-how on creating 3D graphics, working with the latest version of the Autodesk's flagship animation software Maya 2013. As a part-time instructor for the popular online video Training site Lynda.com, George created a multipart 'Essentials' series, going back to the basics and explaining everything about Maya, from getting to know the UI to creating textures and materials and exploring all the animation tools.

So far five courses of this new and up to date series have been created and uploaded at the site, so if you're ready to start learning something about 3D graphics using Maya 2013, this might be the right place for you to begin. The courses have 20 to 30 different chapters each, taking up about 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours per course at a regular pace, while project files are available for you to use, so you can follow along with the videos. The fifth part of his 'essentials' series (explaining everything on the 'animation tools') was just released yesterday. Make sure to keep your eye on this one, as George will be adding plenty of material soon.

Above: George covers all the polygonal modeling techniques including subdivision surfaces in the 'Maya Essentials 2' course. Below: Working with the hypershade you'll learn to add Phong and blinn materials to 3D objects to give them a lifelike appearance ('Maya Essentials 4: Creating Textures and Materials').

Floyd Gottfredson's Mickey Mouse Vol.3

If there is only one book you're gonna get this year, then make sure it's this one. Coming next week from Fantagraphics is the third volume in their collection of Floyd Gottfredson's classic Mickey Mouse comic newspaper strips. This new volume collects nine classic Mickey stories by Gottfredson, originally published between January 10, 1934 and January 4, 1936 with scripts by Ted Osborne (except for 'The Captive Catsaways, which was written by Merril de Maris) and inks by Ted Thwaites.

It also includes some of Gottfredson's full color paintings, a couple of behind-the-scenes looks and other extra features, including a Mickey short by Fredrico Pedrocchi from December 1937. Here's the full list of classics:

• The Captive Castaways (January 10, - April 17, 1934)
• Pluto's Rival (April 18 - April 28 1934)
• The Bat Bandit of Inferno Gulch (April 30 - July 28, 1934)
• Bobo the Elephant (July 30 - October 13, 1934)
• The Sacred Jewel (October 15 - December 29, 1934)
• Pluto the Racer (December 31, 1934 - March 2, 1935)
• Editor-in-Grief (March 4 - June 1, 1935)
• Race for Riches (June 3 - September 28, 1935)
• The Pirate submarine (September 30, 1935 - January 4, 1936)

Above: a beautifully rendered scene from 'The Captive Castaways' (click to enlarge). By the way, the release date for Volume 4 appears to have been set for October 24, so if you can hold your breath that long, you should definately get the collected set, which also appears by then, containing both volume three and four in a nice slipcase. Check out the pics below, but remember, these editions are not yet part of Fantagraphics official promotion for the series, so there's no link I can share with you at this time to provide more info. 

Logically, the next volume continues from 1936 on and will include classics such as 'The Seven Ghosts' (published between August 10 and November 28, 1936) and great stories such as 'Mickey Mouse joins the foreign Legion' and 'Island in the Sky' (published between November 30, 1936 and April 3, 1937) for which Gottfredson created this full color painting in 1979 (click to enlarge):

"Frankenweenie" Trailer #2

Alongside the trailer for Blue Sky's Epic, the second trailer for Disney and Tim Burton's Frankenweenie has been unveiled today.



I'm not too sure about this trailer. I really liked the previous trailer, which was rather emotional at the beginning while still blending comedy into the mix. This trailer reveals more about the story, but it seems rather zippy and fast. The humor doesn't really work here, but the animation is still very good. Again, it's a trailer. Trailers for animated films from Disney tend to make the things look a bit jumpy and such, so this one could've just been a rush-job.

That said, I'm still looking forward to this film: Stop-motion, Tim Burton, filmed in black-and-white, cool plot. That's all I need. What do you think?

"Epic" Trailer is Epic... Sort Of...

Here it is, the first trailer for Blue Sky's Epic (based on William Joyce's The Leaf Men and the Brave Good Bugs), which is hitting theaters on May 24, 2013.

Personally, I was satisfied, but this trailer didn't necessarily blow me away. I did like the animation, the character designs and the well-staged action scenes. The use of music instead of constant jokes and talking was also a plus, as it isn't like most trailers for animated films. They saved some dialogue for the end, some rather unspectacular dialogue. Even though it's just mere seconds, I just hope the rest of the script isn't like that. Maybe I'm just being too nitpicky, but we'll see whenever the next trailer appears.

That said, this looks like a very pretty film. I was expecting a bit more from the trailer, but it does look like something I'd see. At least it isn't another Ice Age-like comedy. What do you think? Are you looking forward to this? Sound off!

Moving Forward (Part 1)

It's my firm belief that two studios out of what I call the "big three", Walt Disney Animation Studios and DreamWorks Animation SKG, have been stepping up their game in terms of storytelling and writing. As such, these two studios are still doing well alongside Pixar. Other studios in the past six years or so have came and went, with only a few studios actually staying in the playing field (Blue Sky, Illumination and Sony Pictures Animation).

With Disney's Wreck-It Ralph and DreamWorks' Rise of the Guardians hitting theaters this November, I felt that I would review the films that I personally believe began their "uphill streaks". With Disney, I believe things got better with 2007's Meet The Robinsons. For DreamWorks, I believe they got better with 2008's Kung Fu Panda. So here we go, part one, where I take a look at Meet The Robinsons and Bolt.

~

Meet The Robinsons

Directed by Stephen J. Anderson

Written by Jon A. Bernstein, Nathan Greno and Michelle Spritz

Produced by Dorothy McKim and John Lasseter

Released on March 30, 2007

When an adaptation of William Joyce’s A Day with Wilbur Robinson began pre-production at Walt Disney Feature Animation (prior to being renamed Walt Disney Animation Studios), the studio was slowly plummeting to its demise in the wake of the computer animation fad and the critical success of Pixar's films, followed by DreamWorks' successes. Disney’s then recent films (Brother Bear, Home on the Range) disappointed many, and it seemed as if all was lost for the studio that was once one of the crown jewels of the world of animated features. The executives felt that switching to computer animation would solve all these problems and put them back up against the heavies. They announced that hand-drawn animation production had been phased out, and the studio would enter the computer animation world with Chicken Little in 2005. To them, traditional animation was dead, along with DreamWorks. It wasn't dead, people just avoided those poorly-written films.

Of course, then-CEO Michael Eisner stepped down. Disney bought Pixar, as they were close to losing them, and with that, John Lasseter had a lot of things revised. The A Day with Wilbur Robinson project underwent several revisions, and the result? A rather inconsistent film that was a sign that Disney was going back to good story-telling. Instead of doing what the other non-Pixar companies were doing (stupid romps with pop culture jokes and juvenile toilet humor), they opted for a simply good film with a good message. Meet The Robinsons’ biggest problem is how the two versions are balanced. A lot of the sugar rush, zany antics of the original project were kept since it was too late to undo most of this. It isn’t pandering or insulting, it's never only funny to younger audiences, but going against the more heartfelt, Pixar-like tone of the revised story, it makes everything seem a bit awkward.

The story is very heartfelt, and the characters are all very likable with cute designs. The film’s antagonist, the Bowler Hat Guy, is a hoot. It’s a very nice plot with some wonderful characters. It’s all well done and well told, but the two tones constantly battle each other. This was something the writers tried their best to overcome, and for the most part, the sugary side works. Sometimes, however, it gets tiring. There’s lots of “random” humor that would be more in line with what some high schoolers may joke about. Other bits are out of place. Fortunately, the film takes some time to wind down, despite the talky script.

When Disney entered the computer animation field, Chicken Little didn't look too bad, but it seemed to look similar to the more cartoony computer animated films produced at the time such as DreamWorks' Madagascar and Sony's Open Season. Meet The Robinsons goes for a more Pixar-esque look, and it's very colorful. The vision of the future is a bit saccharine, but it has a child-like wonder to it with a dash of Tomorrowland. The characters are instantly appealing, with googly designs. Only Lewis and Wilbur look normal, everyone else only adds to the setting and tone of the film. The art direction does take a shift for the film's third act climax, and the Bowler Hat Guy does look sinister at times. Visually, this is a very appealing film that works alongside the story.

It was nice to see this amidst the bland CGI films that preceded it in 2006, with only a few examples sticking out. It goes to show that the animators cared and wanted you to love the look of the film. I can't say the same about some of the other computer animated films that polluted the market at the time. Meet The Robinsons may not be overtly ambitious, but it is a pretty good film that has a bit of trouble picking a mood. Luckily, the writers do their best to use the humorous side to their advantage. It borders on tearjerker in the film’s closing minutes, and the idea of Walt Disney’s “Keep moving forward” quote being the core of the story was a lovely bonus, though it is pushed a little too much onto the audience.

In fact, had Disney solved their management issues much earlier (say around 2003 or 2004), Lasseter and the crew could've essentially made Meet The Robinsons even better and eliminate what really wasn't working and keep the tone consistent. That said, this is a very John Lasseter-esque film. It has the heart, the sincerity and the storytelling that defines a good Disney animated feature. If only they didn't have such little time to overhaul it, it would've been the first return to form, but it's still amazing that they were able to take the mess and turn it into a satisfying film in a matter of months.

B-

~

Bolt

Directed by Byron Howard and Chris Williams

Written by Dan Fogelman and Chris Williams

Produced by Clark Spencer and John Lasseter

Released on November 21, 2008

Like Meet The Robinsons before it, Bolt began life as a project that was problematic and was in need of an overhaul. Fortunately, John Lasseter and the crew at Walt Disney Animation Studios were working off of something that already had some strengths. The project was originally American Dog, the next big film from Chris Sanders (Lilo & Stitch), a quirky and risky story that ultimately suffered from story problems.

With him out, Lasseter had the project overhauled. Instead of working off of a goofy, pandering film (the early version of Meet The Robinsons), they were working off of something that was already something a little more serious. However, Bolt is much simpler than Chris Sanders’ original story and goes for a traditional route. This was enough to scare off most Disney fans, but the film turned out to be better than expected despite the skepticism. It isn't the quirky, daring film that Sanders envisioned. Instead, it's a modest but well-told effort that's one that you can sit back, relax and enjoy. Like Meet The Robinsons, it's just plain good. This doesn't have the trouble of balancing two ideas, though.

Our leads are likable, Bolt (voiced by John Travolta) is essentially a canine version of Truman Burbank from The Truman Show. He believes the show he’s the star of is real, as the editors and crew make sure he believes so. When he experiences the outside world, he is with a street-smart cat with a rather sad past named Mittens (voiced masterfully by Susie Essman) and Rhino (voiced by a hilarious Mark Walton), a hamster who is obsessed with Bolt’s show. These three leads are already very likable, while the supporting cast appears from time to time. Bolt’s owner Penny (played by an okay Miley Cyrus, obviously phoned in to sell tickets to the Disney Channel teenybopper crowd) is somewhat important in the first act, but she’s not in it as much as the advertising lead people to believe. Other characters that populate Bolt’s television world are a nice poke at the entertainment industry.

With that, Bolt focuses on what makes the films of Pixar so good: Heart. Bolt is someone you root for early on, but halfway through the film, we see that we are in the middle of a touching buddy comedy much like the original Toy Story. It never feels overtly derivative, just similar. There are other elements here from other films, but it’s these charming characters and wit that elevate the film. The screenplay, however, is a bit flat.

There is some cringeworthy dialogue here and there, but it’s mostly under control. The film's funniest jokes (particularly the scenes involving Rhino) are absolutely hilarious, so it mostly knocks it out of the park in the comedy department. It isn’t a masterful screenplay by any means, but one that dutifully supports the story. Our characters shine here, and the heart is right in line with a Pixar film. Combine this with crisp animation and you’ve got a winner. The animation did break some new ground, as the art direction takes on a painterly look. It was the first stepping stone in Disney Animation’s quest to find a style that will effectively blend both hand-drawn beauty and computer animation (see John Kahrs' upcoming short film, Paperman). On top of that, we also get flat animated map montage scenes set to "Barking at the Moon", a wonderful scene where Bolt, Mittens and Rhino see the sights across the country.

Bolt is essentially classic Disney, but in computer animation form. It's not daring or up to Pixar's levels, but it's a refreshing break from what Disney had put out before it. Gone were forced jokes, humor that pandered to kids and wildly inconsistent writing. Bolt, like a Pixar film or Walt Disney's films, is for adults, children and everyone else. It's simply good old fashioned entertainment with surprises along the way.
B+

~

Stepping Stones

When John Lasseter got on board at Walt Disney Feature Animation, he had a mess on his hands. A Day with Wilbur Robinson looked like it was going to be another disaster from the studio, coming off of the critically panned but commercially successful Chicken Little. With that, he was going to make sure that the studio would return to their roots and make good films again after disappointments like Brother Bear and Home on the Range. At the same time, he had the studio's name changed to Walt Disney Animation Studios, a much more suitable name. The release date was moved from fall 2006 to March 30, 2007.

Though there wasn't enough time to really overhaul the project, the crew did what they could in such a short timeframe. The Bowler Hat Guy was made into a much more interesting, and threatening villain. He was also given his sidekick, Doris. The ending was significantly changed to become much more effective, and the sequence where the villain gets a dinosaur to chase Lewis was added. That scene would become the core of the marketing in the United States.

The marketing sold it as a silly comedy, like Disney's marketing department tended to do. True, Meet The Robinsons is a wacky comedy at many times, but it's also a heartfelt story. The marketing failed to establish this, whereas a superior Japanese trailer got it right. Meet The Robinsons had a hard time at the domestic box office upon release. The marketing probably reminded audiences more of Chicken Little and the annoying animated features released in 2006. The general belief was that Disney stopped making good films since the Renaissance, but that doesn't explain how Chicken Little did so well. Perhaps it left a bad taste in audiences' mouths, combined with the trailers for the film.

Reviewers weren't very enthusiastic about it, but some did praise the deeper themes and the emotional side of the story. It opened with a rather disappointing $25 million, but something happened... This happened to every Disney animated film since then... It spawned great legs thanks to good word of mouth. Meet The Robinsons quietly climbed its way up to $97 million domestically, though that was still much less than what Chicken Little made. The executives probably weren't too thrilled about that. Worldwide, it took in a modest $169 million. It was a bit of an underperformer. Disney's live action/animation hybrid, Enchanted, outgrossed it significantly.

By 2007, people became more choosy with big release animated films. This is why something good like Sony Animation's Surf's Up had a hard time at the box office, looking derivative of certain other animated films despite being pretty original. People normally attend the Pixar films, and even Pixar's entry for the year posted a low opening despite the incredible word of mouth it got. It ended up grossing less than the dreadful Alvin and the Chipmunks domestically. It was a weird year, coming off of 2006, a very weak year for animation.

After finishing Meet The Robinsons, the next Disney film was going to be American Dog, which would be a much more serious return to form. Problems arose around December 2006, when Chris Sanders' story wasn't working. American Dog, much like Sanders' own Lilo & Stitch, was quirky with character designs that weren't your typical Disney character designs. The story involved Henry, a smoking and drinking canine star (you won't see that in a Disney film nowadays given their surrender to the anti-smoking craze at the time) of a James Bond-style TV show who believes everything on the show is real. He winds up lost, miles away from home, where he meets a one-eyed cat and a radioactive rabbit. They're looking for homes, but Henry is still deluded.

Sanders rejected Lasseter's notes, and things ultimately did not work out. Lasseter noted his talent, but he felt that the story needed work. A screening at the studio went over badly. Chris Sanders was out and the story was overhauled immediately. Lasseter kept the dog TV star being deluded, but changed the show to an action-packed story where the protagonist (renamed Bolt) is a super dog. The characters were radically redesigned. The one-eyed cat became a regular cat who doesn't trust humans. The radioactive rabbit would be replaced by Rhino.

The story was simplified, but Lasseter didn't want this to be a dud. He made sure that it had the heart, the wit and the sparkle that define the Pixar films. It's no surprise the story has similarities with Toy Story and Cars. It feels like a Lasseter film. Chris Williams and Byron Howard became the new directors of the project. The animation wouldn't be like the other films on the market, as the film introduced a painterly look that gave a traditional animation quality to the film's backgrounds.

Bolt wasn't easy to sell from the start. The Disney brand name was toxic, as their animated films hadn't caught on at the box office amidst the Pixar, DreamWorks and Blue Sky films. With the success of Enchanted however, Bolt could change that. The animation community was already upset over not getting Sanders' film, and the marketing sold it as a derivative, generic film. Something we've seen before. There was no punch to the marketing, which, in a DreamWorks fashion, kept telling us that John Travolta and Miley Cyrus were the leads in the film. The posters gave off an Incredibles vibe. The marketing was uninteresting and lazy.

Opening on November 21, 2008, it was going up against a certain film that was obviously going to be a huge hit. Bolt only took in a rather disappointing $26 million on its opening weekend, despite great critical reception. Then, it got excellent word of mouth and pulled a 4.3x multiplier. It climbed its way to $114 million domestically against all odds. Worldwide, it took in $309 million for its final total. However, this gross was less than Chicken Little and Enchanted. The film could've done better with a bigger opening (it's also upsetting since DreamWorks' inferior Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa made more than twice that amount on its opening weekend just two weeks earlier) and better marketing that worked alongside the word of mouth. It didn't happen, and this return to form was lost in the shuffle.

Bolt found new life on Blu-ray and DVD, but it could've been a much bigger success in theaters. More and more people are experiencing it, so maybe one day people will look back on this film and see that it was one of the building blocks that would lead to Disney's comeback.

In part two, I'll take a look at Disney's return to hand-drawn animation, The Princess and the Frog!

Another Home Run

As usual, Pixar topped the box office for the weekend. Brave took in $66.3 million, itching past Cars 2's $66.1 million opening last year. This makes it the fifth biggest opening weekend for a Pixar film, although it should've gone a little higher because of its big opening day. Still, $66 million is not too bad. Now, we have to see what its legs will be like. With an "A" on CinemaScore, it looks as if audiences really enjoyed this new Pixar film. I know my audience did, so good word of mouth is definitely going to carry this past $200 million.

Worst case scenario, it scores a 3.5x multiplier (much like WALL-E) and grosses a little over $230 million, which would still be pretty damn good. A 4.0x multiplier is also very possible, but $300 million does seem out of reach. Also, don't forget the family friendly competition from Ice Age: Continental Drift. The Amazing Spider-Man may also affect Brave.

In other animation news, Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted held very well. Usually a 3D release in animation will significantly drop when a new animated release comes along, but Madagascar 3 wasn't affected. It took in $19 million, only dropping 42%. It's currently #2, which is great because we have two animated films in the top two. Amazing, isn't it? The film has now grossed $157 million domestically. It is destined to outgross both of its predecessors and take in $200 million.

With that, we'll have three $200 million animated films already. Box office is at an all-time high, and it looks as if this will be 2010 all over again. By the time Toy Story 3 opened in June, How to Train Your Dragon and Shrek Forever After had already cleared $200 million. Now if Wreck-It Ralph and Rise of the Guardians were to gross $200 million, then we'll be tied with 2010. 5 animated films grossing $200 million. On top of that, Ice Age: Continental Drift could surprise audiences and take in $200 million. This will all make 2011's animation box office grosses look like a bump in the road.

The only mishap so far this year, box office-wise, is Aardman's The Pirates! Band of Misfits. It should've been a small success, but Sony Pictures Animation and Columbia dropped the ball with the marketing and made it come off as a kiddie version of Pirates of the Carribean. It's only mustered up $29 million domestically, which is even less than what Arthur Christmas made. On a lighter note, it has made $114 million worldwide. It's a small success for Aardman, as usual for their films.

What do you think? How much do you think Brave can make in the long run? Do you think anything else has a shot at making $200 million this year? Sound off!

DreamWorks' "Happy Smekday!", Cast and Crew

Based on Adam Rex's novel The True Meaning of Smekday, DreamWorks' Happy Smekday! was on the list of upcoming projects. Now, it's slated to follow How to Train Your Dragon 2 for a late 2014 release.

Tim Johnson (the director of Antz and Over the Hedge) will direct, and Chris Jenkins and Suzanne Buirgy will produce. The Get Smart writers Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember will pen the screenplay, as they will with the March 2014 release Me and My Shadow.

Two members of the cast were announced, Jim Parsons of The Big Bang Theory and Rihanna. Hmmmm, not too sure about this. While I'm sure Parsons is fine for this story, but Rihanna... I mean, DreamWorks is essentially going back to their star-studded cast routine.

Anyways, the plot of the book involves an alien invasion where a young girl's mother is taken away by an alien race called the Boov. The aliens land on Christmas Day, renaming the holiday "Smekday". Sounds exciting. Hopefully it's not wasted on a mediocre script, and hopefully the entire cast make it good.

Are you looking forward to this? What do you think? Sound off!

"Brave": Emotional, Surprising and Just Plain Beautiful

QUICK FLICK REVIEW

Brave

Directed by Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman

and Steve Purcell

Written by Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman

Irene Mecchi and Steve Purcell

Produced by Katherine Sarafian

Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures

Studio: Pixar Animation Studios

Well, here we are! Every summer, we get our Pixar fix, and this summer's big Pixar event is Brenda Chapman and Mark Andrews' Brave. Of course, prior to its release, a lot of folks were probably wondering, "Will this be a Pixar masterpiece? Or will it indicate that the great studio has lost its touch?" Fortunately Brave is the former, but why? Simple enough. It's a very well-made film that hits all the right notes, showcasing Pixar's ability to combine comedy and drama while also telling a good story with characters that you care about, and on top of that, giving audiences something beautiful to look at and listen to.

Princess Merida (wonderfully voiced by Kelly Macdonald) is quite possibly one of the most immediately likable leads in a Pixar film, let alone any film. She's spunky, energetic and free-thinking. We've seen that in some rebellious Disney heroines of the past (Ariel and Mulan come to mind), but the story is compelling and that these similarities are just... Well.. Similarities. Nothing wrong with that, because Merida is a fantastic character. Her design is also great, especially her hair, which defines her attitude, along with her rather quirky mannerisms. What really elevates the film (aside from the intriguing and sometimes unpredictable story) is the relationship between Merida and her very proper mother Queen Elinor (voiced by Emma Thompson). Both represent two sides, Queen Elinor doesn't like to venture out and essentially be ordinary, whereas Merida is all about adventure and doing what she wants to do, regardless of traditions. The relationship between the two is the film's emotional core, and one that isn't a far cry from the core of Finding Nemo.

The story is about the importance of family, as the marketing alone has pushed, but it's never in your face or preachy. It's a fantastic message, and one that aims for the heart and pulls at the strings like the other great Pixar films. With that, you're immediately hooked. When Merida and her mother have a rather heated argument in the film's first act, the emotion is there. It's right there on the surface, and yes, this film is a tearjerker. It's not shy of Pixar's way of making audiences cry, which is for the better. Brave's other main theme is challenging tradition. As said before, Queen Elinor is essentially someone who sticks with status quo. At the same time, we see how staying the course hasn't really done much good for her or the kingdom, but we're also shown how Merida's rebellious nature could possibly backfire, which sets up the climactic third act.

Most of the criticism this film has been getting was directed towards the second and third acts, when things start to take an unusual turn in terms of the storytelling. Not unusual in a bad way, just something completely unexpected. I was a bit surprised at first at how they handled Queen Elinor turning into bear. I was a bit put off at first, but then once we started getting back into the whole emotional core of the story, these slight problems were washed away with grace. After these scenes, Brave essentially becomes what it is: A mother-daughter bonding tale where both of their ways of thinking change. Then the film starts getting dark, and it never pulls punches. The scene where Merida encounters the demonic bear Mor'du is pretty intense, and it's sure to upset some children (because Pixar does not make films for a specific target audience). What happens in the third act is fairly pulse-pounding on both an emotional level. This film didn't get the PG rating for nothing.

Speaking of the rating, the writers lace the comical side of the story with some humor that's more on the rude side while also going for broad slapstick with the three lords (Lord Macintosh, Lord MacGuffin and Lord Dingwall, voiced by Craig Ferguson, Kevin McKidd and Robbie Coltrane respectively) and King Fergus (voiced by a hilarious Billy Connoly). However, it's funnier than something in say... One of the DreamWorks films or whatever. Never forced, and always funny, the humor is a treat. The audience howled with laughter throughout. Some of the jokes pretty much show why this film got a PG rating, aside from the darker content that is usually in Pixar's films. At the same time, it's very witty and it never stoops down and resorts to being cheap. Best of all, the triplets, Hamish, Hubert and Harris, are hilarious. Silent (which is good) and sneaky, they steal the show. When they become bear cubs (not much of a spoiler since the trailers showed these scenes), it was actually very funny and clever. I was afraid that would be a scene that was shoe-horned into the film for laughs. Fortunately, it wasn't.

Of course, every Pixar film has some form of drama in it. Here, like the other Pixar tearjerkers, Brave fills its first act with the mother-daughter relationship with scenes that already have you getting misty eyed. It's all beautifully done and well-told, so it definitely strikes the emotional chords. This makes the second act, despite some flimsy pacing, soar. The third act had me in tears, I'll admit it. In addition to having tearjerker moments, the film is not afraid to be dark. Pixar's films have had their fair share of dark and sometimes intense moments, some of the more recent efforts come to mind like Toy Story 3's masterful and intense incinerator scene. Some moments in Brave equal that intensity, while adding an action film flair to them.

So with a story that's filled to the brim of heart, comedy, drama and the occasional intense moments, what else is there to admire? The characters, of course. Aside from Merida and Queen Elinor, you got Merida's hilarious father, King Fergus. The three lords are also a hoot, along with the triplets. The supporting cast is just as interesting, and don't forget to look for John Ratzenberger's cameo in the film. Last but not least, the witch (voiced by Julie Walters), who is a very giddy and off-the-wall character. I won't say more, but she is pretty funny. It's too bad she's not in it that much.

To say the animation looks great is unnecessary because this is a Pixar film, but I will say, they captured the Scottish highlands very well. It's beautiful, breathtaking and it ultimately compliments the emotional story. The character designs? Wonderful. Very caricatured, while also feeling realistic, which Pixar had mastered in Ratatouille and Up. This film experiments with even more abstract and often wacky character designs, and as a result, the film has a unique visual appeal.

In total, Brave is pretty much why Pixar films leave you satisfied. The audience loved it, and one of the folks I went with said something along the lines of "I'm starting to like animation better than regular movies." Now that says a lot. I am not sure why a lot of the critics weren't too crazy about it, as I felt it was just as good as the other Pixar films. Sure it has some unexpected moments, but it's not enough to ruin the story completely. It has what every good Pixar film has.

One last thing: The title. To me, The Bear and the Bow was a much better title. Sure, Merida is brave enough to go up against status quo and traditions, sure she is brave enough to undo what she done against all odds (even in the face of death), but I personally feel that The Bear and the Bow is a much more suitable title because it really says a lot about the characters, the mother-daughter relationship and it's also enigmatic in a way. Oh well, it's another short and sweet title.

A+. It's a different film from Pixar but one that succeeds. It tows the fine line between being a crowd-pleasing fun time at the movies and a thoughtful, heartfelt experience. Also, keep your eyes peeled for Pixar in-jokes. I caught the Pizza Planet Truck, but no A113 or anything else.

Pixar Short: Enrico Casarosa's La Luna, a quiet and pretty short film. Not much to say about this one, but it's got the laughs while also being a charmer. The animation is lovely to look at, almost resembling something painterly in a way.

Trailer Recap

Saw this in 2D, and we happened to get some pretty good trailers.

The Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure - Some awkward kids' only film with Muppet wannabes. Apparently it's from the creators of the Teletubbies... That is all. Moving on! - Opens ummm... I don't know and I don't care!

Despicable Me 2 - Same teaser with the Minions singing "Barbara Ann". Got lots of laughs. - Opens July 3rd, 2013

Ice Age: Continental Drift - A fun trailer, but little else. Forced jokes and all. This is sure to explode overseas so Blue Sky Studios will be happy. This one got some laughs. - Opens July 13th

Hotel Transylvania - Got some laughs. This looks fun, as I said when this trailer was posted. - Opens September 28th

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Haven't seen a trailer for this since I saw The Adventure of Tintin back in January. Looks good, despite the controversy over the decision to shoot it in 48fps. - Opens December 14th

Wreck-It Ralph - Didn't get much laughs, as the jokes probably went over most folks' heads. I enjoyed every second of it of course (can't you tell?). - Opens November 2nd

Finding Nemo 3D - Messy trailer, but the film is fantastic, so... - Opens September 14th

Monsters University - This one got laughs. This was the "Pony Made the Dean's List" version of the teaser. - Opens June 21st, 2013

So that ends the review for Pixar's newest film. Next up? I want to say Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted, since I need to see it. Otherwise, my next review will probably be The Amazing Spider-Man.

'Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day' Jigsaw Puzzle

 

The year was 1968. Walt Disney Studios was in a bit of a funk when it came to the category that they had dominated over 30 years ago. Between 1954 and 1967, they received eight nominations in the Best Animated Short category, but Disney could do nothing but watch as films from other studios and later independent studios took home the Oscar. They had not won since Toot, Whistle, Plunk, and Boom won in 1953. They hadn't even been nominated since A Symposium of Popular Songs in 1962. And it had been two years since Disney himself had died from complications of lung cancer in 1966. Yet before he died he oversaw productions of three final projects: The Jungle Book, The Happiest Millionaire, and Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day. The latter was the second film based off of A.A. Milne's classic Winnie the Pooh series, following Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree in 1966. Blustery Day saw the introduction of the energetic Tigger, and the re-introduction of Pooh's very best friend Piglet. It also featured a half dozen wonderful songs from Richard and Robert Sherman. And when the Academy Awards came around in early 1969, Blustery Day beat out a NFB film, a Murakami-Wolf film, and a Hubley film for the Oscar. Disney was credited posthumously with the win for being the executive producer. It was his 22nd Oscar win, a record which may never be broken, and his final one.

Read more »

"Brave" Takes In an Estimated $24.5 million

That's right, $24.5 million. This opening day, if the estimates line up, is the third biggest opening day for a Pixar film, behind Toy Story 3 ($41 million) and Cars 2 ($25 million).

With the word of mouth this is getting, it's possible that it will clear $70 million for the opening weekend, or maybe top $80 million, and have the biggest opening weekend for a non-sequel Pixar film. Overall, this is a great start for Pixar's new film. $300 million domestically is still not out of the question.

What are your thoughts?

Final Thoughts on the Marketing for "Brave"

Of course, today is the big day. After a long wait (being announced way back in 2008! Remember those days?), Pixar's Brave has opened in theaters nationwide!

Now that it's out, I felt I would comment on the film's pre-release marketing. It seems like Disney's marketing for Pixar's Brave was essentially the antithesis of the controversial and deservedly criticized marketing for Andrew Stanton's John Carter. It's amazing how two marketing campaigns for Disney releases in one year could be both the polar opposite.

John Carter had lazy marketing all around, three lackluster trailers that failed to sell the film, a terrible title, underwhelming TV spots (including a dreadful Super Bowl spot) and a surprising lack of merchandise. Brave on the other hand has had four trailers, one of which was a scene from the actual film much like The Lion King's "Circle of Life" trailer. The teaser was dark and devoid of humor, which is odd for a teaser for a Pixar film. The final trailer ("Family Legends") was a surprisingly good trailer that wasn't a mess like the usual trailers for Pixar films. There was also some cross-promotion with the NFL. Also, for the first time in years, Disney joined forces with a fast food chain (Subway) to do a promotional tie-in. AMC Theaters played four Pixar films (Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up and Toy Story 3) in theaters over Memorial Day weekend with an exclusive featurette attached to the screenings. Then you've got merchandising out the wazoo, and tons of TV spots and featurettes, some of which were considered silly (The "Kilt" and "Freedom Broch" featurettes, for instance).

This campaign has gotten some criticism, as some think it was a little too aggressive. It seems as if Disney was over marketing this one, but methinks they want another Finding Nemo-sized success since Up (Pixar's first film in 3D) came close. Toy Story 3 inevitably cleared it, being a sequel. Cars 2 didn't, but I'm guessing Disney wants an original Pixar film to top $300 million at the domestic box office.

Personally, I've liked everything I've seen of it so far. The trailer showing the two-minute sequence from the film's first act ("The Prize") was breathtaking, the "Family Legends" trailer is one of the best trailers for a Pixar film, and the Mother's Day clip is absolutely beautiful. The TV spots are the usual, a clustercuss of chaos. The more goofy featurettes ("Kilt", "Freedom Broch", "Witches Brew") were amusing. I've avoided most of the promo materials they've put out in the last few weeks since I don't want to see anymore things that could be spoilers.

As for the box office, early projections have it in the mid 60s for the opening weekend. Personally, I think it could go higher. Box Office Mojo's forecast predicted that Cars 2 would make $59 million, it made $66 million. You never know, but with all this marketing, there is no way this will make less than Dr. Seuss' The Lorax on its opening weekend. For a while, I've been saying it should gross around the mid-to-late 70s, but we'll see on Monday. As for the final domestic total, I'm going to say $300 million, something I've been predicting since 2010 or so. Yes, $300 million... According to those who have seen it and other non-critic reviews, this one is quite the crowd-pleaser that is sure to entertain nearly everyone. Up almost got there, this should clear it. Worldwide, it should explode given the setting and 3D.

What are your box office projections for Brave? What did you think of the marketing as a whole? Sound off!