"The Pirates!" Doesn't Go Over Like Gangbusters

Columbia/Sony Pictures Animation and Aardman Animations' The Pirates! Band of Misfits opened at #2 this weekend, which is good for an Aardman or stop motion animated film, but... It opened with just $11 million, making it the smallest opening for an Aardman film (even below Arthur Christmas) and it's now among the smallest opening weekend totals for a wide release animated film. It's just another indicator that Aardman's films don't really explode on opening weekend, along with stop motion films in general.

What held this back from doing well on opening weekend? Arthur Christmas was a much more accessible film, but that too did not score a good-sized opening weekend probably due to when it was released and whatnot. The Pirates! didn't have much competition from other family films, and it basically has opened in the quiet month before the summer blockbuster typhoon. Could it be that audiences just don't care for stop-motion? Well that doesn't seem right, given how well Chicken Run did not to mention the huge following that The Nightmare Before Christmas has. Coraline had a very small opening weekend but strong legs helped it pass $75 million stateside. It can't be that it's stop-motion.

I blame the marketing, again. Now to be fair with Columbia Pictures, this was probably a pretty hard sell here in the United States. Are the books well known here? Or is it just something that's more popular in the UK and elsewhere? Again, regardless of whether it was based on books or not, this probably came off as a Pirates of the Caribbean spoof for kids to American audiences. The trailers and commercials didn't mention the books, and just made it look like another silly kiddie romp. Now look at the UK trailers, much funnier. The first trailer alone makes you want to see it. The title change probably didn't help either. In the UK, the film is called The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! since that's the name of one of the books it's based on. The Pirates! Band of Misfits is such a misleading title, and the trailers conveniently downplayed Charles Darwin who is a major character in the film. What, were they afraid of offending those who are against Darwin's theories? The film doesn't even make much mention of evolution or whatever, but since it's such a huge issue here, the marketing pretty much obscured Darwin and the whole idea that it's about science in nineteenth century England. Band of Misfits makes it sound like some kind of kids' film... Because you know, animation is totally for kids, right? What a shame.

In fact, Sony did try to make it more accessible to American audiences and kids. The Pirates! Band of Misfits is not the same film as The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! Some of the more crude humor was toned down (not counting the leprosy joke, that was cut by Aardman themselves), and a few characters were recast, even though a majority of the characters have British accents. What... The... Hell? It's not as bad as what happened to something like The Magic Roundabout (a very British animated film based on a British children's show, that was completely re-dubbed and re-written for American audiences and released as Doogal), but come on! These studios need to stop pandering to kids. Aardman's original film was clearly a much more adult-oriented film that could still appeal to kids with its wacky hi-jinks and fun character designs, but they had to alter it for American audiences. I'm an American and I am offended, because this is a condescending practice that is ruining the animation industry while stifling creativity and also treating American audiences like they are dumb. Why couldn't Sony just give us what Aardman originally set out to do and market it as the wildly fun and quirky animated film that it is? Why does it have to be for kids? Why? Why? Why?!? The original version probably would've been more successful! Had they marketed it as a more adult-oriented film, maybe not too many people (and no offense to anyone's religious beliefs) would freak out and say "It's science-loving Darwinists trying to corrupt our children! Oh noes!" Fortunately, the cuts don't really affect the story in any way and the overall quality of the film, but still, it didn't need to be altered for the sake of a certain audience!

Not all is doom and gloom, though. The film has a chance to score great word of mouth, which Aardman films always get. However, with a 4x multiplier and a sub-$50 million gross, that won't look impressive alongside other animated films. Something subpar like The Lorax had no trouble making more than that on opening weekend. Losing 3D screens next weekend won't be a problem, since family films do better in 2D anyways. It'll need to pull some very strong legs in order to pass $50 million, because $100 million is probably out of reach by this point. A real shame, because this is another very good animated film that needs to do well, cuts or no cuts.

I was hoping that this year would be some sort of stop motion renaissance and be what 2009 wasn't. Well, with this film underperforming, we now have to see how ParaNorman and Frankenweenie will do. Stop motion films have a chance to perform well alongside the heavy-hitters, but poor marketing and the whole "animation is for kids" belief is what's holding them back. We need nice alternatives to the CGI films and family friendly films. These films, along with several independent animated films, are the alternatives. They'll never do a thing though, because many people still assume that "animation is for kids". Well guess what? It's time for them to wake up.

Anyways, did you see The Pirates! Band of Misfits? Or if you live in Europe, did you see Aardman's original unaltered film? Do you think stop motion animated films are just not marketable? Or do you think that non-CGI/non-family friendly films are marketed terribly and thus don't score? If you saw the original UK version of the film, are you upset that it had to be altered for American audiences? Sound off!

"The Pirates!" is Another Winner from Aardman

QUICK FLICK REVIEW

The Pirates!

Band of Misfits

Directed by Peter Lord and Jeff Newitt

Written by Gideon Defoe

Produced by Julie Lockhart, Peter Lord and

David Sproxton

Distribution: Columbia Pictures

Studio: Aardman Animations / Sony Pictures Animation

Update: Turns out, the original British version of the film is different than the version we Americans got. In my original review, I referred to it by the original British title: The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!, so I'll be going by the American title, the dreadful The Pirates! Band of Misfits.

Irreverent, funny and at times innovative, The Pirates! Band of Misfits is another home run hit for Aardman Animations. The film, based on the first two books in Gideon Defoe's The Pirates! series (he also wrote the screenplay), follows the adventures of the Pirate Captain (played by Hugh Grant) and his wily crew. The Pirate Captain desires to become the Pirate of the Year, but he's not that good of a pirate. The first act establishes this in a really fun way, as we see how the other contenders are so much better than he is. This plot is essentially the back bone to a much bigger plot, once the pirates wind up with Charles Darwin and his pet chimp, Bobo.

From there, the film becomes delightfully over-the-top. It's lot of fun, and best of all, the film itself knows it's ridiculous. It throws aways the rulebook and just simply goes out of its way to entertain, much like other irreverent films like Aladdin, The Emperor's New Groove and Shrek. It pretty much makes fun of several cliches while also poking fun at other films. The screenplay isn't spectacular by any means, but it does its job. It bombards you with silliness and humor that works. When I saw it, I noticed that the humor went over the heads of the audience members, both young and old. What a shame. Oh, and the cast? Most of them seemed to have a great time with this film, they give it their all. Hugh Grant shines as the lead. Unfortunately, the actors who re-dubbed the voices for this version didn't seem as enthusiastic.

The animation? Wonderful. Aardman's return to stop-motion animation is no dud, and the amount of work that went into making the film is astounding. This was probably a very tough project to tackle, and I'm guessing that this was in development for a while. CGI is used, which was inevitable, but it blends well although at times it didn't. (i.e. the sea monster that devours the ship) The film also makes use of (gasp!) traditional animation! That's right! The map montage scenes use classic hand-drawn animation, and trust me, the map scenes are very funny. The character designs are a return to the classic Aardman designs but with a few differences, something I missed in Arthur Christmas since their first CGI film (Flushed Away) still stuck to the classic designs. The character designs are fun, eye-catching and unique. They still have the Wallace and Gromit look, but they also look different in some ways.

If I had any problems with the film, it would've probably been the pacing. At times it really slowed down, but at other times it picked up and ripped through its runtime. At other times, the plot isn't anything special. It picks up significantly in the film's third act, which is wild and hilarious. By that point, the story's shortcomings don't matter. Another problem I had was that the version of the film we got was cut, apparently a few lines were re-dubbed to keep the PG rating and the Albino Pirate's voice was changed. In the original British version, he's voiced by Russell Tovey. In this version, he's voiced by Anton Yelchin. I noticed that his voice sounded different. A few other voices were changed as well. What a bummer. These changes were not necessary, but I'll save that for a rant.

B+. Another good film from Aardman that is significantly different from their earlier films, which is a good thing. Fine animation, a fun story and great performances make this film a riot worth seeing, despite the alterations made to this version of the film. Everything else works. Highly recommended.

Trailer Recap
I saw this in 2D in the afternoon. There weren't too many folks in the audience, and most of them didn't seem to enjoy it. It was pretty much the same reaction Arthur Christmas got when I saw that film a few months ago. The trailers we got? More of the same, but a few new ones... But no Brave trailer! Bummer.

Diary of Wimpy Kid: Dog Days - Ehhhh, not another one of these, but unlike most live-action children's films (yes, I consider these films children's films, not family films), this series is profitable. Thank goodness Judy Moody wasn't. - Opens August 3rd

To the Arctic 3D - This opened 9 days ago. Why did they show the trailer for this? We could've gotten the Brave trailer instead. Dang it!

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - This trailer wasn't as bad as the last one, but I'm probably going to pass on this one. It just looks so silly and over-the-top, and not in a good way. Oh well, the animation is nice and colorful. - Opens June 8th

Despicable Me 2 - This trailer got laughs from everyone in the audience, something the main attraction unfortunately did not. Again, this is only the teaser. I can't say much. - Opens July 3rd, 2013

ParaNorman - The same trailer that was attached to Dr. Seuss' The Lorax. It looks really good, but here's hoping we get another trailer that doesn't focus on the comedy and more on the ghoulish stuff. - Opens August 17th

Hotel Transylvania - It looks alright at best, not too crazy about the fact that it has a star-studded cast. Still, Genndy Tartakovsky is the director and the animation looks nice. - Opens September 28th

Next Up: The Avengers!

Thoughts on The Beach Boys' 50th Anniversary Tour and Their Upcoming Album

The Beach Boys, arguably one of America's quintessential bands if not "the" quintessential American band, kicked off their 50th Anniversary Reunion tour in Tucson, Arizona a few days ago while also unveiling their new single, "That's Why God Made the Radio". I am a huge fan of The Beach Boys, and of course I am going to see them when they come to my state. This is actually the first time I'll be seeing the band live, because I wasn't too crazy about seeing them in the past. Now, Brian Wilson is back and the line-up consists of Mike Love, Al Jardine, Bruce Johnston and David Marks, who left the band after Little Deuce Coupe. It's all original members, which makes me happy. The thing is, I wonder what it would've been like to see Carl and Dennis Wilson. Too bad I wasn't in the 1960s or 1970s.

Upon reading their set-list, hearing the new single, and reading Bruce Johnston and Al Jardine's comments on the upcoming album That's Why God Made The Radio (which hits stores on June 5th), I am now very excited for the tour and the new album. The single? "That's Why God Made the Radio" ties the surfing sound of the early 1960s to the beautiful sound that dominated the likes of Pet Sounds. The singing is good and the playing is great. They still have it in them. It feels like "California Girls", while also having a Pet Sounds vibe to it with a dash of Sunflower and their Brother years songs. Bruce Johnston stated that the album reminds him of Sunflower, while Al Jardine said it was like Pet Sounds. I am glad to hear this, because I was afraid that their new studio album would just be another tired surf rock revival record. It's nice to see the band looking back on an era that is criminally overlooked.

What era is that, you might ask? The post-Pet Sounds era, when The Beach Boys had moved away from the surf pop sound and ventured into baroque pop and experimental territories. The intended follow-up to Pet Sounds, SMiLE, was an ambitious and highly creative masterpiece that was unfortunately shelved for many reasons. It signaled a strange era for the band, an era that I consider their best.

It was a somewhat misguided era, but one that gave us some of their greatest music. The album we got instead of SMiLE, titled Smiley Smile, was a strange album that alienated critics and music listeners in the late summer of 1967. The band was perceived as uncool and square, but in Europe, the album was another huge success. It was followed by albums that showed that the band was capable of trying different things, and by that point, being relevant in the states wasn't an option. Creativity was an option. If you've never heard the album Sunflower, you don't know what you are missing.

Sunflower (1970)

In the mid-1970s, the band began to slip back into the retro surf sound. Nostalgia made them a hit, and their concerts were huge. The success of the pre-1966 era songs compilation Endless Summer also helped, but the band resorted to subpar studio albums (minus 1977's Love You) that the public avoided. Afterwards, they have been perceived as that surf band, and success of the pop radio-friendly "Kokomo" pretty much cemented this belief into music listeners. Now that they are going back to the sound of the mid 1960s and the early 1970s, I am hopeful that this tour and album will lead people to seek out the albums they missed out on back then. A very good album like Friends was a huge flop in 1968, ditto Sunflower in 1970.

Last but not least, the set list. It consists of the hits, you know... "Surfin' Safari", "Surfin' USA", "Kokomo", "California Girls", "I Get Around"... What are they mixed with? Let's see... "Cottonfields". You know, the single from 1970? You may not know, but it was a country rock take on the Leadbelly classic that was a huge hit in Europe but a flop in the States, one after a string of many. What else? "This Whole World" and "Forever", two classics from Sunflower, one of their finest albums that was unfortunately a huge flop in the states but a success in Europe.  "Disney Girls (1957)" from Surf's Up, also nice. "All This Is That" from Carl and the Passions - "So Tough", "Sail On Sailor" from Holland... Wonderful! In addition to that, great songs from the early-to-mid 1960s that you might not find on a "Best of" set such as "Please Let Me Wonder", "The Little Girl I Once Knew", "Little Honda", "Then I Kissed Her" and so on... Also, they will play "That's Why God Made the Radio".

It's a great set list. It's one that gives casual fans what they want to hear (the surf stuff, "Kokomo") and songs that fans like me want to hear. I couldn't be any happier. I mean, I wasn't expecting them to do something like "'Til I Die" or... Say... "Solar System" or even something like "It's About Time" or "Bluebirds Over the Mountain". I am just glad that they are playing at least one selection from each of the post-1966 albums, except Wild Honey and Friends. Not sure why they couldn't have added the title tracks from those two albums, or something like "Darlin'". Those two albums are great. SMiLE tracks? They're playing "Heroes and Villains" of course, but nothing like "Surf's Up" or "Wonderful", but let's face it, the SMiLE tracks probably can't be performed live without an orchestra or something. Still, it's a great, diverse set list.

The Beach Boys are back, and they mean business this time. The new album will mix the surf sound with the artistic sound that defines their greatest albums and the tour set-list dives into albums that people haven't heard of or probably forgot. Also, don't forget that the first ever release of The Beach Boys' version of SMiLE was a success, and will probably get listeners interested in a great amount of music that was missed. This will be a fine summer for The Beach Boys.

Are you a fan of The Beach Boys? What are your thoughts on this band? Are you familiar with the post-1966 output? Or are you more of a casual fan who enjoys the surf stuff? Sound off!

Final reviews Spring 2012

Second year Interior Design students present their adaptive re-use design projects. Students have each created a gallery, studio and small residence design for a regional artist using the Northern Pacific (Pufferbelly) railroad depot in downtown Pullman. Their primary objective was the redesign of the depot to meet client needs while respecting the historical nature of the depot structure. Check their blog links to the right for more details on each project. Good work everyone! Ashley, Katie, Taryn, Alicia, Taylor, Kym, Brecken, Carly, Chieh-Ju, Lia, Liz, Shawna, Brittany, Ellie, Alyx, Ko, Megan, Marit, Whitney, Tamara, Emily and Nkojuoa. Thanks to our reviewers: Professor Nelson-Johnson, Professor Ascher-Barnstone, Sharon Macy, Carrie Vielle, Dana Vaux, and Deanna Goguen.

At the Palouse Habitat for Humanity fundraiser

Second year interior design students (Emily, Whitney, Taylor, Alicia, Ellie and Liz) presented home design for the Palouse Habitat for Humanity, a project of the Rural Community Design Initiative through Washington State University and the Center for Civic Engagement, at the Habitat for Humanity fundraiser Beans 'n Jeans.

Andrew Loomis fascimile reprints.

If you've ever held a pencil and thought seriously about learning how to draw you've surely heard of Andrew Loomis and his books on drawing and art.

Loomis was a commercial illustrator born in 1892 who had a certain class that became rare with the introduction of mass media. His work, althought stricktly for magazines and advertisements, had an air from a different age and time. Because he also felt the urge to teach people the craft of his trade, he wrote and drew several books about creating illustrations and art in general.

His books, counted among the best and brightest, have become very rare and quite expensive, if you happen to catch one of the early original prints, as most of them are now OOP (out of print). Lucky for us, Titan Books started publishing fascimile prints of the Loomis collection last year. The third volume, 'Succesfull drawing' (left), will finally be out May 4.

Unlike Loomis' first book, 'Fun with a pencil', published in 1939, this one tends to be a bit more technical, containing chapters on proper lighting and the deconstruction of complex shapes in different perspectives. In the book Loomis explains that a succesfull drawing must apply to ten fundamental laws, which he divides into two categories, called the five P's, being Proportion, Placement, Perspective, Planes and Patterns and the five C's: Conception, Construction, Contour, Character and Consistency. There are also some excellent chapters on costume drawing, showing some fine examples of Loomis remarkable talent. It was later reprinted with additional material under the title 'Three Dimensional Drawing.'

Click to enlarge: Some examples from 'Succesful Drawing', showing methods of drawing proper perspective and scale (above) and some of Loomis' excellent examples on light and shadow (below).

Born at the very end of the 19th century in Syracuse, New York, Loomis lived and worked most of his life in Chicago, where he had his own studio and taught at the 'American Academy of Art', after serving in WWI. He himself had been a student at the Art Institute of Chicago, as well as the 'Arts Students League of New York', located at West 57th Street.

Established in 1875, the Students League had participated with the 'Society of American Artists' and the 'Architectural League of New York' in the founding of the American Fine Arts Society in 1889. Loomis studied there under teachers such as Impressionist painter Frank DuMond, who taught at the institute for over 50 years, and George Bridgman, who taught anatomy for 45 years. Bridgman himself had studied at the renowned École des Beaux-arts in Paris under Gustave Boulanger (1824-1888), the esteemed French painter awarded with the Prix-de-Rome in 1849, the annual scholarship given only to a selected few of the students of the famous French 'Royal Academie of Painting and Sculpture' since 1663.

Many of today's celebrated artists and sculptors studied there and failed miserably for years, attempting to win the prestigious prize, which came with a stay for several years at the French Academie in Rome, located in the Villa Medici, where artists would study all the classical examples in painting, sculpture and architecture, found in Italy's profound artistic history.

Francois Boucher was one of few artists honored with the award in 1720. My favorite painter, Jacques-Louis David, Boucher's student and nephew, won it in 1774, after five attempts and a period of starvation, which was meant as a protest (David finally won the Grand Prix in 1774 with his painting of 'Antiochus and Stratonice').

Above: Painting by Boulanger from 1861 titled 'Rehearsal of 'The Fluteplayer' and 'The Diomedes wife' in the atrium of the Pompeian house of Prince Napoleon, 18 Avenue Montaigne', currently on display at the Chateau de Versailles in Paris. The painting shows French playwright Émile Augier (center), the poet Théophile Gautier (in the back), actress Éthélie Madeleine Brohan (front right), actress Marie Favart (back), actor Edmond God (left, bending forward) and actor Joseph Samson (right, lying down). Boulanger had visited the ruins of Pompeii during his stay in Rome which inspired him for the painting, showing Napoleon's house in Paris where preparations are being made for a performance given before the imperial Court (Click to enlarge).

Below: various sketches by George Bridgman from his books 'Constructive Anatomy' (1920) and 'The Human Machine' (1939), clearly showing the mechanics of the human arm and hand. Bridgman used to draw simplified, interlocking wedges to break down the anatomy of the human body, using blocked out forms to represent the masses. This concept was even further explored in later artbooks by comic artist Burne Hogarth ('Tarzan'), which clearly show Bridgman's influence. In the course of his life Bridgman wrote and drew several invaluable books on anatomy which are luckily still in print.

Below: Loomis wrote/drew six artbooks altogether, of which two have been reprinted by Titan last year. 'Figure drawing for all it's worth' was his second book, originally published in 1943 while 'Drawing the head & hands' (his fifth book) was the last published during his lifetime in 1956, his last book, 'The eye of the painter' was published in 1961 after his death.

So you see, Andrew Loomis' work, althought it does not reside at the Louvre or other esteemed institutions, holds a vast body of knowledge and history. He received his education from a long line of great artists, and althought the flame of the prix-de Rome extinguished in 1968, you're still able to capture some of that style and elegance through the books Loomis worked so hard on and left behind for us. Great to see they're back in print. Check here for more on Anatomy.

Ron & John's Next Film Will Be... Hand-Drawn!

Yesterday, Disney's Animation Research Library confirmed that Ron Clements and John Musker are directing Disney's next hand-drawn animated film in celebration of Clements' birthday. For those of you who don't know, Ron & John directed The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and The Princess and the Frog. Aside from those films, they also directed The Great Mouse Detective with Dave Michener and Burny Mattinson, along with Hercules and Treasure Planet.

What will it be? We don't know, all we got was "we can't say." I think it might be Mort (an adaptation of a novel in Terry Pratchett's Discworld series), since it was announced that it would be their next film in November 2010, but that just seemed to disappear. Maybe they might take over King of the Elves, because Chris Williams dropped out of that project since it ran into massive story problems. Maybe it might be Fraidy Cat, the project Disney announced back in 2004, that Hitchcockian mystery story about the cat who last three of his nine lives. I'd love to see that happen.

This announcement makes me think that Disney hasn't lost confidence in hand-drawn animation, and they might be aware of the fact that terrible marketing and poor timing was what killed The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh's chances of doing well at the box office. With Rich Ross out, it's possible that Disney will find a Chairman who knows animation very well and knows how to market a good animated film without having to resort to shoddy marketing campaigns or ones that make the film look horrible. (Tangled, anyone?) Hopefully the marketing department will be improved, now that MT Carney left prior to John Carter's opening day. All Disney needs at this point is for Wreck-It Ralph and Frozen to exceed all expectations.

What do you think will be the next hand-drawn animated film from Disney?

P.S. Happy late birthday Ron Clements!

Also, check out this new NFL Draft TV spot for Pixar's Brave.

Best Animated Short - 1996

The year was 1996. That year saw an event that happened only a handful of times before, and has yet to happen since. From our review of the rules for the Shorts categories we know that the number of nominees can range from 3 - 5, based on how many of the shortlisted films achieve a certain benchmark. It's easier to get three and five nominees. If three or fewer films reach the benchmark score, then the top three films will be nominated. If five or more films reach the benchmark, then the top five films will receive nominations. The only way there can be four nominees is if exactly four films reach the statistical benchmark, no more, no less. That might explain why there have been 35 years with three nominees and 31 years with five nominees, but only nine years with four nominees.*

*Back in the early days of the category they didn't seem to have any limits on the number of nominees, so there were two years with six nominees, two year with seven nominees, and one year with a whopping ten nominees. That's going to be a fun review to write. -_-

Read more »

More Disney News from CinemaCon

Last night, Disney's presentation at CinemaCon revealed that Pixar's dinosaur film had been titled The Good Dinosaur, Lee Unkrich's next film at Pixar is Dia De Los Muertos and a teaser trailer for Monsters University was shown that went over very well. They also previewed the first thirty minutes of Brave, which was met with satisfaction. During the presentation, Disney revealed many other things...

They showed off the first six minutes of their upcoming animated film Wreck-It Ralph, which was basically a nearly completed version of the opening scene that was shown in storyreel form at D23 last summer. Like the first thirty minutes of Brave and the Monsters University trailer, it went over very well. That's great to hear, considering that this is one of their riskiest projects yet, but where is the trailer? I'm hoping Disney surprises us and attaches it to Aardman's The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! on Friday. If not, like I said before, they ought to attach the trailer to The Avengers, since this film is aiming for the gamers. It would be perfect.

Sean Bailey, the President of Production at Disney, also announced that The Muppets II is a go. Even though The Muppets wasn't a smash hit, it was still a very profitable film for the Mouse House. I really enjoyed the film, so I'm curious to see what the sequel will be like. Hopefully they go all out with it and deliver a very fun sequel.

The other news from the presentation that excites me came from Shane Black, the director of Iron Man 3. I was initially worried about the project, which was apparently taking a "rooted in reality" approach, and the Mandarin wasn't going to be the villain. Black stated that the villain (who is being played by Ben Kingsley) will "frighten in today's world". I wonder who it could be, since Iron Man 2 dropped the ball by pitting Tony Stark against a vengeful Iron Man wannabe. I personally don't want another villain who finds the arc reactor and makes his own suit. Black also stated that the film is a "technological thriller", a "crisis movie" that will put Tony Stark "through the wringer". All I can say is, not bad. At least they are trying something new. While I enjoyed Iron Man 2, I still believe it was a missed opportunity. The sky was the limit after the first one, but the second one just felt a bit grounded. It's like they had several potentially great ideas and couldn't do much with them (Tony Stark's drinking problems were wasted on an idiotic party scene). When will we get a trailer for this? Before The Avengers? Probably not. I'm going to say The Amazing Spider-Man will have a trailer, or maybe not. Speaking of which, the new trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man will be attached to The Avengers. I'm still on the fence about Spidey. Iron Man 3 opens May 3, 2013.

Footage from Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful was shown as well, which was met with praise. I'm still not sure what to think of that film, but I figure that Disney is trying to score another Alice in Wonderland-sized success, since the film is being released on March 8, 2013. I expect this film to be another visual treat. When will we get the trailer? I'm assuming we're going to get it before either The Avengers or Brave.

Jerry Bruckheimer's Lone Ranger was presented by Johnny Depp, and it was also revealed that Jack White (Cold Mountain, Quantum of Solace) will compose the score. Seems perfect for this film. Lone Ranger was on and off at Disney last year due to budgetary concerns, it's back on track and photos have been revealed. Of course, Gore Verbinski is directing the film. Coincidentally, he directed Paramount's animated Western Rango, and Depp was the lead in that. Seems perfect for Verbinski, hopefully it delivers and brings back Westerns. True Grit was a surprise hit, but Rango underperformed. The Western genre has been in trouble since Will Smith's Wild Wild West, so hopefully this won't be a bust. With Rich Ross and MT Carney gone, here's hoping Disney's marketing department learned their lesson and markets the hell out of this film. Lone Ranger opens May 31, 2013.

In addition to that, footage from Tim Burton's Frankenweenie (another animated film that I'm really looking forward to, opens October 5th) was shown alongside footage from Finding Nemo 3D (which opens on September 14th) and an upcoming Touchstone/DreamWorks' collaboration People Like Us (which opens June 29th).

What's your take on this? Which of these upcoming Disney films are you excited for? Which ones are you not anticipating? What would you like to see in Iron Man 3? Do you think Lone Ranger will be a success? Or not? What are your thoughts on a Muppets sequel? Sound off!

Big Pixar Update: New "Brave" Trailer, "The Good Dinosaur" and "Dia De Los Muertos"

Note: This was originally posted as an article on the Brave trailer, but since the big news came in a few hours later, I felt it necessary to merge both posts.

It's finally here, the third theatrical trailer for Pixar's Brave! I'm happy to say that it's a fantastic trailer, and quite possibly one of the best Pixar trailers I've ever seen. It was very consistent all the way through and it did a fine job establishing the story while also showing the film's more dramatic side. It's a far cry from the choppily edited first trailer that showed up back in November 2011, and other frenetic trailers for Pixar films. (WALL-E and Toy Story 3 come to mind)

While the trailer shows us Merida's relationship with her family (in greater detail than before) and what she does to unleash the curse on the Scottish highlands, it also tones down the comic relief and uses it effectively. The comedy with the three lords makes more sense now in this trailer and the two-minute clip, same with the triplets. With that, it's a lot funnier in this trailer than it was the November 2011 trailer.

In total, this trailer is everything I wanted it to be. It balances the drama, the humor and the action effectively. It looks like something people will flock to see, and it's nice to see Disney really aggressively marketing this film because they don't want it to go over terribly. I'm confident that Brave will remind audiences that Pixar is still one of the top notch animation studios, Cars 2 or no Cars 2. Of course the trailer also mentions WALL-E, Up and Toy Story 3, Pixar's three tearjerkers, for the inevitable "From the creators of..." section during the effective last half of the trailer. Here's the thing though, why do the trailers have to keep reminding audiences what Pixar made? Shouldn't they know? Oh wait, never mind...

This trailer makes me all the more excited for Brave, now that the marketing has really kicked off. Hopefully it's a huge hit and a rebound for Pixar. One dent in the armor isn't enough to bring them down, and hopefully this will prove it. One thing I want to know, why did they wait until now to release it online? This trailer was attached to the 3D re-release of Titanic earlier this month, and now we get it online. I wonder why. I'm guessing they wanted it to be exclusive to theaters because they might've expected that Titanic 3D would be a huge hit... But it wasn't! Oh well, at least we got it.

But that's not all... We got even bigger news today!

Talk about a triple helping from Pixar for the day... First, the new Brave trailer, and now this... Pixar's untitled film about dinosaurs is now titled The Good Dinosaur and Lee Unkrich's next Pixar film is titled Dia De Los Muertos. Pixar announced these updates at CinemaCon less than an hour ago.

The Good Dinosaur was originally scheduled for release on November 27, 2013, and the release date was pushed back after Walt Disney Animation Studios' Frozen took that spot. For a while, it didn't have a release date. Now it's coming out on May 30, 2014, when Pixar's still-untitled Inside the Mind project was slated to come out. That has now been pushed back to June 19, 2015. I'm assuming the title refers to the brontosaurus that appears in the concept art with the boy that was in the Up B-Roll I video. When Pixar first announced this project last summer, I was already excited, since the idea alone (dinosaurs never going extinct) was pretty creative. That's all I can say about this project for now.

Lee Unkrich stated on Twitter that Dia De Los Muerto's story is set in the world of the Mexican holiday of the same name, which translates to Day of the Dead. Sounds ambitious already, and dark. Pixar just seems to be getting more and more ambitious and creative, but I wonder, when will Dia De Los Muertos come out? I'd say summer 2016, since Pixar films have been summer releases since Cars. One thing though, I've never seen their upcoming slate change so much. Sometimes we saw projects being scheduled for November releases, and then moved to the summer. I just hope this is the definitive upcoming slate. The only thing is, where's Newt? Oh well, they may bring it back, you never know!

As a bonus for those who were at CinemaCon, a teaser for Monsters University was shown, which reportedly had the crowd roaring with laughter. Hopefully that trailer will appear soon, but something tells me we're going to have to wait. Who knows, maybe we'll get it online right now. What do you think?

Your thoughts on this? Which one of these projects excites you? Or do all of them excite you? Sound off!

Thoughts on the "Lego" Movie

In the recent years, we've been seeing more big budget films based on popular toys. We got Michael Bay's Transformers series, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and its upcoming sequel G.I. Joe: Retaliation, and the forthcoming Battleship. What's next? Lego! Unlike the movies I mentioned, this will be an animated film. (According to some reports, about 20% of it will be in live action) Today, it was scheduled for release on February 28, 2014.

The project was green lit by Warner Bros. last autumn, and Animal Logic (Happy Feet) will handle the animation. All I can say is, this could be a fun project. I just hope they don't go the route that most summer blockbusters go: Poorly written plots, poor writing and just action scenes. Phil Lord and Chris Miller (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, 21 Jump Street) will direct the film, which already shows that the project might work. A Lego movie is perfect for animation.

Animal Logic found a surprise success in 2006 with Happy Feet, but their second film, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, couldn't recapture the critical and commercial success of that musical penguin film. With this and an adaptation of Jeff Smith's Bone in the works, Animal Logic might match the success of Happy Feet and have at least one hit film on their hands. This film is obviously going to be huge, and personally, I am somewhat interested. There are a lot of possibilities with a Lego movie, so hopefully all that potential isn't wasted on a weak story and terrible writing.

On the other hand, I am somewhat annoyed. The film is yet again another toy adaptation that's sure to be a hit with kids, continuously saying to audiences that animation is a kids' thing. I will try not to be too negative, but I am somewhat on the fence here. If the folks at Warner Bros., The Lego Group and Animal Logic can deliver a fun film that anyone can enjoy, I'll be happy. If they just make it another Transformers-type film, I won't be happy.

What are your thoughts on this upcoming Lego movie? Do you think it's unnecessary? Or do you think it could work? Are you sick of films based on popular toys? Or not? Sound off!

The Future of Walt Disney Animation Studios (Part 2)

In part one, I went over Frozen, which is scheduled to be released on November 27, 2013. Right now, this is the only project after Wreck-It Ralph that currently has a release date. Two other projects that are in development right now don't: King of the Elves and a film based on Mickey Mouse.

King of the Elves was announced back in early 2008, when Disney released a big upcoming slate that included the cancelled Pixar film Newt and several other projects such as Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, Tangled (back when it was called Rapunzel), WALL-E, Up, Toy Story 3, Cars 2 (back when it had a summer 2012 release date) and Brave (back when it was called The Bear and the Bow) along with the direct-to-video Tinker Bell movies. The film was supposed to be directed by Brother Bear directors Aaron Blaise and Robert Walker. Brother Bear producer Chuck Williams would be the producer. For a good while, it seemed like this film would happen. It was still scheduled for 2012 after Bolt came out. Then after The Princess and the Frog opened in December 2009, it was shelved. Rumors went around months later that the project was back in the works, and the director would be Chris Williams, the co-director of Bolt, which would be confirmed last year. Michael Markowitz will write the screenplay, as he wrote the screenplay for Horrible Bosses and wrote a few episodes of the Klasky-Csupo animated series Duckman: Private Dick/Family Man. Good choices so far.

Prior to Bolt, Williams directed Glago's Guest, a rather rare Walt Disney Animation Studios short film that hasn't showed up on home media. Bolt was an indicator that the studio was now back on the right track after the woes of the Eisner era. Bolt's writing, while not perfect, was miles ahead of most of the 2005-2007 Disney animated output. The film was witty, heartfelt, the characters were very likable and the cast does a fine job. The story is familiar, but told well, while also being a nice satire of the entertainment industry. It wasn't formulaic either, it felt like a Pixar film in some ways. If I had any problems with Bolt, it would probably be the screenplay, but it's not much of a big deal. Another minor flaw was the safeness of the storyline, I would've liked to have seen Chris Sanders' American Dog. Still, Bolt is a very good film. It gives me hope that Williams will deliver the goods again with this project.

King of the Elves is based on the short story by Philip K. Dick (who wrote stories that were adapted into films like Blade Runner, Total Recall and Minority Report) about a gas station owner who becomes the leader of tiny elves who are at war with trolls. This isn't a classic fairy tale or a love story, so this could be very interesting. Hopefully it is pulled off in a great manner, and not one that's going to have the critics saying "bowdlerization!" A respectable adaptation it should be, much like the Walt films. Maybe we can see that happen, with Lasseter & co. at the studio. Like Frozen, it will be computer animated, but I still want to see Disney doing more hand-drawn films.

The film based on Mickey Mouse was confirmed a while ago by Disney veteran Burny Mattinson. There are so many things you could do with a Mickey Mouse film adaptation. As long as Disney doesn't ruin the character, I'll be happy. Walt Disney Animation Studios is doing it, all should be well. It shouldn't be insulting like Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. Hopefully it'll remind this generation of why Mickey Mouse and his friends are icons, instead of trying to make them hip. This should be more akin to The Muppets and Winnie the Pooh than Alvin and the Chipmunks or The Smurfs. Aside from that, what could this film possibly be about? Will it be based on Epic Mickey? Maybe, that could make for an ambitious film. Will it be some big epic adventure? Or a fun comedy? What could they do with this character?

Mickey has appeared in films before, but no theatrical film ever centered around him or Donald and Goofy. The characters have appeared in segments in the 1940s package films, and of course Mickey is the Sorcerer's Apprentice in Fantasia. The thing is, it's probably not easy to make a movie based on a classic cartoon character, taking that character who had small adventures that took up a 6-minute short film into a roughly 90-minute film is no easy task. Some films based on classic cartoon characters just seem to go for broke and do whatever (Tom and Jerry: The Movie, Felix the Cat: The Movie) while others just don't work (Looney Tunes: Back in Action). Luckily, Disney proved that they can do an adventure about a character in something that's over 10 minutes long with Mickey and the Beanstalk, which is fantastic on its own. Again, there are so many possibilities. The only thing I'm not too crazy about is the fact that Disney is doing a Mickey Mouse movie and not something original or ambitious. We should be getting something like Mort, not a Mickey Mouse movie. However, there is a possibility that this will be an animated classic, so I won't be too skeptical. A very good Mickey Mouse movie can be a nice addition to Disney's animated film legacy while also reeling in bucks for corporate Disney. One last thing, it better be in hand-drawn animation. Classic cartoon characters in computer animation just don't work. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and the CGI direct-to-video Popeye movie (which I never saw) are good examples.

Of course, we don't know what will come next. Who knows what story Disney will adapt, or if they'll do more original works like Bolt and Wreck-It Ralph. They might bring back projects like Mort or old cancelled projects like Fraidy Cat and A Few Good Ghosts. Maybe not, sometimes projects are canned at Disney and show up years later. Walt Disney considered The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast back in the 1930s and 1950s, we got them in 1989 and 1991. Lilo & Stitch was around in the 1980s, but the film came out in 2002. Treasure Planet was thought of in the late 1980s, and we finally got that in 2002. If they don't go back to scrapped ideas (and they have a TON of scrapped projects), who knows what new original projects they will come up.

Right now, Walt Disney Animation Studios' future is somewhat unpredictable. Their upcoming animated film for this year is a "great decider" of sorts. Tangled was a smash, Winnie the Pooh was gap filler (very good gap filler), so now it's down to Wreck-It Ralph. If this film is a runaway success, then we might see Disney green light ambitious projects. We might see more projects being announced. Wreck-It Ralph needs to repeat the success of Tangled and establish Disney as a competitor to the big guns. A poster is already out, so hopefully a good trailer will be up soon. Hopefully Disney markets this thing aggressively, much like they did with Tangled. Another big success is what the studio needs, after having a string of underperformers and flops. Hopefully Wreck-It Ralph will signal a new, successful, ambitious, creative direction for Walt Disney Animation Studios.

We may find out in November...

The Future of Walt Disney Animation Studios (Part 1)

With the studio's 52nd animated film, Wreck-It Ralph, hitting theaters this autumn (if you go by the official so-called "canon"), what future does Walt Disney Animation Studios have? It's hard to say at the moment, considering that their upcoming slate only includes that film and Frozen. Nothing is scheduled for 2014, and we don't even know what else is really in development. We've heard about the Mickey Mouse film project and King of the Elves, but that's it... Walt Disney Animation Studios' upcoming slate is shockingly underwhelming. It shows that Disney isn't fully confident in their recent animated output, which is a shame, because their post-Eisner films lack the big issues seen in most of the films produced from 1995-2005. In fact, they rival the Renaissance films and are somewhat superior to some of them. (A radical viewpoint, but I digress)

I was hoping that the success of Tangled would lead to them announcing more future projects. Disney's upcoming slate usually changes in some way or another, and sometimes promising projects (Wild Life, A Few Good Ghosts, Fraidy Cat) would be scrapped. Others would be re-tooled, such as American Dog and Rapunzel Unbraided. Apparently Mort, the planned adaptation of the Discworld novel by Terry Pratchett, is dead as well. We heard about that when Tangled was coming out in November 2010, and we heard that no one other than Ron Clements and John Musker were supposed to direct it, but nothing much since. What happened? Back in November 2010, it seemed like the line-up would be: Tangled, Winnie the Pooh, The Snow Queen, Reboot Ralph, Mort and Jack and the Beanstalk. This line-up is no more, only two projects have survived: Reboot Ralph and The Snow Queen, but with different titles.

I'm currently on the fence about Frozen. Personally, I'm glad that The Snow Queen project is finally back in the works, and the fact that a release date is set shows that Disney definitely green-lit it or had confidence in it. The project has been on and off for years, and it's good to see the folks at Disney bringing it back. Chris Buck is directing the film, as he co-directed Tarzan (which I believe is one of the best Disney animated features of the 1990s, not The Lion King) and co-directed Sony Pictures Animation's unfairly overlooked 2007 film Surf's Up. Kristen Bell will provide the voice of the protagonist, Gerda. Judging by her Broadway background, this might be a musical.

What I'm not crazy about is the fact that the film is going to be a computer animated film. Listen, I love computer animation and I think it's equal to hand-drawn animation and stop-motion animation. To reject computer animation while praising hand-drawn animation is ignorant in my book. I don't consider it to be any lesser than hand-drawn animation, nor do I consider it to be better. That said, I was hoping that this project would be the next hand-drawn film, but something tells me that the box office performances of The Princess and the Frog, Tangled and Winnie the Pooh convinced the executives at Disney to re-think reviving hand-drawn animation. If that's true, then this is 2003 all over again: The films failed because they were hand-drawn! Nobody likes hand-drawn animation anymore! It's outdated!

This is not true, of course, but this mindset seems to be persisting at Disney. Had those two films been marketed better and given a better release date, I think the folks at Disney would've been singing a different tune. We' probably hear about several hand-drawn projects. I have nothing against Disney doing computer animated films. Meet the Robinsons, Bolt and Tangled look great and I'm hoping Ralph will have some stunning animation as well, but this studio has a legacy of hand-drawn animation. They might not have invented the medium, but they sure revolutionized it! Pixar did the same for computer animation, but if Disney tries to move away from hand-drawn animation again like they almost did when Eisner was still CEO, then I won't be happy. A lot of folks won't be.

Then you might ask, "But doesn't the story matter most?" It does, but poor storytelling was what killed films like Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear and Home on the Range. The Pixar films made so much money because they were good. Shrek did well because it was good. Ice Age did well because it was good. Shrek 2 did well because it was a hotly anticipated sequel to a good film that happened to come out at the time I like to refer to as the "CGI Fad". That "fad" would ware off in 2005 and 2006 when audiences weren't too thrilled with the likes of Valiant, Hoodwinked!, Doogal, The Wild, Barnyard and several others. The damage was already done by then, the fact that the final hand-drawn films from Disney and DreamWorks underwhelmed plus the fact that CGI ran over the art form was what put hand-drawn animation in the coma it's trying to get out of. Executives felt that computer animation was the new frontier (not artistically, of course), and to see hand-drawn animation possibly go through this again is heartbreaking. These executives felt that audiences rejected the aforementioned films was because they were hand-drawn, not because of how disappointing they were.

Aside from the fact that Frozen won't be hand-drawn, I'm also a bit worried that Disney will approach the story the same way they did with Tangled. While I really enjoyed Tangled, I wouldn't call it one of Disney's better efforts. Sure, it beats most of the 2000-2005 films, but I personally felt that Bolt, Frog and Winnie the Pooh were superior. Tangled was somewhat irreverent and it didn't take itself too seriously sometimes, while at other times, it was right in line Frog and the Pixar films. It was a bit inconsistent, but it was certainly entertaining and heartfelt. The characters were great too, but hopefully Disney doesn't do this with Frozen, because they would be repeating themselves.

I'd like see a more Grimm fairy tale-like approach. Remember Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs? There were some pretty dark scenes in that film, and Walt Disney wasn't afraid of putting them in there. While there wasn't any graphic violence, the scenes still scared the living daylights out of young children. While parents complained that it was too frightening for their children, Walt Disney simply thought, "It's not a children's film." Something like The Little Mermaid is more child-friendly. After Walt passed away, animation was viewed as kiddie stuff, and Mermaid is usually one of the films that critics of Disney point to when the subject of "Disneyification" comes up. The film has dark scenes, but it has a kiddie side to it. Snow White is loaded with darkness, but the cuteness and comic relief isn't in your face, and it can appeal to adults much like a Pixar film. The dwarfs weren't meant to just entertain kids, they were meant to entertain everyone in the audience. The film carefully balances these things, which is probably why it's rightly considered one of Disney's finest achievements. Walt didn't make films for children, Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg felt that Disney films had to be for kids. Those films pandered to kids, the Walt films did not.

My only problem with most of the Disney Renaissance films based on fairy tales is that they are essentially remakes of The Little Mermaid: Epic good vs. evil story, annoying cute sidekicks for the kids to laugh at, big musical numbers and an epic showdown with the villain at the end. Frog and Tangled had shades of that, but I'd like to see Disney deviate from that completely. Frog might've had the musical numbers and the good vs. evil story, but it had dark moments and not much cutesy stuff. While Frog did feel like a Renaissance film, it also felt like a Walt film. Tangled was more cutesy, and felt more like a 90s Disney film. There wasn't any kind of formula when Walt was around. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is not the same as Cinderella. Frozen should not be another 90s Renaissance-style fairy tale adaptation. I don't care if the executives want Gerda to appeal to young girls and have billions of dolls sold, I want something different and bold. Walt didn't have to worry about that, since there was no big Disney Princesses brand back then. That was all a product of the Michael Eisner regime.

That said, we don't know what direction Disney is taking this film in. I don't want a 90s Renaissance revival with too much cutesy stuff, I want something similar to Snow White or Pinocchio, or maybe something completely different. Something even darker than the Walt films, which were pretty dark as far as family films go. Most animation studios play it safe with cuddly comedies and romps, except Pixar, but we need other studios doing this too. Disney should try it with this film.

Remember this?

Finally, the title. I wish it was The Snow Queen. The title change is just proof that Disney totally buys into the "young boys won't see a girly movie" belief. Forget young boys, who cares what they want to see? You should care what everyone wants to see, and the kids will see it regardless. If it's a movie with a princess or queen, then market it properly and make it appeal to everyone. Tangled's marketing campaign, cynical and DreamWorks-y as it was, should tell them. I mean, The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast were extremely successful. I guess back in 1989 and 1991, young boys weren't afraid of seeing "girly princess movies". No, those films were marketed correctly. The Princess and the Frog wasn't.

That's all I have to say about Frozen. When will we get a trailer? Who knows. With Rich Ross and MT Carney out, Disney's marketing department might kick things off early on instead of waiting to unveil something in early spring. Who knows, maybe they'll attach a trailer of it to Brave. If not, then Wreck-It Ralph. The teaser for Frog was out before Bolt hit theaters, so who knows? Am I excited for it? Like I said, I'm currently on the fence, but I would like to see what direction they're going with the project. What do you think? Are you excited for Frozen? What do you think of the title? Sound off!

In part two, I'll go over King of the Elves, the untitled Mickey Mouse film and more...

Rich Ross Leaves Disney and Brad Bird News

The other day, big news came from the Mouse House. Rich Ross has left Disney. Ross has been with Disney for many years until becoming the Chairman in October 2009. The former Chairman oversaw some big successes like Pixar's Toy Story 3 and Cars 2, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, the inevitably huge Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and a film from the DreamWorks/Touchstone 30-film deal, The Help. He also oversaw colossal failures like Image Mover's Mars Needs Moms, the made-for-TV-quality Prom, and most importantly, Andrew Stanton's ambitious adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' classic John Carter of Mars novels, John Carter. He was also the man who made MT Carney the head of Disney's marketing department in April 2010, a huge mistake. She ultimately left Disney a few months ago, before John Carter came out. (For the better, I'd say)

In Ross' resignation letter, he stated that he felt that being chairman wasn't the right profession for him. The John Carter debacle most likely influenced him to resign, considering how that project's budget spiraled out of control and how terrible the marketing was. I wish the best for Ross, but I believe he wasn't the right man for the job. Here's hoping someone suitable will replace him, and perhaps vastly improve Disney's marketing department along with other things. Perhaps in the future, we can see good Disney films doing well at the box office. That said, who will be his replacement? Rumors are going around, some of which stated that Kevin Feige (who has produced all of the Marvel Studios films since 2000) might take his place. Who knows how things will go over if he becomes the Chairman, though I wouldn't be surprised. Who do you think will replace him? What is your take on this?

Recently, Brad Bird confirmed that he won't be directing the fifth Mission: Impossible film, if there ever is one. He stated that he liked how each film was handled by a different director, thus they all feel like different films. I'd say this is for the better, because I'd love to see what Bird's next animation project is. Either that, or he'll fire up his 1906 project, which he apparently wants to do next. What I'd like to know is, what ever happened to Ray Gunn? Apparently he was planning on doing this project when he was with Warner Bros. during production of The Iron Giant. After the success of The Incredibles, it was possible that this would be Bird's next Pixar production. Back then, this was when Ratatouille was helmed by Jan Pinkava and was slated for a fall 2006 release.

If 1906 doesn't go over, maybe that will be his next big project. Who knows at the moment, but I think 1906 will be it. It's been in development for quite some time. Bird hasn't forgotten about Ray Gunn, as he brought it up back when Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol came out. It's supposed to be a sci-fi noir story of sorts, something that would work as a Pixar film, considering that Pixar isn't afraid to try new things with each film they make. Personally, I'd love to see Ray Gunn get made. Supposedly, it's in the PG-13 territory, which could make for an interesting Pixar film. I've known about it since 2004, and I'd love to see it happen. What do you think? Would you rather see Bird do 1906? Or Ray Gunn? What did you think of Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol? Will you see a fifth M:I film regardless of who the director is? Sound off!

Suske & Wiske 317: 'Het Bizarre Blok'.

Some more news from the European comic scene. Belgian Publisher Standaard will be releasing volume 317 'Het bizarre blok ('The strange block') in their succefull comic series 'Suske & Wiske' ('Spike & Suzy') on May 9th. Creators Luc Morjeau (artwork) and Peter van Gucht with their colleagues at Studio Vandersteen have again created another spectacle for the series, created by Willy Vandersteen in 1945.

This time our friends will have to deal with evil itself, as their friend Lambik (I think he's called 'Ambrose' in English) has made a deal with the devil to become a famous architect. Spike and Suzy get lost in a strange building he recently had build, with plenty of rooms filled with riddles and mysteries linking to previous adventures from the past. Prepublication of this story started on April 11th in the Belgian newspaper 'De Standaard'.

Below left: A cover sketch for the new book, showing a variation on the artwork that made the final cut. Middle: The French cover. In France the series is called 'Bob et Bobette', the new volume is called 'le bloc bizarre'. Right: Publisher Standaard has announced they will continue to publish a Summer Holiday Special this year, filled with games and puzzles and of course, four stories of Spike and Suzy. This year's volume will hold 'De Gevederde Slang' ('The Feathered Serpent') from 1996, 'De Koning Drinkt' ('The King Drinks') from 1949, 'De Schone Slaper'('The Sleeping Beauty') from 1965 and 'De Dartele Draak' ('The Playful Dragon') from 2008. 'The King Drinks' was published in the US in 1976, while the characters were still called 'Willy & Wanda' in English.

Three more books have been announced for 2012. Spike and Suzy's next adventure seems something from the pages of Roald Dahl's 1964 classic 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'. Studio Vandersteen has already revealed the cover for volume 318, titled 'De Suikerslaven' (The Sugarslaves'). Prepublication hasn't begun yet, but the comic book will be published on August 8th. In this sory, Spike and Suzy are magically transformed into candy by a robot and kidnapped to Suchardia, where they are forced to work in a candy factory. But this fairytale is all but sweet as the country is terrorised by a magician and a huge monster. The titles for volumes 319 and 320 have also been announced already: 'Suske de Rat' ('Spike the Rat') and 'De Tirannieke Tor' ('The Tyrannical Beetle').

Below: Cover artwork for volume 318 and some character sketches by Morjeau. (thanks to Studio Vandersteen and Luc Morjeau). Visit Luc Morjeau's site for more on 'De Suikerslaven'!

The Red Knight.

Vandersteen's other succesfull comic book series, which he started in 1959 with Karel Biddeloo will also have another volume published by Standaard. 'De Rode Ridder' (The Red Knight') volume 234 will be out on June 9th titled 'De Elfenring' ('The Fairy Ring'). Artwork and story are, of course, again by German artist Claus Scholtz, so it looks like knight Johan van Horst is in for a great adventure again.

By the way, did you know that Castle of Horst really exists? It is situated in Sint-Pieters-Rode in Belgium. During a battle with the armies of Maximilian I of Austria in 1488, the castle was completely ravaged. It was rebuild afterwards by Lodewijk III Pynnock which financially ruined him, forcing him to sell it to his uncle, Ivan van Cortenbach in 1500. As of 2007 the estate is owned by the Flemish Region and plays host to historical reenactments, including medieval tournements between knights during the yearly festivities. Read all about the renovations taking place today on the official site or check the official Pynnock knights of Horst site (Dutch only).

Below left:: Cover for the new 'Red Knight' volume 234 by Claus. Right you can see the actual 'Castle of Horst' (click to enlarge).

The Nominated Shorts of 1997-2011: Where Can I Watch Them?

So I've had a lot of people (well, just one) ask me how exactly they can watch these Oscar nominated shorts that I've been writing about. I suppose it's an important question since I keep saying how these films are worth watching, but then do nothing to tell you how to watch them, posting films that were not nominated for Best Animated Short instead, like The Cat Piano and Sunrise Over Tiananmen Square (although the latter was nominated for Best Documentary Short.) I was initially loath to post them for fear of copyright issues, but then I realized that as long as I'm not uploading them myself I suppose there's nothing wrong with linking to videos that others have posted. Then I just got lazy...er...busy. But now that I'm desperate for page views I figure I might as well stop procrastinating and actually get to posting the films, now that I've accumulated 15 years worth of nominees that I've reviewed.

Here's the deal. Most of the films are readily available on YouTube, which is probably one reason why I've been too lazy to post any videos. I assumed that you people would be like me and actively search out the videos. However, if I'm going to post about these videos I might as well take it all the way and post them here in the blog. After all, what else would this be good for? So if a video is available online I'd link to it or embed it if possible. And many of the videos are available for a little bit before getting taken down by the companies, so I'd only link to a video if it's been up for over a year. (Except in the case of The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore, which was posted two months ago, but by somebody I am pretty sure is related to Moonbot. And even if not, there's a Vimeo link I know is from Moonbot that I can link to. So no big deal.) And if it's not available, I will mention where you may find it.
Read more »

Sony announces 'God of War: Ascension'.

At first we were to believe the God of War video game series was to be a trilogy, but today Sony anounced their upcoming new sequel in the God of War franchise: 'God of War: Ascension'. A release date has been planned for spring 2013. Check out the first trailer below!

The popular PS3 exclusive title is back for at least a fourth installment, again created by the very talented team of Sony Santa Monica. Todd Papy, game director of 'GOW:Ascension' has promised more details will be made available on Monday April 30th at a live streaming event.

If you have any question for Todd, you can tweet him @Playstation and he will answer them live (be sure to include #godofwarascension in your Tweet). They're expecting a lot from this, so if your question has been picked, you will receive a signed poster of GOW:Ascension. Check God of War: Ascension of Facebook to follow the event live on April 30th at 8am Pacific Time.

GOW: Ascension will be a prequel to the series and will show Kratos as a human. In the previous games Kratos, a captain of the Spartan army, promised to serve Ares, the God of War for the rest of his life, if he would help him defeat an immense invading army. Kratos is then bound with the 'Blades of Chaos' and defeats not only his enemies, but continues to conquer all of Greece. Ares then has Kratos kill his own wife and family in a village of Athena, after which he is cursed by 'the Oracle' and becomes 'the Ghost of Sparta'. Serving Athena, his only redemption lies in killing Ares, the god of War.

"John Carter" Leaps to Home Media

Even John Carter himself thinks this cover
looks terrible.

Disney's much derided science fiction epic John Carter will hit Blu-ray, Blu-ray 3D and DVD on June 5th. (Much like Disney's Alice in Wonderland, which opened in early March and hit home video in early June) Hopefully this respectable adaptation of the Edgar Rice Burroughs' classic finds a new life on home video, and finds an audience. It's currently up for pre-order on Amazon, though it has been up for weeks.

Anyways, the cover artwork is awful. Usually covers for Disney Blu-ray releases (and a lot of other films) aren't really anything to write home about, but these covers are basically as bad as the posters if not worse. If Disney releases a nice steelbook alongside these editions, I would gladly pick that up. Would you like to see Disney release a John Carter steelbook? If so, what kind of artwork would you like to see on the steelbook? Personally, I'd like to see something with the JCM logo on it. Or perhaps they can use the awesome mondo poster. (Which pretty much destroys every John Carter poster put together by the marketing department)

Will you get John Carter when it hits Blu-ray? Did you like the film? Or were you disappointed by it? If you've never seen the film, are you willing to give it a shot when it hits home media? Sound off!