Let's Go Blundering!

Remember Aardman Animations' recent film, The Pirates! Band of Misfits? Chances are, you may not unless you are in the know of what's going on in the animation industry. Yes indeed, this little film happens to be another one of those animated films that came and went at the domestic box office. Why is that? Instead of being a poor animated film (in fact, it was a really good film), The Pirates! was actually another victim of executive meddling and misguided decisions. Columbia Pictures' attempts to help get the picture to sell ultimately sunk this high seas romp.

First off, Columbia Pictures probably had no idea what they were going to do after Aardman Animations joined forces with Sony Pictures Animation. First, the studio gives them the conventional Arthur Christmas and then this: A film based on a series of books that isn't well known in the United States, that has humor that may go over American audiences' heads, which is about science in Victorian England and features Charles Darwin as a main character. Science? Charles Darwin? Hot buttons here in the states, in addition to the concept potentially not being too appealing to American audiences. Columbia was probably worried that there would be controversy, given the amount of flack recent animated films tend to get. Remember how Cars 2, The Secret World of Arrietty and Dr. Seuss' The Lorax were supposed to be "liberal propaganda" for children?

With all due to respect to people's political and religious views, this most likely got Columbia Pictures worried. Since animation is viewed as "kiddie stuff" here in the states, people will suggest that anything with a slight agenda is propaganda for children, sometimes without having seen it. The original title of this film was The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!, since that's the name of one of the books it's based on. Of course, that's the name of the original UK version of the film. So what did they do? They changed the title to The Pirates! Band of Misfits, which is such a bland and boring title that says nothing of film's story. Hey, it's more marketable to Americans, right? It's also marketable to kids, too! What could go wrong? Because, you know, animation is for kids!

Okay, there's nothing wrong with a title change. As long as we get Aardman brilliance on the big screen, that's all that matters. They did not stop there. The film was altered for American audiences and young children. Now I'm not going to talk about the whole leprosy joke controversy, since Aardman themselves re-wrote the joke and it plays that way in both the UK and US versions. Since it's a big issue, I won't comment on my thoughts on the change.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits is not the same film as The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! The voice cast was slightly changed. The Albino Pirate is voiced by Anton Yelchin in the US version. In the original UK version, he's voiced by Russell Tovey. In the US trailer for the film, they use Tovey's voice, so these changes must've been done at the eleventh hour. Al Roker provides the voice of "the pirate who likes kittens and sunsets", who had a different name in the original and might have been silent. The changes make no sense, why re-dub one pirate's voice to sound American? The rest of the cast is British, so why change one? It makes no sense, and the voice sticks out.

It's a minor problem, but it's the first of a few. Some of the more adult-oriented humor was removed, such as lines that were a bit suggestive. The film was given a PG, and one the reasons was "some language", another indicator that these changes were done at last minute. Since I have no access to the British original, from what I've heard, the lines aren't too bad. They're a little more noticeable, such as the scene where the Pirate Captain says airships are for looking down women's tops. Still, I think a joke like that would go over kids' heads. In the US version, the Pirate Captain says airships are good for attracting women. Not as funny. This is one of a few changes, but they're still unnecessary. (If I get my hands on a region free UK Blu-ray of this film, I'll make a rundown of what's been changed)

So they changed the title. Check. They edited out certain things to make it suitable for children, because they believe animation is for children first and foremost. Check. What did they do they next? They began marketing the film. The first US trailer showed up in August, pretty early, so apparently Sony was ready to launch this film. Apparently they were confident in this...



This was not a great trailer, typical for an animated family film, but it passed the film off as a sort of kids' spoof of the Pirates of the Caribbean films. This trailer was obviously trying to appeal to American audiences, and it conveniently shuffles Charles Darwin's role in the film out of sight, only using him for a few parts. The trailer was alright, but it was certainly not as good as the brilliant UK trailer.



This trailer is a much more confident one, since Aardman films normally do very well in the UK and the books are of course more popular there. Plus that song is so catchy, the fact that us Americans didn't get that song in any trailer or ad is just... Wrong...

Columbia planned on releasing this film on March 30th (the same day as the UK), but there was a lot of competition and several releases were shuffled such as the family friendly Mirror Mirror and a few other films. The film was later delayed to April 27th, another big mistake and the final nail in the coffin for this film. Columbia also screwed Arthur Christmas by releasing it amidst several family films last November: Happy Feet Two, The Muppets and Hugo. Opening with just $12 million domestically, it had to climb its way to $46 million. How did it do in the UK? $33 million tops, and it was the 10th highest grossing film of the year, beating out films like Tangled, Fast Five, Kung Fu Panda 2, Puss in Boots, Cars 2 and even The Smurfs, Columbia and Sony Pictures Animation's big success story that year. Once again, an Aardman film did poorly here and did well in the UK.

I was hoping, when Aardman would finally get back to animated features, they would find some form of success here in the states. Chicken Run was a big hit back in 2000. In fact it was the highest grossing non-Disney animated film until Shrek came along. Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit and Flushed Away had great word of mouth despite poor opening weekends. Arthur Christmas seemed like the perfect film to re-launch themselves as a viable name in the states alongside the likes of Pixar, Disney and DreamWorks, since it wasn't too quirky or different. Arthur Christmas came and went, and it's a real shame. So would The Pirates! do better? Most likely not...

The next trailer and the ads showed up, which were worse than the first trailer. April 27th was not the right time to release it, being the weekend before the little movie about the superheroes teaming up opened. Yes, releasing The Pirates! the weekend before The Avengers was an incredibly idiotic move. Why not early April? Mirror Mirror was pushed forward to March 16th, and The Lorax was beginning to lose momentum. What about mid-April? They could've started small and word of mouth could've helped it. The film scored a solid "B" on CinemaScore, so it could've reached a certain total off of a lousy opening weekend. It's like Columbia had no faith in this film, at all.

The Avengers essentially pulled everything out of it: The family audiences and the 3D screens. It washed the swashbuckling comedy away like a hurricane. But how did it do in the UK? #12 right now with $25 million, not too bad. Here, it seems to be stopping at $31 million, making it Aardman's lowest grossing film in the states. Luckily, the $55 million film took in a final total of $118 million worldwide. Arthur Christmas took in $147 million worldwide against its $100 million budget, making it more of a dud for the studio.

It's all a shame, because Aardman seemed to be going the right path with a new partner after their troubles with the pre-2008 DreamWorks atmosphere. Arthur Christmas certainly feels more American audience-friendly than their other films without feeling forced. Again, lazy marketing and a terrible release date killed it. It had no room to breathe no matter where it was placed, but perhaps good marketing could've helped, right? Nope, it had to stand on its own. And I thought Disney marketing under Rich Ross was bad. The Pirates! shared a similar fate, and it was obviously not going to be a massive hit to begin with, but it didn't have any chances at all plus it wasn't as accessible as the previous Aardman films. If Arthur Christmas was their most accessible, The Pirates! was their least.

Quite unfortunate, but The Pirates! sunk and was tampered with before release in the US in a dunderheaded move to make the film appeal to children. Aardman clearly made a much more adult-oriented film that could still delight children with its silly action scenes and appealing characters. But the more American audiences assume animation is for children first, the more this kind of thing will happen to these animated films.

Whether it's studio powers needlessly trying to improve a film's chances at gaining at the box office or just getting something they don't want off their back, a lot of these animated films just can't stand a chance in today's overly competitive market. Animation has been lucrative since the Second Golden Age, so why can't the executives give non-conventional films a chance in addition to the ones that are obviously going to be huge? Look at Rango, something that was clearly more adult-oriented than most fare and incredibly risky. Paramount backed that with decent marketing, and the box office performance indicates that the controversy over the film's content didn't harm it as much as one would assume. It broke $100 million stateside and finished up with $242 million worldwide against a $135 million budget. Not bad, Paramount has started its own animation studio because of how well it did (plus the fact that their last DreamWorks films hits theaters this autumn).

So with that, you'd think Columbia would go for a tidy profit since The Pirates! wasn't so expensive. Nope, they just threw it out there and that was it. It's just what Fox did with Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox, a $40 million stop motion animated film that could've been a small hit had they not released it against heavy competition with little to no fanfare. The Pirates! is sure to get new fans when it hits Blu-ray and DVD, but it could've been a good-sized success and help Aardman's works get an audience in the states.

ScaraNorman

Get ready for it, folks. Laika's newest animated film, ParaNorman, is right around the corner. From the ads and marketing, you know it's going to be about ghouls, zombies and other creepy things. It'll be spooky for the younger set, much like Laika's debut film, Coraline. You know exactly what's going to happen when it hits theaters next weekend. Parents are going to complain...

Just take a look at this review that was recently added to the film's Rotten Tomatoes page:

First of all, I am not a parent. I'm going by my childhood experiences here, and what my parents did about these kinds of situations. So for any of you parents who will see this and say "What are you, a psycho?", hear me out...

Yes, parents will have a field day complaining about this film, no doubt. Again, most of these parents blindly assume that all G and PG-rated animation is suitable for their children. Do they check ratings online anymore? Do they ask anyone else about the films themselves? From what I've seen over the years, no. Anyone remember what happened last year? Parents whined about the myriad violence in Cars 2. Parents freaked out over the edgy humor in Rango, as tons of angry reviews surfaced all over Yahoo and other sites. The Adventures of Tintin got complaints due to Captain Haddock's drunken behavior (the PG rating even states "some drunkenness"). Kung Fu Panda 2 also got some criticism for being too violent.

If their children were upset, that isn't the end of the world. Immediately, you hear idiotic gabbing like "[insert studio here] should be ashamed!" as they go on to complain about how scared their children were. But people get scared, it's part of life. As a young child, there were films that scared me. Films I had on VHS. In fact, a good number of the Disney films frightened me, but did my parents complain? Did they raise hell? No. Even if the Internet was the way it is now back in the mid-1990s, they still would not have complained. Instead, they would either talk to me about what upset me or simply tell me to not watch it. You know, doing what parents should do. As a kid, I normally just said, "I won't watch it." I waited till I was a little older and wallah! I began to like the films.

Sure, some films may have scared me or even given me nightmares, but so what? Other things in life gave me nightmares too! Children have to experience fear and the other harsh realities of the world. That doesn't mean showing them bloody violence, but still. Life isn't candy and rainbows, and children need to know that after growing out of something like Barney. Seeing scary stuff didn't scar me for life. I was able to live, I was able to go outside, I was able to see the world. There's parents who even shelter their children from films that have deaths or even implications of death. When I watched Bambi and The Lion King as a child, I knew early on that death is a real thing. I can only imagine how my life would've been if I hadn't known at a young age. Hide that from your children, you're going to do more harm than good to them.

"They should be ashamed!!!"

Unfortunately, these parents will probably just look at an advertisement for ParaNorman and think, "Oh, a cartoon! I'll take my kids!" and then come out angry. The big problem is, the ratings also fool these parents. The G rating certainly doesn't mean "suitable for all ages", it means "all ages admitted". Think of several G-rated films from the past and even now that have horrified many children: The Disney classics, the Pixar films, Don Bluth's films, The Wizard of Oz and several others. Another big problem is the PG rating.

PG is slapped onto many harmless films these days, whether it's something cutesy like Dr. Seuss' The Lorax, Alvin and the Chipmunks or something kiddie like Judy Moody and the NOT Bummer Summer (like we need to remember that sterling film). They may get that rating because they may have content that some parents may think is a bad influence on children such as childish name-calling, toilet humor, people doing immature things, or the kind of stuff you'd see on Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network. When you get down to brass tacks, though, these "PG" films are mostly harmless. But parents assume "PG is for kids", and they take them anyways (regardless of whether the film actually deserves that rating or not, and judging by what I've seen, ParaNorman looks like it deserves its rating) without checking any guides on any movie websites. IMDb has one that users can edit, and there are several other ones. It isn't that hard to do.

The MPAA's ratings are taken too lightly, despite the fact that their ratings are bullshit. Some parents don't seem to do their job, whether it's not checking ratings or finding a solution to their child's fears of a certain film. Going on the Internet and complaining? That'll sure solve the problem! Maybe they'll stop making these films all together because your child had a problem with it. Good grief...

The other main problem is the whole "animation is for kids" mindset and how animation is marketed. Brave already caught some hell this year, but of course, these parents probably assumed that because it is a PG-rated "cartoon" that looked cute from the ads, it's automatically a children's movie. I've said it many times and I'll say it again. People need to realize that animation isn't kiddie stuff despite what marketing or kids/family-oriented TV channels tell them. Why let that do your thinking for you? Sure, Disney and Pixar films appeal to lots of children and their families, but that doesn't mean they are aimed directly at children. Most mainstream animated films are aimed at the entire family. Barney the Dinosaur is aimed at children. The Teletubbies are aimed at children. Anything you see on Nick Jr. or PBS Kids is aimed at children. No one else but children. A majority of mainstream animated films? No.

The complaints will come anyways, but will it have an effect on this film's box office performance? Who knows. The angry parents will yell, bitch and moan all they want. It could either affect a film or not. In the long run, it just hurts mainstream animation's chances at aiming higher. Think of how insulting it is to the artists and writers, who make these films possible, yet they have to get the "not good for kids" sticker slapped on their craft. What about general audiences and children who can handle a good scare? Check the damn ratings, and show your child what he or she can handle. That way, you won't waste good money on something that may upset your child.

Mainstream animated family films aren't babysitters and weren't meant to be, and not all children can handle the same things...

Finding Nemo 2? (FALSE ALARM)

Apparently Andrew Stanton has a good idea for a Finding Nemo sequel.

A Finding Nemo sequel? Why??

First of all, I'm not going to jump the gun and say Pixar is selling out. No, I'm not going to do that. The studio supposedly loves the idea Stanton has. Again, it isn't officially confirmed.

According to the article, Andrew Stanton might be doing this to get a pass for John Carter failing at the box office so he can move on and do another live action project. If that's true, then that's just disgusting. John Carter failed because of bad marketing and an awful title! It isn't rocket science! Also, Disney recouped from it. Shouldn't they be happy that The Avengers and Brave more than made up for that? If he has to do this to satisfy Disney and gain their trust again, then something is truly wrong with Disney management. Why should he have to prove himself? Andrew Stanton was involved in several Pixar films from the very start that did boffo business at the box office, directed two films that did great business and got stellar reception, and his Finding Nemo is one of the most successful franchises for Disney.

Then again, Stanton might have a good idea, but a second Finding Nemo does not need to be made. Stanton talked about sequels at the LA Hero Complex Film festival, and mentioned that they would be like "comfort food". But why a sequel to Finding Nemo? Can't Andrew Stanton do an original film for Pixar? One that will be a huge success and make Disney proud?

"I’m sure you’ll see some other sequels of things as they grow because now we are not so blinded. It’s the originals that keep us really going and it’s the sequels that are like comfort food, and I think it’s the same way for the audience."

While he does make a point about the sequels, they don't have to be made, especially for just pleasing audiences. I understand that Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 were both fantastic, but that was a rare moment where two sequels were excellent. Cars 2 didn't equal its predecessor, and left a lot of people very unsatisfied. We can only imagine how Monsters University will turn out next summer, but they should stop there. I personally believe that Finding Nemo "2" does not need to be made. If it turns out to be amazing, I'll gladly admit I was wrong, but at the moment, I just don't want a sequel to it.

Do you agree or disagree? What are your thoughts? Mere speculation? Or do you think it's actually going to happen? If they go ahead and start working on it, how would you feel?

UPDATE: Here's what Andrew Stanton himself had to say...

Didn't you all learn from Chicken Little? Everyone calm down. Don't believe everything you read. Nothing to see here now. #skyisnotfalling
— andrew stanton (@andrewstanton) July 18, 2012

There you have it...

Rant: Disney's Marketing Department

Note: I'm no expert and this entire rant is opinion-based. If you're looking for exactness, don't read any further.

Disney's marketing department has been receiving considerable amounts of criticism for their failure to promote Andrew Stanton's adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' epic science fiction novels, John Carter. What do I say? They deserve it, every last bit of it. While I don't approve of the folks who slammed the film, Andrew Stanton and the Mouse House in general, the marketing department really tripped up here. This, and along with other blunders, is what makes Disney's marketing department a target of criticism from folks such as myself, fans and the press. This colossal failure is also what hurts Disney in the long run along with their animation studio and other projects.

John Carter... It was once thought to be an epic science fiction blockbuster from the Mouse House, but it has now become the punchline of the press. It's already being forgotten by mainstream audiences, as the film has eked past $66 million at the domestic box office off of a $30 million debut. Word of mouth couldn't save it, it left audiences cold. While the reviews were on par with the likes of Tron: Legacy and higher than most summer blockbuster films that somehow gross $250 million when they don't deserve to, it still wasn't enough to save the film. It's doing respectable business overseas, but a $350 million final total won't make Disney executives happy. Lead actor Taylor Kitsch has been defending the film to the press, but we haven't heard from anyone else. Disney seems to be ashamed of the film itself.

What they should be ashamed of is how they marketed this film. Articles are everywhere, criticizing the marketing campaign. While some people were a little too mean-spirited towards the film and the Mouse House, Disney's marketing department does deserve the criticism it's getting. I firmly believed (along with many others) that the title change was what crippled Stanton's epic adaptation of Burroughs' influential classic from the start, along with the disappointing trailers and equally disappointing TV spots. In short, Disney's marketing department killed this film, and some of the people working for Disney are putting the blame on Andrew Stanton. (No, really!) Disney's marketing department crippled other films that could've been hits. This might sound insane, but something like Bolt could've easily taken in $200 million at the domestic box office, or $150 million at the least. No, that film only grossed $114 million domestically, a weak total when you stack it up next to other 2008 animated hits such as Blue Sky's Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who! ($154 million), DreamWorks' Kung Fu Panda ($215 million), Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa ($180 million), and Pixar's WALL-E. ($223 million) Instead, the marketing was lazy. The trailer was poorly put together, and the marketing pushed Miley Cyrus' name, whose character Penny isn't one of the lead characters. In fact, she's not even in it as much.

If Disney felt that this would help get the film popular, then they were dead wrong. Showing Cyrus' name probably scared off the people (such as myself) who hate "that" side of Disney. You know, the crass side of Disney that's all about Hannah Montana and the schlock on the Disney Channel. It didn't scare me off, what drove me away was the trailer. Also, I was still a bit bitter about the whole change from Chris Sanders' quirky American Dog idea into something more conventional. When I saw the film for the first time on Blu-ray (it was a blind buy, no less), I really enjoyed it. I wanted to turn back time and see the film in the theaters.

Bolt opened with $26 million at the domestic box office, which was an incredibly low opening weekend for a wide release animated film from a high profile studio. That was only a bit more than what Meet the Robinsons pulled in on its opening weekend back in 2007. Then something happened. It grew legs. Audiences clearly liked this film, but the low total said otherwise to Disney. Let's say the film was marketed properly, it would've made at least $35 million on its opening weekend. Let's just say it took in $40 million, then had the same word of mouth it did, it would've made over $170 million domestically. Maybe even more. Thanksgiving is a great time to release animated family films, but Disney blew it.

Disney blew it again with The Princess and the Frog. Instead of releasing the film sometime in November, before competition like Avatar, Sherlock Holmes and the "shitmunks" sequel, it would've scored a good-sized opening weekend. If they had marketed it like an event, and not some attempt to recreate the Disney Renaissance, then it would've had a bigger opening weekend than $24 million. (Even lower than Meet the Robinsons and Bolt!) With enough time to rake in cash before the heavy hitters came in, the film would've crossed $150 million domestically. But no, Disney released the critically panned comedy Old Dogs on the weekend Frog should've been released on. (Frog received a two theater-only release that weekend, the wide release was on December 11th) Old Dogs did poorly, and did it teach Disney a lesson? Sort of. Tangled was released on the Thanksgiving weekend, but against Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, Part 1. Still, the film's marketing was aggressive and in-your-face. This is why it opened with $48 million, got great word of mouth and worked its way up to $200 million despite the heavy competition. (With some fudging from Disney, of course) If Frog opened on that weekend back in 2009 with aggressive marketing behind it, it would've made around $35 million or more, and with legs, it would've been the hit it deserved to be!

So Tangled does extremely well, but the hand-drawn film doesn't, and now Disney's future in animation seems to be CGI-topia! If Frog didn't underperform, there would be a push for more hand-drawn projects. Not anymore, especially with Winnie the Pooh being the one of the least attended Disney animated films of all time. Apparently Disney is reverting back to their 2003 mindset: "It failed because it was hand-drawn!" No, Winnie the Pooh failed because there was hardly any effort put into the marketing and it was released against heavy-hitters in a box office bloodbath of a month. Now look, The Snow Queen is Frozen and it's going to be computer animated! Well, hopefully it's a good film or one that at least deviates from the style they used for Bolt and Tangled. If it's going to be a remake of Tangled, then I won't be happy.

See where I'm getting at? These animated films that are superior to their crop in the last fifteen years and something ambitious and enjoyable like John Carter have all done okay or horribly. If Disney's marketing department didn't make all of these blunders, these films would have been successful. John Carter's sequel is now doomed, but Disney is still going through with ambitious live action projects, like Paladin. The Lone Ranger is hitting theaters in May 2013. What about Walt Disney Animation Studios? Sure, we've got the risky Wreck-It Ralph coming out. We have no idea what Frozen will be like. All we know is that after Frozen, nothing is scheduled for 2014 or 2015. All we know is that a Mickey Mouse film is in the works and that King of the Elves is in development, as it has been in development since 2008! Anything else? What happened to Mort? Or better yet, how come we don't know about other projects that are in the works? What other ambitious projects are in the works at the Mouse House? Hardly any. Maybe in 2015, they'll surprise us all. Maybe they won't.

It's not the quality of the films, it's the marketing. Imagine if Disney's marketing department tripped up marketing another studio's film? Let's say they messed up marketing something like The Hunger Games, they would've thrown away a great opportunity. Imagine if John Carter was handled by someone like Warner Bros. or Paramount, perhaps it wouldn't have been the colossal box office disappointment that it is.

That said, Disney's marketing department is probably aware of the fact that the name "Disney" alone turns people off, especially in America. We live in a country where animation and all things Disney are called "kiddie stuff". We live in a country where classic animated films and icons are perceived as lame and kiddie. We live in a country where teen audiences won't be seen attending anything with the Disney name on it that's family friendly. It's not just in America, either, animation gets the same flack everywhere else, but in America, it is rampant. In order to get something like one of their recent animated films or something like John Carter to appeal to audiences, they need to have chops. Make these films look epic. Don't waste the trailers on failed jokes or just action. You got to find a way to lure audiences in, especially if you're putting some of your films up against heavy hitters. That's Disney's other big problem. Combining lackluster marketing with putting the films against obvious hits. (Harry Potter, Twilight, etc.)

Look at how Disney markets Pixar's films. They pour a lot of effort into marketing Pixar's films. Just look at the marketing for Toy Story 3 and Brave. Toy Story 3's marketing had the popularity of the first two films behind it, but they still put effort into it. Remember the viral marketing? The college cliffhanger screenings? They aggressively marketed it to everyone, from adults to teens to families. Brave has an excellent two-minute clip of the film being shown in theaters as a trailer, much like the trailer for The Lion King that was actually the entire "Circle of Life" scene. The marketing for Toy Story 3 and Brave made these films appeal to adults and teenagers. To everyone. Despite the "Disney is for kiddies" syndrome that people tend to suffer from, the marketing convinced them that these are events worth seeing. The only things that don't work are the trailers, but people know that Pixar delivers the goods, so the mediocre trailers never throw them off.

I can't say the same about the way they market their other films. John Carter? Three underwhelming trailers, an awful Super Bowl TV spot and TV spots that focused on action, action, action with no oomph. The recent animated films? A few trailers, not much marketing, unconvincing TV spots, and that's pretty much it. Most of these marketing materials are skewering kids anyway, while these films are designed for everyone to enjoy. Disney will keep getting the "Disney is for kids only" flack if they keep marketing their animated films this way. If their films did better, maybe animation wouldn't have such a hard time catching on in this country. If they can convince people that G and PG-rated animated films from another studio are worth seeing no matter how old they are, they can also do so for their own animated films.

Rant: The Marketing for "John Carter"

Walt Disney Pictures’ science fiction epic John Carter hits theaters in a couple weeks. For those of you who don’t know, John Carter is based on the first book in Edgar Rice Burroughs’ series Barsoom. Edgar Rice Burroughs also wrote Tarzan of the Apes and several other series of novels. This is the first major, big budget adaptation of Burroughs’ epic series. It is being directed by Andrew Stanton, who directed two wonderful films at Pixar: Finding Nemo and WALL-E. WALL-E producer Jim Morris is one of the film’s producers. The film is a Disney production (no studios are listed, it’s listed as a Walt Disney Pictures production) and the score was composed by Michael Giacchino. He also composed the scores for four Pixar films: The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Up and Cars 2.

This is essentially a live action Pixar film, even though it technically isn’t. Does the general public know this? Let’s say a majority of people didn’t look up any information on this film and saw the film’s trailer, they would probably think it was some big budget Star Wars clone. In other words, the marketing campaign for this film is one of the worst marketing campaigns for a Disney film as of late. It’s a great example of what is wrong with Disney’s marketing department these days.

None of the trailers implied that this was directed by Andrew Stanton. The trailers wouldn’t say, “From the acclaimed director of Finding Nemo and WALL-E”. First of all, animation is viewed as inferior kids’ stuff. Second of all, John Carter is a PG-13 film, so maybe mentioning two G-rated family films might drive audiences away, considering that a lot of people still regard Disney, Pixar and animation as kids’ stuff. A quick look at the YouTube comments for the trailer certainly proves this.

The title... John Carter is not a good title, it just isn’t. I am well aware that the main protagonist is named John Carter, but that’s such a boring title. The title of the first book was A Princess of Mars, but Disney apparently nixed that title because of how The Princess and the Frog performed, as they felt the word “princess” drove young boys away from the film. Again, why is Disney pandering to a certain audience? Shouldn't they be trying to make this film appeal to adults? Adults won't care if "princess" is in the title, unless they're idiots who think anything about a "princess" automatically equals "for girls only". I mean, Mars is also in the title, and the look of the film alone would convince them otherwise.

The title was then changed to John Carter of Mars. Not bad, it reveals who the main character is and the fact that the film takes place on Mars. Sounds interesting, but then Disney removed Mars from the title. Apparently they did this because Disney released the Image Movers Digital production Mars Needs Moms last March, and it failed at the box office. (In fact, it’s one of Disney’s biggest financial failures to date) Now that’s just wrong. They think having Mars in the title will remind audiences of that already forgotten motion capture film? Not only are both films different from each other, Mars Needs Moms bombed because there was barely any buzz for it, it looked terrible and it just came and went. It also received poor reviews.

The trailers... Well, they were alright for what they were, but they didn’t mention that the film was directed by Andrew Stanton nor did they mention that the film was based on the series of novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Why couldn’t they do that? The footage in both trailers have drawn mixed reception, same with what was shown in the commercials. The Super Bowl TV spot wasn’t anything special, either. The marketing is just... Lazy. It’s just the usual eye candy and action scenes routine. What about the story? The characters? It’s very telling when a fan trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BxeHQY1NuM) got this right, not the official trailer.

Now why am I ranting about the marketing for this film? Well, this is one of the few Disney live action films as of late that has a lot of passion and care going into it. I can’t say the same about failed summer blockbusters like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (which the film has been compared to quite frequently) and The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, or Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. This one is being directed by a director who takes storytelling very seriously, and some talented people are working on it. Early reviews say it’s a good film. The film is also ambitious, just look at it. Look at the visuals. The story is supposed to be good. I didn’t see any of that ambition in any of those other big budget Disney films I mentioned.

Yet this film probably won’t even make half of what On Stranger Tides made on its opening weekend ($90 million), because the marketing isn’t really generating any buzz. Expect the film to open with less than $50 million. If it does, it’ll be a shame. This has blockbuster written all over it, and it’s coming out in March, which has been a great month for blockbusters in the recent years. (Alice in Wonderland and 300, anyone?) John Carter is probably going to rely on legs to get it past $100 million if the film has such a low opening weekend.

Is that what Disney wants? A big budget blockbuster with a lot of ambition doing poorly on its opening weekend and relying on word of mouth to carry it past $100 million domestically? Wouldn’t they want this to succeed? They should’ve poured a lot of effort into the marketing campaign! Remember Tron: Legacy’s marketing campaign? Now that film was a huge risk. Its budget was big and it was a sequel to a film that was more of a cult classic than anything else. Disney didn’t want this to fail, so they kicked off the marketing campaign long before the film hit theaters when they surprised people at the 2008 San Diego Comic Con with a test trailer. (Back when the film was called TR2N)

That same trailer was slightly modified and released as the film’s first trailer in the summer of 2009, which was a year and a half before the film hit theaters. The next trailer hit in early 2010, and two more followed in the summer. The marketing for this was all over the place, and guess what? They had a big success on their hands! A sequel to Tron making over $170 million at the domestic box office?! $400 million worldwide? Who was expecting that? What kind of marketing does John Carter have? Being burdened by a boring title, we only got 2 trailers and couple TV spots.

If John Carter opens with around $35 million, it’ll need a 2.8x multiplier to reach $100 million. Who knows how audiences will react to this film, but $100 million domestically won’t be enough to impress Disney. In order to reach $150 million, it’ll need a 4.2x multiplier. That’s not easy for a blockbuster released in the spring or the summer to reach, unless it’s really good. Who knows, the film might really score with audiences and pull a 4x multiplier. $150 million still won’t impress Disney. Don't forget competition. Lionsgate's The Hunger Games is probably going to take away a good amount of the IMAX screens the film will be playing on, in addition to being a very highly anticipated film. Warner Bros.' Wrath of the Titans will take away the film's 3D screens, since Hunger is not in 3D. John Carter will lose a good chunk of theaters by the end of March. Then again, audiences might ignore the 3D versions just might see it in 2D instead. Losing 3D screens might not affect it, but losing IMAX screens? Maybe. Who knows. Then you might be saying, what about worldwide grosses? This will probably do very well overseas, but wouldn’t it be nice if it had a big domestic box office total? In return, the worldwide total would be even bigger. Let's say it grossed $200 million stateside and $400 million overseas, it'll be at $600 million. Not bad, and that would be a more impressive total than Prince of Persia and Tron: Legacy's worldwide totals.

If John Carter turns out to be a financial disappointment, then Disney’s marketing department is responsible. Instead of making Andrew Stanton’s visually exciting epic based on Edgar Rice Burroughs’ sci-fi novels look like something interesting to mass audiences, they made it look like another big budget blockbuster that’s just action scenes and pretty visuals. Where’s the effort? This will be another woe in the history of Disney's marketing department, alongside Bolt, The Princess and the Frog and several other films that could’ve done so well but ended up underperforming because of poor marketing.

A sequel is already being planned, but if the film doesn’t go over well, then those plans might be in limbo for the next few years. Now the film might turn out to be a disappointment (even though early reviews are mostly positive), but why would they want it to fail? The film is rumored to have cost $250 million to produce, so why would they want to lose money. Several bad films go on to become big blockbusters, with the right marketing behind it.

Who knows, maybe I'll be proven wrong by the time May rolls around and John Carter passes $200 million domestically. Maybe it won't be anywhere near $100 million, who knows? I want the film to succeed, because it's supposed to be a good film and it's a project that a lot of thought and care went into. I mean, why would Andrew Stanton just direct a mindless popcorn flick? If it tanks, then it's possible that Disney will just cancel any ambitious projects that are in the works, or maybe not.

What are your thoughts on the marketing campaign for John Carter? Do you think the film will be a financial failure? A disappointment? Or will word of mouth make this an unexpected smash hit?

Rant: Disney Blu-ray and Direct-To-Video Sequels

Warning: If you enjoy any of the Disney direct-to-video sequels or support them, read no further...

The Disney direct-to-video sequels were one of the few reasons why Disney animation has fallen in popularity over the years. It all started in 1994, with the release of The Return of Jafar. It was successful, so another film followed. Things didn't really take off until The Lion King II: Simba’s Pride broke records for a direct-to-video film in 1998. Since then, we saw more and more of these films. They were a huge hit with kids, as they were safe for kids, somewhat telling consumers that Disney was for kids first and foremost. That would make Walt Disney furious. These films were cheap and notoriously subpar, they were sanitized and kid-friendly, and they ultimately hurt Disney’s reputation as a quality animation studio. Things wouldn't change until Bob Iger became the CEO of The Walt Disney Company.

John Lasseter, who disliked the direct-to-video sequels, wanted the company to stop production on direct-to-video sequels, as it was getting out of control. His plan did work for the most part, as we have been getting the CGI Tinker Bell direct-to-video series and a Cars spin-off called Planes is coming in spring 2013. The most important thing is that they aren’t making direct sequels to the classic films anymore: No Snow White 2, no Pinocchio 2, no Dumbo 2... The Tinker Bell movies, from what I know, have nothing to do with Peter Pan’s story or characters. It’s just a shameless cash cow for Disney.

The reason I'm bringing up these direct-to-video sequels is because they are being re-released on Blu-ray. Not only that, but some Disney animated classics are being releasing as a double feature pack with their direct-to-video sequels, instead of being released separately. Disney first did this with The Fox and the Hound last summer, packaging it with The Fox and the Hound II in the same set.

This summer, Disney is releasing Pocahontas on Blu-ray for the first time and it’s going to be packaged with the sequel, Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World. Why? Why can’t The Fox and the Hound and Pocahontas be released on their own? Why do they have to be packaged with the mediocre direct-to-video sequels? The direct-to-video sequels are an unfortunate part of Disney history, why are they coming back all of a sudden? On top of that, why are the classics being put in the same set as the direct-to-video sequel? It's like putting good food next to garbage. (Sorry for that disgusting comparison)

Disney didn’t do this with Bambi, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King and Lady and the Tramp. Since those are always popular sellers, they probably didn’t think it was necessary. However, The Fox and the Hound was a never one of Disney’s big sellers on home video. Still, that doesn’t mean that it has to be packaged with the cheap DTV sequel. Do they think really think that including the cheap cash-grab sequel is going to help it sell? That’s sort of insulting in a way. The film doesn’t sell so well to begin with, so it’s degraded to being sold with the universally panned direct-to-video sequel that was only made to make money. I wouldn’t be upset if we had an option to buy the first film alone, without having to buy the sequel, but we can't.

You can buy Bambi II separately as a stand-alone release, same with Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas. The Lion King II: Simba’s Pride and The Lion King 1 1/2 are coming to Blu-ray as stand-alone releases. Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure is getting a release as well. Again, why can’t they do this with The Fox and the Hound? Why can’t they do this with the upcoming Pocahontas Blu-ray? It’s like Disney is saying, “Here’s one of our not-so-hot titles, but you have to buy it with the sequel, even if you don’t like it.”

Now you may bring up the Fantasia / Fantasia 2000 double pack and the upcoming The Rescuers / The Rescuers Down Under double pack. Fantasia 2000 and The Rescuers Down Under are Walt Disney Animation Studios productions (back when they were called Walt Disney Feature Animation), while The Fox and the Hound II and Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World are cheap, direct-to-video schlock produced by DisneyToon Studios that were products of corporate greed and not creativity. There’s an obvious difference in quality. Also, Fantasia 2000 is worthy of being released in a double pack with Fantasia. The Rescuers Down Under is also worthy of being packaged with its predecessor, while also being a notable animated film on its own. (First Disney film done without cels, among other technical achievements) What’s notable about the two direct-to-video sequels? Nothing.

Call me crazy, but I refused to buy the Blu-ray release of The Fox and the Hound and The Fox and the Hound II when it came out last summer. Why should I have to pay for a direct-to-video sequel that was one of many things that killed Disney’s reputation as one of animation’s dominant leaders? These things need to go away. Walt Disney didn’t opt for cheap schlock, and he didn't believe in making sequels. The ones he produced weren't successful, and he didn't really care for them after that. (Son of Flubber, Savage Sam) The Fox and the Hound II was only made to cash in on the original’s return to DVD in 2006. (The 25th Anniversay Edition) Pocahontas II was only made because the first one was a box office success (all of the Renaissance films got direct-to-video sequels, with the exception of Hercules, which got a spin-off cobbled together from the TV series) and they wanted to keep the gravy train going, in the wrong direction.

I think Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment has a new plan. Diamond Editions (or hot-selling Disney films) will be released on their own, while their DTV sequel (if a sequel to that film was made) will be sold separately or with a special double-set, but you can buy the first film on its own if you want. With their not-so-hot-selling titles, they’ll be packaged with the direct-to-video sequel. I want to ask you, do you really want to buy The Hunchback of Notre Dame on Blu-ray that comes with the awful direct-to-video sequel? How about Mulan and Mulan II? Or even worse, Tarzan and Tarzan II? The Emperor's New Groove and Kronk's New Groove? Do you want to buy one of these notable films, with the irrelevant, subpar sequel mentioned on the front cover? You wouldn't buy a double pack of Grease and Grease 2, would you? How about Speed and Speed 2? Or what about Saturday Night Fever and Staying Alive? Jaws and its three sequels? The original films are good on their own, packaging them with the much inferior sequels is just insulting and downright wrong. Disney is obviously catering to kids with this move, something they should NOT be doing. If they want to please kids, release the cheap sequel separately. Then they could please those who dislike the sequels by releasing the original on its own. Why can't they do that?

To be honest, I think they better stop while they’re at it. The direct-to-video sequels have only achieved one thing: Doing well in sales. (Well, some of them) For the most part, they’ve angered fans, they’ve stained Disney animation and they hurt hand-drawn animation as a whole. I understand there are probably a lot of kids out there who love them, but really? (I'm going to be honest, I owned a few on VHS when I was little, but how did I know they were subpar? I was only a kid!) Re-releasing them on their own is one thing (they should let these films fade into obscurity), but putting them on the same disc or set as the original while not giving us a choice to get the original on its own? I just find it insulting and unfair to us fans who want those embarrassments to fade away.

You might say, "But kids need something to watch too!" How about this, show them a Disney classic and not the subpar cash-grab sequel. Why should they have to watch garbage that's aimed at kids only when they could watch a great family film? I may sound strict, but people need to realize that Disney was never "just for kids" and that they need to make films that appeal to their true target audience: Everyone. Making garbage that is just for kids hurts Disney and animation in general. It already has. The damage is done. They don't need to come back, and the folks at Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment should not force consumers to buy them if they want the original classic but don't want the sequel.

Rant: Disney and 3D Re-releases

We all know Disney plans on re-releasing Finding Nemo, Monsters, Inc. and The Little Mermaid in theaters in 3D. If these re-releases go over well, we’ll see more in the coming years. This excites me, but I will ask, are we going to get the Walt Disney films in theaters again? Also, will they be converted to 3D?

Now I have nothing against Disney converting their post-1990 films to 3D, because all of those films were done digitally rather than with ink and paint, cels, etc. This is why I’m a bit against them re-releasing The Little Mermaid in 3D. That film was the last Disney animated film done with cels, and I understand that they can convert it to 3D, but... Does it need to be converted? This makes me worry, because these films shouldn’t have to be converted. If the conversion adds nothing to the experience, then we’ll be essentially re-experiencing the Disney classics with sunglasses that dim the picture. Disney animation is so beautiful and so colorful, that seeing it that way in theaters will just ruin it. Is that the price we have to pay to re-experience these classics? I know there are options, there are 2D versions, but what about those who have local theaters not showing them in 2D?

The Lion King’s 3D re-release did well for a reason: The film was in the vault at the time and it’s one of Disney’s most popular films. Unadjusted, it’s their highest grossing animated feature. Crowds of people didn’t go for the 3D, they went to see The Lion King. If it wasn’t in 3D, I bet it would be equally successful. I didn’t see the re-release for the 3D, that was a just a bonus in my eyes. I wanted to see The Lion King on the big screen, and I bet everyone else in my theater had the same intention.

Then you might ask, how come Beauty and the Beast couldn’t repeat that success? Beauty and the Beast has been available on home video since October 2010 when the Diamond Edition came out, and the 3D Diamond Edition has been available since last October. Still, $45 million is not bad for a re-release. Finding Nemo and Monsters, Inc. may perform the same way, because they are currently available on home video. I predict The Little Mermaid will perform like The Lion King, since it hasn’t been available on home video since the Platinum Edition went back in the vault.

Now for the positive side of this plan. Before the dawn of home video, Disney would re-release their classics every seven to ten years in theaters since Walt didn’t believe in showing them on the small screen for free. Let’s look at Pinocchio for instance. It first came out in 1940. It was re-released in 1945, 1954, 1962, 1971, 1978, 1984 and 1992. Pinocchio made its home video debut in 1985, thus the 1992 re-release (despite it being the restored version of the film) wasn’t as successful as the last re-issue. It wasn’t re-released in theaters since then, same with the other Disney animated classics. The Disney executives knew this would happen, and that’s why they were against releasing the classics on home video in the early 1980s. They were afraid that with the films being available to own on home video, nobody will see the films when they come back to theaters.

With audiences going to see these films in the theaters again, Disney might go back to that tradition, and better yet, give us a re-release of a film before it comes out on the newest home video format. Most of the first releases of Disney films on home video followed their final theatrical re-releases. The films that aren't on Blu-ray might follow theatrical re-releases. Let’s say the current home video release of Lady and the Tramp, the Diamond Edition, will go back in the vault in two to three years. Years later, Disney plans on releasing it on the newest home video format. (If one will ever surpass Blu-ray) Maybe it might follow a limited theatrical re-release. Does this sound plausible? I believe it does, how about you?

Disney is most likely using 3D as a way to get audiences to see these films in theaters again. With 3D on its way out, Disney should try a better alternative: IMAX. (No, not IMAX 3D. Just IMAX) Back when Disney re-released Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King in IMAX, there weren’t enough IMAX theaters in the country. Now with more of them, including the IMAX Digital/“Lie”-MAX screens, they have a golden opportunity on their hands. Audiences are clearly sick of 3D, whereas IMAX really delivers. It's becoming more and more popular, especially with films with sequences filmed in IMAX. It's worth the price, and it's a better experience overall. It's not the same on a regular theater screen. People will pay to see something on that huge screen, because it's worth it. It's great, especially at a time with high ticket prices and the fact that attendance has gone down. Re-releasing the films in IMAX may reel in massive profits, and they can also release them in regular theaters simultaneously. If they followed this strategy, the re-releases would do well and also... No 3D! IMAX is the future, not 3D. 3D could've been a great new frontier in cinema, but it was destroyed by greedy executives. We all know the story, other studios wanted their films to blow up the box office after Avatar and Alice in Wonderland, by converting their films to 3D and leaving audiences unsatisfied. There's so many post-conversion 3D films, audiences can't tell what film is going to have good 3D or not. It has driven audiences to go to the 2D versions of films instead. A great opportunity was wasted.

One last thing. How would Walt Disney embrace today’s 3D? When 3D was the rage in the 1950s, he tried it out with some short subjects, but that didn’t pan out. If Walt was alive in the 1980s when 3D made a comeback, who knows what he would’ve done. If he were around now, would he have the studio's latest animated films done in 3D? Would he re-release the classics in 3D? We all know Walt was an innovator. He might embrace today's 3D the way James Cameron did with Avatar, but would he convert his classics to 3D? Who knows.