J.J. Abrams Gets Animated

Paramount certainly made a wise decision by setting up their own animation studio last summer. They'll be able to compete with the big guns after the deal with DreamWorks comes to an end while also making a name for themselves. Early on, I was hoping that the then-new studio would tackle projects like Rango, films that were unconventional and bold.

Until today, we only knew that a sequel to The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie was in the works along with an adaptation of the short-lived Penny Arcade webcomic, The New Kid, which is to be directed by long-time executive and producer Mary Parent alongside Cale Boyter. Gary Whitta (The Book of Eli) will pen the script.

Today, /Film revealed that Paramount Animation added a new production to its upcoming slate, and it will be directed by none other than J.J. Abrams, the creator of Lost and the director of Star Trek. Knowing Abrams, we probably won't know much about it until a trailer shows up. The sequel to The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie is set to open sometime in late 2014, so we can only imagine when Abrams' project will be released. It'll probably kept in great secrecy, which Paramount executive Adam Goodman is encouraging. Goodman stated, "the longer-than-average development time for animated films requires some level of secrecy to ensure the kind of original ideas being developed here are protected, so holding back on specific announcements enables us to reveal projects when they are further along in the creative process."

Certainly a smart idea, and one that will keep the animation community guessing and speculating. Though I will admit I am not that familiar with Lost, Abrams did a fine job with Star Trek. He also produced a personal favorite of mine, Matt Reeves' Cloverfield. I am certainly looking forward to what he has in store for us. With that, it looks like Paramount Animation isn't going to take things lightly. Rango was certainly a watershed event for mainstream animation, so it seems as if they are looking to aim high while also making bank with safer projects like the SpongeBob film.

What's your take on this? Are you excited to see an animated film directed by J.J. Abrams? Are you looking forward to Paramount Animation's upcoming projects? Sound off!

Best Animated Short - 1980

Our valiant journey through the best of the Academy Awards has taken us to 1980. It is a significant year not only because it was the first year of the 1980s, a decade that certainly left a strong mark on pop culture, but it is also an important year in my family history. After all, it was the year that saw the birth of The First Child in my generation.

I don't know how common it is to celebrate the first child born in a generation, and I don't even think it was that big of a deal in my family. However, it is still quite significant. I guess if you go back far enough there were many people that is considered my generation that were born before 1980. There are people from my generation that are the descendants from my great grandfather's eldest brother that are older than my parents. If you take just my parents' immediate family, then there are 15 people in my generation, a rather small amount considering I have 7 aunts and uncles on both sides of the family. Of the 15 I rank as the fourth oldest. The youngest was born in 1999. And there were two born in 1980. My cousin Andy was born in June, and my cousin Ada was born in January, exactly five years before I was born. Now she is an osteopathic physician who is taking some time off to take care of her three kids, and also keeping a blog featuring her husband (an anesthesiologist) sleeping.

Read more »

6 Reasons To Look Forward To "Big Hero 6"

Note: As I've said in my reviews of various comic book films, I'm not much a comic book reader. I have gotten into the stories because of the films themselves, so if my knowledge is a bit rusty on the subject, I apologize. This is from the perspective of an animation fan...

Walt Disney Animation Studios' upcoming adaptation of Marvel's Big Hero 6 is already looking like it's going to be a game changer for the Mouse House and Disney animation. So what's there to look forward to even though it's only in the development stages?

#1. Don Hall is directing the film. His directorial debut, Winnie the Pooh, proves that he knows what he's doing. That film was respectful of the early short subjects and wisely avoided anything that had to do with the franchise post-1983 and successfully delighted adults and children alike. He also worked on the story for The Princess and the Frog and Tarzan. He's been around for a while and with a team of good writers, he can make this film work. It's possible that Joss Whedon might even contribute to the film, since he's signed the exclusivity contract with Disney that ends in 2015. This film is slated for release in 2014, but may not open. Still, Joss could contribute to it. Remember, Walt Disney Animation Studios has been hitting critical home runs since Meet the Robinsons, so we can expect the results to be good.

#2. This will be a big first for the animation wing. All Walt Disney Animation Studios films were in-house productions, but this film will be their first co-production with another studio, Marvel Studios of course. With that, they are branching out and one day, they may just team up with other studios for big projects. Unheard of until now.

#3. Disney animation has never tackled anything that had to do with superheroes before, which makes this project a real risk. Disney animation is often generalized as "fairy tales, musicals and talking animal movies", but this and Wreck-It Ralph are sure to show audiences that Disney can certainly tackle different genres. Walt Disney believed in taking risks and trying new things, and with these two projects, Lasseter-era Disney is willing to follow in his footsteps much like the folks at Pixar do. After all, think of how diverse Pixar's platter is and how all of their films are unique. They can tackle many kinds of stories, Walt Disney Animation Studios should do the same and break new ground.

#4. I mentioned this when the project was first announced, it's possible that this film will be Disney animation's first PG-13 film. While a rating doesn't determine a film's quality (obviously, I'm not that kind of person who assumes that), it can show people that Disney animation is not a kids only thing and never has been. Sure, Disney should not have to go out of their way prove that, but this very film could help shatter that belief once and for all if Wreck-It Ralph and Frozen don't. Just imagine, Disney animation tackling a much more adult-oriented film. I can see that working, it would be an experiment worth trying. More and more people have warmed up to animated films, thanks to Pixar and DreamWorks. Now it's Disney's turn to win that audience.

#5. This could be another successful attempt at a big animated action picture. Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet, despite their shortcomings, displayed how Disney animation can deliver great action. The Rescuers Down Under is another fine example that tends to get overshadowed by the fairy tale adaptations. These films show that Disney animation can certainly bring the thrills. Think about how they can pull off the action with the power of animation, whether it's going to be hand-drawn or computer animated. With that, Disney can give audiences the pure excitement that the summer blockbusters give them, but with better writing.

#6. It's possible that this film will be very stylized. From what I've seen of the comics, it looks very manga-inspired. Imagine Disney animation doing a Japanese anime-style film? That would be another new and interesting style to experiment with. Remember how Walt's men broke new ground with One Hundred and One Dalmatians with its modern look as opposed to the look of the previous films? Remember how films like Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Lilo & Stitch experimented with some very un-Disney-esque qualities? If Big Hero 6 does that, then it'll be great to see something completely new, visually, from Disney.

Are you anticipating this film? Do you like the idea of Disney trying new things and branching out into the superhero genre? What are you looking forward to seeing in this film? Sound off!

Max Fleischer's rotoscope patent.

Hey guys, good to be back after a short trip! I see a lot of things have happened in the meantime, like the biggest auction sale of classic original animation art (more on that in the next post). First, let's pick up were we left it, Okay?

So, in my previous post I was talking about Max Fleischer's early Superman cartoons from the 1940's and how his studio used a process called 'Rotoscoping' to come up with correct phyical human behaviour to make sure all animations would look good. Remember, Superman and his pals were supposed to look accurately, like they were designed by Siegel and Shuster, which means their proportions matched the human body as nature intended it, instead of the many, funny and cartoony characters the animators at Fleischer's studio were familiar with, who could stretch and squeeze into any form (like their 'Koko the clown' character).

Fleischer had a great interest in mechanics and a knack for drawing machinery. He also worked as an editor for 'Popular Science Monthly' while working as a cartoonist for the newspapers. So it's not that strange that Max came up with his own invention, The rotoscope, which enabled his artists to 'trace' footage of live action actors, who were filmed beforehand.  Though to think of it as purely tracing live action would not do justice to the talented artists, who created all these beloved classic cartoons and features, the rotoscope would often be used as a way of having reference footage that the artist would use to build his own artwork upon.

Above: Fleischer used russian wrestler Karol Krauser (originally named Karol Piwoworczyk) to stand model for their Superman and act out all the spectacular movements that make Superman a true hero, well... beside flying of course! Krauser was part of the popular Kalmikoff brothers wrestling group in the 1950's and '60's.


Patent No. 1242674A

Fleischer had patented his invention in 1915 and used it heavily for his 'Out of the inkwell' animated shorts in 1918-1919 and his later feature film 'Gulliver's travels' from 1939. Rotoscoping was used later by many studios (including Disney) to help them overcome the same problems and draw anatomically correct animations, in fact, it was stil in use in 2000, when Don Bluth produced his feature 'Titan A.E.' Now of course, with 3D computer animation, the artists use motion-capture which can be seen as a digital equivalent of the rotoscoping process I guess.

Check out Max Fleischer's original patent No. 1242674A below, dated  and signed October 9, 1917, which  was applied for as early as December 6, 1915. Well, at least bureaucracy hasn't changed much in all those time! Classic stuff! (Click to enlarge, to actually read this amazing stuff, click it again after it has opened up).

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...

Frozen: Pre-Trailer Speculation

Unfortunately, this cool logo isn't official...

Walt Disney Animation Studios has truly been getting better. Little by little, they are shattering the whole "Disney hasn't made a good animated movie since the Renaissance" belief with critically acclaimed films and Tangled, which was their biggest hit at the box office in years. Next in line is Wreck-It Ralph (opening on November 2nd), which is poised to be an even bigger hit with its video game setting, positive trailer reception and the surprisingly strong marketing. After that comes Frozen, the next fairy tale adaptation in the Disney canon...

Loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen’s The Snow Queen, we know little about this film, so I decided to do a “pre-trailer” analysis. Since we haven’t seen anything in finished animation or anything else beyond some concept art (the art unveiled the other day was confirmed to be outdated, as evidenced by the Walt Disney “Feature Animation” logo on some of the stills), I’ll just throw out some thoughts, theories and a few other things. This film is scheduled to come out on November 27, 2013, so we don't know when we'll get the first trailer. Perhaps it'll show up before Wreck-It Ralph this fall, or maybe next spring. Who knows...

First off, this film is being directed by Chris Buck. What else did he do? Well, he co-directed a little film called Tarzan with Kevin Lima. I’m sure you’ve heard of it. It was one of Disney’s biggest post-Lion King hits, and a critical success to boot. Years later, he directed Sony Pictures Animation’s Surf's Up, which was a very good film but not a commercial success for various reasons. You probably might not have heard of it, or you don’t remember it. Anyways, Buck will be the director and that’s something to get excited about.

A few weeks ago, Disney unveiled a new plot synopsis...

“When Anna is cursed by her estranged sister, the cold-hearted Snow Queen, Anna’s only hope of reversing the curse is to survive a perilous but thrilling journey across an icy and unforgivable landscape. Joined by a rugged, thrill-seeking outdoorsman, his one-antlered reindeer and a hapless snowman, Anna must race against time, conquer the elements, and battle an army of menacing snowmen if she ever hopes to melt her frozen heart.”

So far, it sounds pretty good. Like Tangled, the writers have basically taken a few elements from the original fairy tale and surrounded it with their own original ideas. It’s definitely a much more loose adaptation than anything, one that will probably have purists yelling something like “Bowdlerization!” Tangled was able to tell a great story on its own. The ideas they added were great, and made for a solid story even if it wasn't anything like the original fairy tale.

Frozen is taking the Tangled route. There's nothing wrong with this, as long as the story isn't strikingly similar to that film. It sounds promising, but there’s a few little things that have me a bit concerned. One  thing that doesn’t thrill me that much at the moment is the idea of a "hapless snowman" being the sidekick. I won’t jump the gun, because this character can be hilarious or maybe he won’t be a comic relief device at all. I'm also guessing that he is a good snowman as opposed to the aforementioned "menacing" ones.

I’m not against sidekicks in Disney films. They certainly deserve a place in a narrative, as long as they add to the story and provide comic relief that’s actually funny. Bolt, The Princess and the Frog and Tangled had great side characters. No doubt, the writers know what they’re doing at this point. The side characters in the films made during the Disney Renaissance and some of the films released afterwards (The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan and Brother Bear come to mind) were usually annoying or belted out juvenile humor during the wrong moments. That all being said, the hapless snowman character might be a hoot. Or he may be annoying, who knows. I won’t be skeptical. The Eisner era ended a while ago, and none of the last five Disney animated features had irritating side characters or anything that stained the films.

The two leads should be interesting characters. Though Anna may be similar to Ariel or Belle, she should still have a distinct personality. The mountain man, Kristoff, already reminds me of Flynn Rider, which also worries me a bit. If Anna and Kristoff are too much like Rapunzel and Eugene/Flynn, I won’t be happy. If it's that way, then the writers will be trying to repeat what made Tangled work. Doing that is a bad idea, of course, because resorting to rehashing familiar ideas was what lead to the studio’s downfall. Walt always tried new things, and the studio is currently doing so, so a rehash of Tangled won't be good enough. As for Kristoff’s reindeer, I have a feeling he won’t speak or even provide any comic relief for that matter. The Snow Queen herself? I’m hoping she’s a very good, complex villain. Her coldness already reminds me of the queen in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, so I’m sensing a possible sibling rivalry sort of conflict. Perhaps she curses Anna because, like Snow White, Anna is much fairer. Or maybe she didn’t get the care that Anna got when the two were young. I’m hoping for another fantastic villain with a true motive.

Like other great Disney films, the film should have of course have heart. The emotional content in the recent films has been very satisfying, and right up there with Pixar's films. I expect Frozen to be a heartfelt film, with a great love story and great character development. That's pretty much a given now, since Disney has been favoring that over crassness or cheap attempts at being relevant. Will pull the heartstrings? Will it make audiences cry? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it'll be emotional on a different level.

I initially balked at the title, and yes, it certainly is Disney marketing trying to disassociate the film with anything young boys see as “girly”. At the same time, Frozen is a suitable title because the film really isn’t The Snow Queen, just an original story that happens to have the Snow Queen in it. Tangled on the other hand was a bad title, as that film was still (at heart) Rapunzel despite being a loose adaptation. I’m currently split on the title change, but at least Frozen sounds interesting. Tangled sounded bad then, and it still sounds bad. It made the film sound like a mindless comedy, it just didn't sound right.

So there’s a few things that already have me conjuring up theories. Out of all the things that Disney has told us so far, the thing I'm wondering about the most is what the "snowmen" will be like.

First of all, what will these snowmen look like? Certainly not like this...

Or this...

I believe that the snowmen that Anna will face on the journey will be more akin to the Frost Giants from Thor. I mean, it would be hard to take things seriously if your villainous snowmen looked like your typical snowmen gone bad. What kind of powers will they have? Will they look like humanoid creatures? Or strange beasts? The artists will probably have something interesting in store for us, so that’s certainly something to think about.

The earlier plot synopsis also mentioned “Everest-like extremes”. The synopsis also mentioned mythical creatures, so there are definitely a lot of things to look forward to in this film already. Visually, it should look fantastic. If the designs of these creatures are nothing short of original and creative, then it will show that Disney can do epic fantasy stories. Animation is the perfect medium for it, as several animated fantasy films have proven so. Disney has the opportunity to really give audiences what live action can't give them. Now what about art direction? Well, with mountains and forests, and probably a village or two in-between, this will probably be loaded with eye candy.

Older, oudated concept artwork, hence the Walt Disney
"Feature Animation" logo...

Now I can spend tons of articles jabbering about what everything might look like, but I do believe the overall style will be right in line with the look of Tangled. Tangled was a very good-looking film, and it certainly shows that Disney is really gung-ho about the painterly look they've been experimenting with. While it didn't really look entirely like a traditionally animated film (in my eyes, it was still a purely CG film), it still had some striking hand-drawn elements here and there. Frozen should take this style to new levels, though John Kahrs' short film Paperman should already indicate where this new approach to computer animation is heading. Of course, rumors are going around stating that Ron Clements and John Musker’s next film might resemble Paperman and finally blend hand-drawn animation and computer animation for a feature film. How things will look in Frozen, we don’t know, but I expect something new and exciting. Something that shows how advanced the new look of Disney computer animation will be.

In addition to potentially groundbreaking animation, visuals and a very good story, Frozen just needs to have a good screenplay. The Disney animated features haven’t been strong in the screenplay department for a good many years, but again, that was fault of executives and too much reliance on what focus groups were saying. Bolt and The Princess and the Frog boasted better writing than most of the Renaissance films, but still had some minor bugs and glitches. They certainly weren’t as great as the scripts for Pixar’s films, but they were top notch nonetheless. Ones that told the story right, and didn't ever take the audience for granted.

Tangled, on the other hand, had a rather inconsistent script. I know I’m in the minority on this one, but I wasn’t pleased with how Tangled’s dialogue was a tad bit modern (“Best... Day... Ever!”). Rapunzel and Flynn acted like it was 2010, not the middle ages. I know it appealed to audiences more so than something serious, but because of this, I can’t call Tangled’s script anything special. Fortunately, it wasn’t insulting. Modern slang in animated films set in the past tends to ruin things (think the annoying sidekicks in the Renaissance films), but in Tangled, it wasn’t as distracting. Perhaps it’s because the film never talks down to the audience like the Renaissance films often did, and neither did Bolt and The Princess and the Frog. The film didn’t water itself down, or lighten the load. Same with the other two films.

I just don’t want Frozen to have that kind of script. That doesn’t mean it has to be grim, super serious and brooding. This isn’t The Dark Knight. I don’t want that either, as Bolt and The Princess and the Frog weren’t anything like that. I just want something that’s not modernized, something that’s just timeless. Something that balances comic relief, drama and the occasional dark moments with style. No modern slang, no teenybopper talk, none of that. I just want a plain good script, like a Pixar film or the original Walt films (technically, those films were storyboarded). With what is supposed to happen in this story, I just can’t see a Tangled-esque script working. At least Tangled wasn’t heavy with action for the most part, and whenever there was drama, there was hardly any slang. Most of Tangled’s action scenes were fast-paced and fun, but the action in Frozen sounds like it’ll be much more intense and perhaps a bit of the violent side. The film is probably going to get a PG rating, since Tangled somehow got it. (Again, don’t question the MPAA’s logic)

Frozen will be produced by Peter del Vecho, who also produced Treasure Planet, The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh. John Lasseter, of course, will be executive producer. We have no word on who the screenwriters will be, and judging by how Disney picked the writers for Wreck-It Ralph, they may just surprise us. The cast? All we know is that Kristen Bell and Idiza Menzel will provide the voices of Anna and the Snow Queen, respectively. Both have a theater background, so right off the bat, we know this is going to be another musical. The songs will be written by none other than Robert and Kristen-Anderson Lopez. Robert worked on The Book of Mormon and Avenue Q, while Kristen provided music for Winnie the Pooh (along with her husband) and Finding Nemo - The Musical.

For those of you who are upset that someone like Alan Menken isn’t doing the songs, don’t be. Alan Menken can’t just do every Disney musical, and to be honest, Tangled only had one great song (the beautiful "I See The Light") while the rest were either good ("Mother Knows Best", "When Will My Life Begin") or just passable ("I’ve Got a Dream"). Not to say Menken isn’t good, he’s fantastic, everyone knows that. But he doesn’t have to provide the songs for every Disney film, so why not give the job to someone else for a change? After all, Alan Menken didn't write any of the songs for The Lion King, and Disney had fantastic songs in their films long before he came into the picture. Also, Randy Newman, in my opinion, did a fine job with The Princess and the Frog. Let’s give Mr. and Mrs. Lopez a chance.

Speaking of music, what kind of songs will this film have? For what sounds like a rather big, action-packed adventure, they’ll need suitable songs. I already expect a big love ballad (what is a Disney romance film without one?), but how about a different style of songwriting? Instead of following the Renaissance routine (Introduction song - big showstopper song - villain song - silly song and big love song), they should try something different and separate this from those Disney films. Why give what they have given audiences for so long? Why not branch out? The Walt Disney films? Some of them didn’t even have musical numbers, but rather songs that were sung offscreen. Some films even had a few, so they didn’t have to have one at every turn. Most importantly, they didn’t go the Broadway route all the time. The Renaissance films cut and paste the same routine, though they tried breaking free from that with films like Tarzan and The Emperor's New Groove. Personally, I want something totally different. That said, I look forward to getting a glimpse of what the music will be like. Knowing Disney’s super-paranoid ways, they’ll probably hide the fact that this will be a musical in the marketing (“Musicals? That’s like, so laaaaaaame!”) much like they did with Tangled.

In conclusion, I'm expecting another great film from Walt Disney Animation Studios. I'm only a bit skeptical about some things, mainly with the plot and such. I'm just hoping that the writers aren't going to attempt to recreate Tangled. I want something bold, new and risky. Risky like the first five Walt films. From what we know, Frozen does sound a lot more action-oriented than most of the Disney fairy tale adaptations, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing how all of this will be pulled off. A Disney fairy tale with mythical beasts, "conquering of the elements", "Everest-like extremes", armies of evil snowmen, and lots of action? This could finally put an end to the whole "animation is for children" mindset. Hey, I can dream, can I?

So much potential, we can only imagine. Like Wreck-It Ralph and all the other upcoming projects, this is one to get really excited about...