Director Robert Zemeckis, head of motion-capture animation company ImageMovers, has an uncertain relationship with Disney

ImageMovers, the motion-capture effects studio headed by Robert Zemeckis, is being dropped by Disney. The “shingle” is known for producing computer animated movies such as Monster House, Beowulf, as well as the recent Jim Carrey vehicle A Christmas Carol, which was produced by Disney. The Mouse House has only financed the last of those three, and began production of a remake of Yellow Submarine, but appears to consider such financial commitments as too costly with the current market. A Christmas Carol, directed by Zemeckis, had a budget of around $200 million but had a domestic gross of only $137 million (the film totaled $323 million all in all).

“Bob [Zemeckis] and the entire [ImageMovers] team successfully built a state-of-the-art studio and produced an amazing film, A Christmas Carol, at a time when the dynamics of the industry are rapidly changing,” Disney Studios president Alan Bergman said in a statement. “But, given today’s economic realities, we need to find alternative ways to bring creative content to audiences, and [ImageMovers] no longer fits into our business model.” – Hollywood Reporter

Disney does not want to lose Zemeckis and his team, however, more or less saying that they want to keep such high-quality talent in house so they can continue to work on Yellow Submarine. As late as Friday, however, there has been no reported deal.

Source: Hollywood Reporter

Quick Opinion: As disappointing as the news is, it doesn’t come as too big of a shock. Financially speaking from Disney’s standpoint, it makes a lot of sense. For not only does a motion-capture film like A Christmas Carol cost a lot of money, but a lot of time as well. And being that any studio usually limits itself to financing so many projects at any one time, money used to produce such a supposedly fiscally unrewarding project as a motion-capture animated one might keep Disney from financing a project that would deliver better returns. So why would Disney continue production for Yellow Submarine? Well, the project is fully into pre-production, as it is already cast, has a workable script, and the FX team is no doubt already deep in focus to provide the film’s animation and 3-D effects. In other words, they’ve sunk too much money into the film to just scrap it at this juncture.

2009's "Watchmen" made only a few million more than its budget. Is its "R" rating partially to blame?

In an article for Variety.com columnist Tatiana Siegel reports how lately Hollywood has been growing more and more averse to having their films stamped with an “R” rating. The topic gets introduced with the upcoming Clash of the Titans remake, which if you’ve seen the trailer or any commercials you’ll understand is supposed to have its fair share of violence.

Basically, the rule of thumb has been growing more and more into the overall standard. The bigger the budget, the less likely a studio will accept an “R” rating. The logic is of course that PG-13 ratings draw the widest audiences, which means the highest possible returns. Small budget films receive more slack (such as selective horror projects), but studios even insist that they shoot for PG-13 if possible (ex., Prom Night (2008)).

Some requirements are easy to satisfy. For instance, to avoid an “R” rating a film can only show violence against monsters or limited violence against people. If there is blood it must be limited, and if not it must be a different color than red – typically black. And of course, foul language must be kept to a minimum (the F word can only be uttered once).

Studios are more weary of releasing “R” rated pics lately because they’re failing to bring in big returns. Two recent examples are Watchmen and The Wolfman. Both cost over $100 million to produce but failed to make back their budgets with domestic grosses (Wolfman only managed to make back $61 million domestically, and even its worldwide B.O. failed to make it break even).

Screenwriters have stopped writing scripts that are intended to be “R” rated because studios are refusing to pick them up. However there are people within the industry who are willing to be more cavalier with raunchy material. Director/Producer Todd Phillips (The Hangover) supposedly told writer Phil Hay regarding the topic, “Write [the script] the best it can be. And we’ll figure it out later.” – Variety

What is your opinion on the “R” and/or “PG-13″ ratings? As a moviegoer, do you care about what the rating is of the movie you want to see? Do ratings affect which movies you see? What if a film is rated “R” but proves satisfying and entertaining enough to justify its ticket price?

Tell us what you have to say!

Quick Opinion: The movies mentioned by Siegel (The Wolfman, Watchmen, Prom Night) may not be the best examples to list on this topic. Based on reviews and audience reactions, as well as talks with friends, both The Wolfman and Watchmen’s lack of success is not due to their being “R” rated. People seem to agree that The Wolfman’s plot was too generic and its characters too flat, and seemed undecided about whether it wanted to be new or nostalgic. Fans of the Watchmen comics conceded that there was too much story to pack into a single film, which made the screen adaptation feel overstuffed and lack concentration. The remake of Prom Night suffered from arguably too little violence, and might have actually made more money had it shared the same “R” rating as its original. Because of how popular the horror genre is with teenagers, though, business logic tells you that you don’t make a product for a particular audience and then make it inaccessible to them (remember the No Admittance Under 17 “rule”). However, sometimes I think that studios who make horror films fail to recognize that there are plenty of horror fans over the age of 17 as well (in fact most of them). All in all, I’m convinced that it’s not the “R” ratings on certain films that are the issue, but the overall poor quality of those films and their inability to satisfy their audiences.

Short Take: The quality of the performances alone make the film worth viewing

Director: Floria Sigismondi (Début)

Screenwriter: Floria Sigismondi (Début)

Cast: Dakota Fanning (Twilight :New Moon, Push), Kristen Stewart (Twilight: New Moon, Adventureland), Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road; My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done)

Length: 1 hour 45 minutes

Synopsis: The film details the rise and fall of the first major female rock band, The Runaways, mainly through the eyes of the band’s lead singer, Cherie Currie (Fanning).  The band forms in the mid 1970s when a determined young Joan Jett (Stewart) befriends a Svengali-like music producer Kim Fowley (Shannon).  After discovering Cherie in a nightclub, they cultivate the band’s rough, energetic sound.  They travel around the country doing small shows and when the band finally takes off, the girls, still in their teens, struggle to cope with their life of sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll.

Analysis: Though The Runaways is loosely based upon the real Cherie Currie’s 1989 memoir Neon Angel, the film seems more like a recreation of the California rock ‘n’ roll scene in the mid- to late-‘70s than a strict biopic of the titular band.  Writer-director Floria Sigismondi has spent much of her career making music videos, and the film reflects that somewhat since onstage performances do make up a significant part of the film’s running time.  Moreover, music videos often condense a complex story into a few brief minutes and therefore only the broadest plot elements are shown.  The Runaways unfolds in a similar fashion.  Sigismondi shows only brief glimpses of the band’s rise: shots of them practicing under Fowley’s tutelage, glimpses of the intimate connection between Cherie and Joan, Cherie’s slow dissent into a drug-induced haze and finally Joan’s determination to make music saving her from oblivion.  The plot is made just clear enough to be understandable while more attention is given to creating the mise-en-scène – specifically the costuming and settings – more authentic and interesting.

The characters are just as broadly drawn.  Joan, Fowley, and Cherie are the most detailed, but they change little during the film.  Fowley remains the eccentric yet brilliant producer throughout and Joan is ever the strong and driven leader who knows exactly what she wants.  Cherie is the most developed character (unsurprising considering the story is mostly told from her perspective) in that she moves from shy and innocent to drug-addicted and jaded during the course of the film.  On the whole, the film offers little in the originality department in terms of either story arc or character type.  However, where it excels is in the strength of the lead trio’s performances and Sigismondi’s style. The film essentially showcases the interactions Cherie, Joan and Fowley share and Sigismondi simply provides the ‘70s milieu in which they live.

Sigismondi’s style is most explicit in the film’s numerous on-stage performances.  The rendition of “Cherry Bomb,” the band’s first big hit, is sexy and powerful and perfectly conveys The Runaways’ style and presence.  The musical performance is filmed much like a modern music video with only the shag haircuts and costuming indicating its actual time period.  Sigismondi’s attention to period detail and her somewhat gritty filming style (especially her richly saturated color palate) seems to project both the band’s energy and the period’s hedonistism.  One instance where Sigismondi effectively appropriates her music video style for a more dramatic scene comes when Cherie and Joan share their first kiss.  As they relax in a roller rink in a drug-induced daze, Joan suddenly moves toward Cherie.  Sigismondi bathes the pair in red light and while the suggestion of passion is fairly obvious, it’s also extremely effective.  However, as convincing as Sigismondi’s version of hedonistic ‘70s rock ‘n’ roll is, the film is at its best when the mise-en-scène takes a back seat to the performances.

Stewart, Fanning and Shannon work hard to embody their characters, and their efforts show.  Stewart, who met Jett since she produces the film, seems especially adept at mimicking the singer’s mannerisms and the performance stands in contrast to the less confident characters she plays in other films, like Twilight’s Bella or her character Tracy in Into the Wild.  Shannon, much like his Oscar-nominated performance in 2008’s Revolutionary Road, embraces his character’s eccentricity and his is likely the most notable performance since he dominates every scene in which he appears.  Fanning, who also met Currie, has the most emotionally complex role, emphasizing Currie’s vulnerability to make her more sympathetic.  Rather than portray her as a willing participant in her own sexualization, she instead seems an innocent young woman too inexperienced to handle fame.  Some of the best scenes in the film are driven more by characters than either the music or plot.  One of the strongest scenes occurs when Cherie, pushed too far by Fowley, quits the band in the middle of a recording session.  Though the scene is interesting for its importance to the plot, the way the actors portray their characters makes the scene memorable.  Fowley’s eccentricity suddenly turns to cruelty, while Joan’s drive turns into desperation and Cherie’s eagerness into exhaustion.  It is the tensest moment the characters share and the result is a fascinating peak into their inner selves.

The Runaways is by no means the definitive portrayal of the band, but it doesn’t try to be.  It simply gives a glimpse of what these people lived through and the world that surrounded them.  Even if you conclude that Sigismondi has made a bit of a glorified music video, it’s still a pretty good one.

Rating: 7.5