Posts Tagged ‘animation’

Short Take: A beautifully made film that knows its horror movies and has a great narrative to boot

Director: Chris Butler, Sam Fell

Screenwriters: Chris Butler

Voice Cast: Kodi Smit-McPhee, Anna Kendrick, Casey Affleck, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, John Goodman

Runtime: 1 hour 33 minutes

Synopsis: Norman (Smit-McPhee) is a lonely young boy whose peers and family think there’s something off about him – and they’re right. Norman can see and converse with ghosts. The conversations are mostly harmless, until the ghost of his uncle, Mr. Prenderghast (Goodman), warns him that a witch who cursed the town elders years before is going to return to destroy the town. That is, unless Norman can stop her and the cursed town elders she raises from the grave.

Read the rest of this entry »

Short Take: Every bit as much fun as its predecessors

Director: Brad Bird

Screenwriters: Josh Appelbaum, André Nemec

Cast: Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Michael Nyqvist, Paula Patton

Length: 2h 13m

Synopsis: After an IMF agent is killed in an effort to capture the launch codes for Russian nuclear warheads, Ethan Hunt (Cruise) and his crack team of agents are assigned to find out who took the codes and why. Their efforts, however, lead them to being framed for the destruction of the Moscow Kremlin, which makes Ethan Russia’s most wanted and forces IMF to disavow all of its agents. So with no help from IMF and a huge target on their backs, Ethan and Co. must prevent the stolen launch codes from getting into the wrong hands. Crazy and elaborate plans ensue, with stunts and chases aplenty. What we see may possibly be their biggest challenge yet.

Read the rest of this entry »

Disney's "Alice in Wonderland" has made the majority of its profits off 3D ticket sales, but did the technology justify the higher ticket price?

There is a big debate going on about the influx of 3D movies that has been going on the past few years, and continues going on strong. Some claim that the technology has already reduced itself to a gimmick, while others believe wholeheartedly that it is the future of cinema. Who is right? Can anyone be wrong? In order to come to any kind of conclusion, we first have to look at the facts.

Much of this topic comes down to economics. An article in Variety by Pamela McClintock examines this angle in-depth, and answers a lot of questions regarding why the film industry is so keen on this latest and greatest technology. To put it simply, there is a lot of money in it. The unfathomable success of James Cameron’s Avatar has driven a number of studios into a frenzy, spurring them to make some 2D movies into 3D in order to cash in on the popularity. The upcoming Clash of the Titans (April 2^nd) is one such film that was made into 3D at the 11^th hour. For some, these half-baked conversions are one of the major points of contention. The claim is that such last-minute conversions are adding to the thinking that 3D technology is nothing more than a money-grabbing gimmick. This may be true, but consider this: producing a film in 3D from the get-go adds $20 million to its budget almost automatically, while converting a film into 3D during post-production only adds $10 million to the budget (some studios even claim $5 million). The issue over post-production conversions, then, may not entirely be an issue about getting more money from audiences, but also about saving money. So, it is not completely about the first goal of business (making profit) but also the third (reducing cost). But what about the second goal (increasing revenue)? Read the rest of this entry »

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.