Posts Tagged ‘Pixar’

Netflix and Relativity Media have made a deal that will allow the video-rental giant to stream up to 30 of the studio’s films during the “traditional pay-TV distribution window.” Netflix has deals with all major studios that allows them to stream online a certain amount of those studios’ films, however up until now only Disney and Sony were allowing the streaming of their movies during this period.

The deal will begin with only the 10-12 films that Relativity will release over the next year (their typical output) but Netflix will be able to max out at 30 over the next five years. Both companies have stated that they believe this deal will be the beginning of a different age of distribution, away from pay-TV channels.

“Our continued goal is to expand the breadth and timeliness of films and TV shows

Netflix's streaming rights continue to grow, which will possibly help smaller studios gain better exposure

available to stream on Netflix,” Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos said.

“We have always been about finding new ways to grow and monetize our business,” Relativity chief Ryan Kavanaugh said. “This clearly is a natural step in the evolution of the movie business and opens up a whole new world of revenue and marketing opportunities.”

Source: Hollywood Reporter

Quick Opinion: That Netflix is now making streaming deals with non-major Hollywood studios should be encouraging for those who are excited about the idea of “big” Hollywood not having as big a monopoly on exposure. With more streaming movies being from smaller (but not small) production and distribution studios the greater leverage they have in making distribution deals with those bigger companies. The more people see your films – and the more evidence you have that they do – gives you more creative authority because there is less reason to bend over backwards to appease a big distributor’s standards. One easy example to cite is how Disney doesn’t tell Pixar how to make their films, they simply get a cut of the profits for distribution. What this all could do is open up an opportunity for production studios like Relativity (Lionsgate, Focus Features, Rogue Pictures, etc.), who prefer to create movies for peripheral audiences.

Short Take: Delivers nothing less than what you would expect from Pixar

Director: Lee Unkrich (co-director of Toy Story 2, Monster’s Inc., Finding Nemo)

Screenwriters: Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine), John Lasseter (Toy Story, Toy Story 2), Andrew Stanton (Monster’s Inc., WALL-E), Lee Unkrich

Cast: Tom Hanks (The Da Vinci Code), Tim Allen (The Santa Clause 3), Joan Cusack (Kit Kittredge), Ned Beatty (Charlie Wilson’s War)

Length: 1h 43m

Synopsis: Woody (Hanks) and Buzz (Allen) and the gang are preparing themselves for the day that they knew would eventually come, and that day is when their owner Andy (now 17 years old) heads off to college and relegates his toys to either the attic or place of donation. All the toys are in a panic, and despite Woody’s efforts to calm them their hysteria is just too great. What ends up happening to them is that they are given away to a nearby daycare center where they are met with many other toys, but also some unruly toddlers. These hyperactive tots viciously mistreat their new toys, and on top of that not all of the daycare’s older toys are quite what they seem to be. All of Andy’s old toys decide they must somehow reunite with him, but figuring out how to do that will be their biggest challenge yet. Read the rest of this entry »

Woody and the gang are back this weekend in Pixar's "Toy Story 3"

ComingSoon.net recently conducted an interview with Toy Story 3 director Lee Unkrich and producer Darla Anderson. Unkrich has been the co-director for Toy Story 2, Monster’s Inc., and Finding Nemo and has been part of Pixar’s creative team since the company’s beginning, which was why he was given the job of directing the Oscar-winning and highly prestigious studio’s first “threequel.”

In the interview Unkrich and Anderson reveal some interesting tidbits about how Toy Story 3 got off the ground, and how the creative minds behind it were able to make it happen.

For starters, Unkrich and a few others tried getting the film started back when Toy Story 2 was released, ready to continue on to another story involving the characters they grew to love. However, legal troubles with Disney kept the film from being made and so the studio was forced to put the idea of a third movie on the back burner. When Disney eventually bought Pixar, the red tape was finally removed and the studio was free to pursue the project head-on.

Michael Arndt, who wrote the script for the film, was met by Unkrich and the others at Pixar after they looked at a copy of the screenplay for Little Miss Sunshine. They liked his work for that movie so much they immediately wanted to get in touch with him in order to maybe start working together. Later that same year Arndt was awarded an Oscar for Best Screenplay for Little Miss Sunshine, which helped give the studio more confidence that they were working with the right guy.

The interview covers a dozen other issues like these, which help paint Pixar as a company that redefines the word “harmony” when it comes to how its creative teams work together to create such memorable films. Definitely a good read for those of you looking forward to Toy Story 3 opening this weekend.

Gregory Peck's performance as Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird" is widely regarded as the most idealic father figure ever seen on film.

We here at Movie-Thoughts try to find interesting views on anything movie-related, scouting magazines, web pages, newspapers, et al, to get judgments and attitudes from varying corners of our culture. Today in the latest (June) edition of The Catholic World Report we came across an article written by Steven D. Greydanus that, in the spirit of Father’s Day (which as a reminder is June 20th), documents the image of American fathers as depicted in Hollywood films over the past 60 years or so.

Mentioning roles from Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch in 1962’s To Kill a Mockingbird, to Christopher Plummer as Captain von Trapp in The Sound of Music (1965), to Steve Martin in the remake of Father of the Bride (1991), to Will Smith in The Pursuit of Happiness (2006), to Christian Bale in the remake of 3:10 to Yuma (2007), he covers the various depictions of fatherhood as ideal patriarch, pivotal familial figure, impotent supporter, and so on. He even goes on to include in the conversation the depictions of father figures like Mr. Fredrickson in Pixar’s Up (2009).

Depictions of the American father were perhaps never better than with Peck playing Atticus Finch – a widower who despite any possible reservations or grievances about living without a spouse exemplifies the ideal patriarchal figure by being intelligent, morally grounded like no other, nonthreatening by default but firm and steadfast when needed, and self-sacrificing. Conversely, in Father of the Bride (both original and remake) the father is seen as insecure and lacking control of himself as well as others in his family. In 3:10 to Yuma (both original and remake) the father is portrayed as being impotent – meaning he’s unable to provide for his family or sufficiently defend its honor (at the beginning of the films, that is). What all of these depictions do, Greydanus argues – with as various as they’ve become and as unflattering as they can be – is demonstrate not the competence or imperativeness of individual fathers but the importance of the father figure. Whether the father is Atticus Finch, George Banks, Darth Vader, or completely absent, the depicted family dynamic and its accompanying story typically make a case for how influential the paternal role is.

Personally, we found this article to be extremely refreshing. Not just because it didn’t revel in the Father Knows Best personas of yesteryear but because an article like this explicitly stands against the modern-day depictions of the everyday father that you can find on The Simpsons, Family Guy, and yogurt commercials without even having to mention them. With however many sitcoms and commercials that show how overweight, impotent (in all definitions of the word), lazy, and simple-minded fathers supposedly are (which arguably make the case that fathers are by and large ineffectual), it’s nice to be reminded that the real importance of the father figure can always be found in the movies our culture generates. Fathers don’t always know best, but their role helps shape the social fabric of our patriarchal country (for better or worse, depending on your attitude towards the patriarchal arrangement).

Send us your thoughts and opinions on this topic via the comments section of this post or our contact page. We’d love to hear from you!

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’s 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’s 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’s 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 »

Brad Bird is now being considered to direct the next "Mission: Impossible"

Star of the hit Mission: Impossible franchise Tom Cruise has pegged the series’ next installment as his next picture, which has meant that him and fellow producer J.J. Abrams (director of M:I 3) have been on the hunt for the fourth film’s director.

Candidates include but are not limited to Ruben Fleischer (Zombieland), Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz), and now Brad Bird (The Iron Giant, Pixar’s The Incredibles, Ratatouille). What makes Bird an unorthodox candidate is the fact that he’s never directed a live-action film before, although his two Pixar films have both won Oscars for Best Animated Picture. For these movies Bird has been praised by critics for his storytelling skills and choreographing skills for stunts and chase sequences.

Details about M:I 4’s story are being kept under wraps, but J.J. Abrams is said to have worked with writers Andre Nemec and Josh Appelbaum (who Abrams knows from working with them on TV’s Alias) to formulate the script.

Source: Hollywood Reporter

Quick Opinion: If Bird is hired to direct M:I 4 it would obviously mean that he would have the blessing of J.J. Abrams, which should be exciting news for fans of the series. Although M:I III didn’t do as well at the box office as Paramount would have liked (which many attribute to negative publicity regarding Tom Cruise’s television antics about his wife Katie Holmes and professed allegiance to Scientology), many fans (such as myself) regarded the film as the best yet in the series. If this is in fact the case, then J.J. Abrams’ involvement should only be considered positive, as well as the news about whoever is hired to direct the fourth film. As proficient as Bird might be at storytelling (I’m assuming this compliment is regarding his prowess with narrative construction, pacing, and emotional wherewithal) I would suggest there be concerns about his ability to direct the type of gritty project that M:I 4 is likely to be. Aside from having to be more hands-on with actors and the whole filming process (as opposed to primarily using computers and voice recordings), he’ll be tested to expand is aesthetic style into the realm of visceral violence and visual maturity. This isn’t all to say that Bird would be a poor choice, but because of these reasons he would definitely make an unusual one.

Pixar's "Up" is this year's front runner for Best Animated Picture

This year, because the number of films submitted to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences reached at least 16, there will potentially be 5 final nominees for Best Animated Picture for the 82nd Academy Awards. The academy has not yet viewed all 20, and so nothing is set in stone, but the odds that five or more films will be disqualified (lowering the number of nominees down to 3) are thought to be minimal.

The 20 submitted features are:

• “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel”
• “Astro Boy”
• “Battle for Terra”
• “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs”
• “Coraline”
• “Disney’s A Christmas Carol”
• “The Dolphin – Story of a Dreamer”
• “Fantastic Mr. Fox”
• “Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs”
• “Mary and Max”
• “The Missing Lynx”
• “Monsters vs. Aliens”
• “9”
• “Planet 51”
• “Ponyo”
• “The Princess and the Frog”
• “The Secret of Kells”
• “Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure”
• “A Town Called Panic”
• “Up”

Two records have been made, with 6 submissions being made in 3-D and 4 films being shot in stop-motion.

The last day for a film to be submitted for nomination is next Monday, which also means that all films in the list above have until then to have their L.A. qualifying run.

All Academy Awards nominations will be released Feb. 2nd, with the awards show on March 7th.

Source: Variety

Suddenly Dickens' timeless tale is too scary? Humbug.

After reading numerous reviews of Robert Zemeckis’ newly released A Christmas Carol, starring Jim Carrey, it appears that there are two main congruences among the majority of critics who disliked the film: 1) the film lacks the warmth and emotional weight of the book and other adaptations; 2) certain parts are too scary for children. The lacking of an emotional connection (which no critic I have yet read has successfully explained and/or articulated) is certainly a valid critique if one were to grade the film based purely on a personalized evaluative judgment, but the argument that the film is too scary for kids intrigues me.

Exactly what makes a movie “too” scary for kids? And for that matter, who said the movie was made just for kids? Pixar’s Up, which was released earlier this year to wide critical acclaim and is a shoe-in for an Oscar nomination, opened with a montage that explicated how Mr. Fredrickson and his wife were unable to conceive a child of their own, and how later Mr. Fredrickson eventually became a widower. Those old enough to understand what was being explained got teary-eyed, while little kids just sat there confused. This is certainly not “kiddy” material, and yet it’s at the beginning of a children’s movie. Critics praised this. The consensus is that one reason Pixar is such a fantastic filmmaking company is because their films can be thoroughly enjoyed by audiences of all ages. The point becomes – if Pixar can be heralded for not being afraid to appeal to audience demographics aside from just children, then why criticize Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol for attempting to do the same thing? Read the rest of this entry »