Film

A Critique of the Tangled One-Sheet Poster

If it seems that I’ve been posting about this film for the last three months, you’re right, I have. Today’s topic is the film’s one-sheet poster. We’re all familiar with one-sheets, they’re the poster’s you see at the cinema then buy for a relative fortune after the fact (but seriously if anyone out there would like to hook me up with some posters that are, um, passed their sell-by date, let me know).

The subject today is the latest (although probably not final) one for Tangled and I fell it’s worthy of a good critique. It is shown below for your convenience (cheers, /film).

Feel free to study it for a minute and come to a few of your own conclusions before continuing. Not being an art critic what you read below is pretty much the way I see it and I don’t want you to feel lost in any way.

Let’s start with the setting. It appears that they’re standing on the edge of a forest of some kind. The leaves/branches on top seem to set a slightly dark undertone for the film that you will already be aware of if you watched the trailers.

The background is, for want of a better word, wanting. We can see the tower on the right but it seems to bee set in some sort of quarry or canyon. Although this choice is well outside the poster designer’s grasp, its position suggests that the characters have their backs up against the metaphorical wall. The fact that they’re all ready to fight only reinforces this.

I cannot decipher a lot of detail in the background because the image file I have isn’t large enough but glimpses of the complexity of the animation can be seen in the detailing on the tower and the garden below it. It would be nice if this was more at the forefront of the poster to emphasise the artistic merit of the film but there’s a chance there’s another poster on the way which may or may not address this.

I suppose one of the nice things about CGI films is that their physical promotional material uses the actual animation as the source rather than relying on a separate set of artists and painters for the artwork. It keeps everything consistent for the sake of the public.

Moving onto the horse. He’s looking at the right rather than straight ahead like the other two. Why would he do that? Is he not focused on the terror in front of him like the others? I suppose not. He is also notable for being the only one of the trio to be holding an actual weapon. Comic relief aside he would seem to either be on a more perilous quest or, as I believe, is protecting the other two from a menace that they are oblivious to. He’s also snarling as if he’s been betrayed in some way. The horse might know something the other two do not. We will have to wait and see.

Flynn, our antagonistic male character, is holding the frying pan, the wrong way around of course (you always hit someone with the base of the pan, not the, eh, pan part itself), this might well allude to his level of intelligence. He too stands ready to fight although his smile gives the game away that he might not take the approaching fight as seriously as he should.

While he stands with his back to Rapunzel, as in, he’s got her back, she is standing in front. With that in mind, Flynn is clearly standing with his back to whatever it is the horse is snarling at. He’d do well to look the other way.

Lastly there is Rapunzel, our protagonist. She stands feet apart, although her left one is on tippy-toe, as if it is ready to move at a moments notice. She holds her hair in both hands as if it is a weapon although it is not clear how she intends to use it. We can take a good guess but the poster does not make the intent explicit enough.

She stands sideways but faces forwards as if she intends to twirl  into action. While more characters don’t normally stand face-forward, they also don’t have their bodies facing 90 degrees either. With her left hand pulled so far back, the pose looks contorted and uncomfortable. If I were getting ready for a fight, I would most definitely have both hands in front of me, Fighting Irish style (although, no, we don’t really hold our fists like that). While the pose itself suggests that she is ready to for whatever it is that she anticipates, a more natural position would have been, not realistic, but more inviting in the eyes of the audience.

Her face is the most intriguing of the trio. Her eyes are furrowed as if she is disapproving or concentrating on something. She displays a knowing smirk, as if she is aware of exactly how things are going to turn out in her favour.

Atop her head sits her little froggie sidekick. He looks like the only one of the bunch that’s asking for a fight.

Last but not least, we have the tagline at the top.

They’re taking adventure to new lengths

I get the pun, but everyone will read that as they expect it to be. There are a million potential puns on the idea of length and they chose one that has nothing to do with it. It could be better is all I’m saying.

Now, compare the setting of this poster with the French one.

Now there’s a dramatic scene, both characters hanging out of the tower so tall you can barely see the ground below. The girl has managed to subdue Flynn as we would expect but it is clear that he is apprehensive not merely scared. Either way, does that look like an exciting movie or what?

Overall, the design of the US poster is pleasing. It is colourful and sets the overall tone for the film, i.e. it’s a bit of an adventure, we’re all in together and there’s a few laughs along the way. It piques interest in the film, which is its main mission. The trailer will do much more to sell the film, the one-sheet’s job is to alert the public to an exciting new movie that will soon debut.

Has it made me anticipate the movie? Yes it has. Would I hang it on my wall? Perhaps, although I’d have to move a few things around. As you can see, things are not as simple as they first appear. I’ve written a good  hundred thousand words on the thing and I’m not the slightest bit observant when it comes to art.

All in all, it looks like a good show. Let’s hope it turns out all right 🙂

A Critique of the Tangled One-Sheet Poster Read More »

Idiots and Angels Starts This Wednesday!

As mentioned previously, Bill Plympton’s first ever feature-length film, Idiots and Angels will begin its theatrical run this Wednesday at the IFC Center. What is unique about this event is that Bill himself has done all the back-breaking hard work on getting his films shown. he is relying on the animation community to spread word of mouth.

The films begins this Wednesday at the IFC Center in Manhattan and Bill will be in attendance for the evening presentations and having met the guy, I can safely say that his company is a pleasure to enjoy.

Seeing as I have not seen the film (yet), here are a selection of links to various interviews and discussions that Bill has done in the run-up to the premiere:

Idiots and Angels Starts This Wednesday! Read More »

The Obstacles Facing Roger Rabbit 2

At this point, it’s been over 20 years since the original Who Framed Roger Rabbit, a film that perhaps single-handedly resurrected interest in the classic cartoon shorts of Hollywood’s Golden Age. Despite being wildly successful (thankfully, as it was the most expensive movie ever made at that point in time), a sequel was never made.

There are a couple of reasons why a sequel was never made. Number one, Hollywood wasn’t near as sequel crazy as it is today and number 2, the complexities of the original film made it somewhat more difficult to produce another one. No, I’m not talking about the animation, or anything technical, it is he sheer number of characters required lengthy and exhaustive negotiations between all the rights holders. You may have noticed that the original film had neither Felix the Cat or Tom & Jerry as the rights to neither were secured prior to production.

Why do I think a sequel won’t work? Well, why do you think a sequel wouldn’t work? Perhaps because sequels invariably share the same set of problems. TV Tropes has a good rundown of the symptons associated with what they call, sequelitis. The plot isn’t a continuation, bit characters that became popular are given way more screen time than they should be allocated, new characters appear that add nothing of value, etc. etc.

The original film was notable for many reasons, not least because it used a huge cast of already popular animated characters and introducing a few that appeared well known despite being brand new. That’s why Baby Herman, Jessica Rabbit and even Roger are still known, they have created a link in the audience’s mind between themselves and the classic characters of yore. A sequel will most likely copy some elements of the character but discard the deeper stuff that matters.

Another aspect is time. It’s been over two decades since the original and the times have changed. Roger Rabbit succeeded because it was different. Animation didn’t get a lot of respect from people in the 80s. Roger Rabbit (along with The Little Mermaid) helped change that and establish animation as an artform that could deliver the goods at the box office. There was little to no competition unlike today, where a new animated film is released, on average, every couple of weeks. The quality of said films is also astounding, thanks to the folks at Pixar who raised the bar so high.

Finally, as everyone knows, sequels inevitably have a lower budget than the original. In animation (moreso CGI than traditional) this is partly because computer models and sets have already been constructed, however, corner are still cut in areas such as story development, size of the crew, etc. The difference is always noticeable and in the case of Roger Rabbit, it would definitely be noticeable. If you make the most expensive movie ever and spend less for the sequel, it will look different.

Of course, there is the test film for a CGI version of Roger from 1998. It’s embedded below along with the test from the original film. The two cannot be compared in overall quality, but notice the difference in the animation. The newer one says a lot about the attitudes of executives towards sequels of classic films.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw77Vt6sgdc]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0hNbcJO6EM&feature=player_embedded]

The Obstacles Facing Roger Rabbit 2 Read More »

Bill Plympton Talks Idiots and Angels

Yes, I mentioned it last week, but in the meantime, Katie Cropper has conducted a great interview with Bill over on ASIFA-East’s Exposure Sheet blog where he gets into some detail about how he eventually came to the conclusion that he had to distribute it himself.

It’s a great interview and I highly encourge you to head over and read it right now!

Bill Plympton Talks Idiots and Angels Read More »

The Differences Between The US and UK Trailers for Tangled

It’s pretty much a given that the opposing sides of the Atlantic have different cultures. Ask any one from either side which version of The Office they prefer and invariably, the local version is the one that is chosen. This is an obvious choice: American like blatant jokes whereas the British are much more for sly, under the radar humour.

The differences extend to pretty much all aspects of entertainment that happen to cross the pond. Take for instance Harry Potter, the first book/movie in the series was called the Philosopher’s Stone in Britain but the Sorcerer’s Stone in the US. The movie even had scenes where the stone in question is spoken filmed twice, just to be consistent.

Since films are not excepted, neither are film trailers. Take for instance the upcoming Disney feature, Tangled. The trailers for both are embedded below for your viewing pleasure. Watch them both and then continue below.

The US version:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxY35VkI0NI&feature=player_embedded]

The British version

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycoY201RTRo]

In light of the two, which is better? Well neither really. A trailer is supposed to give you the best idea of the plot without giving away the ending or any important plot details. A classic failure is the one for The Simpsons Movie, which pretty much gave away the entire plot, minus Lisa’s love interest.

About these two, well, for starters nether one gives the entire plot away and if I had to choose which one I prefer on that front, it is the American one, which only hints at what makes Rapunzel so special. The British version on the other hand, seems to focus much less on Flynn. I suppose it’s in Americans nature to see a movie about the struggle of one, rugged individualist fighting against oppression. That’s why their trailer is cut as such. The British one focuses much more on Rapunzel and what she gets up to. In other words, it’s much more cryptic as to how the two came together.

While both trailers are good at doing their job, it is clear that in the US, there is much more of an emphasis on trying to hook the audience. The British one is more direct in what the film appears to be about. From poking my nose around the web, there seems to be plenty of assurances from those on the inside that Rapunzel does play a greater role in the film than the US version leads us to believe.

Having said that, trailers can be fantastically misleading. Don’t believe me, check out this one for the romantic comedy that is The Shining. Another example is the one for Fight Club, a film I avoided until one day, when I was shocked to learn that the film is barely about underground bare-knuckle boxing.

Overall, the differences between these two trailers do not make that much of a difference. Personally, I prefer the British one because it reveals a story and characters who are much more complex than the American one suggests. Being a guy who likes complex, strong characters, that makes it a winner.

Now I just need to figure out if there’ll be a late-night screening that I and my better half can sneak off to without having to deal with hoards of pimply teenagers.

The Differences Between The US and UK Trailers for Tangled Read More »

Toy Story 3's Record-Breaking Box Office Haul

It hit the news over the weekend that Toy Story 3 is now the highest-grossing film of all time, with $920 million overall in the bank. While it is commendable that it has achieved this level of success, all is not what it appears to be.

There is a fairly comprehensive article over on Forbes.com that establishes how TS3, as successful as it is, has not quite broken the ultimate record for an animated film. That belongs to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which, when adjusted for inflation, raked in over $800 million at the US box office alone!

Of course there are a number of factors at play besides inflation. For one, ticket prices for 3-D movies have resulted in higher gross figures from smaller audiences. The latest Shrek film was blatantly pulling off this trick by having a higher gross than its predecessor with only half the audience.

Besides that, studios these days make more money from the likes of DVDs, broadcast rights, merchandise, etc. than back in the 30s, when a film had to make all its profit at the box office if its financiers stood any chance of keeping their shirt.

The best part of all this hubbub, is that the focus will once again be on animated films and their usual success. This can only be good for the artform as a whole and will hopefully encourage others to take a risk on an animated feature.

Toy Story 3's Record-Breaking Box Office Haul Read More »

The Longevity of The Secret of Kells

It’s no secret among those who know me that I am a huge fan of The Secret of Kells, and not just because it’s Irish! I’ve already made my thoughts known in my review, which I wrote for Asifa-East’s Exposure Sheet way back in July 2009. What I’m posting about today is that the film is still making the rounds in US cinemas, in fact it is returning to New York’s IFC Center on August 14th, over a year after it premiered there.

What makes this incredible, year-long run even more extraordinary has been the unprecedented marketing campign, that is to say, the lack of one. The film was released in Europe in spring of 2009 and received the usual advertisement. However, such a campaign would have been prohibitively expensive in the US. The market is too big and crowded by the ususal suspects in California.

There was some talk about bringing the film to the States and things really got going when distributor GKids (the fine folks behind the New York international Children’s Film festival) entered the film for Academy Award consideration. The news that it was shortlisted for nomination gave the film a huge boost, suddenly people wanted to find out how a film they’d never heard of before was conisdered for an Oscar.

Thanks to its qualifying run in Burbank and of course, the Academy Awards themselves, the film was assured national showings of some sort. What has sepereated Kells from other independent films has been the potency of people’s word of moouth. OK, sure you have superfans like myself telling everyone to go see it, but in addition to that, I am pretty sure that every single animator/illustrator in the country has gone to see it and told all their friends to go see it to.

This type of promotion has been the key to the film success statewide. Well, that and the fact that it really is an amazing film. People listen to their friends and family more than anyone on TV or in the newspaper and The Secret of Kells is proof of that.

The film was released on DVD last year in Ireland (and sales received a very welcome boost with the Oscar nomination) and will be released on Blu-Ray and DVD in the US later this year and will undoubtedly make its way into a high percentage of those who saw it at the cinema.

The Secret of Kells is proof that you do not need to spend massive amounts of money to have a successful film. Sure the money doesn’t flow through the box office as quickly as it does for a blockbuster, but it does flow for longer, far longer and the fact that The Secret of Kells is still being talked about 2 years after it was completed is proof that it is better to be a slow burner than a bright flash.

 

 

 

The Longevity of The Secret of Kells Read More »

Preliminary Thoughts On Disney’s Tangled

Poster from the Internet Movie Poster Awards Gallery

By now you should be aware of Disney’s upcoming film based currently titled Tangled. Those of us who have been following the film for a while know that it was originally supposed to be called Rapunzel and featured the heroine much more prominently than the hero.

Why the change, well Disney felt it had too many upcoming films with female leads and that it would basically be painting itself into a corner it couldn’t afford.

Perhaps this is true, but perhaps boys just aren’t attracted to “girly” films rather than films with females as the protagonists. There is a difference between the two. Plenty of Disney films in times past have featured female leads: Pochahontas, The Little Mermaid, The Aristocats (animals count!), Lady & the Tramp and of course, Snow White. As far as I know, plenty of boys liked those (even if they would never admit it publicly).

Disney’s argument is that boys don’t contribute enough to the gross of such films. Poppycock I say! They do, just not in ways that Disney expects them to, in other words, in giggling groups at the cinema on a Friday night. So what if they don’t contribute at the box office, that isn’t where most films make their money anyway. But that’s the subject of a post for another day.

A balance is of course necessary between male and female leads, which is why Pixar will is finally getting around to correcting their off-kilter slate of films. However, I think it is foolish to dramatically change a film when it is well through the stages of production. That’s a waste of resources and amounts to changing the destination when you’re halfway there. It would make more sense to change your next destination and plan accordingly.

The film will do well regardless, I just wish studios would be a bit braver and not pander to demographics and their supposed tastes in the chase for a quick buck. Better to make a good film that will stand the test of time than to one that will date quickly with people regardless of gender.

Preliminary Thoughts On Disney’s Tangled Read More »

The Analogue Nature of Going to the Cinema

Picture from the wonderful blog of Nina Paley

Yesterday while at the cinema, just as Inception was about to begin, I realized that right above me, there was a can of film ready to be unwound before my very eyes. It was then that I realized that the moviegoing experience is still very much an analogue adventure in this digital age.

OK, so the film itself was full of special effects that in no way could have been recreated in the real world, but it’s still kinda funny when you think that they were shown using a method that’s well over 100 years old. I suppose it’s all part of the experience. I find it hard to imagine seeing a film at the cinema where there isn’t a projector whirring away in the booth.

With the rise of digital projectors, this will become a thing of the past, at least in the mainstream. Which I think will be a shame. Fo me, it just won’t be the same, knowing that behind me, there’s just a digital projector streaming content from the internet. Perhaps it is becuase there is no setup involved in the digital age. With film, it has to be loaded, threaded and adjusted so that it appears correctly on the screen. That suggests that watching a film is an event, something to anticipate with excitement and to enjoy immensly.

Technological advances will change this, albeit slowly (digital projection has been talked about for well over a decade). There’s still plenty of time to enjoy the romanticism that goes along with watching a film down at your local picture house.

The Analogue Nature of Going to the Cinema Read More »

The New Yogi Bear Movie

The Washington Post (my favourite US newspaper) has a pretty good list of why we already hate the thing despite it being months from release:

TEN THINGS WE ALREADY HATE ABOUT DECEMBER’S “YOGI BEAR” THE MOVIE:

10. The new, winking double-entendre tagline (above) from veteran “That ’70s Show” writers who have made millions out of crafting winking double-entendre “one-liners.”

9. The continued crass and shameless plunder of the favorite cartoon shows from our childhood so a studio can turn a quick holiday-season buck.

8. The shameless plunder of a favorite cartoon show IN POINTLESS 3-D, so a studio can make 20-percent more quick holiday-season bucks.

7. The slick, soulless CGI “art” that goes with the double-entendre tagline.

6. The once-great Dan Aykroyd stooping to immediately challenge the still-great Bill Murray (“Garfield”) for the title of Cheesiest CGI Cartoon-Film Character to Be Voiced by an Esteemed “SNL” Alumnus.

5. The fact that the always-funny “SNL” host Justin Timberlake will make us enjoy the CGI Boo-Boo character at least a little bit, thereby eroding our self-righteous fit of pique.

4. The worrisome prospect that this could be the best available animated film to take visiting young relatives to during the holiday season.

3. The prospect that the swarming hordes of plastic tie-in toys will feel far less artificial than this film, judging by the trailer (below).

2. The realization that we will ultimately tithe 80 bucks for the film/3D glasses/toys that will line the pockets of the geniuses who wrote that winking double-entendre poster tagline.

1. The inevitable sequel: “Step Up Yogi 3-D: Electric Boo-Boo-ga-loo.”

It can’t be good for a film to generate this much antagonism thise far from its release. Can it really be that bad? Well, it’s hard to tell. All we’ve seen so far have been snippets that don’t really tell the full story. However, they do tell us enough in much the same way that the Tone-Loc tune in the Smurf’s teaser trailer does: it doesn’t raise our hopes much.

 

The New Yogi Bear Movie Read More »

Anomaly Appraisal: Toy Story 3, The Bittersweet Finale

 

You know, I’d planned to write an epic, three-part review of the entire trilogy, but the more I reflect on it, it becomes clear that it would not be practical. Comparing a movie made 15 years ago with one from today is kinda cruel in more ways than one, not least on the quality of the animation.

No, this is a straight-up, honest account of how I hated about 95% of Toy Story 3 and how it all worked out in the end, sort of. If you want an animator’s perspective, I highly recommend reading Michael Sporn’s thoughts on the film. I agree with most of his points, which is why I’m linking to it.

Starting with the animation, it is superb. The fact that just the textures on the characters can be seen is proof how far CGI has come in 15 years. The levels of detail that can be created nowadays makes the original film more akin to a student thesis! It is the little things like these details that has set Pixar apart from other studios, they really do take the time to focus on things that affect the movie in ways that may not easily be perceived at first glance.

As for the directing, I would say that Wall-E is easily superior in that it was more in tune with the character. In TS3, the opening sequence is over-dramatic despite its content. Plenty of shots in the films seemed to be set up as if trying to prove something. None detract from the viewing experience, but they are grossly over-wrought in the context of what Toy Story is. That being said, there are no real pointless shots in the film, save for maybe Mrs. Potato Head’s eye.

This films is perhaps one of the most realistic that Pixar has released. Compared even to UP, the level of detail is stunning, from the largest detail (entire rooms) to the smallest (Ken’s wardrobe). One can’t help but feel that the charm of the original and sequel has been lost in the meantime. Compared to The Incredibles, which seemed realistic despite trying not to be, TS3 seems unrealistic because it tries to be too much like the real world and in the process overreaches its goal. Again, it ain’t the end of the world, but it may be connected to my thoughts further down.

The story itself was OK. It was certainly of a much higher standard than what Hollywood is known to put out. It is clearly the completion of the toy’s time with Andy. He’s grown up and heading to college, the toys are neglected in their chest, although they do acknowledge that Andy could have binned them many years ago and did not. The writing as usual was absolutely superb with jokes-a-plenty for adults and kids. The theatrics of Buzz Lightyear manages to steal the show were certainly enjoyed by the audience.

Do I agree with all aspects of the plot? Well, not quite. The villain lacks motivation. Sure he has some, the flashback sequence certainly indicates that but what ran through my mind while watching it was that Jessie went through much worse and was not nearly as resentful. Lots-O-Huggin Bear is also the first villain in the series to get his cumuppance. Why is that? Sure, Al got his in TS2, but he clearly was not a toy, even Stinky Pete got sent off to live with a little girl, not, well, I won’t spoil the surprise.

The characters in the film are the same we know and love. They are all here, but as we’ve seen before, they change subtly between films. In other words, Woody from Toy Story is still the same Woody in Toy Story 3, but he is ever so different. Perhaps in this movie, it is the situations that he is in differentiate him from the first two films. I couldn’t help but feel that the presence of an evil segment of toys soured things for everyone. One could argue that the first two films were too devoid of such characters, but here, I felt they went a wee bit over the top (secret, late-night gambling session anyone?).

Sigh, I guess my issue is that Toy Story is not near as innocent as Toy Story, or even Toy Story 2. Whereas the latter contained only a few grandstanding scenes, this latest film is pretty much one big sign begging for the audiences sympathy. It plays on our fondness for the characters, who don’t feel they need to prove anything any more. There is no soft treading, characters are shown as-is, no justification given. The simplicity of the first two films is also missing. In the first, Woody and Buzz get lost and need to find Andy, in the second, Woody gets stolen and his friends try to get him back. In this film, the whole gang gets tossed about all over the place and we’ve no idea what it supposed to happen to them by the end of the film, their ultimate goal does not become obvious until the very end.

Which leads me to another sticking point. The toys themselves. Did you notice that in the first film, they were extremely careful not to let anything they do make things appear out of place? That meant they tiptoed around and were careful to be just as they were left. In Toy Story 2, the rules were loosened a bit and the toys began to interact with their surroundings, especially Woody, who moved around frequently. This does not include the scene where the toys cross the road, that is simply the what happens when they do move about.

However, in this film, all of that is lost as the toys haphazardly move around as they please, moving things about and turning things upside down. can they really be considered toys any more if they are altering their environment in a way that would clearly be noticeable by a human? Methinks not. It is as if the humans in this film are oblivious to what’s going on right under their nose. That seems a bit of a stretch and somewhat spoiled the film for me. The first film made me believe that my toys were doing stuff when my back was turned. Toy Story 3 makes me wonder if they were doing anything at all.

Perhaps I am too harsh on Toy Story 3, it is after all (hopefully) the conclusion to the story that the writers intended. In that respect, it does commendably. How it gets there is a different matter entirely, but that should not putting you off seeing one of the year’s best films thus far.

Anomaly Appraisal: Toy Story 3, The Bittersweet Finale Read More »