missmediajunkie

As if we didn't have enough Disney-related rumors going around, yesterday a Colombian radio personality claimed that PIXAR was going ahead with a fourth "Toy Story" movie, to be released in 2015, and had already gotten Tom Hanks and other stars to agree to reprise their roles. None of the usual media news sources backed them up, and frankly anybody who was remotely familiar with PIXAR recognized right away that this was probably not reliable information. There is an untitled PIXAR movie on the slate for November of 2015, and Tom Hanks has claimed that "Toy Story 4" is in development, but there have been just as many denials that PIXAR is going forward with another sequel. Now, it's not too unlikely that PIXAR is considering giving Woody and his friends another movie. A Halloween special featuring the characters is in the works, and several shorts have produced. I caught the one with Rex and the bath toys at a Disney store over the weekend. However, nothing is remotely official yet.

Of course, that didn't stop bloggers and smaller sites from spreading the rumor around, and getting the internet worked up into a frenzy. The discussion went from questioning the news sources to talking about potential ideas for a new sequel to complaining about how PIXAR had jumped the shark by indulging in this kind of sequelitis very quickly. By the time the inevitable denial articles came around from sites like IGN and Ain’t it Cool News, the "Toy Story 4" rumors had already been digested and debated and absorbed like it was a real piece of news. The same thing happened with the rumor that Harrison Ford was returning as Han Solo to the "Star Wars" franchise a few days ago. That one came from a more reputable source, a Fox News Latino correspondent, and was reported by many legitimate news outlets, but ultimately there was no concrete evidence that any of it was true, just like the rumors about the possible "Star Wars" spinoffs about Yoda and Boba Fett and the young Han Solo that were running wild last week.

Entertainment news runs by different rules than regular news. It's a gossip-based economy, where there are almost no bad consequences for making up completely false claims and spreading around bad information. Being first to break this kind of news is much more important than getting the details right. The studios allow them to proliferate because they're fairly harmless. Rumors can even help gauge the public's reaction to certain ideas and possibilities, which is why some suggested that the new "Toy Story 4" rumors might have been planted on purpose, to see how people would react. If this happened with hard news, there would be scandals and backlash and recriminations. Rumors related to the business side of Hollywood are treated much more carefully, because there are hard consequences to getting that kind of information wrong. However, conjecture about projects in development, or who might be attached to play which role, rarely has so much impact, so there's more permissiveness.

I find this attitude a real a pain in the neck, personally. Sure, sometimes the rumors are fun on a slow news day, but they can also be such distracting, annoying, and kind of disheartening. I'm not going to put down anyone for getting excited over a possible "Toy Story 4," but this was such a bad rumor to begin with. A news item from Colombia based on the word of unnamed sources? Why would anyone believe this for a second? Why would countless bloggers and websites pass this around without waiting for any kind of confirmation? Is there any degree of skepticism at all in this process? Geographically I don't live too far from the PIXAR studios in Emeryville. I could know somebody who knows somebody who's working on the development of this new sequel. I could make up just about anything I want, let it loose on Twitter, and cause a media storm of similar proportions. I could say Brad Bird has been working on "The Incredibles 2" all this time, alongside "Tomorrowland," and offer no proof at all, and someone out there would believe me.

Let's just be clear that the preceding paragraph is a total hypothetical, before some data-scraper program gets too excited. Okay?

Sigh. I don't mean to get all worked up, but the rumor mill can be really frustrating sometimes. I particularly dislike that it tends to drown out smaller, but more concrete media news items that I find much more interesting. On the animation front, Dreamworks' "Peabody and Mr. Sherman" recently got pushed back to 2014, and "Me and My Shadow" was pulled from their slate, preceding a potential round of layoffs. And we just got a new batch of promotional material for "Ender's Game" - you know, that movie that Harrison Ford is actually appearing in this November. It's nothing as big or exciting as the recent rumors, but at least these stories are actually real.
---

This post has been a long time in coming. I've written before how it can be tough to be a television fan when you like niche media. Television programmers are merciless and will move lower rated performers all over the schedule with hardly any notice, air episodes of a serialized program out of order, and refuse to run promotions where anyone can see them. With "Community" coming back soon, and a bunch of cancellations recently announced, there's been a good amount of grumbling. "Ben & Kate," "Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23," "Alphas," "Drop Dead Divas," and "Leverage" are recent casualties.

However, two cancellations that have caused the most outcry are Cartoon Network's "Young Justice" and "Green Lantern: The Animated Series," which we only know about because they didn't appear in the press release announcing the network's upcoming schedule. Both shows were part of the heavily hyped "DC Nation" programming block, which by all indications had good ratings, but perhaps weren't attracting the right demographics. The first sign that something was wrong was back in the fall. Both shows came back after a three month summer hiatus, but only aired two episodes before they were unceremoniously yanked from the schedule for another three months. There was lots of speculation as to what might be going on behind the scenes, but even people who worked on the shows didn't have any information. When it became apparent that the whole block was cancelled, fans gnashed their teeth, but the older ones weren't surprised. Cartoon Network is notorious for stunts like this.

The kids' channels get away with a lot more fiddling with their schedules because their young audiences are less likely to call them out on it. However, Cartoon Network's programs, particularly the action cartoons and the repurposed anime, always had a decent sized cult following among adults. This includes me. And over the years, the network has done some absolutely rotten things to their fans. Cancelling shows that ended on cliffhangers and sticking low performers in bad timeslots is just the tip of the iceberg. Cartoon Network has the frustrating habit of sitting on unaired episodes of a cancelled series for months. "Generator Rex," for instance, was an action show that lasted three seasons, and was pulled from the schedule in February of last year. Cartoon Network didn't air the last half of the season until the following December and January, and for most of the break it wasn't clear if the remaining episodes were going to air at all. This wouldn't have been so bad if "Generator Rex" was a comedy show like "Spongebob" or "Adventure Time" with interchangeable episodes, but "Rex" was a serialized adventure story with long plot arcs building up to a big series finale. Two episodes still got cut and remain MIA, probably destined for DVD premieres.

DC fans will remember similar shenanigans with the scheduling of "Justice League Unlimited," where the final episodes kept being pushed farther and farther back and eventually most frustrated fans were pirating broadcasts from the UK, where they premiered three months earlier than in the US. The same thing happened to the initial runs of "Sailor Moon," where delaying key episodes prompted many viewers to jump ship for local syndicated broadcasts. Note that these delays were not due to production issues - animation is a perilous and time-consuming process, so some delays are always expected - but fans knew the new episodes were ready because they were finding them elsewhere. Mostly Cartoon Network delays are just them finagling with the scheduling to boost ratings or stretching out the useful life of their content. Sure, all networks do this to some extent, but you can at least expect a regular network program to air twenty-some episodes a year, and they only vanish or get delayed if there's something goes seriously wrong. Moreover, these shifts are extremely well documented by the press. Nobody much cares about the cartoons except the poor schlubs who never gave up watching them, so the programming decisions are less rule-bound and much more opaque.

Then there's Cartoon Network's refusal to cancel anything. When asked why "Young Justice" and "Green Lantern" weren't on the new schedule, a Cartoon Network rep would only say that, '“Shows will run their courses, others will premiere – but we are not canceling anything, and those two series are still on our air.” Staffers who worked on the DC shows later confirmed that production had ended. The thing is that Cartoon Network never officially cancels anything. They just opt not to order more episodes. Thus, they evade ever handing down bad news, occasionally leaving shows in extended limbo and confusing their viewers. After years of dealing with the song-and-dance act, it's clear that a show is dead when they stop promoting it and when the key creative talent moves on to new projects. It's only recently that some creators have started making unofficial statements on Twitter or personal blogs, putting a halt to the speculation. Before this some unfortunate fans would hold out hope for a resurrection of their favorite show for years.

It's actually pretty rare that a cartoon show cancellation raises the amount of fuss I've been seeing around the internet for "Young Justice" and "Green Lantern," but they were pretty popular. This begs the question why would Cartoon Network cancel them at this point, after only two seasons apiece. I think the crux of the network's problems has always been that it's good at attracting older viewers, but is fundamentally a kids' network. Ratings for anyone over the age of eleven just don't count as highly, because it's not who their advertisers are interested in. I'm guessing that DC Nation just wasn't pulling the numbers with the 2-11 year olds that it needed to. I'm not kidding when I say that Cartoon Network hates me, and other fans like me, because if there are more of us watching a show than the kids they were trying to target, it means they screwed up.

Look at the new schedule, and it reflects Cartoon Network's embrace of it's biggest performers with the younger demographics - "Adventure Time" and "Regular Show." The new "Teen Titans"? Aimed much younger than either of the current DC shows. There's also a new "Batman" incarnation, because while the Caped Crusader has plenty of older fans, he's always done well with the kids too. It's always the shows that skew older that seem to cause the most trouble, but to Cartoon Network's credit, at least they're still making them occasionally. And it was their interest in the adult demographic that led to Adult Swim and the rise of more toons aimed at grown ups.

So in spite of everything, I'm glad they're still around, even if they do drive me crazy. Happy 20th Cartoon Network. And if you delay the next Fionna and Cake episode of "Adventure Time" again, there will be hell to pay.
---

No, you read that right. In light of all the articles that have been circulating about the most anticipated films of 2013, I was going to spend today's post comparing my happy thoughts about my most highly anticipated films of 2012, written up a year ago, with how they actually turned out. And then I stumbled across a list I had written of my most anticipated films at the beginning of 2009, which presents me with a much more interesting opportunity. 2009 was only three years ago, and yet our memories of the movies that came out that year have receded fairly quickly. Most have already started appearing on cable television, and exited "New Release" status in our DVD and streaming queues. In some cases, people's attitudes towards certain films have shifted very quickly, and in interesting ways. Consider this a "where are they now" retrospective of sorts.

Avatar - The biggest film of 2009 in so many ways. It is still the highest grossing film of all time, still constantly referenced in all discussions of 3D presentations and new projection technology, and emblematic of a certain type of CGI-heavy event film that the studios are depending more and more heavily on. However, "Avatar" has faded from the public consciousness pretty quickly. It's apparent from the lack of a lasting fandom, minimal interest in the upcoming sequels, and a certain degree of derision in certain circles about its "Dances With Smurfs" storyline, that "Avatar" was just a passing fad. James Cameron disappeared back into the ether, perhaps for another decade, and poor leading man Sam Worthington still barely registers in the mainstream consciousness. However, the raised ticket prices and 3D conversions "Avatar" propelled remain with us.

Watchmen - Remember when this was the most anticipated film for every comic book fan, the movie that was supposed to usher in a new era of adult-oriented superhero films at last? Yeah, that didn't turn out so well. Director Zack Snyder won over some fans with his faithful visuals and willingness to embrace darker themes and adult content. However, just as many viewers were repulsed, confused, or just underwhelmed. "Watchmen" failed to cross over to general audiences, and its underperformance at the box office severely curtailed the studios' appetite for more R-rated comic book films. Zack Snyder would go on to make another costly fanboy-oriented bomb, "Sucker Punch," and was then recruited to helm the "Superman" reboot. Superhero films are still very popular, but Snyder will have to learn to love the PG-13 rating.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - It's amazing how fast the "Harry Potter" franchise is becoming part of the past. Currently "Twilight" clones dot the 2013 landscape, while the biggest remaining "Potter" contribution seems to be the higher and higher numbered sequels. "The Half-Blood Prince" was highly anticipated at the time because of a lengthy delay due to the writers' strike, and the beginning of the ramp-up to the series' end. However, reactions to the film were mixed, especially regarding its big reveal, which was handled with inexplicable clumsiness. Speeding along the series passage into oblivion was that these later installments became more and more kid-unfriendly, and harder to market to anyone but existing "Harry Potter" fans.

The Princess and the Frog - A real heartbreaker in more ways than one. This was supposed to be the big return of Disney to the traditionally animated musicals of the 1990s. It had an all star team of animators and a big marketing push behind it. Alas, the box office returns were only so-so. "Princess and the Frog" was much beloved by some audiences, but failed to connect more widely. It wouldn't be until 2010's CGI "Tangled," that Disney Animation would have a real hit on its hands again, and traditional animation has largely been abandoned as economically unfeasible. Nowadays, you'll still find the heroine Tiana on Disney Princess merchandise, and at the theme parks, but it feels like she doesn't get nearly as much love as she should.

Public Enemies - Remember when Michael Mann making a movie about gangster John Dillinger, starring Johnny Depp, sounded like a good idea? This remains one of the most inexplicable films of 2009, a sparse period drama with little exposition, shot on handheld digital camera. The style was so distracting and the narrative so inaccessible, it detracted from the good work being done by the strong cast. "Public Enemies" eventually turned a profit, but it was a major disappointment for those grown-up viewers who were hoping for something with a little more charm and substance in a fairly lackluster summer. Michael Mann hasn't directed another movie since, though he did contribute the pilot episode of the terribly unlucky HBO series "Luck."

Star Trek - Of course, 2009 did have its bright spots. One of the brightest was the resurrection of one of the most beloved science-fiction geek franchises, "Star Trek." J.J. Abrams assembled a perfect cast, took the Enterprise out of storage, shined up his lens flares, and sent us all on a rip-roaring space adventure. Sure, the plot was kind of flimsy and there was a notable lack of plausible science in the science-fiction, but the 2009 "Star Trek" reboot was exactly the kind of enjoyable romp that the series needed to get back on its feet. It proved popular with newbies and old school Trekkers alike. "Star Trek: Into Darkness" is one of the most highly anticipated 2013 summer films as a result.
---

2013 marks the fifteenth anniversary of the landmark anime series "Cowboy Bebop." I don't think it's the best anime series ever made, and perhaps it was never the most popular or influential, but it's the show that made a definite mark on the industry and the culture, particularly in the U.S., where it helped to popularize anime for the internet generation. I'm such an old school anime fan, I finished watching the series on rented VHS tapes back in the early 2000s, but I suspect most people came across "Bebop" on one of its late night airings on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim block.

As always, picks are unranked but ordered by airdate, and I will totally cheat and count two-parters as single entries. There are moderate spoilers ahead:

Asteroid Blues – The show's first episode introduced bounty hunter "cowboys" Spike Spiegel and Jet Black of the beat up spaceship Bebop. There was already some controversy when it first aired in Japan, due to the violent content. However, it also quickly established the mood and tone of the show, which was very adult, very action-oriented, and very, very cool.

The Ballad of Fallen Angels – At its heart, "Cowboy Bebop" is noir, and this was the episode that would make that clear as it set up the series' biggest story arc: Spike Spiegel's past in organized crime and the lost love he gave up everything for. Most remember "Angels" for the tour de force action scenes, wonderful use of music, and the introduction of the series' central villain, Vicious.

Jamming With Edward – Many "Bebop" fans were skeptical about the final member of the Bebop crew who joins up in this episode, the hacker kid Radical Edward. Fortunately Ed is a feral little nutter who works by her own peculiar logic, and is neither too precious nor too strange. Instead, she lends a good amount of comic energy to the stories where she appears. And yes, Ed is a girl.

Toys in the Attic – Many "Bebop" episodes paid homage to different film genres. This was the show's spoof on "Alien," where an unknown creature stalks the crew aboard the Bebop. Lots of horror movie clichés get turned on their heads, and we're treated to the sight of Spike trying to light a cigarette with a flame thrower as he tries to steady is nerves before facing the monster.

Mushroom Samba – The one where Edward takes the lead for once, chasing down bounties on a desert planet that is one giant blaxploitation genre homage, while the rest of the crew gets high on mushrooms. This is one of the weirdest, most out of bounds, and most side-splittingly "Bebop" outings, a playful comic romp that thoroughly indulges the show's sillier side.

Speak Like a Child – I really admire "Bebop" for creating a leading lady like Faye Valentine with such a strong personality and equally formidable flaws, but it wasn't until they started delving into her past that I realized there was much more to her. Faye's tragic backstory would unfold over several episodes, but this was the gutpuncher, the one where we finally learned what was at stake.

Wild Horses – After the space shuttle Columbia disaster happened, this episode about Spike visiting an old spaceship mechanic friend, was pulled from the Adult Swim rotation for a while. Some of the scenes in the episode may still resemble actual events a little too closely for comfort, but I find the ending scenes more poignant than ever. And in its own way, it's a fitting tribute.

Pierrot Le Fou – Spike is targeted by an assassin with telekinetic powers, and spends most of this installment in a thrilling cat-and-mouse chase with his pursuer through a futuristic theme park. "Bebop" was highly regarded for its animation, particularly the action sequences, and "Pierrot le Fou" features some of the best. The assassin is also one of the series' most formidable and creepy antagonists.

Hard Luck Woman – I always liked the lead up to the show's finale a little better than the finale itself, because it's all about the show acknowledging change. Faye and Edward both look for answers about their pasts, answers that inevitably led them away from the Bebop. As much fun as they had playing bounty hunters, it couldn't go on forever, and sadly, neither could the show.

The Real Folk Blues – The ending two-parter has all the things you expect from a big finish, including lots of action, lots of emotion, and decisive conclusions to all the outstanding conflicts that the series had been building up over twenty-six episodes. But what makes this ending so memorable is that it wasn't afraid of finality, taking Spike Spiegel's story to the only place it could logically go. And sending him off with style.

See you Space Cowboy!
---

Finally finished all three of last year's animated horror movies. When I saw Sony Animation's "Hotel Transylvania" back in October I didn't think I had enough material for a whole post, so I resolved to wait until I'd seen the other two, and thankfully I didn't have to wait very long. Laika's "Paranorman" and Disney's "Frankenweenie" didn't do very well in theaters, and have popped up inother places pretty quick. It's a shame, because both are pretty solid little flicks, and deserved more attention than they got.

Ranking these three, "Hotel Transylvania" ends up on the bottom. This is not to say that it's a bad film. I think it's actually the best thing that Adam Sandler and a gaggle of his usual collaborators have been associated with in ages. Sandler lends his voice to Count Dracula, who has secluded himself in a remote castle far away from humanity to raise his little girl, Mavis (Selena Gomez). The castle doubles as a hotel for his monster pals, a vacation spot where they can get away without worrying about torches and pitchforks. I wasn't thrilled with the amount of crude humor and tired Sandler schtick that made its way into the film, but at least it's very restrained. The SNL alum-heavy cast dialed back considerably to keep this kid-friendly. This is also easily the least scary movie of the bunch, and the Dracula, Mummy, Werewolf, and Frankenstein we meet are all firmly in the middle-aged family man stage of life.

The result is a sweet little parent and kid bonding story, dressed up in the morbidly fun trappings of an old Universal monster picture. If you're familiar with the old Rankin Bass stop motion movie "Mad Monster Party," this is more or less the same thing, but updated for modern kids, with a little more plot to go with it. The big selling point is really the comedy, though I don't think the cast deserves much of the credit here. "Hotel Transylvania" is loaded with inventive little visual gags, like shrunken head doorknockers and a skeleton mariachi band. There's always something interesting to look at, even if it's only in the corner of the frame. We can thank veteran TV animation director Genndy Tartakovsky for the strength of the visual design work, and for keeping the proceedings very light and fun and energetic. It's hard to believe that this is his first theatrical feature, considering how deft a hand he is with animation.

"Frankenweenie" is another Tim Burton passion project, and thankfully a far more well-realized one than last summer's "Dark Shadows." It's a remake of Burton's 1984 live-action short film of the same name, where a little boy named Victor (Charlie Tahan) is so upset by the death of his beloved dog Sparky, that he finds a way to raise him from the dead. Both versions of "Frankenweenie" are loving homages to old monster movies, chiefly James Whale's "Frankenstein." I was a little worried about the new animated movie being entirely in black and white, when it's already retro stop-motion, but what Burton accomplishes with the visuals and the mood is absolutely worth it. There is some downright gorgeous cinematography in this movie, summoning an appropriate atmosphere of creeping dread. Also, Burton never lets you forget for a second that the revived zombie dog, energetic and lovable as he seems, is still a decomposing corpse.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's quite enough story to support a whole movie. Burton got some parts right, building up the relationship between Victor and Sparky, and making Sparky a more sympathetic character. However, the expansion of the plot to include a controversial teacher, the machinations of Victor's science fair rival, and Victor's crush Elsa van Helsing, didn't do much for me. The windmill sequence at the end of the film feels tacked on, and it looks an awful lot like the one at the end of Burton's "Sleepy Hollow." Then again, there's an earlier sequence involving a gang of the neighborhood kids, their pets, and the misuse of science that is one of the most entertaining pieces of creative mayhem that I've seen in a while. "Frankenweenie" has some flaws, and I expect it's always going to be a hard sell to most audiences, but it's very successful at being what it wants to be, and affirms that Tim Burton has some creative spark in him yet.

Finally there's "Paranorman," which is also stop-motion animation and also contains homages to older horror movies, mostly of the B-movie variety. The story follows Norman (Kodi Smit-McPhee), a gloomy little boy who can see ghosts and other supernatural things that no one else can. This makes it hard for him to relate to his family and get along at school, where he's bullied for being different. I like how gently subversive the story is, the way that it takes common horror tropes and finds news twists on them that help to get its point across. Laika is an independent studio, and not afraid of going to places where the big studios won't go. So it's not afraid of tackling topics like bullying and prejudice, and yes, this is the movie where it turns out that one of the characters is gay. "Paranorman" has some story issues, and isn't quite as focused as it should be, but in the end it's a movie that has something to say and isn't afraid to say it.

I think one of the reasons "Paranorman" didn't do as well as it should have is that it's kind of funny looking, and I mean that in a good way. All the character designs are awkward and slightly grotesque, making Norman and his friends look very different from the cuddly heroes you see in most CGI kids' films these days. It takes a little whiel to get used to the style, but once you do, you really appreciate how well-done the animation is. The attention to detail in this movie is extraordinary. It's easy to get forget, in some of the more mundane environments like schools and bathrooms and neighborhood streets, that everything we see was specially constructed in miniature. However, that impeccable craftsmanship really comes to the fore when we come to the stunning, intense finale scenes, which have some of the best special effects work I've seen all year. Of these three movies, "Paranorman" is easily my favorite.

Looks like we're quickly filling up that deficit of animate Halloween movies. Here's hoping we get more like 'em.
---

It's been a very good year for American animation, and maybe if it had been a worse one, I would be feeling more charitable toward Dreamworks' "Rise of the Guardians." Five years ago I'd have given it a pass for at least being something original and staying away from pop-culture references and dance numbers. However, Dreamworks has made some great movies recently, and its competitors keep raising the bar too. And so it's become disappointing to walk into an animated holiday film and discover that it's perfectly suitable and entertaining for small children, but has no greater ambitions. "Guardians" is an absolutely gorgeous picture, has a very good idea at its core, and is executed with no shortage of enthusiasm and creativity. The potential for a very good film is here, but in the end it's only average.

"Rise of the Guardians" presents the appealing idea that Santa Claus (Alec Baldwin), the Easter Bunny (Hugh Jackman), the Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher), and the Sandman, who speaks only through pantomime, are members of a group of Guardians, charged with protecting the children of the world. They owe their powers and very existence to children's wonder and belief in the imaginary. The dreaded return of the boogeyman Pitch Black (Jude Law), prompts our heroes to ready themselves for battle. However, they need the help of a newly appointed Guardian, Jack Frost (Chris Pine), a childlike sprite who came into existence about two hundred years ago with no memory and lacking in purpose and direction. None of the children believe in him the way they do in the others, so nobody can see him. Jack's not keen on becoming a Guardian, but is convinced to come along on the adventure to perhaps learn a little more about himself.

"Guardians" features some inspired worldbuilding. Director Peter Ramsey and the Dreamworks animators do a fine job of translating William Joyce's more rough-and-tumble versions of these familiar characters from the "Guardians of Childhood" book series. Here Santa Claus is a jovial Russian giant who wields a pair of swords, the Easter Bunny is a grumpy Australian beast with tribal markings, and the Tooth Fairy resembles a jewel-like hummingbird, who collects baby teeth because they contain memories of childhood. The best character is the most underused one, the Sandman, whose ability to manipulate golden dream sand provides some of the film's most arresting images. Jack Frost is a classic brat, but not too much of a brat to win over our sympathies. The Guardians all have their own special powers, and three of them rule over fantastic realms and command hordes of helpers. This all looks wonderful on the screen, and there seems to be no end to inventive visuals - Santa's bustling workshop, Bunny's subterranean realm, and the Tooth Fairy's swarms of tooth-collectors, miniature versions of herself.

The film runs into problems, however, trying to tell a coherent story in this universe. Focusing on Jack Frost brings up all these questions about the fundamental nature of these characters that the filmmakers have trouble addressing. If no one believes in Jack Frost, how do people even know his name? If seeing is believing, shouldn't letting more kids see the Guardians solve the belief deficit that threatens their powers? Furthermore, Jack's clearly been in existential crisis for a long while, so why hasn't he asked his fellow fantasy beings for some of the most basic answers about his situation before now? At the beginning of the movie he's clearly aware of all the other Guardians and has some understanding of how they operate. And why on earth does a film with such a strong winter theme seem to take place mostly around Easter? It's common for there to be logic gaps in kids' films, especially ones with these elaborate fantasy concepts, so some suspension of disbelief is expected. "Rise of the Guardians," however, has a universe with such poorly defined rules, badly established mythology, and glaring inconsistencies, they're a major stumbling block. The film spends a lot of time trying to explain things, but offers few answers. Also, it doesn't help that Jack Frost's story arc hits so many conventional beats, with nearly all the biggest hurdles coming down to basic failures in communication.

I'm convinced that there's a better movie in here somewhere. There are some nice vocal performances, particularly from Hugh Jackman and Jude Law. The ideas are intriguing enough that I want to see them fleshed out more. If "Rise of the Guardians" is akin to a junior version of "The Avengers," as some have claimed, then the absence of the lead-up origin stories is sorely missed. I reiterate that the movie is a perfectly decent distraction for children, and has enough big set-pieces and shiny spectacle to keep most adults moderately amused for ninety minutes. However, it's not on the level of "Brave" or "Wreck-it Ralph" or "Paranorman," or even Dreamworks' own "Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted." And that's a real shame.
---

What happens to all your favorite video game characters when the arcade is closed for the night? "Wreck-It Ralph" imagines that they can travel to different games via their power cords and interact with each other when they're off the clock. The games themselves form their own separate little universes, where the characters live and work. One such game is "Fix-It Felix Jr.," an old-school "Donkey Kong" style action game where the villain, Wreck-It Ralph (John C. Reilly), tries to bust up an apartment building while the hero, Fix-It Felix Jr. (Jack McNabray), races to repair the damage. But on the 30th anniversary of the game's debut, Ralph is getting tired of being the bad guy and being treated like a menace. So he decides to break the rules and prove he can be a hero.

"Wreck-It Ralph" was made for multiple generations of video game lovers, the grown-ups who remember the days of 8-bit graphics and quarter-eating machines, and the kids more familiar with first-person-shooters and high-definition CGI avatars. The movie is full of references and cameos from dozens of different video games, some that only the older gamers who were around for the 80s are going to pick up on and appreciate. The big question is whether non-gamers and younger gamers are going to enjoy the movie. I think they will, because the Disney Animation artists have done a great job of constructing a full and fascinating universe to explore, with some very appealing conceits. In the "Wreck-It Ralph" world, like "Toy Story," the game creatures are aware that they exist to follow their programmed code and entertain the gamers, and their worst fear is that that their games will become "Out of Order" permanently, and unplugged.

Despite all the advertising featuring so many familiar game characters like Sonic and Q-bert, they only have minor cameos. Ralph and the film's original characters stay firmly center stage. Most of the action takes place in three games created for the film: "Fix-It Felix Jr.," a violent first-person-shooter called "Hero's Duty," and a candy themed go-cart racing game, "Sugar Rush." Ralph sneaks into "Hero's Duty" to try his hand at fighting aliens, meeting the tough-as-nails Sergeant Calhoun (Jane Lynch). Later he ends up in "Sugar Rush," where he befriends a bratty little wannabe racer named Vanellope (Sarah Silverman). "Sugar Rush" is especially eye-catching, a world where everything is made of candy and sweets. And the writers do not hold back with the candy-related puns.

Where "Wreck-It Ralph" is weakest is in its writing. The story is fairly simple and predictable, with a lot of old clichés and few surprises. I found the characters were strong enough to keep my attention, though. Ralph is a loveable, big-hearted galoot, but his frustrations with his lot in life lead him to make some rash and selfish decisions. I think Vanellope is going to be the hardest sell, since she's the kind of aggravating little moppet who some viewers will find too grating to take, but the inevitable friendship that develops between these two misfits is genuinely touching. The minor characters are also used very well, especially when Felix and Calhoun get paired up trying to track down Ralph.

And then there are the visuals, where "Wreck-It Ralph" is a constant delight. Even if you don't care about the story, it's hard not to be impressed by the abundance of inventive little details. Several of the characters in "Fix-It Felix Jr.," notably Felix himself, have a few frame-skipping pose-to-pose motions and vaguely blocky designs to reflect how they appear on the game screen, though most of the time they're rendered in typically flawless CGI animation. "Sugar Rush" has a full roster of racers for Vanellope to compete against, who I fully expect to see as a line of dolls in time for Christmas, along with countless candy citizens filling the stands during their races.

I can't think of too much to take points off for. Okay, the use of a certain pop song in a training sequence was pretty groan-inducing. And I don't think that Vanellope's creative insults are going to go over well with some parents. However, this is a major accomplishment for Disney Animation. I don't think I've ever seen a video game film that's come off as well as this, combining potent nostalgia with cutting edge technology. I've never considered myself a gamer, but there weren't many of the references that went over my head entirely. Video games have worked their way so deeply into modern pop culture, I think this one is going to appeal to a much wider audience than people might expect.

And though it wasn't based off of an existing property, there's no denying that "Wreck-It Ralph" is a video game film, made by exactly the right crew of gamer nerds and geeks who understand and love them best.
---

Dreamworks Animation's output is steadily improving, and there's no better evidence than the third "Madagascar" installment, "Europe's Most Wanted." The "Madagascar" franchise has always been a second-stringer, heavily reliant on its celebrity voices, and always a little cheaper and more rushed-looking looking than Dreamworks' bigger titles in recent years, "Kung Fu Panda" and "How to Train Your Dragon." This time out, however, the property has been given the royal treament. The visuals have undergone a massive improvement. There are new characters who are actually exciting and fun and well-conceived. And though I still think there are some pretty glaring issues in the writing, there is no doubt that "Madagascar 3" is all-around the most thoughtful and well-executed "Madagascar" movie, and the best overall by a wide margin.

For those of you unfamiliar with the "Madagascar" series, it's about four animals from the New York Central Park Zoo, Alex the Lion (Ben Stiller), Marty the Zebra (Chris Rock), Melman the Giraffe (David Schwimmer), and Gloria the Hippo (Jada Pinkett Smith), who are mistakenly shipped to Madagascar, and have to learn to survive in the wild, endure culture shock, and find their way home. In "Madagascar 2" the intrepid group got as far as the African continent. "Madagascar 3" lands them in Europe, where they attract the unwanted attention of a proper villain, Captain Chantal DuBois (Frances McDormand) of Animal Control, prompting Alex and his friends to hide out with a traveling circus. The circus is where we're introduced to newcomers Vitaly the Tiger (Bryan Cranston), Gia the Jaguar (Jessica Chastain), and Stefano the Sea Lion (Martin Short).

The trouble with the first two "Madagascar" movies was that they never really fleshed out their characters or did anything interesting with them aside from some minor pratfalls and low-level gags, ending with a big dance number set to an old pop song. They weren't bad, but they were predictable and a little lazy. Alex the Lion is more or less Ben Stiller acting like he would in a typical Ben Stiller comedy, while the other three dutifully recite their pop-culture references and one-liners, and play out minor subplots that don't have much to do with the bigger story, which moves forward only incrementally. The new installment is immediately more ambitious, creating a bigger scope, giving the story more stakes, and the plot actually has real momentum. So suddenly everything is much more exciting and meaningful. There's still too much catch-phrase based dialogue, and a few characters who feel like afterthoughts, but the circus angle gives everybody more to do, and provides a back story for the new players that is compelling and fun.

The animators were clearly glad to see the series move out of the jungle, because they do not hesitate to go utterly bonkers with the colorful circus imagery, the European settings, and the new characters. They also let the visuals get much more abstract and cartoony, creating these fantastic action and performance sequences that don't look like anything we've ever seen in a "Madagascar" movie before - or any other Dreamworks movie for that matter. This is especially apparent with the nefarious Captain DuBois, who follows in the grand tradition of single-minded Looney Toons villains so intent on catching their prey, they won't let anything get in their way. I don't think Dreamworks has had a more memorable villain in any of their animated films, and I was sad that we didn't get more of her.

It's apparent that the filmmakers put some real effort and some real heart into this movie, which was great to see after two "Madagascar" installments that were mediocre at best. I am not prepared to say that "Madagascar 3" is on par with the best Dreamworks movies because they still had to work with the same four bland central characters and there were some bits of the "Madagascar" formula that they couldn't do away with entirely. The pop songs show up right on time. However, "Madagascar 3" is not only watchable for adults, it's actually pretty entertaining, and suggests good things ahead for Dreamworks. This could have so easily been another dull, rote, uninspired sequel like the latest "Ice Age," but it wasn't. Instead, it was one of the best surprises I had this year.

Though the story is open-ended enough that could be a fourth "Madagascar" movie, everything about "Madagascar 3" suggests it was conceived as a grand finale to the series. The penguin characters will be getting their own spin-off film in 2015, but thanks to Dreamworks' crowded schedule, the earliest we'd be getting a potential "Madagascar 4" would be in 2017. So this is the last that we'll be seeing of the main characters in theaters for a long time. But if they're gone for good, I'm glad they went out on such a high note.
---

I've had a weird sort of existential day, so you're getting a weird sort of existential post as a result of writer's block and a slow news day. I decided to just catalog all the dead ends I hit today, or all the posts that didn't actually get written.

"Community" Delayed, Everybody Panic - By now you've probably heard that NBC is delaying the season premiere of "Community" from October 19th to the dreaded TBA. The Internet was full of wails and lamentations, and it seemed like everyone was lining up to lob insults at NBC's mother while also nursing the hope that this meant "Community" might be able to avoid the dreaded Friday night slot it is currently set to occupy. Having no more insight than anyone else on the situation, and having no desire to rehash all my grievances about NBC's treatment of the show or Dan Harmon again, I decided this was a non-starter. Oh, I'm as mad about the delay as anyone else, but it's kind of a familiar, oh-you-again, kind of mad. Venting more spleen at this point would just be repeating myself.

"Peanuts" at the Movies - I got a little farther brainstorming this one. Blue Sky Studios, best known for making the "Ice Age" movies, just announced that they had won the rights to make a new "Peanuts" animated feature, due in 2015. Charles Schulz's family will be heavily involved, but that hasn't quelled any of the apprehension over the prospect of CGI versions of the beloved "Peanuts" characters. There have been a lot of varied reactions to the news, but I had my own angle - I'd write about the four theatrically released animated "Peanuts" movies that CBS and Paramount made, starting with "A Boy Named Charlie Brown" in 1969. As an 80s kid I've seen all of them, and remember them very fondly. It would also be a chance to shine a spotlight on some older, weirder "Peanuts" media that has mostly been forgotten. However, it has been a very long time since I watched any of these, and my memories of them are a little hazy, especially of the third and fourth films. That meant the resulting post was probably going to end up being another nostalgia-heavy meandering down memory lane, and I just did one of those with the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" post! Next!

Ignoring the Director - I just listened to that free in-theater director's commentary that Rian Johnson released for "Looper," and I thought it was pretty lackluster. Lots of long pauses and Johnson's a mumbler. He's also one of those directors who is very focused on technical details, which is great if you're talking to film-savvy folks, and not so great when you're talking to a general audience. Meanwhile, the "Prometheus" DVD hit shelves yesterday with a bunch of extras and deleted scenes and it's reignited the whole controversy about how deep the film actually is and what director Ridley Scott intended to say. And those would have been my two big, timely examples as to why sometimes it's best to just ignore the director and take the film at face value. Didn't feel like I had enough to back up my conclusion though, and it felt like I was picking on the directors, which I didn't want to do. I think my real gripe with "Prometheus" is with the overzealous fans, who took one look at the little Easter Egg that referenced "Blade Runner" and concluded that this meant Ridley Scott intended for the "Alien" and "Blade Runner" universes to be connected. Instead of, you know, just a neat little in-joke.

Choose Your Own Hype - Staying with "Looper," I had the realization a few days ago that I hadn't seen a single trailer or commercial for the film, and had done my best to avoid all the traditional forms of hype, but I still went to see the movie in theaters. So how did that happen? And I would have cataloged all the different, less obvious forms of media promotion that people don't tend to think about, like all the pieces on time travel that bloggers wrote in anticipation for the film, and the whole debate over "Looper" swapping out Paris for Shanghai due to the influence of its Chinese distributor, and the erroneous report that "Looper" was the first film to debut with higher numbers in China than in the U.S. Even if these stories weren't directly about the film, or the making of the film, or interviewing the people associated with it, simply by discussing "Looper," the entertainment news was keeping it in the public eye. And even if I didn't choose to consume any media like podcasts or reviews related to "Looper," the fact that every single one of my weekly review shows was discussing "Looper" and I had to purposely avoid them still made an impression. Does it sound like I'm reaching? Yeah, I thought so too.

Notes on the Presidential Campaign - What? No. Just, no. We're not going there.

Tomorrow I'll write up a review on the "Arrow" premiere. And we'll get back to normal.
---

If you're a fan of animated films, you might have noticed that we're in the middle of a glut of horror-themed cartoons. Laika's "ParaNorman" arrived last month, Sony Pictures Animation's "Hotel Transylvania" came out this past weekend, and Tim Burton's "Frankenweenie," based on his 1984 live action short, is due in theaters tomorrow. Of course, this could all be a coincidence. Looking at the producing studios' prior output, Laika's last film, "Coraline," was horror-themed, and all of Tim Burton's animated work has had more than a tinge of the macabre. "Hotel Transylvania," which is really more comedy than horror, spent years in development hell before finally emerging as a finished film, and no one could have predicted it would be at the same time as the other two. And it makes sense for all these projects to be released close to Halloween to take advantage of the spooky holiday spirit.

But still, it's a heck of a coincidence. We've had a "Monsters vs. Aliens" here and an "Igor" there, but rarely more than one or two animated horror titles a year, and usually spaced well apart. I have a couple of theories, one of which is that more than one creative genius decided to try their own spin on a kid-friendly horror cartoon, as it's a promising little genre with plenty of material waiting to be explored. There are so many animated films being released now, and it can be a struggle to make any single picture stand out from the crowd. There's definitely an increasingly famiiar pastel-hued, children's picture book aesthetic that a lot of recent CGI films have adopted. Horror films are a license to get away from that, with a more extreme color palette and wilder designs. It's no surprise that "ParaNorman," "Hotel Transylvania," and "Frankenweenie" are all very visually distinct, tell completely different stories, and are difficult to confuse.

Or maybe it's something a little deeper than that. The American feature animation industry has blossomed in recent years, and we have multiple studios that are thriving financially. The competition among the major players, including PIXAR, Dreamworks, Blue Sky, Sony, Disney, and Illumination, has really heated up, and we keep seeing the bar for quality pushed higher and higher. PIXAR landed two Best Picture nominations at the Oscars in 2010 for "Up" and 2011 for "Toy Story 3," which were lauded for being more thematically serious and challenging. And yet, American animated features have always been limited to very family-friendly, mainstream pictures. We saw some experimentation with more adult ideas for a while, when animators were still seeing what CGI was capable of. This lead to some interesting features like the dystopian "9" and action-adventure "Beowulf," but none of these did particularly well. However, foreign animated films for grown-ups have had more success, and we're regularly seeing gems like "Persepolis," "Waltz for Bashir,” and "Chico & Rita" in the art houses.

Animation fans have often traded theories about how to make Americans more accepting of more adult animation, which would allow for a wider range of stories. However, the conception of animation being children's media is so deeply ingrained, I think any change in attitude is going to be incremental over a long period of time. So how do you push at the boundaries and do something challenging if you don't have PIXAR level talent, and you want to stay kid-friendly enough to attract a paying audience? You make something scary. You create something that parents have to think twice about bringing the littler kids to see, because the warnings are implicit in the choice of material. If you're a smaller studio like Laika, you make "Coraline," a stop-motion horror film that was genuinely frightening. Horror is one of those few genres that can straddle the line between kid-safe and truly adult, that can tap into some very dark themes while still maintaining a friendly exterior. "Coraline" has lots of great visual spectacle, but it also features a sinister doppelganger of the young heroine's mother, who lures the girl into a fantasy world full of disturbing doubles of people from her real life. And when "Coraline" does well, you follow it up with the ghosts and zombies of "Paranorman."

In 1993, Disney took a major gamble backing "Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas," which has become a cult classic and probably the defining Halloween-themed animated film of this generation. All the other horror cartoons that followed since owe "Nightmare" a major debt. It's fitting that Burton's back with "Frankenweenie," which looks to be another very risky film. It's a monochromatic homage to older horror flicks that its target audience probably won't be familiar with. But then again, who can resist a new spin on the classic boy and his dog story? As we go into opening weekend, the box office forecasters are predicting that "Frankenweenie" is going to get crushed by "Taken 2" and the much more accessible "Hotel Transylvania," but there's a lot be said for he fact that the "Frankenweenie" feature actually got made. And there's always the chance that like "Nightmare," it'll find its audience over time, because it's been established that the audience for these slightly older-skewing films does exist.

I doubt that there are many people who want to see all three of the latest animated horror films in such quick succession, but there are clearly a lot of people who are game for one or two of them. And that's enough.
---

Hello! If you don't know the drill by now, what follows are links to previous blog posts I've written, along with updates and further thoughts that I wanted to put down, but I didn't feel warranted an entire new post by themselves. Lots of television and superhero related stuff this time. Here we go.

Can We Talk About the Justice League? - After the success of "The Avengers," there's been a lot of chatter about an upcoming "Justice League" film that would skip the individual introductory films and just go straight into a big team adventure. Will Beall was hired for scripting duties, release dates have been rumored, and Ben Affleck was offered the chance to direct, which he declined. The most interesting wrinkle here is that it Warners is going to fast track this movie, they're not going to wait for a Batman reboot, opting instead to introduce the new version of the character in the "Justice League." Also, it's not clear if the film will have any direct connection to "Green Lantern" or the upcoming Zack Snyder "Superman."

Where Are the Female Directors? In Television! - Alas, only one Emmy nominee to add to the list this year, Lena Dunham for "Girls" in the Direction for a Comedy Series category. Good luck Lena!

Keeping Up the Theatrical Habit and The New Dominant Media - As we're slogging through the post-summer doldrums, financial analysts keep charting further declines in the fortunes of the movie studios. This past weekend, theaters had the lowest attendance numbers in over a decade, and there appears to be no relief in sight. There has been another round of studio soul-searching as a result. Gavin Polone wrote this great piece about the comparative quality of current television and the movies, detailing the dysfunctional movie development process that that favors unoriginal concepts and franchise properties. This is the reason why it feels like you've seen everything playing at your local multiplex already.

My Second Annual Holiday Wishlist - I've been pretty happy so far. "Akira" has been put on the back burner at Warners. "Twilight" is giving way to "The Hunger Games." Nobody spoiled anything too important about "The Dark Knight Rises" or "The Avenger" for me, and Josh Larsen is doing a pretty good job so far at filling the shoes of Matty Robinson on the Filmspotting podcast. On the other hand, that last "Doctor Who" Christmas special was only so-so and the fourth season of "Community" remains a giant question mark.

A "Munsters" Reboot? Really? - Bryan Fuller's "Munsters" reboot is now "Mockingbird Lane," starring Portia de Rossi and Jerry O'Conell as Lily and Herman, with Eddie Izzard as Grandpa. A four minute trailer for the pilot was shown at Comic-Con over the summer. There was some talk of the series being a prequel focusing on the courtship of Lily and Herman in their younger days, but the current version has newcomers Mason Grant and Charity Wakefield in the roles of Eddie and Marilyn, so it looks to be a pretty straightforward update of the original series.

Evil Queen Ascendant - After seeing all of their movies, I wasn't too impressed with most of the villainesses I discussed. Julia Roberts in "Mirror, Mirror" was pretty mediocre. Charlize Theron's role as Meredith Vickers in "Prometheus" showed some potential, but it was completely squandered. Her nasty evil queen in "Show White and the Huntsman" was much more fun, but the movie was pretty blah. As for Catwoman, I have no complaints about the Anne Hathaway performance, but I wasn't all that enamored with her either. To date, my favorite villainess of the year is Marge Nugent from "Bernie," played by Shirley MacLaine.

Thundercats" Ho! - After twenty-six episodes on the Cartoon Network, it does not appear likely that the new "Thundercats" reboot is going to get a chance to come back and finish its story, which ended on a cliffhanger. The ratings sank after the premiere, and the show's creators are starting to scatter to other projects. It's a real shame, because I've recently caught up with some of the later episodes, and the quality of the animation and the worldbuilding and character development stayed pretty stellar throughout the whole run. The worst part is that this will probably discourage studios from doing similarly ambitious shows in the future. Oh well. At least I've still got "Korra."

I Gotta Talk About "Wonder Woman" - Finally, last week Vulture reported that the CW is going to try and crack the "Wonder Woman" reboot after David E. Kelley's version went down in flames last year. It's currently only in the earliest scripting stages, with the working title "Amazon," and will likely be an origin story skewing to a much younger audience than the last one. Note that there's also supposed to be a "Wonder Woman" feature film in development, which might complicate things.
---

A few days ago, Dreamworks Animation revealed their schedule for an ambitious slate of movies to be distributed by new partner 20th Century Fox, twelve titles in the next three and a half years. To put that into perspective, Dreamworks has only released eighteen CGI features in total since 1998, including a few odd Aardman and PDI titles. PIXAR has only done thirteen since they started in 1995. The full list is below.

The Croods (March 22, 2013)
Turbo (July 19, 2013)
Mr. Peabody & Sherman (Nov. 1, 2013)
Me and My Shadow (March 14, 2014)
How to Train Your Dragon 2 (June 20, 2014)
Happy Smekday! (Nov. 26, 2014)
The Penguins of Madagascar (March 27, 2015)
Trolls (working title, June 5, 2015)
B.O.O: Bureau of Otherwordly Operations (Nov. 6, 2015)
Mumbai Musical (working title, Dec. 19, 2015)
Kung Fu Panda 3 (March 18, 2016)
How to Train Your Dragon 3 (June 18, 2016)

There are only four sequels in the mix, which is a relief, though I guess "The Penguins of Madagascar" is more of a spinoff, especially since there's that Nickelodeon cartoon of the same name currently airing. "How to Train Your Dragon" is definitely being positioned as the studio's next major franchise, with the next two sequels scheduled in prime summer territory. "Kung Fu Panda 3," on the other hand, wasn't announced until earlier this year, and will be the first project of Oriental DreamWorks, the new Shanghai based studio. In a similar vein, the Mumbai musical formerly known as "The Monkeys of Bollywood" is going to be spearheaded by Dreamworks' production studios in Bangalore, which opened shop in 2008. Add the stateside campuses in Glendale and Redwood City, California, and Dreamworks is certainly building up the infrastructure it's going to need to handle all these different films.

As always, the big concern is that by ramping up the quantity of features, the overall quality is going to go down. I'm also a little worried about the amount of animation that 20th Century Fox is going to be handling. They also have their own animation studio, Blue Sky, that does the "Ice Age" movies and has "Epic" coming out next spring, though Blue Sky only releases about one movie a year. Animated films are notoriously complicated and require years to complete. The idea that Dreamworks Animation could be delivering four different films in one year, at this stage in the studio's development, is kind of mind-boggling. Disney has only managed numbers like that once or twice, and that was when they were partnering with multiple studios like PIXAR that were working mostly independently. It's a big gamble for Dreamworks to bank on their being able to get the Indian and Chinese units up to speed fast enough to meet some of these deadlines. From the state of "Puss in Boots," which was the first big project of the Bangalore studio, they still have a ways to go. I'm going to be very, very surprised if we don't see a few of these dates moved back or even a project or two dropped along the way.

It's always difficult to tell when you haven't seen any of the footage yet, but I'm the most excited about some of the non-sequel projects. "Me and My Shadow," will be a combination of CGI and hand-drawn animation, and feature a shadow taking control of the boring human he's attached to. "Happy Smekday!" is an adaptation of a children's book by Adam Rex, and is about a Christmastime alien invasion. And though it can't possibly be the film that I want it to be, I am very curious about what Dreamworks is going to do with "Mr. Peabody & Sherman," based on the old Jay Ward cartoons. On the other hand there are some oddball projects on the list like "Trolls," which is based on the kitschy troll doll toys with the rainbow hair that I thought had gone out with the 90s. Also, it's a little disappointing not to see any mention of projects like "Interworld" "Captain Underpants," and "Truckers," which we know Dreamworks has the rights to. Guillermo Del Toro is namechecked in the latest press release, but there's no sign of the horror story "Alma," which he's supposed to be working on the development of.

Still, it's going to be a couple of very interesting years for Dreamworks, and we'll see if they can pull this off without cannibalizing themselves or getting too squeezed by an increasingly competitive feature animation industry. We're at the point where we're regularly seeing about ten to twelve major American animated features every year, and if Dreamworks' strategy is a success, we may see even more. The Weinstein Company has already beefed up their acquisition slate and will be releasing four animated films next year.

It's a good time to be an animation fan. Let's enjoy it while it lasts.
---

There are so many reasons to love Cartoon Network's "Adventure Time." It's a traditionally animated cartoon series that takes place in a free-form, abstract fantasy world called The Land of Ooo. It operates by kid logic, so mountains can be alive and have feelings, your best friend can be a dog that changes sizes at will, and there are lots of different princesses who are mostly really cool, except for the Lumpy Space Princess, who is kind of a drag. The animation is old school, and I mean rubber-hose limbs, Looney Toons cartoon physics, squash-and-stretch old school. Character designs are simple, but have the energy and spirit of children's drawings. Our heroes, Finn the human (Jeremy Shada) and Jake the dog (John DiMaggio), are mainly concern themselves with having awesome adventures, but often find themselves getting into difficult moral conundrums that require creative thinking to resolve. The stories are smartly written, bursting with weird and wonderful ideas, and it's no wonder "Adventure Time" has attracted such a passionate fanbase.

Over the past few weeks I've watched several episodes at random to familiarize myself with the show, along with a lot of clips. I liked them all, more or less, but there was only one episode where everything really clicked for me, and I found myself really getting attached to the characters. And wouldn't you know it, that was the infamous "Fionna and Cake" episode, where the characters appear as gender-swapped versions of themselves for that single episode only. Now Finn's a perfectly fine hero kid, but the second I laid eyes on Fionna, the kind of rough-and-tumble girl they used to call a tomboy who was "all about swords," I wanted to see more of her. Her design appealed to me – Fionna is pretty much just Finn with a shock of blonde hair and a hippier torso. This means she's refreshingly free of traditionally feminine visual indicators, even the ones people don't really think about like clothing and choice of weapons. And she gets to come to the rescue of the prince that she might kinda have a crush on, voiced by Neil Patrick Harris. And do battle with the evil Ice Queen who is always trapping people in blocks of ice. And, in the end, Fionna decides for herself that she's not really interested in dating anybody just yet and would prefer to remain focused on adventuring. Alas, in the closing moments it's revealed that the whole episode has been fanfiction written by Finn's regular enemy, the Ice King (Tom Kenny).

So now I'm stuck, a newly minted fan of a version of "Adventure Time" that really doesn't really exist aside from one very special episode, and the promise of another sometime in the nonspecific future. The only way to get more of Fionna and Cake is to delve into fandom content, which is always a tricky prospect, especially for kids' shows. Then again, Fionna and Cake only exist in the first place because one of the artists on the show, Natasha Allegri, posted a bunch of unofficial drawings and comics featuring the pair on her Tumblr. The reaction was so positive, that the "Adventure Time" creators decided to incorporate them into the show itself, which makes it one of those incredibly rare times when something fan-created became part of actual canon. Many, many "Adventure Time" fans have embraced Fionna and Cake, so there's no lack of interest in their further adventures. I've seen plenty of fanart featuring Fionna around, along with abundant cosplay photos. And it just brings up again that Cartoon Network has been pretty bad about putting out shows with female protagonists in recent years, even though they've been called out on this so many times.

But back to "Adventure Time." The more episodes I watched, the more apparent it became that it really was only that one Fionna and Cake episode that I had connected with. Watching Finn and Jake on their adventures is okay, but I'd much rather be watching their girl (and cat) versions, and I can never quite make myself put those feelings aside. I do appreciate everything that "Adventure Time" has managed to accomplish, but I just can't seem to enjoy it on its own terms now. This is a very odd relationship to have with a cartoon, and I'm not sure how to fix this. I'm not sure that I can fix this.

This has been one of my weirder adventures in media, but I guess that's kind of appropriate in this case.
---

This isn't a proper and objective review of the recent adaptation of Dr. Seuss' "The Lorax," because, frankly, it does not deserve one. I tried to give the new "Lorax" the benefit of the doubt. I really did. I'm not very attached to the original story and don't have any nostalgic feelings about the book or the cartoon version from the 70s. I was expecting to sit through an hour and a half of brightly colored Seussian nonsense and spectacle, employed in the service of retelling a very old and familiar tale. The spectacle is all I got.

From the very beginning when I heard that "The Lorax" was being made by Illumination Entertainment, creators of "Despicable Me" and "Horton Hears a Who," I knew that they were taking a risk. So far, their films have been fun, but totally weightless fluff. "The Lorax," on the other hand, is a story about something quite serious. It has very clear moral and social messages to impart, messages that had to be treated respectfully, or else the story would not work. To be fair, Illumination's "Lorax" does present many pro-conservation, pro-environment, anti-corporate, and anti-consumerist ideas and arguments. However, they are imparted very glibly and gently, perhaps too gently. Sure, we've all sat through awful pro-environment cartoons before, the ones that hit you over the head with the worst case scenarios that could result from pollution and deforestation, but at least they were wholeheartedly behind their messages.

"The Lorax," by contrast, comes across as much more flippant about its raison d'être. Part of this is the fault of all the story padding, which was necessary to turn a 45 page children's picture book into an 86 minute film. In the original, a nameless little boy living in a polluted wasteland visits the Once-ler, whose face we never see, to learn how his home came to such an awful state. The Once-ler tells the story of how he destroyed the once abundant surrounding forest to enrich himself, despite many warnings from a creature called The Lorax. In the movie version, the little boy is now named Ted (Zac Efron), and a huge portion of the film is taken up with his crush on a pretty girl, his life in a town where all the greenery is artificial, and the machinations of a new villain, O'Hare (Rob Riggle), an unscrupulous businessman who sells clean air.

Once we finally get to the Once-ler (Ed Helms), his story has been significantly altered and expanded too. The Once-ler is made into a sympathetic character, a young entrepreneur in the flashbacks, who at first befriends the Lorax (Danny DeVito) and all the woodland animals. It's only after a lot of invented hijinks and slapstick that the Once-ler lets his ambitions get away from him and destroys the forest. The actual destruction is drastically de-emphasized, and most of it happens over the course of a single song number. The events that took up most of the original "Lorax" add up to about five minutes of the movie. Meanwhile, we have multiple subplots, chase sequences, songs, and Betty White playing Ted's dotty old grandmother, that have been added to keep the movie light and entertaining. And all these pleasant little distractions end up completely smothering everything about "The Lorax" that made the story a classic.

The movie goes to great lengths to remove or lessen the impact of anything that could be seen as upsetting or controversial, and ends up seriously undercutting itself. The forest is destroyed, but it happens quickly, and the film barely gives us any time to feel sad about the poor animals being displaced. The Once-ler is completely neutered as a villain, and O'Hare is far more silly than threatening. The Lorax, who was originally a lone voice of reason against the nightmare forces of industrialization run amok, comes across as more of a pestering orange grump, since the fight for the forest is so brief and the Once-ler is merely misguided, man, rather than a real meanie in need of reform. And the bad consequences of deforestation? Ted's plastic hometown seems perfectly happy despite having to pay for fresh air. Heck, Ted only goes looking for the Once-ler in the first place because his girlfriend wants to see a real tree.

"The Lorax" that Dr. Seuss wrote is a morality tale, perfectly simple and straightforward and easy for children to understand. The movie is a compromised, bloated, unwieldy thing that pays lip-service to the book, but doesn't understand it. Sure, you could make a good "Lorax" movie with songs and jokes and pretty colors, but without seriously addressing the concerns that were at the heart of the story, all you have is soulless fluff. And I'm afraid that's what the movie is. It's a terrible missed opportunity for Imagination Entertainment, and a disappointing waste of great material.
---

Note that the title of this post is not the top ten superhero films. In fact, I'll be leaving out the superheroes almost entirely, in order to focus on some of the more oddball, lesser known movies people might not have realized were based on comics. I also leave out the movies based on newspaper comic strip characters like the "Charlie Brown" movies and "The Addams Family." Here goes nothing:

A History of Violence - I wasn't keen on the film until I heard that David Cronenberg was directing and Viggo Mortensen was playing the lead. Few people realized that this smart, dark thriller about a seemingly average family man with a shady past was based on a 1997 graphic novel. Critics praised it for its unusually realistic portrayal of sex and violence, including shots of the unpleasant aftermath of fight scenes and gun play. It's a very adult film, both in content and in approach, though reportedly considerably toned down from the original comic.

Akira - Many find the animated "Akira" film to be incoherent, and fans of the manga frequently suggest that if you want to know the real story of the famous Capsules motorcycle gang of Neo-Tokyo, you're better off reading Katsuhiro Otomo's multi-volume epic. I love the film version though, for being one of the creepiest, most visceral, most abundantly R-rated animated films ever made. The epic, horrific finale sequence alone makes this an anime classic. In fact, the film made such an impact and was so notorious in the 90s, for a lot of people it was anime, for good or bad.

American Splendor - Harvey Pekar candidly charted his unpredictable life and brushes with fame through a series of independent comics. The film adaptation, displaying a refreshing self-awareness and sense of fun, takes the unusual step of occasionally having the real Harvey and his wife Joyce appear in and comment on the dramatization of their lives, where Harvey is played by Paul Giamatti and Joyce by Hope Davis. The story, despite the fourth wall breaking, is about ordinary people trying to live ordinary lives, and it's wonderfully touching and strange.

Ghost World - I was tempted to include the Terry Zeigoff documentary about Robert Crumb on this list, but I'll have to settle for his adaptation of Daniel Clowes' "Ghost World," the tale of two cynical teenage girls. One of them, Enid (Thora Birch), becomes friends with a middle-aged man named Seymour (Steve Buscemi), which has unexpected consequences for both them both. "Ghost World" has no ghosts, but it is one of the better films about teenage alienation. It is especially recommend for too-smart girls of a certain age, like me when I first saw it.

Men in Black - I love "Men in Black." I love its silliness, its bizarreness, and its refusal to treat the human race as anything special. Nope, we're just another species in a galaxy that is overflowing with strange alien life forms. Planet Earth is in danger of destruction with alarming regularity, so thank goodness for the Men in Black organization. And thank goodness for Will Smith in his prime, landing every joke as he played off the wonderfully deadpan Tommy Lee Jones. And director Barry Sonnenfeld, for bringing the the visual spectacle and the satirical atmosphere.

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind - The beloved anime director Hayao Miyazaki also wrote and drew manga. His most substantial work was "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind," which became a celebrated 1984 animated film. Based on the first two volumes, "Nausicaa" is a post-apocalyptic adventure story with thoughtful environmental and anti-war messages. It was made just prior to the formation of Studio Ghibli, but has almost all the hallmarks of their productions, including gorgeous traditional animation, a strong heroine, and memorable creatures.

Oldboy - Yep, this was based on a manga too, though only loosely. Park Chan-woo took the bare bones of the story and characters, and created a far more violent and shocking tale of a man imprisoned for years for reasons unknown, who is then unleashed upon the world. It is the centerpiece of Park's Vengeance Trilogy, has become a cult favorite. Hollywood has been trying to remake it for some time now without success. It's hard to imagine that any mainstream director would be able to keep the taboo plot twists and jarring violence of the original intact.

Persepolis - Marjane Sartrapi wrote the original "Persepolis" graphic novels based on her own experiences, growing up during the Iranian Revolution, and her rough adjustment to living in the West. So it was fitting that she directed the animated version herself, with Vincent Paronnaud. As a result, the film is extremely faithful to its comic source. "Persepolis" is in black and white, traditionally animated, and very frank about religious and sexual matters to the point where the film has become the subject of controversy and censorship in Muslim countries.

Road to Perdition - Originally a graphic novel by Max Allan Collins, the film version directed by Sam Mendes is probably best remembered for its spectacular cinematography by Conrad Hall. Set during the Great Depression, it follows the journey of a father and his young son. The father, played by Tom Hanks, is an enforcer for the mob. His boss, played by Paul Newman in one of his final roles, has divided loyalties and perhaps cannot be trusted. "Road to Perdition" was a popular and critical success, but a few of the comic's fans were still upset about a slightly altered ending.

V for Vendetta - Yes, I'm well aware of the muddled ideology of the film that severely waters down the entire point of the Alan Moore graphic novel. But good grief, I enjoy the hell out of it nonetheless. I love the visuals, especially the wonderful use of the Guy Fawkes masks. I love so many individual sequences like Valerie's letter and the domino scene. I also think it has one of Natalie Portman's best performances, as Evey Hammond transforming from frightened victim to revolutionary. Yes, it's flawed and compromised, but it's also frequently an intriguing and entertaining piece of work.
---

Has it really been twenty years since "Batman: The Animated Series" premiered? Good grief, it's true. Time for a little nostalgia, boys and girls.

"Batman: The Animated Series" premiered on FOX Kids back on September 6, 1992, when I was young enough to still be genuinely frightened by some of the episodes. Before this, I only knew Batman from the campy 60s series with all the Bat puns, and a few glimpses of the Tim Burton's "Batman" movies that I wouldn't watch until I was older. It was my first introduction to characters like Poison Ivy, Scarecrow, Bane, Killer Croc, Ra's Al Ghul, Clayface, and Two-Face. And it was, I suppose, my first real exposure to the noir genre, through the wrenching tragic tales of villains like Harvey Dent and Mr. Freeze. Throughout the 90s I kept telling myself that I had to stop watching cartoons and grow up, but how was I supposed to give up a show that was telling me such dark and interesting stories, that it hardly seemed like a cartoon at all? I was glued to the television set every weekday at 4:30PM for years.( Read more... )
---

I'm very behind on television posts. I know the first season of "The Legend of Korra" ended a while ago, but I just finished off the first season. Need to put down a few thoughts here. Spoilers ahead!

First, I'm a little disappointed that that new series doesn't quite operate independently from the previous series. You definitely don't get the full impact of the show unless you've watched "Avatar: the Last Airbender," and you're familiar with the old characters like Katara and Iroh, and you already understand concepts like the Avatar State. "Korra" is very plot-driven, and there often isn't time for the character development that the first series was so good at. So the creators wind up relying on a lot of ideas and relationships that were previously established. This makes "Korra" very much a sequel series that plays best to a slightly older audience that is familiar with the "Avatar" universe already.

This is not to say that "Korra" isn't a perfectly good watch. I think it's better than the first year of "Avatar" by a pretty wide margin, and it gets through much more complicated material more quickly. By the finale it's juggling a bigger cast of regular characters, including Korra, Mako, Bolin, Asami, Tenzin and his family, Lin Beifong, and the various animal sidekicks. I don't think that the villains are nearly as compelling as Zuko and Iroh, but Amon and Tarrlok certainly have their moments. The season's big conflict with Korra battling the Equalist movement was ambitious and intriguing, and it certainly did its job as an action series with a fast pace and lots of inventive combat. The animation and the soundtrack were superb throughout.

Where I think the show faltered a bit was with the characterization. The show moved way too fast in the romance department, before we really got to know the kids. I think the show really could have used a few episodes that centered on specific characters to get a little deeper into their backgrounds and their personal growth. Korra had several, but Mako and Bolin were definitely a shortchanged. The ad copy made a point of telling us that it was almost unheard of for siblings to have different bending powers, but nobody brings it up in the actual show. There are a few mentions of how the boys had a rough time growing up on the streets, but that's never expanded on either. Asami and her father, who are fairly minor characters, end up with a better arc than they do.

And then we have the appearance of General Iroh right before the big finale episodes. He's got Zuko's voice actor and is the namesake of one of the best characters from the first show, so he's surely someone important. If you didn't know any of this, the General is an odd blank, a new ally who wastes no time in getting in on the action, but he's more of a symbol of outside forces that haven't been dealt with yet, than anything else. On the other hand, there are characters who do get fleshed out nicely despite limited screen time - Lin Beifong, Tenzin, Pema and the kids, Tarrlok, and in a roundabout way Amon too. I was surprised at how well the characters were used, and there were a few good plot twists that I didn't see coming. Heck, nobody got the truth about Amon right!

And of course there's Korra. I've liked the character since the beginning, but her development's not as satisfying to follow as Aang's was. She's still the same brash, spirited, can-do young Avatar-in-training that she's always been. She's made some friends, fallen in love, and had to overcome some tough opponents and situations, but has she really grown or changed? Maybe. It's not so clear, because the show juggles so much, and Korra's spiritual awakening has been on the back burner for most of the season. And depending on how you interpret the ending of the last episode, her struggle isn't nearly as epic or arduous as Aang's. Then again, Korra is older, her story is very different, and the show itself is working with a different format and constraints.

"Korra" has set itself up very well for a second season, and a third if we're lucky. I may be hard on the show, but I'm very grateful for it. I love the "Avatar" mythology, the wonderful worldbuilding, the kickass characters, and I count myself lucky for the opportunity to spend more time in this universe. I think "Korra" could be better, but it's pretty damn spectacular already, and I can't wait for next year.
---

Maybe it was too early to be anticipating the 2013 movie slate, especially considering how many 2012 movies have been delayed, but I had my heart set on seeing one particular film as soon as I heard about it: "Frank or Francis," the Charlie Kaufman scripted musical satire of the entertainment industry, that would have starred Jack Black, Kate Winslet, Steve Carell and many more. The assumption was that it would be shooting early in 2012, and be released some time in 2013. Now the project has fallen apart. While "Frank or Francis" isn't dead, there's no telling when it will ever be made, if at all. Kaufman is one of my favorite modern filmmakers and I was bitterly disappointed about the delay. It was my own fault, and I should have known better, but it's already been such a long wait since Kaufman's last major film, "Synecdoche, New York," the one that was responsible for my brief existential crisis back in the summer of 2009.

And then I heard about "Anomalisa," an animated short film that Kaufman has scripted for Starburns Industries Inc, a stop-motion animation outfit that's probably best known for their work on the "Community" Christmas special. Among the executive producers are recently ousted "Community" creator Dan Harmon, and Starburns himself, Dino Stamatopoulos. It's being funded through a Kickstarter campaign, which raised their minimum goal in eight days, but is still accepting pledges for funds through the beginning of September. I kicked in my $20, an amount that will get me a digital download of the finished film when it becomes available. Higher amounts net contributors fancier goodies, including signed scripts, DVDs, Blu-Rays, set visits, props, invitations to attend the premiere, and more. It's been estimated that "Anomalisa" will be finished sometime next May, which means the world will get at least 40 minutes of Kaufman-related media in 2013.

Okay, so I'm not really paying $20 to see "Anomalisa." I'm sure that once the short has been finished and distributed through the usual channels that I'll be able to find a way to see it for much less than that. However, I am contributing to the very existence of this piece of media, and that's a very new and empowering thing. After "Frank or Francis" went off the rails, and Harmon departed from "Community," it felt good to be able to do something for them, to signal that even if they were getting battered by Hollywood, they still had us plebes. If Anomalisa were a regular movie, being released by one of the studios, I don't know that I'd pay to see it in theaters, honestly. But since its very existence depends on those revenues, I find that I'm very willing to pay for my ticket well in advance, and with a healthy premium too. In fact, there are a lot of movies I'd pay extra to see exist, instead of having to choose from the endless flow of mainstream-approved sequels and remakes that Hollywood has been churning out.

Crowdfunding is a really fascinating new funding model, because it gives fans the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is at last and support their favorite artists with concrete contributions, not just cheerleading and fanart tributes. At the time of writing, over three thousand people have contributed to "Anomalisa," about half of them in the $20 tier with me. Sure, none of us have very deep pockets, but it adds up. And we've enjoyed a remarkably well-run campaign. The people in charge have responded to requests for different incentives, adding contribution tiers for Blu-Rays and digital downloads. They've answered questions, provided updates, and Harmon and Stamatopoulos appeared in a thank you video that went up on the site a few days ago. Right now it's only smaller productions that are being funded this way, and the amounts raised are miniscule next to the budgets of the usual Hollywood studio productions. Still, the $280K that "Anomalisa" has raised so far is no small amount of money in the right hands.

I wish the campaign were for the production of "Frank or Francis," for which I would happily increase my contribution by a considerable amount, but I think a film of that scope and size being funded through Kickstarter is a long way off. The potential is there, though, and I'm hopeful that this will become a viable alternative for certain kinds of risky, low-budget films and other media to get themselves funded. Hollywood has been getting more and more risk-averse, so I like that it's becoming easier for the general public to take up the slack. The mechanism is imperfect, and it's definitely not for everyone, but we're getting there. I may have had to remove "Frank or Francis" from my 2013 to-watch list, but now I get to add "Anomalisa."
---

Well, I'm done with "The Sopranos." This leaves me with a little dilemma again. What show do I want to watch next? The next obvious one is "The Wire," but having just sat through eighty-something hours of Tony Soprano and his crew, I think I need something lighter and ideally shorter. So no "West Wing," no "Six Feet Under," and no "Battlestar Galactica" for now. A couple of possibilities below:

"Deadwood" and "Carnivàle" – two short-lived HBO genre series that aired during the run of "The Sopranos," one a gritty Western and one centered around a Prohibition-era travelling show with some supernatural elements. Both had their vocal fans, but neither had the ratings to save them from cancellation. This left both shows technically unfinished, which might be a little unsatisfying, but I've gotten a lot out of cancelled shows before. "Firefly" and "Twin Peaks" come to mind.

"Once Upon a Time" – I watched the pilot episode last fall and didn't like it, choosing to follow the other fairy-tale themed freshman show "Grimm" instead. However, I've been hearing lots of buzz about "Once Upon a Time," with a lot of people describing it as good guilty pleasure viewing. And I'm definitely not opposed to guilty pleasure television. I'm only one season behind, so now would be a good time to give this another try and determine whether or not I want to catch up.

"Downton Abbey" – In addition to winning practically every television award on the planet, this British period piece is relatively short, with two seasons of eight episodes apiece. Maggie Smith is in the ensemble, and has gotten a lot of press for playing the sharp old Dowager Countess. However, I'm really not much for soap operas, which I suspect "Downton Abbey" really is. On the other hand, because the series is so brief, the storylines and relationships aren't going to be dragged out forever.

"Jekyll" – There's short and then there's really short. While I'm waiting for the return of "Doctor Who" and "Sherlock," maybe I should check out the Stephen Moffatt scripted 2007 drama series "Jekyll," a modern day version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." It's only six episodes, and I've heard nothing but good things about it. Apparently it was shown in the US on the Syfy, but it remains awfully obscure and never attracted much attention Stateside. Maybe that's for a reason? Only one way to find out.

"Modern Family" – This is one of the most acclaimed modern comedies of the recent past, and I still haven't seen a single episode. I think I was initially a little turned off by some of the blander marketing, but I've clearly misjudged it. I'm very curious to see what I've been missing, but the show has never really been a priority for me. I think part of me is a little worried that it won't live up to the high expectations. Or I'll love it so much that I'll turn into one of those fans.

"The Tatami Galaxy" – This recent anime series is the latest work by director Masaki Yuasa, best known for working in the "super flat" style on projects like the experimental feature film "Mind Game." I've really loved his other work, like "Kemonozume" and especially "Kaiba." "Tatami Galaxy" aired as part of the Noitamina programming block on Fuji Television, which is devoted to animation for older audiences. I may have outgrown a lot of these shows, but once in a while I do still like a good anime.

"Adventure Time" – And speaking of cartoons, this Cartoon Network show has gone and become a massive cult favorite while I wasn't looking. I occasionally see some love aimed at "Regular Show" and "Flapjack," and of course there's the whole "My Little Pony" phenomenon that's still going on, but the "Adventure Time" fans are another breed. Stills of the colorful show don't seem to do it justice, so I know I've got to go make time to sit down with a few episodes and see what all the fuss is about.

And I still need to finish watching "Spaced." And I still need to watch the second season of "Louie." And I never did catch up on the rest of "The Big Bang Theory." And "House." And "Nikita." And there must be at least two seasons worth of "South Park" I've missed by now. And hasn't "Futurama" started up again?

Okay, I withdraw the question, guys. I have way too much to watch.
---

Oh good grief. I totally missed a cross-post. Apologies, guys

There has been a lot of press about how Merida of PIXAR's "Brave" is the studio's first female lead character, and a princess to boot. Now what are the implications of that? The Disney princesses come with a lot of baggage, and are often pointed to as questionable role models for the little girls who love them. Many hoped that Merida would be made of stronger stuff, following the lead of the more active, aggressive warrior princesses that have become so popular lately, while others worried that she'd be another example of overbearing "girl power."

I don't think that Merida (Kelly MacDonald) was really what anyone was expecting. Yes, she is a princess, but she doesn't want to be one. Being a princess, the film tells us, comes with a lot of responsibilities. Merida is being trained by her mother, Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson) to become a proper and refined lady, while Merida would much rather be out riding and adventuring. A talented archer, she takes after her father, the hulking, jovial King Fergus (Billy Connolly), who lost a leg to the "demon" bear Mor'du. Mother and daughter clash and argue, but things really come to a head when Merida learns she is to be betrothed to the son of one of the clan leaders her kingdom is allied with. The trio of Lord MacGuffin (Kevin McKidd), Lord Macintosh (Craig Ferguson), and Lord Dingwall (Robbie Coltrane) soon arrive with their offspring in tow, and Merida wants nothing to do with them, despite her mother's best efforts.

"Brave" is not your usual princess story, in that it has very little to do with romance and everything to do with healing the rift between Merida and her mother. Our heroine is also not particularly heroic to start out with. Yes, she's a fiery, red-haired, tomboyish free spirit, and that's a lot of fun, but she's also immature and self-centered, and has to grow into the hero role. I expect that some viewers might be initially taken aback by her behavior, because she's really a bit of a brat at times, grumbling over all of her mother's lessons and expectations. Of course, that's perfectly normal for a teenage girl, and I appreciate that PIXAR went this route with Merida. It makes her much more memorable and emotionally genuine than the bulk of the starry-eyed Disney girls.

Also, her rougher side is understandable in light of the rest of the family. Loveable King Fergus brings his wild and woolly warrior ways to the dinner table. Merida has a trio of impish younger brothers who are expert troublemakers, frequently stealing sweets from the kitchen to fuel their hyperactivity. They also steal the picture whenever they appear. Elinor is the only real civilizing force in family, but she's very strong and formidable in her own way. And they all live on the edge of untamed Scottish wilderness, where hunting and adventuring and going to war with people is pretty much par for the course. And then when the clan leaders show up, with their weapons in tow, some good-natured brawling is inevitable.

The film's biggest flaw is that the story is sort of a mess. The tone and pacing are all over the place, and the logic of marriages and traditions and magic and ghosts is all very arbitrary and convenient. I think the story of Merida and her mother works perfectly fine on an emotional level though, the messages are strong, and there are lots of good action and comic set pieces to keep the energy high. I was surprised at how funny "Brave" is, with its copious slapstick and some inspired minor characters. There is a witch in the film, voiced by Julie Walters, and she - well, better not to spoil it. Also, parents should be warned that there are some scary scenes involving bears that may upset very young viewers.

Of course, as this is a PIXAR film, "Brave" looks terrific. PIXAR's visuals are still head and shoulders above all its competitors. The scenery's gorgeous, the animation is fantastic, and the design work gets a lot of mileage out of the Celtic setting. There are some aesthetic similarities to Dreamworks' "How to Train Your Dragon," particularly as both movies share a couple of Scottish voice actors, but "Brave" looks quite a bit more authentic, in its own heavily stylized way, with a lot of extra little cultural touches. And only in a PIXAR movie would the most impressive visual be Merida's unruly red curls, which immediately draw the eye in every frame she appears in.

I think "Brave" is going to be one of those movies that won't work for everybody, where some people are going to find its flaws too glaring to overlook. I, however, enjoyed "Brave" more than I enjoyed "Up" or "WALL-E." I don't think that it's among the better PIXAR films, but there is no doubt that this is a PIXAR caliber film.
---

Profile

missmediajunkie

May 2014

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Style: Cinnamon Cream for Crossroads by branchandroot
Resources: Vintage Christmas 6

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jun. 12th, 2025 12:05 am

Entries tagged with animation

This Week in Rumor Control

Cartoon Network Hates Me

Whatever Happened to the Films of 2009?

The Top Ten Episodes of "Cowboy Bebop"

"Frankenweenie," "Paranorman," and "Hotel Transylvania"

"Guardians" Glitters But Is Not Gold

"Wreck-It Ralph" Brings It

A Big Goodbye For "Madagascar"

The Posts I Didn't Write Today

What's With All the Horror Cartoons?

A September Follow-up Post

Dreamworks Animation Gets Ambitious

My "Adventure Time" Problem