The Reporter reports on three big-budget movies, two of them with animation directors directing live-action for the first time.
Brad Bird, THR says, had plenty of expert assistance and came out fine. Andrew Stanton the paper isn't so sure of.
But they end on a positive note, with the help of an Anonymous Person:
... "I've got a lot of faith in this guy," one former Disney insider says of Stanton. "Remember: Finding Nemo was supposed to be the first Pixar flop." ...
Me, I think the movie will take in some good-sized grosses. The trouble is, when you spend between $200 and $300 million on a picture, you decrease the Mother Conglomerate's chances for making a profit on the movie. It's one of the problems hand-drawn animate features had in the 1990s. Their budgets doubled, then doubled again. And the big profit margins turned narrow or negative.
The same thing applies to live-action extravaganzas. The more the production budget, the less the opportunity to end up in the black.
Posts
7 comments:
Stanton made Mandrews his second unit director?!? Oh, the hubris. I cannot wait to see this train wreck.
It is interesting how people always leap to predict failure for Andrew Stanton ... they said Nemo would be a flop, they said Wall-E would be a flop. Let's just wait and see on John Carter, shall we ?
If I recall , even up to the week of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol being released weren't the naysayers still snarkily questioning whether a "mere" animation director like Brad Bird could really pull off a major action picture like MI. Haven't heard much from those people lately, although I note that The Hollywood Reporter gets it's digs in by insinuating that poor lil' animation director Brad Bird had to be helped along by second-unit/stunt coordinator vets like Dan Bradley. Nothing against Dan Bradley; he is , as THR says "a giant in the field" , but interesting that they didn't tap Dan Bradley to be the main director of MI . Wonder why that is? Maybe the mere animation director knows what he's doing , eh ? Film making is a collaborative art. Everyone brings something to the process. A good second unit or assistant director is invaluable. That's no different for a first-time live action director like Brad or a veteran live action director. The writer for THR should know that , but they obviously want to take Brad down a peg or two ...
I've worked on JC and I can tell it's awful. I don't know how it will turn out after the reshoots, but I doubt it can be saved. Everyone that worked on it knows it's stink. It seems Andrew is trying to go even more over budget, because in Hollywood's mentality if you fail, you're out. But if you fail in a massive scale, you get a second chance. Go figure.
From what I heard, Bird was kinda lost at the beginning, not knowing how to navigate through a real set. But he learned quickly and was a pro at the end.
If Disney spent $300 million on John Carter, they must be spending at least another $100 million on advertising. $3 million on Superbowl ads alone is impressive. They either truly believe in the film, or are going to spend it to success, much as Disney did with Roger Rabbit--another not very good film.
^Actually, Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a very good film (at least the one I saw. I'm not sure about the one you saw.)
John Carter may also be a good film. We must just wait and see. But from all the "insider" info, and the production costs, things do not look promising. On the bright side, we must remember that the film industry can manipulate people's interests for a film through advertising and promition. An example? Tin Tin. A typical mo-cap with a video-game plot. Somehow, despite grossing less than 100 million in the usa, and despite the widespread "fear" of anything mocap, the film industry has turned the film into the next "hip" thing by giving it the Golden Globe and plastering Spielberg and Peter Jackson's names all over the place.
JC might also be artificially bolstered if Disney throws enough money at it.
While some people have a nostalgic childhood memory of roger rabbit, no one's ever considered it a "great" film. It is not. It's got a smattering of decent (albeit relentless) animation, wrapped up in a dull story with weak characters. Certainly without Disney spending twice budget of the film on marketing, it would have done far less well. Only people in the insular world of animation would have seen it otherwise.
Post a Comment