A Long-Overdue Animated Trailer Post

It's been a while since we looked at trailers for upcoming animated (or not) films together, hasn't it? Fortunately, there's a huge crop out in the wake of ComiCon and they include some unusual films indeed. And questionable book-to-film title changes. Lots of them.



First off, "Winnie the Pooh", a very unexpected and pleasant surprise in this overall dreadful summer, is in theaters now. This is worth mentioning because it was released on the same weekend as, and has been a teeny tiny bit overshadowed by, another movie based on a beloved British children's book.

By the way, great jarb there Disney.



Here, just to get it out of the way, is the full trailer for "Happy Feet 2: Farewell to the Flesh". You are probably already aware that I disliked the original "Happy Feet", and while I figured the sequel might improve things (this is the same George Miller who gave us the awesomely bizarre "Babe: Pig in the City"), this here trailer is... discouraging. Actually, there are several things I could say about it but I will instead say this: At about the twenty second mark, I figured the makers of this film are, in fact, f**king with us.



I love how this cute teaser for Aardman's "Arthur Christmas" openly acknowledges right from the start that it's hard to get excited about a Christmas movie in high summer. I also like how this reminds me a little of the late, lamented "Cranium Command" show at EPCOT.



One of the overlooked treasures of the young adult novel section at your local library is illustrator Brian Selznick's Caldecot winning semi-graphic novel, The Invention of Hugo Cabret. The film, directed by no less than Martin Scorsese, comes our way in November. The trailer is a bit heavy on the slapstick (and the love-it-or-hate-it stylings of 30 Seconds to Mars Frozen Embryos), but everything else looks gorgeous.



A second trailer for "Tintin" was trotted around the internet recently and... disappeared mysteriously. Hopefully, this French trailer will stick around for a while. Is it me or does it look like they're still suspiciously reluctant to show the characters' faces?



So... here's "Puss in Boots". After this is over, can we be done with "Shrek" and everything associated with same? Please? I'll be good!



And now for our most far-flung movies. Although the film doesn't hit theaters until March, Aardman has dropped the trailer for "Pirates!" already. You may have heard that they are no longer affiliated with Dreamworks. You may have also heard that Nick Park and company have been wanting to make a pirate movie since at least "Flushed Away" (which originally involved -yes- pi-rats and wound up a bit of a mess instead). I'm getting a distinct "Look at what we can do NOW" vibe from this trailer.



Finally -FINALLY!- we've got our first look at PIXAR's "John Carter" (which anyone reading a blog like mine probably already knows is, in fact, "A Princess of Mars". And yes, that is on my summer reading list.) Obviously most of the "big" effects aren't done yet, so this looks a little generic.

And Fridge Logic: Why not use "Kings and Queens" here instead?



And speaking of PIXAR, here's the teaser for "Brave". Seeing as one of PIXAR's hallmarks is the fact that they like to research their asses off, I am giddy with excitement over this one.



As far as series, and me being giddy with excitement, hey there, "Legend of Korra" trailer!



And just because I can, here's a very special find. A teaser trailer for a film that never saw the light of day. Originally, "Siegfried" was to be a full-length animated feature, but the funding was cut. The story was eventually made into a graphic novel, but the trailer, with a look somewhat similar to early period Don Bluth films, shows us we missed out on something amazing.

-----

Sketch of the Day!



I said recently I hadn't drawn enough dragons. Came up with this turtle-dragon.

Four Weirder Nutcracker Films

This year's Obligatory Thanksgiving Weekend Holiday Film is something called "Nutcracker 3D". I first heard about it via my Holiday Movie Preview issue of Entertainment Weekly, and I assumed that it was going to be essentially exactly what it sounded like: a taping of the Nutcracker ballet but in (sigh) THREE-EFFIN'-D!!!

How wrong I was.



Gaze upon what "Alice in Wonderland" hath wrought, and shudder when you realize we are going to see more - a lot more - of these. (Nightmare Fuel warning, depending on whether it's creepy wooden doll-puppets or creepy made-up animal-people that scare you. Also, people of a certain age will have horrible Large Marge flashbacks.)

Now, at first, I was going to be all like, "This holiday season, give your family nightmares!" But then I thought about it and realized that this isn't the first Nightmare Fuel-errific film adaptation of E.T.A. Hoffman's The Nutcracker, nor is it the strangest.

Let's get the Nightmare Fuel out of the way. Back in the 1980's, the Pacific Northwest Ballet allowed our old friend Maurice Sendak to put his own spin on the Nutcracker ballet. The result was filmed by Carroll Ballard (better known for outdoorsy epics like "The Black Stallion" and "Never Cry Wolf"), and released to theaters as "Nutcracker: The Motion Picture". Now, for those of you who thought "Where the Wild Things Are" was too psychological and/or weird for children, I invite you to enjoy the most normal scene from "Nutcracker". (Why did you turn Uncle Drosselmeier into a creepy uncle, Maurice? Why? )

On the surface, Mark Morris' "The Hard Nut" seems like it would be stranger than Maurice Sendak's version -- but it turns out it's actually one of the better adaptations of Hoffman's original, printed-page Nutcracker. It's still very weird; check out Charles Burns' character designs. After all this, "The Nutcracker Prince" is going to look really dull. Ah well. Now, I wanted to finish this post with something special, but sadly all footage of one particular "Nutcracker" adaptation has been pulled from the internet (except for this one Spanish scene and this one English scene. Go figure.) It's a version that is available on DVD, even though it's very obscure, and for whatever reason I loved it as a child. It's "The Care Bears Nutcracker Suite". And yeah, it's weirder than you'd expect. ---- Sketch of the Day! Got something ambitious planned for Thanksgiving morning's post. We'll just have to see if I can pull it off...

Five weirder "Alice in Wonderland" varients

(Note that this was pushed back a bit from last week, thanks to the email from IF-X. And, once again, OMG YAAAAAY!!!)
When I say "weirder" adaptations of Alice in Wonderland, I mean probably weirder. I'm really not all that jazzed about "Tim Burton in Wonderland" though some of the nonhuman character designs are a lot of fun. (Honestly, this looks like the kind of movie Tim Burton could make in his sleep now, and as Sam Adams mentioned in this recent AVQ&A, it's very sad that in the last few years, Burton has "managed to rid his work of anything vaguely inventive or personal while still keeping up the facade of being the goth kid who sits alone at lunch.")
There is something about Lewis Carroll's Alice books that makes people want to do adaptations that play hard and loose with the source material. I'm limiting myself to five today, though I can certainly think of more (for example, you can't technically say that "Lost" and "The Matrix" AREN'T adaptations -however loose- of "Alice" can you?)
This is certainly not the first Disney take on Wonderland. But while everyone knows the 50's "Alice", and Disney fans are generally aware of the early "Alice' shorts, one Disney take has faded into obscurity. In the year 1990-ish, the Disney Channel announced a new series for young children. This was around the same time Disney/MGM Studios was still in use as a working television/film/animation studio and was essentially the Disney Channel's headquarters. A massive set was built upon a soundstage in the Studios, and the series "Adventures in Wonderland" was born:




Answering the inevitable question: yes, the early 1990's really were like this. Giant anthropomorphic rabbits and everything.
I've already discussed "Dreamchild" over at The Realm. Sadly, the film is not available at Netflix (which doesn't even seem to have even heard of it). Fortunately, a kind soul on YouTube has uploaded the utterly terrifying tea party scene, so I can spread the Nightmare Fuel around. (I am indeed giving this a very serious Nightmare Fuel warning. Kids, stay far away. Adults, don't watch this late at night.)
EDIT: "Dreamchild" has recently appeared in among Netflix's instant-watch options. Enjoy.
Speaking of Nightmare Fuel. There's also the odd tendency to want to make scary, dark and edgy versions of Alice's adventures and of all the Wonderland characters. When most 80's kids think of weird versions of the Alice books, their minds immediately go to this little slice of childhood trauma (again, not embedding this because, seriously, between the creepy mirrors, the parents ignoring Alice, and the monster -however cheesy the costume is- popping up in the dark hallway, the scene seems coldly designed by committee to scar a child for life). What's especially weird about this version is that this one scary scene comes right the f**k out of nowhere; the overall tone of the miniseries was upbeat and whimsical up to this point. But you can expect to say, "What the hell" at least once during the cast list in the opening credits.
Thankfully the next two weird "Alices" are far more lighthearted throughout. This was something my sister and I watched one Easter morning for some reason. This little slice of crazy stars Mr. T as the Jabberwocky. That's probably all you need to know.
Skipping right to the middle for you. This is because, as you will see, their Humpty Dumpty is... different:



And rounding out our journey through Wonderland is yet another 80's oddity. Even as a kid sitting in the theater, I thought, "This feels like the studio wanted to make an Alice in Wonderland movie, and then for the hell of it they stuck in their most famous characters." It's not hard to find the full film on Youtube:




----
Quick movie review. I watched "Fantastic Mr. Fox" and I thought it was cute. Yes, cute. Cute is not a bad thing. It's charming and whimsical, I love the herky-jerky low-tech stop-motion animation, and I'm curious enough to see Wes Anderson do more animated films. Also, it's interesting how the more derived adaptations of Roald Dahl books are better as movies. (If you're not sure what I mean, watch "Willy Wonka" and then watch "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". I am not talking about the nostalgia filter here.) By the way, "Mr. Fox" is fine for kids, though I wonder what kids will think of it.
----
And in case you missed it, there's a fun review of an old "Simpsons" episode (it happens to be one of my favorites) that turns into a meditation on the use of pop-culture references over at the Onion AV Club.
----
Sketch of the Day!

Hocus Crocus Alimagocus!!!
----
Feederwatch Friday!
Rock Pigeon 3
Mourning Dove 1
Downy Woodpecker 2
Blue Jay 2
American Crow 2
Black-capped Chickadee 4 (!!!)
Tufted Titmouse 2
White-breasted Nuthatch 2
American Robin 2
Song Sparrow 1
Northern Cardinal 1
House Sparrow 20
----
Next week: Four-Part Walt Disney World Trip Report!!!

The Sketchbooks of summer/fall and the nadir of remakes.

Above, you'll see my last Sketchbook and my current Sketchbook. Summer '09 is a 6 x 12 '' Pentalic Nature Sketch. It was amazing for just pure drawing and for watercolors. However, it did not play well with scanners. It's weird how that factors into choosing a Sketchbook for me now. Here's a look inside:

Fall 2009 is an 8.5x11'' Cachet Earthbound I found in -of all places- Wall-Mart. I'd used one of these books before and while the unbleached paper takes a bit to get used to, it's fantastic to draw on. This is 100% recycled paper; this is paper with history. I like sketching on paper with some history.


Now as for the meat of this post, I may have to scream (or type angrily rather) and swear a lot, so sensitive readers may want to wait until Thursday, when I'll post about another Weird Disney Thing. OK? OK.
You'll notice a "Yellow Submarine" bumper sticker on Fall 2009. This is my silent protest. You see, recently, Disney announced that Robert Zemeckis is all set to helm a 3-D motion capture remake of "Yellow Submarine":
"'Yellow Submarine' is one of the greatest fantasy films of all time, and making this new 3D performance capture movie is a dream come true for me. With the latest advances in technology, we will be able to take moviegoers on a voyage unlike any other, and bring new excitement and dimension to Pepperland and the various sea worlds they encounter." - Zemeckis (from here)
.....
Robert Zemeckis. Is going to remake "Yellow Submarine". Using Mo-Cap. In 3-D.
.....
One more time. Let it a-a-a-a-a-a-l-l-l-l-l sink in:
.....
1) Robert "About to lose the Free Pass For Life I gave him for 'Roger Rabbit' and 'Contact'" Zemeckis.
2) Is going to remake as in "not bring something imaginative and new to the screen". "Yellow 'Essentially "Fantasia" with Beatles songs and one of the few full-length animated features that really doesn't look like anything else out there' Submarine".
3) Using Motion Capture technology...
4) ...In Three-Effin'-D.
5) And the reason given why he is doing this is, essentially, "Because we can."
Well, folks, we've finally reached the absolute, uncontroversial nadir of the (not as) recent (as everyone thinks) "Let's Remake/Adapt EVERYTHING!!!" trend in modern (mainstream) film-making. The word "soul-less" is coming to mind here.
Speaking of which, this exists.

Edit - Best counterpoint to this "Yellow Submarine" remake: the teaser trailer for "Beatles Rock Band". I agree, I'd love to see an entire feature done in this style:

A Crazy Theory involving "G-Force" and Barlowe's Expedition

NOTE: The following is inspired and elaborated from a brief conversation I had under the Onion AV Club interview with Grant Morrison. (And incidentally, the Clubbers did a wonderful series of interviews with writers and illustrators leading up to Comic-Con International. Check 'em out. The Seth on Classic Illustrators feature is already becoming a bit notorious.)
There is a rumor I have heard among my fellow Wayne D. Barlowe fans. It holds that his dense, strange, beautiful, and wildly imaginative illustrated science-fiction novel Expedition was optioned as a film long, long ago. If you're familiar with the book, you know that this would be sort of like basing a film on a Peterson Field Guide.
(Which is, incidentally, a hilarious idea and I will offer myself as a creature design/concept artist Pro Bono to any filmmaker friends who feel themselves up to the challenge.)
The rumor goes on to say that, after years in development limbo and lots and lots of executive meddling (our favorite thing), Expedition finally arrived in theaters in the form of, err, this:



Now, on the one hand, I have never really seen any solid evidence to support this Expedition --> "Evolution" theory. The only real clues are a vague reference to the original script being a very dark, serious sci-fi film at IMDB.com, and some of the background creatures in the film (visible in the trailer at around the twenty and thirty second marks) who have a distinctly Barlowe-esque look.
But on the other, much larger hand (did I ever tell you I am actually a character in a Michel Gondry dream sequence?), I am cynical enough to believe that absolutely anything is possible in the magical world of adaptation decay. I am sure that we all know that illustrated books (especially picture books and comic books) are hit especially hard by adaptation decay. Three words: "L.X.G." (shudders...)
So how does this relate to "Not Another CGI Rodent Movie" "G-Force"? Well, a fellow at the aforementioned Onion AV Club by the handle of Penguin had a theory that, in light of the Expedition --> "Evolution" rumor, might just be possible. Here it is:
"G-Force" = Years in Development Limbo (Executive Meddling + Adaptation Decay) + We3

----

Time for happier news: Do you like fantastic fiction? Are you a writer? Do you enjoy nice things? There are two big damn conventions you can attend this coming weekend! If you are in Montreal, you should attend WorldCon (coffee with Neil Gaiman!!!), and if you are in Chicago, you should go to Wizard World (the woman [!!??] who played Greedo will be there!) If you are crazy and live equidistant to Chicago and Montreal, why not try to hit up both?
Also, this...

My thoughts on Comicon are coming later.

On a much, much happier note, after quite a long time in development limbo, we're finally getting Spike Jones' "Where the Wild Things Are" film. And if the "Labyrinth"-ish trailer is any indication, we get to look forward to...
...well, basically what a Spike Jones adaptation of a psychologically dense Maurice Sendak picture book should look like. It's not news by now that book adaptations trigger my "prepare to hate it" response, but this looks like it'll be amazing.
By the way, as an illustrator who wrote a thesis on Sendak and his art, it amuses me to no end that the studio executives were having such a hard time with... um, issues that were in the book (and apparently bothering nobody -- but it's a movie now so we can panic now!) for the past forty-six years.😒

(See also the uproar over: "Euw the big blue guy's naked!" "OMG, there's like fifty different endings why didn't the just pick one?" "The Martians are killed by germs? That's stupid! You're stupid!" And on and on. You wonder, sometimes, if people even know what a book *is*.)

Addendum: Read this interview and prepare to be twice as excited. We're finally getting a new children's film that is about something.

St. Patrick's Day -and- "Wait, what did she mean, 'Poor Deadpool'?"

Happy Stereotype Enforcement Day! I can't outdo Cap'n Wacky or The Worst Cartoons Ever, though I do have relevant reviews at Nessie's Realm here and here.

Now the points I was trying to make in that rambling, incoherent Watchmen post last week were simply these:

* - Reading is really, really important to me. The film adaptations of the books (not to mention other media) I love the most have, in the past, been disappointing at best and terrible at worst. Therefore, any new adaptation of something I love I will meet with apprehension.

* - By far, the worst adaptations are the ones that fail spectacularly in understanding what I loved about the original.

That last bit is important. It's the reason why I said, "Poor Deadpool" earlier.
It's because this is happening. (Lots of swearing but you can't blame him.)
Now, having never read any comics where Deadpool is involved, I'm not so emotionally invested. But I do know that he is a popular character, he's very funny, and he is the favorite character of a significant number of people. So, simple question: Why in the world would you even bother using a fan-favorite character if you're just going to change everything about him?