Thanks to Roger Ebert’s Twitter feed, I recently read a terrific article in which writers and filmmakers discuss their most memorable moviegoing experiences. Now this isn’t the same thing as writers and filmmakers discussing their favorite movies. Sometimes the key factor is a great movie, but other times it’s the audience, the theater itself, or some personal realization the viewer comes to while watching the film. Not all of the experiences are positive and in one case, the movie in question was truly awful. It was a fascinating read and it got me thinking about what my most memorable moviegoing experience was.
I was saddened to hear of the death of animator Pres Romanillos on July 17. An extremely talented artist – some of his work can be seen on his art blog, Romanillos worked on numerous animated films for Disney and Dreamworks. Most recently, he worked on Prince Naveen in The Princess and the Frog. He had been battling leukemia and the cancer ultimately took his life at the unfairly young age of 47.
Cartoon Brew’s obituary for Romanillos includes a number of links to tributes and remembrances by his friends and family. My heart is with them during this sad time.
I wanted to see Waking Sleeping Beauty from the moment I heard about it. A documentary about the revival of Disney animation in the 80s and 90s directed and narrated by the producer of several of the films from that time sounded right up my alley. I had hoped to go out to New York to see it, but the timing never worked out. So I was very happy to discover that the film was coming to my home state, specifically one town over from where I live.
Don’t get me wrong, TaleSpindoes work. But on paper, it sounds like one of the worst ideas ever. It takes a few of the characters from an existing Disney movie and transplants them to a completely different setting, one that is totally incompatible with their lives in the original film. Let’s say you were an executive at Disney Television Animation and I came with you with a pitch for a show featuring characters from Lady and the Tramp. Except Tramp is now a truck driver, Lady runs the local trucker’s diner, the beaver is Tramp’s wacky mechanic, and Si and Am run a rival trucking company. Oh, and the story is vaguely set in the 1970s. How long would it take for you to politely escort me to the door with the parting words “Don’t call us, we’ll call you”?
And yet TaleSpin, which does pretty much the same thing to characters from The Jungle Book, is actually a good show. The familiar characters may have helped to convince audience to give the series a first look and to convince Disney decision makers to greenlight the show. (The idea that pre-established Disney characters could help a show find its audience also played a role in the development of a show about team of crimefighting animals. Then-CEO Michael Eisner suggested that the main character be replaced with Disney’s famous chipmunk duo and the series evolved into Chip ‘n Dale Rescue Rangers.) But what kept the show going and fans tuning in was the adventure filled plots and engaging character relationships. Using the Jungle Book characters as a starting point may have helped, but they were not the key element that made the show work. Anyone remember Jungle Cubs? Didn’t think so.
Perhaps you’re wondering why there wasn’t a new post yesterday. I’ve got two excuses that should add up to one perfectly legitimate excuse. One, I have a nasty cold that’s draining most of the physical and mental energy I need to write. Two, I just got back from a trip to Walt Disney World, where I got some sun, some souvenirs, and the aforementioned cold. I don’t want to leave you without any new content all week, so I’m going to share something with you, something tied in to my vacation.
The Magic of Disney Animation attraction at Disney-MGM Studios – now called Disney’s Hollywood Studios – was long one of my favorite stops when visiting Disney World. for obvious reasons. The attraction kicked off with a short film entitled “Back to Neverland” starring Walter Cronkite and Robin Williams explaining the animation process, and then gave visitors a chance to observe the real, working Disney animation studio in Florida, accompanied by short video clips of Williams and Cronkite explaining what your were looking at. The tour has undergone some changes since I first got to see it. Disney’s Orlando studio closed in 2004 and the attraction was revamped. The studio your was obviously dumped and a new film was created starring Mushu the dragon from Mulan. It’s still a good introduction to the hand-drawn animation process, but to my mind, the original film with Cronkite and Williams is far superior.
The quality of the following video is not great, since it was clearly shot while the film was being shown for an audience. But until Disney decides to release high quality movies of its old park attractions, this is the only way you’re going to see “Back to Neverland.” You may notice that the tourist outfit Robin Williams is wearing at the start of the film is the same one the Genie wears at the end of Aladdin.
I’m honestly not sure if A Goofy Movie belongs in lost animation. It is a Disney film. It did get a theatrical release back in 1995 and later video and DVD releases. It even got a direct-to-video sequel, entitled An Extremely Goofy Movie, five years later. And among many of my friends, it remains a favorite. On the other hand, it was not treated as a major Disney release; Pocahontas was the Disney feature for the year. Despite a good-sized advertising campaign, the movie kind of came and went in theaters. It came in second at the box office in its opening weekend, but earned less than half of the first place Bad Boys. It was the fifty-first highest grossing film of the year, well behind fourth place Pocahontas and the year’s biggest earner: Toy Story. I think the film often gets written off as a second tier Disney flick or a movie-length promotion for the TV series Goof Troop. That’s a shame, because A Goofy Movie is a surprisingly good film, both funny and touching.
Eddie Carroll passed away last Tuesday, April 6, at age 76. He was a talented actor known for his one-man show in which he impersonated legendary comedian Jack Benny. He was also a writer and penned some scripts for television animation. But animation fans probably know him best – even if they didn’t know his name – as the current voice of Jiminy Cricket. Carroll got the part after Cliff “Ukelele Ike” Edwards – the original voice of Pinocchio’s miniscule conscience, passed away. He started in 1973 and continued to serve as the Cricket’s voice until his death. Carroll’s spot-on imitation of Edwards’ voice can be heard in countless TV shows, video games, Disney park attractions, and anywhere else that Jiminy made an appearance since the early 70s. The L.A. Times obituary discusses his life and various talents and font of pop culture knowledge Mark Evanier has posted a nice tribute on his site, along with several follow-up posts about Carroll and his work.
I skipped seeing Bolt in theaters. I wasn’t dead set against seeing it, but I wasn’t in a rush to do so either. I found Disney’s first stab at computer animation, Chicken Little, underwhelming and a very muddled marketing campaign drove me away from Meet the Robinsons. I had also been reading about the film’s troubled development process. Originally called “American Dog,” the movie was to be written and directed by Chris Sanders, one of the two directors of the highly successful Lilo and Stitch. After clashing with new chief creative officer John Lasseter over the direction of the story, Sanders was removed as director. (He subsequently left Disney and went on to reunite with his Lilo and Stitch directing partner Dean DeBlois and direct How To Train Your Dragon for DreamWorks.) The film was given to directors Chris Williams and Byron Howard, reworked, and completed in just eighteen months. So my expectations for Bolt were not high. But Bolt did have a few things going for it, enough to make me want to watch it eventually. This was Disney’s third computer animated feature and the one to have the most input from Lasseter. The reviews, while not glowing, were positive. On top of all that, I’m a sucker for puppies. Right, Dante?
Yes, that’s right! Who’s a handsome boy? Who’s a handsome…
Over the past two decades, many a movie studio has experienced a case or two of sequelitis. The most obvious symptom of sequelitis is the production of sequels to many of the studio’s beloved classic films. The sequels started off taking the form of direct to home market releases, but as the disease progressed, some of the sequels began showing up in theaters. Though animation remains a favorite target of sequelitis, live-action films have succumbed to the disease as well. Is any film truly safe?
A sequel is not always a bad thing, even though very few movies actually need sequels. Toy Story told a complete and satisfying narrative that did not demand a continuation. But the sequel it got was a great movie, even better than the original. Even Star Wars (A New Hope) didn’t need a sequel. Had The Empire Strikes Back never been made, audiences could have assumed that the destruction of the Death Star turned the tide in the rebellion’s favor, taken what little they knew of Anakin Skywalker as fact, and gone on their merry ways. The few films that actually require a sequel because they do not tell a complete story on their own are usually sequels themselves, second films in a planned trilogy that started with a highly successful movie. Since a follow-up movie is a sure thing, the filmmakers can afford to leave viewers hanging, knowing that they will have a subsequent film to finish the story. Aside from these rare cases, most movies can stand alone.
So if very few movies need sequels, what sets “sequelitis” apart from legitimate attempts to continue the world and story of a film? The most obvious answer is “quality.” A legitimate sequel is usually made by the same creative team as the first film, stars the same voice actors, and is released in the same venue. The legitimacy of a sequel starts to drop as it deviates from the conditions under which the original was created. The original creative team is rarely on board, whether they are still alive or not. The animation may be done by an outside or overseas studio rather than the studio that animated the original film. The budget may shrink. Voice actors may be replaced. A sequel to a theatrically released movie may come out for the home market only. In the worst cases, the end result feels less like a continuation of the original movie and more like a cheap knock-off.
Saturday, March 13, would have been the 50th birthday of accomplished story artist Joe Ranft. Ranft worked on Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King among other DIsney features, and all of the Pixar films up to Cars in 2006. He also occasionally left the drawing board for the microphone, providing voices for characters like Heimlich the caterpillar in A Bug’s Life and Wheezy the squeaky toy penguin from Toy Story 2. Tragically, Joe Ranft lost his life in a car accident five years ago. The above video – a story reel, appropriately enough – was created by Disney director John Musker and originally shown at the memorial service for Joe Ranft. If you can watch all the way through and not end up with a lump in your throat, you’re made of sterner stuff than I am.
