Last movie watched...

[JOE SOAP]

Well, John Carter was originally supposed to be released under the Pixar banner ("Pixar's first live-action movie!"). Until Disney saw it and released it under their name instead to take the hit and keep Pixar's winning run.

Although wasn't it a bit of a Stanton solo run - as in less oversight and control by the PIXAR brain-trust while being made?

[blackmocco]

Maybe that's what went wrong in the end.

[JOE SOAP]

Maybe that's what went wrong in the end.

Apparently he ignored their advice when they reviewed the cuts at various stages and he went ahead with his multiple prologues that confused/bored the audience.

[Satanist]

IT FOLLOWS - A real John Carpenter (when he was good) vibe off this. Teens have sex and catch a bad dose of crabs murderous stalking thing. It follows you (slowly) forever until it catches you and fucks you but not in a good way. Only way to get rid is pass it onto someone else but if it kills them then its back to you.

I quite enjoyed it.

[blackmocco]

Maybe that's what went wrong in the end.

Apparently he ignored their advice when they reviewed the cuts at various stages and he went ahead with his multiple prologues that confused/bored the audience.

Took over the marketing too. Like I said earlier, I do have a little sympathy. I can't imagine what the pressure must be like to perform. It's very different directing an animated movie, where you quite literally have control over every single aspect of a movie, and a live-action movie where things can run off the rails in any number of different ways. (Please note, I'm not suggesting one is easier than the other to direct. Anything but. Just that when you step out of your comfort zone, maybe it's not the best idea to start with a sprawling $200 million sci-fi epic.)

[JOE SOAP]

Seems he misunderstood the 2 processes and tried to transpose one form for the other without seeing that it's not a straight swap when it comes to directing humans on sets. It seems more that the producers were afraid of him because of his friend running Disney and his success.

In animation he may have made his films 5 times over using the same process of animatics etc before it was finalised; you do that with live-action too but in a different way using multiple processes rather than one or two: script, rehearse, block, shoot, edit, FX etc. Re-doing 'everything' multiple times to fit a preconception probably dulled the film.

[blackmocco]

Seems he misunderstood the 2 processes and tried to transpose one form for the other without seeing that it's not a straight swap when it comes to directing humans on sets. It seems more that the producers were afraid of him because of his friend running Disney and his success.

In animation he may have made his films 5 times over using the same process of animatics etc before it was finalised; you do that with live-action too but in a different way using multiple processes rather than one or two: script, rehearse, block, shoot, edit, FX etc. Re-doing 'everything' multiple times to fit a preconception probably dulled the film.

Yep, there's no 'may' about it. Haha! Even here on Family Guy we end up using a pretty detailed animatic for every episode before it goes off to be animated. In feature, you can apply that thinking exponentially. Disney and Dreamworks work these things to death in pre-production (if you've ever wondered why an animated movie ends up costing north of $150 million, that's the primary reason. Years, sometimes decades of pre-production hell.) and can, more often than not, end up strangling the life out of the finished movie.

John Carter ended up being a weird hybrid because the fx elements - that stupid six-legged dog thing and even the Martian warriors - looked like they belonged in an animated movie. They weren't designed or executed as if they should be real, tangible creatures in a real-life setting.

[JOE SOAP]

Yep, there's no 'may' about it. Haha! Even here on Family Guy we end up using a pretty detailed animatic for every episode before it goes off to be animated. In feature, you can apply that thinking exponentially. Disney and Dreamworks work these things to death in pre-production (if you've ever wondered why an animated movie ends up costing north of $150 million, that's the primary reason. Years, sometimes decades of pre-production hell.) and can, more often than not, end up strangling the life out of the finished movie.

You've probably seen it but that behind-the-scenes film Disney withheld from release, The Sweat Box, shows this in action when it goes wrong.

http://www.slashfilm.com/watch-rare-disney-documentary-called-the-sweatbox/

John Favreau had a better, cheaper idea for John Carter:


http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/film/articles/192797-john-favreau-reveals-his-original-plans-for-john-carter

[blackmocco]

You've probably seen it but that behind-the-scenes film Disney withheld from release, The Sweat Box, shows this in action when it goes wrong.

Yeah it's a great, if maddening, look at how this process works. Pixar's no different though. Plenty of their movies have been pulled down halfway through and completely reworked with a new director installed. Ratatouille, Brave and The Good Dinosaur being prime examples. It's great when it works out but when a new director comes in with a completely different sensibility to the previous one, it rarely ends well. Kingdom Of The Sun/Emperor's New Groove just seemed shapeless from the start though. When you're rooting for Sting, you know you're in trouble.

[JOE SOAP]

Some of that stuff must drive people insane as they see their ideas decimated. I read Ed Catmull's book - that brain-trust room seems intimidating.

[blackmocco]

Some of that stuff must drive people insane as they see their ideas decimated. I read Ed Catmull's book - that brain-trust room seems intimidating.

Movie-making by committee. According to Thor 2's director, Marvel's movies are all run the same way. There's no lone voice and it's director-for-hire, like Pete Travis and Dredd. "Here's our movie and we need you to direct it." Brad Bird's the last of the bunch at Pixar to make his own vision there. Be interesting if he gets that freedom again after Tomorrowland's box-office and critical reception. If there's one certainty over here, you're only ever as good as your last job.

[blackmocco]

IT FOLLOWS - A real John Carpenter (when he was good) vibe off this. Teens have sex and catch a bad dose of crabs murderous stalking thing. It follows you (slowly) forever until it catches you and fucks you but not in a good way. Only way to get rid is pass it onto someone else but if it kills them then its back to you.

I quite enjoyed it.

Yep, I loved this one too. It's very divisive though. People either love it or really, really hate it.

[Ghost MacRoth]

If there's one certainty over here, you're only ever as good as your last job.

Same over here, and it doesn't matter what department, or what level you are.  10 years of outstanding achievement can be destroyed in a job that takes 6 weeks to complete.

[JamesC]

Nightbreed - The Director's Cut

I really enjoyed this. Yeah it's aged, it's a bit clunky and some of the acting's not great but there's a lot to like.
I read somewhere the the aim of Nightbreed was to do for horror what Star Wars had done for Sci Fi. They failed but they gave it a bloody good go. It's a shame it didn't do at least well enough to get a sequel as there are loads of places they could have taken it and it was obviously set up for one.
Perhaps one day someone with enough influence will get this remade, or perhaps adapted as a TV series.

[Colin YNWA]

I remember liking the comic with Jim Baike art (might have been written by Alan Grant? Can't remember) but thinking, even then, not sure it would make a good movie so never got around to seeing it. Always meant to, just never did. Might try to change that.