Disney's Next Film: Taking a Disappointing Turn?

After many, many years in production, Disney is finally planning to release their adaptation of The Snow Queen this November. Well, ....sort of. The was film originally set to be released as early as 2002 and was meant to follow the Hans Christian Anderson fairytale fairly loyally (by Disney standards anyway). It seemed like an excellent choice, especially considering that The Little Mermaid was also a Hans Christian Anderson fairytale. The Snow Queen's plot is about a young girl, Gerda, who must brave dangers to save her friend, Kai, from the elusive and cold-hearted Snow Queen. The story has been adapted several times, most famously by the Russian animated feature which was released in 1957. (More can be read about that version here.)

Illustrations from the original tale by Arthur Rackham and Edmund Dulac. 

The Disney version of The Snow Queen has had such a troubled history likely due to the fact that the film entered production right after The Disney Renaissance had ended. Michael Eisner was very harsh and likely thought that this sort of fairytale film would not be successful. Many of the lackluster films produced when he was CEO were attempts to be more 'modern', but lacked the warmth and appeal of earlier Disney films (i.e. Dinosaur, Treasure Planet, Home on the Range, Chicken Little).

Eisner was eventually replaced by Bob Igner and production on The Snow Queen began again. However, the project was drastically altered. Following the new popular trend of Hollywood films, the film was given an unimaginative and cliche one-word title, Frozen. Is Hollywood implying that American audiences are so dense that that they can remember movies with names such as Hop (2011), Wanted (2008), Taken (2008), and Epic (2013)? Heck, if the executives are that lazy, they should just pitch their next film as 'Careless'. This trend has affected Disney's adaptation of Rapunzel was well. Since The Princess and the Frog 'underperformed', Disney figured that they should rename their Rupunzel movie Tangled, so that it would be a 'catchy' and 'easier to remember'.

But renaming the film Frozen is the least of the concerns. The film's plot has been changed so much that it is not even The Snow Queen anymore. Disney should try to experiment with new ideas and storylines (in fact it would be good for the company to do it more often!), but when they take a classic tale and turn it into something so generic, it only hurts the company's reputation. Here is the official press release of the plot: 

"Featuring the voices of Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel, “Frozen” is the coolest comedy-adventure ever to hit the big screen. When a prophecy traps a kingdom in eternal winter, Anna, a fearless optimist, teams up with extreme mountain man Kristoff and his sidekick reindeer Sven on an epic journey to find Anna’s sister Elsa, the Snow Queen, and put an end to her icy spell. Encountering mystical trolls, a funny snowman named Olaf, Everest-like extremes and magic at every turn, Anna and Kristoff battle the elements in a race to save the kingdom from destruction."

Frozen sounds exactly like Tangled. So much, in fact Disney might as well rename it 'Tangled on Ice'. The plot is far too familiar and lacks the character development and heart in Anderson's original tale and the 1957 version. Renaming Gerda Anna and making her a princess just seems like a cash-grab to sell little girls more makeup and Barbie dolls. The proposed character designs for the film also seem very uninspired and look a lot like those from Tangled. Disney just seems to be playing it safe and not being innovative at all. This is particularly disappointing since Disney's recent efforts seem to have been  trying to renew the spirit found in their Renaissance Era films.  

Some lovely character designs for Gerda and Kai by the late and great Herald Seipermann.

And these....are the designs for Anna and Kristoff Disney chose.

Frozen looks just like Tangled.

Here is how Gerda and The Snow Queen looked in the original 1957 film.

Here are some sketches by Seipermann of The Snow Queen.

This is what Disney choose in the end. Not intimidating.... at all!

The Hobbit: An Honest Review

Director: Peter Jackson
Company: New Line Cinema / WingNut Films
Year: 2012
Country: USA / New Zealand

Does this highly anticipated film deliver?

Every so once in a while, there is a movie that comes along which leaves you with conflicting feelings. Unfortunately, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is such a film. It suffers from being overstuffed with plot elements that were not originally from the book. Quite a few scenes are lifted from The Silmarillion (the inclusion of the Galaderial and Saruman at the White Counsel) or even created on the spot (like Radagast the Brown's rabbit sled). The Hobbit is a far simpler and shorter story than the Lord of the Rings, so really it should have been shot in two, or maybe even one movie. It is almost painful to admit that the animated TV special from 1977 actually follows the book more closely, despite its exclusion of the Arkenstone and the bear-man Beorn (not to mention its grotesque character designs).

Radagast's scenes are borderline ridiculous, involving blowdrying a hedgehog and driving a rabbit sled.

Yes, this version is actually more loyal to the book...

But by far the most glaring problem with this adaptation is the subplot involving Thorin and the white orc, Azog. Thorin already has enough of a reason to be a relatable character. He feels responsible for the loss of his home under the Lonely Mountain (which was taken by Smaug) and loathes the elves for not helping his people. Azog just seemed like an excuse to squeeze in more long, dragged out fight scenes and show off special effects. He has no character development and looks like a video game boss. (He has a giant hook for an arm. Seriously?) The excessive computer animation on the orcs and fight scenes actually makes the movie seem less real and more fake. Just compare it to the actors wearing orc makeup in the LOTR trilogy. 

Intimidating and believable orcs from the Lord of the Rings.

Unnecessary and fake-looking orcs from The Hobbit.

However, the film is not a complete disaster, far from it in fact. Andy Serkins as Golem and Ian Mckellen as Gandalf are great as always. The film does an excellent job of setting the scene in the Shire and remains easy to follow and relatively enjoyable for the first half. (Up until the point Radagast the Brown and the orcs are introduced.) The Goblin King is goofy, but definitely more enjoyable than the Azog. And of course the cinematography, landscape of New Zealand, and score are all quite breathtaking. 

Now I want to have a tour of Hobbiton.

Howard Shore is one of the best film composers of our time.

So overall, I would not recommend seeing The Hobbit in theaters. Diehard fans are sure to be disappointed and the second half of the film tends to drag on with cartoony action scenes. However, this film really is strong in places were it follows the book closely and is truly beautiful at times. For those curious, rent The Hobbit when it comes out on DVD, watch the good scenes and fast-forward through the bad ones.

Rating: 2.5/5

Can Other Studios Besides Pixar Make Quality CGI Animation?

When Pixar released Toy Story in 1995, the animation industry changed forever. Computer animated films now dominate the box office and nearly all animated features in the US are done in CGI (Overseas, traditional animation still persists.) While Pixar constantly seems able to bring us enjoyable and classic films like Monsters Inc, Ratatouille, and WALL-E (the exception being those car movies), other studios seem to struggle to be as critically or commercially successful.

The one that started it all.

Out of all the animation studios, Disney, unsurprisingly, has the greatest potential of making some of the best CGI films. The question remains, however, if they well. Many of Disney's earlier computer animated films were mediocre at best (Meet the Robinsons, Bolt) or just horrible (Chicken Little). Disney seems to have been improving drastically lately, releasing films such as Tangled and Wreck it Ralph. This gives many people mixed feelings though, as they contemplate what will happen to hand drawn Disney films in the future.

First off he is a rooster not a chicken... 

Disney you have regained my faith.

Dreamworks, Pixar's biggest competitor, has made a few memorable films such as Shrek and How to Train Your Dragon (so far their best). While most of Dreamworks' films are high grossing, the quality of their films can be somewhat variable. This is because Dreamworks tends to make films that focus more on humor and satire than the more plot oriented Pixar films. In fact, Shrek is basically just about making fun of every Disney fairytale cliche. It was giving the finger to Michael Eisner, who was the basis of Lord Farquaad. (That was pretty funny though.) Some of Dreamworks' films are just downright atrocious (Sharktale, Bee Movie) and they have a reputation of milling out lots of sequels (Shrek, Madagascar, Kung Fu Panda).

Seriously this is a modern classic.

This is not.

Blue Sky, Sony, and Illumination Entertainment tend to produce middle of the road movies at best and tend to emulate Dreamworks' style (make lots of sequels and have fast-paced humor). Blue Sky's Ice Age films tend to earn lots of dough, but probably won't stand the test of time. Sony's films are often so generic it is easy to believe that they come out of another studio (Surf's Up, Open Season). Although, they seem to have been somewhat improving lately. Illumination Entertainment has lots of fans due to Despicable Me, but the studio is also responsible for that horrible CGI-live action hybrid Hop (A rabbit that poops jellybeans, seriously?) and a rather disappointing adaptation of Dr. Seuss's The Lorax.

And there are more on the way...

Recently there has been a growing sector of photorealistic or 'motion-capture' animated films. Fueled by the technology used to bring Golem to life in the Lord of the Rings, Warner Brothers,Paramount, Square Enix and Imagemovers have made a wide variety of these films with varying quality. The Polar Express and Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn were fairly enjoyable. But other films have had a harder time avoiding the uncanny valley or suffer from terrible, cliche plots (Happy Feet, Mars Needs Moms, and Final Fantasty: The Spirits Within). Motion-capture remains controversial because many animators debate whether or not these films can truly be considered animated due to the fact motion capture is used to trace/animate over the movements of real people. (This is similar to the debate over the use of the rotoscope.)

My eyes! They Burn!

Luckily they are getting better.

Smaller Studios tend to have a harder time producing quality films because they have to conform to using tired plot formulas in order to appeal to target childern audiences and keep media watchdogs happy. Because they have less money, the animation itself is cheaper and can look very unappealing. This is the reason why many TV series and foreign films tend to prefer using traditional animation. It's cheaper and cheap traditional animation looks better than cheap CGI. Just compare Barnyard to Huckle Berry Hound or Roadside Romeo to Kimba the White Lion.

A Male Cow with Udders?!

Simplistic, yet appealing.

This picture is wrong in so many ways.

Limited animation, but it works!