Archive for Disney Movies

Remake of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea gets red light from Disney execs

The Los Angeles Times is reporting this morning that Rich Ross, the new head of the Walt Disney Studios, has decided to pull the plug on a remake of Jules Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.  The project was only a few months away from the start of shooting, and reportedly $10 million had already been spent on it, but Ross and perhaps Disney CEO Bob Iger as well, apparently have had second thoughts on the creative direction the film was taking.

According to people familiar with the situation, who were not authorized to speak publicly about it, Disney executives made the choice not to proceed based on concerns that parts of the movie were too dark, among other creative issues. One person with knowledge of the project said the studio intends later to restart development on the Jules Verne classic.

I am not one who normally gets excited by the idea of a remake.  I prefer something new and different, especially from Disney.  Also, the original 1954 Disney Classic 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, with James Mason doing an absolutely masterful job as Captain Nemo, is, in my opinion, the best live-action film Disney has ever produced.  So the idea of taking another swing at it is not something you would think I would get too excited about.  But for some reason I was very excited about it, so this comes as some bad news.

The Jules Verne story is one that I feel can benefit greatly from the incredible advancements in technology the motion picture business has experienced since 1954.  While I doubt anyone can repeat the performance of James Mason in that roll, I do think the story can be an eye-candy bonanza if done properly.  There is still a glimmer of hope that the project will once again get the green light and this delay was all for the betterment of the final product.  Fingers crossed!

Disney’s A Christmas Carol takes its place alongside the great film adaptations of the Dickens classic

This week I had the opportunity to see Disney’s A Christmas Carol, the new Robert Zemecki’s film shot in the same “performance-capture” animation used in The Polar Express.  The hype surrounding the film’s release is pretty typical of the Disney marketing machine, and it often leads to expectation that can be nearly impossible to measure up to.  But in this adaptation of the timeless Charles Dickens classic, Disney and Zemeckis have come pretty close.

copyright ImageMovers Digital/Walt Disney Pictures

copyright ImageMovers Digital/Walt Disney Pictures

First, let me give you a little full-disclosure.  I am a certified fanatic of “A Christmas Carol”.  It is, in my opinion, one of the best stories ever told in the history of English literature.  Every December, I make it a point to watch just about every version I can squeeze into the holiday season.  So when it comes to sitting down for a new take, either on television, the stage or the big screen, it is more than likely that I would tend to see it through a different lens then those who view it as simply a quaint little yarn told for Christmas. 

When I heard that Disney, Zemeckis and Jim Carrey were teaming up to produce this latest version, I truly expected a watered down borderline kids film made accessible for those who may not otherwise find yet another Scrooge movie all that exciting a proposition.  But that is not what we get at all in Disney’s A Christmas Carol.  Instead we are presented with a film that holds firmly to the greatness of Charles Dickens while offering enough visual eye-candy to keep anyone interested, something many previous versions have failed miserably at.

The Ebenezer Scrooge found in the pages of the written story is one of exaggerated features, emotions and words.  Dickens describes him as a “tight-fisted hand at the grind- stone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner!  Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster.  The cold within him froze his old features, nipped his pointed nose, shriveled his cheek, stiffened his gait; made his eyes red, his thin lips blue and spoke out shrewdly in his grating voice.  A frosty rime was on his head, and on his eyebrows, and his wiry chin.  He carried his own low temperature always about with him; he iced his office in the dogdays; and didn’t thaw it one degree at Christmas.” 

copyright ImageMovers Digital/Walt Disney Pictures

copyright ImageMovers Digital/Walt Disney Pictures

So you can see how old Ebenezer was tailored made for animation.  While some of Hollywood’s greatest actors have done wonders portraying Mr. Scrooge, this version is the first to take these words to heart and presents us with a character that seems almost too twisted to believe, exactly what Charles Dickens had in mind.

Much of the original dialogue is kept, as well as nearly every scene, and they fit perfectly into this multi-million dollar version.  But the important aspect of Dickens that is most often lost by Hollywood is his wonderful sense of fantasy.  If all you have ever known about “A Christmas Carol” is the standard screen adaptation, and have never read the original story in its entirety, then some of what Zemeckis offers may seem almost too outlandish to belong.  But Dickens devoted pages to turning a scene into an exaggerated fantasy, and this film plays on those ideas.  Technology has finally afforded us the chance to see this classic presented closer to the original story as ever before, and for the most part Disney and Zemeckis have done this. 

The visuals of this new animation technique can be absolutely brilliant.  The detail is often so well presented that one can easily wonder if the real-world is somehow being blended into the animation.  But at the same time, it never goes too far into realm of reality so as to make it less a fantasy.  Just when you think you are actually seeing an actor walking the streets of London, some character or some action brings you back into the world of animation.  The best example of this is in the contrast between Scrooge and Old Fezziwig.  While Ebenezer can be extremely life-like especially in the expression and details of his face, his old master looks almost like a Pixar-style cartoon character.  It is a strange contrast, not unlike the strange contrasts that Dickens himself employed, and it works on many levels for the story.

I have two basic problems with this film, which keeps it from standing alongside the really great versions adapted for film and television.  The first is the same problem that has scuttled many a version of A Christmas Carol, the lack of truly establishing Scrooge as a sympathetic human figure.  In order to truly appreciate the tale of redemption that makes it a classic, you must feel empathy towards Ebenezer fairly early on in the Ghost sequences.  The viewer needs to learn quickly that beneath the twisted body and mind of the old miser there is a struggling and pained person who has been beaten down by life and bad decisions.  But that never really happens here, or at least not to the degree needed to make it a standout adaptation.  We are rushed through his life, and almost distracted from these emotions by the power of the visual effects.  So even though the story’s conclusion leaves you with a warm and fuzzy feeling, it doesn’t have the powerful emotion that many other versions have managed to express.

copyright ImageMovers Digital/Walt Disney Pictures

copyright ImageMovers Digital/Walt Disney Pictures

The second is another common trap for films that rely so heavily on visuals, especially 3-D movies.  There are a few lengthy sequences in this film that were obviously shot for the purpose of enhancing the 3-D experience.  Scrooge blasts-off aboard the cap of the Ghost of Christmas Past and soars above London and into space.  Then later during the visitation of the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come, Scrooge is chased by a horse-drawn hearse through the streets and eventually turns into the size of a rodent as the chase continues through the sewer and between the cobblestones.  Now, as I said before, I like the idea of playing on the Dickens way of exaggerating scenes into the realm of fantasy, but these sequences felt forced and not necessary to telling the story.  In years to come when people are watching this without the assistance of 3-D glasses they will be far less impressive and almost pointless.

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that there is exists no prefect way to adapt “A Christmas Carol” for the stage or screen.  Only the words of Dickens himself have ever achieved perfection in portraying this story, so it is important to expect something in a new version that may not be just right.  But Disney has done remarkably well here.  They have taken one of the world’s best ever stories and adapted it for the modern audience without stripping it of the charm and prose that make it so special.  Disney’s A Christmas Carol is a film I would recommend to anyone.

True Believers! Disney and Marvel together…’nuff said!

I know when I first heard the news that Disney bought Marvel for over 4 billion dollars, my first thought was “is Disney Hollywood Studios getting a Wolverine or Spider Man ride?” But then I thought they couldn’t do that, right? Well, it appears they can’t. At least, not at this time.

As everyone knows, Universal Florida has a Marvel Super Hero Island at their Islands of Adventure park. That section contains two of their most popular rides, the Amazing Adventures of Spider Man and the Hulk Coaster. When do those contracts run out, you ask? Apparently, never. Rumors swirled around the internet yesterday that the contract between Universal and Marvel ends in 2012. Not so far off in theme park terms. But that appears to be false. Instead, it seems the contract runs for the life of the ride itself. In other words, Universal can have the Spider Man ride forever.

Surely, Disney did not spend 4 billion just to set up their own Captain America ride. There is much more to this deal than that. The Marvel movies based on characters like Spider Man and Iron Man are huge hits. However, the pending movies like Iron Man 2, The Avengers and X-Men Origins: Magneto are all subject to other agreements. Spider Man is licensed to Sony, for example. Disney has stated they will honor those agreements. But those agreements are quite lucrative. And eventually, Disney will distribute Marvel movies.

Marvel also makes money in the comic book industry. Comic books as a whole a way down from their hey day in 90s but they still make money. Merchandising like toys and t-shirts do well. And how long will it be before we see an Avengers prime time cartoon on the Disney channel? Apparently, that cartoon is already in the works and looking for a channel.

But that brings us back to the theme parks. As far as I can see, Universal can keep that Spider Man ride operating for the foreseeable future. But will they want to? Surely, it will irk Universal to no end that every time they sell a Fantastic Four t-shirt part of the proceeds will go to Disney. You can bet they won’t spend a great deal energy promoting the new marvel movies. Will Universal want to trash this part of the park and cut ties? Will they cease selling all merchandise from marvel characters? Will Marvel Super Hero Island eventually become Transformer Island or GI Joe Island? I am sure this is being debated by Universal execs right now. Once Potter is up and running, Universal will mull their options. Everyone has been wondering what Disney would do in response to the Harry Potter land coming to IOA. Well, I think we have our answer.

And here’s another little tidbit about the arrangement between Universal and Marvel: the rights to theme park attractions are limited to east of the Mississippi. Thus, Disney could put on real pressure by designing attractions for marvel characters and putting them into their California parks or even the studios in Paris. In Florida, you may see merchandise. Perhaps, there will be meet-n-greets with Wolverine. Maybe even they will paint a Baxter Building in the scenes of New York streets at Disney’s Hollywood Studios.

You can bet though there will be something.

Today’s posting is from Mike, contributing writer to Mouse Extra.

Has the HMS Bounty already been involved in Pirates 4 filming?

Well, I thank all of you for being patient with us the last couple of weeks as the entire staff of Mouse Extra has been on vacation on the coast of Maine.  It is an absolutely gorgeous place to go, and we all love it, but it is also very difficult to obtain internet service on a regular basis.  So please forgive us for disappearing for a while.

While there, we once again came across this wonderful vessel pictured below.  She is the HMS Bounty, and she was built in 1960 for the Marlon Brando film classic “Mutiny on the Bounty”.  In recent years she has been refitted in Boothbay Harbor, Maine and has been used in a certain set of Pirate films starring Johnny Depp.

HMS Bounty

HMS Bounty

Here she is pictured tied up on the Kennebec River in Bath, Maine, a river best known for being the launching point of Benedict Arnold’s invasion of Quebec.  The local legend has it that the Bounty has been asked once again to be used in the fourth installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean films and has recently “vanished” for a few weeks, perhaps for some filming that is being kept secret.  I can’t verify any of this.  It could be true, or could just be another fish story.

Bruckheimer calls fourth Pirates film Disney’s “priority”

When you say the words “Johnny Depp” and “Pirates” in the same sentence, Disney fans all over the world turn their ears and listen.  Earlier this week, rumors surfaced that Disney was effectively pushing back the idea of a fourth Pirates of the Caribbean film in order to focus its attention on building a new “Lone Ranger” franchise, with a new film slated to star Depp as the Ranger’s sidekick Tonto.

Captain Jack Sparrow from the Magic Kingdom's Pirates of the Caribbean

Well Pirates fanatics you can put the tissues down and start getting happy again, because it appears that those reports are false.  According to the website ComingSoon.net, Pirates of the Caribbean is still the priority, and the source of the info is none other than Pirates’ producer Jerry Bruckheimer.

That doesn’t mean that those other projects aren’t in development, but Bruckheimer told us that for Disney, the priority is most definitely “Pirates.” “It’s a great franchise for them and for us, too,” he said. “A beloved character and Johnny’s really excited about coming back to Captain Jack. He certainly is interested in Tonto, but Disney’s priority is to get ‘Pirates’ made first. You never know what’s going to happen, but they would like it.”

Bruckheimer shared that the original writers, Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot, were “writing ‘Pirates’ as we speak,” and he said it was “funny” and a “whole new way of going” although he wouldn’t share more than that.

There are two reasons I think this is really good news.  The first is that I feel Disney fans in general are going to be happier knowing Disney is focusing its attention on the Pirates franchise.  It’s no secret how popular Captain Jack and his crew are among the Mouse-faithful, and the hype surrounding this fourth film is already at crazy levels…and they haven’t even written a screenplay yet.

The second is that I really like how Bruckheimer describes the ideas for the fourth POTC film as “funny”.  To me, I thought the likeability of the films really tailed off after the “Curse of the Black Pearl” and mostly because the second and third films just didn’t have the wit and fun of the first.  Instead they got bogged down into convoluted fantasy story elements that turned them from a great swashbuckling film into “pirates sail the seas of Middle Earth”.  Hopefully this fourth film gets back to the swashbuckling and humor.

Disney signs Diane Lane to play in film about Secretariat

According to Variety, Disney has signed the actress Diane Lane to star in an upcoming film called “Secretariat”, about the horseracing legend of the same name.  The film will be directed by Randall Wallace, who was also an executive producer on the Disney film “Pearl Harbor”.

One of my all-time favorite films is “Seabiscuit”, another film about a horseracing legend.  But that story is a very, very different one from that of Secretariat.  The story of Seabiscuit is the kind of true story perfect for a Disney film, though not actually a Disney film.  It was an inspirational rags-to-riches-and-comeback tale that was moving and warmed the heart.  But that certainly was not the case with Secretariat.  All that horse did was crush just about everyone it ever raced.  He was known for finishing races so far ahead that photographers needed to struggle to not make their photos look like practice runs, since no other horse made it into the same frame.

But the heartwarming story behind Secretariat was his owner, Penny Chenery.  The woman known as the “First Lady of Racing” did struggle to get where she is now.  So even though there will be little drama during the race scenes, Diane Lane will have something Disney-fied to work with.

And please Disney, don’t try and re-write history here and remake the races into some dramatic neck-and-neck last second comeback finish.  I mean this was 1973, not 1873.  It hasn’t been lost to time.  For those who don’t remember, Secretariat won the Belmont by an incredible 31 lengths!  This isn’t the stuff Disney films are made of.

« Previous entries

This website is in no way affiliated with the Walt Disney Corporation or any of its affiliates. This is a non-profit website designed to share the love of Disney.