Wednesday, November 18, 2009

2013? Count on it.

Mayan schmyan, I'll ride any bet in Vegas that the planet Earth will most definitely see 2013. And it's a safe bet we'll see the calendar year too.
What is absolutely assured is that with last weekend's blockbuster release, Roland Emmerich's 2012 will live past the Mayan Long Count calendar to see a sequel, though rumors are being thrown around faster than falling buildings in front of escaping limos and airplanes, that the big sequel may come in the form of a television series rather than on the silver screen.

Makes lots of sense when you consider that the hype for 2012 just might be true. This indeed may be the end-all-be-all of disaster flicks and after leaving the theater (on the 27th day of the new world) the most disastrous thing anyone can imagine AFTER the end of the world is Adam Lambert's attempt at a power ballad (A Time for Miracles) over closing credits. So the producers have that one covered too.

Roland Emmerich has succeeded in doing with 2012 what all other catastrophe movies have seemed to miss since the 70s, making far fetched spectacle work with ernest performances and mostly intelligent dialogue. The requisites for success and failure in this genre have only a very thin dividing line but the actors here make you feel like they're showing up on a project they believe in and are proud of - and the result are characters that pull back from caricature and become real people you care about and, more importantly, like. (With perhaps, the one exception of Woody Harrelson's broad comic turn as a nut-job conspiracy spouting independent radio broadcaster. Funny, but very cliché.)

It's a small group of actors that have nailed this balancing act but a proud group to be associated with. John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Oliver Platt and (terrific performances in challenging kid roles) Liam James and Morgan Lily, now join the company of the classic performances the likes of Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, William Holden, Faye Dunaway (The Towering Inferno), Gene Hackman, Shelly Winters, Red Buttons (The Poseidon Adventure), and Burt Lancaster, George Kennedy and Jack Lemmon (the Airport franchise). Not bad company.

Because of lousy movies and lousy moviemakers, disaster films have gotten stuck with a "B" movie status. 2012 is class "A" moviemaking from the opening shot. We applaud Roland Emmerich for taking big chances with big budgets and for seeming to have such unabashed fun with it all. 2012 would have been an enormous hit whenever it was released but it's not a bad way to end the decade and 2009's blockbuster, and perhaps record breaking, box-office run at the movies.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Does this mouse look pissed? - He should be.

Here's a November headline from the New York Times - "After Mickey's Makeover, Less Mr. Nice Guy" (Brooks Barnes, 11.5.09). And you thought the New York Times couldn't shill their articles with the best of them.
Really guys? No more happy mouse?

First, in the interest of disclosure - that picture in the corner is a video game screen grab, and let's face it, video games can make Santa Claus look like a bastard. (Though nothing quite tops the "zombie elves" that populate the North Pole in Robert Zemeckis' The Polar Express - but as that topic always brings on a rant, we'll move on.) Just don't expect to be seeing a scowling Mickey beating up on Goofy in the theme parks or abandoning Pluto at the Toon Town pound.

If you've been paying attention, we've seen Mickey progress through the ages and much of it done under the watchful eyes of Walt and his "9 old men" master animators. Barnes tries to say that Disney may be concerned that their leading animated property is becoming more corporate logo than endearing comical pal. But isn't it true that Mickey's image on an annual report does for corporate Disney exactly what Mickey's face on juice container does for kids? It's not a corporate misstep that Mickey's very presence in everything to do with Disney business helps to remind Disney's investors and business partners that, as Walt is famously quoted to have said, "I only hope that we don't lose sight of one thing - that it was all started by a mouse".

Barnes goes on... "The effort to re-engineer Mickey is still in its early stages but it involves the top creative and marketing minds in the company, all the way up to Robert Iger, Disney's chief executive." And that "the project was given given new impetus this week with the announcement that... the company has received the blessing of the Chinese government to open a theme park in Shanghai...". Is Ms. Barnes suggesting that the look and feel of Mickey will be altered to make him more "marketable" to kids in China? The racist and politically incorrect jokes here could start an avalanche.

The idea that a Shanghai theme park should factor into a "re-engineering" of any cartoon character, let alone Mickey Mouse, is flat out silly. First of all, Disneyland Hong Kong's been around for years. Second, Ms. Barnes and anyone else who seriously thinks an evolving Mickey is anything more than keeping up with technology and the times, is ignoring the fact that Mickey is Mickey, an iconic image that is as much personality as yellow shoes and white gloves.

Barnes even suggests that "Disney executives are treading carefully, and trying to keep a low profile...". It's as if there's subterfuge afoot. Updating Mickey for video gaming, CGI animation and an expanding world audience where he needs to be both understood and unoffensive, seems more like obviously smart thinking and unavoidable growth. Even Mickey's youngest fans have grown more sophisticated, more connected and, somewhat amazingly, more technologically savvy. Staying relevant is good corporate governance.

Perhaps Ms. Barnes should relax and The New York Times should consider pumping up the fiber in their article ingredient list. How about this as a potential headline - "On the verge of a dying newspaper pandemic, the New York Times re-engineers its reporting to mimic 24 hour news TV and tabloids"?