Disney »

Last fall, Jack Kirby's estate filed 45 notices of copyright infringement against anyone making profits on certain Marvel characters, including Disney, Paramount, Fox, Sony, Universal, and Hasbro. Kirby was co-creator of characters such as Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, X-Men, and the Fantastic Four, and his estate wants the copyrights and a share of the profits. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Kirby's estate has now filed a lawsuit against Marvel to terminate their copyright.

The lawsuit could affect all of the various comic franchises in a weird way. According to THR, if the Kirby estate wins the copyright to any characters (and the waters get murky where Stan Lee is co-creator), the Kirby estate could license competing versions to other studios. This seems a distant and crazy possibility, though Disney is reportedly gearing up a huge legal defense to prevent that from happening.

The Kirby estate has also filed a claim under the Lanham Act that specifically targets The Incredible Hulk and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The estate claims the two films were misrepresented in their promotion because Kirby isn't mentioned as being an author or co-author of the comic characters. The claim is an interesting case of wringing money out of the fine print, because Wolverine isn't a creation of Lee and Kirby, but Blob, Cyclops, and Professor X are. (Somewhere, a Fox executive is kicking themselves for the idea of fun, tie-in cameos!) The Kirby estate is seeking "up to three times the amount of damages they sustained." Hulk made roughly $263 million worldwide, Wolverine made $375, so they could end up with a tidy sum if the judge agrees Kirby didn't receive his fair share and credit. We'll keep you updated on what transpires, and how it may affect your favorite Marvel franchise in the future.

Warning: The above picture may contain content that boys won't like, including a female and that female's really long hair.

Last week I attempted to figure out why, exactly, Disney decided to change the title of their upcoming animated film Rapunzel to Tangled. After sending a couple emails to Disney, the only response I received was that it was "a filmmaker decision". A filmmaker decision ... to change the title of a film from one that immediately has a familiar, built-in audience to one that, in all honesty, is kinda boring? I originally figured the title change may have had something to do with them altering the traditional Rapunzel story enough that it warranted a completely different title, though Disney's weird "can't say anything about that, sorry" reply was just too odd. So I figured, eh -- why make a whole lotta something out of nothing, and I dropped the idea for a story ... until today.

Looks like The Los Angeles Times was in the mood to do a little more digging, and what they found out was that Disney changed the title because they wanted it to appeal to more boys. Not that Tangled immediately shouts out, "Hey boys, there are boys who do lots of cool boy things in this, so come see it!" ... but after the Mouse House apparently blamed Princess and the Frog's box office failures (yes, $222 million worldwide is not good enough these days) on the fact that boys were turned off by the word "Princess" in the title, a move to strip Rapunzel of her identity was commissioned ... because, ya know, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Mulan, Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid never really had much success with their girl-ish titles either, right?

Says Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Disney Animation Studios: "We did not want to be put in a box. Some people might assume it's a fairy tale for girls when it's not. We make movies to be appreciated and loved by everybody."

Greetings, programs. In the coming weeks you're going to be seeing a number of exciting updates and reveals from the folks at the Walt Disney Company, specifically regarding their highly-anticipated follow-up to the 1982 film Tron. Dubbed Tron: Legacy, Joe Kosinski's film is meant to be a sequel, a re-imagining, and a spin-off all at once, and fans have already spent considerable time and effort trying to uncover even a few glimpses of what's in store when they sit down in theaters on December 17, 2010. Amazingly, and without any more effort than it takes to press play, check out the trailer below!

Although I've reported on some of the viral promotions that Disney successfully coordinated at Comic-Con and more recently in different cities across the globe, I admit that I'm not much for spending hours trying to decipher code or rendezvous at secret locations for swag – although I admit, I do want the swag. (Who can't use a Velcro wallet that has Tron printed across it and carries old-school trading cards?) But the new trailer really does have me excited: it offers more clues about the set-up of the upcoming film, and provides a look at the world of Legacy, and perhaps most importantly to newcomers, what happens within it.

Unlike some of the recent films that were retrofitted or "upgraded" to 3-D, Tron: Legacy was actually shot with that format in mind, so it's probably best to see this footage writ large on a gigantic screen with a pair of polarized lenses strapped to your face. But as a taste of the cinematic buffet to come, this clip for Tron: Legacy will have you thanking The Users for taking you one step closer to the final film.

There are two things that I feel I must share up front, in the spirit of full disclosure. The first is this: I consider myself a fan of Tim Burton. Every time I hear that the frazzle-haired aging Goth crackpot is releasing a new film, I feel an undeniable frisson of excitement, sure that this one will be on par with Big Fish, or Mars Attacks!, or (oh pleasepleaseplease) Ed Wood. And so I eagerly anticipate every new Burton film -- up until that point when I'm trapped in a theater with Planet of the Apes or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, weeping sadly into my popcorn. Every time.

Secondly, while I'm as technologically savvy as I need be (considering that the majority of my work and leisure time are tied to the Internet, that all my life's pertinent contact info is stored in my phone, and if my laptop failed right now I would turn into a useless, neurotic pile of fail) I'm also a late adopter when it comes to tech trends. I still have a normal-sized TV, for instance. My cell phone is just a phone. That sort of thing.

All of which I share so that you'll understand my reaction to Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland remodel. Putting aside any considerations of what's good or bad about the movie as art, I couldn't get past one huge stumbling block -- once the opening credits had finished, I spent every moment of Alice wishing desperately that it wasn't in 3-D.

The original Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll is a delicious Victorian oddity, a children's book whose bizarre dream world, unforgettable word play, and young heroine have captured the imaginations of artists as diverse as James Joyce, Dali, Jefferson Airplane, Jan Švankmajer, and, of course, Tim Burton.

It was only a matter of time until Burton tackled this classic, a dive into the subconscious littered with nonsensical rhymes and literally crazy characters. As the wonderful Annalee Newitz points out, "As [Carroll's] protagonist Alice moves from dreamy encounter to dreamy encounter, watching nursery rhymes coming to life and fighting bloodthirsty monarchs made of cards, we witness something that for the Victorians was just as stunning as a giant dynamo. Psychiatry was in its infancy in the 19th century, and this brave new science suggested there was a method in madness. The muddle of our dreams might illuminate the truth about human consciousness; the murmurings of madwomen could shed light on how so-called sane people think."

Sounds like perfect fodder for Burton and his misunderstood oddities and lovable outsiders, right?

Oh, so wrong.

As in the video game American McGee's Alice from 2000, a much-older Alice returns to Wonderland. In McGee's version, Alice is returning to a terrible place in shambles which she must fight through in order to get to the bottom of why it's falling apart in the first place. I'm not going into more detail here on the plot in McGee's Alice because there is a nice little twist that makes it a much more compelling story than Linda Woolverton's poorly paced script. Woolverton's script feels like an afterthought to Burton's desire to make a 3D Wonderland loaded with CG creatures. In actuality, the 3D effects were added later, making it a less authentic 3D experience than, say, Avatar. The AMC/Odeon squabbles might have been for naught, since Alice would be best enjoyed on the big screen, if only because there's so much going on, it's almost impossible for the human eye to keep up. And as wondrous as the talking animals are, as fabulous as the costumes are, as huge as the Red Queen's head is, it's nothing but a house of cards.

Movies based on video games are notoriously uneven, which is a nice way of saying they're almost always bad. In the past studios have always optioned up games that are popular so they can sell tickets on the name alone, as opposed to developing games that lend themselves naturally to a feature. Walt Disney may just break that trend, however, with their Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time adaptation starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton and Sir Ben Kingsley set for release this May 28th.

They've picked a video game title that not only has enough name recognition (the series has been around since 1989) but one whose recent re-incarnations are cinematic in their own right. Plus, a plot set in ancient times involving a sacred artifact that allows its user (Gyllenhaal) to turn back the sands of time is certainly a prime candidate for a number of special effects extravaganzas befitting of a modern day blockbuster. As far as possible marketplace successors for Pirates of the Caribbean go, Bruckheimer and friends have definitely picked a viable hopeful. The question now, of course, is whether or not they pulled it off.

For me, the first trailer looked like it was trying too hard to fit the Pirates mold. The exotic setting, swashbuckling adventure and flirtatious nature between Gyllenhaal and Arterton seemed a little too reminiscent of Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, which left me wondering where director Mike Newell was going to make up the slack for not having a Jack Sparrow analog to steal the show. This new trailer (embedded below from MySpace) makes it pretty clear how they'll be filling seats this summer: a campaign of shock-and-awe effects.

It's got everything you'd expect from a movie of this ilk, including the requisite fight between hero and big cat that apparently must occur in all Hollywood-made films set in ancient times. Does the campaign work, though? You tell us.

Every once in awhile, Hollywood seems bent on eradicating a certain talent's film career via remakes of all that person's work. We've seen it happen to John Carpenter, who is being made all but obsolete with released or reported plans for rehashes of at least seven of his movies. And we could see it occur with Andrew McCarthy, who'll be replaced in eventual redos of Weekend at Bernie's and Mannequin (and in all likelihood, one day, Pretty in Pink). This week, with the latest trailer for The Karate Kid and an update on The Sitter, I'm reminded that Elisabeth Shue is the latest victim. So, there might as well also be a remake of Cocktail.

In my attempt to think back 22 years, I honestly can't recall what it was that made Roger Donaldson's 1988 glorification of bartending appealing, let alone such a huge box office success. All I remember is Tom Cruise and Shue making love under a waterfall and a bunch of flashy juggling tricks that inspired many a dude to waste liters of alcohol trying to impress girls with bottle-tossing skills he didn't have. Oh, and that terrible soundtrack I'm embarrassed to say I enjoyed at the age of 11, which introduced many of us to "Kokomo" and "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

I'm just one loud movie geek, but I call this some pretty rock-solid casting. According to THR's Heat Vision blog, the studio is looking at the great British actor Ian McShane to play the villainous Blackbeard in the next Pirates of the Carribean flick. Johnny Depp will, of course, be returning as Jack Sparrow -- but there'll be no Will Turner or Elizabeth Swann to coo over. Taking over the director's reins from Gore Verbinski is Rob Marshall, whom you all know from Chicago, Memoirs of a Geisha, and last year's Nine. Screenwriters Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio are back as well.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides has already laid claim to the release date of May 11 of next year.

Film fans will no doubt remember Mr. McShane from flicks like Death Race, The Golden Compass, and Sexy Beast -- whereas HBO subscribers will always remember the actor as the lyrically profane and wonderfully despicable Al Swearengen from Deadwood. (Animation buffs must also love this guy: He's given his pipes to Coraline, Shrek 3, and Kung Fu Panda.) And if you're looking for a great, colorful, larger-than-life villain, this is one of the actors to talk to. This bodes well for Pirates 4, if you ask me.

And heck, he's already been in a movie called The Pirate.

Johnny Depp, star of the upcoming adaptation of Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, told reporters that he would be among the very few cast members returning for the next Pirates of the Caribbean films, but insisted that the sequels wouldn't be a one-man show. "There's no Keira or Orlando in there," he explained Saturday at a press conference in Hollywood, Calif. "[But] I don't know. I don't think we'd ever throw too much Jack Sparrow in there. There will be a little bit of everybody."

Depp, who helped propel the original Pirates films to monumental success with his iconic portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow, also said that the departure of Disney chairman Dick Cook in September of 2009 hasn't discouraged him from the prospect of future films in the series being successful. "One thing that I found very reassuring was a very good conversation with Dick Cook," Depp revealed. "[He] is someone who I admire greatly and, so yeah, that helped a lot. And also, knowing that we're coming at it from a different angle at this point, with Rob Marshall and totally new take, it's a new story."

When asked what Cook said to quell his fears, Depp demurred, "he was a perfect gentleman about the entire [thing]."

Disney's getting into the goth biz. Wait, let me be more clear: "goth" biz. It might seem out of character for the Mouse House. They are the center in a land of fairy tale princesses, cuddly beasts, and romantic, rosy-cheeked perfection. But this is also the company that has haunted mansions and nightmares before Christmas, and took bloody and sadistic fairy tales and turned them into cheery examples of happily ever after.

As the Wall Street Journal reports: "Walt Disney Co.'s consumer-products division is aiming its marketing firepower at young women and teenage girls, particularly those who gravitate to darkly romantic entertainment like the Twilight series." For Alice in Wonderland (which just released its first clip - watch it after the jump) they're zeroing in on Hot Topic with jewelry, shirts, and other baubles while a Los Angeles location is becoming a miniature Wonderland. There will be a mingle-with-the-stars event for fans, and "goth-pop" bands from the soundtrack will provide the tuneage. And all that's along side marketing for the wealthy tykes who can grab things like $1,000 necklaces at Neiman Marcus. And if Disney's Consumer Products Chairman Andy Mooney has his way: "the chances are that the aesthetic will live on for a couple years" -- if buyers are not "fashion fickle." What about goth fickle?

It's hard to really chastise the ridiculousness of all this, since it's less of a jump than Sleeping Beauty's cannibalistic ogre roots turning into song, dance, and fairies, but I just love them calling it "goth." Having a knife doesn't make you a chef or crocodile dundee, and liking a Tim Burton movie doesn't make you an icon of all things gothic. And here we tried to wrap our head around the idea of Twilight being considered goth.

Is this the start of a long history of "goth" ever after?