disney Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Two months after being replaced on the He-Man movie Greyskull, Justin Marks has lost another big screenwriting gig: McG's Captain Nemo: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. You can speculate and snicker all you like. In the meantime, The Hollywood Reporter says that screenwriter Randall Wallace has been brought aboard to rewrite the script before taking his directing job with Disney's Secretariat. (So handy to have those screenwriter / director guys just hanging around the studio!)

20,000 Leagues is being envisoned by Disney as an origin story for Captain Nemo, and that nifty little colon after his name indicates that they'd like to make him over into a nautical franchise to complement their ongoing Pirates of the Caribbean series. Everyone is kind of hoping they'll draw on Jules Verne, and explore Nemo's background as given in that lesser-known sequel, The Mysterious Island. He was revealed to be the Indian Prince Dakkar, who had lost his wife, children, and kingdom after participating in the rebellion of 1857.

While the film is being labeled as an action-adventure, I think it's extremely likely that Wallace is being brought on board precisely to flesh out that tragic backstory, and up the anti-imperialism. This is the screenwriter of Braveheart, Pearl Harbor, and The Man in the Iron Mask, after all. If he has a specialty, it's perilous wartime romances, especially if they're set against the backdrop of revolution. We're probably in for a very frothy 20,000 Leagues, but at least its steampunk setting allows for that. Now cast Naveen Andrews so it'll be sexy steampunk.

When Toy Story 3 was announced to the wider world thanks to that little teaser before Up, a lot of people groaned. I don't know of a single person who hates either of the Toy Story films, and I don't think it's too mushy to say that they hold a pretty special place in everybody's heart. You don't want to see that watered down and exploited.

Thankfully, it's PIXAR at the helm rather than sequel-squeezing Disney, and they assure everyone that the third installment will actually bring closure to the series. SciFi Wire caught up with animator Angus MacLane at the Saturn Awards (he was responsible for Burn-E, and has been with Pixar since Toy Story 2 where he created the crazy Buzz clone), and he spilled a few secrets on the newest adventures of Buzz and Woody. To the surprise of no one that saw Up, their final installment will be a bittersweet one. Lee Unkrich will be directing, and the storyline will center on Andy leaving for college.

"I feel like we've grown up making these movies, and each of the films represents where the filmmakers were at the time of making the films," MacLane said. "Certainly we're approaching this film 10 years later, so I think we're sort of coming at it from the standpoint of [Andy] has grown up, and we've grown up with these toys, and we have a reverence for them, but we also have different things as a priority." In other words, you should start stocking up on Kleenex now, and prepare to feel old and tired when you leave the theater.

If it wasn't for Andrew Stanton at the helm of John Carter of Mars, I think the interest might completely bottom out with its casting. ComingSoon had the scoop via Twitter that Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins were set to star, and the rumor became reality in The Hollywood Reporter.

Kitsch will be playing the titular Carter, a Civil War veteran who is transported (via astral projection, leaving his lifeless body behind) to Mars. There he meets the lovely Martian princess Dejah Thoris, wins her hand, rediscovers his own humanity, and rescues Mars. The film is tipped to begin filming in 2010, and they've been scouting Utah for Martian locations.

When Stanton discussed the project earlier this year, he mentioned they wanted an unknown despite the fact Hugh Jackman was tipped as a fan favorite. How odd then that they've managed to recast 2/4 of Jackman's X-Men Origins: Wolverine. THR notes that Jon Hamm and Josh Duhamel also tested for the part, and while I've got nothing against Kitsch (I'm not going to hold Gambit against him), I really wish they had chosen Hamm. An ex-Confederate needs a bit of age and weariness to him instead of being a fresh faced up and comer ... but then again, a lot of Civil War soldiers were ridiculously young when they enlisted, so perhaps Kitsch can play it as disillusioned and old-before-his-time. One can hope ...

Mere days ago I passed on the report that Disney was making The Lone Ranger their priority and pushing back Pirates, which wasn't too surprising since Ranger had a director and Pirates didn't. Well, belay all that, because ComingSoon caught up with Jerry Bruckheimer, who assured Jack Sparrow fans that a fourth installment was just around the corner, and suggested that Ranger had stalled out for the moment.

When it comes to the masked man, there's no hunt for a lead, and Bruckheimer & Co. are essentially waiting to hire a director, and for Disney to hit the gas on the whole thing. Despite all reports, Mike Newell is not attached to the chair because he's still hard at work on Prince of Persia -- and frankly, Disney could be waiting to see how that flies before signing him onto another franchise maker.

But Pirates, well, that's a sure thing. "It's a great franchise for [Disney] and for us, too," Bruckheimer said. "We love the character and Johnny was 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." Franchise scribes Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott (who are also writing Ranger) are scribbling a script as you read this, one that Bruckheimer promises is "funny" and a "whole new way of going."

Well, we know where we're going -- weighing anchor and heading back to sea instead of riding off into the sunset. As someone who enjoyed the Pirates franchise, I'm pleased we're going back so soon (especially if they get Geoffery Rush back) but it's always deflating when something fresh gets stuck spinning its wheels.

I was just watching Monsters, Inc this past week, and wondering why it belonged to Pixar's no sequel club ... and guess what's in the works now? Dedicated Disney blogger Jim Hill visited this year's Licensing International Expo, and talked to the fine people who were representing Disney and Pixar, and buying up licensing rights.

Reportedly, Pete Docter (fresh off his success with Up) is planning to return to Monstropolis and helm a sequel to his previous Pixar effort, Monsters, Inc. Obviously, story details are shrouded in secrecy, but they've got Cars 2 and Toy Story 3 in the works, it's not much of a stretch to believe they'd revisit Mike and Sully. While it's a delightfully complete film, it's also a wonderful world, and I'd like to go there again.

Hill also reports that Disney is really focusing its efforts on The Lone Ranger, and are hoping to have it in theaters by Summer 2011. As you may remember, Mike Newell was hired to direct, and Johnny Depp is set to play Tonto.
Intent on launching a Ranger franchise, they've pushed back Jack Sparrow's, and are now planning to release the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean installment to a tenative date of Summer 2012. Both franchises offer a dose of Depp, so the Pirates fanbase should be pretty happy with that. Frankly, I'm willing to trade tricorns just to know just who they cast as that masked man ....

It's so hard to get behind Disney and their treatment of Winnie the Pooh. I've always enjoyed their The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, even if it did steer away from A.A. Milne's original illustrations. It's sweet, and it kept the book's conversation between Pooh and Christopher Robin about growing up. That scene can melt even the hardest and blackest heart.

But they have sold him out shamefully since then. They've slapped him on every single item of merchandise they could (he's the world's second-largest licensed character franchise -- he falls behind Mickey Mouse), churned out bad stories like Pooh's Heffalump Movie, and treated the A.A. Milne estate horribly. No money goes towards maintaining England's 100 Aker Wood or Pooh Corner, an act that has left a lot of really bad blood. (By the way, if you are ever in England, go down to east Sussex. You can play Poohsticks on the real bridge and buy pots of honey. You won't ever regret it.)

Now, according to The Hollywood Reporter, it's set to begin all over again. Disney has announced plans for a new Winnie the Pooh movie in Spring 2011, despite the commercial and critical failure of Heffalump. There's no further detail as to what the film will center on, but I imagine it'll be another original story that has little in common with Milne, and will make sane people wince at the sight of the chubby yellow bear. Poor Pooh. At least he's kept nice and simple in Sussex.

Aside from Star Trek, I've been rather unimpressed with the summer of '09 thus far, which is why this weekend couldn't pop up at a better time. Today marks the arrival of two (very different) wide releases, and each one of 'em is better than Wolverine, Angels & Demons, and Terminator 4 combined.

The first flick is, of course, Up, which comes from the stunningly reliable Pixar crew and was just reviewed by our own Jette K. right here. I won't steal her thunder, as her review is quite good, but I will say this: Up is one of the strangest, sweetest, warmest, and funniest animated films I've ever seen. The kiddies will lap up every single frame, obviously, but I suspect the film will strike its strongest chord with the grown-ups of the audience. About as close to perfect as a family film can get, Up is (easily) one of the best movies of the year.

And you just know an animated flick is good if I focus on it before I even get into a new horror movie! From Sam Raimi no less! Yes, after you're done flying high from Up, you're going to adore that sinking feeling once Raimi starts dragging you through his old stomping grounds. Drag Me to Hell is a straightforward but deliciously twisted morality play in which a frantic young woman tries desperately to rid herself of a gypsy curse. It's like a campfire tale combined with one of the better Tales from the Crypt episodes. (Check out the review by Peter M.)

So yeah: For the first weekend in many a month, I offer one simple suggestion: the double feature. Most theater chains offer cheaper tickets for the pre-noon screenings. Start movie one right there and you'll still have plenty of day left with which to go home and watch DVDs. Like a Pixar classic or Evil Dead 2.

I can totally see why the company handling regional promotions for Disney/Pixar's Up thought that tying numerous balloons to this quaint-as-all-get-out Seattle landmark would serve as a fitting display with which to promote the film. Alas, the fates had other plans, as strong winds whittled down the number of balloons afloat from somewhere near 200 to maybe half that, at which point the whole thing was simply taken down.

The home of the late Edith Macefield is best known for withstanding the encroaching development of the area, especially when Macefield refused an offer of a million dollars from those developing around her. Even without the balloons, that seems like an ideal complement to the stance the film's protagonist takes before taking off.

I can't help but wonder, though, if the winds weren't perhaps strengthened by the narrow space now surrounding the home... the winds of change, that is! Oh, never mind all that. That's one perfectly adorable house, and Up's one perfectly adorable movie.

(Thanks to Sarah for passing this on.)

Pixar's much-ballyhooed feature Up opens this weekend, and the theaters will be chock full of families with little ones ready for some colorful eye-candy and delightful storytelling. But how are those little ones going to act when they see not one, but two separate instances of bright, red blood on the screen? I'm sure no one is going to need therapy after seeing this, but it's interesting that Pixar is breaking down the blood / screen barrier.

Disney films have long been sanitized, and although we've seen death in Disney's animated movies before (Bambi's mother, Simba's dad, Nemo's mother, countless goons in The Incredibles and so on), they really never feature blood, despite the violent nature of many of the plots. Usually the characters die off-screen, and the audience is spared any actual shots of the red stuff.

In The Lion King there's a brief spray of blood in the battle between Mufasa and Scar, but otherwise you get red scratches on the characters, which look cartoonish (well, it's a cartoon) and not very realistic. They did the same "scratches for wounds" thing in Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid, and even with Sleeping Beauty there's only a tiny trickle of blood as Phillip slays Maleficent. A bit surprising given the fact that she has a huge sword buried through her massive heart.