Animation – Page 4 – Colin McMahon

Marketing Method: The Lego Movie

Posted on February 8, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Believe it or not, Legos have actually existed since 1949. As early as the 1960s, there were Lego sets: knights, pirates, vikings, dinosaurs – that sort of thing. In the 1990s: Lego opened up the licensing game and since then we’ve had Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter and even Avatar: the Last Airbender in Lego form. There have been fifty Lego video games, again from originals like Lego Island (which every 90’s kid owned) to licensed products like Lego Pirates of the Caribbean. Fifty games… and that’s not counting the Lego board games that also exist. There have also been Lego TV movies, Lego books, Lego clothing… Legoland. In short: since 1949 Lego has done everything possible with their product except a theatrical motion picture… until now.

2014 sees the release of the LEGO Movie. As stated before: this is the company’s first foray into theatrical pictures. Very likely it will not be the last. Before I go any further I want to stress that I still have not seen the LEGO Movie. I will in fact be seeing it later today but that is besides the point. This is not a review of the film but rather a critique in how they advertised it. For starters, the teaser trailer below:

Notice anything right away? Lego is pretty proud of the licensed characters they have. That and the movie looks… okay? It’s hard to tell, only a teaser after all. Let’s look at the trailer:

Wow they really want the audience to know that Batman is in this. He is the first character we are introduced to in the trailer. This raises warning signs. Primarily: licensing is more important than plot. In all honesty, this trailer did little to entice me into viewing the LEGO Movie as anything more than a quick cash-in aimed at the kids. Sure I (like most people alive) grew up with Lego, but I don’t see any of the Legos I grew up with in the trailer.

Instead I was easily able to guess which DC superhero had been the most profitable in the last ten years. Every scene in the trailer that focused on the “movie” part of the LEGO Movie also came off as either a quick joke (in most cases not a very funny one) or a very generic piece of the family movie experience pie: i.e. the love interest, the “believe-in-yourself” inspiration. The trailer ended with the expected voice cast celebrity highlights as well.

Remember when this guy played God and people thought it was funny? The LEGO Movie remembers... — Remember when this guy played God and people thought it was funny? *The LEGO Movie* remembers…

Needless to say: I personally was not expecting much from the LEGO Movie. Consider this a pleasant surprise. Not only is the LEGO Movie supposed to be good: it’s supposed to be very good. Ty Burr, of the Boston Globe, echoed my surprise: “My fingers rebel, but type it I must: “The LEGO Movie” is the first great cinematic experience of 2014“. That’s pretty high praise and again: he’s not the only one saying it. This appears to be a rare occurrence where the previews do not do the final product justice.

Lego should be mighty pleased with the film they put out… but they may want to have a word with their advertising team. Kids: yes, the trailers appealed to kids – but they were going to see it anyway. It should not be a surprise (albeit a welcome one) that this film can appeal to Lego fans of any age. After all: who at this point, did not grow up with Lego?

On a side note: who was the Lego Super Star Destroyer made for? No one who could actually assemble it could likely be publicly proud that they did so.

Remember That Animated Return of the King Movie?

Posted on January 20, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Whether the criticism is fair or not, Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug has certainly received its share. I stand by my initial review of the movie yet I can definitely understand where people are coming from. In making three movies, the only thing Peter Jackson has proved so far is that two films would have been enough. There and Back Again will have to prove itself this Christmas. Yet whether that film is good or not, the base criticism will remain: it isn’t the book. At the conclusion of this trilogy there still will be no faithful, live-action adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s book. It seems that The Hobbit was just destined to be swallowed up by Lord of the Rings, the epic film trilogy that preceded it.

If only it could have been like that animated version that was created by Rankin/Bass back in 1977. That adaptation was nearly spot on (for those Tolkien fans out there who haven’t seen it – do so). If only Rankin/Bass had continued adapting Tolkien stories, maybe then we’d have a complete set of faithful adaptations. Well, they did do one other – just one other. The Return of the King was released in 1980. Yes… The Return of the King… because nobody has time for beginnings and middles anymore. Actually it had a lot more to do with the fact that there was an animated version of the first part of The Lord of the Rings released around the same time (also check that one out… it is interesting to say the least – more on that later). Anyway, point is they tried their hand at Lord of the Rings… and it felt way too much like the Hobbit.

For starters, examine the cover they went with for the DVD release. Notice anything? Hobbits and dwarves, front and center. Now it’s understandable to put Frodo and Sam on the cover as they are two of the main characters in both the book and the film. Where is Aragorn you may ask? Not important: at least not as important as those two dwarves, neither of whom is Gimli by the way. Also, is that a dragon in the upper corner… what?

In some cases: covers can be misleading. After all, they are the product of marketing campaigns and not the filmmakers. Suffice it to say: the marketing was trying to make this resemble the Hobbit as much as possible. Sound familiar?

Fun fact: there is actually a hobbit on this poster!

So marketing is on the same page. But how is the Return of the King content-wise? It is not an epic. Not by any stretch of the imagination. This version of J.R.R. Tolkien’s masterpiece is framed as the simple story of two hobbits simply walking into Mordor. Yes, Aragorn is in the film but is barely featured in it. Legolas and Gimli are cut altogether and there is very little focus on the battles. In fairness, for being only 98 minutes long, the film does manage to include an awful lot, it is merely simplified.

For the record, I always like how they made the Witch King look in this. Too bad the rest of the Nazgul look laughable. — For the record, I always liked how they made the Witch King look in this. Too bad the rest of the Nazgul appear laughable.

In watching Rankin/Bass’ version of Return of the King, the audience really does get the hobbit-sized version. The story is revealed to us by the hobbits after all (with the aid of a minstrel, hired by Gandalf, cause why not) so they naturally take center stage. The more epic parts of the story are barely touched upon because hobbits are not interested in that sort of thing.

This is a photo of everyone who has a major role in the film. Sorry for the small size but please note: half of them are hobbits.

Back again from the Hobbit are the musical numbers. I am aware Tolkien included songs in his work but can someone please tell me on what page can “Where There’s a Whip There’s a Way” is found? Seriously, I used to love that song as a kid: totally my jam.

My point is this: all of this has happened before and all this will happen again. Tolkien, and books as a platform, enjoy an advantage that films, particularly blockbusters, do not. They can change tone. The Hobbit is nothing like the Lord of the Rings. It was written long before Tolkien ever envisioned Sauron or the Nazgul or anything like that. It didn’t matter because the Hobbit was written first. Peter Jackson never had that luxury.

Rest assured, the hobbit bromance is in tact.

If he were to make a version of the Hobbit as it was originally created, then non-Tolkien fans would have had a few questions, namely: where is Gandalf throughout most of this movie, it seems kind of convenient that he just vanishes and appears as plot dictates. Why does the all powerful ring have no effect on Bilbo Baggins (who wears it for long stretches of time in the book). What was the dwarves’ plan for dealing with Smaug? Why does no one in Lake Town think it’s a bad idea for thirteen dwarves and a hobbit to go wake up a dragon? Why are the elves such jerks (still a valid question)? Why does Bilbo even care about these dwarves (seriously, if you think Thorin is an ass in the movie…)?

Anyway, I’m not making excuses for Jackson’s epic. “Why is there an elf-dwarf love story” is also a valid question.

There is a weakness in Hollywood that success merits only additional success. The child-friendly version of the Hobbit created by Rankin/Bass was a huge hit, therefore a child-like version of Return of the King is the way to go. An epic version of the Lord of the Rings was a masterpiece so Bilbo better get epic with it. The good news is this: the books still exist and will always exist. People will keep falling in love with the story and maybe one day Hollywood will get it right. If not, you can rest comfortably knowing that, after it’s all done, some rapid fan will edit down Peter Jackson’s trilogy to one movie and release that cut. After all, it didn’t take long for Jar Jar Binks to vanish from Star Wars.

“I will not risk this trilogy for the sake of one book.”

Disney's Worst Villain: Prince Hans (from Frozen)

Posted on January 15, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Walt Disney Animation Studios has a rich history of feature film characters. From Winnie the Pooh to Stitch, many strong protagonists highlight this library. However, the scratched side of the coin is just as wonderful with villains like Jafar, Cruella De Vil and Scar. When it comes to villains: Disney delivers… well, almost always.

*Princess and the Frog* saw the addition of the most recent great Disney villain: the Shadow Man.

2013 saw the release of Frozen, the latest animated film from Disney, based this time off the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, The Snow Queen. It’s good, it’s very good. Building off the fun but predictable film, Tangled; Frozen delivers a unique story of sisterhood highlighted by magic and gorgeous animation. I’ve already sung “Let It Go” to myself more times than I would care to admit so the movie also has at least one song that’s really worth remembering.

Overall I can’t say I wouldn’t recommend Frozen to anyone seeking some animated fun, but I wish I could recommend the movie more. Frozen has a flaw, a big one. For most of the film it keeps it off screen, which is a good thing. Warning: minor plot spoilers to follow… for a Disney movie… do I really need to give plot disclaimers?

Anyway, Frozen follows two sisters: Anna (Kristen Bell) and Elsa (Idina Menzel). Elsa has magical powers, the ability to freeze things and create snow. Anna is normal, without any magical powers whatsoever. Magic is fun but also dangerous so Elsa hides her powers. This plan works until both girls are of marrying age (at least I hope they are) and Elsa is getting crowned as the new queen. Needless to say things go wrong and the kingdom ends up a little… frozen. Get it? I’ll move on.

But that pun is besides the main point. At Elsa’s coronation, Anna meets a prince, Prince Hans (Santino Fontana) and they fall in love… well they decide to get married. Ah young love. Unlike every other Disney Princess movie in existence, Elsa vetoes the marriage:

And so the kingdom gets frozen and Anna goes off to find her sister to put things right. Along the way she meets Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) and Hans is left in charge of the kingdom. He does his best, even going so far as to foil the Duke, a comical satire of the usual Disney villain voiced by the always hilarious Alan Tudyk. Hans is set up as a good guy, clearly not Anna’s true love but a good guy nonetheless. In other words: it is an interesting character development, something more unique than the average animated film.

Then comes the turn, the big turn. Anna is injured and only a kiss from her true love can save her. Does Hans save her: no. Does he remain the good guy and just admit that he isn’t in love with her: nope. Hans reveals that he hates both Anna and her sister and will take this opportunity to kill both of them and take over the kingdom. He also mentions that if Anna had a dog or cat, he would run it over in his truck (okay he doesn’t say that but it would fit with his declaration of evil). If all that sounds out of left field, that’s only because it is.

This is the face of evil. Pure, unexplained, evil.

There is no set up, literally nothing to suggest to the audience that Hans is a bad guy, nevermind a murderer. The turn is nothing short of awful. Frozen was a story about two sisters struggling to maintain a relationship while one struggles with magical powers and the other went on a journey of self-discovery in a frigid wonderland. That doesn’t sound like a story that needs a Prince Dirtbag to make it interesting.

Also: it’s Disney, their villains usually rock. And remember Fox and the Hound, proof that Disney didn’t use to shy away from telling a complex story without a needless villain. Sure the hunter is a dick to the Fox but… that’s kind of what hunters do.

The “reveal” of Prince Hans comes off as a cheat. A way to move the story to more expedited resolution instead of the natural ending it was heading for. One wonders what the morale of Prince Hans is for young women watching the film: remember girls, just because you meet a boy and he seems cute and fun – don’t get into a relationship because he probably just wants to kill you and your sister. That’s it: that is the only reason you shouldn’t rush into a relationship.

In a movie where one of the main characters can create snow from nothing, this should not be the most unrealistic scene.

So while Frozen is still good, it never gets great. Before I saw this film, I heard it compared to Beauty and the Beast. Not even close. Beauty and the Beast has more than one song worth remembering… and, you know, a villain who isn’t the dumbest thing since George Lucas thought to explain the Force in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.