Warner should f'in' know better...

[acroyear]

Jim Hilll : “Incredibles” sequel is stalled until Bird can get “1906” off the ground:

Based on James Dalessandro’s 2004 best seller, “1906” is nothing if not ambitious. It’s this romantic mystery set in and around San Francisco just prior to the earthquake & fire that basically flattened Baghdad-by-the-Bay back in 1906. And – yes – Brad wants to recreate all of that carnage as part of his big screen epic.

The only problem is … A movie of this size & scale is going to be hugely expensive. Which is why Warner Bros. and Disney / Pixar are teaming up to co-produce “1906.” Which means that – instead of having to please just one studio head (i.e. John Lasseter at Pixar Animation Studios) – Bird (who is not only directing “1906” but also rewriting the screenplay that Dalessandro himself wrote for this project) has to make three separate sets of Suits happy before production can then begin on his film. This is why – even though Brad originally signed his “1906” contract back in March of last year – this project still doesn’t have a start date.

[...]

And while the folks at Warners Bros. and Disney / Pixar clearly saw “1906” ‘s enormous box office potential (Virtually every Studio official that I spoke with while researching today’s story had the exact same thing to say. That – if Brad can actually deliver the goods here, deliver a truly romantic disaster film – this could be “Titanic” all over again. The sort of movie that makes billions of dollars worldwide) ... But given that Bird had never directed a live-action film before. Never mind a motion picture of this size … Even with three separate companies coming together to shoulder “1906” ‘s projected $200-million-plus price tag, the financial risks involved here were deemed to be too high.

[...]

So wish Brad Bird luck, folks. Because today’s Hollywood likes safe, pre-sold properties like the Smurfs, Yogi Bear and Tom & Jerry. Even Walt Disney Pictures’ big release for next month – “Race to Witch Mountain” -- falls into this same category. That sort of movie where the Studio isn’t forced to waste any of its marketing money on trying to explain what this picture is actually about. That sort of film where the audience walks into the theater already knowing what they’re going to see.

Which (you’d think) would work in “1906” ‘s favor. After all, this would be the big screen version of a best-selling book. A romantic movie mystery set in and around one of America’s greatest tragedies.

The only problem is … The market research that Warner Bros. and Disney officials have done to date suggest that the 15-to-25-year-olds that the Studios will be heavily relying on to come out and support this $200-million-plus co-production reportedly have little or no knowledge of the Great San Francisco Earthquake. That – to be blunt – this historic tragedy just doesn’t have that same sort of resonance / name recognition with young adults that the sinking of the Titanic enjoys.

Warner brothers, after LotR and other big hits, should know better.  A summer blockbuster makes a decent run by getting the 15-25 year olds to show up once each, maybe twice (and even Twilight couldn't manage that in spite of the opening week hype-up).  That's what gets X-Men, Spiderman, Matrix, Shrek, and the current Batman going as high as they do.  But it also is the reason they get no higher.

To get the BIG hit, the surprise know one could have forseen, takes something more.  It takes getting that same 15-25 audience to show up at least once, AND it takes getting even more 25-45 year olds to show up than 15-25ers.  THAT is what it took for Lord of the Rings, Titanic, Pirates 1, Superman 1, Batman 1, ET, Raiders, and the original Star Wars and Star Trek films.

These films treated their audiences differently from just being numbers of popcorn boxes sold.  They gave the audience something to think about and talk about and, God forbid, actually got parents talking to their teenage children about the movies and sharing the experiences of the ride, the books, or real history, much as the great historical epics and golden musicals of the past did.  And much as Pixar has overwhelmingly managed to do for all ages.  They close the age and generation gap.

So dammit, Warner, get your heads out of your asses, give Bird the money, and get the hell out of the way.  Let Lassiter do his job, which he's done better than anybody else in history: keep his team on track to making a great movie that appeals to everybody.  There's a way to close the age gap and get us old farts in to the theaters, and Lassiter and his team know what it is, even if you don't believe them.

Comments

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

Well, while it could be Titanic, it could also be Pearl Harbor, which is probably in the back of Disney's mind.

And while it might go against the premise of what you have said, I'd rather see a sequel to The Incredibles than this. Not really a fan of Titanic and probably won't be a fan of this either. Good luck to him, tho. I wish Brad the best.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Well, I place the blame for Pearl Harbor where it belongs: the idiot of a writer who wouldn't pass a 5th grade history test if he had a month to study for it.

Yeah, I'd rather see Incredibles myself.

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

Didn't you know? Actually knowing history isn't a requirement for writing a historical picture. Accuracy often goes out the window.

But knowing that's the truth of most "historical" films, Pearl Harbor had the bigger crime of a lame melodrama plot around the main event.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

and Titanic was any different?

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

True, but audiences connected with that melodrama and didn't with Pearl Harbor. That's why I don't agree with Hill that he has a strong possibility of capturing lightning in a bottle as Titanic did. (Which, until it was released, everyone thought it was a disaster in the making.) I also don't agree with you that they should just rubber-stamp such a movie because of the people behind it. When it comes to the couple hundred millions that will be put into this film for a guy who has never directed a live-action film, I can understand all the red tape.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

granted. there is that other factor: this is the first Pixar film to have next to no merchandise potential outside of the DVD, the soundtrack, and maybe a t-shirt or two.

Cars recovered a lot of lost box office (it being nowhere near as big as Toy Story 2, Monsters, or Nemo) by being the biggest selling kids merchandiser in recent Disney history since the Disney Princess brand. Incredibles, Ratatouillie and Wall-E (2 of 3 of those have Bird's name on it) didn't move nearly as much product, showing that not everything marketted past the tween audience can shove stuff off of shelves besides the dvds.

here, there's nothing that really would move except educational and game software that used the same models of the earthquake and aftermath, so any bad box office mojo might not be made up so easily elsewhere (and that too is all just like Pearl Harbor - so yes, I can see the patterns you're suggesting the studio is watching for).

Pearl did have other things going against it, of course. first the bad melodrama (and bad history) that comes from a bad script that isn't sure of what it was trying to achieve, especially as it stretched into the Doolittle raid. The better Pearl films (Tora Tora Tora) did better because they left that combination of mystery and determination around: rather than trying to cast a "human drama" (re: sappy romance), they pumped up the idealism of "we'll get through this" that reflected the feelings of the country itself in the aftermath.

second was (bad history related) conflicting too many things with known historical fact by people who remembered them (no women died in the attack, and the arizona's explosion was utterly wrong).

third was a complete and total lack of on-screen chemistry from ANYBODY. Yes there is that curse of actors being slaves to the special effects (hello Phantom Menace), but really. i don't know if that's actors fault or directors fault or what, but there really was nothing there at all.

yes, in that third, there's that concern again that Bird as someone who's not done live-action before, might fall into the same trap, and it is the one place where Lasseter doesn't have the experience either to help out. Remounts for pick-ups are expensive (as Peter Jackson demostrated with LotR), much more expensive then just sending a scene back to an animator to tighten.

A CGI film has one HUGE advantage over any other filming method: you can change the cinematography of an entire scene literally overnight - flip a few virtual dials and then send it to the rendering farm.

If the animatics and storyboards can't nail it before principal photography, he's stuck with a broken scene, and that would be bad.

Bird needs the combination of 3 things to make the story work, and the effects department isn't one of them. He needs the script and story (Lasseter is key here). He needs a great cinematographer who still understands modern special effects. And he needs good ACTORS for leads with good chemistry and to keep the "stars" to supporting and cameos.

And he also really needs to be careful with Giacchino (his fav composer it seems), but maybe I'll reconsider based on what I hear from Up and the new Star Trek film. It's not that he's not great, but his "action" themes being retro-Bond worked for Incredibles but not always as well when they popped up in moments of Ratatouillie. Giacchino isn't committed to the project yet, of course.

[zammis.livejournal.com]

I want to see stats pre-movie on 15-24 yr old who knew about the Titanic....sometimes its not about knowing ahead of time, its about being inspired to know MORE.

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

Well, I remember singing a song in a kids group about "it was sad when the great ship went down" which had a moral about wearing a life preserver when you go out to sea. I don't know that it is about the Titanic but I always suspected it.

Titanic got a LOT of attention in part because of some word of mouth, having DiCaprio's other movie hit right before the ship did, lots of publicity on the cost, and the wreck being found still being in the news (albeit at a lower level).

I don't like a lot of the stuff having to do with Titanic the Movie, however, it is one heck of a picture from a creative and technical standpoint. I mean Cheetos as props?

[jmthane.livejournal.com]

Actually, in the case of the Star Trek films, I would argue that getting the 25-45 year olds in the theatres was easy enough, simply because (at the time) that was Trek's fanbase. Remember that the first film came out 10 years after the original live-action series left the air. The first film, mediocre as it was (I think that the Director's Cut DVD finally gets it as good as it's going to get - it's not great, but it feels like Trek now; and I have said and still maintain that even bad Trek is decent entertainment), was good enough to get butts in seats and get those butts *back* in the seats. I even saw it in the theatre three or four times, and I almost never see a film in the theatre more than once (the ones on the midnight circuit back in the 80s would pretty much be the exception to that).

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

The plot of ST:TMP was actually an unused pilot episode for an abandoned restart of the Star Trek TV show. The cast is mostly what the cast of the series was going to be composed of, with Spock being replaced by Lt Xon and Decker and Ilia part of the regular crew.

Relating to the OP, it is Michael Eisner who is responsible for scuttling the TV series and pushing this plot as the movie.

[jmthane.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I do know what the plot was for. It would doubtless have fared better as a one hour pilot than a two hour movie. I say this because it felt like a one hour episode that got stretched (thus some who call it Star Trek: The Motionless Picture, and yeah, I have at times myself).

Did not know about Eisner being involved, though. Thank you for that bit of info. :-)

[scaleslea.livejournal.com]

They're working on an Incredibles SEQUEL?

Tell more!

Doc

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

nothing to tell. Bird's got some ideas for sequences, but no real story yet and he's too busy focusing on 1906 to do anything anytime soon, so we're talking well into the 2010s before there'll be another word, I warrant.