I'm not swayed by media often. To me, much of the media is in a downward death-spiral, dragged down by excessive amounts of filth, lack of soul and heart, and--likely most of the source--cashing in. Doesn't matter if it's books, music, video games, or movies, I always find myself in a bit of a niche in many of these media forms... and often find niches that remain woefully under-tapped.
Recently, I discovered one such rare niche with the movie Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hoole. For all intents and purposes, it looks like a simple by-the-numbers childrens/family movie with the odd distinction of being a tad more violent than most films of its class.
And yet, this kind of film has been done before a long time ago...
In the 1980s, there was something of a burst of family films that didn't "sugar-coat" the story. Neverending Story was brutal and downright scary at times, even with some levity to counteract it. Land Before Time remains one of the most gritty, yet still accessible, animated films in history (and ironically spawns one of the worst chain of terrible sequels in the history of the medium). And, of course, a special mention goes to The Secret of NiMH.
Yet between that decade and the current time, I can think of nothing that holds the rare distinction of being a gritty, dark, yet poignant family film. Yes, I've witnessed much of the Disney, Pixar, and Dreamworks films, but lets face it: Lion King only dark moments occur when Scar was in close enough proximity (something which hasn't been pulled off so well since Sleeping Beauty), The Incredibles embodies too much inspiration from cartoons and comics to be taken too seriously (that's superheroes for you), and Dreamworks... well, I'll concede that How to Train Your Dragon has its moments, but isn't even close.
Where Legend of the Guardians makes its mark is that it's tied closely to character development. Its strengths lie in keeping characters true to their personalities, and their development a function of that. The situations presented feel powerful enough to strike home the idea that the characters choices amplify who they are. This sounds simple on the surface, but rarely do you see such character development occur for both a protagonist ("good guy") and an antagonist ("bad guy") that are thrust in the same situation, until one choice splits them apart, sending them down different paths which they each chose to remain on.
For all the simplicity of the story flow, and how poorly the rare few scenes of levity seemed to have been crafted (ergo, I didn't laugh much), the character development and themes in the movie became a shining example of what's missing in most modern family movies: thematic elements that are deeply rooted in the characters themselves, not just the plot.
While my favorite movie this year may still be How to Train Your Dragon, for its wonderful balance of plot, action, and humor, Legend of the Guardians will take a place as one of the rare, few movies where I was moved to tears by a deep, thematic truth. This is the mark of a movie where the heart and soul put into it make it better than the sum of its parts.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
MEDIA: The Marketing Machine, and Why it is Despised.
Marketing is everywhere. This fact is indisputable. From the early days of people shouting out about the wares they're selling in a marketplace, to the modern-day plaster ads almost everywhere, the marketing machine is almost as old as mankind.
Marketing itself isn't bad, since in and of itself it's merely a way of getting your product noticed, thus ideally making the seller happy to acquire cash and the buyer happy to acquire an item.
Emphasis on IDEALLY.
With marketing everywhere, it's a raging behemoth that ranges from simplistic awareness creation promising little more than what is shown (think grocery store ads), to entire, massive, elaborate ads that may often be a complete scam.
Having grown up with media, I've witnessed the marketing machine personally in several aspects. When I was growing up, video games often employed a simplistic form of marketing: name recognition. When the original Nintendo system became popular, games that sold well would often have sequels released later. The most notable of these was MegaMan, managing to span six full games before moving on to another system and getting a spin-off series. Though a bit shameful, this particularly series pretty much lived up to it's pedigree, each game pretty much built on the same formula as the one before it, except different levels and a slight retooling.
Other times, this was employed in absolutely shameful ways, such as Double Dragon 5, which had a tenuous tie at best with its predecessors (it wasn't even in the same genre!).
Switching gears to something more mainstream, there's a form of the marketing machine that's become quite insidious in the film industry. In movies, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars have become (or will become, in the case of the latter film) notorious for re-release schedules that seek to milk all they can out of the audience. For Lord of the Rings, it started out simple enough with theatrical DVD releases of each movie. Then came the extended editions, which was understandable but problematic, since these versions could've been released at the same time as the theatrical versions (there have been standard and director's cut releases in the past). By itself, people could let that slide. But then, the Blu-Ray version came out... theatrical length, not extended edition. The review score alone shows that much of the online populace have caught on, and demand nothing less than at least having the extended edition as an option, one way or the other.
In another scenario, a supposedly minor edit from one version to another changed the face of another film production. BBC, being well known for their nature documentary series, releases another one, much to the delight of many people. However, Discovery Channel acquired the rights to re-release it, and as with the Planet Earth series they decided to change the narration. Why? No one knows but them, though it can only be guessed they were going for name appeal (because more people know of Oprah Winfrey than David Attenborough). Either way, from both my experience, and the experience of many others, the move was both bad for the audience, and everyone else for that matter. But who knows, maybe they got more money from it. I sincerely hope not, though.
In closing, I'll tell you the sad tale of what befell one company when marketing took over.
There once was a game developer named New World Computing. They weren't a very big company, nor the very best, but they were successful in their own right and had two popular franchises (technically one with a spin-off series) under their belt.
But the leader of the company had big aspirations. He dreamed of games played online in a massive virtual environment, something that was only starting to happen in the game industry. To achieve these goals, he would need to acquire backing from a publisher.
He went to 3DO, a company that had recently failed in their hardware business attempt, but had developed a respectable MMORPG; exactly the direction New World Computing wanted to take their franchise! The two companies talked, and eventually New World Computing was bought by 3DO and became part of the family.
It all went well at first, but slowly things worsened. 3DO began to impose tighter deadlines on the company. Throughout this initial threat, NWC still managed to release some good games, even if not polished as well as they'd like. But as the deadlines grew tighter and tighter, and the demands higher and higher, the quality fell further and further. At some point, the demands reached a point where the work was four times beyond what the company should be expected to make in such a timespan!
In the end, NWC never got to make that MMO they dreamed of creating, and soon ceased to exist altogether. When the 3DO ship sank, NWC went with it.
Now their franchise is in the hands of another company, not much better off than it was before.
In the end, the marketing department is said to have been the final nail in the coffin for 3DO, as their insistence on deadlines and numbers left no room for the quality that gamers craved.
Marketing itself isn't bad, since in and of itself it's merely a way of getting your product noticed, thus ideally making the seller happy to acquire cash and the buyer happy to acquire an item.
Emphasis on IDEALLY.
With marketing everywhere, it's a raging behemoth that ranges from simplistic awareness creation promising little more than what is shown (think grocery store ads), to entire, massive, elaborate ads that may often be a complete scam.
Having grown up with media, I've witnessed the marketing machine personally in several aspects. When I was growing up, video games often employed a simplistic form of marketing: name recognition. When the original Nintendo system became popular, games that sold well would often have sequels released later. The most notable of these was MegaMan, managing to span six full games before moving on to another system and getting a spin-off series. Though a bit shameful, this particularly series pretty much lived up to it's pedigree, each game pretty much built on the same formula as the one before it, except different levels and a slight retooling.
Other times, this was employed in absolutely shameful ways, such as Double Dragon 5, which had a tenuous tie at best with its predecessors (it wasn't even in the same genre!).
Switching gears to something more mainstream, there's a form of the marketing machine that's become quite insidious in the film industry. In movies, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars have become (or will become, in the case of the latter film) notorious for re-release schedules that seek to milk all they can out of the audience. For Lord of the Rings, it started out simple enough with theatrical DVD releases of each movie. Then came the extended editions, which was understandable but problematic, since these versions could've been released at the same time as the theatrical versions (there have been standard and director's cut releases in the past). By itself, people could let that slide. But then, the Blu-Ray version came out... theatrical length, not extended edition. The review score alone shows that much of the online populace have caught on, and demand nothing less than at least having the extended edition as an option, one way or the other.
In another scenario, a supposedly minor edit from one version to another changed the face of another film production. BBC, being well known for their nature documentary series, releases another one, much to the delight of many people. However, Discovery Channel acquired the rights to re-release it, and as with the Planet Earth series they decided to change the narration. Why? No one knows but them, though it can only be guessed they were going for name appeal (because more people know of Oprah Winfrey than David Attenborough). Either way, from both my experience, and the experience of many others, the move was both bad for the audience, and everyone else for that matter. But who knows, maybe they got more money from it. I sincerely hope not, though.
In closing, I'll tell you the sad tale of what befell one company when marketing took over.
There once was a game developer named New World Computing. They weren't a very big company, nor the very best, but they were successful in their own right and had two popular franchises (technically one with a spin-off series) under their belt.
But the leader of the company had big aspirations. He dreamed of games played online in a massive virtual environment, something that was only starting to happen in the game industry. To achieve these goals, he would need to acquire backing from a publisher.
He went to 3DO, a company that had recently failed in their hardware business attempt, but had developed a respectable MMORPG; exactly the direction New World Computing wanted to take their franchise! The two companies talked, and eventually New World Computing was bought by 3DO and became part of the family.
It all went well at first, but slowly things worsened. 3DO began to impose tighter deadlines on the company. Throughout this initial threat, NWC still managed to release some good games, even if not polished as well as they'd like. But as the deadlines grew tighter and tighter, and the demands higher and higher, the quality fell further and further. At some point, the demands reached a point where the work was four times beyond what the company should be expected to make in such a timespan!
In the end, NWC never got to make that MMO they dreamed of creating, and soon ceased to exist altogether. When the 3DO ship sank, NWC went with it.
Now their franchise is in the hands of another company, not much better off than it was before.
In the end, the marketing department is said to have been the final nail in the coffin for 3DO, as their insistence on deadlines and numbers left no room for the quality that gamers craved.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
POLITICS: Information Misinterpretation.
Despite what the title may make you believe, this won't really deal much with politics itself or the media. Yet both will be key players in this post, particularly because I will be mentioning a hotly-debated topic here.
So, I was discussing with a friend something about Arizona's proposed sb1070 immigration law that has been everywhere in the news. Anyway, this discussion went on after a judge blocked portions of the law from going into effect, one of which essentially read, "If an individual is stopped for a violation, and the officer has probable cause to believe the individual is an illegal immigrant, the officer may ask for papers" (poor summary, I know, but you get the idea). However, my friend interpreted that part of the law as meaning, "An officer may stop anyone they suspect is an illegal immigrant."
Thus, I promised to look it up online. A Google search and several re-reads of a tightly-worded legal document later, I find that what I heard was correct, meaning a person had to be stopped for another violation before immigration status could be checked.
Admittedly, he wasn't concerned one way or the other, but I can imagine a simple interpretation like this being the focal point for someone who wouldn't ordinarily be concerned about the actual wording to go up-in-arms over a misinterpretation.
Definitely something to keep in mind, especially since there are rumors that even certain politicians didn't read the actual proposed-law in full before they decided whether or not to attack it.
For reference, look up the original text at www.azleg.gov. sb1070 is the original bill, and hb2162 is a revising of that bill (supposedly the revision came April 30th, which seems to be after it hit the media).
Best to study an issue at its source before deciding whether you support it or are against it, so as to avoid letting hysteria engulf your thinking first.
So, I was discussing with a friend something about Arizona's proposed sb1070 immigration law that has been everywhere in the news. Anyway, this discussion went on after a judge blocked portions of the law from going into effect, one of which essentially read, "If an individual is stopped for a violation, and the officer has probable cause to believe the individual is an illegal immigrant, the officer may ask for papers" (poor summary, I know, but you get the idea). However, my friend interpreted that part of the law as meaning, "An officer may stop anyone they suspect is an illegal immigrant."
Thus, I promised to look it up online. A Google search and several re-reads of a tightly-worded legal document later, I find that what I heard was correct, meaning a person had to be stopped for another violation before immigration status could be checked.
Admittedly, he wasn't concerned one way or the other, but I can imagine a simple interpretation like this being the focal point for someone who wouldn't ordinarily be concerned about the actual wording to go up-in-arms over a misinterpretation.
Definitely something to keep in mind, especially since there are rumors that even certain politicians didn't read the actual proposed-law in full before they decided whether or not to attack it.
For reference, look up the original text at www.azleg.gov. sb1070 is the original bill, and hb2162 is a revising of that bill (supposedly the revision came April 30th, which seems to be after it hit the media).
Best to study an issue at its source before deciding whether you support it or are against it, so as to avoid letting hysteria engulf your thinking first.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
MOVIES: Month of the Animated Movie Trailer.
It seems that June is the month when all of the animation studios--both good and bad, known and unknown, new and older-than-the-hills--decide it's time to release a trailer for an upcoming film of theirs. One even decided to release ANOTHER trailer, just months after their previous first trailer. The list includes upcoming films such as Tangled, Rio, Alpha & Omega, Smurfs, and a second trailer for Legend of the Guardians. Here's a quick, quick synopsis of my response to each trailer.
Tangled: Interesting, to say the least, but the finished product could swing either way. I'm betting critic average response will be a few notches below Bolt (which sits at 88%), and viewer response may be about the same, give or take. As for me... no idea. Not that interested, but not repulsed either. Speaking of which, I still need to watch Bolt...
Alpha & Omega: This movie will fail. I could smell the fail from the moment I laid eyes on the first picture (didn't know it was possible to give an animated wolf such a bad hairdo that it could look like a creepy, dull flower). Critical panning and tepid viewer response are practically guaranteed, not to mention crude humor will abound. I certainly won't be watching it.
Rio: The good new is it seems it may be a bit above the quality of the last two Shrek movies. The bad news is it shows signs of containing similar crude humor, so don't expect this to vie for a How To Train Your Dragon or Kung Fu Panda level of quality. Still, it'll become a success among the viewers I'm sure.
Smurfs: Not much of a trailer here (technically a teaser), so too early to tell. Still... the animation style that was shown has me doubting how this will turn out...
Legend of the Guardians: The new trailer shows more balance between character personality/development and an epic storyline, so this trailer has me a bit more hopeful than usual. Still, I can't believe it's being headed by the people behind Happy Feet. *shudder*
Rango: Uh... what the... I think this film is stuck in some sort of flux. In fact, I don't know what to think of the trailer (the recent one, released June 29th). The art direction's actually surprisingly good for the style of film it is, but in that same breath leaves me unable to know whether it will turn out well or become a weird outlier. Unique for sure, yet surprisingly hard to tell where this will go.
Megamind: Think of this as Shrek rebooted... but with blue alien styles, a more antagonistic main character, and, well, lower expectations from me. Along with that, I'm expecting mediocre response from critics, but passable response from audiences. Doesn't appeal to me, though.
That's it for my impressions. I'm intentionally leaving Despicable Me out of the list due to its imminent release, and the bucket load of trailers out already.
Tangled: Interesting, to say the least, but the finished product could swing either way. I'm betting critic average response will be a few notches below Bolt (which sits at 88%), and viewer response may be about the same, give or take. As for me... no idea. Not that interested, but not repulsed either. Speaking of which, I still need to watch Bolt...
Alpha & Omega: This movie will fail. I could smell the fail from the moment I laid eyes on the first picture (didn't know it was possible to give an animated wolf such a bad hairdo that it could look like a creepy, dull flower). Critical panning and tepid viewer response are practically guaranteed, not to mention crude humor will abound. I certainly won't be watching it.
Rio: The good new is it seems it may be a bit above the quality of the last two Shrek movies. The bad news is it shows signs of containing similar crude humor, so don't expect this to vie for a How To Train Your Dragon or Kung Fu Panda level of quality. Still, it'll become a success among the viewers I'm sure.
Smurfs: Not much of a trailer here (technically a teaser), so too early to tell. Still... the animation style that was shown has me doubting how this will turn out...
Legend of the Guardians: The new trailer shows more balance between character personality/development and an epic storyline, so this trailer has me a bit more hopeful than usual. Still, I can't believe it's being headed by the people behind Happy Feet. *shudder*
Rango: Uh... what the... I think this film is stuck in some sort of flux. In fact, I don't know what to think of the trailer (the recent one, released June 29th). The art direction's actually surprisingly good for the style of film it is, but in that same breath leaves me unable to know whether it will turn out well or become a weird outlier. Unique for sure, yet surprisingly hard to tell where this will go.
Megamind: Think of this as Shrek rebooted... but with blue alien styles, a more antagonistic main character, and, well, lower expectations from me. Along with that, I'm expecting mediocre response from critics, but passable response from audiences. Doesn't appeal to me, though.
That's it for my impressions. I'm intentionally leaving Despicable Me out of the list due to its imminent release, and the bucket load of trailers out already.
Friday, May 7, 2010
MOVIES: A Trailer to Feast the Eyes and Ears.
Who knows what the passage of time will do to the movie at hand, as more than a decade of being subjected to promotional materials has taught me that an excellent preview does not equal an excellent movie.
But regardless,
I'd have to say this is perhaps the most awe-inspiring trailer I've seen in ages!
Almost makes it hard to believe this is the same studio behind Happy Feet (a movie that's about as ludicrous as its name).
But regardless,
I'd have to say this is perhaps the most awe-inspiring trailer I've seen in ages!
Almost makes it hard to believe this is the same studio behind Happy Feet (a movie that's about as ludicrous as its name).
Saturday, April 24, 2010
MEDIA: Not-so-Friendly Family-Friendly.
It's official. The term "family-friendly" seems to have lost half of its meaning these days, though I'm sure that started within the last decade or two.
Of course, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. The most notorious example in existence right now is ABC Family. Their tagline is "A different kind of family," which I agree... it's a dysfunctional family.
Of course, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. The most notorious example in existence right now is ABC Family. Their tagline is "A different kind of family," which I agree... it's a dysfunctional family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)