October 04, 2005

Audio Edition - October 4th 2005

Time once again for The Audio Edition

Today Doug and I tackle some HUGE news coming out of Bungie. It seems Peter Jackson has signed on as one of the executive producers for the Halo movie (which doens't really mean anything), and even BIGGER news that WETA is on board to do the visual effects (that IS big news). We also look at the top animated films of all time, news about Indiana Jones 4, the new Harry Potter film and a few things more.

You can download this installment of The Audio Edition here

To subscribe to the podcast of The Audio Edition on iTunes copy this link and then paste it into iTunes-Advanced-Subscribe to Podcast.

SHOW NOTES: Running Time: 29:30 File Size 6.7 megs
- The Peter Jackson and Halo story
- The top animated films story
- The Harry Potter trailer story


Posted by John Campea at October 4, 2005 06:09 PM


Comments

john,

what happened to that movie review edition on Sunday?
You freakin' ruined my Sunday by not providing me with your invaluable opinions of Into The Blue, Serenity, and History of Violence.

I was surprised that Serenity didn't do better, and am glad History of Violence did so fantastic. Good for Cronenberg! He deserves a hit.

Posted by: jack at October 4, 2005 08:07 PM

Let me preface this by assuming that we’re talking about animated features and features only. Now….

First off, in response to John's idea of animation being generational...that's simply flat out wrong. Kids, more than anyone, are far less critical when it comes to aesthetics. A good film is a good film. Ted Turner had a similar idea to turn the “youngins” on to black and white films and we all remember what happened then! Second, you're comparing apples and oranges when it comes to traditional 2-d animation and 3-d animation. They are two completely different worlds and should be separated for their distinct qualities. Lastly, would today's children not enjoy the stop motion of The Corpse Bride because of pioneers such as George Pal paved the way for current stop-motion?

Of all the types of films, animation in all forms is ageless. In my opinion, if the animation is done properly and the story is solid, the films will hold up well. In fact, Snow White has been re-released (every time Disney needs some cash) Snow White was re-released to theatres in 1952, ‘58, ‘67, ‘75, ‘83, ‘87, and ‘93.

As far as recent animated films being better than animated films that came before them...this in nonsense as well. There's no foundation for your argument. If anything storylines have gotten more simple and the market is flooded with much more useless rip-offs than ever before. The absurd amount of CGI driven animation is begging for a rather large fallout sometime in the near feature? At what point does the market get over-saturated? Films such as Valiant are beginning to bomb and profits for these films are starting to shrink.

Now, I love new and old animation alike but as someone who’s opinion I value when it comes to film…I was saddened to see that some 70% of your list is owned by Disney and nothing produced before 1973.

But alas, you sir, are entitled to your opinion and I commend you for making such a bold list.

A few films I would have mentioned: Song of the South, Streetfight, Three Caballeros,

And even a few recent films: Mcdull, Triplettes of Belleville, Kirikou

Posted by: Christopher Childs at October 4, 2005 08:26 PM

Hey Jack,

The Sunday Review edition are still on. Scheduling conflicts prevented them the last 2 weeks.


Hey Christopher

Thanks for you comments. Well put. However, let me address a couple of things you said:

"First off, in response to John's idea of animation being generational...that's simply flat out wrong."

I never said animation was generational at all.

"A good film is a good film."

I agree... that's why I'm so confussed when you later went on to say:

"you're comparing apples and oranges when it comes to traditional 2-d animation and 3-d animation. They are two completely different worlds and should be separated for their distinct qualities."

I disagree with that statement. Yes... the APPEARENCE is different... but a film is not just about appearance. It's more than that. And in that vein, you can compare them in the same conversation.

"As far as recent animated films being better than animated films that came before them...this in nonsense as well. There's no foundation for your argument."

Yes there is a foundation for my argument. It's my opinion. All conversation about film is subjective in nature and therefore the fact that it is just my opinion is just as good of a foundation as your opinion is that I'm incorrect. It's all good.

"The absurd amount of CGI driven animation is begging for a rather large fallout sometime in the near feature?"

Is 3 or 4 films a year an "absurd amount"? Is there lots of crap? Yes. But that fact does in no way detract from the idea that there is much gold in there as well.

Anyway, I do agree that market saturation is going to be an issue... but I don't see how that has any bearing on what I was talking about.

I actaully agree with most of what you said... but disagree with some of it. But that's the most beautiful thing about film (even animated film)... it's pure subjectivity!

Cheers mate!

~John

Posted by: John Campea at October 4, 2005 08:54 PM

First of all.. John your impression of miles is hilarious lol, you make him seem like a whiney lil` geek(not sayin` he is or isn't)

and whats with you guys and JAR JAR?..I mean come on.. I can't think of a worse character for a movie..it would be like puttin` Al Pacino in PeeWee Herman's Adventure..So give JAR JAR a break..

John, I agree on everything you said about the animation..the newer films are a better "build".. BUT!!, as doug metioned.. I have to say your wrong about Gordie Howe.. he might not of been able to be as overpowering as he was.. but he would of made the NHL today.. so TAKE IT BACK because he will hunt you down and give you a Howe hat trick.. and he will leave out the goal and assist, if you get my drift lol

great audio edition keep it up!!

and I mentioned about the reviews on the last audio edition.. I meant that you haven't done your traditional review, I wanna hear you and Doug fighting over why your right and hes wrong

Posted by: Ray` at October 4, 2005 08:56 PM

I'm not sure about that 'generational thing'. I grew up liking Wizard of Oz and Willy Wonka a lot more than most of the kids movies thrust upon me at that time. I think its naive to assume that kids will automatically like the newer, more expensive versions of things. You're not a kid, you just know that parents rush out and buy the new shiny recent DVDs that kids see advertised on TV. When Disney makes a huge deal out of their classics hitting DVD, they sell damn well.

How do we know kids wont get burnt out by the special effects wizardry of Narnia, Harry Potter, etc. How do we know these kids wont flip out when they see Willy Wonka, Wizard of Oz, Neverending Story, etc? When I worked at the video store there were a lot of kids coming in asking for old versions of Transformers, He Man and Ninja Turtles on tape because "the new ones suck"

Posted by: Goon at October 5, 2005 01:01 AM

Doug Nagy, this is for you:

Pleeease mention originaltrilogy.com on the Audio Edition. The splash screen quote alone is worth it!

Kind regards
/Joel

Posted by: Al.x at October 5, 2005 08:50 AM

I don't know John, I think your hypothetical arguments don't hold water strictly for the reason because they are hypothetical and cannot be proven.

hypothetical = zero

I will maintain that a movie like Snow White, which was released in 1937 has more staying power then shrek.

Think about that. 1937. And Cinderella has released in a slightly less impressive 1950.

Now that is staying power. A movie does not last for 70 years without being something special. It just dosn't. Some things are timeless, and some films are timeless. I do not think anything filled with pop culture references is timeless, it is timely and in 10 years, people watch it to make fun of the pop culture references, not to pay homage to it's quality.

Also, I have a huge family, with many small children, I have 13 nieces and nephews, three of who live with me.

Do you know what their favourite dvd is? They have both shreks, the increidbles, toy story and a million others. And their favourite DVD is a collection of black and white popeye cartoons from the 30s. I don't think children look for the same qualities in a film we do.

Needless to say, I completely disagree with your list, but the only way to prove who is right is to wait it out. Time will tell us just how right Miles is!

And then we'll see who is laughing you bastard!

And now, to prove how wicked awesome and right I am, check out this tottally fucking richeous pic of me holding a sword with my shirt off.

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/461/sig8qt.jpg

Someone should make a movie about that shit, it's hot.

Posted by: miles at October 5, 2005 09:27 AM

Holy shit Joe.
I will post that link on my site tonight.
I could not agree more with the younger George Lucas on black and white film.

Posted by: dougnagy at October 5, 2005 11:51 AM

Classic Disney movies suck.

Okay, they dont really suck but John is pointing out something that way too many are in denial about. The biggest reason that Classic Disney films are even remembered is primarily due to marketing and nostalgia. But bottom line is that outside of the disney nuts, many people who defend the classics havent even seen them in the last decade. Ive seen a few of them lately and i was shocked by how boring they were and the only thing that kept my attention was my appreciation for the effort of the animators 50 years ago.

From my experience with kids then the ones who actually enjoy watching these classics are the ones who's parents have brainwashed them into liking it. Buying the princess outfits, choosing the movie for the kid and that sort of garbage. We all have a place in our memories for the classics, but most children given the choice between Snow White and Finding Nemo will choose Nemo just because its actually entertaining.

Posted by: Cole at October 5, 2005 12:33 PM

Iron Giant was a WB film and not a Disney film. I can understand the mix up becasue Disney screws up marketing all the time but they can't hold a candle to the way WB handles animation.

Posted by: ziggyStarchild at October 5, 2005 01:16 PM

dreamworks does wicked stuff to, I was a huge fan of both the prince of egypt and sinbad legend of the seven seas.

Posted by: miles at October 5, 2005 01:45 PM

more staying power:

when i was a kid, I loved the old Looney Tunes cartoons way more than any of the newer cartoons on at the time.

Posted by: Goon at October 5, 2005 06:28 PM

where is my show for 10/5 i want my show

Posted by: Scott at October 5, 2005 10:04 PM

I'm late to the party as usual, but here's my two cents.

I don't get The Lion King choice. The filler between the songs did nothing for me and the movie felt more like a vehicle for the music than a storytelling tool. Of course, this may be because I knew all of the music before seeing the movie, but I don't see it as a great film.

As for the discussion of Classic Disney vs. Modern Animation conversation, the real question is do these movies translate through time. Knowing several little girls who love Snow White and Cinderella I think the older stories can continue translate to a younger audience. As the world becomes more cynical the timeframe when these movies would captivate a young girls imaginations will grow smaller, but I don't think their magic will ever be completely lost. My real problem with many of the modern pieces of animation is how much of the adult laughter hinges on knowledge of current popular culture, especially in Shrek. I think the possibility that a movie that is so dependant on a given slice of history will continue to resonate in twenty years is much less than something that doesn't require specific knowledge of a given time period.

Posted by: kmsqrd [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 7, 2005 04:54 PM