Pixar's Next

[Another Voice]

The first tiny breaks in the secrecy around Pixar's movie for 2008 have been released by Variety magazine: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957684.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Pixar is building a robot for 2008.

Disney-owned toon studio's release next year, titled "WALL-E," is believed to be about a young robot looking for a home in outer space.

Andrew Stanton, who won an Oscar for directing "Finding Nemo" and co-directed "Toy Story 2," is helming.

Former Lucasfilm Digital prexy Jim Morris produces. Project is his first since he joined Pixar in early 2005.

The article also repeats the long-going rumor that Toy Story 3 is on the boards for 2009.

And if anyone has been following this story for the last twenty years - Paramount has given up the rights to John Carter of Mars, the series of pulp science fiction novels from Edgar Rice Burroughs (who also created Tarzan). Disney had given up the rights a couple years ago after having struggled with the movie since the late 1980s (at one point it was to be a Bruce Willis flick, then a Kevin Costner epic, then at one time it was up against Dinosaur to be Disney's first semi-CGI flick).

The interesting rumor now is that Disney is faced with two groups that want to make the movie. Walden Media (The Chronicles of Narnia) wants it for a multiple part franchise. But it's also rumored to be Andrew Stanton's favorite to become Pixar's first live action movie.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Mr. V, would it be a wise move for PIXAR to expand to live FF in your estimation?

 

[reeeoga]

John Carter of Mars and Disney? Everybodies Nekkid in the books

 

[mitros]

John Carter of Mars and Disney? Everybodies Nekkid in the books

In the pictures I've seen, some people are just scantily clad......

 

[reeeoga]

In the pictures I've seen, some people are just scantily clad......

Read the books . Everybody on Mars is nekkid except for leather weapon harnesses .

The books area also very sexist for our times , but the scenery in the stories would make for great CGI

 

[Another Voice]

Mr. V, would it be a wise move for PIXAR to expand to live FF in your estimation?

This is one of the rare cases were I really do think it’s a good idea. When you listen to the Pixar group talk, it becomes very clear that they think as filmmakers first, animators second. Their interest is in story – animation is simply a way to tell it. Others – cough, Treasure Planet, Atlantis – think in terms of “cool visuals” and then to bend a story around it. Pixar has learned this the hard way through the development of Toy Story and it’s a lesson that’s been grafted onto into DNA. I’m willing to trust that they would bring this same sensibility to a film even if the main actor is a human and not a bunch of computer code.

The other aspect is the line between “live action” and CGI films will disappear within a few years. Look at the amount of CGI work that already goes into Big Hollywood Blockbusters and you can see. I’m not talking about backgrounds and effects, but look at how many characters are now fully CGI – imagine Dead Man’s Chest’s Davy Jones, King Kong, and almost anytime you see a stunt these days it’s CGI instead of a “real” stuntperson.

It’s not going to be all that long before actors are replaced by “synthetic actors” and every thing you see on the screen is fully CGI. “Stars” will be people who sell their likenesses and maybe perform some basic motion capture, but for most part movies will be composed on a computer instead of filmed on set. It’s even rumored that one project out there has licensed the images of several “Golden Age” Hollywood stars – Humphrey Bogart may star in biggest hit of 2010.

Everybodies Nekkid in the books

Some say the reason the project died the first time was because of pre-production art showing Kevin Costner running around in nothing but a bronze cod piece.

The books are definitely from the earliest parts of the 20th century, and written for adolescent boys – lot’s of fighting, lots of monsters, lots of neekid princesses. But it’s not like the books are classic literature that can’t be touched. If these movies are made, I’m sure they’ll be very politically correct – with some nice global warming allegory thrown in for good measure.

 

[TheDogbots]

It’s not going to be all that long before actors are replaced by “synthetic actors” and every thing you see on the screen is fully CGI. “Stars” will be people who sell their likenesses and maybe perform some basic motion capture, but for most part movies will be composed on a computer instead of filmed on set. It’s even rumored that one project out there has licensed the images of several “Golden Age” Hollywood stars – Humphrey Bogart may star in biggest hit of 2010.

Um.... No? That is why we are seeing a Hollywood Trend to go back to models and stunt doubles... I don't think the box office will ever be taken over by CGI, you get a different film experience from both models and CGI, and there are a good amount of directors that like the way the old 1/20 size buildings explode, or how a real person's body moves for a stunt. Whereas some blockbusters will have incredible amounts of CGI, it still looks like CGI. Yeah its great golum or davy Jones looks pretty rad, but they are monsters, non human and don't need human expressions to exactly match real life, because we don't know how davey jones would show emotions in real life. Think about the CGI humans we see, the ones that actually are supposed to look realistic... yeah not very many of those are there? to get such depth of a human actor, it would take technology many years away, very expensive, and ultimately giving us the same cheep artificial experience as it does now. CGI is not a complete future.


I did hear about the golden age rumor before. I can't remember where, though i thought it might actually have been the History Channel. It will be interesting to see if they can remotely pull it off. though, it does seem wrong in a way lol. And ultimately it will be false, since only those actors could act the way they would for the movie. I don't expect this to be very often thing either, much cheeper to hire real actors anyway... and seriously how attracted to a movie staring Erol Flynn will teenagers be, wouldn't they just rather see Will Smith?
Yeah, film buffs, historians, and critics would see it, but I can't see it being a blockbuster...

 

[Another Voice]

I don't think the box office will ever be taken over by CGI, you get a different film experience from both models and CGI,

It's simply economics. I can pay $20 million to get Julia Roberts (and trailer load of hassles that come with a "star"), or I in a few years I can pay an actress a couple grand for motion capture and have a lead character with more glamour and grace.

A couple guys with some PCs in their basement can make a movie far more economically than a bunch of studio suits hovering over the craft services tables while the lead actor throws a temper tantrum in his trailer because the leading lady lady laughed at the size of his Barsoom costume.

With the way software is going, directing the performance wouldn't be much more difficult than with a real person. Already the software that generates crowd and battle scenes has enough intelligence to provide for indiviudalized movements and "point - run to this location" direction.

Don't judge "CGI" actors based on The Polar Express or the current movies. The field is moving fast and the economics are powerful.