Haven’t had time to screw around with a website for some time now and still really don’t. I promise to post something cool soon. I just wanted to pop out of the woodwork to say how I find it surprising that none of the animation websites I regularly read covered the announcement that Brad Bird is directing Mission: Impossible IV for Paramount. You’d think that the fact that America’s leading animated feature director is moving to live-action franchises, and that it’s confirmed, without a doubt, that Pixar will never make a movie worth watching again, would be headline news and serve as fodder for the discussion of whether or not it’s impossible for a director with real ambition to be a success in mainstream animation. Oh well.
Thad’s Books
I am in your agreement withe the ignorance(or blatant disregard ?) of this news around the animation community. In general, my knowledge on this specific subject is limited; How many directors in this country have been very successful in live action and animation ? Frank Tashlin, George Pal, and Tim Burton are the only names I can think of. And arguably, Burton has been the biggest success out of the three names I mentioned. Burton’s following has pretty much become a cult.
Also going slightly off topic but MI:IV is going to suck just the other three films. These films have never given a damn about the original series, it’s just been Tom “Crazy” Cruise’s personal vessel to be James Bond.
“Ethan Hunt will be the main star of the film, but the new sequel is being looked at as a “reboot” to the series.”
Oh boy, no one has done that before. Is there going to be a lot of existential brooding as subtle as a sledge hammer ? Or like in this recent Star Trek film, just slapping everything together that everyone already knows but this time everyone is young and hip ?
Doesn’t Andrew Adamson count as a good example of an animation director moving to mainstream film? I guess it depends on your love for Shrek and The Chronicles of Narnia.
I can definitely see your point, Thad. This really should have been big news for the animation community, but alas, the major animation blogs just pass this off as merely nothing. I didn’t even know about this until you mentioned it in this post. Not even Cartoon Brew has said anything yet, and it’s been over two weeks since this announcement was made. Kind of ironic, since they’re always writing about the absolute decline and destruction of Cartoon Network and its ever increasing production of live-action hackwork.
Does Andrew Adamson have any actual drawing or animation skills ? All his previous credits before Shrek seem to be “visual effects”.
Maybe nobody’s commenting because it was Bird’s intention to direct a live action film, 1906, before he landed Mission Impossible IV. For whatever reason, he’s switched projects, but he was already lost to animation for the next few years.
According to this article the cost of 1906 worried the studios involved and as a result, landed the film in development hell. Bird is currently working on script that would reduce the scale of the film.
This once again shows how spineless Hollywood is when it comes to original ideas. They’ll gladly sink 250 million for an established franchise like Star Trek or Batman but god forbid they’ll put up the bread for something that hasn’t been done yet.
Newt is cancelled and there’s a slight shift to sequels in addition to Bird going for live-action. I’m more concerned about these budding clues than Brad Bird deciding to explore live-action. He can be successful just like Frank Tashlin. But there’s something curious about what is going on about Pixar and I wonder if it’s justified to worry or if it’s a false alarm.
Articles like these remind me to refresh my memory on how and why the system got redesigned to treat animation as a second-fiddle (or was it always this way since the very beginning?)
The Pixar Blog posted this two weeks ago.
“Articles like these remind me to refresh my memory on how and why the system got redesigned to treat animation as a second-fiddle (or was it always this way since the very beginning?)”
It was always that way. Animation has always been treated like the unwanted step-child in comparison to live action. Outside of Disney very few studios made feature length animated films. Is it any wonder that Tashlin was looked upon with resigned envy by some of his former Looney Tunes colleagues?
I’m amazed the studios dropped “1906”, you’d think they’d all dive at the chance to make another “Titanic”. Effects shouldn’t be much of a problem in today’s world of digital effects and green screen sets. It isn’t as though they’d have to build an actual demolished city the way they did for the old Clark Gable film “In Old San Francisco”.
I don’t have any problem with Brad Bird doing a live action film, but Mission Impossible IV? How about making a film I might actually see?
As someone else stated, the big loser is going to be PIXAR. I remember a quote from one of the old Disney animators about the the time the studio began making live action films,”As soon we saw Walt climb onto that camera crane, we knew we’d lost him.”
Aw, who the hell cares… I’m so tired of computer generated imagery, I could shit blood. Maybe Bird will tone down the action and explore more fully his oedipal complex, (something touched on from Family Dog to The Incredibles)… hah! A domesticated Mission Impossible! Could be a coup!
Pixar bores me, so I couldn’t care ether way.
“A domesticated Mission Impossible! Could be a coup!”
This will definitely not be the film to observe Bird’s debut in live action. I’d wait until 1906 comes out and I am sure that’ll be ,at very least, more interesting then the other Hollywood Hogwash around. In general, I think Bird would be a lot better suited for live-action. He’s a great animator but he seems to be more interested in shooting an animated film like a live-action one.
Ricardo, I wuz trying to jest, I have no interest in the career of Brad Bird. Something which paradoxically doesn’t keep me from being unaware of his activities.