Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Chronicles of Narnia Teasers...

[Romier S]

Here they are:

 

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

 

Chronicles of Narnia The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe

 

Both trailers are just wonderful. Being a somewhat non-fan of Harry Potter in general, I really liked what I saw in the the Goblet trailer. The Williams theme is still at the end of the trailer, though I know he's not scoring the film. Looking forward to hearing what the actual film score will be like.

 

The Narnia trailer is just f'ing awesome if you ask me! :rock

[Angry the Clown]

Oh you'd dare to overwrite my post from the Upcoming Movies thread with your own fancy dedicated one! Bloody Nazi forum owners.

 

As far as Goblet's score is concerned, I am quite confident Doyle will deliver something as good as, if not better than Williams. Azkaban is still Williams' best non-Spielberg score in a long, long time but Doyle could certainly deliver something of that calibre. It's still unknown whether he'll use any of Williams' existing themes at this point. Logic would suggest yes, but Mike Newell has admitted he's trying to do something different with the film so who knows?

 

Narnia? I voiced my main concern over it having the director of the two Shrek movies, which I can not abide, in the other thread. I think Graeme also made a very good point over concerns WETA may not be able to lend the film its own sense of individuality over the production design of LOTR. It?s a decent trailer though. I expect many will find them tacked on before Revenge of the Sith next week.

 

Daniel

[Whooter]

What was wrong with the Shrek movies?

 

It's not like the guy is Uwe Boll or something...

[Angry the Clown]

Well I won't be popular for this, but Shrek to me is just a vapid exercise overgrown with self indulgent pop culture referencing with no substance to make either film anything that will stand to be relevant to new audiences in fifteen years time (perhaps even less). Already the jokes of the first one are showing their age. Now I accept I?m in a minority, but the shear scale of their success at the box office and in DVD sales baffles me nevertheless.

 

This is something very typical of Dreamworks/PDI Animation mind you, which Shrek pretty much paved the way for and perhaps why I hold more contempt for it than I probably should? Features filled to the brim with contemporary referencing where the overpaid voice talents are hyped more than the story ever is (Madagascar being their latest offender). People lap it up though so what do I know?

 

Naturally Narnia could not be more different. I?m just not quite sure how one goes from co-directing and writing two animated movies like Shrek to being able to play with such important source material as the Narnia books. That said, I never imagined the maker of Meet the Feebles would have directed Lord of the Rings.

 

Daniel

[Whooter]

That said, I never imagined the maker of Meet the Feebles would have directed Lord of the Rings.

 

Heh. I was gonna say the same thing...

[secretvampire]

Well I won't be popular for this, but Shrek to me is just a vapid exercise overgrown with self indulgent pop culture referencing with no substance to make either film anything that will stand to be relevant to new audiences in fifteen years time (perhaps even less). Already the jokes of the first one are showing their age. Now I accept I?m in a minority, but the shear scale of their success at the box office and in DVD sales baffles me nevertheless.

 

Well, then I'm in the minority with you!

 

This is something very typical of Dreamworks/PDI Animation mind you, which Shrek pretty much paved the way for and perhaps why I hold more contempt for it than I probably should? Features filled to the brim with contemporary referencing where the overpaid voice talents are hyped more than the story ever is (Madagascar being their latest offender). People lap it up though so what do I know?

 

Another great point. How many "talking animals with celebrity voices" animated films do we REALLY NEED? I'm glad the The Incredibles broke the mold on this a bit with very good results both commercially and critically. I hope studios can see they don't need to limit CGI films to talking animals.

 

Naturally Narnia could not be more different. I?m just not quite sure how one goes from co-directing and writing two animated movies like Shrek to being able to play with such important source material as the Narnia books. That said, I never imagined the maker of Meet the Feebles would have directed Lord of the Rings.

 

Back on topic, it IS sometimes hard to judge a director's future output based on their past if they've only got a couple of films under their belt. As we all know, directors often take whatever is offered to them by the studios to get their foot in the door, even if the script/actors are dreadful.

 

I really hope it all turns out well, I read and re-read the Narnia saga as a child and would hate to see it tarnished.

[PoisonJam]

Well I won't be popular for this, but Shrek to me is just a vapid exercise overgrown with self indulgent pop culture referencing with no substance to make either film anything that will stand to be relevant to new audiences in fifteen years time (perhaps even less).

 

We can be unpopular together, then, because I agree with you. I laughed at the first one the first time I saw it because the novelty of those pop culture references was still fresh, but I was amazed at how quickly it lost its charm for me. The second one was even worse, in that I couldn't even enjoy my initial viewing from all the cutesy "wink wink" references to current events.

[kelley]

Back on topic, it IS sometimes hard to judge a director's future output based on their past if they've only got a couple of films under their belt. As we all know, directors often take whatever is offered to them by the studios to get their foot in the door, even if the script/actors are dreadful.

 

Yeah, but in the case of PJ he created Meet the Feebles, which if you haven't seen is a fantastic movie.

[JFo]

Well I won't be popular for this, but Shrek to me is just a vapid exercise overgrown with self indulgent pop culture referencing with no substance to make either film anything that will stand to be relevant to new audiences in fifteen years time (perhaps even less). Already the jokes of the first one are showing their age. Now I accept I?m in a minority, but the shear scale of their success at the box office and in DVD sales baffles me nevertheless.

 

While I actually did enjoy both Shrek movies, I do agree that they will not age well. The problem with adding pop culture references is exactly as you described. They're funny now, but years from now, they won't have to same bite they once had.

[Whooter]

Maybe I'm confused, but wouldn't the "Pop Culture Conundrum" be a product of the writing, rather than the directing?

[EnemaEms]

Maybe I'm confused, but wouldn't the "Pop Culture Conundrum" be a product of the writing, rather than the directing?

Damn you and your monkey wrenches.

 

-Dean-

[Angry the Clown]

While I actually did enjoy both Shrek movies, I do agree that they will not age well. The problem with adding pop culture references is exactly as you described. They're funny now, but years from now, they won't have to same bite they once had.

 

Mmm. There's definitely a fine line wouldn't you say, Jeff? You can get away with a reference here and there, but the trick is to make ones on cultural aspects that will stand the test of time allowing your film in turn to hopefully do the same. This is something Pixar seem particularly wary of in their work.

 

It's easy to tire of my seeming ability to knock an awful lot of things these days, especially movies, but I strive to work in creative avenues and I know the struggles one faces in trying to be creative and original, so anything that is a rather cynical short term exercise for a licence to print money quickly over an opening weekend - a work that really wont last even though multi-millions of dollars have been poured into it ? leaves me frustrated. Dreamworks as a whole, not just their animation division, I have found a bitterly disappointing addition to the world of filmmaking. That is another rant altogether though, and I?ve already started one that doesn?t belong in a thread about trailers for Harry Potter and The Lion, the Witch and the Wadrobe.

 

To address a few points though:

 

Another great point. How many "talking animals with celebrity voices" animated films do we REALLY NEED? I'm glad the The Incredibles broke the mold on this a bit with very good results both commercially and critically. I hope studios can see they don't need to limit CGI films to talking animals.

 

I agree it is nice to see confidence with human characters (something Japanese animation never lost sight of), but generally I?m not entirely sure animals are so much the problem, merely the personalities they?re given. A major gripe I have had with American animation is the ?wacky wise ass buddy? character, which I kind of blame Aladdin for spawning, not because of the Genie himself, but for the pale imitations of similar buddies that came about in a vast number of Disney films, and titles from competing studios, that followed in its wake. Take your pick really; Rosie O?Donnell in Tarzan, Martin Short in Treasure Planet, the dragon in Mulan, almost every supporting character stereotype in Atlantis and most significantly in the non-Disney camp, Donkey in Shrek and a variety of supporting character in any PDI movie since. Am I forgetting any? I never saw Robots, but Blue Sky didn?t seem to be doing anything different judging by what I saw of the Robin Williams character in the trailer (funny that I would come full circle back to Williams actually).

 

 

Do you know what I find fascinating though? It?s the way Pixar promote their work. In their trailers they sell you nothing but the story, which I think is telling of how truly exceptional and valuable their work is. They never name drop in their trailers, TV spots or posters? They do what no other mainstream film in American cinema can possibly conceive of doing and sell you the story free of any baggage you could relate to an actors familiar face on screen.

 

Unless you?ve a keen ear for celebrity voices, you?ll never know who?s in their movies (especially Bugs Life, Nemo, The Incredibles and now Cars too), but they don?t make the name of the voice talent the important factor, only the strength of the voice itself. The best example I guess would be Sarah Vowell in the Incredibles who I think was inspired casting? Now she?s an author, but they go with whatever voice feels right to them. In some horrific universe Violet would be voiced by J-Lo (who would in turn sing the mandatory song that in a non-Pixar universe is featured in the end credits)!

 

 

Maybe I'm confused, but wouldn't the "Pop Culture Conundrum" be a product of the writing, rather than the directing?

 

It would, yes, and Adamson can be let off for the first Shrek script as he did not write it, though he co-wrote the sequel. Whether he will be back for the already commissioned Shrek 3 and 4 (oh dear, Mr Katzenberg!), I don't know. I would assume Shrek 3 is moving ahead swiftly so I'd be surprised if he is involved what with Narnia now consuming his life.

 

On a related note regarding The, Lion the With and the Wardrobe, I was sad to hear recently that Brian Cox pulled out of voicing Aslan due to noted scheduling conflicts. A replacement has yet to be named. Chris Tucker maybe? Let's make Aslan a wacky wise ass buddy. "You crazeh, Edmund. YOU CRAZEH!"

 

Daniel

[Whooter]

That sounds more like Chris Rock, actually.

 

Of course, animated features didn't invent the wisecracking buddy to the straight man hero...

 

As an aside, I thought "Robots" was exceptionally well done, and better than the Shrek movies. Give it a rent, at least, when it comes around, Daniel...

[Graeme]

I agree about Shrek also.

 

In their trailers they sell you nothing but the story, which I think is telling of how truly exceptional and valuable their work is. They never name drop in their trailers, TV spots or posters?

 

Except for their own name and movies of course. Just about every bit of advertising they do has "From the studio that brought you Finding Nemo, Toy Story, Monster Inc and the Incredibles" (that red-headed stepchild known as A Bug's Life never seems to get an recognition).

 

I do tend to recall a bit of Tim Allen and Tom Hanks hoopla in Toy Story advertising though. I could be wrong.

 

But I think in just about everything that Pixar does, it's painfully obvious that the story is always the most important part of the process, and it shows in the end product.

 

Unless you?ve a keen ear for celebrity voices, you?ll never know who?s in their movies (especially Bugs Life, Nemo, The Incredibles and now Cars too), but they don?t make the name of the voice talent the important factor, only the strength of the voice itself.

 

I remember when the Incredibles teaser came out, nobody could figure out who Mr. Incredible's voice was. It sounded familiar to everybody, but since Craig T Nelson had done very little, nobody could place it. I remember many people were convinced it was Patrick Warburton, which it obviously wasn't.

[Romier S]

(that red-headed stepchild known as A Bug's Life never seems to get an recognition)

..and I have no idea why! I loved A Bug's life.

[Angry the Clown]

Except for their own name and movies of course. Just about every bit of advertising they do has "From the studio that brought you Finding Nemo, Toy Story, Monster Inc and the Incredibles"

 

Of course, but that that I find rather amusing since it?s just a list of tremendous films whereas someone like Michael Bay gets ?from the director of Armageddon and Pearl Harbour?? For Pixar, their 'from the makers of' boast again can do little else but act as a quick reminder that they deliver top quality stories and characters above everything else. I truly hope they always do, though box office numbers seem to be the gauge for many now as to whether a movie was good or not. I wouldn?t ignore the possibility of an Iron Giant situation, a beautiful film that?s ignored, coming out of Pixar one day, but the very thought of them telling a bad story I can?t quite picture yet.

 

 

I do tend to recall a bit of Tim Allen and Tom Hanks hoopla in Toy Story advertising though. I could be wrong.

 

http://www.pixar.com/featurefilms/ts/theater/

 

Not a whisper of their names in the trailers. I am fairly certain Hanks and Allen were shown doing their voice work in various behind the scenes b-roll clips sent out to TV networks back in 1995 though, which was fair enough given the climate of cinemagoers who were just baffled by how the film was done. I certainly remember more footage like that back in 1995 than Pixar care to reveal these days with their recent releases.

 

 

I loved A Bug's life.

 

I adore it too! I'm tired of so many people forgetting the film even exists.

 

Daniel

[EnemaEms]

A Bug's Life is a fantastic film.

 

"You fired!"

"No, You Fired!"

 

"But its a rock?"

 

Pixar knows how to voice cast a film. Every character in their films have the perfect voices.

 

-Dean-

[Graeme]

Not a whisper of their names in the trailers.

 

They're mentioned in the Toy Story 2 trailer, TV Spots and print ads. That's what I was remembering.

[Angry the Clown]

Yes you?re quite right. It's funny that they did so for 2 and not the first one.... Does that make Toy Story 2 the odd one out in this respect? I?m fairly positive Monsters Inc didn?t blurt Goodman and Crystal?s name at you?

 

Daniel

[jhfagan]

I wonder why John Williams is not scoring this one? Did the director want someone else? A different style maybe?

[Romier S]

I wonder why John Williams is not scoring this one?

Time. Williams has a bunch of projects on his plate including War of the Worlds and Memoirs of a Geisha on his plate along with a few other unnamed projects.

[Angry the Clown]

As Romier notes, it was purely a scheduling conflict unfortunately. He started the year doing Revenge of the Sith, then he moved swiftly on to begin work on War of the Worlds from which point he will then progress to writing the score for Memoirs of a Geisha.

 

With Spielberg trying to get his 1972 Olympics film out for December (it's yet to even begin filming) this will bring Williams up to four scores for 2005. Even the former three was enough to conflict with Potter however.

 

Patrick Doyle who is scoring Goblet of Fire is a great composer. He's exceptional in fact. He's Kenneth Branagh's "go to" guy when it comes to film scores, funny given Branagh's link to the Potter films, and funnier still that Doyle scored Alfonso Cauron's 'A Little Princess'... It would seem fate led to him being involved in Potter...

 

With his Goblet of Fire score and Howard Shore's King Kong score this winter we should be getting some exceptional music. I'm also hoping Harry Gregson-Williams does a good job with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

 

Daniel

[GreenMonkey]

I don't have any more Lord of the Rings movies to look forward too, so I did enjoy the Narnia trailer - I hope the Disney folks don't **** it up (not a lot of respect for Disney here - no offense Disney folks). I haven't read Narnia since I was in like 7th grade, but still...

 

With Harry Potter, I'm not a big fan. I got past the kiddie-fantasy thing back in 6th-7th grade, and I consider the Harry Potter stuff waaaaay too typical for me. But still, a fantasy movie is still a fantasy movie. Personally I liked the most recent HP movie the most and the first one the least.

 

My wife played the Narnia teaser for me. Looked pretty good to me.