Racial Controversy over THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG a Lot of Hulaballo Over Nothing

When Disney studios makes its return to the world of 2-D animation this December with its film The Princess and the Frog, it will feature its first African Princess. Tiana, an african woman who starts out as a maid in New Orleans before finding her happily ever after, would seem like a good step forward in bridging the racial gap among Disney Princesses. But some people just won't be satisfied.

First, there's the AOL article that rips Disney's decision to have a Caucasion-appearing prince (though he's technically he's from the Mid-East) angrily asking why, at a time when our President is black, an African is apparently not good enough to be royalty. Another article has an unnamed woman claiming that having a white prince makes that statement that "black love isn't good enough." Would an all-African cast have been nice? Of course. But look at the flipside: this is an interracial courtship and marriage that's going to be taking place on the hallowed screen of Disney. What could be more ethnically diverse? In my view, making a film with only black characters has the danger of reinforcing the idea that blacks and whites can't occupy the same space; it would say you either have one ethnicity or the other. And those complaning about the prince's "whiteness" have to realize they can't have their cake and eat it too: they're also complaining that the villain of the film is black, which demonizes black people. Which is it folks? Are you saying that it is impossible for Africans to be villains? Heaven forbid that the two women struggling in the fight for good vs evil both have the same skin color.

And then there's the complaint about having the heroine Tiana being a maid to a spoilt rich white family in New Orleans. Attackers say this reinforces the idea that blacks should be serving people. This is a film where Tiana is 99% likely to get her come-uppance over her employers and leave them groveling at her feet as she becomes a princess and they loose all rank on her. She will break free of her role underneath the white family and have a triumphant happily ever after. Isn't that an uplifting and rewarding message, that anybody can be a princess, that no one is destined to remain forever subserviant? And isn't showing the white family as stuckup and snobbish a way of showing the pitfalls of such a system?

In short, there are people out there clamoring for attention, making mountains out of molehills. The Princess and the Frog may not be a perfect solution for the world's problems, but its making good steps in the right direction, and I look forward to its release this December.

Twitter: Star-Stalking on a New Level?

Over the last few months, there has been an increasing use of Twitter by those in Hollywood. Slashfilm at the beginning of March put together a list of key actors, directors, and writers who are using the service, which boasts a range of names, from J. J. Abrams to Nick Cannon. The list is only a sampling of the 140+ people that Slashfilm was aware of who used Twitter; undoubtedly the list has grown over the last few week, and will probably continue to grow as the service becomes more popular. So how exactly does Twitter fit into the scheme of relations between industry and consumers? Is it another form of tabloid? Is it a form of publicty? A way for stars and directors to connect with audiences they genuinely care about? The answer is a little of all those hypothesis.

There's no getting around the star-stalking angle of Twitter. There always have been, and always will be, people who want to know every last detail of the lives of celebrities, from what music they like to what film they are working on to their favorite fruit. With Twitter, fans can have these answers directly from the actors and directors themselves. For instance, I can find out at a glance what Stargate: Atlantis star David Hewlett thinks of the latest episodes of Battlestar Galatica or how annoyed Rumer Willis is with traffic at the moment. It is a glimpse into the inner lives of those much of America admires from afar, and I'm sure that there are those out there who frantically check Ashton Kutcher's Twitter to see what divine words he has to say today.

But for all these twitters appear to be the casual comments of actors and directors, we should never forget for a moment that these people work in Hollywood, where image is everything. Bearing that in mind, you have to wonder how many of these Twitters are monitored by press agents, or if someone in marketing has told a director to release certain information in a quick Twitter blurb. The more overt publicity uses of the micro-blogging format are just beginning to be explored; earlier this month, Lionsgate became the first studio to use Twitter to release exclusive content about an upcoming movie. Is it long before every major studio has a Twitter page? There's a good possibility. I've noticed several openings in the industry for people to work on "new media" approaches to advertising. Studios are looking to hire people are adept at internet-markeing sources, those who can track blogs and fan-pages and sites like Twitter so that they can be better understood and used. Twitter is a chance at free advertising; it would be uncharacteristic of Hollywood to ignore the mass audience it can approach.

But putting aside the cynical look at Twitter, I think there are some Tinsel Town residents who genuinely enjoy connecting with their fan base and let loose some steam through using the service. Jon Favreau, director of Iron Man, took fans on a tour of his house via Twitter earlier this week, showing off all the geeky sci-fi memoribilia he's stashed away in his house, from an Iron Man helmet to a Zorgon spaceship from Zathura. Putting together that kind of information goes beyond the off-handed posting of many of those who use Twitter and indicates that Favreau likes sharing his interests with others on the Internet. Yes, this is more of the star-stalking I talked about earlier, but while fans get an insight, directors and actors get to blow off some steam.

Is Twitter a trivial pursuit? For all intents and purposes, yes. But like so many things that seem trivial, it is quickly gaining steam and popularity. Twitter will be around for a while; it will be interesting to see how its relationship with Hollywod evolves.

Nickelodeon's Token Earth Day Tribute is a Mockery

I came across this news bulletin on Variety's website during my internet news browsings. Apparently on Earth Day, Nickelodeon is going to tell its viewers to turn off all electronic gadgets for one minute to "symbolize a commitment to saving the environment." Now, all gimmickyness aside, I thought it was a nice, if small gesture on Nickelodeon's part to point out to kids that Earth Day is taking place and open them up to the idea of saving electricity and whatnot. Until I read further.

This call to turn off electronic gadgets does NOT include the TV set; heaven forbid that Nickelodeon should lose any viewers. Its a similar hypocrisy to when Nick Jr. tells preschoolers they should go outside and play, then follows up with a "Coming up next" advertisement. But hey, they're a television channel, and their business is to have customers, so I'll give them a pass on that. I look to see what time this magical minute is going to take place. Will they do it the morning, when the youngest kids are around, or wait for the afternoon when the teenagers are out of school and plopped in front of the set? Nope, they'll be hosting their Earth Day minute at 9 PM that night. Yes, 9 PM. A time when much of Nickelodeon's key demographic will either be watching prime time television, in bed, or doing last minute homework. Those who do watch will probably be among the older generation hoping to catch Nick at Nite. Now while they could do with a reminder too about conservation and the environment, kids are the ones that need to be targeted by Earth Day so they start thinking about recycling and turning off that extra light when they're not in a room.

If Nickelodeon wants to actually get behind its message, they should move that minute up to a time slot where it may actually have an impact. For now, we can chock up this "conservation minute" to nothing more than an obligatory PR move, and a badly managed one at that.

Sci-Fi Announces Miniseries Line-up

Sci-Fi Channel (or, as it is about to be rebranded, Sy-Fy) has announced that three new miniseries are being developed over the next year, with one slated for a winter release and two being prepared for 2010. A modern adaptation of Alice in Wonderland has secured the winter slot, with an adaptation of comic-book hero Phantom and an adaptation of fantasy book series "Riverworld" to follow.

The Alice story is being penned by Nick Willing, who created the Tin Man adapation of The Wizard of Oz that aired in 2008. I had mixed feelings about Tin Man, which did a good job of bringing the fairytale into the world of science-fiction, but was unable to create a strong drive in me to find out what would happen next. At best I was mildly interested in the story, and with some forced performances, I was underwhelmed by the overall production. I have about the same expectations for Alice; the story lines follow the same episodic construct and Alice has a sufficient supply of zany creatures and characters to create a twisted rebirth of the Lewis Carrol novel. One side note: Tim Burton is currently working on a film adaptation of Alice in Wonderland, with an all-star cast that includes Johnny Depp and Anne Hathaway. What kind of connection, if any, is there between this sudden interest in the tale?

Of the remaining miniseries, I'm most looking forward to "Riverworld," the story of a photo-journalist who ends in a "world occupied by everyone who ever lived on earth." The promise to keep away from campy stereotypes of historical figures and to reimagine them as youthful 20-year-olds sounds like a solid idea. One particular remains unclear to me: Does this journalist travel between Earth and this other dimension, or is he stuck there? As for Phantom, my only exposure to previous incarnations is limited to a vague memory of a movie I came across when I was a child. Apparently there have been multiple attempts to adapt this superhero to a screen format, all without success. I suppose Sci-Fi is living up to the maxim "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try...try again." Here's hoping these producers have better luck than there predecessors.

No More R-Rated Comic Movies?

Splash Page is reporting an interesting rumor: Warner Bros. may be backing away from R-Rated comic movies after the intake for Watchmen was less than they had hoped. The unnamed inside studio source sites the recent over-whelming success of The Dark Knight and Iron Man, both of which were PG-13, as strong factors in Warner Bros. supposed decision to back off darker films in favor of more "family friendly" fare.

This is a move that on the surface makes sense financially. PG-13 films have a wider audience, as parents are often willing to take their kids to see "harmless" superhero violence. But the use of The Dark Knight as a reason to back away from R-rated material is a questionable defense. The Dark Knight was a film that pushed the envelope for violence in a PG-13 film, and it is the opinion of some, including myself, that the film should have been rated R. The film was a top at the box office long enough for word of mouth of its violence to drive away customers, but people kept on coming for first and second showings, until the film finally topped $1 billion dollars in world-wide box office receipts. If Knight had actually received an R-rating, would the success have been the same? I think so.
The critical acclaim combined with the hype created a monstrous wave of consumers that just couldn't be stopped, and I don't think that an R-rating would have catastrophically affected those numbers.

So what, then, about Watchmen, a comic book film that did receive an R-rating, and despite months of hype, including the public struggle of Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox over the rights to the property, failed to gross more than $56 million (domestic) in its opening weekend. To compare, PG-13 Iron Man raked in over $98 million in its first weekend. But there are more factors at work here than simply the film's rating. First, reviews were all over the place, from calling it a plot where "you really don't care" about how it ends to praising it as a film of "psychological sophistication." Compared to overwhelming praise for The Dark Knight, this is not the word of mouth that is geared towards roping in an audience, especially, as Slash Film points out, with the economy as tight as it is right now.

Now add in the fact that the film opened in March, as opposed to May, the kick-off month to the summer blockbuster season, which is usually a track to guaranteed success. Releases dates can make or break a movie. Prince Caspian, which opened in May 2008, while still earning a considerable amount of revenue, didn't hit the numbers Disney was hoping. There's a good deal of analysis that suggests that the film should have been slated for a December release, as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was, instead of sitting in between the two heavy weights of Iron Man and Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. In a similar way, maybe Watchmen should have waited for the summer season for its release, when more people are on vacation and looking for a movie to spend their money on.

Quite simply, though, Watchmen was not a true superhero movie. The focus was on the politics, not the crime-fighting, a fact that probably deterred a substantial chunk of potential audience members. That, combined with the above factors, worked against the film to give it the weak turn-out it received. Does this mean that studios should stay away from R-rated superhero movies? Not necessarily. It more likely means that Watchmen should have been more solidly written and filmed before it was ready to join the league of superheros who have come before it.

True Grit Redux

My natural antipathy towards all remakes had my stomach rolling when I first saw this headline over at First Showing: there's a remake of True Grit in the works. After all, its the film that finally won John Wayne an Oscar for Best Actor. And even if you've never seen True Grit, you've probably seen the clip of Wayne charging the bad guys, reins in his teeth, both guns ablaze. It's one of those iconic film moments that gives you a thrill, especially when you're watching John Wayne fill out the mythical proportions that his screen persona created. Given my fondness for the movie, how do I feel about the remake? I staunchly stand by the idea that Hollywood is out of ideas by investing in ANOTHER remake. And this time, they seem to be getting dangerously close to remaking a classic film, as True Grit treads on the edges of that classification. If the slipperly slope continues, is a Casablanca remake in our future? I do have to admit I'm slightly intrigued by the fact that the Coen Brothers want to shift the film perspective to that of the girl and away from the U.S. Marshall, in an attempt to go back to the original source book of the same name.

In short, please Hollywood, stop remaking films and go find some original ideas. But since this project is already a go, here is a chance to disprove my doubts. Good luck.

Early Reviews of 3-D in Monsters vs. Aliens: Looks Good but Still a Ways to Go

I've been tracking the progression of Dreamwork's Monsters vs. Aliens for some months now, as advertisements hit theatres and the television (including a Super Bowl commercial that failed to impress potential consumers with its 3-D technology). Now early reviews are starting to come out as the film prepares for its March 27th U.S. release date.

Kirk Honeycutt at Rueters enjoyed the plotline of the film and found it quirky and entertaining. He does make mention of an overuse of 3-D "gags;" apparently there are multiple instances of objects flying towards the screen, something that I believe studios have to get over if 3-D is going to have any legitimate place in the future of cinema. Todd McCarthy at Variety doesn't seem to have been too distracted by the 3-D effects, as he limits the mention of them in his review to pointing out one at the very beginning of the film and leaving them out of the rest of his review. Which begs the question: which format did he see it in? It looks like we'll have to wait a few more days before we can get some more substantive reviews about the use of 3-D in Monsters vs. Aliens, so come back later for more reviews!

The Vault is Back Online

Apologies for the extended hiatus taken over this past month! Academics have a way of creeping up on one, and as much as I would have liked to comment on some of the past news over this month, I've sadly had to spend some quality time with some papers that just wouldn't write themselves. Never fear, with classes over, the Vault is ready to bring you the latest news and commentary from around Tinsel Town.

Remake Mania: Are there NO original ideas left in Hollywood?

The news this week that came pouring out of Hollywood made me seriously concerned about the amount of creativity left in Hollywood. Story after story told of yet another remake to be made. First Gore Verbinski announced he wanted to do a new version of Clue. Then Guillermo del Toro, the man with more projects then he has fingers mentions in passing he'd like to redo The Count of Monte Cristo, which was made into a film as recently as 2002. Total Recall, The NeverEnding Story, and Damn Yankees round out the line-up of films announced this week to be getting a new spin. Five movies in one week. I think that's something to be concerned about.

While the original of many of these movies were not very good, they do have something of a cult status. The NeverEnding Story in particular is renowned for having terrified little children for years. Why ruin a good-bad thing? We should count our blessings, I suppose, that studios haven't started cannibalizing classic films. But with rumors swirling last year about a rewrite of Poltergeist being worked on. That's getting dangerously close to genuine classics. I know that a work of art is always supposed to be a work in progress, and these directors think they can improve on what has come before, but sometimes the big wigs in Hollywood need to learn to let sleeping dogs lie.

The Theme is Green: Superhero News

A nice chunk of superhero news has come out of the wood-works, and the Vault has it for you here in a nice neat post. First off, The Green Hornet, the project I fear will never die, has had a new director assigned to it by the name of Michel Gondry. Also a screenwriter, Gondry has only directed a handful of films that have been released in theatre, but he does have Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind under his belt, not only directing but winning an Oscar for writing the Original Screenplay as well. Eternal Sunshine is also one of the 400 movies nominated for the top 100 films of all time; that being said, Gondry also directed Be Kind, Rewind, a film starring Jack Black that was released last year. Given the lesser quality of that movie, it's easy to worry that Gondry may be a one-hit wonder who will fail to deliver. Readers will know that I have been fairly unsupportive of this project for a while now and the directing choice has done nothing to assuage any of my fears.

Keeping on the "green" bent of the post, a currently untitled Green Lantern film has had its release date set for December 17, 2010. Considering that the only solid info on the film is the writers, the basic plot (possible spoilers in link), and a rumored director (Martin Campbell of Casino Royal), this date may be optomistic. No names have yet been announced as to who will play the Green Lantern, a superhero with a power ring given to him by a dying alien.

And for some interesting musings on superhero films, turn to Joss Whedon, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame, who speculates on why DC superhero movies fail to connect with audiences. Whedon may have some insight, especially given the fact that he has penned two different scripts for a potential Wonder Woman movie, neither of which were given the green light to proceed to production. The basic difference, Whedon argues, between Marvel and DC is the difference between ordinary people and gods. Whedon has a point. DC superheros tend to be much more epic, much more invincible then Marvel characters. How do you make Superman, the alien who is virtually indestrucible, relatable to us average mortals? Even Batman has a bit of mystique about him, being a billionaire who can afford or create any gadget he'd like.

Marvel characters, on the other hand, tend to be average joes who are just trying to make ends meet while saving the world in their spare time. Spider-man and X-men run along this vein. Of course, neat categories never work out; Tony Stark in Iron Man also fits the billionaire prototype; and what could be more god-like then an actual god, embodied in Thor? And Marvel superhero films are not infalliable: see Nicholas Cage in Ghost Rider if you have any doubts, or Jennifer Garner in Elektra. Still, Whedon may be on to something, as Marvel has been turning out one superhero movie after another these last few years, while DC has been much slower to the get-go.