New Stills from 'Wrath of the Titans' vs Old Stills from 'John Carter'

We've gotten a bunch of new stills from 'Wrath of the Titans'. I like these:

They have a presence. Hard to just glance at them and move on, dismissively. CGI in the top one perhaps needs another pass at texturing, but these may not be fully finished products. Still, optical polish aside, they have a core, a spine. Based on them and trailers, I'm looking forward to Wrath.

I get a completely different vibe from similar stills from 'John Carter', which I think bears comparison considering genre, storyline, setting, etc. Like this one:

Again, needs some polish -- elements don't sit quite right, angle and intensity of lighting is off -- but this may not be a finished product. Beside the point. It's the feel of the imagery I'm talking about. I know this is a Disney product but, still, the creatures are off. They're too hokey for older viewers (how they got a purely computerized monster to look like guys in suits I don't know) but a bit too much for younger kids. There's also a disconnect between Taylor Kitsch and what's going on behind him (his expression just doesn't fit):

Look at the guy's face -- he may as well be launching a row boat at the lake on a summer afternoon, a beer and sandwich within arm's reach. This has to be due to some generic direction during green-screen shooting. (Really, I hope there's another pass or two in the works for the CGI. This is just not there yet).

Compare it to this still from Wrath.

The creature is more appropriate and (even though we can't see his face) Sam Worthington seems more engaged. I know, it's totally subjective, but I get a more visceral feeling from this one whereas the JC still is has no emotional center. Here's a crop from the Wrath image above that reflects the quality of direction.

Looks better to me.

Here's another good example. Compare this shot from 'John Carter':

To this one from 'Wrath of the Titans':

Very close, both in lighting and mood. Objectively you can't say one's better, of course, but to me there's a sense of wonder in the Wrath shot that's a result of more dialed-in direction. They're going for the same feel in the JC scene but neither actor seems sure where they're supposed to be, mentally. One shot resonates on a character level, the other has an 'assembly line' feel, like TV from the 60s -- 'Star Trek' maybe.

So far, everything about 'John Carter' has struck me as superficial, while 'Wrath of the Titans' comes across much better, with more depth. Wrath director Jonathan Liebesman (Battle Los Angeles) seems more at home than JC director Andrew Stanton (Wall-E, Finding Nemo).

Both sets of stills need some tuning. However, the ones from JC are too rough and were not ready to be released.




















.

Andrew Stanton On The Treatment

This is a good one -- with the director of 'Wall-E'.

Is Pixar Further Out On A Limb?

When Pixar rolled out 'Ratatouille' I thought their streak would end. I just couldn't see how there could be that much interest in a movie about a rat who wants to cook classical French cuisine. I didn't care that he wanted to be a chef. I didn't even like the way he looked -- not that he's a bad rat, he's just drawn that way. I thought it was a mistake to name a movie after a Provencal soup. 'Ratatouille' did pretty good business, though (not as good as previous Pixar benchmarks, perhaps, but...). So, I was wrong. (I haven't finished watching the DVD yet, but...).

Now comes 'Wall-E', a robot that processes garbage, who lives alone, loves to watch 'Hello, Dolly', and yearns for a robot girlfriend. Katrina Onstad at NYT feels Pixar is gambling with this one. I don't see it. If Pixar can make a successful movie about a rat that aspires to preparing oh so haute cuisine for the French upper crust, why can't they make a successful movie about a lovelorn robot that collects garbage? I agree with Onstad that 'Ratatouille' seemed like a hard sell at the time, but can't see why 'Wall-E' is a gamble. The guy is cute, with those big eyes, and that snappy endearing ancronym/name -- what's not to like?

According to NYT, the film's writer-director, Andrew Stanton, scoffs at conventionality saying, "I never think about the audience. If someone gives me a marketing report, I throw it away." Fair enough. Add to that: "I'm not naive about what's at stake," he said. "But I almost feel like it's an obligation to not further the status quo if you become somebody with influence and exposure. I don't want to paint the same painting again. I don't want to make the same sculpture again. Why shouldn't a big movie studio be able to make those small independent kinds of pictures? Why not change it up?"

I'm not sure I'd call 'Wall-E', which cost $180 million dollars, a small independent kind of picture, but it certainly doesn't further the Hollywood status quo for fluff animation (unless you're Pixar and the status quo is making movies with increasingly off-the-wall premises. (Yes, I'll admit I thought about saying 'off-the-Wall-E' premises).

If Remy the rat can carry a movie about cooking classical French food, then Wall-E the cute robot can carry a movie about collecting garbage and looking for a girlfriend. The rat chef may have been a gamble but I think 'Wall-E' is money in the bank.

Pixar may be further out, but they're not on a limb. However, they might consider, just consider, making their next movie a bit more conventional -- the kind of thing where you don't have doubts about the premise and don't cross your fingers and hope for the best before taking the family. Just saying, is all.