September at the Movies

Cross-posted on and commissioned by Film.com

Yikes, August. YIKES. Surprising me at every turn (except Conan and 30 Minutes or Less. Sort of predicted those), August has turned into quite the bizarre month. With everything from genre films to comedies to 3D experiments bombing left and right, August is seeming like the worst time to release a movie about anything other then, what, evolution? One following the evolution of apes, the other of civil rights? Does it come down to "great reviews or bust?" And will September fare any better, as the shift away from Genre film and towards Drama begins? Let's take a look.

Looking for thrills, chills or loud noises?

Shark Night 3D (Sept 2)
The inevitably silly horror movie (not a bad thing) that tried winning over fans with a mechanical shark at July's Comic-Con, boasts a who's who of "Oh, that guy/girl! She/he was on that CW show!" in its cast, but unfortunately also comes with a PG-13 rating. How inappropriate can it really get without a hard R?

Am I Seeing It? I'd like to, but I wanted to see Pirahna 3D too and that sure as hell never happened. So. Probably not.

Contagion (Sept 9)
The latest from Steven Soderbergh, the trailers for which I have been avoiding like the plague (pun not intended, I swear), that stars just about everyone ever. Don't believe me? Matt Damon, Marion Cotillard, Bryan Cranston, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Lawrence Fishburne, Jennifer Ehle, John Hawkes, Sanaa Lathan, Elliot Gould and Demetri Martin. It's like New Years Eve, but about the end of the world [Insert joke about Lea Michele starring in a movie being just as apocolyptic]! Or about something else, I don't know, like I said, I'm avoiding the trailers and synopses. In any event, I suspect it shall be awesome.

Am I Seeing It? Yes. Opening weekend if possible.

Straw Dogs (Sept 16)
A remake of the beloved 1971 thriller directed by Sam Peckinpah, with James Marsden in the Dustin Hoffman role, that also stars Kate Bosworth, Alexander Skarsgard and Walton Goggins. Okay, I'm sure Goggins has a small role, but I love him, so yeah, he gets fourth billing, damnit. No one thinks this remake was necessary, but there's always at least a small chance that it's good, right? So far the reviews I've heard range from "terrible" to "well-acted and intense", so who knows. The only thing I can guarantee is that Skarsgard makes everything better.

Am I seeing it? Let's be real. No.

Abduction (Sept 23)
Taylor Lautner isn't who he thinks he is, so busts some shit up and other crap. I honestly could not care less.

Am I seeing it? What do you think?

Killer Elite (Sept 23)
Jason Statham versus Clive Owen, who is holding Robert De Niro captive. Assassins! Guns! And for you Chuck fans out there, Yvonne Strahovski as a bonus!

Am I seeing it? Considering I haven't yet seen a single Jason Statham movie, I think not. Gotta keep this trend going, it's too bizarre a bragging point. (I've seen Snatch, but that's not a Jason Statham "joint", you know?)

Dream House (Sept 30)
Yes, it's the movie where Daniel Craig and Rachel Weitz met & fell in love, but no, it's not a romance. Craig and Weitz play a couple who move into a new home, only to discover something terrible happened to the previous residents. I won't say anymore than that, and unless you want to be spoiled, you won't look for more details. You ESPECIALLY will not watch the stupid spoilery trailer.

Am I seeing it? I was going to until the whole movie got spoiled for me in the trailer. So. No.

Looking for something a bit more on the dramatic side?

The Debt (Sept 2)
A nazi espionage thriller that takes place in the 60s and 90s, starring Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkenson, and Ciaran Hinds, as well as Jessica Chastain, Martin Csokas and Sam Worthington as their younger selves. I've heard rather good things, and I always likes me some spies and intrigue and Helen Mirren.

Am I seeing it? Yes, though not right away

Moneyball (Sept 23)
Brad Pitt. Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman and most importantly - Baseball! Its September release worries me as it definitely has certain implications when you start talking Oscar (i.e. the film may not quite good enough), but I'm still looking forward to it.

Am I seeing it? Yessss!

Machine Gun Preacher (Sept 23)
Not, I repeat NOT anything close to a Grindhouse film, despite what the title may lead you to believe. It's in fact the true story of a former drug dealer who found religion and fought to save Sudanese children from their unfortunate fate, starring Gerard Butler and directed by Marc Forster.

Am I seeing it? If I need to? For awards purposes? But it looks pretty not at all up my alley and kind of terrible. Gerard Butler being dramatic weirds me out.

50/50 (Sept 30)
Movies about someone who is dying are really hot and cold for me, as so often they seem to simply be a cheap plot device (I'm looking at you, Love and Other Drugs),  but this one has Joseph Gordon Levitt in it, is much more of a dramedy than drama, and some people whose opinions generally line up with mine are loving it.

Am I seeing it? Yes. In theaters, even if not opening weekend.

Take Shelter (Sept 30)
A must see if you're trying to see all 87 of Jessica Chastain's 2011 releases. Here, she plays wife to the brilliant Michael Shannon, who is having apocalyptic visions of an incoming storm and starts secretly building a shelter to protect them, before realizing that it may be him, not the storm, that warrants his family's concern. Won the International Critics Prize at Cannes

Will I be seeing it? Based on what I'm hearing about Michael Shannon's performance alone, yes

Looking to (maybe) laugh?

Bucky Larson: Born To Be A Star (Sept 9)
Two porn stars make an ugly son and the ugly son becomes a porn star. AUUGHH THIS SOUNDS LIKE A NIGHTMARE

Am I seeing it? Absolutely not

I Don't Know How She Does It (Sept 16)
Sarah Jessica Parker and Olivia Munn! What a duo! But Busy Philips is in there too and I love her. Anyway. There is a plot. Sort of. SJP plays a financial executive who also has a family and omg, I don't know how she does it! Get it? Does that count as a plot? But the screenplay is by Aline Brosh McKenna, who also brought us The Devil Wears Prada, 27 Dresses and Morning Glory, so as pointless as the film sounds, I'll probably like it anyway. And Christina Hendricks being in it doesn't hurt. But you can always get your Hendricks fix from Drive..... :)

Am I seeing it? In theaters? I mean, I did see Something Borrowed and 27 Dresses and Leap Year and Valentine's Day in theaters....but probably not. DVD/TBS however? Heeeeeellls yes.

What's Your Number (Sept 30)
A cute concept and a great cast with a script written by sitcom vets leads me to believe this Anna Faris comedy about a girl looking back on the last twenty men she's had relationships with, could actually be pretty great. And is it totally shallow to think Chris Evans looks exceptionally wonderful in the trailer?

Am I seeing it? Does "opening weekend" expose my love for romantic comedies too readily?

Looking to bring the kids?

Lion King 3D (Sept 16)
It's LION KING!!! RE-RELEASED!!! Who cares how you feel about 3D, it's effing Lion King! I watched the first four minutes in 3D at D23 and cried. Cried. Four minutes. I can't wait.

Am I seeing it? At the El Capitan and everything.

Dolphin Tale (Sept 23)
I don't even know what this is and you're making me look it up. Why? Why are you doing this? It's not even animated! It stars Harry Connick Jr as a doctor named Clay and a dolphin as a dolphin. Stop it.

Am I seeing it? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say no

Looking to discover something?

Apollo 18 (Sept 2)
Found footage in SPACE!! The reason why we never went back to the Moon, ooooh. I thought I was hearing great stuff for some reason, but it turns out it is supposedly awful. Yikes.

Am I seeing it? Not after hearing the universally horrible reviews

Warrior (Sept 9)
Movies.com favorite David Ehrlich described this film to me as "OH MY GOD TOM HARDY'S MUSCLES ARE EATING HIS BODY AND THREATENING TO BECOME A GLOBAL CONTAGION" and frankly, that's all I need to know. I'm sold.

Am I seeing it? Yup! Although perhaps not in theaters. There's only so many hours in the day.

Restless (Sept 16)
This new film from Gus Van Sant was poorly received at Cannes, but the premise is interesting enough. Mia Wasikowska plays a terminally ill girl who falls for a boy who likes going to funerals and is friends with the ghost of a Japanese kamikaze pilot.

Am I seeing it? Maybe. The bad reviews disappoint me, but the trailer still gets me. Seems like my kind of joint.

Tucker and Dale vs Evil (Sept 30)
The small horror comedy that made a splash at Comic-Con during the At the Drive In Panel, it stars Alan Tudyk and Tyler Rabine as two hilbillies who get attacked by a band of preppy school kids while on vacation at their mountain cabin. The film is supposed to be bananas amazing and I can't wait. It's actually on VOD right now, but I say wait it out and give it some much deserved love in theaters if you can.

Am I seeing it? Absolutely. Opening weekend.

Looking for something unlike anything else?

Drive (Sept 16)
Just go see it. Don't ask questions. Don't look anything up. It stars Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan and is unlike anything you've seen before. Maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't, but I loved it and did I mention Albert Brooks plays the heavy and Ron Pearlman steals every scene he's in? Dooooo itttt.

Am I seeing it? Already did. Add it to your list immediately.

Read More

Sleep No More, Video Games, and the Potential of Interactive Storytelling.

 This will not be a review of Sleep No More, although it will be discussed. I'll warn you of spoilers.

On Thursday the 12th of August, I attended a performance of Sleep No More. Billed as 'indoor promenade performance', it entails being immersed in the world of the McKitterick Hotel (an impressively redecorated warehouse or three on west 27th, across the street from the back entrance of Scores) and treated to an adaptation, of a kind, of Shakespeare's famous play that shows us the nature of evil, Macbeth.  It was astounding.

Though it is not a word that can be found anywhere on the website (sleepnomorenyc.com), Sleep No More is a highly interactive experience- though one might suppose that physical interaction is a part of any immersive experience. Still, this is important to note for the upcoming discussion: The specific difference between immersive and interactive when one or the other is the goal of an experience. In the McKitterick Hotel, almost every door, drawer and closet is unlocked. You can read anything, pick up anyway, dig through people's luggage and letters. The entire environment is touchable, if not tractable- even the performers. Though it is against the rules of the game to touch the performers, the performers may very well decide to touch you. You may be pushed gently aside, or taken by the hand and led, or- as I experienced- have a madwoman cup your face and lament at the cruelty in your eyes. The world you enter is filled with eerily familiar but ultimately alien landscapes and enough details to drown in. You can watch or play, observe or participate, that much is (largely) your choice.

The performance is interactive, but it is not changeable. Those choices I just mentioned do not effect the characters' overall arcs, their intentions or their stories. Scenes play in a loop throughout the roughly three hour performance.  Short of doing something dangerously disruptive, the audience cannot effect the outcome of the story.

The goal of Sleep No More is an immersive theatrical experience. It is not a game. It sets no goals or objectives for the audience, other than to experience. It's brilliant and freeing.

And potentially frustrating, if you're of a gamer's mindset. Over at Wired, you can read an article by @jasonschreier about his experience of the theatrical piece, which he describes in the headline as "Like a game, but more confusing." Schreier primarily decries the fact that it is impossible for an audience member to see the entire show, and that this fact makes most of what one experiences difficult to decipher or put into context: The experience is difficult to understand.

He argues that video game experiences are more rewarding because you achieve things. The game tells you so. I think this is an ineffective comparison, but the opening of an interesting discussion.

Compare Sleep No More to an open-world game like Fallout: New Vegas. While Sleep No More drops you into the middle of a performance and expects you to figure out what’s happening, New Vegas sets up the story first, then lets you loose. More importantly, New Vegas makes you feel like the things you do matter. Whether you’re shooting down raiders or discovering a pile of bones in a child’s crib, you’re always an active participant, integral to the story. Not just an observer.

 This argument is flawed in a few ways:

You can, in fact, prepare for the sort-of-plot of Sleep No More by brushing up on your Shakespeare, but the story is present in an abstract, exploratory way. The scenes, when you do find them, are not exactly straightforward. Think lyrical and interpretive dance. The story, as such, is not the most important part of the show. More important is the audience's story: What they see and experience and what it does to them. Now, if what they see and experience frustrates and bores them, more the pity, but I have to say, I'd imagine it would take a respectable amount of willful disinterest to walk away from Sleep No More wholly unmoved.

The end result(s) of both Sleep No More and any video game are predetermined. Nothing you do as an audience member or player can actually change what happens outside of a couple permutations. Schreier is absolutely correct in that video games make you feel as though your choices have weight- and they do, but a very limited amount. I will defend the unique special snowflake status of my Commander Shepard TO THE DEATH but ultimately, I am not the only FemShep Paragon with Renegade Tendencies when Faced with Ultimatums who is Bedding Garrus Vakarian aka Dinosaur Batman: The Hero Omega Deserves. No, I am but one of many; because though the Mass Effect series provides the player with thousands of choices to make over the course of the franchise, they are still choices you are being offered and have to choose from. You can't just make up your own. The ending to any work of art or entertainment created by someone other than the participant/user has a finite amount of leeway.  Sleep No More is a single event comprised of smaller, looping events. It's meant to be an immersive experience that theater-goers can explore to whatever depth they choose. It is, in fact, quite possible to see all the primary, story-centric scenes of Shakespeare's Macbeth in one evening at Sleep No More. It's not really necessary, though, nor would it be easy.  

Sleep No More is not a game, it is not a puzzle. It's more like a haunting. It's like watching spectres enact their wicked follies again and again, helpless to stop themselves or break free. Sometimes the ghosts reach out for you, and you can rifle through the relics and detritus they've left behind, but the story cannot be changed.

Now let's pull a bit of a conversational one eighty. The Minnesota Fringe Festival is a breeding ground for fun, funny, original and rather ingenious theatrical experiences. One participating company, Walking Shadow, has mounted two interactive theatrical puzzle experiences. The first was entitled 1926 Pleasant, and ran in 2006. You can read a detailed account of the play/game here: it is, in fact, a walkthru, something all gamers are familiar with. Both a theatrical experience and actual game the audience had to play in order to advance the story, 1926 Pleasant (and their latest puzzle production, Saboteur, reviewed here) seems to accomplish what Schreier says Sleep No More failed to do, but the intent behind the two pieces are completely and utterly different, and so the comparison becomes useless.

Now, if the two pieces could be combined, you would have something that appeals to theater goers and gamers alike. Let's take a look at a video game property like Bioshock and think of how these two formats of theatrical experience could be applied to making Bioshock a live action interactive event. Why? Because I am goddamn obsessed with this whole freaking idea, that's why. If you're still reading this, I don't even know what to tell you. You're as sick a puppy as I am.

As a self contained environment, it could be constructed the same way as the fictional McKitterick Hotel: Six stories of immersive environments fashioned after Bioshock's more iconic levels, like Neptune's Bounty, Arcadia, Fort Frolic, the Farmer's Market, Hephaestus and Olympus Heights.

 Rapture is largely comprised of sweeping atriums and surprisingly open spaces for being an underwater city. However, as Sleep No More demonstrates nicely, constructing outdoor spaces indoors is entirely achievable on multiple floors. Also the ballroom on the lowest level sports two stories of balcony seats and vaulted ceilings. It is a huge room that could easily be transformed into any number of centerpieces from the game.

 Of course site-specific theater is just that. One could find a space more uniquely suited to Rapture's grand halls, but the space Punchdrunk created in the form of the McKitterick Hotel is smartly and very successfully constructed. With relatively few changes, Sleep No More as it stands could be turned into the site of a Rapture live action interactive gaming experience.

The next question, of course, is who would go? Who would shell out, say, $100 to be let loose in that kind of environment for three hours, not knowing before hand how it would go? You'll have adventurous types, you'll have gamers, you'll have theater goers, but the added responsibility that's placed on the audience member when they're expected to participate and actively move the game forwards as opposed to merely observing events as they unfold could potentially scare away much needed ticket sales, and come to that- how many tickets a round would have to be sold to make the endeavor even remotely feasible?  Those are the questions I don't want to think about because the other stuff is more fun, but it does make me think that the ideal place to try out an experience like this would be San Diego Comic-Con.

Your audience isn't just built in, it's swarming the grounds around where your theatrical gaming experience is held. San Diego boasts a throng of beautiful hotels, plenty of which are historic, as well as some industrial and warehouse sites that could be appropriated and converted. Passes could be given away at panels as well as purchased ahead of time to guarantee your spot.  It would be, for the logistics of running such an experience, the perfect litmus test. Branching out to other audiences, of course, would be a different ballgame, but if this sort of thing was going to be made a reality, I think SDCC is a prime opportunity to give it a test run. Not to mention, I'm sure it would be the talk of the con.

Bioshock, Dead Space, Walking Dead, Arkham Asylum, even Game of Thrones- all are properties that could utilize the concepts of mystery, clue finding, puzzle solving and even, eventually, combat to engage an audience and motivate a player, as well as blend seamless with theatrical style presentations and fully fleshed out but self contained environments. We're certainly seeing plenty of transmedia projects happening, and various properties bleeding into other mediums, so who knows- maybe this kind of thing isn't that far off. I hope it's not, because the only thing I want to do more badly than go back to Sleep No More is return to Rapture.

Read More

May 21st - Judgement Day: An Original Play Premiering this September

Recently, I was able to score an interview with the young, but already well-experienced local playwright and director, Josh Young. His play May 21st - Judgement Day opens for a three-show run September 1st at the Kraine Theater in the East Village. As Young describes, the play is story of a girl named Valentine who lives in an underground bunker. Valentine has been trapped in the bunker for 13 years by the sexual abusive James, who keeps her hidden there under the pretense that the world ended on May 21st, 2011 and that he's protecting her from the Holy War raging above on Earth. But Valentine is not completely alone. She has created two conflicting, spiritual personalities that may either keep her trapped in desolation or guide her in breaking free of her solitude and imprisonment.



Read more about Josh Young and his post-apocalyptic, psychological thriller, after the jump!



Before producing his own works, Josh Young worked with numerous different companies and theaters. A graduate of NYU'S Tisch School of the Arts in Theater and Cinema Studies, Young began freelancing right after college, working as a lighting technician, designer, and technical director. He has worked for the Chen Dance Center, The Fringe Festival, and designed in theaters such as The Kraine and Red Room Theater, LaMaMA ETC, and The Cherry Lane. He was also a film technician at Technicolor Creative Services before he landed his current job position as the Theater Technician at the Guggenheim Museum. ATFG is delighted and so thankful that Young took the time to answer our questions, illuminating us on the process of creating and producing an original theatrical piece.


ATFG: What motivated you to write this play? What were your inspirations?

Young: I originally wrote this play in 2005 as a one-woman dance and movement piece for a friend. The plot was the same as now but without the May 21st caveat. Both in 2005 and then when I re-wrote it, this year, I was in the same place; depressed. I was depressed at what I saw in human interaction both in my own life and what I saw from the people in the world around me. This year, partially because May 21st is my birthday, I became fascinated by how abusive and dangerous American Christian Fundamentalism can be. So I wanted to write and revisit a story that illustrated how other philosophies, such as Samurai ethos from Japan and Zen Buddhism, have created ways for people to rise above internal and external strife and conflict. As for the play, it is about rising above the deadly mob mentality that we see in modern day Christian Fundamentalism along with illustrating that everyone has the strength to rise above their awful circumstances and emerge a stronger person because of it. Especially if those circumstances were child abuse, no matter the environment.

ATFG: How do you decide if a piece you've written is worthy of being produced? Are you your own worst critic?

Young: Goodness, yes, I am very critical of myself. Over the years I have worked in the film and theater worlds in New York and I see a lot of vanity shows, or shows that go up because people just have the time and resources. For me, I wrote this show in 2005 and sat on it because it never quite clicked. It was very close to my heart, but it wasn't something that was needing to be told. Then when the May 21st/Judgement Day stuff started happening, it just clicked. After re-writing it, I believed deeply it was a good piece, and others who read it re-enforced that thought. So I started putting the pieces together to put it up. But it was something that involved me feeling strongly about the premise and purpose while bringing enough people on board so that they take ownership of the show and make it their own.

ATFG: Do you prefer directing your own written work or having others direct your plays?

Young: For these kinds of shows I definitely do. But the writing and directing are interlinked. I don't even consider the two acts separate. The last show I did that was like this was The Wolf From Recovery, Ohio and that was in 2008. I have worked as a designer and technician over the years so when I conceive a piece it is usually written so that the design and direction are part of the writing from the inception. The thing I like to do is give ownership to the other people involved. The play necessitates a collaborative piece. The actors have strong voices in the aesthetics, and have dual roles such as the dramaturgist. Then someone like my Stage Manager is essentially an assistant director or co-director. I would feel bad if anything I ever wrote became a vanity piece, something just for myself, so I try hard to bring everyone together and have them own the piece, as much as me, during the process.

ATFG: What was the casting process like? And tell us a bit about your cast and crew.

Young: I got very lucky with casting. First, I got a stage manager on board, Alex Gerdtz, who is studying at NYU. I wanted to bring in someone who I didn't know as my right hand person so that I wouldn't surround myself with "yes" people. Honestly, she was great from the get-go because she clearly didn't want to approach the show as a paint by numbers stage manager and wanted to be a part of the creative process. Next, I brought on a friend, Patience Baach, from the Guggenheim, as a promotion and fundraising person (and to co-collaborate with Alex and I). She doesn't have a theater background so I enjoyed the fact that she could look at the show from an outsider's perspective. The casting just grew out of how chemistry and interactions looked. James Tison was cast first as the male in the play. He was the only person I knew ahead of time that was right for the role and who I asked directly to be involved. Then we cast the others: first was Elitza Daskalova, who just came in and read perfectly for Hastur; then came Adriana DeGirolami who I was delighted to see read for me. I was already friends with Adri but had never worked with her so when she came in and read the whole crew just kind of knew she was perfect for Mary Anne. We had trouble casting Valentine; many talented actresses read for her but none quite could transform between naive girl to empowered and imposing woman. At the time, our costume woman, Natalia, kind of offhandedly asked to read for Valentine and when she did it just clicked with what we were looking for and the group that was already cast. Each piece fell in line with the piece before it. So I have to be grateful for the gift of being surrounded by such passionate and interested folks coming forward at the right time.

ATFG: What has the production process been like for you so far?

Young: Intense. This is a show that is physically demanding, emotionally intense, and heavily designed. The production work started off very chaotic and nerve-racking but has simmered down a bit. All of my strengths are technical and aesthetic. I know how to draft a plot, edit a video, direct actors, but had virtually no idea how to promote and fundraise. My last show was something I was incredibly proud of and it had a fair turn out, but only because of word of mouth. So for the first month and a half of this show I tried to learn about, organize, and focus on promotion and fundraising as much as possible. I have already learned more than I could have hoped. As for the directing process, it is really rewarding and wonderful. Again, my strengths are in framing a piece, so I am really delighted with the work the actors and crew are doing to make the show be what it should be. But it is intense. The show has dance, martial arts, blood effects, and the list goes on...



ATFG: What's been the most difficult aspect of producing this show and what's been the most rewarding?

Young: The most difficult is promotion and fundraising. For all I know, we will have sold out houses or mild houses, but in my heart I know people should be hungry to see what we are creating. I am just flummoxed by the pathways I have to navigate to simultaneously get the word of this show out there but to do it in an encouraging way. At the end of the day, I won't care so long as people see it because it has some really wonderful things happening in it. The most rewarding is seeing those things happen. Two days ago, our actress Adri discovered a character revelation. It was a moment that brought a dynamic to her character and to the greater piece that was intoxicating. That is just one small part of the larger whole, so if that little sliver alone is so enticing, seeing the greater work come together is sublime. So the creative process of the show is the most rewarding by far.

ATFG: Is the stress level of this show any higher than past ones you've worked on, due to the heavy nature of the piece?

Young: No. I think the stress is high for me for pragmatic purposes, as in, just the assembly of the whole piece. Certainly I know the actors have had challenges because they were worried about the heavy nature, but I think we keep the show in the right place in our collective process. I have worked on some pretty high stress shows...I remember being stressed during Isabella Rossellini's Brand Upon The Brain at the Village East Theater, or more recently working on Watermill with Robert Wilson at the Guggenheim...but nothing will ever compete with something that you are invested in balls to bone; something that your voice is heard in from the inception.

ATFG: Are you excited or relieved when a show finally goes up or do you miss the production or rehearsal process? Is it a bittersweet transition?

Young: Not bittersweet, but I certainly miss it. One of my goals with this project is to gain enough momentum to continue working on things closer to my heart and work less as a technician or freelance designer. Just dealing with the quotidian architecture of life, I wasn't able to put a show up since 2008. I don't want to wait that long in the future. My dream is to let this show be the impulse to continually work on theater and film projects that I can be 100% invested in at a creative level.

ATFG: What's coming up next for you? Can you tell us about any future projects in the works?

Young: Hopefully, if everything works out with this show, I can keep the momentum going and move right into other projects. I am writing a few things, but I would love to do two big pieces I already have written. I have written a show I am tentatively calling "Straight Outta Wompton." It's a dark comedy based, again, on things I have experienced first hand but filtered through the lens of shows like The Maury Povich Show or that Jersey show people watch. The other project will be a short movie called "Vanilla" which would be my attempt at exploring the darker sides of the issue of polyamory.


Thanks again to Josh Young for being such an honest and insightful interviewee! Don't miss his fascinating play May 21st - Judgement Day.

May 21st - Judgement Day
The Kraine Theater (85 East 4th St.)
Thursday September 1st through Saturday September 3rd, 8pm
$15 in advance, $18 at the door

Buy your tickets in advance here

Read More

D23 - Disneyland Kinect Adventures Slightly Improves, But Is It Enough?

After being extremely disappointed in Kinect Disneyland Adventures at E3 in Jue, I decided to give it a go here at D23, with a couple more months of work under its belt, to see if anything had been improved upon. There were absolutely new features, game mechanics and levels, but is anything actually better? What I learned and my impressions below.

Facts

-Over 35 characters to meet and greet, each with his own personality, culled from chats with actual Imagineers
-Original voice actors recorded voices for every character
-If you don't wish to follow through the physical motions for character interaction, you can also use voice command
-The game is open world, the first of its kind for Kinect, so they had to design a whole new navigation system - pointing. Point in a direction and your character will walk there.
-The crowd magically parts as you walk through them
-Can take photos with characters (note: as your avatar, not as you) and upload them to the internet
-Have a few objects at your disposal, including the camera, growler, and wand
-With the wand, you can animate up to 300 objects and receive treasure after casting each spell
-Collect enough treasure and you can spend it in shops for souvenirs and costumes
-With the wand, you can also discover magical objects, which the game keeps track of, achievement style
-Right now there are six attractions: Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, Pirates of the Caribbean, Thunder Mountain, Jungle Cruise and Matterhorn
-There will be up to 20 attractions, potentially with more as DLC, but that's not in the works right now
-Every ride is based on a story, so the game developers discussed the back story to each attraction with the imagineers, and came up with the levels for each attraction based on the story
-Chapters within each attraction
-Rather than just "ride a ride", each chapter interacts with a different aspect of the attractions' environment, based on the original story behind the attraction.
-Attraction gaming interactions include pose matching, sword fighting, throwing things, flying, skiing, and more
-There will be many cinematics helping to tell the story as well
-Each attraction has a character guide (Jungle Cruise has the skipper and gorillas, Matterhorn has Goofy, Peter Pan has Peter Pan and Tinkerbell, etc)
-Players can jump in or out of the game at any time to maximize social appeal
-Avatars are children, since the idea of the game is to "bring our your inner child"
-Some avatar customizing options
-They created their own avatars rather than use the Xbox ones, because the art of the Xbox avatars is too different from the art of the Disney world that was created
-The park is almost an exact recreation, down to the secret places where Walt's initials are hiding to the golden spike in the castle marking the center of the park.


Impressions

Just like at E3, my favorite aspect of this game remains the world's accuracy. I've always had a thing for recognizing landmarks in my games, usually ones taking place in LA or New York, though rarely is something *exactly* the same, square foot for pixelated square foot. My favorite part of this demo was simply running through the lands, seeing how long the lines were and pushing through the crowds. As a result, I quite enjoyed the introduction of the wand mechanic, as it means further interaction with the world around you as the player. Cast a spell on whatever, and hey, if something happens, you get coins and achievements and a modicum of satisfaction. Yay!

Also just like at E3, I'm still vastly underwhelmed when it comes to the gameplay within each attraction. I tried out the sword fighting chapter, one of the levels in the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction, which had just been created right before D23. The game seemed completely unresponsive to anything I was doing. Granted, it's new and I kept drifting out of the playing space in order to avoid whacking the Microsoft spokeswoman in the face, but it was entirely too much work for very little  gratification.

An aspect I I enjoyed a lot more this time around than at E3, was the character interactions. We got to see our avatar say hello to three different characters, Mickey, Peter Pan, and the Queen of Hearts. Each had a specific reaction to everything we did, whether it be a hug, high five, or asking to dance. While Mikey was clearly friendly, Peter was friendly, but didn't like getting *too* close, and the Queen of Hearts was regal and demanded our relationship stay so. If only our "photos" with these characters could somehow combine a Kinect photo of us in that moment, with the character on the screen, I'd think the photo aspect was a good add, but a photo of an avatar with a character on Facebook seems rather pointless.

I'm still not sure in what Universe someone would actually own this game, but if a friend had it, I wouldn't object to throwing it on just to explore the park, cast spells, and buy crap, but I'm far from sold on the gameplay and even the theory behind the gameplay. A part of me would kind of rather just get a first person view of the game with the impetus to interact on that level. Like, lean correctly on the Matterhorn and the faster you go, or cast spells on the Jungle Cruise as it goes along to see things come to life - or turn the Cruise itself into a throwing game for points. But taking away the ride aspect completely away is kind of a turn off. It'll take a lot more convincing before I'll think otherwise.

Read More

The Highs and Lows of D23

As you may have been able to tell by my incessant tweets and articles, this weekend marked my first D23 and boy was it an experience. What began innocently enough with a drum playing Mickey and a look at the new attractions being developed all over the world, ended with a panel that upset me to my very core, and of course, a nice batch of food poisoning from the Convention food. What happened in between had some good, some bad, and a lot of Deadpools wearing Mickey ears.

HIGH

Panels On Art & Artists
My favorite panels of the Convention were the sit down with Michael Giacchino and the look at the Character Design of Monster's University. What these had in common were a focus on the art, as opposed to a focus on the money behind the art. Taking Disney almost completely out of the equation allowed for enlightening discussions, genuine quotables, and the ability to actually learn something. Even though in both cases, a good majority of the audience left when the Q&A began (unfathomable to me), the people who stuck around got to see some lovely interaction, like a woman asking Giacchino about a specific refrain from the opening of Star Trek, Giacchino revealing the scores that touched him most (Lawrence of Arabia, Planet of the Apes, The Accidental Tourist, Star Wars), and a fun moment when the director of Prep and Landing, posing as an audience member, asked Giacchino when we was going to compose a musical to go after getting his EGOT. For details on the Monsters University panel and Q&A head here. I've heard similar things about the Art of Brave and Imagineers panels - when the event at hand is focusing on the art and interaction with fans, and not the theatrics and Disney Dog & Pony show, it's actually a wonderful way to spend an hour.

LOW

Arena Panels
Every panel in the arena was a regular potpourri of Disney propaganda, dripping with desperation and so enthusiastically egotistical that by Sunday's Marvel panel, I just about couldn't take it anymore. Instead of Q&As and genuine fan discourse, every person on stage read from teleprompters and left a cold, dead feeling in the room. I couldn't help but be bothered by this seeming need to control the show on Disney's part. Nothing real was permitted to happen and there was no room for surprises. With every single little thing written and planned out beforehand, the energy in the room was bizarrely minimal. I myself only felt compelled to clap a couple of times during the Studios panel, which showed off upwards of 10 new films over two and a half hours. Instead of being comfortable with us seeing what they had to offer and making up our own minds, we were constantly bombarded with the notion that "Disney rules!" as if them saying it enough times would make it true. And while certain films did stand out like Wreck It Ralph or The Muppets (which showed off stellar footage and a delightful live bit between Jason Segel, Kermit and Miss Piggy), they only could have benefit from a less controlled forum. Can you imagine Kermit and Miss Piggy answering fan questions, the way Pee-Wee did at this year's Comic-Con? How brilliant would that have been? In perhaps the strangest move of all, at the end of the Studios panel, the entire cast of The Avengers was brought out and except for Robert Downey Jr, no one said anything. This may have been acceptable as a surprise button at the end of last year's Marvel panel at Comic-Con, when nothing had been shot or read and they were simply announcing the official cast, but over a year later, with two weeks left of shooting, to bring the cast down just to stand there? It shows a complete lack of understanding where this film is concerned, where the fans are concerned and where marketing is concerned. No substance. All talk. Unacceptable.

HIGH

Pixar's Presence
On a similar note, everyone from Pixar seemed genuinely enthusiastic about their involvement. I believed that they were happy and love their jobs and every one of them was an inspiration. I got to know the faces and names of the creators (Right: Monster's University Dan Scanlan was kind of hot in college, no?....) and hear them talk about their profession that brings them so much joy on a daily basis. In all the mess that I find Disney to be, Pixar continues to stand out, with higher standards and a positive attitude that stems from something true.

LOW

Marvel & ABC's Presence
For some inexplicable reason, neither ABC nor Marvel had a booth on the floor. There were no ABC or Marvel exclusives, no comics or DVDs. Why? Why when you own these two companies, both of whom could provide products I would actually buy, why would they not have booths at your convention?! Not to mention the horror show that was Marvel's panel and the fact that there was exactly ONE panel for ABC. If there is any hope of my considering going next year, both Marvel and ABC have to have more of a presence. And not a Disnified presence, simply Marvel and ABC, doing their things.

HIGH

Dealer's Room Cosplay
One of my favorite aspects of D23 was the cosplay. I'm so used to people dressed up at anything Disney related being staff members, that every time I saw a prince or princess, I just assumed they were working. More than once I made the mistake of asking where something was only to be met with "Oh, I don't work here." I had no idea this many people were eager to dress up as Disney characters! And hilariously enough, the only non Disney character I saw the whole time was Deadpool. TONS of Deadpools. Many of them wearing Mickey ears. Why Deadpool?! Perhaps the least family friendly Marvel character of the bunch?! Whatever the reasoning, it was awesome.

LOW

Dealer's Room Booths
What an odd Dealer's Room this was. It seemed much more like a trade show, with an area dedicated to showing off the new Parks & Resorts plans, a whole stretch that featured only liscensed Disney products, most of which weren't for sale, and then the back part of the room, filled with Disney collectibles, that were for sale, but why on Earth would I ever buy any? It was fun enough to look around, as there were no crowds and barely any lines anywhere (except to get into the Disney Store booth, of course), but it was just kind of boring. I don't have kids to play in the kids area, I have no interest in owning parts from old Disneyland rides, I'm not about to buy any clothing with Disney designs on them and why tempt me by showing off your Muppets makeup line, if it's not available to buy, huh?

HIGH

VoluntEAR Booth
 One thing I did appreciate on the floor was the Volunteering booth, where throughout the weekend attendees could write notes to soldiers, make relief kits, plant seeds and more. In exchange, they got a sticker and a bag, but more importantly, got to do something good.

LOW

"Health" Booth
As someone who actually has an understanding of health and nutrition, I was a bit more than mildly offended by the booth focusing on how to have good health. Anyone who still propagandizes that milk plays any role in a healthy lifestyle needs to do a little bit more research and I was really bothered by the Disney branding that went with it. "Walking at Disneyland burns x amount of calories!" "Disney toothbrushes are really popular!"

HIGH

Free Cupcakes!
Call it bribery or call it good old fashioned friendliness, cupcakes were given away on multiple occasions, first by John Lasster in the Arena, celebrating Pixar's 25th anniversary and again on the show floor at the booth dedicated to children's birthday parties. While the Lasseter cupcakes were AMAZING, the floor cupcakes were still good and they definitely made me forget about any of the Convention negatives for a good ten minutes every time.

LOW

Convention Food
Tasted awful, was way too expensive, and made me sick. I've never encountered convention food THIS terrible before. Id you ever find yourself at this convention center, do yourself a favor and eat at the Hilton food court instead, where you can find Baja Fresh and freshly made Sandwiches.

HIGH

Plenty Of Free Time
With no crowds and very few panels, there was plenty of free time at this Convention to wander around, get free cupcakes, not buy anything, and if you were a member of the press, sit in the media room and write up the panels you just saw.

LOW

Plenty Of Free Time
My GOD, was I bored at night. I shouldn't have been bored, Louis CK, I know. I could have been watching TV or reading or using my imagination, but I was at a CON! A Convention! These are normally spent going out and drinking with friends or going to screenings or SOMETHING. Instead, I could have been found drinking in the lobby while reading or drinking in the hot tub starring at hot German men. Not that these are horrible ways to spend your evening, but seriously, some evening events wouldn't kill them.

LOW

Organization
For all of the control surrounding the panel content itself, myself and many others, were baffled by the lack of organization when it came to other areas, especially getting into panels. There have been many reports of attendees organizing lines themselves, without the help of any staff members, lines that in some cases were dissasembled when staff members got involved. The instructions for press remained unclear throughout the entire process, as they were told to wait in line, then not to wait in line, then to wait until everyone who was in line got in (despite having already left the line to wait in another line) to come up right before the panel for press seating, to do so only to discover there is no press seating, and so on. There was so little consistency, that a lot of the time, people didn't know when to wait in line, where or for how long, and would end up dedicating hours of their day to get into a panel that was so far from full, they could have just walked in five minutes before and not had a problem. To add to this frustration, there was only one - ONE - door we were allowed to enter the convention center from. Which meant if I had to go to the Arena or had a meeting at the Xbox booth, I still had to go all the way to the far side to enter.

So that about does it for me. I could include the LOW of I woke up Saturday morning with 15 bites on the small of my back, but since that concerns the Anaheim Hilton, not D23 itself, I can't exactly fault Disney, but it does mean I may be trying out the Marriott next time if I ever come back. All in all, a strange experience that has done a good job of putting me off Disney for the time being. If you're wondering about going yourself, all I can say is, if you loves you some Disney, sure. If you aren't obsessed with Disney? So not worth it.

Read More

D23 - Disney Chomps Off Marvel's Balls And Marvel Likes It

Today at D23, in a Herculean display of awfulness, Disney forced Joe Quesada to explain to a half full audience what Marvel was and what it has in common with Disney. He explained to us how in lieu of talking about actual Marvel properties or making any sort of announcement, Disney specifically requested that he give the audience a history lesson. So, the one Arena panel I thought *wouldn't* be one big Disney dick sucking session turned out to be just that, yet again. Even down to the Mickey Mouse shirt and professment of love for old school Disney from Quesada himself. To his credit, he put together a great lesson and really did his best to seem like he was enjoying getting raped through the ear, but I skipped out on free Breakfast to spend an hour learning what I already knew, on this occasion infused with Disney Ego, so I was not a happy camper.

Thankfully, the Q&A portion of a normal Cup O'Joe was retained, though this also demonstrated that they *could* have done a Q&A during the Walt Disney Studios panel and simply did not. But the Q&A, bizarrely consisting of way too many Boom Studios questions from Disney fans (how many times can the man say Marvel isn't working with Boom?!), still didn't feel like the right experience, as most of the questions Joe could not answer. On top of that, the session was extremely short and when a fan asked if they could show the Avengers footage from the day before and Joe said yes, he was quickly shut down, much to the disappointment of the actual Marvel fans who stayed in the room after the massive exodus took place at the beginning of the Q&A.

While it was interesting enough to learn about Marvel's history straight from Queseda himself, it was inherently so skewed towards convincing the audience how well Marvel meshed with Disney, that I felt like I was somehow being lied to or deceived. Something felt very wrong about being hit over the head with what Marvel and Disney had in common (If you're wondering - "Storytelling, Community, Accessibility, Appeals to all ages"), when one of these companies I love so much and the other, I have such a massive like/hate relationship with. A relationship that wasn't helped by ANYTHING at D23, I'll tell you that much.

And you know what I kept thinking of during this Disney & Marvel making a baby love-fest? Jack Kirby. The family and estate of whom Disney fucked out of their rights earlier this summer. Work for hire blah blah blah 1909 bullshit laws, I don't give a shit, someone should have had some compassion, and that someone is never Disney. Awfully devilish in the courtroom for all their hemming and hawwing about being about love and family, aren't they? Yeah, your family values really show when you screw Jack Kirby's family out of anything that should rightfully belong to them. I won't argue about the invalidity of an archane act, developed before artists even understood the meaning of what not owning the rights to your own work meant, but I will say that I was not the only one with Kirby on the mind. A giant section of fans screamed wildly when his name was announced as one of the first to create for Marvel.

Ultimately, the panel was an utter disappointment for Marvel fans with no news, no information, no sneak peaks, no special guests, no title specifics, no giveaways, nothing. And while the majority of the people in attendance had never been to a Cup O' Joe panel (Quesada had audience members raise their hands), the room was still only half full to start. So okay, several hundred Disney fans learned about the history of Marvel today. Great. Doesn't change the fact that any Marvel fan who bought a ticket and came to Anaheim for this convention would have been sorely disappointed by the entire experience and certainly doesn't change the fact that Disney fans are in no way the right target audience for Marvel. You know who is? Other genre fans. Like the ones who don't necessarily read Marvel yet, but go to Comic-Con to find out if they should.

But enough of my bitching. If you'd like to know what information was relayed at the panel, I've provided my live account after the jump, beginning with the history lesson, skipping past all the "Disney and Marvel were made for each other "expository bullshit. Maybe you will find some value in it and my missing free Breakfast won't entirely be in vain.

*****

There are over 7,000 characters and two years into the Disney partnership, there are 8,000 partners.

Then we go into the history of Marvel. In 1938, Superman came into being, in 1939, Batman came into being. In 1939, Timely Publications published the first ever Marvel Comics. In 1941, Captain America, created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby has his first comic. A large portion of the audience claps for Jack Kirby. Yeah. That's right. Eff you, Disney. 19 year old Stan Lee wrote his first piece of comics in Captain America #3. When superheroes weren't selling, Timely started publishing comics of all different kinds.

In the late 50s/early 60s, superheros came back into style. Legend has it that Martin Goodman was playing golf with some publishers who were bragging about their superhero comics and their Justice League. Martin went back to the offices and said Stan, I want you to make a superhero team. Stan thought about it, came back to Martin and said, a superhero team with major problems, like real people. Martin said, no, you're crazy! They solve problems, don't have them! Stan Lee said he wants them to be everyday shlubs, not matinee heroes. Martin said no, that's not what superheros are. Stan Lee went home and said he couldn't do this anymore. His wife said, hey, why don't you quit and make your own comics? He did and in 1961, he created the Fantastic Four. This is when the modern Marvel universe started. One year later in 1962, Stan created Spiderman.

In the years following, Stan and other creators "shifted the paradigm" and started the "Marvel Age" of comics. Characters that were more honest than the ones that came before. Then, some mild DC bashing begins. Superman and Batman put on this facade of secret identities in order to live among us. Clark Kent is bumbling, Bruce Wayne is a playboy, nothing like their actual persons. Marvel is different. "Every best Spiderman story is a great Peter Parker story"

In the 70s, Marvel began to enter the zeitgeist. A pop culture phenomenon. In 1971, The Hulk was on the cover of Rolling Stone and they wrote a story on Marvel and its popularity in colleges. In the 80s, there were tons of TV shows based on Marvel properties.

In the 90s, there was an "unprecedented growth" for Marvel. But Marvel started to focus away from story and attracted speculators instead of readers, more on artwork than story, more about collectables. The bottom then fell out of the comics market, Marvel went into Chapter 11. Why? They forgot what was in their DNA, lost track of that.

This is a story very similar to Disney, when they had to rediscover what made them great in the first place.

So in the year 2000, a new management team came in and began "Project Rebirth" and rebirthed the house of ideas. Had to start at the foundation.

Content: Storytellers. Went out and found the best writers possible. Focused on stories and an interconnected universe and story lines. Their characters all live in the same world.
"Content is King!" became the motto

Connection: Fanbase creates a universe within a universe, tell them what they want to see, and they try to provide those things, along with a great story. "True Believer Experience" begins when fans can connect with them. Cup O Joe is a weekly column where Joe answers fan questions. Runs a clip of Marvel's "open video letter" to 30 Rock, after 30 Rock destroyed an issue of Marvel Academy #8. Pretty cute video. Also mentions Marvel.com as a great place to connect. Also played clip of Isaiah Mustafah as Luke Cage.

Characters: Remembering that they are real people with real lives, living in the real world (cue: Iron Man issue featuring Tim Gunn). Use the real world as the canvas - if the Fantastic Four needs to go to the White House right now, the president would be Obama. Diversity is a big part of Marvel, characters in all shapes, sizes and ethnicities. Black Panther was the first African character in comics, created in 1966. Joe remembers reading this story and thinking, these are books about my world, my life, people in this book are reflecting the people around me, in my neighborhood, in my city. Was attracted to the real world aspect.

They put all the pieces together and became the #1 comic book publisher in the world. Over 60 titles a month & 45 trade paperbacks a month. Published in 75 countries and in 22 languages. #1 digital comics publisher in the world. Marvel App has 3,000 downloadable titles. Streamling library, subscription based, has over 10,000 comics.

Marvel Studios. Was none in 2000. Started licensing out the characters to other studios, but weren't produced by Marvel. The tides turned with Blade. New Line saw something in the character, made it into a great movie, and other studios started taking note and wanting to make movies with the characters and Marvel took note too, they wanted to produce their own titles.

Showed clip that played at the end of the first Iron Man.

Proud of that interconnectivity that helped define Marvel in the 60s tgar *should* be an aspect of the films to be truly Marvel. Proceeded to show all of the clips from all of the Marvel studios films displaying this incerconnectivity.

Joe mentions his daughter was too afraid to meet Tom Hiddleston.

Fun Fact Alert: When the first draft of the Captain America script came in, Joe mentioned that the broadcast was of a Yankees game, but Rogers is from Brooklyn, so it should be the Dodgers. So they changed it!

Marvel Television started happening a few years before the Disney purchase. Used to have many animated shows, but they werent necessarily made by Marvel. But then Marvel made Superhero Squad and The Avengers and next up is Ultimate Spiderman, produced solely (for the most part) by Marvel creatives. Showed sneak peak at the show, which looks fun.

Showed trailer for animated show available on iTunes, taken from pages of Thor Loki. Kind of like a motion comic, but animated a bit more fully through CGI. A little edgier than other Marvel animated content.

So everything is going great, when Disney knocks on the door, inquiring about purchase. Joe shows some fun Marvel/Disney mash up artwork.

But what this partnership really looks like is that Disney promised they could operate autonomously, provide the content that they provide - "Just be Marvel" and let Disney make you "as big as we can."

The audience leaves as I try to listen to the Q&A and it annoys me

Do they have any Marvel stage productions in the works?
Nothing right now, but you never know, especially with Disney now


Why is there no booth here?
First D23, decisions not made by creative, so he doesn't know, but hopes next time there is one

When you reboot the comics, do you find it difficult to bring in new crowd while still paying homage to older generations?
They try not to do hard reboots - they still have their history from back in the 60s. What they did do is create a serpate universe, th eUltimate Universe, what if they were creating the universe in 2001, how would universe be created?

Future for Marvel in the Disney parks?
They are having some talks

Can we hope that Spiderman, X-Men and FF will be incorporated some day into cinematic universe?
Would be fantastic, but no plans right now.


Any plans to redo Howard the Duck and will it be revealed he is related to Donald?
Coming upon the 25th anniversary of the movie, so there might be something there

Has there been any interaction or conflict with existing Disney comics?
No conflict. Haven't worked with Boom studios at all.


Who are your favorite villains?
Galactus, cause he just kinda stands there and everyone is scared of him. Such a heady 70s idea that he eats planets.

In the 90s, they got a huge slew of characters from the Alterverse, are we seeing them soon?
No, but he can't tell them why, it's a legal question

(Someone named Bob asks if we can see yesterday's Avenger's footage. He is wearing an X-Men First Class Xavier shirt from Comic-Con)
Joe says yes and asks tech if we can.

If Boom isn't publishing old titles anymore, would Marvel take anything over like Uncle Scrooge?
Hasn't heard anything about anything Boom Studios at all

How about Darkwing Duck?
Not working with Boom

What is happening with Marvel rides at Universal?
They will remain there


Is Marvel going to be touching on the end of the world in Dec 2012?
The world ends in Marvel every week!

How do they choose who is going to die? And how do they handle the blowback?
Very simple- all comes out of story. If there is a great story there that involves the death of a character and a plan afterwards, then they'll do it. Doesnt what they do at Marvel, there is always someone who writes and hates it, but that's okay, at the end of the day, any mail is better than no mail, because passion is what they want from their fans.

Is a Deadpool movie in the works?
That belongs to Fox, so they have no control over it. Hears there is stuff in the works.
"Ryan Reynolds will make a great Deadpool, much better than he was a Green Lantern."

Any more shows like the old Black Panther show coming out?
Maybe Marvel Knights is closest. Working a lot at Marvel TV to create shows for XD. More coming.

And that was that. A clip reel of cosplay ran, every photo being from Comic-Con, natch. And I started counting down the hours until I could get the hell out of D23.

Read More

D23 - In Depth Look At The Character Design Of Pixar's Monster's University

Monster's University Production Designer Ricky Nierva and Director Dan Scanlan were on hand at D23 today to provide attendees with an in depth look at the character design of young Mike and Sully in the new Pixar movie set for release in 2013. Below is a live account of what took place.

*****

"Story is King" slide appears on screen
They remind themselves of this often at Pixar.
Can't do character design without story, until they know who characters are and what their stories are.

"Design from the Inside-Out"
Nierva's mantra.
When you design a character, you want to know who are they inside first - best friends, favorite food, hobbies, etc.

An original sketch of Mike and Sully by Monster's Inc director, Pete Docter

Nierva tells a story about how at CalArts, when he brought in a picture he drew of an elephant, the teacher said, now draw me Jim the Elephant or Sally the Elephant. It's not enough to just draw an elephant when telling a story. Can't be generic.

More after the jump



"Designing is Re-designing"
Designs constantly changing. Comes into play here with the new characters.

Show a spread from an Art of Disney book showing the evolution of a character from the Jungle Book. Begins with references, trying different looks, sizes of features, so on and so forth, until they reach the "we got it" moment. That moment where you know you have it because it truly fits the story you are trying to tell.

Scupture of a rejected design for Sully

Show earlier designs from Monster's Inc, specifically Sully and Mike. Sully's were extremely varied designs, all over the map. Mike's designs weren't as varied, but at one juncture, he had no arms and a soul patch.

Boo used to be named Mary and Sully used to be named Barrymore.

"How Do You Make An Eyeball Look 18 Years Old"
Becomes about subtleties
Needed to be able to look at Mike and Sully and know if it's them from Monsters Inc or Monster's University.
"it's not just that they are younger, it's that they are different characters. We were all different people 15 years ago."

Rejected designs for young Mike & Sully

Show some sketches of rejected designs, including Mike with glasses, hair, buzz cut, clothes on, braces, and Sully with hair (including an afro), being fatter because of the "freshmen fifteen hundred", and different clothing elements like sports caps and varsity jackets.

Did around five sculpts per character instead of closer to 30 that they did when originally designing the characters.

Finally showed the final results of both characters, which were shown earlier today in the Arena as well.

Details on Mike: (Getting to see the two characters side by side is pretty important). Slimmer, so the eye is bigger, shorter horns, retainer, reduced eyebags, more isolated cheeks, younger, juicier, smoother skin, nicer nails, reduced wrinkling and whiter teeth. Went with the retainer as the "hook" so you can tell right away that this is the Mike from Monster's University.

All of this also impressively shows how much detail went into initially aging the characters. They look their age!

Audience awwwwwes at Sully reveal. Nierva is ecstatic with that reaction.

Details on Sully: Mussier hair, kind of a mullet, better posture, brighter colors, softer eyes, small arms, less eye baggage, eyes slightly closer together, improved teeth and nicer, smoother nails.

After going through these detailed designs, they opened the floor up to Q&A. Huzzah!

Does the casting ever influence the design?
They try to capture the essence in every design. People often tell them "Woody looks just like Tom Hanks! Dory looks just like Ellen!" But they don't actually look just like them - it's people picking up on the essence of the voice actor captured in the design.

Will we see Roz [or other characters from the first film]?
Definitely their plan to have some familiar faces pop up, because they love those characters, but can't say specifics.


Boo, right?
Scanlan can't say, but Nierva offers - "It's a prequel!"

Why a prequel?
Wanted to tell more story about Mike & Sully's relationship - it's what interested Scanlan and Nierva about this project. Seemed like the natural place to go. And they wanted to build the University world itself.

How thrilled were Billy [Crystal] and John [Goodman] to be back, ten years later, to make a prequel, only possible in Animation?
Great that they get to keep the same cast, has been so fun recording them, just recorded them together at once for the first time since the first movie. They hadn't seen each other in a while, but were so happy to jump back into those characters, were doing improv and having a great time.

Is it gonna be a period film since it's a prequel?
Scanlan thinks Monsters Inc is kind of timeless, with a touch of different eras. They may play around with time a little bit. But if you look at the Scare Floor in first movie, it's a mixture of old and new technology, so it's hard to figure out when exactly it's supposed to happen. They are going for the "nostalgia" feeling, more than going back to a specific time period, but he points out that all the great college films come from the 80s, so that will be a heavy influence.

Will there be a new villain?
Scanlan can't talk about, but they will be opening up the world, tons of new characters, wish they could talk about them more. But they will blow our minds.

Is it harder to design an older character or a younger character?
Separate challenge for both. Prequels are challenging because people already know how it ends up. Did a lot of studying, design wise, looking at pictures of people growing up. Hairstyles are the biggest differences they noticed.

Are there any rejected designs from the original film that they looked at for Monsters University?
Always dipping into that well. Aren't any in particular they used this time, but the ideas they come up with, they never forget, and evolve into something new. Good ideas never go to waste.

Will they be changing the locations of the Monster's world, like making the streets cleaner?
They will be different in some way, but maybe less clean in the corners, more tangible. Campus is huge with lots of detail that will be picked up more and more with every viewing.

How does merchendising affect character design?
Always goes for story first and character first. That being said, there is probably a style they would still try to get to, but not just for merchendising purposes, but because it's true to the world. When Nierva was working one day, someone saw him designing and said "that might be in the Main Street parade one day!" and he couldn't deal - he doesn't like thinking about that stuff, becomes too nerve wracking.

Are they digitally making them sound younger?
They don't know if that is necessary, cause they are always amazed with how younger the characters look just with the way they move and the younger design.

They videotape the sessions to capture the idiosyncrasies of the actors as reference.

Did their college experiences influence anything in this movie?
Oh yes. Doesn't think you need to have gone to college to understand this movie, it's still universal. Lots of dramatic things happen in college and you realize there is a whole level of challenge you werent expected and realize you may not be who you thought you were, lots of self discovery. Looks back at college now romantically, but it was horrible at the time, terrifying. But absolutely it influences this movie, whih is why he loves telling the story in this setting.

How much of yourself do you put into the design of a character?
Nierva jokes about Sully's mullet coming from him. They can't not put a little bit of themselves into it since they create it. Can't help but do it.

How did they break into the industry?
They got really lucky. Scanlan thinks he wouldn't get in it nowadays. Says it's the same old hard work and loving it. Nierva says there is no "secret" it's just hard work and passion. Nierva attributes his working for Pixar to dumb luck and timing. Interned at Turner after graduating from Cal Arts, Turner was bought by WB, met the art director of Toy Story, got to be on the team, which continued to Monsters Inc. "If you love doing it, we'll find you." Many of them used to always make flip books growing up in every book they came across.

Are we going to see the establishment of Mike & Sully's relationship?
Without getting into specifics, yes, it's the concept of the film, how they became friends and what that meant

Nierva cried at the wrap party for Up because making it was such a fun experience. When these things end, you hope you can work on another great movie like that. And Monster's University is like that, getting to revisit something great.

*****

So there you have it. I always love getting to hear artists talk about their art and am beginning to notice more and more how partial I am to presentations involving slides and concept art. It was a joy to hear from the animators themselves how this movie came to be, how the character design has been going, and how much they love doing what they do. Reaffirms my newest Bucketlist entry to "Visit Pixar Studios" roughly twelve-fold.

Read More