list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Black Hole on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Black_Hole/3492/default.aspx Title: The Black Hole
Year: 1979
Director: Gary Nelson
Plot: An ambitious sci-fier from the Disney folks, The Black Hole takes place in the future. A quintet of space travelers stumble across a "black hole." Not wishing to be sucked into the void, the crew prepares to flee, but stops long enough to investigate a mysterious space vessel near the entrance of the hole. Manning this craft is mad scientist Dr. Hans Reinhardt (Maximillian Schell), who intends to explore the black hole in hopes of finding the universe's energy source. The cast includes Anthony Perkins, Robert Forster, Yvette Mimieux, and others. The Black Hole marked one of the Disney company's first PG-rated films. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 18
Number of Lists: 16
Number of blog posts: 5
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:18:57 GMTThe Black Hole1979Gary NelsonAn ambitious sci-fier from the Disney folks, The Black Hole takes place in the future. A quintet of space travelers stumble across a "black hole." Not wishing to be sucked into the void, the crew prepares to flee, but stops long enough to investigate a mysterious space vessel near the entrance of the hole. Manning this craft is mad scientist Dr. Hans Reinhardt (Maximillian Schell), who intends to explore the black hole in hopes of finding the universe's energy source. The cast includes <a href="/players/P___106120/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Anthony Perkins</a>, <a href="/players/P____90191/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robert Forster</a>, <a href="/players/P____49451/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Yvette Mimieux</a>, and others. The Black Hole marked one of the Disney company's first PG-rated films. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide18Tag Target (>10)16513http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t45054l29sb.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Black_Hole/3492/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/perera/archive/2009/5/30/42461.aspx Post By: perera
Post To: perera Blog
Post Date: 5/30/2009 2:17:29 AM
Body: BEFORE THIS MOVIE SAW THE LIGHT OF DAY.... Disney was known for it's family oriented films. Even the well-known Disney classics (SNOW WHITE, CINDERELLA, FANTASYIA) had a dark side to the villain, but never as dark and gothic as THE BLACK HOLE. The story was intense, and the special effect was incredible (for the time it was released). The ending could be changed to be a little less christian-like (Maximillion and Hans Rienhart merge to be placed above what looks like hell, while the good guys pass though what looks like heaven's gates with an angel leading the way). Perhaps a remake, with Tim Burton or Guillermo Del Toro directing?
]]>Sat, 30 May 2009 06:17:29 GMTpereraperera Blog5/30/2009 2:17:29 AMBEFORE THIS MOVIE SAW THE LIGHT OF DAY.... Disney was known for it's family oriented films. Even the well-known Disney classics (SNOW WHITE, CINDERELLA, FANTASYIA) had a dark side to the villain, but never as dark and gothic as THE BLACK HOLE. The story was intense, and the special effect was incredible (for the time it was released). The ending could be changed to be a little less christian-like (Maximillion and Hans Rienhart merge to be placed above what looks like hell, while the good guys pass though what looks like heaven's gates with an angel leading the way). Perhaps a remake, with Tim Burton or Guillermo Del Toro directing? http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/13/41014.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/13/2009 3:00:43 PM
Body: Even if you love the original Escape to Witch Mountain, you have to welcome a remake. The 1975 sci-fi Disney film has some very dated special effects — though the visible wires used to “levitate” a handgun and a harmonica give it a campy charm — and it’s not exactly the well-respected classic that The Black Hole or Old Yeller is, anyway. So, better a remake (or “modern re-imagining”) of a slightly beloved movie, which has already been redone once, to give The Rock another fulfillment of his Disney contract and utilize all the “perfect” digital effects now available. While it seems that eventually all Disney live-action classics will be remade, potentially rendering obsolete the careers of Dean Jones, Kevin Corcoran and those ugly kids from Mary Poppins, there are some that may, like Witch Mountain, deserve to be recycled. Disney has previously erred in reworking films like The Absent-Minded Professor (Robin Williams is no Fred MacMurray) and The Shaggy Dog (Tim Allen is no MacMurray, either, nor even is he Tommy Kirk), and it’s mistakenly producing new versions of Swiss Family Robinson and 20,000 Leauges Under the Sea. But there are so many other films, most forgotten, that would better lend themselves to remakes. Here we’ve selected 10 such classics, all but one live-action features, and we welcome you to suggest any others you may wish to see updated and/or re-imagined. The Apple Dumpling Gang (1975) With the western genre not quite dead anymore, it would be nice for Disney to bring back the comedy western. Of course, The Apple Dumpling Gang could be modernized, too. Either way, the story of three orphan children who enlist two bumbling bank robbers to steal their gold nugget would delight a new generation of kids who might not necessarily appreciate Don Knotts the way we did. Cast Jim Carrey in the Knotts role and Jack Black as his partner (originally played by Tim Conway), have them try to outdo each other’s slapstick performance, and you’ve got a huge family hit. The Black Cauldron (1985) This animated feature was so unpopular that it pretty much ruined the reputation of Walt Disney Pictures for a few years. Rated PG, and way too dark even for the studio that brought us Pinocchio, the adaptation of Lloyd Alexander’s fantasy novel had initially been threatened with a PG-13 or R rating. Nearly 25 years later, kids are a little tougher and could easily tolerate a live-action version that’s somewhere akin to Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean and The Phantom Menace (a CGI “Gurgi” would be very similar to Jar-Jar Binks). Tim Burton should obviously direct the film, because he worked as an artist on the original, and he’s currently working for Disney anyway. The Cat from Outer Space (1978) Few people seem to hold this movie in high regards, despite audience’s apparent favor for talking animals and stupid sci-fi plots. But a modernized telling of a feline alien’s visit to Earth could be a blockbuster by being even worse than the original. Add more slapstick (in an LOLCats sort of way) and more special effects and this could make even more money than E.T., which seriously seemed derivative of The Cat from Outer Space anyway. And after this becomes a hit, Disney should continue digging in its catbox and remake the very strange and very obscure Three Lives of Thomasina. Darby O’Gill and the Little People (1959) If Hollywood can dare redo Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, then Disney can surely remake Darby O’Gill and the Little People without too much protest. And like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this remake shall retain the source novel’s title. Of course, Darby O’Gill and the Good People does sound a little plain, so maybe getting right to the idea with Darby O’Gill and the Leprechauns as a title would be better. In any event, Sean Connery should come out of retirement to switch roles and play the titular old man who meets a bunch of Leprechauns. And perhaps Daniel Craig for Connery’s original role? Okay, new title: James Bond and the Other James Bond in Little People Are Forever (or Little People Never Die, or some other combo of 007 title referencing Leprechaun’s immortality). If this does well, Disney can also go ahead and redo the little-people-filled The Gnome-Mobile. In Search of the Castaways (1962) Here’s the genius idea Hollywood’s been seeking for almost 50 years: remake the Jules Verne adaptation In Search of the Castaways, a musical adventure with tons of disaster film elements and a perfect role for Miley Cyrus (isn’t she this generation’s Hayley Mills, in a way?), who could sing a new version of “Castaway.” The ice slide scene would be great in 3-D, by the way. Midnight Madness (1980) Remaking this cult classic might upset a few fans, but even those of us who love the original should be able to appreciate an updated version if it’s done right. There could always be more scavenger hunt movies, whether they’re fresh or recycled. And if Disney can find enough good, young character actors to fill the teams, nobody should even miss Eddie Deezen, David Naughton or Stephen Furst. Have Judd Apatow produce the thing and cast all his regulars, for instance. Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman) should reprise his role, though. The Million Dollar Duck (1971) This family comedy about a duck that lays golden eggs is not very good, and it probably didn’t help its box office that a better film featuring golden-egg-laying fowl (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory) opened on the very same day. But a good remake of bad movie isn’t a bad idea, and in this economy the story of a struggling family that gets a burst of financial luck (via strange science) might work as a relevant fantasy. Toby Tyler, or Ten Weeks with a Circus (1960) This forgotten Kevin Corcoran + monkey classic is kind of like Coraline, but there’s more circus stuff, the kid’s parents don’t suck (though he’s told they don’t love him), there’s a primate friend instead of a talking cat (though both animals are classic Disney devices) and it’s live-action and not 3-D. Do children still dream of running away to the circus? If not, then a remake of this movie could both reinstate that wish and present it as a terrible substitute for a real family all in the course of 90 minutes. The Ugly Dachshund (1966) Between the success of Marley and Me and news of an upcoming Marmaduke movie, it may just be the perfect time for a remake of a movie about a disastrous Great Dane who thinks he’s a little wiener dog. Put Brad Pitt and Anglina Jolie in the Dean Jones and Suzanne Pleshette roles and you’ll really, really piss off Team Jennifer by out-grossing last Christmas’ biggest hit. The World’s Greatest Athlete (1973) The story of an African who is brought to the U.S. to be a college track star may not seem like a big idea for a movie in the 21st century. But make that African a Tarzan-like white kid who can outrun a cheetah (and who isn’t The Flash) and you’ll have people laughing your film out of theaters. Or, you’ll somehow have a monster hit. Either way, we wish Disney would have the balls to remake this unrealistic movie, especially if they can get Usain Bolt to be the protagonist’s main competition. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:00:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/13/2009 3:00:43 PMEven if you love the original Escape to Witch Mountain, you have to welcome a remake. The 1975 sci-fi Disney film has some very dated special effects — though the visible wires used to “levitate” a handgun and a harmonica give it a campy charm — and it’s not exactly the well-respected classic that The Black Hole or Old Yeller is, anyway. So, better a remake (or “modern re-imagining”) of a slightly beloved movie, which has already been redone once, to give The Rock another fulfillment of his Disney contract and utilize all the “perfect” digital effects now available. While it seems that eventually all Disney live-action classics will be remade, potentially rendering obsolete the careers of Dean Jones, Kevin Corcoran and those ugly kids from Mary Poppins, there are some that may, like Witch Mountain, deserve to be recycled. Disney has previously erred in reworking films like The Absent-Minded Professor (Robin Williams is no Fred MacMurray) and The Shaggy Dog (Tim Allen is no MacMurray, either, nor even is he Tommy Kirk), and it’s mistakenly producing new versions of Swiss Family Robinson and 20,000 Leauges Under the Sea. But there are so many other films, most forgotten, that would better lend themselves to remakes. Here we’ve selected 10 such classics, all but one live-action features, and we welcome you to suggest any others you may wish to see updated and/or re-imagined. The Apple Dumpling Gang (1975) With the western genre not quite dead anymore, it would be nice for Disney to bring back the comedy western. Of course, The Apple Dumpling Gang could be modernized, too. Either way, the story of three orphan children who enlist two bumbling bank robbers to steal their gold nugget would delight a new generation of kids who might not necessarily appreciate Don Knotts the way we did. Cast Jim Carrey in the Knotts role and Jack Black as his partner (originally played by Tim Conway), have them try to outdo each other’s slapstick performance, and you’ve got a huge family hit. The Black Cauldron (1985) This animated feature was so unpopular that it pretty much ruined the reputation of Walt Disney Pictures for a few years. Rated PG, and way too dark even for the studio that brought us Pinocchio, the adaptation of Lloyd Alexander’s fantasy novel had initially been threatened with a PG-13 or R rating. Nearly 25 years later, kids are a little tougher and could easily tolerate a live-action version that’s somewhere akin to Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean and The Phantom Menace (a CGI “Gurgi” would be very similar to Jar-Jar Binks). Tim Burton should obviously direct the film, because he worked as an artist on the original, and he’s currently working for Disney anyway. The Cat from Outer Space (1978) Few people seem to hold this movie in high regards, despite audience’s apparent favor for talking animals and stupid sci-fi plots. But a modernized telling of a feline alien’s visit to Earth could be a blockbuster by being even worse than the original. Add more slapstick (in an LOLCats sort of way) and more special effects and this could make even more money than E.T., which seriously seemed derivative of The Cat from Outer Space anyway. And after this becomes a hit, Disney should continue digging in its catbox and remake the very strange and very obscure Three Lives of Thomasina. Darby O’Gill and the Little People (1959) If Hollywood can dare redo Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, then Disney can surely remake Darby O’Gill and the Little People without too much protest. And like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this remake shall retain the source novel’s title. Of course, Darby O’Gill and the Good People does sound a little plain, so maybe getting right to the idea with Darby O’Gill and the Leprechauns as a title would be better. In any event, Sean Connery should come out of retirement to switch roles and play the titular old man who meets a bunch of Leprechauns. And perhaps Daniel Craig for Connery’s original role? Okay, new title: James Bond and the Other James Bond in Little People Are Forever (or Little People Never Die, or some other combo of 007 title referencing Leprechaun’s immortality). If this does well, Disney can also go ahead and redo the little-people-filled The Gnome-Mobile. In Search of the Castaways (1962) Here’s the genius idea Hollywood’s been seeking for almost 50 years: remake the Jules Verne adaptation In Search of the Castaways, a musical adventure with tons of disaster film elements and a perfect role for Miley Cyrus (isn’t she this generation’s Hayley Mills, in a way?), who could sing a new version of “Castaway.” The ice slide scene would be great in 3-D, by the way. Midnight Madness (1980) Remaking this cult classic might upset a few fans, but even those of us who love the original should be able to appreciate an updated version if it’s done right. There could always be more scavenger hunt movies, whether they’re fresh or recycled. And if Disney can find enough good, young character actors to fill the teams, nobody should even miss Eddie Deezen, David Naughton or Stephen Furst. Have Judd Apatow produce the thing and cast all his regulars, for instance. Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman) should reprise his role, though. The Million Dollar Duck (1971) This family comedy about a duck that lays golden eggs is not very good, and it probably didn’t help its box office that a better film featuring golden-egg-laying fowl (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory) opened on the very same day. But a good remake of bad movie isn’t a bad idea, and in this economy the story of a struggling family that gets a burst of financial luck (via strange science) might work as a relevant fantasy. Toby Tyler, or Ten Weeks with a Circus (1960) This forgotten Kevin Corcoran + monkey classic is kind of like Coraline, but there’s more circus stuff, the kid’s parents don’t suck (though he’s told they don’t love him), there’s a primate friend instead of a talking cat (though both animals are classic Disney devices) and it’s live-action and not 3-D. Do children still dream of running away to the circus? If not, then a remake of this movie could both reinstate that wish and present it as a terrible substitute for a real family all in the course of 90 minutes. The Ugly Dachshund (1966) Between the success of Marley and Me and news of an upcoming Marmaduke movie, it may just be the perfect time for a remake of a movie about a disastrous Great Dane who thinks he’s a little wiener dog. Put Brad Pitt and Anglina Jolie in the Dean Jones and Suzanne Pleshette roles and you’ll really, really piss off Team Jennifer by out-grossing last Christmas’ biggest hit. The World’s Greatest Athlete (1973) The story of an African who is brought to the U.S. to be a college track star may not seem like a big idea for a movie in the 21st century. But make that African a Tarzan-like white kid who can outrun a cheetah (and who isn’t The Flash) and you’ll have people laughing your film out of theaters. Or, you’ll somehow have a monster hit. Either way, we wish Disney would have the balls to remake this unrealistic movie, especially if they can get Usain Bolt to be the protagonist’s main competition. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/18/37417.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/18/2008 6:00:57 PM
Body: It’s no secret that I have a soft spot for all things science fiction-related, and when it involves robots of any kind (the odd exception being the actual movie Robots, which I avoided like the plague) then I’m in like Flynn. The more non-human looking the robot, the more I’ll love it. (Which is probably why Disney’s own The Black Hole has some of the coolest movie robots in it. V.I.N.C.E.N.T.? Maximillian? Great stuff. Where’s my Blu-ray, Disney?) One of the movies this past year that actually got me into the theaters more than once was Disney/Pixar’s WALL•E, which comes out on DVD today. They’ve added a ton of special features to the film, especially (of course) if you buy the three-disc special edition, which includes a digital copy of the movie that you can toss on your iPhone, laptop, digital watch, toaster oven, or shaving mirror. Despite the fact that director Andrew Stanton says WALL•E has “no environmental message” whatsoever, it’s a bit ironic that on the commentary track he starts out by explaining that in the development process they wondered what would happen if so much trash piled up that humans had to leave the earth in order to clean it up. Sounds environmental enough to me. Luckily, the fact that Stanton continues to insist there’s no underlying meaning, and that he never made the connection between WALL•E and Johnny 5 from Short Circuit hasn’t detracted from my enjoyment of the film. Pixar decided to revisit the WALL•E universe by creating a short film using new animation and some recycled footage. The idea was that it would be a nifty little special feature for the DVD, which it is, but it makes me yearn for a sequel to WALL•E — which is a sign of Disney’s marketing magic at work. The short film is BURN•E, and I got the chance to see a little early and to talk with the director of the short, Angus MacLean. The DVD also includes the short magician vs. rabbit film Presto, and these two shorts alone are worth the price you’ll pay for this robotic wonder. Check out our interview with MacLean below the jump. Is there any Pixar film that you would have loved to work on, but didn’t get the chance to? I would have loved t o have worked on the original Toy Story which is the only Pixar feature that I was not involved in. I also wish that I could have worked on some of those Listerine commercials. I noticed that BURN•E does a fist-pump when he cuts through the door. What gave you the idea to include that? That is a bit of an inside joke. Brad Bird’s pet peeve is the movie cliche’ where a character does that fist-pump an says “YESSSS!” I think that I put that joke in just to irritate him. I think there is an easter egg on the Rataouille DVD that explains this. So if you watch that before you see BURN•E, the short will be 34% funnier. So when will we get to see BURN•E in Lego like you did with WALL•E? I designed a Lego BURN•E as a crew gift as a thank you for the hard work. I ordered the pieces, made custom decals and instructions and hand packaged each of the sets. If there is interest, I will post a picture on Flickr soon. WALL•E stands for Waste Allocation Load Lifter, Earth class. What does BURN•E stand for? BURN•E stands for: Basic Utility Repair Nano Engineer. I have since heard from some people that it actually be BURN•A because the “E” in WALL•E stands for “Earth-Class” and the “A” would be the appropriate “Axiom-Class”. Now I could argue that maybe BURN•E was a robot on earth that then was installed on the Axiom, but A: I would be lying and B: What is the point? If that is the biggest problem you have with the film, then I have done my job. Now put yourself i my shoes- you have to name this robot. The name BURN•E is funny and breaks the continuity of the film or BURN•A which is more accurate to the feature and is not funny at all. Which would you choose? I thought so. I do love that geeks pick up on this and I am happy to be creating this controversy. I’d probably do the same thing were I not involved. How much of an animated film is software and how much is the result of an “artist’s” vision and his/her ability to bring that vision to life? What role does software play in the pricess? Is it a mere tool, like, say, video editing software, or does it allow animators to do things they could not do with ink and paper? WALL•E was mostly created by a computer robot we have here at Pixar called the EntertainmentBot 3000. Nah, the computer is just a big, dumb pencil. Why’d you decide to give BURN•E of all the characters in WALL•E his own short? A.M.: I thought he was a fun character to animate. After I had animated the shot with him in the feature I wanted to know what happened to him. I wanted to answer that question with this short. How hard was it to think of a name that sounded like a robot but was a pun for a human name (Bernie)? His name internally had been “Repair Bot” When I started the short, I envisioned him as being called WELD•R. About two days later Jim Reardon, the head of WALL•E Story handed me a drawing he had done of the word BURN•E burned into metal. After that there was no going back. Q: Is it harder to do an animated film with little dialogue? Does it put more pressure on the animation to do the talking? Because of this, was WALL•E harder character to create than some of your others? It’s not harder to animate, but it is way more work in the story board process. At what point during the development of WALL•E did you start planning the story of BURN•E? Did they construct any plot points in the feature to facilitate the short, or vice versa? I came up with and started boarding the short approximately 5 months before WALL•E was completed. However, no plot points were changed in the feature to make the short work. There were things that were changed in that one shot in WALL•E that featured BURN•E after it had been finished. The light spire that he welds was not originally in the shot. How did you go about choosing scenes from WALL•E that BURN•E could impact? Did you have to scrap any ideas that just wouldn’t fit with the existing story? I came up with as many places in the movie as I could think of to cut back to. We cut whatever wasn’t funny or slowed the pace down. Oddly enough the scene from the feature that sparked the original idea for BURN•E was cut from the feature. The scene is too complicated to explain. Maybe that’s why it never made it. Having been the directing animator on WALL•E, what did that involve? The Directing Animator’s job is to help the other animators keep their animation on model so that the acting and movement are consistent for each of the characters over the entire film. They work to be both a surrogate voice of the Director when he/she is available, and also offer acting and performance suggestions. Directing Animators also help to define the motion and character of the main characters in the film. The Directing Animator reports directly to the Supervising Animators. On WALL•E (as well as The Incredibles) I worked under the Supervision Animators Alan Barillaro and Steven Hunter. They interface more with the production staff about the direction and management of the WALL•E animation department. They also serve as both a surrogate voice of the Director and also offer acting and performance suggestions as well. Time permitting, Supervising Animators will also help to define the motion and character of the main characters in the film. How did you get selected to direct BURN•E? Now that you’ve done it, what would you do differently? I think it was opportunity met with preparation. Andrew liked the idea of the DVD short being about BURN•E. He encouraged me to storyboard the film. After the story was approved, Andrew asked if I would be interested. What do you think was the hardest thing to get right in the short? There was a lot of difficult shots to pull off in this film. From a technical perspective, the shot with WALL•E touching Saturn’s rings that transitions into the pebble meteor was the hardest to pull off. The Effects Supervisor, Bill Watral did a fabulous job stitching the shot from the film and a bunch of new elements that were on a literally planetary scale. On the performance side, the shot where SUPPLY•R drops the light on the ground was the trickiest to get right. There was something in the boards that was really funny that was extremely difficult to capture. BURN•E has a very “Pixar” feel to it as an animated short. What is it about repetitive failure (Lifted, One Man Band, and now BURN•E) that is so funny? Humor usually comes about when result doesn’t match the expectation. If everything in an characters’ life goes well it’s hard to relate to and probably not as funny. Where do you actually start on design with so many different kinds of robots? In the WALL•E universe most of the robots are designed and built around the idea of function first, character second. With the character of WALL•E we figured out his motion as a trash compactor first. After that had been firmly established we then worked on how to define his character based on the limitations of him being a trash compactor Are there any easter eggs we should watch out for? There are a few small nods here and there to various sci-fi properties. I won’t go through all of them, but I will mention that there is a graphic on the elevator inside the Axiom that reads “ELV 426″ indicating that this is elevator number four hundred and twenty-six. This is of course (pushing my glasses up on my nose) a reference to LV-426 the planet that is the setting of the movie Alien and Aliens. How hard was it to get the right type of emotion out of a robot? It is always our goal as animators to make our work clearly communicate the thought process of the characters to the audience. It was particularly challenging for us on BURN•E as well as WALL•E because of the limited nature of the designs and the lack of dialogue. Both characters limited designs are are appealing, but more work must be done in the story process to communicate his intentions. WIth BURN•E and with WALL•E, if the audience can’t tell what the character is thinking or what is going on, then they lose interest very quickly. Disney / Pixar’s WALL•E Special Edition includes a ton of special features, like the excellent The Pixar Story documentary, directed by Leslie Iwerks (it’s been on cable a lot recently), the two mentioned short films, deleted scenes, and a lot more stuff. If you pick up the Blu-ray edition (highly recommended) you’ll get arcade games, fly-throughs of the set, a geek track by some of the crazy kids at Pixar, and a kitchen sink. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:00:57 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/18/2008 6:00:57 PM It’s no secret that I have a soft spot for all things science fiction-related, and when it involves robots of any kind (the odd exception being the actual movie Robots, which I avoided like the plague) then I’m in like Flynn. The more non-human looking the robot, the more I’ll love it. (Which is probably why Disney’s own The Black Hole has some of the coolest movie robots in it. V.I.N.C.E.N.T.? Maximillian? Great stuff. Where’s my Blu-ray, Disney?) One of the movies this past year that actually got me into the theaters more than once was Disney/Pixar’s WALL•E, which comes out on DVD today. They’ve added a ton of special features to the film, especially (of course) if you buy the three-disc special edition, which includes a digital copy of the movie that you can toss on your iPhone, laptop, digital watch, toaster oven, or shaving mirror. Despite the fact that director Andrew Stanton says WALL•E has “no environmental message” whatsoever, it’s a bit ironic that on the commentary track he starts out by explaining that in the development process they wondered what would happen if so much trash piled up that humans had to leave the earth in order to clean it up. Sounds environmental enough to me. Luckily, the fact that Stanton continues to insist there’s no underlying meaning, and that he never made the connection between WALL•E and Johnny 5 from Short Circuit hasn’t detracted from my enjoyment of the film. Pixar decided to revisit the WALL•E universe by creating a short film using new animation and some recycled footage. The idea was that it would be a nifty little special feature for the DVD, which it is, but it makes me yearn for a sequel to WALL•E — which is a sign of Disney’s marketing magic at work. The short film is BURN•E, and I got the chance to see a little early and to talk with the director of the short, Angus MacLean. The DVD also includes the short magician vs. rabbit film Presto, and these two shorts alone are worth the price you’ll pay for this robotic wonder. Check out our interview with MacLean below the jump. Is there any Pixar film that you would have loved to work on, but didn’t get the chance to? I would have loved t o have worked on the original Toy Story which is the only Pixar feature that I was not involved in. I also wish that I could have worked on some of those Listerine commercials. I noticed that BURN•E does a fist-pump when he cuts through the door. What gave you the idea to include that? That is a bit of an inside joke. Brad Bird’s pet peeve is the movie cliche’ where a character does that fist-pump an says “YESSSS!” I think that I put that joke in just to irritate him. I think there is an easter egg on the Rataouille DVD that explains this. So if you watch that before you see BURN•E, the short will be 34% funnier. So when will we get to see BURN•E in Lego like you did with WALL•E? I designed a Lego BURN•E as a crew gift as a thank you for the hard work. I ordered the pieces, made custom decals and instructions and hand packaged each of the sets. If there is interest, I will post a picture on Flickr soon. WALL•E stands for Waste Allocation Load Lifter, Earth class. What does BURN•E stand for? BURN•E stands for: Basic Utility Repair Nano Engineer. I have since heard from some people that it actually be BURN•A because the “E” in WALL•E stands for “Earth-Class” and the “A” would be the appropriate “Axiom-Class”. Now I could argue that maybe BURN•E was a robot on earth that then was installed on the Axiom, but A: I would be lying and B: What is the point? If that is the biggest problem you have with the film, then I have done my job. Now put yourself i my shoes- you have to name this robot. The name BURN•E is funny and breaks the continuity of the film or BURN•A which is more accurate to the feature and is not funny at all. Which would you choose? I thought so. I do love that geeks pick up on this and I am happy to be creating this controversy. I’d probably do the same thing were I not involved. How much of an animated film is software and how much is the result of an “artist’s” vision and his/her ability to bring that vision to life? What role does software play in the pricess? Is it a mere tool, like, say, video editing software, or does it allow animators to do things they could not do with ink and paper? WALL•E was mostly created by a computer robot we have here at Pixar called the EntertainmentBot 3000. Nah, the computer is just a big, dumb pencil. Why’d you decide to give BURN•E of all the characters in WALL•E his own short? A.M.: I thought he was a fun character to animate. After I had animated the shot with him in the feature I wanted to know what happened to him. I wanted to answer that question with this short. How hard was it to think of a name that sounded like a robot but was a pun for a human name (Bernie)? His name internally had been “Repair Bot” When I started the short, I envisioned him as being called WELD•R. About two days later Jim Reardon, the head of WALL•E Story handed me a drawing he had done of the word BURN•E burned into metal. After that there was no going back. Q: Is it harder to do an animated film with little dialogue? Does it put more pressure on the animation to do the talking? Because of this, was WALL•E harder character to create than some of your others? It’s not harder to animate, but it is way more work in the story board process. At what point during the development of WALL•E did you start planning the story of BURN•E? Did they construct any plot points in the feature to facilitate the short, or vice versa? I came up with and started boarding the short approximately 5 months before WALL•E was completed. However, no plot points were changed in the feature to make the short work. There were things that were changed in that one shot in WALL•E that featured BURN•E after it had been finished. The light spire that he welds was not originally in the shot. How did you go about choosing scenes from WALL•E that BURN•E could impact? Did you have to scrap any ideas that just wouldn’t fit with the existing story? I came up with as many places in the movie as I could think of to cut back to. We cut whatever wasn’t funny or slowed the pace down. Oddly enough the scene from the feature that sparked the original idea for BURN•E was cut from the feature. The scene is too complicated to explain. Maybe that’s why it never made it. Having been the directing animator on WALL•E, what did that involve? The Directing Animator’s job is to help the other animators keep their animation on model so that the acting and movement are consistent for each of the characters over the entire film. They work to be both a surrogate voice of the Director when he/she is available, and also offer acting and performance suggestions. Directing Animators also help to define the motion and character of the main characters in the film. The Directing Animator reports directly to the Supervising Animators. On WALL•E (as well as The Incredibles) I worked under the Supervision Animators Alan Barillaro and Steven Hunter. They interface more with the production staff about the direction and management of the WALL•E animation department. They also serve as both a surrogate voice of the Director and also offer acting and performance suggestions as well. Time permitting, Supervising Animators will also help to define the motion and character of the main characters in the film. How did you get selected to direct BURN•E? Now that you’ve done it, what would you do differently? I think it was opportunity met with preparation. Andrew liked the idea of the DVD short being about BURN•E. He encouraged me to storyboard the film. After the story was approved, Andrew asked if I would be interested. What do you think was the hardest thing to get right in the short? There was a lot of difficult shots to pull off in this film. From a technical perspective, the shot with WALL•E touching Saturn’s rings that transitions into the pebble meteor was the hardest to pull off. The Effects Supervisor, Bill Watral did a fabulous job stitching the shot from the film and a bunch of new elements that were on a literally planetary scale. On the performance side, the shot where SUPPLY•R drops the light on the ground was the trickiest to get right. There was something in the boards that was really funny that was extremely difficult to capture. BURN•E has a very “Pixar” feel to it as an animated short. What is it about repetitive failure (Lifted, One Man Band, and now BURN•E) that is so funny? Humor usually comes about when result doesn’t match the expectation. If everything in an characters’ life goes well it’s hard to relate to and probably not as funny. Where do you actually start on design with so many different kinds of robots? In the WALL•E universe most of the robots are designed and built around the idea of function first, character second. With the character of WALL•E we figured out his motion as a trash compactor first. After that had been firmly established we then worked on how to define his character based on the limitations of him being a trash compactor Are there any easter eggs we should watch out for? There are a few small nods here and there to various sci-fi properties. I won’t go through all of them, but I will mention that there is a graphic on the elevator inside the Axiom that reads “ELV 426″ indicating that this is elevator number four hundred and twenty-six. This is of course (pushing my glasses up on my nose) a reference to LV-426 the planet that is the setting of the movie Alien and Aliens. How hard was it to get the right type of emotion out of a robot? It is always our goal as animators to make our work clearly communicate the thought process of the characters to the audience. It was particularly challenging for us on BURN•E as well as WALL•E because of the limited nature of the designs and the lack of dialogue. Both characters limited designs are are appealing, but more work must be done in the story process to communicate his intentions. WIth BURN•E and with WALL•E, if the audience can’t tell what the character is thinking or what is going on, then they lose interest very quickly. Disney / Pixar’s WALL•E Special Edition includes a ton of special features, like the excellent The Pixar Story documentary, directed by Leslie Iwerks (it’s been on cable a lot recently), the two mentioned short films, deleted scenes, and a lot more stuff. If you pick up the Blu-ray edition (highly recommended) you’ll get arcade games, fly-throughs of the set, a geek track by some of the crazy kids at Pixar, and a kitchen sink. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/6/30728.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/6/2008 3:53:05 PM
Body: Released: December 21, 1979Director: Gary Nelson*****The Black Hole is a film in search of an identity. Being Disney's first PG-rated film, it never quite knows who its audience is. Kids, with the wisecracking robots Vincent and Bob? Sci Fi fans, with elaborate sets and a space setting? Action movie buffs, complete with blaster fights? Science freaks, in an attempt to teach the audience about a scientific phenomenon? It never knows and therefore comes across as a jumbled mess. But it's an enjoyable jumbled mess with a wonderfully addictive score by longtime James Bond conductor John Barry.While exploring the vastness of space, the crew of the Palomino comes across the USS Cygnus, a larger research vessel sitting on the edge of a black hole and which refused an order to return home. On the ship, they meet Hans Reinhardt, an eccentric scientist obsessed with the black hole. When they learn he is planning to go into it, there is a race against time to escape.The Black Hole is a guilty pleasure of mine. It's not an especially good movie-effects and score excepted-while the scientific information leaves a lot to be desired and the characters are nearly one note. But gosh darn, it's fun to look at and pulls you into the action. With names like Maximilian Schell, Anthony Perkins and Ernest Borgnine attached, a budget at an estimated $18.5 million and the weight of Disney behind it, you'd think the actors would have found a way to be less lethargic than they are. It's almost as if everyone is sleep walking through their parts, except Schell who overacts like there is no tomorrow. He's the most fun of the human actors to watch; he alternately comes across as a complete madman and a brilliant scientist. Scientifically speaking, there are issues. Most famously, when the Cygnus is under attack by space rock, the innards of the ship should be sucked into space. And the escaping crew should be frozen immediately when the cold of space flows into the ship. The asteroid shouldn't be red, either, as far as I know. How do you keep human tissue alive inside a mechanical body without food or water or sleep? These are things tissues need for survival. And just a note about the ending: if anyone truly understands it in the context of the movie, let me know. Don't bring any outside information to the table: not what was intended, interview answers or the comic book. It feels like a cop out, an existential ending to a scientific movie. Oh well. Still a load of fun.
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:53:05 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/6/2008 3:53:05 PMReleased: December 21, 1979Director: Gary Nelson*****The Black Hole is a film in search of an identity. Being Disney's first PG-rated film, it never quite knows who its audience is. Kids, with the wisecracking robots Vincent and Bob? Sci Fi fans, with elaborate sets and a space setting? Action movie buffs, complete with blaster fights? Science freaks, in an attempt to teach the audience about a scientific phenomenon? It never knows and therefore comes across as a jumbled mess. But it's an enjoyable jumbled mess with a wonderfully addictive score by longtime James Bond conductor John Barry.While exploring the vastness of space, the crew of the Palomino comes across the USS Cygnus, a larger research vessel sitting on the edge of a black hole and which refused an order to return home. On the ship, they meet Hans Reinhardt, an eccentric scientist obsessed with the black hole. When they learn he is planning to go into it, there is a race against time to escape.The Black Hole is a guilty pleasure of mine. It's not an especially good movie-effects and score excepted-while the scientific information leaves a lot to be desired and the characters are nearly one note. But gosh darn, it's fun to look at and pulls you into the action. With names like Maximilian Schell, Anthony Perkins and Ernest Borgnine attached, a budget at an estimated $18.5 million and the weight of Disney behind it, you'd think the actors would have found a way to be less lethargic than they are. It's almost as if everyone is sleep walking through their parts, except Schell who overacts like there is no tomorrow. He's the most fun of the human actors to watch; he alternately comes across as a complete madman and a brilliant scientist. Scientifically speaking, there are issues. Most famously, when the Cygnus is under attack by space rock, the innards of the ship should be sucked into space. And the escaping crew should be frozen immediately when the cold of space flows into the ship. The asteroid shouldn't be red, either, as far as I know. How do you keep human tissue alive inside a mechanical body without food or water or sleep? These are things tissues need for survival. And just a note about the ending: if anyone truly understands it in the context of the movie, let me know. Don't bring any outside information to the table: not what was intended, interview answers or the comic book. It feels like a cop out, an existential ending to a scientific movie. Oh well. Still a load of fun. http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/12/28508.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/12/2008 10:07:11 AM
Body: 1979 was a dark time for Walt Disney. Really dark, as Disney had been trapped in a casket for ten years an account of being dead. His studio was having a hard time as well. Ever since W.D. had kicked the bucket, the studio had not had a single big hit, with its animated releases clearly second tier (The Astritocats, The Rescuers) and its live actions films strictly for kids. Enter Star Wars, Close Encounters and Superman, three sci-fi/fantasy special effects pictures that proved that sort of movie could make big bucks. The answer to the execs at Buena Vista was clear- make their own sci-fi blockbuster and rake in the cash. The gamble actually came close to succeeding. Although remembered (when at all) as a bomb, The Black Hole actually made $35.7 million dollars. This would indeed be impressive until you take into account the fact that the movie cost $40 million. Ouch. The reason why the movie is nearly forgotten today is that there is precious little to remember in it, except for the special effects and art direction, some of which really is magnificent. But the story and characters are so undistinctive they are the definition of cliché. It's as if Gary Nelson and his screenwriters watched every sci-fi movie and TV show of the last twenty years, took notes and tried to come up with a generic film that had the least amount of originality possible. Set sometime in the far future, the movie follows the crew of the U.S.S. Palomino as they are returning home from an apparently unsuccessful mission of looking for Earth-type planets. On the way back they encounter a black hole with a ship around it that has been missing for twenty years, the Cygnus. The crew, which consists of a wooden Captain Kirk type commander (Robert Forster), a brash young crewman with the sci-fi name of Pizer (Joseph Bottoms), a woman (she apparently has not job) named Kate with ESP (Yvette Mimieux from The Time Machine), a creepy guy (Anthony Perkins), and a reporter played by Marty himself, Ernest Borgnine. There's also VINCENT (voice of Roddy McDowell), an ugly and annoying robot who constantly repeats Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, can fly and can communicate with Kate telepathically. I don't know how a robot could have ESP, but that's not the least of the movie's problems. So anyway, the Palomino spends what feels like an eternity docking with the Cygnus and when the crew finally step on board, they discover the only person left is an eccentric German scientist named Dr. Reinhardt (Maximillian Schell), who is planning on traveling through the black hole, where he expects to unlock the secrets of the universe and have a hardcore spiritual experience. Of course all not is as it seems, and VINCENT meets another robot named Old BOB (voice of Slim Pickens!) who tells him that Reinhardt killed the crew and turned them into robot zombies, and keen on taking everyone on a suicidal dash through the hole. What a surprise! This story could have been done in an hour as a below average Star Trek episode, but the movie clearly also wants to rip off 2001: A Space Odyssey, which explains both the endless docking sequence at the beginning and the acid trip that's the ride through the black hole at the end. It also inherents an incredibly slow pace from 2001. There's a shootout and chase scene at the end that's clearly influenced by Star Wars, but Nelson is totally unable to provide anything resembling suspense or even fast editing. The actors seem bored with their parts, and given the fact that Schell and Borgnine won Best Actor Oscars for creating very distinctive roles, I don't blame the performers, but the director and script. The movie's only success, and it's a big one, are the outer space visuals and the art direction. The Cygnus sets are really magnificent, looking like a huge European city in space. The many robots of the film don't come off as well, appearing rather jerky and implausible. The Black Hole is more fun to talk about and make fun of than it is to actually see, but too boring for a real Mystery Science Theatre 3000 live experience, although for a while it seems like a golden opportunity. P.S. Wikipedia tells me that VINCENT stands for Vital Information Necessary CENTralized and BOB is BiO-sanitation Battalion. Well, that's helpful. The Black Hole (1979)
]]>Mon, 12 May 2008 14:07:11 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/12/2008 10:07:11 AM1979 was a dark time for Walt Disney. Really dark, as Disney had been trapped in a casket for ten years an account of being dead. His studio was having a hard time as well. Ever since W.D. had kicked the bucket, the studio had not had a single big hit, with its animated releases clearly second tier (The Astritocats, The Rescuers) and its live actions films strictly for kids. Enter Star Wars, Close Encounters and Superman, three sci-fi/fantasy special effects pictures that proved that sort of movie could make big bucks. The answer to the execs at Buena Vista was clear- make their own sci-fi blockbuster and rake in the cash. The gamble actually came close to succeeding. Although remembered (when at all) as a bomb, The Black Hole actually made $35.7 million dollars. This would indeed be impressive until you take into account the fact that the movie cost $40 million. Ouch. The reason why the movie is nearly forgotten today is that there is precious little to remember in it, except for the special effects and art direction, some of which really is magnificent. But the story and characters are so undistinctive they are the definition of clich&eacute;. It's as if Gary Nelson and his screenwriters watched every sci-fi movie and TV show of the last twenty years, took notes and tried to come up with a generic film that had the least amount of originality possible. Set sometime in the far future, the movie follows the crew of the U.S.S. Palomino as they are returning home from an apparently unsuccessful mission of looking for Earth-type planets. On the way back they encounter a black hole with a ship around it that has been missing for twenty years, the Cygnus. The crew, which consists of a wooden Captain Kirk type commander (Robert Forster), a brash young crewman with the sci-fi name of Pizer (Joseph Bottoms), a woman (she apparently has not job) named Kate with ESP (Yvette Mimieux from The Time Machine), a creepy guy (Anthony Perkins), and a reporter played by Marty himself, Ernest Borgnine. There's also VINCENT (voice of Roddy McDowell), an ugly and annoying robot who constantly repeats Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, can fly and can communicate with Kate telepathically. I don't know how a robot could have ESP, but that's not the least of the movie's problems. So anyway, the Palomino spends what feels like an eternity docking with the Cygnus and when the crew finally step on board, they discover the only person left is an eccentric German scientist named Dr. Reinhardt (Maximillian Schell), who is planning on traveling through the black hole, where he expects to unlock the secrets of the universe and have a hardcore spiritual experience. Of course all not is as it seems, and VINCENT meets another robot named Old BOB (voice of Slim Pickens!) who tells him that Reinhardt killed the crew and turned them into robot zombies, and keen on taking everyone on a suicidal dash through the hole. What a surprise! This story could have been done in an hour as a below average Star Trek episode, but the movie clearly also wants to rip off 2001: A Space Odyssey, which explains both the endless docking sequence at the beginning and the acid trip that's the ride through the black hole at the end. It also inherents an incredibly slow pace from 2001. There's a shootout and chase scene at the end that's clearly influenced by Star Wars, but Nelson is totally unable to provide anything resembling suspense or even fast editing. The actors seem bored with their parts, and given the fact that Schell and Borgnine won Best Actor Oscars for creating very distinctive roles, I don't blame the performers, but the director and script. The movie's only success, and it's a big one, are the outer space visuals and the art direction. The Cygnus sets are really magnificent, looking like a huge European city in space. The many robots of the film don't come off as well, appearing rather jerky and implausible. The Black Hole is more fun to talk about and make fun of than it is to actually see, but too boring for a real Mystery Science Theatre 3000 live experience, although for a while it seems like a golden opportunity. P.S. Wikipedia tells me that VINCENT stands for Vital Information Necessary CENTralized and BOB is BiO-sanitation Battalion. Well, that's helpful. The Black Hole (1979) http://www.spout.com/groups/Make_This_Movie/Remake_The_Black_Hole/210/3968/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: MovieGuy
Post To: Make This Movie
Post Date: 12/1/2006 8:59:49 PM
Body: Here's another classic which has great potential for a remake with today's CG effects. Please don't get this idea confused with the recent 2006 movie "The Black Hole" which is about a science experiment gone bad causing a black hole to open up over St. Louis *cough* (so bad I might have to watch it). The original Black Hole would be a great movie for an updated fresh look. Thoughts?
]]>Sat, 02 Dec 2006 01:59:49 GMTMovieGuyMake This Movie12/1/2006 8:59:49 PMHere's another classic which has great potential for a remake with today's CG effects. Please don't get this idea confused with the recent 2006 movie "The Black Hole" which is about a science experiment gone bad causing a black hole to open up over St. Louis *cough* (so bad I might have to watch it). The original Black Hole would be a great movie for an updated fresh look. Thoughts? http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/future/MemberTagFilms.aspxfuture
Number of films tagged: 492

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 258

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:46:43 GMT492101258Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adventure/MemberTagFilms.aspxadventure
Number of films tagged: 227

Number of people who tagged: 95

Number of times used: 367

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:34:17 GMT22795367Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/escape/MemberTagFilms.aspxescape
Number of films tagged: 2868

Number of people who tagged: 76

Number of times used: 279

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT286876279Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/genius/MemberTagFilms.aspxgenius
Number of films tagged: 227

Number of people who tagged: 56

Number of times used: 96

]]>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:26:43 GMT2275696Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/space/MemberTagFilms.aspxspace
Number of films tagged: 494

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 139

]]>Mon, 25 May 2009 14:36:30 GMT49454139Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/journey/MemberTagFilms.aspxjourney
Number of films tagged: 1175

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 124

]]>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:02:52 GMT117550124Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/robot/MemberTagFilms.aspxrobot
Number of films tagged: 463

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 53

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:02:37 GMT4632753Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/goodvsevil/MemberTagFilms.aspxgoodvsevil
Number of films tagged: 742

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 67

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:42:51 GMT7422567Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/robots/MemberTagFilms.aspxrobots
Number of films tagged: 27

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 39

]]>Tue, 26 May 2009 17:35:29 GMT272539Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/quest/MemberTagFilms.aspxquest
Number of films tagged: 316

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 48

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:42:51 GMT3162348Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/technology/MemberTagFilms.aspxtechnology
Number of films tagged: 688

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 54

]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:02:23 GMT6882354Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/spacecraft/MemberTagFilms.aspxspacecraft
Number of films tagged: 332

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 42

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:02:39 GMT3321742Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/investigator/MemberTagFilms.aspxinvestigator
Number of films tagged: 1805

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 22

]]>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:02:56 GMT18051122Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/badguy/MemberTagFilms.aspxbadguy
Number of films tagged: 4622

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 19

]]>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:02:42 GMT4622919Tag