CHICAGO – Now that most of the big summer movies have already had their trailers hit the internet, studios are realizing that we’ve probably decided whether or not we’re seeing “Avengers” (yes) or “Battleship” (no), and, as such, they’re now releasing previews for some of their more interesting films coming out later this year. In their minds, the marketing battle for Summer 2012 is already over and now it’s time to turn our attention to the fall and holidays seasons.
Frankly, though I love big, blockbuster, $300-million-dollar previews, it’s nice to get a look at how movie studios plan to thrill us for the rest of the year. And, from the looks of these trailers, it seems like their main strategy is to wow us with high concept premises. What do I mean by “high concept”? I mean, big gimmicky wild ideas. We’re not talking about everyday romances or murder mysteries here. We’re talking Santa Claus teaming up with the Easter Bunny, time-traveling hitmen, and foul-mouthed sentient teddy bears. These movies might not have “Avengers”-sized budgets, but they’re making up for it by swinging at the fences on a conceptual level. Will the strategy off? It’s hard to say.
Take a look at our recent trailer breakdowns and decide for yourself whether these trailers sell you on their “more is more” high concept premises or if they just leave you aching for a nice, simply family drama.
Movie: “Rise of the Guardians”
Best Parts of the Trailer: Tattooed Russian Santa Claus (voiced by Alec Baldwin) is AWESOME; that shot of the Sandman’s dinosaur dreams strolling through town; seeing Guillermo Del Toro and William Joyce listed as executive producers
Worst Parts of the Trailer: Something this high concept is possibly too good to be true… we’re still hurting from “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”.
OUR TAKE: If I’m being honest, I’ll admit that, at times, I’ve looked down my nose at Dreamworks Animation. They’ve just always had this air about them, like they’re a less creative and more needy knock-off of Pixar. I was never a big fan of the “Shrek” films, “Shark’s Tale” was awful, the “Madagascar” movies are fluffy confections… their animated films just never left that much of an impression on me. However, over the past few years, Dreamworks has really come into its own as an animation studio and it now seems to excel, in particular, when it comes to adventure films. The first “Kung-Fu Panda” was an action genre-loving romp, “Monsters vs. Aliens” was an underrated gem, and “How to Train Your Dragon” was probably the first DW Animation film that I’d refer to as a “triumph.” With all that in mind, I have to say that I was VERY pleasantly surprised that “Rise of the Guardians” seems to fall firmly more into the “Train Your Dragon” camp than the “Shrek” camp, and that’s a very good thing.
To me, “Rise of the Guardians” has TWO big things going for it. First, that concept, that glorious high concept that makes you slap your head and go “Why didn’t I think of that?” An adventure film with the legends of our childhood – Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Sandman teaming up to protect the world from evil? What a fantastic idea. It reminds you of why “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” was such a big deal before the movie bungled its execution. There’s something inherently engaging about watching icons team up together – i.e. this summer’s “Avengers” – and watching characters like Santa and the Easter Bunny, with such a natural, organic reason to work together, unite against a common cause is, in my opinion, far more exciting than watching someone invent a reason for Captain Nemo and Mr. Hyde to form a super-group. The concept is KILLER. Plus I give the filmmakers a lot of credit for taking creative liberties with their interpretations of the childhood icons. There are people who will go see this movie solely to see a sword-wielding, Baltic Santa with “Naughty” and “Nice” tattooed on his arms. That reimaging of Saint Nick alone will draw in the crowds, not to mention their fresh take on the Sandman (who now reminds me of “Harold and the Purple Crayon”), the long-legged jack-rabbit Easter Bunny, and the gorgeously re-designed, hummingbird-esque Tooth Fairy. Both the concept and the execution of said concept just feels fresh.
The other BIG thing that “Rise of the Guardians” has going for it is the pedigree behind the production. While it proudly touts that it’s from the producers of “How to Train Your Dragon”, the names of the two executive producers were the most exciting credits to me - Guillermo Del Toro and William Joyce. Del Toro, of course, is the writer/director behind the “Hellboy” movies, “Pan’s Labyrinth,” and the upcoming “Pacific Rim”, and he’s a man who seems to take delight in the darker, more macabre aspects of fairy tales. So, turning him loose on icons like Santa and the Tooth Fairy feels like a lot of fun to me. Del Toro’s name gives the impression that the movie will have more of an edge than previous DW Animation projects and, again, that’s a good thing. The other name, William Joyce, is even more important. Joyce is an acclaimed children’s book author and illustrator, who’s created some breathtaking works for kids, including his new “Guardians of Childhood” series that ties directly into the “Rise of the Guardians” movie. (Disney’s “Meet the Robinsons” was also based on one of his books.) But, even if you’re not a kid lit fan, you might’ve seen Joyce at this year’s Oscars where he won the Best Animated Short Oscar for his film “The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore”. If you haven’t seen “Morris Lessmore”, seek it OUT. It is one of the most beautiful, creative, and legitimately moving animated shorts I’ve seen in a long while. So, following that triumph, the fact that Dreamworks is making a film with Joyce, shepherded by Guillermo Del Toro and the “Train Your Dragon” team, with a concept that is so freaking note-perfect for an animated film… in my mind, the sum total of all that makes it hard not to get excited about “Rise of the Guardians”. Plus did I mention Tsarist, tattooed Alec Baldwin Santa Claus? How can you pass that up?
TRAILER OUTLOOK: VERY positive. Almost too positive. Starting to look for flaws… NOW.
Movie: “Looper”
Best Parts of the Trailer: Rian Johnson’s name means quality; Did I see a flying motorcycle?; That twisted angle shot of Joseph Gordon-Levitt falling; Who doesn’t have a soft spot for time travel movies?
Worst Parts of the Trailer: The make-up alterations to Gordon-Levitt’s face are a little unsettling. I get why they did it, but… gah; Bruce Willis gets top billing, but the trailer makes it look like JGL does all the heavy lifting…
OUR TAKE: Another high concept premise that, while not the slam-dunk on a conceptual level that “Rise of the Guardians” is, still looks incredibly intriguing. I’m a bit biased on this one because I’m a huge fan of writer-director Rian Johnson’s previous films – “Brick” and “The Brothers Bloom” – so, to some extent, his name in the credits affords the trailer a huge benefit of the doubt on my end. And maybe that’s helping me dig the premise so much. In a nutshell, in the future, mobsters from the way future – a future when time travel has been invented – send people back in time to have killers in the non-time-travelling past to kill and dispose of them. One of those hitmen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) finds himself in a bad situation when the mobsters send his future self (Bruce Willis) back in time and he fails to end his own life. (His future Bruce-self escapes.) Thus begins a really unique chase movie concept – a younger killer having to hunt down his older, more experienced self.
Gordon-Levitt and Willis make a really strong younger-older pair, so the idea of watching them play cat-and-mouse with each other is an appealing concept, although I have to say that the prosthetic work they did on Gordon-Levitt’s face to make him look more like Bruce Willis feels very weird to me. After films like “Inception” and “500 Days of Summer”, Gordon-Levitt has a very recognizable marquee face at the moment, so altering his familiar look just doesn’t sit right. (It mostly makes me recall Nicole Kidman’s nose in “The Hours.”) Face aside, there’s a ton of texture in the “Looper” trailer that burns past the viewer at a very fast speed, so it’s a little hard to digest at first. It seems apparent that this is much, much more than a “Face/Off” style man-vs.-man thriller. First, there’s the look of the “Looper” world, which, I think, does a fantastic job of feeling realistically futuristic. The sets, the vehicles, the wardrobe – they’re all a nice mixture of the lived-in real and the cautiously optimistic for the future. “Minority Report” tried to create a world like this – a future that actually seemed reachable in a few years – but the crazy futuristic highways scenes were just a bit too speculative for reality. But, at first glance, it seems like “Looper” gets the look right – yes, there are flying motorcycles, but they look like rusted, weather-beaten real machines, not Asimov-inspired concept art. There’s also a touch of “Goodfellas” in the “Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s life as a hitman” scenes, which could either bring a lot of emotional depth to JGL OR… they could drag the story down as we sit there screaming, “Enough angst! Go kill your older self and make it exciting!” (I have enough faith in Johnson that I don’t think it’ll be a problem.)
The rest of the trailer is just glimpses – Jeff Daniels dropping in for a quick joke, a big shockwave devastating a cornfield, and, in probably the most interesting fragment, Emily Blunt with a shotgun. The “Looper” trailer teases a lot, which is good for a first trailer, but I left the trailer both excited for the concept and frustrated that I didn’t learn more about Blunt and Willis’ characters. Hopefully, we’ll learn more about the emotional shape of “Looper” in the months to come. However, for now, I’m just happy to see a trailer for such an unusual and unusually engaging sci-fi film that, unlike a lot of previews, leaves me with more questions than answers.
TRAILER OUTLOOK: Optimistic. A fragmentary trailer that promises a lot and explains little. And I like that… for now.
Movie: “Ted”
Red Band:
Green Band:
Best Parts of the Trailers: It’s always good to be reminded how funny Mark Wahlberg can be; any scene with a teddy bear beating up Max Payne; Wahlberg’s epic “white trash girl name” list in the red band trailer
Worst Parts of the Trailers: The “that teddy bear just said f***” shock wears off quickly; the moment you realize MacFarlane is just doing his “Peter Griffin” voice
OUR TAKE: Here we are with yet ANOTHER high concept idea – a child’s teddy bear comes to life and eventually becomes the grown child’s hard swearing, hard partying roommate. The visuals alone almost sell the concept. Watching tough guy Mark Wahlberg walk down the street nonchalantly bullshitting with a walking, talking teddy bear – that image itself probably sold the studio on the comedic potential of “Ted,” the very first feature film from “Family Guy” impresario Seth MacFarlane. However, for such a crazy concept, “Ted” feels like a very comfortable fit for MacFarlane’s comedic sensibilities. Like his three TV series – “Family Guy”, “American Dad,” and “The Cleveland Show” – “Ted” features caustic, borderline vulgar humor, back-and-forth buddy comedy, and a creature who normally wouldn’t speak – MacFarlane LOVES talking babies and animals - speaking in a funny, distinctive accent. From any other filmmaker, a movie about a living teddy bear would seem completely out of left field. (Remember what happened to Spielberg with “A.I.”?) But, from MacFarlane, it just seems par for the course, particularly since the voice of Ted the bear sounds UNCANNILY like Peter Griffin, the lead character of “Family Guy.”
I will say that I find it amusing that, realizing how much MacFarlane’s audience loves his racier material, the studio decided to release a red band and a green band trailer for “Ted” almost simultaneously. And the structure of the trailers is really interesting. Typically, if a studio releases a red-band trailer, the subsequent green band, or cleaner, trailer is just the exact same trailer with most of the swear words and breasts edited out. For “Ted,” however, the red and green band trailers are completely separate entities, using almost entirely different footage. It’s an interesting choice. The red band trailer is very joke-heavy. It revels in not explaining the origins of Ted the swearing teddy bear and instead just wants you to pay attention to how funny it is seeing Mark Wahlberg pal around with a CGI bear. The rhythm of the trailer is very quick, very fast – it’s a joke delivery system. And, in my opinion, the best gag is Wahlberg’s uncanny ability to rattle of white-trash names off the top of his head. It’s not a vulgar joke, but it’s a very “Family Guy”-esque joke, and the red-band trailer does feel a bit like a gag highlight reel.
Alternately, the green band trailer is much, much more story- and character-driven. Yeah, it’s still funny and silly and out there, but it does a much better job of establishing all of the characters and giving you a sense of what actually happens in the film. Which is weird because green band trailers are almost NEVER better than red band trailers, but the green band for “Ted” really does offer the best of both worlds. It gives us the characters and stakes of the piece, but it also leaves room for a lot of wonderfully juvenile gags – like the hotel room teddy bear brawl or Wahlberg getting a TV dropped on his crotch.
So, while “Ted” presents probably one of the more interesting examples of the differing effectiveness of red and green band trailers, that doesn’t get at the question of “Does “Ted” look funny or not?” At the moment, my vote is “Yes.” I’m not a huge “Family Guy” fan, but the Boston drawl coming out of that bear makes me laugh and I think Wahlberg can be a fantastic comedic actor when he’s paired with the right material. I am a little nervous that the movie will more closely resemble the red band trailer than the green one – that it’ll just be a series of one “Family Guy”-esque joke after another without enough story or characters to make it into a real movie – but, if I can believe in a talking teddy bear co-star, I can give “Ted” some latitude for now.
TRAILER OUTLOOK: Definitely funny. But can the joke of a swearing teddy bear keep our interest for two hours?
By TOM BURNS
Staff Writer
HollywoodChicago.com
tom@hollywoodchicago.com [15]
Links:
[1] http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/users/briantt
[2] http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/bruce-willis
[3] http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/hollywoodchicagodotcom-content
[4] http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/joseph-gordon-levitt
[5] http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/looper
[6] http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/mark-wahlberg
[7] http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/movie-trailers
[8] http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/rian-johnson
[9] http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/rise-of-the-guardians
[10] http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/seth-macfarlane
[11] http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/ted
[12] http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/tom-burns
[13] http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/trailer-tracking
[14] http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/video
[15] mailto:tom@hollywoodchicago.com