They are going ahead with a Justice League movie

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I enjoyed John Carter quite a bit. I actually found it's multiple framing stories quite unique and almost mysterious. They gave the film some credibility it probably wouldn't have had. I blame the film's failure on both Disney and the - actually - the audiences who seem to want only what they are familiar with in name and style.

 

[Gaith]

Stanton is a pretty egregious case of arrogance and under-preparation. A large part of Pixar's storied reputation is due to the fact that, since they don't have to work around actors' schedules and the logistical difficulties of filming, they can keep tweaking their projects until they're satisfied. A large part of WALL-E's third act was completely redone, for example, and from what I've read no one ever really got a handle on the story for Brave.

The New Yorker ran a long profile on Stanton last year, and since he lives in my home county (but isn't a native), I hate to say it, but he came across as a first-class pompous ass, all but bragging that he'd told Disney execs from the get-go that John Carter reshoots would be necessary, as he "wouldn't get it right" on his first pass. Well, he didn't get it anywhere close to right on the second pass, either. As with most movies, the original sin was (his) lousy script.

And while I don't doubt, on the basis of the evidence, that Bird is a much better live-action director than Stanton, it's worth noting that Bird has neither screenwriting nor story credit on Ghost Protocol.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Uh, I don't think Stanton did Brave.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I think John Carter was a fantastic movie, aside from an overly cluttered plot and weakly paced opening. I don't agree at all that Stanton was a failure as a live-action director. I think the film's failure had more to do with the new Disney regime not supporting the project and giving it minimal promotion, and maybe with some editing problems in those opening scenes. Stanton did great work and I hope the film's reputation doesn't ruin his chances of doing more.

I haven't seen the film and wasn't intending to offer a view on its merits. My point was simply that I believe that Stanton's insistence on filming it in the same way as he would have done an animated movie proved to be expensive and problematic for the studio.

 

[Gojira]

I enjoyed John Carter quite a bit. I actually found it's multiple framing stories quite unique and almost mysterious. They gave the film some credibility it probably wouldn't have had. I blame the film's failure on both Disney and the - actually - the audiences who seem to want only what they are familiar with in name and style.

I own it on DVD an enjoy it quite a bit. Sure it has some flaws but there are far worse movies out there.

 

[JD]

I loved John Carter when I saw it in theaters, and I would love to see Stanton direct some more live action stuff like it. I blame it's failure on Disney's poor marketing and lack of support.

How different would writing & directing be for animation compared to live action? I would think it would be pretty much the some before and after the animators have done their thing. I've always been kind of surprised how little crossover their seems to be with the two styles.

Except that animation writing and directing is more art-driven. Live-action writing begins with the script, and storyboards/animatics come later and are even optional. Animation writing/plotting often happens mostly in storyboard form, and the artists/animators are the ones driving the process rather than following someone else's lead.

Although the case can be made that many live-action feature-film directors work a similar way, spearheading the process with their ideas of what scenes and set pieces they want to feature, with the scriptwriters simply there to follow their instructions and piece those elements together.

But animation is still a different visual language with different mechanics and details. You have far finer control over every detail of image and motion, yet conversely there's much less room for improvisation and spontaneity. Great care has to be put into designing and creating things that can just be pointed at and photographed in live action. Everything has to be planned out on a much more granular, frame-by-frame level, and everything is made from scratch. It's a very different experience.

Of course, animators can make the transition to live action quite successfully. Tim Burton began as an animator. Brad Bird, I felt, did a great job directing Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol, his first live-action film, and I noticed ways in which his experience and sensibilities as an animator helped him do interesting things with the film, not just in terms of look but in terms of story details, the progression of actions and gags, things like that. The kind of structural precision that comes from experience in the meticulous field of animation where every last detail has to be worked out in advance.

Plus there's the fact that modern action movies are increasingly becoming part-animated anyway. CG special effects are essentially just cartoons with a photorealistic design aesthetic. So experience directing animation can definitely be useful for directing a CG-heavy film.

I didn't realize that the creation process was that different. I guess I was thinking more of what we see on screen, and didn't really consider what goes into putting those images on the screen.

 

[Christopher]

Uh, I don't think Stanton did Brave.

He did not. It was directed by Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman, and written by them, Steve Purcell, and Irene Mecchi.

 

[Gaith]

^ Quite. But a careful reading of my paragraph will show that I never suggested that he did.

 

[Christopher]

^But it's easy to see how the paragraph gives that impression, since it's in the middle of a discussion about Stanton without any clear markers of a change in focus.