Gnomeo And Juliet

[American_dog_2008]

The movie might be out in February next year according to IMDB after four years of waiting.

[Ben]

Well, the trailer says February, yes, so I would guess so!

[Macaluso]

I don't know what to think of the trailer. Several parts of it looked really fun. Other parts were pretty bad (the Matrix thing, the "fun guy" line. I mean really?). It got my interests enough to want to see it, but I don't know about seeing it in theaters. I am interested in seeing all the statues/dolls/etc come to life. That shot of the big bronze statue being alive was awesome.

By the way, how long as this movie been in production/been around on the drawing board and stuff? I seem to remember hearing about Gnomeo and Juilet WAAAAAY back SEVERAL years ago (Hell, maybe back around 2004?) when there was that animation.com or whatever site that came before this one (if anyone remembers wtf I'm talking about).

[Dacey]

Animated Movies? I think that was the title, if memory serves.

[EricJ]

I'm still unsure of the reasons this got made

It was produced by Bernie Taupin, so promoting the Elton John songs would seem to be first and foremost to keep the production going...Not that the trailer is telling us this, except for one mention and the song that could've come out of any Dreamworks trailer.

Has Disney had second thoughts?

No, they just did their usual trick of pasting the obligatory Disney corporate-ID pop-culture Tiki Room gag in to make it look like it was "their idea" after the fact...While the ex-Shrek director thought it was "poking fun".

Now watch and wait...we'll now start seeing some more clips that ruin that atmosphere and we see what really lurks beneath, but on the basis of this teaser, I'm well up for Gnomeo & Juliet (great logo too, creating a little gnome from the title names).

I was dreading more lame Expedia.com "quirky garden-gnome craze" jokes as perpetuated by people who thought they were the only ones on planet Earth to have seen "Amelie".

...Still, cute as it is, haven't we had a few too MANY fantasy-R&J's in third-party CGI's?
They seem to be as plentiful as Matrix and Rambo gags.

[Ben]

Once again, Eric doesn't let a fact get in the way of a gripe.

The film was actually produced by Rocket Pictures, the movie arm of Elton John and David Furnish's Rocket company. Bernie Taupin has nothing to do with it other than having penned the lyrics to the original songs which have now been used in its production.

Also, Tiki Room is one of EJ's favorite Disney park songs, if I remember correctly from around The Lion King craze, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was an idea that was in there early on. Certainly the use of the song fits the Animatronic gag they're putting it with, and since that would have to be boarded and animated way before they said "hey, let's put Tiki Room over it", I'd say it was always planned for that moment.


Yep, Mac, I think I do recall our predecessor Animated Movies reporting some of the first news on this project's announcement. But even when we first started to report on it, it was back in 2004, when it looked to have been canceled (in January) and then back in production (by February). Back then, it was a proper Walt Disney Pictures release, being commented on by Don Hahn as being on the Disney slate.

It was then supposed to come out in 2008, as the latest Disney/Elton John collaboration ("from the creators of The Lion King"), before John Lasseter came in and decided not to make the film (this was early 2006, when it was still on boards by that point). Since I believe so much work had been done on it, Gnomeo And Juilet wasn't ditched completely but was moved to Miramax by mid-2006, where it stayed and was farmed out to Starz Animation).

Since then, Disney has agreed to sell Miramax, and Gnomeo was understood to be in the deal. But Disney only owns the US rights: Canada and international will come out under independent distributors. For whatever reason (Lasseter?), the movie has gone from being a top-line Disney Pictures film to the black sheep of the family. Now switched to a Touchstone release, it seems that the company is standing by it a bit more again (or perhaps because Rocket has a commitment to Disney releasing the film?).

Whatever else, this looks like it might end up being the little movie that could, having survived multiple cancellation attempts and ending up to be quite good fun.

[EricJ]

For whatever reason (Lasseter?), the movie has gone from being a top-line Disney Pictures film to the black sheep of the family. Now switched to a Touchstone release, it seems that the company is standing by it a bit more again

Lasseter and Iger are more committed to brand-identification for the various houses, and they don't want another "Valiant" situation where audiences are misled by a third-party acquisition with Disney's name on the distribution.
They can still acquire, but the label means ingredients: Pixars are the Lamp and WDFA's are Steamboat Willie, and it's Touchstone that handle the outside license-rescues in absence of Miramax.

[Ben]

Once again, he's talking crud, folks. They didn't acquire this. They made it.

[EricJ]

Once again, he's talking crud, folks. They didn't acquire this. They made it.

With a little help from Rocket Pictures and Starz Animation, of course.
After Disney STOPPED making it, as you no doubt remember.

[Darkblade]

If touchstone wanted something good they would have opened up an animation studio for risque animation more risque than Roger Rabbit.

[Ben]

Once again, he's talking crud, folks. They didn't acquire this. They made it.

With a little help from Rocket Pictures and Starz Animation, of course.
After Disney STOPPED making it, as you no doubt remember.

That's still not an acquisition. And Disney never "stopped" making it. They went from developing it in house to farming out the actual animation to Starz, and swapped distributors from "Disney" to "Miramax" (and now Touchstone). But it's a "Disney" film as much as Toy Story and The Wild, which were also not pickups but collaborations/outsourcings.

Valiant was a pickup, and even that was a co-pro as opposed to something like the Ghibli films or The Straight Story, which were fully made by other producers before Disney came along and said "hey, we like this, we want to put it out". Totally different things...

[ShyViolet]

A little OT but interesting about Touchstone since Bob Iger seems to definitely want to phase out the focus on it and concentrate on other brands like Marvel/Pixar/ABC. It kind of feels like a thing of the past he wants to leave behind:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/con ... 592306338f

Even though it doesn't look like a classic in a way I wish G & J would be released under the proper Disney label because at least then the actual name "Disney" would be out there more. Pixar is synonymous with classic Disney as it well should be, but it would be nice to see other quality animation released under Disney too.

[Ben]

It does crack me up when "Pixar" and "Marvel" are discussed as "Disney brands"...the average guy on the street things Pixar is Disney anyway, and they have no clue that Marvel is now in the same stable. Marvel built their rep on their characters anyway, and films from every other studio other than Disney (think about it, has Disney ever been involved with a Marvel character film?), so you can't yet call them a Disney brand for at least five to ten years.

And I don't get where fading out Touchstone works, since the deal with DreamWorks is for the DWs films to be distributed through...Touchstone! And fading out Touchstone is a dumb idea, basically, because it loses a valid part of the company just as valid as ABC or ESPN...non-Disney brands that are core to the company but separate enough to run under their own autonomy. Yes, lose Hollywood Pictures, Miramax and the other labels that have cropped up, but scrapping Touchstone - which does have a market name - loses the opportunity to release anything that doesn't fit in the regular slots.

Like G&J, which is only being put out through Touchstone because John Lasseter didn't like it, and didn't want the Disney name on it so as not to repeat what happened with The Wild, and because it seems Disney suddenly didn't want to throw it totally away as they would have done by including it in the Miramax sale. Don't feel bad though, Vi - Nightmare and Roger Rabbit were both Touchstone releases and are both now part of the Disney family. Unless R&J does end up getting split away in the Miramax sale, I'd guess it might end up like those two, way further down the line.

[EricJ]

It does crack me up when "Pixar" and "Marvel" are discussed as "Disney brands"...the average guy on the street things Pixar is Disney anyway, and they have no clue that Marvel is now in the same stable. Marvel built their rep on their characters anyway, and films from every other studio other than Disney (think about it, has Disney ever been involved with a Marvel character film?)

Well, there was Stallone's "Judge Dredd'...oh, wait, that was DC.
(And no, the Rocketeer was Dark Horse.)

[Bill1978]

I must say that the trailer has made me definitely want to see the film. Guess I'm a sucker for British humour or something, but I think this has a lot of potential based upon the trailer. It looks like it will entertain and give me a good escape for the real world.

Will be interesting to see how the songs are incorporated into the plot.