Movie: The Twilight Saga: New Moon * Trailer * Official Site * Gecko Links	In Theaters: Nov. 20, 2009
Runtime: 130 minutes	Directed by: Chris Weitz
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for some violence and action	Gecko Rating:

I was a little dismayed when I saw that Roger Ebert had given “The Twilight Saga: New Moon” only one star, but I can sort of see where he’s coming from. In terms of overall production, “New Moon” might not be the best movie ever made, but it’s romantic, continues the story beautifully from the first movie (“Twilight”), and sets things up nicely for the third film, “The Twilight Saga: Eclipse.” It also appeals perfectly to its target audience – young girls and middle-aged moms. For all these reasons, it gets four out of five geckos from me.

More after the jump…

We pick up the story with Bella (Kristen Stewart) celebrating her 18th birthday at the start of her senior year. She’s not really into the whole “presents and cake” thing, but agrees to a birthday party at the Cullen’s house. When she cuts her finger while opening a gift, Jasper (Jackson Rathbone) nearly attacks her. Being a young vampire, he doesn’t have as much control over his bloodthirsty instincts as the others. It all ends well, but the incident makes Edward (Robert Pattinson) realize that over the long haul, his relationship with Bella will never work. So he and his family leave Forks, Washington, leaving Bella to stumble through her senior year alone and depressed. 

But she finds comfort with longtime friend Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), who’s suddenly grown buff and strong. To get over her heartbreak with Edward, Bella asks Jacob to help her fix up a couple of motorcycles, so the two can ride together. But Bella has an ulterior motive. She discovers that whenever she’s in danger, Edward appears to her in a vision. Thus, she puts herself in danger quite often, from reckless motorcycle driving to cliff diving to solo ventures into the woods. There are still dangerous creatures lurking out there.

And Jacob is harboring a secret of his own, as he starts hanging with a group of Native American boys who like to wander bare-torso’d through the woods. The audience where I was the movie was so funny, because every time a guy would rip his shirt off or run through the woods half-naked, everyone would ooh and aah. I have to say, Taylor Lautner definitely logged plenty of gym time.

Meanwhile, the Cullens are off somewhere in the world, but Edward, distraught over news he hears about Bella, goes to see the Volturi in Italy. They’re the leaders in the vampire world, tasked with making sure all the vamps adhere to their many laws. When Bella hears about it via Alice (Ashley Greene), she has to take action, much to the chagrin of Jacob.

“The Twilight Saga: New Moon” is romantic, funny and dramatic, but oh, the teen angst. They’re tortured souls! The computer generated effects are beautiful, with gigantic, fearsome wolves who snarl and fight like, well, wild wolves. That bad vampire Victoria makes an appearance, as well, and gets into a violent tussle with the wolves.

The Volturi are a great addition to the saga, and while they don’t have a lot of screen time, they use it well. Dakota Fanning plays Jane, a powerful vampire who can inflict pain with her mind. The leader Aro (Michael Sheen) makes a giddily evil vampire, and he’s flanked by the more silent and stoic Caius (Jamie Campbell Bower) and Marcus (Christopher Heyerdahl).

The Quileute Wolf Pack includes Alex Meraz as Paul, Chaske Spencer as Sam Uley, Bronson Pelletier as Jared, and Kiowa Gordon as Embry Call. They look just fine, don’t they? 

I’m sure “New Moon” will be spoofed to the nth degree, and there’s plenty to spoof: longing looks between characters, mannerisms like Bella’s lip-biting, Jacob’s strength, and Edward’s sparkling … just about every character could easily be a “Saturday Night Live” skit. But that’s ok. It means the movie embeds itself into our psyche.

I think maybe Roger Ebert should have seen “New Moon” with some junior high girls (ok, that doesn’t sound right!). But I took my 12-year-old daughter and two of her friends, and just watching their joy at seeing the movie made it all worthwhile. And this mom loved it, too.

Note to Parents: The PG-13 rating is spot-on, but if your younger-than-13 child saw the first “Twilight” movie and was ok with it, they should be fine with this one, though there’s considerably more action. The wolves are quite awesome, snarling and fighting to the max. There’s an intense fight scene involving the Volturi, where one character gets thrown around quite a bit and another is dismembered. Not much is shown, but the effect is there.

Early in the movie, Jasper nearly attacks Bella, leading to a fight between him and Edward. Victoria (Rachelle Lefevre) and Laurent (Edi Gathegi) have separate tussles with the Wolf Pack, who also come after Bella at one point. Bella puts herself in danger, approaching a motorcycle gang, driving a motorcycle recklessly, and nearly drowning in a cliff-diving scene.

There are also plenty of romantic scenes, but nothing much more than kissing and hand-holding. Language is fairly mild, including “bloodsucker,” “dammit,” “what the hell,” and “oh my God.”

Image: TM and © 2009 Summit Entertainment, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Post from: Film Gecko

• Australia: 466 screens, $1.6 million
• France: 751 theaters, $4.26 million
• Italy: 625 screens, $2.7 million
• Spain: 652 screens, $2.2 million

Most of the shows are sold out in my neck of the woods (Traverse City, Michigan), including ALL seven of the midnight showings.

Got your tickets yet?

Image: TM and © 2009 Summit Entertainment, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Post from: Film Gecko

Roland Emmerich

“A Christmas Carol” came in second, with the sleeper hit “Precious” placing third. Here are the numbers from Box Office Mojo:

1. 2012, $65.23M
2. A Christmas Carol, $22.30M
3. Precious, $5.87M
4. The Men Who Stare at Goats, $5.86M
5. Michael Jackson’s This Is It, $5.07M
6. The Fourth Kind, $4.60M
7. Couples Retreat, $4.16M
8. Paranormal Activity, $4.04M
9. Law Abiding Citizen, $3.79M
10. The Box, $3.15M
11. Pirate Radio, $2.90M
12. Where the Wild Things Are, $2.41M

Image: Sony Pictures Releasing

Post from: Film Gecko

Movie: 2012 * Trailer * Official Site	In Theaters: Nov. 13, 2009
Runtime: 158 minutes	Directed by: Roland Emmerich
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense disaster sequences and some language	Gecko Rating:

If you’re not familiar with the theories surrounding the year 2012, there are a lot of them, ranging from the Apocalypse, the return of the aliens, a comet colliding with the earth, sunspots, and other various cataclysmic events.

But some also say the year will signal a spiritual awakening, so maybe it’s not all bad. Check out Armageddon Online for more theories.

In the movie “2012,” the focus is on a series of catastrophic natural disasters that center on a shift and destabilization of the earth’s core. Thus we’ve got earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and just about every other sort of disaster you can think of.

More after the jump…

The central character is Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), an author who’s written a book about Atlantis but works as a driver for a Russian diplomat, Yuri Karpov (Zlatko Buric). Now divorced, Jackson is disconnected from his two kids (Liam James and Morgan Lily), and decides to take them on a camping trip to Yellowstone. Meanwhile, his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) and her new husband Gordon (Tom McCarthy) stay behind in their happy suburban home.

But, of course, things start coming apart. California starts experiencing little earthquakes, and Jackson and the kids see some odd happenings during their Yellowstone camping trip, too. They also meet a crazy mountain man, Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson, whose perfectly cast in that role), who broadcasts a radio show, warning everyone that the end is near. 

Meanwhile, the politicians are gearing up in Washington, D.C. and around the globe, including U.S. President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover), his daughter Laura (Thandie Newton), and a geologist, Adrian (Chiwetel Ejiofor). They’re aware of the earth shifts and have a plan of their own. When Jackson catches wind of the plan from Charlie, he does everything in his power to get his family — including Gordon — to safety.

A lot of the dialogue in this movie is downright corny, but the special effects make up for it. You have to just sit back and enjoy the disaster ride that includes giant cracks that open up in the earth and threaten to swallow whole stores, skyscrapers toppling into each other, massive pieces of land sliding into the earth (cities and all), and sweeping tsunamis taking out entire continents, including a monk’s retreat on a mountaintop. And it’s all done really well.

But you also have to snort in disbelief at some of the outrageous things that would never happen, should a real disaster of this type occur. Like planes taking off on rubbled runways, then landing in a remote mountain area near exactly where the travelers were headed.

Still, as far as disaster movies go, this is a fun one. If you like this sort of thing, you should definitely check it out. At 158 minutes, though, it’s long, so be prepared for lots of disaster.

NOTE TO PARENTS: While I wouldn’t call “2012” a family movie, it definitely has some family elements to it. Even though Jackson feel disconnected to his kids and ex-wife, they work together during the disaster and realize they need each other.

The PG-13 rating seems on target for this movie. There are plenty of disaster scenes and people in peril, but you don’t see too many close-up shots of dead people or anything, and the movie isn’t “real” enough to warrant any major emotional upheaval in kids 13 and older.

Images: Sony Pictures Releasing

Post from: Film Gecko

Movie: Disney’s A Christmas Carol * Trailer * Official Site	In Theaters: Nov. 6, 2009
Runtime: 96 minutes	Directed by: Robert Zemeckis
MPAA Rating: PG for scary sequences an images	Gecko Rating:

We all know the classic Charles Dickens tale about the crotchety Ebenezer Scrooge who’s visited by three ghosts who make him see the light. There’s really nothing new to tell here, but it’s the WAY the story is told that makes it seem fresh and new in our eyes. This animated, 3D version of “Disney’s A Christmas Carol” does indeed bring new life to the story.

It’s directed by Robert Zemeckis, the genius behind “The Polar Express,” and this animation is quite similar to that film. It’s really well done, somehow merging real people – in this case, mainly Jim Carrey, who plays Scrooge and all three ghosts – with the animated figures. So what you get is an animated film that seems almost like live action, jumping right off the screen at you (the 3D helps in that regard, too!).

More after the jump…

Zemeckis also helmed “Monster House,” and so even his family films have a tendency to be dark and psychological. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but in the case of both “Monster House” and “Disney’s A Christmas Carol,” they’re much too scary for little ones.

“Disney’s A Christmas Carol” opens with Scrooge looking over the body of his dead partner Marley, now lying in a casket with coins on his eyes. Of course, miserly Scrooge snatches up the coins before the body is sent to its final resting place.

We have Bob Cratchit (Gary Oldman, who also voices Marley and Tiny Tim), working faithfully in Scrooge’s dismal accounting shop. Bob somehow manages to keep his positive attitude, despite hanging around the cup-half-empty Scrooge all day. At home, his family likewise manages to be positive, despite being dirt-poor with a crippled Tiny Tim.

Another main character is Fred (Colin Firth), Scrooge’s well-off nephew who desperately desires to be friends with the old man, who’ll have none of it. Instead, Scrooge shuffles home to his massive dark house and settles in for the night with some porridge. And that’s where the action begins, with the procession of ghosts calling on him in the wee hours.

The ghosts are pretty scary although each has their little quirks. The first one, the Ghost of Christmas Past, is a funny little spirit with a flame for a head. During this sequence, we see the young Scrooge courting his love, Belle (voiced by Robin Wright Penn).

The Ghost of Christmas Present is a giant Viking type spirit sitting atop a large mound of bountiful things. And the third, the Ghost of Christmas Future, is a dark, Grim Reaper type spirit accompanied by a team of frightening stampeding horses. Each takes Scrooge through their particular time era, showing him as a young boy, a young man, a present-day miser, and a dead soul with no one to grieve for him.

The animation during these sequences is stunning, capturing both the beauty and despair of this particular era. However, if you’re at all prone to motion sickness, I recommend closing your eyes during the flying scenes. During the Ghost of Christmas Present sequence, the floor somehow becomes a glass through which you can see into the present-day time. Really awesome, and they use the 3D technology to its best use in this movie. I say that because it’s blended so well into the animation that you don’t really even notice that you’re wearing 3D glasses.

Overall, “Disney’s A Christmas Carol” is a creative and visually beautiful take on the classic tale, the ultimate story of an old miser regaining hope and love, even when things are at their bleakest. Jim Carrey is a master at his craft.

NOTE TO PARENTS: There’s really no sexual content or language issues to speak of. Most of the PG rating comes from the frightening scenes involving ghosts, skeletons, corpses, and red-eyed stampeding horses. The movie opens with Marley’s body in a casket, and we also get scenes of Scrooge being haunted in his dark mansion, and falling into a deep hole towards a casket. For these reasons, I don’t recommend it for kids younger than eight.

Images: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Post from: Film Gecko

I caught up with Jordan Nagai, who voices the part of Russell the Wilderness Explorer in the film. He’s enthusiastic and energetic – not unlike his on-screen counterpart – and they even look alike, don’t they?

Read on for Jordan’s thoughts on making “Up” and running an obstacle course before his recording sessions.

Tell us about your new movie, “Up.”

“Up” is about a young wilderness explorer called Russell. Russell needs his last wilderness explorer badge – the Assisting The Elderly Badge – so he goes to his elderly neighbor, Mr. Fredricksen, to see if he can get it.

What happens when Russell meets Mr. Fredricksen?

Mr. Fredricksen has just lost his wife and he is about to lose his house, so he decides to go on an adventure by attaching balloons to his home. He sails into the sky, but Russell accidentally goes along for the ride.

More after the jump…

Tell us a little about Russell?

Russell is an active, enthusiastic and determined 8-year-old boy. He loves animals and he loves the wilderness, so he has a great time exploring when they land near Paradise Falls. Russell is a funny, helpful and smart boy — and he wants to get this last badge to please his father.

What is Mr. Fredricksen like?

Mr. Fredricksen is grumpy and he doesn’t like going outside. Russell loves being outside and he loves running around, so they’re opposites. Russell has only been to museums. He’s never experienced the forest for real, so this is his first trip into a wilderness.

What are your favorite things about Russell?

I like the way that he’s funny. He makes a lot of jokes, and he sometimes shows off what he knows from his wilderness explorer camp. He shows Carl – Mr. Fredricksen – different knots and the different calls of animals.

Are you anything like Russell? 

We both love animals and I’m pretty determined at getting things that I really want. I’d love to explore the wilderness too!

How did you get the part of Russell?

The principal at my school sent out an email to all students saying there was an audition for 9 and 10 year old boys. My brother was 9 years old at the time and he went to the audition, so I went along with him. Even though I was only 7 years old, I was allowed to do the audition, too. I did several auditions after that, and finally, I got the part!

Was it hard recording your voice in the sound booth?

It wasn’t very difficult, but I had to repeat the same lines over and over again. I also had to stand for a long time, so it was a little tiring. The director – Pete Docter (read my Q&A here) – tried to make it easier for me, so I took a lot of breaks. I had a lot of fun recording the voice!

Did you do anything special to prepare for the recording sessions?

Before some recordings, I’d do jumping jacks or I’d run around the studio to pump up my energy. When I needed to be excited, Pete would make obstacle courses for me to run around, too!

What was your funniest moment from the recording sessions?

There was one time when I needed to laugh, so Pete held me upside down and tickled me. That was really funny.

Is it weird to hear your voice coming out of a cartoon character?

It’s pretty weird, but it’s cool too.

What do your friends think of your new fame?

They are all very excited for me. We went to see the movie together on opening day. They like the movie a lot, and they think that I’m very lucky.

Have you always wanted to be an actor?

It wasn’t my plan, but I really enjoyed working on “Up.” 

What other films would you like to star in?

“Toy Story” would be a great movie to work on. My brother and I have always liked “Toy Story.” I think it’s really cool when the toys come alive and have their own adventure.

What do you like to do in your spare time?

I like to swim and play basketball. I also love judo. I like the drum and the guitar!

Russell heads off to South America in the movie … Is there any place you’d like to visit?

I would like to go to Africa. I want to go on safari and see the wild animals, like the cheetah. That would be very cool!

Images: ©Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved; INF

Post from: Film Gecko

Until then, here’s a clip from the bonus material, a never-before-seen interview where baseball legend Pete Rose sits with Austrian TV host Bruno, played by Sacha Baron Cohen. It’s an alternate scene not included in the film.

Whether you like Cohen’s characters or not, it always floors me how deeply embedded he is in them. Really, it’s hard to believe he’s anything other than the character you’re seeing on screen.

Post from: Film Gecko

The film starred John Cusack as mediocre student Lloyd Dobler, attempting to capture the heart of a beautiful valedictorian. Even if you’ve never seen the movie (you need to fix that right now), you’ve likely seen the picture of Cusack holding that iconic boom box over his head.

Buy the 20th Anniversary Edition Blu-ray and DVD of “Say Anything.” In the meantime, here’s a pic from today’s event, which also featured the band named “Lloyd Dobler Effect.”

Image: TM and © Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment. All Rights Reserved.

Post from: Film Gecko

I’m sort of hot and cold on Hilary Swank. There’s no doubt that she’s a great actress – she’s won two Oscars, after all (for “Million Dollar Baby” and “Boys Don’t Cry”). But there’s something about her that’s just a little annoying. I almost hesitate to say it, but she seemed to be over-acting in her portrayal of Amelia Earhart. I just wanted her to snap out of it and be a real person on the screen – not a caricature of a historical figure. There, I’ve said it.

Most of us know the story of Amelia Earhart, the legendary pilot who brought flying into the realm of women, and who disappeared while flying over the Pacific Ocean in 1937, while attempting to fly around the world with her navigator, Fred Noonan (Christopher Eccleston). They were supposed to re-fuel on Howland Island, a tiny speck of land in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, but while trying to make radio contact with a ship, their connection was lost and they were never seen again.

More after the jump…

That was the best scene of the movie, because you really get the whole impact of that lost radio contact – both Amelia and Fred realize that this is the end for them. We don’t actually see them fly into the ocean, but you know it happens.

Prior to this fateful flight, Amelia fell in love with and married publisher George Putnam (Richard Gere), who helped her create the hype over “Lady Lindy,” as well as an advertising campaign (selling an “Amelia Earhart” luggage and clothing line, among others) and lecture circuit to help fund her flying. She wasn’t happy with it, but she knew it was necessary to keep her in the skies. She loved the freedom of flying.

But Earhart also had an affair – with fellow pilot Gene Vidal (Ewan McGregor) whose son Gore Vidal grew up to be an icon himself.

The film includes shots here and there of archival footage of the real Amelia Earhart, and with her thin frame and tousled hair, Swank closely resembles the famed aviatrix. I have no idea what the real Earhart sounded like, but both my 12-year-old daughter and I were ultra-annoyed with how Swank talked – like she had cotton in her mouth. I don’t know – maybe that’s how the real woman sounded. The film also portrays her as a women with a gentle soul and the heart of a poet. I hope that’s how she was in real life, because it adds to her mystique.

“Amelia” isn’t a bad movie, and it’s clear that Earhart helped women make great strides in not only aviation, but other areas of their lives, too. The movie is also visually stunning, with sweeping views of land across the globe, as seen from the cockpit of an airplane.

Still, the movie leaves something to be desired and will most likely appeal to people who are interested in aviation or the life of Earhart. At the very least, it will make you want to search further to find out more about her.

Images: TM and © Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Post from: Film Gecko

Q: “Up” became the first animated film to open the Cannes Film Festival. Do you believe animated features are becoming accepted as a more serious artistic platform?

Pete Docter: We were very honored to be the first animated film to open the prestigious Cannes Film Festival. Walking around there, I kept picturing Hitchcock, Coppola, Truffaut; these big time directors … and US?!?! It seemed like some sort of mistake! But we do look at our work as filmmaking, just like any other film. And it’s nice to see the world looking at it that way as well.

Q: How did Michael Giacchino (composer) come to the project? How was working with him?

Pete Docter: Michael had worked with Brad on "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille" and of course did a great job on those. He’s a true collaborator. We started out talking through the film conceptually, discussing the things we were looking for — like paying homage to the films of the 40’s and 50’s, the Disney films and Frank Capra and films like that. We wanted to evoke that kind of a feel.  And then we went through sequences shot by shot sometimes and talked about the construction of the scenes and what I was hoping to achieve musically. Not necessarily like arrangements or anything like that, but more like, "Okay, it should start really low here, sneak in, and then build to this point … and then jump out at us!"  We’d talk more emotionally like that and then I’d leave it to Michael to write the music. He would play us these demos and we’d listen via teleconference, and anytime we’d have thoughts or suggestions, he would do changes, sometimes right on the spot. He was very open to whatever the film needed. He’s a filmmaker. Really thinks about the storytelling and how music communicates to people. He’s got range that a lot of film composers either don’t have or don’t utilize.  His "Ratatouille" score doesn’t sound like the "Up" score, which doesn’t sound like "The Incredibles" or "Star Trek." Amazing.

More after the jump…

Q: Can you explain the process of how Carl’s montage at the beginning evolved?

Pete Docter: That was probably the scene I’m most proud of in the film. It came into play early as we developed the story of this guy floating away in his house, and we asked ourselves, "Why is he doing that?" We figured there was some sort of loss or unfulfilled dream that he was trying to make right, and so we came up with the back-story of Carl and his wife.  We initially constructed it as a compressed series of small short scenes, with dialogue and sound effects. Little snippets of life.  Bob [Peterson] wrote it. When Ronnie del Carmen started to storyboard it, we felt like it would be nice to reduce it, simplify it, and take the dialogue out. My parents shot a lot of Super 8 movies of our family growing up. Watching them now, there’s something really emotional about not having any sound. That allows, I think, the audience to participate more actively and kind of imagine, "What are they talking about there?"  Or "what happened right before this moment? " And that feeling was all part of what went into that scene… these really little beautiful real-life moments showing the highs and lows of life. Carl’s true adventure — their relationship together.

Q: There must have been a ton of research that went into the look of the mountain tops; were any similar tests conducted into using helium balloons to lift an entire house?

Pete Docter: The first thing our technical team did when they started working on the balloons was to figure out how many balloons it would take to lift a house in real life. Here’s his math: * Carl’s house is 1600 sq ft * Somewhere I found some figures saying that the average 1600sqft house weights about 345,000 lbs, of which 160,000lbs is from the foundation, and about 30,000lbs is from the garage. * Since Carl lifts off and leaves the foundation behind, that leaves about 155,000lbs ( == 77.5 US tons == 70,306 kg) that the Canopy needs to lift. Accelerating toward the ground at 9.8 m/s^2, that’s 688,998 N of force from gravity that the Canopy has to overcome. * With the density of Helium at .1786 kg/m^3 and representing a balloon as a sphere with a radius of 2.78ft (85 cm, ~5.56 ft diameter — we’re talking weather balloons here…) — each balloon can generate 4.5N of buoyant force… * So to generate at least 688,998N of force to overcome gravity, you’d need: 153,053 helium-filled, 5.56ft diameter balloons. * If you’re trying this with big party balloons, say 1 ft diameter, then you’d need a whole lot more: 26,550,146….26.5 million balloons. * None of this takes into account the weight of the balloons themselves or the strings to tie them to the house.

Q: You’ve said in the past that you identify strongly with Buzz Lightyear, are there any other characters you identify with?

Pete Docter: Well, I Identify strongly with Carl. I often grouse about how things are changing, and "why did they take that item off the menu?!?" I’m going to make a good old man. Weirdly, Kevin the bird is another character I really like. Not that I feel a kinship, but she was a fun character to play around with, because she’s so unpredictable.

Q: I saw the video of the trip to gain artistic inspiration for UP … what are some examples of other inspirations for animated elements in your work that came from more mundane/conventional sources?

Pete Docter: Doing research is one of the best parts of working on these films. One day we brought in an ostrich. It was cool to see an ostrich running around on the front lawn here. And of course the film was a great excuse to bring in our dogs. We also went to a few Old Folks homes. We formed a band — we played Tin Pan Alley type tunes and went in to a local retirement home to play for them. As we were up there, all of us were secretly taking mental notes and doing sketches behind our ukuleles. It was great — we got good research, and they said we were the best act to play there in months!

Q: Was the choice of presenting the film in 3D a conscious decision from the beginning? How does it affect the production process?

Pete Docter: We start the process for "Up" in 2D, with the focus just on the story and the characters. It was about three years in that John Lasseter came to us and said, "Hey, there are some really cool new developments that have happened with 3D," and of course Pixar had a long history of interest in 3D, John being one of the prime cheerleaders.  He shot pictures of his own wedding in 3D, as well as "Knick-Knack," which is in 3D as well. So we did a ton of research, watching other 3D films, and made a list of things we liked and things we didn’t. I wanted to use 3D in a more subtle way than the usual, "WOAH! THERE’S A BIG BANANA CREAM PIE COMING OUT TOWARDS THE AUDIENCE!" thing you often see in 3D. We used 3D as another tool to communicate the emotion of the scene, like you would use color, lighting, or cinematography. In the end, we didn’t let it affect the way we approached the story at all. I didn’t want to compromise the 2D version — which is the way it will be seen most often (considering DVD and Blu-ray).

Q: As far as the animation style of “Up” goes, instead of going for “as close to realism as possible” kind of visuals, it has an almost caricature style, especially with the facial features highlighting big points, rather than looking like a human head. What influenced the style of “Up,” and why did you decide to go this route?

Pete Docter: The story called for Carl to float his house into the air buoyed by balloons. For that to be believable, we felt it would be necessary to caricature the world – and, therefore, the characters, as well. I think if we made it look photo-real, you wouldn’t believe it as readily. Besides, if you want something to look real, go get a camera and step outside. It’s a heck of a lot cheaper. We work in animation! We can do things that can’t be done in any other medium! So the idea of simplifying and caricature is always exciting to me.

Q: Do you remember the first time you drew something and thought, "Wow, this is something I want to do for a living." Do you remember what you drew?

Pete Docter: You know how there’s always those kids in your elementary class that are really good at drawing? They sit there and "wow" everyone by drawing horses and tanks and battles and stuff? That was NOT me. I was lousy at drawing. But as soon as I figured out I could make something look like it was moving — and thinking — I was hooked. My parents are musicians, as are my sisters, so I was dragged to a lot of concerts growing up. I would always steal everyone’s programs and draw all over them, thinking up jokes like, "What would happen if all the strings on his violin broke?" or "What if someone fell in the tuba?" Comic gold, I’m telling you!

Q: How did Tom McCarthy get involved in the writing of “Up”?

Pete Docter: We had referenced Tom’s film "The Station Agent" as we worked out the structure of “Up.” It’s very similar — a guy who isn’t really living, he’s just walking through life, trying to stay removed and alone. Then he reluctantly gets drawn into this surrogate family. It’s a great film, really well written and directed. We got Tom to come here to Pixar to screen it and talk about it, so we’d meet him. Bob and I were working together at the time, but then Bob was drafted on to “Ratatouille” for a while and I was left all alone. I cried a lot and talked to myself at first. I needed someone to spark off creatively, and so I asked Tom if he could recommend any writers he knew that might want to work on the film. He fell for it and said, "How about me?" Ha ha! Sucker. He was on for three months, and it was in his draft that we added the character of Russell, which of course we kept once Bob came back on.

Q: What are the challenges involved with writing for animated movies that one might not face with live action, and how do you overcome those challenges?

Pete Docter: We approach our writing exactly as one would approach a live-action screenplay; the focus is on character and keeping the audience engaged. Our whole process is remarkably similar to live-action; we have cinematographers, lighters, costume designers, etc. We use different tools to get there, but the creative process is the same.

Images: ©Disney/Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

Post from: Film Gecko