Tag Archives: disney

The Chronological Donald Volume One

The Chronological Donald Volume One

The Chronological Donald Volume One

Mickey Mouse is the character that launched an empire.  When Walt’s darling little mouse took to the screen he captured the hearts of millions of movie-goers in the 1930’s, adult and children alike.  And even though he’s no longer a big part of Disney’s animation output, the theme parks and other merchandising have made sure that Mickey has never faded far from the spotlight. His earliest exploits though are thematically different from what is presented as Mickey Mouse today.  Sure the obvious distinction of Mickey no longer appearing in black and white is clear, but it’s his character traits that are most notable.  In his earliest days, Mickey was more like Bugs Bunny in that he was a bit of a trouble-maker.  He was never on Bugs’ level in that regard, but he did partake in things some parents were not overly fond with.  The cartoon that famously introduced the character Pluto, “The Chain Gang,” begins with Mickey in prison, of all places.  He smoked, he drank, and he could be a bit of a jerk in those old cartoons.  Walt Disney, after hearing the complaints from some parents, decided he needed Mickey to be the face of his company, and as a result, he needed to clean him up just a bit.  His cartoons still needed the characteristics he was about to excise from Mickey, so he took them (and then some) and applied them to a new character, an anthropomorphic duck he named Donald.

Donald took off like a rocket.  His easily irritable and temperamental nature made him a hit with fans who either rooted for him or against him.  His tendency to exhibit wild mood swings added a charge of electricity to his cartoons; fans knew the tantrum was coming, they just didn’t know when.  At first, Donald appeared alongside Mickey for the most part, but soon his popularity earned him his own series allowing him to surpass Mickey himself in terms of popularity.  To date, no other Disney character has appeared in more cartoons than Donald and he’s appeared in more comic strips than any character who doesn’t wear tights and fight crime.  Donald Duck is recognized all over the world and has become an institution, so it should come as no surprise that he has several DVD releases in the Walt Disney Treasures line as well.

I love Donald and always have.  I liked Mickey too when I was a kid, and I always had a fondness for Pluto, but Donald was my favorite.  He’s just an inherently funny character and a lot of that comes from the performance of Clarence “Ducky” Nash, Donald’s voice actor from the 1930’s thru to the early 80’s concluding with Mickey’s Christmas Carol.  That semi-intelligible voice is perfect for the character.  It sounds like something that would come from a duck, if a duck could speak.  Of course, that impression may only exist because Donald has been around for over 70 years but that certainly must have been the sentiment when Nash was awarded the role.  Sometimes it’s nearly impossible to figure out what Donald is saying, but that adds to the humor.  Early on, other duck characters that would appear in Donald cartoons, including Daisy, would speak like Donald but overtime that was dropped.  Donald’s nephews, Huey, Dewey, and Louie, exhibited a lesser but similar speech pattern until DuckTales when they were basically made to speak somewhat normal.

Sharks find ducks tasty.

Sharks find ducks tasty.

The Chronological Donald was released in four parts from 2005-2008.  As the name implies, the shorts appear in chronological order beginning with Donald’s debut from the Silly Symphonies series “The Wise Little Hen.”  This makes Donald the rare character to debut in color before black and white.  His first appearance with Mickey came in the short “Orphan’s Benefit” which can be found on the set Mickey Mouse in Black and White.  It would have been nice to have it here too to mark the occasion as several other sets contain overlapping cartoons, but oh well.  After “The Wise Little Hen,” the rest of the shorts are Donald cartoons though he wasn’t officially given his own series until 1937 with the first short being “Don Donald.”  Mickey doesn’t appear in any of these cartoons (with the exception of one brief cameo), but Pluto and Goofy make appearances as Disney seemed to enjoy pairing Donald with those two.  This set also contains the debut of Donald’s nephews in the cartoon appropriately titled “Donald’s Nephews.”  We’re also introduced to Donald’s cousin Gus in one short who never made another appearance that I’m aware of.

For the most part, these shorts try to put Donald in a new role in each one.  That role is either an official one like “Officer Duck” or making him a golfer or a celebrity chaser.  Some of the ideas repeat, such as “Donald’s Ostrich” and “Donald’s Penguin.”  There’s repeating gags too, of course the most famous being Donald’s tantrum where he thrusts out one arm and swings the other while hopping up and down.  If he doesn’t assume this pose in every cartoon, well then he does in almost every one.  It’s hard for me to choose a favorite, as several shorts here are ones I’m familiar with from my childhood so they have a nostalgic quality for me.  “Sea Scouts” is one where Donald and his nephews are sailors and have to contend with a shark.  It’s a mostly slapstick affair with a great sequence of Donald trying to keep from getting swallowed by the shark.  “Beach Picnic” is another where Donald finds his water float to be uncooperative and Pluto finds himself victimized by the irascible duck.  This cartoon also contains the Pluto fly paper gag, one that shows up in several other cartoons.

This set was created before the vault concept was created for this series.  For those unaware, the vaulted cartoons are ones that contain offensive material.  Leonard Maltin is the host for the set and he does comment on some of the shorts.  The most common bit of offensive material is stereotypical portrayals of native americans.  Anyone around the age of thirty who grew up watching old Warner Bros. shorts or Disney cartoons (including feature-length films such as Peter Pan) should be familiar with this kind of material.  I don’t tell people how to raise their kids so if you’re not familiar with this kind of stuff and are weary about showing it to your kids do some research.  In the case of Donald Duck shorts, a great many can be viewed on video sites for free making it easy to preview the material first.

Things rarely end well for Donald.

Things rarely end well for Donald.

Of course, if you want to purchase such a set for your kids know that it isn’t easy.  Disney only released a limited amount figuring only collectors and Disney diehards would be interested so walking into a store and simply buying a set of Donald Duck cartoons is basically impossible.  Volume One was produced in larger numbers than others but still can command a hefty price.  Amazon has it currently priced at $65 and volume two at $54 with volumes three and four jumping over $100.  I don’t know if they’re worth it, but if you do love Donald and want some of his cartoons you will find this to be a quality set.  The DVDs came housed in a plastic DVD case which in turn is packaged in a silver tin.  The only negative to the packaging is that the tin can be prone to denting in the shipping process.  The cartoons look great for the most part, especially when one considers how old they are.  Some have survived better than others and it shows on some with the usual white Donald being a little dingy or sometimes yellowed.  The quality of the animation can’t be dulled by age though, and if anything, it only looks more impressive in today’s age where a lot of animation is low-budget or computer generated.  Hand drawn animation is practically dead and this set certainly helps to bring the viewer back to the golden age for animation.  Animation fans and Disney fans would do well to track these sets down.  I own three of the four, and the completest in me likely demands that I eventually get the fourth.  I’ve watched them all and on a lazy Sunday morning it’s not uncommon to find me on my couch with a cup of coffee and Donald Duck playing on my TV.

The shorts:

  • 1934
    • The Wise Little Hen
  • 1936
    • Donald and Pluto
  • 1937
    • Don Donald
    • Modern Inventions
    • Donald’s Ostrich
  • 1938
    • Self Control
    • Donald’s Better Self
    • Donald’s Nephews
    • Polar Trappers (with Goofy)
    • Good Scouts
    • The Fox Hunt (with Goofy)
    • Donald’s Golf Game
  • 1939
    • Donald’s Lucky Day
    • The Hockey Champ
    • Donald’s Cousin Gus
    • Beach Picnic
    • Sea Scouts
    • Donald’s Penguin
    • The Autograph Hound
    • Officer Duck

Walt Disney’s Lady and the Tramp

Lady and the Tramp (1955))

Lady and the Tramp (1955)

It wasn’t my intention to double-up on the Disney posts but with it being Valentine’s weekend why not take a look at one of Disney’s most famous love stories?  It’s kind of funny that arguably Disney’s best stab at a love story involves two dogs considering all of the prince and princess relationships they’ve produced over the years.  There’s something special and endearing about the romance of Lady the cocker-spaniel and that loveable Tramp.  I think it has a lot to do with the fact that most people like dogs and this movie was clearly worked on by such people.  It gives the story a genuine feeling.  There’s often a feeling of audience manipulation with these Disney tales be it the need to be a good boy found in Pinocchio or the importance of growing up in Peter Pan.  Lady and the Tramp isn’t so obvious with its message, if it has one.  It’s one of the simpler tales produced during Disney’s prime years, along with Dumbo, and some of that is likely due to it not being based on a popular tale of old.  Lady and the Tramp is just a nice piece of entertainment, and one of my favorite Disney movies to date.

Incidentally, the fact that Lady and the Tramp wasn’t based on a well known story made Walt Disney nervous.  He felt that audiences would be less interested in the film as a result so he made sure a novelization was released before the film.  There was also a Disneyland TV special that aired before the movie premiered and basically went over the entire plot (this is included on the DVD and Blu Ray release, for those interested) scene for scene.  I don’t know why Disney felt that way, but it does seem odd to me.  I’ve also considered it one of the film’s strengths that it’s not a retelling of a popular fairy tale.  Those stories are well and good, but there’s little surprise for even younger viewers.  Also surprising is that the film was not well received initially.  Audiences gobbled it up but critics hated it, even panning the artwork.  Such a notion seems shocking to me when I watch it today and it seems like all of the critics that hated it either changed their mind or are dead.

If the puppy Lady sequence doesn't warm your heart then you simply have no soul.

If the puppy Lady sequence doesn’t warm your heart then you simply have no soul.

Visually, Lady and the Tramp is a remarkable picture.  Disney artists have become famous for their attention to detail when it comes to drawing animals.   Look up the making of pretty much any such picture from them and you’ll find the artists drawing from real life as they observe their subjects.  They’ve been doing it for years and it becomes clear why when watching any such film because the animals move and react in fantastic ways.  The common and expected movements of walking, sitting, begging, running, and so on are spot on for the canines in this film.  The subtler ones are also perfect such as when Lady is confused or is trying to get her beloved Jim Dear’s attention.  The animators also clearly want the audience to experience this world as the dogs do.  Every scene is from a dog’s point of view as Lady’s home is always displayed at floor level.  It’s rare to see a human’s face and often the people in the background are still paintings.  The animators want you to focus on the dogs, the humans are just ancillary.  Lady and the Tramp is also noteworthy for being the first animated feature to be shot in wide-screen Cinemascope.  This is a plus as it gives us even more artwork to take in!  Whether it’s the dogs themselves or the lovingly painted scenery, this film is a feast for the eyes.

These cats are jerks.

These cats are jerks.

Disney films are often as famous for their visuals as they are their songs.  Lady and the Tramp is more subtle in its use of music but is fantastic in its execution.  The music all works within the narrative and even after immediately watching it I have to think hard to remember when the film breaks into song.  That’s because it’s used so effectively and works with the picture as opposed to being an in-film music video.  One of the more popular spots for song is the introduction of the siamese cats (“We are siamese if you please,”) which is short and effective and sure to stick with you.  The most famous song though is easily “Bella Notte,” the song sung to Lady and Tramp by the italian restaurant owners during their iconic scene.  I’m not sure if there’s a more famous scene in any other Disney feature than the one where Tramp and Lady share their famous plate of spaghetti.  Describing the scene to someone who has never seen it is futile.  It sounds cute but utterly ridiculous.  The scene was shot and animated with such care though that it works.  It will charm you the first time you see it just as much as the fiftieth.

The animators had no trouble getting these dogs to display a wide range of facial expressions.

The animators had no trouble getting these dogs to display a wide range of facial expressions.

The film looks great, the film sounds great, but it wouldn’t be anything without a good plot.  Lady and the Tramp was a combination of storyman Joe Grant’s own tales about his English Springer-Spaniel and a short story Disney himself enjoyed called “Happy Dan, the Whistling Dog.”  It’s a tale about two worlds colliding as the upscale Lady falls in with the lowborn Tramp.  Tramp is a tramp of his own choosing apparently and rather enjoys his carefree lifestyle where as Lady can’t imagine life without her masters, Jim Dear and Darling (if Lady is aware of what their real names are she doesn’t let on).  Lady is introduced in the film’s first scene as Jim presents his wife with a Christmas present containing her.  The sequence that follows is perhaps the film’s best as we see the young couple get introduced to life with a puppy.  Jim wants to be stern with Lady on her first night and establish a nightly pattern where as Lady just wants to sleep with her new mom and dad.  Lady, of course, wins out and gets accustomed to life as the center of attention in the household.  It’s not until Jim Dear and Darling are expecting their first child that she gets a peak at what life could be like as second fiddle.  This is how Tramp is able to work his way in initially, and when Aunt Clara comes to babysit and views Lady as a nuisance, Tramp is there to seal the deal.  Lady gets a taste of what life is like for Tramp, the good parts and the bad, and our budding lovers are forced to confront their differences and Tramp is shown he needs to change if he wants to win the heart of his Lady.

Some Disney stories are scary and some are even sad, but Lady and the Tramp shuns most of these conceptions and remains a mostly fun picture with a very warm and happy outcome.  There are some scenes featuring action and suspense that may be a little frightening for young children, but this one is pretty tame by any standard.  Dog lovers will especially fall in love with this picture as it’s practically a love letter to our canine compadres and really only presents them in a favorable light.  Maybe those who do not have much affection for dogs will find this one harder to enjoy than others, but for my money this is one of Disney’s most watchable films and belongs in any movie collection.


Walt Disney’s Peter Pan

Walt Disney's Peter Pan (1953)

Walt Disney’s Peter Pan (1953)

The story of the boy who shunned time and refused to grow up is a timeless one that has captured the hearts of many who experienced it.  Michael Jackson was famously said to be obsessed with the story.  He probably took things too far.  Walt Disney was another individual who found the story captivating and the producer within knew he could market it to a wide audience.  He was so eager to get Peter Pan into production that it was originally planned as the follow-up to the hugely successful Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs but the technology of the time wasn’t where it was needed in order to fulfill Disney’s vision.  Disney also had a harder than expected time of securing the rights to create the film.  All of this meant putting Peter Pan off for a little while and it would eventually see release in 1953 making it the 14th film in the Disney Classics series.  It was also the last Disney film to be released via RKO while later pictures would be released through Disney’s own Buena Vista Distribution.

Watching old films from my youth can be enjoyable for many reasons.  There’s the intrinsic nostalgia value of seeing something I remember fondly.  There’s also the feeling of a new discovery.  Peter Pan falls into the latter as it wasn’t a film I was exposed to much as a child.  VHS tapes could be pretty pricey when I was a kid, especially Walt Disney releases that tried to make things seem more special with better packaging and a heightened sense of tradition.  The whole vault concept was around then too, which for those unaware, is the concept by Disney of only supplying stores for a set amount of time with a given film before ceasing production.  I remember the commercials would make it seem like these films would never be released again, which of course wasn’t true as most have been released multiple times since.  As a kid, I never owned Peter Pan or saw it in theaters but I was exposed to it.  It’s possible I had only seen it once before watching it recently following its latest release on Blu Ray.  This kind of viewing experience is almost more fun as I get to approach the film almost for the first time where I’m more apt to take notice of the things I wouldn’t have as a kid.  For the most part, only the film’s opening scene felt familiar to me.  I attribute that to a poor attention span as a child.  Even something with a running time under 80 minutes is a long period for a child to sit still.  More often than not, when a movie was put on in front of me I’d watch the first twenty minutes before being inspired to play.  Only the most exciting moments could hold my attention.

Peter's grand entrance.

Peter’s grand entrance.

The film opens with the audience being introduced to the Darling family.  The Mr. and Mrs. are getting ready for a party while the children are getting ready for bed.  Mr. Darling is presented as a bit of a neurotic while Mrs. Darling is calm and together.  The eldest of their children, Wendy, is a bit of a romantic with a love of fairy tales, especially Peter Pan.  She has two younger brothers, John and Michael.  John is the brainier of the two with a very naive sense of the world around him as illustrated by his willingness to fight pirates and Indians.  Michael is the youngest and most impressionable.  They’re all of a good nature with Wendy being the most strong-willed and the boys the most impressionable.  Nana, the nurse dog, may be a canine but embodies the characteristics of a nanny.  She dotes on the children and tries, in vain, to keep the nursery clean and organized.  She is only slightly anthropomorphized in that she doesn’t speak or display any ability to maneuver in a way unfamiliar to a dog but is obviously of a human intelligence.  A series of events leads to Mr. Darling getting short with the children and expressing a need to his eldest that she grow up.  Wendy, unlike 99.9% of young girls, is heartbroken when her father informs her it’s time she move out of the nursery and into her own bedroom.

Peter Pan is introduced soon after as the Mr. and Mrs. leave for a party with the children tucked in for the night.  Peter is presented as a boy of about twelve who embodies all of the characteristics of a child but heightened in a way to make them obvious.  He’s brash, egocentric, and almost incapable of anything resembling empathy.  He takes no situation seriously and is used to getting his way.  He’s also fun-loving, care-free, and eager to share the fun experiences of life with other children.  He has no desire to mature and grow up and seeks only to play for the rest of his days.  With him is Tinker Bell, his pixie companion, as the two are attempting to retrieve Pan’s shadow which somehow ended up in the Darling household.  The children are delighted to meet the real Peter Pan, and when he proposes they join him in Never Land, the boys are most excited to go.  Wendy is a bit more reserved but the thrill of flying and seeing Never Land is too much for her to ignore.

Captain Hook is consumed by his need for vengeance against Peter Pan, who famously chopped off his hand.  I wonder what he was called before that happened?

Captain Hook is consumed by his need for vengeance against Peter Pan, who famously chopped off his hand. I wonder what he was called before that happened?

The setting of London is presented always at night giving it a cold and charmless quality.  Never Land is almost always presented during the day and is bright and colorful.  It’s populated by a host of interesting characters that are both charming and menacing though rarely scary.  Even the film’s chief villains, the pirates, are presented in a colorful manner.  The man-eating crocodile, who seems to only have an interest in Captain Hook, is more funny than frightening and even the youngest of children are unlikely to be scared by this film.

Captain Hook is the film’s primary antagonist.  He embodies all of the characteristics of a traditional Disney villain.  He’s mean-spirited, hot-tempered, cowardly, and manipulative.  The film suggests a mutiny may play out early in the film as Hook has kept the ship docked in Never Land as he has become obsessed with getting revenge against Pan, the boy who chopped off his hand and fed it to the crocodile.  His first mate, Mr. Smee, is his most loyal servant that is ceaselessly bossed around by Hook.  The film hints that he may be a decent person but never expressly confirms that.  Also joining the supporting cast are the Lost Boys who all dress in animal-like costumes and follow Pan whole-heartedly.  There are Indians on the island of Never Land as well who appear to engage in a friendly rivalry with the Lost Boys until the chief’s daughter, Tiger Lily, goes missing.  Perhaps the most interesting member of the supporting cast is none other than Tinker Bell.  Tinker Bell has become a popular character with young girls in recent years, even starring in her own series of direct-to-video movies.  I’ve never seen any of those films for what I hope are obvious reasons, so I don’t know how she is portrayed in them but I assume it is not how she is portrayed in Peter Pan.  Young fans of the character may be surprised to see she is a jealous, brat of a pixie.  Her actions can, in part, be blamed on Peter who she clearly has strong affection for but he is dubious of such feelings.  She is almost instantly jealous of Wendy and the attention Peter gives her.  Tinker Bell is so jealous and spiteful of Wendy that at one point she attempts to trick the Lost Boys into killing her.  Her actions actually cast her as a minor villain to Hook’s role of primary antagonist.  Only by redeeming herself in the end does she avoid the label of true villain

Tinker Bell has become a star since her debut in "Peter Pan," despite being a very unlikable character.

Tinker Bell has become a star since her debut in “Peter Pan,” despite being a very unlikable character.

The story plays out rather expectedly with Wendy eventually seeing the faults in Peter’s view of the world and accepts the responsibility of growing up.  There’s a spectacular confrontation between Pan and Hook, while the stubborn character of George Darling sees the beauty in viewing the world through the eyes of a child.  It’s a nice little tale on the wonders of youth that doesn’t beat the audience over the head with the notion of being a responsible adult.  As with pretty much all Disney films, the exquisite visuals are set to song at times with most of the songs fitting into the narrative of the story as opposed to the broadway approach of the recent animated outputs.  The only exception to this rule is the film’s most famous song, “You Can Fly!,” which occurs during the flight from London to Never Land.  It’s a fun, uplifting, tune that is very much in the same style as all of the Disney songs from that era with a choir of individuals used for the vocals.  It has that old, fuzzy, quality to the vocals but still manages to sound clear.  “A Pirate’s Life” is probably the other well-known song from the film, with the “What Made the Red Man Red?” being known for more dubious reasons (more on that to follow).  As someone who doesn’t often enjoy the song portions of Disney films, I can say these are not too intrusive but I did grow bored with most of the sequences, the only exception being the flying scene.  “You Can Fly!” is the kind of uptempo song I can get into and enjoy and the scene is just long enough that it doesn’t overstay its welcome.

The film is not without controversy, as illustrated by this image.

The film is not without controversy, as illustrated by this image.

Over the years Peter Pan has become noteworthy for reasons beyond its visuals or story.  The portrayal of the Indians has become somewhat of a touchy subject as it contains many of the old Hollywood stereotypes.  When first encountered they greet others with the tired expression “How?,” and often charge into a scene with the battle-cry formed by shouting while patting their mouths repeatedly with an open palm.  Their skin is of a reddish tint, some being obviously exaggerated, and the children hold a negative view of the Indians.  At least John and Michael do, while the Lost Boys basically view them as playmates.  The film early on teases that Indians are a savage and stupid lot, but this is the viewpoint of the naive John and the film dispels this notion by having him humorously outsmarted by the Indians while he explains their stupidity to the other boys.  For anyone who grew up being able to view old Looney Tunes shorts on television, the portrayal of Indians in this film is far from shocking.  This was commonplace for the era and as recently as the early 90’s this kind of thing was shown during children’s programming.  I learned in school at a very early age that this was not an honest portrayal of Native Americans, and kids today might not even be familiar with the old “How?” greeting, but some unfamiliar with this film who buy it for their kids may be caught by surprise.  To add a little extra shock value is the musical number “What Made the Red Man Red?” which is certainly not politically correct by today’s standards.  I find it hard to get worked up by the number though, considering the most popular sport in the country today has a team in the nation’s capital called the Redskins.  Beyond the reference to color, I didn’t pick anything out of the song that sounds particularly offensive, but I’ve never read the lyrics either.  Apparently it suggests they became red as a result of blushing in their pursuit of women or something.  Unquestionably, if the film were made today the song wouldn’t exist and it’s possible the Indians wouldn’t be included at all.  If it sounds like something that would bother you then by all means look elsewhere for entertainment.  There are plenty of other animated films out there with less controversial material.

On the whole, Peter Pan is a mostly enjoyable film and, controversy aside, a fairly harmless one at that.  It doesn’t set out to make any bold, life-affirming statements and exists primarily as entertainment.  As far as visual entertainment goes, it’s well done though it lacks a definitive visual moment such as Monstro from Pinocchio or the forest fire in Bambi.  The flying sequence comes close, but falls a bit short of iconic status.  It makes up for this with its signature song, “You Can Fly!,” and by having a very even presentation with no wasted scenes.  At a running time of just 76 minutes, it doesn’t overstay its welcome and has a neat and tidy presentation.  It’s an entertaining movie, more so for children than adults, but it does possess the ability to charm even older audiences.  I don’t love it like I do some of the other Disney animated features, but it’s something I can watch from time to time and it’s a film that’s worthy of the term “classic.”


The Nightmare Before Christmas

Tim Burton's "The Nightmare Before Christmas" (1993)

Tim Burton’s “The Nightmare Before Christmas” (1993)

There was a time when I had no idea that The Nightmare Before Christmas was a Disney property.  When I first saw it around Halloween of 1993 during its original theatrical run, it was credited to Touchstone Pictures, which unknown to me at the time, was a spin-off of Disney.  Disney used Touchstone to market to older audiences and when the executives got a look at how creepy the imagery of Nightmare was they decided it was best to distance it from the Disney brand.  That’s not to say they expected failure or anything, on the contrary, Disney hoped to cash in on the Henry Selick directed picture due to its unique animation style.  That was another thing I wouldn’t become aware of for years.  The picture, often marketed as Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas, was directed by Mr. Selick.  Burton crafted the story and worked on the character designs, script, and screenplay but had little involvement in the actual production.  This was due to him being a pretty hot commodity at the time and a certain Batman picture demanded a lot of his time.  Also, he had little desire in overseeing the tedious process of stop motion animation.  And who can blame him?  It’s a process that would drive many a person insane!

I remember being unsure of the film before first seeing it as a kid.  The adults taking us kids seemed more excited about it, though I’m not sure why.  Maybe it was the concept of marrying Halloween and Christmas into one film, or perhaps it was the visual style that is unique, if nothing else.  I think it was that visual style that initially put me off.  Not because it looked scary, but because Jack didn’t look like a skeleton in the traditional sense.  There’s a silliness to the look of the characters that’s lacking in true scares.  The vampires are a good example as they’re pear shaped and corny.  The look of most of the weird characters resembles that of Beetlejuice, one of Burton’s other popular films of the era.  I was way into X-Men at the time and preferred a realistic look to my characters, so I guess it’s not that surprising in hindsight why I had my reservations about the picture.

The film's protagonist, Jack The Pumpkin King, is bored and depressed over the whole Halloween thing and turns to Christmas for help.

The film’s protagonist, Jack The Pumpkin King, is bored and depressed over the whole Halloween thing and turns to Christmas for help.

Of course, they proved to be unfounded as myself and everyone I went with that day enjoyed the film immensely.  I’ve stated many times in my reviews of other properties that I care little for musicals and that was true of child me as well.  The Nightmare Before Christmas is heavy on song, more so than the traditionally animated Disney pictures of that time, and yet I still found it enjoyable.  There’s a humor to a lot of the film that’s present in the songs as well.  Most especially the “What’s This?” sequence where Jack is observing the differences between Halloween Town and Christmas Town (“The children are throwing snowballs instead of throwing heads,”).  That’s not to say they don’t get annoying, as sometimes the characters seem to break into song for the sake of doing so (such as when Jack explains Christmas Town to the rest of the gang), and I’m left wishing they’d just talk like regular folks instead.  The quality of the songs seems to vary too.  Danny Elfman was in charge of the film’s music (and also provided Jack’s singing voice) so I suppose he can be forgiven since he isn’t known as a Broadway composer.

Even though the film is a musical, it’s the visuals that make or break it.  And since the film has proven immensely popular ever since its release, it would seem to be that the visual style was accepted by the general public.  Selick has proven to be a master of the stop motion technique, and though films since have surpassed Nightmare in terms of animation quality, this film still holds up quite well today.  The characters animate very well and, for the most part, and lack the floaty quality many seem to have in the old Rankin/Bass Christmas specials.  Selick and his team don’t settle for the easy way in most scenes as characters tend to always be moving in some way as opposed to remaining still.  The only noticeable shortcut, if you will, seems to be the facial expressions of the non Jack characters.  Jack famously had over 400 heads to show various expressions while minor characters presumably had only one, save for maybe a back-up or two.  Sally had to use the same head so as not to disturb her hair, which would have caused a nightmare for the animators.  I suppose then it’s not surprising the lead character is bald.

While Halloween Town is presented in mostly black and white, Christmas Town is the exact opposite.

While Halloween Town is presented in mostly black and white, Christmas Town is the exact opposite.

The animation helps set Nightmare apart from other Disney fare, but the general look of the settings is also quite unique.  Halloween Town is very much rooted in German Expressionism.  There’s hardly a straight building in the town as everything juts out at seemingly impossible angles.  Several characters live in towers and crowded spaces.  Halloween Town seems pretty small in general, with mostly barren land surrounding it.  I suppose some would describe it as “gothic” (which would explain why so many goth girls in my high school seemed obsessed with Jack and Sally), but that seems lazy.  There’s very little color used as it’s mostly shades of gray.  And where color is present it’s often found in minor accents on the characters as opposed to the setting.  In contrast, Christmas Town is an explosion of primary colors and the objects Jack takes from it contrast nicely when they’re present in Halloween Town.  Watching the scene in Christmas Town almost makes one think a Dr. Seuss film would be a good idea for Henry Selick to oversee (as opposed to those wretched live-action films).

Jack playing Santa.

Jack playing Santa.

Tim Burton may get too much credit for Nightmare’s success, but one thing that can’t be taken away from him is the success of the film’s plot.  Dreaming up a world where each holiday has its own world separate from reality is pretty neat, but then taking the next step of having one wage war on the other is quite clever indeed.  Though Halloween Town doesn’t wage war on Christmas Town, they do seek to take over its holiday for at least one year.  Jack is a character of good intentions, but he lies to himself about what it is he’s doing without thinking about the implications this will have on Christmas Town, and Santa Claus to be specific.  He, for example, sees nothing wrong with sending off Boogie’s henchmen to kidnap Santa.  This makes him selfish, as he’s only thinking about curing his own seasonal depression, and short-sighted since he fails to predict the villainous Oogie Boogie’s eventual involvement.  And yet, we as the viewer know that he’s inherently good and he does set things right in the end.  The romance between Jack and Sally feels a bit forced, but I guess expecting for more development in that area out of a children’s moving may be asking too much.

The film settles in at 76 minutes, which is not uncommon for stop motion.  It doesn’t feel that short to me, maybe that’s due to my tepid response to the musical pieces, but it doesn’t feel long or anything.  And I give credit to all involved with the property that no stupid sequels exist such as Jack visits Easter Land or Valentine Town.  There are some spin-off video games and such, though I’ve never experienced any of them.  The unique dual holiday format of the film makes it extremely marketable for Disney, so perhaps that’s good enough for them to not seek out a sequel.

I watched The Nightmare Before Christmas this year for the first time in many years.  I was curious how I would respond to it after so long.  Despite being almost shunned by Disney for most of its life, it very much feels like a Disney picture, though Burton’s involvement is obvious as well.  Some of the songs made my eyes roll, but the visual effects are too charming to resist.  I enjoy the film’s humor and the fact that it separates itself from other holiday films and specials, but also makes sure to harken back to them at times with tongue firmly planted in cheek (“My what a brilliant nose you have!”).  While I don’t disagree with Disney’s decision to originally release the film through Touchstone, I don’t think it’s overly scary for young kids.  Most will recognize the film for what it is, but as always, parents know their kids best and might prefer to watch it first before showing it to the really young.  The film probably doesn’t rank as one of Disney’s best, but it is a fun film to revisit during this time of year, and I regret not purchasing it sooner.


Walt Disney’s Beauty and the Beast

Beauty and the Beast (1991)

Recently I made an entry on the much beloved Disney classic Pinocchio.  In that entry I professed my love for the Disney classics, the films, the characters, the shorts – love em!  When I picked up Pinocchio recently on Blu Ray I also grabbed several others.  I did it in part for some free tickets to Finding Nemo 3D but mostly I did it out of my love for nostalgia.  My modest Disney Blu Ray collection now includes seven films and it’s a mixture of old and modern.  After getting re-acquainted with Pinocchio, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at a more modern, but perhaps equally loved, film:  Beauty and the Beast.

Beauty and the Beast came along during Disney’s renaissance period that began in the late 1980s with The Little Mermaid.  Prior to that film, Disney films had experienced a noticeable drop in quality.  Once praised for being good quality, family entertainment, most of the newer films were regarded as children’s movies that adults had to stomach in order to keep the little ones happy.  Disney was also being challenged by Universal Pictures and their animated films which were suddenly the biggest thing in animation.  To reinvigorate the brand, Disney went back to the its roots and started adapting classic stories and fables for its feature-length films.  The films were also heavily influenced by broadway.  Disney films always contained some element of song but now the films contained full musical numbers featuring elaborate choreography and big moments.  The Little Mermaid was a rousing success, as were many of the films that followed throughout the 90s.

Beauty and the Beast arrived two years later and was met with even more praise by critics.  Beauty and the Beast is perhaps best known now for being the first animated film nominated for an Academy Award for best picture.  It didn’t win, but just being nominated was a big achievement for the genre.  It followed in the same style as The Little Mermaid combining a classic story with state-of-the-art animation and catchy musical numbers.  I saw it as a kid, and my family had a copy of the VHS, though I always kind of associated it with Cinderella and considered it more of a “girl’s movie.”  That’s what young boys do, and as an adult I’m not much concerned with those things.  I was eager to see it again and hoped to perhaps see what made so many kids and adults enjoy it twenty years ago.

I’ve always enjoyed the Beast’s look.

Now, I mentioned in my Pinocchio review that I prefer the older style of Disney films in their approach to song.  I can’t deny some of the songs from the modern films are catchy and well put together, but I just hate how they disrupt the flow of the narrative.  Beauty and the Beast is not immune to this malady, but I knew that going in so I just tried to enjoy the songs for what they were.  As a spectacle, “Be Our Guest” is quite impressive and even pretty entertaining to watch.  The inhabitants of the Beast’s castle are fun to behold as they’re mostly animated inanimate objects.  There’s Lumiere the candlestick holder and Cogsworth the clock as well as many others.  Mrs. Pott’s reciting of the title song is also delivered quite well and actually doesn’t completely halt the narrative.  Some of the musical numbers I didn’t care for though include the opening to the film which includes the song “Belle.”  It’s a little silly and kind of drags.  Another one that people seem to enjoy is “Gaston” where the villainous character of the same name is celebrated.  It’s kind of amusing for a bit, but like “Belle” just drags on too long.  I guess I’ll just never like the broadway approach.

At any rate, the musical numbers aren’t going to make or break the film for me.  The film’s plot is going to play a much large role, and as far as tales go, Beauty and the Beast is a good one.  I’m sure most are familiar with it, but the gist of it is an unkind prince was cursed to take on the form of a beast.  If he can’t find love he’ll remain that way forever.  Enter Belle, the beauty component of the title, whom the Beast imprisons in his cursed castle.  Not only was the Beast cursed, but so too were all of his servants who really got the short end of the stick.  While Beast is large and fearsome, others end up as footstools and dressers.  It’s actually Belle’s father who first stumbles upon the Beast’s castle (how the villagers did not know of its existence is a plot-hole best left alone) while running from some wolves.  The Beast does not take kindly to strangers, so he locks up the poor old man in a dungeon.  When Belle comes to find him, she trades her freedom for his.  The Beast, naturally thinking she may be the one to break the curse, agrees to keep her at the castle.

The ballroom scene is one of Disney’s most breathtaking sequences ever committed to celluloid.

What follows is a gradual melting of the Beast’s heart as Belle learns to see the gentle soul within.  Back in the village, the vain Gaston is plotting to make Belle his trophy wife and when Belle’s father returns with tales of a hideous beast he sets out to kill him.  It’s a fairly predictable plot, especially if you’re familiar with the old tale in one of its many forms, but it’s executed well.  The voice acting is especially good and I can’t recall a single performance that I didn’t like.  The Beast (played by Robby Benson) is the star for me as his delivery contains the perfect amount of savagery and humanity.  Others seem to really enjoy the over-the-top performance of Richard White as Gaston but I found him a bit too cliché for my taste.  I think he could have been toned down a little and still would have worked just as well.

As far as animation goes, the work put out by Disney is routinely praised as top-notch and Beauty and the Beast is no exception.  The animation is fluid and the color palette vibrant.  The lighting, the textures, the motion – it’s all stellar.  The Blu Ray release has been visually enhanced as well though to mixed results.  The outdoor scene that opens the film is almost too bright and colorful, but the darker and bolder scenes in the Beast’s castle never looked better.  There’s also a new scene included with a new song that was cut from the original release.  I didn’t find it to be anything special (obviously, since I don’t care for the musical numbers) but it doesn’t harm the film in any way.

With these films I’m mostly taken aback by just the sheer quality of the animation.  Watching Belle’s hair flow or her dress rustle is gorgeous.  I have such great admiration for hand-drawn animation, and while I do love the stuff Pixar puts out, it’s just not the same as good old hand-drawn art.  I’ll never out grow it!

The film may be predictable, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t still moving.

Comparing the modern works to the ones from long ago is actually quite difficult considering the approach.  They’re all-together different and really the only comparisons that are easy to make are the technical ones regarding the animation.  Beauty and the Beast is certainly more flashy than those old films, but I don’t know that automatically makes it the better looking film.  I’ve really enjoyed watching the classics and each time I watch them I notice something new to appreciate.  Beauty and the Beast, and the other Disney works from that era, did bring the company back into the world of family entertainment.  That sounds kind of unattractive in a sense, the term family entertainment, but I take it to mean entertainment for all ages.  You don’t need kids to enjoy the Disney classics, and you don’t need them to enjoy Beauty and the Beast.  I’ll always be partial to the older films, but this is a good one on its own merit and one of the better films to come out of the 90s, animated or otherwise.  The little boy version of me would probably be somewhat surprised to hear me say that, though he’d probably be shocked to know I can’t wait for the eventual Blu Ray release for The Little Mermaid!


Walt Disney’s Pinocchio

Pinocchio (1940)

Back in the 1930’s, Walt Disney captured the hearts of movie-goers across the globe with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, the first attempt at a theatrical length animated film.  Snow White was a rousing success and proved that animation had a place in the film scene.  Before Snow White, animation was mostly relegated to shorts set to music.  Mickey Mouse helped bring spoken dialogue to animation before Snow White, but for grander tales Disney turned to new characters and old stories.

Pinocchio was the follow-up to Snow White and was based on an old italian children’s story.  Compared to the english translations of the Pinocchio stories, the film wasn’t that long in following.  The tone of the story for Walt’s take was much different as the original Pinocchio is almost unlikable.  He’s basically a bad kid and while the Pinocchio of the film runs astray, it’s mostly through ignorance.

I spent the better part of a week this past summer in Walt Disney World, so I’ve been on a major kick.  Disney makes a ton of money off of park admissions but they make even more on the general good feelings relayed to the patrons that translates into merchandise sales.  As a lover of traditional hand-drawn animation, I have a great appreciation for the Disney classics.  I like some more than others, and I like some of the modern classics as well, but the old ones have a certain charm.  Pinocchio is one of my favorites though, and it was one I had not seen in decades until I found a new copy of the Blu Ray release hanging around a store (it has, per Disney’s rather annoying policy, re-entered the dreaded Vault for the time being so after market prices are obscene) and snatched it up once I saw how much even amazon.com was listing it for.

Pinocchio and his “conscience,” Jiminy Cricket.

I can’t imagine the pressure that the production staff was under following Snow White.  Production began before Snow White’s completion so starting out the only pressure put upon them was by Walt himself, which apparently was fairly immense since his ambition knew no bounds.  Pinocchio was supposed to be the third feature-length release following Bambi, but delays on Bambi moved Pinocchio up.  Snow White was, and is, a marvel of animation but Pinocchio is just plain better.  Pinocchio himself, is mostly responsible for this.  Pinocchio, as most probably know, is a wooden marionette for much of the film and he moves and behaves just as one would expect.  His rear end tends to rise when he walks, his limbs flop around, and he often exploits his ability to rotate his head 360 degrees.

Not to be done outdone, the supporting cast is done awfully well.  Geppetto, particularly in the scene where he’s frightened by a sound in his house early in the film, is wonderfully animated.  His knees are rattling and he’s clearly on edge.  Figaro, the cat, is reminiscent of Pluto in his mannerisms and behaves mostly as a cat would be expected to.  He’s very curious and approaches new objects cautiously.  Even when the story calls for the character to behave with human emotion, it still seems authentic.  Monstro, the massive whale in the film’s final act, is quite impressive and frightening.  He has a real hand drawn look, like a moving canvas, the way the water interacts with him is so impressive.

I love how Figaro the cat is animated. So many of his mannerisms remind me of my own cat.

There are other trick shots and fantastic pieces throughout the film.  Pinocchio’s reflection in Cleo’s fish bowl is a particular treat, and the sequence where Lampwick turns into a donkey is done so well it’s unsettling.  His hands gnarl into hooves as he paws at Pinocchio in desperation.  Of course, the film’s most iconic scene is where Pinocchio’s nose extends until it becomes a full tree limb on his face.  The attention to detail throughout this film is a wonder, even 70 years later.  It’s just incredible to behold and an obvious labor of love.

I confess I have a love/hate relationship with the music in Disney films.  The score and effects are always excellent, it’s where the characters break out into song that I never fell in love with.  A lot of these scenes break the narrative for me, especially in the modern classics where the sequences are obviously influenced some by music video.  In Pinocchio, the songs are worked into the narrative as seamlessly as could be done.  That’s due in part to Pinocchio being an impressionable youth which makes it believable that adults might turn to song to drive a point home.  The songs are not overdone, and quite nice too.  The film is most known for “When You Wish Upon A Star,” the unofficial song of Disney at this point, and it’s such a wonderful and perfect song for this film.  There’s something extremely affecting about the melody and the vocals by Cliff Edwards (as Jiminy Cricket) just accent it so well.

And what would Pinocchio be without its wonderful narrative?  The story of a puppet brought to life by the wishes of a lonely old man who longs to be a real boy.  There’s such a warmth to the Geppetto character when he interacts with Pinocchio.  Jiminy Cricket is an excellent sidekick for Pinocchio and an interesting concept as Pinocchio’s conscience.  The story is certainly a fantasy, but it’s handled with such care that we as the audience are able to buy into it.

Possibly the most memorable scene from the film, Lampwick’s transformation.

Pinocchio himself is handled well.  He is, in many ways, what one would expect of a puppet suddenly brought to life.  He’s impressionable and curious, a blank slate of sorts, which is why he needs the Jiminy character.  We see him go astray and get into trouble, but we know he possesses a sweetness to his personality which never makes him unlikable, only misguided.  And when the plot calls for him to rise to the occasion, we get to see the real Pinocchio.  We root for him and wish for him to succeed in becoming a real boy.

It seems one can’t have a conversation about Pinocchio without talking about the fear injected into the film.  A lot of the older Disney films were willing to use fear as a story-telling device.  Pinocchio’s imprisonment is quite unsettling, and the scene with Lampwick is one of the scariest things I ever saw as a kid.  It succeeds both visually and thematically as being a frightening scene as the formerly cocky Lampwick is reduced to a whimpering child.  The whole sequence is sort of a lesson to kids, be a good kid or become a jackass, and perhaps there’s an element of propaganda or audience manipulation in place.  It works with the film though.  The film is not so scary that kids shouldn’t watch it, just maybe more at the seven or eight year old mark as opposed to three or four.

Is this Walt’s best? I sure think so.

The film’s pay-off is certainly rewarding following the scarier scenes and the fantastic escape from Monstro.  It’s conclusion is joyous and sweet and may even leave you with a misty eye or two.  It’s a fitting end for such an incredible picture.  If you become too engrossed with the plot to really take notice of the animation splendors before you, the Blu Ray includes an hour-long documentary on the making of Pinocchio that’s quite informative.  The scope of this film is just breath-taking and there’s no doubt in my mind that this is Disney’s ultimate high point.  It’s a perfect marriage of amazing technical feats with a delightful narrative.  There’s no superlative that can do it justice.  It’s a title truly deserving of the “classic” label.

I’ve acquired quite a few Disney films over the years and some of the collections of animated shorts.  I’ll probably turn to them for posts from time to time so expect more Disney themed posts in the months to come.


What to Make of E3 2012?

If you’re even remotely into video games then you know that every June the Electronic Entertainment Expo (better known as E3) takes place in LA and all of the major players in the video game world unveil to the public what they have in store for the masses.  Often times E3 is the first chance for gamers to get a look at the next big “thing” from the major developers, be that thing a new console or the return of a beloved franchise.  This year’s E3 promised to reveal more about Nintendo’s next machine, the Wii U, and the public figured to get its first look at the latest in long-running franchises like Halo and Super Mario Bros.  As for surprises, well it was entirely possible, though not likely, we’d get some info on the successors to the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 and maybe a new 3DS.  Now that E3 2012 is in the books, what did I think of it?  I’m glad you asked!

Microsoft/Sony

I’m lumping these two together for reasons that will be obvious once I’m done.  Both console publishers weren’t expected to unveil new hardware at E3 and instead would aim to boost their current market share.  Microsoft, predictably, threw a bunch of Kinect stuff at the attendees since that’s presently making them a boatload of money even if the “hardcore” gaming community couldn’t care less about it.  There was Halo 4 though, which was the game most Xbox fans were interested in.  As the first Halo not developed by Bungie, there is some uncertainty surrounding it but it seems like most were satisfied.  Beyond that it was mostly third party games that were spotlighted and some kind of fancy touch-screen junk.  Ho-hum.

Sony was expected to tout the Vita to PS3 connectivity in hopes of boosting the Vita’s severely lacking sales.  Sony’s presentation ended up looking like a business meeting at times and was a total snooze-fest.  They did talk up the connectivity of the Vita and PS3, but really didn’t get behind the Vita like I thought they would.  Like Microsoft, the emphasis was on third-party releases but Sony did flash some new exclusives such as The Last of Us and the latest from Heavy Rain developer, Quantic Dream; a new title similar to Heavy Rain called Beyond:  Two Souls.  I was surprised at how shitty 2012 looks for the Vita as the best titles coming to the handheld are PS3 ports like Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time and Guacamelee, making me feel less secure in my purchase.

Studio Ghibli is being used to help develop a game? You bet I want in on that!

If you can’t tell, I was pretty unimpressed with the offerings Sony and Microsoft made.  The game that excited me most on their machines was probably Ni No Kuni, the Level 5 and Studio Ghibli collaboration for the PS3 that’s already out in Japan.  I already knew enough about that title though, so it wasn’t like E3 was some big unveiling for it.  Plus it’s a JRPG which doesn’t attract much attention these days.  There was really nothing from Square-Enix, which surprised me, other than their produced revival of Tomb Raider which got a lot of people talking (IGN gave it the title of best game of E3), but I just can’t get excited about a Tomb Raider game.  Microsoft and Sony essentially punted on E3, and with next year’s E3 expected to showcase their new machines, I suppose it’s understandable.

Nintendo

Nintendo had the most to gain with E3 2012 so I expected the Big N to pull out the big guns.  After all, E3 marked the best opportunity for the company to sell the public on its latest console the Wii U, while also pumping up the money-printer known as the 3DS.

Before I get to the Wii U, let’s look at the 3DS.  Interestingly, around this time last year the handheld was floundering and Nintendo was already contemplating a price cut which it would eventually implement.  That price reduction, along with some better software, propelled the 3DS to the top of the sales charts.  Nintendo may be losing money on each unit sold right now, but it’s better than having them sit on the store shelves.  It was thought that Nintendo would show off a 3DS Lite, or as media reports before the show appeared to leak, a 3DS XL which would basically combine the existing hardware with the Circle Pad Pro attachment.  These reports proved erroneous, for now anyways, as Nintendo did not have a new 3DS to show off.  This probably has a lot to do with the current model both selling well and at a loss.  Why sink more R&D into it now?  Nintendo will likely wait for sales to slow down before unveiling a new SKU.

Ghost-busting, Luigi style.

As for the games, well the 3DS didn’t show off much new, and instead finally gave the public a glimpse into games it had already announced but had yet to really show off.  These games included both a new entry in the Paper Mario franchise and a sequel to the decade-old Luigi’s Mansion.  Both were on display at E3 this year and both pretty much delivered what I think most gamers were expecting.  Neither one appears to break the mold much, and Paper Mario:  Sticker Star has some weird sticker gimmick that I’m not sure I like, but gameplay-wise both titles appear solid.  Luigi’s Mansion:  Dark Moon is perhaps slightly more interesting just because it’s a franchise Nintendo has yet to exploit.  The first game, released as a Gamecube launch title, was a solid enough title but one that felt like it needed a sequel to fully realize its potential.  It’s surprising a sequel has taken this long and hopefully it’s a more complete game this time out.

I hope you like coins…

The big, new, title for the 3DS announced just before E3 is New Super Mario Bros. 2.  New Super Mario Bros. is one of the DS’s all-time best sellers, while New Super Mario Bros. Wii is one of the all-time best sellers period, so it’s no surprise the game is returning in 2012.  NSMB2 looks to be more of the same.  Nintendo is bringing back the leaf power-up, much as it did with Super Mario 3D Land, though this time it’s function is identical to it’s original powers in Super Mario Bros. 3, complete with P Meter and all.  It’s also incorporating the Wii version’s simultaneous play, as two players can play as Mario and Luigi at the same time, which sounds like more fun than it looks.  This edition also places emphasis on coin collecting (one of the new power-ups, a gold fire flower, lets Mario turn pretty much everything into coins) with the goal being to collect a million over the course of the game.  It’s unclear if that’s some sort of requirement or just a challenge, but it’s not something that has me excited at all.  Coin collecting, and collecting things in general in platformers, is mundane.  I don’t mind a few hidden items, like the star coins, which are usually some-what challenging to get, but just grabbing coins is often an after-thought.  The games are so easy that the player doesn’t really have to go out of their way to get coins and yet will still end up with over 100 lives.  I’ve recently been playing a lot of the Super Nintendo classic Super Mario World and I wish Nintendo would look to that title for inspiration.  The challenge in that game was finding numerous secret exits and extra levels which was far more gratifying than coin collecting.  NSMB2 does at least return the Koopalings, something I wish had been included in Super Mario 3D Land, so that’s a plus.

It also wasn’t enough to have just one new entry in the New Super Mario Bros. franchise as Nintendo also showed off New Super Mario Bros. U, the lead title for the new Wii U console.  It’s basically what you would expect, though Nintendo hopes to high-light the Wii U’s new controller.  By doing so, the Wii U game uses the Wii remotes for general play, but one person can use the new controller to add items to the levels, kind of like a Dungeon Master or something.  The game will have co-op play and will have a different set of levels than the 3DS game plus Yoshi and a new suit; the flying squirrel.

Mario’s new suit: The Flying Squirrel. At least it makes more sense than the raccoon tail.

That little segue brings me to the Wii U and why I really couldn’t care less at this point.  If you weren’t aware, the Wii U’s main selling point is this new controller.  It’s basically like a DS only with one screen and two analog sticks.  The touchscreen on it will be used differently for each game.  In ZombiU, it’s used to display little puzzles like key-code readers for doors and it’s designed to get the player to look away from the screen while hoards of zombies are descending upon the player to enhance the excitement.  In Batman: Arkham City, it just displays Batman’s gadgets and instead of selecting them with a touch of a button you use the touchscreen.  It’s also used to steer his remote bat-a-rang and control his de-encoder device.  A new title called Nintendo Land figures to show off other uses for the controller (the game is basically the Wii U’s version of Wii Sports, though marketed better by using Nintendo characters) but Nintendo hasn’t committed to it as a pack-in title, which would be a huge mistake, in my opinion.

If the uses for the controller do not wet your appetite, then I’m afraid there isn’t much going for the Wii U.  For me, it just doesn’t sound all that interesting.  It’s basically taking the DS experience to the home console.  And it’s being reported a single charge will only get you about 2 and a half hours of gameplay out of the controller which will make owning two a necessity for anyone looking to game for that length of time.  Also hurting it is the fact that some titles, like Arkham City and Mass Effect 3, will have been available for quite some time on other consoles by the time they’re released.  Do the additions to Arkham City make you want to buy it again?  I think for most the answer will be “no.”  And it’s also being reported that the Wii U may not even be as powerful as the 360 and PS3.  All of this tells me that Nintendo needs to get its big franchises onto this thing fast if it expects to move a bunch of units, because I don’t see any system sellers for it right now.

Wreck-It Ralph

I love this concept, hopefully it’s utilized well.

Have you heard about this one?  E3 isn’t known for movie reveals, but there’s also never been a movie like Wreck-It Ralph.  Best described as video game’s Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Wreck-It Ralph is an animated feature from Disney that’s like a love letter to gaming.  The main character (voiced by John C. Reilly), is the antagonist in a Donkey Kong-like game who is sick of being the bad guy.  The trailer features a visually amusing gag of Ralph sitting in a therapy session with some of gaming’s biggest villains including Bowser and M. Bison.  The CG-animated film is directed by Rich Moore who was the lead director on the first several seasons of Futurama which certainly bodes well for the film.  I love the concept, but honestly found the trailer underwhelming.  The jokes just weren’t very funny, but I’ll refrain from passing judgement until I actually see it.  The film is currently set for a November release.

All in all, I think E3 2012 was one of the least interesting E3’s in recent memory.  Perhaps if Nintendo had yet to unveil the Wii U it would have been more exciting, but we already saw this thing in action a year ago and this year it was all about the launch-window software, which really didn’t impress.  Nintendo also didn’t unveil any pricing, which has me concerned, as I’m sure the company doesn’t want to sell this thing at a loss like it currently is doing for the 3DS.  I’m expecting a bare-bones release, as in one controller and no pack-in games, for around $300.  Any higher and Nintendo is crazy.

And if Nintendo failed to seize the moment, Microsoft and Sony weren’t willing to steal the spotlight.  Neither company really unveiled anything new and preferred to rest on its laurels.  Sure this year’s E3 was the public’s first look at Halo 4 and The Last of Us, but I think we all have a reasonable expectation of what they’ll play like.  There were no new games shown that have me excited, and the most interesting for me was Beyond:  Two Souls but that one is still a long way off.  2012 started off with a bang, but the fall looks to be easier on the wallet, I’ll leave you to decide if that’s a good thing or not.