voicetalentbrendan - Tumblr blog

voicetalentbrendan · 5 hours

Text

It just randomly came to mind, because that's what my brain does.

I've been thinking about the twitter outrage towards INSIDE OUT 2 director Kelsey Mann stating that he and the filmmakers dropped the characters Guilt and Shame from the movie. Mann stated he felt what they were trying to do with that version of the story wasn't "fun", it was "too heavy", and it made it a kind of movie that you wouldn't want to watch again.

“I don’t want to make that movie. I want to make a movie that’s really meaningful and when you’re asked, ‘Do you want to see that movie again?’ You say, ‘Yes!’ Because those are my favorite movies. And those are the kinds of movies I want to make. And I did not want to return to that movie with that character. It’s not that funny.”

... While being as vague as possible, because this is an interview for a movie that isn't even completed nor out yet. I'm excited for the movie and I'm sure there's WAY more to Mann's comments than meets the eye, ditto the actual movie itself. Because I'm not gonna jump the gun and assume he or everyone at Pixar are a bunch of chickens trying to undermine their own strengths.

I sometimes like to imagine Twitter being a thing years and years ago...

Animated movies lose stuff all the time when being developed. Stuff that you see in the special features sections of DVDs, in the "Art Of" books, hear about in interviews, etc.... Stuff that sounds cool or stuff that you think "They should've kept that!"

Let's try one, huh?

Social media... Mid-1965. At the news of Walt Disney throwing out veteran story man Bill Peet's moodier, darker version of THE JUNGLE BOOK, the studio now moving forward with a more lighthearted, jazzy musical road trip-like approach...

"Betrayal! What has Disney come to! Have you seen THE SWORD IN THE STONE? Remember how they laid off all those animators and the whole Ink & Paint Department after SLEEPING BEAUTY flopped! They've all gone soft, I tell ya! This is going to be a DISASTER!"

THE JUNGLE BOOK was one of the highest-grossing films of 1967, a massive hit abroad, and recognized as one of the iconic Disney animated films. Would I love to travel to an alternate universe where Walt okayed Bill Peet's original take on the material? Absolutely, that movie sounded really, really cool! But I love the finished film so much, it's the reason I love animation and it's the reason why I even do what I do.

That's just one example... Could you imagine the collective moaning over the versions of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, ALADDIN, and THE LION KING that got thrown out? BEAUTY AND THE BEAST originally was supposed to be more like the 1946 adaptation directed by Jean Cocteau, ALADDIN was going to be more in the vein of a '30s Cab Calloway sort-of musical, and THE LION KING was aiming to be a straight-up animated National Geographic documentary with a lot of silence and lyrical storytelling. Jeffrey Katzenberg and other then-Disney execs razored into those versions and trashed them...

I'm sure there were a select few who noticed back then, but I digress.

Or how about a sequel, for that matter? THE RESCUERS sequel was originally supposed to be like a James Bond movie, complete with a Bond-esque mouse who accompanies Bernard and Miss Bianca on a mission involving the Soviet Union! But a little movie called CROCODILE DUNDEE happened, and there was a brief sort-of Aussie rage going on in America... So, those executives told the filmmakers to chuck the Bond-style RESCUERS 2, and have it be set in the land down under... Thus it became THE RESCUERS DOWN UNDER.

I love that film, and it's a fan favorite of many... But that Bond-style movie also sounded really, really cool! Social media in 1988 or whatever would've been like "What??? They threw out that awesome-sounding movie so they can chase CROCODILE DUNDEE??? That movie will be irrelevant in a few years!"

But it happened...

The epic KINGDOM OF THE SUN becoming the goofy THE EMPEROR'S NEW GROOVE, oh yeah that wouldn't be greeted too kindly. I'll throw in a Pixar example, too: Social media would've probably salivated over the "Black Friday" version of TOY STORY.

I thought I'd just make the comparison, lol.

2 notes · View notes

voicetalentbrendan · 8 hours

Text

I love to laugh.

DreamWorks revealed what their 9/26/2025 movie is...

It's a movie based on the show GABBY'S DOLLHOUSE, which is - of course - a DreamWorks TV Animation production. So basically, SPIRIT UNTAMED Redux...

I was predicting the seemingly long-gestating RONAN BOYLE from director Fergal Reilly, based on the fantasy book series by Thomas Lennon, was after THE WILD ROBOT as the next DreamWorks not-sequel movie. Then again, this fella predicted it would be this autumn's DreamWorks movie as well. It was announced some time ago, had a director and writer locked... Where is this movie? Has it been cancelled? WILD ROBOT and this project have been announced well after it and are coming out, RONAN BOYLE hasn't been talked about since its initial announcement back in... September of 2020...

So yeah... DreamWorks Animation occasionally doing the TV show-to-movie thing. And releasing them as mainline "DreamWorks Animation" movies, and not under a different banner.

This isn't really a thing the other houses do or have done.

Yeeeeears back, Disney formed Disney Movie Toons Studios to make feature films based on Walt Disney Television Animation's then-hit shows. The first of which was DUCKTALES: THE MOVIE - TREASURE OF THE LOST LAMP, released in summer 1990... To less than stellar box office results, but it probably lived a great second life on home video. That film was largely produced at a French unit that Disney used to have. This was followed by A GOOFY MOVIE in 1995, based on the show GOOF TROOP. That too was largely animated at the French studio, as well as their Australian unit with contributions from the mainline Burbank building. It never counted as part of the Disney Animation "canon", however. And following former chairman (and future DreamWorks founder) Jeffrey Katzenberg's departure in fall 1994, A GOOFY MOVIE was kind of just brushed off. While it did okay at the box office, it was no blockbuster, and would later become a cult smash. Movie Toons eventually became Disneytoon Studios, and their future was making direct-to-video sequels to classic Disney animated films with an occasional outlier, such as the THREE MUSKETEERS movie with Mickey and the gang.

Whereas DreamWorks? Both this movie and 2021's SPIRIT UNTAMED - whose TV series was based on a DreamWorks Animation film anyways - were under the mainline DreamWorks Animation banner, and are theatrical pictures.

I'm sure this news is going over well with certain folks, lol. Weird-ass adults who think every DreamWorks movie absolutely *has* to be the sword-wielding cat adventure...

I just find it fascinating myself, because this isn't usually a thing American animation powerhouses do. Disney made it very clear what was part of the major animated movies "canon" and what wasn't, as if an animated movie continuation of an animated TV series was somehow less than? (Fittingly, A GOOFY MOVIE is held up in high esteem by some, even above many of the mainline WDAS-made movies. It was given a rather mixed reception upon its original release.)

But also, Pixar, Illumination, etc. don't really have TV animation divisions per se. Sometimes a film spawns a series that's made elsewhere, such as HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA, but that's about it. Sony Animation did do that AGENT KING show and YOUNG LOVE recently, so they do some TV animation stuff alongside the heavies - it's all under "Sony Pictures Animation" anyhow. With Disney, their TV animation division is separate, ditto DreamWorks.

No Disney TV Animation show since the 2000s got the theatrical movie treatment, the last one in question was TEACHER'S PET in 2004. Those were straight up Disney Television Animation productions, not Disneytoon. DreamWorks is a lot more fluid, as we recently saw what was essentially a pilot film for a MEGAMIND TV series debut exclusively on streaming, while SPIRIT UNTAMED and GABBY'S DOLLHOUSE got full-on DreamWorks movie treatment. It's a little weird, yeah, but it's how they've been rolling.

I'd imagine, like SPIRIT UNTAMED, this will be animated elsewhere. Not Sony Imageworks, probably a Mikros or a Jellyfish-type studio. It's a preschool show, so I'd imagine DreamWorks isn't going to want to sink too too much into this.

Anyways, the mystery's over. I'm still wondering what's going on with RONAN BOYLE. 2025 now houses, for DreamWorks, a non-sequel (DOG MAN), a sequel (THE BAD GUYS 2), and a TV series adaptation (GABBY'S DOLLHOUSE)... Doesn't affect me either way, I'm not the audience for GABBY'S DOLLHOUSE lol.

2026 is all but confirmed to be the year of SHREK 5, now it's the original in question that I'm curious about.

4 notes · View notes

voicetalentbrendan · 2 days

Text

Another game of chicken commences...

Paramount's all-animated TRANSFORMERS movie TRANSFORMERS ONE, now that its trailer is out, is set to open a week later than planned... September 20th... The same day as DreamWorks' THE WILD ROBOT...

Will someone blink? Or will both distributors commit to this and make for a Bluth-Disney style bot battle? Like LAND BEFORE TIME and OLIVER & CO., ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN and THE LITTLE MERMAID?

That remains to be seen. If one moves, I suspect it'll be THE WILD ROBOT. Probably ahead a few paces to early September to get some ground, or maybe to October where it'll largely have the month to itself. Either way, one's based on a book series, the other a biiiig franchise that has already seen multiple movies and TV shows over the course of five decades.

Elsewhere in Paramount's animation schedule, the new AVATAR: THE LAST AIRBENDER animated feature vacated October 2025 and went to January 20, 2026. Perhaps it was to leave 2025 with two Paramount animated movies, SMURFS and SEARCH FOR SQUAREPANTS. AANG now shares 2026 with a third PAW PATROL movie and a MUTANT MAYHEM sequel, and possibly the second animated A:TLA movie. I'd imagine there's some more movement on their slate thereafter.

As for the trailer itself? The movie looks fun! Definitely a lot looser-looking than the live-action movies' hyper-detailed CGI counterparts. Heck, the faces kind of remind me of Carl the robot from MEET THE ROBINSONS... but I like how Cybertron is realized here, and the sorta workplace comedy dynamic with the Autobots. They're younger, much like the turtles are in MUTANT MAYHEM, so there seems to be that kind of energy in the script. Before they became who they are, and how different they are as younger robots. I'm curious to see how the film, or the trilogy that it's supposed to start should it do well, evolves these young Transformers and how Optimus and Megatron have their falling out. I wonder if it's going to be a thing in this film, or something in one of the sequels.

Either way, this seems like it'll be a cool ride.

5 notes · View notes

voicetalentbrendan · 3 days

Text

6K notes · View notes

voicetalentbrendan · 3 days

Text

I just learned last night that Jeffrey Katzenberg has been pushing/promoting the use of generative ai in filmmaking and it’s just so comically on the nose for him to do that because he is the exact kind of artistically illiterate, capitalist goob who would do that, and is also the most damning example of its supporters lol

9 notes · View notes

voicetalentbrendan · 3 days

Text

The world's first feature length film?

Okay, I know Wikipedia is more useful as a starting point for further research than an end in and of itself, but lately, the errors I've been catching on it in regards to film stuff are... annoying.

First, when I was doing research for my No Bail for the Judge post, scholar Frederick Gustafsson pointed out that Wikipedia doesn't even have Sean Hepburn Ferrer's correct birthday.

Then, when I was looking up some info on the 1931 Norma Shearer film Strangers May Kiss last night, the Wikipedia page on the movie claims the director George Fitzmaurice was uncredited.... even though the opening title card calls the film "A George Fitzmaurice Production."

And now we have its list of animated feature films made before 1940. Now, I've been on this page a few times, mainly when looking up pre-Snow White titles. However, I noticed something different recently, something I don't recall being there:

For a long time, I've read El Apostol from 1917 was the first animated feature film. Though lost, we do have accounts of its production, some images of character designs, ads from its release, and reviews. However, now we have it being supplanted by a 1916 film called Creation. And directed by Pinto Colvig, no less! (For those unaware of who he is, he's best remembered as the original voice of Goofy and the voice of Grumpy in Snow White.)

So I'm intrigued, as in all my years of reading about animation, I have never heard of this film. I go on the Internet Archive to look up any mentions of this film from movie magazines and publications of the time.

Nothing pops up.

There's no mention of it on the Silent Era website database.

There's no mention of it in the AFI Catalog.

It has an IMDB page, but the information on there is basically nil beyond a few surviving frames and a document by Colvig himself from the mid-60s claiming the film was the first animated feature and naming the three animators who worked on it, including Colvig. But that's all it is-- a claim. See below:

So where is this thing mentioned? The Southern Oregon Historical Society mentions it in their article on Colvig. It says the film is "claimed to be the world's first feature-length cartoon."

Okay... but they never say who claims this. Colvig? His animators? Trade publications of the period? Historians? Who?

They never mention how many reels this thing ran for, which would give credence to the claims of its feature status.

Five frames still exist and are apparently housed at the archives of the Southern Oregon Historical Society. So there was indeed an animated film called Creation-- perhaps a work in progress that was never finished? However, I see no evidence that this work was a feature length movie or that it was ever released to the public in any capacity.

12 notes · View notes

voicetalentbrendan · 3 days

Text

I just realized something... Is DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE the first R-rated Disney film to be released as... A Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures movie?

And NOT as a... 20th Century Studios, Searchlight, Touchstone, or Hollywood release?

Marvel Studios movies never open with a Disney Pictures logo, nor does such a logo appear in trailers/promo materials for those movies. The only mention of Disney as the movie's distributor, ever, is in the credits. Particularly the title card saying "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures". You know, when the movies aren't making references to Disney movies/theme parks. (i.e. "I'm Mary Poppins, y'all!")

THE AVENGERS and IRON MAN 3 were the first Disney-distributed Marvel movies, both of which opened with Paramount and Marvel Studios logos per a contractual agreement. Paramount had been distributing the MCU movies - sans 2008's THE INCREDIBLE HULK - up until the switchover. Disney bought Marvel in 2009, and distribution was out of Paramount's hands shortly thereafter, but for whatever reason, they retained their logo on those two films specifically. I guess this was because AVENGERS and IRON MAN 3 were already in development before the Disney buyout, IRON MAN 2 was already being filmed with a third one expected. THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER had yet to be released. They both debuted in mid-2011, and sequels weren't announced until after they came out. A second THOR and a second CAPTAIN AMERICA movie were Disney greenlights. Starting with THOR's sequel - THOR: THE DARK WORLD - in fall 2013, the movies would open with the Marvel Studios logo only.

That'll likely be the case with DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE, though I wouldn't put it past the movie to - in an irreverent sense - have a Disney castle logo at the beginning. Deadpool narrating "Yeah, this is Disney and it's rated R! Buckle up, kids!" They already made similar jokes in that recently-released trailer.

It's really weird to think that Disney can't do R-rated "Disney" movies.

Other studios/companies don't have that problem. Universal, Warner Bros., Paramount, etc. It's all part of the collection for them. With Universal, the Minions can co-exist with Michael Myers. In Paramount-land, Dora the Explorer can share the space with Ghostface. For Disney, it was always through alternate names like Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures, or through whole-ass studios like 20th Century Studios, Searchlight, and Miramax.

Nowadays, Hulu is essentially merged with Disney+, and Disney+ houses plenty of R-rated things. That is, of course, if you are using an adult profile. But even in the theme parks, like for example - The Great Movie Ride, that had a whole section devoted to ALIEN. And that was before Disney bought 20th Century Studios and the ALIEN franchise. And Disney films have referenced R-rated things, before. It's kinda weird, really... Disney... A person's SURNAME, associated with strictly family-friendly stuff.

After Disney created the Touchstone Pictures banner in 1984, it seemed unlikely that they would ever do a PG-13 movie. They stuck with G and PG, and some of those PG movies had a special Walt Disney Pictures logo at the start of them, too. A black background with blue serif text... No castle. But then lo and behold, in 2003, they released PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL... Since then, not counting Marvel and Star Wars movies, they've released 14 more - many of which being PIRATES sequels or theme park adaptations - in addition to a filmed HAMILTON performance on Disney+.

So... It kinda begs the question... Could Disney possibly just go all-in for the first time... and release an R-rated movie?

The MPAA rating system was created in 1968. Disney in 1968 were already concerned with being family-friendly. Proudly so. That shift began to take place back when Disneyland was opening in the mid-1950s, when Walt Disney was transforming the enterprise's image. What was once the trailblazing, sometimes edgy studio was now a family entertainment company. A show on TV every Sunday, a theme park for kids of all ages, and movies that played to mothers. (To Walt's estimation: Mothers took their families to movies, and also told their friends, and their friends told their friends-) It was to the point where Walt himself was frustrated. When he had seen TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, he stated he wished he could've overseen a movie like that...

So, Disney stayed in the family-friendly corner after Walt's passing in 1966 and after the creation of the rating system two years later. The 1970s was a period of auteur-driven films, challenging pictures that upended the status quo, brought heavy topics and themes to the table, shocked audiences even... Disney was mostly making movies like THE BAREFOOT EXECUTIVE and GUS. All G-rated affairs, and following tried and true formulas. Interestingly, when preparing the 1950 classic TREASURE ISLAND for re-release in 1975, Disney weren't too pleased when the picture received a PG rating for its violence... So, they recut it to get a G rating. That's how it ran in 1975 in theaters, and interestingly that was the only version that was available on video until 1992.

It took Disney over a decade to make a PG movie of their own (THE BLACK HOLE in 1979, not counting their distribution of the independent movie TAKE DOWN earlier that year), back when the rating actually meant what it meant. After being launched in 1984, Touchstone was largely meant for PG-13 and R-rated affairs, with the occasional PG movie here and there. For every SPLASH and DICK TRACY, there was a BLACK CAULDRON or HONEY I SHRUNK THE KIDS. So it was kinda on-and-off there, it depended on the content and tone of the movies, I suppose.

Then it took Disney 19 years to make a PG-13 "Disney movie"...

I guess for an R-rated "Disney movie" to work... Tweak the Disney logo so that it doesn't appear all family-friendly in that distinctive font? Don't have the logo appear anywhere on promo materials? Come up with a Touchstone-esque name for Disney movies that get the R-rating? What the hell would you call that anyways, haha. Can it even be feasibly done without unsuspecting parents taking their kids to see it?

If it ever happens, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

9 notes · View notes

voicetalentbrendan · 3 days

Text