Ghostbusters (An Imperfect But Solid Blend of Comedy and Special Effects) (Part 1)

In the summer of 1984, Ghostbusters became a cultural phenomenon. With an estimated budget between $25-$30 million, it grossed $285 million, making one of the most successful comedies of all time. Critics praised the film for its unique mix of comedy and special effects, and Bill Murray's performance was often singled out for high praise. Ghostbusters has since become one of the most popular franchises in Hollywood history. But the movie almost never got made, and almost didn't get made the way it did.

Origins, Inspiration, and Development

Ghostbusters was the brainchild of Dan Aykroyd. Apart from being one of the early members of Saturday Night Live, he also has a huge fascination with the paranormal, which he had inherited from his family. In 1981, he read an article on quantum physics, which gave him the idea of a comedy about trapping ghosts, taking inspiration from the likes of Abbot and Costello, Bob Hope, and The Bowery Boys. 

The film was originally conceived as another star vehicle for Aykroyd and his best friend John Belushi (along with Eddie Murphy) and was originally set in the future, but when Aykroyd was working on the screenplay, Belushi died of a drug overdose in March 1982. 

RIP Ivan Reitman (1946-2022)

Shortly after Belushi's death, Akroyd chose Ivan Reitman to direct the film, who co-produced Animal House and directed Meatballs and Stripes with Bill Murray. Reitman felt that Akroyd's original concept was too costly and impossible to make, so he decided to set the movie in New York City at the present day (early 80's), and decided to establish an origin story of the Ghostbusters going into business. 

In March 1983, Reitman pitched the project to Frank Price, then an executive at Columbia Pictures, hoping that it could be made with a $25-$30 million budget. Price agreed to greenlight the film, but with one condition, it must be ready by June 1984. That's 13 months before they settled on a finished script, an effects studio, and even a filming start date, so Ghostbusters was a somewhat rushed production.

Casting

One of the reasons the movie works so well is the individual personalities of the Ghostbusters and their interactions with one another. 

Bill Murray plays Peter Venkman, the mouth of the Ghostbusters and the scene stealer. Murray reportedly made a two-picture deal with Columbia to star in Ghostbusters on the condition that he should do his passion project first, an adaptation of W. Somerest Maugham's 1944 novel, The Razor's Edge. Ironically, Ghostbusters made him a superstar and The Razor's Edge didn't.

Dan Aykroyd plays Ray Stanz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. His childlike enthusiasm further elevates and enhances the comedy. 

Harold Ramis, who sadly passed away in 2014, plays Egon Spengler, the brains of the Ghostbusters. Though there are funny moments when Egon loves to snack, Ramis plays the character somewhat straight and acts calm most of the time. 

Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis are very good friends and worked together on other projects, so it's a wise choice to give them individual personalities.

For the supporting cast, we have Ernie Hudson as Winston Zeddemore, a new recruit for the Ghostbusters in the last half of the movie. Originally, Winston's role in the story was much larger, as he was originally established as an Air Force demolitions expert with an elaborate backstory. But due to the short production schedule, much of his character was greatly reduced.

  

Sigourney Weaver plays the role of Dana Barret, the Ghostbusters' first client and Venkman's love interest. Weaver was known for playing serious roles such as Alien and The Year of Living Dangerously, and she expressed interests in doing comedic roles. It was her idea that Dana would be possessed by a supernatural creature, so she acted like a dog during her audition and got the job immediately.

Rick Moranis plays Louis Tully, a nerdy accountant who seemingly has a crush on his neighbor, Dana Barret. The role was originally offered to John Candy, but he turned it down because he felt that he didn't understand the character. Moranis replaced Candy, and implemented his own ideas for the character, including his job as an accountant.

Annie Potts plays Janine Melnitz, a secretary at Ghostbusters headquarters. My personal favorite scene from her is when she gets frustrated with constant phone calls from clients ("GHOSTBUSTERS! WHAT DO YOU WANT?).

And last but not least, we have William Atherton as the jerk EPA agent Walter Peck. Since Ghostbusters, he's been typecast into playing jerks in such titles as Real Genius and Die Hard.

Filming and Special Effects

Principal photography began on October 1983 and ended in January 1984, taking place on location in New York City (where the film was set) and Los Angeles for the remainder of the shoot. 

During filming, a legal conflict ensued that the name "Ghostbusters" had already been used for a children's television show developed by Filmation, which was owned by Universal Studios. So they used alternate titles such as "Ghostsmashers", "Ghostbreakers" and "Ghoststoppers". Thankfully, the legal conflict was resolved when Frank Price moved to Universal and sold the title to Columbia for $500,000 plus 1% of the film's profits. 

After the success of Star Wars, Industrial Light and Magic became to go-to special effects warehouse, but ILM turned down Ghostbusters because they were busy with other projects, namely Star Trek III and Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom. But luckily, ILM veteran Richard Edlund left the company to start his own effects house, Boss Film Studios. 

They used every effects in the book, such as traditional animation, animatronics, stop motion puppets, blue screen photography, and monster costumes. Due to the tight production schedule, many of the effects shots were done in only one take, which is why the effects are somewhat uneven in the finished product. I'll explain more about the special effects in part 2.

Test Screening and Music

With its tight summer 1984 deadline just around the corner, the movie was screened for test audiences that February, with unfinished special effects shots to determine if the comedy worked. It was a positive response. Audiences reacted to the Librarian Ghost and The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man with fear, laughter, and applause. It was that very test screening that convinced Reitman that the film was working.

Having worked with Reitman on Meatballs and Stripes, veteran Hollywood composer Elmer Bernstein agreed to score the film. Bernstein said in a 1985 interview that it was the most difficult score he has ever created, as it was a challenge to create a balance the comedic and serious tones. 

Musician Ray Parker Jr was hired to record the iconic theme song. According to the Netflix series The Movies That Made Us, Parker was struggling to write lyrics for the song. Then one night, he saw a commercial for a cheap local service. This inspired him to create the iconic lyric, "Who Ya Gonna Call?"

While the song was and still is very popular, there was some controversy when Huey Lewis accused Parker of plagiarizing his 1983 song "I Want A New Drug". This was settled out in court in 1985.

Release, Response, and Legacy

After 13 months of hell to get this film out, Ghostbusters met it's summer 1984 deadline to great success. It ranked number-one at the box office for seven weeks in its theatrical run and it became one of the most commercially successful comedies of all time.

Critics gave the film generally positive reviews, though some aspects were criticized. Many critics, especially Roger Ebert, were surprised with its successful blend of comedy and special effects, with Ebert pointing out that the special effects were in service to the actors and not the other way around. He even praised the dialogue.  

Others single handedly gave credit to Bill Murray for his performance, with some (Gene Siskel for example) even interpreting him as the film's main attraction.

The interactions with the Ghostbusters and the supporting characters were given mixed responses however. Some praised the chemistry between Aykroyd, Ramis, and Murray, while others felt that the supporting cast were given little to do (I'll address my responses to these criticisms in part 2). But these criticisms were drowned out by the overwhelmingly positive reviews. 

Since it's release, Ghostbusters has since became a huge phenomenon, and one of the most popular franchises in film history.

Stay tuned for part 2, in which I discuss how well Ghostbusters combines special effects and comedy regardless of its flaws. 

Raiders of the Lost Ark (The Kind Of Movie That Disney Should Have Been Making In The 70s And Early 80s) (Part 2) (SPOILERS)

 

WARNING: The following review might contain spoilers. Watch the movie before reading this review.

Hello and welcome to part 2 of my retrospective on Raiders of the Lost Ark. Previously, I talked about the film's production, now I address how George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were innovating with Raiders of the Lost Ark in a time when Disney was being creatively bankrupt after Walt's death. 

When it comes to discussing Raiders of the Lost Ark, it's not always easy to add further to what has already been said by countless critics and fans. Everyone knows how flawless this movie is. It's a masterpiece in terms of action, performances, direction, humor, special effects, and storytelling.

Everyone often addresses these aspects, but what's often overlooked by many (except the late film critic Richard Schickel of TIME Magazine), is that this is the kind of entertainment that Disney should have been making during this period. One of Spielberg's influences is Walt Disney, and his movies were more in line with the kind of entertainment that Walt used to make in his lifetime.

After Walt's death in 1966, Disney became a tight knit and conservative community, played things safe with family audiences rather than breaking new ground, and relied on older filmmakers. So the company was stagnating at the time and has given us some awful films such as The Apple Dumpling Gang, Midnight Madness, and Pete's Dragon.

The other studios on the other hand, focused on newer, younger, and more ambitious talent, and created more innovative material, which was lacking from the Disney films from that period. With George Lucas and Steven Spielberg pioneering the summer blockbusters, their movies have more energy and flair with their imagination and creativity.

What makes Indiana Jones one of the most memorable movie heroes is his genuine concern for history. He's not some egotistical, greedy explorer who goes off on adventures for his well being. He wants to collect ancient artifacts and to preserve them in the right conditions, so they will never be forgotten in the years to come. He's the complete opposite of his rival Belloq (Paul Freeman), who only interest in archeology is to plagiarize Jones' research for some fast cash.  

In addition to its beautifully executed action sequences and special effects, the movie employs a sense of humor throughout, but it's not done in a cheap slapstick way, like those crappy Disney comedies from the 70s. The humor is very subtle throughout, from the spiders crawling on Indy's sidekick at the beginning of the film, to Indy shooting a swordsman dead because he's too tired to deal with him. These moments don't jar with the film's tone at all and nicely complements the action scenes. 

The cast all give great performances, especially Harrison Ford. He broke the mold from just being known as Han Solo and further demonstrates his skills as an actor. I think Ford seems to enjoy playing Indy more than Han Solo. After all, he wanted Han to be killed off after Empire Strikes Back, but he didn't get his way, and he wasn't given much to do in Return of the Jedi. But with the Indiana Jones franchise, he's center stage while Han Solo is a supporting character, so some people, including myself, see Harrison Ford as Indy than Han Solo, despite being great in both roles.

With the capable hands of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, Raiders of the Lost Ark has all of the ingredients to make a rock solid summer blockbuster. This is what Lucas and Spielberg were masters of. Unlike what Disney was doing during this period, they have that special talent of knowing what audiences wanted to see. These two were on a roll, especially Spielberg, who snagged with his 1979 comedy 1941, which was a costly dud at the box office. Raiders gave Hollywood the confidence they needed with Spielberg, and he's been an active filmmaker and innovator ever since.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is worthy of all of the praise it gets. It stood the test of time and it's a masterpiece on all fronts. If you never saw it, check it out immediately. 

Raiders Of The Lost Ark (The Kind Of Movie That Disney Should Have Been Making In The 70's And Early 80's) (Part 1)

 

In the summer of 1981, Raiders of the Lost Ark arrived in theaters. With a budget of $20 million, it grossed $389 million. Critics and audiences alike embraced the film for it's action, sense of humor, it's unique take on classic serials, and Harrison Ford's iconic performance as Indiana Jones. Roger Ebert called the movie an "out of body experience, a movie of glorious imagination and breakneck speed that grabs you through a series of incredible adventures, and deposits you back in reality two hours later-breathless, dizzy, wrung-out, and with a silly grin on your face." It has spawned 3 sequels, video games, merchandise, and stunt shows at the Disney theme parks. Raiders of the Lost Ark has since been considered one of the best movies ever made, but it had a tough time getting on the screen.

Origins, Inspiration, and Development

George Lucas conceived Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1973, shortly after completing American Graffiti. Lucas, as we all know, grew up with classic serials on TV, such as Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, and studied subjects such as anthropology, literature, and sociology in college. He conceived an archeologist named Indiana Smith, named after his dog (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade even made an in joke about this at the end of that movie). He temporarily put Indiana Smith on hold to work on Star Wars, which had become the most successful film ever made at that time. 

Meanwhile, Lucas discussed the idea to his friend Phillip Kaufmann (pictured here) and Kauffmann suggested the idea of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covent of course is where the supposed fragments of the actual Ten Commandments are hidden, which would provide the conflict between Indiana Smith and the Nazis. Lucas wanted Kauffman to direct, but he was already committed to the Clint Eastwood vehicle, The Outlaw Josey Wales. 

After Star Wars have come out, Lucas and his friend Steven Spielberg were vacationing in Hawaii. Spielberg expressed his desire to direct a James Bond movie, but Lucas thought something better. He explained the Indiana Smith concept and Spielberg loved the idea. However, he didn't like the name Smith and suggested Jones. Lucas agreed with the name change.

Lucas now had to find a studio that is willing to fund the project for an estimated budget of $20 million. Every studio in Hollywood have turned it down, not only because of the budget, but also because Spielberg's previous films had fallen behind schedule and over budget. It also didn't help that Spielberg's 1979 comedy, 1941, was a critical and commercial disappointment. Thankfully, Paramount had green lit the project with the help of Michael Eisner (who would later revive Disney in 1984).

Having been impressed by the screenplay of the romantic comedy Continental Divide, Spielberg hired Lawrence Kasdan to write the screenplay for Raiders of the Lost Ark. Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan spent 3 days sketching out the plot and set pieces, and Kasdan would insert their ideas in the screenplay. Impressed with the wit and humor to the story, Lucas would later hire Kasdan to do The Empire Strikes Back.

The Casting of Indiana Jones

Lucas was initially reluctant to cast Harrison Ford, because, referring to Martin Scorsese, he didn't want Ford to be his Robert De Niro and cast him in everything he does. He wanted fresh talent such as Tim Matheson, Jeff Bridges, John Shea, and Tom Sellick (pictured on top). Sellick almost got the role, and he auditioned alongside Sean Young (who was considered for the role of Indy's girlfriend, Marion Ravenwood). But Sellick turned it down, because he was contractually obligated to do Magnum P.I. for CBS. Having seen Sellick in other films like Three Men and a Baby, In and Out, and An Innocent Man, it gives me insight that Sellick would be the wrong choice for Indiana Jones. 

Spielberg was impressed with Harrison Ford's performance in The Empire Strikes Back, and convinced Lucas to cast him. Ford agreed to the part, and it became one of Ford's most iconic roles in his career.

Filming and Special Effects

Principal photography commenced in June 1980 and concluded in September. With an estimated $20 million budget at hand, Spielberg did everything he could to stay on time and on budget. To date, this is the most storyboarded film of his career, with approximately 6,000 storyboard drawings from artists such as Michael Lloyd, and Joe Johnston. Spielberg also relied on pre-viz miniatures to set up and plan the action sequences carefully before they started shooting.

Filming took place in England for Elstree Studios, Hawaii for the opening sequence, and Tunisia was used to depict Egypt. To keep production costs down, Spielberg hired British talent, including cinematographer Douglas Slocombe, production designer Norman Reynolds, stuntman Vic Armstrong, and associate producer Robert Watts.

The shoot was a learning experience for Spielberg, as he managed to film the movie on schedule. However, that doesn't really mean that the shoot was free from problems. Filming in Tunisia was unbearable, since it was very hot and the crew got sick from food poisoning, although Spielberg remained healthy by eating canned goods. 

After the success of the Star Wars films, Industrial Light & Magic became one of Hollywood's most reliable special effects companies. Under the supervision from Richard Edlund, and made during the pre digital age, ILM employed techniques such as miniatures, stop motion, blue screen, rotoscoped animation, cloud tanks, and matte paintings. 

The film's climax is a masterstroke in special effects, but it also caused trouble with the MPAA. Because there was a shot of a head blowing up, the MPAA threatened the film for an R rating. Because Spielberg aimed for a PG rated film that audiences of all ages would see, a flame effect was added to conceal the violence, so the R rating was prevented, thankfully.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is ILM's first non-Star Wars project, as well as Spielberg's first collaboration with ILM, and they have been creating special effects since.

Music and Sound Design

John Williams has given us memorable film scores over the years, and Raiders proves that Williams' past contributions were no flukes. His intention was to create music that was theatrical and excessive. To establish Indy's heroic adventures, Williams created two separated pieces of music for Spielberg, who thankfully used both, and that's how we got the iconic "Raiders March".

Sound designer Ben Burrt was hired to create unique sound effects for Raiders of the Lost Ark, very much like he did for his groundbreaking work on Star Wars. The sounds of the snakes protecting the Ark was achieved by Burrt recording sounds of his fingers running through cheese and mixing it with sounds of a wet sponge dragged across a grid tape.  The iconic sound of the rolling boulder that opens the film is actually a Honda Civic driving down gravel hill. The sound of Indy's pistol is a Winchester rifle and the sound of the punches and kicks were the sounds of baseball gloves. 

Legacy and Lasting Impact

Raiders of the Lost Ark finally opened in June 1981 after a somewhat rocky development process and has since become one of the most iconic movies ever made. After the successes of Jaws, Star Wars, Close Encounters, and Superman, Raiders of the Lost Ark sent a signal to Hollywood that the big budget blockbusters are hear to stay.

Stay tuned for part 2, in which I will explain why Raiders of the Lost Ark is the kind of movie that Disney should have been making back in the 70s and early 80s. 

Pete Dragon (Disney's Pointless 1977 Live Action/Animated Musical)

 

In the 1977 holiday season, Walt Disney Productions released the live action/animated musical extravaganza, Pete's Dragon. It was expected to "win back the crowd" by becoming a Mary Poppins-sized blockbuster, but it backfired drastically and it was panned by most critics. 45 years later, many Disney fans have since expressed their disappointment with the movie. After Walt Disney's death in 1966, the studio's popularity was loosing its steam, as the company became creatively stagnant by playing it safe for family audiences. That's why many moviegoers turned to a new generation of filmmakers such as Stanley Kubrick, Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, and Steven Spielberg. The movie also arrived when the rise of the summer blockbusters was at its peak, starting off with Jaws and Star Wars, and continuing with Close Encounters, Superman, Alien, Indiana Jones, and ET. The big budget blockbusters were in, and Disney was in a slump at the time.

Origins and Development

The movie was based on an unpublished short story written by Seton I. Miller and S. S. Field. Walt Disney optioned the rights in the late 1950's, with the intention of turning it into a two-part episode on the Disneyland TV show. But plans were scrapped, leading the project into development hell. In 1975, producer Jerome Courtland rediscovered the project, hired Malcolm Marmorstein to write the screenplay, and revamped the project into a musical. British filmmaker Don Chaffey (Jason and the Argonauts) was hired to direct the film, mainly because of his past experiences with Disney. 

Special Effects

Much like Song of the South, Mary Poppins, and later with Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Pete's Dragon combined live action with animation. The dragon was designed by long time veteran Ken Anderson and animated by Don Bluth and his team (it's one of the last projects Bluth did before he left Disney in 1979). A process similar to today's blue/greenscreen processes were used to help combine the live action and animation. The animation of the dragon and the live action footage were filmed separately, then they use an optical printer to give the audience the illusion that this poor kid really was interacting with that dragon. I'm not a fan of the design of the dragon. He looked a bit too cutesy for me with his green skin, large stomach, and inexplicably pink hair. The live action/animation mix is okay, but it's really nowhere as convincing as it later will be with Who Framed Roger Rabbit 11 years later.

My Thoughts on the 2016 Remake

Before we get to my thoughts on the original film, I think it's best to discuss the remake first, because I actually liked this film better than the original. I watched this film with very low expectations because I don't like Disney live action remakes and I didn't like the original film. So watching this new version is actually a surprise. Watching this film actually reminded me on what Siskel and Ebert used to say about remakes. They often say "don't remake masterpieces, remake flawed films", and I think director David Lowrey succeeded on that level, even though it's not a perfect film. I felt that it was a much more rounded story than the original film and I felt that it has a much more interesting dragon. I'll go into more detail in a stand alone review in the future.

My Honest Thoughts and Conclusion

I think the reason why many people have forgotten about this film 45 years after this film have come out is that it has a very weak story, it barely has memorable songs, and the dragon itself is such a crushing bore. The movie never establishes how Pete discovered the dragon, where the dragon came from, and how they became friends. Instead, it throws you straight into the film with no real build up, as they escape from Pete's abusive adoptive family. When they arrive a small town named Passamaquoddy, the film turns into predictable slapstick territory until Pete finally gets adopted by a woman who lives at the town lighthouse with her father, while two quacks make desperate attempts to kill the dragon to sell their crappy medicine. So far, we have an overstuffed script, with several plot threads just lazily slapped on each other. The film also spares no expense providing cheap slapstick that has been recycled from past Disney comedies. 

The film has been discussed a lot by Disney aficionados online, and most expressed their frustrations and disappointment with the movie. But to be honest, there are some things I liked about it. British stage actor Jim Dale and comedian Red Buttons were highlights to me as the quacks. Their two songs when they arrived in town to con potential patients and their desire to kill the dragon for profit were the best songs in the movie in my opinion. And Mickey Rooney, who plays the owner of the town lighthouse, does the best with what he is given. They made the movie more bearable to watch. The location shooting of the lighthouse totally tricked me, because it looked like it was filmed in the East Coast, but it was filmed in California. You got to give them credit for that. The real downside to the visual components, apart from the design of the dragon,  is the setting of Passamaquoddy. Given the fact that it was shot in a studio, it really looked like a theme park attraction at the Disney Parks rather than a real town that could exist in the early 20th century.

The whole thing about the dragon speaking gibberish is really flawed from the get go, and it gets irritating for a while. Whoever came up with the idea for the dragon's language needs a good slap in the face. As for the overstuffed climax, director Don Chaffey clearly can't shoot action. When the dragon gets trapped by the town fishermen so the quacks can kill him, everything looks very average and old fashioned. It's very standard stuff. And the movie ends with a sappy and corny conclusion that the dragon has to share his goodbye to Pete, so he can help another kid.

Overall, Pete's Dragon is not a good movie. It came out in a time when the movies were changing (especially with the release of Star Wars and Close Encounters) and Disney was in a slump at the time. So it's a film that nobody wanted to see in the first place, and seemed very much like a quick cash grab to capitalize on any remaining Disney fans. It's a shame that the Disney empire played it safe in the 1970s. The studio made a fatal mistake to keep making the same kinds of movies after Walt's death, which is really silly because Walt loved to innovate and explore new ideas. I understand that they were struggling without him, but there's really no need to keep things the same. There are some enjoyable scenes in the film, but these moments don't come from the dragon. The quacks are far more interesting to watch. What else could I add? Despite the 2016 remake correcting its mistakes, it's a highly forgettable movie that really shouldn't have been made.

 

Why The Critics Were Wrong About TMNT 1990? (And What Does Superman 1978 Have In Common With TMNT 1990)

 

In March 30th, 1990, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles leaped way onto the big screen.  With the popularity of the comics, cartoon, and toys at hand, expectations from the fans were very high and it exceeded them, grossing $135 million. Despite it's financial success and high praise from fans of the franchise and fans of 80's/90's cinema, most critics gave the film generally negative reviews. They wrote it off as this juvenile, overly dark and violent movie for kids, and felt that The Turtles were unappealing. Watching Siskel and Ebert's reaction to the film, they were even dumbfounded that the movie did so well.

I think the critics really misunderstood the film. Not only did they ignored the film's qualities, but the film itself has a lot in common with Richard Donner's cinematic interpretation of Superman from 1978, which was ironically praised by critics 12 years earlier. Let's address the qualities of both movies one by one and analyze what both movies have in common.

Groundbreaking Aesthetics

The first thing about the 2 movies that comes to mind is the groundbreaking aesthetics and special effects. Obviously, both movies have different technological advancements in making Superman fly and the Ninja Turtles come to life, but what they both have in common is that the effects share some believability.

 

Let's begin with the effects of Superman and how they convinced audiences to believe that a man can fly. Hollywood has made adaptations of comic books before in the forms of film serials or TV shows. But a big budget Superman movie was a huge risk back in the late 70's, and they needed a lot of money and new technology for the effects to pay off. 

The film employs both old and new techniques. The effects include miniatures, matte paintings, and optical effects. But the most groundbreaking effect comes from an upgraded front projection process called the Zoptic process, which was invented by effects wizard Zoran Perisic. As explained in the above making of documentary, Zoran achieved this effects by synchronizing zoon lenses in both the projector and the camera to creative the illusion of Superman flying towards the camera. The best special effect however, is Christopher Reeve himself. Whenever he's on wires, or shot against blue or front projection screens, he shows some commitment, believability, and joy when the Man of Steel takes flight. The iconic final shot when Reeve smiles at the camera when flying in space really shows how much fun he has with the role. 

12 years after Richard Donner made the audience believe that Superman can fly, director Steve Barron and Jim Henson's Creature Shop wanted to achieve similar goals of having the audience accept that crime fighting turtles can exist in New York City. The result was to create animatronics that are so realistic and believable, you totally forget that these are actors in suits. The turtle costumes don't look like plastic or foam latex at all. They look like flesh and blood. And even the facial animation look more expressive and more mechanical. Pardon me if I sound a bit conservative, but this is the kind of approach that the newer live action films should be using, because CGI often dates more than miniatures and optical effects. With the 1990 film, they didn't need computer animation, both because the technology was in its infancy at the time, and also because they knew that the animatronics wouldn't date the movie. It actually makes the movie timeless and more realistic in its visuals. 

On a sad note, it would be the last project Jim Henson has worked on, as he sadly passed away 2 months after the film's release. 

How Did Directors Richard Donner and Steve Barron Bring Realism To Both Movies?

When Richard Donner was approached to direct Superman, one of his key goals was to bring some verisimilitude to the material. Rather than playing it safe, he gives the audience impression that although this is a fictional universe, it really needed to be a believable world. Steve Barron, who actually was a crew member on Superman, clearly wanted to share the same goal Donner did, but both directors achieve it in radically different ways.

To start off with Superman, Donner focuses on Superman's journey as a hero in 3 distinct styles. The first act focuses on Krypton and it's eventual destruction, as baby Kal-El travels to Earth in the early 1950's. The second act establishes Clark Kent's realization that he's from the planet Krypton and it was his duty to save mankind. And the third act has Superman fully realizing his potential as a hero. The 3 acts are basically 3 different movies in one. First, it begins as a science fiction film, then it continues as a 50's teen film with its warm and inviting atmosphere, then it ends as a serious, yet adventurous, human interest story about what it takes to be a hero, with some occasional moments of comedy. Donner takes Joseph Campbell's analysis of The Hero's Journey and wraps it up with a balanced tone, so it has all of the ingredients audiences would want from a Superman film.

Another contributing factor about the movie's success is Christopher Reeve's great performance as both Superman and Clark Kent. It's well known that there was a talent search, with A-list stars and athletes being considered for the role of Superman. But when Donner set his sights on Christopher Reeve, who was a Broadway actor, he knew he found his Superman and he was. Reeve really makes you believe that he's the character, and takes him very seriously. If Reeve wasn't cast, then the movie would have fallen apart.

Superman laid the groundwork for comic book movies over the past 40 years, but there are moments where they lost their staying power, because by the mid to late 80's, many comic book movies have either flopped or fell below expectations, especially the notorious Superman IV back in 1987. So making a live action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie was a huge risk, as their main goal was to focus on the Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird comics rather than the cartoon (though some elements of the cartoon were kept, such as the colored bandanas). But if you add the surprising success of Tim Burton's Batman in 1989 and the popularity of the cartoon, expectations from the fans were obviously high and the move exceeded them in a similar way that Superman did 12 years earlier.

The main difference is that Superman's qualities were well addressed on the spot by the critics back in 1978, they completely ignored what TMNT had to offer, and wrote it off with surface level critiques of it's violence. What the critics really didn't understand is that underneath the so-called "mindless" fight sequences, this is really a moral film about family. The film establishes the relationship between the Turtles and their mentor, Splinter as a strong family unit, especially the bonding moments between Splinter and Raphael, the angriest of the Turtles. Once Splinter is kidnapped by The Foot Clan, headed by a criminal mastermind called The Shredder, they are totally heartbroken and are desperate to find him. And when Splinter makes spiritual contact to the leader of the Turtles, Leonardo, they band together at a campfire to speak with him spiritually. 

Meanwhile, The Shredder has been exploiting teenagers by brainwashing them into thinking that the outside world rejects them, so they can join The Foot Clan and do crimes for him, such as robbing and stealing. One of the kids is the son of the news station April O'Neil, a friend of the Turtles, works for, and he joins The Foot because he thinks he father never cared for him. But when he bonds with Splinter, especially when Splinter explains his backstory, the kid learns the errors of of his ways and agrees to help Splinter and convince the other kids that The Shredder lied to them. To add further of The Shredder's exploitative goals, they actually remind me of when Pinocchio was tricked into going to Pleasure Island, because his lair also has an amusement center that has arcade machines, a skateboarding ramp, and a pool hall. So the film really has a serious core that was sorely lacking in the sequels, which were made both with desperate attempts to pander to kids and to capitalize on the franchise. There's real heart to both movies, making what you see on screen look and feel believable as possible.

Conclusion

Overall, both movies were made with similar goals from directors Richard Donner and Steve Barron. It's been over 30 years since the release of TMNT, and I'm happy that's it's being vindicated. It met the expectations of the fans and it made money, but the film's qualities have been tarnished by surface level critiques regarding its violence and tone, and is easily dismissed. Superman The Movie is a great superhero movie, TMNT 1990 is an underrated movie. 

  

  

How Who Framed Roger Rabbit saved Disney (Part 2) (SPOILERS)

 

WARNING: The following review may contain spoilers. Watch the movie before reading the review.

Hello and welcome to part 2 of my Who Framed Roger Rabbit retrospective. Last time I covered the film's production, now I talk about the film itself to help demonstrate how the movie saved Disney. 

Who Framed Roger Rabbit came out when audiences had little faith in animated films. I think part of the reasons why is that the bad taste of Disney's 1985 film The Black Cauldron was still present. That film had a very troubled history and left audiences cold. Disney was actually considering shutting down the animation division at the time, but once The Great Mouse Detective fared well with film critics and Don Bluth's An American Tail made so much money, executives Michael Eisner and Jefferey Katzenberg had finally become convinced that animation can still be a lucrative business. 

So Disney took huge risks for Roger Rabbit by giving director Robert Zemeckis creative freedom and pouring so much money on the project. Once the film finally came out, critics and audiences were given a dazzling, funny, and imaginative film that treats the Golden Age of Animation and classic crime films with respect. 

The film's nostalgia for classic cartoons was even apparent at the beginning of the movie because it actually opens with a fully animated sequence that is reminiscent of these old animated shorts from the past. It makes sense to open the film this way because cartoons used to be shown before the main feature. Once the animated sequence ends, the film starts to focus on Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins), a cartoon hating private investigator who reluctantly helps Roger Rabbit, an animated rabbit who gets framed for murder. As Eddie gets deeper into the case, he realizes that a corrupt city official (Christopher Lloyd) has plans to destroy the animated world of Toontown and has framed Roger for his crimes.

One of the film's biggest strengths is its tone. It mixes slapstick humor, crime drama, and suspense to make this film appealing more for older audiences than for kids. If the tone is imbalanced, then the film would have fallen apart. So it was really difficult to mix these genres together and they pulled it off. It's funny without pulling cheap laughs, and it's a very smart, suspenseful crime drama.  

There had been live action/animated films before, such as Song of the South and Mary Poppins. But Who Framed Roger Rabbit was done so convincingly, you totally buy that these cartoon characters really inhabit the real world and vice versa. The animated characters can cast shadows, touch human objects, and the human characters convincingly interact with the animated characters. Looking at this film now, it holds up extremely well, but nobody would ever make a movie like this ever again, because Hollywood has been taking advantage of digital technology since the 1990's. 

The cast all do a great job, but the best performance is from Bob Hoskins. Reportedly, he wasn't the first choice for Eddie Valiant. A lot of A list actors such as Harrison Ford and Eddie Murphy were considered before they chose Hoskins. I think they made the right decision to cast Hoskins, because you can totally buy his development from a toon hating detective haunted by the death of his brother to saving Toontown from being destroyed. I think this is the best performance of his career and I think it's a shame that his career didn't really take off after Roger Rabbit.

Director Robert Zemeckis and writers Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman have clear visions that carried thorough the film. It doesn't feel like it was designed by a committee and it's clearly a love letter to classic animation. Disney has made the right decision to give Zemeckis creative freedom, because he was clearly on a roll. When Back To The Future was in production, Hollywood was skeptical of that movie. But when it came out, he proved them wrong and it became one of the most successful films in Hollywood history. So Who Framed Roger Rabbit further cemented his legacy as a filmmaker. 

With it's smart and funny script, great performances, and it's high-quality combination of live action and animation, it has all the ingredients to make a solid, entertaining blockbuster. And that's how Who Framed Roger Rabbit saved Disney.

How Who Framed Roger Rabbit saved Disney (Part 1)

In the summer of 1988, Who Framed Roger Rabbit arrived in theaters. The film was a huge success at the box office, grossing $238 million worldwide. Critics praised the film for it's convincing combination of live action and animation, humor, performances (especially from Bob Hoskins and Christopher Lloyd), and it's ability to appeal more to adults than for kids. Along with An American Tail and The Land Before Time, it brought a renewed interest in feature length animated films for a wide audience, which is why we have so many animated films over the past 30 years, especially The Disney Renaissance. 

Disney's Dark Days and Roger Rabbit's Development

To add some context, we have to go back to the 1970's and early 1980's. After Walt's death in 1966, the company was really struggling both creatively and financially. Sure, Walt Disney World opened in Florida in 1971 with great success, but it's the movies that were struggling. In an era where younger and ambitious filmmakers were making films they would like to make with little to no studio interference, Disney was largely identified as a family friendly brand that was stuck in the past. Most of the company's cinematic output in the 70's were juvenile live action comedies and divisive animated works like The Aristocats and Robin Hood. By the end of the decade and the beginning of the 80's, studio executive Ron Miller, who is Walt's son in law, wanted to do something different to the company.

In 1981, Gary K. Wolf's mystery novel, Who Censored Roger Rabbit? was published. Shortly after the book's publication, Disney acquired the film rights, giving studio executives the chance to produce a potential blockbuster. 

In 1983, animator Daniel Van Critters has made test footage with comedian Paul Reubens as the voice of Roger Rabbit to convince Disney to green light the project. Unfortunately, the film was nearly cancelled until Paramount executive Michael Eisner replaced Ron Miller as the head of the company in 1984. With the project revamped in 1985, Robert Zemeckis was hired to direct the film based on his successes with Back to the Future and Romancing the Stone and Steven Spielberg was hired to produce the film through his production company, Amblin Entertainment. Screenwriters Jeffrey Price and Peter S Seaman were hired to write the script and the late Canadian animator Richard Williams, known for his long-awaited passion project, The Thief and The Cobbler, took on duties as the film's animation supervisor. Spielberg convinced other film studios to unite nearly all of their animated characters into one movie from Disney, which is a very risky thing to do. 

How Did They Do That (Budget, Shooting, and Visual Effects)

Principal photography began in late 1986 at Elstree Studios in London, with additional months spent in Los Angeles and in Industrial Light and Magic for blue screen shots. To convincingly place animated characters in live action settings, the live action was done first. Live props were either manipulated by wires or mechanical devices to create the illusion that the animated characters were touching real objects. Rubber dolls based off the animated characters were used to help aid the actors where to look so they can convincingly interact with cartoon characters that would later be added in post production. To get into character, Charles Fleischer, who did the voice of Roger Rabbit, wore a Roger Rabbit costume on the set, probably so it would appear that the actors were literally hearing a cartoon rabbit talking to them in the same scene. 

Because CGI and digital compositing was at it's infancy in the 80's, no computers were used during the making of this film. The animators were given large black and white stills of the live action scenes so they can draw the characters on top of them. They later shot test footage so their work would be approved. Once after rough animation was done, it was progressed on the traditional methods of inking and painting on cels and the cels were later shot with no background. The animated footage is later transferred to Industrial Light and Magic so it would be combined by an optical printer. To give the illusion that the animated characters were affected by live action lighting, 3 layers (shadows, tone mattes, and highlights) were animated separately and were later optically combined.

For scenes set in the animated world of Toontown, actor Bob Hoskins was shot against a blue screen at Industrial Light and Magic. Both the live action shots and animation were filmed separately and later composited.

Perhaps the biggest challenge the creative team ever faced was the film's budget. Because of the huge creative risks taken with this film, production costs was increasing so rapidly that Michael Eisner was really considering to shut production down. But his then-colleague and future DreamWorks co-founder Jefferey Katzenberg talked him out of it, possibly due to his confidence that Robert Zemeckis and Steven Spielberg would ever pull this off. Of course, if production was shut down, then the film would never have been made and a new era for animation would not occur.

Release and Reaction

In 1984, Disney created Touchstone Pictures so the company would release more mature fare. So when Who Framed Roger Rabbit was in production, Disney was concerned about the film's racy nature and Zemeckis refused to make alterations, since he was given creative freedom. So Disney decided to release the film on their Touchstone Pictures label and the MPAA gave the film a PG rating.

In the blockbuster filled summer of 1988, the movie finally got released in theaters and became a critical and commercial hit, ushering a new audience and a new era for animated films for over 30 years. Roger Ebert called the film a breakthrough in craftmanship as well as great entertainment. He and his TV partner Gene Siskel spent extra time analyzing the ground breaking special effects, as seen here. Today, it's still recognized today as a technological breakthrough and a love letter to classic animation. 

Stay tuned for part 2 for my in-depth thoughts and opinion on the movie.