Disney's new 'John Carter' film dedicated to Steve Jobs
Walt Disney Pictures' soon-to-be-released film "John Carter," directed by Pixar's Andrew Stanton, is dedicated to Apple co-founder Steve Jobs because Stanton didn't want too much time to pass without giving him "permanent acknowledgment."
The closing credits of "John Carter," which arrives in theaters March 9, will feature a card with the text: "Dedicated to the Memory of Steve Jobs, an Inspiration to Us All," /Film reported on Tuesday. The live-action film follows the titular character's adventures on Mars and is based on the "Barsoom" series by author Edgar Rice Burroughs.
According to the report, Stanton explained both the pragmatic and personal reasons for the dedication at a recent press junket. On the practical side, he pointed out that the production "just happened to be, sadly, the first production up that was Disney that wanted to give [a dedication]" to Jobs, while noting that he "personally wanted to" as well.
Jobs had maintained a good working relationship with Disney during his career, especially after the conglomerate purchased Pixar, the animation studio that he co-founded, for $7.4 billion in 2006. The deal made Jobs the largest Disney shareholder and also earned him a spot on the company's board. After he died last October at age 56, his stake in the company was placed into a trust to be managed by his wife.
Stanton did point out that a more personal dedication to Jobs will come with the next Pixar movie, as the Pixar team are "the real family member" for him. "Brave," the next feature film from Pixar, is scheduled for release later this year. Stanton himself was brought on as Pixar's second animator in 1990 and went on to direct the studio's award-winning "Finding Nemo" and "WALL-E" films. He has described himself as being "loaned" to Disney in order to work on the "John Carter" project.
The director said he had talked to colleague John Lasseter, who serves as Chief Creative Officer at both Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios, first before dedicating "John Carter" to Jobs, as he feared that it might steal some thunder from Pixar's plans. He also revealed that he had talked to Jobs' wife about it.
"But it felt right just cause I didn’t want too much time to pass without giving him some sort of permanent acknowledgement," he said of the decision.
Stanton also said that, while working on the "John Carter" set, he was often asked what Pixar was like and what made it special. After trying out several long explanations as to why the company ran different from other studios, he decided to just shorten his answer to: "Steve. Steve's why."
Working in Hollywood has given Stanton a greater appreciation for Jobs' role in protecting the animation studio. According to him, Jobs worked to "firewall" Pixar from the dysfunctional aspects of the industry.
"We knew he had, but he had truly firewalled us and protected us from all the bad influences of the outside world and we had just been raised in this little eden in San Francisco and had no clue how bad it could be. And so I really have to give so much more credit to him than I ever was, even though I always was, of how much he was a major factor for Pixar," he said.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
Comments
I wish people would stop living their lives through Jobs, and get a life of their own (as he advised).
Classy move. Just wished it was a better movie.
So you've seen the movie already? How did you manage that?
I hope all Pixar movies in the future mention Steve Jobs…
All Pixar movies in the past have thanked Steve Jobs; I can't see that changing.
Classy move. Just wished it was a better movie.
What I have found interesting is all of the people who are predicting the movie will bomb.
What I have found interesting is all of the people who are predicting the movie will bomb.
It's apparently a bunch of decades in the making, so they're all up ons about hype or whatever.
What I have found interesting is all of the people who are predicting the movie will bomb.
Agreed. It's weird especially with a director with a track record of Stanton. Nemo and Walle were both fantastic movies so I'll give this a chance
Agreed. It's weird especially with a director with a track record of Stanton. Nemo and Walle were both fantastic movies so I'll give this a chance
It's possible it may not be good, but it does look promising. I think the problem will be that the John carter books have been ripped off for years by An endless list of sci if movies. So the white ape scene will be claimed to be a rip off of revenge of the Jedi, etc.
So you've seen the movie already? How did you manage that?
Point granted, but I think he has good reason to expect this movie to be horrible. In my experience, when a movie trailer is incredibly heavy on action sequences while the plot or general story conceit is in no way discernible, the movie is horrible. A few recent examples: Green Lantern, Transformers 2 and 3, any Saw movie, the latest crap Dwayne "the rock" adventure movie, etc... If I knew of a less crass way to do it, I'd literally bet fifty dollars the John Carter movie will fail to score 60% on rotten tomatoes...as it is, there's really no way to make good on that bet, considering the forum.
As I said, however: point granted. It might be brilliant. I think the odds are against it.
Edit: That guy directed Nemo and Wall-e? I'll still bet the fifty, but I'll consider myself warned.
http://www.google.com/aclk?sa=L&ai=C...om/johncarter/
What I have found interesting is all of the people who are predicting the movie will bomb.
If you consider that the average age of the target audience is probably about a third of the likely average age of this forum's posters, and then go to see the many trailers it becomes less strange. It is obviously an effects driven movie and the trailers don't do the apparent story line nor acting any favours.
If you consider that the average age of the target audience is probably about a third of the likely average age of this forum's posters, and then go to see the many trailers it becomes less strange. It is obviously an effects driven movie and the trailers don't do the apparent story line nor acting any favours.
Even with that in mine one can't definitely say that the movie won't be good, won't be enjoyable, won't have certain elements and aspects that are appreciated from an artistic or technical point of view, or that it will bomb, a term I assume is referring to not being able to recoup its financial investment.
Really all one can say is they are not interested, it doesn't look good, or any number of similarity stated comments that suppose something on a basis of assumed probability.
There's a kind of locomotive quality to a big effects heavy action movie. It just lumbers down the track whether there's anyone at the throttle or not. For someone who has never had the experience of having to act as general to a surly army that will run riot at the first sign of weakness. it wouldn't be surprising to find that little of his personal style made it to the screen.
I mean, maybe he pulled it off, but I'm not particularly optimistic. Of course, another Pixar alum, Brad Bird, apparently did a pretty credible job with a freaking Mission Impossible movie, so I guess it's not out of the question. It's just that even under ideal conditions, Disney has a track record of making utterly soulless action movies that seem to have been crafted with no human intervention.
Of course, another Pixar alum, Brad Bird, apparently did a pretty credible job with a freaking Mission Impossible movie, so I guess it's not out of the question. It's just that even under ideal conditions, Disney has a track record of making utterly soulless action movies that seem to have been crafted with no human intervention.
That was surprisingly well rounded for an action movie. It has more feeling and depth that the other three and despite the impossibleness of the gadgets and circumstances it never lulled or overstepped its reach in any way. I was impressed.
What I have found interesting is all of the people who are predicting the movie will bomb.
It's being released in March, not summer and not Christmas. This is usually not a good sign. If Disney thought it could go toe to toe with, say, Prometheus, they would release it in May, June or July.
That was surprisingly well rounded for an action movie. It has more feeling and depth that the other three and despite the impossibleness of the gadgets and circumstances it never lulled or overstepped its reach in any way. I was impressed.
Really an amazing achievement, for the reasons I mention above. Directing something like Mission Impossible is a monumental undertaking, one that requires knowing exactly what you want to achieve and how to go about it, while relying on the skills of literally hundreds of specialists-- many of whom are cynical old pros that are quick to undermine a novice if they think that novice is in over their head. And you have to knock that shit out every day, hugely elaborate set-ups and fantastically complex logistical nightmares that just keep coming, or fall behind and start costing the studio money. That Bird, with no prior live action experience, could step in and pull off a by all accounts excellent chapter in the series speaks to his vision as an artist and fortitude as a leader.