(the Addams Family by Charles Addams, (c) TEE/Charles Addams Foundation)
Well, there’s good news and there’s bad news about this. The good news is that there’s news that Tim Burton’s next project may be a stop motion Addams Family movie that takes it’s inspiration from Charles Addams’ original New Yorker cartoons. The bad news – it’s going to (almost inevitably) be a 3D movie. Why, oh why, oh why does Hollywood seem to think that 3D is anything more than a gimmick? Or is that just me?
Anyway, focus on the good – given that Charles Addams’ wonderfully ghoulish family are some of the most wonderfully iconic characters ever and Tim Burton, flawed though he may be, certainly knows his way around stop motion - this may actually be something near the vision of the original cartoons.
Full announcement and details in Deadline online. But whether it gets made or not, it’s always a good day when you get to put up a couple of the great man’s cartoons:
(the Addams Family by Charles Addams, (c) TEE/Charles Addams Foundation)
March 21st, 2010 at 2:14 am
In my opinion, Burton is becoming as gimmicky as 3D. His movies are becoming so repetitive. High contrast colors? Check. Johnny Depp + Helena Carter? Check. Weird hairstyles? Check. Morbidosity? Check. Let’s see him screw this one up too.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:43 am
If used well, I think 3D is more than just a gimmick (as indeed was the introduction of colour to film) – I suspect Avatar would not be worth a viewing (or, vitally, a free downloading) in 2D. The immersive experience offered by 3D can add, ahem, another dimension to a film. On the other hand, Burton’s Alice In Wonderland is not worth a viewing in any D!
Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure remains my favourite Burton film.
March 21st, 2010 at 12:32 pm
I think this is great news. Firstly, I don’t mind 3D. UP was great in 3D and really made me appreciate the set design.
Secondly, while Tim Burton’s output lately has been less than inspiring, his best film of late was easily Corpse Bride. Why? Because it was an original story. With the remakes of Willy Wonka and Alice, we know the story and all that’s new is Burton’s take on the visuals, which, I agree, is getting predictable. With an Addams film, there’s no set story there, also if Burton is keeping true to Addams’ style, it may have a more novel look to it than just typical Burton.
But regardless of 3D and Burton, it’s a new Addams Family film so I’ll be gladly keeping an eye out for this.
Also, wouldn’t it be great if Christina Ricci did the voice of Wednesday?
March 21st, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Nope, you’re not convincing me. Luckily here in Pocklington we have a lovely arts centre where we get films in glorious 2D. Up – wonderful, Avatar – still impressive in 2D (no story or plot or dialogue to speak of but we all knew that).
John: “The immersive experience offered by 3D can add, ahem, another dimension to a film” – um, isn’t the point of any movie to be an immersive experience? A good movie involves me, draws me in and immerses me in the world it’s portraying. I don’t need blatantly designed for 3D effects (oh look, a pointy hand coming out of the screen, things jumping out at me – wow) to create an immersive experience – that’s something the brain does quite perfectly.
3D as important as the introduction of colour? No. 3D as important as the introduction of Smellovision? Yep, that’s more like it.
March 21st, 2010 at 5:54 pm
You don’t believe that a state-of-the-art Smellovision would add to the immersive experience of a film, Richard? As with colour, as with 3D, I think it would be a further step in better realising the environments portrayed on-screen. (Porn would definitely be 3D if the technology were cheap.)
March 21st, 2010 at 7:17 pm
As a serious cinephile and someone who catches numerous films a month I am not convinced by all the ’3D as the new wave of the future’ nonsense – for starters it will only every be suitable for a small fraction of the films made worldwide each year and secondly if it it so be more widespread they need to figure out a way to allow people who wear glasses to comfortably wear the daft Two Ronnies cast-offs plastic 3D specs. Must be about half the planet wearing spectacles but it hasn’t figured into the planning of the designers for some reason. Having to perch them over your own glasses is uncomfortable and leads to ‘ghosting’ and double outlines, not the best cinema experience…
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:28 am
Ah, but who in their right mind would be convinced by ‘nonsense’, Joe? One man’s ‘nonsense’ is another man’s ‘evolution’. The technology is really only in its infancy – it’ll grow up eventually, and then we’ll be saying ’3D – not just for kids anymore’.
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:40 pm
John, many a person is persuaded by arrant nonsense if it is dressed up well enough, general elections are proof enough of that :-) I’m not against the technology but I still think it will mostly be appropriate for certain kinds of films and not for others – not sure I want to watch a 3D version of the next Juliet Binoche movie from France, for example. And some are purely jumping on the bandwagon, witness a certain swords and sandals mythic remake which was hurriedly converted to 3D at the last minute because the studio decided that’s what’s in. And I’ve been through more than one 3D is here boom before so am understandably cynical, although this one appears to be more than a gimmick unlike earlier numerous 3d eras and a serious attempt. Some like Avatar work, others feel more like the forced 3d of an old Viewmaster slide, although that will improve no doubt. Still, I am holding out for a proper holodeck…
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:07 pm
I think Binoche would be just as watchable in b&w or 3D as she is in 2D colour – as indeed would my own fave films of last year: Synecdoche New York, Fish Tank and A Serious Man (I, too, likes me films, Joe. Have you seen ‘A Prophet’? Bloody hell, a class film). Though yes, the awkwardness of 3D glasses upon prescription glasses might add rather than remove a barrier between the viewer and the viewed (though that hasn’t been my own personal experience of layered specs thus far). However, a time will probably come when, as with colour, we won’t be thinking of 3D in terms of possibly being a superfluous element in film. No, your holodeck will be causing the controversy then.
A good test of the power of 3D would arrive, I imagine, with a remake of The Wizard Of Oz: from 2D to 3D for the Oz scenes – that’d be interesting. A not-quite-subliminal sign hanging on the inside of Dorothy’s front door comes into view as she goes to open it: Please Put On Your 3D Glasses Now!