Your Daily Joe

Reverse-Engineering James Baxter the Horse

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Tue, 07 May 2013 20:37:00 +0000

Imagine you have a coworker who did this weird thing this one time: you were out to lunch with a group from work, and this one particular guy started doing a horse voice. It made everybody laugh. A week or two later, you all go out to lunch again. He ends up doing the horse voice again. Everybody laughs again.

Now everybody demands it. Every time you're out to lunch, you goad this guy into doing the horse voice. He's reluctant, but he always caves in eventually.

Now it's not enough to wait for lunches. You make him do the horse voice when you pass his cubicle, when you see him in the break room, when everybody's in the parking lot at the end of the day. It never gets old.

Now imagine you work on a cartoon show.

Weirdness is "Adventure Time"'s stock-in-trade. The driving force of that show is to present bizarre, trippy concepts as just an ordinary day in the Land of Ooo. Take, for example, an evil old king who can fly by making his beard hairs spin like rotors; or a dog that can expand in size and reshape himself any way he wants; or the fact that the dog's biological brother is a human.

So, to say "James Baxter the Horse is weird" is not to say he's weirder than anything else in the show. It's to say that, in the bizarre universe the show has established, James Baxter the Horse is somehow different.

For those of you who didn't see the episode, James Baxter the Horse is nothing more (and nothing less) than a horse that travels around by rearing up on his hind legs and rolling himself along on a multi-colored beach ball, all while repeating his own name in the stutter-neigh style that most English-speaking people use to imply horse-speak.

Got all that?

In the story of the episode, James Baxter is sort of an enigmatic traveling entertainer. He shows up unexpectedly, does his little routine, and, no matter what, brings absolute joy and delight to all who witness his schtick.

And that's it. That's the entire character. That's all he does in the episode. And if he ever shows up in a future episode, that will most likely be all he does again.

So why was James Baxter "weird" in a show where it rains knives from the sky?

The first clue was probably the name James Baxter. In a show full of Lady Rainicorns and Marcelines, James Baxter sounded a little too real-world.

Second, in a way that's a little harder to explain, the actions of James Baxter felt like reality. It didn't feel like the writers were working from a place of: "What would happen if a horse on a beach ball rolled past Finn and Jake?" It felt like: "You know that guy who does that horse voice? We gotta put that in an episode."

Sure enough, watching the credits, James Baxter the Horse was voiced by someone named James Baxter. Watching the credits further, James Baxter the Horse was animated by... James Baxter!

A quick look at IMDb reveals that James Baxter is a top-tier animator, having worked on the highest profile animated features from Disney and DreamWorks, going all the way back to Who Framed Roger Rabbit?!

In other words, the real James Baxter is most likely friends with several of the people over at "Adventure Time." And at some point, he probably did a horse voice that they couldn't stop laughing at. And probably not long after that, the "Adventure Time" folks decided, "We're definitely putting that in an episode. James Baxter the Horse rolls through the scene and makes everybody happy. THAT'S the episode!"

Just to be clear, I'm not saying this scenario is true. I don't have any special knowledge or backstory on how the "Adventure Time" crew became affiliated with James Baxter, and how he came to be the voice and animator of a horse character named after himself. I'm just presenting a hypothetical scenario on how something like "James Baxter the Horse" comes to be.

The important thing is, that was an excellent piece of entertainment!

Read more on "James Baxter the Horse"

In Tribute...

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:09:00 +0000

The college radio station in my hometown would break from its usual alt rock format on the weekends. It would turn the airwaves over to basically anybody who was willing to show up consistently and had anything resembling a cohesive programming sensibility. One such weekend program was Festa Italiana.

I don't know exactly when Festa Italiana debuted. Possibly before I was born. It seemed like it had always been around. It must have run for at least two decades; quite a commitment, considering it was just a few old guys lugging their personal record collections down to the studio every week.

Their biggest fan was my grandmother.

Grandma never missed the show. It was the soundtrack to her Sunday mornings. She knew at least one, but maybe all, of the guys who hosted the show. She referred to it as "The Italian Hour," although I'm pretty sure it ran longer than an hour.

Grandma would call in requests every once in a while and make a dedication to a family member. Then she'd call that family member to make sure they'd tune in to hear it. When one of her grandkids had a birthday coming up, she made doubly sure to call in a request -- usually "Pepino, the Italian Mouse," a kind of "Alvin and the Chipmunks" meets the antics of Bugs Bunny. It isn't a birthday song; but it's a kids song, and that was all that mattered.

As my birthday quickly approaches this year, I have "Pepino" on my mind. It's taken on extra significance this year.

*****

Grandma was notorious for keeping a mental Shit List. You could get your name removed from the list easily enough, but it was all the easier to get your name on it. Skipped a family gathering to hang out with friends? On. Bent the rules during a card game? On. Mouthed off to your sister? On.

It was how she kept us grandkids in check. She wasn't much of a yeller. She'd just look at you sideways, purse her lips, and maybe hold up a flat palm and twist it - "you're on your way to a slap." That was all it took. We knew it was time to straighten up and fly right.

I don't know what I did to end up so thoroughly on grandma's good side. But I think I know how I stayed on her good side: by leaving town. Like a great comedian, I went out on a high note.

My cousins would find themselves routinely on and off the list. I avoided all that by leaving town. As long as I called every once in a while, I was solid.

*****

Calling her was the easiest thing in the world. She loved to get phone calls, but she didn't really keep phone calls. Three minutes flat. She'd answer the phone, recognize my voice immediately, tell me how much she loved me, and then go straight into end-of-call pleasantries.

If I didn't know better, I might be offended. Why doesn't she want to talk to me? But those quick calls were all she needed. Just knowing that you were thinking of her. It brightened up her entire week.

*****

If someone outside of the family ended up on the Shit List, that was pretty much it for them. Grandma would be absolutely appalled to hear about one of her kids or grandkids being mistreated by a boss, coworker, teacher, or just anyone they had a negative encounter with. Never mind the fact that, as the teller of the story, maybe you slanted the perspective slightly in your favor. Didn't matter. If you were hers, you were hers, all others be damned. She was fiercely loyal.

Loyalty wasn't a value she taught; she simply lived it, and we learned by example.

So it was no surprise that, when she ended up in the hospital and things started looking bad, nobody hesitated - we all rushed to her bedside. Three generations of family, from all over the country.

That situation's certainly not unique to my family. But I found it almost comical, the number of people crowding up grandma's hospital room and the waiting room. I didn't take an official count, but the number was probably approaching 40.

And that's her legacy. That she could amass an army that would do everything to assure her peace and comfort. This is what I hope she was most proud of.

Then again, it's funny to imagine she just took it for granted. Of course she could summon 40 people to her side at the first sign of trouble. What, you can't?

*****

I can't imagine how difficult it is to make the decision, when your mind is still so present and sharp, to let yourself die. That's a strength and bravery I'm far from comprehending.

The only thing slowing her down in her final days was the pain medication she was on. Between drug-induced naps, she was carrying on conversations with everyone, cracking jokes and singing songs.

In fact, toward the end, everything became a song. Ask her a question, and the answer came with her eyes closed, her head swaying back-and-forth, and the words dancing out melodically.

*****

When she asked to listen to music, we scrambled to make that happen. Did anybody have a small radio on them? Her hospital room actually had an old Discman attached to the wall. Did we have any CDs she'd like in our cars? Do we really want to put headphones on her and cut her attention off from everything else?

Finally, one of my cousins took out her cell phone, opened the Pandora app, and searched for Italian music. It was beautiful. Like magic, Pandora seemed to be channeling Festa Italiana song-for-song.

Without missing a beat, grandma started mouthing along to each song, a big smile on her face. She had her "Italian Hour" again, and everything was all right.

*****

In grandma's final moments, we all - nearly 40 of us - packed into her small hospital room.

Here's how my mom recounts it:

Around 8 PM we were all called into mom's room. We stood in perfect silence, keeping vigil as mom was crossing over. At one point she stopped breathing and we were sure she was gone. Everyone started crying. Then she took another breath. One of her sons said, "Okay mom, you're in charge. You're going on your terms." Through our tears, everyone started to laugh. It was while we were laughing that she took her final breath.

She went out on a high note.

*****

She was the last of my grandparents. She was a guardian and a defender. She was a guide. She was a true matriarch. She will always be remembered, and greatly missed.

2013 Oscar Wrap Up

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:14:00 +0000

Loose Thoughts

A year of surprises. By the time Oscar night arrived, Argo, Anne Hathaway and Daniel Day-Lewis were sure things. And for those who pay attention to some of the more obscure categories, Amour and Searching for Sugar Man were pretty certain. Oh, and Adele. Beyond that, there were many surprises. Few guessed that Life of Pi would walk away with the most awards (with a rather paltry four). And that Pi's Ang Lee would best Lincoln's Steven Spielberg! (Oddsmakers had Lee and Spielberg neck-and-neck, but I didn't believe it. How wrong I was.)

Seth MacFarlane was predictably good. This hosting gig suits him well. We've long known that he's a song-and-dance man and, sure enough, he had three song-and-dance sequences in his opening monologue alone. The majority of the jokes were suitable for a conservative broadcast, with a few of them approaching, but I wouldn't say crossing, the line of good taste. (Some people are trying to convince us that they were genuinely offended by a Lincoln-assassination joke. I call b.s.) MacFarlane seemed delighted to be hosting, and the feeling was contagious.

The persistence of Seth MacFarlane. For quite a few years, Oscar hosts have had this bad habit of disappearing after the first hour, maybe hour-and-a-half. Seth MacFarlane was there the whole time. He was actually a host, a persistant presence we could rely on throughout the night. That's something the Academy should keep.

Where's the orchestra? So, instead of the live orchestra playing in the Dolby Theatre in front of the audience, they decided to house them a mile down the road? Believe me, I understand how wonderfully connective technology is these days. But removing the orchestra from the actual event location made the music feel disjointed. This was especially true when they had to come in with the Jaws play-off music (which has to be the historically worst choice for play-off music).

Ted is real! Interacting with "on-stage" computer animation has come a long way. The Toy Story sketch back in 1996 could only sell the illusion with a clear stage (which Whoopi Goldberg slightly flubbed), and was still cartoony. Ted was so convincing that a friend watching the show with me was sure it was a puppet.

They're allowed to have ties? Skyfall and Zero Dark Thirty tied for Best Sound Editing. Not unprecedented, but certainly rare. (The last time there was an Oscar tie, I was too young to care about the category - Live Action Short.)

Montages. Sucked. I suppose I'm one of the few people who actually loves a good Oscar montage. Yes, there have been years when they've overdone it with the montages; but the Academy Awards are all about celebrating movies, and a well-made montage can bring me close to tears. The only real montage this year was the one for Bond, and it was terrible. (They would have been better off focusing on the best quotes rather than the biggest action set pieces.)

I cracked the Shorts code! Last year, I pointed out that I have an oh-for-six record of predicting the Live-Action and Animated Shorts winners since I began attending screenings of them. This year, I'm batting 1.000! Okay, "Paperman" was kind of a gimme; that's the only short that a wide audience had actually seen, so of course it was going to win. But everything in the Live-Action category was obscure. If I can repeat this success next year, I'll know I've figured it out.

Spoiler-cast! Have you seen all the Best Picture nominees? Well if you haven't, too bad, because the Oscar telecast showed you the endings, as well as critical turning points, for just about every movie. What were they thinking?

Upstaging Nicholson. The Best Picture winner, Argo, was announced by Michelle Obama. Okay, cool. Why?

Best gag of the night: The introduction of Christopher Plummer turning into a full-on reenactment of the Von Trapp family's escape.

My Score Sheet

This year, I placed guesses in 23 categories. Of those, I got 13 right. That's a 57% accuracy. Not too shabby, and a vast improvement over last year. Regrettably, I wasn't the highest scorer in the room I was sitting in. I'll need to do some work to improve my score next year. Still, I'm really proud about this whole Shorts thing. It's really been bugging me that I've never been able to guess them correctly. Getting them right this year definitely helped up my percentage.

In Summary

Something felt a little off to me about the Oscars this year, and I think it comes down to indecision. For better or for worse, Oscar races usually come down to one or two clear frontrunners. This year, the top six awards (Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Director, Picture) each went to a different movie. But I suppose that speaks to the high volume of quality movies this year.

I think Seth MacFarlane did a good job hosting, and I hope he gets to do it again soon. It was an enjoyable show this year. My meaningless grade for the 85th Academy Awards broadcast is B+, dropped from an A- because it went on too long and lacked good montages.

The Official YDJ 2013 Oscar Ballot

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:49:00 +0000

Here's your guide to Oscar night 2013! Keep track of the nominees and winners, and see how many Your Daily Joe predictions are right.

Click below to view, download (PDF format), and print out the ballot for Sunday night.

Click here to download

*Thanks to Helby for creating the ballot document

2013 Oscar Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:39:00 +0000

If I had posted my Oscar predictions a mere week or two ago, I probably would have recommended a straight-ticket vote for Lincoln in your office pool. But things have changed in what is shaping up to be an exciting awards season.

This was a pretty excellent year for movies overall. The blockbusters were smart, and the smart movies were blockbusters. (I was genuinely shocked when Lincoln was sold out the first time I tried to see it.) With so many great movies, there wasn't a clear frontrunner as awards season began. When the Oscar nominees were announced, there was a little bit of clarity: Lincoln had the most nominations, and so became the default front-runner. Argo, an early favorite from October, was looking to be on the outs with Ben Affleck snubbed in the directing category. But when it started winning top prizes from the DGA, the PGA, SAG, BAFTA, the AFI, and numerous critics' awards, the race became complicated again.

This year is all about Lincoln v. Argo. Who will win on Oscar night? (I mean, other than the fact that everyone is a winner, and it's an honor just to be nominated.) Let's take a closer look...

SOUND EDITING

Argo - Erik Aadahl and Ethan Van der Ryn
Django Unchained - Wylie Stateman
Life of Pi - Eugene Gearty and Philip Stockton
Skyfall - Per Hallberg and Karen Baker Landers
Zero Dark Thirty - Paul N.J. Ottosson

SOUND MIXING

Argo - John Reitz, Gregg Rudloff and Jose Antonio Garcia
Les Misérables - Andy Nelson, Mark Paterson and Simon Hayes
Life of Pi - Ron Bartlett, D.M. Hemphill and Drew Kunin
Lincoln - Andy Nelson, Gary Rydstrom and Ronald Judkins
Skyfall - Scott Millan, Greg P. Russell and Stuart Wilson

Sound Editing is the creation of the audio texture of a movie. Think of it as production design for the ears. Sound Mixing is the recording and blending of the audio, ultimately what you hear and how you hear it in the finished movie.

With its blend of action and exotic locations each requiring their own distinct feel, I think Skyfall will win in Sound Editing. And with its unique approach to on-set singing, I think Les Misérables will take Sound Mixing.

VISUAL EFFECTS

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Joe Letteri, Eric Saindon, David Clayton and R. Christopher White
Life of Pi - Bill Westenhofer, Guillaume Rocheron, Erik-Jan De Boer and Donald R. Elliott
Marvel's The Avengers - Janek Sirrs, Jeff White, Guy Williams and Dan Sudick
Prometheus - Richard Stammers, Trevor Wood, Charley Henley and Martin Hill
Snow White and the Huntsman - Cedric Nicolas-Troyan, Philip Brennan, Neil Corbould and Michael Dawson

This is a jaded point-of-view perhaps, but no less true for it: we've been at critical mass for what digital special effects can accomplish for a long time now. Scary, writhing alien monsters, epic explosions, superhuman stunts - we've seen it all countless times before. Standing out from the pack this year are the earthly animals in Life of Pi. They're imperfect, clearly fake in many scenes. But I actually think that may be to its benefit, as it raises voter awareness of how much sweat went into making these effects as great as possible. It's an immense challenge trying to realistically recreate an animal that the human eye is so familiar with. The CGI artists on this movie did an excellent job. Expect Pi to win.

COSTUME DESIGN

Anna Karenina - Jacqueline Durran
Les Misérables - Paco Delgado
Lincoln - Joanna Johnston
Mirror Mirror - Eiko Ishioka
Snow White and the Huntsman - Colleen Atwood

The period accuracy and large scale of Lincoln, as well as the landmark importance of the movie overall, will bring the award to Joanna Johnston.

LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM

"Asad" - Bryan Buckley and Mino Jarjoura
"Buzkashi Boys" - Sam French and Ariel Nasr
"Curfew" - Shawn Christensen
"Death of a Shadow (Dood van een Schaduw)" - Tom Van Avermaet and Ellen De Waele
"Henry" - Yan England

A really good crop of movies this year. I loved the originality and execution of "Death of a Shadow," and was moved by the end-of-life drama of "Henry." But, with it's blend of pathos, dark humor, and character growth and redemption, I expect "Curfew" to win the statue.

ANIMATED SHORT

"Adam and Dog" - Minkyu Lee
"Fresh Guacamole" - PES
"Head over Heels" - Timothy Reckart and Fodhla Cronin O'Reilly
"Maggie Simpson in 'The Longest Daycare'" - David Silverman
"Paperman" - John Kahrs

There's a lot of enthusiasm for "Paperman," and I fully expect it to win. There's a lot that's great about that movie. It's beautiful, and full of charm and sweetness. The drawback for me is that, when the paper airplanes gain sentience and bring the young lovers together, the movie robs these wonderful characters of the victory they deserve to earn by their own agency.

If I had a vote to cast, it would go to the clever, challenging and bittersweet late-stage marriage metaphor of "Head Over Heels." "Paperman" will win, but do yourself a favor and look up "Head Over Heels."

FILM EDITING

Argo - William Goldenberg
Life of Pi - Tim Squyres
Lincoln - Michael Kahn
Silver Linings Playbook - Jay Cassidy and Crispin Struthers
Zero Dark Thirty - Dylan Tichenor and William Goldenberg

Veteran editor and longtime Spielberg collaborator Michael Kahn should win this one.

ORIGINAL SONG

"Before My Time" from Chasing Ice - Music and Lyric by J. Ralph
"Everybody Needs A Best Friend" from Ted - Music by Walter Murphy; Lyric by Seth MacFarlane
"Pi's Lullaby" from Life of Pi - Music by Mychael Danna; Lyric by Bombay Jayashri
"Skyfall" from Skyfall - Music and Lyric by Adele Adkins and Paul Epworth
"Suddenly" from Les Misérables - Music by Claude-Michel Schönberg; Lyric by Herbert Kretzmer and Alain Boublil

It's so obvious! Of the songs listed above, which one can you start humming right now, and at the drop of a hat on any given day? Skyfall isn't going to win too many awards on Oscar night; it's just not that kind of movie. But everybody loved it, and everybody loves Adele. Solid win.

ORIGINAL SCORE

Anna Karenina - Dario Marianelli
Argo - Alexandre Desplat
Life of Pi - Mychael Danna
Lincoln - John Williams
Skyfall - Thomas Newman

I gotta admit, this is a tough call. The stately nature of John Williams' Lincoln score could win the day. And the Skyfall score hit all the right drama and action chords. But I'm looking at five-time nominee Alexandre Desplat to ride the Argo wave to his first Oscar win.

PRODUCTION DESIGN

Anna Karenina - Production Design: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Production Design: Dan Hennah; Set Decoration: Ra Vincent and Simon Bright
Les Misérables - Production Design: Eve Stewart; Set Decoration: Anna Lynch-Robinson
Life of Pi - Production Design: David Gropman; Set Decoration: Anna Pinnock
Lincoln - Production Design: Rick Carter; Set Decoration: Jim Erickson

Strong competition in this category. There's a lot of goodwill for Les Misérables. Life of Pi would be a personal preference for me. But I think we'll have another win for Lincoln here. Again, the period accuracy, the scale, and the aura of importance surrounding this film will go a long way.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Anna Karenina - Seamus McGarvey
Django Unchained - Robert Richardson
Life of Pi - Claudio Miranda
Lincoln - Janusz Kaminski
Skyfall - Roger Deakins

Roger Deakins is great, and it's been acknowledged that he's probably shot the most beautiful Bond film ever. Speaking of beautiful: Life of Pi. But I'm looking at this to be another win for Lincoln, and a well-deserved award for the also-great Janusz Kaminski.

ANIMATED FILM

Brave - Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman
Frankenweenie - Tim Burton
ParaNorman - Sam Fell and Chris Butler
The Pirates! Band of Misfits - Peter Lord
Wreck-It Ralph - Rich Moore

2012 was a great year for animation. A lot of strong stories and innovative visions. While Frankenweenie and ParaNorman were personal favorites of mine, they're unlikely to win. Wreck-It Ralph is all charm, heart, humor, and adventure. It's unusually structured, and the rare movie that's full of surprises. It took the top prize at the Annie Awards, and it will here too. (And, hey, what has two thumbs and made a bullseye prediction way back on November 2nd? This guy!)

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Amour (Austria)
Kon-Tiki (Norway)
No (Chile)
A Royal Affair (Denmark)
War Witch (Canada)

Let's put it this way: only one of these movies is also nominated for Best Picture. If it's big enough to swim in the ocean with the rest of the Best Pictures, it's a safe bet that it's the biggest fish in this smaller pond. Amour will win.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

5 Broken Cameras
The Gatekeepers
How to Survive a Plague
The Invisible War
Searching for Sugar Man

The front-runner here is Searching for Sugar Man. It's a character piece, it's a mystery, it's an affirmation of the perseverance of art. But most of all, it's a crowd-pleaser. The Invisible War could gain traction for its disturbing topic and for being an "activist movie" that has successfully led to reform. But I think Sugar Man's got it.

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Amour - Written by Michael Haneke
Django Unchained - Written by Quentin Tarantino
Flight - Written by John Gatins
Moonrise Kingdom - Written by Wes Anderson & Roman Coppola
Zero Dark Thirty - Written by Mark Boal

Man, I'd love to see Moonrise Kingdom take this. But that seems unlikely, as do Django Unchained and Flight, despite their largely positive critical receptions. Zero Dark Thirty is strong in the running. But I'm thinking Amour will be the winner here, coupling with its likely Best Foreign Language Film win.

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Argo - Screenplay by Chris Terrio
Beasts of the Southern Wild - Screenplay by Lucy Alibar & Benh Zeitlin
Life of Pi - Screenplay by David Magee
Lincoln - Screenplay by Tony Kushner
Silver Linings Playbook - Screenplay by David O. Russell

This is another strong category. Beasts of the Southern Wild was a surprise Best Picture nominee. It won't win that, but could win this on the strength of that nomination. Silver Linings is the only movie this year nominated for all the top awards (every acting category, directing, picture). Argo, as alluded to above, has a lot of momentum from the ancillary awards organizations. And then, of course, there's Lincoln. The overall momentum of this film could push it to win in this category, as could the bright, shining name of its writer Tony Kushner. I'm going to say the best bet is Lincoln. But don't be surprised if Argo or Silver Linings take it instead.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Alan Arkin in Argo
Robert De Niro in Silver Linings Playbook
Philip Seymour Hoffman in The Master
Tommy Lee Jones in Lincoln
Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained

Awesome list of performances here, and each a previous Oscar winner. It's been a long time since Robert De Niro won, and this role has been widely lauded as his best in decades. (Full disclosure: I haven't seen it yet.) But it's been a while for Tommy Lee Jones, too, and he's a standout in a movie full of standout performances. I think it's his.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Amy Adams in The Master
Sally Field in Lincoln
Anne Hathaway in Les Misérables
Helen Hunt in The Sessions
Jacki Weaver in Silver Linings Playbook

The story of Les Misérables has been interesting, if not uncommon. It was highly anticipated. When it emerged, it was mostly seen as delivering on the hype. Then the backlash started. Then there was the backlash against the backlash. Through it all, one thing has persevered: Anne Hathaway's performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" and, by extension, of Fantine as a whole. (I understand there's some Hathaway hate going around the internet. That's the internet for ya. But I don't think there's any Hathaway hate coming from Academy voters, nor is it affecting their decision-making.) It's a truly devastating performance. As time has passed, the buzz has died down. But when the voters have their ballots in front of them, I'm sure they'll remember how moved they were and vote for Hathaway.

BEST ACTOR

Bradley Cooper in Silver Linings Playbook
Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln
Hugh Jackman in Les Misérables
Joaquin Phoenix in The Master
Denzel Washington in Flight

Again, all great performances here. But Daniel Day-Lewis is beyond extraordinary. He absolutely is Abraham Lincoln. The voice, the look, the physicality - Daniel Day-Lewis constructed his version of Lincoln from the ground up. I suppose that's nothing new for Day-Lewis, but that doesn't make it any less amazing. If he doesn't win, there will be riots in the streets. Or maybe I'll just be a riot of one, quickly suppressed by the most basic of police tactics. But still, the riot will happen.

BEST ACTRESS

Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty
Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook
Emmanuelle Riva in Amour
Quvenzhané Wallis in Beasts of the Southern Wild
Naomi Watts in The Impossible

This comes down to Jessica Chastain and Jennifer Lawrence, both of whom carry their respective movies. Jennifer Lawrence was nominated for Winter's Bone before most people knew who she was, and her return to the nomination pool bodes well for her. But Jessica Chastain has been a constant presence in award-winning movies for the past few years, and I think this is the role that will cement her status as a power player.

DIRECTING

Amour - Michael Haneke
Beasts of the Southern Wild - Benh Zeitlin
Life of Pi - Ang Lee
Lincoln - Steven Spielberg
Silver Linings Playbook - David O. Russell

Spielberg will likely win this award. Because...

MOTION PICTURE OF THE YEAR

Amour - Nominees to be determined
Argo - Grant Heslov, Ben Affleck and George Clooney, Producers
Beasts of the Southern Wild - Dan Janvey, Josh Penn and Michael Gottwald, Producers
Django Unchained - Stacey Sher, Reginald Hudlin and Pilar Savone, Producers
Les Misérables - Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Debra Hayward and Cameron Mackintosh, Producers
Life of Pi - Gil Netter, Ang Lee and David Womark, Producers
Lincoln - Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy, Producers
Silver Linings Playbook - Donna Gigliotti, Bruce Cohen and Jonathan Gordon, Producers
Zero Dark Thirty - Mark Boal, Kathryn Bigelow and Megan Ellison, Producers

...Argo will win this one. I barely believe I'm saying it; and that's not a criticism of Argo, it's a criticism of the awards process.

It stands to reason that whoever directed the Best Picture ought to win Best Director. And that's what happens most years. But it's not unprecedented for there to be a split between Best Director and Best Picture. It's happened before. In fact, it's happened to Steven Spielberg before. And I think that's what we're in for again this year.

However the nominations are tabulated, Ben Affleck was left out of the Best Director category. Seemingly as a direct response to that snub, every other major awards organization decided to throw its full weight behind Affleck and Argo. And as we head into the big show, there's no indication of that trend stopping. Spielberg will win Best Director, and Argo will win Best Picture.

At least that's the way I see it. Agree? Disagree? Tell me all about it in the comments below.

On Oscar night, I'll be live tweeting during the ceremony @yourdailyjoe. The 85th Academy Awards will air on February 24, 2013 at 8 eastern/5 pacific on ABC.

Defending the Movie Ending of Little Shop of Horrors

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:32:00 +0000

I was in college when Little Shop of Horrors received its first DVD release. DVDs were still a newish thing, but I was an early adopter of the technology. For financial reasons, I had a personal policy that I wasn't going to buy a DVD of a movie I already had on VHS, so Little Shop was out. Not only did I have a VHS copy of the movie, but the tape was pretty new since I had only recently rediscovered the film after the (mild) childhood trauma it had caused.

Boy, did I miss the boat on that DVD. A bonus feature on that first run of discs was a 20-minute "original ending" where -- and I guess this is where the SPOILER ALERT goes -- the evil plants kill Audrey, then Seymour, then everyone else on planet Earth.

What?! This was the first I'd ever heard of an "original ending." Despite growing up in a musical theater-appreciating family, I'd never been exposed to the stage version of Little Shop. My only knowledge of the show was the movie. And in the movie, Audrey escapes from the plant and Seymour manages to destroy it.

Depending who you ask, either Warner Bros. or producer David Geffen felt it was a mistake to put the alternate ending footage on the DVD (especially since it was worn out, murky, black and white workprint footage) and had the discs recalled. If it hadn't been for my "no re-buying" policy, I would have been in possession of a valuable collectors item.

Until October of last year, that is, when the blu ray was released with a fully restored Director's Cut of the film.

Although the director's ending has been available on YouTube for years, I'd never seen it. And I'd never had access to a stage production either. This alternate ending remained nothing but a vaguely described "everybody dies" scenario to me until I got the blu ray for Christmas and, disregarding the children in the room and ignoring the ongoing holiday festivities, began watching it immediately.

So, how did the new-old ending pan out?

Much like the test audiences of 1986, I had an uncomfortable reaction to it. Even worse were the vibes I could feel coming from the family members who had accumulated to watch the movie with me. At least I'd known what to expect, and was viewing it as an academic curiosity. For them, it was a fun and familiar story suddenly exploding in their faces.

After that initial DVD release, the word was out about the everybody-dies ending of the movie, so I felt I was plenty prepared for it. Over the years, it had even started to make sense to me. Little Shop is a dark story, a homage to the B-movies of a previous age where cheap shocks and thrills pretty much guaranteed a 100% mortality rate. All that was left for me to discover was exactly how Audrey and Seymour would die. And that's precisely my problem with this ending. It's not so much the fact of them dying, but the how.

In both versions of the movie, the plant tricks Audrey into being in the shop alone with him, where he proceeds to bite her. I'd always assumed that that would be where she dies, but it's not. Seymour pulls her out of the plant's mouth, and takes her to safety behind the shop. But it's too late. Her injuries are too great, and she knows she's doomed.

This is where things take a crazy turn. As Audrey lays dying, she tells Seymour that she's happy for all the success he's been having. And she rationalizes that, since she's dead either way, she'd like Seymour to feed her to the plant so that the plant will remain healthy and continue to bring wealth and prosperity to Seymour.

And he does. He feeds her to the plant!

This does not make sense; I don't care how cynical your view of humanity is. By this point in the story, Seymour's already come to despise the plant. He knows it's evil, and he wants nothing more to do with it. He's plotted his escape with Audrey. He's already packed his suitcases! You're telling me that after the plant has murdered the love of Seymour's life -- an act which would make me, for one, hate the plant even more than I already did (which was already a lot) -- Seymour's going to respect Audrey's wishes and donate her body to the plant's well-being? Personally, I'd probably take that as an opportunity to start starving the plant. That plan probably wouldn't work, but at least I wouldn't be desecrating my loved one's body for the benefit of her murderer.

Am I taking this too seriously? Obviously! But if director Frank Oz was wondering why the test audiences went cold at this point in the movie, I'd suggest that it's not only because their heroes were dying. (That's certainly a tough thing for audiences to take sometimes, but there are plenty of instances of a hero's death being embraced by audiences.) It's because there's a logic incongruity there. Why would Seymour do that? He wouldn't.

Seymour's death is easier to accept, I think. It was always a stretch that he won in the first place. The plant was way more powerful. In the "happy ending" version of the movie, we accept that Seymour had earned his victory, even if it seemed unlikely.

After Seymour's death, the movie goes into an extended rampage sequence. The plant has multiplied, and we see the plants demolishing everything, terrorizing and eating all the people. This footage, which was painstakingly restored for this edition, looks great. One of the greatest aspects of Little Shop of Horrors has always been the spectacular practical effects. This movie was made in a pre-digital age, and even the use of optical printer effects was minimal. When you're watching the movie, you're watching things that were happening right there on the sets and in the miniatures.

The problem with this sequence is that it gets very repetitive. The plant only really has one move: bursting its pod-head through walls. We see that six times in four minutes, along with lots and lots of people running and screaming. It's fun at first, but then we see it over and over again. And over again.

I did appreciate the classic B-movie "The end?!?" card, followed by a plant ripping through a movie screen. Even watching it in my living room, I was impressed with how realistic the lighting of the "movie theater-within-the-movie" was. You can tell what it would look like watching that moment in an actual movie theater, and the effect would be impressive. I actually hope I get to watch this ending on the big screen some day.

Frank Oz has long lamented the loss of the truly awe-inspiring model work by department head Richard Conway on this sequence. And he's right. It deserves to be seen. Such chaotic, witty destruction has its place. (You're talking to a huge fan of another dark, anarchic David Geffen production from the '80s, Beetlejuice.)

But through it all, I just don't buy this ending on this story. Maybe it's because I'm too conditioned to expect the happy ending, having seen that version dozens of times at this point. Maybe it's because I just can't stomach the heroes dying.

But I'd like to give myself more credit than that. I've been a movie obsessive since at least my early teens. I went through my Arty Film Student phase where I expected -- nay, demanded! -- that every movie have a downer ending. At this point, I've spent the better part of my life focused on stories and storytelling and storytelling-through-moving-images. So, while I appreciate what the filmmakers were going for with the original ending -- the B-movie, Godzilla-style mass destruction -- I ultimately feel it didn't work for this movie.

Considering that Frank Oz and his creative team were reluctant to shoot a new ending, I'm amazed with what they came up with. It's such a perfect punchline that I can barely believe it wasn't always what they intended. Seymour has defeated the plant, he and Audrey get married, and they move into the cookie-cutter suburban home she always dreamed of. But as the camera pulls away from the home and pans down to the landscaping, we see a new evil plant waiting patiently to ruin Seymour and Audrey's lives. It smiles at us. I hope Oz takes some comfort in the fact that his wickedly dark vision for this movie was preserved.

The great news about this blu ray edition is that it contains both versions of the movie, and both have their place. The play's purists who've long lamented the movie's happy ending now have their ideal version. The restoration is seamless, the recovered footage integrating perfectly into the rest of the film. The puppetry and the models in the restored ending are fantastic. As I said, I hope I have the chance to see this version of the movie on a big screen some day. (Hey, three years and they can do a 30th anniversary re-release.)

But when I'm at home, with a bowl of popcorn, in the mood to watch the story of that quaint little flower place down on skid row, nine times out of 10 I'm going to switch my blu ray player to the version that ends somewhere that's green.

ADDITIONAL READING:
The long, arduous process of finding the footage and restoring the original ending
A brilliant, thorough deconstruction of the "Downtown (Skid Row)" sequence

My Favorite New TV Show of 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:53:00 +0000

Adults these days have it so easy. When I was a kid, parents had to feign an interest in dreck like "Glo Friends," "Rubik, the Amazing Cube" and "Captain Planet and the Planeteers" in order to placate (or just get a moment of peace from) their children. Then in the '90s, through whatever alchemy -- most likely the twin successes of Disney's animation renaissance and "The Simpsons" -- producers discovered there was an audience for more sophisticated storytelling in animation. Now, while they may not be a parent's first choice, at least today's kid shows can also be engaging for adults.

But sometimes, there's a kid show that should be an adult's first choice. My favorite new show of 2012 is...

Gravity Falls
"Gravity Falls" centers on twins Mabel and Dipper Pines as they spend a summer with their Great Uncle (or "Grunkle") Stan in a sleepy Pacific Northwest town where paranormal activity abounds. In a typical day, the twins may encounter ghosts, gnomes, minotaurs, prehistoric lake monsters, or mind-controlling amulets. It's an animated "Eerie, Indiana" for a new generation.
In a very wise move, the show uses its paranormal elements as more than just playthings; they exist as a way to challenge the characters, force them to confront their flaws, and ultimately learn and grow. Those minotaurs, for example, lead Dipper down a dangerous path as he comes to terms with his underdeveloped masculinity.

If that sounds like a burdensome, moralizing slog, let me assure you that "Gravity Falls" is, above all, hilarious. Even adults will find it laugh-out-loud funny. The smartly-executed stories provide ample opportunity for character quirks, eccentricities and wit to take center stage. I particularly love Grunkle Stan's non sequitur outbursts.
The show utilizes an unusual color palette for a TV cartoon, all darker shades and earthy tones. This, along with the environmental atmosphere (note the haziness in the background of the top picture) make the show stand out visually.
"Gravity Falls" is a fun, funny, fanciful show grounded in warm, lively characters. Kids should be easily lured in by the imagination and adventure of it all. Adults will be reminded of that childhood certainty that there's magic in the world, and kids are the only ones savvy enough to notice it.

My Favorite Movie of 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:50:00 +0000

For the last couple years, "My Favorite Movie" has highlighted what I considered to be under-appreciated gems. This year, I couldn't be picking a more appreciated movie. No matter how hard I've tried to come up with something that was lesser seen or perhaps more intellectually or artistically challenging, it would be just plain dishonest to imply that I'll be rewatching anything more than...

The Avengers

Plenty has been said about this movie already, so let's keep the recaps brief: it's funny, it's smart, it's charming, it's fun, it's exciting, and it delivers on the action. It has the first great movie version of the Hulk. It's the definition of a movie entertainment.

The thing I love most about this movie is the writing. It's a poorly-kept secret that Joss Whedon is one of the best TV and movie writers working today. Long known for his sharp, witty dialogue, his lively characters, his crafty use of themes and metaphors, and his expansive yet tight story arcs, Whedon developed a strong fanbase in the '90s with his network-defining TV series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

But a long-running (or even a short-running) TV series allows plenty of room to grow characters and build the universe they inhabit. With The Avengers, Whedon miraculously provides every character a strong personality, clear motivations, and room to live and breathe (and kick ass) in the relatively concise runtime of 143 minutes. Four characters who were each capable of headlining their own movies, as well as four to six supporting characters, each felt fully formed and each had several moments to shine. Not content with that, Whedon also increased the presence of some third-tier characters and gave them impactful time in the spotlight as well.

The villain poses a plausible threat that requires an entire team of superheroes to defeat. Each hero, supporting hero, and even a few background characters fit comfortably into one movie, each feeling like a true individual, while serving one consistent and logical story. And still plenty of room for tremendous action sequences. Not to mention the fact that Whedon was writing this script under extraordinary circumstances: building off of and pulling together the work of four different movie franchises -- two of which were still works-in-progress while he was working on his own. The fact that this movie makes any sense at all is amazing. The fact that it ended up being the most entertaining movie of the year is, like the Hulk himself, incredible.

Runner Up: Moonrise Kingdom, my favorite Wes Anderson movie since Rushmore.

Don't sign a record contract, Anne Hathaway!

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:29:00 +0000

Dear Anne Hathaway,

Hey, man, how's it going?

So anyway, I had no idea you could sing. Turns out not only can you sing, but you can belt and wail. Your performance in Les Misérables is truly excellent - the highlight of the movie, frankly. Your rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" is powerful and heartbreaking. The strength and nuance of the emotions you embodied is amazing - the complete breakdown, regaining composure, all in one take! All while singing! It's truly stunning.

But please, stop there.

By now, you've gotten a lot of attention for your Fantine, and there's plenty more to come: more critical attention, more audience adoration, more awards nominations (and wins). All of it well-deserved.

But amidst all of that attention, someone -- perhaps a trusted friend, perhaps a family member, maybe an agent, a manager, or likely some combination of those -- will float the idea that, hey, maybe you should put out an album! It's a great idea, they'll tell you. I mean, you like to sing, don't you? Of course you do! And now it's pretty obvious that everyone wants to hear you sing. This will be the next step in your artistic growth, an exciting new facet of your career, and, heck, a way to get some extra cash. They'll tell you.

And with so much encouragement, and ever-increasing box office numbers, and awards nominations rolling in, you might find yourself agreeing that this is the right thing to do. Why not make an album?

Well, I'm going to tell you.

In the very recent past -- let's call it ten years -- there have been a few high profile instances of this phenomenon. I'm not going to name names, but you know these people. They're peers of yours. They have quite a bit in common with you: approximate age, complexion, number of hosting gigs on "Saturday Night Live." And like you, they were exclusively actors until a particular role called for them to sing. And sing they did. And to the surprise and delight of audiences everywhere, they were much better singers than anyone had bothered to expect.

But then they went too far. They took all the "I didn't know she could sing" feedback as a cue that they should be making more music. So they signed record deals, went into recording studios, and... it turned out, they shouldn't be singing. They really, really shouldn't. Their stuff has proven objectively terrible. It's more than just embarrassing or unnecessary - it's painful.

Don't let this happen to you!

I believe it was the renowned acting teacher Stella Adler who said about acting, "If you can live without it, you should." Clearly, this applies to any artistic endeavor. If you're not in anguish, in a constant state of mental, emotional and, yes, physical pain over your lack of fulfillment in an artistic pursuit, then you're better off not pursuing it. Only do it because it would be your spiritual death if you didn't do it.

Is that how you feel about singing, Anne Hathaway?

You're at that moment. They'll be clawing at your door if they aren't already. You will be tempted. Before you make a move, search your soul. Make the right decision.

Your pal who you don't know at all,

Joe

The Domestic Jungle #4

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:48:00 +0000

Click to enlarge

The Domestic Jungle #3

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:47:00 +0000

Click to enlarge

The Domestic Jungle #2

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:21:00 +0000

Click to enlarge

The Domestic Jungle #1

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:31:00 +0000

Today, I'm introducing my new webcomic series, THE DOMESTIC JUNGLE. Just a little lark to get some observations about cats off my mind and into yours. Hope you enjoy it. Will be updated semi-regularly.

Click to enlarge

Comic-Con: SpongeBob SquarePants

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0000

It was Christmas in July at the "SpongeBob SquarePants" panel, with most of the hour devoted to breaking down the stop-motion animated special due out at the end of this year.

Actors Tom Kenny and Bill Fagerbakke performed a scene live in front of the audience, synchronized to an animatic. Seamus Walsh and Mark Caballero of stop-motion animation company Screen Novelties presented a behind-the-scenes look at what went into making the puppets and sets (real Fruity Pebbles were involved). After the concept-through-production analysis, a completed scene was presented to the audience.

The panel ended with an audience singalong, led by Kenny, of "Don't Be a Jerk, It's Christmas," from the special.

During the Q&A, it was also revealed that the "SpongeBob" team is in the early planning stages of a new feature film, but that would still be years off.

Comic-Con: DC Nation

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:44:00 +0000

DC Nation, the hourlong action/comedy block on Cartoon Network, presented two exciting new shows at this panel.

"Beware the Batman" is the latest iteration of the Dark Knight, focusing more on Batman as a detective and Alfred as a former spy. Like "Green Lantern: The Animated Series," "Beware the Batman" will be fully CG.

The other new series is "Teen Titans Go!" which will be a comedic take on the Titans. This new version will feature the same cast of characters as the previous "Teen Titans" series.

Both series are due to begin sometime during the 2012-2013 season, though premiere dates were not specified.

This panel was moderated by Kevin Smith, who does not have anything to do with these shows, but participated merely as a fan.

Comic-Con: Shut Up! Cartoons

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:07:00 +0000

Made a last-minute decision to catch a panel for Shut Up! Cartoons, a company I'd never heard of. Glad I did. Shut Up! is one of these burgeoning new-media companies that has found a way to monetize creator-owned content. What does this mean to you? It means you might find some new shows you like. Check them out.

Comic-Con: Phineas and Ferb

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:30:00 +0000

One of the fun aspects of Comic-Con is that you go into panels with certain expectations, but there's always plenty of room for surprises. For example, I went to the "Phineas and Ferb" panel expecting to see the creators and voice cast of that show. Which I did. But what I wasn't expecting was to see Damon Lindelof, co-creator of "Lost," moderating the panel. And since "Lost" events were always difficult to get into, it was nice to finally get a chance to see him.

But of course the real reason I was there was for "Phineas and Ferb." Obviously there were a lot of kids in attendance, so energy was high. The actors had fun popping in and out of character. Watching Dee Bradley Baker perform the Perry the Platypus chatter is somewhat disturbing... in a good way.

Show creators Dan Povenmire and Jeff "Swampy" Marsh prepped the audience for the upcoming "Where's Perry?" cliffhanger season finale. Then Marvel's Jeph Loeb and Joe Quesada stopped by to make the big announcement: next year, "Phineas and Ferb" will be joined in a crossover movie event with "The Avengers." When a new Doofenshmirtz "Inator" inadvertently zaps away the Avengers' superpowers, Phineas and Ferb will help them to get their powers back.

Comic-Con: Creating / Pitching / Writing

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:00:00 +0000

Three panels on Saturday were of the how-to variety.

Creating Animated TV Series

This was a very excellent panel featuring members of the Writers Guild of America's Animation Writers Caucus, true veterans of the industry. Writers Alan Burnett, Peter Gal, Henry Gilroy, Craig Miller, Andrew Robinson and developer David Corbett discussed the difference between writing and developing, working with a brand versus working with an original idea, and what you, personally, need to bring to the table to sell an animated series. (Basically, storytelling trumps art, although art is a great initial hook.)

Proper Pitching and Promoting Yourself

He didn't want his hair to look like Justin Bieber's, he told us
The very popular Bryan Tillman, of the Art Institute of Washington, gave a detailed five-part process for presenting yourself and your ideas to the proper company or client. The recurring theme of Tillman's presentation was time: being able to concisely convey your ideas; the elevator pitch; knowing when to let a project go.

The Art of Writing with Gregg Hurwitz

Gregg Hurwitz is a sickeningly prolific writer of novels, short stories, comics and television. In this one-on-one panel with Scott Brick, Hurwitz discussed his process, stressing research in particular. He also discussed surviving the dregs - keeping perspective on the fact that the tough scene or chapter that you spent days or weeks torturing yourself over is going to fly right by for the reader.

Comic-Con: Floor Report, day two

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:00:00 +0000

Some notes from day two (Friday) on the exhibit floor:

1) Spent more time looking at books, and ended up getting a free copy of "Batgirl" issue #1 from DC's "new 52" reboot series

Expensive books
2) Also picked up a free comic called "Mankind, the Story of Us All," which I expect is a religious book; Christian groups are always trying to trick the Comic-Con crowd into... what? Converting, I suppose

3) Speaking of which, the "Jesus Saves" sign holders outside the convention center were joined by Con attendees holding "Jesus Was a Zombie" signs

4) Nickelodeon did a big push for their new "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" series, so there were lots of turtle and Foot Clan hats on the scene (I was a turtle, Helby was a Foot)

5) One booth handed me something called TAG, Terror Attack Game, a card-based table-top game; this is a rather large game set, with at least 150 cards and some dice. Can't imagine why it was free... unless it's religious

6) The same booth handing out TAG also handed out a CD called "A Fist in the Sand;" not sure if that's a CD-ROM game or an audio disc

7) Tried to purchase a Bride of Frankenstein shirt from Fisticuffs LTD, but they didn't have the right size; they didn't realize demand was going to be so high

8) Bought the latest from MC Frontalot, called "Solved"

9) Lou Ferrigno was signing autographs for a price; I believe he'd be upset if he knew about this pic

10) And I'm supposed to go see the new Total Recall

Comic-Con: And Then What Happened? Serialized Shows That Ended Too Soon

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 17:30:00 +0000

What would have happened if "Dollhouse" had had a third season? How would "Flash Forward" have been different if David S. Goyer had stayed on? Would "Middleman" have been different if it'd had a larger budget?

TV writers Andrew Chambliss, Ian Goldberg, Javier Grillo-Marxuach and Jose Molina (and my apologies to the fifth panelist whose name I've forgotten and was not listed in materials) all worked on serialized shows that were cut short for lack of ratings. This panel was ostensibly about describing what the conclusions to these cult shows would have been if they'd continued; but the focus ended up being more about what it feels like to work on a show that's constantly under threat of being cancelled before concluding the storyline.

The recurring point throughout the conversation was that, no matter how thoroughly a showrunner/creator may have planned the arc of the series, plans will always change as the show is actually in progress. Whether a show is a hit or struggling, all the planning in the world will be thrown out the window when budgetary concerns, breakout performances, or story elements that were more interesting than anticipated begin to present themselves.

In an appropriate bit of symmetry, the panelists ran out of time and were cut off before bringing the conversation to a satisfying conclusion.

Comic-Con: Brickleberry

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:49:00 +0000

The Comic-Con crowd was treated to an advanced screening of Comedy Central's new animated series, "Brickleberry," centered on a group of bumbling forest rangers. The screening was preceded by a recorded message from comedian Daniel Tosh (who produces the show), who couldn't be there because he's "an adult and has a real job." He kept his message short, he told us, so that we wouldn't miss our scheduled "Joss Whedon suck-off panel."

The screening was followed by a Q&A moderated by Tom Kenny, voice of SpongeBob SquarePants and now a "Brickleberry" cast member. Joining him on stage were voice actors David Herman and Jerry Minor, and "Brickleberry" creators Waco O'Guin and Roger Black.

The show had plenty of laughs and will fit in well on late-night Comedy Central. O'Guin and Black were clearly thrilled to be on the Comic-Con stage, a fact reinforced by their descriptions of years of failed pitches and false starts before finding a champion in Tosh.

"Brickleberry" begins airing at the end of September.

Comic-Con: The Writers' Room with Jonathan Ross

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:39:00 +0000

Formatted like a late-night talk show, this panel wasn't about writing per sé, but more of a getting-to-know three high-profile comic book writers: Robert Kirkman, John Layman, and Ed Brubaker. Moderator Jonathan Ross made for a good talk show host, something at which he's clearly experienced. (He assured us Americans that he's quite a big deal in his native UK.)

The conversation largely centered on the benefits of creator ownership of comic book properties. Also discussed were daily routines and habits of successful comic writers, including scheduled masturbation time (always 2 PM).

Kirkman, Layman and Brubaker all pointed new comic creators toward internet distribution, which seems to be the recurring theme at this year's Comic-Con. Artists can retain creative control of their work, eliminate printing costs, and not lose any of their earnings to publishers (who typically take more than 50%, even from the top writers).

Comic-Con: Around the Con

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:14:00 +0000

Found this committed Grimm fan who created a makeup scar on her arm with the show's title branded in. This picture doesn't do it justice, but it was a very well-done effect.

Robbie the Robot made an appearance, operated remotely by a guy casually -- almost passively -- tapping on a laptop.

When you dress in steampunk, you're required to stop and pose for pictures any time you accidentally find yourself in proximity to two or more other steampunks. It's just a thing that's always happening.

Ran across a group of Batman villains. These people didn't know each other but, like steampunks, found themselves near each other and had to pose together. This was easily the single best amateur Penguin I've ever seen, anywhere, at all, period.

Over near the Gaslamp Quarter, a pop-up videogame arcade was set up by... actually, I don't know who set it up. But I appreciated it. Gameplay was free. Got reacquainted with a longtime favorite, Soul Calibur. But I spent most of my time playing a game I never knew existed: four-person Pac-Man. It's awesome. Not only do you eat pellets, power pellets, fruit and ghosts... you also eat other players! I turned out to be pretty good at that.

A much-talked-about display this year was the outdoor (and free to Comic-Con non-attendees) Batmobile exhibit. Authentic Batmobiles from the Adam West series, through Burton/Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, and the current Nolan/Bale trilogy were shined up and available for photo ops.

Visible from the street was a small part of the "Walking Dead" 100th issue celebration Zombie Run at Petco Park. But I didn't feel like paying to run the course, so you'll have to rely on other sites for pictures.

All-in-all, plenty to see and do outside of the usual Comic-Con activities.

Comic-Con: Lenore Turns 20

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:44:00 +0000

Stopped in to see Roman Dirge discuss the latest issues of his now-20-year-old comic book series Lenore. He also talked briefly about a potential new stop-motion animated TV series, and a new stop-motion animated feature film project. Due to their early development status, he couldn't elaborate much about either.

Dirge was interviewed by his merchandizing partner Andrew Sumner.

This is the second year I attended a Roman Dirge panel. They tend to be loosely-structured stream-of-consciousness events; a good opportunity for fans to ask any and every question, and receive a shot of sherry as a reward.

Comic-Con: How to Break into Television Writing

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:00:00 +0000

Hello again from the Professional Lounge. Me being a professional and all.

Hosted by Karen Horne (creator of the Nickelodeon Writers' Fellowship and NBC's Writers On the Verge) and TV writer Spiro Skentzos, this panel was exactly what it promised to be: a primer on how to go about making a career for yourself as a TV writer.

Similar to yesterday's Pitching Hour panel, this panel was informative, but is information you can find elsewhere. Seriously, if you're interested in writing professionally, you should already be listening to the podcasts and reading the blogs that numerous professional writers generously make available to you for free. Bless our modern technology.

Due to Ms. Horne's involvement in writing programs, much was discussed about how to apply, how to stand out, and the (obvious) benefits of getting accepted into one. Mr. Skentzos confirmed one of the most frustrating aspects of these programs for me: ~~the fact that I never get accepted~~ the fact that many (most?) of the people getting accepted into those programs these days are already writers with produced credits, agents, or maybe even long-standing careers. You can't begrudge Mr. Skentzos the fact that he got accepted to a program after already having had a years-long career as a sitcom writer (don't hate the player, right?), but it's important for newcomers to understand you're up against top talent not just when you're trying to get a writing gig, but when you're simply trying to get into a pre-career program.

On the flip side of that coin: Mr. Skentzos has applied to the Warner Bros. Writers Workshop for ten years and has never been accepted. So, if you're an amateur who's been frustrated about getting shut out of writing programs, keep in mind that there are people with decade-long careers who are also getting rejected. So maybe you don't suck. I mean, look... maybe you do; but rejection from these programs doesn't necessarily indicate that.