El Squibbonator

I was sort of picturing the sequel doing something more in line with the tone and themes of live-action Marvel Cinematic Universe movies-- which, while rated PG-13, are nevertheless widely viewed by children and families.

Which just proves my point even further. I'm not saying it's necessarily likely, but it's a distinct possibility that can't be ruled out, not the way it could be ruled out for 99% of other animated movies.

ABC Warriors (comic series) Fire-bringer (novel by David Clement-Davies) Silverwing (novel by Kenneth Oppel) Molly and Emmett (children's book by Marilyn Hafner) The first three of these are for Fossil Record Pictures, the last one is for The Workshop.

How much could you see it making from a theatrical release?

Not always. Alien vs. Predator was PG-13 while Alien vs. Predator: Requiem was R. The first four Harry Potter movies were all PG, and the last four were PG-13. Scary Movie and its sequel are rated R (hard Rs at that), but 3 and 4 are PG-13. So it does happen.

Considering that Sony has already committed to making more adult-oriented animated films, that Into The Spider-Verse itself was somewhat darker than an average PG-rated movie of its time, and that live-action superhero movies are typically PG-13, is it possible that Across The Spider-Verse might be PG-13?

Disney is still contractually obligated to give Bob's Burgers a theatrical release, whether they want to or not. The tagline on the poster even says "In Flippin' Theaters". I could see Disney continuing to delay the movie if the pandemic doesn't subside. Not because they're particularly invested in its success, but because they're required to give it a theatrical release and they don't want to lose money in doing so. The big question is, how much can we expect this movie to make from a theatrical release?

That was based on an already-popular Disneyland ride, so it had built-in appeal that these other movies didn't have.

In all honesty, that's probably the best solution to all this. Warner Bros. should just purchase the entire Harry Potter franchise off J. K. Rowling's hands, the same way Disney bought Lucasfilm from George Lucas. Then-- to continue the analogy--they could do what Disney did with Star Wars, and declare Rowling's tweets and Pottermore posts non-canon, so they wouldn't have any more bearing on the franchise. As it stands, I have a hard time seeing where the movies will go from here. Assuming Secrets of Dumbledore makes about $500M worldwide, which would be a decent amount of money for anything that wasn't part of the Harry Potter franchise, I can't imagine WB committing to any more theatrical Fantastic Beasts movies. The series will supposedly be five movies long. If the other two get made, they'll most like be HBO Max exclusives. WB certainly doesn't seem willing to get rid of their distribution deal for the Harry Potter franchise, or sell the rights to a competitor. But keeping it around after it's passed its sell-by date could end up doing more harm than good in the long run.

What makes you say that?

It's not going to get pushed to Hulu. They already made a poster for it that says "In Flippin' Theaters."

What are you all's predictions regarding the Bob's Burgers movie? It comes out in May, but there hasn't even been a trailer for it.

I'm intrigued by this movie. See, straight-up action/adventure animated movies, as opposed to buddy comedies, fairy tales, and family dramas, have never been Disney's forte. Their various attempts to venture into this genre, such as Atlantis and Treasure Planet, were box-office flops. It's symptomatic, I would argue, of a greater issue Disney has had for many decades. Basically, the teenage male audience is the great white whale Disney has always failed to catch. They tried in the early 1980s with horror and sci-fi movies like Tron and The Black Hole, as well as their first PG-rated animated movie, The Black Cauldron. They tried again in the 2000s, with Atlantis and Treasure Planet, with equally miserable results. There was Pirates of the Caribbean, admittedly, but that had the appeal of being based on a famous Disney ride, so it hardly counted. Finally, they just threw up their arms and bought Marvel and Star Wars. Unfortunately, even after that, they've still failed to produce a successful in-house movie aimed at that demographic. And their attempts have been many— Tomorrowland, A Wrinkle In Time, Artemis Fowl, The Prince of Persia, John Carter, The Lone Ranger, the list goes on and on. So taken within that context, Strange World, if it is indeed the kind of movie it looks like it is going to be, represents another attempt at this by Disney. The million-dollar question is, will they succeed this time?

Serendipity (Children's book by Stephen Cosgrove)

Screening In-Competition Shadow of the Comet Studio: Fossil Record Animation Director: Harold Kingsley Genre: Action, Science-Fiction Rating: PG-13 for language, violence Budget: $25 Million Runtime: 2 hr 25 min Format: hand-drawn animation Main Cast: Samuel L. Jackson as Lee Richards Janet Maheswaran* as Valerie Acharya John Wilkins* as Michael Schwartz Peter David Meyers* as Ian Seymour Andrew Harrow* as Joseph "Big Joe" Creed Plot Summary

How does this festival work? And when are the main submissions for Y9 going to be open?

They should do a sports movie based on Quidditch Through The Ages. I'd pay good money to see that.

I just hope the titular "secret of Dumbledore" is his romantic relationship with Grindelwald. It's been, what, 14 years since we established that they had a thing? I think it's time we saw it on the big screen.

Oh, it goes beyond that. One thing that always irked me about the series is that the wizards have what amounts to INSTANTANEOUS, GREENHOUSE-GAS-FREE TRANSPORTATION. If Portkeys and broomsticks were made available to Muggles, Al Gore would be proud. But wizards are content to let muggles keep polluting the planet.

I'm kind of afraid she'll make it so the evil wizards were controlling the Nazis the whole time, which to me feels dangerously like holocaust denial.

So apparently it's set in the early 1930s, and it takes place partly in Germany and partly in China. Does this mean our heroes are going to be dealing with both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (remember, Japan had already invaded China by this point)? Or is that asking too much of Rowling?

What does PTA mean?

Disney will probably win, but their total will still be very low compared to pre-pandemic years.

Sort of a shame the poll's still not up, but when do you think that'll be?

How does one review a movie like PAW Patrol? That is the question. In theory, a movie should be judged by its ability to appeal to its intended target audience, and to accomplish what it was intended to do. The problem is that, in practice, when you apply this standard to movies designed exclusively for the enjoyment of the six-and-under crowd, it doesn't work as well as it should. No, there's nothing inherently bad about PAW Patrol: The Movie, but even if one were to review it by the standards of what it is supposed to be-- a mindless two-hour distraction for your preschooler-- it comes up looking insufficient. If you have watched the show, you can already predict most of the movie's plot. Dastardly Mayor Humdinger has gotten himself elected mayor of Adventure City, even though he is supposedly mayor of Foggy Bottom. The PAW Patrol, consisting of Ryder and the titular dogs, are summoned to put a stop to his crimes before they endanger the city-- in child-friendly, non-lethal ways, of course. We can't have our animated canine emergency workers dealing with realistic emergencies, after all. This is a movie where the police don't conduct body cavity searches and the firefighters don't have to see people getting burned to death. But I digress. PAW Patrol: The Movie would be tolerable, even enjoyable, if it didn't take itself with an iota of seriousness. DreamWorks made the animal-as-hero-with-super-gadgets concept work in The Penguins of Madagascar, and that movie was proudly self-aware in the typical DreamWorks fashion. But where The Penguins of Madagascar is a farce, deliberately playing up the absurdity of penguins as secret agents, PAW Patrol: The Movie asks its audience to take its premise at face value. PAW Patrol: The Movie is rated G, a rarity for animated movies in this day and age. However, I suspect many of the children who are its target audience will have already watched-- and enjoyed--PG-rated movies from the likes of Disney. When one compares PAW Patrol: The Movie to these other movies aimed at the same target audience, its deficiencies become much more obvious. And in a year that has already given us Space Jam: A New Legacy, The Mitchells Vs. The Machines, Luca, and even Raya and the Last Dragon, it feels like a distinctly lesser effort. Will it appeal to fans of the show? Obviously, but that's sort of a cop-out answer at this point. By any objective standard, even if we judge it by the standards of other movies aimed at children, PAW Patrol: The Movie is not what I would call good. Grade: D+