3-D Re-Releases: What's the Point? Does it Work? And is Disney Trying to Control it all?

First there were sequels, the re-makes, and re-boots now re-releasing films in 3-D is the trend in Hollywood.  Re-releasing classic films has been done for years.  There are cult following of classic movies which show on a regular basis in major cities, for films like Rocky Horror Picture Show, and The Sound of Music (sing-a-long).  Grease attempted this sing-along for one of it's anniversaries as well.  At one of my local theatres in Boston, Coolidge Corner, they play cult classics in a series at Midnight every Friday and Saturday.  I saw Mean Girls there, but they typically do smaller more obscure films, or films with tremendous fan bases.  The point of all these re-releases or "showings" is never really for the sake of commercial value, but rather to celebrate the art of film or to support a films fan base.

This current trend of re-releasing films in 3-D seems to do the exact opposite.  Not to say that these re-releases do not have strong fan bases, because Disney/Pixar films, Titanic, Star Wars, and Jurassic Park have some of the largest fan bases, but this move from studios attempts to be one to bolster easy commercial success.  Understandable!

The list below are the films I could find/remember being re-released in 3-D:


2011
The Lion King 3-D-94 million



2012
Titanic 3-D- 57 Million
Beauty and the Beast 3-D-47 million
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 3-D-43 million
Finding Nemo 3-D-41 million
Monsters, Inc 3-D- 31 million


2013
Jurassic Park 18 million (opened 4/5/13)

The Lion King may have not been "the first" but it was the most successful  and the only 3-D re-release I actually ended up going to see.  Titanic was a moderate success adding another 57 million to its large box office haul (still not toppling Avatar).  The rest of the films scored under 50 million, which is not awful although I would categorize Monsters, Inc. as a flop.  I think Disney specifically releasing classics has been a bit more successful, but the proof will be in the pudding when they re-release The Little Mermaid this fall.

I think if done right this can be fun, and I have heard from friends that people who Jurassic Park most recently that this one great film experience.  Part of the reason for creative success for this film paticularly is the way Steven Spielberg pushed the limits with his camera work that allow this to be one hell of an experience in theatres.  I may see this re-release myself.  I personally think the 3-D re-release works best for animation because the style, but Jurassic Park may be the exception, and Monsters Inc.'s box office total may be the proof I am wrong.

Yet to my question in the title, "What's the point?"  I think for the sake of looking at Jurassic Park I can say it's a smart move on two levels one the film's fan base deserves the 3-D treatment, and it's a great build up for the fourth film.  From my one friend Karl who saw the film already he stated that the fear of the T-Rex scene was even greater due in large part to the 3-D technology.  I also think it's smart to get people's minds back on this franchise, and excited for the new film.

I am curious at Disney/Pixar's model for re-release, why Lion King first?  No complaints because it worked financially.  Why not do it chronologically?  They do appear to be going backwards (although skipping my favorite Aladdin) with it going Lion King, Beauty and the Beast then Little Mermaid this fall. I think Little Mermaid will score on the same level as Beauty and the Beast (money wise) posing the question is this trend worth the time?

I would add that the Phantom Menace and Monster's Inc. would help pose this larger question either is this worth the time, or should they just be more selective.  Star Wars has a huge fan base, and who would have thought it's total would have been beat by both Titanic and Beauty and the Beast?  Lucasfilm had planned to re-release the first three in the series every year after, Clones in 2013, and Sith in 2014, but this plan has been scrapped

An official statement from Lucasfilm stated the following:



"Lucasfilm has decided to postpone this fall's scheduled release of Star Wars Episodes II and III in 3D. Given the recent development that we are moving forward with a new Star Wars trilogy, we will now focus 100 percent of our efforts on Star Wars: Episode VII in order to ensure the best possible experience for our fans. We will post further information about our 3-D release plans at a later date."

With Lucasfilm also owned by Disney (are you sensing a pattern?) "choosing to focus on the new franchise" this poses the question is this trend just a passing fad?  Monster's Inc. and it's re-release was timed in order to prep for the prequel Monster's University this summer, and I think Pixar thought they had a sure fire holiday family hit on their hand, but this film tanked.

Of the films which have been re-released only two do not come from a Disney company, Titanic and Jurassic Park.  Which poses the question that I have always had how much is Disney going to milk me for?  Disney and their "vault" or special releases, it's enough to make me sick.  Off my soap box and done with my rant.  I think this trend has valid merits, but should not be done just for the sake of it.  Not at all studios are doing this to gain a quick extra buck, but that's what this seems like.  These re-releases do not feel like a small intimate experience for fans, but rather a grasp for money from studios who want to pad their books.

Memo to the Academy: Think Outside the Box in the Animated Category

In 2001 the Academy Awards added the Best Animated Feature category.  The category was added namely because over the years there have been numerous animated films which have been snubbed in the Best Picture race.  Prior to the addition of more nominees in the Best Picture race, and this category existing only one film was nominated in the Best Picture category, Beauty and the Beast.

In the inaugural year of this category there were three nominees, Shrek, Monsters Inc., Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius.  Both Shrek and Monsters Inc., were two of the highest grossing films of the year, and they were also two of the best films of the the year.  Within this category these two fought it out very competitively and either could have won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature Film.  Both films could have been Best Picture contenders, but animated films have not been taken seriously until they added more nominees (Toy Story 3, and Up), but I am not going to go on a tangent about this topic.  Shrek and Monsters Inc, set the archetype for the films which have won this category.

While Shrek seems "typical" it was also the start of the anti fairy tale or a film which took traditional characters and challenged the past concepts within animated features.  Shrek has the ogre not a prince as the hero, the princess is also an ogre, and the noble stead is a donkey. While many would argue this formula is a bit predictable, I argue that it breaks the norm, and beating out the Disney/Pixar juggernaut is a feat rarely accomplished.

Monsters Inc., while good, not great (in my opinion) represents that traditional Pixar machine.  Now mind you I think most Pixar films are some of the best made in the last almost 20 years, and they have paved the way for animation to be taken more seriously.  Films like the Toy Story trilogy, The Incredibles, Up, and of course Wall-E.

Wall-E is the most unique Pixar film, without straying away from their traditional ideals.  Wall-E should have been a Best Picture nominee, and won the award in 2008.  Wall-E did win the Best Animated Feature Film prize deservedly beating out the much weaker Bolt, and Kung Fu Panda.  The latter two films fall in line with the more traditional or old school ways of the animated feature, they are more by the book style wise.  Many of the films nominated within this category fit the mold, but every so often the Academy does something right, and picks nominees/winners that are not "typical."

Even though it was only one year after the creation of this category, the Academy went for their first "atypical" winner Spirited Away. Spirited is in the vein of more traditional anime and comes from the genius mind of Hayao Miyazaki.  This is potentially one of the most deserved wins in this category, and while it was somewhat expected there was no true history yet within this category to help prove who had the best odds.  Spirted was up against Ice Age, Lilo and Stitch, Treasure Planet, and Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.

2005 was the first year with three completely quirky nominees, and winner.  The nominees were Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (winner), Corpse Bride, and How's Moving Castle.  None of the nominees were Pixar or Disney related and none were made by American film makers.  Quite an interesting array of nominees proving this can be an incredible category.

2011 had a few interesting and less predictable nominees with Chico and Rita, and A Cat in Paris, boxing out Cars 2 (thank goodness).  The winner Rango while predicted was also not a typical animated film, sure it has many prevailing themes, but the story is a bit out there with ugly animals.  Shutting out a Pixar was a bold move, and proved that Academy would not rubber stamp any Pixar film as a nominee, but they reverted back to their old ways this year, and that's where this memo comes from.

This year animated films were a bit off beat, and the best films were not the top grossing at the box office.  Of the five nominees two were successful at the box office, Brave and Wreck-It Ralph.  The other three nominees were ParaNorman, Frankenweenie, and The Pirates! Band of Misfits.  The latter three all made less than 60 million never truly catching on with popularity.  While they not have been the most popular ParaNorman, and Frankenweenie along with Wreck-It Ralph were all far superior to Brave.  Brave is by the book, and fits some of the most basic formulas within the animated genre.

This category has pioneered the way people look at animated film, pushed boundaries, and shown that animated feature films can be some of the best films out there.  While Brave was not a bad film picking Brave is could be a sign that this category has lost its spunk.  While this is only one flawed win, the category held so much originality and potential.  No disresepct to the makers of Brave because the film broke boundaries and was the first movie where the princess does not conform to the norms, and the first win by a female director in this category, two huge landmarks.  Yet going to beyond those points the Academy needs to assess quality, and Brave's win sets this category back.

Is Brave winning an Oscar the worst thing to happen, No, but were there better options, yes!  After the dust from the Oscars has settled its time to evaluate this category, the nominees, and the winners.  Was this a one year fluke, or will this signal a pattern of populist voting.  Only time will tell but in the words of Brave's heroine "if you had the chance to change your fate, would ya?"