What about Chow Yun-Fat's role in Pirates III?

Huge spoilers?  More like a gentle tease.  
With all the build up, I expected more than that.

Keith Richards has been on-again off-again with a POC cameo for quite some time.  Looks like this is an on-again moment.  It would be sweet if it actually happens, but I'm not holding my breath.

WOW! Talking about Anticlimaxes! Jim, this really hurts! Don't give us two third lengths of build-up and then not to deliver ANYTHING in the last third. I know, we call the summertime cucumber time, because there is nothing to write about except for the cucumbers.
But I have a question too: what is Disney's animated Christmas film this year? Or do we have to wait till March 30 for another dull and boring Chicken Little-like excuse of a movie (sorry guys this was – together with Home on the Range – the only Disney movie where I almost fell asleep). I know it's stupid to still expect QUALITY from Disney, but hey, I grew up with it.

So wait, is this confirmation that Bowler Hat Guy WILL be in the movie (and hasn't been cut out by Lasseter)?

Yikes ... I don't know that you "redefined the word spoiler", but you certainly redefined the word "disappointment"! That was weak ... I got more than that from the trailers I saw for these films before watching Cars.

And I totally disagree on Enchanted. That movie sounds like a piece of crap. The other three, yeah ... but that one? I'd rather choke on a chicken bone.

"Chicken Little ... was – together with Home on the Range – the only Disney movie where I almost fell asleep"

You did better than I did. I actually DID fall asleep during Chicken Little (in between bouts of nausea, that is) and I never even bothered to watch Home on the Range.

First off, I need to defend "Home on the Range".  It's a fun movie.  And, YAY, if Bowler Hat Guy is still in MTR.  He's going to be a great villain, I can tell!  And, I already knew most of what you wrote; some stuff in the "Ratatouille" blurb was new; I thought his name is Ratatouille...it's Remy?  And I didn't know they relocated.  I love the visual look of MTR, and am hoping that cheap jokes (Grampa lost his teeth) will be kept to a minimum.  Sorry about that "spoiler".

Ha!  I avoided the battlefield, Jimbo! I scrolled down, just glanced at the pics, and here I am!  I'm going to stay as spoiler-free for Ratatouille as possible (at least, til' the first major trailer comes out).

@blackcauldron85:
Yeah maybe for Americans it was nice because it was set in the West, but for the rest of the world it was just a dull uninspired movie like CL. And I am very afraid of what Cars will be like. No signs it is coming to Europe soon, anyway.
And I agree with WDWacky about Enchanted. Sounds very dumb.

Correction: Maybe for SOME Americans. Don't want to sound snobbish

Talking about dull movies: Did Jim ever do an article about how Treasure Planet came to be such a STRANGE movie? With beautiful animation, an –objectively looked at – interesting plot, great character desig, but nevertheless an unsatisfying experience.
Jim help us out here, please!

I have to agree - I love your site, Jim, but this was a little disappointing. These were so much spoilers to the movie, but certainly spoilers to the press releases.

None of this really sounds like much more than Disney employees already have access to...

Well, I enjoyed the spoilers, FWIW. And I have to say I'm looking forward to "Ratatouille". When I saw "Cars" there was a BUTTLOAD of trailers for CGI movies, including "Open Season" and "Monster House". But "Ratatouille" got the ONLY laughs from the theater audience. And it was easily the best-looking of the bunch, even if it did star rats ;) .

And I must defend "Chicken Little". I enjoyed it. Far more than I did "Ice Age 2" which nearly put ME to sleep. In fact I liked it more than "Over The Freaking Hedge", so there!

As for "Enchanted", well, that could be a good movie, depends on how it's done. I'm looking forward to the 2-D animated parts, and I'll bet your average CGI-drenched moviegoer will share my enthusiasm. But it's a damn shame it's got that pop-eyed political pinhead Sarandon in it. What a stupid broad. At least she's typecast as the evil queen (lol). Hope she gets offed. That'd be worth the ticket price alone.

So who is the voice of Remy?!?!  I couldn't tell from the trailer, but it does kind of sound like David Cross, which be oh-so-awesome.  I was hoping to read something along those lines, but I think I'll somehow manage.

OK, scratch that.  Patton Oswalt is cool too.  Next time I shall read everything when presented with a plot summary in italics!

POTC stuff is noteworthy if you've seen DMC or skimmed through one of the tie-in books that've been in stores for a couple weeks now.

Dutchduck1977 said:
Talking about dull movies: Did Jim ever do an article about how Treasure Planet came to be such a STRANGE movie? With beautiful animation, an –objectively looked at – interesting plot, great character desig, but nevertheless an unsatisfying experience.
Jim help us out here, please!
----
Wait a minute, Jim's not here!...This looks like a job for--
<ducks into phone booth>
<lightning bolt>
<smashes phone booth>
...TREASURE PLANET DEFENDER!!  :)

First of all, TP had been on eveyone's back table for at least a half-dozen projects...Nobody thought sail-spaceships were going to fly (snicker), until the Mermaid/Aladdin Boys, John Musker & Ron Clements, the resident Guy-Hero Adventure experts decided to take a crack at it.
And FWIW, they improved a few aspects, streamlined the story, and brought it back to book...But not everything was perfect:  Jim Missing His Dad was mercilessly subplotted for the first third of the  movie.  Jim dispatching Evil Spider Guy with a laser pistol was too pedestrian, and needed to be more central.
Oh, and then the official suggestion from Mr. Eisner:  More humor, and Jim was "too sulky".  I quote.  And, from the looks of the deleted scenes on the DVD, *agree*.

Did they go a little overboard on the last-minute humor rewrites?  Possibly.  Dr. Livesey in Stevenson's book was meant to be the landlubber-boob humor relief, but David Hyde-Pierce's Dr. Doppler may have abused the privilege in the script-doctoring.  Oh, and even the fans aren't apologizing for the Flatula creature.
However, we also got more "action" scenes out of the rewrite, and the pedestrian "comic-book" opening of the original was replaced by the cuddly "bedtime-story" opening, which not only set the tone with more character, but also let a lot of Jim's Daddy-moping be dropped from the first half with more expositional economy.

And as to the "Why the foggy blue heck did they release it two friggin' weeks after Harry Potter and then pull it out of theaters BEFORE Christmas vacation?", as well as it being the casualty of Santa Clause 2 and Lilo & Stitch's inexplicable box offices, that has already been explored in detail in the past.
Just doing my job, citizen--We're all part of the team.  <flies off to do more good>

Hey, Jim - now that you explained it, I take back what I said. But now you've ruined all these movies for me! ;)

And greenyskp - forget google. for a good encyclopedia, use wikipedia.

Next year looks to be a very good one from Disney. Loved the Ratatouille trailer, especially the "once you muscle past the gag reflex" line. Looking forward to Pirates III, of course.

I do wish Disney would reconsider a couple of film titles, though. "World's End" just doesn't sound like a Pirate movie to me, nor does it rank up there with "Curse of the Black Pearl" or "Dead Man's Chest." Hoping they improve that one. Also not crazy about "Meet the Robinsons," either. Though a bit long, I like "A Day with Wilbur Robinson" much better. It's already got cache for people who've read the book. If they're gonna change it, couldn't they come up with something better? How many "Meet the..." movies have there been? Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers, Meet the Feebles, Meet the Deedles, Meet the Barkers, etc. I think I've met enough people, and "the Robinsons" don't sound very special. But I would like to spend a day with Wilbur Robinson.

I do think Enchanted has possibilities, provided it's not just a retread of Shrek. I'm optomistic on that one. But Pirates III is definitely my top choice for next year.

<Talking about dull movies: Did Jim ever do an article about how Treasure Planet came to be such a STRANGE movie?>

Dutchduck1977, in addition to what DerekJ wrote, just do a quick search (top left of the site) for "Treasure Planet." You'll find all of Jim's previous articles on the subject.

Re "Wilbur Robinson":  Please note earlier JHM entry about how Actual ADWWR May Not Contain Bowler Hat Guy--
Like "Ratatouille"'s last-minute change of horses in midstream, we're getting early descriptions and pre-cut trailers of project still in transition.

POTC:  Well, er, guess we know who survives Movie 2, don't we?  Also sounds like Bruckheimer was talking out of his hat regarding POTC4, and Disney has their own ideas about wrapping up the story with the "closed trilogies" that most franchises get.
(Which leads us to speculation regarding the "Little Mermaid III" plot.)

Ratatouille:  Yes, I know it's Brad Bird, and CGI is different from CGI-Enhanced Stop-Motion...
But it's still going to be an uphill battle getting audiences to tell it apart from "Flushed Away", even though that one's an Aardman film and "not really" Dreamworks.  And has more exposure on the Wallace & Grommit DVD.

Having been forced to sit through  the trailer for Wilbur Robinson at a Cars screening last week, I'll tell you that the audience of kids in attendance could not have cared less.  It's an unattractive, shrill mess.  Lassetter might have been right on the money, but without JL even the most casual moviegoer could see the problems with this project from miles and a year away.  Mule.

"Having been forced to sit through  the trailer for Wilbur Robinson at a Cars screening last week, I'll tell you that the audience of kids in attendance could not have cared less.  It's an unattractive, shrill mess."
---
Ahem, well....GOOD THING IT'S NOT THE ONE THEY'RE MAKING, ISN'T IT??

Please, people (especially a.d):  We've been over this before.  In detail:
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2006/04/14/1856.aspx
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2006/04/16/1890.aspx
...You're watching an Imaginary Trailer.   You're watching the Trailer That Doesn't Exist.
You're watching the fossil of a Pre-Lasseterian Relic, leaving us to speculate archeologically what those long-ago days might have been like before the Pixar Meteor hit, and are now as lost to us as Grampa's teeth.

Will we get the Real Trailer that Represents The Actual Final Product?  Maybe.  About a few months closer to the release date, whatever that will now be.
But they'll need at least another year to create enough new, fixed footage for it, so you can just sit tight and wait.  The rest of us are.

So, do you mean, DerekJ, that Bowler Hat Guy won't be in MTR?  It's hard for me to believe that they'd advertise that movie featuring the bad guy if he won't be in the final film.  But I'd believe it if it's true, too...I just wish I knew what was going on with that film.

blackcauldron85 said:
"So, do you mean, DerekJ, that Bowler Hat Guy won't be in MTR?  It's hard for me to believe that they'd advertise that movie featuring the bad guy if he won't be in the final film."
----
It was ALL...THEY...HAD--
Disney was faced with two choices:  Build name identification for a film they hadn't finished re-animating yet (even if they only had trash-discarded scenes to show for it), or be honest, make us guess at it until a month before opening, and say "Uh, trust us, folks, there'll be some good stuff in it *later*!".
Please excuse Disney for taking the more commercial and mercenary option.  :)

(And this was already explored in detail on the other JHM blog listings for the Starz trailer last March, but Jim seems to remove the comments when he archives them, so we have to keep repeating this one over and over anew.)

Again I must beg to differ with one of the posters here.

"Lilo and Stitch" was DAMN good. I love it more every time I see it.

greenyskp said:
"Just remember Jim. The internet, is the new hangout for all the people who couldnt make it in the real world.

Cant get friends in real life? Get Friendster.
Cant get a boyfriend/girlfriend? Use eharmony.
Dont own an encyclopedia, or live near a library? Use google.

Its good for people like you to share info to the masses. But the biggest losers on the planet, who think they are kings of the internet, are the ones complaining on every message board."


Wow!  Don't hold back.  Say how you really feel.  

gigglesock said:
"Again I must beg to differ with one of the posters here.
'Lilo and Stitch' was DAMN good. I love it more every time I see it."
--
(Uh, if you're referring to my comment as to L&S's B.O., didn't mean "Inexplicable" as to "How?", meant, "Judging from the obscure plot concept and dropped/throwaway marketing, Disney didn't QUITE expect Stitch to be the hit that it was..."
Ie., they thought the weird animator pet-project would baffle the kiddies, throw a few cheap laffs to the grownups and be out of theaters in three weeks, and a classic name would build their big-ticket Thanksgiving audience for the other animated that year....And even if they had confidence in the Weird Blue Thing  (which they hadn't seemed to) what exec would have dreamed that a November movie would STILL be upstaged by the popularity-buzz of the movie that was still a hit from the previous summer...And, in fact, was just starting to catch on from word of mouth in Aug. and Sept.
Future note to themselves:  Only one animated per year.)

wow
no one's posted "well I hope Wilbur Robinson isn't a big success - not a bomb - just not a big success - so we can take William Joyce down a peg."

DEFINITELY looking forward to Meet the Robinsons!  This film looks really interesting, and I haven't been interested in a Disney feature animated film like this for a long time. Especially with what I have been reading of the team making the film and the new creative bosses, things seem to going to a much better direction overall. I read it was screened for the new bosses (we know who they are), and they stated they were very pleased with the new direction so far.

The other films look great too.  For me, and I guess I am in the minority (I am not a diehard Pixar lover), but Ratouille interests me the least.  I am sure it will be great, but my interest just isn't there with it yet.  

Overall, I am not too worried about WDFA's future, now that the right people are in charge. I just read in interview with Ed Catmull and I was blown away.  

"...You're watching an Imaginary Trailer.   You're watching the Trailer That Doesn't Exist. "
Do you have any other evidence except Jim's articles that Lasseter ever wanted to remove Bowler Hat Guy? Backing everything on one person's statement (especially when that person specifically uses words like "supposedly" in the artcle) doesn't make it true. And no offense to Jim, but if you go on most other forums and say "Jim Hill said Lasseter wants to remove Bowler Hat Guy", you probably won't get a good reception or a lot of believers.

Thanks, Treasure Planet Defender! Now, could your sidekick The Atlantis Explainer tell us how a movie that looked and sounded so promising in the previews ended up being such a snoozer when it was released? :)

Sorry, Jim already handled that one three years ago, and I couldn't top him: :)
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2003/08/10/165.aspx
(Except that I won't be as charitable to Trousdale & Wise, and say that however ambitious they want their projects to be, however bigger their creative eyes are than their stomachs, and however deceptively slam-bang a Big Opening Scene they start the movie with, they're a little quicker than other directors to deploy the Comedy-Relief safety-nets a little *too* early in the story...

And before the next person asks about "Home on the Range", do a search for "Sweating Bullets"...It'll explain a LOT, especially to the "Emperor's New Groove"-tolerant.)  :)

Dreamfinder1982, since when is Jim trying to be a child's role model? You act as if he is Walt Disney or Fonzie. Jim is a writer. Jim skipping to the last 50 pages isn't going to want to make a 10 year old who's reading this want to do the same thing. The only way Jim would be a bad writer is if he gave out spoilers without saying so.

Isn't this just an article about Jim giving us a peak into next years 4 big films from Disney?   not much more than that, right?
I can't see why this is such a big deal.
Have I missed something?

LOL!! Dreamfinder1982, I am _absolutely certain_ that this argument of yours is the pettiest, most ridiculous thing I have read in quite some time. Please, for the sake of the children, and for the rest of us who have to trudge through this ridiculous nonsense masquerading as concern for Lord knows whose children, just grow up and get your priorities straight. And quit mucking about and find your footing. We all have to stand somewhere, after all…

Uh, first of all, it's hard to read DF's comments, and NOT think someone's after a Vaudeville Act...And it's not like we're *all* innocent of that, are we, chrlane?  ;)
(Geez, first the dopey Dutchman, and now DF beating one joke into the ground...We're gettin' ALLLL the failed auditionees on this thread, aren't we?)

Second, read back on one of Jim's "complaints":
---
"Trust me, folks. Based on the angry e-mails that I've already received from folks who work in Emeryville, the people at Pixar think today's column is a HUGE spoiler. A spoiler that can be seen from space."
---
...THAT'S a little more serious.  In fact, strike the "little", it's more than enough LOT-Serious for Jim to put the "Just on the hush-hush and QT" order on:

There's a reason why people who don't read JHM shrugged a "Huh?" at Rat's funny-but-plot-unhelpful teaser when Cars opened--Pixar likes it that way.
It's not *just* that they want to tease mainstream audiences with just a -taste- of a marketable motif and main character but not an entire plot outline...It's that other little industry contention that Disney also knows only too well:  Loose Lips Create Dreamworks Films.
(And "Antz" alone was enough reason for Pixar, much more so than Disney, to personally want to start plugging their in-house leaks....I dare anyone to blame them.)

So:  When JHM sez "Spoilers" treat them as such.  You don't have to read them.  But if you do, they can help you look like a smart person and make all those other "WTF was up with that Rat thing?" mainstreamers look like complete idiots...And isn't that alone reward enough?   :)

Well, a lot more is revealed over at IMDB.com -

Plot Summary for
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

The age of piracy is coming to a close, but not before one final dispute is settled. Will Turner sails to the Far East to find magical charts which will help him to find Davy Jones's locker and save his friend Jack Sparrow. Jack is rescued but... Davy Jones (Bill Nighy), lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander), demonic Asian pirate Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat), and commodore James Norrington (Jack Davenport) have formed a wicked alliance that threatens the freedom of Jack Sparrow, Will Turner, Elizabeth Swann, their new ally captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) and all pirates in the world. Emerging victorious requires that Jack lead his crew off the edge of the map and into the uncharted territory on the seven seas. To the Shipwreck island on the end of the world.


So - this leads to the concept that Jack has been frozen in carbonite and that Luke and Leia must join forces to free him from the clutches of Jaba The Hutt...er...sorry, wrong movie...but, if the inference is correct, Jack gets himself trapped in Davy Jone's Locker, Will has to find the way to rescue him, all of Jack's main enemies band together to wreak revenge upon our beloved rummie, and, that his old nemesis, Barbarosa, has to come around to Jack's rooting squad again...recanting for his act of villainy that took place before the first film began...leading the mutiny against Jack as first mate of the Black Pearl......

Now, Shipwreck Island...the Sea of Lost Ships...yee haw - that offers a great setting for the final battle...and allows the heros to sail off into the infinte destiny of legend and lore......

Just some thoughts.  

"And it's not like we're *all* innocent of that, are we, chrlane?  ;)
(Geez, first the dopey Dutchman, and now DF beating one joke into the ground...We're gettin' ALLLL the failed auditionees on this thread, aren't we?)"

*blink-blink* Nobody said anything about an audition…has the camera been on all this time? Oh dear…

@DerekJ: Dopey Dutchman? Hey! I refuse to be put in connection with this Dreamfinderguy!
I like this website very much, that's why I visit it everyday and have come to expect a certain quality. What I have written was meant to be slightly vaudeville!
But maybe the reaction of DerekJ was a reaction to my saying Americans like their own West so much.
But THAT may be because the whole friggin town of Vienna, Austria where I live in has become a High Level Security War Area because of the (two day!!!) Visit of the Commander in Chief GWB.
And tell you what? Strangely enough 72 % of the Austrian people have an extremely negative opinion about this man. The security for this two day visit costs more than the two week EU- South America Summit where half the world's political leaders where present.
We won't be able to see the guy. Apparently he's got a pretty bad conscious. Where are the days where chearing crowds where welcoming Clinton, Kennedy?
I know this is not the right place to start a political discussion. I tend to refrain from it in the first place. But thought it not bad that people know why there are some pretty harsh opinions towards Americans nowadays. Like to put forward I tend to differentiate between the average Cowboy in charge in Washington and the rest of the nation.

Regarding Wilbur R: A trailer is a film genre unto itself.  You can cut a trailer and add a voiceover/soundtrack to make it deliver whatever you want it to deliver.  I can't imagine that Wilbur R. trailer is anything other than exactly what DFA wanted it to be, then, now, next year.  

Oh, and it will...But *whose* WDFA?--Lasseter's, or "Chicken Little" Stainton's?
Mr. Stainton...he gone.  :)

So I, Alice's mother, asked her about this.  Alice and I disagree about the use of cheats, etc. in video games, (she says yes, I say no, BUT when she beat KH2 in three days with NO CHEATS, she was more satisfied than if she had used them, and I said "See?  See?"  'cause I'm good at saying that.)

Alice said, "Yeah, Dad picked up the book and flipped to the end.  He always does that."  

"Did it make you want to?"  I asked.  I refuse to do that, myself.  I learned my lesson from Haunted Mansion Holiday - I like the attraction SO MUCH MORE when it's a total surprise to me.

"No.  I was a little tempted, but knew I'd like it more if I didn't."  When it comes to some things, it's the journey, not the destination.

Jim rubs off on his daughter in so many good ways.  Her sense of humor.  Her intelligence.  Her laugh.  Her keen curiosity and ability to befriend anyone.  Her patience with difficult people, something she absolutely did not get from me.  

She's doing really, really well.  I hope we'll see some of you when we visit WDW this coming January.  Til then, take care - and don't worry about her, she's doing just fine.  

Michelle Smith (Jim's ex-wife)

Dreamfinder, on the subject of skipping to the end of books, I have approximately 100 library books circulating in my home every month and my children are at liberty to do everything but deface them. They can make careful towers with them, or they can read them upside down and backwards for all I care. Big deal if they skip to the end. At least they're reading, and the next person who takes it out of the library will enjoy a book in good condition.

I have enough perspective to realize that if I refrain from interfearing in a child's normal explorations-- the sort that truly are harmless,  the novelty of things such as of ruining a story will wear thin eventually and the appeal of a good story is, on it's own, without my meddling, sufficient motivation for my children to engage in normal reading practices.

IMHO, if anything, getting all worked up about something so petty can mess with a child's instincts and motivation to explore their surroundings and find their enthusiasm for learning.

Besides, I often read only bits of a book just to get the gist of it. Sometimes, just a scan of the preface is as far as I get. And still, I learn something from that book, even if it is only that I do not care to read it. Why should it be any different for a child? I don't get it. Why should I want my child to learn to blindly conform to the wishes of someone else if something simply does not fit? Even if they are my flesh and blood, I would choose to refrain from imposing my will in such an invasive manner; to fill every inch of their heads with myself, my flaws and my blindness, so that there is no longer room for them in there. They have such insights, you know.

By no means do I mean we should be overly permissive, but some things are simply not harmful. And they are unable to develop their own perspective and approach to life if we do their thinking for them. After all, we're all unique in our aptitudes and interests. I always thought this should be fostered to some extent. Especially in such personal matters as leasure activities.

Ye gods, if I had to read the whole Witch book series when Alice was into them, instead of just flipping through one and scanning pages, I'd be hard-pressed to not pop a cap into my own uvula.  

But I do scan.  

Holy cranky people!!

JIM no matter what you write, as long as you dont call Walt himself a pedophile I WELCOME ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY!!

Thanks! I totally cant wait for POCIII and definitely Meet the Robinsons! Ratatouille is prolly gonna be good too.. but ya not so excited with the Enchanted.. but I will watch it anyways.. I AM a sucker for Disney. LOL

Thanks again Jim and keep up the AWESOME work. Same with everyone else. Even the drama here in the posts are hilarious. WOO WOOOOO

PingBack from http://b3mtv.com/?p=5