It’s a bird, it’s a plane… nope, it’s Shrek the Musical!

Personally, I’m a longtime fan of the Shrek franchise, and let’s just say that I had my doubts about this one. I did. But apparently it was a huge hit this summer in Seattle, where the show debuted. Here’s a taste:

And here’s Larry Osterman, who saw it in Seattle and predicts it will be a Broadway smash:

This show’s going to be BIG when it hits Broadway. I’m talking Hairspray big.

It’s one of the funniest shows I’ve seen in a really long time. The main characters are brilliant, and the writing is very funny.

[…]

One very nice touch in the show is that just as the movie of Shrek had lots of clever references to classic fairy tales, the musical version of Shrek is filled with clever references to other Broadway shows[1]. For instance, there’s a scene where the fairy tale characters are all interviewed by Lord Farquaad (the villain). The characters all stand in a line on stage and Farquaad interviews them using the “G_d Mike” (as Daniel calls it). The characters then sing a clever song about how they want Farquaad to pick them. It’s a pastiche of A Chorus Line.

(Osterman’s commenters disagree, but he certainly seems sold….)

Previews begin on Broadway on November 8th, 2008. You can get ticket information online, if you’re so inclined.

It always cracks me up, a little, when someone decides to call something modern a “classic.” I mean, I guess everything—even the classics—were new at some point, but aren’t classics supposed to be old? Are we even allowed to come up with new classics, at this point?

Whatever. I guess it’s possible to have new (old) classics. I may just need another cup of coffee to properly process it.

Anyway, Entertainment Weekly just did a piece on the “100 New Movie Classics,” and they started it off with The Top 25. These are the films which they feel are stand-outs that will withstand the test of time.

What I find notable on this list is that of twenty-five films, three of their picks are animated. Shrek comes in at 25, The Lion King at 20, and Toy Story was number 5. In the grand scheme of what makes a movie a classic, I think three out of twenty-five is pretty impressive. It certainly proves the point that animated films are managing to be true “family films” that the whole family will enjoy, rather than the so-called family films that parents silently suffer through for Junior’s sake.

Then again, I’m not entirely sure I trust this listing, given that they rank both The Matrix and Blue Velvet—two movies I have watched several times and still fear I’m too unhip to truly “get.”

I guess I’ll stick to Toy Story; I’m pretty sure I have a good grasp on that one.

Personally, I’ve thought it quite nice that “modern” kids’ television and films have had enough adult-worthy content to keep us doting parents from falling asleep while the kids enjoy them. This is hardly a new concept; even back in the early days of Sesame Street there were little jokes and asides and gags inserted specifically for the amusement of the double-digit set.

But last week The Guardian’s Michael Hann officially took issue with children’s films, insisting that they’re missing the mark entirely:

Now, however, too many kids’ film-makers spend too much time worrying about their adult audience, and make movies that pass the kids by. We remember the successes - the likes of Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Shrek and The Incredibles - and forget the many failures, such as 2004’s Shark Tale, which required a working knowledge of mafia movies to negotiate the sub-plots, something surely beyond pre-teen punters.

He goes on to point out movies which “require” (his word) knowledge of purely adult matters to comprehend in their entirety, then takes issue with the most basic of metrics—the run-time:

Even last year’s big animated crit-hit, Ratatouille, failed at the most basic level (not that those handing out the plaudits noticed): it was nearly two hours long, a good 20 minutes more than most of its target audience can comfortably sit through. (For comparison, Finding Nemo clocked in at 100 minutes; Toy Story at a merciful 81 minutes, offering viewers no chance to get bored.)

I’m not sure I agree, here. I mean, what age of kids are we talking about? My kids can sit through a 2-hour movie, no problem. And they’ve been able to from a very young age, I think. As for me, I do recall a couple of lousy kids’ films which shall remain nameless (ahem) during which I wished I’d lied to the kids and told them the theater was closed or the movie was sold out. Now, if I get bored, I just sit there and feel bored; if a child gets bored, maybe he acts up or cries. I guess that’s more problematic from the theater-goers point of view.

But honestly? I don’t know a kid—of any age—or a parent who didn’t love Ratatouille. Isn’t that the point, for the whole family to love it…? I’ve yet to meet the kid who says, “Oh, yeah, I liked it but it was too long!” I guess I’m saying I find Hann’s criticism a little broad.

Thanksgiving has come and gone, and hopefully you got some good shopping in (and don’t forget that you can still get some great deals today only at Ty’s), and now it’s the season for holiday movies on television.

That’s right; it’s time for Charlie Brown’s pitiful Christmas tree; it’s time for everyone to warn Ralphie that he’ll shoot his eye out; it’s time to carve the roast beast; it’s time to watch the Heat Miser and the Cold Miser duke it out. It’s time to watch the movies that herald the magic of the holidays and remind us of the traditions of our childhoods.

Shrek the Halls is coming up this Wednesday night, a new contender for “classic” status. I’ve written about it before, and since then I’ve actually seen it. (ABC was kind enough to send me a screener copy.) We sat down and watched it as a family this past weekend and it was… fine. Not great, no, but okay. Much of the problem lay, I felt, with it only being half an hour long; there really wasn’t time to do any sort of plot development. But if you’re a Shrek fan (we are) it may be worth catching. Will it become a “classic?” I sort of doubt it.

The Baltimore Sun’s David Zurawik was less charitable in his assessment:

And, so, the entire 22 minutes (running time without commercials) is more or less a primer in how to celebrate Christmas as a family: Decorate the house, get a tree, hang the stockings — with Daddy reading ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas to the three baby ogres.

But just as the reading starts, Donkey, Puss in Boots, Gingerbread Man and a cast of dozens crash the intimate gathering. Now, after Shrek explodes in anger, he has to learn another lesson about the meaning of family — mainly from Donkey and Fiona.

While the story line speaks to loneliness and celebrates community belonging, the episode ultimately feels as flat and superficial as a mass-produced holiday greeting card. There is nothing nearly as daring or deep as the exploration of existential angst in the landmark Charlie Brown special.

The rest of his piece is an interesting exploration of why the various “true” classics like Charlie Brown have endured, and is worth the read. I’m not sure I ever thought about the role of existential angst in the appeal of the Peanuts gang, but he has a point.

If you want to do your own compare-and-contrast, stay tuned to ABC this week: Tuesday night at 8:00 pm will bring A Charlie Brown Christmas, while Wednesday night at 8:00 pm will debut Shrek the Halls, followed by How the Grinch Stole Christmas at 8:30 pm. No matter which specials appeal to you, do take the time to sit down and watch them with your children. That’s the part they’ll remember, not whether or not the cartoon itself was really any good. At least, that’s what I always remember. And what I tell my kids they’d better remember. Heh.

I was well into my 20s before I saw my first Imax film, because I led a deprived childhood. Also, possibly, because Imax didn’t exist when I was a young thing, and then there was no Imax theater where I was living, so it wasn’t until I was on a business trip to Vancouver that I first got to experience the joy and wonder of a really big screen, surround sound that just about blew me out of my seat, and—of course—those cool plastic glasses that made everything 3-dimensional.

I fell immediately and deeply in love with the entire experience, even though one of the movies I saw was about Shackleton’s Antarctic Expedition. I’m not sure that it’s less horrifying to watch freezing men slaughter and eat their dogs when everything is super-huge. (To its credit, that one didn’t have any 3D effects, at least.)

Anyway.

What was my point here? Oh! Yes! I remember now. My point is that Imax is cool, and there’s about to be a whole lot more Imax coolness, because last week DreamWorks signed a 4-movie deal with Imax:

Imax and DreamWorks have agreed to release the studio’s first three 3D motion pictures worldwide in Imax 3D: “Monsters vs. Aliens” in March 2009, “How to Train Your Dragon” in November 2009 and “Shrek Goes Forth” in May 2010. A fourth DreamWorks title, “Kung Fu Panda,” will be released in Imax’s 2D format in June 2008. The films will be distributed by Paramount Pictures, a unit of Viacom Inc. (VIA).

Earlier this year, DreamWorks announced plans to release all its computer- animated films in 3D starting in 2009. It was welcome news for all that had a stake in the emerging 3D film industry, such as privately held Real D, the leading provider of digital 3D projection technology. At the time, DreamWorks made no specific mention of Imax and its giant-screen format.

“Obviously, DreamWorks is placing a large amount of strategic focus on 3-D and we’re gratified to be part of their launch platform,” Richard Gelfond, co-chief executive of Imax, told Dow Jones.

The piece goes on to discuss how Imax “is now on the threshold of a transition to digital” and looking to secure as many studio deals as possible, which, obviously.

As a parent who still lives in a town without an Imax theater (clearly I just keep setting up camp in the wrong sorts of towns), I wonder what this will mean for “regular” theaters. Will this deal (and similar ones) have any effect on the play time these animated movies—the ones my kids want to see—get at conventional theaters? Will these Imax deals herald the increase in Imax theaters? Because I have to tell you, it wouldn’t hurt my feelings one bit if there was an Imax theater ’round here. It already costs an arm and a leg to go out to the movies—it might as well be a total sensory experience as long as we’re dishing out the bucks.

But I’m going to go on record right now with this: Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D? I will drive to my nearest major city for that one, because that sounds like all kinds of awesome. Erm, I mean, according to my kids. Yeah.

I know, I know; I swore I was going to stop talking about Shrek. It’s bad enough that having a hit movie franchise seems to be license to plaster the characters anywhere and everywhere in the name of savvy advertising. As much as I liked the first two movies, I do feel like I’m reaching… how shall I say this?… Shrek saturation.

In fact, my kids came home from a trip to McDonald’s yesterday with cups of Shrek Sludge. I’m pretty sure they were just green milkshakes, but I was a little afraid to check. And stuck into those cups of sludge? Ogre green straws.

Anyway, in light of the brash consumerism oozing from the Shrek empire, I thought now would be a good time to point out this interview with Jeffrey Katzenberg. For a multi-millionaire heading up a marketing machine, Katzenberg is remarkably grounded.

Katzenberg would rather celebrate his own good luck than gloat. “They (the Shrek films) defined us as a company in terms of what a DreamWorks Animated movie is and can be and should be, so they really helped us find ourselves. That first Shrek saved the company financially. We’re here today because of it. It’s been a great blessing. I refer to it as the gift that keeps on giving.”

It’s an interesting read in terms of Katzenberg’s career path and philosophy. The only time I snickered at all was at the mention of how there will “only” be five Shrek films because the story is finite. Five? Granted, that is technically still finite, but most good stories don’t require five separate movies to tell it. I’m just sayin’.

Regardless, the interview is worth a read. Just try not to think about the ogre sludge while you’re reading it.

Happy Friday! I’m having mixed feelings about this weekend, truthfully. I was all excited about Shrek the Third opening tonight. Mind you, I never go see a movie on opening night. Let’s not get crazy or anything. But when a promising family movie is opening on Friday night, I usually know it’s going to be a good weekend.

How do I know? Well, I may casually mention it to the kids on Thursday or Friday. “Hey guys… I hear [insert movie here] is opening this weekend. Maybe we’ll go see it.” And that’s all I need to do. For the rest of the weekend, I have an ace in the hole. Children fighting? “Gee, I guess we won’t be going to the movies.” Daughter back-talking? “Wow, that’s not going to make me want to take you to a movie.” Son melting down? “So you don’t want to go to the movies, then? Okay!” All misbehavior is nipped in the bud, and harmony reigns.

I’ve already admitted to being a huge Shrek fan, but now the moment of truth has arrived and… I’m nervous. The reviews for Shrek the Third aren’t looking too good. It’s not a huge surprise, I guess, but I’d still hoped for better.

There’s no disguising the fact that Shrek the Third has come down with a bad case of sequelitis. You know the symptoms: Lots of razzle-dazzle to distract from the hole at the center of the story. You know, the place where fresh ideas should be.
— Peter Travers
ROLLING STONE

Ouch. It, um, gets worse from there. Even the positive reviews basically warn that it’s more of the same, except less so.

All of which is pretty unfortunate, and greatly decreases my desire to shell out the bucks for a theater viewing. I don’t know; I may have to resort to actual parenting to get my kids to behave this weekend. Hmph.

Now if I could only get the kids to stop watching this, I’d be able to put this entire thing behind me.

Every now and then I come across a few things that I think are worth posting about, but none of them are really meaty enough in and of themselves to warrant a full post. Then I end up doing a post like this, where I squash together a bunch of stuff and pretend I totally meant for it to be that way. Just play along.

Item the first: Shrek is trying, people.

Remember how people were getting angry at Shrek for hawking candy and then being a fitness campaign spokesman (spokesogre)? Well, he’s really trying to live a more virtuous life. Honest. Just ask McDonald’s! They’ve got Shrek touting their healthier options:

McDonald’s will use Shrek to feature its salads, milk, apple slices and other products introduced in the last 3 years as the No. 1 restaurant company faced mounting criticism its food was not only unhealthy, but also contributing to the increase in overweight kids in the United States.

A Happy Meal with Apple Dippers, all-white-meat chicken McNuggets, and low-fat milk will be featured in television commercials and on posters in McDonald’s restaurants. Shrek will also appear on packaging for the milk and apples.

Good job, Shrek. I guess there aren’t many campaigns suggesting people just cook their kids a healthy dinner, so, um, way to push the apples.

Item the second: Nickelodeon video game proliferation.

I guess it wasn’t enough that I was going to try to keep my son from finding out about the new Ben 10 video game. Nope, it turns out that there’s going to be a whole slew of upcoming video games based on popular Nick shows. Great. Titles will include games based on cartoon favorites such as Spongebob Squarepants and Avatar, as well as games based on shows like Zoey 101 and Drake & Josh. Whomever has the most teen angst wins! Well, maybe that’s not exactly how it’ll be, but whatever.

Item the third: I hope you didn’t miss it.

Did you make it out for Free Comic Book Day? I hope you did. Even if you didn’t, you have to check out the Talking Shop piece about it over at Newsarama. This thing’s practically got a cult following, and their write-up is superb. An excerpt:

Patrick Brower, general manager of Graham Crackers Comics in downtown Chicago, said there were far more people this year than last. The store had Robert Kirkman signing for a few hours early in the day, particularly his Astounding Wolf-Man title that was offered among the free titles, but Brower said crowds continued after the creator left. “It wound up being our highest grossing Saturday in recent memory, possibly ever, and directly contributed the best single week of sales we’ve ever recorded,” he said.

There you have it. Three unrelated things you didn’t even know you wanted to know. No need to thank me.

What could be better on a Monday morning than an assortment of movie news? Well, yes, I suppose coffee and a donut might improve things, but you’ll have to take care of that on your own. Must I do everything around here? Is it not enough that I show up here every weekday? Hmph. Some people.

(Okay, it’s possible that I need another cup of coffee before I’m fit to interact with others. Hang on. Ahhhh. Much better.)

First up: Spider-Man 3. Hotly anticipated, it opened this weekend to the delight of Spidey fans everywhere. And the verdict is…? A new box office record. Apparently Peter Parker can climb up walls, shoot webs out of his wrists, and earn 148 million dollars on opening weekend. Not too shabby.

Next: Do you like that picture, up there? Aren’t those Shreklings (Shreklets?) adorable? There’s something that makes me giggle about People Magazine doing a spread on ogre babies, but I’ll take it. I suppose we should’ve been able to guess that Shrek the Third was likely to bring triplets to our favorite green couple. (I know I’ve been talking about Shrek a lot, lately. We’ve got less than two weeks before the new movie opens, and then I’ll probably stop.)

One more Shrek tidbit: There’s talk of a Puss in Boots movie. No, really. [Hat tip to Animated News for both of these bits of Shrek news.]

And finally: The Incredible Hulk movie has been underway for a while, now, with the announcement that Edward Norton will play the Hulk now old news. It’s been newly announced, though, that Liv Tyler will play his love interest. Hmmm. I wonder how the real Hulk feels about all of this? Thanks to the miracle of the internet, I probably won’t have to wonder for long. It turns out that the Hulk has a blog. Of course.

Happy Monday!

Oh, Shrek. You know I love you. I do. I was just singing your praises a couple of days ago. I appreciate a good flatulence joke. I like to think we understand each other. You continue to make me giggle, and I continue to go see your movies and buy them when they come out on DVD. I try to reserve judgment when it comes to seeing your mug adorning half the foodstuffs at the supermarket, you know, because I understand that you have to make a living. And not everyone can do that just by blogging about cartoons. You’re entitled to do what you need to do.

But now you may have gone too far, Shrek.

It seems that Shrek is slated to be the spokesogre for an ad campaign designed to target childhood obesity. And not everyone is happy about it:

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood says the soon-to-open “Shrek the Third” has too many promotional ties with unhealthy foods to justify using Shrek as a health advocate.

“There is an inherent conflict of interest between marketing junk food and promoting public health,” Susan Linn, the group’s director, wrote in a letter sent Wednesday to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt.

“Surely Health and Human Services can find a better spokesperson for healthy living than a character who is a walking advertisement for McDonald’s, sugary cereals, cookies and candy,” said Linn, an instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

The article lists the multiple product tie-ins for the upcoming Shrek the Third, and highlights what seems a reasonable query:

“Why would young children follow Shrek’s advice about healthy living and ignore his entreaties to eat Happy Meals and Pop-Tarts?” Linn wrote. “If government agencies are serious about combating childhood obesity, they should stop cozying up to industry and start taking real steps to end the barrage of junk food marketing aimed at children.”

The idealist in me agrees and wishes that my children could have that sort of commercial-free childhood for which the advocates are working. I don’t particularly enjoy food decorated with or—even worse—pressed into the shapes of popular characters.

But the smart-aleck in me would like to point out that Shrek’s love of pop-tarts doesn’t make him an unsuitable voice for a fitness campaign. The fact that he’s got a gigantic beer belly makes him an unsuitable voice for a fitness campaign.

I’m glad I had the opportunity to clear that up for everyone. Carry on.