I have to work today, so I thought this might be a fitting song...
"A Hard Day's Night"--The Beatles
Saturday, September 3, 2005
Friday, September 2, 2005
Robert Moog R. I. P.
Most of you may not recognise the name "Dr. Robert Moog," but you probably recognise the name of the device he invented--the "Moog syntesizer." Robert Moog died Sunday from an inoperable brain tumour at the age of 71.
Dr. Robert Moog was born in New York City. As a child he developed an interest in the theremin, one of the earliest electronic instruments (most often used to make the creepy sounds in horror and sci-fi movies). While still a boy he built gadgets with his father. He would go onto Queens College and Columbia University. He built theremins to help pay his college tuition. He was still a doctoral student majoring in engineering physics at Cornell University when he developed the Moog synthesizer alongside composer Herb Deutsch. It was in late 1964 that R. A. Moog Co. first started selling the Moog synthesizer.
The Moog synthesizer was not the first synthesizer. Others were already on the market in 1964. What set the Moog apart was that it was lightwweight, small, and very versatile. By 1967 the Moog synthesizer would be used on a pop music album for the first time, that album was The Monkees' Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones, Ltd.. It was used ont he songs "Daily, Nightly" and "Star Collector." It was with the album Switched-On Bach by keyboard artist Walter Carlos in 1968, however, that the Moog synthesizer gained widespread recognition. Soon many other artists would be using Moog synthesizers on their songs. The Beatles used it on their album Abbey Road and The Who used it on their album Who's Next. By the 1970s Moog synthesizers were used frequently in rock music. By the late Seventies and early Eighties there would even be an entire genre of pop music reliant on the synthesizer as its primarly instrument--"synthpop" or "technopop," which included such artists as Soft Cell and the Human League. In movies, the Moog synthesizer was used for the score for A Clockwork Orange.
Dr. Robert Moog considered himself foremost as an engineer or toolmaker. He simply build tools used by musicians. In some respects I think this may be an understatement. The name "Moog" became associated with synthesizers in the same way that "Steinway" became associated with pianos or "Les Paul" became asssociated with guitars. Indeed, Robert Moog's invention revolutionised the music industry. Not only could it be heard in many of the classic rock songs of the Seventies and Eighties, but it had a profound influence on progresive rock and funk. Its existence pretty much created the genres of synthpop and techno. More than many other men in the field of musical instruments, Dr. Robert Moog had a profound effect on modern music.
Dr. Robert Moog was born in New York City. As a child he developed an interest in the theremin, one of the earliest electronic instruments (most often used to make the creepy sounds in horror and sci-fi movies). While still a boy he built gadgets with his father. He would go onto Queens College and Columbia University. He built theremins to help pay his college tuition. He was still a doctoral student majoring in engineering physics at Cornell University when he developed the Moog synthesizer alongside composer Herb Deutsch. It was in late 1964 that R. A. Moog Co. first started selling the Moog synthesizer.
The Moog synthesizer was not the first synthesizer. Others were already on the market in 1964. What set the Moog apart was that it was lightwweight, small, and very versatile. By 1967 the Moog synthesizer would be used on a pop music album for the first time, that album was The Monkees' Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones, Ltd.. It was used ont he songs "Daily, Nightly" and "Star Collector." It was with the album Switched-On Bach by keyboard artist Walter Carlos in 1968, however, that the Moog synthesizer gained widespread recognition. Soon many other artists would be using Moog synthesizers on their songs. The Beatles used it on their album Abbey Road and The Who used it on their album Who's Next. By the 1970s Moog synthesizers were used frequently in rock music. By the late Seventies and early Eighties there would even be an entire genre of pop music reliant on the synthesizer as its primarly instrument--"synthpop" or "technopop," which included such artists as Soft Cell and the Human League. In movies, the Moog synthesizer was used for the score for A Clockwork Orange.
Dr. Robert Moog considered himself foremost as an engineer or toolmaker. He simply build tools used by musicians. In some respects I think this may be an understatement. The name "Moog" became associated with synthesizers in the same way that "Steinway" became associated with pianos or "Les Paul" became asssociated with guitars. Indeed, Robert Moog's invention revolutionised the music industry. Not only could it be heard in many of the classic rock songs of the Seventies and Eighties, but it had a profound influence on progresive rock and funk. Its existence pretty much created the genres of synthpop and techno. More than many other men in the field of musical instruments, Dr. Robert Moog had a profound effect on modern music.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
The Brothers Grimm
With the release of The Brothers Grimm, some may expect director Terry Gilliam to have finally gone Hollywood. After all, the movie features two big name stars (Matt Damon and Heath Ledger) and (for Gilliam, at least) a fairly big budget. But anyone who sees the film will soon realise that Gilliam, despite his stars and his budget, has not gone Hollywood. Indeed, The Brothers Grimm harkens back to his earlier films, such as Baron Munchausen and Brazil, with Gilliam's usual, unconventional filmmaking style.
The plot centres around Wilhelm and Jakob Grimm, the two brothers famous for compiling German fairy tales (Jakob would also write the mammoth Deutsche Mythologie, one of the earliest works on Germanic mythology), before they became famous. This is hardly a biography of the two, as this is a total fantasy of what they life may have been like. In the movie the two brothers make a living by "battling" various "supernatural" menaces across the German countryside. They soon find themselves working for the French (who at the time occupied much of Germany under Napoleon) and investigating the disappearances of various young girls in a small German village. The plot unfolds wonderfully. Indeed, one of the strong points of the movie is its screenplay. The movie does not tip its hand too quickly when it comes to revealing the various mysteries of its plot, nor does it move too slowly. One of the best things about The Brothers Grimm is its pacing. But perhaps the best thing about the movie's screenplay is the way it toys with the fairy tales we all grew up with. Indeed, some of them are used in the most unexpected ways--the Gingerbread Man sequence being a perfect example (you'll never watch the two Shrek the same way again....). Indeed, the plot is based around of the best known fairy tales--see if you can guess which one.
The Brothers Grimm is greatly helped by its performances. Matt Damon and Heath Ledger are both cast against type, with Damon as the more extroverted, rational Wilhelm and Ledger as the introverted, creative Jakob. Both are convincing in their roles, particularly Ledger whose Jakob has a tendency to believe that elements in his beloved folk tales are real. Kudos must also go to Lena Headey, as the resourceful Angelika, and Peter Stormare as highstrung Italian Cavaldi (one of Gilliam's typically off the wall characters).
Of course, the strongest point of The Brothers Grimm may well be Gilliam's direction. Gilliam puts his movie about as far as from the typical Hollywood blockbuster as he possibly can, with his usual unconventional style of filmmaking. There are the strange camera angles, incredible shots, oddball camera movements, and so on one might expect from a Terry Gilliam film. As might be expected, the movie has its share of over the top gags and strange characters. At the same time, however, there is nothing in this film that is self indulgent or unneccesary. Gilliam's strange shots and odd camera movements suit the movie's odd plot and atypical subject matter very well.
As stated earlier, this is one of Gilliam's movies with a bigger budget, and from the look of the movie, the money was invested quite well. The sets are huge and lavish. The costumes are intricate and detailed. Another one of The Brothers Grimm's strong points is its production design. This is a movie whose look is not only appealing, but suits the film very well.
The Brothers Grimm is obviously not going to be suited to every taste. Those who have little stomach for Gilliam's style of movie making probably will not like the film. But if one enjoys a movie with an original plot, off the wall direction, and a wonderfully skewed sense of humour, then this is the movie for him or her.
The plot centres around Wilhelm and Jakob Grimm, the two brothers famous for compiling German fairy tales (Jakob would also write the mammoth Deutsche Mythologie, one of the earliest works on Germanic mythology), before they became famous. This is hardly a biography of the two, as this is a total fantasy of what they life may have been like. In the movie the two brothers make a living by "battling" various "supernatural" menaces across the German countryside. They soon find themselves working for the French (who at the time occupied much of Germany under Napoleon) and investigating the disappearances of various young girls in a small German village. The plot unfolds wonderfully. Indeed, one of the strong points of the movie is its screenplay. The movie does not tip its hand too quickly when it comes to revealing the various mysteries of its plot, nor does it move too slowly. One of the best things about The Brothers Grimm is its pacing. But perhaps the best thing about the movie's screenplay is the way it toys with the fairy tales we all grew up with. Indeed, some of them are used in the most unexpected ways--the Gingerbread Man sequence being a perfect example (you'll never watch the two Shrek the same way again....). Indeed, the plot is based around of the best known fairy tales--see if you can guess which one.
The Brothers Grimm is greatly helped by its performances. Matt Damon and Heath Ledger are both cast against type, with Damon as the more extroverted, rational Wilhelm and Ledger as the introverted, creative Jakob. Both are convincing in their roles, particularly Ledger whose Jakob has a tendency to believe that elements in his beloved folk tales are real. Kudos must also go to Lena Headey, as the resourceful Angelika, and Peter Stormare as highstrung Italian Cavaldi (one of Gilliam's typically off the wall characters).
Of course, the strongest point of The Brothers Grimm may well be Gilliam's direction. Gilliam puts his movie about as far as from the typical Hollywood blockbuster as he possibly can, with his usual unconventional style of filmmaking. There are the strange camera angles, incredible shots, oddball camera movements, and so on one might expect from a Terry Gilliam film. As might be expected, the movie has its share of over the top gags and strange characters. At the same time, however, there is nothing in this film that is self indulgent or unneccesary. Gilliam's strange shots and odd camera movements suit the movie's odd plot and atypical subject matter very well.
As stated earlier, this is one of Gilliam's movies with a bigger budget, and from the look of the movie, the money was invested quite well. The sets are huge and lavish. The costumes are intricate and detailed. Another one of The Brothers Grimm's strong points is its production design. This is a movie whose look is not only appealing, but suits the film very well.
The Brothers Grimm is obviously not going to be suited to every taste. Those who have little stomach for Gilliam's style of movie making probably will not like the film. But if one enjoys a movie with an original plot, off the wall direction, and a wonderfully skewed sense of humour, then this is the movie for him or her.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Box Office Slump
Where the movie industry is concerned, this summer could well be remembered more for the past several months' box office slump than any of the movies released in the same time period. Until last month when The Fantastic Four was released, box office revenues had been down for 19 straight weeks. Unfortunately for Hollywood, The Fantastic Four brought only a brief reprieve, not a full recovery; profits from movies have still been down from previous years. Even the latest Star Wars movie, Revenge of the Sith, considered by many to be among the best of the franchise, could not raise box office revenues to the levels that they once were.
The current box office slump has been blamed on many different culprits. Among the foremost of these is the increasing popularity of DVDs. I have to admit that this could be one possble reason that people are not going to the cinema as often as they once did. I know many people who, rather than going to the theatre to watch a movie they want to see, simply wait for the DVD to be released and then rent the DVD or buy it. And with many movies being released on DVDs after only a few months after they are released to theatres, these individuals do not have to wait long. That having been said, I do not think that DVDs are the only factor which have led to the current box office slump. Many people I know, who usually wait for movies to come out on DVD before seeing them, went to see Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith on its opening night at the theatre. Now I will admit that much of this is because most of the people I know are fervent Star Wars fans, but I think it could also point to the fact that if a movie is good enough, if a movie is remarkable enough, people will go to see it in the theatre. Indeed, last year saw record breaking box office revenues, despite the fact that DVDs were selling well too.
While many might wait for movies to come out on DVD, others might simply wait for them to be shown on one of the many cable outlets. Most movies debut on one of the premium movie channels (HBO, Starz, Showtime, and so on) about a year after their initial release and often on Pay-Per-View sooner than that. It seems possible to me that many people may simply be electing to wait until a movie is shown on the premium movie channels or Pay-Per-View before watching it. Still, as with DVDs, it seems to me that if a movie is good enough or intersting enough, people will go see it in the theatres rather than wait for it to be shown on a premium channel or Pay-Per-View. Again, I know of many who went to see the latest Star Wars movie even though they don't usually go to the cinema.
Another factor could be rising ticket prices at theatres. In many places ticket prices at cinemas have risen with every passing year. In fact, in many places it is not unusual for a family of four to spend over $100 on a night at the movies, after buying the tickets and a trip to the concession stand are factored together. With the cost of day to day living what it is today (especially the price of gasoline...), many families may not feel that they have the money to spare on too many trips to the movies. Going to the movie theatre then becomes something they do only once in a great while.
As to the ultimate reason for this year's box office slump, I suspect it may be the quality of this year's releases more than anything else. Indeed, it seems to me that in some respects Hollywood has been showing an amazing lack of originality the past several years, with many movies being simply sequels to prevoius movies, remakes of previous movies, or remakes of television shows. I do believe that this summer has not seen as many sequels as last year, but there were still a few, XXX: State of the Union and Herbie: Fully Loaded among them. Among the remakes of old movies there have been The Longest Yard and The Bad News Bears. As to remakes of old television shows, it seems to me that they have nearly been a dime a dozen this year. This summer alone has seen movies based on The Honeymooners, Bewitched, and The Dukes of Hazzard. It occurs to me that many people might simply not want to pay money for something which they have essentially seen before. Why go see the new version of The Longest Yard when one can simply rent the original on DVD? Why go see the cinematic remake of The Dukes of Hazzard when it is still in reruns on various channels or one can see many of the episodes on DVD (of course, I don't know why anyone would want to see the TV show or the movie based on it, but that's a whole different story...)? While many sequels and remakes are very successful (Shrek II and Spider-Man II from last year are two examples), it seems to me that many others simply fail at the box office. I suspect the reason for that is simply that people often won't pay money for something they perceive as having essentially seen before.
Of course, even when a movie is a remake or a sequel, it seems to me that people will go see that film if it is actually good. As I pointed out above, both Shrek II and Spider-Man II were hits from last year. This brings me to what I feel is the underlying cause for this summer's box office slump; whether a remake, sequel, or a movie based on an original idea, many of this summer's crop of movies simply have not been very good. The Bad News Bears, The Dukes of Hazzard, Stealth, and many other releases this summer have received simply wretched reviews from critics. And while the public often disagrees with the critics, it seems that this year they might well agree with them more often than not. Both The Bad News Bearsand Stealth failed at the box office. The Dukes of Hazzard did well its opening weekend before seeing its box office take plummet. While some films recieved bad notices from crticis, yet others recieved mixed reviews. Bewitched is a prime example of this. Many critics felt that its idea was sound and that the cast was good, but that it simply fell short of what it could have been. Regardless, it performed poorly at the box office.
It then seems to me that if Hollywood wants the box office to peform better, then it simply has to start making better movies. To me this means cutting down on the number of sequels and remakes they release. Was XXX successful enough to warrant a sequel? I'm not sure it was. Was anyone out there demanding a movie based on The Dukes of Hazzard? I suppose there could have been, but I rather doubt it. This also means simply taking greater care in making movies. Hollywood is going to have to see to it that the scripts are better, the directors are better, and the casts are better. It seems no secret to me that many of the most successful movies this year had good scripts, good casts, and competent directors--just look at Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Batman Begins, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. As I said earlier, if a movie is good enough, people will go see it.
Of course, the unfortunate fact is that I don't know that Hollywood will take these steps in an effort to improve box office receipts. While the movie industry has produced many classics over the years, and has even produced many quality films in recent years, the fact remains that most movies over the many years have not been that good. Like any industry, it seems that Sturgeon's Law holds true for the cinema: 90% of everything is crud.
The current box office slump has been blamed on many different culprits. Among the foremost of these is the increasing popularity of DVDs. I have to admit that this could be one possble reason that people are not going to the cinema as often as they once did. I know many people who, rather than going to the theatre to watch a movie they want to see, simply wait for the DVD to be released and then rent the DVD or buy it. And with many movies being released on DVDs after only a few months after they are released to theatres, these individuals do not have to wait long. That having been said, I do not think that DVDs are the only factor which have led to the current box office slump. Many people I know, who usually wait for movies to come out on DVD before seeing them, went to see Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith on its opening night at the theatre. Now I will admit that much of this is because most of the people I know are fervent Star Wars fans, but I think it could also point to the fact that if a movie is good enough, if a movie is remarkable enough, people will go to see it in the theatre. Indeed, last year saw record breaking box office revenues, despite the fact that DVDs were selling well too.
While many might wait for movies to come out on DVD, others might simply wait for them to be shown on one of the many cable outlets. Most movies debut on one of the premium movie channels (HBO, Starz, Showtime, and so on) about a year after their initial release and often on Pay-Per-View sooner than that. It seems possible to me that many people may simply be electing to wait until a movie is shown on the premium movie channels or Pay-Per-View before watching it. Still, as with DVDs, it seems to me that if a movie is good enough or intersting enough, people will go see it in the theatres rather than wait for it to be shown on a premium channel or Pay-Per-View. Again, I know of many who went to see the latest Star Wars movie even though they don't usually go to the cinema.
Another factor could be rising ticket prices at theatres. In many places ticket prices at cinemas have risen with every passing year. In fact, in many places it is not unusual for a family of four to spend over $100 on a night at the movies, after buying the tickets and a trip to the concession stand are factored together. With the cost of day to day living what it is today (especially the price of gasoline...), many families may not feel that they have the money to spare on too many trips to the movies. Going to the movie theatre then becomes something they do only once in a great while.
As to the ultimate reason for this year's box office slump, I suspect it may be the quality of this year's releases more than anything else. Indeed, it seems to me that in some respects Hollywood has been showing an amazing lack of originality the past several years, with many movies being simply sequels to prevoius movies, remakes of previous movies, or remakes of television shows. I do believe that this summer has not seen as many sequels as last year, but there were still a few, XXX: State of the Union and Herbie: Fully Loaded among them. Among the remakes of old movies there have been The Longest Yard and The Bad News Bears. As to remakes of old television shows, it seems to me that they have nearly been a dime a dozen this year. This summer alone has seen movies based on The Honeymooners, Bewitched, and The Dukes of Hazzard. It occurs to me that many people might simply not want to pay money for something which they have essentially seen before. Why go see the new version of The Longest Yard when one can simply rent the original on DVD? Why go see the cinematic remake of The Dukes of Hazzard when it is still in reruns on various channels or one can see many of the episodes on DVD (of course, I don't know why anyone would want to see the TV show or the movie based on it, but that's a whole different story...)? While many sequels and remakes are very successful (Shrek II and Spider-Man II from last year are two examples), it seems to me that many others simply fail at the box office. I suspect the reason for that is simply that people often won't pay money for something they perceive as having essentially seen before.
Of course, even when a movie is a remake or a sequel, it seems to me that people will go see that film if it is actually good. As I pointed out above, both Shrek II and Spider-Man II were hits from last year. This brings me to what I feel is the underlying cause for this summer's box office slump; whether a remake, sequel, or a movie based on an original idea, many of this summer's crop of movies simply have not been very good. The Bad News Bears, The Dukes of Hazzard, Stealth, and many other releases this summer have received simply wretched reviews from critics. And while the public often disagrees with the critics, it seems that this year they might well agree with them more often than not. Both The Bad News Bearsand Stealth failed at the box office. The Dukes of Hazzard did well its opening weekend before seeing its box office take plummet. While some films recieved bad notices from crticis, yet others recieved mixed reviews. Bewitched is a prime example of this. Many critics felt that its idea was sound and that the cast was good, but that it simply fell short of what it could have been. Regardless, it performed poorly at the box office.
It then seems to me that if Hollywood wants the box office to peform better, then it simply has to start making better movies. To me this means cutting down on the number of sequels and remakes they release. Was XXX successful enough to warrant a sequel? I'm not sure it was. Was anyone out there demanding a movie based on The Dukes of Hazzard? I suppose there could have been, but I rather doubt it. This also means simply taking greater care in making movies. Hollywood is going to have to see to it that the scripts are better, the directors are better, and the casts are better. It seems no secret to me that many of the most successful movies this year had good scripts, good casts, and competent directors--just look at Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Batman Begins, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. As I said earlier, if a movie is good enough, people will go see it.
Of course, the unfortunate fact is that I don't know that Hollywood will take these steps in an effort to improve box office receipts. While the movie industry has produced many classics over the years, and has even produced many quality films in recent years, the fact remains that most movies over the many years have not been that good. Like any industry, it seems that Sturgeon's Law holds true for the cinema: 90% of everything is crud.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Brock Peters 1927-2005
Actor Brock Peters died yesterday at the age of 78. He had been fighting pancreatic cancer since January. Peters is perhaps best known for his role in the classic film To Kill a Mockingbird, in which he played the man falsely accused of rape.
Peters was born in New York City on July 2, 1927 as George Fisher. He attended the Music and Arts School in New York before attending the Ciry College of New York as a physical education major. Peters received a role in the classic musical Porgy and Bess in 1943. In 1949 he left college to go on tour with that show. By 1954 Peters made his screen debut in the film adaptation of Carmen Jones.
Peters played a number of memorable roles on film. Besides To Kill a Mockingbird, he also appeared in The L-Shaped Room, Porgy and Bess, The Pawnbroker, and Soylent Green. In the series of Star Trek movies he appeared twice as Admiral Cartwright.
On televison Peters made several guest appearances throughout the years. He appeared on the TV shows Daniel Boone, Mission Impossible, Night Gallery, Gunsmoke, and The Pretender, among others. On Star Trek: Deep Space Nine he had a recurring role as Commander Sisko's father, Joseph Sikso. He also did a good deal of voice work on cartoons, including work on Galtar and the Golden Lance, Gravedale High, and Samurai Jack. He was also the voice of Darth Vader in the radio series based on Star Wars Episode IV: a New Hope.
On stage Peters appeared in Kwamina and King of the Dark Chamber". He received a Tony nomination for his role in Lost in the Stars.
Peters was one of the most talented actors of his generation, playing a wide variety of roles. He was capable of bringing a great amount of emotion to the parts he played. This can be seen in his most famous role, that of Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird. Robinson is not simply a cardboard cutout created for Gregory Peck's character, Attcus Finch, to defend, but a three dimensional characters with his own concerns, his own feelings, and his own motivations. Appearing as recently as in the 2002 telefilm The Locket, I find it sad that Peters has passed on. He was a talented actor who could have continued acting for many more years.
Peters was born in New York City on July 2, 1927 as George Fisher. He attended the Music and Arts School in New York before attending the Ciry College of New York as a physical education major. Peters received a role in the classic musical Porgy and Bess in 1943. In 1949 he left college to go on tour with that show. By 1954 Peters made his screen debut in the film adaptation of Carmen Jones.
Peters played a number of memorable roles on film. Besides To Kill a Mockingbird, he also appeared in The L-Shaped Room, Porgy and Bess, The Pawnbroker, and Soylent Green. In the series of Star Trek movies he appeared twice as Admiral Cartwright.
On televison Peters made several guest appearances throughout the years. He appeared on the TV shows Daniel Boone, Mission Impossible, Night Gallery, Gunsmoke, and The Pretender, among others. On Star Trek: Deep Space Nine he had a recurring role as Commander Sisko's father, Joseph Sikso. He also did a good deal of voice work on cartoons, including work on Galtar and the Golden Lance, Gravedale High, and Samurai Jack. He was also the voice of Darth Vader in the radio series based on Star Wars Episode IV: a New Hope.
On stage Peters appeared in Kwamina and King of the Dark Chamber". He received a Tony nomination for his role in Lost in the Stars.
Peters was one of the most talented actors of his generation, playing a wide variety of roles. He was capable of bringing a great amount of emotion to the parts he played. This can be seen in his most famous role, that of Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird. Robinson is not simply a cardboard cutout created for Gregory Peck's character, Attcus Finch, to defend, but a three dimensional characters with his own concerns, his own feelings, and his own motivations. Appearing as recently as in the 2002 telefilm The Locket, I find it sad that Peters has passed on. He was a talented actor who could have continued acting for many more years.
Monday, August 22, 2005
"I'm a Loser"
This morning I find myself not in the best of moods. It seems like a good time for a Beatles song. "I'm a Loser" is one of my favourite songs from the early part of The Beatles career. Regrettably, I mut admit that I have had reason to identifiy with it.
"I'm a Loser"--The Beatles
"I'm a Loser"--The Beatles
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Joe Ranft R.I.P.
Most of you have probably never heard of Joe Ranft, but chances are that you have seen a movie he has written or heard his voice. Ranft was the head of the story department at Pixar, the animation studio responsible for such hits as The Incredibles and Finding Nemo. Ranft was one of Pixar's writers and co-wrote two of their biggest successes (Toy Story and A Bug's Life. He provided the voices for Heimlich the catepillar in A Bug's Life and Wheezy the penguin in Toy Story 2. Ranft was killed Tuesday in an accident involving the Honda Element he was riding. He was 45 years old.
Ranft attended the California Institute of the Arts along with Pixar directors Brad Bird and John Lasseter. His student film attracted the attention of Disney and he began his work there in 1980. He wrote the story for The Brave Little Toaster and wrote on the screenplay for The Rescuers Down Under before going on to such important Disney projects as Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. He provided the storysketch for Who Framed Roger Rabbit and supervised the storyboards for The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach. At Pixar Ranft played a role in nearly every movie they made. On the forthcoming Cars he supervised the story.
Ranft did a good deal of voice work, beginning with providing the voice for Elmo St. Peters in The Brave Little Toaster in 1987. He provided the voices of Heimlich on A Bug's Life, Wheezy on Toy Story 2, Jacques on Finding Nemo, and additional voices on The Incredibles.
Joe Ranft was a remarkable man who worked in nearly every aspect of animation. He was considered one of the best storytellers in animation today. In fact, his profile at Salon.Comsimply described him as a "story man." He was loved by his fellow animators at Pixar, not simply for being a great talent, but also for being one of the kindest, gentlest men around. I don't think it is truly possible to measure the enormity of his loss not only to Pixar, but to the animation community as a whole. He will most certainly be missed.
Ranft attended the California Institute of the Arts along with Pixar directors Brad Bird and John Lasseter. His student film attracted the attention of Disney and he began his work there in 1980. He wrote the story for The Brave Little Toaster and wrote on the screenplay for The Rescuers Down Under before going on to such important Disney projects as Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. He provided the storysketch for Who Framed Roger Rabbit and supervised the storyboards for The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach. At Pixar Ranft played a role in nearly every movie they made. On the forthcoming Cars he supervised the story.
Ranft did a good deal of voice work, beginning with providing the voice for Elmo St. Peters in The Brave Little Toaster in 1987. He provided the voices of Heimlich on A Bug's Life, Wheezy on Toy Story 2, Jacques on Finding Nemo, and additional voices on The Incredibles.
Joe Ranft was a remarkable man who worked in nearly every aspect of animation. He was considered one of the best storytellers in animation today. In fact, his profile at Salon.Comsimply described him as a "story man." He was loved by his fellow animators at Pixar, not simply for being a great talent, but also for being one of the kindest, gentlest men around. I don't think it is truly possible to measure the enormity of his loss not only to Pixar, but to the animation community as a whole. He will most certainly be missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
