Behold the Cereal Mascot Cinematic Universe

So, today's announcements from Warner Bros. about their new slate of films made in partnership with General Mills, Kellogg, Quaker, and Post were a surprise, but honestly not unexpected.  The cereal mascots have been a fixture on children's television for ages, and recently strengthened advertising rules in some countries, and the rise of ad-free streaming services, have made marketing to kids more challenging.  So, why not fall back on the classic tactics of snazzy animation and a shared universe?

Here's a rundown of the major titles coming our way soon, with some of my thoughts on each.

  

"Top Cookie" - It's one of those strange generational markers that how old you are corresponds to which of the three Cookie Crisp mascots you remember: Jarvis the Wizard, Cookie Crook and his sidekick Chip the Dog, and now Chip the Wolf.  Eager to appeal to all audiences, the creators have decided to put all of them together in one feature, fighting over the right to be the ultimate Cookie Crisp mascot.  Several crossover guest stars are rumored to be playing the celebrity judges, including Tony the Tiger, Sonny the Cuckoo, and Cornelius Rooster.  

"Do the Monster Munch" - Count Chocula, Franken Berry, And Boo Berry have been around in animated form since the '70s and were already established as being in their own shared universe, so they make the most sense for feature treatment.  Their squabbling rivalry should translate well to the big screen, and the plan to have them band together to combat more contemporary spookies like the Cinnamon Slasher sounds diverting enough.  Bride of Frankenberry and Berrypatra are expected to make their animated debuts.  Yummy Mummy is also expected to get a redesign and a genderswap.

"Quisp" - His cereal may be hard to find these days, but Quisp, alien prince of the Planet Q, who flies with the aid of a propellor affixed to the top of his head, remains ready for action.  Originally designed and animated by the great Jay Ward, there's a little more substance to Quisp than most of the other cereal mascots.  "Quisp" will see our hero finally become king of Planet Q, and have to fend off encroaching  Martians.  A deal is rumored to be in the works to allow Marvin the Martian to lead the invasion.  Quisp's usual antagonists, Quake and the Orange Quangaroo, are also expected to appear.

"Captain Crunch Conquers the Utensils" - Captain Horatio Magellan Crunch is called back into action when several of his fellow mascots, including Dig 'Em Frog, Toucan Sam, and Buzz the Bee, are kidnapped by disgruntled ex-Pop Tarts spokesman Milton the Toaster, who views the popularity of breakfast cereals as the reason for his downfall.  Captain Crunch will have to fight his way through the hostile territories of the Kingdom of Utensia to save the day.  He'll be aided by the crew of the SS Guppy, former rival Jean LaFoote, and crossover guest stars Captain Rik and Captain Star.   

"The Golden Boy" - Former Golden Grahams promoter the Golden Boy is one of the rare live-action cereal mascots, and this announced feature will follow his poignant post-ad campaign spiral and triumphant return to the spotlight as the new mascot of an up-and-coming minor league baseball team.  Quaker Oats mascot Larry is expected to appear as the Golden Boy's mentor, along with various athletes who have appeared on the Wheaties box, including the 1998 Women's Gold Medal Olympic Hockey Team.

"Rabbit v. Leprechaun" - Finally, the showdown we'll all been waiting for, between Lucky the Leprechaun, the most famous of the the mascots who keep cereal away from kids, and the Trix Rabbit, who has been kept away from the cereal bowl by kids for perhaps a little too long.  Both characters will suffer a botched neurosis reprogramming attempt, and unwittingly become simultaneously fixated on the same cereal, a new product yet to be unveiled.  Hijinks and mayhem ensue, summer of 2022.

---

What Happens After Weinstein?

I've been debating with myself over what to write about the recent string of entertainment media figures who have been outed as sexual harassers and abusers recently.  After the allegations about AICN's Harry Knowles, I felt like I should say something, and after Harvey Weinstein it became a matter of "when" instead of "if," and now it's Roy Price, and James Toback, and Chris Savino, and Mark Halperin, and Kevin Spacey, and on and on and on.  And, of course, they're dwarfed by the staggering amount of victims who have come forward.  Everyone from Ashley Judd to Terry Crews - Terry Crews! - has shared an appalling story over the last few weeks.  

We've seen other scandals like this before, of course.  I was gutted to learn about Bill Cosby, and I admit that I enjoyed seeing Roger Ailes' downfall.  However, those were largely self-contained incidents, where we could write them off as aberrations, something out of the norm.  This latest situation is something very different.  One scandal has lead to another scandal, like toppling dominoes one after another.  Victims have been emboldened this time like I've never seen before, because the public finally seems to be receptive to their claims.  There was no fish in the Hollywood pond bigger than Harvey Weinstein, and if he can be held accountable, now anyone can.  Names are being named, and accusations are finally being taken seriously.  And I'm hoping that it means that we're finally seeing the Hollywood culture of permissiveness and silence about these heinous acts start to change.  

We're heard about the predatory behavior of powerful entertainment industry figures for as long as there has been an entertainment industry.  The casting couch has been such a long-running joke, it doesn't even ping as outrageous anymore.  And yet, aside from the occasional scandal, people avoid talking about the real incidents of assaults and rapes and harassment.  The Weinsteins and the Tobacks got away with their awful behavior for decades.  There's been a lot of chatter about who knew and who should have known about what Harvey Weinstein was doing, but I believe most of the people who claim that they weren't aware of the particulars.  Hollywood is constantly awash with dodgy gossip, and bad reputations are not always deserved.  There are legal implications to making false accusations, not to mention the likelihood of career suicide.  If you didn't have firsthand knowledge about the behavior about one of the accused, I can understand the urge not to seek it out or rock the boat.

And yet, we've seen people like Kevin Smith and Jane Fonda publically deliver mea culpas for not speaking out or doing more, and the speed with which Hollywood has exiled Harvey Weinstein has been swift.  His defenders have been few, and heavily criticized.  I take some comfort in that.  People aren't shying away from engaging in the discussions this has raised, even if it's only to deliver a carefully crafted soundbite for the cameras.  It's been eye opening to read some of the heartfelt op/eds and thinkpieces that have been circulating in the wake of the scandals, and the accounts of the behind-the-scenes drama at the various news outlets that broke the Weinstein story (or failed to).  I want to believe that the culture is shifting in favor of the victims, that sunlight really is the best disinfectant, and the exposure of Harvey Weinstein and his ilk will lead to a less toxic Hollywood.    

It won't happen immediately, of course, even if the worst offenders are being removed by the scandals.  As with all systemic problems, they're deeply ingrained into the way the business works, and it's going to take a lot of time and effort to fix.   The Weinstein Company seemed to have deals with everyone in town, and severing ties to them has been messy.  James Toback, a writer/director of far less discretion and far fewer credits, still managed to harass women with impunity for ages.  Going back over the list of the men who have been implicated in these scandals over the past few weeks, they're in every corner of Hollywood, new and old: directors, producers, agents, executives, writers, web content creators, and website owners.   

And I hold out hope that if Hollywood can clean up its act, maybe other industries can too. 

Rank 'Em: The Walt Disney Animation Studios Films

After 2016 saw the release of both "Zootopia" and "Moana," we won't be getting another Disney animated feature until 2018 when "Wreck-it-Ralph 2" and "Gigantic" are due. That means it's a good time to look back at the recent films and take stock. I waffled a little about which films I wanted to include, but the cutoff point turned out to be pretty obvious: 2006 is when Walt Disney Feature Animation was renamed Walt Disney Animation Studios, and John Lasseter and Ed Catmull were brought onboard. The resulting resurgence has been fantastic to see, though not without drama and controversy along the way. So here are the ten films from the most recent era of Disney animation, ranked from best to least.

Zootopia - I'm surprised that this is in the top spot too, but the more I think about "Zootopia," the more I like it. What really sealed it for me was the willingness of the filmmakers to really grapple with some difficult real world issues, even if it was through a fantasy lens. I also love the worldbuilding here, that it takes the time to show us how a city for animals would really operate, and the way everyone would interact with each other. There are a lot of similar animal fable films out there, but nothing quite like "Zootopia."

Tangled - I knew that Disney had truly found their way out of the wilderness when I saw "Tangled." It was their first feature to successfully capture the spirit and humor of the classical Disney fairy-tale adaptations through CGI animation. I also liked the way that it departed from formula, with a much stronger leading man, and a princess with a very distinct personality. All those years stuck in development hell and waiting out the studio's difficult transitions were definitely worth the wait. The title is still regrettable though.

Wreck-it Ralph - This is my pick for the best video game themed film ever made. It's so earnest about celebrating older video games and video gaming culture, while creating all these fantastic new worlds within worlds to explore. This one also had a remarkably solid story that really worked for me, and unusual characters that were a little different from the Disney norm. However there were still one or two awkward moments and an embarrassment of product placement that dampen my enthusiasm for the movie, just a bit.

Moana - A little derivative and bare bones in the plotting, but the filmmakers did such a fantastic job of creating this beautiful Polynesian universe, and finding ways to have fun with it. The Rock playing an ego-centric demigod is just perfect, and Moana is one of the better modern Disney heroines. Some story and pacing issues keep this out of the top tier, but they're easy to forgive in the moment. This is exactly the kind of movie that no other big animation studio could pull off, and exactly what we need to see more of.

The Princess and the Frog - A fine little fairy tale made in the tradition of the Renaissance era classics, but I never thought that it captured the same creative spark. Maybe it was the Randy Newman songs or maybe it was Disney trying so hard to avoid offending anyone, but I came away pretty ambivalent about the story and design choices. That said, I love most of the characters, especially sidekicks Charlotte and Ray and the villain Dr. Facilier. Traditionally animated Disney features could have done a lot worse for a last hurrah.

Frozen - The film that I've seen the most often from this list, thanks to various younger relatives. I admire the thoughtfulness of the film's messages, and it has some knockout sequences, but this is such a slapdash affair. The film seems to forget it's a musical halfway through, Elsa doesn't really get a proper character arc, and the goofy troll song may be the worst number Disney has ever been responsible for. I'm actually glad this one is getting a sequel because there are a ton of issues that still need to be addressed.

Winnie the Pooh - Barely more than an hour in length, and understandably a bust at the box office, the film doesn't get enough credit for being an absolutely lovely continuation of Disney's "Winnie the Pooh" series. All the right people were involved, and they did everything right. I heasitate to put it higher up in the rankings because it is so slight, but I'd have loved to see more Pooh done in the same vein. Sadly, it turned out that this was the franchise's song swan. Disney hasn't released any new Pooh media in any format since.

Big Hero 6 - Now, if the film had only been about Hiro and Baymax, the boy hero and his robot pal, I think it would have placed much higher. Unfortunately, there's that pesky quartet of extra characters mucking up the narrative who really shouldn't be there. As a result, "Big Hero 6" is constantly losing its focus, and feels more like a television pilot than a feature, and not a good one. I love a lot of the concepts and characters, but there are some remarkably lousy ones too. I cringe every time Gogo yells "Woman up!"

Meet the Robinsons - This one kills me because its heart was so clearly in the right place, and it had really wonderful things to say to kids. However, the plotting was messy and the big twist just didn't work because it wasn't set up well. I feel like this one could have been a much better film if it had been kicked around the studio for a few more years. I hate to put it so low of this list, but there was very little that I found impressive or memorable beyond a few minor gags. Disney and retro-futurism just seem to be a bad match.

Bolt - I didn't like "Bolt" for the simple reason that I didn't like the story. It relies on the elaborate duping of the protagonist, spends way too much time taking jabs at Hollywood culture, and doesn't do any particularly notable worldbuilding. Most of the other contemporary Disney features like "Lilo & Stich" and "Oliver & Co." at least manage some memorable characters and a strong sense of place. "Bolt" was utterly generic, and the only character I particularly enjoyed watching was the hamster stuck in his ball.

---

A "50 Shades" Rant

I've stayed quiet about the whole "50 Shades of Grey" phenomenon, because it's one of those pieces of pop culture, like the "Twilight" series, that holds very little interest for me. I don't begrudge those who enjoy E.L. James's books, but I'm clearly not the target audience, so I've kept my distance. Now, however, the likelihood of a film adaptation has reared its head. Universal Pictures and Focus Features landed the rights, and have hired Kelly Marcel, who wrote the upcoming "Saving Mr. Banks" to script it. And then there's been the obnoxious rumors going around about potential actors who could play the leads. Poor Emma Watson has been hounded by claims that she's in contention to play Ana Steele, despite having denied it in multiple interviews. So you'd think that with all the hype, we're looking at a guaranteed box office winner here, right?

"50 Shades of Grey" is notorious for being the book that suddenly clued in the mainstream public that it's okay for women to consume erotica, and not just any erotica but a trashy BDSM novel that originated as "Twilight" fanfiction. The assumption is that these readers will also turn out in record numbers to watch the movie version, right? Well, if the movie is going to be at all faithful to the nature and spirit of its source material, we're looking at an R-rated film about a BDSM relationship with a lot of sex scenes. Since major studios are involved, they'll probably be able to avoid an NC-17 rating. Even with an R rating though, a "50 Shades" movie is going to be a hard sell. The only film with comparable content I can think of is 2002's R-rated "Secretary," which made about $5 million domestically on the art house circuit, got some good reviews, and then vanished without a trace. Then there was "Eyes Wide Shut," the final Stanley Kubrick film, which Warner Brothers censored to obtain an R-rating, a move that caused considerable controversy. Thanks to all the attention, it made a respectable $55 million, which would be closer to $75 million today. However, the increased scrutiny prompted theater owners to enforce the R-rating, and "Eyes Wide Shut" remains the only film where I was ever carded when buying my tickets.

American moviegoers have always had serious issues with onscreen depictions of sex, and in some ways we've gotten more conservative in the past few decades. The suggestion of sex is one thing - a few nipples here and there are practically mandatory - but real, graphic sex is taboo no matter the quality of the work or the context. The press made a fuss over the success of this summer's "Magic Mike," but I found it surprisingly chaste for its subject matter. There were a few bare breasts, but no full frontal nudity, and all phalluses were covered or out of focus. Mainstream films love to sell themselves as titillating, but they rarely deal with sex itself in any meaningful way. 1995's notorious "Showgirls" is the closest anyone has come to a mainstream film with adults-only content in recent memory. It made a little over $20 million, which made it a box office bomb at the time, and has since become something of a cult film. And yet it remains the highest grossing NC-17 rated film in the U.S. after seventeen years. As a culture, we are a long, long way from the days when "Last Tango in Paris" could be both a major critical and commercial hit, in spite of an X rating and vigorous censorship challenges.

But "50 Shades of Grey" reflects a more liberated, curious audience, doesn't it? These women enjoy their naughty books and don't care who knows it, right? I wouldn't count on that. Dirty books where you have to imagine all the shocking bits are one thing, but it's quite another to see sadomasochistic sex acts depicted on the big screen. Women have always preferred written smut to video pornography, so I don't think there's going to be nearly the kind of crossover audience that the "Twilight" adaptations had. In addition, movies tend to be bigger attention grabbers, and the existence of a "50 Shades" film is going to bring the same kind of scrutiny and controversy that surrounded the book, but multiplied by several times. A big problem is that the book has been widely derided as exploitative trash, so unless the studios get some bigger, more prestigious names involved to inject some respectability into the project, they're going to be be trying to sell a movie with the same reputation. The stigma may be lessened somewhat by the perceived popularity of the series, but it's still going to be a factor, and I expect it is going to keep a good chunk of the potential audience away. And because major films with this kind of subject matter are so rare, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets the "Eyes Wide Shut" treatment, and theaters take extra precautions to keep curious kids out. That'll cut into ticket sales too.

A "50 Shades of Grey" movie could be a game changer. However, it could also just as easily be another train wreck in the same vein as "Showgirls." I have to admire Universal and Focus for having the guts to try and get this movie made, but boy do they have their work cut out for them. Movies for grown-ups, as more than one critic has noted, have been disappearing from the theaters, retreating to the art houses and VOD, where returns are far more modest. Anything R-rated is getting harder and harder to greenlight at the major studios. After all, it would be easier to just cut out the sex, make the characters into vampires, and sell "50 Shades" to the teenagers as a "Twilight" spinoff - which isn't that far from the truth anyway.
---

"Akira" Casting and Racebending Redux

A few days ago, the rumor went around the internet that James Franco is in talks to star in a film adaptation of "Akira," playing the role of biker gang leader Kaneda. I winced and I cringed, waiting for someone to speak up and point out that Kaneda is a Japanese character, and if Franco was playing the role, this was racebending, and we could expect another "The Last Airbender" – style casting ruckus on our hands. Part of me wants to let it go, to not say anything and not rock the boat. Another part of me wants to grab the directors by the scruffs of their necks and shake them like bad dogs, while demanding to know why they insist on being so dense. The directors attached to "Akira," by the way, are the Hughes brothers ("Menace II Society," "The Book of Eli"), who are African-American and therefore firmly in the category of people who Should Know Better.

The "Akira" casting situation isn't as egregious as "Airbender." An early script moved the action from Neo Tokyo to Neo Manhattan, suggesting that we'll be getting a heavily Americanized adaptation that will retain few Japanese elements. The lead character probably won't be called Kaneda - a name which has proven notoriously difficult to pronounce in the dubs of the 1988 anime - and won't be of Asian descent. This will avoid the possibility of a verboten yellowface performance, essentially by erasing the Asian characters and replacing them with new Caucasian ones - a practice critics call "racebending." It's a common tactic, one that's been used in many other recent films like "Dragonball," "21," and "Extraordinary Measures." Of course, the title will remain "Akira," in order to capitalize on the notoriety of the famous Katsuhiro Otomo manga and anime.

And this is the real reason that the whole racebending debate has exploded over the last year, and why we'll be seeing the debate come up again and again in the years to come. There's a bumper crop of properties in Hollywood's development pipeline right now, that either feature Asian characters or have Asian origins - "Cowboy Bebop," "The Runaways," "Death Note," "Robotech," "Ghost in the Shell," "The Weapon," and "Oldboy," just to name a few. I expect we'll be seeing more of them once the nostalgia wave hits Gen-Y in ten to fifteen years, the generation that grew up with the mid-90s anime boom. Hollywood has proven that they're perfectly willing to mine these properties for new film projects, but very few will be staying true to their source material and feature lead characters who are Asian.

A common excuse for racebending is that it's a matter of economics. There are no superstar Asian or Asian-American actors who are marketable, recognizable names, capable of carrying major commercial films. Sure, we have Jackie Chan and Jet Li, but they're both foreigners who learned English as a second language, and they're graying quickly - not exactly who the studios want headlining their slick action blockbusters. We've seen Hollywood try borrowing existing foreign stars from Asia, like Jay Chou and Rain, but this isn't going to be as effective in the long run as having Asian stars that have come up through Hollywood itself. If we have a deficit of Asian talent, the obvious way to fix the problem is to start putting some real effort into finding young Asian actors and actresses, and giving them the opportunities to grow into the stars the studios are going to need for these future projects. Our Tom Cruises and Will Smiths were not made overnight.

That means taking risks on Asian actors that the studios haven't been taking. The more resistant studios are to casting Asian actors, the more exacerbated the problem becomes. There's no reason that the role of Kaneda couldn't have gone to a young Asian-American actor like Aaron Yoo ("Disturbia," "21," "Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist") or Sung Kang ("Better Luck Tomorrow," "Fast & Furious"), except that these two have been stuck for too long in supporting roles and never got their break. There's no reason an Asian-American actor like Daniel Wu, who became a superstar in Hong Kong despite being unable to speak Cantonese until he was in his twenties, couldn't have become one in the U.S. The trouble is that so many of the roles these actors could have played have been reserved for Caucasian actors. This is one of the reasons last year's "The Last Airbender" casting fiasco raised such a storm of vitriol. It was not only a blatant example of racebending, but also represented a huge lost opportunity for American audiences to get to know some young minority actors.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea of an Americanized "Akira" adaptation, but there's no escaping the sense that the material is being compromised. The central image of "Akira" that everyone remembers is Kaneda on his red motorcycle, roaring through neon-lit Neo Tokyo. There's no reason why a character like Kaneda has to be Japanese, but in this day in age there's no reason why he couldn't be - why our Asian actors can't play the heroes on the big screen. Racebending isn't going to fly for much longer. The audience is catching on and the existing fans of these properties are not happy. Hollywood better start getting proactive about this, or they're going to lose a lot of potentially lucrative franchises.

How am I a spam blog?!

Okay, seriously. How am I a spam blog? I don't even *link* to anything. I just crosspost content to Dreamwidth and occasionally movie sites.

Grr. Aargh.