Prizefight: Dreamworks Vs Disney

This may seem like a done deal, however it is actually much closer than i would like to admit. I have not been the biggest fan of Dreamworks over the years, and their history is much shorter than Disneys, so for fairness i will only be counting films released since 2000, as in this time they have made similar types of films, and they have both had a similar creative output quantitatively, and they both have had successes and failures in this period. I will compare these studios based on their critical success, the franchises they have set up and their box office returns, in addition to looking at the number of true 'hits' they have had in this time.

Critically it is not as clear cut as it would seem. Dreamworks started out the century well, releasing two critically acclaimed films in succession, then they stumbled a little, recovering with Shrek 2. After this they stumbled some more, finally releasing Over the Hedge and Kung Fu Panda in 2006 and 2008 respectively, both of which were mild critical hits. Dreamworks would wait until 2010 for their next hit with How To Train Your Dragon, finally releasing it's next critically acclaimed film 4 years later, a sequel to Dragon. Although Dreamworks have had their critical successes, they lack consistency, their films are too erratic.

Disney manages to be more consistent, though they started the millenium fairly well releasing Fantasia 2000 and The Emperors New Groove, both of which were fairly well recieved, however they soon fell into a slump that they would take the rest of the decade trying to claw themselves out of. They would not have another hit until 2009's The Princess and The Frog, which would launch an era known as the Disney revival, a string of five critically acclaimed films that continues to this day, rising to a zenith with Frozen, which was proclaimed to be the greatest Disney musical since Beauty and the Beast.

Dreamworks has had significantly more success than Disney in creating franchises. Dreamworks has successfully launched the Shrek, Madagascar, Dragons and Kung Fu Panda franchises. Disney, on the other hand has struggled, their franchises have mainly continued through direct to DVD releases, merchandise, television series', attractions in the parks and stage productions. Disney have only released two sequels theatrically, during their whole 80 year history. However despite their merchandise sales and DVD's making the executives in Cinderellas castle very rich, this is a cinematic comparison, and on that level Dreamworks is clearly superior.

In recent years, Dreamworks have stumbled at producing consistent hits. They have released two films a year for the last three years, and in each one of these years, one of the films was a success while the other was a failure. Only one Dreamworks film has ever grossed over $800 million, and while films within their Shrek, Madagascar and Dragons franchises regularly gross well over $500 million, their only original commercial success outside of these franchises is The Croods. Disney, howere is considerably more successful, while their films, mostly being originals, don't always gross as much as Dreamworks films do, they are relatively consistent, and despite the failure of Winnie the Pooh (which was critically acclaimed), they haven't had a commercial disappointment since 2006's Meet the Robinsons.

Disney have produced considerably more 'hits' than Dreamworks have, the first example is Frozen. The highest grossing animated film of all time, a huge critical success, and has been credited with breathing life back into Disney animation. Tangled was also a huge commercial hit, as was Lilo and Stitch. Outside of their previously mentioned franchises, Dreamworks have had few hits. The last true 'hit' they produced that wasn't a sequel or spin off was Over The Hedge, released in 2006. So despite Disney having less franchises, they don't rely on franchises and sequels for commercial or critical success.

This prizefight is a great deal closer than i expected it to be, i knew that it would be close, however despite Dreamworks' films being less acclaimed than Disneys, they are far better at establishing franchises from a commercial standpoint, and they have produced quite a few franchises over the years. Their struggles come from creating original films outside of these films and in setting up new franchises, Dreamworks latest franchise was Dragons, which launched in 2010. Since then their only real original hit was The Croods, which was met with mixed review and was a reasonable commercial success. Disney have shown themselves to be much more consistent, whilst their transition to digital filmmaking was laboured and difficult, they nonetheless have had a recent string of critical and commercial successes, cementing their place as the best animation studio making films today.

Queer Prizefight: Rocky Horror Vs Priscilla Queen of the Desert

This is a rather personal edition of Prizefights, as these are two of my favorite movies, a psychologist would probably tell me that this is a disturbing fact, but these were two of the films that i first felt defined me, the films that made me know who i wanted to be, and what i aspired to. I saw Rocky Horror first, and it gave me a sense of self and a sense of belonging. Next i saw Priscilla, and again the pop culture references and liberal sprinklings of ABBA music were just my thing, and i have mow seen it in excess of fifty times, these films are two of the most personal to me and to others.

 Both The Rocky Horror Picture Show and The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert are hugely important films in the history of gay culture, when Rocky Horror was first released, it became a cultural phenomenon, it was denied a regular theatrical release, and so it became a midnight movie, shown after hours to groups of misfits soon amassing a huge gay following. The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert was released in 1994, and while Rocky Horror introduced fringe themes to the mainstream gay community, Priscilla introduced the gay community to wider straight audiences. While these films are not exactly the same, they are both films that are hugely beloved, and while i see that it may be impossible to choose between them, i will attempt to analyze them based on their following, music and costume design.

Both films have dedicated fanbases, though fortunately neither gives their followings punny names. The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert has a much larger and much more mainstream fanbase, the music of the film is well known, and the soundtrack was commercially successful, the songs in the film are of particular interest to the gay community, but are also well known universally. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is an original musical, featuring songs written by Richard O'Brien. The Rocky Horror Show started out as a musical, played on the west end with much of the same cast before being adapted to film. The adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert was later adapted to a musical which premiered in Australia before moving to the west end and Broadway. Both shows were hugely successful, and both continue to show to this day.

Both also have fantastic costume design, being gay movies though, this is superfluous information. The costume design of Rocky Horror is now iconic as it has been replicated by fans for the last forty years, the character of Frank-N-Furter is a transvestite, and thus wears an outfit consisting of lingerie, heels and a black velvet cape. Riff Raff and Magenta dress as a typical butler and maid, and Columbia wears a delightfully effervescent covered in gold sequins, also imitated is the heavy make up that Frank wears, which has also been reproduced by fans. The costumes of Priscilla are also typically overstated, as only a film about a group of drag queens could be, the costumes are larger than life and over the top, and the film is like a typical drag show on GHB.

Both Rocky Horror and Priscilla are fantastic films, both have great music and an absurd sense of fun. It is emotionally impossible for me to choose between these films, i love them both too much, they are both a part of me and I don't think it is possible to say that one is better than the other. Both are great cult classics, and both deserve a unique place in cinematic history.

Prizefight: The Nanny Diaries Vs Devil Wears Prada

In the latest edition of Prizefight, i will compare The Nanny Diaries with the Devil Wears Prada, these films have quite a bit in common, they were both released around the same time, both adapted from hugely successful novels, both of which i have read, and both revolve around dealing with horrendous bosses. I will compare these films on their translation to the big screen, their casting and the hideousness of their bosses!

The novels they are based on both have their issues, that said, The Nanny Diaries is significantly more well written than The Devil Wears Prada, it is more intelligent, and has less narrative issues. The film of The Nanny Diaries follows much the same path as the novel does, the story is almost identical and the characters are much the same as they appear on the page, nothing significant is changed. The Devil Wears Prada however features significant alterations to the source material, the whole plot is reshuffled slightly to streamline it, and to make the characters more believable and empathetic. The character of Miranda is much more understandable in the film than in the novel, and in the book, she remains an out-and-out villain till the very end, in the film she eventually comes round, and we see their relationship as more of a power struggle, with both finally understanding the other. Thus The Devil Wears Prada despite requiring more effort in adapting it to the big screen, is a better adaptation, despite not being quite as faithful an adaptation.

Casting is hugely important in both of these films, the heroine of The Nanny Diaries is Annie Braddock, nicknamed Nanny, who is played by Scarlett Johansson. Johansson might seem like an odd choice for the role, and it is unusually plain for her, however she has the charisma to pull off playing such a mundane part, and she is oddly credible as a lower middle class college grad. The heroine of The Devil Wears Prada is Andy Sachs, again a college grad who goes to work for Runway, a high end fashion magazine. Again, she is well cast, although one feels that this role is a little less of a stretch for her than it is for Johansson, who is playing someone completely separate from anyone else she has ever played, and who never uses her sexuality, and, unlike Andy Sachs, who never has moments of looking pretty or attractive, in fact the whole affair is more a lesson in dowdiness, and Johansson is entirely refreshing in the role.

The bosses in the film are also impeccably cast, Laura Linney Plays Mrs X, a wealthy upper east side trophy wife, who takes little interest in raising her child, and who seems to have little worries in life. Meryl Streep plays Miranda Priestly, a thinly veiled Anna Wintour inspired magazine editor, who is fiercely professional, and who treats her assistants as disposable. Both are fantastic, and i love Laura Linneys portrayal of Mrs X, however Meryl Streep's performance is simply iconic, every note of her performance is perfect, from the cold "that's all", to the way she pats her grey hair, and her carefully pursed lips, everything is exact, and the results are stunning. As for the characters themselves, they are both fearsome creations, Mrs X is a woman who is unreasonable, cruel, has little time for her son and who wants everything from her husband. She is cold and unemotional, she treats her nannies like slaves and she expects them to do everything for her, her actions seem unrealistic, and she has no real motive, other than that being her nature. Miranda Priestly is more easy to understand, she has real motives, and she is motivated by ambition and impatience, and not by greed. Overall, Miranda Priestly is a more believable character, her motivations are more clear.

Both films are fantastic, despite not being Oscar worthy dramas they both feature great performances, and are great fun, they may not be great art but they are delightful distractions, and they do what they attempt successfully. However it is clear that The Devil Wears Prada is the superior film, well adapted and the better acted movie.

Prizefight: MARVEL vs DC

Both these comic book companies have had huge success in the field of cinema, and both are still producing films, this post will analyze the differences between the ways these companies have adapted their universes to film, the completeness of their franchises and how coherent their film universes are.

DC have been making films for significantly longer than Marvel, DC first created a franchise with the release of the original superman film in 1978, which spawned four sequels and a semi reboot. The first batman film was released in 1989, directed by Tim Burton and starring Michael Keaton, the film became a blueprint for superhero movies released over the next decade, being dark and brooding, featuring graphic imagery and being unabashedly violent, and influencing the way superhero films were marketed and promoted. These films were both released by Warner Brothers, and to date the whole of the DC universe has been produced exclusively by Warner, giving the franchise a sense of cohesion not present in the more fragmented Marvel franchises.

Marvel Comics properties have had a significantly more tortured road to the big screen, the first movie produced was X-Men, which was released in 1999, to great critical acclaim, and which to date has spawned five sequels and two spin offs. This film was released by 20th Century Fox, as was The Fantastic Four, which itself spawned a sequel. The next property to be adapted was Spider-Man, released by Sony in 2002, spawning a trilogy of films and a rebooted franchise. In 2009 Disney purchased Marvel entertainment, and thus set up Marvel studios, which started producing it's own films financed and distributed by Disney, this gave birth to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a shared world which some Marvel characters inhabit, notably the avengers.

Although the DC Universe may seem to be the least fragmented and the most complete, their films have all been based around only a handful of characters, and they still have not successfully created a shared universe, despite all efforts. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is the most complete shared universe ever seen on film, and Marvel remain the only studio that has managed to unite it's heroes in a single film. The universe has been hugely influential, and DC and Sony are now attempting to piece together universes, with Dawn of Justice being a clear attempt to replicate Marvels success.

The way Marvel franchises have been portrayed on film feels more complete than DC's attempts, despite the films being spread over various studios, more characters have been adapted to film, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe feels incredibly cohesive and a very impressive undertaking. Whereas the DC universe, while once great now feels tired and in need of rebuilding, and their attempts to create a shared universe between the Batman and Superman franchises feels rushed and forced.

Prizefight: Leonardo Vs Redford

Anyone who knows me, or who reads my blog on a regular basis will tell you that i am a huge fan of The Great Gatsby, and all derivative works, including the films and even the soundtracks. This post represents the first in a new series called prizefights, in which i will pit competitors together, and decide which one is better, in this case i am comparing two performers who played Jay Gatsby, Leonardo DiCaprio in the 2013 film, and Robert Redford in the 1974 version. In this case the two will be compared on their acting, closeness to the source material, fashion and how iconic their performances have become.

For me, Gatsby is something of a fashion icon, and the 1974 defined the throback twenties fashion of the decade, the film propelled designer Ralph Lauren to international stardom, and was able to rewrite history, and retrospectively altered the way most people defined fashion in the twenties. The 2013 version takes a similar approach, and modernizes the fashion of the era, with the men wearing boots, trousers being more tailored and slim, and jackets no longer being belted, but featuring slim waistcoats and tie pins. Although the fashion of the 1974 film is arguably more iconic, and had more of an influence of the fashion of the era, the fashion of the 2013 version of Gatsby is more true to the era, more imaginative, and personally, i find it more chic.

Both Redford and DiCaprio are tremendous actors, and it is very hard to compare their performances, as they are both spectacular, Redford portrays Gatsby as being very smooth, as a slick buisnessman, and as a man who never looses his cool, and a man who is stable in his belief that Daisy will always love him, DiCaprio's Gatsby is more loose, he does loose his cool, we start to see the man behind the character, the inner being behind the facade that he has created, and we begin to see his true colours. The 2013 Gatsby is also far more forthcoming about his past than the 1974 version was, he openly tells Nick about his past and he is unashamed of all that he has done, so whilst the portrayals are different, neither is really better than the other, and these are both fine actors at the absolute top of their game.

The 2013 film is certainly more faithful to the source material than the 1974 version, in the novel, Jay Gatsby is pitiful and childish, he has a naive belief that he can change the past, that he can wipe out Daisy's history with Tom, and that they can recapture what they once had, DiCaprio's Gatsby is similar to this, he is whiney and churlish, he throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way and he becomes violent when Daisy won't obey him, this is in complete contrast to his character earlier in the film, when he is more slick and polished. There is something pathetic about the character in the film, as there is in the book, whereas Redford's Gatsby is too cool and slick, and doesn't have the ragged edges that the character in the book does.

In terms of iconography, there is little competition. Redford for a long time was the ultimate Gatsby, his performance redefined the way the novel was read and imagined, his performance is strong, iconic and powerful, and he defines not just the character or film, but the whole of the seventies in some ways, his portrayal of the character, the way the character dress and his hairstyle are iconic images. Overall, it's a tough call, both actors have factors in their favour, however Leonardo DiCaprio's performance, the way the character dresses, his smooth yet rough around the edges performance is a fantastic adaptation of the novel, and, for me, he represents the character as i imagine him from the source material.