Andrew Stanton: 2012 Animation Mentor Commencement Speech

Other Stuff

This is slightly OT … but maybe not, since Andrew Stanton is such a polarizing figure here.  I found this today and found it quite interesting to hear Stanton talk passionately about his true underlying passion — being an “animator”.  He gives that term an added meaning — or at least for me it seemed that way, since I’ve never had the urge to be an animation artist. He got my attention with much of what he says here. What does this mean for John Carter or Edgar Rice Burroughs? I’m not sure. But it’s fascinating to hear him talk about the kinds of things you contemplate as an animator (Does a toilet paper roll fear becoming just a tube? Where do the eyes go on a bicycle?), and it just strikes me that this is such a vastly different discipline than live action film-making. Not because it’s physically or technically different — but because of the demand to “animate” inanimate objects, and to just engage in that kind of thinking. Stanton seems just thrilled to think about things like that……..and it makes me wonder how, if your core calling is something like that, then how do you approach a live action filming situation…..It makes me wonder if one bite from that apple was enough for Stanton, or whether he hankers for more.

10 comments

  • Nick wrote:
    “E.T. could have been a sock puppet and audiences would have loved it and felt sorry for it. He was a cute, innocent space alien who’s life was theatened by evil humans. And we didn’t want Elliot to have his cute buddy ripped away from him. Kind of an unfair comparison.”

    How is it an unfair comparsion? ET was a character as you said people loved and felt empathy for. That wasn’t there in Stanton’s takes on Tars Tarkas or Sola. I guess you must hate ET since he failed to develop as a character beyond just being “cute.”

    “I thought Dejah’s human emotion was fine. Same with Carter. I’m not a ERB book fanatic, so not sure what you mean about characters not showing Barsoomian emotion. I’ll likely NEVER understand that.”

    Dejah was the only one who had any human emotion in this film-she was determined to rescue her people and did not want to be forced into marriage (even though in the book it was her choice to marry Sab Than-not her father forcing her to do it). Carter on the other hand had virtually nil real human emotion. Only in a few sequences, the rest was the same tired “I want my cave of gold, I’m moping over my dead wife and daughter who I couldn’t even name” cliches that made him unlikable and hard to have any empathy for. As for the rest of the characters and their Barsoomian emotions let’s compare Tardors Mors. In the books he makes it clear he would rather see Helium burn than force Dejah to marry his enemy, yet in the movie that’s all he does. There was no strength there, just an empty slate and a bad wig on Ciaran Hinds. Stanton took the characters who all have inner strength and made them weak men. I guess he thought that would show them as human and make them more relatable but in truth it just made them unlikable and after a while you wonder how this guy ever became Jeddak of Helium. Or how Tars Tarkas ever became ruler of the Tharks. As for old Tars being a wimp, if he was the great Thark why then did he just stand there and let Carter take on Tal Hajus? That was a big case of Stanton fubaring the characters right there. I mean he fubared all of them to some extent but Tars Tarkas was the most annoying next to Carter.

    “Gollum wasn’t any different in the 1st movie than a side character in John Carter.”

    Except we know what Gollum was after-his precious. What was Matai Shang after? Even he couldn’t seem to come up with a reason. True he was a side character but the difference was Jackson did a better job establishing the characters and their goals than Stanton did.

  • I think we’ll just have to mostly disagree.

    E.T. could have been a sock puppet and audiences would have loved it and felt sorry for it. He was a cute, innocent space alien who’s life was theatened by evil humans. And we didn’t want Elliot to have his cute buddy ripped away from him. Kind of an unfair comparison. The point I was making is that I think Tarkas, Sola, Woolah, etc…seemed like real creatures. Their mannerisms, gestures, nuances. I just plain disagree on the emotion part. Tarkas offered more than one liners. The look in his eyes when he first saw Carter jumped gave me goosebumps. His anger and disgust when Carter wouldn’t jump later on was VERY apparent simply by his expression. The way he attacked Carter in the ape dungeon was powerful. Without knowing Sola’s back story, I felt sorry for from the get-go when she couldn’t get a tark baby and noticed how she was picked on. Her scene in the ape arena was very emotional. Woolah, in just a few seconds of screen time, came across like a loveable dog. Cute and funny. And when he dug in to help Carter in battle, his expression said everything.

    I thought Dejah’s human emotion was fine. Same with Carter. I’m not a ERB book fanatic, so not sure what you mean about characters not showing Barsoomian emotion. I’ll likely NEVER understand that.

    I didn’t take Tarkas for being a wimp at all. But again, because I wasn’t a ERB fanatic before seeing the movie, I didn’t have a pre-conceived vision of Tarkas in my head.

    As for the Gollum reference, that’s unfair as well. What was your perception of Gollum after Lord of the Rings 1? For me, he was an intriguing character, nothing more. Jackson had to introduce the LOTR world to audiences, then introduce the numerous characters. Much like Stanton had to introduce the Carter world and numerous characters. Gollum wasn’t any different in the 1st movie than a side character in John Carter. But Jackson got to devote nearly a whole movie to Gollum in the 2nd movie, who happened to be a VERY interesting character worthy of such attention.

  • Nick wrote:
    “To MCR and others who think Stanton is in over his head with live-action….what exactly is it about John Carter that makes it obvious to you that Stanton is a rookie?”

    Mostly the lack of “human” characters in this film. Outside of a few performances (Lynn Collins, James Purefoy and Woola) none of them had any real human-or Barsoomian-emotions. Stanton’s Carter wasn’t a real human being-he was a pieced together cliche without any real feeling or humanity to him. The Tharks didn’t have it-they were just “cool” aliens with Tars Tarkas in particular reduced to spitting out one liners. If I remember there was a discussion about comments that Stanton made that seemed to appear he only really liked the surface details of the books-the cool aliens, hot Maritan princess, etc. Now I’m not saying Burroughs’ work is some deep work but neither is Stanton’s. In fact I’ll argue that Burroughs made the Tharks more “human” by giving them motivations, grudges and foibles as well as defining their characters. We know why Sola acts the way she does in the book-from having the time with her mother-as well as her hopes that her father will eventually reach a high status and be able to get justice for Gozova. That wasn’t in the movie! We have no idea why Sola is the way she is except for some poor dialogue about how she carries her father’s compassion inside her.

    Also it’s just the cliched way the rest of the characters come across. Matai Shang and Sab Than have no motivations. Tardors Mors is just a stick figure with no backbone. ANd let’s not even get into Carter’s ‘sigh” family…Plus the fumbling of the big action scenes, the tired production design, Stanton just showed he didn’t have the experience necessary to make this movie, especially not at a 250 million dollar level.

    “But I’d argue none of those directors (Jackson, Cameron, Spielberg) could have pulled off Tars Tarkas, Sola and Woolah like Stanton did.”

    Clearly you’ve never seen ET Nick. Or The Lord of the Rings trilogy. In fact I’ll stand up and say that ET (an animitronic puppet for pete’s sake) has more emotion, feeling and honesty than Stanton’s handling of Tarkas, Sola and Woola did. ET was a character, both funny and touching and real, something none of the characters in this film were. The same thing with Gollum/Smeagol. Jackson showed us a tortured, complex character. All Stanton did was make Tars Tarkas a wimp with bad comedy bits and turned Woola-who I did love-into the Road Runner really.

  • Rejoice, lovers of all things Stanton.
    You will only have to endure MCR.

    I’m off work and don’t have to be back until the 12th.
    Tomorrow I will be samplin’ Fat Tire at the New Belgium Brewery in Fort Collins.
    Afterwards hiking and biking in Yellowstone and Grand Teton Nat’l parks.

    I’m bringing my portable dvd player, headphones and my extended LOTR’s.
    Leaving mediocre Stanton/Disney dvd at home.

    One of my fav moments in LOTR is right after the fellowship leaves Rivendell.
    One by one the members of the fellowship crest a rise on a mountain and the music that is playing just makes it awesome. – Last time I watched it it still made me leak
    some tears.

    The reason I mention that is so I can groan about something I have yet to
    groan about.

    The music score for JC has NO HOOK.- Compare it to Star Wars or LOTR .

    The Star Wars and LOTR music score sears it’s way into your brain and stays
    there permanently. – C’mon now LOTR had Annie Lennox.

    Emiliana Torrini’s Gollum’s Song at the end of Two Towers is awesome sauce.
    Haunting sad melody.

    I’ve watched JC four times now and I cannot recollect it’s musical score at all.

    Have a good day, Stanton lovers – See ya in a couple weeks.

    Oh ya. If you got time to waste go to the John Carter of Mars Unofficial website and read my lurid 20,000 word tale, Never betray a deal with a barsoomian Devil.

    So horrific and filled with bloodshed you will gasp with slack jawed disbelief.

    Free milk and cookies if you rag on it.

  • Perhaps Stanton DOES have a lot to learn in making live-action movies. He’d probably admit to that himself. But part of what makes “John Carter” so great, in my opinion, is the ultra-believability of the animated characters. I think that is Stanton’s strength. Watching the film, Tars Tarkas and Sola are REAL. My mind never doubts it. The extremely subtle expressions of their faces, the way they interact with other characters, and the way they speak helps make so many scenes more powerful. “Avatar” is a good film and Cameron’s CGI charactes are done very well, but there’s still something about them that my mind occassionally doesn’t buy. My mind easily distinguishes real characters from fake. Hard to explain.

    Oviously, making characters real and believable isn’t the only thing involved in making a great movie, but it’s really important. I kind of agree with MCR that “John Carter” looks like it was directed by someone not used to live-action, but I can’t really put a finger on it or explain it…nor am I even sure if there’s anything negative about that. It’s just different. To MCR and others who think Stanton is in over his head with live-action….what exactly is it about John Carter that makes it obvious to you that Stanton is a rookie?

    I think Jackson, Cameron and Spielberg have a much better flair for the dramatic. They “get” big-budget movies and know how to deliver kick-ass popcorn-flick scenes. They likely have a better feel for what general movie-goers want to see. Had one of them made “John Carter”, it likely would have gotten bigger audiences and had more razzle-dazzle and trailer-ready shots. But I’d argue none of those directors could have pulled off Tars Tarkas, Sola and Woolah like Stanton did. I don’t think there would have been half the emotion or humor. Maybe that’s part of the problem for some….they just want one ultra-cool dramatic action set piece after another.

  • I hope that we’ll see down the line before/after scenes with Willem Dafoe playing Tars Tarkas, and the other Thark players. It would be fascinating to see the translation.

  • I hope that is a final cover, because I like that one alot. You actually had perfection with those elements when the tile was a little larger and the picture a little smaller.

    But, the most important thing was corrected, the blurring JOHNCARTERANDTHEGODSOFHOLLYWOOD effect when all the title letters were the same size. Much better this way.

    When will this be available to purchase ? and Which format rewards you with the most money back to you personally ? (For all your hard work.)

  • I saw this other link at the end!

    “Andrew Stanton; The clues to a great story”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWfq6OE6Z34

    “Make me care” is a great lesson. Has imperfect as John Carter turned out to be in moments, that’s probably the lesson that will stick in the long run. We’ll see.

    “The audience actually wants to work for their meal” is a neat concept. “It’s the lack of information that draws us in”, “don’t give them 4, give them 2+2”. Stanton recognizes himself that it’s not an exact science.

    “Wonder” is key too. But I still have more sense of wonder out of the books than in the movie. Maybe because the protagonist himself refuses to surrender to it for the longest time.

    Anyway, it’s always fun to see him, in fact he’s a great performer in his own right!

  • “if your core calling is something like that, then how do you approach a live action filming situation…”

    You would probably start by asking “Am I the right person to do this?” Then seek out the advice of other filmmakers who work in live action and get their opinions. Also surrounding yourself with producers and others who have live action experience to help guide you and provide a backbone to rely on.

    Sadly Stanton did none of that. He didn’t seek out advice of say a Peter Jackson, James Cameron or Steven Spielberg. He didn’t step aside or really did much debate or soul searching to see if he was the right person to make this film. And clearly he didn’t do much to get people with massive amounts of experience to provide information or guide him-just people from Pixar who would agree with him and hold to the belief that the Pixar Method would work-despite it never having been tested.

    If he did take a bite of that apple he probably bit off too much. He should have just stayed with his true calling-animation-and left John Carter of Mars to someone else who had the skills and respect for the material.

  • I have always liked Andrew Stanton. I love listening to his talks. They are so colorful and imaginative, just like his artistry. “Does a toilet paper roll fear being a tube” feels like something to meditate on. And “where do you put eyes on a bicycle”. This may not work on today’s bicycles, but I had a bicycle in the 50’s that had duel headlights attached under the handle bars over the fender on the front wheel. I can just imagine it now.

Leave a Reply