The Reason Iago Speaks Very Differently In The New Aladdin, According To Guy Ritchie

The Reason Iago Speaks Very Differently In The New Aladdin, According To Guy Ritchie

There are a lot of classic elements of the animated Aladdin still present in the new remake – from the colorful antics of the genie, to all the songs that have been stuck in your head for the last 27 years – but one aspect that is changed quite a bit is the presence of Iago. The parrot is still the right hand of the power-hungry Jafar, and regularly feeds him information that drives the plot forward, but as a character he is very different than what fans are familiar with. Rather than being an abrasive animal sidekick brought to life with the voice of Gilbert Gottfried, he’s instead, well… a parrot.

It’s an interesting choice that the film makes, particularly because there are still many other magical elements in play, but there is a good reason why it was done. According to director Guy Ritchie, a more anthropomorphic version of Iago in the new Aladdin simply didn’t fit as the story was brought from animation to live-action, and just didn’t feel right within the presentation.

I brought up the character when I recently sat down with Guy Ritchie at the Los Angeles press day for Aladdin, asking how those kinds of decisions were made, and he explained,

Good question, actually, and one I don't mind talking about, this one, at all. It's funny what you can get away with in an animated production that can't, my feeling is, that you can't get away with in quite the same way in live action. So although you still got magic carpets and blue genies coming out of bottles, [it] still has to be rooted in some form of reality. It's hard if you have a parrot who has paragraphs of dialogue. Somehow it just sits uncomfortably in a live action production.

Going for a more appropriate adaptation of the character, Aladdin has the new Iago act much more like a scarlet macaw that you would find in real life, albeit with a slightly enhanced ability to speak (he has the occasional line, but nothing on the level of what we hear in the 1992 movie). Physically he’s entirely a digital creation, and the voice is done by Alan Tudyk – who has become a Disney regular in recent years, with parts in Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6, Zootopia, Moana, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, and Ralph Breaks The Internet.

Unlike the human characters, which were easy to adapt from medium to medium, Aladdin’s animals presented a particular puzzle for the filmmakers, but it was a code they eventually cracked. It was all about finding what Guy Ritchie referred to as the “sweet spot” where things didn’t seem out of place or two extreme. Said the director,

There was a sweet spot that we found between animals in their animation or articulation before you went too far and then you went, 'Oh, hold on. This is live action.' But as I say, you're talking about wishes and genies, yet somehow there's a position that the mind occupies that accepts certain amount of fancy without becoming absurd.

You can watch Guy Ritchie discuss his approach to bringing Iago to life in the new Aladdin by clicking play on the video below!

In addition to Alan Tudyk, Guy Ritchie’s Aladdin sports an impressive ensemble cast that includes Will Smith, Mena Massoud, Naomi Scott, Marwan Kenzari, Navid Negahban, Nasim Pedrad, Billy Magnussen, and Numan Acar. The movie will be hitting theaters this weekend, and be sure to stay tuned here on CinemaBlend for more from my interviews with the cast and filmmakers!

Avengers: Endgame Has Officially Beat One Of Avatar's Box Office Records

Avengers: Endgame Has Officially Beat One Of Avatar's Box Office Records

Like Captain Marvel blazing through the sky and cutting through enemy ships, Avengers: Endgame came out fast and furious at the box office, felling many records. But Endgame’s run isn’t done yet and there are still records left to conquer, particularly those belonging to the almighty box office champ, Avatar. Now, after this past weekend, Avengers: Endgame has officially beat one of Avatar’s box office records.

Prior to this past weekend, it looked like the MCU’s massive culmination film would pass Avatar to become the second-biggest film at the domestic box office all-time. All the money has now been counted and we can finally say that officially, The Russo Brothers’ latest film has done just that. According to Box Office Mojo, Avengers: Endgame now stands at $774.5 million on the domestic charts, surpassing Avatar’s $760.5 million.

It’s a remarkable feat considering that Avatar’s domestic record held all the way until 2015 when it was beat out by the return of Star Wars in J.J. Abrams’ Star Wars: The Force Awakens. No film since then has passed Avatar domestically, including box office titans like Black Panther, Star Wars: The Last Jedi and Avengers: Infinity War. But records are made to be broken and Avengers: Endgame has done that in less than a month.

The $774.5 million and counting Avengers: Endgame has made cements it as the second-biggest domestic film ever, now trailing only The Force Awakens. It may have to settle for No. 2 though because the record held by Episode VII will require extraordinary legs to catch. Star Wars: The Force Awakens holds the top spot on the domestic charts with a historic $936.6 million, over $160 million more than where Endgame is currently at.

On the worldwide record front, things are more competitive and interesting. Avengers: Endgame may have passed Avatar’s domestic total and James Cameron’s other box office champ Titanic worldwide, but Avatar’s all-time, worldwide box office record remains intact.

Avatar is the No. 1, biggest movie ever at the box office, with $2.788 million worldwide. Right now, Avengers: Endgame sits at $2.620 million worldwide. Like the domestic record, Endgame will have to make over $160 million more around the world to catch Avatar and stand alone atop the worldwide box office chart.

Whether it can do that remains to be seen, but we may be in for a photo finish with box office aficionados watching Endgame’s every dollar come in like political pundits on election night. As of now, Avengers: Endgame has won a battle against Avatar, but the war is undecided and James Cameron still sits upon the throne.

Avengers: Endgame is now playing while Avatar 2 has been delayed (again) until 2021. Check out our 2019 Release Schedule to see all the movies you can look forward to the rest of this year.

Poms Is The Worst Box Office Flop Of The Year

Poms Is The Worst Box Office Flop Of The Year

One of the most valuable pieces of advice that can be given in any competitive realm is the age old wisdom that they can’t all be winners. In the world of movies, that is definitely something that gets the attention of those who watch the market carefully, and it looks like this past weekend awarded 2019 its greatest cratering of the year so far. And it’s all because Poms couldn’t stick the landing.

Some specifics pertaining to Poms’ spectacular failure set this particular scene a little better. In particular, the film’s $5 million opening is the lowest for a film that’s opened on 2,700+ screens in wide release. This is against the backdrop of the film’s estimate $10 million budget, on a Mother’s Day weekend that saw the film compete against the likes of Pokemon: Detective Pikachu and The Hustle. The only newcomer that sank below the low water mark that Poms set in theaters was Tolkien, which opened on fewer screens, but only pulled in $2.2 million.

Intended to be a feel-good comedy about a group of women, led by Diane Keaton, who decide to start a cheerleading team in a retirement community, Poms hasn’t exactly been doing well with its reviews either. Sitting at a 32% on Rotten Tomatoes, the film does have an advantage in one respect: it outperformed The Hustle’s 17% Fresh rating in the same opening weekend.

Our own Eric Eisenberg saw Poms himself, and his response to the film was pretty much in line with the consensus of those reviewing the film. His review can be summed up with the following remarks:

There is hardly a single underdog sports movie cliché that isn’t employed at some point, and it’s difficult to feel entirely engaged with the story when you know exactly how every single scene is going to begin and end.

What makes this particular piece of news all the more upsetting for Poms’ parent studio, STX Entertainment, is that as Business Insider points out in its analysis, it’s a continuation of a pretty upsetting trend for the company’s release slate. It was just last weekend that the studio’s animated musical-comedy Uglydolls underperformed, with only $16 million of the film’s $45 million price tag being recouped through cinematic receipts thus far.

The one bright spot in STX’s fortunes has remained The Upside, which was released this past January, and rode a surprise wave of success that saw the Bryan Cranston/Kevin Hart dramedy sail to $122 million on a $37.5 million budget. However, Poms has now sent the studio plummeting back to Earth, waiting to see what the future holds.

STX Entertainment still has some pieces on the board that could make some surprise splashes in 2019. The studio’s next two films, the Chadwick Boseman-starring 21 Bridges and the Katie Holmes-led horror sequel Brahms: The Boy 2 have particular brands of thrills that might attract audiences to the movies this summer, putting this unfortunate setback behind the studio once and for all.

Poms is in theaters now, should you have missed it at the movies this past weekend. But if you’re looking for something else to go see at the movies, don’t forget to check out our 2019 release schedule, to see what else is playing.

Creed II Originally Brought Back Apollo As A Ghost

Creed II Originally Brought Back Apollo As A Ghost

Creed II was about facing up to the ghosts of one's past, but it seems that at one point there may have been a plan to include an actual ghost. Dolph Lundgren recently revealed that in an early script of Creed II there was apparently a plan for the story to include Apollo Creed himself. Lundgren much prefers the decision to bring back another Rocky IV co-star, Brigitte Nielsen, instead. According to Lundgren...

It was a great idea I thought [to bring Nielsen back]. In the original first draft it was Apollo came back. Or like his ghost or something. It was a little hokey, you know. So I think it was much better to bring Brigitte back.

Unfortunately, Dolph Lundgren doesn't elaborate on his comments, which he made during a Q&A at Monster-Mania Con 42 in Cherry Hill, New Jersey over this past weekend. That means we have no idea exactly how this idea of Apollo Creed returning in Creed II was originally supposed to be handled.

Sylvester Stallone has recently stated that he now feels the decision to kill Apollo Creed in Rocky IV may have been the wrong one, if only because he so enjoyed working with actor Carl Weathers. Perhaps that led Stallone, who co-wrote the screenplay for Creed II, to try and find a way to include him.

Obviously, it seems unlikely that the actual plan had been to include Apollo Creed's ghost. Perhaps there would have been a dream sequence of some kind where either Rocky or Adonis Creed finds himself across from Apollo. Of course, just creating a "ghost" version of Apollo would have been one of the more complicated things in the movie. Creed II isn't exactly a visusal effects blockbuster but a lot of that would have been necessary to bring Apollo Creed back.

However you look at it, it feels awkward, which is probably why the scene never made it into the final film. Still, the desire to include Apollo, and Carl Weathers, in the movie in some way certainly makes sense. It's understandable that people would want to try. There's just no good way to do it.

And at the same time, if Apollo Creed doesn't die in Rocky IV, then Creed II, really the entire Creed franchise becomes an entirely different pair of films. Apollo's death in Rocky IV is one of the iconic moments of the entire series.

In the end, bringing Brigitte Nielsen back for Creed II was clearly something that was much easier to do. And it was certainly impactful as well. Nielsen's return helps put the story of Ivan Drago into a context that we never got to see in Rocky IV. It makes the villain of the earlier movie a much more sympathetic character in the sequel.

While bringing Apollo back in any way would have been a nice nod, it would not have meant as much to the actual story. And who knows. There's always Creed III.

Looks Like Dumbo May Struggle To Make A Profit For Disney

Looks Like Dumbo May Struggle To Make A Profit For Disney

Disney's live-action remakes have been a solid source of box office dollars for the studio. It's the reason we've been seeing so many of them in recent years. However, it's possible that we might be seeing the first crack in that armor, as Dumbo has certainly not been performing as expected, which could result in the film not making a profit for Disney, and certainly not making the sort of profit the studio is used to seeing.

Dumbo brought in less than $20 million over this past weekend, its second weekend in wide release. That's over a 60% drop from its opening weekend numbers. While it's fairly normal to see major blockbusters drop 60% or more from opening weekend, it's less usual for Disney family films. Beauty and the Beast and Cinderella both dropped less than 50% in their second weekend, Maleficent fell on slightly more than 50%.

Dumbo's domestic total is now at $76 million. With Laika's Missing Link, another movie with family appeal, as well as other tent pole releases on the way, it seems Dumbo may struggle to break the $100 million mark domestically. Previously, that goal seemed to be much more likely.

Globally, Dumbo is doing a little better, but still below expectations. The movie currently sits at $213 million which isn't the worst number in the world for a film with an estimated production budget of $170 million. That number doesn't include marketing costs, so the total budget for the film is probably somewhere around $200 million or more.

Even if Dumbo is able to pull out a bit of profit over the next few weeks, it looks like Dumbo will likely end its run on the bleeding edge of breaking even. It might lose a bit of money, though probably not much. It might end up making money, though probably not much.

Financially struggling is not the standard state for a Disney remake. While they don't always make $1 billion the way Beauty and Beast did, Disney's remakes tend to have no problem making money. They do this despite the fact that they don't all get glowing reviews, so the fact that Dumbo didn't blow over the critics likely isn't the reason it's not doing well.

Perhaps Dumbo went a little too deep into the Disney back catalog. It's the oldest of the animated features that Disney has remade and maybe the original story just didn't resonate with fans the way some of the more recent Disney classics have done.

If that's the case, it means things likely look brighter for the other two Disney remakes set for this year. Aladdin and The Lion King are both films from the 1990s and perhaps that means they're more likely to do Beauty and the Beast numbers.

Ironically, the original animated Dumbo was one of the studio's few success stories in an era of financial difficulties. The original movie was released during World War II when most overseas theatrical markets were closed to the studio. Pinocchio and Fantasia were both flops, but Dumbo somehow beat the odds and became a hit. Now, it looks like Dumbo might end up one of the low points on what will otherwise certainly be a huge box office year for Disney.

Emilia Clarke Admits She Regrets 'Stupid Action Movies' She's Filmed

Emilia Clarke Admits She Regrets 'Stupid Action Movies' She's Filmed

As the eight-season journey on Game of Thrones soon comes to an end, fans are certainly curious about where we will see our favorite stars next on the big screen. Jason Momoa certainly made waves as Aquaman after portraying Khal Drogo, and Sophie Turner is playing the titular role in the next installment of the X-Men franchise, Dark Phoenix. What about fan-favorites Daenerys Targaryen and Jon Snow, a.k.a. Emilia Clarke and Kit Harington?

Emilia Clarke recently spoke with Variety about her time as a big screen actress thus far, and part of the discussion was about how her and co-star Kit Harington have bonded over their common career accomplishments… and mistakes. Said the actress,

Kit and I are counterparts in terms of experience. We are pretty much the same age, and our characters have had parallel journeys, and we as actors have had parallel journeys. We’ve both done stupid action movies we regret and fabulous things we’re proud of, and we’ve always come back to Thrones. And he’s the person I’d ask, ‘How are you handling this? Are you alright?’ We were in sync, even if we were filming on opposite sides of the world.

Their characters are connected in more way than one! The two actors have notably had some bad luck with their big budget action movie endeavors, and here Emilia Clarke admits to regretting them. Of course, Clarke notably played Sarah Connor in the 2015 failed reboot Terminator: Genisys, which in the past she has said she was “relieved” to see fail at the box office so she wouldn’t have to return for a sequel because “no one had a good time” making it.

Clarke also recently played Qi’ra in Solo: A Star Wars Story, which was deemed the biggest disappointment for the franchise – though obviously nobody is placing any blame on the actress. The movie dealt with some problems during production, such as the replacement of Phil Lord and Chris Miller with Ron Howard in the midst of filming.

On Kit Harington’s end, the actor starred in 2014’s period volcano thriller Pompeii, which only made $117 million worldwide with a $100 million budget, and Seventh Son, which has comparative disappointing numbers with a $114 million worldwide take against a $95 million budget. These are reasons enough for the Game of Thrones stars to be apprehensive about starring in action movies, but luckily they had each other to talk out shared experiences, even though they were on completely different projects.

Looking ahead, Emilia Clarke is starring in a rom-com with Crazy Rich Asians’ Henry Golding called Last Christmas, and in a crime-thriller titled Above Suspicion - neither of which are being made as tent-pole blockbusters. Kit Harington will next be seen on the big screen starring in the drama The Death and Life of John F. Donovan, which premiered last year at the Toronto International Film Festival and isn't currently set up with a domestic release date or distributor.

The actors will be the talk of the world when the premiere of Game of Thrones' six-episode final season premieres on April 14th, leading to an ending for their characters that Clarke said “fucked [her] up” and got Harington crying at a table read.

Anne Hathaway Used Stewie From Family Guy To Learn British Accent In The Hustle

Anne Hathaway Used Stewie From Family Guy To Learn British Accent In The Hustle

The Hustle stars Anne Hathaway and Rebel Wilson as a pair of competing con artists. It's actually the third version of the story that first began with 1964's Bedtime Story and was followed by 1988's Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

In both of the previous iteration, the part of the high class con artist was played by a British actor, David Niven in the original, and Michael Caine in the first remake. In the new movie, American Hathaway has the role, but she plays a British character, which meant she needed to put on an accent.

The actress says she wasn't all that excited about the accent because she was afraid of doing it badly, but then she hit on an idea. What if the accent wasn't real, even within the story? Hathaway says she found influences for her accent in many places, but most strangely, Seth MacFarlane's performance as Stewie on Family Guy. According to Hathaway...

I thought, 'OK, maybe my character isn't necessarily British.’ She's a con woman. Maybe she's just decided that she's British and she sounds British. So I thought, 'What would be her main influences.' I really love Joanna Lumley from Absolutely Fabulous and it would've been such a shame not to put a little Julie Andrews in there, so I put a little Julie Andrews in there. But mainly it was Stewie from Family Guy.

A bad accent in movies is one of those things that tends to get actors raked over the coals when they're bad so it's not shocking, and a little refreshing, that Anne Hathaway was concerned about that from the beginning. She tells GMA that she didn't want to use an accent at all, but director Chris Addison insisted on it.

The idea that the accent in The Hustle might be fake, as the character Josephine Chesterfield is a con artist who might want people to believe she's British when that's not the case, is an interesting idea. It also, not coincidentally I'm guessing, gives the actress an out if people tell her the accent isn't very good.

However, Anne Hathaway says that the British press are actually complimenting her accent, so apparently it all worked out.

It's certainly not shocking that Julie Andrews was an influence on Anne Hathaway's accent. The two have been co-stars before after all. The Family Guy connection is, of course, a little bit more bizarre. Although, since Seth MacFarlane isn't British either, using a fake accent to create your own fake accent maybe makes a bit more sense.

Check out Anne Hathaway's complete comments in the clip below.

Anne Hathaway's accent may be great, but it may not be enough to save the film, It's being hammered by critics at the moment. We'll have to wait and see how it fairs at the box office.