Re: Titan A.E. on HBO
Terrence Briggs
> In article
> <0c208053-aab5-451e-80fa-840772c1c...@u13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Chris Sobieniak <sobien...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 3:40 pm, "Bobby Clark" <bclark@REMOVE4_airmail.net> wrote:
> > > Titan A.E. has been showing on HBO over the past few weeks. I final sat
> > > down to screen it after all this time. While the story was ok, the computer
> > > CG and animation left something to be desired. The had drawn elements
> > > looked out of place with the CG elements. It might have been the age of the
> > > source film, but it looked terrible. The colors were muted and dark in many
> > > places. Was it released like this, or is the copy HBO was presenting a bad
> > > version?
>
> > > Bobby
>
> > It's been a decade since I last saw it (especially on the big screen),
> > but I do remember thinking the story needed more work.
You guys are much too civil and diplomatic :-)
> Bluth (iirc) came in with production already started and all designs
> set and tried to salvage something. The commentary on the DVD is
> amazing, and a must listen for animation fans. My favorite part:
> "This makes no sense! Why didn't we insert a scene here to tell the
> audience what was going on?"
> "We ran out of money."
> "Ah... right."
A great artist never blames his funding :-)
BTW, TAE is notAnime. Every if it wasn't painfully generic sci-fi
bilge with a cool ice chase scene, it would still be notAnime.
> Chris Mack *quote under construction*
> 'Invid Fan'
Terrence Briggs, notAnime, despite his coolness :-)
Peace to you...
TBerk
>
> > Chris Sobieniak <sobien...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 19, 3:40 pm, "Bobby Clark" <bclark@REMOVE4_airmail.net> wrote:
> > > > Titan A.E. has been showing on HBO over the past few weeks. I final sat
> > > > down to screen it after all this time...
I remember watching it at the time (it was released) and thought;
"something ain't right about this..."
> > Bluth (iirc) came in with production already started and all designs
> > set and tried to salvage something.
Oh. That helps reveal something, after the fact and all this time
later.
Still, "it could'a been a contend'a...".
berk
Invid Fan
<bc082c90-2050-49a0...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
TBerk <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 8:06�am, Terrence Briggs <mrman1mrm...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Chris Sobieniak <sobien...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 19, 3:40�pm, "Bobby Clark" <bclark@REMOVE4_airmail.net> wrote:
> > > > > Titan A.E. has been showing on HBO over the past few weeks. �I final
> > > > > sat
> > > > > down to screen it after all this time...
>
> I remember watching it at the time (it was released) and thought;
> "something ain't right about this..."
>
I went to a free preview, and the audience reaction in general was
"it's better then most live action SF". I think it flopped not because
of quality, because nobody went to find out if it was bad or not, but
because people don't want to watch animated SF in theaters.
> > > Bluth (iirc) came in with production already started and all designs
> > > set and tried to salvage something.
>
> Oh. That helps reveal something, after the fact and all this time
> later.
> Still, "it could'a been a contend'a...".
>
Like I said, the DVD commentary is a must listen. They literally could
not design a single new item because everything had to be approved
ahead of time and it was all locked at that point. Just like a producer
will try and save a troubled movie in the editing room, they rewrote,
animated new scenes, moved stuff around, etc trying to make the sucker
work. In the end they managed to get it out on time, but that's the
extent of their achievement :) IIRC the DVD also has a rather large
selection of deleted scenes for a cell animated film...
--
Chris Sobieniak
>
> TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 8:06 am, Terrence Briggs <mrman1mrm...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Chris Sobieniak <sobien...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 19, 3:40 pm, "Bobby Clark" <bclark@REMOVE4_airmail.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Titan A.E. has been showing on HBO over the past few weeks. I final
> > > > > > sat
> > > > > > down to screen it after all this time...
>
> > I remember watching it at the time (it was released) and thought;
> > "something ain't right about this..."
Why am I not surprised? :-)
> I went to a free preview, and the audience reaction in general was
> "it's better then most live action SF". I think it flopped not because
> of quality, because nobody went to find out if it was bad or not, but
> because people don't want to watch animated SF in theaters.
Reason why we're anime fans to begin with!
> > > > Bluth (iirc) came in with production already started and all designs
> > > > set and tried to salvage something.
>
> > Oh. That helps reveal something, after the fact and all this time
> > later.
> > Still, "it could'a been a contend'a...".
>
> Like I said, the DVD commentary is a must listen. They literally could
> not design a single new item because everything had to be approved
> ahead of time and it was all locked at that point. Just like a producer
> will try and save a troubled movie in the editing room, they rewrote,
> animated new scenes, moved stuff around, etc trying to make the sucker
> work. In the end they managed to get it out on time, but that's the
> extent of their achievement :) IIRC the DVD also has a rather large
> selection of deleted scenes for a cell animated film...
>
> --
> Chris Mack *quote under construction*
> 'Invid Fan'
And this disc came out almost a decade ago. Still, I thought Bed
Edlund did his best on the script.
Anim8rFSK
Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bc082c90-2050-49a0...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> TBerk <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 7, 8:06�am, Terrence Briggs <mrman1mrm...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > Chris Sobieniak <sobien...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 19, 3:40�pm, "Bobby Clark" <bclark@REMOVE4_airmail.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Titan A.E. has been showing on HBO over the past few weeks. �I final
> > > > > > sat
> > > > > > down to screen it after all this time...
> >
> > I remember watching it at the time (it was released) and thought;
> > "something ain't right about this..."
> >
> I went to a free preview, and the audience reaction in general was
> "it's better then most live action SF". I think it flopped not because
> of quality, because nobody went to find out if it was bad or not, but
> because people don't want to watch animated SF in theaters.
Before it was released, the FOX honchos, in one of their weekly 'pep
talk' visits to the studio, told the studio that the advertising
department was completely incompetent, and had been put on notice that
if they screwed up this film, it would be their last, and they'd all be
fired. The people at the studio's reaction was 'can't you fire them NOW
and get somebody competent to advertise this film? Please??'
They didn't, and the decision to close Fox Animation was made opening
night. Clearly what flopped was the advertising department, even though
the film never had a chance.
>
> > > > Bluth (iirc) came in with production already started and all designs
> > > > set and tried to salvage something.
> >
> > Oh. That helps reveal something, after the fact and all this time
> > later.
> > Still, "it could'a been a contend'a...".
> >
> Like I said, the DVD commentary is a must listen. They literally could
> not design a single new item because everything had to be approved
> ahead of time and it was all locked at that point. Just like a producer
> will try and save a troubled movie in the editing room, they rewrote,
> animated new scenes, moved stuff around, etc trying to make the sucker
> work. In the end they managed to get it out on time, but that's the
> extent of their achievement :) IIRC the DVD also has a rather large
> selection of deleted scenes for a cell animated film...
Who is the commentary with?
--
Stargate Universe SGU: It puts the "U" in "SUCKS"!
It's the show 'Defiling Gravity' would be if DG had more regulars,
fewer abortions, worse writers, and no budget for lighting.
Remember, you can't spell "disgust" without SGU!
Chris Sobieniak
> In article <071120092144440687%in...@loclanet.com>,
> Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 7, 8:06 am, Terrence Briggs <mrman1mrm...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Chris Sobieniak <sobien...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 19, 3:40 pm, "Bobby Clark" <bclark@REMOVE4_airmail.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Titan A.E. has been showing on HBO over the past few weeks. I final
> > > > > > > sat
> > > > > > > down to screen it after all this time...
>
> > > I remember watching it at the time (it was released) and thought;
> > > "something ain't right about this..."
>
> > I went to a free preview, and the audience reaction in general was
> > "it's better then most live action SF". I think it flopped not because
> > of quality, because nobody went to find out if it was bad or not, but
> > because people don't want to watch animated SF in theaters.
>
> Before it was released, the FOX honchos, in one of their weekly 'pep
> talk' visits to the studio, told the studio that the advertising
> department was completely incompetent, and had been put on notice that
> if they screwed up this film, it would be their last, and they'd all be
> fired. The people at the studio's reaction was 'can't you fire them NOW
> and get somebody competent to advertise this film? Please??'
In a perfect world, that would've been a sound idea.
> They didn't, and the decision to close Fox Animation was made opening
> night. Clearly what flopped was the advertising department, even though
> the film never had a chance.
Should've fired 'em instead!
> > Like I said, the DVD commentary is a must listen. They literally could
> > not design a single new item because everything had to be approved
> > ahead of time and it was all locked at that point. Just like a producer
> > will try and save a troubled movie in the editing room, they rewrote,
> > animated new scenes, moved stuff around, etc trying to make the sucker
> > work. In the end they managed to get it out on time, but that's the
> > extent of their achievement :) IIRC the DVD also has a rather large
> > selection of deleted scenes for a cell animated film...
>
> Who is the commentary with?
>
> --
> Stargate Universe SGU: It puts the "U" in "SUCKS"!
> It's the show 'Defiling Gravity' would be if DG had more regulars,
> fewer abortions, worse writers, and no budget for lighting.
> Remember, you can't spell "disgust" without SGU!
I think it was both Don Bluth and Gary Goldman.
Lee Ratner
>
> TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 8:06 am, Terrence Briggs <mrman1mrm...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Chris Sobieniak <sobien...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 19, 3:40 pm, "Bobby Clark" <bclark@REMOVE4_airmail.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Titan A.E. has been showing on HBO over the past few weeks. I final
> > > > > > sat
> > > > > > down to screen it after all this time...
>
> > I remember watching it at the time (it was released) and thought;
> > "something ain't right about this..."
>
> I went to a free preview, and the audience reaction in general was
> "it's better then most live action SF". I think it flopped not because
> of quality, because nobody went to find out if it was bad or not, but
> because people don't want to watch animated SF in theaters.
>
have strict views on what animated movies should be, musicals based on
fairy tales that are fun for the entire family. The views have kind of
liberalized with them with the Pixar movies but still run strong. I
think the Titan A.E., team really had no idea how to produce or market
it. Should they make it and market it as kid friendly or go for a teen
and fan audience? They really could not decide and this is why Titan
A.E. is a compromise between both in design and marketing.
Blade
"Lee Ratner" <lbra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e014660-7bc1-4087...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Or to phrase it another way, Titan A.E. flopped because Americans
> have strict views on what animated movies should be, musicals based on
> fairy tales that are fun for the entire family.
That may be so, but it would have helped a lot if Titan A.E. was, you know,
good. It had a weak plot, weak characterisation, and very little about it
that was original or memorable. So I would say it deserved to fail, and
while a good advertising campaign might have helped it make more money, it
wouldn't have addressed the fundamental problems of the movie.
Animated movies that aren't musicals based on fairy tales have done well in
the US; I'd say it's more Titan A.E.'s flaws as a movie that kept it from
being as successful as, say, Lilo and Stitch.
-
Blade
Invid Fan
<kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Lee Ratner" <lbra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8e014660-7bc1-4087...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> > Or to phrase it another way, Titan A.E. flopped because Americans
> > have strict views on what animated movies should be, musicals based on
> > fairy tales that are fun for the entire family.
>
> That may be so, but it would have helped a lot if Titan A.E. was, you know,
> good. It had a weak plot, weak characterisation, and very little about it
> that was original or memorable. So I would say it deserved to fail, and
> while a good advertising campaign might have helped it make more money, it
> wouldn't have addressed the fundamental problems of the movie.
>
Yes, but that's not the point. The fact that a movie is bad only
matters if people actually go and find that out. If nobody goes in the
first place, it means the film as a whole didn't look like something
they'd enjoy.
> Animated movies that aren't musicals based on fairy tales have done well in
> the US; I'd say it's more Titan A.E.'s flaws as a movie that kept it from
> being as successful as, say, Lilo and Stitch.
>
No animated sci fi drama has done well. We'll buy them on video, but
watch it in a theater? No way :)
Lee Ratner
> In article <hd82vg$gp...@news.albasani.net>, Blade
>
> <kumonr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Lee Ratner" <lbrat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:8e014660-7bc1-4087...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> > > Or to phrase it another way, Titan A.E. flopped because Americans
> > > have strict views on what animated movies should be, musicals based on
> > > fairy tales that are fun for the entire family.
>
> > That may be so, but it would have helped a lot if Titan A.E. was, you know,
> > good. It had a weak plot, weak characterisation, and very little about it
> > that was original or memorable. So I would say it deserved to fail, and
> > while a good advertising campaign might have helped it make more money, it
> > wouldn't have addressed the fundamental problems of the movie.
>
> Yes, but that's not the point. The fact that a movie is bad only
> matters if people actually go and find that out. If nobody goes in the
> first place, it means the film as a whole didn't look like something
> they'd enjoy.
>
little while, it bombed in its first day. Titan A.E. was not the best
movie or possibly not even average but people did not even want to try
it. It bombed in the same way Invasion America bombed.
sanjian
It wasn't at the top of the list, and when word got out that it sucked, it
moved even farther down? While I'm not exactly a fan of the tastes and
sensibilities of American pop-culture, sometimes there ARE other culprits.
If you want to prove your point, you're going to have to wait for a decent
animated sci-fi movie to come out.
Chris Sobieniak
That year also saw the release of "The Iron Giant", which many blame
on the marketing too.
Blade
news:081120092255318688%in...@loclanet.com...
> In article <hd82vg$gpb$1...@news.albasani.net>, Blade
> <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Lee Ratner" <lbra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:8e014660-7bc1-4087...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>> > Or to phrase it another way, Titan A.E. flopped because Americans
>> > have strict views on what animated movies should be, musicals based on
>> > fairy tales that are fun for the entire family.
>>
>> That may be so, but it would have helped a lot if Titan A.E. was, you
>> know,
>> good. It had a weak plot, weak characterisation, and very little about it
>> that was original or memorable. So I would say it deserved to fail, and
>> while a good advertising campaign might have helped it make more money,
>> it
>> wouldn't have addressed the fundamental problems of the movie.
>>
> Yes, but that's not the point. The fact that a movie is bad only
> matters if people actually go and find that out. If nobody goes in the
> first place, it means the film as a whole didn't look like something
> they'd enjoy.
No, I don't agree. Titan A.E. was savaged in reviews (Roger Ebert aside, but
he has a pretty well-known bias for animated movies), which come out before
opening day (unless they blocked advance screening, which is also reported
as code for "movie is terrible"). This often - though not always - has an
effect on viewer preferences. If advance buzz about Titan A.E. had been that
it was an amazing movie rather than a terrible one, most likely it would
have been more successful. It's also worth noting that Titan A.E. opened at
#5 and lost 60% of that by the next weekend, showing word of mouth wasn't
good for it. It also didn't do well in foreign markets, so US bias isn't the
only culprit even if you assume that was the primary factor there.
This is also where the studio's complaints about poor advertising and
unclear target markets come in, but the fact still remains it wasn't very
good. "Wash shit; it's still shit."
>> Animated movies that aren't musicals based on fairy tales have done well
>> in
>> the US; I'd say it's more Titan A.E.'s flaws as a movie that kept it from
>> being as successful as, say, Lilo and Stitch.
>>
> No animated sci fi drama has done well. We'll buy them on video, but
> watch it in a theater? No way :)
No animated sci-fi drama theatrically released in the US has been anything
but crap. If someone ever makes one that's any good, perhaps it will do well
(with concurrent advertising). Advertising and buzz can't save a crap movie
(as FF: Spirits Within showed), but it might give legs to something most
people would consider worth seeing.
-
Blade
Inu-Yasha
I've been racking my brain for a successful animated sci-fi flick, and
come up empty. I don't understand what some have against FF: The
Spirits Within, as I liked it, and am an FF nut, but you are correct, it
is not a film that would have wide appeal, more a niche or fan market.
Heavy Metal & HM 2000 kind of disappeared into the maw of ho hum, as
well as the Dead Space movie. I'm having difficulty thinking of others,
and am also wondering what qualified as Sci-fi, what about Spirited
Away, and other Miyazaki Fantasy/somewhat sci-fi films. Toy Story,
Cars, Wall-e, Monsters vs Aliens, do these count or are we splitting
them off as fantasy? I know that fantasy is lumped with Sci-fi in
written works, esp the Sci-fi Book Club. I'm a long time Sci-fi fan,
but the good movies were not animated tho until say the last 10 years or
so, animation was in the Walt Disney vein. What do you all think about
this?
Inu-Yasha
Feh!! ^_^
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Animated sci-fi drama != "The Incredibles" ??
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Galen
wrote:
>
>No animated sci-fi drama theatrically released in the US has been anything
>but crap. If someone ever makes one that's any good, perhaps it will do well
>(with concurrent advertising). Advertising and buzz can't save a crap movie
>(as FF: Spirits Within showed), but it might give legs to something most
>people would consider worth seeing.
Wasn't _Lilo and Stitch_ a sci fi drama buddy film?
Why doesn't that count?
-Galen
B Sellers
Spirited Away is a fantasy film, not a bit of science fiction in the
whole show. The good animations are generally not science fiction
aside from Planetes but many fall into the future fantasy category
including Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind which was mutilated
from what I read here by the Hollywood nimwits. NVW falls into
the familiar area of dystopic future fantasy as does 1984 and
a lot of other stories in one medium or another.
Most of the stuff you mention above is fantasy sometimes
future and sometimes simply fantasy, i.e. toys having their own
lives is an common conceit and started with Winnie the Pooh.
Dream world Monsters having their own reality is not Science
Fiction nor much but fantasy and done many times in
textual fantasy fiction.
I don't know how Ironman did at the box office but it
and the X-men series are closer to traditional Science Fiction
stories. A lot of the Batman stories moved closer to the
Science Fiction boundaries from the vigilante hero area as
he added those inventions, the Batplane and all the contents
of the Utility belt and armor. And I remember when he was
a simple costumed crime fighter with twin automatic (Browning)
pistols happy to threaten or shoot down a menace to society.
later
bliss
Galen
>toys having their own
>lives is an common conceit and started with Winnie the Pooh.
"The Nutcracker and the Mouse King is a story written in 1816 by E. T.
A. Hoffmann in which young Marie Stahlbaum's favorite Christmas toy,
the Nutcracker, comes alive and whisks her away to a magical kingdom
populated by dolls."
Winnie-the-Pooh (1926)
B Sellers
Thank you and I wonder if it can be traced further back.
later
bliss
Blade
"Galen" <ga...@nekomimicon.net> wrote in message
news:47dhf51mgntt8nvmq...@4ax.com...
I actually haven't seen Lilo and Stitch. If it was sci-fi, then it does show
that a generally-considered "good" movie can do well. I think it was still
perceived primarily as a kid's film, though.
-
Blade
Blade
"Ted Nolan <tednolan>" <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in message
news:7lrn27F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Animated sci-fi drama != "The Incredibles" ??
I wouldn't say so. The Incredibles was a superhero movie, which is really
it's own genre.
-
Blade
(That being said, I don't think CG films labour under all the same
stereotypes traditionally animated films do.)
Captain Nerd
Inu-Yasha <tomco...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> I've been racking my brain for a successful animated sci-fi flick, and
> come up empty. I don't understand what some have against FF: The
> Spirits Within, as I liked it, and am an FF nut, but you are correct, it
> is not a film that would have wide appeal, more a niche or fan market.
> Heavy Metal & HM 2000 kind of disappeared into the maw of ho hum, as
> well as the Dead Space movie. I'm having difficulty thinking of others,
> and am also wondering what qualified as Sci-fi, what about Spirited
> Away, and other Miyazaki Fantasy/somewhat sci-fi films. Toy Story,
> Cars, Wall-e, Monsters vs Aliens, do these count or are we splitting
> them off as fantasy? I know that fantasy is lumped with Sci-fi in
> written works, esp the Sci-fi Book Club. I'm a long time Sci-fi fan,
> but the good movies were not animated tho until say the last 10 years or
> so, animation was in the Walt Disney vein. What do you all think about
> this?
>
> Inu-Yasha
> Feh!! ^_^
What about "Wizards"? I hated the ending, but it was a pretty good
fantasy movie, I thought. Haven't seen it in decades, so my opinion
may change if I get to see it again. It wasn't very successful
dollar-wise, of course, so that's likely the main mark against it.
Cap.
--
Since 1989, recycling old jokes, cliches, and bad puns, one Usenet
post at a time!
Operation: Nerdwatch http://www.nerdwatch.com
Only email with "TO_CAP" somewhere in the subject has a chance of being read
Anim8rFSK
> It's also worth noting that Titan A.E. opened at
> #5 and lost 60% of that by the next weekend, showing word of mouth wasn't
> good for it.
It was in the press that week that Titan was so awful FOX closed the
studio that made it. I'm amazed it retained 40%. It actually GAINED
theaters it's second weekend, but then the real plummet began.
Gerardo Campos
>
> Wasn't _Lilo and Stitch_ a sci fi drama buddy film? Why doesn't that
> count?
> -Galen
If space ships, aliens and some "lasers" make a film sci-fi, yes it
was. ;-)
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Galen
wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:36:03 -0500, Galen wrote:
>
>>
>> Wasn't _Lilo and Stitch_ a sci fi drama buddy film? Why doesn't that
>> count?
>> -Galen
>
>If space ships, aliens and some "lasers" make a film sci-fi, yes it
>was. ;-)
"The responsibility of science" was a moral keynote of the show.
-Galen
Gerardo Campos
I though it was more about family values and do whatever is neded to keep
the family together. (Though Stitch did not agree first, given his
unsuccessful attempts to scape)
And lots of Elvis tributes, =)
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Paul S. Person
wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:36:03 -0500, Galen wrote:
>
>>
>> Wasn't _Lilo and Stitch_ a sci fi drama buddy film? Why doesn't that
>> count?
>> -Galen
>
>If space ships, aliens and some "lasers" make a film sci-fi, yes it
>was. ;-)
Well, that seems to have been enough for /Star Wars/ ...
--
Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, "I never knew him."
Nick Roberts
Inu-Yasha <tomco...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> Blade wrote:
<big snip>
> > No animated sci-fi drama theatrically released in the US has been
> > anything but crap. If someone ever makes one that's any good,
> > perhaps it will do well (with concurrent advertising). Advertising
> > and buzz can't save a crap movie (as FF: Spirits Within showed),
> > but it might give legs to something most people would consider
> > worth seeing.
> >
> > - Blade
>
> I've been racking my brain for a successful animated sci-fi flick,
> and come up empty. I don't understand what some have against FF:
> The Spirits Within, as I liked it, and am an FF nut, but you are
> correct, it is not a film that would have wide appeal, more a niche
> or fan market. Heavy Metal & HM 2000 kind of disappeared into the
> maw of ho hum, as well as the Dead Space movie. I'm having
> difficulty thinking of others, and am also wondering what qualified
> as Sci-fi, what about Spirited Away, and other Miyazaki
> Fantasy/somewhat sci-fi films. Toy Story, Cars, Wall-e, Monsters vs
> Aliens, do these count or are we splitting them off as fantasy? I
> know that fantasy is lumped with Sci-fi in written works, esp the
> Sci-fi Book Club. I'm a long time Sci-fi fan, but the good movies
> were not animated tho until say the last 10 years or so, animation
> was in the Walt Disney vein. What do you all think about this?
Depends on how far you go back. Le Planete Sauvage (released as
Fantastic Planet in the US and UK) is indisputably SF and dates back to
1973.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070544/
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Chris Sobieniak
> In article <hda57c$od...@news.albasani.net>,
>
> "Blade" <kumonr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It's also worth noting that Titan A.E. opened at
> > #5 and lost 60% of that by the next weekend, showing word of mouth wasn't
> > good for it.
>
> It was in the press that week that Titan was so awful FOX closed the
> studio that made it. I'm amazed it retained 40%. It actually GAINED
> theaters it's second weekend, but then the real plummet began.
Shame it didn't help.
Inu-Yasha
I think you have made a good point there, esp if it is done well, the
people look almost human rather than cartoonie, like say Hercules or
Lilo and Stitch. I also think that for the sake of this discussion, we
are probably speaking of a full length film that has been released at
the box office, or straight to DVD but well advertised.
Inu-Yasha
Feh!! ^_^
Anim8rFSK
Nick Roberts <tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Hmm. I haven't seen FP since it's original theatrical release, but I
wouldn't argue with anybody that wanted to classify it as fantasy.
Paul S. Person
wrote:
>In article <2b0b25b8...@bc63.orpheusinternet.co.uk>,
> Nick Roberts <tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote:
<snippo>
>> Depends on how far you go back. Le Planete Sauvage (released as
>> Fantastic Planet in the US and UK) is indisputably SF and dates back to
>> 1973.
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070544/
>
>Hmm. I haven't seen FP since it's original theatrical release, but I
>wouldn't argue with anybody that wanted to classify it as fantasy.
Personally, I just think of it as "French". Something to do with the
female character's costumes, IIRC.
Well, if it is in fact the one I rented two decades ago! The plot
description on Amazon does /not/ ring any bells.
B Sellers
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:13:21 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <2b0b25b8...@bc63.orpheusinternet.co.uk>,
>> Nick Roberts <tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snippo>
>
>>> Depends on how far you go back. Le Planete Sauvage (released as
>>> Fantastic Planet in the US and UK) is indisputably SF and dates back to
>>> 1973.
It is hardly SF but fantasy using the allegedly human characters as
tiny counterpoints to the giants. Swift did better than than with the
Lilliputians
and Brobdingnagians. And I saw it in theater and did not much care for
it though since then having seen a lot of Japanese anime I can see
similarities.
>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070544/
>> Hmm. I haven't seen FP since it's original theatrical release, but I
>> wouldn't argue with anybody that wanted to classify it as fantasy.
>
> Personally, I just think of it as "French". Something to do with the
> female character's costumes, IIRC.
Well it is French without a doubt.
>
> Well, if it is in fact the one I rented two decades ago! The plot
> description on Amazon does /not/ ring any bells.
> --
> Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
> Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
> Giving as his excuse, "I never knew him."
later
bliss
Jack Bohn
>>In article <2b0b25b8...@bc63.orpheusinternet.co.uk>,
>> Nick Roberts <tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snippo>
>
>>> Depends on how far you go back. Le Planete Sauvage (released as
>>> Fantastic Planet in the US and UK) is indisputably SF and dates back to
>>> 1973.
>>>
>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070544/
>Personally, I just think of it as "French". Something to do with the
>female character's costumes, IIRC.
>
>Well, if it is in fact the one I rented two decades ago! The plot
>description on Amazon does /not/ ring any bells.
If you rented it two decades ago, you might be thinking of this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095525/
It's hard to guess what costumes would make you think "French",
but googling "gandahar" images brings up some of the wing-headed
woman.
--
-Jack
Warewolf
news:7m36cqF...@mid.individual.net:
>>> In article <2b0b25b8...@bc63.orpheusinternet.co.uk>,
>>> Nick Roberts <tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> <snippo>
>>
>>>> Depends on how far you go back. Le Planete Sauvage (released as
>>>> Fantastic Planet in the US and UK) is indisputably SF and dates
>>>> back to 1973.
>
> It is hardly SF but fantasy using the allegedly human characters as
> tiny counterpoints to the giants.
Actually, I'd call it a sci-fi take on a fantasy story, at the very
least, since it has some grounding in reality - we haven't flown across
or outside our galaxy, colonized planets or cured every ailment plaguing
humanity but who says we *won't*?
The way you're 'brushing off' examples like Heavy Metal, HM2k, and Wall-E
rings about as hollow as the idea(l) that comics and animation are (or
should be) *only* for children. -_-!
In fact, I'm now curious about how you'd classify:
- Light Years/Gandahar (which features robots from the future)
- The Iron Giant (which features invasion by a giant robot)
- Animatrix: Second Renaissance (a warning about our future?)
or even
- Romie-0 and Julie-8 (a sci-fi spin on Shakespeare with space travel)
Lack of available realism does not a 'fantasy film' make.
Signed,
Warewolf
who has his own non-Tolkien definition of 'fantasy', thank you very much.
Paul S. Person
wrote:
>Paul S. Person wrote:
>
>>>In article <2b0b25b8...@bc63.orpheusinternet.co.uk>,
>>> Nick Roberts <tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>><snippo>
>>
>>>> Depends on how far you go back. Le Planete Sauvage (released as
>>>> Fantastic Planet in the US and UK) is indisputably SF and dates back to
>>>> 1973.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070544/
>
>>Personally, I just think of it as "French". Something to do with the
>>female character's costumes, IIRC.
>>
>>Well, if it is in fact the one I rented two decades ago! The plot
>>description on Amazon does /not/ ring any bells.
>
>If you rented it two decades ago, you might be thinking of this:
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095525/
Not nearly old enough (I rented it two decades ago, but it was
released much farther back in time). And I remember the title.
It is, however, possible that I am mixing it up with an "alternate"
version of /Fantasia/, also produced much earlier, which I would have
seen about the same time.
>It's hard to guess what costumes would make you think "French",
>but googling "gandahar" images brings up some of the wing-headed
>woman.
No, it had nothing to do with their heads. A different part of the
anatomy was prominently featured and exposed. For no plot-related
reason; just because the people making the movie were French and so
were acting in accordance with the dictates of French culture.
Paul S. Person
And, thinking back on it, I believe I didn't think of it as having a
"plot". I viewed any story-like elements as merely an excuse for the
artwork. Lacking a plot, it also lacks a genre, and so "French" is how
I came to think of it.
I am not saying that that is how I would think of it today, if I were
to see it again. Twenty years is a long long time.
Jack Bohn
>>On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:15:05 -0500, Jack Bohn <jack...@bright.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Paul S. Person wrote:
>>>
[Fantastic Planet]
>>>>Personally, I just think of it as "French". Something to do with the
>>>>female character's costumes, IIRC.
>>>>
>>>>Well, if it is in fact the one I rented two decades ago! The plot
>>>>description on Amazon does /not/ ring any bells.
>>>
>>>If you rented it two decades ago, you might be thinking of this:
>>>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095525/
>>
>>
>>>It's hard to guess what costumes would make you think "French",
>>>but googling "gandahar" images brings up some of the wing-headed
>>>woman.
>>
>>No, it had nothing to do with their heads.
No, when I said "costume," I meant costume. She wears a simple
gown; I don't know if its cut is particularly "French" but the
fact that it is basic black might be. (I'm trying to think of it
in American cartoon; possibly "sci-fi" graphics on it in color,
definitely colored in the cleavage to make it look like she is
wearing a bodysuit underneath. Japanese; more color again, folds
in the material, addition of sashes and bows...)
>A different part of the
>>anatomy was prominently featured and exposed. For no plot-related
>>reason; just because the people making the movie were French and so
>>were acting in accordance with the dictates of French culture.
Ah! When you said "costume," you meant lack of costume! :)
"Light Years" did also feature a Gandaharian female without a
shirt for no discernable reason (except, as you say, it was
French)
The human's undress in "Fantastic Planet" was because they were
wild animals, or pets. The blue giants wore leotards in (iirc)
clown-clothes patterns. Wait a minute... Yeah, I found pictures
on the web of the little girl (not so little, I guess) with two
extra holes in her leotard. Or a pattern drawn on her leotard,
as my twenty-year-younger mind would have censored.
Now I know what you're talking about.
>And, thinking back on it, I believe I didn't think of it as having a
>"plot". I viewed any story-like elements as merely an excuse for the
>artwork. Lacking a plot, it also lacks a genre, and so "French" is how
>I came to think of it.
True, most people consider the story as an interruption of the
animation of strange animals wandering about.
>I am not saying that that is how I would think of it today, if I were
>to see it again. Twenty years is a long long time.
--
-Jack
Terrence Briggs
On Nov 8, 10:40 pm, "Blade" <kumonr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Lee Ratner" <lbrat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8e014660-7bc1-4087...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Or to phrase it another way, Titan A.E. flopped because Americans
> > have strict views on what animated movies should be, musicals based on
> > fairy tales that are fun for the entire family.
>
> That may be so, but it would have helped a lot if Titan A.E. was, you know,
> good. It had a weak plot, weak characterisation, and very little about it
> that was original or memorable. So I would say it deserved to fail, and
> while a good advertising campaign might have helped it make more money, it
> wouldn't have addressed the fundamental problems of the movie.
You talkin' about Transformers 2? That film made one...
***BILLION*** dollars!
I'm being mean. That film had a GREAT advertising campaign, didn't
it? (coughcoughMeganFoxbentoveramotercyclecoughcough)
Anyway, back to the original post...
Fundamental problems like the ones Blade notes are easily ignored
(see: Transformers 2), if large-enough audiences can be whipped into a
frenzy before the movie opens. Well... that and distracting the
audience with other stuff that's even more fundamental than purpose
and novelty, like flashing lights and carnality.
To Lee's point, the Pixar films have been neither musicals nor fairy
tale interpretations. Monsters vs. Aliens wasn't either. Ditto the
Shrek trilogy, Polar Express, Ice Age, etc.
You are correct about the "fun for the entire family" claim, but that
applies to live-action, too. (Night at the Museum, National Treasure,
etc.)
Titan might have seemed like fun for a family of tween boys, their
dad, and a cool mom. It certainly appealed to guys like Roger Ebert,
who were jonesing for a retro-throwback sci-fi action film. Why would
anyone else want to see it, unless they had a high tolerance for
animated films?
Terrence Briggs, spending the holidays with loved ones. I promise not
to snipe and you guys if Precious comes up as a topic.
Peace to you...
Terrence Briggs
> "Galen" <ga...@nekomimicon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:47dhf51mgntt8nvmq...@4ax.com...
>
> > wrote:
>
> >>No animated sci-fi drama theatrically released in the US has been anything
> >>but crap. If someone ever makes one that's any good, perhaps it will do
> >>well
> >>(with concurrent advertising). Advertising and buzz can't save a crap
> >>movie
> >>(as FF: Spirits Within showed), but it might give legs to something most
> >>people would consider worth seeing.
>
> > Wasn't _Lilo and Stitch_ a sci fi drama buddy film?
> > Why doesn't that count?
>
> I actually haven't seen Lilo and Stitch. If it was sci-fi, then it does show
> that a generally-considered "good" movie can do well. I think it was still
> perceived primarily as a kid's film, though.
Kinda like the Star Wars prequels :-)
Those did exceptionally well at the box office. (Of course, the
presence of live actors and photorealistic backgrounds eliminates the
films from a discussion of fully-animated sci-fi dramas.) The Clone
Wars movie was obviously a massive failure, and skewed even younger
than the first two prequels.
The Star Wars prequels are an interesting case. Everything except the
actors is drawn and animated. The narrative is certainly more
dramatic than comic. It's hard for me to believe that competent-
looking CGI humans couldn't replace the human actors, with little
effect on the film's theatrical and video grosses. Maybe in 20 years,
they will, improving the acting in the process :-P
> Blade
Terrence Briggs, preparing for the Avatar hate. Where was your naive
sense of acceptance when the Transformers sequel hit theaters?
Peace to you...
Terrence Briggs
> "Ted Nolan <tednolan>" <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in messagenews:7lrn27F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > Animated sci-fi drama != "The Incredibles" ??
>
> I wouldn't say so. The Incredibles was a superhero movie, which is really
> it's own genre.
>
> -
> Blade
> (That being said, I don't think CG films labour under all the same
> stereotypes traditionally animated films do.)
Incredibles qualifies as a superhero drama, for sure. It's very much
character-driven. Its emotional crises are a very important part of
the story. It's tone is largely serious, rather than comic.
Terrence Briggs
Peace to you...
Terrence Briggs
> In article
> <bc082c90-2050-49a0-9b56-460124d10...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>
> TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 8:06 am, Terrence Briggs <mrman1mrm...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Chris Sobieniak <sobien...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 19, 3:40 pm, "Bobby Clark" <bclark@REMOVE4_airmail.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Titan A.E. has been showing on HBO over the past few weeks. I final
> > > > > > sat
> > > > > > down to screen it after all this time...
>
> > I remember watching it at the time (it was released) and thought;
> > "something ain't right about this..."
>
> I went to a free preview, and the audience reaction in general was
> "it's better then most live action SF". I think it flopped not because
> of quality, because nobody went to find out if it was bad or not, but
> because people don't want to watch animated SF in theaters.
<snip>
Animated sci-fi can do well in contemporary theaters (see: The
Incredibles).
It flopped because the ads and reviews didn't excite enough people to
see it on opening weekend. The word-of-mouth wasn't good enough to
encourage uninterested folks to go see it, either. It flopped for the
same reasons any live-action film flops.
Terrence Briggs, can't justify spending 8 bucks even on good movies,
if they don't appear visually interesting. Those rules out pretty
much everything in theaters right now :-)
Peace to you...
BroTHeR zAcHaRy
I found that Sandra Bullock made The Blind Side visually interesting.
Blade
"Terrence Briggs" <mrman1...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:e2328af0-6d4e-4e66...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 9:37 pm, "Blade" <kumonr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I actually haven't seen Lilo and Stitch. If it was sci-fi, then it does
>> show
>> that a generally-considered "good" movie can do well. I think it was
>> still
>> perceived primarily as a kid's film, though.
>
> Kinda like the Star Wars prequels :-)
No, those were considered all-ages films.
> Those did exceptionally well at the box office. (Of course, the
> presence of live actors and photorealistic backgrounds eliminates the
> films from a discussion of fully-animated sci-fi dramas.) The Clone
> Wars movie was obviously a massive failure, and skewed even younger
> than the first two prequels.
The Clone Wars movie had a budget of 8.5 million, and made a gross of over
68 million at the box office. 700% profit is a pretty interesting example of
an "obvious massive failure".
I'm also not sure at your "first two prequels" caveat, since the third one
skewed older than the other two (by rating). I'd also say the prequels were
aimed at basically the same audience as the original films were.
> The Star Wars prequels are an interesting case. Everything except the
> actors is drawn and animated. The narrative is certainly more
> dramatic than comic. It's hard for me to believe that competent-
> looking CGI humans couldn't replace the human actors, with little
> effect on the film's theatrical and video grosses. Maybe in 20 years,
> they will, improving the acting in the process :-P
I think that would, at current, have a significant effect on the theatrical
and video grosses. The perception is wholly different.
-
Blade
Terrence Briggs
> "Terrence Briggs" <mrman1mrm...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e2328af0-6d4e-4e66...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 9, 9:37 pm, "Blade" <kumonr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> I actually haven't seen Lilo and Stitch. If it was sci-fi, then it does
> >> show
> >> that a generally-considered "good" movie can do well. I think it was
> >> still
> >> perceived primarily as a kid's film, though.
>
> > Kinda like the Star Wars prequels :-)
>
> No, those were considered all-ages films.
>
> > Those did exceptionally well at the box office. (Of course, the
> > presence of live actors and photorealistic backgrounds eliminates the
> > films from a discussion of fully-animated sci-fi dramas.) The Clone
> > Wars movie was obviously a massive failure, and skewed even younger
> > than the first two prequels.
>
> The Clone Wars movie had a budget of 8.5 million, and made a gross of over
> 68 million at the box office. 700% profit is a pretty interesting example of
> an "obvious massive failure".
You got me. The film had a mediocre opening average, per-screen, and
massive weekly drop-offs (50-60 percent). It made $35 million
domestically, and most of that was due to the wide release (3200+
screens).
Yeah, it was cheap, but it probably grossed $100 million, if we
include video revenue. Does that mean we'll see more made-for-TV-yet-
released theatrically sequels?
If a Miyazaki movie made this much money, I'd be thrilled, but I'd
have to look at the word-of-mouth and lack of repeat business before
getting too excited.
> I'm also not sure at your "first two prequels" caveat, since the third one
> skewed older than the other two (by rating). I'd also say the prequels were
> aimed at basically the same audience as the original films were.
I'm claiming that Clone Wars skewed younger than Phantom and Clones.
Given the significantly reduced resources allocated to Clone Wars, and
the tone of the storytelling, that's a fair claim.
> > The Star Wars prequels are an interesting case. Everything except the
> > actors is drawn and animated. The narrative is certainly more
> > dramatic than comic. It's hard for me to believe that competent-
> > looking CGI humans couldn't replace the human actors, with little
> > effect on the film's theatrical and video grosses. Maybe in 20 years,
> > they will, improving the acting in the process :-P
>
> I think that would, at current, have a significant effect on the theatrical
> and video grosses. The perception is wholly different.
Well, how about in 20 years? Will CGI humans be used to replace the
human actors? Will the films still make money then?
> -
> Blade
TBerk
>... "Wash shit; it's still shit."
>
Wash Shit, it becomes Fertilizer.
;])
berk
TBerk
> "Galen" <ga...@nekomimicon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:47dhf51mgntt8nvmq...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:30:37 +1100, "Blade" <kumonr...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>No animated sci-fi drama theatrically released in the US has been anything
> >>but crap. If someone ever makes one that's any good, perhaps it will do
> >>well
> >>(with concurrent advertising). Advertising and buzz can't save a crap
> >>movie
> >>(as FF: Spirits Within showed), but it might give legs to something most
> >>people would consider worth seeing.
>
> > Wasn't _Lilo and Stitch_ a sci fi drama buddy film?
> > Why doesn't that count?
>
> that a generally-considered "good" movie can do well. I think it was still
> perceived primarily as a kid's film, though.
>
> Blade
If you think about it; 'Lilo & Stich' _is_ a Sci-Fi ANimated Feature,
but it's a hybrid- crossing over into many genres so the scifi
identification isn't prominent.
- Aliens (, Space)
- Ray Guns
- Faster than Light, Interplanetary Travel
- Galactic Union (of some sort)
- Creation and Growth of a Being from 'whole cloth'.
Check, check, check.
berk