The dismal failure of Treasure Planet, and most other animated dramas at the BO... why?
ungvichian
begs the question: Why is it that animated features that don't sell
laughs have almost always been failures at the BO? Regardless of
critical acclaim too. Let's look back:
1999: WB's Iron Giant critically acclaimed, but only managed about
$15m
2000: Fox's Titan AE somewhat panned by critics, managed about $50m
2001: Disney's Atlantis also somewhat panned, managed about $70m (side
effect: planned spinoff series reduced to just direct to video sequel)
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, revolutionized animation somewhat
with its motion capture technique, also did $70m
2002: Spirit... finally, a drama cartoon that wasn't a dismal failure
Treasure Planet, critically acclaimed, $11m at opening weekend
Even more frustrating, animated TV cartoons that don't play for laughs
aren't dismal failures on TV (what's up with that?). Look at it:
Batman Beyond, Justice League, Samurai Jack, and anime imports.
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>With the lame performance of Treasure Planet @ the box office, one
>begs the question: Why is it that animated features that don't sell
>laughs have almost always been failures at the BO? Regardless of
>critical acclaim too. Let's look back:
>1999: WB's Iron Giant critically acclaimed, but only managed about
>$15m
Very poor marketing, did better on DVD.
>2000: Fox's Titan AE somewhat panned by critics, managed about $50m
It sucked. Very disappointing.
>2001: Disney's Atlantis also somewhat panned, managed about $70m (side
>effect: planned spinoff series reduced to just direct to video sequel)
It really sucked. Fragments of at least three different plot lines,
no coherent story.
>Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, revolutionized animation somewhat
>with its motion capture technique, also did $70m
It really really REALLY sucked.
>2002: Spirit... finally, a drama cartoon that wasn't a dismal failure
It was ok, if a bit predictable.
>Treasure Planet, critically acclaimed, $11m at opening weekend
It sucked!
>Even more frustrating, animated TV cartoons that don't play for laughs
>aren't dismal failures on TV (what's up with that?). Look at it:
>Batman Beyond, Justice League, Samurai Jack, and anime imports.
That's because (please pay attention) they DIDN'T SUCK. Samurai Jack
(although uneven) has some of the most interesting stories I've seen
on TV in a long time. Batman Beyond is a decent action series.
Justice League has some truly inspired writing. These series TAKE
CHANCES, something you're almost never allowed to do with a $100M
theatrical release. So, typically, a huge amount of money goes into
effects, and the plot gets micromanaged into SUCKhood.
Iron Giant is the exception that proves the rule. Warner couldn't
understand that they had something unusual and interesting on their
hands, and decided to pull the plug on the marketing budget. A good
film got undermarketed, and what little they did was directed at the
wrong audience.
Again, to summarize, you have to have good characters and a good,
coherent story. Throwing a shitload of money at a bad script yields a
really expensive film with a bad script. It really is that simple.
Ron
-
"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow
for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only
that which they defend."
http://roc85.home.attbi.com
Trent
look so *trashy*. They remind me of the generic blandness of a
Hanna-Barbara cartoon.
Is this hero from Atlantis:
http://us.imdb.com/EGallery?source=ss&group=0230011&photo=atl01.jpg&path=group
...that different from this hero from Treasure Planet?
http://us.imdb.com/EGallery?source=ss&group=0133240&photo=07_job10032675.jpg&path=group
Also, animation isn't as appealing as watching real live humans.
There are exceptions, but in generally that is my feeling. Animated
movies often have the most overracted, hammy characters in all of
film. The animators are so eager to show that they've mastered all
the facial muscles that they neglect subtlety.
Disney has milked their name for all it's worth. They have broken
very little new ground in the past several years (with the exception
of the Pixar division). People are tired of it.
Kip Williams
> Also, animation isn't as appealing as watching real live humans.
> There are exceptions, but in generally that is my feeling. Animated
> movies often have the most overracted, hammy characters in all of
> film. The animators are so eager to show that they've mastered all
> the facial muscles that they neglect subtlety.
You mean that overstressed all-purpose expression the characters
wear for "serious emotion?" I hate it when they start trotting that
out, and it's ubiquitous these days. Just try talking that way, with
your head craned forward, mouth pulled back tight with teeth
clenched and showing, eyebrows knotted into elegant "s" shapes.
"Ughha guggha ghuggha..."
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!" --Kodos
Jay G
"Trent" <spac...@marx7.org> wrote in message
news:fvi2vucsra256vghs...@4ax.com...
> The thing with Treasure Planet and Atlantis is that the characters
> look so *trashy*. They remind me of the generic blandness of a
> Hanna-Barbara cartoon.
>
> Is this hero from Atlantis:
>
http://us.imdb.com/EGallery?source=ss&group=0230011&photo=atl01.jpg&path=gro
up
>
> ...that different from this hero from Treasure Planet?
>
http://us.imdb.com/EGallery?source=ss&group=0133240&photo=07_job10032675.jpg
&path=group
Duh, the TP hero has brown hair and....uh...looks less dorky.
> Also, animation isn't as appealing as watching real live humans.
> There are exceptions, but in generally that is my feeling. Animated
> movies often have the most overracted, hammy characters in all of
> film. The animators are so eager to show that they've mastered all
> the facial muscles that they neglect subtlety.
Subtlty is hard in animation. We really take the range of expressions
our muscles allow for for granted.
Japanese animation has done drama, and done it well (Grave of the
Fireflies, Perfect Blue). It's possible that US audiences expect an
animated film to be funny, and won't accept animated drama.
> Disney has milked their name for all it's worth. They have broken
> very little new ground in the past several years (with the exception
> of the Pixar division). People are tired of it.
People buy up the Disney video sequels like crazy. The recent Disney
films have done well at the box-office, they're just not blockbusters
like the early 90s films did. Some of it might be due to the recent
storylines of the film, but is it really a coincidence that the most
critically praised Disney films of the past few decades did the best
business?
-Jay
Ronald O. Christian
>Japanese animation has done drama, and done it well (Grave of the
>Fireflies, Perfect Blue). It's possible that US audiences expect an
>animated film to be funny, and won't accept animated drama.
I don't believe that's true. Akira and Princess Mononoke, to name
just two, have done very well in the US. It's possible that a
grown-up animated film is alien to the US film industry. I believe
the audience exists; the industry doesn't know how to take advantage
of it.
Jay G
"Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote in message
news:oor2vuc7n063qtfgu...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 21:39:53 -0600, "Jay G" <J...@tmbg.org> wrote:
> >Japanese animation has done drama, and done it well (Grave of the
> >Fireflies, Perfect Blue). It's possible that US audiences expect an
> >animated film to be funny, and won't accept animated drama.
>
> I don't believe that's true. Akira and Princess Mononoke, to name
> just two, have done very well in the US. It's possible that a
> grown-up animated film is alien to the US film industry. I believe
> the audience exists; the industry doesn't know how to take advantage
> of it.
Define "very well." The films have done well critically, like Iron Giant,
but like Iron Giant did not do a lot of business in theatres. I do
agree that a serious animated film could do well in theatres if presented
the right way. The trailers for TP made it look no different from
"Atlantis in space," and even echoed a bit of "Titan AE" in them.
-Jay
Andrew Hollingbury
> >Japanese animation has done drama, and done it well (Grave of the
> >Fireflies, Perfect Blue). It's possible that US audiences expect an
> >animated film to be funny, and won't accept animated drama.
>
> I don't believe that's true. Akira and Princess Mononoke, to name
> just two, have done very well in the US.
Remember, Mononoke tanked at the box office
forvariousreasonsweshallnotdiscussbecauseitisboringandstale, only really
picking up a slightly larger audience on video/DVD (thanks to the subbie
brigade no doubt). I'd dispute Akira or Mononoke being popular as
"dramas" - Akira has the whizz bang, exploding-people,
mutated-freak-thing-ascending-into-evolution action geek magnet quotient,
and Mononoke is far more gripping visually than narratively (IMO), plus had
the distinction of being "A Ghibli film! In the West! On DVD!".
> It's possible that a
> grown-up animated film is alien to the US film industry. I believe
> the audience exists; the industry doesn't know how to take advantage
> of it.
It's a minority audience. Plus there's not much point of making a "drama"
in animation if you can do it just as well in live action (and more people
will come to see it). So most "non-kiddie" theatrical animation either ends
up being pretentious (Waking Life) or action fantasy aimed at a slightly
older audience by virtue of violence (just about anything Japanese released
theatrically).
Andrew H
Steve Carras
>at the BO... why?
>From: ungvi...@thaimail.com (ungvichian)
>Date: 12/6/02 3:27 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <4837c056.02120...@posting.google.com>
>
>With the lame performance of Treasure Planet @ the box office, one
>begs the question: Why is it that animated features that don't sell
>laughs have almost always been failures at the BO
>ubject: The dismal failure of Treasure Planet, and most other animated dramas
>at the BO... why?
>From: ungvi...@thaimail.com (ungvichian)
>Date: 12/6/02 3:27 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <4837c056.02120...@posting.google.com>
>
>With the lame performance of Treasure Planet @ the box office, one
>begs the question: Why is it that animated features that don't sell
>laughs have almost always been failures at the BO
Disney's do..whaddya think "The Lion King" was (and the attempt to serve
laughs, coutresy of Timon and Pumbaa, I can do woithout..starting to sound like
Derek here)
"Come Sail Away, Sail Away, Sail Away"-<a href="http://www.enya.com">Enya</a>,
from ORINOCO FLOW
"Not everybody's as narrow minded as you"-Gidget
"Toodles."-Gidget.
"Oh don't mind ME"(sarcastically)-Larue (from GIDGET)
Diamondback
"Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote in message
news:mmf2vu45tb6pdl0j6...@4ax.com...
Diamondback
> our muscles allow for for granted.
>
> Japanese animation has done drama, and done it well (Grave of the
> Fireflies, Perfect Blue). It's possible that US audiences expect an
> animated film to be funny, and won't accept animated drama.
I miss the Rankin-Bass features ... I thought The Hobbit and The Last
Unicorn were very fine animated features with dramatic themes. I'm not
saying they were top-shelf like some of the other features you've mentioned,
but I was very fond of them. Still am.
Randy
> On 6 Dec 2002 15:27:37 -0800, ungvi...@thaimail.com (ungvichian)
> wrote:
>
>
>>With the lame performance of Treasure Planet @ the box office, one
>>begs the question: Why is it that animated features that don't sell
>>laughs have almost always been failures at the BO? Regardless of
>>critical acclaim too. Let's look back:
>>1999: WB's Iron Giant critically acclaimed, but only managed about
>>$15m
>
>
> Very poor marketing, did better on DVD.
It was awesome!
>
>
>>2000: Fox's Titan AE somewhat panned by critics, managed about $50m
>
>
> It sucked. Very disappointing.
I liked it. Average.
>
>
>>2001: Disney's Atlantis also somewhat panned, managed about $70m (side
>>effect: planned spinoff series reduced to just direct to video sequel)
>
>
> It really sucked. Fragments of at least three different plot lines,
> no coherent story.
Better than many non-Disney features... poor for Disney.
>
>
>>Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, revolutionized animation somewhat
>>with its motion capture technique, also did $70m
>
>
> It really really REALLY sucked.
No so good.
>
>
>>2002: Spirit... finally, a drama cartoon that wasn't a dismal failure
>
>
> It was ok, if a bit predictable
I liked it.
>
>
>>Treasure Planet, critically acclaimed, $11m at opening weekend
>
>
> It sucked!
Oh yeah... the big stinko.
Randy
AKieswetter
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 21:39:53 -0600, "Jay G" <J...@tmbg.org> wrote:
> >Japanese animation has done drama, and done it well (Grave of the
> >Fireflies, Perfect Blue). It's possible that US audiences expect an
> >animated film to be funny, and won't accept animated drama.
>
> I don't believe that's true. Akira and Princess Mononoke, to name
> just two, have done very well in the US. It's possible that a
> grown-up animated film is alien to the US film industry. I believe
> the audience exists; the industry doesn't know how to take advantage
> of it.
>
>
Andrew Kieswetter
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
> How would you define Spirited Away? Drama or comedy?
Dunno, haven't seen it yet.
Ronald O. Christian
Have you seen them lately? We rented The Rankin-Bass Hobbit last
November, before Fellowship came out, and were aghast at how dated it
was. A few good voice performances, (Bean, Boone, Huston) but
overall, painfully, self-consciously cute. We all needed insulin
shots afterwards. It's like... the movie for which Leonard Nimoy's
"ballad of bilbo baggans" could be the musical tie-in. (Have you seen
the music video? <shudder>)
Some childhood memories should not be revisited.
In all honesty, I haven't yet seen a Rankin-Bass production *as an
adult* that I could manage to sit through more than once. Even my
daughter (8 years old) finds them trite and boring. 'Course, she
loved Fellowship and can't wait until Two Towers comes out....
Ronald O. Christian
<diamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I guess it won't happen, but I'd love to see a sequel to TIG.
It was a novel. Did the novel have a sequel?
Ronald O. Christian
<Randyre...@snakebite.com> wrote:
>Ronald O. Christian wrote:
>> On 6 Dec 2002 15:27:37 -0800, ungvi...@thaimail.com (ungvichian)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>With the lame performance of Treasure Planet @ the box office, one
>>>begs the question: Why is it that animated features that don't sell
>>>laughs have almost always been failures at the BO? Regardless of
>>>critical acclaim too. Let's look back:
>>>1999: WB's Iron Giant critically acclaimed, but only managed about
>>>$15m
>>
>>
>> Very poor marketing, did better on DVD.
>
>It was awesome!
I agree. I love the film and have seen it many times. I've tried
(with moderate success) to get my adult friends to try it. Hey Bob,
have you seen The Iron Giant?
>>>2000: Fox's Titan AE somewhat panned by critics, managed about $50m
>>
>>
>> It sucked. Very disappointing.
>
>I liked it. Average.
It reminded me of the original Heavy Metal, but without the, you know,
originality.
>>>2001: Disney's Atlantis also somewhat panned, managed about $70m (side
>>>effect: planned spinoff series reduced to just direct to video sequel)
>>
>>
>> It really sucked. Fragments of at least three different plot lines,
>> no coherent story.
>
>Better than many non-Disney features... poor for Disney.
I have to disagree. The story was *broken*. It was a collection of
vignettes without a coherent connecting narrative. Cool visuals and
characters are not enough -- you *must* have a self-consistent story.
The only good thing is that it led us to the steampunk anime Nadia,
which daughter and I enjoy a lot.
>> It was ok, if a bit predictable
>
>I liked it.
My daughter (8) liked it a lot. I thought it was painfully
politically correct, and based on that, I could successfully predict
each and every plot point. That's not a good thing.
DishRoom1
Diamoundback wrote --
>>> Subtlty is hard in animation. We really take the range of expressions
>>> our muscles allow for for granted.
>>>
>>> Japanese animation has done drama, and done it well (Grave of the
>>> Fireflies, Perfect Blue). It's possible that US audiences expect an
>>> animated film to be funny, and won't accept animated drama.
>>
>>I miss the Rankin-Bass features ... I thought The Hobbit and The Last
>>Unicorn were very fine animated features with dramatic themes. I'm not
>>saying they were top-shelf like some of the other features you've mentioned,
>>but I was very fond of them. Still am.
>
>Have you seen them lately? We rented The Rankin-Bass Hobbit last
>November, before Fellowship came out, and were aghast at how dated it
>was. A few good voice performances, (Bean, Boone, Huston) but
>overall, painfully, self-consciously cute. We all needed insulin
>shots afterwards. It's like... the movie for which Leonard Nimoy's
>"ballad of bilbo baggans" could be the musical tie-in. (Have you seen
>the music video? <shudder>)
>
>Some childhood memories should not be revisited.
>
>In all honesty, I haven't yet seen a Rankin-Bass production *as an
>adult* that I could manage to sit through more than once. Even my
>daughter (8 years old) finds them trite and boring. 'Course, she
>loved Fellowship and can't wait until Two Towers comes out....
I've watched "The Last Unicorn" a few times and seem rather nicely animated and
had a sweet, wonderful story.
John Shughart
Derek Janssen
>
> >>>2001: Disney's Atlantis also somewhat panned, managed about $70m (side
> >>>effect: planned spinoff series reduced to just direct to video sequel)
> >>
> >> It really sucked. Fragments of at least three different plot lines,
> >> no coherent story.
> >
> >Better than many non-Disney features... poor for Disney.
>
> I have to disagree. The story was *broken*.
In a way that could not be *fixed*.
> It was a collection of
> vignettes without a coherent connecting narrative. Cool visuals and
> characters are not enough -- you *must* have a self-consistent story.
I rarely use the word "mess" as judiciously applied to a Disney film,
except where Trousdale & Wise films are concerned (B&tB, Hunchback,
Atlantis)...Never try to, just somehow turns out that way.
...And, yes, Atlantis was a MESS.
(Which's the crucial distinction here--
Atlantis, Hercules, and Hunchback, the previous "studio-destroying
flops" all flopped *after* they'd opened--Treasure flopped on opening
day, *before* a frame of film had even screened.
Slight difference: One of the two involves audiences seeing the actual
movie, and the other involves looking at the poster and "seeing" the
movie they've already imagined in their heads.)
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
DishRoom1
Ronald O. Christian wrote --
Jay G wrote --
>> >Japanese animation has done drama, and done it well (Grave of the
>> >Fireflies, Perfect Blue). It's possible that US audiences expect an
>> >animated film to be funny, and won't accept animated drama.
>>
>> I don't believe that's true. Akira and Princess Mononoke, to name
>> just two, have done very well in the US.
>
>Remember, Mononoke tanked at the box office
>forvariousreasonsweshallnotdiscussbecauseitisboringandstale, only really
>picking up a slightly larger audience on video/DVD (thanks to the subbie
>brigade no doubt). I'd dispute Akira or Mononoke being popular as
>"dramas" - Akira has the whizz bang, exploding-people,
>mutated-freak-thing-ascending-into-evolution action geek magnet quotient,
>and Mononoke is far more gripping visually than narratively (IMO), plus had
>the distinction of being "A Ghibli film! In the West! On DVD!".
>
>> It's possible that a
>> grown-up animated film is alien to the US film industry. I believe
>> the audience exists; the industry doesn't know how to take advantage
>> of it.
>
>It's a minority audience. Plus there's not much point of making a "drama"
>in animation if you can do it just as well in live action (and more people
>will come to see it). So most "non-kiddie" theatrical animation either ends
>up being pretentious (Waking Life) or action fantasy aimed at a slightly
>older audience by virtue of violence (just about anything Japanese released
>theatrically).
I doubt a lot of what you are saying. First of all, animated drama can appeal
to people if it is well animated and, more importantly, well written. If
animated drama doesn't work, ask anyone here about the Bruce Timm/Warner Bros.
animated series of DC Comics characters.
Second of all, anime can be fabulous. Not all anime involves violence.
However, my mind hasn't been make up for "Princess Mononoke", since I have
never saw it. But it tanked because Disney didn't show it in enough theaters or
give it much advertisments. Otherwise, you seem pissed off against anime.
John Shughart
John SHughart
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
Dramedy? A good mix of both?
Laters. =)
Stan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ Stanlee Dometita sta...@cif.rochester.edu
| ( _| | U of Rochester cif.rochester.edu/~stanlee
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___|__| |__|___| \ ___|
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
AKieswetter <apkies...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> How would you define Spirited Away? Drama or comedy?
>
> Andrew Kieswetter
Drama with some funny bits (and some scary bits). It is certainly
*not* all played for laughs.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
Invid Fan
wrote:
> (Which's the crucial distinction here--
> Atlantis, Hercules, and Hunchback, the previous "studio-destroying
> flops" all flopped *after* they'd opened--Treasure flopped on opening
> day, *before* a frame of film had even screened.
> Slight difference: One of the two involves audiences seeing the actual
> movie, and the other involves looking at the poster and "seeing" the
> movie they've already imagined in their heads.)
>
Atlantis opened rather poorly too, iirc. The recent action animated
films, post Tarzan, have all failed because the audience didn't want to
see them. The quality of the film didn't matter (although none have
been "great"): people looked at the ads and stayed home. Part of it
might be marketing, although I thought the Titan AE ads were good. Part
of it might be part of the potential audience being in an Anime=good,
US=bad mindset (Which wouldn't explain Final Fantasy). Or, we just have
to accept that there's not a broad market at the moment for this type
of thing. Yes, anime imports are selling on video and making some waves
on latenight cable. But dubbing an already filmed anime is cheap and
can survive on much lower sales then a new theatrical film.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Derek Janssen
>
> > (Which's the crucial distinction here--
> > Atlantis, Hercules, and Hunchback, the previous "studio-destroying
> > flops" all flopped *after* they'd opened--Treasure flopped on opening
> > day, *before* a frame of film had even screened.
> > Slight difference: One of the two involves audiences seeing the actual
> > movie, and the other involves looking at the poster and "seeing" the
> > movie they've already imagined in their heads.)
> >
> Atlantis opened rather poorly too, iirc. The recent action animated
> films, post Tarzan, have all failed because the audience didn't want to
> see them.
A lot of the poor Atlantis opening was due to either no plot in the
trailers, or all-formula plot in the ads:
As for those who did go to see it, I recall the general opinion re
"Atlantis" being, "Oh, sure, we'd go to see an older-audience non-comedy
action movie....SO WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU MAKE ONE????"
(...A lot of said opinion spilling over from "Tarzan". At least Rosie
O'Donnell wasn't in *this* one.)
> The quality of the film didn't matter (although none have
> been "great"): people looked at the ads and stayed home. Part of it
> might be marketing, although I thought the Titan AE ads were good. Part
> of it might be part of the potential audience being in an Anime=good,
> US=bad mindset (Which wouldn't explain Final Fantasy).
Final Fantasy = Bad. VERY BAD.
(Also, before the release, most middle-of-the-road fans had become sick
of the starry-eyed "Will cyber-stars take over Hollywood?" neat-o/doom
publicity coming out of the press's ears, and by that point were
*drooling* for FF:TSW to fall and fall hard...Again, more pre-Opening
Day judging.)
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Cardinal Chunder
> With the lame performance of Treasure Planet @ the box office, one
They should have called it Treasure Island for name recognition or
picked something totally unrelated. Treasure Planet is just a stupid
name and must have put a lot of people off in spite of any merits the
movie may have had.
Trent
<ro...@europa.com> wrote:
>In all honesty, I haven't yet seen a Rankin-Bass production *as an
>adult* that I could manage to sit through more than once. Even my
>daughter (8 years old) finds them trite and boring. 'Course, she
>loved Fellowship and can't wait until Two Towers comes out....
Ugg, I hated that "The Hobbit" movie as a kid. Talk about an ugly art
style:
http://216.206.190.5/snapsite/guests/rbh/public/html/page3.html
Jay G
"Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote ...
> They should have called it Treasure Island for name recognition or
> picked something totally unrelated. Treasure Planet is just a stupid
> name and must have put a lot of people off in spite of any merits the
> movie may have had.
I don't think the lame line, "It's 'Treasure Island' meets 'Star Wars,'"
moved many asses into seats.
Not with those lame "Yoda-da man" ads still in recent memory.
-Jay
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>Atlantis opened rather poorly too, iirc.
True.
>The recent action animated
>films, post Tarzan, have all failed because the audience didn't want to
>see them.
Also correct.
> The quality of the film didn't matter
On the contrary, the quality of the film was precisely the point.
("Quality" being defined as something more than "cutting edge eye
candy".)
>(although none have
>been "great"): people looked at the ads and stayed home.
The Atlantis ads were great. I believe it was word of mouth that
killed it.
>Part of it
>might be marketing, although I thought the Titan AE ads were good.
The ads were better than the film. Word of mouth, again.
>Part
>of it might be part of the potential audience being in an Anime=good,
>US=bad mindset (Which wouldn't explain Final Fantasy). Or, we just have
>to accept that there's not a broad market at the moment for this type
>of thing.
Or, the product hasn't been worth watching, yet.
We were the sacrificial lamb for Treasure Planet. Everyone at my
wife's work, and many of my friends want to know what we thought of it
(since we had to see it anyway) before they spent money on it. Now,
that's one family who saw it (us) that directly resulted in probably
nine to twelve families deciding not to see it. No telling how many
people *they* talked to.
Derek Janssen
>
> "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote ...
> > They should have called it Treasure Island for name recognition or
> > picked something totally unrelated. Treasure Planet is just a stupid
> > name and must have put a lot of people off in spite of any merits the
> > movie may have had.
>
> I don't think the lame line, "It's 'Treasure Island' meets 'Star Wars,'"
> moved many asses into seats.
(Actually that supposed to be a "critics' blurb", but, seeing as it came
from either a radio station and/or local ABC-affiliate station before
the movie opened, same thing.)
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
R. A. Clemson
Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
> We were the sacrificial lamb for Treasure Planet. Everyone at my
> wife's work, and many of my friends want to know what we thought of it
> (since we had to see it anyway) before they spent money on it. Now,
> that's one family who saw it (us) that directly resulted in probably
> nine to twelve families deciding not to see it. No telling how many
> people *they* talked to.
I've gotten several people to go see the film as well. While not
perfect, it's still a very good and perfectly enjoyable animated film.
Disney did everything it could to shoot itself in the foot for this
release.
Today, I did notice a new television commercial that focused more on
the humor and characters to be found in the film (rather than the
eXtreme airboarding).
Ronald O. Christian
>Ugg, I hated that "The Hobbit" movie as a kid. Talk about an ugly art
>style:
>
>http://216.206.190.5/snapsite/guests/rbh/public/html/page3.html
Yeah... the Hobbits looked a bit like frogs, and the dwarves really
did look like garden gnomes....
Derek Janssen
>
> On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 00:08:53 GMT, Trent <spac...@marx7.org> wrote:
> >Ugg, I hated that "The Hobbit" movie as a kid. Talk about an ugly art
> >style:
> >
> >http://216.206.190.5/snapsite/guests/rbh/public/html/page3.html
>
> Yeah... the Hobbits looked a bit like frogs, and the dwarves really
> did look like garden gnomes....
And if they'd read Tolkien a little *more* beyond just the one book,
they'd realize the Elves WEREN'T spindly Arthur Rackham goblins...
Derek Janssen (but if you closed your eyes through the whole thing, it
was actually a pretty faithful version)
dja...@rcn.com
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>Ronald O. Christian" wrote:
>>
>> >>>2001: Disney's Atlantis also somewhat panned, managed about $70m (side
>> >>>effect: planned spinoff series reduced to just direct to video sequel)
>> >>
>> >> It really sucked. Fragments of at least three different plot lines,
>> >> no coherent story.
>> >
>> >Better than many non-Disney features... poor for Disney.
>>
>> I have to disagree. The story was *broken*.
>
>In a way that could not be *fixed*.
I think that depends on one's definition of "could not". There were
three conflicting Atlantean stories -- The immortal Atlanteans who
were alive when the island sank, the Atlanteans who still had
technology, and the Atlanteans who had lost their technology over the
centuries. If they were the same individuals alive (and obviously
using their technology) when the island sank, forgetting how to read
doesn't work. (That's something that happens over generations.) If
they lost their technology, the giant mechanical fish doesn't work.
(It survived for millennia in salt water without maintenance??) If
they have forgotten how to read over generations, they couldn't have
been alive when the island sank, etc. And that's just the Atlantean
side... Don't get me started about the other stuff...
Anyway, they needed to decide what story they were writing. They
could easily lose the immortality angle -- it doesn't serve any
purpose except to tie the girl's bracelet to her mother. If they keep
the "we've lost our technology" angel, they needed to lose the
mechanical fish, no matter how cool that looked on-screen.
In other words, it *could* have been fixed, but not just by changes of
dialog. We're talking throwing away at least a third of the
storyboards and a substantial amount of the structure (such as it
was...). And there's still no guarantee the result would be
watchable.
I wonder what might have been produced had they dropped the whole
thing, Empire of the Sun style, and given the animators their heads.
"Give me a steampunk drama about the search for Atlantis." Might have
been cool.
>> It was a collection of
>> vignettes without a coherent connecting narrative. Cool visuals and
>> characters are not enough -- you *must* have a self-consistent story.
>
>I rarely use the word "mess" as judiciously applied to a Disney film,
>except where Trousdale & Wise films are concerned (B&tB, Hunchback,
>Atlantis)...Never try to, just somehow turns out that way.
>...And, yes, Atlantis was a MESS.
Hmm... Hunchback, agreed. Atlantis, agreed. But I could cut BatB a
little slack for the obvious Cocteau influence. (Especially the
ending.) Hell, the ballroom scene was nearly worth the price of
admission.
>(Which's the crucial distinction here--
>Atlantis, Hercules, and Hunchback, the previous "studio-destroying
>flops" all flopped *after* they'd opened--Treasure flopped on opening
>day, *before* a frame of film had even screened.
I need to admit at this point that I *liked* Hercules. I liked the
music, I liked the gospel muses, and I liked the unconventional
animation. I bought the DVD and loaned it to friends who wouldn't
normally have seen it, and they ended up liking it too. It was very
well done, for what it was. Oh, it played havoc with the legend, but
since when has Disney *not* done that?
Hunchback, though... Victor Hugo for kids, with cute little songs...
who greenlighted *that* mess?
>Slight difference: One of the two involves audiences seeing the actual
>movie, and the other involves looking at the poster and "seeing" the
>movie they've already imagined in their heads.)
That may be true. As I said in another article, the first 45 minutes
didn't suck as bad as I expected. Oh woe is me... why do they still
pay Martin Short to act?
Jay G
> didn't suck as bad as I expected. Oh woe is me... why do they still
> pay Martin Short to act?
Well, they still pay him at least. I don't think he has done any actual
acting in a decade.
-Jay
Derek Janssen
>
> >> >>>2001: Disney's Atlantis also somewhat panned, managed about $70m (side
> >> >>>effect: planned spinoff series reduced to just direct to video sequel)
> >> >>
> >> >> It really sucked. Fragments of at least three different plot lines,
> >> >> no coherent story.
> >> >
> could easily lose the immortality angle -- it doesn't serve any
> purpose except to tie the girl's bracelet to her mother. If they keep
> the "we've lost our technology" angel, they needed to lose the
> mechanical fish, no matter how cool that looked on-screen.
It was kind of a frustrating cheat from the start--
The slam-bang opening got us wired to say, "Okay, what's going to happen next?"
Okay, here's what: Michael J. Fox is going to trip over his feet for the
next half hour...
(And two years of professional comic-book design thrown away on
characters who're either too wacky, intentionally hatable, or just not explained?)
> Hmm... Hunchback, agreed. Atlantis, agreed. But I could cut BatB a
> little slack for the obvious Cocteau influence. (Especially the
> ending.) Hell, the ballroom scene was nearly worth the price of
> admission.
At this point, I'd still have to get into the argument about the
story--Too much T&W "keep the kiddies happy" in play.
> >(Which's the crucial distinction here:
> >Atlantis, Hercules, and Hunchback, the previous "studio-destroying
> >flops" all flopped *after* they'd opened--Treasure flopped on opening
> >day, *before* a frame of film had even screened.
>
> I need to admit at this point that I *liked* Hercules. I liked the
> music, I liked the gospel muses, and I liked the unconventional
> animation. I bought the DVD and loaned it to friends who wouldn't
> normally have seen it, and they ended up liking it too. It was very
> well done, for what it was. Oh, it played havoc with the legend, but
> since when has Disney *not* done that?
As mentioned, Musker & Clements hated the project, and I'm guessing most
of the "Greeks-apoppin'" script was the boardroom's idea, not theirs--
(Although actually, the TV series made the gags work, since the movie'd
used up the obvious jokes, and the writers had to dig deeper for the
more obscure references.)
But at least they gave the same sense of "Isn't this story cool? :) "
energy to what was there, and you could show the Muses' musical numbers
right next to the "Aladdin" numbers as examples of how M&C could keep a
song number *moving* on screen, in tune to the tempo...
And FWIW, I gave in and bought the disk, too. Just for the musical
numbers, although Megara is still a heavily acquired taste.
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Invid Fan
wrote:
> "Ronald O. Christian" wrote:
I have an album that's the entire soundtrack, and it's wonderful :) The
one thing, however, is you really notice the jump from Bilbo looking
over the trees in Mirkwood to him being attacked by the spider.
Combined to the references to seeing the elves around a campfire and it
just feels like they edited out a chunk at the last minute and never
changed the dialog to cover it.
ANIM8Rfsk
>
> That may be true. As I said in another article, the first 45 minutes
> didn't suck as bad as I expected. Oh woe is me... why do they still
> pay Martin Short to act?
I can't imagine. Even FOX was bright enough to dub him out of Anastasia after
we'd suffered through months of playback of his horrible line reads.
Michael Hirtes
anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) wrote:
> "Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote
> >
> > That may be true. As I said in another article, the first 45 minutes
> > didn't suck as bad as I expected. Oh woe is me... why do they still
> > pay Martin Short to act?
Because Rob Schneider was too busy doing "The Stapler"?
Markc65
You're being too kind. Then again, maybe there is an audience that enjoys
watching mannequins spout expository mumbo-jumbo for two hours.
ANIM8Rfsk
<< >Final Fantasy = Bad. VERY BAD.
You're being too kind. Then again, maybe there is an audience that enjoys
watching mannequins spout expository mumbo-jumbo for two hours. >>
I continue to be amazed at how many civilians tell me they couldn't tell the FF
stuff from live action.
Warewolf
news:vtc4vu40u6iqn1mlg...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 02:15:59 -0800, Randy
> <Randyre...@snakebite.com> wrote:
>
>>Ronald O. Christian wrote:
>>> On 6 Dec 2002 15:27:37 -0800, ungvi...@thaimail.com (ungvichian)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>2000: Fox's Titan AE somewhat panned by critics, managed about $50m
>>>
>>>
>>> It sucked. Very disappointing.
>>
>>I liked it. Average.
>
> It reminded me of the original Heavy Metal, but without the, you know,
> originality.
Ah, Heavy Metal. A guilty pleasure and cult classic. Brilliant.
>>>>2001: Disney's Atlantis also somewhat panned, managed about $70m (side
>>>>effect: planned spinoff series reduced to just direct to video sequel)
>>>
>>>
>>> It really sucked. Fragments of at least three different plot lines,
>>> no coherent story.
>>
>>Better than many non-Disney features... poor for Disney.
>
> I have to disagree. The story was *broken*. It was a collection of
> vignettes without a coherent connecting narrative. Cool visuals and
> characters are not enough -- you *must* have a self-consistent story.
I'll probably rent it and FF later. (Then again, how was Lilo and Stitch?)
I've been reading through the various responces and wondering, in my own
imaginative yet insignificant way, what these studios can do to make a
'universally appealing' film.
I mean, we all have our likes and dislikes:
I like the well-timed smart remarks in Daria
I like the action and sharp writing in B:TAS
I like the zany antics of the first season of Ren and Stimpy
I like magic and transformations (hence a soft spot for a few episodes of
the animated Sabrina and the battles of Yu-Gi-Oh)
I like eye candy (read scantily-clad/naked shapely women or original
costumes)
I like robots, glued girls, breast inflation, space/time/dimensional travel
and any number of possible female freaks.
How can you squeeze all that onto a roll of film and not have some juice
dribble out?
It's been said before, but my understanding is that these studios are
giving us what they *think* we want. If we want to see gun-toting
fireball-flinging princesses or a doll that comes to life whenever a face
is drawn on it, it would probably help to ask for it...or, better yet,
write about it. (But then, how many of us have the time) *shrug*
Signed,
Warewolf at Large
who will probably write another 'Toy Story' one of these days
Invid Fan
<mar...@aol.com> wrote:
My best freind loved it, mostly because she's a FF fan and liked the
lead character I think. Of course, if it had had a happy ending she
would of hated the film :)
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>>>>>2001: Disney's Atlantis also somewhat panned, managed about $70m (side
>>>>>effect: planned spinoff series reduced to just direct to video sequel)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It really sucked. Fragments of at least three different plot lines,
>>>> no coherent story.
>>>
>>>Better than many non-Disney features... poor for Disney.
>>
>> I have to disagree. The story was *broken*. It was a collection of
>> vignettes without a coherent connecting narrative. Cool visuals and
>> characters are not enough -- you *must* have a self-consistent story.
>
>I'll probably rent it and FF later.
As you wish.
>(Then again, how was Lilo and Stitch?)
Excellent. Surprisingly good. Like, "Where the hell did *that* come
from?" good.
>I've been reading through the various responces and wondering, in my own
>imaginative yet insignificant way, what these studios can do to make a
>'universally appealing' film.
>[...]
Dats a good list, but I submit that the problem *is* that the studios
are spending huge bucks trying to make universally appealing films,
and ending up with an absolute lowest common denominator that pleases
almost nobody. Instead of betting the farm on a $100M film that rakes
in $60M, how about three $30M features that rake in $50M each? Set
your financial sights a little lower, and take some chances. And,
once in awhile, you score a Lilo & Stitch.
Jay G
> are spending huge bucks trying to make universally appealing films,
> and ending up with an absolute lowest common denominator that pleases
> almost nobody.
I agree. When you try to appeal to everyone, you end up appealing
to no-one. What's worse is when they so ineptly insert things they
think will appeal to people. The 'extreme' airboarding just looked
so out of place in the trailer, and I'm sure the comic relief has a
'dropped in' quality to it as well.
-Jay
Ronald O. Christian
>What's worse is when they so ineptly insert things they
>think will appeal to people.
Exactly. Well said.
DishRoom1
>Derek Janssen
>wrote:
>
>>Ronald O. Christian" wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>2001: Disney's Atlantis also somewhat panned, managed about $70m (side
>>> >>>effect: planned spinoff series reduced to just direct to video sequel)
>>> >>
>>> >> It really sucked. Fragments of at least three different plot lines,
>>> >> no coherent story.
>>> >
>>> >Better than many non-Disney features... poor for Disney.
>>>
>>> I have to disagree. The story was *broken*.
>>
>>In a way that could not be *fixed*.
>
>I think that depends on one's definition of "could not". There were
>three conflicting Atlantean stories -- The immortal Atlanteans who
>were alive when the island sank, the Atlanteans who still had
>technology, and the Atlanteans who had lost their technology over the
>centuries. If they were the same individuals alive (and obviously
>using their technology) when the island sank, forgetting how to read
>doesn't work. (That's something that happens over generations.) If
>they lost their technology, the giant mechanical fish doesn't work.
>(It survived for millennia in salt water without maintenance??) If
>they have forgotten how to read over generations, they couldn't have
>been alive when the island sank, etc. And that's just the Atlantean
>side... Don't get me started about the other stuff...
Like that the Atlanteans can still speak their language but cannot read it?
John Shughart
Invid Fan
<dish...@aol.com> wrote:
> Like that the Atlanteans can still speak their language but cannot read it?
The Mayans still speak their native language (despite the best attempts
of the Mexican government from what I understand), but nobody knew how
to read it until a few decades ago. A written laguage that was known at
the time of Spanish conquest became solely an oral one in a few
hundered years...
Warewolf
> On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 19:18:14 -0000, Warewolf <phoffman*@direct.ca>
> wrote:
>>
>>I'll probably rent it and FF later.
>
> As you wish.
Well, hey, if there's one thing you learn from watching turkeys like 'Mom
and Dad Save the World' and 'Adventures of Baron Munschausen' it's that
even bad films have some merit (as in something that will appeal to a
limited, yet viable, audiance) -- both films had nice costume designs, for
example (ie the fish people in Mom and Dad, the moon people in
Munschhausen) and how many films/shows outside of Aladdin have had a
characters head separated from their body? (Ah, if only Jasmine had lost)
;)
Plus, they can be a pretty good reminder that not all animated films can be
'Return of the Joker' (DVD) just like not all films will be 'Felix: the
Movie'
>>(Then again, how was Lilo and Stitch?)
>
> Excellent. Surprisingly good. Like, "Where the hell did *that* come
> from?" good.
Sounds like I'll be renting that one as well. :)
>>I've been reading through the various responces and wondering, in my
>>own imaginative yet insignificant way, what these studios can do to
>>make a 'universally appealing' film.
>>[...]
>
> Dats a good list, but I submit that the problem *is* that the studios
> are spending huge bucks trying to make universally appealing films,
> and ending up with an absolute lowest common denominator that pleases
> almost nobody. Instead of betting the farm on a $100M film that rakes
> in $60M, how about three $30M features that rake in $50M each? Set
> your financial sights a little lower, and take some chances. And,
> once in awhile, you score a Lilo & Stitch.
You just stated what I was going to put in a seperate post (before deleting
it) -- that some of the greatest shows ever made broke some rules.
(Congratulations) :)
Daria, for example, had two characters that sassed their families, chided
their teachers and were openly honest about things we rarely
encounter/explore. It had timing, it had romance and the characters evolved
over time.
The original Simpsons had a smart alecky kid that played pranks and told
his father to eat his shorts (not to mention a father who choked him for
doing so) :)
And Duckman had an idiotic detective (with a straight-man partner) that
drank, flirted (and in one ep, had sex) with women, regularly roasted his
sugary-sweet secretaries, and was oftentimes kicked around by his bitchy
sister-in-law Bernice.
Shows like these offered more than sharp writing and ribald/well-timed
humor -- they did things other shows/studios would never attempt. They, as
you stated, took risks.
They allowed the villains to evolve in B:TAS, explored mind control and
other touchy subjects in Ren and Stimpy and allowed a young priestess (a
GIRL, gentlemen) to command a 7' butt-kicking demonlord in the anime
series, 'Demon Lord Zenki'. Even Animaniacs, an innovative show in itself,
allowed one of its punching-bag characters (Buttons the dog) to win not
once, not twice but three times (via 'Astro Buttons' 'Lookit the Fuzzy
Warner-Heads' and 'Wacko's Wish') whereas characters like Daffy and Plucky
never really had a chance.
Shows like these regularly changed the rules whereas 'failures' like
Wishkid, Wacky World of Tex Avery, Sabrina (ABC and animated), Sylvester
and Tweety Mysteries and even some shorts in Animaniacs generally stuck
with one rule through most, if not all, of their episodes. (ie smash the
local 'villain', punish the main character(s) for using magic)
I don't have to mention that animation, whether it's cel-based or computer
generated, can be a powerful tool for storytelling. We all know that. But
if it hasn't been done yet (or often enough) perhaps it's time to present
scenes like this to a skeptical public if, for no other reason, than to
provide them with a release for their frustrations and hardships. Even
some of the references in Family Guy were mildly amusing.
Signed,
Warewolf at Large
---------------
[Daria and Jane are walking toward their high school]
[Upchuck approaches]
'Upchuck': Hello, Ladies. You're looking especially lovely today. *Rarr*
Daria: Upchuck, I want to be your love slave.
[Daria covers her mouth]
[her eyes widen]
Upchuck: Really?
[Daria tries again]
Daria: Oh yes. Take me, take me now.
[Daria starts backing away]
Upchuck: With great pleasure.
[Daria runs away]
[Upchuck gives chase]
[Daria runs around a corner of the school]
[She socks Upchuck in the jaw]
[causing him to stagger]
Upchuck: Oooh, feisty.
[Upchuck collaspses in a heap]
[Jane approaches]
Jane: What just happened?
Daria: I don't know...
[Daria and Jane walk away]
Daria: ...but it just cost Upchuck his modelling career.
Jane: Is that why he was flexing his muscles in a mirror this morning?
[Daria flashes her a look]
Jane: Kid-ding.
Daria: And here I thought I'd have to break out the straight jacket.
jane: Hey, we can't all be great politicians.
-----------------------
T Berk
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 21:39:53 -0600, "Jay G" <J...@tmbg.org> wrote:
> >Japanese animation has done drama, and done it well (Grave of the
> >Fireflies, Perfect Blue). It's possible that US audiences expect an
> >animated film to be funny, and won't accept animated drama.
>
> I don't believe that's true. Akira and Princess Mononoke, to name
> just two, have done very well in the US. It's possible that a
> grown-up animated film is alien to the US film industry. I believe
> the audience exists; the industry doesn't know how to take advantage
> of it.
>
> Ron
> -
Hearty "Me Too" here. There can be films made that then break ground
(expanding a minor kind of product to a larger audience) but they cant
be by committee and need to take chances.
Introduce something good (keep Billy Bob out of it as a Monk) and expect
to pay some dues, not every payday is a big fat gravy train.
TBerk
Andrew Hollingbury
> Andrew Hollingbury wrote --
>
> Ronald O. Christian wrote --
>
>
> >> >Japanese animation has done drama, and done it well (Grave of the
> >> >Fireflies, Perfect Blue). It's possible that US audiences expect an
> >> >animated film to be funny, and won't accept animated drama.
> >>
> >> I don't believe that's true. Akira and Princess Mononoke, to name
> >> just two, have done very well in the US.
> >
> >forvariousreasonsweshallnotdiscussbecauseitisboringandstale, only really
> >picking up a slightly larger audience on video/DVD (thanks to the subbie
> >brigade no doubt). I'd dispute Akira or Mononoke being popular as
> >"dramas" - Akira has the whizz bang, exploding-people,
> >mutated-freak-thing-ascending-into-evolution action geek magnet quotient,
> >and Mononoke is far more gripping visually than narratively (IMO), plus had
> >the distinction of being "A Ghibli film! In the West! On DVD!".
> >
> >> It's possible that a
> >> grown-up animated film is alien to the US film industry. I believe
> >> the audience exists; the industry doesn't know how to take advantage
> >> of it.
> >
> >in animation if you can do it just as well in live action (and more people
> >will come to see it). So most "non-kiddie" theatrical animation either ends
> >up being pretentious (Waking Life) or action fantasy aimed at a slightly
> >older audience by virtue of violence (just about anything Japanese released
> >theatrically).
>
> I doubt a lot of what you are saying. First of all, animated drama can appeal
> to people if it is well animated and, more importantly, well written. If
> animated drama doesn't work, ask anyone here about the Bruce Timm/Warner Bros.
> animated series of DC Comics characters.
Here being rec.arts.animation, a newsgroup where people are fans of
animation. Batman/Batman Beyond/Superman/Justice League are still
primarily aimed at children, unlike Akira and (to an extent) Mononoke.
Yeah, I like them - I like dramatic animated shows. However, by
"drama", I mean shows like the Japanese animated TV show "Hidemari no
Ki", a period drama about a doctor - where it's just a "drama" in the
TV/theatre sense rather than an action/fantasy show with dramatic
elements.
> Second of all, anime can be fabulous. Not all anime involves violence.
> However, my mind hasn't been make up for "Princess Mononoke", since I have
> never saw it. But it tanked because Disney didn't show it in enough theaters or
> give it much advertisments. Otherwise, you seem pissed off against anime.
I love anime. I'm not pissed off against it at all. I just don't
think that Akira and Mononoke were well received for their dramatic
elements - especially not Akira - and Disney's audience doesn't want
to see drama really - people often forget that the primary theatrical
kiddie audience wants to laugh rather than cry. How successful has
Totoro been overall now, or Kiki? Disney attracts a different
audience to Pokemon etc. I suspect, so cater to them rather than the
whizz-bang 10-12 year old boy group (most of whom would yawn
throughout Mononoke and probably implode on seeing Akira).
Andrew H
Terrence Briggs
> "Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote in message
> news:oor2vuc7n063qtfgu...@4ax.com...
> > >Fireflies, Perfect Blue). It's possible that US audiences expect an
> > >animated film to be funny, and won't accept animated drama.
"Won't" is too fatalistic. "Don't" is more specific to the current
state of the audience, but it sounds a bit too judgmental. I'll get
to that.
> > I don't believe that's true. Akira and Princess Mononoke, to name
> > just two, have done very well in the US.
Dunno about Akira, but Princess Mononoke had a Culmulative Per-Screen
Average ($18,000) comparable to the second Pokemon movie, which many
industry types would consider successful. It's no Spiderman or My Big
Fat Greek Wedding ($100+K average), but how many films can say they
are?
Spirited Away's average of $31K was better, though. I'm interested in
knowing how much Disney spent acquiring, localizing, printing, and
marketing the film. If they spent less than $20K per screen to do so,
then Disney made a profit.
> Remember, Mononoke tanked at the box office
> forvariousreasonsweshallnotdiscussbecauseitisboringandstale, only really
> picking up a slightly larger audience on video/DVD (thanks to the subbie
> brigade no doubt).
Sure. Plodding, joyless, three-hour live-action fantasies with
scruffy, longhaired "hotties", decapitated stuntmen, and perpetually
stricken avatars gets all da luv, but a deliberately-paced, dark,
double-length drawing with clean-shaven, iron-age, nebulous "hotties",
Tom-and-Jerry-esque decapitations, and perpetually driven outcasts is
"boringandstale". The MTV-addled masses WILL. BE. STIMULATED.
Unless they can gawk at Strider and Elf Archer for three hours.
"Screw cartoons! Unless they're serving as computer-generated
chopping blocks for my dashing champions." Make love and movie magic
with four-foot mini-men with big, hairy feet, if that is what you seek
in your waking dream. Fanboy Briggs defers to Menken and Huxley on
that one ;)
Boringandstale can actually do quite well at the box office.
> I'd dispute Akira or Mononoke being popular as
> "dramas" - Akira has the whizz bang, exploding-people,
> mutated-freak-thing-ascending-into-evolution action geek magnet quotient,
> and Mononoke is far more gripping visually than narratively (IMO), plus had
> the distinction of being "A Ghibli film! In the West! On DVD!".
So how does the public mirror Your Opinion? I already stated how well
they mirror mine :)
> > It's possible that a
> > grown-up animated film is alien to the US film industry. I believe
> > the audience exists; the industry doesn't know how to take advantage
> > of it.
>
> It's a minority audience.
As was the audience for animated films in general, until some folks
found a way to expand that audience (Walt Disney, Jeff Katzenburg,
Steven Speilberg, etc.)
These days, animation still gets the second-hand treatment from folks
who get off on dismissing entire art media to "sharpen" their tastes,
much in the way I dismiss cinema solipsists who have no love for
anything that isn't rendered to their narrow specifications. Dunno
how they can watch a black-and-white film, with those nutty GRAYSCALE
ABSTRACTIONS OF REALITY!!! Technicolor must've been a joke. The
A.S.C.s weep.
Hey, animatophiles have the same problem. I've met anime fans who
stand still for no noseless humanoid or nattering animal; Disney buffs
who gag on static frames and anything resembling the human condition;
comedy junkies who yawn if they aren't laughing derisively at
on-screen personae.
> Plus there's not much point of making a "drama"
> in animation if you can do it just as well in live action (and more people
> will come to see it).
There's not much point of making a "drama" in live-action (unless
you're shooting for an Oscar), if you can just morph it into a
feel-good, PG-rated family pic (Forrest Gump) or Disney-stamped comic
adventure (Lion King) and make tons more money.
I'm being contrarian here because there's no point in producing
anything of quality if instant money/audience size matters most. Snow
White made Walt Disney a gazillionaire, when no one saw the point of
making a feature-length animated film. Mad bling made Birth of a
Nation D.W. Griffith's great gold hope, when probably few saw the
point of penning people in theaters for hours on end.
In the case of animation, Aladdin convinced the contemporary
currency-obsessed that animated feature films were far too profitable
to ignore, so Fox, Sony, and WB tried to follow suit. Dreamworks made
an animated film division part of the pedigree's genesis, and was
goofy enough to sell the idea of an animated Bible epic as a serious
dramatic effort (Prince of Egypt). Someone decided, for better or
worse, to take a financial risk for the sake of an artistic one. In
this country, PoE was a decent performer ($31K average per screen),
but didn't bring in nearly the audience that Princess Mononoke and
Spirited Away did in Japan (and the rest of Asia, I believe). Japan
can hang with animated drama, as they've shown with two of that
country's three biggest films. America doesn't have such dramatic
evidence (unless you wanna stretch the Lion King into the territory of
drama).
So maybe we're back to instant money/audience size again. In Japan,
one man has the power Spielberg used to have in this country: to make
original films (non-sequels) that will sell tens of millions of
tickets for hundreds of millions of dollars. When was the last time
an American director could claim the country's Top Grossing Film of
All Time, two consecutive times? (But the Japanese have no taste, the
cynics whisper. That's why they made American films like E.T. and
Titanic the previous kings of its box office world.)
> So most "non-kiddie" theatrical animation either ends
> up being pretentious (Waking Life) or action fantasy aimed at a slightly
> older audience by virtue of violence (just about anything Japanese released
> theatrically).
It's perceived as "pretentious", because many American adults perceive
worthy animated drama (Prince of Egypt, Iron Giant, Batman: Mask of
the Phantasm, My Neighbor Totoro, Grave of the Fireflies, Spirited
Away, Night on the Galactic Railroad, Vampire Princess Miyu, etc.) to
be "just a cartoon", and not worthy of emotional investment. Yet many
of those same people consider the trials of idealized, suburban cover
models (Dead Poets' Society, Erin Brockovich, Gladiator, Lord of the
Rings, Love Jones, My Big Fat Greek Wedding [provisional], Pretty
Woman, Spiderman, etc.) to be worthy of such an investment.
I hope Menken and Huxley haven't left the party yet...
I'm not as fatalistic about all of this as some (who blame
predispositions for the abstract, nebulous, and/or infantile for the
popularity of some animation among adults). Exposure helps.
Commandments like "Thou shalt not animate drama" close the mind, and
reduce art appreciation to the consumption of comfort cinema;
nostalgia for knuckleheaded know-nothings who refuse to have their
horizons expanded beyond the best movies they saw in their
aesthetically formative years.
Mononoke "failed" at the American box office for the same reason My
Big Fat Greek Wedding "failed" to coax currency from my checking
account: I haven't seen it. That doesn't mean MBFGW is
boringandstale, and the fact that my adult siblings found it to be
boringandstale (among other things execrable) means nothing to the
IFC/Tom Hanks bank. It's not as if 260 million Americans lined up the
see PM, passed judgment on it, then asked for their money back,
leading to the "poor" BO returns. This isn't NPR or PBS, where I buy
500 tickets on my way out of the theater to register my love for the
film. This is pay-per-play, where folks play the movie market and
gamble that their admission to the film will be worth the investment.
I'd wager 250+ million wankers didn't take that gamble, the way my
fellow wankers gambled an hour's after-tax pay that Spiderman was
"worth the hype", or the way my blood blokes gambled on MBFGW.
Those of us who saw and loved Mononoke will have to settle for
understanding the reasons we didn't see Unseen Movie A, B, or C. Any
darn fool reason to not want to see any movie we heard was good (from
those we trust in movies) qualifies as one reason. Barring the
presence of such experienced counsel, there's always the "blissful
ignorance of the oversaturated marketplace" excuse, as well as the
"Miramax didn't send the traveling circus to my podunk, Philistine
farm" excuse.
Any such understanding of reality is far more enlightening than the
ubiquitous "I *am* the market" assessment that gets passed for
authority, not to mention the "no accounting for taste" analysis that
a Menken misattribution or Huxley hypothesis might explain.
Besides, the blessed elect of Washington, DC finally got to see
Spirited Away as a ([in]direct?) result. Its box office may have been
the equivalent of heavenly pennies
> Andrew H
Terrence B, since 1995
Peace to you...
DishRoom1
I wrote --
Just because kids can see the shows dosn't mean they can't appeal the mature
viewers. I mean, one of the reasons "Batman: The Animated Series" (aired on
Fox) was interesting was how the characters had depth to their personalities
that they couldn't have in the spandex shows of Hanna-Barbera, Filmation or
Ruby Sears. Anyong vouch for me on this?
> Yeah, I like them - I like dramatic animated shows. However, by
>"drama", I mean shows like the Japanese animated TV show "Hidemari no
>Ki", a period drama about a doctor - where it's just a "drama" in the
>TV/theatre sense rather than an action/fantasy show with dramatic
>elements.
I understand. I just have a taste for both action/fantasy and just plain drama
when it comes to animation and cartoons.
>
>> Second of all, anime can be fabulous. Not all anime involves violence.
>> However, my mind hasn't been make up for "Princess Mononoke", since I have
>> never saw it. But it tanked because Disney didn't show it in enough
>theaters or
>> give it much advertisments. Otherwise, you seem pissed off against anime.
>
>I love anime. I'm not pissed off against it at all. I just don't
>think that Akira and Mononoke were well received for their dramatic
>elements - especially not Akira - and Disney's audience doesn't want
>to see drama really - people often forget that the primary theatrical
>kiddie audience wants to laugh rather than cry. How successful has
>Totoro been overall now, or Kiki? Disney attracts a different
>audience to Pokemon etc. I suspect, so cater to them rather than the
>whizz-bang 10-12 year old boy group (most of whom would yawn
>throughout Mononoke and probably implode on seeing Akira).
I feel sad for the typical Disney aduidence if that is the case. I look at
anime and see how well they can do anything from kids' cartoons to comedy to
hard adult drama to sci-fi fnatasy/action, while here in America, animators
seem doomed to filming executive-cliched, empty kid-vid stuff that cannot move
US animation forward as an art form.
John Shughart
Invid Fan
Briggs <mrm...@peopleweb.com> wrote:
> "Andrew Hollingbury" <a.holl...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<asru7r$at1$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
> > > I don't believe that's true. Akira and Princess Mononoke, to name
> > > just two, have done very well in the US.
>
> Dunno about Akira, but Princess Mononoke had a Culmulative Per-Screen
> Average ($18,000) comparable to the second Pokemon movie, which many
> industry types would consider successful. It's no Spiderman or My Big
> Fat Greek Wedding ($100+K average), but how many films can say they
> are?
I'm very amused when people bring up Akira as being a film that has
"done well" in the US. When it was first brought over in around '89, it
toured the art houses. Showed for a week or two, then went on to the
next city. The back of the initial Marvel/Epic run of the comic lists
the theaters it played. It was the video release, the first uncut anime
theatrical movie to ever be released iirc, that brought it viewers and
money.
The Skeleton Man
"Invid Fan" <in...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:101220021919545468%in...@localnet.com...
Still the highest selling anime video in the US to date. (granted it has
time on its side) So yeah I'd say its done well. Do video sales not count or
something in how well a movie has done?
At this point, even if it was produced in America it would have more than
made its money back many times over.
--
Skeleton Man
Is it time I got to burning?
Invid Fan
Skeleton Man <skel...@planetbone.com> wrote:
Not when you're talking about theatrical success :) To bring up Akira
when talking about anime films that have done well in US theaters is,
as I said, amusing.
> At this point, even if it was produced in America it would have more than
> made its money back many times over.
>
The animation company would have gone bankrupt waiting for the break
even point, though.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Well, hey, if there's one thing you learn from
>watching turkeys like 'Mom and Dad Save the
>World' and 'Adventures of Baron Munschausen' it's
>that even bad films have some merit (as in
>something that will appeal to a limited, yet viable,
>audiance) -- both films had nice costume designs,
>for example (ie the fish people in Mom and Dad,
>the moon people in Munschhausen) and how many >films/shows outside of
Aladdin have had a
>characters head separated from their body? (Ah, if
>only Jasmine had lost)
>;)
That would rule!
>Plus, they can be a pretty good reminder that not
>all animated films can be 'Return of the Joker'
>(DVD) just like not all films will be 'Felix: the
>Movie'
Heh, and I picked this one up on DVD recently. Some Hong Kong outfit
seems to have released a possibly illegit DVD that has been sold for
around $5.00 at places like Kroger's and Barnes & Noble. Picture and
sound are rather so-so, but I was able to make it out anyway.
It was my first time watching this rather ranky production. Though I
thought it was OK, it just seemed too out of it for Felix and the
obvious update to the '60s Oriolo cartoons (as if Dan Oriolo knew how to
produce anything this big at all). I kinda felt sorry for Hungary's
Pannonia Film for working on this one.
>Daria, for example, had two characters that sassed
>their families, chided their teachers and were
>openly honest about things we rarely
>encounter/explore. It had timing, it had romance
>and the characters evolved over time.
Probably why I enjoyed it.
>The original Simpsons had a smart alecky kid that
>played pranks and told his father to eat his shorts
>(not to mention a father who choked him for doing
>so) :)
That's the Simpsons I'll remember!
>And Duckman had an idiotic detective (with a
>straight-man partner) that drank, flirted (and in one
>ep, had sex) with women, regularly roasted his
>sugary-sweet secretaries, and was oftentimes
>kicked around by his bitchy sister-in-law Bernice.
>Shows like these offered more than sharp writing
>and ribald/well-timed humor -- they did things other >shows/studios
would never attempt. They, as you
>stated, took risks.
Duckman sure too some big risks to do what it did.
>They allowed the villains to evolve in B:TAS,
>explored mind control and other touchy subjects in
>Ren and Stimpy and allowed a young priestess (a
>GIRL, gentlemen) to command a 7' butt-kicking
>demonlord in the anime series, 'Demon Lord
>Zenki'.
Though the Japanese tend to take bigger risks before we do.
>Even Animaniacs, an innovative show in itself,
>allowed one of its punching-bag characters
>(Buttons the dog) to win not once, not twice but
>three times (via 'Astro Buttons' 'Lookit the Fuzzy
>Warner-Heads' and 'Wacko's Wish') whereas
>characters like Daffy and Plucky never really had a
>chance.
>Shows like these regularly changed the rules
>whereas 'failures' like Wishkid, Wacky World of
>Tex Avery, Sabrina (ABC and animated), Sylvester
>and Tweety Mysteries and even some shorts in
>Animaniacs generally stuck with one rule through
>most, if not all, of their episodes. (ie smash the
>local 'villain', punish the main character(s) for using
>magic)
Many times I do wonder how much could you go with these liberties in
writing a cartoon.
>I don't have to mention that animation, whether it's
>cel-based or computer generated, can be a
>powerful tool for storytelling. We all know that. But
>if it hasn't been done yet (or often enough)
>perhaps it's time to present scenes like this to a
>skeptical public if, for no other reason, than to
>provide them with a release for their frustrations
>and hardships. Even some of the references in
>Family Guy were mildly amusing.
>Signed,
>Warewolf at Large
Still one of those shows I enjoy just for that. Always do wonder how
well would those referecnes work outside North America? The "cavity
creeps" they did in one episode just had me doing double-takes everytime
I see it! Forgot all about the ads those were on as akid back in the
early '80s. There's many people I do see posting sometimes about those
ref's they don't recognized or understand at all.
Kinda reminds me of how Japanese cartoons could do the same thing
themselves.
"I'm not interested in 27 movie channels of Japanese TV, but these days,
you need cable if you want to watch anything, it's ubiquitous."
- Thomas Wells, 41, Commerce TWP. Computer Salesman
(from The Detroit News, 6/28/2002)
Domo Arigatoo Gozaimasu!
From the Master of Car-too-nal Knowledge...
Christopher M. Sobieniak
--"Fightin' the Frizzies since 1978"--
Terrence Briggs
Ask me if I wanna see an animated soap opera, and the answer is "no",
cuz I don't wanna see live-action soap operas either. The
action/fantasy template doubtless lends itself to the freedom of
animation, and the final product more tolerable/watchable on a
shoestring budget (in Japan anyway) than your average live-action
take. Of course, if a bloke is antipathetic toward animation, they'll
write off the animated effort right away. They have their own
problems.
Having said that, the likes of This is Greenwood and Vampire Princess
Miyu (OAV) would be lucky to get a run on the International Channel,
much less a non-anime film festival, or some godforsaken high-tier
cable channel that specializes in "quality programming". The
likelihood of seeing Prince Valiant or Phantom 2040 on the Trio
channel's Brilliant But Cancelled is equivalent to the likelihood of a
Dragon Ball Z film getting a Jackass: The Movie-sized opening weekend.
> > Second of all, anime can be fabulous. Not all anime involves violence.
> > However, my mind hasn't been make up for "Princess Mononoke", since I have
> > never saw it. But it tanked because Disney didn't show it in enough theaters or
> > give it much advertisments. Otherwise, you seem pissed off against anime.
>
> I love anime. I'm not pissed off against it at all. I just don't
> think that Akira and Mononoke were well received for their dramatic
> elements - especially not Akira - and Disney's audience doesn't want
> to see drama really - people often forget that the primary theatrical
> kiddie audience wants to laugh rather than cry.
Disney live-action loves "triumph of the human spirit" stuff, which is
one of drama's essences. Family audiences drawn to animated comic
adventures should be interested in an animated story in that vein
(except for the occassional Tuck Everlasting).
> How successful has
> Totoro been overall now, or Kiki? Disney attracts a different
> audience to Pokemon etc. I suspect, so cater to them rather than the
> whizz-bang 10-12 year old boy group (most of whom would yawn
> throughout Mononoke and probably implode on seeing Akira).
Uh... hollywood has a nasty habit of targeting most of its "adult"
comedies and action adventures (i.e. summer and winter blockbusters)
to 10-12-year-old boys and others of that mindset. They should atone
first!
> Andrew H
Terrence Briggs, since 1995
Peace to you...
DishRoom1
Andrew Hollingway wrote --
I wrote --
>> > Andrew Hollingbury wrote --
I vouch for that. Before Hollywood gives us adult-theme pictures, it should try
to understand what "adult" means.
John Shughart
Warewolf
6...@storefull-2173.public.lawson.webtv.net:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2002, 7:17pm (EST+5), phoffman*@direct.ca (Warewolf)
> wrote:
>>And Duckman had an idiotic detective (with a
>>straight-man partner) that drank, flirted (and in one
>>ep, had sex) with women, regularly roasted his
>>sugary-sweet secretaries, and was oftentimes
>>kicked around by his bitchy sister-in-law Bernice.
>>Shows like these offered more than sharp writing
>>and ribald/well-timed humor -- they did things other >shows/studios
> would never attempt. They, as you
>>stated, took risks.
>
> Duckman sure too some big risks to do what it did.
And yet, look at how well it turned out.
(For the first three seasons, at least; Mind you, I never saw season 1.)
:^Ž
>>They allowed the villains to evolve in B:TAS,
>>explored mind control and other touchy subjects in
>>Ren and Stimpy and allowed a young priestess (a
>>GIRL, gentlemen) to command a 7' butt-kicking
>>demonlord in the anime series, 'Demon Lord
>>Zenki'.
>
> Though the Japanese tend to take bigger risks before we do.
And, as stated, tend to turn out some entertaining programs (again, Zenki,
Ranma 1/2, Slayers, Patlabor; In fact, I'm starting to wonder how
good/corny 'the Genie Family' is). If stations like YTV and Teletoon are
ever able to broadcast these shows intact, I might be able to forgive them
for shows like 'Pond Life'. :)
>>Shows like these regularly changed the rules
>>whereas 'failures' like Wishkid, Wacky World of
>>Tex Avery, Sabrina (ABC and animated), Sylvester
>>and Tweety Mysteries and even some shorts in
>>Animaniacs generally stuck with one rule through
>>most, if not all, of their episodes. (ie smash the
>>local 'villain', punish the main character(s) for using
>>magic)
>
> Many times I do wonder how much could you go with these liberties in
> writing a cartoon.
Not that far if you want to get on my 'shit list' }:^)
But, like I said, even a clunker like 'Gadget Boy' had two good moments --
the 'mixed-up speech' episode and the scene where agent Heather *almost*
throttled the kid }:) (It might have even been the same episode)
I can only imagine how well *she* would have done with those gadgets.
>>I don't have to mention that animation, whether it's
>>cel-based or computer generated, can be a
>>powerful tool for storytelling. We all know that. But
>>if it hasn't been done yet (or often enough)
>>perhaps it's time to present scenes like this to a
>>skeptical public if, for no other reason, than to
>>provide them with a release for their frustrations
>>and hardships. Even some of the references in
>>Family Guy were mildly amusing.
>
> Still one of those shows I enjoy just for that. Always do wonder how
> well would those referecnes work outside North America? The "cavity
> creeps" they did in one episode just had me doing double-takes everytime
> I see it! Forgot all about the ads those were on as akid back in the
> early '80s. There's many people I do see posting sometimes about those
> ref's they don't recognized or understand at all.
And yet gags involving Kate Moss and Dukes of Hazzard-esque crashes can be
funny in their own right (in a low-brow sort of way).
> Kinda reminds me of how Japanese cartoons could do the same thing
> themselves.
Probably with anonymity or some degree of acceptance. Just as imitation
can be a form of flattery, (hence the number of magical girl shows) if a
celebrity like Michael Jackson isn't aware that he's starring in a game
like Super Robot Wars EX+@, I don't think he's going to sue too quickly
(particularly if the game never leaves Japan).
Signed,
Warewolf at Large
chance wolf
"Warewolf" <phoffman*@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:uvo1av2...@corp.supernews.com...
Someone wrote a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...
> >>Shows like these regularly changed the rules
> >>whereas 'failures' like Wishkid, Wacky World of
> >>Tex Avery, Sabrina (ABC and animated), Sylvester
> >>and Tweety Mysteries and even some shorts in
> >>Animaniacs generally stuck with one rule through
> >>most, if not all, of their episodes. (ie smash the
> >>local 'villain', punish the main character(s) for using
> >>magic)
Um, please never mention "Wacky World of Tex Avery" and Animaniacs in the
same sentence again. I'm sure Tex was rolling over in his grave over
"Wacky", and rightly so. It bit. Large. If I were Heyward, I'd be
apologizing out loud every spare second I got if I wanted to salvage
whatever was left of my karma. Ohyeah..."Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries"
regularly led the ratings for the KidsWB stuff back in the day, and did you
know that when they came up with that show, those in charge looked at their
budget and actually went back in time to find a short whose quality they'd
be able to mimic *within* that budget? Yup. All true. The short was
"Hawaiian Aye-Aye" from 1964. Their debut ep was great, and I liked a fair
number of the others too.
chance (I'm rather interested in your view of what constitutes a 'failure',
there, mysteryposter. If your yardstick is the LT/MM's....well...keep on
hoping for your miracles.)
chance wolf
"chance wolf" <vi...@redwall.net> wrote in message
news:RhVK9.168006$ea.32...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> "Warewolf" <phoffman*@direct.ca> wrote in message
> news:uvo1av2...@corp.supernews.com...
> Someone wrote a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...
Yeah. I meant to strip Warewolf's headers when I replied the first time, so
don't take my stuff as being in response to him.
Neil4161
dramas at the BO... why?
From: Ronald O. Christian ro...@europa.com
Date: Fri, Dec 6, 2002 7:31 PM
Message-id: <mmf2vu45tb6pdl0j6...@4ax.com> >>
<< On 6 Dec 2002 15:27:37 -0800, ungvi...@thaimail.com (ungvichian)
wrote: >>
<< >Even more frustrating, animated TV cartoons that don't play for laughs
>aren't dismal failures on TV (what's up with that?). Look at it:
>Batman Beyond, Justice League, Samurai Jack, and anime imports.
That's because (please pay attention) they DIDN'T SUCK. Samurai Jack
(although uneven) has some of the most interesting stories I've seen
on TV in a long time. Batman Beyond is a decent action series.
Justice League has some truly inspired writing. These series TAKE
CHANCES, something you're almost never allowed to do with a $100M
theatrical release. So, typically, a huge amount of money goes into
effects, and the plot gets micromanaged into SUCKhood. >>
You know, I'd kill to see an animated Justice League film. Witht the right
story and the right promotion, it could make some serious dollars. I remember
how poorly Batman: Mask of the Phantasm and Iron Ginat were marketed. With
Justice League, you have recognizable characters and apotential grand scale
menace with enough room for very decent charcter development. You could even go
more in depth with the chracter' origins, something that has not been done on
the television series. Maybe even create a plot where Thanagar declares war on
Earth under the control of some evil villian, and we'd meet Katar Hol, our
favorite Hawkman. Just a thought.
neil
SG
and out came news:mmf2vu45tb6pdl0j6...@4ax.com:
> On 6 Dec 2002 15:27:37 -0800, ungvi...@thaimail.com (ungvichian)
> wrote:
>>Even more frustrating, animated TV cartoons that don't play for laughs
>>aren't dismal failures on TV (what's up with that?). Look at it:
>>Batman Beyond, Justice League, Samurai Jack, and anime imports.
They aren't dismal failures because the expectations and measurements for
their success are minimal. On network TV, in prime time, they would be
abject failures, where 6 million people watching a show puts it down around
70th in the prime time race.
Batman Beyond was tried by The WB in prime time, and it failed miserably.
> That's because (please pay attention) they DIDN'T SUCK. Samurai Jack
> (although uneven) has some of the most interesting stories I've seen
> on TV in a long time. Batman Beyond is a decent action series.
> Justice League has some truly inspired writing. These series TAKE
> CHANCES, something you're almost never allowed to do with a $100M
> theatrical release. So, typically, a huge amount of money goes into
> effects, and the plot gets micromanaged into SUCKhood.
As someone else pointed out (on a different thread?), success is measured
by revenue minus production, promotion and overhead costs. If the result is
a negative number, than its a failure. If the feature can be produced
cheaply enough, the same revenue could be a success.
But there's another issue. To gain theater booking, theaters have to be
convinced that a certain crowd will be pulled in to sell popcorn to. With
all of the competition at the box office, lesser productions simply won't
be booked. Now, even Disney is losing the clout with its animated releases
to pacify the theater owners, making it harder for future animation to gain
screen space.
I also don't think a huge amount goes into the effects. The main cost in
these mega-features is production losses involving revisions. They often
drive a massive number of people into overtime, which has a premium
additional cost making those hours at least 50% more expensive, and if it
results in 7 day weeks, 100% more expensive for those affected hours.
In industrial manufacturing, there's a concept called the "change order".
If a product is redesigned during production, the subcontractor will charge
a premium for "change orders" that can be several times more expensive than
the contracted charge per item. Some entertainment companies have similar
charges in place for subcontracted work.
The problem isn't just micromanagement. It is a fundamental lack of
understanding of the animation process by management. That is, you plan
everything in advance, and make sure *all* of the decisions are made before
you *begin* production. That's how you keep costs down. What we are seeing
is $100+ million animated movies that should really cost (and are only
worth) around $40 million or less.
--
SG
Neil4161
their success are minimal. On network TV, in prime time, they would be
abject failures, where 6 million people watching a show puts it down around
70th in the prime time race.
Batman Beyond was tried by The WB in prime time, and it failed miserably. >>
Inn actuality, the ratings on the pilot were among the best the WB had for the
time period of 7-8 at the time, and debated whether to push it for prime time,
but decided against it. This initially inspired dialogue about a possible
Batman Beyond feature film.
Neil