I haven't seen the completed film yet.  But from the promotional stills it seems clear that Disney is re-using secondary characters from Chicken Little, as well as some background design.  (This may be because I've only seen the promotional materials, which perhaps were assembled with old material to give them a finished look.)  But can someone tell me if, in fact, Disney did recycle secondary character designs and some backgrounds into this film from CL?

thanks.

The film itself was one of the better Disney Animated films released recently...which I suppose doesn't speak to its strengths, despite the fact that it's really got some nice ones.  The heart of the film shines through and really, thats the biggest improvement - at least to me. I actually haven't seen a non-Pixar animated film from Disney since 2002's Treasure Planet (which, I actually enjoyed a lot!). So it was a refreshing experience to actually like the film - and the short before it was an added bonus.

Regardless - Box Office numbers are always tricky and can be twisted in so many ways, speculation as to what will, won't, and may happen is hard.  Granted the Scenario Jim lays out here is entirely plausible.  In fact, I'd have to agree with the sentiment that this film might have to struggle to make up its budget, which really is a shame considering it deserves more.  Easter weekend/week proves to be a test, and I'm just as eager as Disney to see how many people go out to see the film.

As for recycling Secondary character designs and backgrounds from Chicken Little...eh.  I haven't seen enough of CL to know for sure, but all (well...most) the characters in Meet the Robinsons are either Frogs, Humans, or Robots - none of which I recognized from any advertisements or PRs regarding Chicken Little when that came out.  I would say no, but I'm interested to know how right I am considering how unfamiliar I am with CL.

Having seen the movie Sunday night, I can honestly say it's one of the better animated films I've seen of the last 5 years. The film has an amazing level of heart, the Bowler Hat Guy was a perfect villain (which makes me wonder what he was like before Lasseter ordered that he be retooled. can we get that story now, Jim?), and if you're a Disney dweeb like me, the end is very touching. All in all, Meet the Robinsons is a fantastic night at the movies and I look forward to seeing it in 3D this weekend.

And believe me, if guest reactions that I saw during my shift at the Disney Store on Saturday are to be believed, this movie will have great word of mouth and legs. The store was running a promotion that offered guests free kaleidoscopes with their MtR ticket stubs. I made a point to ask each such guest what they thought about the movie. The children raved and the parents went on about how much they themselves enjoyed it too. I had one family come in with four children, who immediately ran to the MtR table of merchandies, excitedly shouting out the names of characters and getting pretty excited that toys from this great, new movie were available.

And regarding TMNT's drop at the box office. While I didn't see it my brothers did. Their word of mouth has me out of the cinema. I'm just saying.

My gosh, not this again...

Yes, I'm sure Meet the Robinsons' 'lackluster' numbers were due to the film being CGI.  If it had been a traditionally animated picture, it probably would have opened with at least $40 million.

And yes, if Robinsons has strong legs, I'm sure it's because of the 3-D.  Never mind the film's humor, engaging story or powerful emotions.

Could it be that the Ice Age films, Chicken Little, Robots, etc. all opened with bigger numbers because, I don't know, maybe they had MUCH better marketing campaigns.  Seriously, pretty much every single commercial and trailer for Robinsons centered around two jokes: the caffeine patch and Tiny.  Had it not been for my interest in animation, I would have had zero interest in seeing the film.  Instead, I would have seen Blades of Glory.  

None of the ads even hinted at the strong emotional core of the film, with the exception of that one international trailer.  Instead, I kept thinking Everyone's Hero 2.

Then, where were the store promotions?  I mean, Chicken Little was in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade - twice!

Seems to me that is the same bass aackwards line of thinking that led to 2D "dieing" to begin with....gee I guess people don't like 2D anymore since 3D is outperforming it.  No one ever think that story and general appeal have anything to do with it? And NOT the medium.......

I will go see Robinsons at some point but honestly, the trailers didn't do much for me in terms of making me WANT to go see it.  Shrek3, Ratatouille and Surf's Up look way more fun and interesting than "boy goes to the gee-whiz future..look kids a funny dinosaur"...again I have not seen it and the film might be quite good, however the trailers didn't get me jazzed about it....

So now the cries of the end of 2D at Disney has turned into the end of 3D....how totally predictable....

I saw MTR on opening day in Digital 3D, and I must say that I really liked the film! It surprised me how much I ended up enjoying it and I loved that in its heart, it really is a tribute to Walt Disney himself. But honestly, up until a few weeks ago, I had no desire.. no intention to see this film at all. After watching the trailers and all the ads, it didn't look interesting at all. I could see a bunch of wacky looking characters that I could in no way connect with any kind of plot that caught my interest. I feel this is one of the biggest mistakes with this movie... the marketing campaign does not touch the film's plot, which is what drives the film. It only showcases the CG characters and backgrounds.

So what finally drove me to pay to see this movie on opening day? This website, actually. Once I read the report on Lasseter allowing the director to tell the story in his own way, a story about a young child trying to find his birth mother after being abandoned at an orphanage as a baby... well suddenly THAT sounded intriguing. THAT sounded interesting. And THAT ALONE put me into my theater seat with my 3 kids on Friday. If I was looking at the trailer and tv commercials currently running, I would have never gone near this film. The problem here is that (Sorry, Jim) 99.99% of the world don't know this site exists and never read that column. I fear that a large majority have no clue what this movie is about, and because of this, it is not a priority for them to spend their hard earned money or take time away from their Easter weekend. If Disney's marketing team spent more time actually telling people what this film is about, rather than just showing eye-candy, they might generate more interest.

I see the film struggling, I would be surprised to see it reach $100 million. But I think that is the fault of Disney Marketing, rather than the quality film that it is. I don't want to Meet the Robinsons.. I want to connect with a child who needs a family.

Thanks for the great insight, Jim. By explaining that Disney Directors are finally getting some freedom to tell stories, instead of having story telling taking place with business executive dictates, you helped this film earn an additional $40. Mine. The money that I wouldn't have spent had I not been an avid reader here.

1) How about some fair comparisons for MTR. Instead of picking key films over the past 5 years (that all conveniently grossed a lot of money), lets look at the glut of recent animation....

Doogal - $3.6m

Everyone's Hero - $6m

Arthur and the Invisibles - $4.2m

Happily N'Ever After - $6.6m

Valiant - $5.9m

The Ant Bully - $8.4m

The Wild - $9.6m

Hoodwinked - $12.4m

Flushed Away - $18.8m

Barnyard - $15.8m

See what I mean? Even the more major films like Monster House & Open Season managed only $23m weekends. CGI films are no long "the rage." They are going to dip back down to "normal" animation levels.

2) On the more optimistic side, the 480 someodd theaters showing it in 3D brought in $7m of that opening weekend (which is huge considering it premiered in 3400 theaters).

3) Moving more towards opinions, I thought MTR was a truly wonderful movie. Best animated movie since 2001's Monsters Inc and best WDFA movie since 1999's Tarzan. This movie had true "Disney Classic" written all over it. From the opening Steamboat Willie logo to the movie's emotional moments to the ending quote from Walt, this film truly was a step 'forward.' The movie made me laugh, made me cry and was truly awesome all around. Great job STEPHEN ANDERSON! (and yes, I challenge anyone to use the word 'truly' more often in one paragraph) :)

I couldn't agree with you more, askmike.

I saw it in 3-D in a pre-noon Saturday performance.  There were not a lot of people there.  However, kids really "ooohed" when the 3-D began.  There was a lot of "wow" factor in the animation.  Unfortunately, my theatre was also plagued by a substandard sound system (only one speaker working), so the 3-D was limited to visuals only.

I know Disney is promoting the film in certain ways, such as offering free soundtrack CDs to those who take a quiz after viewing the movie, and offering "points" for those who enter their ticket stub numbers.  Nonetheless, I don't recall seeing a lot of commercials (unlike Blades of Glory), and when I checked the Disney Store website yesterday they had no specialty merchandise or listings for MTR.  

The story was good, although some jokes fell rather flat.  I thought the plot was more consistent with the Radio Adventures of Dr. Floyd (a podcast), right down to the mumbling hat.  Funny joke, though: who Cornelius looks like, according to Wilbur.

I also saw Blades of Glory the same day, and it was every bit as funny as I expected.  I suspect saturation marketing could have helped MTR. I wonder whether the orphan philospohy of the Disney animation studios, coupled with Disney's withdrawal from fast-food marketing, have led to less than spectacular results.  I do think when the Shrek numbers come in, people will practically forget about all the other CGs released in the past year - in part because I know Shrek (like all other Mike Myers films lately) will be promoted to the Nth degree with product placements and cross-promotions, saturation ads, toys, etc. - and because it has become a franchise, stocked with immediately recognizable characters that MTR lacked.

My answer to the question in the title: yes.

I also studied the box office results of past and present computer animated movies, and "Meet the Robinsons" did not good. I know only comparing it to big studio movies (DreamWorks, Fox/Blue Sky, Sony) seems unfair, but let's not forget (Askmike1 ;) ) that "Meet the Robinsons" is a DISNEY MOVIE. Usually that has a certain impact on people.

But not any more obviously. I think the brand name has suffered erosion. The promotional combination "animation" and "Disney" isn't that strong any more. But wait, if that was the point, than "Chicken Little" shouldn't have grossed that much? That's true, but it was a completely other season. "Meet the Robinsons" didn't only suffer from brand name erosion, but also from being released in the wrong period.

And of course, as Jim points out, next weekend and continuing though the months the box office results from "Meet the Robinsons" can stay strong. There aren't really big movies opening in the next week, maybe Fox's "Firehouse Dog" but I don't think that movie will do all that good.

Second note: I haven't seen the movie yet, but it is strange that everybody here loves the movie (well, maybe it isn't for Disney fans), since many critics online and print critics I've spoken with told me that it was one of the un-Disneylike movies ever. And that the story lacked sparks, strong characters, a good continuation of story lines and that the strongest part of the movie was it's animation. But story is king, so many of them spoke negatively to me about it.

What happened to the Jakks Pacific figures shown at ToyFair over a year ago? Was the license dropped? I'd had hoped to find more MTR stuff when I was in NYC this weekend but all I found was an opening day pin and Pez dispensers between World of Disney and Toys R Us.

The MTR ads have been terrible, even down to the Movie Surfers... so it wasn't a saturation issue. And saturation can backfire. Doubt I'll bother seeing Blades of Glory in theatres because I've had my fill (elevator doors? every last bus stop in West Hollywood- on both sides?) and, well, I want to see MTR a 3rd time.

I loved MTR!  I prefer the look of traditional films to CGI films, but MTR is the best looking CGI film I've ever seen.  And the story was amazing.  I'd recommend reading "A Day With Wilbur Robinson" by William Joyce if you're unsure of seeing the film- it doesn't give anything away, but it gives you a feel for the film.  As for disneylandtour's question, Cody S. is right- there just aren't the same types of characters in CL and MTR for them to use the same characters.  As for the backgrounds, I'm not 100% sure, but the places in the film look nothing like Oakey Oaks or a spaceship.  I'm guessing that the movie will do better in a couple weeks when more schools are on vacation.  I agree that the marketing probably will play a part in the box office numbers- I was at the Disney Store a couple weeks ago, and the only MTR merchandise they had was some free stickers.  And the trailer should have focused on other aspects of the film.  But, read the book and you may see why (quite an interesting bunch of characters).  I absolutely loved MTR, and the 6 other people I went with (in ages from 7 to 30-something) all loved it, too.

MTR is Disney's finest animated film since Lilo and Stichand the best animated film since Finding Nemo IMO. The animation was easily the best we've seen in CG so far, the characters were well developed, it was hilariously funny, touching and had a great score. Whatever it is that John and Ed are doing over at WDFA, keep it up!

"empoor said:

Second note: I haven't seen the movie yet, but it is strange that everybody here loves the movie (well, maybe it isn't for Disney fans), since many critics online and print critics I've spoken with told me that it was one of the un-Disneylike movies ever."

Rotten Tomatoes has MTR listed as 'Fresh' with favorable percentage of 65% (BTW, Blades of Glory got 70%).

From a critic, I'd take 'un-Disneylike' as a compliment.  Most critics I read have an easily descernable bias about the way they catagorize films - and Disney films are 'song-filled kids movies with princesses and talking animals'.  Well, aside from some supporting characters being talking animals (or, singing frogs and grunting dinos), MTR does not fit in to that bias.

I think the biggest failure in Jim's analysis lies in the times the movies were released.  Chicken Little was released on November 4, 2005, for the upcoming holiday season.  This may account for a lot of the discrepancy between their respective opening boxes.

Sorry to double post, but I focused on the Chicken Little (Rotten Tomatoes 'Rotten' rating of 37%)comments, and forgot the graph where Jim DID compare MTR to other films opening around this time.  Mea culpa.

i was going into MTR with low expectations.  i tried to avoid watching any of the trailers but the little parts i saw of the trailer didn't make me want to see it.  

that said, i thought the movie was excellent.  there was something to the story that chicken little didn't have.

as far as how the movie performed...i think it's tough because of the over saturation of cgi films.  i told people at my work (non disney fans) and they didn't really know of the movie.  i think there are so many cgi movies that many people don't know the difference between disney and non-disney.  from people i talk to (even ones with kids), they just see another cgi movie, just the same as shrek, ice age, or any disney movie...they're all cgi.

I think a couple of factors are working against MTR here ...

#1, I agree with those that have said the advance marketing was weak. Most of the previews I saw did NOT make me want to go see the film. It doesn't tell much at all about the storyline, there's no real "hook" to drag you out of your living room and into the theater to part with $50 of your hard earned money to see it, and it looks sort of hokey.

#2, I think Disney's recent track record of stinkers is catching up with it. I know me personally ... I haven't liked a Disney animated film (outside of Lilo and Stitch) in a long time. Think about the run of bombs they've had ... Treasure Planet, Atlantis, Home on the Range, Brother Bear ...

You can only mess the bed so many times in a row before people stop believing in you. I can definitely say that Disney animated features haven't been "must sees" for me since the 90's. I'm sure a lot of others besides me feel that way.

You guys have to remember ... this site is frequented mostly by Disney dorks (no offense intended ... I'm one, too), but the general public isn't as loyal as we are. Whether it is a good movie or not doesn't matter really, if the reputation and advance marketing isn't good enough to get people into the theaters to see it.

Hi Everybody!

Yes, I  also saw MEET THE ROBINSONS this weekend and feel that the advertising campaign does not accurately portray the film being presented. The ads focus on the wacky slapstick elements and not the heart of the story, or any of the story at all. It also sufferred a ``sameness`` feel with some of the more forgettable CGI entries of last season. Perhaps the lackluster opening weekend had something to do with that.

That being said, I didnt feel that MTR was such a great film. It had some amusing and heartfelt moments, and I liked the Bowler hat guy, but alot of the secondary characters got short shrift. I also felt that the character of Wilbur Robinson himself, central character in the original book,  was presented in the current teenage character mold: a smarmy, way too self assured punk. It was hard to imagine our hero (whatever his name was....oops! not a good sign) feeling any friendship toward him, and thier hug at the end seemed manufactured, my 8 year old nephew said he wouldve punched him.

But enough about MTR, did anyone else get to see the terrific 1953 Donald Duck cartoon WORKING FOR PEANUTS before the feature?  It was great to hear a Friday night crowd laughing at the antics of Donald and Chip and Dale, and the 3D presentation was amazing, with a tremendous amount of depth in the backgrounds. A note beforehand stated that it was being presented in its original 3D,  and that short was the highpoint of the evening for the group I was with (3 adults, 3 kids under the age of 10)

Once again, traditional animation trumps CGI!

I loved Meet the Robinsons!  It's a great tribute to Walt himself.  I love the new Feature Animation logo (and the new Disney castle, btw).  The quote at the end was awesome.  In the 3D version, we got a 3D Donald/Chip/Dale cartoon.  Great to see a "Fab Five" short back on the screen again.  I look forward to the Goofy one.  Is the short in the regular 2D version?

I propose this questions.  What if MtR was a Pixar movie and did the same numbers?  I know a lot of you would be singing a different tune.  Something to think about ;-p

It wouldn't be a Pixar movie.  It wouldn't make it out of the story room, with that frantic, steam train, explosive pace, where you learn nothing about the characters, but are blinded by high tech models, bright colors and shiny surfaces.  Yes, the animation was great, and so was the rigging.  But the story and pace were way overdone, thus the need for all the exposition continually.  Here's the family.  Here's the plot.  Here's the secret.

orljustin said:

"It wouldn't be a Pixar movie.  It wouldn't make it out of the story room, with that frantic, steam train, explosive pace, where you learn nothing about the characters, but are blinded by high tech models, bright colors and shiny surfaces.  Yes, the animation was great, and so was the rigging.  But the story and pace were way overdone, thus the need for all the exposition continually.  Here's the family.  Here's the plot.  Here's the secret."

Good summary ... I felt the same way about Chicken Little, which I actually thought was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Just to be clear ... not one of the worst ANIMATED movies I've ever seen ... one of the worst movies PERIOD.

It had that same reckless feel you describe, with none of the depth or richness of character that the Pixar films have.

I saw the movie this past weekend and it was a cute movie but it doesn't hold a candle to a movie like the Incredibles or even It's a Bugs Life. This movie just doesn't have the impact those other movies did. It was a great diversion for a couple of hours and the 3D gimmick worked really well but the story and characters do not impact you like Pixar does. If the director cut about half the family characters and made the villian a bit more diabolical then we might have something that doesn't feel like "Meet the Attention Deficit Disorder Movie"

I saw it in 2D and the short was "Boat Builders" ("All you do is put it together." "Yeah! Even a child could do it!"). The fact that "Working for Peanuts" is shown in the 3D version and it itself is in 3D has me really jazzed to see the movie again!

And speaking to people who felt the marketing campaign behind MtR was weak, I'm right there with you. Here's the thing. I've stopped believing Disney trailers and marketing sine The Emporer's New Groove. I did not see that film in theaters because the trailers made it look bad. My brother picked it up on VHS on a whim and I didn't even watch it then even after my brothers raved about it. It wasn't until one sleepless night weeks later that I finally dug into the film and found myself laughing hysterically and enjoying every moment.

The moral of the story? Don't put too much stock in Disney trailers. Yes, they can be helpful, but you need to look past the parts that some marketing guy insisted be in because he thought that kids would find it funny. Ignore the dancing dinos and just nod politely at the caffeine patches.

I go along with the folks here who say word of mouth might help "Robinsons". I myself had little interest in seeing the movie. It looked very derivative of "Jimmy Nuetron" at the very least, and I am sick to DEATH of seeing that dinosaur in those ads. He, IMO, is neither funny nor appealing. But a friend of mine saw the movie in 3D over the weekend and she just raved about it, and online reports have been similarly enthusiastic, so...I plan to go see the film myself this weekend. I hear that the film's story and heart are spot-on, which is a rarity in the recent CGI films I've viewed.

As for "Enchanted"...I want it to be good, I want it to succeed, but what I've seen of the animation is very disheartening. It was mediocre, and unworthy of Disney IMO. 2D is going to have to COMPETE with CGI from now on, and it has to be better than ever. If Disney can make 2D with the animation quality of a "Lady and the Tramp", then no worries. But if the 2D is below par then forget it, 2D's dead except on TV.

It's all well and good that a bunch of Disney geeks don't trust  trailers, but that doesn't help the wider audience go see it.

For me, MTR felt like some of the manga I read: fun, eccentric and big on friendship like pretty much everything in Shonen Jump magazine.

I normally look forward to seeing these types of films in my local multiplex in Eton (England), but I think i'll sit this one out. It appears apparent to me that this is merely a poor man's "Jimmy Neutron" (as someone had pointed out earlier) or a poor man's "Chicken Little".

When will Disney learn?

I pray for the day when Disney returns to the greatest and the artistic myriad, variablities, and diversity it once boasted proud of, back in the 90's. Bring back "The Nifty Nineties"- (to those who did not get the gag, this was a reference to a mid 40's Mickey Mouse cartoon where he temporarily had 3 dimensional ears).

I loved the movie!  I agree that the marketing has been horrible.  The trailers and TV spots did nothing to really tell people what the movie was about other than future stuff, singing frogs and a dinosaur.  Also, there are no promotions with any kids meals, no toys, etc for the movie.  After seeing the movie we went to the store and found some PEZ dispensers.  My daughter wanted an Ariel one at first and then she saw the Lewis one and ditched Ariel.  That is really telling for her to ditch her favorite princess.  Disney needs to hire some new people in the marketing department.

Meet the Robinsons was very good. I was pleasantly surprised. Any of you who feel like sitting this one out should rethink that decision, and give it a chance. In my personal opinion, Meet the Robinsons destroys Chicken Little; there's no contest between the two. You can't compare one to the other. Chicken Little was a fluke success of successful marketing at work.  

This film actually garnered applause when I saw it, and, as you all know, this doesn't happen for every movie one sees.

Marketing-wise, I too agree that it hasn't been marketed as in-your-face as that Blades of Glory junk. Looks like the Blades marketers decided to saturate the airwaves with ads for that. If only someone at Dsiney did the same for this one.

Remember The Iron Giant anyone? How that film didn't do "big numbers" at the box office, yet is always held in such high esteem, and regarded as an excellent animated feature? Meet the Robinsons is like that.

I dont believe 'word of mouth' will save this film, especially here in England. And I go even further to say that I hope it doesnt. This film does not deserve to do well. It is a poor film. I am distinctly encouraged by "Enchanted' and enthralled by "Rapunzel", but this particular film is simply not worthy of the Disney name. It is a film I expect from lesser studios who do not  have pride in their artistry such as Dreamworks, or Sony, or Blue Sky. Cheap workhouses who's only concern is a liscense to print money.

A great soundbite, i hear you cry- that it may be, but they are wise words all the same.

Disney has always prided itself on creating masterpieces on a broad canvas that encompasses not only all of north america, but the entire world. They use artists from each corner of the globe to create rich, intelligent, beautiful films that rival that of Miyazaki and other equally as important major japanese art pieces.

what we have here is clearly a second 'mashed potatoes & gravy" period- the first being from 1943 to 1949 with the south american package features and the "make mine music" type affairs. Disney needs to pull itself out of this mire it has got itself into or risk being the 21st century Bluth.

Bluth.

Do they know what that entails?

It entails "A Troll In Central Park", "Thumbellina", "Bartok the Magnificent" & "Rock-A-Doodle". Horrific films. Absolutley terrible, and if they had done well, would have thrown the animation jugganaut of the tracks and into 'care-bear-dom'.

We cannot have a repeat or near repeat of this catastrophe. Disney HAS to re-rail itself now. Praise caviar for Pixar. But Pixar alone cannot save the industry- they can merely guide it in the right direction.

We need Disney back and we need them now.

To Howard The Duck-

With all due respect sir, MTR is no Iron Giant.

That is an insult to one of the greatest films of the last decade.

Sorry to speak out of turn, but Iron Giant is a modern classic of narrative structure, direction & emotional involvment, character motivation, and musical sparseness used in an appropriate way. MTR has none of these.

This is like comparing "The Godfather" with "Beverley Hills Ninja".

I took the family (me, DW, DSs 13, 12, and 9) Saturday afternoon in 3-D and we had a wonderful time! I am not sure what heavenly body some have set their expectations on but for us it was simply a delightful film. The 3-D enhanced the experience and while it may not make blockbuster status, it was an enjoyable story and a wonderful way to spend a Saturday afternoon with our kids. To be fair, our three DSs are all adopted from Guatemala, the youngest having just arrived last August so that certainly brought the story close to home.

For those who are counting gross sales and comparing it to every other CG feature, can you not simply look at a film and enjoy it for what it is?

parisian nightmare, how can you have such strong opinions about a move that you haven't seen?  shouldn't you watch it first before you say anything about it?  all you are doing is going by what people say (which i've found more positives than negatives) and the trailer.

i suggest you give it a try first and then give your opinion (if you don't like it, that's fine, it's a movie, i don't know any movies that please everyone...even the most popular movies have people that don't like them).

It's been very interesting to read the comments of all of the people who have seen the movie. They almost exactly echo the sentiments of the critics. Many people really enjoyed the film and bought into the story and emotion, while some people just couldn't get over the fast pace. Even parisian nightmare from England hating the film follows along with the critics since most of the English critics also hated the film.

I truly hope that word of mouth comes into play because I think the marketing was horrendous.

Jim, I'm curious to know what you thought of the movie, aside from box office numbers? Did you get to see it in stereo?

I don't think TMNT's 62% drop will have any impact on MtR. TMNT suffered from being a less than mediocre movie (32% on the tomatometer) and was followed a week later by a direct competitor in MtR and the next Will Ferrell movie. Other than Firehouse Dog and Are We Done Yet, there is no PG or G movie being released in the next month, so MtR doesn't have any competition to worry about.

Mark 4407 said "For those who are counting gross sales and comparing it to every other CG feature, can you not simply look at a film and enjoy it for what it is?"

I don't know if you were here last summer, but this pretty much dominated the boards last summer.  Jim even went so far as to say that the Pirates huge gross didn't make any money for Disney.  There's a story on here some where about that.

Anyway, about animation in general... I hope Meet the Robinsons has legs.  I really want this movie to succeed, like all animation movies.  If there is any dip... even leading back to last year... that means we will see less and less animation movies over time.  I hope that this new golden age of animation is not squandered.

To Tikibird73- "I hope that this new golden age of animation is not squandered."

Golden age, sir? That died when Treasue planet bombed at the box office and we were left with only one powerhouse producing quality work (Pixar). i may be so bold to even say that the golden age perhaps seized to be even earlier than that, perhaps slowly dying from Pocahontas onwards to fully being deceased by the time Tarzan or Lilo hit the theatres.

We are most definately NOT in a golden age. I fear, sir, that we are in a state of limbo untill the next big 'moment' comes along. All we need are two CGI flops and its all over. the industry is literally hanging by that much of a thread.

jewalker-

you are correct, sir. In London (more-over in Eton) it has indeed been derided by critics and former Disney fans alike. It is the Oliver & Company of this new CGI post -2D disney.

peoplemover-

intelligent words. i should indeed watch this film before attacking it so, but the information i have seen, and the trailers i have witnessed, have caused me to react this way.

I want to see a good disney film.

period.

unfortunately, this cannot be so, because disney have yet again put out a mediocre product. i speak passionately, and i apologize if i have offended you, sir.

What did "Robinsons" cost to make?

I hate to say it, but I have zero interest in seeing it.  Never saw Chicken Little and this doesn't do anything for me either.

wise words minderbender

Well, to clarify my earlier statement about Meet the Robinsons and Iron Giant...

The Iron Giant is masterful. Brilliant, even. Meet the Robinsons isn't the Second Coming of Disney Animation, but it really is quite good. Grinds Chicken Little into dust. Anyway...

...What the two films have in common(besides a heartfelt and engaging storyline) is that they are both fims that will come to be appreciated even more over the passage of time. They aren't simply "make me money right here and now" films, as the bean counters seem to gravitate to nowadays(not directed at you, Jim;)  

Not all good films are appreciated on the level that they should be when first released. Meet the Robinsons is a good film.

To parisian nightmare and minderbinder:

The movie is not what the trailers make it out to be. There is actually a plot, and it has little to do with singing frogs, a talking dinosaur, and the caffeine patch. It is a very fast paced movie, some may call it frenetic or frantic. This has turned off some people, but it really is a personal preference. I don't think this will be a Disney classic, but it does have heart and a touching story if you can get past the speed at which it moves. At the very least don't bash it until you've seen it.

Speaking from my own experience, word of mouth is definitely helping MTR... I didn't even know it was out yet until today. A friend of mine  has seen it - which I ascribed to his media connections - and said it was really good, and the reviews here are also provoking. If my girlfriend and I are particularly wanting for something to do, we may see it.

But up to this point, it was of the least possible interest to me. Frankly, I'm pretty much just sick to death of wacky, irreverent CGI comedy movies. It's all the worse because that is excatly my sense of humour, but between Pixar and Shrek, it's just been beaten into the ground. It's not bad enough that every Pixar movie is the exact same sort of thing (yes the plots change, but the jokes are the same), but now every studio has to make Pixar movies too?

I will be very glad when Disney and Dreamworks stop making Pixar movies (and even happier when Pixar stops making Pixar movies) and go back to making good and/or interesting movies. Even if FROG PRINCESS fails at the box office, I'd just be glad to see something different... another glorious, marvelous failure like FANTASIA and TREASURE PLANET (or even a glorious, marvelous middlin' film like PRINCE OF EGYPT). Up to now, though, MTR looked like just another wacky, irreverent, and therefore drearily uninteresting Pixar movie.

A few more things to note about Jim's comparisons

1) Unlike CL, MTR had a minuscule marketing campaign (and what was marketed was horrible). CL on the other hand had what likely amounted to the second biggest marketing campaign in history (behind only Shrek 2).

2) Historically, March is a terrible time to release a movie. Few films fair well (especially opening weekend-wise).

Empoor - I don't know what the critics you spoke with were on, but this had a brilliant story to it (and a great message to boot). Critics are often a bad thing to go by (it's always best to judge a movie for yourself), but even in this case most critics did like the movie.

parisian_nightmare - How about actually seeing the film before judging it. If you actually saw it, you'd know the marketing sucks and the movie was great. Sorry if this comes out rude, but the advertising simply does not do the movie justice. If you went just by that, you'd think it was a movie about a dinosaur and some singing frogs. In reality though, it is a heartwarming story that will make you laugh and cry. There will be some things you'll be able to predict halfway through, but others you won't realize until they tell you.

minderbender - same as above. If you actually saw the movie, you'd probably find yourself liking it. Haven't recent movies taught you never to trust the marketing campaign? Cars had an awful trailer and yet showed to be a fairly enjoyable movie. Same with most other recent movies.

  parisian nightmare said:

To Tikibird73- "I hope that this new golden age of animation is not squandered."

Golden age, sir? That died when Treasue planet bombed at the box office and we were left with only one powerhouse producing quality work (Pixar). i may be so bold to even say that the golden age perhaps seized to be even earlier than that, perhaps slowly dying from Pocahontas onwards to fully being deceased by the time Tarzan or Lilo hit the theatres.

We are most definately NOT in a golden age. I fear, sir, that we are in a state of limbo untill the next big 'moment' comes along. All we need are two CGI flops and its all over. the industry is literally hanging by that much of a thread.

~~~~~~

Umm... we ARE in a Golden age of animation.  Not all of the animated movies have been outstanding (That Fairy Tale movie this year), but we've had quite a few hits (Finding Nemo, Shrek).

Compare the amount of animated movies made since 1998 and the time period before that.  Besides the Big Four from Disney (Mermaid, Beast, Aladdin, Lion King), the amount and quailty of animated films are few and far between.

Since 1998, we've had quite a few Theatre hits.

Tarzan, Mulan, A Bug's LifeToy Story 2, Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars, Shrek, Shrek 2, Madagaascar, Shark Tale, Over the Hedge, Prince of Egypt, The RugRats Movie, Dinosaur, Lilo and Stitch, Chicken Little, Ice Age, Ice Age 2, Robots, The Polar Express, Monster House, and Happy Feet.

A lot of Post Theatre Hits like The Iron Giant and the South Park Movie.

There are a lot of animated movies that are with in $70, $80, and $90 million dollar range as well.

As I said before, not every animated movie is a masterpiece, but Animated Films are very plentiful right now.  There are a lot of features in the pipeline.  We have Pixar, Disney, Dreamworks, Blue Sky, Sony, and Warner Brothers all making Animated movies.  We are in a GOLDEN AGE of animation.

How many animated movies and animation studios were there prior to 1998?

Sigh.... here we go again.

Anyway, I havn't seen MTR yet, but I plan on doing it soon. While I do find the trailer with the dino quite funny, I must admit that NONE of the ads I've seen have done anything for me in regards to either A) Figuring out what the movie is about or B) Giving me any real reason to go see it. If it wasn't for the fact that I am a Disney fan I must admit that I wouldn't have given this movie a second thought.

I think I need to learn to tune Jim, and others too, completely out whenever it comes to box office numbers and how successful a movie is. I will never understand how a movie must be the HIGHEST GROSSING MOVIE OF ALL TIME and do those numbers ALL IN ONE WEEKEND or it's a flop. And yes that's a slight overstatement... but not by much it seems.

And can somebody do me a favor and explain the following question to me please: Disney and/or Animation junkies aside... who really cares whether a movie is traditional vs computer animated? Does anyone think the medium makes a difference to a kid? Everytime I hear talk about trad. vs. comp. my eyes roll back into my head. Would any movie be better or worse if it was animated differently? I doubt CL would be better for any reason other than fixing the story and characters.

Is it just me?

Oh yeah... AskMike - I'm stunned. For the first time I totally agreed with one of your posts. The world must be coming to an end.  ;o)  jk

We are in a Golden Age of Animation?! No where are most definitely not.

Golden Age means excellence (quality), prosperity (profits) and scarceness (not too many movies).

Excellence is nowhere to be found, as every random animation studio is putting out features not because of good stories, but because animation has had a past record of having blockbuster status. Not any more.

Prosperity? HA! I bet at least 80% of all (all, not just the big studios) animated movies that are put out nowadays don't even make even before the second year after their release. Taking into account: production budgets, marketing budgets, distribution costs etcetera.

Scarceness? DreamWorks wants to put out two movies a year, plus Pixar's one per year, plus Disney's one per year, plus Fox/Blue Sky Studios' one per year, plus Sony Pictures Animation's one per year, plus Warner Bros.' two per year (total so far: 8!), plus [insert random animation studio] one per year, and so on. They are literally KILLING EACH OTHER!

They're ruining the status of animation for everyone, and all too make a buck. In the past animation stood for something, and nowadays it's just about "making an animated feature and attracting kids to make profit". Story is lost. Lost I say!

(Got a little too carried away there..)

captainhook91: nobody cares about the medium, you're right. Story is king, queen, emperor and empress. That is what makes a movie interesting for someone or not. Most kids don't care that much, even though I must admit a know a lot of +8-year olds that do care. But I guess they don't really represent the majority of movie going youth at best.

The medium does help tell a story. I believe there are traditional and computer animated stories. Toy Story in 2D? It would have been boring and not believable. Beauty and the Beast in 3D? Ugh. Magic Princes and Princesses stories don't really do well in 3D, that's my opinion. One of the reasons I'm anticipating Keane's aspect on Princess 3D!

Empoor - Did Toy Story look 'real' to you? It sure looked like an animated movie to me. I'm not sure I agree with your point that there are trad. and comp. animated stories. I think any animated movie - animated with skill - is what is important. Toy Story was an incredible story. You could have shown it to me in an old zoetrope and it would have been a good movie!

And personally, any 3D movie stinks. To me it's like watching my uncle 'pull his thumb off'. It's a cheap trick that doesn't look anything close to being real.

The big problem with the ''if then if then if...'' theory is that American Dog is going to do well at the box office. 'Robinsons' had some patches thrown on it after the Merger, but American Dog will be done from the start with Pixar-like focus on good story.

As for MtR, it pales in comparison to Disney's golden movies and any of the Pixar movies, too. It has some fantastic elements, observations and morals, but it was obviously still done with Disney's old methods. The film was choppy and focused more on jokes and minor characters than a mature, touching story. Actually, in that respect it's more like some Dreamworks movies.

Toy Story 2 looked real to me, or let me say, "believable".

Hmmm.. Thinking of a really, really, really good 3D movie.. Tried looking for one in my collection of dvds, but I guess I only have a few good 3D movies there.. A lucky guess then: you didn't like Finding Nemo? The fish looked real (the humans sure as hell didn't). Or.. Dinosaur looked kinda real?

Oh god.. I have to agree with you.. Can't really think of a good 3D movie that comes close to being "realistic".. Except for the fish in Finding Nemo..

I kind of hated MEET THE ROBINSONS.  I cannot believe that people are praising its story.  Sure there is a series of events, but that's a plot not a story.  The film defies synopsis.  No wonder the marketing department could do nothing with it.  Forced whimsy and exposition replace the charm of the original storybook.  I cannot deny that the film has some heart.  The opening scene is beautifully done and the end is effective.  The rest of the film has little to do with the plight of an orphan (like say The Rescuers did) and his desire for family.

The film tells us to "keep moving forward."  The film embodies this motto with its relentless pace, but never questions that veracity of sentiment.  Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.  I'm not suggesting that Lewis will abandon his own child.  We know he won't.  Instead, I worry about Disney moving forward.  They've repeated the same mistakes that the studio made with Chicken Little.  Take a slight story, shoehorn in an odd emotional angle, add a handful of oddball characters, lame contemporary songs, keep the pace moving and voila!  You've got yourself a movie!  I left the theatre wondering if Lasseter wanted the film to underwhelm so that Pixar will remain the studio/industry leader in CG.  As for a return to traditional animation, it really shouldn't matter.  The stories that Disney choses to tell are what's important.  The medium, not so much.

On a more positive note, the Disney Pictures logo looked AMAZING in 3D.

"And personally, any 3D movie stinks. To me it's like watching my uncle 'pull his thumb off'. It's a cheap trick that doesn't look anything close to being real."

[The following assumes that by 3D you mean 3D and not CGI] The traditional red/green glasses 3D movies... yes, I'll agree with you. But definitely not Disney Digital 3D. The 3D doesn't take away from the movie, it adds to it. You get an added depth you just cannot get with animation alone. The 3D aspect (again, using DD3D) makes everything just so much more real.

I'm going to chime in with everyone else on the marketing. I've been touring the parks, watching the Disney channel, viewing the trailers, and so on. And there's been four sequences in all of them:

1) Caffeine patch

2) Todayland

3) Singing frogs

4) Dinosaur

Although I don't read a lot of animation buzz, my heart was set on seeing this movie since it was pencil sketches on Disney.com because I love sci-fi Disney movies even when they're hard to love like Atlantis. Todayland would have been a cute in-movie gag but it did not need to be in trailers. It did not need to be in every WDW resort bus. By the time they reached the Super Bowl spot they started showing the frogs over and over and I started wondering if this movie took a bizarre turn to something other than what I was hoping for.

It didn't. It's just that the marketing seemed to come straight out of Warner Brothers. Seriously, Michigan J Frog debuted in 1955 and has had a fair amount of exposure in rereuns and as a WB Network mascot since then. There was no reason for Disney to be promoting those characters unless they were going to sing "Hello, Ma Baby" out of irony.

From what I can tell, the people who saw this movie who DIDN'T follow the buzz or watch the advertisements for it beforehand enjoyed it more than the people who did.

OK, let's start assigning where the blame REALLY lies: Marketing. The ads for this movie actually HID the movies story/premise in my opinion. I actually did not want to see it and finally saw it with my sons tonight - fanastic flick, at least as good as anything Pixar has done (and better, in my opinion, than a Bugs Life) And the opions that this the least "Disney" movie ever? Please. This movie is made from the Disney formula, but with lots of "plussing" - Lost parent? Check. Eccentric friends that help the hero learn a lesson? Check. An over-the-top, "over-animated" villain? Yup. Musical Numbers? Yup. Heartwarming ending where the "family" comes together? You bet, and yep, tears were rolling. Fantastic, and hopefully good word of mouth will help it have some legs.

Marketing aside, it's a slight, less-than-amusing film.  Rather than jump to saying CG movies aren't popular anymore (like the argument that DFA made a few years back that hand-drawn animation wasn't popular anymore) I'd like to remind everyone that a good film, well marketed, usually works.  A lousy film, poorly marketed, will often tank.  It's not rocket science.

How many of you know what a Golden Age is?  A Golden Ages is when an Medium finds it's Popularity and Mainstream Appeal.  The original Golden age of animation was killed by the TV (and the death of Walt Disney) in the late 60's.  The theatre experience was in decline.  Animation at theatres was little to none.  What was released wasn't the greatest.  

I am an Animator.  There has never been a time like this in the history of animation.  Maybe back in the 30's/40's, but now is the time to be an animator.  Look at all the animation taking place in the entertainment market place.  

There are a lot of features.  A lot features have been made in the past ten years compared to all the previous years.  Shorts are coming back to the theatres.  Pixar has them.  BlueSky has them.  Dreamworks is starting to use them.  Disney is bringing them back.  Look at all the animation on TV.  Look at the animation in live action movies.  Star Wars, Transformers, Night at the museum, Lord of the Rings, King Kong, Harry Potter, etc.  The medium of Video Game animation is astounding right now.  That industry makes billions of dollars a year.  Adults actually see and talk about Animated Movies instead of passing them off as "kiddie" movies.

There will be good stories.  There will be terrible stories.  It's happened with every golden age.  Comic Books found their Mainstream/Golden Age in the 30's/40's/50's.  Animation found a Golden Age after the addition of sound.  That Golden Age lasted from the late 20's to the late 60's.  There were highs and lows.  Look at the two versions of Disney's the Ugly Duckling.  The second color version is leaps and bounds ahead of the original black & white version.  

This second Golden Age started with the Disney's Big Four, but took off after Toy Story.  The audience is there.  The jobs are good.  There is something for everyone.  Since 2001, Animation movies are finally recognized by the Academy of Motions Pictures Arts and Sciences aka the Oscars.  Prior to 2001, Beauty and the Beast was the only animated film nominated for an Oscar.  Snow white won a "special" oscar for being the first.  Toy Story for the same reason.

There are great films and some not so great films.  Either way, we are in an Animation Golden Age.  Go ask an Animator their thoughts of Animation's new Golden Age.  Especially compared to 15/20 years ago.

Haven't seen the film, but I'm interested enough to wait for DVD.

I'm not surprised, though. This does not appear, from the outside, to have "Disney Magic." It looks like a Dreamcast movie, or worse, it looks like Jimmy Neutron - Boy Genius. A lot like that to me.

I have laughed at the dinosaur. I have spoken to collegues that took their children and loved it (as did the children, although apparently youngers are frightened at one point.)

But it just looks standard. Like Jimmy Neutron. Like the Ant Bully. Like Monster House. Regular people do not make for a Disney Movie. It's just missing the magic, even if surrounded by dumb, mumbling, hysterical t-rexes.

Again, like Cars, I think it is a hard sell regardless of quality. It will do well, but it will be a family movie exclusively. It will not bust into adult audiences like regular Pixar and Disney films do.

I think that, if it isn't preachy, the character design of Wall-E can do it. I think the pirate cat in American Dog could have. But they need to have something that makes it more special than just a bit of heart and some goofy jokes.

I just think there's a level of class that made Disney and Pixar magical, one people could see a mile away. This does not seem to have that class, which draws so many people in. But it still looks very entertaining to me.

MTR is an ok movie.  Nothing great.  I thought Bowler Hat guy was an irritating character and hurt the movie.  Also, when you finally do Meet the robinsons,  its a mishmash of scenes that really makes no sense and leaves you wondering what the hell happened?  I suppose thats why they have the "quiz" scene with Wilbur after so one can try to figure out who everyone is.  I felt most of the jokes fell flat.  My 8 and 10 year olds were mildly amused and my 4 year old got bored about 20 minutes in.  The 3d was awesome though and really helped  the enjoyment of the film.  I think its far below any Pixar movie to date, but beat the hell out of crap like Flushed Away.

I'll get it on DVD, but once in theater is quite enough.

TikiBird, there is a lot of animation going on right now. However, much of it is junk, a lot of it is outsourced, etc.

It sounds like you're a CG animator, and that's a bit of a safe harbor for now because CG is naturally expected to cost quite a bit. But have you looked at the animation on TV lately? Due to the costs of labor, the demands of budget, etc, most of the animation on network and cable TV is of such poor quality it makes stuff from Walt's original skeleton crew look like a masterpiece.

There's a lot for consumers to pick from, but unlike most things animation seems to be getting worse and worse looking each decade except for big-budget professional houses like WDFA.

It's absolutely unbelievable.  

I've never agreed with anything Askmike has said before, but with point #3 in his post, I have to say he pretty much nailed my opinion of MTR.

It must be a sign of the Apocalypse.

What's next?  Singing frogs?

Opps...never mind.

As for Jim's question, why don't we all just give MTR some time at the BO and see how things shake out over the next four weeks or so.  There will probably be a better indication by then.

"It's absolutely unbelievable.  

I've never agreed with anything Askmike has said before, but with point #3 in his post, I have to say he pretty much nailed my opinion of MTR."

Agreed, but he probably only argues for MTR because it's a "Walt Disney Feature Animated Movie" and not a "Pixar" movie ;)

I agree it's kind of sad to see Jim go here again.  It was the same treatment Cars got last year.  I hope MTR has the legs Cars does and grosses well over 100 million.  Times have changed and CGI movies are pretty common now so it's not the novelty it once was.  GO SUPPORT THIS MOVIE.  We need more films like this one.

This also worries me for Ratouille because it's jammed between a ton of big films this summer.  

"I'd like to remind everyone that a good film, well marketed, usually works.  A lousy film, poorly marketed, will often tank.  It's not rocket science."

You unfortunately forgot two other situations. A good film, poorly marketed (like MTR) will often tank and a bad film, well marketed will often succeed.

"Agreed, but he probably only argues for MTR because it's a "Walt Disney Feature Animated Movie" and not a "Pixar" movie ;)"

Or maybe because I like this film and did not Cars. Hmmmm.... might I actually have an opinion............

Captainhook91 asked (probably rhetorically): "Disney and/or Animation junkies aside... who really cares whether a movie is traditional vs computer animated? Does anyone think the medium makes a difference to a kid? Everytime I hear talk about trad. vs. comp. my eyes roll back into my head. Would any movie be better or worse if it was animated differently?"

Actually, I find quite a number of friends and coworkers who couldn't be described as animation junkies caring about it.

In the post-Pixar world, CGI has finally hit traditional animation the same way it hit stop-motion after JURASSIC PARK: now CGI is considered the cheap workhorse and any other form of animation, traditional and dimensional, is considered an art form. Yes there's still plenty of cheap traditional animation on TV, but I've detected a hunger amongst people I've chatted with to see a really good theatrical traditional feature. It's the same reaction I see out of people when they look forward to the next big Burton stop-motion feature.

Whether we like it or not, animation is considered genre in North America rather than medium. Even Japanese animation, which is the most perfect example of animation as a medium anywhere, is regarded as a genre in North America... especially by its fans and the most stalwart defenders of anime as a medium. There are certain characteristics that we expect an anime to possess and are liable to give more leeway to a film that has them.

For eons, the stereotypical Disney picture has dominated how North Americans perceive traditional animation. Though they may have been reviled for being kiddie flicks about singing animals, that's also the only thing anyone would pay to see. No one really knows what to do when faced with a TITAN A.E., PRINCE OF EGYPT, IRON GIANT, TREASURE PLANET, SPIRIT, HEAVY METAL or the grandaddy of all underappreciated animations, FANTASIA. Anything not about singing animals is relegated to the status of a "cult" film.

Now the genre has switched over to CGI films... A genre of wacky, irreverent, modern day stories pioneered by Pixar film after Pixar film after Pixar film about the wacky, irreverent secret life of toys/fishes/monsters/superheros/automobiles. It worked for TOY STORY because the plastic artificiality and lack of warmth in CGI (and in Pixar's wacky, irreverent humour)  fit for a story about the secret life of toys. But with that being the going thing for the whole genre of CGI animation, people are tiring of it the same way they tired of singing animals. Of course, if the performance of SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW is any indication, or the indifference to Vancouver's Mainframe studio (whose REBOOT and TRANSFORMERS cartoons  punked any feature studio for depth of story and rejection of wacky irreverence... BEAST WARS was the best Saturday morning had been for a long time before or since, barring the BATMAN traditional animated series), the wacky irreverence is the only thing anyone will be willing to pay to see in a CGI film.

But the gloss of nostalgia is a wonderful thing, and after seeing so many TOY STORYs and SHREKs, people are kinda' interested in a singing animal movie again. A good story goes a long way in the medium of animation, but I know a number of people who are interested in THE FROG PRINCESS simply to see a "real" cartoon again, myself included. I bet this upcoming film wouldn't have performed that well mixed in with HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, POCAHONTAS, ATLANTIS and TARZAN... But as a Disney "event movie", a return to the art of traditional animation, it piques interest. And I suspect that if Disney wants to keep it going, traditionally animated films have to keep the energy of being highly artistic event movies that only come out every few years.      

I think it's possible to like this film and Cars. I know people who love both. BUT, I think American Dog is in trouble since the Pixar guys started messing with it, because the new synopsis sounds like the same message as Toy Story and a lesser extent Cars.

Part of me wants to see one of the Pixar movies flunk. I don't just mean underwhelm like Cars but seriously give the guys in Sunnyvale a bloody nose and remind everyone that they're not the silver bullet they're always made out to be. I honestly believe that will be coming in the next few years. I'd love for that movie to be Ratatouille but I have a feeling it's going to be Wall-E instead.

For some reason I said Sunnyvalle when I meant Emeryville. Yes, I need to get some sleep.

I don't hope it will be Wall-E, because that movie sounds really exciting and original! I think (even though we don't know that much about it) that Wall-E will be one of the best CG-animated features yet.

Stop jinxing it, MatterhornYeti!! (Gehe :P )

It's understandable that people who love animation speculate and rant and ramble about these kind of things, but the bottom line is quite simple:

If a film is a piece of ***, it won't make that much money.

I see the talkback has become very busy since i've been away. It is morning in England and I have returned.

To Tikibird 73-

I too am an animator (in London), but what on God's green earth does that have to do with anything or the discussions we are currently having? Being WITHIN the industry offers no better insight as to whether MTR is a good film or not. That, sir, is a lack of respect for the general public.

I also feel you are confusing a "Golden Age of animation" with a "over saturation of animation". Re-read your email, sir, with all due respect.

Your list of animated features validates my point exactly. Rugrats? Over the Hedge? These do not, in my humble opinion represent a golden age of animation. They represent a flooding of the market of mediocre childrens films that are slowly strangling the creativity and growth of this once beautiful and wonderful industry.

A golden age is one where new ideas are abound and where the envelope is pushed ever wider. You may have this sprinkled around in tiny doses- Brad Bird, Miyazaki, Satoshi Kon- but this is not enough to save the industry. The hacks grow ever large in number.

To empoor_

regarding WAL-E, I too have that feeling that this film will push open the envelope in terms of artistry AND film making. Kind of what Spirit should have been (non talking characters- a novel idea, but in Spirit very poorly executed and strangled by an appalling story and horrific Bryan Adams songs. Bryan Adams? It was as if they WANTED that film to flop)

I await WAL-E

you are both wise and right, parisian nightmare.

But Bryan Adams is a hero! So is Michael Keaton, and Macauly Crawlly.

to borisheistand-

erm...explain Iron Giant and explain Ice Age:The Meltdown.

It isnt as black and white as that, sir. Its a question of how a film is marketed and if enough people see it, will word of mouth give the film legs?

If you can explain the two films i have mentioned above you are a better man than I.

One of the Bryan Adams songs being thrown into radio rotation is what finally convinced me to go see Spirit, actually. Wonderfully little movie, but I'd hate to be the guy in charge of selling it. There's basically no big name you can attach onto it in big letters (I guess you could say Matt Damon, but then you'd be sort of cheating people) which is sort of required for a successful animated film in this country. Admittedly, the film started to get a bit boring after repeating the horse running through the wild bit again and again, but that doesn't come across in a trailer and is something people would only recognize after they've arrived.

Disney doesn't give Ghibli imports the kind of budgets Spirit got because they know they won't get their return on investment by pitching them any harder than they already are.

As for Pixar, I'd like their big botch to be Ratatouille because it's another re-spinning of their classic buddy movie formula that I feel is holding them back. I dread however that they'll be brought to Earth on Wall-E because it's just too far outside the realm of public appeal. Not to mention the depressing setting, the not-too-hidden consumer/environmental message that I'm sure will be debated endlessly and over-examined on the cable news channels, etc.

And with the premise of a robot love story, if they don't watch where they tread they could end up in Kubrick/A.I. "can a machine learn to love?" territory, and if you're Disney you don't want to go anywhere NEAR that.

of course marketing makes all the difference, more and more so as audinces have smaller attention spans and the market is saturated with films generally and are only in cinemas for a day or two. The day after that they appear on dvd. It's quantity rather than quality; people just don't seem to give a monkey's hoot anymore.

I think Iron Giant was a special case though- it seemed Warner Bros. WANTED that film to go under, and as for Ice Age, well, I thought that wasn't that good at all, and didn't it do really well?

Spirit was an abomination like all the Dreamworks films, and ok, maybe Bryan Adams should have left it at Robin Hood or 69.

My opinion on Michael Keaton and Macauly Crawlly still stands though, HOOP!

to MatterhornYeti-

You raise some interesting points, but unfortunately none of them hold up to my scrutiny, sir. Ratatouille will be a hit. And it deserves to be. It has all the ingredients (pardon the very british pun- english sophisticated humour) of a classic movie. Heart. Motivation. A point to the whole narrative structure.

WAL-E will be mind blowing. We NEED more genre defying films like this. This is EXACTLY the type of film the world is crying out for. You appear to want Disney?Pixar to play it safe. Why for, sir?

Do you want another Bluth? Are you Bluth's son?

to borisheistand-

Michael keaton personally offends me and all my Eton friends. He is not funny. He is a newsreader. he is on a par with someone like Natasha kaplinski attempting to do comedy. why do you speak of him?

I am pleased you are aware that marketing is an important part of the movie industry. I personally refuse to watch Ice Age the meltdown. That film is simply another nail in the cofin for animation in general.

parisian nightmare said:

"WAL-E will be mind blowing. We NEED more genre defying films like this. This is EXACTLY the type of film the world is crying out for."

It will most definitely be mind blowing and it's certainly a movie that will rock and shock. But is "the world" crying out for Wall-E or are "we, animation fans" crying out for it? It will be more of a artsy exclusive animated feature than anything else Pixar has ever put out, so it is a big risk, and I don't know if the general public will warm up to the idea.

It's hilarious that empoor takes parisian nightmare as a serious person.

But what is to be expected from someone with a Samurai Pizza Cats charatcer for an avatar?

How the hell can anyone have an opinion about a film if the only info available is Jim Hill speculations and a picture of a mini forklift truck with EYES?

aWHOOP!

To empoor-

i fear you give the general public too little credit, sir. It will NOT be an artsy picture exclusively for animation fans. Pixar is not that daft. You forget that Pixar is first and foremost a business. Without money they simply will not exist. SECONDLY comes the art and beauty which is, of course fed by the first and foremost reason i have just previously mentioned.

It will be suicidal for them to create a film that no one will go and see. I suggest to you, sir that they are merely PUSHING the boundaries, not creating something that is too leftfield for the consumer to understand. Please acknowledge my comments.

We cannot have another 1980's/early 1990's Bluth fest. Safe twee films for all the family. All that does is stagnate the industry and create poor-man's Bluth knock offs. Note Swan princess and Once Upon a forest.

wasn't once apon a time in the forest by that epic filmmaker Richard Rich?

The mastermind genius behind such instant classics as 'The King And I', 'The Pagemaster' featuring my hero Macauly Crawlly, and 'The Black Cauldron', the very finest Disney film ever made.

grappig er achter te komen dat empoor nog Nederlands spreekt ook.

to boris heistand-

i dont understand Polish. speak english, sir.   It is common curtesy.

aah...that was his name, Richard Rich. You have a good memory, chum. I completely forgot about the King and I, an insult to not only the original live action film but an insult to movie going audiences everywhere. Once upon a forest was a Hanna-babera production, the director is unknown to me and is not important. It was their best effort since 'Heidi' (lets forget 1990's Jetson's movie.

Richard Rich is a Bluth. Sorry to offend by saying this, but he is. He is nothing but a Bluth. The only good thing to come out of Don Bluth studios was John Pomeroy, but even HE had a tendency to 'over-animate' (too many keys- action sometimes hard to follow, just look at Atlantis) sometimes.

RATATOUILLE... the wacky, irreverent secret life of rats...

WALL-E... the wacky, irreverent secret life of robots...

I wonder what the Tomorrowland attractions based on them will be. Probably switch out Honey I Shrunk the Auidence with a trip through the rat's sewers... We'll probably have to wait for the wacky robot movie to come out before figuring out what they could make a ride out of it with. Maybe a Space Mountain overlay, ala. FINDING NEMO?

borishiestand: Hahaha! Okay, so maybe SPC isn't the most sophisticated stuff ever made, but everytime I see the Big Cheese I get the urge to smile :P And this is actually the only place I use that avatar, because.. Well, it's not really a personal favorite..

And secondly, I use various sources before saying something, thank you ;)

[Dutch, not Polish!!] Eerste Nederlander (of iig Nederlands-pratende) die ik hier tegenkom! Grappig!

to borisheistand-

i think you underestimate how serious a person i am. Do not mock me or my comments, sir. I am a middle class professional. I speak from my heart about Pixar films and from my mouse button about other films.

to empoor-

i do not speak dutch either i'm afraid.

i speak spanish, french, russian and italian. i do not speak dead languages, sir.

i intend on taking a latin class this summer.

al het bovenste commentaar van mij is uiteraard pure lulkoek, dat begrijp je wel he empoor. Overigens net zoveel als al het andere commentaar hier ;) beetje zinloos.

Wat doe je precies, en waar?

borishiestand:

Ik weet het, hahaha :P Begint aardig soap-achtig hier te worden ondertussen.. Je bedoelt school? September begin ik "Kunsten, Cultuur en Media" aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen!! :D Doe nu economische opleiding en het is s a a i.. Jij?

parisian nightmare:

Euh.. I'm just going to ignore the fact that you called Dutch a dead language..

I was just wondering.. How much do you all think Sony's "Surf's Up" (hate that title) will take in it's opening weekend? Will it be stronger than "Meet the Robinsons"?

i was obviously kidding empoor. i said i was going to take up latin!!! ;)

It WILL be stronger than MTR. I have at least a passing interest in Surf's Up, but none for MTR. Looks like a poor man's incredibles.

My one criticism os SU is that we already have Happy Feet. I dont want to be flooded with Penguin films all of a sudden. We had that with fish and with rats/mice and ants.Surfs up looks moderately interesting though. If done well, sir, it could put Sony on the map. At the moment they are the Richard Rich in the big scheme of things- non distinct and desperately trying to keep up with the others.

I have actually heard A LOT of my friends rave about Meet the Robinsons. I'm Joe, I'm 16, and when I went to watch it in 3-D this past weekend I went with a bunch of my friends, and I was surprised myself to see that a major part of the audience was not kids, but there were actually more teens.(probably because of the 3D, but that is true, Disney is gonna rake in from making it in 3D), but anyway, having left the theater me and my group of friends went to eat, and we spoke and well, they loved the movie, the whole concept, sure it had its crazy zany parts, but hey, its a movie, nothings perfect in this world of ours. so hey, get over it. I LOVED THE ENDING, IT WAS SENTIMENTAL, AND AWESOME! A HAPPY DISNEY ENDING! And the quote at the end was amaznig as well, kids were like, omg mom walt disney said that, i loved it. I can't wait for Ratatouille, I'm sure it will be better, but hey, Disney will be back, with a storm, I suspect American Dog will do this... I really do, American Dog will rock, specially cuz by a Disney veteran, and with John Lasseters, help. Look at what he did with Meet the Robinsons, which I'm sure was a very lackluster film, and when he "fixed" it, or gave his comments about it, it was made better I assume. And as for American dog, think of the impact john will make on a film when he helps on it from the beginning!!!!! It will rock. I am looking forward for WALL-E, American Dog, Ratatouille, & most of alllllllll The Frog Princess. It wil be amazing!

I haven't read all the comments, but it appears to me that I am the only one that loves the dinosaur saying "I have a big head and little arms" it busts me up every time I see it. I also think the frog with the mind control device is hilarious. I am looking forward to seeing this movie. I saw promotional items at Comic-Con 2006, and have a few buttons I picked while there. I've been looking forward to this movie since the Con. It seems I am going to have to go see this in Digital 3D and regular digital projection to see both shorts.

"Historically, March is a terrible time to release a movie."

Except for Ice Age and the sequel, which made 46 and 68 million, the latter on the same weekend of the year that MTR was released.

And don't forget 300.  And if the release date is to blame, didn't Disney make that choice?

For the record, I haven't bashed MTR, go back and read what I posted.  I merely said that what I have seen doesn't make me interested in seeing the film.  And Cars is an awful example, I didn't like the trailer and when I finally got around to seeing the movie it didn't even meet my low expectations.  Thankfully Ratatouille looks like a big improvement (especially with the new trailers, all a big improvement over what I felt was a weak initial one).

My family enjoyed MTR. The ads did not express the true spirit of the film, and I went in not really knowing what I was going to see, but in fairness, it was a hard story to explain quickly (e.g. car has a mind of its own, toys want to be loved, fish lost, Spartans attack). I do feel that there were a great many other scenes in MTR that could have been added to the trailers to make it more compelling -- the caffeine patch joke is mildly amusing and does not hold up to repeatedly viewings and makes one wonder, "Is this the best they can co?"

That said, perhaps word of mouth may help since I did appreciate the fact, that unlike many recent animated features, this one did not have gratuitous big star voices (except one which was a gag in itself) or a "sure-fire" K-TEL compilation of gratuitous pop tunes. No cute animals dancing to "I Feel Good, " or funn-neee sitcom-level characters leftover from unsold Norman Lear pilots.

What it did offer was a handful of pop songs written and performed for the film by popular but not superstar talents, plus two big band numbers (one new and one classic). And a voice cast of unknown or supporting player-level performers who were chosen because they fit the roles.

The marketing people must have been frantic -- no superstars to plug the movie with Leno? No instantly recognizable hit songs that we can spin into a Ronco-style soundtrack that's just like every other current CD? A complex story line about the importance of family??? That’s not sarcastically Nickelodeon-ish enough!

John Lassiter took a risk allowing the director to tell his story. I'd love to know how many star voices, dancing-till-they’re-outdated critters and pop-tunes-turned-commercial-jingles were added in order to make MTR more "accessible to today's kids" before that happened. Maybe it won't do as well as it might have, but at least it is -- according to what I've read on this site -- the artist's vision on screen.

By the way, "Once Upon a Forest" was directed by Charles Grosvenor. A very nice, unpretentious film.

I'm amused every time I see "Wall-E will be fantastic" or "American Dog would be better if they'd kept the pirate cat" or the like.  Based on one picture posted on JHM, the success or failure of these movies can be assessed.  Wow...  Guess that shows what a character design or a piece of marketing can do.  But, of course, the still I saw ahead of Atlantis done by Mike Mignola were fantastic as well.  And the LJS stills ahead of TP.  Guess it doesn't always work out that a fantastic shot or two means a movie will succeed...

As for MTR...  I'm not going to elaborate much, since most of it has been covered already.  I liked the movie very much.  It was well animated, had a nice story, got lost a little in the middle but wrapped up strong, etc.  Again, we have some people here stating that it stinks based on a still or snippet they saw, or based on the awful marketing effort.  ADD society at work, I guess.  I found myself struggling to boil the plot down to a couple of sentences when describing it to others after the fact, though, so I may have to cut marketing a little slack.  For a movie with no plot (as others have said), I guess that's something...

Professor, you hit the nail on what I was trying to say but didn't say very well.  I'm not sure how I would have marketed the picture.  It was very hard to boil down to a simple explanation ("boy trying to find family" leaves out the villany and sci-fi; "time travel adventure" leaves out family aspect; etc.).

"American Dog will rock, specially cuz by a Disney veteran,"

Ummm.... is Chris Williams really a veteran? He's helped write Mulan & Emperor's New Groove, but he has no experience directing. Chris Sanders on the other hand (who Lasseter kicked out of Disney), had writing experience with Mulan, The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast and Lilo & Stitch. He's had directing experience with Lilo & Stitch. Not to mention character design with Lilo & Stitch, story supervisor with Mulan, production designer on TLK and visual development with BatB. L&S was nominated for an Oscar for Best Animated Feature, not to mention multiple nominations and wins for both Mulan & L&S.

"Look at what he did with Meet the Robinsons, which I'm sure was a very lackluster film, and when he "fixed" it"

Lasseter didn't do anything with Meet the Robinsons..... Stephen Anderson did all the work and deserves the credit. Do you even know what advise Lasseter gave? Do you know what MTR looked like before he came aboard? For all we know, the movie might have been even better without Lasseter. Wasn't the segment Lasseter focused on the second act? Wasn't the second act people's least favorite in the movie? Coincidence?

"john will make on a film when he helps on it from the beginning!!!!!"

By kicking off the original director (and then having the nerve to call AD Chris William's baby)?

"I haven't read all the comments, but it appears to me that I am the only one that loves the dinosaur saying "I have a big head and little arms" it busts me up every time I see it."

Those lines are very funny... they just don't accurately portray and market the film.

"And don't forget 300.  And if the release date is to blame, didn't Disney make that choice?"

Partly. I also partly blame Lasseter as he pushed it back from its original November 06 date.

"Except for Ice Age and the sequel, which made 46 and 68 million, the latter on the same weekend of the year that MTR was released."

Just three films were able to make over $40m in their opening weekend in March. But someone might say "Hey, this isn't really a March film, it is an April film." To that I say April is even worse. Just 2 films have crossed the $40m mark that month. In fact, April is so bad that the best Animated film to premier in that month was Home on the Range.

"it was a hard story to explain quickly"

How about "Orphan Boy Wants Family" Not hard at all to explain

askmike1: totally agree with everything you just said..

parisian nightmare, Wall-E is the kind of project Walt would have loved to take on. Something that's far outside the realm of public acceptance. Something he'd really have to promote the heck out of.

For Walt, who could just about sell sand to Egypt, expanding boundaries and getting people to accept new things is the sort of challenge he'd love. Unfortunately, Walt isn't around anymore. While I think Pixar could probably do a good job pitching the movie on their own, tied down to the Mouse House and their marketing group I'm not sure if the message will get across. All other Disney movies that challenge people's expectations in the past 10 years or so have flopped miserably.

How about this synopsis: "the story of an orphan who wonders so much about his past that he has to be tricked into traveling to the future to discover what's truly important.  He finds a family's acceptance and love, and he finds himself."  Or is that too cryptic/general?

AskMike said:  “…who Lasseter kicked out of Disney…”

Umm…what?  John Lasseter removed Chris Sanders from American Dog, and then Sanders, his ego bruised, left Disney to find new employment at DreamWorks where he will make a mediocre movie about cavemen or something…Get your story straight.  

AskMike also said:  

“Lasseter didn't do anything with Meet the Robinsons..... Stephen Anderson did all the work and deserves the credit. Do you even know what advise Lasseter gave? Do you know what MTR looked like before he came aboard? For all we know, the movie might have been even better without Lasseter. Wasn't the segment Lasseter focused on the second act? Wasn't the second act people's least favorite in the movie? Coincidence?”

And

“I also partly blame Lasseter as he pushed it back from its original November 06 date.”

My god…did John Lasseter take your parking spot one day or something?  De he cut you off on the expressway while giving you the middle finger?  Fire you?  Ding dong ditch your house at three in the morning?

Oh, I’m sure that’s not it.  By reading your ridiculous comments on this website for a year or whatever its been, I’ve noticed that you seem to be some little brat that is hopelessly devoted to all things Disney and Bob Iger (dude, enough with the avatar…its kinda creepy) who has no objective point of view on the company or it’s films in anyway.  You’re still in High School, right?  Maybe Junior College?  You obviously have yet to mature.

The fact of the matter, AskMike, is that John Lasseter is an academy award winning filmmaker, innovator of animation, and a brilliant storyteller with his own point of view of the world who’s films will be remembered for generations.  Now, who are you?  I know:  A little geek that likes to make his mark on the world in the talk back section of a website.  Puts it in perspective for you, doesn’t it?  

Either get out in the world and start making BETTER films than John Lasseter or shut up.  

"I think it's possible to like this film and Cars. I know people who love both. BUT, I think American Dog is in trouble since the Pixar guys started messing with it, because the new synopsis sounds like the same message as Toy Story and a lesser extent Cars."

I agree, as Iike both movies.  

As for American Dog, unfortunately the new synopsis now sounds just like the previews I saw for a new live action flick called "Firehouse Dog."  At this time, maybe Disney should just pass on AD.

"Part of me wants to see one of the Pixar movies flunk. I don't just mean underwhelm like Cars but seriously give the guys in Sunnyvale a bloody nose and remind everyone that they're not the silver bullet they're always made out to be."

I have to say this says a lot more about you, than it does Pixar.  

I've never understood this attitude (this wretched desire to see someone fail) in people.  I can only lay it at the altar of jealousy.  Why does Pixar's success bother you (and obviously some others) so badly?  Did Lasseter pee in your corn flakes when you were a kid?

If Pixar is a "silver bullet" then it's the movie ticket buying public that made them that.

"I honestly believe that will be coming in the next few years. I'd love for that movie to be Ratatouille but I have a feeling it's going to be Wall-E instead."

Regardless of my opinion of the emotional state such desires represent, setbacks and failures are simple, inevitable facts of life in human endeavors.  For that reason, I don't think it is necessary or becoming to anyone to wish them on others.  Especially, in regards to the greater scheme of things, to things as trivial as animated movies.

Politics?  Now that's another matter.

Falfa31. Thank You. AskMike1 did need to be chewed out. But yeah.

To begin with. I am sad Chris Sanders left Disney... But Lassetter didn't really kick him out. He merely told him some advice for the movie, he didn't take it, and got taken off the project. Lassetter took someone off a Pixar's project recently too didn't he? Ratatouille anyone? And we didn't hear stories of that certain someone leaving Pixar...

John Lasseter is compared to the modern Walt Disney. Honestly, I believe these words are a little too "out there." He's good, but no one will ever be that good. But I respect him tons because of all the work he's done to make Pixar the most famous Animation Studio at the moment. And I respect him, and believe he will take Disney back to the pinacle of Animation where it needs to be... He grew up and became who he is because of Walt Disney, and his films reflect he has been inspired by Disney to do what he does... I trust him with the future of Disney.

Meet the Robinsons was a pretty good film. I liked it  A LOT. And yes you are right where you said I didn't know what Lasseter said, but I'm sure it was something that made a significant change of mind in Anderson's head. Didn't we read that 70 percent of the original film was scrapped and redone? yeah... exactly. I believe that little chat Lasseter had with him did something....

And as for Chris Williams... well. he might do well, he might not. But as for chris sanders, Lilo & stitch was a good film. but it wasn't exactly the film to turn disney's fortunes around now was it? exactly.

"parisian nightmare, Wall-E is the kind of project Walt would have loved to take on. "

I'm sorry, are you Walt? If not, you have no idea what he would have or would not have loved.

"Oh, I’m sure that’s not it.  By reading your ridiculous comments on this website for a year or whatever its been, I’ve noticed that you seem to be some little brat that is hopelessly devoted to all things Disney and Bob Iger (dude, enough with the avatar…its kinda creepy) who has no objective point of view on the company or it’s films in anyway.... You obviously have yet to mature."

So says the person who apparently likes to call people names.

1) If being devoted to Disney is a bad thing, I don't want to be right.

2) I like what Bob Iger is doing. I also liked most of what Michael Eisner was doing (and if you saw my posts a few years ago, you'd see an Eisner avatar there)

3) I'm not a fan of Lasseter, you don't have to be Ken Jennings to see that. I'm not a Lasseter-flunkie who sees him as a god and everything he touches is gold. I am sick of people giving him credit when other people should be credited (Stephen Anderson on MTR, Brad Bird on Incredibles, Pete Docter on MI). I think he is too Pixar and not enough Disney. That's my opinion. You want to disagree with it, go ahead. But I am merely stating an opinion.

"The fact of the matter, AskMike, is that John Lasseter is an academy award winning filmmaker, innovator of animation, and a brilliant storyteller with his own point of view of the world who’s films will be remembered for generations."

I'm sorry, are you a phychic? Do you know what will and what will not be remembered in the future. As far as I'm concerned, A Bug's Life is known more as a theme park attraction (not by Lasseter) then a movie now-a-days, certainly not "memorable." On the other hand, his other directing effort, Toy Story, has proved itself to be a beloved movie. His 3rd directing attempt, Cars.... well, we will have to see.

"A little geek that likes to make his mark on the world in the talk back section of a website."

Going back to maturity. If being mature is attacking someone you do not even know, I don't want to be mature (and yes, don't even try to put these words back in my mouth.... it won't work).

"He merely told him some advice for the movie"

Yeah, like "I advise you to find employment elsewhere.... you are no longer director

"he didn't take it, and got taken off the project"

Here's the thing... it isn't "advice" if the person has to take it. That's called a command.

"Lassetter took someone off a Pixar's project recently too didn't he?"

No, he just gave her a co-director. He did NOT take her off the project. She is still a writer and co-director.

"Didn't we read that 70 percent of the original film was scrapped and redone? "

To quote Jim's August article.....

'The changes that were made to this part of the motion picture? ... Well, what was once described to me as "radical surgery" ... Now WDFA insiders preferred to describe as "fine-tuning."'

So I personally don't know how much of the original film was changed (I doubt many people do), but judging from the articles I read (both here and elsewhere), the changes made weren't major.

Leo, I think Pixar's movies are too similar. Buddy Film formula plus the aforementioned "secret life of ______" routine. OMG fish/cars/toys/rats/bugs all have cute little equivalents to our own world! It's funny because it reminds me of my own life!

It's time people recognize that 80% of Pixar's films are this same story repackaged with different voices and visuals (The Incredibles being the sole exception thus far, and Ratatouille could be another exception just because I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt to Brad Bird.) I'm want one of these formulaic ones to flop (and I guess Cars already did, it didn't do as expected and I wonder if it will damage the Pixar brand for Ratatouille) to make Pixar BETTER.

And when I predict Wall-E will flop, I don't say that because I want it to fail, because it looks like one of those envelope-pushing ideas that I want to see. On the other hand, the general public seems to prefer The Formula and will have to be convinced to accept it.

There's a difference between the movies I want to see succeed/fail as a fan of animation and the movies I think will succeed/fail with Joe America.

That's too bad. After watching MTR, I have more respect for CGI movies. The good ones, that is.

MTR was an excellent movie. Yet, it seems like it will become another overlooked Disney movie. What would have helped was better promoting from Disney! The commercials should have shown more plot than gags. People are expecting good stories from Disney, not just humor. That could be why there's not enough people watching MTR.

I love good traditional animated movies. I've always preferred hand drawn animation over CGI. Unlike Pixar, most CGI studios don't put enough heart into their movies and the animation isn't usually impressive. Plus, they all seem to use the same characters, plots, and cliches. That's why I don't like (non-Pixar) CGI movies as much as traditional animation.

Strangely, like I said, MTR allowed me to have more respect for CGI. Why? Because it was good and it had heart. Okay, it was a little crazy but it got better. So far, Disney has been pretty good with their CGI movies. The character animation of Chicken Little and MTR was better than some of the other (non-Pixar) CGI movies I've seen.

As for Pixar, I'm yet to see a studio that could make better CGI movies than Pixar. To me, the people at Pixar are the gods of CGI.

VML said:

"Plus, they all seem to use the same characters, plots, and cliches."

And Pixar doesn't?

to MatterhornYeti- "parisian nightmare, Wall-E is the kind of project Walt would have loved to take on"

i absolutely agree, chum. It pushes the boundaries and opens up the entire industry to new ideas.

to Askmike- dont shoot that guy down. those were wise intelligent words. Guess what? I dont know Walt either, and EVEN I KNOW that this is a project he would have loved and approved. It has the markings of classic Disney stamped all over it. Please try and THINK about your comments before posting them. You are debating with intelligent people here and you dont want to appear ignorant.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are merely a student of animation who has much to learn. Speak with your head and not your heart, or you will come to absurd conclusions and embarrass not only yourself worldwide but your family, who i assume still love you and have not disowned you yet.

Let us all resume the discussions.

askmike1, I'm not Walt, no. I've studied the guy, though, and taking on ideas that seem out of the mainstream was his specialty. How many other successful people have suggested a domed city with a straight face? Shall I mention that prior to Snow White no adult in their right mind would have imagined they'd see an entire motion picture that was animated? Walt's legacy to the Disney company wasn't so much making incredible things because that was more the labor of his animators, his designers, etc. Walt's legacy was taking ideas that almost nobody thought would work and actually convincing people to accept these new things.

I'm mostly with you on John Lasseter, though. I think he does have enough Disney credibility to be accepted, but time has shown that talented people tend to lose their heads when they become the golden son at Disney. The press, the investors, and the employees are pinning their hopes for success on Mr Lasseter and he's got his best friend as a board member and the largest sole stockholder, so who's to say that he doesn't have quite a swagger in his walk right now?

I'm not a fan of Chris Sanders or his movies (Mulan and L&S,) but the original setup for American Dog sounded better than the new one. And anyone who is terminated over rejecting a mere suggestion, well, that suggestion is about as honest as The Don's offer you can't refuse.

I can't believe the movie did $25 million.  I left about an hour into it, not wanting to waste any more time.  A couple of gimmicks worked (the frog and dinosaur).  The main character was a dud.  

Can we come up with something other than "Child with at least one dead parent saves world and earns self-esteem" as a plot?  Yes, they're plucky.  And hurrah for individualism.  But I got all that a few movies ago.  Check the box and move on.

The Mickey short at the beginning was an inspired idea.  I don't think it was the right cartoon choice, as kids and adults are probably looking for something faster paced.  But a good start.

"Leo, I think Pixar's movies are too similar. Buddy Film formula plus the aforementioned "secret life of ______" routine. OMG fish/cars/toys/rats/bugs all have cute little equivalents to our own world! It's funny because it reminds me of my own life!"

Well said MatterhornYeti! (one of my favorite of Disneyland attractilns as well!)

I don't want Pixar to fail as a matter of principle, nor "jealousy" (which is thrown around so much by defensive people that it loses all meaning), or out of some malevolent desire to see people lose their jobs.

I'm just tired of Toy Story...

Bug Story...

Monster Story...

Fish Story...

Superhero Story...

Rat Story...

Robot Story...

Peguin Story...

African Wildlife Story...

Pigeon Story...

Chicken Story...

Ogre Story...

With the exception of a handful of inventive, incidentally 2-D, films towards the beginning of the decade, we've basically had to put up with the same gag movie for the past 7 years. I would just like to see the studios do something other than a Pixar movie, which, frankly, weren't all that great to begin with.

To recap for those just joining us:

The general public has had their fill of CGI movies - no need to make anymore. Sometimes even ancient technology black and white movies are released in theatres and do just fine - that's the success of a fine marketing department. It's not about storyline, because all stories are exactly the same, it's all about the cinematography. People in America's Heartland want to know how a movie is filmed, not who appears in it or what it's about.

If there was anything good about this movie, and the jury is still out, there is no possible way Lassetter had anything to do with it. If there is any way that we can get creative people like Lassetter and those of that ilk out of the animation building - life would be good again. Eisner and Iger, clueless how to manage people, without a creative footnote on their resumes, would never let this happen. Don't forget to purchase your Lassetter pinata on your way to the parking lot.

Carry on,,,,,,

curmudgeon?!?!

(oh, little note there.. Eisner did write plays when he was in college, so "without a creative footnote" is not entirely true..)

Sheesh, "Curmudgeon"! All I've said is that Pixar's movies are formulaic, though successful.

I've said that Disney marketing isn't that great. Want to take me up on it? Bridge to Terabithia or however it was spelled was marketed as a children's fantasy adventure, completely ignoring a plot twist that caused many parents to have to excuse themselves from the theater.

MTR was advertised as a movie about funny inventions and singing frogs, just like how Lilo & Stitch was marketed as a movie about space aliens and ships with lasers instead of a story about family and acceptance.

I'm beginning to feel that Disney's ad designers never actually SEE the product they're trying to pitch. Which will spell gloom when they're met with a film that's easily misunderstood like Wall-E. I'm fully expecting it to be advertised as some sort of pseudo-sequel to "Robots."

I don't know, is there going to be a fart gag in the movie? If so, they can put it in every single trailer and ad, since they believe that people can't get enough of fart gags.

 "No, he just gave her a co-director. He did NOT take her off the project. She is still a writer and co-director."

 Exactly....and she's still at Pixar, last time I checked anyway.  Chris Sanders didn't just get taken off of AD, he got layed off with the 160 other animators who lost their jobs last year. (in case anyone forgot about that.)  

  Agree with everything else Askmike (and empoor) have been saying. :)

 Also,  I really think that, no matter how much someone's opinion diffrers from yours, it's very important to maintain MUTUAL RESPECT and not get into name-calling and other such behavior....otherwise it just dissolves into a shouting match...not intelligent discourse, which I assumed that's why we're all here....?

 Um, moderators....little help? ;)

Wow. That askmike guy is really irritating. Ok.

Lasseter's movies are good. They do good business, and I hear tons of good word of mouth about them. He makes good movies, which make business, which lead Disney to strive to reach his level of sophistication, thus making him creative chief of Disney & Pixar. He is basically the reason MTR was a good film whether you like it or not.

Chris Sanders was a good film director. But his type of films weren't cut out for Disney, more of a Dreamworks type film. Like I said, I hated how he added the gay alien in Lilo & Stitch. I did like the film though.

You know about as much smack as we've been hearing these days. So whatever you say, is just as much as credible as what I say is. Just that mine is a little more credible since it does have some kind of background info. As to your little theories as to how Lasseter has dealt with his employees.... Ummm. You don't work there, you don't know. You need to shut up about it.

When Stephen Anderson showed his film to Lasseter, he got suggestions. And Anderson was smart and listened to his suggestions. And you say that all the other pixar directors are in charge of making them great movies? Has JOhn Lasseter not been the executive producer of almost every single one of those films... yeah, i thought so...

gah shut up askmike. your rude comments and comebacks do give me a good laugh though, so by all means... proceed.

dumbass.

and he chris didn't get laid off, he quit. himself i'm sure. most likely. i've read from quite a bit of sources he negotiated his own exit out of Disney Animation.

 "(oh, little note there.. Eisner did write plays when he was in college, so "without a creative footnote" is not entirely true..)"

 Yes, you're right empoor! :)  I thought I was the only one who remembered that. J/K  That was orignally his career path as well, he was an English major and was going ino theater to be a playwright....it didn't work out though.  He even wrote a play called "To Sop A River."  It would be quite interesting to read someday....:)

JoeHaro, the gay alien from Lilo & Stitch? I know what you're talking about, but aren't you jumping to conclusions a little here? There's no more confirmation that character is gay than Bert & Ernie or Timon & Pumbaa (unless they got girlfriends that I don't know about ala Chip & Dale.)

I love how much people "know" in this forum. There's also no need for name calling and personal attacks. You should respect other people's opinions. They have a right to those opinions just as you have a right to yours.

Now, just to clear up a couple of facts...

Jan Pinkava (a man) was removed as director from Ratatouille and replaced by Brad Bird. Jan is not co-director of Ratatouille, but does have a story credit. The last rumor I heard was that he has left Pixar.

Chris Sanders chose to leave Disney after being removed from American Dog.

John Lasseter was the director or co-director on 4 Pixar movies. You forgot Toy Story 2.

No one knows how much Meet the Robinsons changed as a result of the story notes. No one knows how many of the changes were simply because Stephen Anderson was finally given freedom to make his movie, or because John Lasseter pointed out the story problems (unless you were present in the story sessions).

No one knows what Walt would think because he is dead. Unless you had a close, intimate relationship with Walt you are not qualified to speak on his behalf. Reading a book about him or watching him on t.v. doesn't count.

No one knows how Ratatouille, Wall-E, American Dog, or Rapunzel will be because no one has seen them yet. Stating that they will be wonderful based on a concept drawing and short story pitch is just silly. Likewise stating that a movie is horrible based on it's trailer is just as silly. Save your judgments until you've seen the finished product.

John Lasseter, whether you think he is the best thing to happen in Animation since Walt Disney or not, does several things very well. He never compromises on quality, and he allows his filmmakers the freedom to make their own decisions about the movie. What about Jan Pinkava and Chris Sanders? That goes back to the first point, never compromise on quality. If a movie just isn't working and progress isn't being made, then a change has to be made. There is no denying that his movies has been very successful. Whether you like his movies or not is a matter of personal opinion. However I don't understand the statement, "Pixar movies are all the same." One is about a talking toy whose authority is threatened by a newcomer, one is about an ant colony that is oppressed by bigger, stronger creatures, one is about an over-protective father who ends up losing his son and goes looking for him, and one is about a super hero family. If you mean they're all the same because they consist of three acts and have characters that go on some sort of emotional journey, then every movie ever made is the same.

ha. wow. jewalker. ha. atleast someone could keep the calm and explain the facts...

Second weekend wasn't all that great either.. Everyone who thought Easter Weekend was going to bring in some more people to see the movie, thought wrong (that includes me).. Estimated $ 17 million, down -32%..

That is actually very good for Easter Weekend. Unlike other holiday weekends, Easter usually sees a big drop for all films (as it comes after a few vacation days and Easter Sunday families typically don't go to the movies) nevermind the fact that two other family films opened this weekend. Comparatively, last year Ice Age 2 dropped 41% to $20 million and The Wild opened to $9.7 million. The year before, Robots dropped 39% to $12.9 million, Home on the Range debuted to $13.8 million in 2004 and Ice Age dropped 40% to $18.2 million in 2002.

Meet the Robinsons, Blades of Glory, 300 & Wild Hogs all had excellent drops this weekend. Considering that MTR is tracking way ahead of Open Season right now, it could very well cross that magical $100m mark.

Jim Hill takes a look at what happened this past weekend at the box office. Plus he shares some image captures from the official "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" website, which just went live this past weekend